Birmingham City Council Planning Committee 10 December 2015

Home , Deritend, Kings Heath, Moseley, Perry Beeches, Rednal, Warstock

Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 10 December 2015

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Refuse 8 2015/07574/PA

42 Rednal Road Land adjacent to Kings Norton Birmingham B38 8DR

Demolition of existing dwelling house and erection of 5 detached dwelling houses

Refuse 9 2014/07838/PA

59 Mayfield Road Moseley Birmingham B13 9HT

Retrospective consent for change of use of property from single family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to supported living accommodation (Use Class C2)

Approve - Conditions 10 2015/07501/PA

Unit 6 Avery Dell Trading Estate Lifford Lane Kings Norton Birmingham B30 3DZ

Change of use of existing building from Sui Generis (Go-kart Manufacturing, Testing and Racing Centre) to Class D2 (Assembly and Leisure) for use as a trampoline park.

Page 1 of 3 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Approve - Temporary 11 2015/08583/PA

Longbridge Lane after Bittell Close Longbridge Birmingham B31 4JT

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve - Temporary 12 2015/08432/PA

Bristol Road South after Tessall Lane Outside 1300 Bristol Road South Northfield Birmingham B31 2TQ

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve - Temporary 13 2015/08354/PA

Maypole Lane (Opposite Sainsbury's and in front of Subway) Kings Heath Birmingham B14 5NG

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve - Temporary 14 2015/08352/PA

Warstock Road (Outside Depot) Kings Heath Birmingham B14 5EZ

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve - Temporary 15 2015/08356/PA

Outside 1058 Yardley Wood Road (South Bound) Yardley Wood Birmingham B14 4BW

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 2 of 3 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Approve - Temporary 16 2015/08357/PA

Outside 1034 Yardley Wood Road (South Bound) Yardley Wood Birmingham B14 4BW

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 3 of 3 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/07574/PA Accepted: 21/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 16/11/2015 Ward: Kings Norton

42 Rednal Road, Land adjacent to, Kings Norton, Birmingham, B38 8DR

Demolition of existing dwelling house and erection of 5 detached dwelling houses Applicant: Mr & Mrs R Barney 42 Rednal Road, Kings Norton, Birmingham, B38 8DR Agent: Integrated Designs & Associates Limited 38 Old Walsall Road, Great Barr, Birmingham, B42 1NP Recommendation Refuse

1. Proposal

1.1. Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of five detached dwellings with associated car parking, landscaping and access road.

1.2. The five dwellings would be accessed via an internal cul-de-sac access road, approximately 72m in length to which all five properties would front. Plots 1, 2 and 3 would front the access road and the side of the property at number 38 Rednal Road and the rear amenity area to number 38, all to the east. Plot 4 would front the access road whilst overlooking the rear amenity area to plot 3 and the existing rear amenity area to number 46 Rednal Road, all to the south. Plot 5 would front the length of the cul-de-sac and the rear amenity area to number 38 to the east. Plots 4 and 5 would also back onto the rear amenity areas of 43 and 45 Beaks Hill Road.

1.3. The five proposed dwellings would be two-storey in height and of modern design with the primary use of timber cladding, render and glass with mono-pitched roofs. Photovoltaic panels would be located on each of the five roofs. The dwellings would range from a maximum 7m to 7.2m in height. Plot 1 would have a maximum width of 15m and depth of 10.2m; plots 2, 3 and 4 would be 12m in width and 11.9m in depth and plot 5 would be 15m in width and 10.1m in depth.

1.4. Plot 1 would comprise a five bedroom dwelling with a ground floor area of 122sq.m and first floor of 125sq.m. Bedroom sizes would comprise 12sq.m, 18sq.m, 17sq.m, 22sq.m and 16sq.m respectively. Two of the bedrooms would also have an en-suite whilst a family bathroom would also be provided at first floor. At ground floor, the dwelling would comprise kitchen/dining, living, wc, study, entrance/cloak area, garage and utility room.

1.5. Plot 2 would comprise a four bedroom dwelling with a ground floor area of 110sq.m and a first floor of 90sq.m. The ground floor would comprise kitchen, living/dining, entrance/lobby, storage, cloakroom, wc and utility. At first floor would be four

Page 1 of 14 bedrooms, one with en-suite and a family bathroom. The bedrooms would be 14.3sq.m, 13.6sq.m, 31sq.m and 20sq.m respectively.

1.6. Plot 3 would comprise a four bedroom dwelling with a ground floor area of 110sq.m and first floor of 90sq.m. Bedroom sizes would comprise 14.3sq.m, 13.6sq.m, 31sq.m and 20sq.m respectively. One of the bedrooms would also have an en-suite and a family bathroom would also be provided at first floor. At ground floor, the dwelling would comprise kitchen, living/dining, entrance/lobby, storage, cloakroom, wc and utility room.

1.7. Plot 4 would comprise a four bedroom dwelling with a ground floor area of 110sq.m and a first floor of 90sq.m. The ground floor would comprise kitchen, living/dining, entrance/lobby, storage, cloakroom, wc and utility. At first floor would be four bedrooms, one with en-suite and a family bathroom. The bedrooms would be 14.3sq.m, 13.6sq.m, 31sq.m and 20sq.m respectively.

1.8. Plot 5 would comprise a five bedroom dwelling with a floor area of 132sq.m for each floor. Bedroom sizes would comprise 14sq.m, 21sq.m, 20sq.m, 29sq.m and 14sq.m respectively. Two of the bedrooms would also have an en-suite whilst a family bathroom would also be provided at first floor. At ground floor, the dwelling would comprise kitchen/dining, living, wc, entrance/cloak area, garage and utility room.

1.9. With regards to private amenity space, all of the proposed dwellings would significantly exceed the guidelines in Places for Living. Plot 1 would have a total area of 1254sq.m; Plots 2 and 3, 465sq.m; Plot 4, 702sq.m and Plot 5, 1551sq.m.

1.10. The site varies with levels and the proposal would see plot 2 sit 0.47m lower than plot 1, plot 3 would sit lower than plot 2 by 2.08m, plot 4 would sit 3.05m lower than plot 3 whilst plot 5 would sit 0.79m higher than plot 4.

1.11. Link to Documents

1.12. Site area: 0.5Ha. Density: 10 dwellings per hectare.

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is located in a wholly residential area of Kings Norton, fronting onto Rednal Road. At present there is one detached dwelling in large spacious grounds located at 42 Rednal Road. There has been some residential 'infill' development in this area - noticeably opposite the site at Norton Gate (allowed at appeal) and 20-24 Rednal Road although there was already a dwelling to the rear of the site. Rednal Road is a moderately busy road. The surrounding area is characterised large detached houses with spacious gardens and can be seen as a green and leafy mature suburban area. The site varys in levels and sits higher than Rednal Road to the front and higher than Beaks Hill Road to the rear but slopes down towards Beaks Hill Road through the application site. Existing trees and vegetation screen the site along its boundaries with denser cover in the north east corner.

2.2. Site Location Map

3. Planning History

Page 2 of 14 3.1. 21 March 2005. Application reference S/00432/05/OUT. Demolition of existing dwellings and erection of 7 new dwellings with garages and access road. Planning permission was refused for the following reasons:

1) The proposed development would be out of character with existing pattern of development and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area contrary to 3.8, 3.10, 3.14, 3.38 and 5.20 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan, 3.8, 3.10, 3.14 A-D, 3.16A, 3.38 and 5.20 of the deposit draft Unitary Development Plan and Places for Living adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance, Mature Suburbs adopted as interim Supplementary Planning Guidance, Planning Policy Statement 1 and Planning Policy Guidance Note 3.

2) The proposed siting and access arrangement would result in a development that would adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining properties by reason of noise, disturbance and by unduly compromising security by virtue of the proximity and relationship of the proposed driveway to existing private gardens and present opportunities for overlooking of adjacent properties. Plots 6 and 7 would have unusable amenity provision, and result in increased pressure to remove mature trees which contribute to the amenity of the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to guidelines contained within "Places for Living", adopted by the Local Planning Authority as Supplementary Planning Guidance.

The application was dismissed at appeal on 13 July 2006. The Inspector in his decision concluded “in creating a short cul-de-sac of houses, and with a relatively dense built form, there would be an intrusion into the open areas of the landscape. When compared to the existing and distinctive open characteristics of most of the immediate locality such a development would be harmful to the character of the area. Much of the site would be occupied by roads, driveways, forecourts and buildings, with the dwellings having only comparatively short rear gardens. To my mind that would be detrimental to the overall appearance of the locality and the amenities of local people.”

He went on to state “I also note that it is proposed to locate a new roadway along the boundary with No.38 Rednal Road and with two houses facing the rear garden of that property. Although there is a hedge along that boundary, due to the proximity of the roadway, I consider those residents would be subjected to increased noise and disturbance, with there being the possibility of overlooking from the new houses. Whilst it may be possible for the appellants to overlook that property at the present time and use an existing driveway close to the boundary, the present scheme would result in at least an additional six households using a roadway close to the boundary. In my opinion, there would be insufficient space along that boundary upon which to create a dense buffer of trees and foliage to mitigate the harm I have identified. In these circumstances, I consider the present scheme would cause significant detriment to the adjoining residents. I consider the proposal would be significantly harmful to the area and amenities of local people, contrary to Government and local planning policy.”

3.2. 4 August 2009. Application Reference 2009/02474/PA. Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 6 no. detached dwelling houses, creation of access and associated works. Planning permission was refused for the following reason:

1) The proposed development would be out of character with the existing pattern of development and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area contrary to policies 3.8, 3.10, 3.14, and 5.20 of the Birmingham Unitary

Page 3 of 14 Development Plan (2005) and guidance contained with Supplementary Planning Guidance "Places for Living" and "Mature Suburbs - Guidelines to Control Residential Intensification, PPS1 and PPS3.

The application was dismissed at appeal on the 24 May 2010. The Inspector in his decision concluded “this current scheme would occupy more extensive back land, albeit at a lower density. In my opinion the proposed cul-de-sac would go against the established grain of the built environment. Infill would intrude into open spaces between Rednal Road and Beaks Hill Road and intensify development. There is a small cul-de-sac opposite the site serving 5 dwellings and I am aware that culs-de- sac on suitable sites can sometimes add interest. However, I share the view of my colleague that the long rear gardens of existing dwellings in this particular neighbourhood form a very pleasant and distinctive character, with large areas of land devoid of buildings. I conclude that the site is unsuitable for the proposed infill and back-land development, because of its effect on the character of the area and the residential amenity of the neighbourhood.”

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Local residents, Ward Councillors, Residents Associations and MP notified. Councillors Griffiths and Douglas Osborn have requested that the application be brought to Planning Committee. Richard Burden MP has objected to the planning application on behalf of his constituents on the basis of overlooking adjacent properties; drainage and run-off into neighbouring gardens on Beaks Hill Road and highway safety/traffic on Rednal Road as the access is in a dangerous position on a blind bend.

4.2. 13 letters of objection received from occupiers and Links Residents Association in Rednal Road, Beaks Hill Road, Regency Drive, Hazelbank, The Green, Aversley Road and Wychall Park Grove. Objections are based on the following grounds: • Overlooking of rear private gardens • Loss of privacy and security • Loss of light to neighbouring dwelling • Highway safety • Out of character with existing pattern of development • Detrimental to visual amenity of the area • Over intensive backland development • Ecology impacts including bats, badgers and hedgehogs • Design of propose dwellings • Noise from extra vehicular movements within the site • Restrictive covenant preventing more than one dwelling per plot • Insufficient manoeuvring space for refuse and emergency vehicles • Site levels – Beaks Hill Road is considerably lower than Rednal Road.

4.3. Transportation – No objection but require amendments including tracking diagram; 2m footway provision and visibility splays. A s278 Agreement would also be required.

4.4. West Midlands Police – No objection.

4.5. West Midlands Fire Service – No objection.

4.6. Environment Agency – No comments to make.

Page 4 of 14 4.7. Regulatory Services – No objections subject to land contamination conditions.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Mature Suburbs SPD, Places for Living SPG, NPPF.

5.2. The site is covered by two Tree Preservation Orders – 528 (rear of 46 Rednal Road) and 1090 (42 Rednal Road).

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Planning permission is sought for the demolition of number 42 Rednal Road and the erection of 5 dwellings along with relevant access road, car parking and landscaping. The site has been the subject of two previous planning applications and subsequent appeals for 7 dwellings and 6 dwellings respectively. On both occasions, the appeal Inspector dismissed the appeal and concluded “that the long rear gardens of existing dwellings in this particular neighbourhood form a very pleasant and distinctive character, with large areas of land devoid of buildings. I conclude that the site is unsuitable for the proposed infill and back-land development, because of its effect on the character of the area and the residential amenity of the neighbourhood.”

6.2. The two previous applications were assessed against the UDP and Central Government policy of the time in the form of PPS3 (Housing). As such, planning policy has changed since the previous decisions and an assessment of the proposal against both the UDP and the NPPF is now required. The NPPF has a key principle being the presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is identified as having three stems of economic, social and environmental. Paragraph 17 identifies that a core planning principle of the NPPF is to “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings” whilst paragraph 58 identifies that development should “respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation and should create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.” This position runs through the UDP and SPD alongside having policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens. To support this, the NPPF identifies that private residential gardens are not considered to be previously developed land.

6.3. Paragraph 5.20 of the UDP states that “proposals for new residential developments…should be carefully designed so that they do not detract from the character of the surrounding area. A good standard of design is important in all residential developments, which should create a high quality living environment.” Paragraph 3.14D identifies a set of criteria by which planning applications would be assessed. These include: • “Particular regard towards the impact that the proposed development would have on the local character of an area, including topography, street patterns, building lines, boundary treatments, views, skyline, open spaces and landscape, scale and massing, and neighbouring uses; and • Scale and design of new buildings and spaces should generally respect the area surrounding them, and should reinforce and evolve any local characteristics”.

Page 5 of 14 6.4. The Mature Suburbs SPD identifies how to determine the character of an area and that this can be undertaken through the assessment of built form, spatial composition, architectural style, enclosure, density, levels of landscaping and public realm. Paragraph 4.12 provides the mechanism for assessment against set design criteria: • “Plot Size, • Building Form and Massing • Building Siting • Landscape and Boundary Treatment • Plot Access • Parking Provision and Traffic Impact • Design Styles” The SPD in paragraph 4.14 goes on to state that “proposals that undermine and harm the positive characteristics of a mature suburb will be resisted.”

6.5. The proposed development would see the demolition and rebuild for five large houses. The existing residential property sits comfortably within the character and appearance of its surroundings and whilst its loss would be regrettable, I do not consider that it could be resisted with respect to local character, as such I consider that the principle of demolition, in relation to planning regulations, would be acceptable however; the principle of demolition with respect to ecological matters is dealt with later in this report.

6.6. I consider that whilst the proposed dwellings would not be out of scale with those in the surrounding residential area, the context proposed for development would very much remain as incongruous. The surrounding area is characterised by large plots with large houses that front the perimeter roads whilst the rear gardens form an enclave of green space that also performs an ecological function to the area. The area is not characterised by roads and hardstanding entering this rear private enclave of gardens to provide access for further development within it. Whilst only five houses are now proposed compared to previous incarnations, the proposed density would see 10 dwellings per hectare in an area that is characteristically and significantly lower than this. I therefore consider that the proposal, as per the previous two applications would remain unacceptable due to the proposal’s impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

6.7. The proposed dwellings are well designed and modern in their architectural interpretation with the use of large expanses of glass and render. Whilst this interpretation would not be characteristic of the local vernacular, I do not consider this would be sufficient to raise an objection or warrant refusal on design grounds where Mature Suburbs SPD states “proposals are not expected to be a copy or pastiche of existing design styles in an area. Innovative and contemporary designs that respect their context are encouraged.” Whilst Plot 1 would not front Rednal Road directly, but would address the access road instead, I consider that the design of the elevation fronting Rednal Road would be acceptable and would be adequately fenestrated to provide overlooking and sufficient activity to the street. I note the objections received include an number relating to the proposed dwellings’ design however, as previously outlined whilst different, this would not be sufficient to warrant a refusal. The proposed dwellings would, if the development was considered acceptable in principle, sit comfortably in design terms in the surrounding area.

6.8. With regards to the proposed layout, putting the principle of development aside, the proposal would provide each dwelling with acceptable rear amenity space that accords and significantly exceeds the guidelines established in Places for Living

Page 6 of 14 SPD. Whilst the proposed development would provide garden lengths in excess of 10m (5m per storey), I consider that plots 1, 2 and 3 would have an unacceptable impact on the privacy of the neighbouring dwelling at 46 Rednal Road along with the private amenity space of 38 Rednal Road from the front separation from Plots 2 and 3 at approximately 12m. This is particularly pertinent given the site levels, the vast expanse of glass used in the contemporary design and the use of balconies. With regard to the proposed plot 4, 13.5m would separate the front of plot 4 to the rear private amenity area of plot 3, with plot 4 sitting approximately 2m lower than plot 3. Plot 4 would have a front facing balcony and whilst the separation distance would be in excess of that required by Places for Living, as with plots 2 and 3, I consider that this would also create unacceptable overlooking, although I note that this would not be to existing residential.

6.9. With regards to the impact of the proposed development to the residential properties on Beaks Hill Road to the rear, the rear gardens of Plots 4 and 5 would have in excess of 15m to the proposed rear boundary and the properties on Beaks Hill Road have rear gardens that are approximately 60m in length. Even when taking levels into consideration, I do not consider that overlooking/privacy would be an issue.

6.10. The properties proposed at Plots 2 and 3 would, in theory, breach the 45 degree code from both 38 and 46 Rednal Road; however, given the distances involved, I do not consider that this would be sufficient to warrant a refusal on loss of light.

6.11. With regards to security, the proposed layout would open the rear private amenity area to public access where at present there is none. This along with the access road directly abutting the rear garden to 38 and 46 Rednal Road would provide for a fear of crime and loss of security that the occupiers of these premises do not currently endure. This would be contrary to policy and identifies that the proposed layout is not considered satisfactory as a well-designed development that does not create security and crime issues.

Transportation Issues

6.12. I note the objections received relating to Highway Safety and traffic impact. Transportation have raised no objections to the proposal and they note that several applications have been submitted over the last couple of years and refused on planning grounds but not highway safety grounds. The previous appeals on the site do not make any reference to any transportation implications. Transportation notes that there has been no material change in policy relating to transport issues.

6.13. The access to the site would remain as in situ but would be amended to accommodate two-way traffic. Transportation request that a tracking diagram (for a refuse vehicle) is submitted and an amendment to the junction radii/new road including the turning head provided. Indications on the current layout show that a refuse vehicle would cross over to the other lane of the carriageway which in highway safety terms should be avoided. They also recommend that the footway is widened to 2m. These issues are rectifiable and as such, Transportation raises no objections to the application.

Ecology Issues

6.14. With regards to the ecology issues that have been raised through the public consultation process; a protected species “scoping” survey was undertaken in June 2015 and submitted with the planning application. The existing site comprises a three storey detached dwelling and a linked detached garage. An extensive area of

Page 7 of 14 mature, managed garden is present to the rear of the property, with a smaller garden area to the front. The gardens are mostly lawn, with ornamental shrub and flower beds, mature boundary hedgerow/trees and a variety of planted trees. The extreme north-eastern corner of the site, the location of a former clay pit, appears to be more natural in character. This area is referred to in some local residents’ consultation responses as the “Dell”, and forms part of a habitat corridor that extends from Merecroft Pool through to rear gardens on Beaks Hill Road and Rednal Road. The site plan shows that boundary vegetation in this area would be retained as part of the garden area of plot 5, but it is not clear how the remainder of the existing landform/garden space here would be affected by the proposals.

6.15. Trees, hedgerows and areas of dense shrub vegetation, as well as the existing property, provide opportunities for nesting birds. The submitted site plan and planning statement indicate that some of the existing vegetation would be retained – TPO’d trees, landscaping along the Rednal Road frontage, and the hedgerow along the boundary with no. 38 Rednal Road. The protected species survey also highlights that mature trees in the north-east corner of the site would be retained. Therefore, opportunities for nesting birds would continue to be available, if development takes place.

6.16. Evidence of foxes was recorded during the survey; it is likely that they will make use of adjacent gardens as well as the garden at no. 42. I note residents’ comments about the presence of badger and hedgehog, and potential impacts on these species if the site is developed. In 2009, residents highlighted the presence of a badger sett at no. 23 Beaks Hill Road, and the protected species survey reported a number of badger and hedgehog records within a 1km radius of the site. No evidence of badger activity was found during the survey, although the site does provide suitable foraging habitat for both badger and hedgehog. Collectively, the rear gardens on Beaks Hill Road and this section of Rednal Road provide an extensive, connected and relatively undisturbed area of suitable habitat. The current proposals allow for the retention of some garden habitat, albeit reduced in extent, and this will continue to provide habitat resources for various terrestrial mammals; however, to ensure that this remains useable, site permeability needs to be maintained. The City Ecologist considers that external and internal boundaries will need to ensure that access for terrestrial mammals is not impeded, for example by leaving gaps under fencing or between fencing panels. As a matter of good practice, a further check for badger activity should be carried out before any works commence, and any construction trenches, excavations etc. should be covered over at night or fitted with an escape ramp, to ensure mammals not become trapped.

6.17. The site’s habitats are typical of those found in large, mature gardens. As part of a local habitat network, such gardens undoubtedly have value for a variety of wildlife, including nesting birds, foraging bats, terrestrial mammals such as badger, fox and hedgehog and invertebrates. However, the protected species survey did not highlight the presence of any notable habitats, nor identify any significant constraints to development.

6.18. More detailed bat survey work was also completed in June 2015 and submitted with the planning application, consisting of a daytime site assessment, a detailed building inspection and two dusk emergence surveys. These surveys were supervised by a Natural England bat licence holder and followed published good practice guidance. The building inspection identified a number of features around the exterior of no. 42 and the garage that could be used by roosting bats, including gaps under ridge and hip tiles and damaged roof tiles. Internal loft voids in the house and garage were

Page 8 of 14 also inspected. A number of trees in the north-east corner of the garden were assessed as being of sufficient age and size to provide roosting sites.

6.19. Single common pipistrelle bats were recorded emerging from different locations around the house during the two dusk emergence surveys. During the first survey a bat emerged from the ridge over the front gable, and during the second survey, from beneath a ridge tile on the west side of the house. Low levels of foraging and commuting activity by common and soprano pipistrelles were also recorded during both surveys, along the drive and in the front, side and rear garden. A single foraging pass by a noctule bat was also recorded. Based on the results of the two dusk emergence surveys, the presence of roosting bats at no. 42 can be confirmed. Because of the low levels of activity recorded, these roosts are considered to be occasional/transient day roosts for low numbers of common pipistrelles.

6.20. The ecological consultant, on behalf of the applicant, concludes, on the basis of the survey work completed, that a Natural England European Protected Species (NE EPS) licence is not required to enable the development to proceed, because of the low conservation status of the affected roosts. Instead, she concludes that works should proceed under a suitable method statement agreed with the LPA, which details the necessary mitigation measures. Such mitigation should include: • Timing of works to avoid direct disturbance (ie destructive works in areas used by bats at a time of year when they are unlikely to be present) • Supervision, by a licensed bat worker, of destructive works in areas known to be used by bats • Provision of replacement roosting sites for common pipistrelles within the new buildings, eg raised ridge tiles, Ibstock-type bat bricks/boxes • If works delayed beyond April 2016, further surveys should be carried out before destructive works commence In addition to the above mitigation measures recommended by the consultant, tree mounted bat boxes, of a design suitable for common pipistrelles, should also be installed prior to demolition of the property. This would ensure alternative roosting sites are in place to cover the period between demolition of no. 42 and construction of the new houses (which would incorporate permanent replacement roosting habitat).

6.21. Whilst the City Ecologist agrees that satisfactory compensation and mitigation can be secured to ensure that the proposed development would not cause harm to bats, she remains unconvinced that the development can proceed without the need for a NE EPS licence. It is her view that the proposed development would result in the destruction of transient, day roosts for low numbers of male/non-breeding female common pipistrelles. Although Natural England confirm such roosts as being of low conservation status, the provisions of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 make it an offence to damage or destroy a breeding site of bat unless a NE EPS licence is issued prior to commencement of works. Therefore, in the absence of a NE EPS licence, the proposed demolition of no. 42 is likely to result in the breach of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.

