Birmingham City Council Planning Committee 03 March 2016

Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 03 March 2016

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Determine 8 2016/00019/PA

14 Pershore Avenue Selly Park Birmingham B29 7NP

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

Approve - Conditions 9 2015/09475/PA

Site bounded by Westcote Avenue, Lower Beeches Road and The Green Longbridge Birmingham B31

Erection of 9 New 2, 3 & 4 bedroom dwellings with associated landscaping and parking

Approve - Conditions 10 2015/09999/PA

Land at Green Lane, Teviot Grove and Medway Grove Kings Norton Birmingham

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Approve - Conditions 11 2015/09477/PA

Site bounded by Topland Grove and Raven Hays Road Longbridge Birmingham B31

Erection of 8 dwellings with associated landscaping and parking

Authorise 12 2013/02178/PA

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

Deed of Variation to 106 legal agreement following outline consent 2013/02178/PA to allow the provision of the original full Phase 1B highways works to complete the Selly Oak New Road

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 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 Determine

Report Back

1. Members will recall that the above application was reported to Planning Committee on 18th February 2016 and was deferred minded to refuse on the grounds that the proposal would be contrary to the policy for ‘Houses in Multiple Occupation in the Article 4 Direction Area of Selly Oak., Edgbaston and Harborne Wards’.

2. 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).

3. In this instance 11.1% of properties within 100m of the application site would be in use as HMO’s and as such on this figure alone the proposal would be contrary to policy HMO1, as such the following reason for refusal is offered.

i) The proposed change of use of 14 Pershore Avenue to a small house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4) would result in an overconcentration of such accommodation in the surrounding area causing detriment to local amenity and creating an unbalanced neighbourhood. The application is therefore contrary to policy 8.24 and 8.25 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005); policy HMO1 of the Houses in Multiple Occupation in the Article 4 Direction Areas of Selly Oak, Edgbaston and Harborne Wards Planning Policy Document (2014) and guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

ORIGINAL REPORT

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).

Page 1 of 8 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

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.

Page 2 of 8 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 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.

Page 3 of 8 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 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.

Page 4 of 8 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.

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.

Page 5 of 8

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 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Photograph 1: Front elevation.

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

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

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/09475/PA Accepted: 07/01/2016 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 03/03/2016 Ward: Longbridge

Site bounded by, Westcote Avenue, Lower Beeches Road and The Green, Longbridge, Birmingham, B31

Erection of 9 New 2, 3 & 4 bedroom dwellings with associated landscaping and parking Applicant: Kier Living Ltd Tungsten Building, Central Boulevard, Blythe Valley Park, Solihull, West Midlands, B90 8AU, Agent: BM3 Architecture Ltd 28 Pickford Street, Birmingham, B5 5QH, Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application forms part of the Egghill redevelopment which comprises of 10.9ha that has been divided into 9 individual sites for housing redevelopment with a further site of 1.3ha reserved for a new neighbourhood park. Planning permission has been granted for the erection of 402 dwellings and associated footpaths, highway works, car parking and landscaping under reference 2012/02168/PA, and the neighbourhood park under reference 2012/02167/PA. The dwellings within sites 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, and 10 have been largely constructed and most are occupied.

1.2. This application relates to 0.19ha of land that forms part of Site 6. The approved scheme accommodated 8 dwellings - 4no. 4 bedroomed 3 storey dwellings, 2no. 4 bedroomed 2 storey detached dwellings, and 2no. 2 bedroomed 2 storey dwellings. The proposal included 2 affordable 4 bedroomed dwellings within the site. This revised application proposes to increase the number of properties from 8 to 9 and are all proposed to be affordable for Social Rent. The mix comprises of:

• 1x 2 bedroomed, 2 storey house • 5x 3 bedroomed, 2 storey houses • 3x 4 bedroomed, 2 storey houses

1.3. The proposed density of houses as part of this application has gone from 42 dwellings per hectare to 47 dwellings per hectare. However, the overall density of the Site 6 has only increased from 48 dwellings per ha to 51 dwellings per ha.

1.4. The revised application includes alterations to the layout as well as dwelling numbers and now proposes a block of 3 dwellings in a terrace fronting onto Nos.27- 33 The Green, 2 detached dwellings fronting Nos.1-11 The Green, and 1 detached dwelling adjacent to No.1 The Green. The remaining 3 dwellings front onto Westcote

Page 1 of 10 Avenue. The dwellings are proposed to be constructed of brick and render with a tiled pitched roof. The dwellings reflect the design and materials of other properties constructed in earlier phases. The original planting scheme has been amended to reflect the proposed alterations in the layout and includes the planting of 11 trees and shrubs across the site. The parking provision has been increased from 15 to 18 spaces.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. This application relates to two individual plots that combined have a total area of 0.19ha. These plots form part of the 0.94ha of Site 6. The largest of the two sites measures approximately 0.11ha and is sited to the east of Westcote Avenue and to the north of The Green, at the head of the cul de sac. The second site is approximately 0.08ha and is sited to the south west of The Green. These sites have been designated for housing and are currently vacant. The ground levels are largley consistent across the two sites and reflect the existing levels of the adjacent highways along The Green and Westcote Close.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. Extensive planning history, including:

3.2. 03/08/2012 (2012/02167/PA) - Construction of a 1.3 Ha area of public open space, including all weather play space, junior & toddler play areas, recreation space & wildlife habitat with ancillary fencing and landscaping and part closure of Raven Hayes Road on land bounded by Raven Hays Road, Gorsymead Grove, Topland Grove & Handley Grove. – Approved subject to conditions.

3.3. 19/07/2012 (2012/02168/PA) - Full Application for erection of 402 dwellings for rent & sale, including associated footpaths, highway works, car parking and landscaping – Approved subject to conditions.

3.4. 22/07/2015 (2015/05141/PA) - Non Material Amendment to planning application 2012/02168/PA for plot substitutions to swap locations of affordable and private dwellings, minor alterations to house types, alterations to two cul de sacs and plot adjustments to comply with service easements – Approved.

3.5. 2015/09477/PA - Erection of 8 dwellings with associated landscaping and parking – Recommended for approval elsewhere in this agenda.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Neighbours, local ward Councillors, MP, and residents associations notified and a Site Notice has been displayed. One petition has been received with 13 signatures objecting to the proposal on the grounds of: • Rat infestation on cleared land, the new houses proposed would encourage them to relocate to the existing properties in The Green, needs to be resolved prior to development starting;

Page 2 of 10 • Loss of light, overlooking and loss of privacy, • Concerns regarding the poor state of the road surfaces, due to construction traffic, request resolution.

4.2. One letter of support has been received from Councillor Ian Cruise who has highlighted the need for more housing.

4.3. Transportation – No objections subject to an appropriate condition to protect pedestrian visibility splays. Concerns have been raised regarding the position of the proposed parking for the mid-terraced property opposite No.31 The Green. A further condition has been recommended to ensure that the footway crossings to be constructed to City specification at the applicants expense.

4.4. West Midlands Police – No Objections subject to the design being in accordance with ‘Secured by Design’ principles.

4.5. Regulatory Services – No Objections subject to conditions to seek the submission of a Contaminated Land Verification Report. A Contamination Remediation Scheme has also been required, however, this has already been discharged for the site.

4.6. West Midlands Fire Service – No Objections subject to a suitable water supply being provided.

4.7. Severn Trent – No objections subject to a condition to secure appropriate drainage within the site.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are applicable: • Birmingham UDP (2005). • Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2013). • Egghill Supplementary Planning Advice (2005). • Places for Living SPG (2001). • Affordable Housing SPG (2001 and amended in 2006). • Archaeology Strategy SPG (2004). • Car Parking Guidelines SPD (2012).

5.2. The following national policies are applicable: • NPPF- Delivering Sustainable Development (2012). • Technical Housing Standards (2015).

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Policy:

6.2. NPPF seeks to ensure the provision of sustainable development, of good quality, in appropriate locations and sets out principles for developing sustainable communities. Planning is required to always seek high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. It should also encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed and focus development in locations that are sustainable and can make the fullest use of public transport walking and cycling. The NPPF seeks to

Page 3 of 10 boost the supply of housing and seeks the delivery of high quality housing that is well designed and built to a high standard; a mix of housing, particularly in terms of type and tenure to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

6.3. The UDP emphasises the importance of the City’s housing policies in contributing to the strategy for urban regeneration and economic revitalisation, and states that one of the ways this will be achieved is through a variety of housing to meet the full range of needs throughout the City. Paragraph 5.15 identifies that a number of initiatives are proposed/underway to improve the condition of older private sector stock and City Council dwellings, in some cases through demolition of existing properties. It acknowledges that these may involve the City Council in partnership with private sector interests. Egghill Estate is identified as a Housing Regeneration Area with a comprehensive improvement strategy (paragraph 19.30).

6.4. The UDP also aims to create a more sustainable pattern of development by re-using brown field sites in suitable locations with good access to jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car. It requires that that new housing developments should provide an appropriate environment (paragraphs 5.20-5.20A), a suitable housing density and mix (paragraph 5.40) and encourages a full range of housing types. Paragraph 5.38 identifies that densities of at least 50 dwellings per hectare will be expected in local centres and corridors well served by public transport, with 40 dwellings per hectare elsewhere. Paragraphs 3.14D and 3.14E of the UDP identify that new housing development should be designed in accordance with good urban design principles.

6.5. Egghill Supplementary Planning Advice (SPA) was adopted in 2005. It sets out a vision for the regeneration of the Estate as “an attractive quality neighbourhood”, to include around 500 mixed tenure new homes in addition to shops, community facilities, business uses and a new neighbourhood park. It provides detailed planning and urban design guidance including a Concept Plan. The SPA identifies that major investment is required to improve the quality of the environment in the area. It identifies that the City Council will seek to negotiate planning obligations to secure affordable housing, traffic management measures/traffic infrastructure (via S38/S278 agreements), enhanced pedestrian/cyclist facilities, provision of new open space/play facilities, enhancement and/or an additional classroom at Forestdale J & I School.

6.6. The site is designated for residential development and would be in keeping with the vision for the regeneration of the Estate as ‘an attractive quality neighbourhood’ and would be accordance with the principles contained of the UDP, NPPF and the Egghill SPA. The density of this site has increased from 42 dwellings per hectare to 47 dwellings per hectare, compling with the UDP and also the Egghill SPA which requires at least 40 dwellings per ha.

6.7. Main issues:

6.8. The detailed matters for consideration are the impact on the character and amenity of the area, on residential amenity, and on parking and highway safety.

6.9. Design and layout:

Page 4 of 10 that have been constructed in earlier phases of the original approval. Whilst the revised scheme has increased the number of dwellings within the site, the design and scale of the proposed dwellings are positioned appropriately within the plot with shallow front amenity areas, allocated parking and rear gardens that are similar in scale to that of overall estate. The design of the dwellings largely reflect the urban design principles contained within the Egghill SPA which recommends two storeys housing should be encouraged wherever new houses are adjacent to existing houses and should achieve a high standard of design.

6.11. Residential Amenities:

6.12. Neighbour objections have been raised on the grounds of loss of light to the existing properties within The Green. However, the new properties are positioned in a way to comply with the 45 Degree Code policy in respect of the existing dwellings within the cul de sac, and as such, would have limited impact on the neighbours amenities in terms of loss of light.

6.13. The proposed dwellings to the south west of the cul de sac, would face onto the frontage the existing properties on the opposing side of The Green. The proposed dwelling opposite No.1 The Green would fail to meet the 21m distance separation guidelines between the frontages of the new two storey dwelling and the existing property. However, ‘Places for Living’ (SPG) makes it clear that this standard is more strictly applied at the rear rather than the front. In light of this, and given that the siting and position of the proposed dwellings have not changed significantly from the original approval, I do not consider that the revised application would have any further overlooking implications or loss of privacy than that of the original approval.

6.14. The Technical Housing Standards (THS) (March 2015) while not yet adopted by the LPA do provide a useful guide for the size of proposed residential accommodation. These standards require a minimum gross internal floor area between 79 and 93sqm per 2-3 bedroom dwellings, and 115sqm per 4 bedroomed dwellings. Whilst the accommodation proposed would fall below these guidelines, at 72, 85, 87, 116, and 121sqm, the original dwellings approved on site also fell below these recommendations. Whilst not ideal, I do not consider there are sustainable reasons to refusal the application on these guidelines.

6.15. Seven of the nine proposed rear gardens would comply with the minimum garden size requirements as outlined in ‘Places for Living’ (SPG) which requires a minimum of 52sqm for 2 bedroomed dwellings and 70sqm for family accommodation. The two gardens that fall short of these requirements are 1sqm less than the required garden area. In light of this minimal shortfall, I consider that the proposal would secure adaptable and sustainable amenity space for the future occupiers of the all of the proposed dwellings.

6.16. Regulatory Services has raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions to provide a Contaminated Land Verification Report in order to minimise the risks from any land contamination and to protect furture occupiers of the site, adjacent land, property, water, and ecological systems.

6.17. Transportation:

6.18. The revised proposal includes the provision of 18 off street car parking spaces rather than the 15 originally approved. Whilst this has been increased, this is to reflect the increase in dwellings being proposed. Transportation have raised a concern regarding the proposed position of the parking for the mid-terraced property

Page 5 of 10 opposite No.31 The Green. This is not ideal, however, it is positioned in the most convenient location to provide access to the rear garden of the dwelling and is overlooked by neighbouring properties to provide natural surveillance.

6.19. As recommended by Transportation, a condition has been attached to protect pedestrian visibilities at the accesses and to maintain pedestrian and highway safety.

6.20. Landscaping:

6.21. The landscaping proposed would comply with the design principles contained within the Egghill SPA which emphasises the importance of hard and soft landscaping within the development and its importance in enhancing the quality of the development. The Landscape team have raised no objections to the boundary treatments being proposed but have highlighted concerns regarding the proposed planting schemes. As such, a condition is attached to secure a revised planting scheme.

6.22. Affordable housing:

6.23. The proposed alterations sought as part of this application would increase the number of affordable homes on these plots from 2 to 9, increasing the provision to 100%. Given these dwellings are for Social Rent, for which there is the greatest need, I consider that this affordable provision should be welcomed.

6.32 As the City Council are in partnership with the applicants and cannot therefore enter into a legal agreement, conditions are attached to secure the affordable housing and to make the approval personal to the applicant/BCC to ensure that the scheme cannot be implemented without this affordable provision by an alternative developer.

6.33 Although the site already has planning consent many of the conditions attached to the original approval have yet to be discharged for this site, therefore, these have been attached to this approval for these to be assessed and discharged in due course.

6.34 The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The revised scheme to increase the number of properties within the site complies with both national and local planning policy. The proposal is consistent with the key objectives of the Egghill Supplementary Planning Advice and it is considered would deliver the attractive, quality neighbourhood envisaged and would constitute sustainable development. The layout and design of the development is appropriate for the area and can be accommodated without any significant adverse impact on existing residents or the local highway network.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to the following conditions:

Page 6 of 10 1 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

2 Requires the prior submission of Sample Materials Required

3 Requires the prior submission of Hard and Soft Landscape Details

4 Requires the prior submission of hard surface materials

5 Requires the prior submission of unexpected contamination details

6 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

7 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

8 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

9 Requires the prior submission of details of site and ground levels

10 Requires the prior submission of a scheme for ecological enhancement measures

11 Requires Pedestrian Visibility Splays to be provided.

12 Requires tree replacement within 2 years post development

13 Requires the provision of the affordable homes.

14 Restricts implementation of the permission to Birmingham City Council

15 Requires implementation of the recommendations for habitat and species protection.

16 Requires the prior submission of amended elevations

17 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Catherine Golightly

Page 7 of 10 Photo(s)

Figure 1: View north towards Westcote Avenue

Figure 2: View towards 1-11 The Green

Page 8 of 10

Figure 3: View towards 15-29 The Green

Page 9 of 10

Location Plan

153 66

155

Ward Bdy 174

159 58 9 161

178 56a

180 56

15 TCB 7 11

7 1 396

TAUNTON CLOSE 3 34 32

61 24

WESTCOTE AVENUE

LOWER The Beeches

BEECHES

THE GREEN ROAD

Tes 33

TOPLAND GROVE

Page 10 of 10

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/09999/PA Accepted: 04/12/2015 Application Type: Reserved Matters Development Target Date: 04/03/2016 Ward: Kings Norton

Land at Green Lane, Teviot Grove and Medway Grove, Kings Norton, Birmingham

Reserved matters application for the erection of 58 dwellings comprising 18, 2 bedroom apartments; 4, 2 bedroom houses; 16, 3 bedroom houses; 19, 4 bedroom houses and 1, 5 bedroom house (Phase 1 development) in accordance with outline approval 2014/09196/PA Applicant: BMHT 1 Lancaster Circus, PO Box 16572, B2 2GL, Agent: BM3 Architecture Ltd 28 Pickford Street, Birmingham, B5 5QH, Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This is a reserved matters submission which seeks approval for details relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 58 dwellings in conjunction with outline approval (2014/09196/PA) for a mixed use development to include a maximum of 295 dwellings (2, 3, 4 and 5 bedrooms), a neighbourhood park, and 468sqm (GIA) retail space (Class A1/A2/A3). This part of the wider development is named as Phase 1.

1.2. The submission seeks approval for the erection of 58 dwellings comprising 47 affordable dwellings and 11 open market dwellings. The open market element would comprise 4, 3 bedroom houses and 7, 4 bedroom houses whilst the affordable element would comprise 18, 2 bedroom flats; 4, 2 bedroom houses; 12, 3 bedroom houses; 12, 4 bedroom houses and 1, 5 bedroom house.

1.3. The open market houses would all be two storeys in height. The three bedroom dwellings would have a ground floor comprising kitchen/dining room, hall, cloakroom including w.c. and a lounge and a first floor comprising family bathroom and three bedrooms with the master bedroom having an en-suite. Two of the four, three bedroom units would have an attached garage. The four bedroom open market units would have a ground floor comprising hall, lounge, dining/kitchen, utility and cloakroom including w.c. and a first floor comprising family bathroom and four bedrooms with the master bedroom having an en-suite. Five of the seven, four bedroom units would have an integral garage.

1.4. The three bedroom dwellings would have ground floors measuring between 43sq.m and 44.6sq.m and first floors measuring between 42.1sq.m and 43.6sq.m. Bedroom sizes would range from 11.21sq.m to 11.4sq.m for bedroom 1, 8.77sq.m to 8.84sq.m

Page 1 of 14 for bedroom 2 and 5.63sq.m to 6.44sq.m for bedroom 3. The four bedroom properties would have a ground floor area measuring between 49.9sq.m and 58.3sq.m and a first floor area between 66.2sq.m and 58.3sq.m. The bedroom sizes for the four bedroom properties would range from 12.91sq.m to 15.66sq.m for bedroom 1, 10.35sq.m to 12.7sq.m for bedroom 2, 8.8sq.m to 10.77sq.m for bedroom 3 and 6.09sq.m to 8.27sq.m for bedroom 4.

1.5. The affordable 2 bedroom flats would be three storeys in height and would all have an internal floor area of 67.1sq.m comprising two bedrooms, bathroom and lounge/kitchen/dining room. Five of the six ground floor units would have a garden area of 20sq.m with the final unit having a terrace of 15.2sq.m. All first and second floor flats would have a balcony of 4sq.m. A further 167sq.m of amenity space would be provided for use by occupants of the flats equating to 55sq.m per dwelling. 18 parking spaces would be provided at a provision of 100%.

1.6. The two bedroom affordable houses would comprise a living room, kitchen/dining room, utility and w.c. at ground floor and two bedrooms and family bathroom at first floor. They would have a floor area of 40.3sq.m at ground and first floor with bedrooms measuring 13.4sq.m and 13.7sq.m for bedrooms 1 and 2 respectively. They would be two storeys in height.

1.7. The affordable three bedroom dwellings have three different unit types proposed numbering in total 8, 2 and 2 respectively. The first unit type numbering 8 units in total would comprise living room, kitchen/dining room, hall and w.c. at ground floor and three bedrooms and family bathroom at first floor. The units would have a floor area of 46.9sq.m at ground and first floor. The bedroom sizes proposed would be 12.5sq.m, 11.5sq.m and 8.2sq.m respectively. The units would be two storeys in height. The second unit type numbering 2 units in total would comprise living room, dining room, kitchen, hall and w.c at ground floor and three bedrooms including an en-suite to bedroom 1 and family bathroom at first floor. Bedroom sizes proposed would be 14sq.m, 11.6sq.m and 7.5sq.m respectively. The units would have a floor area of 48.8sq.m at ground and first floor. These units would also be two storeys in height. The final three bedroom units would be two and a half storeys in height and would comprise a living room, w.c. and kitchen/dining room at ground floor, two bedrooms and family bathroom at first floor and a bedroom within the roof space. Bedrooms proposed would be 13.5sq.m, 13.7sq.m and 7.5sq.m respectively. The ground and first floors would have a floor area of 39sq.m and the roof space would have a floor area of 17sq.m.

1.8. The affordable four bedroom units would be two and a half storeys in height and would comprise a living room, w.c. and kitchen/dining room at ground floor, three bedrooms and family bathroom at first floor and a bedroom with en-suite within the roof space. Bedrooms proposed would be 15.9sq.m, 12.9sq.m, 12.1sq.m and 6.9sq.m respectively. The ground and first floors would have a floor area of 46sq.m and the roof space would have a floor area of 23.5sq.m. The five bedroom unit would be two/three storey in height and would comprise a living room, hall, kitchen, utility, w.c. and dining room at ground floor; four bedrooms and family bathroom at first floor and a bedroom with en-suite at second floor. The bedrooms would measure 17.7sq.m, 11.8sq.m, 11.9sq.m, 7.7sq.m and 7.7sq.m respectively. The unit would have a total floor area of 143.6sq.m.

1.9. Rear amenity space would range from 72sq.m to 78sq.m for the two bedroom houses; 73sq.m to 166sq.m for the three bedroom units; 70sq.m to 142sq.m for the four bedroom units and the five bedroom unit would have a 90sq.m rear garden.

Page 2 of 14 1.10. 75 parking spaces are proposed for 40 dwellings equating to 188% provision with the two bedroom units proposed having one dedicated space compared to the other larger units having two spaces per unit.

1.11. Separation distances front to front range from 21m to 29m; back to back would range from 23m to 28m and back to gable wall would range from 12.5m to 15m.

1.12. 11 trees would require removal. These would comprise 8 Silver Birch (4 Category C, 3 Category U and 1 Category B); 1 Hawthorn (Category C) and 2 Oak (Category A and B respectively).

1.13. The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement.

1.14. Site area: 1.98Ha. Density: 29 dwellings per hectare.

1.15. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The Primrose Estate is situated in Kings Norton, a suburb on the southern edge of Birmingham. It is located off the Redditch Road (A441) which provides access to Birmingham City Centre to the north and the M42 motorway to the south. The development area is 1/2 a mile from Kings Norton Green and nearly 1 mile from Kings Norton train station.

2.2. The application site forms 1.98 hectares within the wider development site of 10.69 hectares and is irregular in shape. The site primarily fronts Teviot Grove which would be extended to access the application site. The wider redevelopment site is enclosed on three sides with existing roads; Redditch Road to the west, Green Lane is to the South and Foyle Road to the north. To the south east there is a retained area of housing on Mersey Grove and Tay Grove. Mersey Grove provides access to garages and on street parking for properties which back onto Mersey Grove and front Shannon Road. Existing housing in Medway grove sits adjacent to the proposed affordable flats. To the north east the site wraps around both the Greenwood Tree Public House and the ARK Rose Primary Academy located on Teviot Grove. To the south off Green Lane is the Bilton Industrial Estate (light industry).

2.3. The site has a sloping topography which is orientated down to the South East. Existing housing on the wider redevelopment site is in the process of being cleared, with cleared areas, vacant housing and occupied properties on site. There are significant areas of green space and some trees and hedgerows.

2.4. Redditch Road on the western wider site boundary is relatively narrow. It is supplemented by a residential slip road that provides access to existing properties and is used as a bus route. Access to the slip road is from Foyle Road and Redditch Road opposite Burford Park Road.

2.5. Foyle Road to the north of the site provides a link between Redditch Road and Shannon Road. Residential development backs onto the north side of the road which is landscaped with a grass verge, clipped hedge and trees, providing an attractive green edge. There is a similar treatment on the southern edge of Green Lane that also provides a link between Redditch Road and Shannon Road, although existing properties here face or side on to a parallel slip road and so are more visible.

Page 3 of 14

2.6. Site Location Map

3. Planning History

3.1. 26 May 1994. 1994/01724/PA. Demolition of 4 storey block of maisonettes at Flats 1-8, 42 Leith Grove. No prior approval required.

3.2. 18 January 2001. 2000/05924/PA. Demolition of multi-storey block of flats and clear site at Primrose Tower, Medway Grove. No prior approval required.

3.3. 21 October 2003. 2003/05782/PA. Prior notification of demolition of tower block at 40 Forth Grove. No prior approval required.

3.4. 21 January 2010. 2009/05929/PA. External structural refurbishment of existing dwellings. Properties located in Medway Grove, Mersey Grove, Tay Grove and Shannon Road. Approved with conditions.

3.5. 2 September 2011. 2011/05302/PA. Application for prior notification for the demolition of various properties in Redditch Road, Wansbeck Grove, Vyrnwy Grove and Teviot Road. No prior approval required.

3.6. 21 September 2011. 2011/05687/PA. Demolition of former care home at Norton Grange, 46 Tern Grove. No prior approval required.

3.7. 23 August 2012. 2012/04672/PA. Installation of external wall insulation at 1-12, 14- 24 and 26-38 Forth Grove. Approved with conditions.

3.8. 23 August 2012. 2012/04673/PA. Installation of external wall insulation at 1-12, 14- 24 and 26-36 Ithon Grove. Approved with conditions.

3.9. 23 August 2012. 2012/04682/PA. Installation of external wall insulation at 1-12, 14- 24 and 26-36 Tay Grove. Approved with conditions.

3.10. 9 August 2013. 2013/05009/PA. Demolition of 95 Shannon Road; 174 and 230 Redditch Road; 25, 65, 75 and 85 Foyle Road. Prior approval required and approved with conditions.

3.11. 16 June 2014. 2014/03550/PA. Application for prior notification of proposed demolition of 2-24 Dee Grove; 24-38 Medway Grove and 1-37 and 2-44 Tern Grove. Prior approval required and approved with conditions.

3.12. 5 March 2015. 2014/09196/PA. Outline planning permission granted with all matters reserved except access for a mixed use development to include a maximum 295 dwellings (2, 3, 4 and 5 bedrooms), a neighbourhood park and 468sq.m (GIA) retail space (Class A1/A2/A3) at land at Redditch Road, Green Lane, Foyle Road and Teviot Grove.

3.13. 10 November 2015. 2015/05998/PA. Outline planning permission granted with all matters reserved for future consideration for the demolition of existing building and erection of 7 dwellings (The Greenwood Public House, Teviot Grove).

4. Consultation/PP Responses

Page 4 of 14 4.1. Local residents, Ward Councillors, MP and resident associations notified. Site and press notices posted. 2 letters of comment received from residents in Medway Grove: • I partially endorse your proposed plans for the regeneration of this estate. It is long overdue and now I can with confidence upgrade my own property safely knowing that I won't be subject to a Compulsory Purchase Order for it only to be demolished. To fully endorse this proposal I would like to submit a request for the following: A drop kerb or driveway access to the rear of my property & parallel to the boundary with No 39; thus allowing gated car access to my garden for which I intend to build a garage (the previous garages have now been knocked down for the redevelopment) • the application is for building works adjacent to the school where we also understand a supermarket is to be built, at a meeting in October with your regeneration manager Bali Paddock we were told that no decision had yet been made on the building of the supermarket and that when matters had been resolved and further consultants comments had been incorporated we would be informed and further site plans would be provided for comments is this still the case?

4.2. Local Services - Whilst we are happy with the overall Public Open Space (POS) within the master plan layout in terms of location and area provided, we object to this application until agreement is reached about the Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SUDS) proposals for the POS.

4.3. Environment Agency – The Environment Agency has no record of commenting upon outline application 2014/09196/PA. As such, we have no comments to make regarding reserved matters application 2015/09999/PA.

4.4. Education - I am forwarding this to School Organisation team who will request a contribution under Section 106 from any potential development. This development is for at least 20 dwellings and would impact on the provision of places at local schools. School Organisation colleagues will provide an estimate of the contribution that would be requested.

4.5. Transportation – No objection. A set of comprehensive conditions (already attached to the outline consent) will require discharge at appropriate phases of the delivery of the master plan. The applicant has worked closely with officers from Transportation/Planning to understand the implication/requirements of the phased (conditional) highway extinguishment to be progressed with this current planning application. The applicant is aware of the specific requirements for satisfactory (alternative) provision/continuity of routes/accesses affected prior to any extinguishment (details of which the developer will submit to the DfT). There are some minor detail design amendments required (in part these will be influenced by Road Safety Audits/Pedestrian Audits) through the associated Highways Act s278 (Memorandum of Understanding)/s38 process.

4.6. Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) - No drainage or surface water information has been provided with this application. All major planning applications require submission of a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and a Sustainable Drainage Operation & Maintenance plan. The following points should be addressed within this submission. • It should be noted that the LLFA require that all development (greenfield & brownfield) limit surface water discharge to the equivalent site-specific greenfield runoff rate for all return periods up to the 1 in 100 year plus

Page 5 of 14 climate change event, unless it can be demonstrated to be unviable. Application of a climate change allowance of 30% is required. • While it is noted that the proposed drainage strategy may incorporate a storage system, information should be provided regarding the amount of storage required for all events up to and including the 1 in 100 year plus climate change event. Furthermore, with regard to attenuation storage, evidence of exploring the potential of accommodating the required attenuation above ground in green/traditional SuDS features is required, potential within the proposed amenity area. Underground attenuation structures should only be considered if above ground attenuation is proven to be unviable. • The LLFA actively promote and encourage the implementation of SuDS on all developments, and require evidence of the use of sustainable drainage principles and exploration of suitable SuDS to achieve the three key principles of SuDS; Quantity Control, Quality Control and Biodiversity & Amenity Value. Evidence is required to demonstrate that green/traditional SuDS have been implemented and that the discharge hierarchy has been followed as far as reasonably practicable. • Infiltration testing is required to determine if there is potential for infiltration on this site, should infiltration be proven to be viable the LLFA promote the use of soakaways and other infiltration systems. • Proposed drainage layout plans are required, including proposed attenuation volumes, SuDS features and discharge locations. • Calculations are required, including proposed discharge rates. storage requirements and evidence of the performance of the proposed drainage network (for all events up to and including the 100yr plus climate change event).Proposed finished floor levels should be designed to mitigate risk of flooding to people and property. The LLFA recommend 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. • Consideration should be given to exceedance flows (greater than 1 in 100 year plus climate change rainfall events). Evidence (layout/flow plans, calculations and/or simulation results) should be provided, with all applications, to ensure that the surface water flood risk associated with exceedance events has been mitigated on- and off-site. • Finally, consideration should be given to the O&M of all proposed surface water features, including details of party responsible for the maintenance of each feature, specifications for inspection and maintenance actions and details of proposed contingency plans for failure of any part of the drainage systems that could present a hazard to people. Given the level of information that has been provided, it is not recommended to discharge condition 12 of the outline application (2014/09196/PA) relating to phase one.

4.7. West Midlands Fire Service - The Fire Authority has no objection to this application subject to suitable water supplies for firefighting should be provided. This shall be subject to consultation with West Midlands Fire Service once a Water Scheme plan has been produced and approved by the relevant Water Company.

4.8. Regulatory Services – No objection.

4.9. Severn Trent Water – Awaiting comments.

Page 6 of 14 5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP 2005, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, NPPF, NPPG, Places for Living SPG, Places for All SPG, Public Open Space in New Residential Development SPD, Affordable Housing SPG, Public Open Space in New Residential Developments SPD; Archaeology Strategy SPG, Car Parking Guidelines SPD, Kings Norton Planning Framework 2009.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The wider Primrose estate is currently subject to a large scale clearance programme of existing housing, which dates from the 1960-1970’s. The housing is concentrated in linear blocks with a prevalence of maisonettes and terraced housing. Properties are set within extensive sloping grassland with intermittent mature trees. There is also an attractive tree-lined hedgerow edge to Redditch Road. Although planned around what could be pleasant landscaping, the existing housing was not designed to respond or front onto this space. The existing orientation and layout of the dwellings has instead created a disconnected road network, segregated and open secluded footpaths, exposed private rear gardens and poor definition between public and private spaces. This has resulted in poorly overlooked public and private spaces, poor security for private spaces and homes, and contributes to a reduced outlook from most properties despite the opportunities afforded by the sloping topography and the green spaces.

6.2. Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except access was granted in March last year for a mixed use development to include a maximum 295 dwellings (2, 3, 4 and 5 bedrooms), a neighbourhood park and 468sq.m (GIA) retail space (Class A1/A2/A3) at land at Redditch Road, Green Lane, Foyle Road and Teviot Grove. The now proposed Phase 1 development of 58 dwellings would be in accordance with the outline planning permission granted last year and as such the principle of development has been previously established.

Policy

6.3. The NPPF seeks to ensure the provision of sustainable development, of good quality, in appropriate locations and sets out principles for developing sustainable communities. Planning is required to seek high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. It should also encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed and focus development in locations that are sustainable and can make the fullest use of public transport walking and cycling. The NPPF seeks to boost the supply of housing and seeks the delivery of high quality housing that is well designed and built to a high standard; a mix of housing, particularly in terms of type and tenure to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

6.4. The UDP emphasises the importance of the City’s housing policies in contributing to the strategy for urban regeneration and economic revitalisation, and states that one of the ways this will be achieved is through a variety of housing to meet the full range of needs throughout the City. Paragraph 5.15 identifies that a number of initiatives are proposed/underway to improve the condition of older private sector stock and City Council dwellings, in some cases through demolition of existing properties. It acknowledges that these may involve the City Council in partnership with private sector interests. The Primrose Estate is identified as a Housing Regeneration Area with a comprehensive improvement strategy (paragraph 20.29 of the UDP and Policy TP31 of the BDP).

Page 7 of 14

6.5. The UDP also aims to create a more sustainable pattern of development by re-using brown field sites in suitable locations with good access to jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car. It requires that that new housing developments should provide an appropriate environment (paragraphs 5.20-5.20A), a suitable housing density and mix (paragraph 5.40) and encourages a full range of housing types. Paragraph 5.38 identifies that densities of at least 50 dwellings per hectare will be expected in local centres and corridors well served by public transport, with 40 dwellings per hectare elsewhere. Paragraphs 3.14D and 3.14E of the UDP identify that new housing development should be designed in accordance with good urban design principles.

6.6. The UDP (at paragraphs 3.53B and 5.20B-5.20E) outlines the requirement for the provision of public open space generated by new residential development. It encourages provision within site boundaries and aims to achieve the provision of children’s play facilities within 400 metres safe walking distance of all dwellings. This advice is reflected in ‘Public Open Spaces in New Residential Development’ (adopted as SPD in 2007).

6.7. The Kings Norton Planning Framework supports the policies within the UDP and identifies key design, land uses, open space and access principles to guide the detailed site redevelopment.

Scale, Layout and Design

6.8. The Kings Norton Planning Framework envisaged that the entire redevelopment area would be developed with about 530 new homes at a density of at least 40 dwellings per hectare. This reserved matters submission for Phase 1 proposes 58 dwellings on a cleared 1.98 hectares of a wider 10.69 hectare site within the Primrose Estate. The density proposed for Phase 1 is 29 dwellings per hectare. This is below the UDP, draft BDP and Kings Norton Planning Framework policy, which requires a density of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare. However, this site is a small phase of the wider site redevelopment and is brought forward as phase 1 due to timing and accessibility relating to stopping up orders and housing clearance. On this basis, I consider the density proposed to be acceptable and in general accordance with policy.

6.9. The mix of dwelling types and sizes proposed would meet the aim of the UDP for a variety of housing and to assist in addressing the shortage of larger family housing identified the Birmingham Strategic Housing Market Assessment. The housing mix for phase 1 includes 38% 2 beds, 28% 3 beds, 33% 4 beds and 1% 5 beds against an agreed overall mix of larger house-types for the overall Primrose estate redevelopment (35% 3 beds and 23% 4 beds and 1% 5 beds) which has been negotiated with the Council’s Housing Officers. The two bedroom dwellings proposed would be provided as a mix of houses and flats.

6.10. The Kings Norton Planning Framework also provides urban design guidance, including a Proposals Plan suggesting how the Estate could be redeveloped. The Proposals Plan shows the houses in perimeter blocks fronting new/existing access roads. The Phase 1 layout proposed broadly reflects the Kings Norton Planning Framework Proposals Plan, whilst the indicative master plan for the wider site redevelopment identifies the new neighbourhood park in a slightly different location. The Framework also identifies a site fronting Redditch Road for a larger retail development (for which planning permission has yet to be obtained). The 58 dwellings proposed generally follow the indicative layout that was assessed as part

Page 8 of 14 of the previous outline planning permission. Dwellings would front the extended Teviot Grove and back onto existing housing/the proposed retail development site. Where available, development has been set as a perimeter block. This would be in accordance with the Framework and Places for Living SPG. The proposed flats would be located on part of the site that has a road frontage to all sides. As such, whilst each unit would have its own amenity space, the proposed communal amenity space would be visible from the public realm. It would however be secured with a boundary treatment to be agreed. Whilst not encouraged in design, I consider this to be acceptable in relation to Phase 1 given site constraints including existing road layouts.

6.11. BMHT developments are designed to work with the existing opportunities and constraints of a site. There is a presumption in favour of retaining existing trees and hedgerows and working with the topography of a site, in this case to provide vistas and views across the valley. The Kings Norton Framework establishes a broad context for the redevelopment of Primrose Estate, particularly the location of a new local centre including a supermarket and the position of the new link road across the site between Redditch Road and Shannon Road. These set a baseline for the proposed development layout. The proposed dwellings would all have dedicated car parking, primarily to the front of each property and a front garden. The proposed layout re-establishes building lines for the proposed streets to create an overlooked public realm with private amenity space to each dwelling in accordance with the Framework.