6.22. Taking account of recent case law concerning LPAs’ duties in relation to EPS, the City Ecologist has advised that the LPA should not approve the application if there is reason to believe that Natural England would not issue a licence. The LPA should therefore have regard for The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and should consider the three tests in Regulation 53 before determining planning applications that may affect EPS (ODPM Circular 06/2005, paragraphs 99, 112 and 116). Regulations 53(2) and 53(9) define the circumstances where a

Page 9 of 14 derogation is allowed for an affected EPS and a licence could be issued by Natural England:

• Test 1: the derogation is in the interests of public health, public safety and an imperative reason of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment. • Test 2: there is no satisfactory alternative. • Test 3: the derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.

6.23. The City Ecologist comments relate only to the third test, which deem that the development should have no detrimental effect on the favourable conservation status of the species concerned, in this case, common pipistrelle. An outline mitigation strategy forms part of the submitted bat survey and site assessment report. The mitigation measures identified, together with the additional requirement for temporary replacement roosting sites, in the form of tree mounted bat boxes, would ensure that the proposed development would not be detrimental to the conservation status of the local common pipistrelle bat population. Therefore, the third test would be met. However, the judgement on the first and second tests must be made by the LPA. If it is agreed that these two tests can be met, then an application for an EPS licence would probably be successful, and therefore, it is possible to grant planning permission in accordance with the LPA’s obligations of Regulation 53 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended).

6.24. Taking account of the City Ecologist comments on the submitted bat and protected species surveys and that test three can be adequately met, it falls for an assessment of the development against tests one and two outlined above. It is my opinion that the proposed development would fail both test one and two as the derogation would not, in my opinion be in the “interests of public health, public safety and an imperative reason of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment” and secondly I do not consider that there would be no satisfactory alternative. The submitted information states that this is a large family dwellinghouse with a burden of a rear garden that nobody would want to purchase and the current owner wants to downsize as they cannot maintain the garden. As such, they want to demolish the house and build five dwellings, one of which would be their new home. I do not consider that this would be an acceptable reason to approve planning permission and in turn have a NE licence granted to remove the bat roost. I can see no reason why the demolition would be allowed in this instance as the suitable alternative would be to leave the house in situ and build new dwellings behind (if this was to be an acceptable solution, which I have already identified would not be considered acceptable). Clearly the proposal would fail test one as the proposed development has no overriding public interest.

6.25. I consider that there would be an unacceptable ecological impact relating to a European Protected Species (bats) generated through the demolition of the existing dwelling that is sufficient to warrant a refusal on these grounds.

6.26. I am also concerned that whilst the City Ecologist has assessed the proposal on the basis that the majority of trees would be retained, my arboricutural officer has been unable to assess the proposal against the submitted information because the tree

Page 10 of 14 survey and assessment information is considered to be considerably out of date and requiring updating. As such, the proposed development could potentially have a greater impact than that currently assessed.

Other Matters

6.27. I note objections have also been received in relation to noise and a restrictive covenant. Covenants attached to land are not material planning considerations and are a private legal matter. With regards to noise; Regulatory Services have raised no objections to the proposal but I note that the appeal Inspector for the 2005 planning application commented that “due to the proximity of the roadway, I consider those residents (at 38 Rednal Road) would be subjected to increased noise and disturbance.” I consider that the proposal would have a similar enough layout with the access road proposed alongside the boundary to the house and rear garden of 38 Rednal Road to have a similar impact.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed development would not comply with either Government or local policy in the form of the NPPF, UDP, Places for Living SPG and Mature Suburbs SPD. The proposed development; whilst providing new housing within the City boundary; would have an adverse impact on the adjacent residential amenity and would have an unacceptable impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area. The proposal would also impact, through demolition, an existing bat roost.

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. I consider that the proposal would not provide sufficient economic and social benefits to the overriding public interest and would have an environmental impact on an existing bat roost assessed under the 2010 Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations. As such, I consider the proposal would not be sustainable development and on this basis, the presumption in favour does not apply.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That planning permission is refused for the reason outlined below.

Reasons for Refusal

1 The proposed development, requiring demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of five detached dwellings utilising the whole application site including rear amenity areas, would be out of character with the existing pattern of development in the immediate vicinity and would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the area. This, in turn, would adversely affect the character of the existing mature residential area which is characterised by large dwellings in large single plots. As such it would be contrary to Paragraphs 3.8, 3.10, 3.14C and 5.20 of the Birmingham UDP 2005, guidance in Places for Living / Mature Suburbs both adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 The proposed siting and access arrangement would result in a development that would adversely affect the amenities of occupiers of the adjoining premises at 38 Rednal Road by reason of noise, disturbance and by unduly compromising security to 38 and 46 Rednal Road by virtue of the proximity and relationship of the proposed access road to existing private gardens and present opportunities for overlooking of

Page 11 of 14 adjacent and proposed properties to the detriment of their privacy. The proposal would therefore be contrary to paragraphs 3.8, 3.10, 3.14C of the Birmingham UDP, the NPPF and guidance contained in Places for Living and Mature Suburbs adopted by the Local Planning Authority as Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents.

3 The proposed development would, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, require a licence from Natural England pursuant to regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 for the removal of a European Protected Species (bats) from within the existing dwelling at 42 Rednal Road, and the Local Planning Authority considers that such a licence is unlikely to be granted as the tests in regulation 53(2)(e) and 53(9)(a) are not met and therefore the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling at 42 Rednal Road cannot be supported. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to paragraphs 3.37-3.40 of the Birmingham UDP (2005), paragraphs 118 and 119 of the NPPF and the Nature Conservation Strategy for Birmingham adopted by the Local Planning Authority as Supplementary Planning Guidance.

Case Officer: Pam Brennan

Page 12 of 14 Photo(s)

View 1: Front Elevation of Existing House at 42 Rednal Road

View 2: Rear Garden and Levels of 42 Rednal Road Page 13 of 14 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 14 of 14

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2014/07838/PA Accepted: 19/01/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 16/03/2015 Ward: Moseley and Kings Heath

59 Mayfield Road, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 9HT

Retrospective consent for change of use of property from single family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to supported living accommodation (Use Class C2) Applicant: Horizons Supported Housing Limited Jensen House, Shaftesbury Street, West Bromwich, B70 9QD Agent:

Recommendation Refuse

1. Proposal

1.1. This retrospective application is for the change of use of No. 59 Mayfield Road from a single family dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to supported living accommodation (Use Class C2). The Applicant has been operating from the premises since Summer 2013. The premises accommodates up to seven adult residents with a variety of issues, which may include domestic violence, alcohol and substance abuse, social exclusion and isolation, anti-social behaviour, mental health problems, learning difficulties, physical or sensory disabilities, alongside problems with their housing.

1.2. The premises can accommodate seven residents, each resident having their own bedroom, but having access to shared communal areas such as the kitchen and living room. Residents have individual assured shorthold tenancy agreements. Often they have complex care needs – autism, learning disabilities and challenging behaviours, and other associated health conditions. Residents are likely to be unemployed, and bills/paperwork are managed by the Applicant. The average resident stay at the premises is 6-8 months, although some residents may stay for much longer, others for only a few weeks. Residents make their own meals/have their own mealtimes, and are free to come and go whenever they want, but with support as they would be vulnerable on their own within the community. They have keys to their bedroom door and the front door.

1.3. There is 24 hour support for residents in the form of 2-3 staff being on the premises at any one time (one of which is a manager or supervisor), with one overnight member of staff accommodated in the on-site office. The staff office is located at the front of the property and has a separate front door. Social workers, homeless support officers etc. visit the premises dependent on each resident’s personal programme.

Page 1 of 10 1.4. The ground floor of the property accommodates a bedroom, office, two bathrooms, living room, laundry and kitchen. The first floor accommodates four bedrooms, two bathrooms and a quiet room. The second floor accommodates two bedrooms, a kitchen, a sitting room and a bathroom. Three of the bedrooms have en-suites.

1.5. The Applicant, Horizons Supported Housing Ltd., manages a number of similar properties in the local area e.g. at No. 122 Oxford Road, Moseley; Hagley Lodge; and Yardley Guest House. They employ Enable UK to operate the day to day running of the premises e.g. staffing. The Applicant works with Sustain, who are a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) and they also receive housing benefit from the City Council. Residents are often referred to the premises via charities such as Midland Heart, Red Cross etc. and are matched via the referral process to ensure that they can live together.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. No. 59 is a three storey, semi-detached, Victorian property, located on a residential road. The property has been operating as supported living accommodation for residents with learning disabilities since at least Summer 2013. Prior to this use it was unlawfully used as a HMO since at least 2011. The frontage of the property is block paved and provides off-street parking for three cars.

2.2. The character of Mayfield Road is one of a mix of single family dwellinghouses, properties converted into flats/HMOs, and institutional uses. No. 57, the neighbouring half of the semi-detached pair, is in use as four flats. Immediately adjoining the site to the south west is a vehicular access serving Mayfield Court flats to the rear of the site. No. 61, beyond the access road, is in use as flats.

Site Location Map

3. Planning History

Enforcement

3.1. 2011/0986/ENF - Conversion of property into Housing in Multiple Occupation – Requested planning application, but not received.

3.2. 2013/0989/ENF - Change of use to a residence for people with learning difficulties (C2 use) – Only one person residing at property so not considered to be C2 Use

3.3. 2014/0426/ENF - Change of use to a home for children with behavioural issues (Use Class C2 or C2A) – Awaiting outcome of planning application.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objection

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection

4.3. Birmingham Public Health – No response received

Page 2 of 10

4.4. Local residents, Ward Councillors and Residents Associations notified – Two letters of objection received as summarised:

Moseley Society – Objects on the grounds that it represents the loss of a family house in an Area of Restraint. There is a real need for large family houses in our area and the strong demand has seen the conversion of some previously multi- occupied houses back into single family dwellings. We have no objection to the proposed use but we consider the Applicant should seek to provide this in one of the many houses that has already been converted to flats, HMO or other institutional use, rather than alter a house still available for a family. Much of Moseley is covered by Area of Restraint policies because of the many large houses which have attracted developers interested in converting them to flats, HMOs or other institutional uses. But in recent years the demand for large family houses has been increasing and so we think it is very important to maintain the Policy and retain all remaining family houses. The Policy was included in the Moseley SPD 2014 – H3. The 2011 census confirms that our Ward continues to contain well above average numbers of properties rented from the private sector or registered social landlords, with nearly 43% of the properties in the Ward being flats. And yet we also have more than the average number of households with dependent children.

Moseley Regeneration Group – Objects on the basis of losing a single family house in an Area of Restraint where there is a demand for family housing and where many large houses have already been converted to HMOs. Our objection is supported by the Policy H3 contained in the Moseley SPD 2014.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are applicable: • Birmingham UDP • Draft Birmingham Development Plan • Car Parking Guidelines SPD • Area of Restraint Moseley and Sparkhill SPG • Moseley SPD

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

6. Planning Considerations

Background

6.1. The application premise’s lawful use is as a C3 dwellinghouse. In 2011 an enforcement complaint was received (2011/0986/ENF) that the premises were being unlawfully used as a HMO (not in connection with the Applicant). In Summer 2013 the Applicant commenced supported living accommodation at the property, although only caring for one resident at the time of a second enforcement complaint (2013/0989/ENF). On this basis it was considered that the operation at the time did not constitute a C2 Use and therefore the property was operating a C3(b) Use and no material change of use had occurred. A further enforcement complaint was received in 2014 (2014/0426/ENF) likely to have been generated as a result of the increase in number of residents at the property. The Applicant was advised that

Page 3 of 10 they would require planning permission for C2 use in order to regularise the current situation.

Planning Policy

6.2. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (Paragraph 14). Paragraph 50 of the NPPF explains that in order to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, local planning authorities should plan for a mix of housing based on current and future demographic trends, market trends and the needs of different groups in the community (such as, but not limited to, families with children, older people, people with disabilities, service families and people wishing to building their own homes.

6.3. Paragraph 5.19A of the Birmingham UDP and Policy TP34 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan explains “The loss to other uses (through conversion or redevelopment) of housing which is in good condition, or could be restored to good condition at reasonable cost, will normally be resisted. Such loss of residential accommodation will only be permitted if there are good planning justifications or an identified social need for the proposed use”. Paragraph 5.19B of the Birmingham UDP states that some residential areas contain properties which have been converted into institutional uses, day nurseries, nursing homes, flats or houses in multiple occupation and that concentrations of such uses can have an adverse effect upon the essential residential character of a particular street or area. Areas of Restraint have been identified where further changes of use of large dwelling houses to non-family dwelling house uses will be resisted.

6.4. Paragraph 8.29 of the Birmingham UDP sets out criteria for assessing planning applications for new residential care homes. It states that proposals should not cause demonstrable harm to the residential amenity of occupiers of nearby properties by reason of noise and disturbance nuisance; where a proposal relates to a site in an area which already contain premises in similar use that account will be taken 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 that there should be adequate parking provision for staff, visitors and emergency vehicles; and that proposals should include adequate outdoor amenity space for occupiers (normally a minimum of 16sqm of space per resident).

6.5. Policy TP26 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan states that new housing in Birmingham is expected to contribute to making sustainable places, whether it is a small infill site or the creation of a new residential neighbourhood. All new residential development will need to demonstrate that it is meeting the requirements of creating sustainable neighbourhoods. It goes on to explain that one of the characteristics of a sustainable neighbourhood is a wide choice of housing sizes, types and tenures to ensure balanced communities catering for all incomes and ages.

6.6. Policy TP29 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan explains that “Proposals for new housing should seek to deliver a range of dwellings to meet local needs and support the creation of mixed, balanced and sustainable neighbourhoods.”

6.7. Policy H3 of the Moseley SPD states “Where the conversion of large domestic properties into Housing in Multiple Occupation (HMO) requires planning permission

Page 4 of 10 or for institutional purposes, such use will be resisted. The de-conversion of HMO back into single family accommodation will be supported.”

6.8. No. 59 is located within the Moseley/Sparkhill Area of Restraint. Paragraph 17.32 of the Birmingham UDP explains that this specific Area of Restraint consists of large Victorian and Edwardian houses many of which have been converted in to flats and bedsits and others to institutional uses such as care homes and hostel accommodation. It explains that non-family dwellinghouse uses may be refused on the grounds that further development of such uses would adversely affect the character of the area. It goes on to explain that there is a continuing demand for the retention of large properties for family use and that it will be important to ensure that a balanced housing stock is retained to enable these demands to be met.

6.9. The Moseley/Sparkhill Area of Restraint policy was created in the early 1990s and adopted into the UDP in 1993 as a response to changes in government policy which led the increasing spread of care homes, HMOs and other institutional uses in the area which it was felt was undermining the residential balance and character of the neighbourhood. The Council has reviewed this 25 year old policy and concluded it is no longer fit for purpose or appropriate. Paragraph 17.32 of the UDP will no longer be applicable once the Birmingham Development Plan is adopted and supersedes the Birmingham UDP, whilst the Council has recently undertaken consultation notifying the public of our intention to revoke the accompanying Moseley/Sparkhill Area of Restraint SPG. Policy H3 of the recently adopted Moseley SPD (2014) is a more appropriate policy, recognising the key need in the area is now to stem the loss of large family dwellings (for which there is an identified need) rather than concerns over the over-concentrations of institutional uses.

Housing Characteristics

6.10. The 2011 census revealed that household sizes in the City are above the national average, with 24.7% of Birmingham households having four or more residents. The Birmingham Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (Jan 2013) found that there was a shortage of larger 4 bed+ homes across the City both for rent and sale. Figure 2 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan sets out the City’s future housing need based on housing type need and shows that the highest percentage of need across all tenures is for market properties of 4 or more bedrooms (21.9% of new housing).

6.11. The 2011 Census revealed that there are high levels of private renting in the Ward, with 26.8% of all households in the private rented sector compared with 17.9% for the City as a whole. The Ward also has 10.5% of the City’s shared dwellings and 5.2% of its communal establishments. The Council’s Housing Strategy Team advises that 72 households are waiting for 4 beds or larger social rented property in the Ward.

6.12. A site survey of the section of Mayfield Road, between its junction with Wake Green Road and Highfield Road was recently undertaken. Of the 28 properties located within the surveyed area – approximately 13 of these remain in single family dwellinghouse use (46%). The remainder of properties have been converted into flats, HMOs or institutional uses (mostly lawfully). I note No. 32 Mayfield Road, located almost opposite the site, also provides supported living accommodation for young people (St. Basils Housing Association).

Social Benefits of Continued Use

Page 5 of 10 6.13. Paragraph 5.19A of the UDP and Policy TP34 of the Draft BDP require an identified social need before the loss of residential accommodation can be considered. The Applicant has explained that they hold a two year lease on the property, which was renewed in June 2015, and as such they are not currently in a position to secure another property in the area. They explain that residents are well settled and would be reluctant to move out. They go on to explain that residents would want to stay in the area due to their family support network and the local agencies and they anticipate that it may take up to 18-24 months to set up another such facility. The Applicant expresses grave concerns if forced to close the facility, stating that the Council has a legal and moral responsibility to house vulnerable people in need of constant housing support to cope with their everyday lives. I accept that the vulnerable people currently supported would have to be re-housed elsewhere if planning permission was refused and the use at these premises ceased, and that appropriate assistance from other parts of the Council would be sought. With this support it may be possible to help identify other more appropriate premises within the local area, and given the Applicant states that the average length of stay of their residents is 6-8 months, it would be hoped the changes could be positively managed and any disturbance kept to a minimum.

Loss of Lawful Class C3 Dwellinghouse

6.14. Policy H3 of the Moseley SPD 2014 states that “Where the conversion of large domestic properties into Housing in Multiple Occupation (HMO) requires planning permission or for institutional purposes, such use will be resisted. The de- conversion of HMO back into single family accommodation will be supported.” I understand that this policy was created more to protect the loss of single family dwellinghouses and meet local needs in the neighbourhood, rather than to necessarily prevent the spread of non-single family dwellinghouses uses – a subtle yet significant difference to the older out-dated Area of Restraint policy which is to be revoked. In determining the application I consider significant weight should be attached to the recently adopted Moseley SPD policy.

6.15. This is the first planning application proposing a change of use of a property from single family dwellinghouse use to a non-single family dwellinghouse to be determined since adoption of the Moseley SPD 2014. As such it is an important application for testing planning policy in this recently adopted SPD. Therefore whilst acknowledging that each case should be judged on its own merits, I recognise that approving the loss of an existing single family dwellinghouse use (one which has already been unlawfully converted) contrary to recently adopted policy and where there is empirical evidence clearly setting out a need and demand for large 4 bed+ single family dwellinghouses in the locality, would not only send out the wrong message that conversion of a property unlawfully is acceptable, but would more importantly set a precedent for similar such dwellinghouses losses in the locality, undermining residential character and further restricting the pool of family sized properties. I note that both the Moseley Society and Moseley Regeneration Group have also objected to the application on these grounds.

Cumulative Effect of Non-Single Family Dwellinghouse Uses

6.16. Paragraph 8.29 of the Birmingham UDP states that where a proposal relates to a site in an area which already contain premises in similar use that account will be taken of the cumulative effect of such uses upon the residential character and appearance of the area. Such harmful cumulative effects can commonly include: noise and disturbance; high levels of traffic/parking congestion; crime and anti-social behaviour; adverse impact on visual amenity in terms of poorly maintained

Page 6 of 10 properties, loss of landscaping for car parking/bins on frontages and high levels of litter; and loss of social cohesion/community spirit. Those streets where there is still a higher proportion of single family dwellinghouse uses remaining to non-single family dwellinghouse uses tend to have a stronger residential character and a more healthy, balanced community.

6.17. The majority of properties along Mayfield Road are already in non-single family dwellinghouse use, and arguably the tipping point was reached some years ago whereby the mix of accommodation predominantly became non-single family dwellinghouse use. Therefore I consider the ‘family-residential’ character of the area is somewhat lacking at present, and it would be difficult to argue that in this particular instance a further non-single family dwellinghouse in itself (and one which has already operating as such for the past few years) would have a cumulative harmful impact on the residential character of the area. The properties immediately adjacent, and opposite, are also flats.

Noise and Disturbance

6.18. I am satisfied that the continued use of the property for supported living accommodation would not cause demonstrable harm to the residential amenity of occupiers of nearby properties by reason of noise and disturbance, as required by Paragraph 8.29 of the Birmingham UDP. The property is staffed 24 hours a day, with a Manager on site during daytime hours, and in the event that there is any noise, disturbance or anti-social behaviour arising, this would be dealt with speedily. I note Regulatory Services have raised no objection to the use; no objections have been received from neighbouring residents; and the use has been operating without any complaints being received.

Living Conditions

6.19. The rear garden of No. 59 would provide 342sqm of private amenity space for residents, well in excess of the 112sqm recommended by Paragraph 8.29 of the Birmingham UDP. Bedrooms would be of an acceptable size for residents. Therefore I am satisfied that living conditions for residents would be adequate.

Traffic and Parking

6.20. The Council’s Car Parking Guidelines SPD recommends a parking provision of one car park space per three bed spaces for specialist care homes, equating to a provision of 2-3 car park spaces to serve this 7-bed accommodation. There are three frontage car parking spaces serving the property and as such Transportation Development are satisfied that the use does not prejudice the safety and freeflow of traffic in the adjoining highway, and that there is adequate parking provision for staff, visitors and emergency vehicles.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider there would be no material change in noise, disturbance, traffic or parking arising as a result of the continued use and I am sympathetic to the Applicant’s valued role in supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society. However, whilst any decision has to be finely balanced I do not consider that the loss of a large single family dwellinghouse, for which there is both a demonstrated local and City-wide need and demand for larger properties, should ultimately outweigh non- compliance with both UDP policy (5.19A), draft BDP policy (TP34), or the recently

Page 7 of 10 adopted Moseley SPD (2014) (Policy H3). Allowing development contrary to these policies would also set a precedent for approval of similar such dwellinghouse losses in the locality. As such I consider the proposal would not constitute sustainable development and I recommend that planning permission is refused.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Refuse

Reason for Refusal

1 The loss of a lawful, large dwellinghouse use would be unacceptable given the demonstrated local and City-wide need and demand for this type of accommodation, and would set an unacceptable precedent for similar such dwellinghouse losses in the wider area. As such the proposal would be contrary to Paragraph 5.19A of the Birmingham UDP, Policy TP34 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan, the Moseley Supplementary Planning Document, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Case Officer: Andrew Conroy

Page 8 of 10 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Front Elevation

Page 9 of 10 Location Plan

30a 30

39 33

47 35

1 to 10

MAYFIELD ROAD

Sycamore House

2 45

1 to 12 10

49 a

Godrich

53 House

Orchard Leigh 61

44 1 to 4 to 1

1 3

46 6

4 28 23

48 11 21 7 25

9 22

12 20

8 Mayfield Court 24

50 15

19 73

52 16

14 18

MAYFIELD ROAD

1 3

45 1 Peterhouse Mews 2 Keble Court ESS 2 LB Kings Hall 51

1 Trinity Court

Tudor Lodge Darwin House e 151.5m The Academy

Page 10 of 10

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/07501/PA Accepted: 11/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 11/12/2015 Ward: Bournville

Unit 6, Avery Dell Trading Estate, Lifford Lane, Kings Norton, Birmingham, B30 3DZ

Change of use of existing building from Sui Generis (Go-kart Manufacturing, Testing and Racing Centre) to Class D2 (Assembly and Leisure) for use as a trampoline park. Applicant: Rush Trampoline Parks Ltd and USM Properties Ltd c/o Agent Agent: CgMs Consulting 140 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5DN Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application seeks planning permission for the change of use of the existing building at Unit 6, Avery Dell Trading Estate from a Go-Kart manufacturing; testing and racing centre (Sui Generis) to use as a trampoline park (Use Class D2).

1.2. No additional floorspace or external alterations are proposed to the building.

1.3. The trampoline park is a new business and would be the first of its kind located in Birmingham. The unit would retain its full internal height and floor area (3316sqm) to accommodate the trampolining area which involves various trampoline set ups, including: main jump area, challenge court area, dodge ball courts, basketball court, foam pit, kids trampolines, ninja course, and performance wall. The existing office area would accommodate ancillary facilities including toilets, party rooms, café, seating area and viewing gallery, reception and offices. It would cater for 125 people at full capacity.

1.4. A total of 53 car parking spaces would be provided within the site. These would be laid out to the front of the building and along the southern boundary within the existing servicing area and other unused areas which would no longer be required. Cycle parking would also be provided to the front of the building.

1.5. The proposed use would provide 75 job opportunities (60 part time; 15 full time) for a wide variety of positions such as trampoline monitors, administration, café staff and managerial roles. Opening hours proposed 10am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 10am to 8pm Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Link to Documents

Page 1 of 8 2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is Unit 6, Avery Dell Trading Estate, off Lifford Lane. This is a modern warehouse with composite panel cladded wall and a profile steel roof. The building consists of a double height warehouse space (3034sqm) with a two storey office element (282sqm). The building is currently vacant having been occupied by F1K, having gained planning permission in 2010 for the change of use of the industrial unit to Go-Kart manufacturing, maintenance, testing and racing centre.

2.2. The site sits within an industrial/warehouse estate, with other units both to the north and south of the application site. The Worcester and Birmingham Canal runs along the eastern edge of the site with further industrial/warehouse units beyond, and the main line railway line lies to the west of the site with residential development beyond.

2.3. The site is accessed from Lifford Lane to the south of the site near to its junction with Pershore Road and then along an access road adjacent to the canal. The Wharfside Leisure Complex at the Lifford Lane entrance contains a music venue, children’s indoor playground and a gym.

2.4. The site is close to, but not located within the defined boundary of the Stirchley District Centre.

Location Map

3. Planning History

3.1. 13/05/2008 – 2008/01335/PA Flat to pitch roof conversion and over cladding of existing brickwork to offices and frontage of warehouse. Approved subject to conditions.

3.2. 01/04/2010 – 2009/05396/PA Change of use of industrial unit to Go-Kart manufacturing, maintenance, testing and racing centre. Approved subject to conditions.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objection, subject to a condition for secure and sheltered cycle storage.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection, subject to noise limiting conditions.

4.3. Canal and River Trust – No objection.

4.4. Network Rail – No objection.

4.5. Letters of notification have been sent to surrounding occupiers; local residents associations; Bournville Ward Councillors and the MP for Northfield. A site notice has also been posted.

4.6. One letter of objection has been received from a nearby commercial occupier, objecting to the proposal for the following reasons.

• Access to the industrial estate maybe blocked. • Inconsiderate parking will take place.

Page 2 of 8 • There is not enough parking for the use. • The access to Lifford Lane is a real problem, adding more traffic will cause accidents.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are relevant.

• The Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005) • Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2013) • SPD: Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses (2006) • SPD: Car Parking Standards (2012)

5.2. The following national policy is relevant.

• The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Principle of Use – Loss of Industrial Land

The UDP’s employment policies remain in accordance with the NPPF and are therefore relevant in the determination of this application. UDP paragraph 4.31 (Maintaining the Supply of Industrial Land) notes that opportunities for industrial development in the built up area of the City are diminishing. In order to reduce pressure on greenfield sites, the loss of industrial land to retail or other non-industrial uses will be resisted. These policies are however viewed in the light of NPPF paragraph 22 which states that planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose, and that land allocations should be regularly reviewed.

6.2. The UDP sets out the principles on which industrial land release policies are based at paragraph 4.19. These include the creation of a balanced portfolio of readily available industrial land, providing a choice of site by size, location and quality and ensuring that supply in each identifiable sub-market of readily available land should lead demand but the quantity kept within reasonable limits. These principles are not inconsistent with the aims of the NPPF. The Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005) paragraph 4.20 defines sub-markets, with the application site considered being ‘Other Urban’ which is noted as average or poor quality sites suitable for locally-based clients. Paragraph 4.21 requires that minimum amounts of industrial land should be available in each sub-market, and Figure 4.1 tabulates these requirements.

6.3. The Loss of Industrial Land SPD further defines sub-markets at paragraph 3.2. In relation to ‘Other Urban Sites’ it tells us that these are generally less than 0.4 hectares, are suitable for local investors. It also notes that although the quality of site and location can vary significantly, the lower quality sites can still be attractive to the market.

6.4. Section 5 of the Industrial Land SPD sets out the information required when submitting a planning application involving the loss of industrial land. Three criteria are identified. The first, non-conforming uses, is not relevant in this case. The third, viability, applies where it is being argued that high redevelopment costs make

Page 3 of 8 industrial development commercially unviable, an argument not used in this case. The second, active marketing, applies where lack of demand for a particular industrial site is being argued, as it is in this case.

6.5. Paragraph 5.3 of the SPD sets out the form such marketing should take. The fundamental requirement is active marketing for a reasonable period, (normally a minimum of 2 years). The applicant has provided information with regard to the lack of interest in the take up of the premises for industrial purposes, and demonstrates that an extensive marketing exercise has been undertaken in accordance with the Loss of Industrial Land SPD since October 2013. Paragraph 5.8 of the SPD states however other strategic planning factors will need to be addressed and this will involve considering a number of factors including whether a site lies within an area of strategic importance for industrial purposes, such as the core areas of industrial regeneration. Within such areas it is expected that land will remain in an industrial use. In this instance, it is noted that this is a relatively small industrial unit, considered to be classed as “other urban” land for the purpose of industrial land allocation and its change to a trampoline park would not affect the reservoir of readily available land. Given this, it is considered the proposal would not conflict with local and national policy and therefore I raise no objection in principle to the proposed change of use.

6.6. NPPF Sequential Test

Paragraph 7.15 to 7.33 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan, supports the positive promotion and enhancement of existing shopping centres. Paragraph 7.32 identifies that wherever possible proposals for new leisure development should be accommodated within local centres. This policy also acknowledges that there may be exceptional circumstances where this is not possible and in such circumstances support could be given provided that a sequential approach has been undertaken.

6.7. The National Planning Policy Framework at Annex 2 defines leisure uses as ‘main town centre uses’ and establishes circumstances in which it is sequentially acceptable for them to be located in out of centre locations. The site is 68m from the edge of Stirchley District Centre, albeit separated by the canal, however the access is to the south via the estate road and then north along Pershore Road amounting to some 500m from the centre. Given this, it is therefore considered this is an out-of-centre site.

6.8. Paragraph 24 of the NPPF identifies that a sequential approach should be taken for main town centre uses that are not in-centre (and not in accordance with an up-to- date local plan). When considering edge and out of centre sites, preference should be given to accessible sites that are well connected to the town centre.

6.9. The application is supported with a Sequential Assessment. This illustrates that a number of other sites have been considered within Birmingham and beyond and has concluded that no other site is able to be brought forward due to the specific requirement of the operator. It is essential for the viable operation of the trampoline park that in this instance the applicants are able to utilise a premises comprising a gross floor area of between 2,700 and 3,500sqm with a minimum eaves height of 6.0 metres. Clearly the type and nature of the leisure operation requires premises of specific dimensions (in terms of scale, height, layout and massing) which preclude many existing sites from consideration.

6.10. The assessment looks at sites within the City Centre, especially Paradise Forum and Arena Central; however these sites were not suitable and proved to be

Page 4 of 8 financially unviable for the operator. Closer sites to the application site, at Battery Retail Park, Longbridge, Erdington were also discounted for similar reasons. In addition, over 400 sites in and around Birmingham have been appraised. The vast majority of properties are too small or their eave heights too low to accommodate a trampoline park. A few select units are of an appropriate size and eaves height, but have been ruled out for a number of reasons, namely they are in no better sequentially preferable position than the proposal site itself or they are current employment areas and the Local Planning Authority would seek to retain them for industrial purpose. The conclusion is that Unit 6 Avery Dell is the most suitable, available and sequentially preferable site in the wider Birmingham area. This policy approach is consistent with the NPPF which also requires that the proposed retail use at an edge of centre location must be sequentially appraised.

6.11. NPPF Impact Assessment

The NPPF states that an impact assessment is required for proposal for town centre uses on out of centre sites. In this instance, it is envisaged that the majority of the trampolines parks visitors would come from a 30 mile catchment - roughly a 45 minute drive. There are no comparable facilities within Birmingham, whilst there are other locally based clubs; these are substantially different operationally, primarily focusing on competitive training rather than a pure leisure facility. Given this, it is considered that the trampoline park would not detrimentally impact upon the viability or viability of existing leisure facilities. In addition, the facility would enhance the provision of leisure facilities within Birmingham and the approval of this application would not jeopardise future investment in this particular sector, within Birmingham as a whole or locally within Stirchley.

6.12. Impact on Residential Amenity

The application site is an existing vacant building and is located on an industrial site. The nearest residential properties are located approximately 33m away to the west. However, a railway line, line of hedge/vegetation and an access road runs between the application site and these properties on York Close. Regulatory Services consider that the proposed use would not adversely affect the amenities of residential occupiers in the vicinity and I concur with this view. I note a request to attached a number of safeguarding conditions in relation to noise, however the proposed use would be expected to generate less noise output in comparison to its current lawful use and as such I do not consider these to be necessary in this instance.

6.13. Transportation Issues

Transportation Development raise no objection to the proposal. A total of 53 car parking spaces would be provided, in addition regular buses run along nearby Pershore Road throughout the day and Bournville and Kings Norton train stations can be accessed within walking distance. Survey data from a similar but less accessible site in Milton Keynes has been used in the analysis provided within the submitted Transport Statement. It is agreed that the parking provision at the site, should be adequate for the demand generated at most times.

6.14. It is considered, as was the case with the Go-Karting use, the trampoline park would be busiest during evenings and weekends, with a large percentage of users anticipated to be 16 or under. Given this, in terms of parking demand, many users would be expected to use public transport or be dropped off at the site. Of those visitors who do travel to the site by car, it is likely that many would travel with more

Page 5 of 8 than 1 visitor per vehicle, as opposed to single occupancy trips. Capacity of up to 125 people has been stated, although this number is unlikely to be reached during weekdays, when other uses within the estate are busiest.

6.15. It is not considered traffic generated by the site would differ significantly to that generated by the former use. If the need for overspill parking were to arise, given the site is a 350m drive from the nearest public highway, this would be into areas in the surrounding private industrial estate. Therefore, it is not considered the proposed change of use would have any detrimental impact upon the highway safety. Existing parking issues within the estate are raised by an objector; however this would be for those managing this private estate to consider.

6.16. Similarly, they also raise concern regarding the existing access onto the road at Lifford Lane. While I acknowledge this is a difficult junction, it is not expected movements would be notably greater that that when the Go-Karting use was open and as such there is no objection to the use of this access.

7.1. Conclusion

7.2. The proposed development would make use of a vacant premises in a sustainable location, promote growth and employment and the use of the property as a trampoline park would not have any detrimental impact on the amenities of surrounding residents. There is no objection to the loss of industrial land and the proposal meets the sequential and impact policy tests. Therefore, the proposed development would comply with local and national policy and it is recommended that the application be approved subject to the attached conditions.

7. Recommendation

6.17. Approve subject to conditions.

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

2 Prevents the use from changing within the use class

3 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

4 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: James Mead

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Photograph 1: Front of application site and building.

Photograph 2: Front of application site showing access leading to the south Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08583/PA Accepted: 22/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 17/12/2015 Ward: Northfield

Longbridge Lane after Bittell Close, Longbridge, Birmingham, B31 4JT

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a freestanding double sided digital advert to be located within the footpath to the north of Longbridge Lane.

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

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

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The proposed advertisement would be sited within the footpath adjacent to the junction with Longbridge Lane and Central Avenue. The footpath in this location measures approximately 9.6m wide and the totem would be positioned adjacent to the main highway. There is a bus stop and bike shelter within close proximity. The proposed advertisement is a new addition in this location.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 14/02/2005 (2005/00074/PA) - Display of 1 internally illuminated single sided scrolling advertisement unit on one bus shelter – Approved for a 5 year period.

Page 1 of 5 4. Consultation/PP Responses

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

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

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

6.2. AMENITY

6.3. The proposed advert would be located within the existing footpath to the north of Longbridge Lane. An existing advert that is opposite the junction with Bittell Close, approximately 100m to the east of the proposed location, would be removed as part of the City contract. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of the highway. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would not impact on trees close to the site.

6.4. PUBLIC SAFETY

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

7. Conclusion

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

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve temporary.

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

Page 2 of 5 2 Limits the use of advert

3 Limits length of the display of advert

4 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

5 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Catherine Golightly

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Longbridge Lane

Figure 2: Junction of Longbridge Lane and Central Avenue

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08432/PA Accepted: 16/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 11/12/2015 Ward: Northfield

Bristol Road South after Tessall Lane, Outside 1300 Bristol Road South, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2TQ

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a freestanding double sided digital advert to be located along outbound carriageway of the Bristol Road South (A38).

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

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

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The proposed advertisement would be sited within a grass verge approximately 40m from the junction with Bristol Road South and Tessall Lane. The advert would be positioned adjacent to the outbound carriageway of Bristol Road South and would be sited approximately 25m south west of an existing bus stop.

2.2. The proposed advertisement is a new addition in this location. An existing advertising hoarding is sited approximately 40m away at the junction at Bristol Road South and Tessall Lane.

2.3. The asset number is 281.

Site Location

Page 1 of 5 3. Planning History

3.1. 06/09/1990 (1990/03803/PA) – Erection of council information panels (1 Side council information 1 side advertising – Withdrawn by agent.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

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

6.2. AMENITY

6.3. The proposed advert would be located on the grass verge of the outbound carriageway of the Bristol Road South (A38) and replaces an existing advert that is sited at the junction of the Bristol Road South and Tessall Lane. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of the highway. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would have no impact on trees close to the site.

6.4. PUBLIC SAFETY

7. Conclusion

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

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve temporary.

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

Page 2 of 5

2 Limits the use of advert

3 Limits length of the display of advert

4 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

5 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Catherine Golightly

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1 Bristol Road South Tessall Lane Junction

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08354/PA Accepted: 15/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 10/12/2015 Ward: Billesley

Maypole Lane (Opposite Sainsbury's and in front of Subway), Kings Heath, Birmingham, B14 5NG

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a freestanding double sided digital advert to be located within the footpath to the north of Maypole Lane.

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

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The proposed advertisement would be sited within the footpath close to the junction of Maypole Lane and an access road running between nos. 12 and 20 Maypole Lane. The footpath in this location measures approximately 9m wide and the totem would be positioned in approximately the centre of the footpath near to a pedestrian crossing across Maypole Lane.

2.2. The asset number is 145(v2).

Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. None

Page 1 of 5

4. Consultation/PP Responses

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

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

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

6.2. AMENITY

6.3. The proposed advert would be located within the existing footpath on the northern side of Maypole Lane close to an access road which runs between nos.12 and 20 Maypole Lane. An existing advert which is located approximately 80m to the west of this proposed location on Alcester Road South would be removed as part of the City contract. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of the highway. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would not impact on trees close to the site.

6.4. PUBLIC SAFETY

7. Conclusion

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

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve temporary.

Page 2 of 5

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

2 Limits the use of advert

3 Limits length of the display of advert

4 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

5 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Alexa Williams

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Maypole Lane proposed totem location

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

1015 to 1017

15 11 3 25 El Sub Sta

35 MYRTLE AVENUE

14 4 24

El Sub Sta

TCB

Hotel 2 to 12

1034 20 28 38

Shelter 165.8m 159.4m Boro Const & Met Dist Bdy Co Const Bdy MAYPOLE LANE Def

Shelter Und

Def

Und

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08352/PA Accepted: 15/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 10/12/2015 Ward: Billesley

Warstock Road (Outside Depot), Kings Heath, Birmingham, B14 5EZ

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a freestanding double sided digital advert to be located within the footpath adjacent to the eastbound carriageway of Warstock Road approximately 40m after the junction with Limekiln Lane.

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

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The proposed advert would be sited within the footpath adjacent to the eastbound carriageway of Warstock Road approximately 40m after Limekiln Lane, next to a grass verge. The footpath in this location measures approximately 5.5m wide and the totem would be positioned adjacent to the highway. There is a waste bin next to the proposed location of the totem and a phone box within close proximity. The proposed advertisement is a new addition in this location.

2.2. The asset number is 121v2.

Site Location Map

3. Planning History

Page 1 of 5 3.1. None

4. Consultation/PP Responses

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

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

6.2. AMENITY

6.3. The proposed advert would be located within the existing footpath next to a grass verge on the eastbound carriageway of Warstock Road. An existing advert is located in the central reservation of Warstock Road would be removed as part of the City contract. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of the highway. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would not impact on trees close to the site.

6.4. PUBLIC SAFETY

7. Conclusion

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

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve temporary.

Page 2 of 5

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

2 Limits the use of advert

3 Limits length of the display of advert

4 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

5 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Alexa Williams

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Warstock Road eastbound

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08356/PA Accepted: 15/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 10/12/2015 Ward: Billesley

Outside 1058 Yardley Wood Road (South Bound), Yardley Wood, Birmingham, B14 4BW

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a freestanding double sided digital advert to be located within the footpath outside 1058 Yardley Wood Road adjacent to the southbound carriageway.

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

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The proposed advertisement would be sited within the footpath adjacent to 1058 Yardley Wood Road. The footpath in this location measures approximately 8m wide and the totem would be positioned adjacent to the main highway. The proposed advertisement is a new addition in this location.

2.2. The asset number is 156.

Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. None

Page 1 of 5

4. Consultation/PP Responses

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

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

6.2. AMENITY

6.3. The proposed advert would be located within the footpath adjacent to no.1058 Yardley Wood Road. An existing advert is located within the central reservation of Yardley Wood Road which would be removed as part of the City contract. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of the highway. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would not impact on trees close to the site.

6.4. PUBLIC SAFETY

7. Conclusion

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

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve temporary.

Page 2 of 5 1 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

2 Limits the use of advert

3 Limits length of the display of advert

4 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

5 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Alexa Williams

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Outside 1058 Yardley Wood Road

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08357/PA Accepted: 15/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 10/12/2015 Ward: Billesley

Outside 1034 Yardley Wood Road (South Bound), Yardley Wood, Birmingham, B14 4BW

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a freestanding double sided digital advert to be located outside 1034 Yardley Wood Road adjacent to the southbound carriageway.

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

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The proposed advertisement would be sited within the footpath adjacent to no.1034 Yardley Wood Road. The footpath in this location measures approximately 7m wide and the totem would be positioned adjacent to the main highway. There is a bus stop within close proximity. The proposed advertisement is a new addition in this location.

2.2. The asset number is 272.

Site Location Map

3. Planning History

Page 1 of 5 3.1. None

4. Consultation/PP Responses

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

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

6.2. AMENITY

6.3. The proposed advert would be located within the existing footpath adjacent to no.1034 Yardley Wood Road. An existing advert is located within the central reservation of Yardley Wood Road which would be removed as part of the City contract. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of the highway. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would have no impact on trees close to the site.

6.4. PUBLIC SAFETY

7. Conclusion

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

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve temporary

Page 2 of 5

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

2 Limits the use of advert

3 Limits length of the display of advert

4 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

5 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Alexa Williams

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Outside 1034 Yardley Wood Road

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 10 December 2015

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve – Conditions 17 2015/06279/PA

Land to rear of 17-23 Radnor Road Lozells Birmingham B20 3SP

Demolition of existing garages and erection of 2 bungalows and 10 dormer bungalows, associated access road and works

Approve – Conditions 18 2015/07284/PA

Land at junction of Lodge Road/Hurdlow Avenue and land off Whitmore Street Hockley Birmingham B18 5PH

Approve – Conditions 19 2015/06523/PA

Land at Enderby Road Perry Common Birmingham B23 5FG

Erection of 20 dwelling houses for rent including associated landscaping and parking works

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Approve – Conditions 20 2015/06786/PA

Birmingham Rowing Club 115 Reservoir Road Ladywood Birmingham B16 9EE

Redevelopment of rowing club to provide a multi- use facility including gym, changing facilities, storage, and club house facilities and associated landscaping works.

Approve – Conditions 21 2015/08528/PA

87 Kellett Road Nechells Birmingham B7 4NQ

Erection of single storey rear extension

Approve – Temporary 22 2015/08843/PA

Nechells Parkway 2 Close to 76 Heneage Street Nechells Birmingham

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve – Temporary 23 2015/07697/PA

Lawley Middleway (B4540) Near Curzon Circus Nechells Birmingham

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/06279/PA Accepted: 28/08/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 18/12/2015 Ward: Lozells and East Handsworth

Land to rear of, 17-23 Radnor Road, Lozells, Birmingham, B20 3SP

Demolition of existing garages and erection of 2 bungalows and 10 dormer bungalows, associated access road and works Applicant: Birmingham City Council Housing Regeneration & Development, Planning & Regeneration, PO Box 28, Birmingham, B1 1TU Agent: S P Faizey 1 Station Court, Girton Road, Cannock, Staffordshire, WS11 0EJ Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application seeks full planning consent for the redevelopment of the site for the erection of 12 elderly persons bungalows with access from Radnor Road. The bungalows would be arranged around a cul-de-sac in semi-detached pairs with parking provided in front or to the side of the proposed dwellings. The proposal is submitted as part of the Council’s Birmingham Municipal Housing Trust programme.

1.2. 10 of the bungalows would be dormer bungalows, each having 1 bedroom, shower room, kitchen dining room and a living room on the ground floor, with a bathroom and 2nd bedroom on 1st floor. The other two plots would have all the accommodation on the ground floor.

1.3. The bungalows would range in size from 70.4 square metres to 94.6 square metres. Each of the bedrooms would be generously sized to exceed the minimum guidelines in Places for Living. Private rear garden areas would be provided at the rear ranging in size from 52 square metres to 181 square metres in area. Parking would be provided within the curtilage of the bungalows on driveways, with some units having one space and some having two spaces, at an overall provision of 158%.

1.4. The bungalows are designed so that the dormer windows all face into the site to avoid overlooking neighbouring rear gardens. Plot 1 would have a dormer window above a bay window facing towards the proposed access road. The bungalows would be finished in a red multi facing brick with Staffordshire blue brick detailing below the damp proof course and with grey cement slates on the pitched roofs.

1.5. The application is accompanied by a design and access statement, tree survey, phase one habitat survey, SUD’s assessment and ground contamination report.

1.6. Site Area : 0.34 hectares

Page 1 of 9 1.7. Proposed density : 35.3 dwellings per hectare.

1.8. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The site comprises the hardstandings of some lock-up garages that have been recently demolished served by a driveway to Radnor Road, and leading to land that was once occupied by two tennis courts and an associated pavilion. The pavilion has now gone and the land has become heavily overgrown. Some clearance works have recently taken place including removal of some self-set trees in preparation for its redevelopment. The driveway also serves to provide access to a side doorway and a garage associated with the neighbouring dwelling at 25 Radnor Road.

2.2. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character. Comprising a mix of large semi-detached and detached Victorian or Edwardian red brick dwellings set within relatively large plots, although there is some variation in plot sizes. The dwellings in West Drive to the north are more modestly sized 1930’s two storey dwellings.

2.3. site location and street view

3. Planning History

3.1. 03/02/2011 - 2010/04897/PA – Demolition of garages and erection of 12 dwelling houses and construction of access and car parking spaces at land next to 23-25 Radnor Road and to rear of 17-23 Radnor Road. – Approved subject to conditions.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. MP, ward members, residents associations and neighbouring residents notified. One representation received from a neighbouring resident commenting that they have no objections but would like to clarify the security behind their garden as they have been burgled in the past with access obtained from the garden.

4.2. Birchfield Residents Action Group have also commented that it is important that the development provides good security for the residents, particularly with the many hostels in this area. They also comment that the suggested measures to enhance the ecological value of the site such as bird boxes, appropriate landscaping etc should be required to be undertaken, which is particularly important given the removal of the trees. They also comment that the gardens should be private and secure and well maintained for the benefit of the residents.

4.3. Transportation Development – No objections. Recommends conditions relating to highway works, visibility splays, construction traffic management plan and highway trees.

4.4. Regulatory Services – No objections, recommends conditions relating to contamination verification and electric vehicle charging points.

4.5. Sport England – Comments that the site is not considered to form part of, or constitute a playing field as defined in the relevant legislation and therefore Sport

Page 2 of 9 England has considered this as a non-statutory consultation. Nonetheless they comment that no justification for the loss of a site which was used for tennis in the past has been provided, nor is there any compensation being offered to be invested into other tennis facilities. They state that they objected to the previous application in 2010 on grounds that there was no justification put forward for the loss. They acknowledge that the site is no longer sustainable for tennis provision, but that there should be compensation. They conclude that they object to the application on this basis, but that they would withdraw their objection if there was a justification put forward for the loss and/or compensation for the loss provided.