6.12. The proposed Phase 1 development would have separation distances and rear amenity areas that would comply with the guidelines in Places for Living. The units would primarily meet or exceed the ‘Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standard’ government policy.

6.13. The proposed development aims to be sensitive to the context of the surrounding area and appropriate to its character. The architectural style would be contemporary in nature (as per the majority of BMHT developments). Existing elements of the estate which sit outside the development area and are to be retained comprise terraced and blocks of houses with duo pitch roofs of concrete tiles. These elevations have a plethora of materials used including brickwork, pebble dashed concrete, hung tiles, timber cladding and UPVC fascia cladding. Off and along Redditch Road, red brick and white render are the predominant building materials, and pitched roofs and garages are standard characteristics of the properties. For the proposals, brick and cladding would be the primary materials used. Buildings are designed to include details such as texture formed with bricks, windows that include inserted panels of various materials, projecting boxes around windows and significant window reveals. A palette of two primary types is proposed - one red, another Buff / grey. The option of a third blue/ black brick may also be used to accentuate landmark buildings. Delineation of the facade with an alternate material to the upper story is also proposed on a number of the proposed houses. This material would be a grey cladding. Roof profiles would include front gables on some houses. A palette of two roof tiles/colours would be used with a potential alternate roof covering on feature/ landmark buildings. No details have been submitted regarding the use of materials other than the general information outlined. As such, I am unable to agree materials for the approval of condition 24 in relation to the outline approval but consider the indicative range and mixture to be acceptable

6.14. The indicative master plan layout highlights a site reserved for a ‘local centre’ larger retail development sited in accordance with the Kings Norton Planning Framework, and a site for a new neighbourhood park. The neighbourhood park is identified in the

Page 9 of 14 Framework as more centrally located within the Estate, and is now indicatively located just a little further north, adjacent to the first two phases of development and situated between the new spine road and the existing Foyle Road. The neighbourhood park, proposed as one space, would replace pockets of open space located throughout the Estate. Neither the retail development (for which planning permission has not been applied for), or the neighbourhood park (agreed in principle as part of the outline planning approval) form part of this Phase One submission.

6.15. Trees are retained on site within a small area of open space adjacent to plots 31 and 58 and adjacent to an area of existing car parking located at the end of Medway Grove opposite the proposed flats.

6.16. Extensive pre-application discussions have been undertaken with City Design colleagues and the layout submitted represents the result of these discussions. The layout identifies that the requirements of Places for Living would be met. As such, my design officer raises no objections on design, scale and layout issues. I concur with this view and recommend an obscure glazing condition for a number of plots with side facing windows.

Access

6.17. Access has previously been agreed in the outline planning permission and secures a new signalised junction between Redditch Road and Grange Hill Road, which would add a new arm to serve the proposed development spine road, and provide one lane entries to the new site access and Grange Hill Road.

6.18. A number of stopping up orders would be required across the redevelopment area, including phase one and these are currently being assessed with Transportation. In respect of phase one; Transportation has raised no objections to the proposed development. Conditions were attached to the outline planning permission that requires the submission and agreement of details relating to all relevant highway issues. These will be dealt with for Phase 1 in due course.

Landscaping

6.19. Both during pre-application discussions and following application submission, landscaping and tree protection have been an important consideration for the development of this Phase and the wider redevelopment site. 11 trees would require removal. These would comprise 8 Silver Birch (4 Category C, 3 Category U and 1 Category B); 1 Hawthorn (Category C) and 2 Oak (Category A and B respectively). The majority of the trees proposed for removal are located within areas proposed for new roads, including the two oaks. I cannot see an alternative layout that could retain these two oaks, as a new road is needed at this location to serve both retained houses on Tay Grove, and new houses. However, I note two retained Category A oaks, and one Category B oak, a little further away to the south-west, where the Applicants have been able to design around the trees. Also, as always, numerous new trees and other landscape planting will be secured throughout the development site.

Other Issues

6.20. Air Quality, Ecology, Flood Risk, Noise and Contaminated Land were all considered during the outline planning application and led to a number of planning conditions being attached to the outline approval. No information has been submitted through

Page 10 of 14 this Reserved Matters submission to have these relevant details agreed at this stage and subsequent discharge of condition applications will need to be made by the Applicant. I note the objections raised by Local Services and the Local Lead Flood Authority however, these issues remain as part of the outline planning permission and will be addressed by discharge of condition submissions and future phases of development. In relation to Education, this was addressed in the outline planning approval where it was agreed that a financial contribution was not required in this instance as the Primrose Estate redevelopment would replace existing residential development at a lower density and therefore have less impact than the existing estate generated and there was a surplus of school places locally.

6.21. I note the two letters of comment and these have been passed to the relevant Housing Regeneration Manager. In relation to comments regarding the proposed supermarket, a site remains available within the wider redevelopment area for a retail development however, no proposals have been brought forward to date and it does not form part of either the outline planning permission or this reserved matters submission.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

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

7. Conclusion

7.1. The redevelopment of the site for housing accords with both national and local planning policy. The proposal is consistent with the key objectives of the Kings Norton Planning Framework and would deliver the attractive, quality neighbourhood envisaged. The proposed mix of dwellings, tenures and house types would help to provide a balanced community and widen the choice of property available on the estate. The Phase One layout and design are acceptable and appropriate for the area.

7.2. I note that the key principle in the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development and this is identified as having three stems of economic, social and environmental. As the proposal would see a redevelopment of an existing housing estate for new residential development and which would in turn provide economic and social benefits for the existing and new residential occupiers, whilst supporting the provision of local employment in construction and does not have an environmental impact, I consider the proposal to be sustainable development and on this basis, should be approved.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That approval is given to the reserved matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale as they relate to outline planning permission 2014/09196/PA, covered by reserved matters application 2015/09999/PA, subject to the conditions set out below.

8.2. That no objection be raised to the stopping up of the areas of public highway within the application site and that the Department for Transport be requested to make an Order in accordance with Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

1 Requires the prior submission of obscure glazing details for specific areas of the approved buildings

Page 11 of 14

2 Requires the prior submission of details of a communal satellite dish

3 Requires the prior submission of management plan details for the area of open space adjacent to plots 31 and 58.

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

Case Officer: Pam Brennan

Page 12 of 14 Photo(s)

Photograph 1 – View of Teviot Grove and Application Site from Existing Houses in Medway Grove

Photograph 2 – View of Application Site for Phase 1 Development

Page 13 of 14 Location Plan

Page 14 of 14

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/09477/PA Accepted: 30/11/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 25/01/2016 Ward: Longbridge

Site bounded by Topland Grove and Raven Hays Road, Longbridge, Birmingham, B31

Erection of 8 dwellings with associated landscaping and parking Applicant: Kier Living Ltd Tungsten Building, Central Boulevard, Blythe Valley Park, Solihull, West Midlands, B90 8AU Agent: BM3 Architecture Ltd 28 Pickford Street, Digbeth, Birmingham, B5 5QH Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.2. This application relates to 0.17ha of land that forms part of Site 6. The approved scheme accommodated 6 dwellings - 2no. 4 bedroomed 3 storey semi-detached dwellings, and 4no. 4 bedroomed 2 storey detached dwellings, 2 of which were to be affordable. This revised application proposes to increase the number of properties from 6 to 8. The mix comprises of:

• 2x 2 bedroomed, 2 storey houses • 2x 3 bedroomed, 2 storey houses • 4x 4 bedroomed, 3 storey houses - (All Affordable for Social Rent).

1.3. The proposed density of houses as part of this application has gone from 35 dwellings per hectare to 46 dwellings per hectare. However, the overall density of the Site 6 has only increased from 48 dwellings per ha to 51 dwellings per ha.

1.4. The revised application includes alterations to the layout that now proposes a terrace of four houses fronting onto Topland Grove, and 4 semi-detached dwellings flanking the southern and north-western corners of the block. The dwellings are proposed to be constructed of brick with a gable tiled roof that reflect the design and materials of other properties constructed in earlier phases. The original planting scheme has been amended to reflect the proposed alterations in the layout and

Page 1 of 10 includes the planting of 9 trees and shrubs across the site. The front garden parking provision has been increased from 12 to 14 spaces.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. This application relates to 0.17ha of the land that is accommodated within the 0.94ha of Site 6. The site is located to the north of the junction of Raven Hayes Lane and Topland Grove. The site is crossed by high 132,000 volt overhead power cables that are subject to a way leave zone that prevents any houses being erected across a 28 metre width of the site. The land within this way leave zone has been designated for private gardens to the north of the proposed dwellings. The natural ground level across the site is largely consistent and is approximately 300mm higher than the existing levels of the adjacent highways Topland Grove and Raven Hayes Lane. The site has has been designated for housing and is currently vacant.

2.2. There are 9 existing trees located within the site, 4 will be removed, however, an additional 9 trees and shrubs are proposed to replace those that are lost.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. Extensive planning history, including:

3.5. 2015/09475/PA - Erection of 9 New 2, 3 & 4 bedroom dwellings with associated landscaping and parking – Recommended for approval elsewhere in this agenda.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Neighbours, local ward Councillors, MP, and residents associations notified and a Site Notice has been displayed. One letter of support has been received from Councillor Ian Cruise on the following grounds: • Highlighted the need for more housing.

Page 2 of 10 4.2. Transportation – No objections subject to an appropriate condition to protect pedestrian visibility splays. A further condition has been recommended to ensure that the footway crossings to be constructed to City specification at the applicants expense.

4.3. West Midlands Police – No Objections.

4.4. Regulatory Services – No Objections subject to conditions to seek the submission of a noise and vibration assessment and Contaminated Land Verification Report. A Contamination Remediation Scheme has also been required, however, this has already been discharged for the site.

4.5. West Midlands Fire Service – No Objections.

4.6. Severn Trent – No objections subject to a condition to secure appropriate drainage within the site.

5. Policy Context

5.2. The following national policies are applicable: • NPPF- Delivering Sustainable Development (2012). • Technical Housing Standards (2015).

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Policy:

Page 3 of 10 stock and City Council dwellings, in some cases through demolition of existing properties. It acknowledges that these may involve the City Council in partnership with private sector interests. Egghill Estate is identified as a Housing Regeneration Area with a comprehensive improvement strategy (paragraph 19.30).

6.6. The site is designated for residential development and would be in keeping with the vision for the regeneration of the Estate as ‘an attractive quality neighbourhood’ and would be accordance with the principles contained of the UDP, NPPF and the Egghill SPA. The density of this site has increased from 35 dwellings per hectare to 46 dwellings per hectare, compling with the UDP and also the Egghill SPA which requires at least 40 dwellings per ha.

6.7. Main issues:

6.8. The detailed matters for consideration are the impact on the character and amenity of the area, on residential amenity, and on parking and highway safety.

6.9. Design and layout:

6.10. Whilst the number of dwellings has been increased from that originally approved, the revised scheme reflects the overriding urban design principles of the estate that are set out in the Egghill SPA and reflects the character and design of other dwellings that have been constructed in earlier phases of the original approval. Whilst the revised scheme has increased the number of dwellings within the site, the design and scale of the proposed dwellings are positioned appropriately within the plot with front amenity/parking areas and rear garden that are similar in scale to that of overall estate. The design of the dwellings largely reflect the urban design principles contained within the Egghill SPA which recommends three storeys dwellings around the perimeter of the neighbourhood park and corner sites to promote legibility and to enhance natural surveillance.

Page 4 of 10 6.11. Residential Amenities:

6.12. The proposed dwellings, to the south east corner of the site, would face the existing dwellings Nos.71, 73 and 73 A Raven Hays Road and would fail to meet the 27.5m distance separation guideline between the new three storey dwellings and existing dwellings. However, Places for Living’ (SPG) makes it clear that this standard is more strictly applied at the rear rather than the front. In light of this, and given that the siting of the proposed dwellings have not changed from the original approval, I do not consider that this would be a sustainable reason for refusal of the application.

6.13. The Technical Housing Standards (THS) (March 2015) while not yet adopted by the LPA do provide a useful guide for the size of proposed residential accommodation. These standards require a minimum gross internal floor area between 79 and 93sqm per 2-3 bedroom dwellings, and 112sqm per 4 bedroomed dwellings. Whilst the accommodation proposed would fall below these guidelines, at 65, 84 and 107sqm, the original dwellings approved on site also fell below these recommendations. Whilst not ideal, I do not consider there are sustainable reasons to refusal the application on these guidelines.

6.14. The rear garden areas proposed would comply with the minimum garden size requirements as outlined in ‘Places for Living’ (SPG) which requires a minimum of 52sqm for 2 bedroomed dwellings and 70sqm for family accommodation. Therefore, I consider that the proposal would secure adaptable and sustainable amenity space for the future occupiers of the site.

6.15. Regulatory Services has raised no objections to the proposal subject to conditions to undertake a noise and vibration assessment, and provide a Contaminated Land Verification Report in order to minimise the risks from any land contamination and to protect furture occupiers of the site, adjacent land, property, water, and ecological systems.

6.16. Transportation:

6.17. The revised proposal includes the provision of 14 off street car parking spaces rather than the 12 originally approved. Whilst this has been increased, this is to reflect the increase in dwellings being proposed. Transportation have raised no objections to the revised proposal providing appropriate conditions are attached to maintain pedestrian visibility within the site. Therefore, the development is considered to have limited impact on pedestrian and highway safety.

6.18. Trees

6.19. Despite the increase in the dwellings and parking provision, the number of existing trees to be retained has been maintained as originally approved. The Tree Officer has raised no objections to the proposal and recommends that appropriate conditions are attached to the approval to protect and maintain the longevity of the trees retained within the site.

6.20. Affordable housing:

6.21. The proposed alterations sought as part of this application would increase the number of affordable homes on this plot to from 2 to 4, increasing the provision to 50%. Given these dwellings are for Social Rent, for which there is the greatest need, I consider that this increase in affordable provision should be welcomed.

Page 5 of 10 6.32 As the City Council are in partnership with the applicants and cannot therefore enter into a legal agreement, conditions are attached to secure the affordable housing and to make the approval personal to the applicant/BCC to ensure that the scheme cannot be implemented without this affordable provision by an alternative developer.

6.34 The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

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 the prior submission of Sample Materials Required

3 Requires the prior submission of Hard and Soft Landscape Details

4 Requires the prior submission of hard surface materials

5 Requires the prior submission of unexpected contamination details

6 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

7 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

8 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

9 Requires the prior submission of details of site and ground levels

10 Requires the prior submission of a scheme for ecological enhancement measures

11 Requires Pedestrian Visibility Splays to be provided.

12 Protects retained trees from removal

13 Requires the implementation of tree protection

Page 6 of 10 14 Requires tree replacement within 2 years post development

15 Requires the provision of the affordable homes.

16 Restricts implementation of the permission to Birmingham City Council

17 Requires implementation of the recommendations for habitat and species protection.

18 Noise and Vibration Assessment

19 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Catherine Golightly

Page 7 of 10 Photo(s)

Figure 1: South Corner of Topland Grove

Figure 2: South East Corner of Topland Grove

Page 8 of 10

Figure 3: View along Topland Grove

Page 9 of 10

Location Plan

LOWER

BEECHES

THE GREEN

ROAD 33

TOPLAND GROVE

73a 73

HANDLEY GROVE 12

ETL

6 15

ERBERT ROAD 11 2

29 41

HAYS ROAD

Page 10 of 10

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2013/02178/PA and 2014/00003/LA Ward: Selly Oak Application Type: S106 Deed of Variation

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

Deed of Variation to Section 106 legal agreement following outline consent 2013/02178/PA to allow the provision of the original full Phase 1B highways works to complete the Selly Oak New Road.

Applicant: Harvest 2 Selly Oak Ltd,

Recommendation AUTHORISE

1. List of Background Papers • Report to Planning Committee 21st December 2002 (ref 2002/03536/PA) • Report to Planning Committee 17th October 2013 (ref 2013/02178/PA) • Section 106 Agreement dated 28th November 2013 (ref 2014/00003/LA)

2. Background

2.1 Outline consent was granted in 2013 for the former Birmingham Battery site (Ref 2013/02178/PA), providing for the site’s de-contamination, re-development for a Life Sciences Campus on its northern half, and a mixed-use scheme on its southern half comprising supermarket, non-food retail units, financial and professional units, cafes and restaurants drinking establishments and hot food take-away, leisure, student accommodation, petrol filling station, vehicular access etc.

2.2 The applicants proposed a set of local highway/junction improvements (known as the Revised Phase 1B) to be provided prior to the opening of the new supermarket. These are detailed in para 2.4 below.

2.3 The amendments now proposed in this deed of variation are to revert to the original full Phase 1B for the Selly Oak New Road. This will complete the new road as proposed in the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan, draft Birmingham Development Plan and Wider Selly Oak SPD. The proposed amendments principally secure the widening of Harborne Lane to where it passes the Triangle Site (the existing Sainsbury’s site) to allow traffic in both directions. This avoids the gyratory arrangements around the Triangle Site and completes the route around Selly Oak Centre.

2.4 The Revised Phase 1B off site highways works were costed at £2.96million and comprised:

Page 1 of 3

• Harborne Lane/Gibbins Road Junction. Traffic signals installed to improve traffic turning in to and out of Gibbins Road • Chapel Lane Improvements. Chapel Lane is to remain one way but a short section widened to provide three lanes throughout the length of Chapel Lane. • Harborne Lane/Bristol Road Junction. The Bristol Road south-western approach to the junction widened to provide two left turning lanes into Harborne Lane to guide city centre bound traffic onto the Selly Oak new road. • Bristol Road southbound. Minor works to provide three lanes for traffic and bus lay-bys.

3. Observations

3.1 Planning policy documents seek to secure the delivery of the Selly Oak new road. The Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005) sets out a strategy for the regeneration of Selly Oak. A key strand of this is a new road to serve the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and Birmingham Battery site and provide a route around Selly Oak Centre. The draft Birmingham Development Plan (2013) -policy GA9 - supports major growth and regeneration in Selly Oak, but states that future development will need to be supported by and where necessary contribute toward infrastructure including the completion of the Selly Oak new road. The Wider Selly Oak Supplementary Planning Document (2015) states that a key transport priority is securing the completion of the final phase of the Selly Oak new road. The plan states that all proposals for major development should contribute to the delivery of the last phase of the new road. The SPD also recognises that high quality road access is essential to the success of the Life Sciences Campus on the Birmingham Battery site.

3.2 Planning permission was granted for the Selly Oak new road in 2002 (ref 2002/03536/PA). Phase 1A and Phase 2 of the road have been operational for some time. The final phase (Phase 1B) addresses the stretch between the roundabout at Harborne Lane/Aston Webb Boulevard, and the junction of Bristol Road and Oak Tree Lane. It involves widening of Harborne Lane alongside the existing Sainsbury’s store to convert this section to two way traffic. A separate land transfer agreement between the council and Harvest allows for land at the Triangle site required for Phase 1B of the road to be transferred to the council 6 months after the new food store opens on the Birmingham Battery site.

3.3 Completion of the final phase (Phase 1B) of the Selly Oak new road will have many benefits. It will provide good access to the hospitals, university and Birmingham Battery site- including the proposed Life Sciences Campus- and improve movement in and around Selly Oak centre. It will reduce traffic through the shopping centre and enable a series of environmental and public realm improvements and measures to assist public transport, cyclists and pedestrians to be implemented. This in turn will assist the regeneration of this important suburban shopping centre. It has therefore remained a key aspiration of the council to secure the final phase of the road.

3.4 Under the early consents for the development of the Birmingham Battery site– in 2005, 2007 and 2011 - Phase 1B was to be funded by the developers of the Birmingham Battery site (Sainsbury’s). However when the application from Harvest Partnership was considered in October 2013 (ref 2013/02178/PA) it was recognised that this was no longer necessary to enable consent to be granted. Therefore, an

Page 2 of 3 amended set of local highway/ junction improvements (known as the revised Phase 1B) and described in para 2.4 above was agreed.

3.5 In 2014 Cabinet gave approval for the Transport and Highways Capital Programme 2014/15 to 2016/17 and agreed to progress projects including the Selly Oak new road full Phase 1B. Funding is available through the GBSLEP’s Local Growth Fund towards delivery of the full Phase 1B, and this together with the £2.96m that Harvest has set aside for the local highway works would enable the full Phase 1B- as originally planned- to be delivered. Transportation and Planning Officers have therefore been working with Harvest to enable the £2.96m of funding earmarked for local highway/junction improvements to be used alongside the LGF funding to secure the delivery of the original full Phase 1B.

3.6 Harvest has now agreed to amend the S106 as follows; • Harvest to deliver the Gibbins Road/Harborne Lane junction improvements • Harvest to pay the council a Highways Contribution of £2.96million (index linked from the date of approval of this new Deed of Variation) less the cost of the Gibbins Road/Harborne Lane junction. • Payments to be made as follows: o £100,000 on completion of a new S106 Deed of Variation, o £1m on completion of the Full Business Case for the Phase 1 B works, o £1m 4 months after commencement of the Phase 1B works, and o Final payment 8 months after commencement of the Phase 1B. • The council will apply the Highways Contribution towards procuring the full Phase 1B of the Selly Oak New Road. If, however, the council is unable to let a contract for the full Phase 1B then Harvest will pay the council the Highways Contribution and the council will apply the contribution to delivering the Revised Phase 1B.

3.7 The above allows Harvest to deliver improvements to the Gibbins Road/Harborne Lane junction in advance of the new Sainsbury’s store opening. The remainder of the funding will be paid to the Council towards the delivery Selly Oak new road Phase 1B, thereby completing the final phase of the new road. The new supermarket will open before the majority of the now proposed highway works. (This differs from the Revised Phase 1B works which are to be completed prior to opening of the new supermarket.) Although the completion of the final phase of the road will occur after the supermarket is open this will in the long-term provide a significantly better highway solution, enable significant environmental improvements in Selly Oak Centre and improved access to the Hospitals, University and key development sites.

3.8 In conclusion, this agreement will secure the delivery of one of the council’s key policy priorities for Selly Oak, and is to be welcomed. The council will continue to consult with the local community- mainly through the Selly Oak Consultative Group - during the delivery of the road.

Recommendation

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

AUTHOR: Liz Jesper

Page 3 of 3 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 03 March 2016

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve – Conditions 13 2015/10222/PA

538 Lichfield Road (Former Sytner BMW) Four Oaks Sutton Coldfield Birmingham B74 4EH

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a new care home (Use Class C2) with associated car parking, amenity space and ancillary structures

Approve – Conditions 14 2015/10482/PA

Riland Industrial Centre Norris Way Sutton Coldfield Birmingham B75 7BB

Page 1 of 1 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/10222/PA Accepted: 30/12/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 30/03/2016 Ward: Sutton Four Oaks

538 Lichfield Road (Former Sytner BMW), Four Oaks, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, B74 4EH

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a new care home (Use Class C2) with associated car parking, amenity space and ancillary structures Applicant: Octopus Healthcare c/o Agent Agent: Strutt and Parker Somerset House, 222 High Street, Guildford, Surrey, GU1 3JD Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. The proposal involves the demolition of the existing buildings on the site which are currently occupied by Sytner BMW car dealership and the erection of a 3 storey building to provide a 67 bedroom care home together with associated car parking and amenity space.

1.2. The proposed care home would provide 24 hour support and care for the frail elderly including the care of people suffering from dementia.

1.3. The building would be 3 storeys in height of modern design using materials including red facing brickwork, grey metal cladding, white render and grey framed metal windows. It has been designed to maximise the corner of Lichfield Road and Hill Village Road as a focal point and the top storey would be set back slightly. The elevations would contain projecting elements on the Lichfield Road elevation to provide visual interest.

1.4. The proposed building would be set back from the Lichfield Road frontage by between approximately 3 and 5 metres to allow for landscaping/tree planting and there would be railings to the site frontage. The main entrance to the building would be on the side elevation off the car park which would be accessed off Lichfield Road. The building would also be set well off the Hill Village Road frontage to allow for the retention of protected trees. The proposed service area would be accessed off Hill Village Road and a new sub-station and recycling store would be erected in this part of the site.

1.5. The building would contain 67 bedrooms with en-suite bathrooms, lounges and dining rooms on each floor, activity rooms and quiet areas, cinema room, hair salon,

Page 1 of 11 café, library, assisted bathrooms, kitchen and laundry and staff rooms/training rooms.

1.6. The proposed car park would contain 23 parking spaces utilising the existing access.

1.7. External amenity space would be provided in a secure courtyard garden to the rear of the building, a secure upper garden area to the east of the car park and in a secure terrace on the corner of Lichfield Road and Hill Village Road totalling in excess of 600sq.m (approximately 10 sq.m per resident).

1.8. The applicants have submitted a Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Statement of Community Involvement, Transport Statement, Indicative Travel Plan Ecological Assessment, Tree Survey, Desk Based Ground Investigation, Supply and Demand Analysis and Drainage Design Strategy in support of the application.

1.9. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is located on the junction of Lichfield Road and is currently in use as a car showroom, workshop and associated forecourt occupied by Sytner BMW dealership. The existing buildings are 2 storeys and access is off Lichfield Road with secondary access off Hill Village Road.

2.2. The site rises from west to east and trees to the rear of the site fronting Hill Village Road are covered by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO 491).

2.3. To the immediate south of the site is the Sacred Heart of Jesus Church. To the north and east of the site on Hill Village Road are residential properties and to the west, on the opposite side of Lichfield Road are 2 storey dwellings and a 3 storey block of flats.

2.4. Site Location and Street View

3. Planning History

3.1. None relevant.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – no objections subject to conditions.

4.2. Regulatory Services – no objections subject to conditions.

4.3. Severn Trent Water – no objections subject to conditions.

4.4. West Midlands Police – no objections.

4.5. Western Power Distribution – There is a live electrical service into the building that will need disconnecting at the boundary prior to demolition. There are also live high

Page 2 of 11 and low voltage cables that run near the boundary of the site and to the substation adjacent to the site. The applicants have been advised of these comments.

4.6. MP, Councillors, Residents Associations, nearby occupiers notified. Application advertised on site and in the press. 3 letters have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds;

- More information needed regarding the use, staff of over 20 suggests a special use care home. - Is car parking sufficient for residents and staff? - Noise and disruption during construction. - Breach privacy.

4.7. 2 letters have been received making the following comments;

- Concern over staff parking on Hill Village Road, problem with BMW staff at present. - Parking on site may only be sufficient for 1 shift of staff and a few visitors. - Overflow parking should be provided as close to the home as parking on Hill Village Road. - Extend double yellow lines along Hill Village Road and remove double yellow lines closer to the site to allow better visibility for residents leaving their drives. - Concern over contamination and lack of report. - Deliveries should be between 9am and 6pm. - Lack of communication from applicants to local residents.

4.8. The applicants have submitted a Statement of Community Involvement which outlines the consultation they undertook with the local community prior to the submission of the application. This included a public exhibition which was advertised in the Sutton Coldfield Observer and through a leaflet drop to local residents. Approximately 30 residents attended the exhibition and their comments included the following which the applicants have attempted to address in their final submission;

- Will there be the opportunity for new jobs? - What will be the impact of the construction process? - Is parking provision for the proposed use? - How much will service access from Hill Village Road be used? - Will the scheme cause an unacceptable level of privacy to 507a Lichfield Road? - Will the scheme retain boundary planting? - What is the anticipated duration of the build? - What will contractors hours of work be?

5. Policy Context

5.1. UDP (Adopted 2005), Places for Living SPG, Special Needs Residential Uses SPG, Car Parking Guidelines SPD, 45 Degree Code, Emerging Birmingham Development Plan, TPO 491, NPPF, NPPG.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Policy Context

Page 3 of 11 6.2. The NPPF seeks to ensure the provision of sustainable development, of good quality, in appropriate locations and sets out principles for developing sustainable communities. 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 promotes high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Paragraph 50 states that local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on the needs of different groups in the community including older people. Paragraph 58 advises that planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments add to the overall quality of the area, create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit, respond to local character and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

6.3. Policies 3.8 and 3.10 of the adopted UDP seek to protect what is good in the City’s environment and states that proposals, which would have an adverse effect on the quality of the built environment, would not normally be allowed. Policy 5.20 advises that the City Council will take measures to maintain and protect the existing good quality residential environments which are one of the City's greatest assets.

6.4. Policy 8.28 applies to hostels and to residential care homes. It provides guidelines for assessing planning applications for such uses, these are: proposals should not cause demonstrable harm to the residential amenity of occupiers of nearby properties by reason of noise and disturbance nuisance; proposals within areas already containing similar uses should take account of the cumulative effect of such uses upon the residential character and appearance of the area; proposals should not prejudice the safety and free flow of traffic in the adjoining highway; and proposals should include adequate outdoor amenity space to provide satisfactory living environment for residents.

6.5. Places for Living SPG advises that responding to the local context can ensure the unique identity of a place is not harmed as well as avoid any potential adverse impact on neighbouring buildings, landscape and uses. It identifies numerical guidelines for garden, bedroom sizes and separation distances for new residential developments

6.6. Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG requires no adverse impact on highway safety and satisfactory outdoor living space for the future residents of care homes.

6.7. Car Parking Guidelines SPD sets out maximum parking standards, which for a care home are 1 space per 3 residents.

6.8. Policy PG3 of the emerging BDP, as modified by the proposed main modification PMM4 consulted upon last year, states that all new development will be expected to demonstrate high design quality, contributing to a strong sense of place. New developments should reinforce or create a positive sense of place and local distinctiveness that responds to site conditions and the local area context, including heritage assets and appropriate use of innovation in design.

6.9. Use

6.10. The proposal would involve the redevelopment of an existing urban site in a sustainable location close to Mere Green District Centre. I have no objection to the principle of a residential care home on the site. The site is within a predominantly residential area and the proposed use would be more compatible with the area than the existing car showroom use.

Page 4 of 11

6.11. Design and impact on the character of the area

6.12. The layout and design of the proposed care home has been developed in conjunction with advice from officers. The proposed care home would have a slightly larger footprint than the existing buildings on the site, however, I consider it would significantly enhance the overall character and appearance of the site and the wider area.

6.13. The proposed building would create a much stronger relationship to Lichfield Road and frame the junction with Hill Village Road in a more positive manner. The end of the building would contain a lounge and communal area which would allow for extensive glazing on the corner and the setback would allow for substantial planting along the Lichfield Road site frontage which is welcomed.

6.14. The siting of the building would be further away from dwellings on Hill Village Road and the protected trees at the rear of the site than the existing buildings on the site. The existing parking area to the rear of the site would be removed and landscaping reinstated.

6.15. The height and scale of the building at 3 storeys is appropriate for the area and takes account of the context of surrounding developments. Due to the change in site levels it would only read as 2 storeys from Hill Village Road. The contemporary design would minimise the scale of the building and the massing would be broken up through the use of projecting bays, set back top storey, greater window reveals and a varied palette of materials.

6.16. The design and layout of the proposed building would comply with design policies contained in the UDP, emerging BDP, Places for Living SPG and the NPPF.

6.17. Impact on residential amenity

6.18. The proposed building has been sited to protect the amenities of existing and prospective residents to avoid overlooking, loss of privacy and daylight/sunlight.

6.19. The new building would be closer to the 2 residential properties to the west on the opposite side of Lichfield Road (507 and 507a Lichfield Road) than the existing buildings, however, the separation distance from the new building would be 28 metres to the front elevation of no. 231 Lichfield Road which sits at a lower level. I consider this front to front relationship to be acceptable. To the east, the nearest property no. 231 Hill Village Road is 22 metres from the proposed building at a much higher level and set at an oblique angle. The properties on the opposite side of Hill Village Road are a considerable distance away and set at an even higher level. To the south, the nearest building is the Sacred Heart Church which is over 30 metres way from the proposed building.

6.20. The proposal would not, therefore, have any detrimental impacts on the amenities of existing residents and would comply with the 45 degree code and separation distances in Places for Living SPG.

6.21. I note a comment from a local resident that deliveries should be between the hours of 9am and 6pm. I do not consider the use is likely to generate a high frequency of deliveries, therefore, I do not consider it is necessary to attach a condition restricting delivery hours.

Page 5 of 11 6.22. Standard of accommodation

6.23. The proposed bedrooms all contain en-suite bathrooms and are of an acceptable size and the building would also provide varied and spacious communal living areas for residents. Approximately 10 sq.m of external amenity space would be provided per resident in 3 high quality communal areas. I consider this is acceptable and the proposal would comply with the requirements of the Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG.

6.24. Highways

6.25. The applicants have submitted a Transport Statement in support of the application which concludes that the proposal is unlikely to generate a significant level of traffic during peak periods and it is unlikely to increase traffic to/from the site compared to the existing use. Transportation Development concur with the conclusions of the Transport Statement and raise no objections to the proposal.

6.26. The Car Parking Guidelines SPD specify a maximum parking provision of 1 space per 3 bedrooms for residential care homes. The proposal for 23 car parking spaces would comply with these guidelines. The applicants are also proposing cycle parking, an ambulance parking space and a Travel Plan has also been submitted which will be subject to regular up-dates. I consider the on-site parking is adequate for the proposed use.

6.27. The proposed care home would have a dedicated service area with access off Hill Village Road which would remove the possibility of conflict with the car parking area and is considered acceptable.

6.28. I would raise no objections to the proposal on highway or car parking grounds.

6.29. Trees and Ecology

6.30. Trees on the eastern side of the site on the Hill Village Road frontage are protected (TPO 491). The majority of these trees are to be retained with 9 less important trees to be removed. This approach has been agreed by the Tree Officer who supports the proposal which includes the removal of significant areas of car parking and compacted material from within the root protection areas of protected trees. 27 new trees are proposed along the Lichfield Road frontage and within the site. Conditions relating to tree works are attached.

6.31. A preliminary ecological appraisal was submitted in support of the application which identified that there was limited potential for protected species to be found on site, although a number of species including bats may forage on or close to the site. The appraisal made recommendations for mitigation measures including bat and bird boxes. The Planning Ecologist raises no objections subject to a condition to secure the proposed mitigation measures. It is also noted that significant habitat areas including existing trees would be retained and additional landscaped areas created.

6.32. Environmental matters

6.33. The application site may be affected by land contamination due to its former use as a petrol filling station and vehicle repair workshop. Regulatory Services have recommended conditions requiring a full site assessment to determine whether any site remedial measures are required. Regulatory Services have also requested a condition requiring details of the proposed extraction system for the kitchen.

Page 6 of 11

6.34. The site lies wholly within Flood Zone 1 and has a low risk of flooding. The Environment Agency have confirmed no Flood Risk Assessment is required.

6.35. The applicants have submitted a Drainage Strategy following discussions with the Lead Local Flood Authority which includes 2 soakaways to collect surface water runoff and the use of permeable paving in the car park. The Local Lead Flood Authority have commented that further information is required to ensure that the proposal meets the requirements for sustainable drainage. They have recommended that this additional information can be provided via a suitable condition which is attached.

6.36. Community Infrastructure Levy

6.37. Non CIL liable development – The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

6.38. Other issues

6.39. The proposal would create in the region of 60 full-time jobs with the possibility of up to 100 jobs on a shift basis.

6.40. A condition is attached requiring a Construction Management Plan to be submitted for both the demolition and construction phases of the development. This will need to address parking for contractors vehicles and working

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider the proposed use is acceptable in this predominantly residential area. The design of the scheme has been developed in conjunction with advice from officers and the proposal would not result in any detrimental impact on residential amenity or highway safety. The proposal is in accordance with relevant local and national planning policies.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve Subject To Conditions.

1 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

2 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

3 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

4 Requires the prior submission of details for the decommissioning of utility tanks etc

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

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

Page 7 of 11 7 Requires the prior submission of extraction and odour control details

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

9 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

10 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

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

12 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

13 Requires the prior submission of level details

14 Requires the submission of a commercial travel plan

15 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

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

17 Arboricultural Method Statement - Submission Required

18 Requires the implementation of tree protection

19 No-Dig Specification required

20 Requires tree pruning protection

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

22 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: John Davies

Page 8 of 11 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – View of corner of site from Lichfield Road

Page 9 of 11

Figure 2 – Existing buildings on site

Page 10 of 11 Location Plan

Page 11 of 11

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/10482/PA Accepted: 24/12/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 18/02/2016 Ward: Sutton Trinity

Riland Industrial Centre, Norris Way, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, B75 7BB

Change of use of the vacant printing office building (Use Class B1) to car repair garage and MOT testing station (sui generis) with ancillary retail shop (selling spare car parts only) and ancillary offices, together with the erection of first floor front extension and two storey side and rear extension. Applicant: Sutton Car Care Riland Industrial Centre, Norris Way, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, B75 7BB Agent: Archi-tecture Design Studio Ltd 17 Coleshill Road, Hodge Hill, Birmingham, B36 8DT Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application is for a change of use of the vacant printing office building (Use Class B1) to a car repair garage and MOT testing station (sui generis) with ancillary retail shop (selling spare car parts only) and ancillary offices, together with the erection of first floor front extension and two storey side and rear extension.

1.2. The proposed first floor extension would be constructed over part of the ground floor front element of the building and would be set back 3 metres from the front elevation of the existing building. The proposed two storey side extension would be set back 3 metres to be in line with the front elevation of the proposed first floor extension. It would project 2.9 metres beyond the side elevation of the existing building and would step out a further 1.59 metres to make full use of the widest part of the site. The two storey rear extension would wrap around from the side extension and would infill the recessed area to the rear of the building.

1.3. The proposed extensions would be designed with a flat roof to reflect the design of the existing building and would be constructed in matching materials. The two storey extensions would be designed with double height space to allow cars to be elevated on the car repair/MOT vehicular ramps. To the rear of the building there would be two roller shutters for vehicular access into the building.

1.4. Internally, the building would comprise a staff room, MOT viewing area, two W/C, MOT Workshop (two ramps), ancillary retail shop with serving counter and ancillary office on the ground floor and two ancillary offices and storage rooms at first floor.

Page 1 of 11

1.5. 10 off-street car parking spaces are proposed to the rear of the unit.