4.6. Leisure Services – No objections. Although the site previously contained 2 tennis courts, the loss of which would technically need to be compensated for in the sum of £28,000, we understand that as part of the last similar application for this site this was deemed economically unviable and therefore we would not insist on this sum being requested as part of the current scheme. Due to its size, this scheme of 12 bungalows would also not be subject to any off-site public open space or play contributions.

4.7. Education – No comments.

4.8. Lead Local Flood Authority – Makes detailed comments in relation to the SUD’s assessment concluding that site is not suitable for soakaways. Revised drainage scheme involving surface water to be pumped out to public sewer is acceptable as an alternative. Comments that in respect of proposed levels as the requirement for 150mm clearance to surrounding ground levels cannot be met for plots 5 and 6 that these dwellings should have flood proof doors.

4.9. Severn Trent Water – No objections, recommends drainage condition.

4.10. Police – No objections. Comments that the site is a well thought out cul-de-sac development. Recommends scheme is implemented to Secured by Design standards and Lighting against Crime.

4.11. Fire Service – No objections.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Adopted UDP 2005, Draft BDP, Aston, Newtown and Lozells AAP, Places for Living SPG, Mature Suburbs SPD, car parking guidelines SPD, NPPF.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Policy

6.2. The UDP sets out in paragraph 5.25C that in assessing proposals for new housing development on previously-developed sites, the City Council will take account of the suitability of the location for housing, the need to maintain a diversity of uses within the built-up area, whether there are any serious physical constraints, such as contamination, instability or flooding, any intrinsic historic, cultural or natural asset, the accessibility of the site to jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car, and the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure to absorb further development. Policy TP27 in the draft BDP contains similar provisos for new residential development.

Page 3 of 9

6.3. In respect of playing fields the UDP advises that a standard of 1.2 hectares per 1000 population of playing fields provision will be used to assess the adequacy of existing playing field provision across the City. Paragraph 3.56 states that playing fields include tennis courts and bowling greens. Paragraph 3.57 states that development of playing fields will not normally be allowed particularly in areas which fall significantly below the standard. Where in exceptional circumstances, permission is granted for development of a sports field this will be subject to the provision of equivalent long term recreational community benefit. Planning permission for development will not be granted simply because a playing field has fallen out of use and become derelict.

6.4. The draft BDP sets out in policy TP9 that playing fields will be protected and will only be considered for development where they are shown to be surplus for playing field use, taking into account the minimum standard, 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.

6.5. The NPPF advises that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 49). It also sets out 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 quantity and quality in a suitable location; or the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.

6.6. The proposed development is to be located on a derelict site that was once laid out as two tennis courts with an associated pavilion, though the site has not been in active use for this purpose for many years. A previous planning application for development of the site for residential use considered the issue of the loss of the playing field in 2011. It was reported that the land has not been used for sports purposes for well in excess of 10 years, such that the land has been making no practical contribution towards playing field provision and was not included in the overall provision in the ward. The loss of the tennis courts has therefore been previously accepted.

6.7. Taking into account the policies and the planning history I have summarised above, I consider that there is an acceptable case for the redevelopment of the site. I note that neither Sport England nor Leisure Services consider that the site should be retained for sports use, with Sport England commenting that this site would not be sustainable for sports use.

6.8. In respect of the issue of compensatory provision, at the time of the previous application the site was being acquired by the City Council from Midland Heart Housing Association as the site was proving too costly for Midland Heart to develop. The Committee report for the previous application set out that whilst the site was barely viable it was the objective of the City and Urban Living to bring it forward for housing to meet local needs, and that the applicant had therefore requested that a section 106 contribution is foregone in this instance due to the financial fragility of the scheme. This was accepted and consent was granted without the normal section 106 contribution, however the scheme did not proceed.

Page 4 of 9 6.9. It has therefore been an aspiration of the City to develop the site for housing for several years, and the financial viability of the development has only recently improved to such a degree that the site could be re-considered, however, there remains an inability for the development to fund the compensation sought by Sport England, in accordance with the policies I have set out above.

6.10. Sport England has explicitly stated that their objection is a non-statutory one, such that the application would not need to be referred to DCLG under the Direction procedure. Nonetheless, they are unable to support a proposal that results in the loss of the former tennis courts without suitable compensation. Notwithstanding this advice, taking into account the previous decision to grant consent without compensation and given that the financial viability of the development has not sufficiently improved to afford this contribution, I do not consider that it would be appropriate to recommend the application for refusal. I therefore consider that the proposed development of the site is acceptable in principle.

6.11. Design and Layout

6.12. The proposed layout and design has been subject to detailed discussions at pre- application stage with input from my City Design advisor and from Transportation. The layout is similar to the previously approved scheme and would accord with the principles in Places for Living by creating a strong sense of public and private space by arranging the bungalows around a cul-de-sac layout. The site is located via an access road at the rear of the existing dwellings in Radnor Road, and would therefore create its own character that would not conflict with the prevailing character that comes from the traditional larger villas. The bungalows will appear as subservient buildings in comparison to those surrounding the site , with appropriate architectural detailing including bays windows and dormers to add visual interest. I consider that the proposal will therefore respect the overall character of the area, whilst appearing different in scale and mass resulting from the more modest bungalow form. I have recommended appropriate conditions to agree samples of surface materials. The submitted details of building materials, landscaping and proposed boundary treatments are acceptable.

6.13. Impact on adjoining residents

6.14. The proposed arrangement of bungalows with dormer windows on the front elevations facing into the cul-de-sac means that there will be no overlooking issues from rear facing windows to neighbouring gardens. I have recommended a condition that prevents the addition of further windows in the interests of preserving the amenities of neighbouring residents.

6.15. Ecology and Trees

6.16. The application is accompanied by a Phase 1 habitat survey. Having been neglected for many years the site had started to revert to woodland through a number of self set birch and sycamore trees, which has recently been cleared and therefore the sites potential for bird foraging and nesting has been greatly reduced. The site is however close to other green space at Handsworth Park and larger residential gardens so the effect from this is limited. My ecologist has no objections to the application and recommends a condition to agree the provision of suitable bird boxes and beneficial planting in accordance with the recommendations in the habitat survey.

Page 5 of 9 6.17. My tree officer has no objections commenting that the trees on the site are all category C trees and given the restricted location few have any public amenity value and do not warrant a tree preservation order. Some concern is raised regarding the space available for replacement trees. Notwithstanding this, I consider that the proposed 10 trees would provide appropriate replacements and that the submitted landscaping scheme is acceptable.

6.18. Traffic and Parking

6.19. Transportation have advised that they have no objections to the application and some minor alterations to the highway layout have been made to address detailed points that they had made. The development provides a suitably designed means of access and appropriate levels of curtilage parking which accords with the car Parking Guidelines SPD. I have recommended appropriate conditions relating to s278 works and visibility splays.

6.20. Sustainable Drainage

6.21. The consideration of the use of SUD’s is a material consideration to be considered in the design of proposed major developments. A SUD’s scheme should be considered in the first instance rather than connecting to the public surface water sewer unless it is demonstrated that this has been discounted for a particular reason.

6.22. The application was originally accompanied by a SUD’s assessment that proposed the use of soakaways including an area of cellular storage within the highway and parking areas. Concerns were raised regarding the appropriateness of the proposals for several reasons, including that the ground conditions are inappropriate for soakaways such that there would be a risk of flooding from surface water run-off in the worst storm events. The levels of the site and the proposed bungalow house types increased these concerns further. The area of storage was also considered to be insufficient.

6.23. Following detailed discussions with the Lead Local Flood Authority and Severn Trent Water, a revised drainage strategy for the site has now been agreed involving a private pumping station to pump out the surface water drainage from the site to connect up to the existing surface water drainage system via a new rising main in Radnor Road. There would be a smaller area of cellular storage required with the use of permeable paving for part of the access drive. This solution is considered to be the only appropriate option to ensure the protection of the occupants of the development.

6.24. I note that the Lead Local Flood Authority advise that the proposals are now generally acceptable, but recommend conditions to secure certain details including the need to require flood proof doors for plots 5 and 6 to sufficiently protect the occupiers of those units from overland flows. I concur that these conditions are appropriate and that the development will therefore provide an acceptable drainage solution for the site.

6.25. Other issues

6.26. I note the comments raised in respect of property security. I consider that the proposal will enhance the security of the existing properties in the area by providing clearly defined defensible space with the existing rear boundaries secured by gated private rear gardens. The proposed residents will also be suitably enclosed and

Page 6 of 9 secure by the arrangement of houses and boundary treatments. I note that the Police have no objections.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal accords with the policies in the UDP, draft BDP, Places for Living SPD and the NPPF. I have therefore recommended approval subject to conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Grant subject to conditions.

1 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

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

3 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

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

5 Requires the development to be implemented in accordance with the submitted schedule of building materials.

6 Requires the approved landscaping and boundary treatments to be implemented.

7 Requires the development to be implemented in accordance with the approved levels details

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

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

10 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

11 Removes PD rights for new windows

12 Removes PD rights for extensions

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

14 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Stuart Morgans

Page 7 of 9 Photo(s)

Figure 1 : Access from Radnor Road

Page 8 of 9 Location Plan

30 18

23 21 22 11

6 1 4

WYE CLIFF ROAD

Nursing Home

Parkfield

129.8m

13 33

Tennis Court

31 48 46

124.7m 2 129.8m

1 3

1 40

HEATHFIELD AVENUE

1a 1b

RADNOR ROAD 10

16 9 30

7 128.9m 37

LB 1 18

27 8 130.8m

Page 9 of 9

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/07284/PA Accepted: 07/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 18/12/2015 Ward: Soho

Land at junction of Lodge Road/Hurdlow Avenue and land off Whitmore Street, Hockley, Birmingham, B18 5PH

Provision of 26 new affordable dwellings which comprise 9no. 2B4P houses, 9no. 3B5P houses, 6no. 4B7P houses and 2no. 5B8P houses together with the formation of new adopted highway, with associated external works and landscaping Applicant: Birmingham City Council Housing Regeneration & Development, Planning & Regeneration, 2nd Floor, 1 Lancaster Circus, Birmingham, B2 2GL Agent: Oakley Architects Ltd 2B Hillwood Road, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, B75 5QL Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application seeks planning permission for the redevelopment of a residential tower block site known as Norfolk Tower and some of the associated open amenity space around the tower, to provide 22 new residential dwellings. In addition, an open area of land adjacent to 72 Whitmore Street is proposed to be redeveloped to provide 4 new dwellings. The proposals form part of the Council’s Birmingham Municipal Housing Trust redevelopment programme for affordable rent.

1.2. The development of the Norfolk Tower site would comprise a perimeter block development of houses fronting onto Lodge Road, Hurdlow Avenue and a new access to be provided adjacent to an area of retained open space to the north east boundary of the site. The houses at Whitmore Street would be configured so that two houses face towards Whitmore Street and two face towards the adjoining open space.

1.3. The houses would comprise 9 two bedroom units, 9 three bedroom units, 6 four bedroom units and 2 five bedroom units.

1.4. The houses would be two storeys with a pitched roof and would be constructed using a buff facing brick and grey roof tile, with generously sized windows, some of which are dressed with a projecting grey frame detail, and with grey soffits and fascias to reflect the typical BMHT style.

1.5. All bedroom sizes are designed to meet or exceed the minimum guidelines in Places for Living. Rear gardens range in size from 54 square metres to 118 square metres and to meet the minimum guidelines.

Page 1 of 10

1.6. The application proposes the removal of 8 trees on the Norfolk Tower site, and 3 trees on the Whitmore Street site, which are necessary to facilitate the proposed development. The application site includes the adjoining open space where it is proposed to plant 4 large new trees to compensate for those to be removed.

1.7. Parking is to be provided within the curtilage of the proposed dwellings on driveways and within car ports, with 100% provision for the smaller properties and 200% for the larger houses, providing a total of 35 spaces (146% overall).

1.8. The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Transport note, Sustainable drainage strategy, Arboricultural survey, Extended Phase 1 habitat survey, Bat survey, Geo Technical and Geo Environmental Report.

1.9. Site area : 1.17 hectares (including existing retained open space)

1.10. Development Density : 20.5 dwellings per hectare

1.11. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The Norfolk Tower site contains the existing tower block and its curtilage including some existing trees within the grassed amenity areas that surround the building. The land slopes down from Hurdlow Avenue towards Lodge Road. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character with a mix of house styles. There is a triangular shaped area of open space between the two development plots that is mainly grassed, with some tree planting. There is a second area of open space to the south of the Norfolk Tower site at Lodge Road.

2.2. Site location and street view

3. Planning History

3.1. Norfolk Tower site

3.2. 17/10/2013 – 2013/07226/PA – Application for prior notification of proposed demolition. No prior approval required.

3.3. 05/01/2010 – 2009/05640/PA – External refurbishment of 2 no. 18 storey residential tower blocks including new rendered walling system, new windows, entrance doors, roofing and lighting works.- Approved subject to conditions.

3.4. 74-82 Whitmore Street

3.5. 22/08/2005 – 2005/04246/PA – Demolition of bungalows, grading of site and erection of temporary fence.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

Page 2 of 10 4.1. Press and Site notices erected. MP, ward members, residents associations and neighbouring residents notified. Four representations received. One resident states that they support the proposal and that they would be interested in living in one of the dwellings. Three residents commenting/objecting on the following grounds :

• The loss of green space reduces the areas for children to play • Impact on access and parking to existing properties, and a lack of proposed parking • Loss of light and loss of privacy • Asks if there will be any more lighting in the area • Asks if a play area will be provided • Does not maximise the potential for sustainable house design • Impact on existing residents during construction

4.2. Transportation Development – No objections subject to conditions relating to necessary highway works, boundary treatment, any necessary stopping up, pedestrian visibility splays and vehicular visibility splays.

4.3. Regulatory Services – No objections. Recommends conditions relating to contaminated land and electric vehicle charging points.

4.4. Lead Local Flood Authority – Makes detailed comments in respect of the proposed SUD’s measures, including finished floor levels to be set 150mm above surrounding ground levels or the provision of alternative flood protection measures such as flood proof doors. Design details of porous pavements, cellular tanks and pipe diameters to be agreed. Operation and Maintenance details of the SUD’s works for the lifetime of the development required. Recommends a condition to secure these details.

4.5. Leisure Services – Advises that a financial contribution of £55,200 would normally be required to provide public open space improvements to meet the needs of the development. Subject to scheme viability this would be spent on the provision and maintenance of new gym equipment on the new Spring Street public open space. As a minimum limited semi mature tree planting on the Ford Street public open spaces should be provided.

4.6. Education – Seeks a s106 contribution of £198,567 towards the provision of nursery, primary and secondary school provision within the area.

4.7. Fire Service – No objections.

4.8. Severn Trent Water – No objections. Recommends drainage condition.

4.9. Police – No objections. Comments that they have been previously consulted on the proposals and considers the scheme to be a well thought out proposal. Recommends the development accords with Secured by Design.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Adopted UDP, Draft BDP, Places for Living SPD, Car parking guidelines SPD, Public open space and new residential development SPD. Affordable Housing SPG.

6. Planning Considerations

Page 3 of 10 6.1. The UDP, draft BDP and the NPPF all provide support for proposals for residential development in sustainable locations, providing there is no overriding need for the site to be used for an alternative use. In this case, the site is used for residential purposes and is within a predominantly residential area, and so the principle of developing the site for residential use is acceptable.

6.2. The application is accompanied by an affordable housing statement which sets out that the proposed mix of housing is intended to meet a variety of local needs, particularly the need for 2 and 4 bedroom housing identified in the City Council’s Strategic Housing market Assessment.

6.3. The design and appearance of the houses are appropriate being two storeys with pitched roofs and attractively detailed elevations. The existing houses that adjoin the site include some buff brick and some red brick blocks, neither of which provide a strong precedent to influence the character of the proposed dwellings. The detailed design features of the proposed houses including the window proportions and framing will help to enhance the appearance of the area and will introduce some vibrancy to the streetscene.

6.4. The relationship of the proposed houses on the Norfolk Tower site to the existing dwellings to the south would be acceptable with plot 7 being approximately 20 metres from the front of 19-21 Hurdlow Avenue. The houses on the Whitmore Street plot would also meet the separation guidelines to the nearest dwellings being 10 metres from the neighbouring residents rear garden boundary. I consider that the relationship of the proposed dwellings to the existing dwellings that surround the site would be acceptable. Within the Norfolk Tower site, some of the proposed separation distances fall short of the guidelines in Places for Living, with rear to rear distances of 13-15 metres in some places, however the impact of this is mitigated by orientation of the respective plots where they are angled away from each other, such that I do not consider that there would be a problem of being too close together to adversely affect their respective privacy.

6.5. The proposed layout provides sufficient parking to meet the needs of the proposed development and accords with the guidelines in the Council’s car parking SPD. The level of parking provision when compared to the existing tower block would be significantly improved. The transport note points out that the site is also in a sustainable location with good access to local bus services. The note also explains that for the areas of shared surface that are to be provided from the existing highway, some Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO’s) might be required to prevent vehicles from blocking these shared access roads. The shared driveway to plots 5-7 is proposed from a large turning area in Lodge Road that is currently used for parking by existing residents so the imposition of TRO’s could have a minor effect on displacing some existing on street parking in this area. The same impact could be generated by TRO’s to protect access to the shared surface serving plots 17-22 from the turning area in Hurdlow Avenue. I do not consider that this localised minor displacement of on-street parking would have a significant detrimental impact to warrant refusal of the application. I note that Transportation have no objections.

6.6. I note the detailed comments that have been made by Transportation regarding the need for appropriate boundary treatment between the shared surface for plots 5-7 and 24-26 and the existing footpaths to protect pedestrians, and adjacent to plot 8 to prevent unauthorised vehicular access to the footpath. I have recommended an appropriate condition for details of boundary treatment. Some boundary treatment details have been provided which will include a 900mm high railing to define the edge of the shared surface for plots 17-22 where this adjoins the proposed open

Page 4 of 10 space. These details are generally acceptable, however as no elevations have been provided I have included a condition to agree these details including the design and height of proposed retaining walls.

6.7. The applicant has submitted a Sustainable Urban Drainage assessment with the application including SUD’s proposals involving the provision of an area of cellular storage within the adjoining public open space that forms part of the application site, and the use of permeable parking areas. Whilst some further details are required, the proposals are generally considered to be acceptable with a condition recommended to agree the outstanding details, including an operation and maintenance plan.

6.8. In respect of 8 trees to be removed on the Norfolk tower site, four of these are category B trees, 2 are category C trees and 2 are category U trees. The three trees to be removed from the Whitmore Street site are all category C trees. The four category B trees are all Norway Maples. My tree officer has no objections overall, on the basis that the replacements should be larger trees given that they are to be located within an area of open space to the benefit of the visual amenity of the area. I have recommended an appropriate condition relating to the provision of these trees and other landscaping with the potential for further tree planting in proposed front gardens in accordance with the submitted plans.

6.9. My ecologist has considered the ecological surveys and advises that they have no objections overall, with conditions recommended in respect of an ecological enhancement strategy and low level lighting. In respect of the bat survey they comment that a nocturnal survey has not been submitted and so a condition has been recommended to address this.

6.10. Whilst I note the comments from Leisure and Education in respect of section 106 contributions, as with many other BMHT schemes, the applicant has explained that the affordable homes are intended to be funded from internally generated resources with the land being provided to the schemes at no cost. Given that the land value normally drives the provisions of planning benefits through s106 agreements, in this case as there is no land to sell there is no financial value generated to fund such provision. The rents that can be secured are constrained by government guidance and the units are to be built to a high standard to meet Secured by design, Building for Life and Lifetime Homes guidance. The applicant has demonstrated that the development could not sustain any financial contributions and be viable. Notwithstanding this, the proposed new tree planting will enhance the existing open space that adjoins the site which is recognised by Leisure Services in their comments on the application.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal accords with the policies and guidance in the UDP, draft BDP, Places for Living and the car parking guidelines in respect of new residential development, and will provide replacement dwellings to meet local needs. I have therefore recommended approval subject to conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions.

Page 5 of 10

1 Grants a personal permission to Birmingham City Council

2 Requires the provision of affordable dwellings

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

4 Requires the prior submission of an additional bat survey

5 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

6 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

7 Requires the prior submission of 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 sample materials

10 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

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

12 Requires the prior submission of a construction ecological mitigation plan

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

14 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

15 Requires the development to be implemented in accordance with the approved level details

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

17 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

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

19 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Stuart Morgans

Page 6 of 10 Photo(s)

Figure 1 : Norfolk Tower view from Lodge Road

Page 7 of 10

Figure 2 Norfolk Tower view from Hurdlow Avenue

Page 8 of 10

Figure 3 : Whitmore Street site

Page 9 of 10 Location Plan

Page 10 of 10

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/06523/PA Accepted: 22/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 22/12/2015 Ward: Kingstanding

Land at Enderby Road, Perry Common, Birmingham, B23 5FG

Erection of 20 dwelling houses for rent including associated landscaping and parking works. Applicant: Birmingham City Council Housing & Regeneration Team, PO Box 16572, Birmingham, B2 2GL Agent: Axis Design Architects Ltd Crosby Court, 28 George Street, Birmingham, B3 1QG Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application seeks planning permission for redevelopment of a vacant housing site for the development of 20 houses for rent to be provided through the Council’s Birmingham Municipal Housing Trust programme.

1.2. The proposal involves the erection of 3 two bedroom units, 9 three bedroom units and 8 four bedroom units.

1.3. Plots 1-8 would be three storey 3 bedroom semi-detached houses where the rooms on the 2nd floor would only have windows on the front elevation facing Enderby Road. These units would have a hall, single bedroom, bathroom and a kitchen/diner on the ground floor, living room, bathroom and double bedroom at first floor and a twin bedroom and bathroom at 2nd floor. The house designs would include a two storey central projecting bay that would include juliette balconies to the first floor living rooms on the front elevation.

1.4. Due to the graded levels of the site, the proposed houses for plots 9-16 would be four bedroom split level units with an integral garage and entrance hallway at lower ground floor level at the front of the plot, with a balcony serving the living room above the garage overlooking the adjoining open space. Also at this 1st floor level there would be a kitchen at the rear providing access to the rear garden. The bedrooms would be located on the 2nd and 3rd floors, with dormers on the rear.

1.5. Plots 17-20 would be arranged to address a splayed corner of the site where it adjoins Jonquil Close at the northern end of the site. These houses would be three 2 bedroom two storey units (plots 17-19) and a three bedroom two storey split level unit (for plot 20).

1.6. The design of the three storey split level units are bespoke to address the constraints of the site but nevertheless reflect the BMHT style with a use of red and buff brickwork, blue slate tiles, render and grey window frames.

Page 1 of 11

1.7. All bedroom sizes would meet or exceed the minimum guidelines in Places for Living. Rear garden areas range in size from 65 sqm to 140 sqm and all meet or exceed the guidelines.

1.8. Car parking would be provided within the curtilage of the properties in the form of driveways and garages with 29 spaces in total (145%). In addition, 5 on street visitors spaces are to be provided on a new section of highway to be provided from the end of Enderby Road.

1.9. In addition to the highway works to extend the road to serve plots 11-17, the proposed plans involve an extended area of highway to create a revised turning area in front of plots 11-12, and a link footpath from the end of the extended section of highway in front of plot 17 to connect to Jonquil Close.

1.10. The plans identify that 19 trees on the site have been removed of which four were category B trees. There are two category B sycamores that are to be retained in the rear of plots 1 and 2. An existing category B street tree in front of plots 6 and 7 is also to be retained. The plans identify proposed replacement tree planting in the front gardens of the plots. In addition, the applicant proposes to plant a further 3 additional oak trees within Enderby Park as part of a comprehensive scheme of tree planting within the park to compensate for the loss of the trees on the site.

1.11. The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, Arboricultural survey report and method statement, Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Transport statement, travel plan, and a sustainable drainage report.