1.6. Opening hours would be between 9am and 6pm Monday to Sunday (including Bank Holidays).

1.7. The proposed use would create 2 full-time and 2 part time job opportunities.

1.8. The application has been submitted with a Design and Access Statement.

1.9. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site relates to a part single storey, part two storey building with a flat roof, which was previously used as a printing office and was owned by the City Council. The site has been sold to the applicant. To the rear of the building is a large off street car parking area with vehicular access from Norris Way and there is a earth mould running along the side boundary with the residential property at 29 Coleshill Road, which is approximately 1 metre higher than the adjoining rear garden. It was noted during my Officer's site visit that several mature trees located on the mound had been recently removed prior to this application. Trees still remain to the front of the building and along the road frontage to Norris Way.

2.2. The site is located at the junction of Coleshill Road and Norris Way and forms part of Riland Industrial Estate. Immediately adjoining the site to the east and south, on the opposite side of Coleshill Road are two-storey semi-detached dwellinghouses. To the west, on the opposite side of Norris Way is a vehicle repair garage with a MOT testing station (known as Bassets Pole Service Station) and to the rear of the site (north) is Birmingham City Council's Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC). The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of industrial and residential uses.

2.3. Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 21 December 2015 - 2015/08966/PA - Change of use of front part of ground floor to retail (Use Class A1), and remaining building to be used as MOT testing station (Sui Generis) to include erection of two storey side and rear extension and first floor front extension, withdrawn application.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Ward Councillors, Residents Associations and nearby residents were notified and Site Notice was displayed.

4.2. 1 Petition with 22 signatures expressing strong objection against the application on the grounds that residents have already had to put up with a fair share of development/change, for example the demolition of two cottages and their replacement with two large car showrooms; introduction of two new trading estates (Reddicap and Norris Way); loss of trees, increase in business traffic; hold up of traffic caused by delivery vehicles; introduction of double yellow lines on Norris Way which has pushed cars to park outside houses. It is expressed that there is no need for an additional car garage/MOT as it will increase traffic, noise and the proposed extensions will spoil the appearance of the building. It is further noted that no

Page 2 of 11 consideration to residents was made when the trees were removed and residents now have to look at the Council tip and flood lights which are permanently lit during the dark hours and there is increased noise from the tip, which was previously deadened by the trees.

4.3. 9 letters of objection received from nearby occupiers stating the following concerns: • Increase traffic problems in an already very busy area, which is added to when vehicles queue to visit the recycling centre and this will cause a road hazard on Coleshill Road and at the road junction with Norris Way and will be detrimental to adjoining businesses. • Insufficient car parking to support the proposed use. • No need for another MOT testing station in the vicinity as there are already 5 within easy walking distance and the area will become saturated with one business type within a small radius, which is contrary to the Council's planning policy which seeks to provide a diverse mix of uses. • No benefit to the local community. • Detrimental impact on other nearby car garages/MOT testing station. • Long opening hours, seven days a week will impact local residents and goes against the conditions of low profile, low noise and annoyance to local residents which was imposed by the Council when the vehicle repair garage/MOT business located opposite the site was set up approximately 30 years ago. The existing business opposite the site operates strictly to Council's guidelines in order to ensure there is little disruption to local residents, for example: the business maintains reasonable opening hours and does not operate on Saturday afternoons or Sundays; operates behind a high perimeter wall; and avoids testing motor cycles because of the potential noise pollution. • Affect the amenity of the public using the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) as any vehicles parked on the road which are waiting for MOT testing will interrupt the vehicle access to and egress from the HWRC. The health and safety of the public when visiting the HWRC will be compromised due to the increase level of traffic caused by the proposed scheme. • Loss of privacy to residential properties located opposite the site on Coleshill Road as a result of the new first floor windows, opening hours, and access to the retail shop on the front elevation. • Removal of trees prior to this application has increased light pollution from the recycling centre; changed the aesthetic of the road; and there is a risk that the trees to the front of the site will be removed for parking. • Any signs could potentially impact on neighbouring resident's ability to relax in their houses, especially if they are illuminated with neon or flashing light. • Inaccurate/misleading information in the application form as there were mature trees on the site which have now been removed and the proposed use will make trade and contaminated waste.

4.4. Transportation Development - No objection subject to the following conditions: restrict the number of working bays to no more than two as proposed; require the first floor office and storage space and retail shop to remain as ancillary to the main use; require the parking spaces to be formally marked out on site; ensure the parking and vehicle circulation areas to be used for no other purpose and to be kept free of any obstruction; to prevent any car sales/ vehicle dismantling or any other uses other than as proposed; to ensure the existing/proposed gates at vehicular access are kept open during the operating hours; and to ensure any modifications to the existing footway crossing to be carried out to departmental specifications at applicant's expense.

Page 3 of 11

4.5. Regulatory Services - No objection subject to conditions to: secure opening hours to between 9am and 6pm Monday to Sunday (as applied for by the applicant); secure opening hours for the MOT to between 9am and 6pm Monday to Saturday; to require a contamination remediation scheme and contaminated land verification report; require a vehicle charging point; to limit the cumulative noise levels of all plant and machinery; and to prevent vehicle repairs being carried out outside of the building. It is also suggested that a condition can be recommended to ensure the rear doors remain shut when noisy activities are taking place, however MOT testing will require the car engines to be run and this may mean that the rear doors cannot be closed without mechanical extraction.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP (Adopted 2005), draft Birmingham Development Plan, 45 Degree Code, Car Parking Guidelines SPD, National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and the National Planning Practice Guidance.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Policy Context

6.2. The NPPF advises that all applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It seeks to encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed and to ensure new developments have a high quality design, a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants and are located in areas that make the fullest possible use of public transport.

6.3. Policies 3.8 and 3.10 of the adopted UDP seek to protect what is good in the City’s environment and states that proposals, which would have an adverse effect on the quality of the built environment, would not normally be allowed. Policy 3.14D seeks high quality design and requires the scale and design of new buildings and spaces to respect the area around them and reinforce local character.

6.4. Principle of use

6.5. Background Information and Principle of Use

6.6. The application site was formerly a printing office and was owned by the City Council. The site was advertised 'To Let' in September 2014 and was on the market for less than a year because there was no interest. Property Services within the Council have advised that the reason why there was no interest was due to the building "… being in a very dilapidated state which needed a significant amount of money to be spent on it". The Council then sold the site at auction in July 2015.

6.7. A planning application (reference 2015/08966/PA) was submitted in October 2015 for change of use of the building to a mixed use comprising an independent beauty salon and a MOT testing station, together with first floor front extension and two storey side and rear extensions. It was advised to the applicant that the beauty salon would not be supported because it was a main town centre use that would be located outside of an existing centre. The application was withdrawn in December 2015.

Page 4 of 11 6.8. The current application seeks to change the use of the printing office (B1) to a vehicle repair garage/MOT testing station with ancillary office accommodation and an ancillary retail shop selling spare car parts only. The Council encourages vehicle related uses such as vehicle repair garage and MOT testing stations within industrial areas and I have recommended a condition to ensure the retail shop and office accommodation remains ancillary to the primary use of the site as a vehicle repair garage/ MOT testing station.

6.9. I acknowledge that there is an existing vehicle repair garage with MOT testing located opposite the site and other similar uses within close proximity of the site. However, it is not a planning consideration to determine whether an area is saturated by one particular vehicle related business type. I am of the view that this proposed scheme would bring a vacant derelict B1 unit back into positive use, help to secure economic growth for Riland Industrial Estate and create job opportunities.

6.10. I therefore consider that the proposed vehicle repair garage/ MOT testing station with ancillary office accommodation and retail shop is acceptable in principle subject to the following site specific considerations in relation to the design and appearance of the proposed extensions and the impact of the proposed uses on highway safety; the amenity of nearby residents and on trees.

6.11. Design and Appearance

6.12. The NPPF advises in paragraph 56 that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Birmingham's UDP also states in Policy 3.14 that a high standard of design is essential to the continued improvement of Birmingham as a desirable place to live, work and visit. The design and landscaping of new developments will be expected to contribute to the enhancement of the City's environment. It also advises that good design may also help to promote and secure sustainable forms of development. In addition, policy PG3 for the emerging Birmingham Development Plan (BDP), as modified by the proposed main modification PMM4 consulted upon last year states ‘all new development will be expected to demonstrate high design quality, contributing to a strong sense of place’ and ‘make best use of existing buildings and efficient use of land in support of the overall development strategy’.

6.13. The proposed first floor front extension and two storey side and rear extensions would have a flat roof and would be in keeping with the scale, massing and building form of the existing building. Subject to a condition to ensure the building materials match the existing building, I am of the view that the proposed extensions are acceptable in terms of design and appearance. I also note that any future signs to the retail shop will require separate Advertisement Consent where the design and type of illumination will be considered in order to safeguard the amenity of the area and public safety.

6.14. Impact on Highway Safety

6.15. According to the Car Parking Guidelines SPD the maximum parking provision for the proposed use of the site would be 9 spaces, based upon 4 spaces per working bay and 1 space per 20sqm of retail use. The applicant intends to provide 10 car parking spaces and cycle storage, which would comply with the SPD.

6.16. I also note that the maximum parking provision for the existing use of the site as a B1 printing office is also 9 spaces and as such it is considered that the proposed use would not generate any additional parking demand on surrounding roads compared

Page 5 of 11 to the existing use. I therefore consider that the proposed parking provision at the site is sufficient for the proposed use and would not result in additional parking demand within the industrial estate to the detriment of highway safety.

6.17. Transportation Development have raised no objection to the application subject to a number of conditions and have advised that although the proposal is likely to increase traffic to and from the site compared to the existing use, it is considered that the level of increase in traffic is unlikely to have a significant impact on surrounding highways or parking demand. I concur with this view.

6.18. I also note that Transportation Development have recommended conditions to limit the number of working bays to a maximum of two (as proposed); to require the retail shop and first floor office and storage space to remain ancillary to the main use of the site; and to ensure no car sales/ vehicle dismantling or any other uses other than as proposed are carried out at the site. It is also recommended that the 10 proposed car parking spaces are formally marked out on the ground and kept clear of any obstruction and to ensure the gates at the vehicular gates are kept open during operating hours. I consider that these conditions are necessary and reasonable in the interest of highway safety and I have attached them accordingly.

6.19. Impact on Residential Amenity

6.20. The NPPF seeks to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants. The application site adjoins a residential property to the east and there are residential properties to the south of the site, on the opposite side of Coleshill Road.

6.21. The applicant has advised that the proposed use would operate between the hours of 9am and 6pm Monday to Sunday. I note that the existing vehicle repair garage/ MOT testing station (Basset Pole Service Station) located opposite the site operates between 8.30am and 6pm Monday to Saturday. I consider that it is necessary and reasonable to restrict the operating hours of the proposed uses to between 0800 and 1800 Monday to Saturday in order to be consistent with the opening hours of the adjacent MOT testing station and also to protect the adjoining residents from noise and disturbance on Sundays. Regulatory Services raise no objection to this application and also recommend that the MOT testing station should not operate on Sundays.

6.22. Regulatory Services also recommend conditions to require a specified noise level limit to be met for all plant and machinery; to prevent any vehicle repairs to be carried out externally; and to ensure the roller shutter doors to the workshop remain closed during vehicle repair work or MOT testing. I consider that these conditions are necessary and reasonable and have recommended these conditions accordingly.

6.23. In terms of the proposed extensions, the adjoining residential property has a single storey rear extension with a rear facing kitchen window and above this window is a first floor bathroom window. The proposed two-storey rear extension would comply with the 45 degree code. No first floor windows are proposed in the side and rear extensions to cause any loss of privacy to this residential property.

6.24. The proposed development would include the removal of the mound that is located along the entire length of the side boundary shared with the neighbouring property at 29 Coleshill Road and the site would be levelled before enlarging the car park and erecting the two-storey side and rear extensions. The proposed car park would be

Page 6 of 11 screened by the existing side boundary fence and subject to a condition to ensure the finished site levels are the same as the neighbouring residential property, I do not consider that there would be any overlooking from the proposed car park.

6.25. I also consider that there is adequate separation between the proposed first floor office windows in the front elevation of the proposed extension and the residential properties located opposite the site on Coleshill Road to ensure there is no overlooking.

6.26. Regulatory Services have also advised that the site was originally a gas works and have required a contamination remediation scheme and contaminated land verification report. I have recommended conditions accordingly.

6.27. Impact on Trees

6.28. I acknowledge that the site contained several mature trees prior to the submission of this planning application which helped to screen neighbouring residential properties from the adjoining industrial estate. I note that these trees were not protected by a tree preservation order and were located to the rear of the site. From my Officer's site visit there are still trees to the front of the site and I have recommended a condition to ensure no further tree works or removal of trees are carried out without the prior written approval of the local planning authority in order to safeguard residential amenity. I have also recommended a condition to ensure a replacement scheme of landscaping, including new trees are provided to the rear of the site to enhance the site and to mitigate the harm to neighbouring residents that has been caused as a result of the recent loss of trees.

6.29. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

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

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider that the proposed vehicle repair garage/ MOT testing station with ancillary retail shop and offices would be a compatible use within this industrial estate and would bring a vacant building back into positive use, provide economic growth and create job opportunities. I am of the view that the proposed use would generate a comparable parking demand to the existing use and subject to safeguarding conditions I do not consider that the proposed scheme would have a significant adverse impact on highway safety, the amenities of adjoining residents. I therefore consider that the proposed development would comply with relevant local and national planning policies.

8. Recommendation

8.1. I recommend approval subject to the following conditions:

1 Requires the prior submission of level details

2 Requires that the materials used match the main building

3 Requires the prior submission of hard and/or soft landscape details including replacement trees to rear of site.

Page 7 of 11

4 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

5 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

6 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

7 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

8 Limits the hours of use for the vehicle repair garage, MOT testing station and ancillary retail shop to between 0800 and 18:00 Monday to Saturday.

9 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

10 Requires the two roller shutters to remain closed during vehicle repair work and/or MOT testing of vehicles and motor cycles.

11 Prevents outside storage, outside vehicle repairs, car sales/ vehicle dismantling or any other uses other than as proposed.

12 Restricts the number of vehicle working ramps/bays to a maximum of two.

13 Restrict use of vehicle circulation areas and parking areas

14 Requires the retail shop and first floor office and storage accommodation to remain ancillary to the primary use of the site as a vehicle repair garage/ MOT testing station.

15 Requires the parking spaces to be formally marked on the ground.

16 Requires the gates at the vehicular access to be kept open during the opening hours.

17 Requires any modifications to the existing footway crossing to be carried out to Birmingham City Council's specifications at applicant's expense.

18 Protects the existing trees from tree works or removal.

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

20 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Helen Hawkes

Page 8 of 11 Photo(s)

Front elevation of existing building

Page 9 of 11

Rear elevation of existing building and rear of Site

Page 10 of 11 Location Plan

Page 11 of 11 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 03 March 2016

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Refuse 15 2015/09481/PA

Former Co-op Sports And Social Club Barrows Lane Yardley Birmingham B26 1SA

Defer – Informal Approval 16 2015/04560/PA

Former Hobmoor Primary School Site Hob Moor Road South Yardley Birmingham B25 8TN

Residential development for the erection of 36 dwellings with associated parking

Approve - Conditions 17 2015/08594/PA

344-348 Ladypool Road Balsall Heath Birmingham B12 8JY

Change of use from learning centre (D1) use to restaurant (A3) use, installation of extraction flue to rear

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Approve - Conditions 18 2015/09942/PA

2 Edwards Road Erdington Birmingham B24 9EP

Change of use from vacant launderette (Sui Generis) to hot food takeaway (Use class A5), new shop front and extraction flue.

Approve - Conditions 19 2015/08570/PA

11A-11B The Drive Erdington Birmingham B23 7NG

Retrospective consent for the conversion of existing single storey wing into two self-contained apartments.

Defer – Informal Approval 20 2016/00036/PA

2259 Coventry Road Sheldon Birmingham B26 3PD

Variation of condition 4 attached to planning approval ref:- 2011/01688/PA to allow deliveries to the premises between 0600 - 2300 hours Monday to Saturday

Determine 21 2015/03504/PA

8-16 High Street Erdington Birmingham B23 6RH

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a three-storey mixed use building comprising three retail stores and twenty-six apartments with associated parking and landscaping.

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/09481/PA Accepted: 13/11/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 11/03/2016 Ward: Stechford and Yardley North

Former Co-op Sports And Social Club, Barrows Lane, Yardley, Birmingham, B26 1SA

Hybrid planning application (part full and part outline) comprising: 1. Full planning application for the demolition of sports and social club and development of replacement and improved facilities. 2. Outline planning application of enabling residential development for up to 82 dwellings Applicant: Central England Co-operative c/o Agent Agent: Brooke Smith Planning The Cloisters, 12 George Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 1NP Recommendation Refuse

1. Proposal

1.1. This hybrid application consists of two elements, one being a detailed full proposal and the other being an outline proposal. The full planning application relates to the northern end of the site fronting Barrows Lane and the replacement of the existing sports facilities, involving the erection of a new sports hall and the creation of a new 35m by 35m multi-use games area (MUGA) as well as retaining the existing cricket pitch and a bowling green. The facilities would also include designated formal parking for 4 school buses as well as 64 car parking spaces and 4 spaces for disabled badge holders. The existing access off Barrows Lane would be widened and the existing clubhouse demolished. The MUGA would be located to the north of the access, with new landscaping fronting Barrows Lane, whilst the new sports hall would replace the existing informal car park and the bowling green closest to the existing clubhouse. The coach and car parking would occupy part of the former tennis courts / overspill parking area

1.2. The sports hall would measure some 54.5m long by 25m wide by 10.5m high and finished in timber cladding. The building would accommodate a 33.5m by 24.5m by 7.5m high sports hall, as well as changing rooms (including outdoor cricket changing) and a reception and lounge to the ground floor. To the first floor would be a gym and studio leading to a full width balcony to the north elevation overlooking the cricket pitch. The application indicates that the facility would be adopted as the ‘Sport for Life! International Sports and Cricket Centre, which would provide a premium destination for the global sports, health and education programmes that the charity run. The application also includes an off-site financial contribution of £285,000 towards junior football provision.

Page 1 of 18 1.3. The applicant advises that in order to fund the proposal and enable them to be brought forward the scheme would require developing part of the wider site for housing and this forms the outline element. The applicant adds that without this element the sports facilities would not be in a position to be brought to fruition due to viability limitations. This land consists of the existing football pitches and part of the former tennis courts / overspill parking, located to the south of the site, wedged between Lodge Drive, Cranfield Grove and Charlbury to the south and Vibart Road to the north.

1.4. The residential proposal is for up to 82 dwellings and the layout and density (39 x 2 bed semi-detached, 34 x 3 bed semi-detached and 9 x 4 bed detached) details accompanying the application are indicative only. Access is shown by means of the widened entrance off Barrows Lane forming part of the detailed application element. The residential element does not include an offer for affordable housing or any off- site financial contributions towards public open space and play facilities.

1.5. Furthermore, the application highlights that the projected low profit attributed to this scheme reinforces the philanthropic nature of the applicant, and that the development is being pursued in light of an identified need and is purely for community and social gain.

1.6. The following have been submitted in support of the application:

• Planning Statement • Design & Access Statement • Open Space and Playing Field Assessment • Assessment of Sports Facilities and Demand • Statement of Community Involvement • Community Sports Centre Development Report • Arboricultural Assessment • Sustainable Drainage Assessment & Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan • Transport Statement and Travel Plan • Ecology Assessment • Bat Survey • Ground Investigation Report • Viability Appraisal • Residential Market Report

1.7. The proposals have been screened under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 and there is no requirement for an Environmental Assessment. A previous application (2014/08666/PA) of a similar nature was submitted in December 2014 and was withdrawn in February 2015.

1.8. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is a sports and social club consisting of a cricket pitch, 2 football pitches, 2 bowling greens and a 2-storey club house. The site also includes former tennis courts. The site is currently privately managed by Sports for Life! International, with support from Central England Co-Operative Limited, and serves a community sports membership. The club house is in a deteriorating state and

Page 2 of 18 provides poor facilities. The ground floor comprises basic changing facilities, whilst the first floor provides a former bar, meeting room and kitchen, which are now out of use.

2.2. The majority of the site is relatively flat though there is a gentle fall from west to east. More significant is a change in levels of some 3m between the 2 football pitches. Surrounding the site are residential properties, predominantly dating from the inter- war period with shared rear access ways and unrestricted on-street parking. Access is via a gated entrance off Barrows Lane. There is a mixture of vegetation and security fencing along the site’s boundary.

2.3. Site location

3. Planning History

3.1. 02/07/1981 - 08941008. Change of use from sports ground with attendant facilities to housing development. Refused on the grounds of loss of open space and sports pitches.

3.2. 24/02/2015 (withdrawn) – 2014/08666/PA. Hybrid planning application (part full and part outline) comprising: 1) Full planning application for the demolition of sports and social club and development of replacement and improved sports facilities. 2) Outline planning application for enabling residential development of up to 82 dwelling houses and associated access.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – The access does not provide satisfactory/continuity of pedestrian facilities, the parking layout is revised to reduce the number of access points on the bend, need for further swept path analysis, and need to consider a 7.3m wide carriageway up to within 180m of the end of the residential cul-de-sac.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection subject to conditions relating to contamination, extraction and odour control, hours of use to the MUGA, no floodlighting to the MUGA and electric vehicle charging points.

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

4.4. Leisure Services – Object unless there are exceptional circumstances whereby compensatory sums would be required for the playing fields (£207,930) and bowling green (£48,300). Creation of 82 dwellings (207 people) would require POS and play area contribution of £167,800.

4.5. Sport England – Advise that they would remove their holding objection subject to a £285,000 off-site financial contribution.

4.6. Natural England – No comments.

4.7. Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to condition relating to the disposal of foul and surface water flows.

Page 3 of 18 4.8. West Midlands Fire Service – Need to consider a 7.3m wide carriageway up to within 180m of the end of the residential cul-de-sac to enable satisfactory access of emergency service vehicles.

4.9. Neighbouring residential properties, local residents, Councillors and MP consulted with site and press notices posted.

4.10. Objection received from Councillor Neil Eustace on the following grounds:

• loss of green open spaces • the ward is already below the minimum open space provision • loss of sports provision previously rented out to outside sports teams • land unstable for house building due to landfill • problems with flooding • capacity of local sewerage systems • over-intensive development • inadequate access

4.11. Petition received containing 982 signatures objecting to the application on the grounds of inadequate consultation with the local community, inappropriate consultation period over Christmas and the loss of playing fields.

4.12. 73 representations received from local residents objecting to the application on the following grounds:

• Over-intensive development • Loss of playing fields and sports facilities • Loss of open space which is below minimum standard • Impact on wildlife • Loss of trees • Increase in noise and light pollution • Loss of views • Loss of privacy and light and overshadowing • Increase in traffic, congestion and parking • Adverse impact on highway safety • Football teams have been discouraged to use the playing fields • Facilities have been allowed to become run-down • Flooding to existing houses and sewerage problems • Schools, GPs and hospitals are over-subscribed • Worsen air pollution • Devalue property • Inadequate and flawed consultation with the local community containing a biased survey • Inaccurate statements relating to consultation with local community and the situation locally • Inappropriate to have consultation period over the Christmas period and inadequate consultation over amendments. • Brownfield should be built upon first • Land was built-up after WWII and is unstable • Area is already saturated with housing • Increase in crime and anti-social behaviour • Design of sports hall is not in keeping • Consider environmentally friendly options (e.g. orchard, small farm holding)

Page 4 of 18 • Covenant on the land preventing development • Conflict of interest as some political parties receive funding from the applicant • Retirement homes would have a lesser impact • Noise and disturbance during and after construction • Unclear if rear access road would be removed • Proposal should utilise a different access • Not allocated for homes in the Local Plan • No guarantee the sports facilities would be built • Concerns over the actions of the operator, site owner and their representatives • Inappropriate study area for the sports assessment • Reports in the press that there are 36,000 houses in the West Midlands with planning permission which should be built first before building on greenfield land • People and football clubs are willing to utilize and maintain the site.

4.13. 1 representation has been received supporting the application in terms of needing to provide more homes and a new sports facility.

4.14. 1 representation received from Birmingham Community Healthcare Trust advising that Sports for Life! International supports their vision and keen to facilitate the delivery of the health message to children and families. The emergence of this facility as a family engagement hub seems to be very supportive of the way in which communities will engage with improving health and wellbeing at a local level.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Places for All SPG, Places for Living SPG, Mature Suburbs SPD, Car Parking Guidelines SPG, Affordable Housing SPG, Public Open Space in New Residential Development SPD, Parks and Open Space Strategy SPD, Playing Pitch Strategy and the NPPF.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The NPPF is clear that “the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development… There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles:

• an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; • a social role – supporting strong vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and • an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment…”.

6.2. At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless

Page 5 of 18 material considerations indicate otherwise. The current statutory Development Plan is the UDP and the Draft Birmingham Development Plan is at an advanced stage and as such holds some weight as a material consideration. The proposal raises a variety of planning-related matters which are discussed below.

6.3. Loss of playing fields / open space:

6.4. The NPPF (paragraph 73) recognises 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”. It adds that “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”. Furthermore, the NPPF (paragraph 74) adds that “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 quality and quantity in a suitable location; or • The development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss”.

6.5. The UDP (paragraph 3.52a) advises that “…the loss of open space will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances… the City Council will take account of the availability of public open space nearby, its quality, and how well it meets local needs”. It is unlikely exceptional circumstances will be demonstrated where existing public open space provision falls below the standard 2ha per 1000 population and/or there would be a loss of land from the open space network. Where exceptional circumstances can be demonstrated “… an appropriate recreational community benefit of equal value to compensate for the open space loss, that is at least as accessible to current and potential users, and at least equivalent in terms of size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality”.

6.6. The UDP (paragraph 3.55) advises that “a standard of 1.2 hectares per 1000 population of playing fields provision (excluding education playing fields) will be used to assess the adequacy of existing playing field provision across the City”. The UDP (paragraph 3.57) adds that the “development of such playing fields will not normally be allowed particularly in areas which fall significantly below the 1.2 hectares playing field provision per 1000 population. 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… Planning permission will not be granted for development simply because a playing field has fallen out of use and become derelict”.

6.7. Policy TP9 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan is similar and advises that “planning permission will not normally be granted for development on open space except where:

Page 6 of 18 • 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 1000 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 smaller 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.

Playing fields will be protected and will only be considered for development where they are either shown to be surplus for playing field use, taking into account 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”.

6.8. The Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy identifies that there are deficiencies in football provision within the Yardley district, equating to around 5-6 adult pitches. Currently there are no dedicated mini pitches to meet demand and a shortage in junior football. This is offset by a surplus in adult facilities. Furthermore, quality is generally poor with only 1 in 5 pitches rated ‘good’ and access to changing rooms is also a key concern. Regarding cricket, the Strategy identifies that cricket provision is currently assessed to be adequate with a small surplus, although potentially more provision in the area would allow further development of the Birmingham Cricket League.

6.9. The Open Space and Playing Field Assessment (November 2014) submitted in support of the application recognises that the area coverage of playing fields would be reduced and argues the need for the development subject to the application and benefits that will accompany it outweighs this loss. It identifies that Yardley District suffers from a deficiency in sports hall, indoor facilities for basketball, netball and badminton and junior football provision. It also adds that there is an identified concern regarding quality of existing land and lack and quality of changing facilities as well as claiming that the current facilities are not considered of a high quality by the local football teams who use the site. Their Assessment argues the proposal would address these deficiencies through the development of a new multi-pitch sports hall, outdoor MUGA pitch, gymnasium and multiple changing rooms, in addition to further ancillary facilities which will greatly enhance the quality of services and facilities on site. It also argues that the benefits and improvements would not only be gained by existing site users but also open up sporting opportunities to the wider community.

6.10. The application is also accompanied by an Assessment of Sports Facilities and Demand (October 2015) which identifies and analyses the existing supply against current and future demand for football and cricket within a 3 mile radius which equates to on average to a 15 minute drive. It identified that there are currently 70 formal football teams and 15 formal cricket teams within the study area. Regarding football, the assessment identifies that there is a surplus of full sized football pitches within the study area during peak periods of play and as such there is a sufficient supply of pitches locally to meet the current demand. However, there is a deficiency of football pitches providing for youth or mini level across the study area. It is

Page 7 of 18 argued that as the existing pitches subject to this application are full size football pitches, this issue would not be exacerbated by the current proposal. The applicant adds that the proposals will actually address this issue as it is proposed that pitches for youth and mini play would be marked out on the cricket outfield during the football season, once the cricket season has finished. Looking at future supply in light of anticipated demands, the assessment highlights that a surplus of full sized pitches will remain across the study area and the loss of 2 full sized pitches would not be detrimental / have no adverse impact upon the existing, or future, supply against demand. It adds that cricket is anticipated to see an increase in participation rates and therefore demand, which the proposal will actually help to address this issue through the provision of the new indoor sports hall, providing a quality facility for indoor cricket and allowing cricket to be played year round.

6.11. The applicant has had regular detailed discussions with Sport England, the Football Association and English Cricket Board since the previous application was withdrawn. Sport England considers the methodology of the applicant’s assessments to be sound and is in general agreement with their findings. Sport England issued a holding objection due to the absence of a suitable mitigation package to address the identified deficiency of youth football provision. The applicant has subsequently made an offer for an off-site financial contribution of £285,000. Discussions with the Football Association has identified that the money could contribute towards a new 3G facility at Saltley Leisure Centre. Sport England are now in a position to remove their holding objection to the application subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement to secure this off-site mitigation.

6.12. It is also noted that the Council’s most up-to-date figures (May 2013) indicates a public and private playing field provision of 0.4 hectares per 1000 population in Stechford and Yardley North. This is significantly below the 1.2 hectares playing field provision per 1000 population standard and the proposal would further worsen this position. Furthermore, the public open space provision is 1.67 hectares per 1000 population, which is below the 2 hectares public open space provision per 1000 population standard.

6.13. The Playing Pitch Strategy is of significance here as it is area-based on specific existing and future demands for individual sports with site specific recommendations. Whilst the ward provision is below the playing field provision standard it has been sufficiently demonstrated that there is a surplus of full size adult football playing fields in the locality. Furthermore, there is adequate cricket provision and regarding rugby and hockey demand is currently met through clubs accessing provision outside of the locality. Priority sites are identified at Oaklands Recreation Ground, Gilberstone Recreation Ground, Lyndon Playing Fields and King George V Memorial Field. Therefore to comply with policy the loss resulting from the proposal needs to be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quality and quantity in a suitable location. An off-site financial contribution of £285,000 towards junior football has been offered which is considered to be an appropriate level of compensation. The suggested location of this spend is a new 3G facility at Saltley Leisure Centre, which is within Bordesley Green Ward, some 1km from the boundary with Stechford and Yardley North Ward and some 2.6km from the application site. This is considered a suitable compensatory provision for a form of football of which there is a recognised deficiency that is within a reasonable catchment of the application site and the wider ward. Receipt of this sum would address Sport England’s holding objection.

6.14. The proposal would also result in the loss of open space and consideration needs to be given to the land meeting other open space deficiencies. The Ward has a

Page 8 of 18 provision of 1.67ha of public open space per 1000 population. Whilst this is below the minimum standard of 2 ha per 1000 population it is noted that the application site and the southern section of the ward is well served by significant areas of public open space both within the ward as well as in adjoining wards. Old Yardley Park is some 250m to the north, whilst Gilberstone Recreation Ground (Sheldon) is 450m to the south and Oaklands Recreation Ground (South Yardley) is 815m to the southwest. These large areas of public open space have good access and contain a variety of sport, leisure and recreational facilities. Furthermore, it is considered that the football playing fields would not be an appropriate area of public open space as it is in a back land location detached from the public realm and surrounded by rear gardens and shared rear accesses.

6.15. Housing element / need:

6.16. In addition to the provision of the new sports facilities, the applicant is placing significant emphasis on that the proposal would also deliver much needed housing. The applicant also argues that without the new sports facilities, the housing would not be delivered.

6.17. A key objective of the NPPF (paragraph 47) is to boost significantly the supply of housing. The Draft Birmingham Development Plan reflects this and it is predicted that by 2031 the City’s population will rise by 150,000 resulting in an increase of 80,000 households. Policy PG1 seeks to deliver 51,000 homes over the plan period. It is expected that a minimum of 80% of all new homes provided will be built on previously developed land. In assessing the land supply for the new housing it is recognised that the provision will include unidentified windfall sites. Policy GA8 identifies the Easter Triangle as a growth area to deliver regeneration and around 1000 new homes. A number of projects areas are identified to deliver positive change and theses are Stechford, The Meadway and Shard End. The application site falls within this growth area boundary but is not specifically allocated.

6.18. Regarding the location of new housing, the UDP (paragraph 5.25C) and the Draft Birmingham Development Plan (Policy TP27) seeks, amongst others, that they should be accessible to jobs, shops, and services by modes of transport other than the car. On the basis that the loss of the playing fields meets planning policy (as discussed above) it is considered that the residential development of the site is an appropriate use in principle. The site is located within an established residential area and existing housing backs onto the site on three sides with good access to local shops, services and public transport links.

6.19. New Sports Facilities / sporting element:

6.20. Paragraph 69 of the NPPF highlights that “the planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities”. It is recognised that the new sports facilities would provide a much wider range of sports and recreational activities. The sports hall would provide for bowls, cricket, 5-a-side football, futsal and netball. The studio would allow for yoga, dance, pilates, Zumba and fitness classes. The building also accommodates a cardio vascular gym, changing facilities, public viewing area and terrace, ancillary café and lounge / seating area, and a soundproof recording and interview room. Outside a bowling green currently in use would been retained and enhanced, with the other bowling green lost, the existing cricket field will be retained and enhanced and a new MUGA provided. Sport England have been in dialogue with the applicant over the design of the new sports facilities and it should also be noted that the sports

Page 9 of 18 hall space and MUGA do not constitute any form of mitigation for the loss of the 2 adult football playing fields.

6.21. The provision of enhanced sports facilities at this established sports hub is acceptable in principle, being in accordance with objectives to enhance existing and provide new sporting facilities for use by the community. The sporting facilities would result in the loss of the currently unused bowling green but the crown bowling green would be retained. The loss of this bowling green is considered acceptable as the other green, which is in use, would be retained and the new facilities would represent significant greater provision of long-term recreational benefit. As such, the request for an off-site financial contribution of £48,300 for the loss of the bowling green is not necessary as adequate compensation would be provided on-site.

6.22. Visual amenity:

6.23. Sports element: The detailed proposal would see a significant change in the current appearance of the site when viewed from Barrows Lane and surrounding residential properties. The existing club house would be demolished to enable a widened access. To the north of the access would be the MUGA and in the approximate location of the closest bowling green to Barrows Lane the new build sports hall would be located. To the immediate south of the new sports hall and the second bowling green (to be retained), would be parking, including coach parking. The current club house is 2-storey and is of a domestic scale and appearance. Whilst the proposed sports hall is larger in terms of footprint and height with an appearance of a modern community facility, it is considered appropriate within the context of an established sports hub. Likewise the provision of parking, including coach parking, and a MUGA is also acceptable associated development. The visual impact of the contrast in size and appearance of sports hall on surrounding residential properties would be softened by its central location within this part of the site as well as new landscaping, particularly along the boundary with Barrows Lane adjacent to the proposed MUGA. It is considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on visual amenity, including the character of the area, to such an extent that it could sustain a reason for refusal.

6.24. Residential element: Whilst this aspect is in outline only, and the layout plan is indicative, it seeks to illustrate that up to 82 dwellings could be accommodated on the site in a manner that would create an acceptable residential development. The layout achieves good urban design principles with regard to the creation of strong perimeter blocks with back gardens backing on to each other and a good level of natural surveillance and security to the public realm. It is considered that the application demonstrates that the site could accommodate the proposed level of residential development in a manner which would have an acceptable impact on the character of the area.

6.25. Residential amenity:

6.26. Sporting element: The site is an established sports and community hub whereby a variety of sporting activities are undertaken during different times of the day and throughout the year. This would remain under the proposal with many of the new sporting activities taking place within the new sports hall, which would substantially contain any associated noise. More noticeable would be the new MUGA where there is currently no pitch. It is noted that no flood lights are proposed. The wider range of facilities and provision of dedicated coach parking as well as car parking is likely to increase comings and goings, particularly over and above the site’s existing usage. However, within the context of the existing use on the site it is considered

Page 10 of 18 that the sporting element would not have an unacceptably adverse impact on neighbour amenity that could justify a reason for refusal. Regulatory Services raise no objection subject to safeguarding conditions relating to extraction and odour control details, restricting the hours of use of the MUGA to 0830-1900hours on any day and no floodlights.

6.27. At its closest the sports hall would be some 47m from Barrows Lane and 25m from the rear boundary of the closest residential property (48 Barrows Lane), which is also in the applicants’ ownership, and 46m from the rear boundary of the closest residential property on Vibart Road. This arrangement, and associated separation distances, would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, light or outlook.

6.28. Residential element: Taking into account, changes in ground levels, the presence of shared accesses between the site and private garden boundaries with adjoining houses, and the length of existing gardens, it is considered that a housing scheme, incorporating the design principles set out on the indicative layout could meet minimum separation / setback distances as well as garden sizes detailed in ‘Places for Living’ thereby safeguarding neighbour amenity and also provide adequate amenity for future occupiers.

6.29. Highway safety:

6.30. A Transport Assessment has been submitted in support of the hybrid application including junction capacity assessment, which concludes that:

• The highway network is adequate to support the vehicle movements for the proposed development, so as not to be detrimental to highway safety’ • No mitigation measures are required; and • The development does not result in residual cumulative impact of development that is severe and thus should not be refused on transport grounds.

6.31. The access off Barrows Lane, which would serve both the sport and residential elements, would be widened to 6.75m. ‘Car Parking Guidelines’ SPD seeks 1 space per 22sqm (Area 3) as well as the provision for coaches. The sports hall building would have a floor area in the region of 1700sqm which equates to 77 spaces. The proposal consists of 64 parking spaces plus 4 disabled spaces (68 total) as well as dedicated provision for 4 buses. Whilst the residential layout is only indicative it shows detached and semi-detached properties with space to the side that could accommodate 200% parking provision.

6.32. Transportation Development has assessed the submission and advises that the proposed access details do not include satisfactory provision/continuity of pedestrian facilities. There is particular concern the lack of footway adjacent to the northern side of the proposed 6.75m wide carriageway would compromise pedestrian safety to the proposed residential development and a 2m wide footway should be sought along both side of the access road into the residential element of the scheme. Transportation Development has also raised concerns over the number of access points on the bend and further swept path analysis at the modified site access and through the double-bend is required.

6.33. Transportation Development has also expressed concern over the width of the new access and that consideration needs to be given to the provision of a 7.3m wide carriageway up to within 180m of the end of the residential cul-de-sac. This is

Page 11 of 18 because there appears to be no scope for a secondary access or emergency link. West Midlands Fire Service concurs with this stance. In view of these factors it is considered that the proposal does not adequately demonstrate suitable provision for safe pedestrian movement, confirmation of satisfactory visibility and confirmation of satisfactory access for emergency service vehicles, and represents a reason for refusal.

6.34. Planning obligations/viability/enabling development

6.35. The application exceeds thresholds in relation to affordable housing (15 units) as well as public open space and play facilities (20 units). Policy contained within ‘Affordable Housing’ SPG seeks a minimum of 25% social housing and 10% low cost housing. ‘Public open space in new residential development’ SPD seeks, where practical to do so, that new public open space is provided on site. In addition, there are circumstances where it may be preferable for the public open space to be provided as an off-site monetary contribution. Such circumstances include new development being in close proximity to existing public open space or it may not be practicable to provide on-site. The NPPF (paragraph 173) places significant emphasis on ensuring viability and deliverability, adding that the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable. Furthermore, the proposal is a non CIL liable development and as such does not attract a CIL contribution.

6.36. The applicant is explicit that the residential element is enabling development to deliver the sports facilities proposed and one would not be delivered without the other. Enabling development is a form of planning benefit when a development is proposed to which there would normally be policy objection, but it is argued that planning benefit would be secured by a cross-subsidy to land or buildings in the same control/ownership. It is normal practice to for financial statements to be submitted in support of the application to show why a cross subsidy is needed and why the type and size of the enabling development is necessary to close the funding gap.

6.37. The applicant highlights in their submission that “the enhancements of sporting facilities on the site will require significant funding in order to provide the premium site that is both sustainable and of first class standards. The finances that are associated with this beneficial improvement are a considerable constraint that would require huge levels of funding to be raised”. They advise that multiple opportunities to acquire funding have been explored over a number of years, with little success. Furthermore, they claim that “… ‘enabling on-site development’ is the only realistic means of securing the capital to cover development costs… Given the current state and deteriorating quality of the existing sports facilities, the site is in urgent need of improvements in order for it to operate to its greatest potential possible as a sporting facility. The existing facilities are not sustainable and are of little benefit to the wider local community. The enabling residential development is therefore fundamental to this scheme”. A viability appraisal was undertaken, having regard to housing density and tenure, and “to accommodate a level of enabling development that would fund the new sports facilities, a relatively large area of land would be required. The location, size, poor quality and low environmental value of the football pitches determined this land to be the most appropriate”.

6.38. With regard to the submitted viability results, the applicant argues that “… any provision of affordable housing would deem the development unviable and would

Page 12 of 18 prevent the sports facilities coming forwards”. The applicant also adds that the Gross Development Value is at such a level that in normal circumstances, the scheme would still be considered unviable and that they are not pursing this development for financial gain… the rational is to enhance and improve the quality of the site as a key sporting facility within the local area”. The applicant recognises that activity on the site is declining and “… if the new facilities cannot be brought forward, it will only be a matter of time before the site is forced to shut and the local community is left with a large vacant site”.

6.39. The applicant’s viability appraisal has included the purchase price of the residential land, associated fees, developments costs for the residential new build and sports facilities, external costs preliminaries and abnormal costs, finance costs as well as the revenue from the residential new build. The viability appraisal submitted with the application calculated a substantial negative Gross Development Value Profit margin. This appraisal has been independently assessed on behalf of the Council and there have been extensive discussions with the applicant regarding the matter of viability. It is noted that their viability appraisal does not include the land cost and value to the new sports facilities which is considered an inconsistent approach. The applicant advises that this is due to the unique circumstances surrounding the projected low profit attributed to the scheme which reinforces their philanthropic nature and demonstrates that the development is being pursued in light of an identified need and is purely for community and social gain. It should be noted that the land associated with the residential element, which would be sold to a house builder to fund the new sports facilities, would need to include an appropriate profit margin to enable it to be deliverable.

6.40. In undertaking the independent assessment, the approach has been to first assess the viability of the residential element to see what the residual value of a policy- compliant residential scheme would be and how this compares with the estimated development costs of the sports facilities (circa £3.5m). It was also requested that the house type and size were amended as it was considered that it would reflect the mix that would be sought by a private house builder and the necessary sizes to meet minimum floor areas given in ‘Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard’. It was also considered that the plots shown on the indicative layouts could accommodate this new mix and still have adequate garden sizes and meet relevant separation/setback distances to existing neighbouring properties.

6.41. The independent appraisal calculated that a policy-compliant (35% affordable housing and £225,000 POS financial contribution – an increase from the figure given by Leisure Services to reflect the amended house types) residential scheme would be viable. The appraisal does not include the £285,000 off-site financial contribution towards junior football detailed elsewhere in this report. The residual land value indicated in the independent appraisal would however be a significant amount short of the estimated development cost of the new sports facilities. The independent appraisal does not match with the applicant’s appraisal on a number of points including development costs, including abnormals, property values and house builder profit levels. However it is not uncommon for such appraisals to not match each other precisely. What is evident is that a policy-compliant residential element would not provide a capital receipt to cover all the costs of the proposed sport facilities.

6.42. Planning Balance Exercise:

6.43. The concept of enabling development to deliver new and enhanced sports and leisure facilities is an established practice. Likewise the re-negotiation of affordable

Page 13 of 18 housing provision is also considered acceptable in principle (Section 7 of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013) and enables modification or discharge of affordable housing requirements where S106 planning obligations determines a development to be economically unviable. Furthermore, the DCLG publication ‘Section 106 Affordable Housing Requirements: Review and Appeal (2013)’ also recognises that unrealistic contributions can be an obstacle to house building.

6.44. Firstly looking at the residential element, the justification for the loss of these playing fields has been demonstrated with suitable off-site mitigation. The proposed on-site sports facilities would not actually directly contribute to the mitigation the loss of these playing fields. Therefore, in theory, the playing fields could be developed by a house builder with reasonable profit margins and deliver a level of affordable housing and POS contributions. Say, for example, the applicant received a capital receipt in the region of the residual land value indicated in the independent appraisal there would still be a sizeable shortfall in the estimated development costs of the new sports facilities. This raises the question whether this outstanding figure could be secured by other means, such as through finance based on their business model. Requests about the value of the completed sports facilities within the context of the viability appraisal have been repeatedly requested but have not been forthcoming. Discussions have also taken place regarding reducing the level of the sports facilities accommodation, and thereby reduce the development costs, but the applicant advises that the proposal represents the minimum provision required for the sports hub. The applicant is also explicitly clear that the residential element would not occur without the sporting facilities taking place and only a residential consent with no planning obligations would deliver the necessary funds to deliver these sports facilities.

6.45. There are clear benefits associated with the proposal with the creation of new and enhanced sports facilities as well as the provision of housing on a windfall site, the type of which may be crucial to assist with the required new housing figures identified in the Draft Birmingham Development Plan. However, what is also of significant relevance are the Council’s identified priorities. There is a clear need for housing, including affordable housing, in all parts of the City, whereas the provision of new cricket facilities (noting that it could accommodate a number of sports but is predominantly cricket-focused) would not meet an identified need in the locality. Therefore, this proposed enabling development would pay for a sports facility with no identified need within the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy at the expense of providing affordable housing of which there is a demand for and is supported by planning policy. Whilst the approach of the applicant to provide a new sports facility at no financial gain is to be applauded and that the new housing on a windfall site contributing to the City’s housing provision is fully recognised, this would be at the cost of the lack of S106 planning obligations, most noticeably affordable housing. Applying the planning balance exercise it is considered that the adverse impact of non-compliance with S106 obligations outweighs the identified benefits of the application’s proposals.

6.46. Other matters:

6.47. Habitat and Bat Surveys have been submitted in support of the application which identify that, with the exception of the hedgerows, habitats within the site are of low ecological value. In addition the retention of the hedgerows are important to maintain habitat connectivity for species within the wider area. A stand of Japanese Knotweed is also present at the north east corner of the football playing fields. Furthermore, there was no bat roosting recorded and only limited foraging. The City Ecologist has assessed the submissions and raises no objection subject to

Page 14 of 18 conditions relating to a further bat survey if demolition has not occurred by the end of April 2016, a scheme for ecological/biodiversity enhancements and a method statement for the removal or long-term management / eradication of Japanese Knotweed on the site.

6.48. The Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan submitted with the application advises that the development would provide Sustainable Drainage Systems for the site to attenuate storm water runoff in the form of a permeable pavement car park and a balancing pond. The assessment identifies that the ground is unlikely to be suitable for infiltration drainage techniques. The Lead Local Drainage Authority raises no objection subject to sustainable drainage related conditions.

6.49. In relation to an electric vehicle charging point condition, as requested by Regulatory Services, the objective of this condition is noted but it would not meet the necessary tests for planning conditions and its omission would not make the application unacceptable.

6.50. Concerns relating to the impact of this development on local services/infrastructure are noted. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a charge on new buildings and is a mechanism to ensure certain types of new development contribute to the infrastructure needed to support that development. Education facilities are now raised from CIL liable development. The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The application has demonstrated that there is a surplus of full size adult football playing fields in the locality and subject to the off-site financial contribution towards junior football the proposal complies with planning policy in relation to loss of playing fields. On this basis, the residential development of the playing fields is an appropriate use for the site, in principle, and there are no policy objections, in principle, to the provision of new and enhanced sports facilities on the remainder of the application site. These two elements would have no adverse impact on visual or neighbour amenity.

7.2. The residential element is presented as enabling development as substantial funds are required to deliver the sports facilities. The applicant has supported this with a viability appraisal, arguing that only a residential consent with no planning obligations (e.g. affordable housing and POS contributions) would deliver the necessary funds. The Council has had this independently assessed and is of the opinion that the residential element in isolation could deliver planning obligations and still be viable. There are some disagreements between the parties over the scheme’s viability but it is clear that a policy-compliant residential scheme would not generate sufficient revenue to fund the new sports facilities as proposed. Whilst there are benefits with the development, the lack of affordable housing, of which there is clear need for in the city, would pay for the financial shortfall in the sports facilities, of which there is not an identified need for in the locality. Applying the planning balance exercise, it is considered that the adverse impact of non- compliance with S106 planning obligations outweighs the benefits associated with the application’s proposal and as such should be refused.

7.3. In addition the proposal does not adequately demonstrate that there would be suitable provision for safe pedestrian movement, or confirmation of satisfactory

Page 15 of 18 forward visibility and confirmation of satisfactory access for emergency service vehicles.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Refuse.

Reasons for Refusal

1 The residential element of the proposal represents an unacceptable form of enabling development as it would deliver new sports facilities, of which there is not an identified need, at the expense of Section 106 Planning Obligations in the form of appropriate affordable housing and public open space / play facilities. This is contrary to Policies 3.53B, 3.61, 520c and 5.37A-G of the Birmingham UDP 2005, Affordable Housing SPG,Public Open Space and New Residential Development SPD, Policies TP9 and TP30 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan 2031 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 It has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposal would have suitable provision for safe pedestrian movement, or confirmation of satisfactory forward visibility and confirmation of satisfactory access for emergency service vehicles. As such the proposal would be contrary to Paragraphs 3.8, 3.10 and 6.39 of the Birmingham UDP 2005 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Case Officer: Peter Barton

Page 16 of 18 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Existing access off Barrows Lane

Figure 2 – Football playing fields looking west from eastern boundary

Page 17 of 18 Location Plan

Page 18 of 18

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/04560/PA Accepted: 08/01/2016 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 08/04/2016 Ward: South Yardley

Former Hobmoor Primary School Site, Hob Moor Road, South Yardley, Birmingham, B25 8TN

Residential development for the erection of 36 dwellings with associated parking Applicant: Mr N Sunner c/o Agent Agent: The Tyler-Parkes Partnership Ltd 66 Stratford Road, Shirley, Solihull, West Midlands, B90 3LP Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

1.1. Full planning application for the erection of 36 dwelling houses consisting of 6no. 1- bed apartments (single 3-storey block), 5no. 2-bed houses (2-storey semi-detached and terrace units), 8no. 3-bed houses (2.5-storey semi-detached and terrace units) and 17 no. 4-bed houses (2.5-storey semi-detached and terrace units). The proposed properties would form an inverted perimeter block, facing onto a central courtyard and accessed off Hob Moor Road between no. 552 and the access to the service yard to the Yew Tree Retail Park. The application includes a feature at the access off Hob Moor Road consisting of a landscaped / pergola structure to frame the entrance to the new residential road. Private gardens would be to the rear of the properties backing onto the site’s boundary and neighbouring private back gardens and the private commercial rear yards.

1.2. The external appearance of the properties takes a contemporary approach on traditional vernaculars such as pitched roofs, terraces and dormer windows. The central courtyard would create a communal space with all front doors onto this shared space. The courtyard would incorporate different materials types, colours and tactile surfaces to demarcate pedestrian routes, parking spaces and vehicular routes. The courtyard would include 61 parking spaces, which is a 170% parking provision, which is based on 100% provision for 1 and 2-bed units and 200% provision for 3 and 4-bed units. The proposal represents a density of 46 dwellings per hectare.

1.3. The application was originally submitted as an outline application for 34 dwellings but has subsequently been amended to a full planning application for 36 dwellings. The applicant has offered £90,000 towards public open space and play facilities. A Viability Appraisal, Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Noise Assessment, Transport Statement, Tree Survey, Ecology Appraisal and Sustainable Drainage Assessment have been submitted in support of the application.

Page 1 of 12

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The 0.78ha application site is largely rectangular in shape with an access route (some 47m in length) between 552 Hob Moor Road and the service yard to the Yew Tree Retail Park. The site is enclosed by residential gardens to the north and west Rockingham Road), with a variety of commercial units, some with residential above, to the east (Stoney Lane) and a parade of shops, again some with residential above, and a large commercial unit to the south (Hob Moor Road).

2.2. The site was formerly occupied by the Hobmoor Primary School, prior to its relocation. The school buildings were subsequently demolished in 2010/11 and the site is cleared.

2.3. The site is located within the boundary of the Yew Tree Neighbourhood Centre but outside its primary shopping area.

2.4. Site location

3. Planning History

3.1. 26/01/12 – 2011/06213/PA. Outline application (access only) for the residential development of the site. Approved.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – Final comments to be reported.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection subject to conditions relating to contamination, electric vehicle charging points and noise levels for external plant and machinery.

4.3. Lead Local Drainage Authority – No objection subject to conditions relating to a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan.

4.4. Leisure Services – No objection subject to financial contribution of £122,800 to be spent on POS and play facilities at Gilberstone Recreation Ground

4.5. Education – Request a contribution towards education facilities.

4.6. Wildlife Trust for Birmingham & the Black Country – No objection and provides an opportunity to deliver nature improvements.

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

4.8. West Midlands Fire Service – No objection.

4.9. West Midlands Police – No objection and suitable for Secured by Design Accreditation.

4.10. Highway England – No comments.

Page 2 of 12 4.11. Neighbouring residential and commercial premises, and local residents associations, Councillors and MP consulted with site and press notices posted.

4.12. Objection received from Yardley Neighbourhood Forum on the following grounds: • Height of the buildings. • Impact on local services (e.g. schools and health centres) • Impact on ageing sewer system which suffers from low water pressure. • Access is not suitable / safe with poor visibility. • Hob Moor Road is already very congested. • Question the content/conclusion of the Transport Statement. • There have been a significant number of residential schemes is the locality.

4.13. Three objections have been received from local residents raising the following issues: • 2.5 / 3-storey are too high and would overlook gardens and result in a loss of light and views. • The site should be used for light industrial and retail space. • There is adequate housing in Birmingham and more focus should be on raising the standard of current housing. • Roads are already congested and the proposal will exacerbate the problem.

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Principle:

6.2. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Furthermore, the NPPF recognises that residential development can play an important role in ensuring the vitality of centres (paragraph 23). The Draft Birmingham Development Plan, which is at an advanced stage, recognises the need to make provision for a significant increase in the City’s population over the Plan period through the promotion of sustainable neighbourhoods. In addition Policy TP27 of the Draft Plan requires new residential development to be, amongst others, accessible to jobs, shops and services by modes of transport other than the car. In assessing proposals for new housing development on previously developed sites, paragraph 5.25B of the UDP considers, again amongst others, the suitability of the location for housing and the accessibility of the site to jobs, shops and services by other modes other than the car.

6.3. The application site does not have a specific allocation in either the UDP or Draft Birmingham Development Plan. It is noted that this previously developed site has had outline consent for residential development (2011/06231/PA) in the past though this has subsequently expired. The application site falls within the boundary of the Yew Tree Neighbourhood Centre but outside the Primary Shopping Area. Therefore, it is considered that, in principle the site could be suitable for a number of uses that would complement the Yew Tree Neighbourhood Centre and its wider vitality and viability. Of particular note is the access to the site which is fairly constrained, being relatively narrow and long between a parade of shops and the

Page 3 of 12 service yard to the Yew Tree Retail Park. Consequently the bulk of the site has very limited presence on Hob Moor Road. This might partly explain why since the demolition of the former school on the site in 2010/2011, there have been no applications for retail/commercial uses on the site. Interest was shown in the site by a budget supermarket in response to a proposal for a Lidl store last year at 1323 Coventry Road (2015/04386/PA). This also included the removal of nos.546-552 Hob Moor Road. However, this interest has not materialised into a formal pre- application enquiry or planning application.

6.4. In light of the site’s constrained access, and the lack of interest for the retail/commercial redevelopment of the site it is considered that the proposed residential development represents an appropriate alternative use. The application site is in a highly sustainable location, within a neighbourhood centre and within easy walking distance to shops, services, public transport etc. Furthermore, due to the proximity of the new residents to the neighbourhood centre, they are likely to use the facilities available and thereby make a positive contribution to the centre’s overall health. As such no objection is raised in principle to a residential use on the application site and is considered to be in accordance with planning policy highlighted above.

6.5. Design:

6.6. The NPPF highlights that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. ‘Places for Living’ require proposals to respond to the context and reinforce and evolve local characteristics that are considered positive.

6.7. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of residential and commercial buildings that creates a strong perimeter block built form. The application site is a significant parcel of land in a backland location with a relatively constrained access point. The current amended scheme is a direct result of extensive negotiations and the inverted perimeter block reflects a form of development that reinforces the wider area, with new gardens backing onto existing gardens and other private spaces as well as new public spaces having a good level of natural surveillance and security.

6.8. The access arrangement is not ideal but is considered of an acceptable nature to not detract from the character of the area whilst ensuring that the site can be suitably developed. The proposal includes improvements to the existing vehicular access, to be built to an adoptable standard and provide a safe pedestrian route into the site. It is also noted that the access to serve a residential development on the site was considered acceptable with the previous outline planning permission. The Hob Moor Road entrance feature would also add visual interest to the street scene and the final details are covered by condition.

6.9. The external appearance of the new properties would be modern and, due to the site’s more isolated nature from the public realm, would result in a very distinctive courtyard development. The height and overall scale of the 2, 2.5 and 3-storey domestic buildings would be compatible with the surrounding mix of residential and commercial buildings. It is considered that the design is appropriate to this constrained site and would improve the character and quality of the application site and its surroundings.

6.10. There are a limited number of trees within the site as well as a greater number close to the site’s boundary within neighbouring gardens. Of particular note within the application site are a short row of 7 half-grown Limes to the western side of the

Page 4 of 12 northern boundary. The Tree Survey identifies these as Category A trees and would be removed to facilitate the development. Whilst the loss of these trees is regrettable, it is noted that surrounding trees within third party land would retain the overall visual amenity of the trees in the locality with good screening to existing gardens and houses to the north. The impact from public vantage points would be very limited. Subject to tree protection measures in relation to retained trees (including those in neighbouring gardens) and new tree planting as part of the landscaping scheme it is considered the impact of the development would be acceptable. Your Tree Officer raises no objection to the proposal.

6.11. Residential amenity (neighbours):

6.12. The application site shares a boundary with private rear gardens to a number of properties on Rockingham Road and Hythe Grove. ‘Places for Living’ seeks 5m per storey set back where new development with main windows overlooking existing private gardens. Therefore a setback of 10m and 15m is sought from habitable windows for 2-storey and 2.5/3-storey properties respectively. Many of the properties do not actually meet these guidelines but there are a number of factors and mitigation measures that would not result in an unacceptable impact on neighbour amenity by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy. Those that do not meet the guidelines are detailed below.

6.13. Plot 8 is a cranked unit with a second floor bedroom window facing the rear garden of no.9 Hythe Grove and a first floor bedroom window facing the rear garden of no.11 Hythe Grove. Whilst the first floor bedroom window exceeds the required 10m at 11.7m, the second floor bedroom window falls slightly short of 15m at 14.8m. This bedroom also has a 1.8m deep balcony taking it to within 13m of the garden boundary. By removing this balcony, by means of a condition, it is considered that the 0.2m shortfall would be acceptable and the area of garden affected at no.9 Hythe Grove is the a corner of the garden at an oblique angle from the house.

6.14. Whilst Plot 9 is a 2.5-storey property there are no rear facing habitable windows at second floor level and as such a setback of 10m is required to the garden boundary with no.11 Hythe Grove. 9.6m is achieved, a shortfall of 0.4m and this is considered acceptable as the garden area affected is the extreme end of the garden at an oblique angle from the house.

6.15. Plots 11-13 are also 2.5-storey properties with no rear facing habitable windows at second floor level and achieve a setback distance of 9.7m, 9.5m and 8.3m compared with the 10m guideline. These shortfalls are considered acceptable within the context that they would share a boundary with the rear garden of no. 34, which is approximately 81m deep, with extensive tree cover, and would impact upon the lower section of the garden, some 50m from the rear of the house.

6.16. Plot 15 is another cranked unit like Plot 8 detailed above. The second floor bedroom window would be at a distance of 14.4m from the garden boundary with no.32 Rockingham Road and with the balcony this is reduced to 12.6m. As with Plot 8, it is considered that with the removal of the balcony, by means of a condition, the 0.6m shortfall would be acceptable as the area affected would be the bottom section of garden that is approximately 31m deep from the rear of the house.

6.17. Plot 16, like Plot 9 detailed above, requires a 10m setback distance whilst 9m would be achieved. However, the affected area to no.26 Rockingham Road is the bottom section of the garden that measures some 34.5m deep.

Page 5 of 12 6.18. Plots 17-21 are a terrace of 2.5-storey houses with a rear facing bedroom within the roof space. A distance of 13.5m would be achieved from the roof lights to the garden boundaries, where the guideline is 15m. It is considered that by amending the rooflights, by means of a condition, to a minimum height of 1.7m above floor level, there would be no adverse impact on neighbour amenity.

6.19. The new houses would exceed ‘Places for Living’ guidelines in relation to separation distances with existing neighbouring houses and there would be no implications with regard to the 45 degree code.

6.20. Residential amenity (future occupiers):

6.21. The 1 bedroom flats would have an internal floor area of 39.5sqm, whilst the 2-bed houses would range from 81-90sqm, 3-bed houses from 101.5-114sqm, and 4-bed houses from 130-140.5sqm. These total floor areas and the size of the bedrooms are appropriate within the context of the ‘Technical housing standards – national described space standard’ and would provide an acceptable level of internal accommodate for future occupiers.

6.22. Plots 1-4 are the closest of the new houses to an existing brick-clad warehouse building, to the rear of 542-552 Hob Moor Road, which is of an equivalent height to a 2-storey house. These houses have been designed so that they would have predominantly front facing aspects. Where there are windows to habitable rooms to the rear elevation it is a thru-room with a window also to the front elevation. The only exception is to plots 3 and 4 where there is a separation distance of 9m from the kitchen window to the flank wall of the warehouse, and ‘Places for Living’ guidelines seeks 12.5m. Whilst the shortfall is some 3.5m, within the context of the overall accommodation of these two units, they do not represent a justified reason for refusal.

6.23. ‘Places for Living’ guidelines seek a minimum garden size of 52sqm and 70sqm for 2-bed and 3+bed houses respectively as well as 30sqm of outdoor communal amenity space per flat. Garden sizes range from 46-227sqm and plots 10-12, 17-20 and 26-29 (3 and 4-bed houses) do not meet the guideline, with gardens ranging from 46-67sqm. Furthermore, the block of 1-bed flats has the equivalent of 27sqm of outdoor communal amenity space per flat. Whilst some of these shortfalls are fairly minor, some are more significant of between 10-24sqm. However it is noted that the properties affected are the terrace townhouses that make an important contribution towards the strong built form of the proposed inverted perimeter block. Therefore it is considered acceptable that the urban design benefits outweigh the shortfalls in private garden spaces in this particular case. Permitted development rights for extensions to these plots are recommended to be removed due to their size of the gardens.

6.24. A noise assessment has been submitted in support of the application which monitored ambient and background noise and identified no significant commercial noise. There is a small car servicing/MOT garage to the east (Hob Moor Road) of the site that may impact on the proposed houses and noise modelling was undertaken to calculate noise emission as the business had no noisy work on, nor planned at the time of the survey. This exercise concluded that the garage noise emissions would not exceed the Birmingham City LOAEL (lowest observable adverse effect level) guideline fixed noise levels for habitable rooms and outdoor spaces. All the calculated noise levels are less than current background noise levels. Noise barriers are included along the site’s eastern and south western boundaries in the form of a 1.8-2.2m high noise barrier (e.g. acoustic fence).

Page 6 of 12 Regulatory Services have assessed the findings and raise no objection subject to conditions including limiting noise levels from all plant and machinery and provision of electric vehicle charging points. With regard to the noise levels, this is not possible as the garage in question is not within the application site or within the control of the applicant. Furthermore, there is no history of complaints from these premises which has adjoining residential units and the noise assessment identifies no demonstrable harm. In light of the above, it is considered that existing adjoining uses would not create an unacceptable level of residential amenity for future occupiers of the development. In relation to the electric vehicle charging point, the objective of this condition is noted but it would not meet the necessary tests for planning conditions and its omission would not make the application unacceptable.

6.25. Highways / Parking:

6.26. ‘Car Parking Guidelines’ seeks a standard of 2 spaces per dwelling (200%) for new residential development within Area 3. The level of parking provision appropriate to any individual proposal is assessed in the light of this standard, but also takes in to account the circumstances of the particular scheme, including the size of the dwellings, proximity to facilities such as shops and the availability of public transport. The proposal consists of a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4-bed units with a total parking provision of 170%. However, this provision equates to 1 space (100%) for the 1 and 2-bed units and 2 spaces (200%) for the 3 and 4-bed units. In view of this and the site’s positioning within a centre, with shops, services and public transport in easy walking distance, it is considered that the overall parking provision is acceptable. Furthermore, due to the back land nature of the site, it is also considered that residents are unlikely to park outside the development site on Hob Moor Road. Likewise, it is unlikely that visitors to the centre would park within the application site where the houses are located.

6.27. The proposed alterations to the existing access off Hob Moor Road are similar in nature to that previous approved under 2011/06213/PA. Transportation Development’s final comments on the proposal shall be reported at the meeting.

6.28. Planning obligations:

6.29. At 36 units, the application exceeds thresholds in relation to affordable housing (15 units) as well as public open space and play facilities (20 units). Policy contained within ‘Affordable Housing’ SPG seeks a minimum of 25% social housing and 10% low cost housing. ‘Public open space in new residential development’ SPD seeks, where practical to do so, that new public open space is provided on site. In addition, there are circumstances where it may be preferable for the public open space to be provided as an off-site monetary contribution. Such circumstances include new development being in close proximity to existing public open space or it may not be practicable to provide on-site. Due to the constrained / backland nature of the site it is considered that on-site provision would be problematic and detached from the wider area and thus appearing as if it was a facility exclusively for occupiers of the new development. In addition Oakland Recreation Ground, which is an extensive area of public open space containing facilities for a variety of ages, is only some 100m to the west along Hob Moor Road. Therefore, it is considered that an off-site financial contribution would be appropriate in this case.

6.30. A viability appraisal has been submitted in support of the application as the applicant advises that for the scheme to be policy-compliant with regard to planning obligations, it would make the development unviable. The NPPF (paragraph 173) places significant emphasis on ensuring viability and deliverability, adding that the

Page 7 of 12 costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable. Whilst no affordable housing is proposed as part of this application, a financial contribution of £90,000 towards off-site public open space and play facilities has been offered. The viability appraisal has been independently assessed and concludes that the scheme would be unviable if all the planning obligations had to be met and the £90,000 financial contribution is appropriate. In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal accords with planning policy within the context of viability and deliverability. Whilst the closest area of public open space is Oaklands Recreation Ground, Leisure Services have requested that the money is spent at Gilberstone Recreation Ground instead as significant money has been spent at Oaklands Recreation Ground over recent years as a result of the redevelopment at the Swan Shopping Centre. Gilberstone Recreation Ground is in an adjoining ward (Sheldon) but only 410m from the application site. This request is considered reasonable.

6.31. It is noted that Education has advised that a financial contribution should be secured towards education facilities. Whilst no figure has been given, contribution towards education facilities is now raised from Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) liable developments. The proposal is a non CIL liable development and as such does not attract a CIL contribution.

6.32. Other Matters:

6.33. The application includes an ecological survey of the site which sets out the main habitats found on site and assessed the potential for protected species. No protected species were identified however a number of birds of conservation concern were recorded and are likely to use the site for nesting and foraging. Japanese Knotweed is also noted on the site. The City Ecologist raises no objection subject to conditions to secure ecological enhancements, replacement nesting provision and the eradication of Japanese Knotweed.

6.34. The submitted Sustainable Drainage Assessment identifies that there is a very low probability of flooding and the main foul sewerage system has capacity for the development. The ground conditions (clay) are unlikely to be suitable for soakaways, there is no watercourse immediately adjacent and as such surface water would have to be discharged to a sewer. The Sustainable Drainage System would need to include a flow control to limit the outflow into the sewer and underground pipes and / or tanks to temporarily store excess water. The Lead Local Drainage Authority and Severn Trent Water raise no objections subject to conditions.

6.35. Concerns relating to the impact this development, as well as other housing developments in the locality, on local services/infrastructure are noted. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a charge on new buildings and is a mechanism to ensure certain types of new development contribute to the infrastructure needed to support that development. This scheme is non CIL liable development and would not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal represents a suitable alternative use for this in-centre location, providing a mix of housing types in a development that would have a distinctive character that would adequately safeguard existing neighbour amenity as well as

Page 8 of 12 provide an acceptable level of residential amenity for future occupiers and an appropriate parking provision. The application has also demonstrated that the scheme could not be fully policy compliant and viable and the offer of £90,000 towards off-site public open space and play facilities is reasonable. Therefore, the application is in accordance with relevant policy and guidance and subject to the completion of a S106 agreement to secure the financial contribution planning permission should be granted.

8. Recommendation

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

8.2. I. That application 2015/04560/PA be deferred pending the completion of a suitable Section 106 Planning Obligation to require:

a) A financial contribution of £90,000 (index-linked to construction costs from the date of the committee resolution to the date on which payments are made) towards the provision, improvement and / or maintenance of public open space and play facilities at Gilberstone Recreation Ground to be paid prior to first occupation of the housing.

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

II. In the event of the above Section 106 Agreement not being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 1st April 2016 planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason;

a) 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 Residential Development SPD and Policy TP9 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan 2031.

III. That the City Solicitor be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the appropriate Section 106 planning obligation.

IV. In the event of the Section 106 Agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 1st April 2016, favourable consideration be given to Application Number 2015/04560/PA, subject to the conditions listed below;

1 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

2 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

3 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme (foul and surface)

4 Requires the prior submission of a Sustainable Drainage Assessment

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

6 Requires the prior submission of a method statement for the removal of Japanese

Page 9 of 12 Knotweed

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

8 Requires the prior submission of details of bird/bat boxes

9 Arboricultural Method Statement - Submission Required

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

11 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

12 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

13 Requires the prior submission of new noise barriers details

14 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

15 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

16 Requires the prior submission of level details

17 Requires the prior submission of the Hob Moor Road entrance feature

18 Requires the prior submission of an amended plan showing the removal of the rear facing second floor balcony to units 8 and 15

19 Requires the prior submission of an amended plan showing the repositioning of the rear facing rooflights to units 17-21 to a minimum height of 1.7m above floor level

20 Removes PD rights for the installation of gates to the new residential access drive

21 Removes PD rights for new windows

22 Removes PD rights for extensions to plots 10-12, 17-20 and 26-29

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

24 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Peter Barton

Page 10 of 12 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Hob Moor Road frontage

Figure 2 – Access off Hob Moor Road

Page 11 of 12 Location Plan

18 4

69 42

Garage

14 15 13 Garage

Yew Tree

HYTHE GROVE 528 Retail Park 530

536 538

548 to 552

122.9m Shelter

Shelter 52 Yew Tree

Retail Park

527 535

121.6m ESS

HOB MOOR R 539 Surgery

Page 12 of 12

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/08594/PA Accepted: 11/01/2016 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 07/03/2016 Ward: Sparkbrook

344-348 Ladypool Road, Balsall Heath, Birmingham, B12 8JY

Change of use from learning centre (D1) use to restaurant (A3) use, installation of extraction flue to rear Applicant: Mr Z Mustafa 344-348 Ladypool Road, Balsall Heath, Birmingham, B12 8JY Agent: Ali Architectural Services 414 Coventry Road, Small Heath, Birmingham, B10 0UF Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought for change of use from a learning centre (Use Class D1) to a restaurant (Use Class A3) and for the installation of an extraction flue to the rear of 344-348 Ladypool Road, Balsall Heath.

1.2. The proposed opening hours would be 1100 hours to midnight Monday to Friday, 1100 hours to 0200 hours on Saturdays and 1100 hours to midnight on Sundays and Bank Holidays. There would be 8 full-time and 4 full-time employment positions created.

1.3. The internal floor plans show 42 covers in the coffee/dessert lounge and 104 covers in the restaurant area – totalling 146 seated covers. The ground floor would also comprise a waiting area, coffee/dessert counter, disabled toilet and kitchen. On the first floor there would be a staff room, staff WC, kitchen, office, male and female toilets, prayer area for customers, and stock area and cold room.

1.4. The application as submitted shows details of air handling and odour control equipment proposed. The proposed extraction flue would be located on the rear elevation of the building and discharge terminal would be 1m above eaves level.

1.5. Amended plans have been submitted to omit 6 car parking spaces to the rear of the premises.

1.6. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

Page 1 of 7 2.1. The application site contains three rectilinear plots of land that are accessed from Ladypool Road. The application site is located within the Primary Shopping Area of Ladypool Road Neighbourhood Centre. The application premises is currently used as a non-residential learning and education centre for adults and post-16 children (use class D1) under the trading name Birmingham Institute of Education Training and Technology (BIETTEC). The learning and education centre operates at ground and first floor level, and provides non-residential education and language training to domestic students and pupils on student visas. The property is also used to provide immigration and visa-related advice to UK and foreign nationals. A two storey and single storey rear extension has been implemented at the property, under planning reference 2013/01042/PA. 2.2. The adjoining properties contain a mixture of uses. The adjoining properties at No. 340 and 342 Ladypool Road are used as retail shops (Use Class A1) at ground-floor level with residential accommodation above. No. 352 is a vacant restaurant (Use Class A3). At No. 350, there is a general industrial use (Class B2). 2.3 The nearest family dwellings are located to the south-east at No’s 7-8 Kensington Avenue, approximately 10m away. There are self-contained flats at first-floor level, above commercial properties on Ladypool Road, Balsall Heath.

2.4. Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1 19th April 2013 – (Ref 2013/01042/PA) - Retention of, and alterations to, existing rear extension to create a two storey rear extension to provide additional teaching rooms, and retention of roller shutters to side – Approved subject to conditions.

3.2 7th June 2012 – (Ref 2012/02546/PA) - Retention of, and alterations to, three-storey rear extension to existing non-residential training centre (use class D1). Alterations to include installation of doors, windows and roof tiles – Refused on the grounds of design, appearance, scale and mass, and inadequate distance separation leading to loss of light and outlook.

3.3 24th February 2012 – (Ref 2011/08752/PA) - Retention of three-storey rear extension and retrospective change of use of the premises from a non-residential educational institution (use class D1) to a non-residential educational institution at ground-floor and first-floor level (use class D1) with 2 No. self-contained bedsits at first-floor level and 3 No. self-contained bedsits at second-floor level. (use class C3) – Withdrawn at request of applicant.

3.4 13th September 2005 – (Ref 2005/04121/PA) - Creation of new outdoor play area for use in conjunction with nursery facility approved under 2002/05768/PA – Approved Subject to Conditions.

3.5 30th April 2003 (Ref 2002/05768/PA) - Erection of 2-storey rear extension to existing training centre to provide 3 additional training rooms, IT room, nursery facility for trainees and new toilet facilities – Approved subject to conditions.

3.6 19th April 2002 – (Ref 2001/05778/PA) - Demolition of workshop and installation of 3 portacabins to be used as training centre for women – Approved temporary.

Page 2 of 7 3.7 5th October 2000 – (Ref 2000/02949/PA) – Change of use of retail shop to education and training centre and installation of shop front and roller shutters – Approved with conditions.

3.8 8th April 1992 – (Ref 1991/04185/PA) – Change of use to restaurant – Refused and Dismissed on appeal.

3.9 Enforcement History

3.10 2014/1140/ENF – Erection of walls to read of property which block neighbouring fire exit – under investigation.