1.12. Site area : 0.48 hectares

1.13. Proposed density : 41.6 dwellings per hectare

1.14. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The site is a cleared parcel of former housing land. It is currently fenced off and overgrown. There is a small retaining wall at the front of the site at the back of the highway and slopes up to the rear boundary, beyond which is Perry Common Junior and Infant School. To the north and south are existing residential properties in Jonquil Close and Witton Lodge Road respectively. The land to the east forms Enderby Park, a new area of public open space that was created as part of the estate regeneration at Perry Common. The park slopes away from the application site towards Jackdaw Road, and is landscaped with groups of trees. There is also some recently installed outdoor gym equipment within this space. The area is predominantly residential in character, although to the south of the site there is the local shopping parade at Witton Lodge Road.

2.2. Site location and street view

3. Planning History

3.1. Enderby Park

Page 2 of 11 3.2. 25/06/2013 – 2013/03286/PA - Provision of new play and outdoor gym area as well as new footpaths, stone paving, fencing, directional sign and posts at site entrance. Approved subject to conditions.

3.3. Other history

3.4. 15/08/2011 – 2011/01330/PA – Full application for erection of 226 two, three and four bed dwellings with associated roads, parking and landscaping on five sites (5C, 5Di, 5Dii, 5Diii, and 6C) – Withdrawn

3.5. 15/11/2001 – 2001/02191/PA – Erection of 24 dwellings and access roads at Capilano Road and Enderby Road – Approved subject to conditions. (this relates to the existing dwellings to the east side of Enderby Road).

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Press and Site Notice erected. MP, ward members in Erdington and Kingstanding wards, residents associations and neighbouring residents notified. 4 representations received commenting/objecting on the following grounds :

• Existing problems of traffic and parking to be made worse for residents in Jonquil Close as the road is not wide enough to cope with additional traffic and parking for plots 18-20. There should be a residents parking scheme so that only residents in Jonquil Close have a right to park in this street. • Concerns that the proposed footpath might allow access for scooters and motorbikes • There are problems of drug dealing in the area at night • The park has been abused with problems of anti-social behaviour which has been generated by the play equipment • Concerned that the proposed tenants might generate more anti social behaviour • Impact traffic and noise from construction • Lack of broadband connectivity • There should be a meeting with the existing residents so that we could meet to discuss these matters further • 20 houses is too many on this site which would be too cramped, maybe 10 would be acceptable • The development is too close to the school and the park.

4.2. Transportation Development – No objections. Recommends conditions relating to highway works, visibility splays, construction traffic management plan and advises that a section of highway is to be stopped up.

4.3. Regulatory Services – No objections, recommends conditions relating to remediation and validation.

4.4. Leisure Services – No objections. Comments that as the scheme is for 20 dwellings it would normally be subject to both open space and play area contributions. However over a number of years monies generated from new housing development in the Perry Common area have enabled a number of public open space schemes to be developed and implemented including Enderby Park adjacent to this scheme and the nearby Perry Common Recreational ground which has recently been approved

Page 3 of 11 and will be implemented in due course. For these reasons, we are satisified that the requirements for public open space in the wider area have already been met.

4.5. Lead Local Flood Authority – Makes detailed comments in respect of the proposed SUD’s details, including that the proposed discharge rate is acceptable but that further details are required in respect of the following : Infiltration testing, drainage calculations including proposed storage requirements, evidence of proposed network performance, evidence of exceedance events, finished floor levels should be designed to mitigate the risk of flooding to be set 150mm above surrounding ground levels, typical cross sections of proposed soakaways/box culverts, detail of operation and maintenance. Recommends a condition to secure these details.

4.6. Fire Service – No objections.

4.7. Police – No objections.

4.8. Education – Recommends that a contribution of £166,880 is secured towards the provision of nursery, primary and secondary school places in the area.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Adopted UDP, Draft BDP, Places for Living SPD, Car parking guidelines SPD, Public open space and new residential development SPD, Perry Common Estate design brief and zoning layout SPG (1994) NPPF.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Policy

6.2. In respect of new housing developments, the adopted UDP sets out in paragraph 5.25C that account will be taken of the suitability of the location for housing, the need to maintain a diversity of uses within the built up area, whether there are any serious physical constraints, such as contamination, instability or flooding, any intrinsic historic, cultural or natural asset; the accessibility of the site to jobs, shops and services by modes other than the car; and the capacity of existing and potential infrastructure to absorb further development.

6.3. Paragraph 11.12 sets out that the housing in Perry Common is largely in need of refurbishment or redevelopment. Defective non-traditional housing is being redeveloped (policy HR1). The Perry Common design brief and zoning layout SPG was prepared in the 1990’s to guide the clearance of defective ‘Boot’ type houses and for the regeneration of the housing estate. This site was identified for housing redevelopment and forms one of the final phases to be developed. Committee members will recall recently approving applications for redevelopment of land at Dovedale Road and at Perry Common Recreation ground. This current application therefore represents the final scheme to complete the regeneration of the Perry Common estate. As such the application is acceptable in principle.

6.4. Affordable housing provision

6.5. The programme of housing regeneration at Perry Common has provided a mix of tenures through the phases of development to provide a mix of rented, shared

Page 4 of 11 ownership and owner occupied properties to meet the housing needs of the local community.

6.6. Within this phase, there would be 20 rented units. Taking into account other phases, over 500 affordable units are proposed to be provided overall in a total of 913 replacement dwellings. This is in excess of the Council’s planning policy for 35% affordable housing, with a significant proportion of rented units provided ahead of the sale units in earlier phases to meet the social housing needs of local residents whose homes were demolished as part of the regeneration process. The proposals therefore accord with the Council’s affordable housing policy. I have recommended appropriate conditions relating to the delivery of the proposed affordable units in accordance with the usual practice for BMHT schemes.

6.7. Design and layout

6.8. Due to the constraints of this linear site, particularly the challenging levels that step up steeply from the highway to the back of the site, the proposed design is a bespoke solution to respond to these issues and has been subject to detailed pre- application discussions with my officers. The split level units are required to address the levels change and whilst these units result in only a garage and front door at street level, I am satisfied that this is an appropriate solution in this case. This is limited to a short stretch of the street being four pairs and semi-detached houses that would overlook the park, where large first floor balconies to living rooms are to be provided. These features will be an appropriate compromise to create an active frontage, and whilst they are not at street level, they will be an asset to the occupiers given the pleasant outlook facing towards the park.

6.9. The application includes a section plan to demonstrate the levels of proposed rear gardens. The intention is to provide a flat terrace at the rear of the dwelling, and then to slope up the ground to the rear boundary at a gradient of approximately 1:10, with sections of terrace and retaining wall where necessary. I am satisfied that this results in appropriately graded rear gardens that would be usable for the occupants to enjoy.

6.10. The house designs and proposed materials are consistent with those approved elsewhere in the Perry Common estate with well-proportioned windows, and are appropriate to their context. I have recommended a condition to agree material samples. Some further details of boundary treatments and landscaping are also required by condition.

6.11. I do not concur with the residents comments that the proposal constitutes an over development of the site. The proposed layout accords with the minimum design guidelines in Places for Living, and I note that a similar number of dwellings were previously on the site before the site was cleared. The relationship to the school at the rear is considered to be acceptable. Whilst the school building is situated very close to the application site boundary this is part of the building is single storey, and an appropriate screen fence along the rear boundary of the site would ensure that adequately privacy for proposed residents would be achieved. The proposed dwellings would be 21 metres from the school building at the nearest point.

6.12. Traffic and parking

6.13. The application is accompanied by a transport statement and a travel plan. The transport statement was prepared in 2013 for earlier phases of the estate redevelopment and so is only of general relevance to the application, though this

Page 5 of 11 does contain information that is relevant in respect of accessibility to local bus services and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists in the area. I note the representations received in respect of the impact on traffic and parking on the neighbouring streets, however I do not consider that the proposal would generate such a degree of on-street parking to warrant refusal in this case. I note that transportation have no objections to the application and that the proposed parking provision would accord with the Council’s car parking guidelines. In addition, 5 additional visitor parking spaces are proposed to be provided.

6.14. A strip of land at the front of the application site is currently highway and will need to be stopped up to facilitate the implementation of the proposed layout. I have recommended an appropriate resolution. In addition, some new sections of highway are to be created to extend Enderby Road and to provide an improved turning area. A small area of land that currently forms part of Enderby Park is required to achieve these works, with a larger area of space to be transferred to the park to compensate for this. I have recommended a condition to ensure that the s278/38 highway works are approved and implemented prior to the occupation of the units.

6.15. Trees

6.16. My tree officer has commented that they have no objections to the removal of the existing trees on the site and notes that the applicant has already agreed to replace these trees with three additional oak trees within the park. There is sufficient space within the front gardens for replacement tree and shrub planting which will make an appropriate contribution to the proposed street.

6.17. Ecology

6.18. The Council’s ecologist has considered the submitted Extended Phase 1 habitat survey advising that the assessment is acceptable and that the recommendations regarding site clearance of a fox den and overall site clearance in respect of nesting birds should be followed. In addition, if site clearance is not completed prior to March 2016 they recommend that a new habitat survey is undertaken as the current survey would then be out of date. They also recommend a condition to agree suitable ecological enhancement measures. I concur with these comments and have recommended suitable conditions in accordance with this advice.

6.19. Drainage

6.20. The proposed SUD’s works consist of shared soakaways in the rear gardens, subject to appropriate soakaway testing and a series of linked underground storage tanks in the front driveways, linked to a hydrobrake at the northern end to connect the existing surface water sewer. I note the comments raised by the Lead Local Flood Authority that the proposals are acceptable in principle, however further design details are required and details of the operation and maintenance plan which can be agreed by condition.

6.21. Whilst I note the comments raised regarding the proposed finished floor levels to be a minimum of 150mm above surrounding ground levels, this is not achievable in this case given the sloping levels of the site, where the proposed gardens will slope down from a higher level back towards the rear of the proposed dwellings. Alternative flood protection design measures could be employed and I have recommended a condition to agree these details.

6.22. Other issues

Page 6 of 11

6.23. Whilst I note the comments from Education in respect of section 106 contributions, as with many other BMHT schemes, the affordable homes are intended to be funded from internally generated resources with the land being provided to the schemes at no cost. Given that the land value normally drives the provisions of planning benefits through s106 agreements, in this case as there is no land to sell there is no financial value generated to fund such provision. The rents that can be secured are constrained by government guidance and the units are to be built to a high standard to meet Secured by design, Building for Life and Lifetime Homes guidance. It has therefore been demonstrated that the development could not sustain any financial contributions and be viable.

6.24. Whilst I note the comments regarding crime and anti-social behaviour in the park I do not consider that this should preclude the development of the site for residential use. The housing will improve the natural surveillance of the park and I note that the Police raise no objections.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal accords with the relevant housing and urban design policies in the UDP, draft BDP and NPPF, and is consistent with the Perry Common design brief which proposes redevelopment of this site for housing. The application is therefore acceptable.

8. Recommendation

8.1. i) Approve subject to conditions.

ii) That no objection be raised to the stopping-up a section of highway within the application site on Enderby Road and that the Department for Transport (DFT) be requested to make an Order in accordance with the provisions of Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

1 Grants a personal permission to Birmingham City Council

2 Requires the provision of affordable dwellings

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

4 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

5 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

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

7 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

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

9 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

Page 7 of 11

10 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

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

12 Requires an updated Extended Phase 1 habitat Survey if site clearance has not taken place by 1st March 2016

13 Requires the development to be implemented in accordance with the approved levels details

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

15 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

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

17 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Stuart Morgans

Page 8 of 11 Photo(s)

Figure 1 : view from Enderby Road

Page 9 of 11 Figure 2 : View from Jonquil Close

Page 10 of 11 Location Plan

Page 11 of 11

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/06786/PA Accepted: 16/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 16/12/2015 Ward: Ladywood

Birmingham Rowing Club, 115 Reservoir Road, Ladywood, Birmingham, B16 9EE

Redevelopment of rowing club to provide a multi-use facility including gym, changing facilities, storage, and club house facilities and associated landscaping works. Applicant: Birmingham Rowing Club 115 Reservoir Road, Ladywood, Birmingham, B16 9EE Agent: Bournville Architects 350 Bournville Lane, Bournville, Birmingham, B30 1QY Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This scheme is for the redevelopment of the existing Birmingham Rowing Club, to create a new part single storey, part two storey building. The new boathouse is to be a modern facility including changing rooms, gym and storage facilities for both rowing and canoe clubs, at the ground floor. At first floor the development is to provide a club house with associated kitchen and server and a committee room. The opening hours of the facility are 6:30 until 21:00 daily.

1.2. The proposed facilities will be available to the local community and wider public. Visitors will be able to use the club house facilities. Furthermore, the different clubs which will operate from the premises have varied pricing brackets for activities which include discounts for families and children. The clubs will also be able to build on existing relationships with local schools and widen local participation in sports.

1.3. The new building includes parallel single storey boat sheds with gabion filled basket walls and a mono pitched roof. The gabions will create a tactile surface and will allow for plants to naturalise the surface and soften the appearance of the building. There are cladded elements to the roof sides to add visual interest to the building. These materials are carried through to the two storey element, and the mass of this part of the building is broken up with grey aluminium windows. The windows and doors are full length in appropriate rooms to add visual interest to the building. The first floor also incorporates a wraparound terrace to allow views out over the reservoir.

1.4. The existing building on site provides 250 sq.m of floor space and is proposed for removal and the new facility is for an additional 1000 sq.m of floor space located on the same site as the existing facility.

Page 1 of 14 1.5. On the wider 0.5 hectare site, there are a suite of external public realm improvements, including new footways, a viewing gallery and planting. Along with the creation of a new access into the water for boats and a pontoon, a floating device sufficient to support itself and a heavy load and is used to access the water.

1.6. The development has no direct car parking facilities and is reliant on the adjacent public car park. A new cycle parking facility is proposed for 20 bicycles.

1.7. In support of this application the following documents have been submitted: • Design and access statement • Ecology report • Tree report • Sustainable drainage assessment • Open Space report

1.5 Site Area: 0.53 hectares.

1.6 Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The site is located in the south eastern corner of Edgbaston Reservoir. The existing building is within a 0.098 hectare site, which is roughly triangular in shape. It is bounded at the rear by a two storey retaining wall, with the residential development of Mariner Avenue beyond this. The eastern boundary is a wooded embankment which incorporates a pedestrian path linking Mariner Avenue to the reservoir. The site is gently sloping to the water’s edge. The site excluding the area for built development is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and Local Nature Reserve (LNR).

2.2. The primary access to the site is from Reservoir Road which leads into the free public car park, and has approximately 100 spaces. The car park is situated adjacent to the site. There is a pedestrian route in front of the existing boathouse, which forms a circuit around the reservoir.

2.3. The existing facility includes a boat house and two industrial storage containers and the site is contained by a metal fence. There is external storage and the site has an ‘industrial’ feel.

2.4. Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 2009/05698/PA - Erection of a mobile building for use as amenity room – Approved for a temporary time period expiring January 2013.

3.2. 2003/03729/PA – Retention of existing 2.1 or 2.2m high boundary palisade fencing and gates – Approved 13th August 2003.

3.3. 2002/066519/PA - Retention of metal storage container – Approved for a temporary period until February 2008.

Page 2 of 14 3.4. 1997/01269/PA - Siting of metal container for storage of equipment – Temporary approval until January 2008.

3.5. 1993/00694/PA – Erection of replacement pre-fabricated building comprising changing/toilet facilities and boathouse – Temporary approval until May 1998.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Adjoining occupiers, Local Councillors and Residents Associations notified and site and press notices posted and the following comments have been received.

4.2. Five letters of support for the proposal and the comments can be summarised as follows:

• Current facility at Birmingham Rowing club is now old and does not meet the needs and aspirations of the club and certainly not the wider community • The new facility will allow the club to be a base for keep fit and recreational rowing for the local area leading to a growing membership. • The facility will also allow disability rowing to take place without any major barriers • Encourage multi-sports usage and the aim to grow participation opportunities in Ladywood • Support increased participation and inclusion and the awareness of Edgbaston Reservoir in Ladywood • Student clubs will make valuable use of it, and will also be better positioned to support Birmingham Rowing Club's community development plans because our students are more likely to volunteer their support for community projects • Encourage more participation with local schools • There will be a physical enhancement to this part of the reservoir, with the removal of the old buildings

4.3. Two letters of objection for the proposal and the comments can be summarised as follows:

• Accept that the existing facilities should be improved; the proposal is not in keeping with the natural environment of the reservoir area. • The elevation of the roof will impact on views for residents of Mariner Avenue and will therefore impact property prices. We would contend that the height of the development should remain well below the existing retaining wall to avoid any impact. • Noise and disturbance impacts will be a problem with increased vehicular and pedestrian traffic and use of PA systems and music at events. • The inclusion of a café open to the general public will increase visitor numbers • The proposed lighting will adversely impact the darkness of the site at night and be undesirable for residents and wildlife. • Loss of view across reservoir due to the height and roof design of the development. • Loss of light to ground floor flats closest to the reservoir wall.

4.4. Sport England: supports this planning application as it will have a positive role in increasing participation and activity at Edgbaston Reservoir. This application is for the creation of a major sports facility. Sport England’s planning objectives are to

Page 3 of 14 protect existing facilities, enhance the quality, accessibility and management of existing facilities, and to provide new facilities to meet demand. This proposal replaces dilapidated and not fit for purpose buildings/structures which the clubs are currently using. It is proven that poor facilities have a negative impact on growth in participation of sport. The replacement new facilities are in line with Sport England’s Third Objective: To ensure that new sports facilities are planned for and provided in a positive and integrated way and that opportunities for new facilities are identified to meet current and future demands for sporting participation. The loss of facility resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location, in accordance with NPPF. Edgbaston reservoir is unique in that it is almost in the heart of the city, with housing surrounding it. Sport England has been encouraging the water based sports groups to work together. The proposal addresses an identified need for this facility type. The final design complies where appropriate with best practice and Sport England’s relevant design guidance. The external elevations are particularly interesting with the use of gabions, as they not only give a more natural appearance, but are also vandal resistant.

4.5. Transportation: No objection subject to conditions. The proposal might increase traffic to/from the site; however it is considered that the level of increase in traffic is unlikely to have a significant impact on surrounding highways. The proposal might increase parking demand compared to the existing facility at the site. However, the public car-park fronting the site would cater for the demand. The site also has a reasonable level of accessibility to public transport. There is an existing pedestrian path from Clipper View up to the reservoir. It is recommended to attach a condition to require the proposed gym within the site to be used ancillary to the use at the site and not to be open for use by the general public.

4.6. Local Lead Flood Authority: No objections subject to conditions.

4.7. Regulatory Services: No objection subject to condition relating to refuse storage.

4.8. Ecology: An ecology report was undertaken by Land Care Associates of the site and immediate environs in July 2014. There are a number of mitigation recommendations made in the report that should be adopted. The reservoir area is well known for bats and the exterior lighting should seek to avoid light spill onto the water and marginal habitat, to minimise any impact on this species. The landscape plans shows that there would be an improved visual amenity at this point of the site compared to what is currently on site. Careful selection of plants and climbers would allow for enhancement of this area while delivering some ecological benefits and mitigating for the loss of some of the scrub woodland and trees that will need to be removed. Overall, support this development subject to conditions.

4.9. West Midlands Police: No objections and have the following comments to make: • The work be carried out to the standards within the new, Secured by Design Commercial 2015 Guide • The choice of materials and screening is welcomed • Consider the use of lighting and CCTV to improve security

4.10. Canal & River Trust: has no objection to the proposed development. Request an informative referring to the current “Code of Practice for Works affecting the Canal & River Trust”.

Page 4 of 14 4.11. Leisure Services: Whilst proposal technically constitutes a loss of POS adjacent to a nature conservation site, there is no objection as it will have beneficial effect both on the immediate site facilities and be accessible to the local community. The direct loss of POS from the expansion of the existing building will however need to be compensated for in accordance with the UDP and request a financial contribution of £11,800. This would be spent on the provision of new site signage and street furniture within the wider Edgbaston Reservoir site.

4.12. West Midlands Fire Authority: No objections

5. Policy Context

5.1. The Birmingham UDP, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Draft Greater Icknield Masterplan, Places for All SPD, Places for Living SPD, NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1 The main considerations of this application are the principle of development and impact on open space, ecology, landscape and design, highways and impacts on amenity.

Principle

6.2 National guidance in the NPPF favours sustainable development. It is also clear that the role of planning is to support community facilities to meet local needs and enhance the environment with good design. A key element of the guidance relates to the promotion of healthy communities. This proposed new and extended facility falls within this category. The guidance is clear that planning authorities need to cater for sports venues as community facilities. Furthermore, it goes on to state that access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and wellbeing of communities. There is provision in the guidance for exceptional circumstances to build on existing open space for alternative sport and recreational provision, where the need for which clearly outweighs the loss.

6.3 The Draft Greater Icknield Masterplan seeks to improve opportunities to enhance leisure facilities, including the reservoir and its environs and increase participation in the facilities offered.

6.4 This is a well-established rowing club which first opened permanent facilities on the site in 1969. It is this building which is now proposed for replacement as the size and quality of the facility does not meet modern standards. Part of the site is designated as open space and as such is afforded protection in accordance paragraph 3.52A of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan, which states that development of open space is allowed in exceptional circumstances and seeks an appropriate recreational community benefit of equal value to compensate, that is accessible to current and potential users, and at least equal in terms of size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality.

6.5 Sport England have assessed the proposal for a new facility for rowing and canoeing, noting that it replaces dilapidated and not fit for purpose buildings/structures which the clubs are currently using. It is proven that poor facilities have a negative impact

Page 5 of 14 on growth in participation of sport. The proposed replacement new facilities are in line with Sport England’s Third Objective: To ensure that new sports facilities are planned for and provided in a positive and integrated way and that opportunities for new facilities are identified to meet current and future demands for sporting participation. Sport England therefore supports this proposal as it will have a positive role in increasing participation and activity at Edgbaston Reservoir. The scheme addresses an identified need for this facility type.

6.6 The proposed development will not only accommodate existing users, but will accommodate new clubs and improve facilities for a widened range of participants including the disabled and children. Given the nature of the proposed development and commitment to community involvement it is not considered necessary to control community use through a condition. Paragraph 12.39 of the Birmingham UDP identifies that there are a number of development opportunities in the area around the reservoir. Furthermore; it is clear that recreational facilities will be permitted where this will not detract from the nature conservation value of the reservoir. This position is reiterated in the emerging draft Birmingham Development Plan.

6.7 Leisure services have raised no objection to the loss of the open space adjacent to this nature conservation site, as it will have a beneficial effect both on the immediate site facilities and be accessible to the local community. However, they consider that the direct loss of POS from the expansion of the existing building will need to be compensated for, through a financial contribution of £11,800 for the provision of new site signage and street furniture with the wider Edgbaston Reservoir site, in order to comply with the UDP.

6.8 The land lost to the development is not in recreational use and is a landscaped area containing footpaths. There are no adverse impacts on the Nature Conservation value of the reservoir area. This proposal also includes significant public realm improvements which integrate with the reservoir context, along with complementary planting. I therefore consider that the proposed development would address the open space loss issues as this enhanced sporting provision and public realm enhancements would create a high quality sporting facility which would be accessible to existing and new users. In accordance with exceptional policy for the loss of open space. There is no justification for the additional contributions for wider landscaping improvements.

6.9 The development accords with national and local aspirations to create a healthy community and exploits the opportunity of the reservoir in this urban setting for increased recreational use, balanced with the need to protect the nature conservation value of the immediate area and it is therefore considered in principle that this proposed development is acceptable.

Design

6.10 The majority of the proposed building is single storey and rises to two storeys to create a greater presence for the club at the reservoir entrance; nearest the public car park. The specialist function of the building requires a large area for the internal storage of boats and other equipment. The building layout has maximised the site area and places storage and utility areas against the façade of the retaining wall, while utilising the footprint of the existing facility. The mass of the building has been reduced by staggering the storage elements to reflect the curve of the waterside edge, whilst still maintaining functionality. The new building would screen the retaining wall, with an attractive building that will promote positive uses and activity; forming an asset to the area.

Page 6 of 14

6.11 The two storey element of the building creates a focal point and contains the more active elements of the building including the gym and club house. This will increase surveillance of the area and improve safety. The balcony feature also offers views out across the water and creates visual interest to the building. Given the waterside location, the design needs to be a durable building. The proposal is for gabion walls. These finishes are contemporary but robust and respectful of the lakeside setting. The building will be of high quality contemporary design and will create a new place with its own distinctive character along this waterside frontage.