3.11 2011/01424/ENF – Erection of large rear extension – Case closed, development approved by 2013/01042/PA.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Adjoining residents and Ward Councillors consulted – 1 letter of objection comprising a petition with 28 signatures has been received, as summarised below:

• Traffic increase/parking issues • Environmental issues – litter • Number of similar uses already within the locality

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objections, subject to conditions for extraction and odour details, noise insulation, and restrictions on hours.

4.3. Transportation Development – No objection subject to a condition to restrict hot food takeaway sales.

5. Policy Context

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

5.2. Relevant Local Planning Policies: • UDP (2005); • Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2013); • Places for All – SPG (2001); • Car Parking Guidelines – SPD (2012); • Shopping and Local Centres SPD (2012).

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The main considerations in the determination of this planning application are the principle of the proposal in this location, the effect upon residential amenity and highway implications.

6.2. Paragraph 3.8 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that the City's environmental strategy is based on the need to protect and enhance what is good in the City's environment and to improve what is less good. The keynote is on quality and paragraph 3.10 of the UDP states that proposals which would have an adverse effect on the quality of the built environment will not normally be allowed.

Page 3 of 7

Principle of Use

6.3. I note concerns have been raised by local occupiers in regards to overconcentration of restaurant uses on Ladypool Road. The proposal is for the conversion of a learning centre to a restaurant (Class A3 Use). The “Shopping and Local Centre” SPD defines existing Local Centres within Birmingham. The site falls within Ladypool Neighbourhood Centre and the draft Birmingham Development Plan and Policy 5 of the SPD “Shopping and Local Centre” refers to this area as the ‘Balti Triangle’, where the area benefits from a more relaxed approach to the general anti-clustering approach to restaurants that is envisaged by the policy. Policy 2.7, 7.43, TP23 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan states that local restaurant trade gives the area its unique characteristics in terms of trade and visitors into the city and any proposal as such should be encouraged to generate increased footfall to the area and halt economic decline. Consequently, I consider that the change of use to a restaurant would be acceptable in principle.

Impact on vitality and viability of the centre

6.4. The ‘Shopping and Local Centre’ SPD Policy 1 & 2 advocates that 50% of units within the Neighbourhood Centre should be retained in retail (Use Class A1) and the need to avoid over concentration of non-retail uses. The application site is located within the linear Ladypool Road Neighbourhood Centre and there are a total of 201 units out of which there would be 120 units (approximately 56.7 %) retained within retail (Use Class A1). The proposed development would also not result in a loss of an A1 retail unit as the premises is currently used as a learning centre (Use Class D1). I note that within this portion of the Ladypool Road frontage, between Taunton Road and Clifton Road, there are 31 units with 22 units within Use Class A1 (retail). As such, there would be over 50% of units retained within retail use within this frontage. I do not consider that the proposal would adversely result a loss of A1 retail floor space.

Design and Visual Amenity

6.5. The proposed extraction flue would be located to the rear of the premises and would not compromise the existing character or have a detrimental impact on the general street scene.

Residential Amenity

6.6. Regulatory Services have assessed the scheme and raise no objections subject to conditions for extraction and odour details, noise insulation, and restrictions on hours. There is first floor residential accommodation above the adjoining properties and to the rear of the application premises. As such, it is considered appropriate to add these conditions. A further condition is attached restricting the hours of operation between 0900 hours to 2330 hours daily, which is appropriate in the local centre and consistent with the adopted UDP and Shopping and Local Centres SPD (2012) as well as according with prevailing authorised hours for similar ues in the locality. Conditions are also attached to limit the use of the prayer area on the first floor and prevent the use of the external area to the rear in order to ensure that there would be no adverse impact upon residential properties nearby.

Highway Safety

Page 4 of 7 6.1. Transportation Development has assessed the scheme and have no objections subject to a condition to restrict hot food takeaway sales. I note the objections raised above by local occupiers regarding traffic/parking issues. However, the application site is located within the Primary Shopping Area of Ladypool Road Neighbourhood Centre which benefits from good public transport, and a number of pay and display car parks within close proximity. I consider it appropriate to retrict takeaway sales in this location, as such the appropriate condition is attached. Consequently, I consider that the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact on highway safety within the immediate vicinity of the site.

Other Matters

6.7. I note litter issues are raised by objectors. However, I do not consider it necessary to impose a litter condition as the proposed use is for a restaurant where food would be consumed on the premises. The proposal is also not CIL-liable development.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed development would not compromise the vitality and viability of the existing centre. I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on visual or residential amenity or highway safety. Approval is therefore recommended.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to the following conditions

1 Limits the hours of use 0900 - 2330 hours daily.

2 Requires the prior submission of extraction and odour control details

3 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation (variable)

4 Prevents use of external area for customers

5 Limits the use of prayer area to ancillary use only.

6 Prevents food to be sold for off site consumption

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

8 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Chantel Blair

Page 5 of 7 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Front view

Figure 2: Rear view

Page 6 of 7 Location Plan

The Clifton C 1

(PH) 7

288 9 12

165 11

288a 13

Clifton 14

House 13

(Home for the aged) 5 4 171

Ivy Avenue 7

177 St Barnabas' Ivy Avenue9

Church 8 122.5m

Car Park

To 302 To

300 5

304 Ash Grove 5 232 14

4 1

8 234

1 223 287

238

316

172

318 172a Laurel Avenue 229 289 248

174

182 324

180

235 180a

326 241

332

330 To 251 177

Poplar 198 2

Avenue

336

185 1

334 4

183 to

189 8 338

123.7m

195 to 213 to 195 16

352

309 to 311 24 354 13

313

8 26

102 1 11 Kensington Clent Villas

Hagley Villas

362 Avenue 9

ROSHVEN ROAD

13 6 321 16

13 40

370 1

376 50 90 36 24 26

16 77 PH 14

2 4 84 TAUNTON ROAD

125.0m 85 El Sub Sta

341

349

394

351 to

355

LADYPOOL ROAD

357

Page 7 of 7

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/09942/PA Accepted: 04/12/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 29/01/2016 Ward: Erdington

2 Edwards Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 9EP

Change of use from vacant launderette (Sui Generis) to hot food takeaway (Use class A5), new shop front and extraction flue. Applicant: Mr Wajjad Ali 45 Anderson Road, Birmingham, B23 6NL, Agent: Mr Gulraiz Siddique 17 Coleshill Road, Birmingham, West Midlands, B36 8DT, Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Planning consent is sought for the change of use of an existing vacant laundrette (Sui-Generis) to a hot food take-away (use class A5), the installation of a new shop front and extraction flue at 2 Edwards Road, Erdington.

1.2. The proposed hot food takeaway to the ground floor area would encompass a customer counter, serving area, kitchen/preparation area, W.C and cold room; the first floor area would be used for storage purposes incidental to the ground floor. The applicant has requested proposed hours of opening as 0800-2200 Monday to Saturday, 1000-2200 Sundays and Bank Holidays. Two off road parking spaces for parking and deliveries are provided to the front forecourt area. One full-time and 1 part-time staff would be employed.

1.3. The proposed shop front would comprise double entrance doors and two display windows. An existing 2.1m wide x 1.8m high display window would be retained within a single storey wing element. No details of roller shutters have been provided.

1.4. The proposed extraction flue would be located to the rear of the property, out of sight of the public domain to an overall height of 5.6m, 1m below the existing ridge of the building.

1.2. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is located within a parade/area that comprises 18 units that are predominantly within retail use but include general industrial and vacant office buildings at the junction of Orphanage Road. Edwards Road and Sutton Road. The application site is currently a vacant laundrette, being two stories in height with vehicle parking to the front concourse for two vehicles. The surrounding area encompasses the Erdington District Centre to the south, in which a variety of

Page 1 of 7 commercial uses are located, to the adjacent southern side of Edwards Road lies a day care centre and an industrial/warehouse use, to the west on Sutton Road lies further commercial units and the Cross Keys PH. The wider area is characterised by a mix of commercial businesses, schools and residential properties.

2.2. Site location

3. Planning History

3.1. 03.11.1998. 19588006, Domestic garage/kitchen extension/single storey extension for domestic purposes, approved.

3.2. 11.07.1963. 19588003, 10 inch diameter 26ft high chimney stack, approved.

3.3. 16.05.1963. 19588002, Extension to shop, approved.

3.4. 28.07.1960. 19588000, Alterations and extension, refused.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Regulatory Services - No objection, subject to conditions requiring extraction and odour control details and a restriction on opening hours.

4.2. Transportation Development – No objections.

4.3. West Midlands Police – No objections, recommending CCTV coverage of the premises.

4.4. Birmingham Public Heath – The application should be refused if it is within 400m of a school that has expressed concern about the impact upon the school health eating programme or if the 10% threshold for A5 uses within a local centre is exceeded.

4.5. Site notice posted, nearby residents, residents associations and Ward Councillors notified, with the following response received: -

• Ward Councillor Gareth Moore has requested the application be heard at planning committee due to the cumulative impact of the proposal and parking concerns.

• Erdington Ward Committee raise objection on the grounds of the number of existing hot food takeaways in the locality, litter, noise, nuisance, anti-social behaviour, loss of a retail unit, the site is in close proximity to schools and traffic issues.

• A neighbour raises concern regarding potential odour pollution, additional waste and litter which can attract vermin, anti-social behaviour through people congregating and that enough takeaways already exist in the surrounding area in which schools are located.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005) and Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2013); Car Parking Guidelines (2012) and Shopping and Local Centres SPD (2012); Places for All (2001) SPG; National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

6. Planning Considerations

Page 2 of 7

6.1. The main considerations in the determination of this application are the principle of the use, the impact on vitality and viability, neighbour amenity and highway implications.

6.2. Principle of the use: UDP Policy 8.7 states that, due to the amenity issues and impact on traffic generation, hot food takeaways should generally be confined to shopping areas or areas of mixed commercial development. The policy seeks to ensure that they do not cause demonstrable harm for the occupiers of nearby dwellings by giving rise to additional problems of noise and disturbance. Where a proposal involves evening opening, account will be taken of the proximity and extent of any nearby residential accommodation and ambient noise levels.

6.3. The premises are located within a parade/area of 18 commercial units that include retail shops/show rooms converted to shops, a vehicle garage and industrial uses. The site is located within the Erdington District Centre in which a variety of large and small scale commercial uses exist. The proposed opening times of the business are within usual daytime/evening opening hours, closing at 2200 seven days per week, which is considered reasonable for a district centre location, furthermore this type of use is to be expected within established centres. Therefore I consider that the principle of the use is acceptable.

6.4. Vitality and Viability: Objection has been received regarding the numbers of takeaways that already exist in the surrounding area, and the loss of a retail unit.

6.5. Whilst the application site is not within the primary shopping area, it is within the boundary of the Erdington District Centre as identified within the Shopping and Local Centres SPD. Policy 4 of the SPD states that in order to avoid an over concentration of hot food takeaways (A5), no more than 10% of units shall consist of hot food take aways within the centre. The current use of the premises is a laundrette (Sui Generis); therefore consent is required for the change of use to that of a hot food takeaway (A5). I note concerns have been raised by Erdington Ward Committee with regards to an overconcentration of hot food uses within the locality. The premises are located within a parade of 18 units that are predominately retail. There are also former showrooms that have been converted to retail shops, which has increased the retail provision within this parade.

6.6. A survey of all of the uses within the centre was carried out in March 2014. With regard to the centre as a whole, there are 219 units of which 36 are vacant, 146 within A1 use (66.67%) of which 22 were vacant, 9 within A5 use (5.02%) of which 2 were vacant and, 5 within Sui Generis use (2.74%) of which 1 was vacant. The loss of this Sui Generis use would increase A5 use to 12 units (5.47%) and decrease Sui Generis use to 5 units (2.28%), A1 uses would remain at 66.67%. A1 uses within the centre exceeds the required 55% threshold for A1 uses and the proposed use of the unit within A5 use would not result in exceedance of the 10% threshold for A5 uses.

6.7. In regards to the loss of a retail unit, the unit is currently a vacant launderette (Sui Generis), Policy 1 of the Shopping and Local Centres SPD would therefore not apply in this instance.

6.8. I therefore conclude that the change of use to a hot food takeaway is acceptable under Policy 4 of the Shopping and Local Centre SPD and that the proposal would not result in detriment to the vitality and viability of the District Centre. The change of use of the premises to an A5 hot food take away would also not result in greater than 10% of units within A5 use and no loss of retail would occur.

Page 3 of 7

6.9. Neighbour amenity and potential for anti-social behaviour: The first floor of the application premises and units within the immediate parade are used as storage/office spaces. The nearest residential units are flats located above a number of commercial units to west of the site between 8 and 22 Sutton Road. Separate residential dwellings are also located approximately 120 metres to the south east on Edwards Road. Objection has been received on the grounds that the proposal would lead to odour pollution and anti-social behaviour. In response, Regulatory Services have assessed the proposal and offer no objections subject to conditions, requiring the proposed flue is increased to ridge height and restrictive opening hours to those requested. Consequently, I consider the request for extraction/odour control details and restrictive opening hours are reasonable and accordingly attach the requested conditions. In terms of anti-social behaviour, West Midlands Police raise no objections subject to a condition requiring CCTV coverage, in response it is considered that this request is unreasonable as the site is located within a centre and an area which experiences a high level of natural surveillance. Local schools have been consulted with no responses received.

6.10. Highway safety: Concerns have been raised regarding existing parking issues in the locality. Transportation Development have assessed the proposal and raise no objections, commenting that the site is within the Erdington District Centre where shared/linked trips to the commercial centre & employment uses is likely, and also having excellent accessibility to sustainable transport modes. The site does offer some parking spaces within the forecourt of the premises. There is additional parking availability to the front of the site, limited to 1 hour between the hours of 0745-1845 Monday to Saturday and a large public car park is situated to the adjacent corner of Edwards Road/ Orphanage Road. There are also restrictions in the traffic regulation orders in the form of double yellow lines on the opposite side of the road and a traffic signal junction in close proximity to the site. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to have any significant adverse impact on highway safety within the immediate vicinity of the site.

6.10. Other issues: Objection has been received regarding potential additional waste and litter, which could attract vermin. In response, a condition requiring the provision of a litter bin to mitigate this issue in so far as the planning system can control is recommended.

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

7. Conclusion

7.5. The proposed change of use to an A5 hot food takeaway would not affect the vitality or viability of the centre and, no additional significant harm arises to either neighbour amenity or highway safety.

8. Recommendation

8.5. Approve subject to the following conditions.

1 Requires the submission of extraction and odour control details

2 Requires the prior submission of a litter bin

Page 4 of 7 3 Limits the hours of use to between 0800-2200 Monday to Saturday and 1000-2200 Sundays and Bank Holidays

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

5 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Keith Mellor

Page 5 of 7 Photo(s)

Application site 1

Parade 1

Page 6 of 7 Location Plan

Lych Gate 10 125.0m Highclare School

Garage

Works

9 8 13

Garage

20 22

Builder's 60 Yard 8

Osborne Nursery School El Sub Sta 6

8 Works 121.6m 24

Surgery 26

32a 38 to 50 122.1m

Works 32 ORPHANAGE ROAD Works

122.3m

202 HIGH STREET 26 Garage EDWARDS ROAD 18 to 22

198

196 40 Car Park

4 1 to 14 46a

2 46b

46c Fire Station

48a 12

50 52

El Sub Sta 5

Hall

20 PC

53 Tank

Page 7 of 7

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/08570/PA Accepted: 04/02/2016 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 31/03/2016 Ward: Stockland Green

11A-11B The Drive, Erdington, Birmingham, B23 7NG

Retrospective consent for the conversion of existing single storey wing into two self-contained apartments. Applicant: Mrs Nazia Bi 11 The Drive, Erdington, Birmingham, B23 7NG Agent: Masood Akhtar Associates 65-67 Whitmore Road, Small Heath, Birmingham, B10 0NR Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Retrospective planning consent is sought for the retention of the conversion of an existing single-storey wing element into two self-contained flats at 11 The Drive, Erdington. The two newly formed residential units are known as 11A and 11B The Drive.

1.2. Flat 11A comprises 1 bedroom measuring 17.97sqm, bathroom, and open plan lounge/dining area measuring 25.54sqm; the property has an overall footprint of 52.97sqm with outdoor private amenity to the rear of 57.6sqm.

1.3. Flat 11B comprises of a bedroom measuring 24.42sqm, kitchen 7.19sqm, bathroom 5.65sqm and a lounge of 18.05sqm; the property has an overall footprint 62.9sqm with outdoor private amenity space of 43sqm.

1.4. No off road parking is provided.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site comprises of a large Georgian property with single storey wing element to the side which were formerly used as incidental accommodation and garages to the adjoined dwelling (11 The Drive). The main residential property 11 The Drive is a large two storey detached dwelling of no great architectural merit and, along with the converted garages sits to the back of the pavement. The former garages/rooms within the single storey wing were converted to residential use in 2013-2014. The perimeter of the application site is somewhat oddly shaped at the front, where it overlaps the front elevation of 10b The Drive.

2.2. Adjoining properties are detached and semi-detached inter-war 2-storey houses and post-war 2-storey townhouses, which are set back from the pavement. Ground

Page 1 of 8 levels fall to the rear (west) and beyond that at a lower level is Prince William Close, a Housing Association development of 40 flats. The surrounding area is wholly residential in character.

2.3. Site location

3. Planning History

3.1. 18.03.2010. 2009/06472/PA, Demolition of existing house and erection of 4no. 3 bed terraced dwelling houses with associated parking, approved.

3.2. 15.06.2009. 2009/01440/PA, Erection of two-storey extension to facilitate division into 2no. dwelling houses, and creation of 5no. dwelling houses to rear, refused.

3.3. 30.03.2007. 2007/00896/PA, retention of garage associated with 2002/03206/PA with minor amendments, approved.

3.4. 19.07.2005. 2005/00701/PA, Enforcement notice appeal concerning the carrying out of alterations to the garage and toilet roof

3.5. 29.08.2002. 2002/03206/PA, Erection of single storey rear extension and alterations to garage roof, approved.

3.6. 23.03.2000. 1999/05009/PA, Change of use to children’s day nursery, refused.

3.7. Enforcement History

3.8. 2014/1212/ENF, Conversion of property to flats or bedsits and conversion of garages to additional living accommodation, under investigation.

3.9. 2013/1612/ENF, Conversion of garages into living quarters, case closed

3.10. 2013/0640/ENF, Use of property as a garage/workshop involving paint spraying of motor vehicles, case closed

3.11. 2008/1795/ENF, Garage has not been reduced in height as per conditions, case closed

3.12. 2003/0532/ENF, Extension not built in accordance with approved plans, case closed

3.13. 2002/0375/ENF, Creation of access to rear garden and installation of gates in excess of 2 metres in height, case closed

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Regulatory Services – No objections subject to conditions requiring noise insulation details. Making the following comments: -

• Due to the former use as a garage, normally EPU would recommend that an assessment for potential contamination be required to ensure that the site is suitable for the proposed use. However, as the development has already been completed and occupied, this is not practicable. The developer should note that the LPA cannot accept any liability for any short or long term health effects of unidentified contamination.

Page 2 of 8 4.2. Transportation Development – No objections subject to condition requiring cycle storage details and the reinstatement of redundant footway crossing.

4.3. West Midlands Police – No objections.

4.4. Nearby residents, residents associations and Ward Councillors notified, with the following responses:-

4.5. 6 emails/letter of objection received on the following grounds:-

• The main building has several tenants, some of whom are living in unplanned attic rooms with no fire escapes and too few toilets;

• There are at least four cars associated with these tenants.

• The original extension was supposed to be for a new kitchen;

• The proposals are already completed without planning permission, they were completed in October 2014 and the two new ''properties'' were listed for sale in March 2015 as 1 and 2 bed bungalow;

• There is no rear access, except through neighbour’s gardens, resulting in trespassing over neighbours garden to gain access to the rear;

• This area is particularly poor for parking as there are no off road space, not only are there no added parking spaces, the site is reduced by 2 spaces due to the loss of the garages;

• Highway safety issues due to inconsiderate parking, caused through the lack of on- road parking and congestion through commuter parking who use the nearby train station; and,

• The applicant has carried on developing the site without regard for planning regulations.

4.6. 15 emails/letter of support for the following reasons:-

• The property provides cycle storage facilities encouraging green transport modes;

• Shortage of this type of 1 bedroom accommodation within Erdington;

• The flats are spacious and above the minimum spacing standards required;

• Property previously lay empty, this proposal re-uses the property;

• The applicant pays council tax and the properties are adequate for occupation;

• The site is within easy walking distance to a train station, all amenities, schools, shops, buses, mosque and churches;

• The property is well designed with a good sized garden, in keeping with existing structure; and,

• No parking restriction are located to the highway, ample parking is always available

Page 3 of 8

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP (2005) and Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2013); Car Parking Guidelines (2012) SPD; Flat Conversions, 45-Degree Code and Places for Living (2001) SPG; National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Nationally Described Spacing Standards (2015).

6. Planning Considerations

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

6.2. Policy: UDP policies relating to flat conversions (8.26 & 8.27) advise that proposals should not have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of adjoining occupiers. The potential for noise and disturbance nuisance will vary according to the size and type of property involved, the number of flats proposed, the existing use of adjoining properties and ambient noise levels in the vicinity. Generally detached properties are most appropriate for flat conversions, semi-detached and terraced properties may be considered suitable but the potential effect on adjoining occupiers will be assessed particularly carefully. Furthermore, favourable consideration will not normally be given to the subdivision of single dwelling houses with 3 or less bedrooms into smaller dwelling units. It is also recognised that in some parts of the City there is a particular shortage of family accommodation. Other considerations include the cumulative effect of the proposal, parking, highway safety and design of any external alterations.

6.3. Paragraph 3.8 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan states that the City's environmental strategy is based on the need to protect and enhance what is good in the City's environment and to improve what is less good. The keynote is on quality and paragraph 3.10 of the UDP states that proposals which would have an adverse effect on the quality of the built environment will not normally be allowed.

6.4. Principle: This application seeks the retention of the conversion of the building from garages and incidental accommodation to the main property (11 The Drive) to two independent one-bed apartments with private amenity space to the rear. The site is located within a sustainable location, within easy walking distance of Gravelly Hill Railway Station, public transport bus routes into and out of the city centre and local amenities. In light of the above, it is considered that subject to the premises providing an acceptable level of residential amenity/accommodation for existing/future occupies, that no detriment arises to neighbouring occupier’s residential amenity or highway safety that the proposal is acceptable in principle.

6.5. Residential amenity: Concern has been raised as to the number of occupiers of the main residence (11 The Drive) and amenity issues. In response, this application is solely in respect of the two newly created residential units and not the main residence.

6.6. In terms of internal space, the application seeks the retention of two 1-bed self- contained apartments/flats. The Nationally Described Spacing Standards recommends that a one-bed/2 person apartment/flat should provide a minimum footprint of 50sqm; the flats provide footprints of 62.9sqm and 52.9sqm therefore adhering to this guidance. The guidance further recommends that a double bedroom should provide a minimum footprint of 11.5sqm; the one bedroom flats provide bedrooms of 24.4sqm and 17.9sqm, again adhering to this guidance. Adopted SPG ‘Places for Living’ advocates that a minimum garden size for 1 bed houses of 42sqm,

Page 4 of 8 the units provide 43sqm and 57.6sqm, also adhering to guidance. It is also noted that a number of emails/letters of support have been received, stating that the location is sustainable, there is a shortage of 1 bed properties in the Erdington area, and that the properties are spacious and above the minimum spacing standards required, being well designed with a good sized gardens.

6.6. It is considered that the flats provide a satisfactory level of residential amenity for existing/future occupiers.

6.7. There are no extensions/roof alterations proposed and the proposal would have a neutral impact on the adopted 45-Degree Code. In terms of the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers, six letters/emails of objection have been received which include concern over neighbour amenity. In response, Regulatory Services have assessed the proposals and offer no objections subject to the imposition of a condition requiring noise insulation details.

6.8. Highway safety: Objection has been received raising concern to highway safety concerns including parking, traffic congestion and lack of parking availability due to commuters who regularly use the nearby Gravelly Hill Railway Station. Transportation Development have assessed the proposals and raise no objection, subject to conditions requiring cycle storage details and the reinstatement of a redundant footway crossing, commenting that the site is within convenient walking distance of public transport modes and that whilst the level of parking demand is apparent for both residential and commuter parking that there are no Traffic Regulation Orders on the public highway in the vicinity of the site. They consider that no demonstrable harm to highway safety results from the change of use of the premises. In response to Transportation’s requested conditions, I concur with the request for the reinstatement of the redundant footway crossing and accordingly attach the condition; however the applicant has showed cycle storage within the curtilage of the site, therefore I consider this condition unnecessary in this instance.

6.9. Other issues: An objection has been received stating that there is no rear access to the properties except through a neighbour’s garden, potentially leading to trespassing. In response, external access to the rear is obtainable via a side access to the main property number 11, which is in the ownership of the applicant; internal access would also be available through the properties themselves. West Midlands Police raise no objections.

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

7. Conclusion

7.1. I am of the view that the two 1-bed residential units provide a satisfactory living environment for existing/future occupiers and no objections have been received from either Regulatory Services or Transportation Development on residential amenity or highway safety grounds.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to the following conditions.

1 Details of replacement windows providing a weighted sound reduction shall be submitted and implemented within 3 months

Page 5 of 8

2 Requires redundant footway crossing to be reinstated to full kerb height within a 3 month period.

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

4 Requires cycle parking is retained

Case Officer: Keith Mellor

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

View north 1

Front elevation 1

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2016/00036/PA Accepted: 06/01/2016 Application Type: Variation of Condition Target Date: 06/04/2016 Ward: Sheldon

2259 Coventry Road, Sheldon, Birmingham, B26 3PD

Variation of condition 4 attached to planning approval ref:- 2011/01688/PA to allow deliveries to the premises between 0600 - 2300 hours Monday to Saturday Applicant: WM Morrisons Supermarkets PLC c/o The Agent Agent: Peacock And Smith Ltd Suite 9c, Joseph's Well, Hanover Walk, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS3 1AB, Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought to extend the delivery hours at the existing Morrison Supermarket in Sheldon. The existing condition relating to deliveries reads:

No deliveries shall be taken at or dispatched from the site outside of the hours of 0700-2200 Monday to Saturday and 0900-1700 on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays. There shall be no more than 3 HGV deliveries to or from the site between 2100-2200 hours Monday to Saturday.

1.2. The current application originally proposed deliveries between 0500-2300 hours Monday to Saturday and 0700-2300 hours on Sundays. However, it has been amended to seek deliveries from 0600 hours and continue until 2300 hours Monday to Saturday only, with no more than 1 HGV delivery between 0600-0700 hours and 3 HGV deliveries between 2100-2300hours.

1.3. An identical application was submitted last year (2015/06723/PA), which was subsequently resolved to approve subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement in relation to continual commitment to a local training and employment scheme. However, the Legal Agreement could not be completed within the given timescale and as such the application was withdrawn. A noise report was submitted in support of the previous application.

1.4. The proposals have been screened under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amended) Regulations 2015 and there is no requirement for an Environmental Statement.

1.5. Link to Documents

Page 1 of 8

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application premises are a large freestanding supermarket located within the Sheldon District Centre with a signalised junction off Coventry Road serving its public under-croft and surface car parks. There is a separate access off Coventry Road to the premises’ eastern boundary serving its delivery yard. To the north, on the opposite side of Coventry Road, are commercial parades, some with residential to the upper floors. To the east, adjacent to the application premises’ delivery yard is an office block, derelict petrol filling station and a purpose-built flatted development. To the south (within Solihull MBC) are 2 and 3-storey residents housing and flats. To the west is a cleared site that previously contained office buildings.

2.2. Site location

3. Planning History

3.1. 02/12/15 – 2015/06723/PA. Variation of condition 4 attached to planning approval ref:- 2011/01688/PA to allow deliveries to the premises between 0600 - 2300 hours Monday to Saturday. Withdrawn.

3.2. 20/10/11 – 2011/05108/PA. Reserved matters application for appearance, scale, layout and landscaping pursuant to outline permission 2011/01688/PA for the erection of a food retail store, 5 retail stores, associated warehousing, servicing and parking and staff facilities.

3.3. 21/06/11 – 2011/01688/PA. Application to vary condition no. 4 attached to planning approval 2011/01275/PA to allow deliveries between 0700 and 2200 hours Monday- Saturday and 0900-1700 hours on Sundays and Bank/public holidays. There shall be no more than 3 deliveries by HGVs to or from the store between 2100 and 2200 hours on Monday to Saturday. Approved.

3.4. 08/06/11 – 2011/01275/PA. Variation of condition 39 attached to planning approval 2010/03069/PA to allow the maximum gross (internal) floorspace of the proposed building shall not exceed 10,000 square metres (excluding the atrium and travelators) and the net floorspace shall not exceed 5,258 square metres. Up to 3,500 square metres of the net floorspace shall be used for the sale of convenience goods and up to 2,500 square metres of the net floorspace shall be used for the sale of comparison goods. Approved.

3.5. 01/02/11 - 2010/06723/PA. Outline consent for the erection of a food retail store with associated fencing, landscaping and parking provision (access only). Approved.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objection.

4.2. Regulatory Services – Recommend 1 year temporary consent to assess impact.

4.3. Lead Local Drainage Authority – No comments.

4.4. Neighbouring commercial and residential properties, local Councillors, MP and Solihull MBC consulted with site and press notices posted. No responses received.

Page 2 of 8

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Shopping and Local Centres SPD and the NPPF.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. In determining variation of condition Section 73 applications the DCLG advises Local Planning Authorities to focus on national or local policies or other material considerations which may have changed since the original grant of permission, as well as the changes sought. Since the last variation of condition consent in 2011, the National Planning Policy Framework and the Council’s Shopping and Local Centres SPD have been published. However, the approach to the determination of this application, in particular with regard to assessing impact on neighbour amenity, has not altered. Furthermore, the proposal does not attract a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contribution with regard to this variation of condition application.

6.2. This is an identical application (2015/06273/PA) to that considered by the Planning Committee on 26th November 2015, which was accompanied by a noise report. The application originally proposed deliveries from 0500hours and until 2300hours Monday to Saturday and 0700-2300hours Sunday. The noise report suggested that the rating level of deliveries between 0500 and 0600hours would exceed the background level by 8dB, which is indicative of a significant adverse impact. Regulatory Services does not support this aspect of the proposal. The report also identified that the rating level of deliveries between 0600 and 0700 would exceed the background level by 6dB, which is indicative of an adverse impact. Regulatory Services have suggested that a temporary consent could be an option for this element and subject to there being no more than 1 HGV delivery between 0600 and 0700hours Monday to Saturday. Regulatory Services raise no objection to allowing deliveries to continue to 2300hours Monday to Saturday subject to no more than 3 HGV deliveries between 2100 and 2300hours Monday to Saturday.

6.3. The submitted noise report also suggests that deliveries between 0800 and 0900hours on a Sunday would exceed the background level by 8dB, which is indicative of a significant adverse impact and Regulatory Services does not support this aspect of the proposal. No assessment has been provided for the period of 0700-0800hours and until 2300hours and it is likely that background noise levels will be much lower, making noise from deliveries more noticeable with significant adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity. As such Regulatory Services does not support this element of the proposal.

6.4. Regulatory Services’ views have been shared with the applicant and the proposal has been subsequently amended to reflect the elements where there is some support. It is considered that this is a reasonable approach and will enable the extent of any impact on neighbour amenity as a result of the earlier deliveries (0600- 0700hours Monday to Saturday) to be fully assessed. A temporary, one year consent is recommended as an appropriate timeframe for such an assessment. After this period, deliveries would revert back to their existing start time of 0700hours Monday to Saturday. A permanent consent is recommended for deliveries to continue to 2300hurs Monday to Saturday as it has been demonstrated that there would be an acceptable impact on neighbour amenity. The proposed condition is as follows:

Page 3 of 8 No deliveries shall be taken at or dispatched from the site outside of the hours of 0600-2300 Monday to Saturday and 0900-1700 on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays for a temporary one year period, expiring on 6th April 2017. There shall be no more than 1 HGV delivery to or from the site between 0600-0700 hours Monday to Saturday. There shall be no more than 3 HGV deliveries to or from the site between 2100-2300 hours Monday to Saturday. After the 6th April 2017, no deliveries shall be taken at or dispatched from the site outside of the hours of 0700- 2300 Monday to Saturday and 0900-1700 on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays. There shall be no more than 3 HGV deliveries to or from the site between 2100- 2300 hours Monday to Saturday.

6.5. The Section 106 Legal Agreement attached to the original planning permission and the subsequent variation of condition applications secured the following financial contributions

• £150,000 for the funding of a Town Centre Manager for Sheldon for 3 years – this amount has been paid in full. • £200,000 towards public realm works – this amount has been paid in full. • £20,000 towards traffic calming of residential streets (if deemed necessary) – this amount has been paid in full.

6.6 Whilst all of these obligations have been discharged, there remains one “enduring” obligation, which is a commitment to engage with the City Council and other agencies to enter into a local training and employment scheme for the construction and operation of the development. Despite the construction phase being no longer relevant, the commitment to employ and train local people with the daily operation of the food store remains. A further deed of variation will be required to ensure that this obligation is carried forward and secured. The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

7.1. It has been demonstrated that the proposed later delivery hours from 2200 to 2300hours Monday to Saturday would have no adverse impact on neighbour amenity. Whilst, the proposed earlier start of delivery hours from 0700 to 0600 hours Monday to Saturday could have an adverse impact on neighbour amenity and, on balance, it is considered reasonable to allow this to occur for a temporary one year period to enable a proper assessment.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That application 2016/00036/PA be deferred pending the completion of a suitable Deed of Variation to require:-

1. A commitment to engage with the City Council and other agencies to enter into a local training and employment scheme for the operation of the development.

2. Payment of a monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal agreement of £1500, to be paid on completion of the S106 Agreement.

8.2. In the event that the above Deed of Variation is not completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 1st April 2016, planning permission shall be REFUSED for the following reason:

Page 4 of 8

In the absence of a suitable planning obligation to secure a continuing commitment to engage with the Council and other agencies to enter into a local training and employment scheme for the operation of the development, the proposed development conflicts with policies 8.50-8.54 of the adopted UDP 2005

8.3. That the City Solicitor be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the appropriate Section 106 planning obligation.

8.4. In the event of the Section 106 Agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 1st April 2016, favourable consideration be given to this application, subject to the conditions listed below:

1 Requires the submission of reserved matter details following an outline approval

2 Limits the hours of use (0700-2300 on any day)

3 Limits delivery time of goods to or from the site (0600-2300 Monday to Saturday and 0900-1700 on Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays for a temporary one year period)

4 Prevents storage except in authorised area

5 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

6 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

7 Requires the implementation of the Flood Risk Assessment

8 Requires the prior submission of details of bird/bat boxes

9 Requires the prior submission of a demolition method statement to avoid harm to bats and their roosts

10 Prevents the removal of vegetation and demolition of buildings between the 1st March and 31st August

11 Requires the prior submission of a barrier system to the car park

12 Requires the prior submission of the acoustic fencing

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

14 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

15 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

16 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

17 Prevents outside storage

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

19 Limits the layout plans to being indicative only

Page 5 of 8

20 Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage

21 Requires the prior installation of means of access

22 Requires the delivery and service area prior to occupation

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

24 Requires vehicular visibility splays to be provided

25 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

26 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

27 Requires the applicants to join Travelwise

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

29 Requires the retention of trees shown to be retained

30 Requires the implementation of tree protection measures

31 Requires the prior submission of an Arboricultural Method Statement

32 Requires tree replacement planting

33 Requires the prior submission of a construction management plan

34 Requires the prior submission of shopping trolley locations

35 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

36 Require the prior submission of tree works

37 Requires the prior submission of a parking management strategy

38 Limits the maximum gross floorspace of the unit

39 Restricts mechanical operations within the delivery area between 2100 and 0700 hours

40 Restricts the use of service vehicle reversing bleepers in the service yard between 2100 and 0700 hours

Case Officer: Peter Barton

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Delivery yard access off Coventry Road

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/03504/PA Accepted: 15/06/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 05/02/2016 Ward: Erdington

8-16 High Street, Erdington, Birmingham, B23 6RH

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a three-storey mixed use building comprising three retail stores and twenty-six apartments with associated parking and landscaping. Applicant: MADE Architecture Ltd Dutch Barn, Shadowbrook Court, Shadowbrook Lane, Hampton-in- Arden, West Midlands, B92 0DL Agent:

Recommendation Determine

1. Report Back

1.1 On the 7th January your Committee deferred this application in order to afford the applicant the opportunity to amend the proposal taking into account Members’ concerns regarding their desire to retain the existing buildings and/or responding to the character of the existing and surrounding buildings.

1.2 The scheme has not been amended since the previous committee, however the applicant has provided a further report justifying the approach taken and provided further visualisations in support of the proposals. A summary of the applicant’s justification follows.

Viability

1.3 The report states that the architectural practice has extensive experience with the reuse of existing buildings. Due to their dilapidated state, in order to bring the existing building back into use the report notes that existing walls would require underpinning, the structure stripping back to bare walls, removal of all floor construction, removal of the roof structure and coverings would all be required to meet or exceed the thermal and acoustic properties required by current legislation.

1.4 This results in the reuse of the existing buildings not being commercially viable for the applicant. The developer has confirmed that the property as existing is not commercially viable and therefore without committing to wholesale redevelopment the condition of the properties will worsen.

Page 1 of 14 Existing Condition/Layout

1.5 Due to the evolution of the use of the property over time much of the internal historic significance of this building has been lost, with many internal partitions leading to a further reduction in character.

1.6 The current layout of the property by virtue of its inefficient internal arrangement of narrow corridors and varying floor levels makes compliance with UK Building Regulations extremely difficult.

1.7 The existing building would not allow for good quality spaces to be created.

Design Analysis

1.8 The report acknowledges the mixed use nature of the area, the accessibility via public transport and the importance of frontage development. Whilst the retention of the existing buildings could achieve this aspiration, it argues that it would be impossible to provide a good quality living environment within the inflexible existing spaces.

1.9 The report also notes that the current building makes inefficient use of its floorspace, whereas the proposal makes full use of this space within the same scale.

1.10 The narrow access road would prevent the use of the rear area for parking associated with the development, whereas the proposals show a revised (wider) arrangement.

1.11 Due to the varying levels the conversion of the existing buildings would not be readily accessible by all.

1.12 In terms of the external environment, the proposal presents an active frontage with well-lit shop fronts and access to the residential units.

1.13 Additional points raised in the report include reference to the shortfall in housing supply in Birmingham; and that the reuse of existing buildings would not allow environmental improvements of within residential areas and along roads as referenced in Policy 12.16 of the UDP.

1.14 The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

Conclusion

1.15 The applicant has provided further justification for the redevelopment of the site, elaborating on the points previously made. The retention of the existing buildings was initially considered but has been found to be impractical for a number of aforementioned reasons. They also remain un-listed and outside any conservation area.

1.16 As per my previous report to you, the recommendation remains to approve the application subject to the previously recommended conditions below.

Page 2 of 14

Additional Visualisations

Page 3 of 14

Original Report

2. Proposal

2.1 The proposed development consists of the demolition and clearance of the existing buildings on site and the erection of a ‘u’ shaped mixed use development consisting of retail at ground floor level onto High Street with residential apartments above and to the rear.

QUANTUM

2.2 The residential element of the proposal consists of twenty six apartments of which 13 would have one bedroom with the remaining 13 having two bedrooms. The smallest one bedroom apartment measures 41.34 sq.m GIA and the smallest two bedroom unit would measure 64.24 sq.m. This represents a development density of 167 dwellings per hectare.

2.3 Three commercial units providing approximately 50 sq.m of (A1) retail floor space also forms part of the proposals.

DESIGN / LAYOUT

2.4 Vehicular and pedestrian access would be afforded directly from High Street with a modern style gated ‘cartway’ entrance providing vehicular access to a retail servicing and residential parking area providing 20 spaces including a designated loading bay/space for the retail units. A separate pedestrian access would be provided from the street and through the building together with a dedicated refuse store and internal cycle storage.

2.5 The proposed building would be built to back of pavement and extend along the site’s northern edge bounding the former ‘Colliers’ site that benefits from detailed consent for the erection of a retail superstore with outline consent for residential development immediately adjacent to the application site.

2.6 Beyond the easternmost element of the building there would be a private residential amenity area measuring 284.8 sq.m.

2.7 The proposed building would be three storeys high with retail stores provided either side of the curved entrance to the car park. The proposed building would be of a modern design with a flat roof, large shop fronts with large windows for the residential apartments above incorporating Juliette balconies. The principal facing material proposed would be brick. The rear elevation of the second floor would be cut back providing a contrast with the more rectilinear form of the levels below and there would be a cantilevered element within the courtyard.

2.8 Within the courtyard area some of the parking would be provided beneath the apartments at the northern edge of the site. The residential apartments would be served by two circulation cores with roof lights above.

2.9 At 19 spaces, the residential parking provision is at 73%.

Page 4 of 14 2.10 Since the application’s submission amended/further plans have been submitted that show deep window reveals and a parapet detail together with confirmation that curved glass (not facetted) is proposed adjacent to the vehicular entrance.

2.11 In addition to detailed plans and elevations a Design and Access Statement; an Archaeological Assessment; Heritage Statement; Noise Report; Transport Statement; Flood Risk Assessment and Financial Viability Assessment have been submitted in support of this application. The Transport Statement has been updated in response to comments made by officers and the amended layout plans.

2.12 Link to Documents

3 Site & Surroundings

3.1 The application site is currently occupied by three storey (two plus attic) late Victorian buildings and various outbuildings to the rear. The principal building consists of a terrace of five properties constructed as shops with domestic accommodation above. Whilst in a poor state of repair the existing buildings retain much of their visual interest with timber clad projecting upper floor gables, first floor bays and other period details such as a stone detail above the historic cartway entrance. The ground floor units are occupied by retail uses (hot food takeaway and a convenience store) with the remaining three units vacant. The upper floors are also currently vacant.

3.2 Buildings to the rear consists of a combination of a derelict two storey Victorian structure and single storey structures associated with a previous builder’s merchants. The very rear-most part of the site (eastern end) is very overgrown.

3.3 In addition to the vacant former Colliers car showroom site to the north two storey commercial buildings share boundaries with the site (to the south).

3.4 The site is situated at the High Street’s very northern end with the District Centre situated to the south. Designated heritage assets in the form of Highclare School (Grade II listed), the Abbey and Abbey Hall (Grade II listed) and 24-26 High Street (Grade II listed) are situated within close proximity.

3.5 Site Location

4 Planning History

4.1 None relevant.

Former Colliers ‘Sainsbury’s’ Site

4.2 25.07.2012 – Approval - 2011/08251/PA - Hybrid planning application (Part Full and Part Outline) comprising: 1) - Full planning application for a retail superstore (Class A1), 3 no. retail units (Class A1, A2 & A3), cash point (ATM's), car parking, public realm works, landscaping and associated works 2) - Outline planning application for approximately 15 residential units and 3) - Demolition of existing buildings

4.3 03.07.2015 & 06.08.2015 – Approval - 2015/03618/PA, 2015/03616/PA, 2015/03617/PA and 2015/03619/PA - Temporary change of use of former car showrooms (Sui Generis) to retail (Use Class A1) and food bank use for a period of 2 years

Page 5 of 14 4.4 16.11.2015 – Approval – 2015/06560/PA - Application for a Lawful Development Certificate to confirm the full element of planning consent 2011/08251/PA has been implemented within the required time period

5 Consultation/PP Responses

5.1 Transportation Development – Transportation Development raises concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the safety and free flow of the public highway. They consider that the proposed site access is unlikely to allow two-way traffic due to its width, question the practicality of the parking layout (consider there to be a conflict between manoeuvring servicing vehicles and spaces), note that the Transport Statement refers to the public parking on Hart Road which is likely to be lost when a new leisure centre is developed, that the practicality of the 27 cycle spaces needs to be demonstrated and that the proposal would impact upon the existing bus stop.

5.2 Regulatory Services – If committee are minded to approve, advise that the recommendations of the submitted amended noise report are followed and that sealed units and mechanical ventilation would be necessary to avoid noise issues. Also recommend conditions requiring prior approval of a land remediation scheme, provision of an electric vehicle charging point, noise insulation scheme and restriction of the operating hours for the proposed retail uses (08:00 – 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 -18:00 Sundays).

5.3 BCC Drainage Team – No objection subject to a condition requiring drainage details. Notes the SUDS information provided with this application, however considers that further detail is required regarding site conditions in order to determine the most sustainable drainage method.

5.4 Children, Young People and Families – No objection.

5.5 Leisure Services – A contribution of £81,200 should be provided towards provision/improvement of public open space and children’s play facilities

5.6 Severn Trent Water – Raise no objection subject to the imposition of a condition requiring prior approval of drainage details. Notes that there is a public sewer crossing the site, and that the applicant should contact them about this issue.

5.7 West Midlands Fire Service – Initially objected as not all parts of the building could be reached within 45m of a fire engine parked on High Street. The applicant has now incorporated sprinklers into the design and on this basis have lifted their objection.

5.8 Site and Press Notices displayed. Neighbouring occupiers and Ward Members consulted with 8 objections from local occupiers received raising the following concerns:

• Development is unnecessary / no need for further flats in the Erdington area • Existing buildings should be retained and renovated / proposals are detrimental to the character of the area • Impact upon the setting of listed buildings nearby • Insufficient parking, and highway safety issues including proximity to junction and local schools • Inadequate policing for additional properties • Density and design

Page 6 of 14 • Negative impact on air pollution • Not in a sustainable location

5.9 Councillor Gareth Moore has requested that the application be heard at Planning Committee as it is out of character with the local area.

5.10 Councillor Robert Alden has objected to the scheme and has submitted a petition containing 102 signatures objecting to the proposals for the following reasons:

• Loss of buildings with historical significance and its detrimental impact on the character of the area • No further flatted accommodation is needed in the Erdington Area • Existing parking and litter problems with the existing units which are likely to continue should a hot food takeaway be included in the proposals • Existing buildings should be restored • Lack of parking, no demand for flats locally, loss of retail units, increased noise and traffic at a very busy junction

6 Policy Context

6.1 Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005; the submission draft Birmingham Development Plan; ‘Places for All’ SPG (2001); Places for Living SPG (2001); Car Parking Guidelines SPD (2012); Shopping and Local Centres SPD (2012); and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

7 Planning Considerations

POLICY

7.1 Policy 11.22 of the UDP recognises the importance of Erdington shopping centre to the area but notes the deficiency in car parking. Policy 11.23 recognises the good accessibility of the centre.

7.2 The site is beyond the defined boundary of the Erdington District Centre (Shopping and Local Centres SPD), although I note that it has previously been accepted that the Sainsbury’s supermarket consent effectively extends the centre boundary north.

7.3 Chapter 2 of the NPPF seeks to ensure the vitality of town centres. It requires local authorities to recognise that residential development can play an important role in ensure the vitality of centres. Chapter 7 places good design at the heart of the NPPF’s definition of sustainable development – for which there is a presumption in favour. The policy adds that proposals must respond to local character and history, provide safe and accessible environments and be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

7.4 Chapter 12 sets out policies in relation to the historic environment. It clarifies that local authorities should consider the significance of both designated and non- designated heritage assets and the desirability of sustaining and enhancing them by putting them into viable uses consistent with their conservation. It adds that where there is evidence of deliberate neglect or damage to a heritage asset, the deteriorated state of the asset should not be taken into account in any decision. It adds that account should be taken of the positive contribution that heritage assets can make and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Finally it adds that when considering a non-

Page 7 of 14 designated heritage asset, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Local authorities should not permit loss of whole…of a heritage asset without taking steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred.

7.5 The key material considerations for this application are the principle of the development design and heritage impact, amenity implications, viability and highway matters.

PRINCIPLE / HERITAGE

7.6 The principle of a mixed use scheme consisting of ground floor retail with residential above is appropriate to this location and therefore supported. The retail would provide an active frontage whilst the residential accommodation would secure occupancy of the upper floors. Whilst the site is edge of centre it currently accommodates residential use above retail.

7.7 The site is neither a listed building not within a Conservation Area. I note that the applicant’s supporting statement concludes that the existing buildings cannot be considered as heritage assets. My Conservation Officer considers that the buildings, despite their condition and undergoing various levels of alteration have merit and make a positive contribution to the streetscape and local distinctiveness of the High Street as surviving historic buildings of architectural interest. He adds that they make a positive contribution to the setting of nearby listed buildings and would prefer for them to be retained. Finally he adds that the existing buildings should be considered as non-designated heritage assets.

7.8 I concur with my Conservation Officer’s conclusion that the buildings should be considered as non-designated heritage assets. I consider that the acceptability of their loss should be determined by the merits of the scheme proposed balanced against the impact of the complete loss of this non-designated heritage asset.

7.9 I consider that the amended scheme, with additional details securing a high level of design quality including deep reveals, curved glass and a parapet detail, represents a modern, simple and elegant architectural approach to this site. The benefits of removing dereliction/vacancy and securing ongoing use and occupation of the site must be considered in the planning balance. The existing site is also constrained by the narrow site access and poor vehicular visibility. Finally the significant level of investment to bring the existing building back into use, and the viability issues that this is likely to present must also be given weight. I conclude that, on balance, the proposed scheme justifies the loss of this non-designated heritage asset and would have a neutral impact upon the setting of the listed buildings opposite and to the south. I therefore raise no objection in principle.

DESIGN

7.10 As concluded above, I consider that the proposal represents a modern and simple approach relying on fewer but well executed details such as the curved glass and window reveals. The use of brick as the principal facing material is supported. The ‘U’ shaped format is appropriate and makes best use of this rectangular site. I therefore raise no design-based objections subject to appropriate conditions safeguarding architectural quality.

AMENITY

Page 8 of 14 7.11 The proposed apartments are of acceptable proportions, all exceeding the Nationally Described Space Standard. Apartments benefit from an acceptable outlook.

7.12 I consider the provision of a private amenity area of 284.8 sq.m acceptable and note that whilst that this area is distant from a number of units (particularly those at the front of the proposed development); it is in excess of the space typically achieved at in / edge of centre locations.

7.13 At 17.8-19.3m the distance between windowed elevations within the courtyard is short of the 27.5m guideline separation distance set out in Places for Living. I consider that as this distance is between new apartments that are part of the development, this is acceptable. The proposed development density is appropriate given the site’s edge of centre location and makes the best use of previously developed land.

7.14 A condition is recommended to ensure that opportunities for landscaping are maximised within the proposed parking area to ensure that a safe and pleasant environment is created for future residents.

7.15 The site is subject to raised noise levels due to the busy road and entertainment noise from the public house opposite. Regulatory Services conclude that an acceptable acoustic environment could be provided in this location subject to those units on the High Street elevation having sealed windows and mechanical ventilation. I consider this represents a reasonable solution for these 6 no. units. I note the permitted use of the existing upper floors for residential purposes.

7.16 Additional conditions recommended by Regulatory Services are attached including a condition requiring an electric vehicle charging point. The proposed opening hours for the retail units are reasonable and would be less extensive than other commercial uses in the area (such as the Cross Keys public house obliquely opposite).

7.17 There are no overlooking, overshadowing or other material amenity implications for residential uses within the vicinity.

7.18 The detailed layout of the outline scheme to the north has yet to be established, however the previous proposals show a blank wall to this elevation and therefore the proposals would not prejudice the delivery of this scheme. The upper floor use of the adjacent properties fronting High Street is unclear, however I am satisfied that should there be any residential use here the proposals would not prejudice the amenity of these units. There is a dilapidated structure that would prevent any overlooking of this unit.

7.19 I therefore raise no amenity-based objections to the proposals.

HIGHWAY MATTERS

7.20 Transportation Development raises concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the safety and free flow of the public highway. They consider that the proposed access is unlikely to allow two-way traffic due to its width, question the practicality of the parking layout (consider there to be a conflict between manoeuvring servicing vehicles and spaces), note that the Transport Statement refers to the public parking on Hart Road which is likely to be lost when a new leisure centre is developed, that the practicality of the 27 cycle spaces needs to be demonstrated and that the proposal would impact upon the existing bus stop.

Page 9 of 14 7.21 In terms of the width of the access, I note that the proposal shows a much wider access way than the existing cartway on site and incorporates curved edges to improve visibility. I therefore consider this a safer layout to the existing site condition. I also note that the access is only around 11m long from the bell mouth to the car park area and that vehicles using the access will have a good level of forward visibility. Finally, the car park provides a total of 20 spaces and therefore the likelihood of vehicles coming into conflict is limited.

7.22 The amended Transport Statement demonstrates that the tracking for vehicles accessing the service bay within the rear parking area is satisfactory.

7.23 The Transport Statement has subsequently been amended to remove the reference to Hart Road. I do not consider that the loss of this pay and display facility would have a material impact upon the proposed development as it would be unlikely to form a viable long term solution for future residents to rely on for day-to-day use. The proposed replacement retail stores would be unlikely to generate any change in parking demand over the existing retail uses on the site. I also note the accessible nature of this edge-of-centre location and the availability of other publically accessible car parks such as to the rear of the High Street off Mason Road and the central reservation parking on Sutton New Road.

7.24 The proposed cycle parking facility comprises of a 12.6 sq.m room integrated into the development behind the retail store. There are opportunities for the installation of a cycle storage system that would maximise this space. In order to ensure that this space is effectively used I recommend a condition requiring the submission of details of this facility.

7.25 I note the impact upon the existing bus stop, with the proposed access conflicting with the existing marked out box. Amended plans showing this relocated to the north have been provided which may be feasible. Alternatively the stop could be relocated to another location further along High Street. I recommend a condition requiring a new location to be agreed prior to the commencement of the development.

7.26 I consider that in this location the on-site residential parking provision of 73% is appropriate and note that the site is close to a centre that is accessible via public transport. This level of provision would enable all two bedroom units to benefit from a parking space together with six of the single bedroom units. I am satisfied that, subject to suitable safeguarding conditions, the amended proposals would not prejudice the safety and free flow of the highway network and that the concerns raised by Transportation Development would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

S106 / FINANCIAL VIABILITY

7.27 This application triggers the threshold for affordable housing provision (35%) and public open space / children’s play. I note that CYPF have not requested an education contribution from the development.

7.28 A Financial Statement has been submitted in support of the applicant’s claim that any contribution would render the development unviable and therefore all Section 106 requirements should be waved in the interests of enabling the scheme to be delivered. This application has been the subject of robust independent appraisal and multiple revisions. The agreed report demonstrates that the scheme, without any Section 106 contribution, is marginal and produces only a very modest level of profit. Retaining the existing buildings in their current form is also unlikely to be financially

Page 10 of 14 viable in the longer term. Therefore whilst the scheme is unlikely to attract a commercial developer the scheme is likely to be the best long-term solution to this site for the current owner. I therefore concur with the report’s conclusions that the scheme would not be viable in the event of any Section 106 contributions being sought.

7.29 It should be noted that the scheme is not in a ‘high value’ residential area and therefore would not attract a Community Infrastructure Levy Contribution following its implementation on the 4th January 2016.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

7.30 In addition to the points discussed in detail above, I conclude the following in response to the comments raised through the consultation process. In respect of a lack of demand for / overprovision of flats in the area, the development contains an appropriate balance of smaller and larger types of accommodation in this edge of centre location and there the developer is not required to demonstrate a need for the development providing the principle of the proposals is in accordance with adopted policy. In terms of air pollution, this needs to be considered in the context of the existing permitted uses of the site, which include retail, residential and a builder’s merchant. I therefore do not consider there to be a material impact upon air quality.

7.31 I do not consider that the proposal would impact upon litter in a material way and note that only A1 retail, not A5 is proposed. An A5 takeaway currently operates from the site.

8 Conclusion

8.1 I consider that whilst the existing buildings have historic and architectural merit the proposals, on balance, are acceptable and this application should be approved subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions.

9 Recommendation

9.1 Approval subject to the following conditions:

1 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

2 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

3 Parking Management Strategy including an electric vehicle parking space

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

5 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

6 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation (variable)

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

8 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

9 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

Page 11 of 14

10 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

11 Requires the prior submission of level details

12 Requires the prior submission of residential sprinkler details

13 Requires the prior submission of curved glass, balcony and reveal details

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

15 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

16 Requires gates to be set back

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

18 Limits the hours of use of retail to 08:00 - 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 09:00 - 18:00 Sundays

19 Prevents the retail use from changing use class

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

21 No obstruction, displays or signage fitted to shop front.

22 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Nicholas Jackson

Page 12 of 14 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Application site

Figure 2 – Adjacent Site Page 13 of 14 Location Plan

1 to 15

Abbey Court 41

Lych Gate 10 125.0m Highclare School

Garage

Works

9 8 13

Garage

20 22

Builder's 60 Yard 8

Osborne Nursery School El Sub Sta 6

8 Works 121.6m 24

Surgery 26

32a 38 to 50 122.1m

Works 32 ORPHANAGE ROAD Works

122.3m

202 HIGH STREET 26 Garage EDWARDS ROAD 18 to 22

198

196 40 Car Park

4 1 to 14 46a

2 46b

46c Fire Station

48 48a 12

5 Sta

Page 14 of 14 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 03 March 2016

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Defer – Informal Approval 22 2015/10323/PA

Land at Wrentham Street, Kent Street & Gooch Street North Southside Birmingham B5

Erection of 3-6 storey building comprising 141 residential apartments, ground floor commercial unit (Use Classes A1, A2, B1(a) and D2) together with associated parking and landscaping

Approve - Conditions 23 2015/08508/PA

The Grand Hotel 31A Colmore Row Birmingham B3 2QD

Approve - Conditions 24 2015/08604/PA

The Grand Hotel 31A Colmore Row Birmingham B3 2QD

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Defer – Informal Approval 25 2015/09323/PA

Land at 44-47 Princip Street City Centre Birmingham B4 6LN

Refer to DCLG 26 2015/09453/PA

44 Princip Street City Centre Birmingham B4 6LW

Approve - Conditions 27 2015/07915/PA

Former Belmont Works Cardigan Street Birmingham B4 7RJ

Reserved matters application (scale, appearance, layout and landscaping) for proposed part demolition, alterations and extensions to former Belmont Works to provide retail uses (Use Classes A1 to A5) at lower ground floor and ground floor and/or offices (Use Classes B1(a) and B1(b)) on the lower ground floor, ground floor, first floor and second floor with associated courtyard and boundary treatment pursuant to outline application 2009/00308/PA (Plot B)

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/10323/PA Accepted: 24/12/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 24/03/2016 Ward: Nechells

Land at Wrentham Street, Kent Street & Gooch Street North, Southside, Birmingham, B5

Erection of 3-6 storey building comprising 141 residential apartments, ground floor commercial unit (Use Classes A1, A2, B1(a) and D2) together with associated parking and landscaping Applicant: Seven Capital PLC c/o Agent 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 proposes the erection of a 3-6 storey residential apartment block with ancillary commercial unit (A1, A2, B1(a) and D2) (128 sq.m) at ground floor level on a cleared irregular plot of land in Southside. The residential element of the proposal would comprise of the following:

• A total of 141 residential units • 81 no. (56%) 1 bedroom apartments • 59 no. (43.3%) 2 bedroom apartments • 1 no. 3 bedroom apartment at fourth floor level (0.7%)

• Residential development density of 422 per hectare.

1.2. The proposals present street frontages to Kent Street, Wrentham Street and Gooch Street North off which a vehicular access to a centrally located car park is located. In order to protect amenity side-facing elevations to the development do not contain windows except for a single window at the top floor level that is set back from the side boundary.

1.3. Due to the site’s irregular shape the scheme comprises of three connected blocks fronting each of the surrounding streets. The Wrentham Street block varies between 4 and 6 storeys in height with the uppermost floor setback from the frontage to provide a roof terrace area. Site levels drop by roughly 1 storey from west to east, with the proposed development dropping to four storeys at each end.

1.4. The Gooch Street North element of the building also transitions from 4 to 6 storeys, with the taller element on the higher part of the site.

Page 1 of 14 1.5. Kent Street transitions from 5 to 3 storeys in height with the building dropping down to the adjacent Fountain Inn.

1.6. In terms of architectural appearance the elevations are designed to provide a horizontal emphasis with windows grouped with recessed brick panels. This is punctuated with circulation cores with extensive glazing and expressed steel beams. The extensive use of brick as a facing material, with contrasting brick panels result in a robust architectural style that is a similar approach used on other buildings within the area. The ground floor is treated differently with an overall double order to its proportions. A number of the ground floor residential units would benefit from ‘winter gardens’ which form separation from the street and an additional useable space. Timber louvered elements would provide visual interest and access into these features. The commercial unit would feature a simple glazed shop front.

1.7. Since the application’s submission amended plans resulting in external metal cladding of the upper level being substituted with brick, minor layout changes to maximise access to natural light and the re-organisation of materials on the Wrentham Street elevation including substituting the metal cladding at lower levels with acid etched glass have been submitted.

1.8. Negotiated Heads of Terms total £320,000, comprising £145,300 toward public realm improvements, £57,300 car club, £117,400 as an off-site affordable housing contribution and a commitment to using local employment during construction of the development.

1.9. A total of 47 no. spaces would be provided within the development’s private courtyard which represents a 33% provision.

1.10. This application is supported by detailed plans and elevations; a Planning Statement; Design and Access Statement; Design and Access Statement; Noise, Air Quality and Odour Report; Habitat Survey; Contaminated Land Assessment; Sustainable Drainage Strategy and Drainage Maintenance Plan; Transport Assessment; Travel Plan; and Viability Assessment and Residential Market Report.

1.11. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. This irregular shaped development site measures approximately 0.334ha and has three road frontages. The site falls towards the east and is currently overgrown scrub land. The site consists of the majority of a triangular plot of land bounded by Gooch Street North, Kent Street and Wrentham Street. Two traditional public houses and a surface car park complete the street block.

2.2. The site is in a mixed use area including the vacant Monaco House / Bristol Street site situated to the southwest, four storey maisonettes are sited directly opposite to the south with a nine storey block of apartments to their east. There is a karaoke bar on the corner obliquely opposite the British Oak public house. Industrial buildings are situated to the east of the application site, together with a place of worship, a restaurant and storage distribution uses. There is a further surface level car park to the north/west with a recently converted and refurbished terrace fronting Bristol Street accommodating retail uses at ground floor with student accommodation above (locally listed Grade A).

Page 2 of 14 Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 14.12.2004 – 2001/05677/PA – Approval – Erection of buildings to accommodate apartments, and retail units with associated accessed, parking and curtilage treatments.

3.2. 23.01.2006 – 2005/07539/PA – Approval – Outline application for proposed hotel (maximum 100 bedrooms).

3.3. 17.01.2008 – 2007/06356/PA – Approval – Erection of 120 apartments, 4 retail units, access, parking and landscaping.

3.4. 28.02.2011 – 2010/06740/PA – Approval – Application for new planning permission to replace extant planning consent 2007/06356/PA.

3.5. 22.01.2013 – 2012/07992/PA – Approval – Creation of car park for a temporary period of 3 years. Now expired.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development - Raises no objection subject to conditions requiring completion of an appropriate highways agreement, provision of pedestrian visibility splays, requiring the parking area to be provided and laid out before the used of the apartments, provision of cycle storage, car park management plan and a construction travel plan. In addition note that recent city centre planning applications have included a contribution towards a car club and recommend a contribution of £57,300 is secured.

4.2. Regulatory Services – Raise no objection subject to conditions requiring details of refuse storage, contaminated land remediation and verification reports, extraction, noise insulation and glazing standards.

4.3. Local Services – Request a contribution towards off-site public open space provision within the Nechells Ward.

4.4. Lead Local Flood Authority (BCC) – Accept in principle the proposed strategy of permeable pavements, attenuation storage and a flow control device further details such as cross sections of the permeable pavement and infiltration rate tests need to be provided. Recommend conditions requiring further drainage information.

4.5. Environment Agency – No objection

4.6. West Midlands Police – No objection and makes specific recommendations regarding security and lighting measures.

4.7. West Midlands Fire Service – No objection following the provision of additional plans showing dry rising fire mains.

4.8. Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to a condition requiring the prior approval of foul and surface water drainage.

Page 3 of 14 4.9. Site and Press Notices posted. Ward Members, the Member of Parliament, Residents’ Associations and local occupiers noted with the following representation received from the neighbouring British Oak Public House:

• Insufficient Parking • There is a drug and homeless problem in the area • Will affect their business

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005 (UDP); the submission draft Birmingham Development Plan (BDP); ‘Places for All’ (2001) SPG; ‘Places for Living’ (2001) SPG; ‘Shop Fronts Design Guide’ (1995) SPG; ‘Car Parking Guidelines’ (2012) SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012.

6. Planning Considerations

POLICY

6.1. Policy 15.96 of the UDP states that there are opportunities for infill housing development and that in the longer term it may be appropriate to introduce mixed uses into the area. Policy 5.32 encourages the construction of new dwellings and conversions from alternative uses within the City Centre – highlighting Digbeth as an area where considerable potential exists. This is subject to the creation of a satisfactory living environment and that the development would not undermine the primary economic function of an industrial area.

6.2. A presumption in favour of sustainable development is at the heart of the NPPF. Policy 52 of the NPPF lends support to the conversion of commercial buildings to residential use where appropriate, and more generally encourages the delivery of a sustainable housing mix. The NPPF also considers high design standards integral to the delivery of sustainable development, which is the central pillar of the document.

6.3. The draft Development Plan sets out a vision for the sustainable growth of the city for the period until 2031. The plan identifies opportunities for an additional 51,100 additional homes within the city together with the associated growth of employment and retailing. More specifically the plan requires development to be responsive to site conditions and create safe and sustainable places (PG3). The plan supports residential development within the City Centre (GA1.1) where it provides well- designed good quality living environments.

6.4. The site is within the Southern Gateway Transformation Area (GA1.2) which will be the focus for the expansion of the city core southwards with residential supported as part of the future mix of uses in this locality. Policy TP27 states that housing should be located where there is sufficient infrastructure. TP29 states that, in the City Centre, a housing density of 100 per hectare should be achieved as a minimum.

6.5. Managing flood risk (TP6), biodiversity (TP8), affordable housing (TP30) and connectivity are key issues outlined in the plan.

6.6. The Big City Plan provides non-statutory guidance on key development priorities within the City Centre. The BCP also highlights that the site is close to the Southern Gateway major transformation area which envisages opportunities for mixed-use

Page 4 of 14 development including new residential neighbourhoods and the Monaco House site which presents an opportunity for major redevelopment.

PRINCIPLE

6.7. The application proposals would deliver a sustainable residential development within the City Centre well served by existing facilities and infrastructure. The scheme would deliver a mix of apartment sizes and follows previous consents for residential redevelopment, dating back to 2004.

6.8. Residential redevelopment of this site would be consistent with other residential approvals/developments envisaged as part of the Southern Gateway Transformation Area. The relatively high development density of 422 dwellings per hectare is appropriate and makes efficient use of this previously developed site.

6.9. The addition of a modest retail store on Wrentham Street recognises the need to enliven this key pedestrian route.

6.10. I therefore raise no objection to the principle of the proposed uses.

DESIGN

6.11. The supporting Design and Access Statement notes the fragmented nature of the immediate context, with a wide variety of materials and uses combined with cleared sites. The only consistent factor identified is the use of brick, although there is a range of type and colours used.

6.12. The application proposals show a brick built building of varying heights from 3-6 storeys. The upper floor is set back to provide a roof terrace area. Elevations would comprise of a facing brick with windows grouped using a contrasting facing brick that provides an overall horizontal emphasis to the elevations. A detail showing a generous window reveal of 100mm has been provided. A small cantilevered element to the Gooch Street North elevation provides further interest.

6.13. At ground floor in addition to the large windows associated with the retail unit the glazed ‘winter gardens’ with louvered doors and double order windows grouped with the contrasting brick would provide a distinct treatment to the principal Wrentham Street frontage. The contrasting brick and winter garden approach would be carried around the Kent Street and Gooch Street frontages.

6.14. The overall effect is a well-defined top, middle and bottom to the development.

6.15. In terms of massing, the building would be modelled so that it drops to respect the lower public houses either side and rises up to the vacant car park site to the north. This is largely consistent with past approvals and is a well-considered approach that is appropriate for this site. Blank elevations are presented to the car park site so as not to compromise the future redevelopment of this site which would represent the completion of this overall triangular development plot.

6.16. Overall the simple style using a combination of two brick colours and window reveals to provide interest is appropriate and responds well to the existing built form in this part of Southside.

Page 5 of 14 6.17. The City Design and Conservation Manager has had a significant input into the evolution of the design and secured amendments to the layout and detailed design of the buildings.

6.18. I therefore raise no design-based objections subject to suitable safeguarding conditions to ensure that design quality is maintained.

AMENITY

6.19. Due to the site’s constrained nature there is no on-site open space provided for occupiers of the proposed scheme. Opportunities to create private space for each unit such as the winter gardens and roof terrace have been taken where possible. In addition a significant financial contribution towards improvements to the public realm is proposed which would benefit occupiers of the scheme as well as the wider area.

6.20. In respect of the Nationally Described Space Standards, two bedroom units would be in compliance (63 sq.m provided). The single three bedroom unit is close to being compliant (85 sq.m provided (86 sq.m is the target). The one bedroom units are shown as two person units with the target being 50 sq.m. The proposals show apartments of 42 sq.m, which, although below this guideline, is considered acceptable. Indicative furniture layouts have been provided with adequate space shown for living/eating, bedroom, bathroom and storage space provided. I note that a number of the units also benefit from winter gardens and roof terrace areas. I also note that whilst the national standards are useful in providing guidance on the acceptability of certain accommodation, in the absence of a local policy referencing these standards they cannot be decisive in decision making.

6.21. Interface distances at the back of the scheme vary between 14m and 34m, although all are at an oblique angle due to the triangular shape of the site. Frontage to frontage interface distances across Wrentham Street are circa 20m, which is consistent with previous consents on this site.

6.22. Whilst I note that a number of ground floor units only have outlook into the rear car parking area, this is acceptable in the context of them forming a small element of a wider redevelopment package and is a consequence of the irregular shape of the application site. Amendments to the layout have been secured that maximise opportunities for access to light and outlook.

6.23. The accompanying Noise Assessment presents the results of on-site measurements which feed into three dimensional noise modelling. Sources of noise include traffic, entertainment/patron noise from the adjacent public houses and from the future restaurant permitted on Gooch Street North. The report notes that whilst there is a high level of ambient noise, an appropriate glazing and ventilation strategy would mitigate this impact and result in an acceptable living environment.

6.24. Regulatory Services raise no objection subject to safeguarding conditions including recommending a higher glazing specification to that as suggested in the accompanying Noise Assessment. Given the proximity of entertainment venues I concur with this conclusion, and an appropriate condition is recommended.

6.25. The remaining conditions recommended by Regulatory Services are attached with the exception of refuse storage as adequate facilities are shown on the proposed plans and ventilation details for the commercial unit as no A3, A4 or A5 uses are being applied for.

Page 6 of 14 6.26. An Air Quality Report submitted with the application models the impact of air quality on the development, including modelling the environment in 2017. The report concludes that no mitigation is required in order to provide a satisfactory living environment. Dust suppression measures are recommended as mitigation during the construction phase in order to minimise the impact upon surrounding residents. An appropriate condition is recommended.

6.27. The proposal would not materially overlook or overshadow neighbouring residential properties and would result in improving the visual amenity of local residents by virtue of the replacement of this overgrown cleared site with appropriate development. The comments from the neighbouring public house are noted, however the application site benefits from previous residential consents and I consider the imposition of suitable safeguarding conditions adequate to provide a suitable level of amenity without unduly compromising the activities of this business.

6.28. I therefore raise no amenity based objections subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions.

HIGHWAY MATTERS

6.29. Transportation Development raises no objection subject to conditions. I concur with their conclusion that the level of parking proposed (47 spaces - 33%) in this location is sufficient. The site is easily accessed from a variety of sustainable modes of public transport and storage space for 86 cycles would be provided. The conditions in respect of a highways agreement, car park management plan, provision of the parking spaces, provision of the cycle parking and a construction travel plan are attached and recommended.

6.30. I note the request for a contribution towards a car club of £57,300 and an appropriate resolution is recommended.

6.31. The development is of a similar intensity to the previously approved scheme and would not prejudice the safety or free flow of the highway network. I therefore raise no highway safety or free flow objections subject to suitable safeguarding conditions.

ECOLOGY

6.32. The site has been cleared and there are no mature trees of note affected by the proposed development, with the site partly covered by dense scrub. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey has been submitted which concludes that the site has limited existing ecological potential and recommends further control of Japanese Knotweed is undertaken. The City Ecologist concurs with the report’s recommendation that site clearance be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season or with the assistance of a suitably qualified ecologist. He adds that biodiversity roofing would provide some compensation for the loss of habitat for foraging birds/insects. Should this not be feasible a green wall is recommended. Nest boxes should also be secured as mitigation.

6.33. In response the applicant has confirmed that brown roofs will be introduced into the scheme. I therefore recommend a condition requiring details of this feature together with details of bird nesting boxes.

PLANNING OBLIGATION / VIABILITY

Page 7 of 14 6.34. Since the application’s submission there have been ongoing negotiations regarding the financial viability of the scheme and the planning obligation offered. Upon submission no financial obligation was proposed on financial viability grounds. Following detained negotiations which have included an independent assessment of the scheme, an obligation totalling £320,000 has been agreed in addition to a local employment during construction clause.

6.35. The obligation would be used for public realm improvements within the local area, a contribution towards a car club and an off-site affordable housing contribution.

6.36. I conclude that the level and spend purpose of the above planning obligation represents a significant level of planning gain that is in scale with the proposed development and CIL regulation compliant. I note that the proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution as it is not in a high value residential part of the city.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The application proposals represent a significant level of investment within Southside. Combined with other schemes in the locality it could help support the Southern Gateway transformation that will be kick-started by the redevelopment of the wholesale market site as envisaged by the Big City Plan.

7.2. This negotiated scheme will deliver a quality building providing commercial activity to the street. This approach is appropriate and results in the reconstruction of part of these street frontages.

7.3. The negotiated planning obligation would provide significant benefit to the city through employment opportunities, an enhanced public realm and affordable housing provision.

7.4. I therefore recommend that this application is supported subject to suitable safeguarding conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve application number 2015/10323/PA subject to the conditions listed below and a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

8.2. a) The payment of £145,300 (index linked to construction costs from 17th March 2016 to the date on which payment is made) towards the enhancement and improvement of public open space/public realm at Hippodrome Square/Ladywell Walk and/or Kent Street and/or Gooch Street North and/or Wrentham, Street.

b) A financial contribution of £117,400 (index linked from 17th March 2016) towards off-site affordable housing within the Birmingham City Council administrative boundary.

c) A financial contribution of £57,300 (index linked from the date of resolution) towards the expansion and on-going provision of a car club for use by residents of the site

d) Commitment by the developer to secure local employment opportunities.

Page 8 of 14 e) Payment of a monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal agreement subject to a maximum contribution of £10,000 which is due at the point of completion of the agreement.