6.12 The proposal also includes a range of public realm improvements including the creation of a new footpath and viewing area, with integrated lighting, new landscaping and replacement trees. The design is attractive and usable and is an enhancement to setting of the reservoir and would be a significant improvement on the existing facility. This scheme will also secure the removal of inappropriate boundary treatment and would make the new facility more accessible and linked to its surroundings. Any new boundary treatments, such as balustrade to the water’s edge, would contribute to the improved visual appearance of the area.

6.13 The design complies with best practice and Sport England’s relevant design guidance, such as Active Design. This is guidance to promote opportunities for sport and physical activity, by improving accessibility to opportunities for participating in sport. Also by enhancing the amenity involved with new sports facilities and links to other development and the wider public realm.

6.14 The new building is of a high quality contemporary design. It would exploit the waterside frontage with full height glazing in appropriate rooms; to create an active and attractive facade. Creating a landmark feature along the waterside and is considered a huge improvement on the existing facility and will enhance the overall character of the area. I therefore consider that this development accords with urban design guidance in the Birmingham UDP, Draft Birmingham Plan, Places for All, the draft Greater Icknield Master Plan and guidance in NPPF.

Impacts on residential amenity

6.15 There have been two objections with regards to the roof design and increased height of the building and potential impacts on residential properties. The majority of the structure is below the level of the existing retaining wall. The roof is varied and slopes away from properties to reduce the impact. Furthermore, the separation distances between the development and adjacent properties exceed guidance in Places for Living, giving due regard to the ground level differences. It is therefore considered that the proposed development will not have an adverse impact on neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light or outlook.

6.16 This is a longstanding leisure facility at this site and there have been no objections raised by Regulatory Services with regard to the potential for increased noise and disturbance from the improved facility. The facilities open times are 06:30 hours until 21.00 7 days a week. This is considered acceptable for this type of facility and does not conflict with the noise sensitive later evening hours. There is a request for a condition for further details relating to refuse storage within the building. It is not considered necessary to impose this condition as the scheme demonstrates that adequate provision will be made.

Landscaping

Page 7 of 14 6.17 There is a scheme of landscaping and public realm works proposed. Special attention has been paid to the natural qualities of the site within this Local Nature Reserve setting. There is a piazza style external paved area for access to the buildings and boat standing, maintenance and circulation. The scheme includes a new footpath surface. There is no longer any boundary fencing proposed; to make this facility more accessible to all.

6.18 The scheme also includes replacing the landing stage with a ramp to allow easier access into the water with boats. Furthermore, there will be a pontoon projecting out into the reservoir.

6.19 Having considered the comments of neighbours with regards to potential loss of views due to the building, I consider it would be unreasonable to request planting along this boundary (which is outside the site) and could have a greater impact on the neighbouring properties than the current proposal. Specimen tree planting would be beneficial adjacent to the waterside where practicable and this planting should concentrate on native species.

6.20 I consider that the landscaping scheme reflects the natural qualities of the site and would be utilised to soften the building and relate to the waterside frontage. It would create an enhanced and attractive public area, which accords with polices in the Birmingham UDP and draft Birmingham Development plan and guidance in Places for All and the NPPF.

Trees

6.21 The proposed development will result in the loss of three category C trees, which have limited amenity value. The proposal includes a tree protection plan which is well considered and can be controlled through a condition, and there is a schedule for replacement tree planting.

Ecology

6.22 The site is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) and a Local Nature Reserve (LNR), although the site of the building is outside the LNR boundary. The reservoir is a valuable wildlife habitat in a densely urban setting. The site does not contain any protected species or species of conservation concern. There are a number of mitigation recommendations made in the supporting report that are recommended by the Councils Ecologist to be adopted and controlled by conditions.

6.23 The reservoir area is well known for bats having a number of species present including Daubentons bats which feed low over the water. A lighting scheme is recommended which should seek to avoid light spill onto the water and marginal habitat. This will help to minimise any impact on this species.

6.24 Overall, I consider that the scheme will not have an adverse impact on the nature conservation value of the area, and impacts such as lighting are recommended to be controlled and mitigated through conditions in accordance with policies in the Birmingham UDP and guidance in the NPPF.

Drainage

6.25 The site is located in Flood Zone 1 and has very low probability of flooding from surface water. The proposed scheme incorporates a sustainable drainage solution,

Page 8 of 14 with the Edgbaston Reservoir being used for attenuation. Rainwater from the buildings will be collected into a single sewer which would discharge into the reservoir. The landscaping around the building is sloped towards the water’s edge and utilises permeable materials to allow infiltration and water runoff into the reservoir. It is noted that the Lead Local Flood Authority has no objections to the proposal and the Canal and River Trust also have no objections to the drainage solution subject to the relevant permissions being agreed. It is therefore considered that the drainage solution proposed is compliant with water and drainage policies in the Birmingham UDP and guidance in the NPPF and considered acceptable.

Highways Issues

6.26 This proposal does not include designated parking facilities, but relies on utilising the adjacent free public car parking facility. It includes the provision of a bicycle stand for 20 cycles. There is a new vehicle barrier proposed to limit vehicular access to the site for the purposes of maintenance, and events access for regattas etc. The proposal is likely to increase traffic to/from the site; however it is considered that the level of increase in traffic is unlikely to have a significant impact on surrounding highways. The proposal might increase parking demand compared to the existing facility at the site. However, there is a public car-park with approximately 100 spaces fronting the site, which is sufficient to cater for the demand. The site also has a reasonable level of accessibility to public transport. There is an existing pedestrian path from Clipper View up to the reservoir. No highway objections therefore arise and I therefore consider that the proposal complies with local and national planning polices and guidance.

Other Issues

6.27 Concerns have been raised from neighbours with relation to proposed lighting and the potential adverse impact of this on them and wildlife. Further details are to be provided through conditions to provide a safe and secure environment with minimal disturbance to wildlife and residents.

6.28 The proposal includes ancillary facilities such as the Café/gym. These are to supplement the rowing club and are not stand alone facilities. Given the scale of these facilities, it is considered that there is no need for separate control of these elements.

7. Conclusion

7.1. This development will benefit the community and area by removing an outdated facility and replacing it will a new purpose built facility, which will grow participation and provide opportunities to groups currently excluded, such as the disabled.

7.2. The new building will create an attractive feature within the reservoir environs and raise the profile of the area. The design of the building creates a landmark feature along the waterside, which establishes a sense of place and responds to the context. This is enhances by new public realm works to create a visually attractive, safe and accessible environment. The design responds well to the natural environment and there is no adverse impact on the conservation value of the site.

7.3. The loss of open space is offset by the increased sporting facility and the enhancements to the public realm.

Page 9 of 14 7.4. Overall, I consider that the development will support a healthy community to meet the needs of current and future generations whilst protecting the natural and built environment, in accordance with local and national planning policies and guidance.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approval subject to conditions

1 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

2 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

3 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

4 Ecology mitigation

5 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

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

7 Requires the prior submission of a landscape management plan

8 Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan - Implementation

9 Updated Ecology Survey

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

Case Officer: Emma Green

Page 10 of 14 Photo(s)

Application site as viewed from public car park

Page 11 of 14

Site in relation to properties in Mariner Avenue

Page 12 of 14

Existing building and tree boundary to residential properties

Page 13 of 14 Location Plan

Page 14 of 14

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08528/PA Accepted: 15/10/2015 Application Type: Householder Target Date: 10/12/2015 Ward: Nechells

87 Kellett Road, Nechells, Birmingham, B7 4NQ

Erection of single storey rear extension Applicant: Mrs Tracey Janeday 87 Kellett Road, Nechells, Birmingham, B7 4NQ Agent: The Architectural Consultancy Ltd 5 Sandy Croft, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 0EP Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought for the erection of a single storey rear extension; the proposal would provide a shower room.

1.2. The resulting rear extension would measure 3.3m in depth from the rear of the main house and 3m in width. The development would be located closest to the boundary with No. 81 Kellett Road. The development would be designed with a pitched roof at a total height of 3.5m (2.6m to eaves)

1.3. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site comprises a modern semi-detached dwelling house. The property is designed with a pitched roof and is set back in comparison to No. 89 by approximately 2.5m. The rear boundary with this property is defined by a low chain link fence.

2.2. The rear elevation of Nos 77 – 85 Kellett Road faces the side boundary of the application site. The boundary treatment with these properties is defined by 1.6m high fencing.

2.3. The application property is located within a modern development consisting of similar age and design dwelling houses. The property and wider estate are covered by an Article 3 condition removing permitted development rights for rear additions to the property.

Site Location

3. Planning History

Page 1 of 5 3.1. 27/04/2015 - 2015/01699/PA - Erection of a single storey rear extension – Refused due to 45 Degree Code and a shortfall in distance separation

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Adjoining residents and local ward Councillors have been notified. One response received supporting the application.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are applicable:

• Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (Adopted 2005) • Draft Birmingham Development Plan • Places For Living (Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001) • The 45 Degree Code (Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 1996) • Extending your Home (Adopted Supplementary Planning Document 2007)

5.2. The following national policies are applicable:

• NPPF: National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

6. Planning Considerations

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

6.2. This application follows a previously refused scheme (2015/01699/PA). The previous scheme included a single storey extension proposed to extend across the full width of the rear elevation of the application property. This was refused due to a breach of your committees 45 Degree Code from the rear of No. 89 and shortfall of the required distance separation from the rear of No. 81 Kellett Road.

6.3. This resubmitted proposal has been redesigned away from the boundary with No. 89 Kellett Road in order to overcome the previous breach of your committees 45 Degree Code. Sufficient amenity space will be retained to the rear of the site in this instance.

6.4. This proposed resubmitted scheme would be below the 12.5m distance separation guidance in ‘Extending Your Home’ and ‘Places for Living’ for windowed elevations facing flank walls. As proposed, there would be 11.1m between the existing ground floor windows to the rear of No. 81 Kellett Road and the proposed side wall of the extension. However, taking into account the location of the extension north of No. 81, the intervening 1.6 metre high fence and the absence of windows in the side elevation of the extension, I do not consider that the impact on adjoining residential amenity by reason of loss of light, outlook or privacy would justify the refusal of consent.

6.5. The scale and design of the resulting development is in keeping with the original dwelling house and would not compromise the existing character or architectural appearance of the property. As such, the development would comply with the design principles contained within the design guide 'Extending Your Home' Supplementary Planning Document.

Page 2 of 5

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed development complies with the principles of the policies outlined above and would not cause sufficient detriment to warrant refusal of the application.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to the following conditions.

1 Requires that the materials used match the main building

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

3 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Philip Whittaker

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Photo 1: Rear elevation from No 89

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Works

72 PH 21

Works Works

17 Car Park

BULLOCK STREET 24

WINDSOR STREET Works 8

Works Works

262

16 109.7m 6

Works

235 to 238 110.9m s 260 Warehouse

GREAT LISTER STREET

Works 244 to 248 6 Works 250 to 37 33 253 252 35

101 2 PH

Depot 41 43

256 97

45 57

110.9m NEWHAVEN CLOSE

43 49

41 Welsh 246 Works Baptist 91

Church RUPERT STREET 55

Works 89

222 to 230 to 222 85

KELLETT ROAD 21

113.4m house 17

245 9

WINDSOR STREET

Warehouse Surgery 218 to 220 to 218 Works 66

33 1

Depot

239 206 to 212 to 206

60 72 Corporation 64 Yard

235

76 204

52 50 Works 231

48 46 65 25

194 HENEAGE STREET 63

Works 59

241 to 243 NECHELLS PARKWAY

115.8m 47

Works El Sub Sta

244

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

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

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08843/PA Accepted: 29/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 24/12/2015 Ward: Nechells

Nechells Parkway 2, Close to 76 Heneage Street, Nechells, Birmingham

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a freestanding double sided static digital advertisement unit to be located on the grass verge on Nechells Parkway, opposite 76 Heneage Road.

1.2. The advertisement unit would measure 2.6m (h) x 1.2m (w) x0.3m (d). The advertisement area would be 1.8m (h) x 1.1 (w). The stainless steel unit would contain a static digital screen that would be internally illuminated at 300cd/m2. The design of the advertisement is the same as the Interconnect totems that are displayed within the City Centre.

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

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1 The advertisement would be located within the highway central reservation, which is grassed with mature tree and hedge planting.

2.2 The road and associated landscaped highway dominate the character of the area. The immediate area is characterised by open space, and there is residential development beyond this.

2.3 Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. No Planning History

Page 1 of 5

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objections subject to conditions relating to use, length of display and illumination.

5. Policy Context

5.1. National Planning Policy Framework, Birmingham Unitary Development Plan, Draft Birmingham Development Plan and Location of Advertisement Hoardings SPG

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Paragraph 67 of the NPPF states that: ‘poorly placed advertisements can have a negative impact on the appearance of the built and natural environment. Control over outdoor advertisements should be efficient, effective and simple in concept and operation. Only those advertisements which will clearly have an appreciable impact on a building or on their surroundings should be subject to the local planning authority’s detailed assessment’.

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

AMENITY

6.3 The proposed advert would be located in the central reservation. There is no other signage in the vicinity so the area will remain uncluttered by highway signage. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of highway land. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an impact upon visual amenity.

PUBLIC SAFETY

6.4 Transportation Development raises no objections to the proposal on the grounds of public safety, subject to conditions to restrict animated displays in the interests of highway safety.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed advert is considered acceptable in terms of the impact upon the visual amenity of the area and public safety. The proposal therefore accords with policies 3.8, 3.10 and 6.39 of the Birmingham Plan and guidance in the Location of Advertisement Hoardings SPG and NPPF.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Temporary Approval

Page 2 of 5 1 Limits the use of advert

2 Limits length of the display of advert

3 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

4 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

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

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Emma Green

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Site Location

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/07697/PA Accepted: 18/09/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 13/11/2015 Ward: Nechells

Lawley Middleway (B4540), Near Curzon Circus, Nechells, Birmingham

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1 Proposal

1.1 This application proposes the installation of a freestanding, double sided, digital advertisement unit which would be located on Lawley Middleway, near Curzon Circle. It would measure 2.625 metres (height) by 1.2 metres (width) by 0.3 metres (depth). Internal illumination of 300cd/m2 is proposed.

1.2 The design of the advertisement is the same as a number of other totem signs which are to be displayed around the City Centre and is part of a contract within the City.

1.3 Link to Documents

2 Site & Surroundings

2.1 The advertisement would be located on the central reservation on Lawley Middleway The dual-carriageway and the associated landscaped highway land are the dominant features in the character of the area.

2.2 Site Location and Street View

3 Planning History

3.1 No Planning History

4 Consultation/PP Responses

Page 1 of 5 advertisements; to include controls to monitor ambient light conditions and adjust sign brightness accordingly including a maximum luminance limit.

5 Policy Context

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

6 Planning Considerations

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

AMENITY

6.2 The proposed advert would be located on the central reservation of Lawley Middleway and would be in close proximity to Curzon Circle. There is no existing signage within the vicinity of the site and this would be a new advert in this location. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of highway land, add unnecessary clutter or obstruct any existing highway signage. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an adverse impact upon visual amenity and is acceptable.

PUBLIC SAFETY

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

6.4 Conclusion

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

6.6 Recommendation

6.7 Approve Temporary

1 Limits the use of advert

2 Limits length of the display of advert

3 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

4 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

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

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Page 2 of 5

Case Officer: Daniel Ilott

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Application site

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 10 December 2015

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve - Temporary 24 2015/08651/PA Until 10.12.2016 McDonald's Restaurant 1151 - 1159 Chester Road Erdington Birmingham B24 0QY

Removal of condition number 7 attached to previous application E/C/37068/9 to enable the McDonald's Restaurant to trade 24 hours a day, seven days a week

Approve - Conditions 25 2015/07423/PA

42 Hawthorn Close Bordesley Green Birmingham B9 4JF

Erection of single storey rear extension

Approve - Temporary 26 2015/08640/PA

Heartlands Parkway (4 Costco) Central Reservation - Inbound Nechells Birmingham B7

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 1 of 1 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08651/PA Accepted: 19/10/2015 Application Type: Variation of Condition Target Date: 14/12/2015 Ward: Tyburn

McDonald's Restaurant, 1151 - 1159 Chester Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 0QY

Removal of condition number 7 attached to previous application E/C/37068/9 to enable the McDonald's Restaurant to trade 24 hours a day, seven days a week Applicant: McDonald's Restaurant Ltd c/o Agent Agent: Savills (UK) Limited 33 Margaret Street, London, W1G 0JD Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought for the removal of condition number 7 attached to approved application E/C/37068/9 to allow the McDonalds restaurant, at 1151-1159 Chester Road to open 24 hours per day seven days a week.

1.2. Approval was granted on the 6th October 1988 for the redevelopment of the site to provide a bungalow and purpose built freestanding restaurant with drive thru facility and car park, together with ancillary staff, storage and office accommodation. Currently condition number 7 attached to approved application E/C/37068/9 states that: -

• The said premises shall be closed and cleared of customers between midnight and 0600 hours and 2300 hours and midnight daily.

1.3. Supporting information has been provided in the form of a Planning Statement, a Noise Impact Assessment, a Community Consultation Statement and a Site Management Plan which states that: -

• In order to maximise security the restaurant has recently upgraded to a fully comprehensive CCTV system which operates 24 hours a day and consists of 20 cameras;

• There are 6 external and 4 internal litter bins provided. The store has a strict litter collection protocol which includes dedicated litter patrols every 30 minutes around the restaurant and car park;

• The restaurant is in the process of installing a StaffSafe system which is an audio visual system and will be linked to a remote monitoring station;

Page 1 of 8 • Signage is located around the restaurant, requesting that customers should be respectful of neighbours and keep noise to a minimum when leaving the premises;

• All managers are required to complete conflict management awareness courses so managers can deal effectively with any problems faced with customers;

• In order to ensure that neighbours are not disturbed and to discourage ‘boy racers’ at the site, the restaurant will close a section of the car park during the extended hours of 2300-0600; and,

• Any incidents of anti-social behaviour or other crime and disorder issues will be recorded within an incident log book, which will be regularly monitored, reviewed and where necessary, action can take place.

1.4. The applicant has stated that the proposed additional opening hours would result in the creation of an additional 15 employees, 85 in total.

1.5. Background: Application 2004/07439/PA for the variation of condition C7 attached to planning consent E/C/37068/9, to change the opening hours from the approved 0600 - 2300, to 0600 – midnight was refused on the 10th January 2005 for the following reason:

The extension of opening hours beyond the normal licensing hours of the two nearby public houses, combined with the site's location on a main road, would be likely to lead to an increase in crime and disorder.

1.6. A subsequent application under reference 2008/02461/PA for the variation of condition 7 attached to planning consent E/C/37068/9 to change the opening hours to 0600-2400 Monday to Thursday and 0600-0100 Friday to Saturday was refused on the 9th June 2008 for the following reason:

• The proposed extension of opening hours would lead to increased late-night noise and general disturbance to the detriment of the residential amenity of nearby occupiers.

1.7. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site relates to the McDonalds Restaurant, 1151-1159 Chester Road, Erdington. The restaurant is located to the north eastern side of the busy A452 (Chester Road) between Humberstone Road and the Tyburn Island. The restaurant is a stand-alone single storey building with a drive-through facility and a large landscaped car parking area to the rear.

2.2. The site is located within an area of mixed uses including residential properties to the northwest, industrial units to the south east and industrial units are located to the adjacent (south western) side of Chester Road.

2.3. Location map

3. Planning History

Page 2 of 8 3.1. 14.09.2011. 2011/03510/PA, Refurbishment of restaurant and patio area and associated works to include new customer unit with associated canopy and alterations to elevations, approved.

3.2. 28.07.2011. 2011/03511/PA, Replacement of internally illuminated fascia sign/lettering and display of 1 Internally illuminated freestanding totem sign, approved temporary.

3.3. 27.07.2011. 2011/03501/PA, Display of 10 various signs, approved temporary.

3.4. 06.06.2008. 2008/02461/PA, Variation of condition 7 attached to planning consent E/C/37068/9 to change the opening hours to 0600-2400 Monday to Thursday and 0600-0100 Friday to Saturday, refused.

3.5. 08.01.2005. 2004/07439/PA, Variation of condition 7 attached to planning consent E/C/37068/9 to change the opening hours from the approved 0600-2300 to 0600- Midnight, refused.

3.6 28.08.2002. 2002/02370/PA, Installation of ATM in attached enclosure, approved.

3.7. 28.08.2002. 2002/02369/PA, Installation of ATM fascia sign, approved temporary.

3.8. 22.02.2000. 2000/00136/PA, Erection of extension, approved.

3.9. 22.05.1992. 1992/01672/PA, Raising of pole sign from 6m to 8m in height, approved.

3.10. 06.10.1988. E/C/37068/9, Redevelopment to provide bungalow and purpose built freestanding restaurant with drive thru facility and car park, together with ancillary staff, storage and office accommodation, approved

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Regulatory Services – No objections subject to conditions requiring compliance with the submitted site management plan, the volume of the Customer Order Display Units (COD Units) should be reduced after 2300 and, that any approval should be for a temporary period to allow assessment of the increased opening hours on residential amenity.

4.2. Transportation Development – No objections

4.3. West Midlands Police – Raise objection in relation to the likely ineffectiveness of the measures within the 'Noise Management Plan', based on their experiences of Fort Retail Park and Star City, and consequent rise in crime, anti-social behaviour and calls to service from the police.

4.4. Site notice posted, nearby residents, residents associations, local MP and Ward Councillors notified, with the following responses received: -

• 5 emails/letters of objection from local residents on the grounds that the proposal would lead to increased litter, noise and nuisance through vehicles coming and going, the slamming of car doors, music from vehicles, anti-social behaviour, light pollution and increased vermin. It is further stated that two other McDonalds restaurants are located nearby that are not located within residential areas.

Page 3 of 8 • 1 email/letter of support from a local resident who considers the proposal would benefit local people, increasing employment and that no evidence exists to suggest the proposal would lead to anti-social behaviour

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP 2005 and Draft Birmingham Development Plan; Car Parking Guidelines (2012) SPD; Places for All (2001) SPG; NPPF

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. I regard the main considerations in the determination of this application to be the impact of the proposal on terms of residential amenity, crime and disorder and highway safety.

6.2. Policy: 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.

6.3. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (Para. 14). Stating that the planning system should contribute to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, and should do everything it can to support sustainable economic growth. Paragraph 123 states that planning policies and decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.

6.4. Impact on residential amenity – The application site is located within a mixed area of development, with industrial/commercial uses to the south western side of Chester Road, to the east and neighbouring to the south east. Residential properties in the form of three storey flatted developments on Humberstone Road to the north western boundary and a terrace of three 2 storey properties fronting Chester Road, further residential properties are located to the north eastern rear of the site within Julia Avenue.

6.5. Five emails/letters of objection have been received from nearby residents on the grounds that the additional hours would lead to increased litter, noise and nuisance through vehicles comings and goings, the slamming of car doors, music from vehicles, anti-social behaviour, light pollution and increased vermin. In response to the above and in line with Paragraph 123 of the NPPF, the applicant has submitted a Site Management Plan, in which it is stated that six external and four internal bins are provided and that the store has a strict litter collection protocol which includes dedicated litter patrols every 30 minutes, signage is placed around the site requesting that customers should be respectful of neighbours keeping noise to a minimum when leaving the premises and, in order to ensure that neighbours are not disturbed the restaurant COD system would be turned down and a section of the car park during the extended hours of 2300-0600 will be closed. In addition a noise impact assessment has been submitted.

6.6. Regulatory Services have assessed the proposal and raise no objections, commenting that the noise report submitted (Sustainable Acoustics Report 14-0167-

Page 4 of 8 7-R01) indicates that it should be possible to extend the operating hours without an adverse impact on the adjoining residents. For the extension of the operating hours to be implemented without an adverse effect it is necessary to manage the operations. The planning application includes a site management plan. Compliance with this plan should be required as a condition and changes to this plan need to be agreed with the LPA. In addition the volume of the Customer Order Display Unit (COD Unit) should be reduced after 23:00 as recommend in the noise impact report. Finally this department recommends that the removal of the condition should initially be on a temporary basis to allow the impact of the extension to operating hours to be fully assessed and the applicant to demonstrate that there is no adverse impact on local residents. I concur with these views and accordingly attach the requested conditions.