8.3. In the event that the Section 106 obligation is not completed by 22nd March 2016, planning permission shall be refused for the following reasons:

8.4. In the absence of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards the delivery of the public realm improvements; secure a contribution towards off-site affordable housing provision and a commitment to local employment opportunities, the proposed development conflicts with Policies 5.37A-D, 6.45 and 8.50-8.54 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005, the adopted Affordable Housing SPG and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

8.5. in the absence of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure car club funding, the proposal conflicts with 6.20A of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 2005 and TP37 of the Draft Birmingham Plan 2031;

8.6. That the City Solicitor be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the appropriate planning obligation.

8.7. That in the event of the Section 106 legal agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local planning Authority by the 22nd March 2016, favourable consideration would be given to the application, subject to the conditions listed below;

1 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

2 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

3 Requires the prior submission of sample brickwork

4 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

5 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation between the residential and commercial units

6 Requires the prior submission of a foul water drainage scheme

7 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

8 Requires the submission prior to occupation of the properties of a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan

9 Requires the prior submission of details of brown roofs

10 Requires the prior submission of details of bird boxes

11 Requires the prior submission of hard and soft landscape details

12 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

13 Requires the prior submission of level details

Page 9 of 14 14 Requires the prior submission of a construction method statement/management plan

15 Requires the prior approval of a Car Park Management Plan including an electric vehicle charging point

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

17 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

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

19 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

20 Requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the supporting Air Quality Assessment.

21 Sets the minimum acoustic performance of glazing to habitable rooms

22 Prevents the commercial unit from changing Use Class

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

24 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Nicholas Jackson

Page 10 of 14 Photo(s)

Figure 1 - The Fountain Inn (Site Beyond)

Page 11 of 14

Figure 2 – Wrentham Street

Page 12 of 14

Figure 3 – Application Site

Page 13 of 14 Location Plan

GOOCH STREET NORTH 11 to 15

114.3m 16 Car Pk

15 103 to 107 to 103

Priory House White

84 to 88 to 84 .7m 71 to 68 Horse

(PH) 99 to 10 to 99 Factory

18 to 27 Far East Building 82 to 80 El Sub Sta

Bakery

112.5m

75 Depot 70

44 to 46 Works

HENSTEAD STREET HENSTEAD 111.6m 54 Works KENT STREET Works

GOOCH STREET NORTH Warehouse

Works

ehouse 66 Works

Fountain Inn British Oak (PH) HAM STREET (PH) Works

80 77

WRENTHAM STREET 109.1m

1 to 12 77 41 14 to 37 Boots Bar (PH)

House Playground Highgate

SUGDEN GROVE

24 nnel 6

100

18 14 VERNOLDS

CROFT

38 47

40 54

88 32

82 86 78 El

Page 14 of 14

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/08508/PA Accepted: 16/10/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 03/03/2016 Ward: Ladywood

The Grand Hotel, 31A Colmore Row, City Centre, Birmingham, B3 2QD

Change of use at basement, lower ground and ground floor from hotel (C1) to restaurant/cafe (A3), drinking establishment (A4), and the change of use on first and second floor from hotel (C1) to office (B1) Applicant: Hortons' Estates c/o Agent Agent: CBRE 55 Temple Row, Birmingham, B2 5LS, Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application seeks consent for the change of use at basement, lower ground and ground floor from hotel (C1) and shops (A1) to restaurant/cafe (A3) and (A4) drinking establishment and the change of use on first and second floor from hotel (C1) to office (B1). There is an accompanying listed building application 2015/08604/PA for various internal alterations to facilitate the proposed change of use.

1.2. The proposed changes are all to the Colmore Row frontage and include:

• Basement:

- Hotel (C1) to Retail (A1) (134 sq.m)

- Hotel (C1) area reverting to Retail/Restaurant (A1 and A3) (252 sq.m)

- Redesign of areas is a result of additional plant

• Lower Ground:

- (Unit 10) Hotel(C1) to Restaurant(A3) (253 sq.m)

- Retail units replanned

• Ground Floor:

- Unit 1 – A1 Retail to A3 Restaurant/Cafe (285.7 sq.m)

- Units 8-9 – A1 Retail to A4 Bar (455.6 sq.m)

Page 1 of 9 - Unit 10 – A1 Retail to A3 Restaurant/Cafe (482.3 sq.m)

• First Floor:

- Rationalisation of current proposed office floor space.

• Second Floor:

- Hotel (C1) to Office (B1) (152 sq.m)

1.3. The total proposed floor space for the change of uses over Basement – Second Floor is 2014.6sq.m. No details of hours of use or number of employees have been submitted.

1.4. In support of the application a Design and Access Statement, including a Heritage Assessment has been submitted. The proposed internal works are described in the accompanying application (2015/08604/PA) for listed building consent, which appears elsewhere on your committee agenda.

1.5. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The Grand Hotel, covering 0.4 hectares, is a primarily French Renaissance style collection of what are essentially five buildings built between 1879 and 1895. This collection of buildings exhibits a range of materials and architectural styles and varies in height from eight storeys on Colmore Row to a four storey element on Barwick Street. The building makes extensive use of roof space with dormer windows on all three elevations.

2.2. The buildings are arranged in a ‘U’ shape in plan with the longer elevations to Colmore Row and Barwick Street. The Grand forms the majority of this street block which is completed by the modern building occupied by Barclays on the corner of Livery Street.

2.3. The building forms an important historic backdrop to St Philip’s Cathedral and churchyard and whilst being within the Business District it is also in close proximity to the civic and retail cores of the city. The square is characterised by historic buildings (typically 6-8 storeys high) to the north and west, with more modern buildings to the south and east.

2.4. The Grand Hotel is a Grade II* listed building situated within the Colmore Row and Environs Conservation Area.

2.5. Location Plan

3. Planning History

Page 2 of 9 3.1. 26 April 2012. Application 2012/01148/PA. Listed Building Consent granted for selective demolition, internal & external alterations and extension of existing hotel building to include replacement external roof to Colmore Row, and extensions to the upper floors at rear of Barwick Street elevation and restoration of building facades.

3.2. 27 April 2012 Application 2012/01147/PA. Planning consent granted for selective demolition and minor extension of existing hotel with partial change of use to include: replacement extended roof to Colmore Row for hotel (C1) use, selective change of use from hotel (C1) to office (B1a) use including rear extension to Barwick Street building, change of use at ground and lower ground floor (Colmore Row) from retail (A1) use to hotel (C1) use, change of use at lower ground floor (Barwick Street) from hotel (C1) to retail (A1), extension of pavement at Church Street to accommodate new entrance canopy and vehicle drop off facility, installation of plant and machinery at roof level, creation of terraced area within courtyard and associated development.

3.3. 7 February 2014. Application 2013/09384/PA. Planning consent granted for amendments to approved Listed Building Consent 2012/01148/PA to allow for a reduction in demolition and new build as well as changes to the internal layout.

3.4. 14 March 2014. Application 2014/01435/PA. Planning consent granted for minor material amendment to planning permission ref:- 2012/01147/PA to allow for internal reconfiguration of the building in line with Listed Building Consent ref:- 2013/09384/PA, change of use at lower ground floor (Barwick Street) from hotel (Use Class C1) to drinking establishment (Use Class A4) and minor extension of the pavement at Barwick Street.

3.5. 16 October 2015. Application 2015/08604/PA – Concurrent Application that seeks Listed Building Consent for internal alterations associated with change of use at basement, lower ground and ground floor from hotel (C1) to restaurant/cafe (A3), bar (A4) and the change of use on first and second floor from hotel (C1) to office (B1).

3.6. Application 2015/10440/PA – Listed building consent granted for the internal fit out of Units 8-9 at ground, lower ground and basement fronting Colmore Row.

3.7. Application 2015/10444/PA – Listed building consent granted for the internal fit out of Unit 10 at ground, lower ground and basement fronting Colmore Row.

3.8. In 2004 the building was Grade II* listed in recognition of its impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and special qualities such as the survival of the Grosvenor Suite ballroom and an early shop interior (Anatomical Boot Co.).

3.9. More recently restoration of the façade has been completed along the Colmore Row elevation and the Church Street elevation.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Local Councillors, Birmingham City Centre Management, MPs, Colmore BID, residents associations and adjoining occupiers notified. Site and press notice posted. No response received. Previous applications consultation responses offered support for the scheme.

Page 3 of 9 4.2. Historic England – Concerned about the greater levels of additional demolition proposed, especially in the lower ground, ground, first and second floors; these include load-bearing walls and dividing walls between retail units and that the application does not carry sufficient description of these nor presentation of their age and significance. Furthermore the proposal to replan and refurbish offices internally lacks information on what historic joinery or finishes they have, if any. In addition there is no justification for the changes to the shop fronts. Therefore they advise that additional information be sought before determining the application.

4.3. BCC Regulatory Services – Raise no objection in principle, but raise concerns about the provision of suitable extraction to serve commercial cooking facilities. Other than in exceptional circumstances, they require vertical discharge above nearby roof levels. They recommend that clarification of the proposed extraction should be sought, prior to further comments on the application. This is of particular importance as there are listed building issues.

4.4. BCC Transportation – No objection.

4.5. Local Lead Flood Authority – No objection.

4.6. Conservation Heritage Panel – No objection.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005 Saved Policies (UDP), Draft Birmingham Development Plan 2031, Colmore Row and Environs Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan SPD; National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF).

5.2. The Grand Hotel is Grade II* listed and within the Colmore Row and Environs Conservation Area. The hotel fronts the Grade I listed St Philip’s Cathedral and is close to the Grade II listed 55 Colmore Row.

6. Planning Considerations

Background & Planning Policy:

6.1. In 2012, planning and listed building consent were granted for the selective demolition, internal & external alterations and extension of existing hotel building to include replacement external roof to Colmore Row, and extensions to the upper floors at rear of Barwick Street elevation and restoration of building facades. These works have subsequently been completed and over this time the scheme has evolved, in line with proposed tenants requirements. It is now proposed to change the use of parts of the hotel fronting Colmore Row to include restaurants/café and bar uses and some additional office space on the second floor.

6.2. Paragraph 4.33 states that the city council supports office activity and growth and Paragraph 4.38 of the Birmingham UDP highlights the importance of offices as one of the city centres core activities. Its continued growth is key to the future prosperity of the city centre.

6.3. Paragraphs 8.6 and 8.7 of the Birmingham UDP provide guidance on the location of new restaurants, cafés and hot food takeaways (and this includes wine bars).

Page 4 of 9 Paragraph 8.7 states that such uses should generally be confined to shopping areas or areas of mixed commercial development. It also states that in determining any such application consideration should be given to: the cumulative impact of such uses in terms of impact on the amenity of the area and traffic generation; the proposed opening hours and where evening opening is involved the impact on residential amenity; and the availability of public transport, convenient on/off street car and cycle parking provision and impact on highway safety.

Principle of Uses:

6.4. Within the immediate area of the site are coffee shops, restaurants, restaurant/bars, offices and a hotel. The addition of a restaurant/café/bar uses along the Colmore Row frontage would not result in an adverse cumulative impact. In addition the proposed uses would help bring the premises back into use and would create active and lively ground floor frontages.

6.5. Part of the upper floor of the Colmore Row frontage has previously been used as offices. I therefore have no objection to the proposed use of part of the second floor as offices. Such a use would be consistent with planning policy.

Noise and Disturbance:

6.6. There are no residential units within the immediate area of the site; it is therefore considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact to the amenities of residents.

6.7. BCC Regulatory Services raised concerns about the provision of suitable extraction to serve commercial cooking facilities. Other than in exceptional circumstances, they require vertical discharge above nearby roof levels.

6.8. The applicant has agreed that cooking fumes will be discharged at high level and details have been submitted with the fit out applications for the Restaurants/Bars in Units 8/9 and 10 (Applications 2015/10440/PA and 2015/10444/PA). Conditions are attached to secure implementation of the fume extraction equipment in respect of Units 8/9 and 10 and to secure further details in respect of Unit 1.

Impact on Character and Appearance of Listed Building and Conservation Area:

6.9. The ground floor frontage to Colmore Row has in the past included a mix of retail uses. In principle therefore I have no objections to the proposed retail uses, which would help preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the listed building and conservation area. The detailed impacts of the proposal on the listed building are considered in the accompanying listed building consent application (2015/08604/PA).

Highway Safety:

6.10. BCC Transportation Development expects there to not be any significant difference between the consented use as a hotel and the proposed B1 office and A3/A4 restaurant/café/bar uses. Servicing would take place as per existing commercial activities within the building. There are no changes to the building that affect the public highway. I concur with this view.

Page 5 of 9 7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider that the proposed change of uses represent a good balance between restoring the building to its former glory against the requirements of a viable mixed use development. As such, I consider that the development is consistent with both the national and local policy context and that it would enhance the character and appearance of this prominent listed building.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions

1 The development shall be implemented in accordance with the fume and extract details approved in accordance with applications 2015/10440/PA and 2015/10444/PA and thereafter retained.

2 Unit 1 shall not be occupied as a restaurant/café until details of the extract ventilation and odour control equipment, and external ducting has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and thereafter marinated.

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

4 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Myles Smith

Page 6 of 9 Photo(s)

View along Colmore Row

Page 7 of 9

Colmore Row Elevation

Page 8 of 9

Location Plan

25 COLMORE C

FB 24

Ramp

176 PH

174

172 45 7 Snow Hill 43

170 15

41 Interchange Station 1 11 39 Place 168

CHURCH STREET 37 10

164

160

158 LB

Snow Hill House 19 9

10 TCBs 12

150 Rutland COLMORE ROW House Hotel

148 10

30 1 to 3 16a 15

135

125 to 133 to 125

40 26

39 24

20 22

LB 22

20 23 21 38

18 37

135.0m BARWICK STREET 28 to 26

119 TCBs

16 36 117

PH 121 31

Sub Sta 38 El

65 53 8

to Shelters 4 43 137.2m LB

55 ST PHILIP'S PLACE

Bank 4 60 55

TCBs

61 to 67 COLMORE ROW

St Philip's Churchyard 71

77 Bishop Gore Birmingham Statue 79 to 83 Cathedral TEMPLE ROW WEST

(C of E) 78 to 90 to 78

85 to 89 LB

137.8m

3 98

TCB Ps Burnaby eWe Memorial

Page 9 of 9

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/08604/PA Accepted: 15/10/2015 Application Type: Listed Building Target Date: 03/03/2016 Ward: Ladywood

The Grand Hotel, 31A Colmore Row, City Centre, Birmingham, B3 2QD

Listed Building Consent for internal alterations associated with change of use at basement, lower ground and ground floor from hotel (C1) to restaurant/cafe (A3), drinking establishment (A4) and the change of use on first and second floor from hotel (C1) to office (B1) Applicant: Hortons' Estates c/o Agent Agent: CBRE 55 Temple Row, Birmingham, B2 5LS, Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. In 2012 listed building consent was granted permission, subject to conditions, for various internal and external alterations. This listed building application seeks further various internal alterations that differ from prior consented alterations, in connection with the proposed change of use at basement, lower ground and ground floor from hotel (C1) to restaurant/cafe (A3) and the change of use on first and second floor from hotel (C1) to office (B1) (Application 2015/08508/PA). The proposals include internal alterations to basement, lower ground floor, ground floor, first floor and second floor, including the proposal for new demolitions outside of the existing consent and for existing ones that are no longer required.

1.2. In detail internal works to the building comprise:

• Basement: – Significant preapproved demolition of floors no longer required, some minor wall demolition proposed. • Lower Ground Floor – Some minor floor and wall demolition proposed and small area of preapproved floor demolition no longer required. • Ground Floor – Large areas of floor and wall demolition proposed and some minor preapproved demolition no longer required. • 1st Floor – Some minor floor and wall demolition proposed. • 2nd Floor – Some minor wall demolition proposed.

1.3. In support of this application an amended Design and Access Statement (including revised demolition plans for all floors and proposed floor plans for all floors) and a Heritage Statement have been submitted.

1.4. Link to Documents

Page 1 of 8

2. Site & Surroundings

2.4. Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. 26 April 2012. Application 2012/01148/PA. Listed Building Consent granted for selective demolition, internal & external alterations and extension of existing hotel building to include replacement external roof to Colmore Row, and extensions to the upper floors at rear of Barwick Street elevation and restoration of building facades.

3.5. 16 October 2015. Application 2015/08508/PA – Concurrent application that seeks approval for the change of use at basement, lower ground and ground floor from

Page 2 of 8 hotel (C1) to restaurant/cafe (A3), drinking establishment (A4) and the change of use on first and second floor from hotel (C1) to office (B1).

3.6. Application 2015/10440/PA – Concurrent application that seeks Listed Building Consent for the internal fit out of Units 8-9 at ground, lower ground and basement.

3.7. Application 2015/10444/PA – Concurrent application that seeks Listed Building Consent for the internal fit out of Unit 10 at ground, lower ground and basement.

3.9. More recently restoration of the façade has been completed along the Colmore Row elevation and the Church Street elevation.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Local Councillors, Birmingham City Centre Management, Colmore BID, residents associations and adjoining occupiers notified. Site notice posted. No response received. Previous applications consultation responses offered support for the scheme.

4.2. Historic England – Express concern over the greater levels of additional demolition proposed, especially in the lower ground, ground, first and second floors; these include load-bearing walls and dividing walls between retail units and that the application does not carry sufficient description of these nor presentation of their age and significance. Furthermore the proposal to replan and refurbish offices internally lacks information on what historic joinery or finishes they have, if any. In addition there is no justification for the changes to the shop fronts. They recommend greater levels of information regarding the significance of the proposals demolition, and the documentation of existing heritage assets and that the application is determined based upon national and local policy guidance and guidance of conservation advice.

4.3. BCC Regulatory Services – Raise no objection in principle, but raise concerns about the provision of suitable extraction to serve commercial cooking facilities. Other than in exceptional circumstances, they will require vertical discharge above nearby roof levels. They recommend that clarification of the proposed extraction should be sought, prior to further comments on the application. This is of particular importance if there are listed building or conservation issues.

4.4. Conservation Heritage Panel – No objection.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005 Saved Policies (UDP), Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Colmore Row and Environs Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan SPD; National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF).

Page 3 of 8

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The key consideration for this application is the impact of the proposals upon the fabric, setting and significance of this Grade II* listed building.

6.2. Policy:

6.3. Guidance in relation to the conservation of a historic environment is provided for through the UDP Policy 3.25. It states that any development affecting a listed building should preserve or enhance its character, with special regard given to the desirability of securing retention, restoration and continued use of the buildings of special historic interest. Furthermore it states that consent for demolition or partial demolition will not be granted, unless reasonably demonstrated that every possible effort has been explored in order to preserve the structure of the building.

6.4. The UDP also provides guidance on development within Conservation Areas. Policy 3.27 states that new development should respect the character of existing architecture in scale, grouping and materials.

6.5. The NPPF para 131 states that local planning authorities are required to take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset, the contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities, the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local distinctiveness and character and that, wherever possible, such assets should be put to an appropriate and viable use that is consistent with their conservation. Further guidance is provided by paras 132 and 134.

6.6. Impact on Listed Building:

6.7. In 2012 listed building consent was granted for selective demolition, internal & external alterations and extension of existing hotel building to include replacement external roof to Colmore Row, and extensions to the upper floors at rear of Barwick Street elevation and restoration of building facades. Following further analysis the scheme has developed and a number of alterations to the 2012 consent are now proposed. These changes are to the internal layout, some reversal of permitted demolition and some new demolition.

6.8. I note the comments of Historic England, which have been raised with the applicant. In response the applicant provided a detailed photographic record that identified the significance attached to the heritage asset and a supporting statement.

6.9. My Conservation Officer has considered the additional information and states that, the ground and lower floors have been altered over the lifespan of the building with almost no historic features surviving. He further states that the proposals do not differ greatly from the approved plans and have no substantial impact on the significance of the listed building and therefore raises no objection to the proposal.

6.10. I note the comments made by BCC Regulatory Services about the fume extraction equipment. These details have subsequently been agreed as part of the internal fit out applications (ref 2015/10440/PA and 2015/10444/PA) for units 8/9 and unit 10. A condition is attached to start to secure fume extraction details for Unit 1.

Page 4 of 8

7. Conclusion

7.1. The application would enable The Grand Hotel to continue to be repaired and reinstated. The key elements of the building that provide historic significance as identified within the Statement of Significance would be retained and restored. Areas of the building where significant change is proposed are limited to those areas of lesser historic significance. I consider that the proposed alterations are acceptable and therefore consider that the development is consistent with both the national and local policy context and that it would enhance the character and appearance of this prominent listed building

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 (conservation/listed buildings consent)

Case Officer: Myles Smith

Page 5 of 8 Photo(s)

Colmore Row Elevation

Page 6 of 8

View along Colmore Row

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

25 COLMORE C

FB 24

Ramp

176 PH

174

172 45 7 Snow Hill 43

170 15

41 Interchange Station 1 11 39 Place 168

CHURCH STREET 37 10

164

160

158 LB

Snow Hill House 19 9

10 TCBs 12

150 Rutland COLMORE ROW House Hotel

148 10

30 1 to 3 16a 15

135

125 to 133 to 125

40 26

39 24

20 22

LB 22

20 23 21 38

18 37

135.0m BARWICK STREET 28 to 26

119 TCBs

16 36 117

PH 121 31

Sub Sta 38 El

65 53 8

to Shelters 4 43 137.2m LB

55 ST PHILIP'S PLACE

Bank 4 60 55

TCBs

61 to 67 COLMORE ROW

St Philip's Churchyard 71

77 Bishop Gore Birmingham Statue 79 to 83 Cathedral TEMPLE ROW WEST

(C of E) 78 to 90 to 78

85 to 89 LB

137.8m

3 98

TCB Ps Burnaby eWe Memorial

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/09323/PA Accepted: 23/12/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 23/03/2016 Ward: Aston

Land at 44-47 Princip Street, City Centre, Birmingham, B4 6LN

Extensions and alterations to existing buildings, including demolition of two buildings to rear of Listed Building at 44 Princip Street, erection of new three storey building in rear courtyard. The development to comprise of 20, one and two bed apartments with associated parking Applicant: Javelin Block Ltd 80 Water Street, Birmingham, B3 1HL, Agent: Bryant Priest Newman Ltd 3 Mary Street, Birmingham, B3 1UD, Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

1.1. This application is for extensions and alterations to existing buildings, including demolition of two buildings to the rear of 44 Princip Street and construction of a new three storey building in the rear courtyard to create 20, one and two bed apartments with associated parking.

1.2. The site extends to approximately 0.145 hectares (0.358 acres) and comprises a mixture of buildings which are in a very poor state of repair internally and externally. The scheme proposes to retain the majority of the existing buildings with demolition of the two rear wings to the listed building at 44 Princip Street. A new three storey block would then be constructed in the courtyard.

1.3. The 3 storey block would replace the right hand single storey wing to the rear of 44 Princip Street. It would be a linear block built up to the side and boundaries with the adjacent properties with the main windowed elevation facing into the courtyard. It would be constructed of brick with a flat roof and regularly spaced large metal framed windows.

1.4. The development would provide a total of 20, 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, duplexes and a triplex. The apartments are to be designed to retain a number of original features and preserve (where possible) the historic fabric of the buildings. The apartments would be bespoke and vary in size, aspect and layout. Given the nature of the scheme the majority of the accommodation being provided within the existing buildings would be more spacious living than typically provided in new purpose built schemes. The apartments would range in size from 41-67sqm for the 1 bedroom apartments to 72- 131sqm for the 2 bedroom apartments.

1.5. The proposed scheme would provide the following accommodation:-

Page 1 of 12 • Units 1-4 The Mill 4 x 2 Bed Duplex Apartments 96-111sqm • Unit 5 Left Building 2 Bed Duplex 122sqm • Unit 6 Left Building 1 Bed Duplex 67sqm • Unit 7 Left Building 2 Bed Triplex 116sqm • Unit 8 Middle Building 2 Bed Apartment 91sqm • Unis 9 and 10 Listed Building 1 Bedroom Apartment 41-42sqm • Unit 11 Middle Building 2 Bedroom Apartment 131sqm • Unit 12 Listed Building 2 Bedroom Apartment 104sqm • Unit 13 Middle Building 2 Bedroom Apartment 131sqm • Unit 14 Listed Building 2 Bedroom Apartment 115sqm • Unit 15 New Build 1 Bedroom Apartment 63sqm • Unit 16 – 20 New Build 5 x 2 Bedroom Apartments 72-75sqm

1.6. Within the courtyard 8 car parking spaces would be provided, equivalent to 40% provision, in addition 14 cycles spaces are shown (16 as amended). Within the courtyard, Units 3, 4 and 6 would each have a private amenity area enclosed by 1m high timber sleeper walls.

1.7. The application is supported by the following statements:-

• Design and Access Statement (including Planning Statement); • Transport Statement and Travel Plan; • Noise Assessment; • Sustainable Drainage Strategy and Management Plan; • Heritage Statement and Statement of Significance; and • Structural Report.

1.8. In addition the applicant has submitted a financial appraisal to justify not providing any S106 contributions towards affordable housing or public open space.

1.9. Amended plans have been submitted to retain the first bay of the right hand wing as a refuse store and a former engine building (proposed to be demolished) to the rear of 45-46 a as a cycle store. The car park layout has been configured, retaining 8 spaces but providing space for 16 cycles. Further research has been undertaken on the significance on the rear wings proposed to be demolished. It concludes that the two rear wings contribute only visually to the historic plan form, they lack the architectural quality of the rest of the site and are not complete examples of the original shopping ranges. To this end they are proposing an interpretation of the left hand wing using red pavers to mark out the 1890 plan form and re-using the steel trusses from the right hand wing to give it a 3D quality.

1.10. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application premises are situated on the south side of Princip Street, between its junctions with Newtown Row and Loveday Street, within the Gunsmiths Quarter. The site is within the City Centre as defined by the Ring Road with Aston University to the east and to Jewellery Quarter to the west.

2.2. The application site comprises of a terrace of three existing building of which no 47 is Grade II listed building, No 45 a locally-listed building and No. 44 is unlisted. At the rear of the terrace are shopping wings attached to the rear of the listed building and a Mill Building which is unlisted but of some heritage value. The buildings are

Page 2 of 12 currently occupied by marine engineering company and in a poor state of repair. The buildings are described in more detail in the report for listed building consent that appears elsewhere on your Committee agenda.

2.3. The surrounding area is in mixed use. Either side of the premises are two fashion wholesalers, whilst on the opposite side of the road is a textile and fashion manufacturer and warehouse. To the rear fronting Prince Street is Partridge Court, which includes a range of industrial and commercial premises. Further along Princip Street there are other residential uses.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 23 December 2015 Application 2015/09453/PA. Listed Building consent submitted for partial external and internal demolition, extensions and refurbishment of existing Grade 2 Listed Building and erection of new building in rear courtyard to provide one and two bed apartments and associated works at 44-47 Princip Street – report on this agenda.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Adjoining occupiers, residents associations, amenity societies, local ward Councillors and M.P. notified. Site and Press notices displayed. No comments received.

4.2. BCC Transportation Development – no objections subject to conditions to secure the off-site highway works (reinstatement of redundant footway crossing, and associated footway repairs around existing access), cycle storage details and laying out of the parking areas prior to occupation.

4.3. BCC Regulatory Services - no objections subject to conditions to secure the glazing and ventilation to be in line with recommendations in acoustic report. The application site may be affected by land contamination due to previous industrial use and they recommend conditions to secure a site assessment to determine whether any remedial works are required. They also recommend the provision of a vehicle charging point.

4.4. BCC Local Services - this proposed development would generate an off- site POS contribution of £28,800 which would be spent on the provision, improvement or maintenance of POS at Mansfield Green within the Aston Ward. It would not generate any contribution for play because of its location within the City centre and therefore would not counted as family accommodation for contribution purposes.

4.5. Local Lead Flood Authority – there is a potential reduction in runoff rates of up to 22%, however no calculations of proposed discharge rates have been included. Calculations are required, including proposed discharge rates, and evidence of the performance of the proposed drainage network. Given the level of information that has been provided, they recommend a condition to secure a Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan.

4.6. Conservation Heritage Panel – welcomed the scheme and fully supported the proposals that would see the repair and reuse of these important buildings located within the city’s historic Gun Quarter. They asked that prior to conversion the building are properly recorded; the applicant informed that panel that detailed

Page 3 of 12 photograph record had already been undertaken but this would be developed and archived by the local authority on the listed building file for the site.

4.7. Historic England – while they regret the loss of the traditional metal industry they support the conversion of the buildings into residential use and the overall aim of the development to retain much of the historic fabric. They query the proposed loss of all the historic metal windows across the site. They welcome the renovation of the listed building and consider the changes proposed internally and to its external elevations to be acceptable, apart from the said loss of windows. However, they object to the proposed demolition of the two rear wings of the listed building, which they consider to be an integral part of the front building, of its character and history and therefore part of the special historic interest of the listed building, and also of its special architectural interest but in a more generic way. Also, they do not consider the proposed new block, while satisfactory in its own right, to be a convincing replacement for the historic wings and find it to be contradictory to the meaning of the listed building, appearing to compete with it, because of its scale, form and homogeneity. Overall they consider the proposal would cause harm to the significance of the listed building, at a level that is 'less than substantial' but still considerable. They therefore recommend the proposed scheme be amended to retain some of the rear wings to this Grade II listed building, otherwise they object to the application.

4.8. Council for British Archaeology – recommend that further research on the site, particularly the workshop and range is undertaken prior to a decision of the application.

• They support the conservation of the heritage assets on the site and the retention of industrial character • They recognise the potential of the “mill building” to be a significant early component of the scheme, which may evidence the development of the area prior to the gun industry’s arrival; • Unfortunately, the supporting documents do not offer enough evidence for them to fully support this application • They understand the a pragmatic approach is necessary for the site, and they hope the applicant can take the final step to fully understand the site and clearly and convincingly justify harm caused by the proposals as according to NPPF paragraph 132.

4.9. Severn Trent Water – no objections subject o a condition to secure drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows.

4.10. West Midlands Police – 8 parking spaces are proposed for the development, which would equate to 40 % provision for the 20 apartments. However, no cycle storage is provided for provision, which given the city centre location of the site would be more appropriate. Each individual flat should be treated as a separate dwelling for the purpose of the standards of door security and a suitable access control system should be installed. Any work relating to the dwellings should be undertaken to the standards laid out in the Secured by Design 'New Homes 2014' guide. Lighting and CCTV should be provided.

5. Policy Context

5.1. In addition to the National Planning Policy Framework, relevant local planning policies include:-

Page 4 of 12

• Birmingham UDP Saved Polices 2005; • Draft Birmingham Development Plan 2031; • Loss of Industrial Land SPD; • Places for Living SPG; • Conservation Through Regeneration SPG • Access for All SPD; • Car Parking Guideline SPD; • Places for the Future Draft SPD; • Affordable Housing SPG; and, • Public Open Space in New Residential Development.

5.2. No. 47 Princip Street (now shown as No 44) is a grade 2 listed building and No. 45 Princip Street is a locally listed building Grade C. There are also other listed buildings in the vicinity of the site including No’s 37-38 Princip Street and No’s 44A – 49 Loveday Street.

6. Planning Considerations

Land Use Policy

6.1. The adopted Birmingham UDP (2005) still forms the basis of the statutory planning framework. It states at paragraph 15.80 that City Living will be encouraged within within the Gunsmiths Quarter. City Living is also encouraged by paragraph 5.32b as residential accommodation in the City Centre provides sustainable accommodation close to both public transports and places of work and reduces the pressure on greenfield sites.

6.2. The emerging Birmingham Development Plan 2031 indicates that residential development will continue to be supported in the City Centre where it provides well- designed good quality living environments. It adds that developments will need to provide flexible and adaptable accommodation meeting a range of needs including families.

6.3. Use of the premises as residential is also consistent with the SPD for Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses. This states that within the City Centre it is recognised that a more flexible approach towards change of use from industrial to residential is required to support regeneration initiatives. The boundary of the City Centre is defined in the UDP by the Ring Road – A4540. The 2003 industrial land review recognises the contribution of industrial land towards City Centre housing development. Proposals involving the loss of industrial land will be supported, however, only where they lie in areas which have been identified in other planning policy documents as having potential for alternative uses. Furthermore the application site is not within the Core Employment Area as defined in the draft Birmingham Plan

6.4. In addition, the existing buildings are in a very poor state of repair and in urgent need of restoration. The existing business is unable to invest the significant sums required to bring the buildings up to support modern day manufacturing processes. The existing business has confirmed that they occupy only part of the building and they have found more modern premises to relocate to nearby in Buckingham Street. I therefore raise no objections to the loss of industrial premises in order to secure the future of the historic asset and business.

Page 5 of 12 6.5. The proposed development is also consistent with the NPPF, which supports sustainable development, especially that of previously developed land in locations that are easily accessible, such as the application site. In land use terms I therefore have no objection to the proposed residential use.

Urban Design

6.6. Places for Living SPG sets out design advice against which planning applications are assessed. Overall, I am of the view that the scheme is well designed and meets the overriding principles as detailed below.

a) Places not estates - as the site is in a highly sustainable city centre location it is built to a higher density. It includes a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments varying in size from 41sqm to 131sqm. When compared to the recently published Technical Housing Standards:-

• all the one bedroom apartments comply with the minimum guideline of 39 sqm for 1 person and 2 comply with the minimum requirement of 50 sqm for 2 persons; • all the two bedroom apartments comply with the minimum guideline of 61 sqm for 3 persons and the minimum guideline of 70 sqm for 4 persons; • all but two of the double bedroom sizes comply with the minimum standard of 11.5 sqm and all second bedrooms comply with the minimum guideline of 7.5 sqm. The two bedrooms that wouldn’t comply would be (10.9sqm and 10.2sqm) within the retained part of the historic building and a satisfactory furniture layout has been submitted.

Three apartments have a private amenity space and the majority of apartments are generously sized. Moreover, the City Centre is within walking distance. I therefore consider that the scheme would create a satisfactory living environment.

b) Building on local character - as detailed below the scheme seeks to bring back into full use four buildings in Birmingham’s Gun Quarter that form a group of mid- 19th century works typical of the industrial development of the city during that period. In addition, the new 3 storey building would replace the right hand single storey wing to the rear of the listed building. As per the existing rear wing it would be sited against the side and rear boundaries and would be linear in plan form. Although it would have a deeper footprint and would be 3 storeys, it would have rounded corners to the courtyard to lessen its impact. The building would be constructed in traditional materials, brick and with metal windows. Furthermore the large window opening would be in a regular pattern to reflect the industrial character of the area. Furthermore the new building would not be visible from the street.

c) Moving around easily - all the apartments within the retained buildings have their own entrance either from the street or the courtyard. In addition the new build element has a common entrance of the courtyard leading to a lobby with lifts and stairs to the upper floors. The scheme includes habitable rooms overlooking the street and courtyard to provide a good level of natural surveillance making them safer.

d) Safe place, private spaces - the existing building is constructed to back of pavement defining the street creating a clear a distinction between the public realm and more private gated courtyard. Three of the apartments would have a

Page 6 of 12 private amenity space to provide some defensible space. Safe car and cycle parking would be provided within the courtyard. As requested by the Police conditions are attached to secure CCTV and lighting.

e) Building for the future - the scheme seeks to retain and re-use not only the Grade II Listed Building but also a locally listed building and two unlisted buildings. Demolition would be limited to the two rear wings of the listed building, which are in a poor state of repair and a single storey structure to the south of the Mill building. The scheme therefore seeks bring existing buildings back into beneficial use and bring them up to modern residential standards. In addition, to ensure that prospective residents are not affected by noise from nearby occupiers or road traffic, as recommended by BCC Regulatory Services, a condition is attached to secure appropriate glazing and ventilation.

Impact on Listed Buildings

6.7. I note the comments of Historic England, objecting to the loss of the rear wings to the rear of the listed building and construction of the new block. However, it is important to consider the scheme as a whole, which would bring back into full use four buildings in Birmingham’s Gun Quarter that form a group of mid-19th century works typical of the industrial development of the city during that period. Whilst only one of the four is statutory listed, the other three are excellent examples of workshops from this period and therefore whilst the ‘shopping’ ranges from the rear of the listed building would be lost, these are in poor condition and in return a much wider group of structures would be conserved which give the listed building good context and setting.

6.8. My Conservation Officer supports the application and consider it to cause less than substantial harm in accordance with paragraph 134 of NPPF, when appraising the impact on the ‘shopping wings’, but to constitute an overall benefit to the listed building when considered as a complete scheme. Significant weight should be placed against the condition of the structure and the possible imminent loss through collapse if an intervention is not taken soon.

6.9. In order to make the scheme financially viable, it is not possible to retain and re-use the two rear wings of the listed building because they are too narrow and close together. In addition the advantage of removing them is that the new building would screen the unsightly side wall of the adjacent warehouse building. The new building is well designed in a robust industrial style and in scale with the existing buildings. When considering the scheme as a whole I therefore consider that it would preserve and enhance the setting of the listed building. Safeguarding conditions are attached to the accompanying listed building application to secure further details.

6.10. In response to comments raised by Historic England and the Council for British Archaeology amended plans have been submitted to retain the first bay of the right hand wing as a refuse store and a former engine building (proposed to be demolished) to the rear of 45-46 a as a cycle store. Further research has also been undertaken on the significance on the rear wings proposed to be demolished. It concludes that the two rear wings contribute only visually to the historic plan form, they lack the architectural quality of the rest of the site and are not complete examples of the original shopping ranges. To this end they are proposing an interpretation of the left hand wing using red pavers to mark out the 1890 plan form and re-using the steel trusses from the right hand wing to give it a 3D quality.

Transport Issues

Page 7 of 12

6.11. The application seeks to alter and extend an old industrial building into residential units. The current unit is noted at 1885sqm and the new development would provide 20 one and two bedroom apartments. A car park area is extended in the rear courtyard area to provide 8 parking spaces. The application form notes 20 cycle parking spaces but plans only show 14 (16 as amended). The trip impacts from the change and extensions are negligible. Servicing would continue to take place on street and likely be less intensive than the previous industrial unit.

6.12. The parking is in line with BCC adopted maximum car parking guidelines and note the site is close to the City centre with all local parking on-street being controlled. It is possible on-street pay and display parking could be extended where a redundant footway crossing can be reinstated, but this would not be directly required by the development. This could be introduced when the development has been implemented as part of City centre car parking reviews.

6.13. BCC Transportation Development raise no objections to the scheme and as recommended conditions are attached to secure the off-site highway works, cycle parking and to ensure that the parking areas are laid out prior to the use commencing.

Environmental Impacts

6.14. The site comprises of a number of buildings in various states of repair, their current condition and proximity to the canal network make them good candidates for bat roosts and possible Black Redstart nesting habitat. However no ecological survey data has been submitted with the planning application. As recommended by BCC Planning Ecologist a condition is attached to secure a Construction Environmental Management Plan including the need for pre commencement surveys.

6.15. I note the comments of BCC Regulatory Services, the Lead Local Flood Authority and Severn Trent Water. Accordingly, I attach conditions to secure a land remediation strategy and drainage details.