6.7. Crime and disorder: The appointed agent has provided a Community Consultation Statement in which it is states that the applicant consulted directly with surrounding residents, the local police and elected representatives. I note the concerns and examples given by West Midlands Police of two nearby McDonald’s restaurants, however these restaurants are located in areas where additional restaurants, drinking establishments and entertainment facilities are located at the Fort Retail Park and Star City. Whilst two public houses are located within walking distance of the restaurant in question, these public houses close at normal closing times, therefore it is not considered that patrons of these two establishments would be likely to use the facility in the early hours of the morning. Furthermore it is anticipated by the applicant that shift workers, emergency service staff, taxi drivers and passing trade would be the most likely people to use the extended facility, I concur with this view and consider that the proposal would not result in significant adverse impact above or beyond the existing situation

6.8. One letter/email of support for the proposal has been received from a near neighbour who comments that no evidence exists to suggest the proposal would lead to anti- social behaviour.

6.9. Highway safety: Transportation Development have assessed the proposal and offer no objections, commenting that there are no highway safety/network performance related concerns and, that the A3/A5 use is already permitted to operate during network peak traffic periods, when it tends to attract peak levels of movement.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider that the applicant has responded to issues surrounding noise and disturbance, by undergoing an extensive range of noise, litter and social issues mitigation, in an attempt to satisfy the refusal reasons in previous applications and protect residential amenity. Consequently, I consider the removal of condition 7 of application E/C/37068/9 should be granted permission for a one-year temporary period, to allow for the assessment of the extended opening hours on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

8. Recommendation

8.7. Approve subject to conditions for a one-year temporary period.

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

Page 5 of 8 2 Requires the prior submission of level details

3 Requires the prior submission of vehicle parking and turning details

4 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

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

6 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

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

8 Requires adequate facilities for the parking of vehicles.

9 Requires the prior submission of entry and exit sign details

10 Requires the prior submission of a mobility access scheme

11 Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage

12 Requires the dwellings hereby permitted to be in accordance with 'Places for Living' SPG

13 Requires boundary treatments to be erected within 6 months from commencement of the development.

14 Requires all loading and unloading of goods shall take place within the curtilage of the site.

15 Requires the agreed mobility access to be maintained

16 Requires the approved landscaping scheme to be fully implemented within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the development.

17 Prevents the use from changing within the use class

18 Requires the Customer Order Display system to be reduced in noise level between the hours of 2300-0600

19 No approval is given o the term 'flat slab freestander'

20 Requires the area of car parking to the rear to be closed between the hours of 2300- 0600.

21 Requires the use to discontinue within a timescale

Case Officer: Keith Mellor

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Frontage 1

Rear of site 1

Page 7 of 8

Location Plan

2 100.6m

3 1

1147

Depot 1151 to 1155

Cycle Track ROAD

1159

1161

yCy Garage

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/07423/PA Accepted: 09/09/2015 Application Type: Householder Target Date: 04/11/2015 Ward: Nechells

42 Hawthorn Close, Bordesley Green, Birmingham, B9 4JF

Erection of single storey rear extension Applicant: Mr Masum Miah 42 Hawthorn Close, Bordesley Green, Birmingham, B9 4JF Agent: Plan and Design Environment Ltd 70 Redhill Road, Yardley, Birmingham, B25 8EX Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought for the erection of a single storey rear extension. The proposal would provide a new kitchen and wet room.

1.2. The resulting rear extension would measure 3.5m in depth from the rear of the main house adjacent to the boundary with No. 40, and 4.5m adjacent to the boundary with No. 44. The development is proposed to extend across the full width of the rear elevation of the application property. The development would be designed with a pitched roof at a total height of 3.5m (2.6m to eaves)

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site comprises a mid terraced dwelling house located in a modern development consisting of similar age properties. The boundary treatment with both properties is defined by a 1.2m high fence. The application property and wider development are covered by an Article 3 condition removing permitted development rights for extensions and additions.

2.2. The original rear elevation of No. 40 projects approximately 500mm beyond the rear elevation of the application property. This neighbouring property has been previously extended with a conservatory which is designed with glazing to the sides and an opaque polycarbonate roof. The conservatory extends off the kitchen and is located along the side boundary with the application site.

2.3. No. 44 has been previously extended with a single storey utility extension adjacent to the boundary with the application site, and a conservatory adjacent to the opposing boundary.

Site Location

Page 1 of 6 3. Planning History

3.1. 24/08/2015 - 2015/05321/PA - Erection of single storey rear extension – Refused

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Local ward councillors and the occupiers of neighbouring properties have been consulted. One response received from the occupiers of No. 40 who has made comment in respect of loss of light, rain water discharge and removal of boundary treatment.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are applicable: • Places for Living (2001) • Extending your Home (2007) • UDP (2005) • Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2013) • 45 Degree Code

5.2. The following national policies are applicable: • NPPF: National Planning Policies Framework (2012)

6. Planning Considerations

6.2. This application follows a recently refused scheme. The previous scheme was refused due to a breach of your Committee’s 45 Degree Code in relation to the original window opening into the conservatory extension at No 40. Amended plans have been submitted that reduce the depth of the proposed extension by 500mm. This is now in line with the conservatory extension at No. 40

6.3. I note that the conservatory at No. 40 has been constructed with an opaque polycarbonate roof which is not transparent. This roof already restricts light to the original window openings at this property. Whilst the proposal would still breach the Code, I consider that taking this factor into consideration together with the reduction in size a refusal could not be sustained based loss of light to this neighbouring property. The proposal complies with the 45 Degree Code from the rear of No. 38.

6.4. The development complies with the distance separation guidelines contained in ‘Places for Living’ and ‘Extending your Home’.

6.5. I consider the scale and design of the proposal is acceptable, and would not compromise the architectural appearance of application property or the visual amenity of the surrounding area. The development would comply with the general principles contained in the design guide ‘Extending your Home’.

6.6. Finally, concerns have been raised by the occupiers of the neighbouring property relating to rain water discharge and removal of boundary treatment. These are not material planning considerations and cannot be taken into account when assessing

Page 2 of 6 this application. Furthermore, issues relating to boundary treatments are a civil matter between neighbours.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider that the proposed development, as amended, complies with the objectives of the policies outlined above. As such the development and would not cause sufficient detriment to warrant a refusal of the application.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to the following conditions.

1 Requires that the materials used match the main building

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

3 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Philip Whittaker

Page 3 of 6 Photo(s)

Photo 1: Rear elevation

Photo 2: Rear No. 40

Page 4 of 6

Photo 3: Rear left

Page 5 of 6 Location Plan

Page 6 of 6

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08640/PA Accepted: 26/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 21/12/2015 Ward: Nechells

Heartlands Parkway (4 Costco), Central Reservation - Inbound, Nechells, Birmingham, B7

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a new freestanding double sided static digital advertisement unit to be located on the central reservation on Heartlands Parkway near the junction of Star City and Costco.

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

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

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The advertisement would be located on the central reservation on Heartlands Parkway, to the west of Bromford Lane gyratory. The central reservation in this location is a wide raised grassed area containing some mature trees. Heartlands Parkway provides access between Birmingham City Centre and the east of the city.

2.2. The dual-carriageway itself and its associated landscaped highway land are the dominant features in the character of the site. The surrounding area has a mixed character with commercial buildings to the north, including Star City and Costco, and railway lines to the south.

2.3. Site Location

Page 1 of 5

3. Planning History

3.1. No relevant planning history.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development - No objection subject to conditions to restrict the interval between successive displays, to restrict the display of any special visual effects, to prohibit message sequencing, to prevent the emission of noise, sound, smoke, smell or odours; to include a default mechanism that would freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs; to prevent the display of interactive messages or advertisements; to include controls to monitor ambient light conditions and adjust sign brightness accordingly including a maximum luminance limit. A Grampian condition has also been requested for the relevant highway agreements to be in place prior to the unit being installed.

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

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

Amenity

6.2. The proposed advert would be located on the central reservation on Heartlands Parkway, to the west of Bromford Lane gyratory. Although there is some existing highway signage within the vicinity of the site, the area remains uncluttered by existing advertisements. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of highway land. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would not impact on trees near the site.

Public Safety

6.3. Transportation Development have advised that the proposed replacement advertisement would raise no issues in terms of footway width or visibility requirements and no objections are raised to the proposal on the grounds of public safety, subject to conditions to restrict animated displays in the interests of highway safety. However, the requested condition for the relevant highway agreements to be in place prior to the unit being installed would not be reasonable and will not be applied.

7. Conclusion

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

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve Temporary

1 Limits the use of advert

2 Limits length of the display of advert

3 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

4 Design of power supply/damage made good

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

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Claudia Clemente

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Application Site

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 10 December 2015

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Defer - Informal Approval 27 2015/06678/PA

135-143 Digbeth, 3-5 Park Street, 89-91 Allison Street and adjoining land off Allison Street and Well Lane Digbeth Birmingham

Defer - Informal Approval 28 2015/06907/PA

Former Globe Works Cliveland Street Newtown Birmingham B19 3SH

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 5 to 10-storey student residential building accommodating 520 student bedrooms with ancillary facilities, cycle parking and landscaping

Determine 29 2015/03050/PA

Tennant Street City Centre Birmingham B15 1EH

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration Approve - Conditions 30 2015/07682/PA

96-104 Bristol Street City Centre Birmingham B5 7AH

Approve - Conditions 31 2015/08038/PA

83-84 Old Snow Hill City Birmingham B4 6HW

Change of use of units to a take-away (Use Class A5), installation of two cold room condensers to rear, installation of a fume extraction system to rear wall and installation of new shop front.

Approve - Conditions 32 2015/05297/PA

Land at 46, 47 & 48 Blucher Street City Centre Birmingham B1 1QJ

Single storey building to be used as a private hire booking office

Approve - Temporary 33 2015/09214/PA

St Chads Queensway Opposite Lancaster Circus City Centre Birmingham

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/06678/PA Accepted: 01/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 22/12/2015 Ward: Nechells

135-143 Digbeth, 3-5 Park Street, 89-91 Allison Street, and adjoining land off Allison Street and Well Lane, Digbeth, Birmingham

Proposed mixed use development comprising demolition, retention of 135-136 & 137 Digbeth and facade of 138-139 Digbeth and construction of three new blocks including a 30 storey tower to provide retail (Class A1,A2 & A3), business space (Class B1a), 194 residential apartments (Class C3) and 4 live and work units, together with ground source and other energy systems, surface level servicing and new landscape areas (proposed amendments to part of full planning approval 2009/00295/PA as extended by 2012/02937/PA and 2009/00297/PA) Applicant: Salhia Investments (Birmingham) Ltd Fifth Floor, 37 Esplanade, St Helier, Jersey, JE1 2TR Agent: Alistair Grills Associates 4 Chisholm Road, Richmond, Surrey, TW10 6JH Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

1.1. This application is a variation of the scheme approved in 2009 (application ref. 2009/00295/PA). The fundamental principles established within this consent remain - a mixed use 'city within a city' reflecting the historical importance of the Beorma site in the early development of Birmingham. Phase 1 of the Beorma Quarter - the refurbishment of the Cold Store into offices and the construction of a new build aparthotel to the corner of Digbeth and Allison Street, is now complete. This application relates to the remainder of the Quarter – Phase 2 ('the tower') to the corner of Digbeth and Park Street and Phase 3 to the Well Lane and Allison Street frontages.

1.2. Following submission of the planning application a number of modifications to the proposals have been made:

• with one exception, the removal of studio flats from the proposals following their amalgamation with adjacent flats resulting in the overall provision of 194 apartments; • re-design of Building 3B on the corner of Allison Street and Well Lane to ensure it conforms to the Rights of Light envelope previously established and approved in 2009;

Page 1 of 29 • inclusion of a landscaped 30 space on-site car park accessed off Well Lane in Phase 2; • provision of a designated on-street parking space in Allison Street to be operated by City Car Club or the developer in Phases 2 and 3; and • re-assessment of the proposals’ impact on the setting of heritage assets in light of recently published Historic England guidance document Setting of Heritage Assets.

Use and Amount of Development

1.3. Locally-listed 135-136 Digbeth and 137 Digbeth would be converted from offices to also include retail/restaurant use. Additionally the main Digbeth street facade of the locally listed 138-139 Digbeth – the BVSC building, would be incorporated into the design of Building 2, as per the 2009 approval.

1.4. Building 2, at the corner of Digbeth and Park Street comprises a part 11 storey building stepping up to 30 storeys with 125 apartments over the upper 17 storeys. These are located above a double-height 12th floor plant space; 11 storeys of office space; residential lobbies, back of house and servicing areas; and retail/restaurant space. A plant basement level below the building would serve not only Building 2 itself, but also the locally-listed Digbeth buildings, the Coldstore and Buildings 3A and 3B.

1.5. Building 3A on Well Lane, comprises a 14 storey tower with 69 apartments above a retail/restaurant unit, with 4 adjacent live/work units. Building 3B, comprises 7 storeys of office space with its entrance on Allison Street.

1.6. The tables below provide details of the proposed gross internal floor areas (sqm) and apartments:-

Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Retail 1148 356 1505 Residential 13531 5574 19105 Live/Work 0 631 631 Office 18181 3676 21857 Basement / Plant 2258 244 2502 Total 35118 10497 45614

Apartment Numbers

Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Studio 0 1 1 1 Bed 60 50 110 2 Bed 31 18 49 3 Bed 34 0 34 Total 125 69 194

Apartment Sizes (sqm)

Phase 2 Phase 3 Studios n/a 35.2 1 bed apartments 46-9 - 47.6 45.9 – 73.6 2 bed apartments 70.2 – 89.7 72.6 – 81.5 3 bed apartments 104 -152.7

Page 2 of 29

By comparison the original 2009 scheme proposed:

Retail 2,394sqm Office 48,186sqm Restaurant 345sqm Residential 15 apartments Car parking 38 spaces

Layout

1.7. Building 2 is vertically arranged to separate the different functions of the building. Retail units are located to front Orwell Place and St Martin’s Passage, whilst residential and commercial entrances are provided on Park Street and St Martin’s Passage respectively. The street frontage to the locally listed 138-139 Digbeth would become the Digbeth frontage for a dual aspect retail unit that is also bound by the newly formed St Martin’s Passage. The remainder of the ground floor is made up of plant space and a secure external deliveries / servicing space that also provides designated cycle parking for residents and office staff. Above the ground floor 11 storeys of office space are provided with a large terrace at the 10th floor. The 12th floor accommodates a plant room and an external communal garden terrace for residents of the apartments above. From the 13th to 27th floors, eight apartments are located per level, all of which have a private winter garden. The tower steps back at level 28 to the depth of the western burgage plot only, with the upper two levels accommodating four penthouses and a further apartment.

1.8. The original body of the locally listed buildings at 135-136 Digbeth and 137 Digbeth would be retained, whilst the rear lower grade extensions and internal partitions would be removed to provide open retail spaces spread across three / four floors. At 135-136 Digbeth the ornate street frontage and intricate staircase would be retained.

1.9. Building 3A comprises four elements, a residential tower, retail unit, live/work units and substation (serving the two phases). A double height retail unit on the ground floor fronts onto Orwell Place to complete the public square with Phases One and Two. The residential element has designated cycle parking for residents and associated refuse stores on the ground floor. A residential arm then extends over the retail space for three storeys. The entrances to the residential and live / work units are on Well Lane.

1.10. Building 3B has a double height entrance on Allison Street, cycle parking, refuse space and offices arranged around a central core with two lifts servicing all floors. The first 3 floors have a larger floorplate that is reduced for floors 3-4 and then reduced again for floors 5-6. A double height roof top plant space adjacent to the recently constructed aparthotel serves both Building 3A and 3B.

Scale and Appearance

1.11. Building 2 at 30 storeys (221.8 AOD) is 3.6m higher than the previously consented scheme, however, the revised design seeks to create a more elegant and well- proportioned tower. Larger office floor plates are proposed between levels 2 -11, allowing the upper portion of the building to be slimmer. Buildings 3A and 3B would be 14 and 7 storeys respectively. The live/work unit fronting Well Lane would be 3 storeys.

Page 3 of 29 1.12. The design concept seeks to reflect the underlying geology of the site, which lies on a sandstone / mudstone fault line. On the primary south-west and north-east elevations of Building 2, sandstone is used to represent the historic burgage plots. This then gives way at upper level to wintergarden glazing to give a more reflective appearance to the tower element. The north-west and south-east elevations utilise a high performance curtain walling system with a combination of transparent and opaque glass panel. Solar shading is provided to the south west elevation by vertical PPC aluminium projecting fins.

1.13. Building upon the site-wide geological concept, metal panels are proposed for Building 3A, complimented by a living wall that sits in front of the lower residential levels to provide privacy. Building 3B is located on the ‘mudstone’ side of the ridge fault line, which is reflected in a terracotta rainscreen façade. The four live/work three storey units that lie along Well Lane sit between Building 3A and Building 3B would be faced in brick with a sawtooth roofline - a typology prevalent in Digbeth.

Access, Parking and Servicing

1.14. Well Lane runs to the north of the development and would be the main point of vehicular access to the new internal service road. This service roads leads to the rear of Building 2 and exits onto Park Street.

1.15. Initially the applicant intended to secure 30 car parking spaces from the adjacent Bull Ring multi storey car park to serve Phases 2 and 3 of the Beorma development. Unfortunately, the owners of this and other multi-storey car parks are not willing to enter into such an agreement and as such alternative arrangement are now proposed:-

• a landscaped 30 space car park would be provided in Phase 2 on part of the Phase 3 site as an interim measure. Phase 2 would not be occupied until this landscaped car park is available; and, • funding of 9 car club spaces for a period of five years.

1.16. Cycle parking would be accommodated across both Phases 2 and 3, with residential and commercial provisions for each, as well as a number of external locations in the public realm. Phase 2 would have residential and commercial cycle stands to the rear of the building accessed via a gated access from Park Street. Phase 3 would have two separate cycle stores, one for the residents accessed from Well Lane and one for the offices accessed from Allison Street. Overall secure storage for 132 cycles would be provided together with 10 cycle stands (20 cycles) in various external locations.

Landscape

1.17. The landscape design for Phases 2 and 3 is similar to the landscape scheme approved as part of the previous application for the Beorma site. The design seeks to reflect the historical importance of the site, particularly the medieval burgage plots, the Hersum Ditch and the later industrial heritage of the area. High quality materials are proposed such as granite and sandstone. Key features include:

• St Martin's Place - a gateway space for people arriving from the Bull Ring area; • The North Gateway – a substantial metal gateway sculptural feature similar to the Southern Gateway installed as part of Phase 1;

Page 4 of 29 • St Martin’s Passage - a double height arcade with active uses either side; • Burgage Lines – historic burgage plots identified in sandstone strips set into darker granite paving; • Orwell Place - the site of the old engine house outside the Coldstore building paved in a grid pattern with illuminated ground level water jets; • Orwell Terrace – an area with a seating wall, contemporary sitting stones and large feature tree; • tree planting - comprising large street trees along Digbeth, medium sized trees within Orwell Place and small sized trees on Well Lane. • a living wall located above the Phase 3 retail block and acting as a screen to the lower residential arm, • open roof space – three types of roof spaces are proposed - terrace gardens (1,107sqm), green roofs (318sqm) and brown roofs (677sqm). The terrace garden in Phase 2 also includes 298sqm of play space for under 5’s; • Park Street / Digbeth junction - pedestrian crossing widened from 2.5m to 5m; • Well Lane - existing pavements made good and, if possible, tree planting introduced; and, • Digbeth frontage - existing pavement widened.

Supporting Information and Planning Obligations

1.18. In support of the application the following documents have been submitted:-

• Environmental Impact Assessment, Appendices with Reports and Non- Technical Summary; • ES Addendum; • Planning Statement; • Transport Assessment, Servicing Plan and Travel Plan; • Sustainability Assessment; • Design and Access Statement including Statement of Community Involvement; • Landscape Proposals and Heritage Impact Statement; and, • Archaeological Report.

1.19. The applicant has also put forward draft S106 Heads of Terms including a financial contribution of £900,000 towards off site affordable housing, off site highway works, and car club funding. In addition, they are willing for the S106 agreement to include local employment and training provisions, provision of public art and 24 hour pedestrian-only public access through site. The applicant is not able to meet the affordable housing requirements in full but has submitted a financial appraisal to justify their offer.

1.20. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site comprises Phases 2 and 3 of the larger Beorma development site. It is located within the Eastside Quarter of Birmingham City Centre and occupies a prominent corner location adjacent to two major landmark buildings - the futuristic Selfridges building and the 19th century Grade II* listed St Martin's Church. Park Street and the Bull Ring bound it to the west, Digbeth (A41) and the city's markets to the south. Allison Street and Digbeth Police Station to the east and the

Page 5 of 29 Bull Ring car park and Well Lane to the north. Levels across the site fall by about 5m from the City Centre down to Digbeth.

2.2. The site covers 0.628 hectare and is currently occupied by a variety of buildings and surface car parking. 136-140 Digbeth are 3-4 storey narrow thin town properties, a number of which are locally listed. 138-139, now a double unit has an attractive frontage but has a large modern extension to its rear. The Allison Street frontage includes 2 storey commercial premises at 89-91 comprising beauty salon and Polish community centre above a Polish supermarket. On the corner of Digbeth and Park Street is the now vacant Royal George public house. Adjacent to this, fronting Park Street is a vacant former music hall. Behind these buildings is a surface car park that is bounded by Well Lane.

2.3. Adjacent to 136 Digbeth is the large Coldstore building, which dominates this section of the Digbeth frontage with its blank brick façade and is Grade II. This building has been refurbished for offices with ground floor retail and restaurant uses. To the rear of the Coldstore building a public square – Orwell Place is being created to act as the focal point for the development. To the south of the Coldstore Building the first phase of the Beorma development, comprising an aparthotel above ground floor retailing, has recently been completed. Off Allison Street, Orwell Passage leads to the rear of the Coldstore site.

2.4. On the opposing corner of Digbeth and Allison Street is the locally listed and architecturally imposing neo-Baroque Digbeth Police Station. On the opposite corner of Well Lane and Allison Street is the Grade II listed RTP Crisps building, which has been converted into residential use.

Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. 21 August 2009. Application 2009/00295/PA. Planning consent granted for mixed use development comprising refurbishment of the Digbeth Coldstore building, 135, 136 and 137 Digbeth, façade of 138 and 139 Digbeth and construction of three new blocks including a 27 storey tower to provide shops, offices, restaurant and cafe (A1, A2 and A3), business space (B1), residential (C3) and exhibition space (D1), together with an energy centre using an Aquifer Thermal Energy Storage system (ATES), basement parking and creation of new landscape areas. The application was subject to a legal agreement to secure:-

• phasing of the development; • affordable housing and business space; • local employment and training provisions; • an archaeological interpretation board; • a remake of the Kennedy memorial or alternative public artwork; • provision of new 24 hour publically accessible open space, and; • contributions toward Shopmobility, public transport, an urban design study, St. Martin’s Café and meeting the cost of installing rooflights within Apartment 40 at the Brolly Works.

3.2. 21 August 2009. Application 2009/00296/PA. Listed building consent granted for demolition of the engine room and boiler room and alterations to the Coldstore building to include repair of the roof; opening up bricked up windows, new windows to all elevations, new elevation to Orwell Place, removal of timber and cork lining to

Page 6 of 29 internal walls, partial removal of floor to levels 1 and 2; insertion of lift, servicing duct, toilets and stairs.

3.3. 21 August 2009. Application 2009/00297/PA. Conservation area consent granted for the retention of the Digbeth Cold Store (excepting the engine and boiler room to the rear), the retention and refurbishment of the main, front sections of 135-136 and 137 Digbeth (locally listed buildings) and the retention of the façade to 138-139 Digbeth (also locally listed). All other buildings are to be demolished to allow the comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site to assist with the regeneration of the Digbeth Millennium Quarter and the creation of new public realm.

3.4. 27 April 2011. Cabinet approved in principle the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order in respect of the acquisition of interests to assist in the regeneration of land adjacent to Digbeth and Allison Street as part of the Beorma Quarter.

3.5. 25 May 2012. Application 2012/02105/PA. Listed building consent granted for works to the Coldstore building comprising: externally - replacement slate roof, opening up of bricked up windows to Digbeth elevation and new steel framed windows inserted. New Glazing and doors to Orwell Place and Coldstore court elevations. Repairs to brickwork and replacement of damaged rainwater goods. New retaining wall with ironwork screen and steps to Coldstore court. Internally - basement and second floors removed, existing basement walls underpinned and new floors inserted at basement and second floors level. Raised access floors inserted on top of retained first and third floors. 2 no. new lifts and 2 no. new sets of stairs.