Planning Obligations

6.16. Given the number of proposed apartments the City Council’s policies for Affordable Housing and Public Open Space in New Residential Development apply. However, the applicant has submitted a financial appraisal to demonstrate that the scheme cannot sustain S106 contributions. The financial appraisal has been independently reviewed and the assessment concludes that the scheme can sustain a contribution of £25,000. I therefore suggest that this be put toward off-site affordable housing as the public open space at Mansfield Green is some distance away and unlikely to be used by prospective residents.

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

7. Conclusion

7.1. In principle, I have no objections to the conversion of these industrial premises to residential use. The buildings are in a very poor state of repair and do not meet modern manufacturing requirements. Furthermore, the scheme would allow the existing business to relocate to more suitable premises. BCC Regulatory Services, have raised no objections on noise grounds and use of the premises for residential purposes should not undermine nearby commercial uses.

Page 8 of 12

7.2. Whilst only 3 apartments have a private amenity space, the majority of apartments are generously sized and subject to a safeguarding condition to secure suitable glazing would provide a satisfactory living environment.

7.3. I note the objection of Historic England, however, overall I consider it to cause less than substantial harm in accordance with paragraph 134 of NPPF, when appraising the impact on the ‘shopping wings’, but to constitute an overall benefit to the listed building when considered as a complete scheme.

7.4. Subject to safeguarding conditions and completion of a suitable S106 legal agreement, I therefore consider that that the application is acceptable.

8. Recommendation

8.1. In the event that Listed Building Consent application 2015/09453/PA is approved, consideration of application 2015/09323/PA be deferred pending the completion of a planning obligation agreement to secure the following:-

a) A financial contribution of £25,000 index linked from the date of this resolution) toward the affordable housing provision, to be paid prior to first occupation of the premises.

b) 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 22nd 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;

8.3. That the City Solicitor be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the planning obligation.

8.4. That in the event of the planning obligation agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before the 22nd March 2016, favourable consideration be given to this application, subject to the conditions listed below.

1 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

2 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

3 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

4 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

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

Page 9 of 12 6 Requires the prior submission of a construction ecological mitigation plan

7 Requires the prior submission a noise study to establish residential acoustic protection

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

9 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

10 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

11 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

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

13 Requires the prior submission of a CCTV scheme

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

15 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

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

17 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Lesley Sheldrake

Page 10 of 12 Photo(s)

Page 11 of 12 Location Plan

Page 12 of 12

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/09453/PA Accepted: 23/12/2015 Application Type: Listed Building Target Date: 17/02/2016 Ward: Aston

44 Princip Street, City Centre, Birmingham, B4 6LW

Listed Building Consent for partial external and internal demolition, extensions and refurbishment of existing Grade 2 Listed Building and erection of new building in rear courtyard to provide one and two bed apartments and associated works Applicant: Javelin Block Ltd 80 Water Street, Birmingham, B3 1HL, Agent: Bryant Priest Newman Ltd 3 Mary Street, Birmingham, B3 1UD, Recommendation Refer To The Dclg

1. Proposal

1.1. This is a listed building consent application for partial external and internal demolition, extensions and refurbishment of an existing Grade 2 Listed Building and erection of new building in rear courtyard to provide 20 one and two bed apartments and associated works. Elsewhere on your Committees agenda is a report about the accompanying planning application.

1.2. The new build and conversion works are described in the planning application report. In terms of existing buildings the works comprise:-

• 44 Princip Street - grade II listed building – 3 storey building to Princip Street retained and demolition of both rear wings. In place of the right hand wing a new 3 storey building would be constructed; • 45 Princip Street - locally listed building – 3 storey building to Princip Street retained; • 47 Princip Street - undesignated historic building – 3 storey building to Princip Street and 2 storey rear element retained; and • Mill Building to the rear of 45 and 47 Princip Street - undesignated historic building. This building is to be retained. To the rear of the Mill Building is a single storey building, which would be demolished.

1.3. In detail the works comprise the following:-

General Items

• repair cracks in brickwork; • existing slate roofs to be stripped, new breather membrane installed and existing slate tiles re-fixed;

Page 1 of 10 • replace broken/ missing rainwater goods with Alumasc Heritage Cast Aluminium in Black; • replace spalding brickwork and re-point failed mortar joints with Lime mortar; • replace corroded metal frame windows with Crittall W20 Window system - Double glazed; and, • replace timber floor joists where required

44 Princip Street (statutorily listed grade II)

• ground floor - retain and refurbish timber entrance gates, new soffit across entrance zone, brick up existing door openings on rear elevation, lobby partition to be removed and replaced with double door to unit 09 to be replaced by new single door; • first floor - remove stud wall for office to form dining room for unit 12, remove timber staircase and walkway up to first floor on rear elevation, remove existing window/door combination on rear elevation, install new crittall metal window to match existing on this elevation. New shutter required for window on front elevation (second from the left); • first and second floor - remove existing casement timber windows on first and second of rear elevation and replace like for like; • second floor - remove stud walls and doors in central zone at back of building; and • façade works – existing windows to be fully restored; repair cracks in brickwork and stucco banding and window cills to be repaired.

45 Princip Street (Locally Listed Grade C)

• ground floor - remove roller shutter door; remove floor hatch and make good, new 1m x 2.1m opening in wall for new door, brick up existing and retain sliding door in the closed position; • first floor – brick up existing door opening and remove steps up, infill opening in floor, keep lift surround and mechanism and make safe by locking in position, remove stud wall forming lobby from rear entrance, open up existing window opening that has been infilled on rear elevation; • second floor - remove existing rooflights and remove stud walls and doors; and, • façade works - existing windows replaced with crittal windows to same proportions and paint to be removed from brickwork by soda blasting.

47 Princip Street (not listed)

• ground floor – remove stud wall to office spaces, remove section of ground floor wall to accommodate new staircase, remove timber staircase up to first floor, replace existing rooflights, remove stud wall, ramp and clay pavers; • first floor – remove timber staircases and block up openings in wall,remove concrete plinth capping chimney stack below and remove floor boards and coverings to provide level floor, remove timber staircases and block up openings in wall between adjoining building, block up windows and doors to rear elevation; • second floor - remove timber staircases and block up openings in wall between adjoining buildings and remove roof lights; and,

Page 2 of 10 • façade works - existing render to be removed from ground floor and new crittall windows installed, existing windows replaced with crittal windows to same proportions and paint to be removed from brickwork by soda blasting.

Mill Building

• ground floor - remove insitu concrete ramp on east elevation and make good floor with new step, replace existing door with new window on south and west elevations, remove existing timber staircase to first floor and surround, and make good joists over and replace existing window with new doors on south elevation; • first floor - move existing timber door and frame to outer edge of brickwork and brick up behind, window removed and bricked in to match existing; and • façade works - existing windows replaced with crittal windows to same proportions and repair cracks in brickwork.

Selective Demolition Works

• infill stairs down to basement behind Grade II listed building; • removal existing overhead walkway; • existing building along the rear of the Grade II listed building on the left hand side to be removed; • removal of the block sandwiched between the local listed and mill buildings and make good brickwork to retained buildings; • wall around stairs down to basement (behind central frontage building) demolished to 1100mm high; • existing building along right hand side behind Grade II listed building to be removed; • existing building adjoining mill building on south and west elevations to be removed; and • existing staircase behind central frontage building to be repaired with new steel treads where required.

1.4. Relevant supporting statements include a Design and Access Statement, Heritage Statement and Structural Report.

1.5. Amended plans have been submitted to retain the first bay of the right hand wing as a refuse store and a former engine building (proposed to be demolished) to the rear of 45-46 a as a cycle store. Further research has also been undertaken on the significance on the rear wings proposed to be demolished. It concludes that the two rear wings contribute only visually to the historic plan form, they lack the architectural quality of the rest of the site and are not complete examples of the original shopping ranges. To this end they are proposing an interpretation of the left hand wing using red pavers to mark out the 1890 plan form and re-using the steel trusses from the right hand wing to give it a 3D quality.

1.6. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application comprises four principal buildings within Birmingham’s Gun Quarter.

Page 3 of 10 44 Princip Street

2.2. This is a Grade II listed building that comprises a handsome front range dating to the 1840’s. Although Victorian it has Georgian proportions which span over 5 bays centred on a carriage arch which runs through to a symmetrically proportioned rear yard flanked by single-storey workshops (known in Birmingham as Shopping wings). The first and second floors of the building are no longer used and the walling is bowing outwards to front and rear, which is particularly visible in the central rear tripartite sash windows which are becoming precarious. The roof has a very shallow pitch, screened to the street by a parapet, and therefore it is presumed that drainage runs through to the rear, which in conjunction with the shallow pitch and low maintenance has resulted in deteriorating condition and serious failure to the structural soundness of the fabric and structure. Whilst the front elevation comprises well informed and polite architecture, the rear elevation is utilitarian and offers up the industrial function of the building. The rear has no architectural detailing with exposed rainwater goods and metal windows. The ‘shopping’ has been extensively rebuilt, with only part of the right-hand shopping range retaining any of its 19th century fabric. The rest comprising 20th century masonry, modern timber windows and metal truss roofs.

45 Princip Street

2.3. This is a locally listed building dating to the second half of the 19th century. It comprises three-storeys under two street-facing gables and is built in brick which is now painted. It has metal windows fitted within cambered arch openings and has a wagon entrance to the left-hand side.

47 Princip Street

2.4. This is an undesignated historic building (not locally listed) but of significant townscape merit and comprising a complete interior. It is of a similar date to No. 46 and is three-storey to the street, with a larger two-storey mass beyond wrapping around a central single-storey glazed structure. It has a mixture of timber sash and metal tilt windows and is constructed in brick and has been painted at upper floor level and rendered at ground floor level, where windows have been modernised.

Mill Building to the rear of 45 and 47 Princip Street

2.5. This is an undesignated historic building (not locally listed) that is not visible from the street. That said, the building is of great interest and forms a central structure to the site. It dates to the mid part of the 19th century and comprises an elevated two- storey structure.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 23 December 2015. Application 2015/09323/PA. Application for extensions and alterations to existing buildings, including demolition of two buildings to rear of Listed Building at 44 Princip Street, erection of new three storey building in rear courtyard. The development to comprise of 20, one and two bed apartments with associated parking – a report about this application appears elsewhere on your Committees agenda.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

Page 4 of 10

4.1. Adjoining occupiers, residents associations, amenity societies, local ward Councillors and M.P. notified. Site and Press notices displayed. No comments received.

4.2. Conservation Heritage Panel – welcomed the scheme and fully supported the proposals that would see the repair and reuse of these important buildings located within the city’s historic Gun Quarter. They asked that prior to conversion the building are properly recorded; the applicant informed that panel that detailed photograph record had already been undertaken but this would be developed and archived by the local authority on the listed building file for the site.

4.3. Historic England – while they regret the loss of the traditional metal industry they support the conversion of the buildings into residential use and the overall aim of the development to retain much of the historic fabric. They query the proposed loss of all the historic metal windows across the site. They welcome the renovation of the listed building and consider the changes proposed internally and to its external elevations to be acceptable, apart from the said loss of windows. However, they object to the proposed demolition of the two rear wings of the listed building, which they consider to be an integral part of the front building, of its character and history and therefore part of the special historic interest of the listed building, and also of its special architectural interest but in a more generic way. Also, they do not consider the proposed new block, while satisfactory in its own right, to be a convincing replacement for the historic wings and find it to be contradictory to the meaning of the listed building, appearing to compete with it, because of its scale, form and homogeneity. Overall they consider the proposal would cause harm to the significance of the listed building, at a level that is 'less than substantial' but still considerable. They therefore recommend the proposed scheme be amended to retain some of the rear wings to this Grade II listed building, otherwise they object to the application.

4.4. Council for British Archaeology – recommend further research on the workshop and range is undertaken prior to a decision of the application. In particular:-

• they support the conservation of the heritage assets on the site and the retention of industrial character; • they recognise the potential of the “mill building” to be a significant early component of the scheme, which may evidence the development of the area prior to the gun industry’s arrival; • they consider the supporting documents do not offer enough evidence for them to fully support this application; • they understand that a pragmatic approach is necessary for the site, and they hope the applicant can take the final step to fully understand the site and clearly and convincingly justify harm caused by the proposals as according to NPPF paragraph 132.

5. Policy Context

5.1. In addition to the National Planning Policy Framework, relevant local planning policies include:-

• Birmingham UDP Saved Polices 2005; • Draft Birmingham Development Plan 2031; • Places for Living SPG;

Page 5 of 10 • Conservation Through Regeneration SPG; and, • Access for All SPD;

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Under sections 16 and 66 of the 1990 Act special regard should be given to the desirability of preserving the listed building, its setting and any features of special interest. Under paragraph 132 of the NPPF great weight should be given to the heritage asset's conservation. Harm may be caused through alteration of it or through development within its setting. Under paragraph 137 new development within the setting of heritage assets should enhance or better reveal their significance. Setting is defined as the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced and may change over time.

6.2. At a local level paragraph 3.25 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005, states that any development affecting a listed building should preserve or enhance its setting. It adds that listed building consent will not normally be granted for the demolition or partial demolition of a listed building unless it can be demonstrated that every possible effort has been made to preserve the structure of the building and continue to continue the present use or to find a suitable alternative use.

6.3. Policy TP12 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan, states that applications for development affecting the significance a designated heritage asset will be required to provide sufficient information to demonstrate how the proposals would contribute to the asset’s conservation whilst protecting or where appropriate enhancing its significance and setting.

6.4. I note the objection from Historic England, in particular, whilst they accept that radical change would be necessary they do not support such extensive change to include the demolition of the entirety of the two rear wings. This they consider would cause harm to the significance of the listed building, at a level that is 'less than substantial' but still considerable. I also note the comments from the Council for British Archaeology recommending that further research on the site, particularly the workshop and range is undertaken prior to a decision of the application.

6.5. The proposal seeks to bring back into full use four buildings in Birmingham’s Gun Quarter that form a group of mid-19th century works typical of the industrial development of the city during that period. Whilst only one of the four is statutory listed, the other three are excellent examples of workshops from this period and therefore whilst the ‘shopping’ ranges from the rear of the listed building would be lost, these are in poor condition and in return a much wider group of structures would be conserved which give the listed building good context and setting.

6.6. In order to make the scheme financially viable, it is not possible to retain and re-use the two rear wings of the listed building because they are too narrow and close together. In addition the advantage of removing them is that the new building would screen the unsightly side wall of the adjacent warehouse building.

6.7. My Conservation Officer supports the application and consider it to cause less than substantial harm in accordance with paragraph 134 of NPPF, when appraising the

Page 6 of 10 impact on the ‘shopping wings’, but to constitute an overall benefit to the listed building when considered as a complete scheme. Significant weight should be placed against the condition of the structure and the possible imminent loss through collapse if an intervention is not taken soon.

6.8. The structural survey gives a clear indication of the condition of all the buildings across the application site, although a full scope of works has not been issued. It is therefore crucial to understand the condition of this building once the existing use has vacated, the existing material removed and the building fully scaffolded. The applicant has expressed a desire to fully audit the building and its contents which can be secured through Building Recording.

6.9. The approach taken with the conversion and the design of the new build is exceptionally and both retains a sense of the diverse spaces within this site, whilst both opening it up to better understand its content and introduce new innovative architecture.

6.10. As recommended by my Conservation Officer conditions are attached to secure a Building Recording report, a full structural, a demolition method statement, method of paint and cement removal, sample of materials and mortar specification, further details of windows and doors, method of bricking up openings, details of rainwater goods, capping trim to new build parapet, brick bon to new build, design of the patress plates, design of security measures and details of new partitions to the listed building, landscaping works. In addition my Conservation Officer recommends a condition to ensure that no demolition of the Grade II listed rear ‘shopping’ wings takes place until a contract for the complete redevelopment of the site is signed.

6.11. In response to comments raised by Historic England and the Council for British Archaeology amended plans have been submitted to retain the first bay of the right hand wing as a refuse store and a former engine building (proposed to be demolished) to the rear of 45-46 a as a cycle store. Further research has also been undertaken on the significance on the rear wings proposed to be demolished. It concludes that the two rear wings contribute only visually to the historic plan form, they lack the architectural quality of the rest of the site and are not complete examples of the original shopping ranges. To this end they are proposing an interpretation of the left hand wing using red pavers to mark out the 1890 plan form and re-using the steel trusses from the right hand wing to give it a 3D quality.

6.12. Issues related to impact of the new development are addressed in the accompanying planning application report, which appears elsewhere on your Committee’s agenda.

7. Conclusion

7.1. In principle, I welcome the scheme, which includes a number of positive aspects:-

• investment to secure the long term survival of the original pre 1880 fabric following many years of gradual decay and lack of maintenance; • preservation of national and local heritage assets; • allowing a sensitive and sustainable re-use; • exposure and light restoration of frontage brickwork, complete repair of slate roofs across the whole site to secure long term water tightness. • restoration of traditional features (notably timber sash windows) and new Crittall metal windows based on the existing proportion and fenestration;

Page 7 of 10 • historic features associated with the industrial past retained and exposed as part of the interior design; and • a sensitive new build element on the site of outbuildings.

7.2. The demolition of the 2 wings of accommodation associated with the Grade II listed building would cause less then substantial harm in accordance with paragraph 134 of NPPF, when appraising the impact on the ‘shopping wings’, but constitute an overall benefit to the listed building when considered as a complete scheme. I therefore consider that the scheme is consistent with national and local planning policies relating to listed buildings and is acceptable subject to safeguarding conditions.

7.3. Given the extent of demolition and objection from Historic England the application needs to be referred to the Department for Communities and Local Government under Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications – Direction 2015.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That authority be given to refer application 2015/09453/PA to the Department for Communities and Local Government and that they be advised that your Committee are minded to approved the application, subject to the conditions listed below.

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

2 Prevents demolition prior to a redevelopment contract being entered into

3 Requires the prior submission of a demolition method statement

4 Requires the prior submission of Structural Recording

5 Requires the prior submission of Building Recording

6 Requires the prior submission of external materials

7 Requires the prior submission of further details

8 Requires all new masonry to be laid and pointed using NHL3.5 at a ratio of 1 part lime to 3 parts sand.

9 Requires the prior submission of Paint and Cement Method Statement

10 Requires all new internal partitions to the listed building to be scribed around joinery and plasterwork.

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

12 Limits the approval to 3 years (conservation/listed buildings consent)

Case Officer: Lesley Sheldrake

Page 8 of 10 Photo(s)

Page 9 of 10 Location Plan

Page 10 of 10

Committee Date: 03/03/2016 Application Number: 2015/07915/PA Accepted: 05/01/2016 Application Type: Reserved Matters Development Target Date: 05/04/2016 Ward: Nechells

Former Belmont Works, Cardigan Street, Eastside, Birmingham, B4 7RJ

Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1 The application site faces Arrival Square within the Eastside Locks redevelopment area with frontages to Cardigan Street, Belmont Row and Glassworks Lane. It accommodates the former Belmont Works, a building that was constructed in 1899 which formerly offered four floors of accommodation. The building was badly damaged during a fire in 2007 which resulted in the loss of the floors and part of the front facade with the roof collapsing as a result of strong winds soon afterwards that has left the building in a state of dereliction. Notwithstanding this the structure is still notable as a fine example of late 19th century industrial architecture displaying an elegant front elevation of red brick and decorative terracotta features and a water tower to the rear that is a recognisable feature on the skyline. It is a Grade A locally listed building and lies within the Warwick Bar Conservation Area.

1.2 The proposed scheme seeks consent to rebuild, convert and extend the existing structure to provide a mix of retail and / or office floorspace. This would be achieved by rebuilding the front elevation and roof, demolishing a later side extension at second floor level, demolishing and rebuilding the water tower and the west gable elevations facing towards Jennens Road and excavating the land to the rear to provide an extension with floorspace at lower ground floor, ground floor and first floor levels. Thereafter it is proposed to rebuild the previous second floor rear elevation above and utilise the roof of the proposed extension as a roof terrace.

Page 1 of 11 1.3 The proposed extension would extend approximately 4m from the original rear elevation and in contrast to the more public red brick front elevation and red brick water tower it would be constructed in a dark brick and open out at the lower ground floor level to a triangular shaped rear courtyard. Its siting would replace a previous large shed demolished sometime after 2008. The courtyard would be encircled by a walkway at a higher level and partly enclosed by retaining walls protruding approximately 40m from the proposed extension. The ground level would rise in a series of terraces up and away from the extension to an overall ground level of approximately 3.5m higher at the top of the courtyard.

1,4 The application seeks consent for a range of retail uses (A1 to A5) at the lower ground and ground floor levels and / or offices (B1a or B1b) on all floors (lower ground, ground, first and second floors) and it is anticipated that the building would be let on a floor by floor basis or as a number of smaller units on each floor. The main entrance to the building would be located within the second bay at the north western end of the front elevation, via steps leading from Arrival Square, whilst the eastern entrance would be set aside as a dedicated entrance to the lower ground floor. A separate pedestrian access would be positioned off Glassworks Lane with steps leading down to the external sheltered courtyard area. The proposed building would provide 2,687 square metres (GEA) (1,950 square metres NIA).

1,5 There would be no direct vehicular access to the building or the courtyard or separate dedicated parking provision. Twenty four cycle spaces would be located in a covered secure area to the rear of the building that would be accessible via Glassworks Lane.

1.6 This is a reserved matters application seeking consent for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following outline approval for the wider Eastside Locks, in 2009 for a mix of uses comprising of office, residential, bar / restaurant, fitness suite, conferencing and multi storey car park. This particular part of the outline application site known as Plot B also more recently received reserved matters approval for the refurbishment of Belmont Works alongside the construction of a new hotel (reference 2008/02924/PA). However this application has never been implemented as the agent on behalf of the applicant has explained that it was not financially viable. It has been stated that the development would not have delivered a sufficient amount of commercial floorspace within Belmont Works to cover the investment costs involved in refurbishing the building. The redevelopment of the remainder of this development block would require the approval of a separate application.

1.7 The application has been submitted with the following additional reports:

• Planning Statement

• Design and Access Statement

• Historic Building Report

• Structural Report (including a response to the original Historic England comments)

1.8 Link to documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. Belmont Works has a history dating back to 1899 when it was constructed in close proximity to the Digbeth Branch Canal. The building is described as expressing a

Page 2 of 11 decorative freestyle architectural design, a style that brought together features from earlier periods such as Tudor and Jacobean to bring a sense of grandeur to utilitarian structures such as industrial buildings. In its early years the building was used to manufacture bicycles until its ownership was taken over by the Co-operative Wholesale Society (CWS) in the 1960’s that manufactured clothing then pianos then bedsteads with their lingerie brand ‘Belmont’ named after their building. It was thereafter used by the CWS as a depot and offices.

2.2. The building now stands within the Curzon Masterplan Area and at the northern gateway to the Eastside Locks area of regeneration where almost all of the buildings, aside from Belmont works, the Moby Dick’s pub and Lock Keepers Cottage have now been demolished. The new Birmingham City University (BCU) buildings lie to the south of Eastside Locks.

2.3. Belmont works has a frontage to Arrival Square where approval has been granted for works to the public realm including new lighting, paving and planting and it is anticipated that the proposed refurbishment of Belmont Works would be undertaken concurrently with the implementation of the Arrival Square consent.

2.4 Link to site location

3. Planning History

3.1. 2014/05637/PA - Proposed realignment of Belmont Row and Gopsal Street, upgrades to Cardigan Street, new landscaping and demolition of lean to extensions at the Lock keepers Cottage. Approved 02/10/2014

3.2. 2009/00308/PA - Section 73 application for variation of conditions B1, B3-5, B7-9, B11, B12, B14-17, C6, C7, C9, C10, C13, C16-19; and deletion of conditions B2, B6 and C3 attached to planning application C/02942/08/OUT. Approved 05/05/2009

3.3. 2008/05242/PA - Demolition of buildings, walls and structures (either in part or in whole) within the Warwick Bar Conservation area within Eastside Locks, including the demolition of 76 and 78 Belmont Row, and north light shed sub-station building, walls and other minor demolitions at the former CWS engineering building (Co-op) Belmont Row (and alterations and minor demolitions to the main building, in connection with outline application for mixed-use redevelopment of land for up to 143,350sqm of new floorspace (C/02942/08/OUT). Approved 05/12/2008

3.4. 2008/05241/PA - Reserved matters application for Plot B, regarding appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, in connection with the erection of a new hotel, the refurbishment/re-use of the Co-op building for Use Classes A1-A5, B1(a) and B1(b), (retail; financial and professional services; restaurants and cafes; drinking establishments; hot food takeaways; business) associated internal courtyard and boundary railings/gates. Approved 19/01/2009

3.5. 2008/02942/PA - Mixed-use redevelopment of land at Eastside Locks for up to 143,350 sq. m new floorspace comprising offices (including technology and Small- Medium Enterprises) (Classes B1(a) and B1(b)), residential with undercroft parking (Class C3), hotel with ancillary bar/restaurant, fitness suite and conferencing facilities (Class C1), retail/offices/restaurants/bars (Classes A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5), multi- storey car park (sui generis) creating a total of 1,653 car parking spaces within the development as a whole. Approved 05/12/2008

4. Consultation/PP Responses

Page 3 of 11 4.1. Historic England – Originally the proposed renovation was welcomed but objection was raised with respect to the proposed level of demolition proposed. Subsequent comments have removed the former objection to the demolition and replacement of the water tower. However Historic England remain unconvinced regarding the demolition of the west gable wall based on the information provided, and it is concluded that there does not appear to be sufficient details to justify its demolition. It is recommended that the local authority satisfy itself with regard to this aspect.

4.2 Victorian Society - Whilst the regeneration of this imposing building as one of few survivals from the 19th century in this part of the city is welcomed there is concern at the level of demolition proposed particularly to the water tower, itself a notable landmark, and to the rear elevations. The level of loss of historic fabric is too high and the original water tower should be retained as part of the refurbishment proposals. On this basis an objection is raised.

4.3 Police - It is advised that: • the work be carried out to the standards within the new ‘Secured by Design Commercial 2015 guide’; • the site be the subject of a full CCTV system covering the public realm around the building, access to any vital plant facilities, the waste and recycling area, the cycle storage area and internal views that could provide identifiable images of anyone entering the building through any entrance; and • any lighting scheme for the site follow the guidelines and advice contained within the Secured by Design document "Lighting Against Crime".

4.4 Birmingham Public Health - Should this application fall within 400 metres of a school within Birmingham, and the school expresses concern about the impact upon the school healthy eating programme, we would recommend that this application is refused. Should this application fall within the boundaries of a Local Centre within Birmingham, and mean that there would be more than 10% of retail units occupied by A5’s (in line with the 10% cap outlined in the adopted Local Centres Supplementary Planning Document), we would recommend that the application is refused.

4.5 BCC Regulatory Services – it is noted that a site investigation was required by condition 30 under the reserved matters approval (2009/00308/PA) but there was no noise limit condition, and therefore there is no objection subject to a condition to restrict the noise levels for plant and machinery.

4.6 Prior to the formal submission of the application the scheme was also presented to members of the Conservation Heritage Panel. The Panel welcomed the reuse of the site and building but commented that the demolition and rebuilding of the water tower and other elements would require clear and convincing justification supported by structural reports to demonstrate that alterative options would not be viable. In addition concern was raised at the proposed design of the rear extension, which the Panel considered did not respect the plan form of the existing building at the upper levels. It was suggested that further options for the design of the extension be explored, including creating a larger plan form at ground floor level.

4.7 Birmingham Civic Society, Birmingham City Centre Management, Trafalgar Area Action Group, Eastside Sustainability Advisory Group, Local Councillors, the MP have been consulted and a press notice and site notice have been posted. No responses have been received.

5. Policy Context

Page 4 of 11 5.1. Birmingham Plan (2005), Birmingham Development Plan (2031), The Eastside Masterplan (2011), The Curzon Masterplan (2015), Places for All SPG (2001), Warwick Bar Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Supplementary Planning Policies (2008), NPPF.

6. Planning Considerations

Principle of Proposed Use

6.1 The application site lies within the Curzon Masterplan boundary. The Masterplan sets out the Council’s ambitions to provide 51,100 new homes, 270,000sq.m of additional retail floorspace, 745,000sq.m of office space and a number of major employment sites with an area covering 141 hectares to the east of the City’s ring road. Furthermore it is one of 26 designated sites within the City Centre’s Enterprise Zone (EZ) which in itself is a commitment to realise growth and to promote the reuse of the site.

6.2 The principle of the proposed uses of the building has been guided by the Eastside Locks Masterplan, the policies of which have been pursued within The Curzon Masterplan and agreed at the outline stage. The outline approval has granted consent for up to 68,500 square metres of B1 (a) and B1(b) floorspace, 2,499 square metres (GEA) of A1 floorspace and up to 7,301 square metres (GEA) floorspace of A2 to A5 uses.

6.3 The agent has advised that the proposed scheme would complement two larger buildings on Cardigan Street (buildings 5 and 6), with all three offering office floorspace ranging from 2,000 square metres to 7,500 square metres NIA to provide a range of employment purposes.

6.4 The potential proposed retail uses would provide ground floor active uses at a prominent location within Eastside Locks to draw people into the site during day time and evening hours and to support the existing and future redevelopment.

6.5 The proposed mix of uses is therefore considered to be acceptable and would not prejudice the development of the remainder of Plot B.

Proposed Design and Impact upon the Significance of Locally Listed Building

6.6 It is deemed that the consideration of the proposed design cannot be separated from the consideration of the impact that the proposed development would have upon the significance of the locally listed building. Not only does the proposed design need to ensure that the building would present an appropriate frontage to Arrival Square and the wider Eastside Locks regeneration area it should also respect the significance of the locally listed building.

6.7 In accordance with the NPPF the submitted Heritage Statement identifies the significance of the building as being a surviving warehouse or a building in association with the canal development of the city from the late 18th century onwards, reflecting the growth of trade and industry. Although not original, the water tower is also considered to be significant due to it forming an important feature in the local townscape in various views. It is also the Conservation Officer’s opinion that the significance is also aesthetic and should include the quality of the front elevation as well as the use and handling of terracotta, which is a material much associated with Birmingham and the growth of the city in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Page 5 of 11 6.8 Taking each of the elevations in turn the proposed development is considered in terms of its design and impact upon the significance of the locally listed building. However first it should be reiterated that a significant part of the front elevation together with the windows, roof and the interior of the building has been substantially damaged by the fire in 2007 and subsequent collapse, and little of the original fabric now remains.

6.9 Front Elevation - the principles for the façade restoration remain the same as previously approved in 2009. The red brick and terracotta in the front elevation would be cleaned, repaired and restored with additions such as clerestory glazing to the lower ground floor to replace modern brick infills and two glazed entrances. It is proposed to reinstate the previous second floor roof terrace in place of the later extension with a new balustrade returning the north west gable end to its original design.

6.10 The applicants have advised that thermal modelling of the Belmont row façade shows that the significant extent of south west glazing would tend to cause overheating during the summer months. Therefore in order to combat this effect bespoke designed brise soleil is proposed to the front elevation which the applicants consider would be more appropriate than solar control glazing or increased mechanical ventilation.

6.11 The restoration of the front elevation through repair and rebuilding to its original design is welcomed as it is perhaps the part of the building that holds most significance in terms of its heritage. In addition it would secure an appropriate elegant frontage to Arrival Square. There is however more concern with respect to the proposed brise soleil with the Conservation Officer commenting that whilst bespoke it would result in a juxtaposition with the existing architecture and therefore is considered to be harmful in its appearance. The Conservation Officer continues to believe that preventing overheating inside the building could be achieved internally within the building. Therefore a condition is attached to require an updated thermal modelling report taking into account the potential for shadowing from other developments within the Eastside Locks site. The condition would also secure that careful consideration is given to the design and number of brise soleil should this be the agreed solution.

6.12 Rear Elevation and Water Tower - The elevation of most change is the proposed rear elevation. The applicant has argued that an extension across nearly the full width of the rear elevation measuring approximately 38m is pivotal to the success of securing the structural stability of the building, enabling public access and creating flexible floorspace necessary to attract commercial operators to bring this building back into a viable use. Without the proposed extension, offering additional 469 square metres GEA floorspace at three levels, the applicants have explained that the depth of the existing floorplate would not provide sufficient useable office space to be attractive to the office market.

6.13 The existing rear elevation is much more industrial in character, reflecting its status as the working side of the building. It previously had a north light shed to the rear which was demolished following conservation area consent in 2008. Reflecting the change in character between the front and the rear the proposed extension would be constructed from bold dark blue brick with a flat roof providing a terrace at second floor. The depth of the extension would align with the water tower and its design would follow the established industrial character of the rear elevation. The arrangement of the proposed bays and windows would also follow the existing

Page 6 of 11 pattern across the rear elevation and the use of the proposed materials would maintain the industrial aesthetic.

6.14 Above the proposed extension the rear elevation at the second floor level would be rebuilt in red brick in its original position complete with windows and gables that reflect those that would be lost. The Conservation Officer has acknowledged that the rebuilding of the second floor is an approach that would not normally be advocated but it is acceptable in this instance.

6.15 The existing water tower is also located to the south eastern end of this rear façade. It is not an original feature and was extended in the early 20th century to become a fire escape and to accommodate a lift shaft. The part of the tower which extends above the parapet is a later extension built to accommodate a water tank to serve the internal sprinkler. The second structural assessment submitted by the applicants concludes that the existing foundations are unsuitable. Furthermore the practicality of installing a new foundation is very challenging with a risk to construction workers associated with securing the tower and undertaking works required to repoint and repair the masonry. There are also complications associated with waterproofing and gas proofing the structure and the cost of temporarily securing the tower. As a result it is recommended after much investigation that the water tower be demolished and replaced. Historic England has, using its own expertise, reached the same conclusion.

6.16 East Gable Elevation - The structural reports advise that whilst the east gable has partly collapsed due to fire it is of sufficient stability to underpin and retain and all parties agree.

6.17 West Gable Elevations - Comprising of two parallel walls, they are proposed to be removed as there is a need to equalise ground levels and address gas and water proofing. Such is the loss of floorspace to resolve these matters that the structural reports conclude that the retention and stabilisation of these walls would not be viable. Historic England have reviewed the additional structural report for these aspects of the structure and do not consider this matter as resolved and therefore do not consider the loss is justified. The Conservation Officer in response has considered the wider context of this element of the scheme and considering the rebuilding of the water tower and rear elevation, does not consider this wall to be more significant. It is therefore concluded that the proposed rebuilding of these west gable walls is acceptable.

6.18 It is considered that the design of the proposed rear courtyard area would be in keeping with the contemporary extension and would not detract from the setting of the locally listed building.

6.19 In addition to the concerns raised by Historic England the Victorian Society also objects to the amount of demolition of the remaining structure as a whole; and it is acknowledged that there is clear harm to the significance of the locally listed building as a result of the:

- loss of a significant percentage of the historic fabric of the structure;

- rebuilding of the rear second floor and roof;

- alteration to the footprint of the building; and

- appearance of the brise soleil.

Page 7 of 11 6.20 It is however considered that on balance that there would be less than substantial harm to the locally listed building and this harm would be outweighed by the following public benefits:

- Repair and restoration of the front façade and roof including the terracotta features;

- Removal of the later second floor infill extension, reinstating the terrace and revealing the gable end and finial;

- Providing level access throughout;

- Opening up the lower ground floor and providing connectivity from Arrival Square through to the new area of public realm proposed to the rear; and

- Securing a viable use to the key site at Eastside Locks, an Enterprise Zone site.

6.21 As such the proposed scheme would accord with paragraph 134 of the NPPF.

Impact upon the character and appearance of the Warwick Bar Conservation Area

6.22 Section 72(1) of the Planning (listed buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that in exercising planning functions in respect of land and buildings in conservation areas, planning authorities should pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

6.23 Given the state of dereliction of the current building it is considered that the proposals to restore the building, in particular the rebuilding of the water tower which forms an important townscape feature visible in a number of surrounding views, and bringing this important local building back into active use would enhance the Conservation Area. The development would also provide a link to the industrial past as part of the wider regeneration of the conservation area.

6.24 With respect to parking, it is acknowledged that the current proposal does not offer any allocated vehicular parking spaces for the future occupiers of the building. However since the date of the outline approval for the wider Eastside Locks site the Millennium Point seven storey multi storey car park with 975 spaces has been constructed at a distance of approximately 150m from the site, whilst the previous reserved matters approval for this plot again did not have any dedicated parking provision. The developments approved on Plot C, known as Buildings 5 and 6 have dedicated parking spaces (51 and 29 spaces respectively) within their basements.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The former Belmont Works is a building that lacks a viable use at present and is now in a ruinous state and at risk of further dereliction. The reconstruction of the rear and the north west elevations plus the water tower together with the proposed extension to the rear have been carefully considered against the significance of the heritage asset, the significance of which has been severely compromised by the 2007 fire.

7.2 The NPPF focuses on the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation. It has given a strong emphasis to weighing up the advantages and disadvantages of proposals that have an impact upon heritage assets.

Page 8 of 11 7.3 In this instance the proposals are considered to accord with the heritage policies at a national and local level and at the same time regenerate a strategically important site in accordance with the Curzon Masterplan which will hopefully provide the catalyst for further redevelopment of the Eastside Locks area.

7.4 As an application for reserved matters the proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

8. Recommendation

8.1 Approve subject to conditions

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

2 Materials

3 Prior submission of samples of materials

4 Submission of thermal modelling report and measures to mitigate against overheating

5 Details of windows to south elevation

6 Submission of Large Scale Details to be Agreed

7 Large scale details (continuation of condition 6)

8 Prior Agreement of Brick Bonding

9 Prior Agreement of Mortar Mix

10 Prevents demolition prior to a redevelopment contract being entered into

11 Prior agreement of method of demolition

12 Method of removing the existing damaged terracotta and fixing of new terracotta

13 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

14 Requires the implementation of the approved hard and soft landscape details

15 Requires the prior submission of a programme of archaeological work

16 Details of all boundary treatment

Case Officer: Julia Summerfield

Page 9 of 11 Photo(s)

Front Elevation, looking north up Cardigan Street

Rear Elevation, looking west from Jennens Road

Page 10 of 11 Location Plan

Page 11 of 11