3.6. 17 August 2012. Application 2012/2104/PA. Planning consent granted for revisions to the Extended Phase 1 proposals for the Beorma Quarter (2009/00295/PA) comprising selective demolition, conversion & refurbishment of the Coldstore to provide basement nightclub (Sui Generis) and/or restaurant (A3) Ground floor restaurant (A3) and/or retail (A1) and/or offices (B1a), with office space (B1a) on upper floors. Construction of an extended Building C to provide up to 112 bedroom hotel (C1) with retail (A1) on ground floor/mezzanine. Associated hard & soft landscaping works. Permission subject to a S106 agreement to secure relevant measures for this phase of development, namely, affordable business space within the Coldstore building; local employment and training; public art and an archaeological interpretation board; open space with 24 hour access; monies towards Shopmobility, St Martins Church café and a pro rata contribution towards public transport.

3.7. 17 August 2012. Application 2012/02937/PA. Planning Consent granted for 5 year extension of time to implement the original planning application reference 2009/00295/PA Application approved subject to a S106 agreement as per the original agreement but excluding any measures if provided under the agreement for the Extended Phase 1 scheme.

3.8. 8 July 2013. Application 2013/02433/PA. Planning consent granted to vary conditions 13 (landscaping), 14 (lighting), 18, 19 and 20 (plans schedule) attached to application 2012/02104/PA in connection with amended designs for a 108 bedroom hotel, changes to the landscaping and lighting schemes, and inclusion of a heat pump for the converted Coldstore.

3.9. 30 July 2013. Application 2013/04136/PA. Listed building consent granted for internal and external works to the Coldstore comprising new lift overrun and roof repairs, new windows and doors, removal of basement and second floors, new floors, lifts and stairs.

Page 7 of 29

3.10. 11 September 2013. Application 2013/04135/PA. Planning consent granted for revisions to extended Phase 1 proposals for the Beorma Quarter (2009/00295/PA). Revisions include consolidating the previously consented changes to the hotel and landscaping along with some further design changes and revisions to the Coldstore.

3.11. 16 April 2014. Application 2014/00322/PA. Section 73 application granted for variation of conditions 6, 13, 16, 17, & 18 and removal of conditions 1 & 2 attached to planning application 2013/04135/PA and revisions to extended Phase 1 proposals for the Beorma Quarter (2009/00295/PA).

3.12. 8 October 2015. Application 2015/08309/PA. Application for demolition of existing building and construction of new five storey building with basement and roof terrace for class A1 retail use at 89/91 Allison Street, Digbeth – awaiting determination.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. The applicant undertook pre-application consultations with representatives from the City Council, Historic England and other interested parties. They also held a well- publicised public exhibition at St Martin’s Church in October 2014. The turnout for the public consultation was disappointing with only 15 parties attending and very few questionnaires being completed. However, the responses received were supportive of the scheme.

4.2. On submission of the planning application extension consultations have been undertaken with adjoining occupiers, residents associations, amenity societies, local ward councillors and M.P. notified. Site and press notices displayed. In response the following comments have been received:-

• three letters of objection from Localise West Midlands and two local residents commenting that a 30 storey tower is too tall for the character of the Digbeth area and the design is poor; there is a lack of information (about the buildings life span, floor area, build costs and local disturbance impacts); and, construction work would cause a noise and disturbance nuisance.

• letter from a resident within the Brolly Works supporting the proposals provided the 30 storey tower block is designed to minimise loss of light to nearby dwellings.

• two letters of objection received from owners of properties within the Brolly Works, commenting that the 2009 scheme raised Right to Light issues for properties fronting Well Lane resulting in amendments to the scheme. The new scheme may have a different impact and they therefore object.

• letter from a resident within the City Centre objecting on grounds that the difference in materials to the façade of the tall building makes it look like a tall building sat on top of a shorter one and a more subtle change in materials would be better.

• two letters of support from residents living within the wider Birmingham area commenting that this is a surprisingly high quality development with the correct scale and massing. It is of a good quality, conservative design

Page 8 of 29 that does not outshine the Selfridges building and at street level complements everything next to it. It is well located with strong rail and bus links, and would help kick start development within the Digbeth area.

4.3. BCC Transportation Development – queries the cycle parking to be provided in each location and advises any doors on the Park Street frontage to Building 2 should open into the site. Recommend the following conditions to secure the off-site highway works, a travel plan, cycle parking, service area to remain clear, pedestrian visibility splays, a servicing management plan and a construction management plan.

4.4. BCC Regulatory Services – no objections subject to conditions with respect to lighting, vehicle delivery management, restricting outside amplified music, noise insulation to the residential component, limiting noise entertainment levels, limiting noise from noise and plant, restricting the hours of the retail units (7am to 10pm) and restaurant/café uses (8am to 1am). A travel plan, fume extraction details, measures to improve air quality by encouraging low emission vehicles, and a condition to ensure suitability of landscaping material.

4.5. BCC Education School Places – request a contribution of £342,211 to cover additional nursery, primary and secondary places.

4.6. BCC Local Services – no objections, in accordance with the UDP policy, an off- site public open space contribution of £255,200* is required. This would be spent on the provision, improvement and /or maintenance of Loxton Park and Bloomsbury Estate POS within the Nechell's Ward.

* Based on the original number and mix of apartments.

4.7. Local Lead Flood Authority - there is no sustainable drainage assessment or sustainable drainage operation and maintenance plan submitted with the application. The information provided does not therefore meet the requirements for Sustainable Drainage. If recommended for approval a condition to secure this information should be attached.

4.8. Historic England – the permitted proposal is for the comprehensive redevelopment of this corner of Digbeth immediately to the east of St Martin’s Church. There are a number of locally listed buildings on the site and the Grade II listed Cold Stores. The site lies within a Conservation Area. St Martin’s Church is listed at Grade II* and the scheme will affect its setting. This amendment includes the slight raising of the tower, Building 2, the alteration of the design of this tower and the displacement of some its volume, including the addition of new 'Winter Gardens', closer to St Martin's Church. While the new tower is slimmer and less articulated they consider that the new proximity of greater height and volume to the heritage asset, of an already dominant building, has the potential to cause greater harm to the asset. The arguments for placing a building of this scale within the corner of the Conservation Area need to be very strong if they are to outweigh the loss of the historic structures that stand there currently, and to make a case for the preservation and enhancement of the Conservation Area. There is therefore a need to ensure that any change in the scheme does not cause greater encroachment into the setting of the church and thus cause serious harm to the ability to appreciate and experience the church, thereby causing harm to its significance. Also there is a need to ensure that the design of the new scheme is not of a lesser quality.

4.9. Natural England - no comments to make.

Page 9 of 29 4.10. Environment Agency - no objections subject to a condition to secure a remediation strategy detailing how unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. They also recommend that the developer should refer to their guidance for decommissioning redundant boreholes and wells, dewatering during excavation, excavation and redeposit of waste material and ‘Groundwater Protection: Policy and Practice’.

4.11. Birmingham International Airport – no objection subject to crane management plan measures to prevent the building attracting gulls and other birds, so as not to increase the presence of bird species that could pose a hazard to aviation.

4.12. Conservation Heritage Panel (comments made at pre-application stage) - whilst some members reiterated their view that a tower in this location is inappropriate and contrary to City Council policy, the removal of projecting elements from the tower and its slimmer profile were welcomed as a more elegant architectural form than the approved scheme. The Panel considered retention of the locally listed buildings important and welcomed the developer’s willingness to work with the City Council to agree the depth of buildings to be retained. It was pleased that there would be extensive archaeological investigations and recording of the site and recommended that the medieval burgage plot layout be expressed at ground level and that building users and visitors be made aware of the site’s history.

4.13. Victorian Society - consider that the proposed 30 storey tower would have a negative impact on both the setting of the Grade II* listed St Martin’s Church and on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is stated in the Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan (adopted by the Council in 2008) that, ‘New buildings should not generally appear to be significantly higher or lower than their neighbours and should reflect the building heights characteristic of the locality or character area. This will normally limit new buildings to a maximum of six industrial/commercial storeys’

4.14. Severn Trent Water - no objections subject to a condition to secure drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows. In addition, there is a public sewer located within the application site that may not be built close to, directly over or be diverted without their consent.

4.15. Theatres Trust – no objections as what little remains of the original music hall, has limited architectural or heritage value.

4.16. West Midlands Police – if approved the development should be to Secured by Design standards, full CCTV coverage and suitable lighting should be provided. Access into and around the buildings should be controlled, consideration be given to the location of any post rooms, tree / shrub planting be sympathetic to the lighting and CCTV schemes. Conditions should also be included to require a telecommunications equipment assessment together with any necessary remedial measures, street furniture to be designed around anti-skate board measures and consideration be given to restricting vehicular access to the covered area between St Martin’s Place and Orwell Gardens.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Relevant planning policies include:-

• National Planning Policy Framework; • The Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005) - saved policies;

Page 10 of 29 • Draft Birmingham Plan 2031, • Regeneration through Conservation - Birmingham Conservation Strategy SPG; • Archaeology Strategy SPG; • Historic Environment Study - Birmingham Archaeology; • Digbeth, Deritend, Bordesley High Street Character Appraisal and Management Plan SPD; • Lighting Places SPD; • Shopfronts Design Guidance SPG; • Places for All SPG; • High Places SPG; • Places for Living SPG; • Places for the Future Draft SPD; • Affordable Housing SPG; • Public Open Space in New Residential Development; • Access for People with Disabilities SPD and • Car Parking Guidelines SPD.

5.2. In addition, the site is within Digbeth, Deritend and Bordesley High Streets Conservation Area. The Digbeth Cold Store is Grade II listed and within the wider Beorma site 135-139 Digbeth are Grade A and B locally listed. Nearby there are the Grade II* listed St Martin's Church; Grade II listed RTP Crisps Umbrella Factory; and the Grade A locally listed Digbeth Police Station. There is also a Grade C locally listed cast iron bollard on Allison Street. The site is also within and nearby several archaeological sites. It is also an Enterprise Zone site.

6. Planning Considerations

Background

6.1. This application is a revision of the scheme approved in 2009 (application ref. 2009/00295/PA) and renewed in 2012. The fundamental principles established within that consent remain - a mixed use 'city within a city' reflecting the historical importance of the Beorma site in the early development of Birmingham. Phase 1 of the Beorma Quarter - the refurbishment of the Cold Store for commercial use and the construction of a new build aparthotel to the corner of Digbeth and Allison Street, is now complete. This application therefore relates to the remainder of the Quarter – Phase 2 ('the tower') to the corner of Digbeth and Park Street and Phase 3 to the Well Lane and Allison Street frontages. The key features are as follows:-

• a revised mix of uses with a greater emphasis upon residential accommodation, particularly within the upper floors of the tower (previously B1 offices); • the rationalisation of the tower design with a more slender profile to the upper floors including the removal of all cantilevers; • the continuing reflection of the burgage plots, now emphasised with sandstone elevations on each of the plot lines, reflecting the underlying geology that was key to the early settlement of the Beorma site; • the retention of the Digbeth frontage in accordance with the principles established in the extant consent - numbers 135 - 136 & 137 entirely retained and the façade of numbers 138 - 139 retained; • comprehensive public realm works with routes through the site linking from the Bull Ring through to Orwell Place beyond;

Page 11 of 29 • ground source heating/cooling provided as a prime component of the energy strategy reflecting the underlying aquifer's importance in the early settlement of the Beorma site; and, • the inclusion of live/work units to the Well Lane frontage.

Land Use Policy

6.2. Since the most recent planning consent was granted in September 2013, there has been no relevant change in national planning policy. At a local level, the examination process into the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) has commenced and the inspector’s recommendation is expected later this year / early next year. The BDP is intended to provide a long term strategy for the whole of the City and will replace the saved policies of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2005, with the exception of the City Wide policies contained within Chapter 8 of that plan, which will continue in force until the adoption of the Council’s proposed Development Management DPD. Consequently, both the UDP and the newer draft BDP policies are relevant.

6.3. Whilst there are no specific use policies for the Beorma Quarter site within the UDP, Chapter 15 – City Centre Core – encourages lively ground floor uses, including restaurants and cafes. It also notes that the use of upper floors for non-retail uses and particularly housing, in an appropriate mix, can bring the City to life in the evening. City Living is also encouraged by paragraph 5.32b as residential accommodation in the City Centre provides sustainable accommodation close to both public transport and places of work and reduces the pressure on greenfield sites.

6.4. In land use terms the proposals are in line with the City Centre policies in the UDP, as they include active ground floor frontages and residential and offices on the upper floors. The scheme would therefore accommodate the expansion of city centre core activities and provide further office activity along Digbeth. In particular, when compared to the earlier scheme, I welcome the increased residential component and live/work units, which provide a better mix of uses.

6.5. The scheme also fits well with the UDP's vision of Digbeth as a predominantly Irish Quarter with lively mixed uses including residential, commercial and cultural uses and its aims to create an improved environment and promote further industrial and commercial activity in the area.

6.6. The scheme is also consistent with the Draft BDP, in particular polices relating to overall levels of growth, place making and the city centre.

6.7. 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.

6.8. This site is also identified as an Enterprise Zone site, because of its potential to make a contribution to achieving the target of new office floorspace. In principle I therefore welcome the proposed development.

Tall Building Policy

6.9. The proposed 30 storey tower within the revised scheme lies outside the Central Ridge Zone (CRZ) as set out in High Places SPG. In such instances it advises that proposals for tall buildings that do not fall within the CRZ and are not located on

Page 12 of 29 other sites identified as appropriate, will be considered on their merits. The guidance goes on to say that tall buildings will not normally be acceptable next to listed buildings or within conservation areas unless there are exceptional circumstances.

6.10. The principle of a tower in the location proposed has already been accepted and the applicant believes the exceptional circumstances as set out below to justify this proposal, which is only 3.6m high are still valid:

• the tower marks the end of the major approach into the city centre from the south east along the A41 corridor; • the location of the tower on the south side of Park Street (and the former Queensway "concrete collar") signifies the spillage of city centre uses (and the building types that accommodate them) out from the once constricted city centre and into Digbeth; • the tower is of exceptional design quality; • the tall tower has been carefully located and designed so as to contrast with the amorphous mass of the iconic Selfridges department store to the north whilst avoiding the blockage of views of the Rotunda, St Martins Church and the Digbeth Cold Store looking north along Digbeth; • the tower provides an unmissable 3D signpost of the City's only surviving remnant of the medieval burgage plot system, as the tower accurately reflects the burgage plots in both plan and elevation. • the tower signifies the regeneration of Digbeth and provides a design benchmark for future development within the Digbeth Millennium Quarter and the wider Eastside Initiative area; and, • the Beorma Tower is identified on, and shown as located within, the enlarged New Height Ridge Zone of the Big City Plan.

6.11. Overall, I consider that the proposed tall building is an acceptable exception to the policy for the reasons set out above. The proposal therefore accords with the tall building policy because it complies with the exceptions test and meets the criteria set out in the policy. There is therefore no departure from the UDP or High Places. Conditions are attached to address the points raised by Birmingham Airport.

Impact on Conservation Area and Nearby Listed Buildings and Urban Design

6.12. Under the NPPF it is a core planning principle to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting.

6.13. The proposal would clearly impact upon the setting of designated heritage assets and paragraph 134 of the NPPF comes into play. It advises that where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. It adds that LPA’s should look for opportunities for new development within the setting of heritage asset to enhance or better reveal their significance. Proposals that preserve those elements of the setting that make a positive contribution to or better reveal the significance of the asset should be treated favourably. In addition a recent publication by Historic England, entitled The Setting of Heritage Assets Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning: 3, provides further advice.

Page 13 of 29

6.14. At a local level paragraphs 3.25 and 3.27 of the Birmingham UDP, seek to ensure that any new development preserves and enhances the setting of listed buildings and character of conservation areas. Furthermore Policy TP12 of the Draft BDP, 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.

6.15. The Digbeth, Deritend, Bordesley High Streets Conservation Area - adopted Character Appraisal and Management Plan, provides more detailed guidance for development. It states that the Council will expect all new development to achieve a satisfactory visual relationship with its historic surroundings, demonstrating a regard for the character of the immediate street scene and the wider conservation area. From this starting point the policies re-emphasise national and local planning policy that any new development should enhance the conservation area.

6.16. The Beorma site is one of the few remaining areas in Birmingham where the city's historic settlement pattern is still evident today. Remains of the medieval burgage plots dating back to the foundation of the city in 1166 are discernible in the context of land parcels and the elevational treatment of existing buildings in the north -west corner of the site along Digbeth. In addition, the alignment of the ancient Hersum Ditch, an original boundary between the medieval city and open ground to the east, is marked by the present day Orwell Passage. The application site also includes three locally listed buildings – the Grade A 135-136 Digbeth, the Grade B 137 Digbeth and the Grade B 138-139 Digbeth. Additionally, the wider Beorma development site includes the - the late Victorian Grade ll listed Digbeth Coldstore, which has been renovated for business use as part of the Phase 1 proposals. Moreover, the application site falls within the Digbeth Deritend and Bordesley High Streets Conservation and there are several statutorily and locally listed buildings nearby, including the Grade II* listed St Martin's Church; Grade II listed RTP Crisps Umbrella Factory; and the Grade A locally listed Digbeth Police Station.

6.17. I note the comments of Historic England, in particular that the scheme will affect the setting of the Grade II* listed St Martin’s Church and that the arguments for placing a building of this scale within the corner of the Conservation Area need to be very strong if they are to outweigh the loss of the historic structures that stand there currently, and to make a case for the preservation and enhancement of the Conservation Area.

6.18. Conservation Area Consent was granted in 2009 for demolition of certain buildings across the wider Beorma development site, including the former music hall fronting Park Street, the former public house at the corner Park Street and Digbeth, together with selective removal of the rear parts of the locally listed buildings fronting Digbeth. This consent has been partly implemented with the demolition of buildings at the corner of Digbeth and Allison Street as part of Phase 1 of Beorma development. Therefore as the 2009 Conservation Area Consent for demolition has been partly implemented, it is still extant and no further planning consent is required for the proposed demolition works.

6.19. Turning to the current planning application, the form of development is similar to the previously consented scheme and seeks to:-

• retain/restore the built edge of the urban block bounded by Digbeth, Park Street, Well Lane and Allison Street;

Page 14 of 29 • respond to the constraints imposed by the remnants of the original burgage plots, the Hersum Ditch alignment, the nationally & locally-listed buildings in the immediate vicinity and the site's conservation area context; • ensure the visual impact in short, medium and long distance views is appropriate in terms of the retention of views of major buildings, key vistas and the Birmingham skyline; • improve pedestrian, cycle and vehicular movement through and around the site; and • create an attractive, active and publicly-accessible hard-landscaped amenity space, Orwell Place, at the heart of the development.

The design of the new development therefore seeks to preserve and enhance the character of the Conservation Area.

6.20. My Conservation Officer has commented that the application is based on a previously consented tower in the setting of a number of listed buildings, most significantly St. Martins in the Bull Ring. The revised design is slightly taller and simpler in design. Whilst the height would only really be appreciated from further afield, such as Moseley Road and Bradford Street, the church is already set against a significant mass of elevated 20th century development that forms a backdrop masking its profile. The simplified handling of the elevations is an improvement and allows for a more neutral setting to the church that competes less with the gothic decoration of this important building. The church already juxtaposes with the bold personality of the Selfridges building and therefore a pared down approach in this instance is welcomed. Therefore based on the previous approval, my Conservation Officer raises no objection.

6.21. In addition the Conservation Heritage Panel commented that whilst some members still thought that a tower in this location is inappropriate, the removal of projecting elements from the tower and its slimmer profile were welcomed as a more elegant architectural form than the approved scheme. The Panel also welcomed the retention of the locally listed buildings and the proposed archaeological investigations and recording of the site. The submitted scheme also addresses the medieval burgage plot layout at ground level.

6.22. When compared to the consented scheme the proposed tower, Building 2, would be slightly (3.6m) higher and some of the massing would be closer to Park Street. However, this is offset by the current proposed tower being slimmer with omission of the cantilevered projections. I therefore consider that on balance the proposed tower would have no greater impact on the setting of St Martin’s Church, than the 2009 consented scheme. Overall, I consider that the proposed scheme would have less than substantial harm on designated heritage assets and that this harm is outweighed by the significant public benefits of the scheme, namely

• an improved and more sustainable mix of uses compared with the 2009 Beorma Quarter approval; • a substantial contribution towards BCC’s office and residential targets to 2031; • increased overseas investment in Birmingham; • a flagship development that would maintain the growing momentum for the regeneration of Digbeth; • the meeting of Southern Gateway objectives as set out in the emerging BDP & the Big City Plan;

Page 15 of 29 • increased economic activity in the local area; • a strengthened rationale and a more elegant form for the Beorma Tower; • temporary construction jobs and permanent end user jobs for local people; • the protection & re-use of locally listed buildings; • respect for the medieval burgage plots & the Hersum Ditch; and • a substantial financial contribution towards offsite highways works; offsite transport & public open space improvements; and affordable housing

6.23. Generally the scheme complies with the principles set out in Places for All and Places for Living. In terms of distance separation guidelines, between the front of the Brolly Works and proposed apartments on the opposite side of Well Lane, there would be a minimum of 8m. This is considerably less than your Committee's normal distance separation guidelines. However, Places for Living advises that these guidelines can be relaxed to the fronts of houses. The surrounding area is also characterised by buildings to back of pavement and the Digbeth, Deritend, Bordesley High Streets Conservation Area - Character Appraisal and Management Plan advises that buildings should generally be built to back of pavement. I therefore consider that there are good reasons for relaxing the guidance in this instance. In addition, the 2009 scheme included a building to back of pavement along Well Lane in a similar position to that currently proposed.

6.24. As the site is in a highly sustainable city centre location it is built to a higher density. It includes a mix of apartment sizes ranging from a studio apartment to large 3 bedroom penthouses. When compared to the recently published National Technical Housing Standards:-

• the studio apartment (35.2 sqm) is below the minimum guideline of 37 sqm for 1 person; • all the one bedroom apartments comply with the minimum guideline of 39 sqm for 1 person and some 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 some comply with the minimum guideline of 70 sqm for 4 persons; • all the three bedroom apartments comply with the minimum guidelines 74 sqm for 4 persons, 86sqm for 5 persons and 95sqm for 6 persons. • all 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; and, • all apartments can be provided with built-in storage.

6.25. Originally, the scheme included 43 studio apartments; however, amended plans have been submitted with a revised internal layout and mix of apartments. All but one of the studio apartments have now been omitted and all but the studio apartment now exceed the minimum space guidelines. However, the studio apartment would be less than 2 sqm below the minimum guideline and a satisfactory furniture layout has been submitted to show how it would function. I am of the view that the scheme would provide a good living environment. In particular, I welcome the winter gardens to all the apartments within Building 2.

6.26. Overall I consider that the scheme is well designed and consistent with the overall principles contained within Places for All and Places for Living.

Page 16 of 29 Access and Parking

6.27. This application seeks to amend the design and range of uses as consented in previous approvals. Phase 1 of the development which includes redevelopment of the Digbeth Cold Store facility and new buildings on the corner of Digbeth High Street and Allison Street have been constructed and near completion. The original consent approved:

Retail 2,394sqm Office 48,186sqm Restaurant 345sqm Residential 15 apartments Car parking 38 spaces

Phase 1 has provided

Retail 393sqm Office 2,488sqm

This application now seeks to provide

Retail 1,505sqm (overall reduction 496sqm) Office 21,857sqm (overall reduction 23,841sqm) Residential 194 apartments (increase by 179 units) Car parking Phase 2 – 30 spaces / Phase 3 - nil provision Cycle parking 152 spaces across the site

6.28. With the change to residential, and removal of on-site car parking, this means less multi modal trips through the day and within the peak periods, with less localised vehicle trips. The level of car parking provided in the original scheme was minimal and this is now omitted with no basement car parking area being constructed. I have no objection to this noting the site is adjacent to the City Centre Core so accessible by a range of modes, and the local roads are all subject to parking controls within 600 metres of the site. There are public car parks nearby and these have sufficient levels of availability for any visitors to the site.

6.29. Initially the applicant intended to secure 30 car parking spaces from the adjacent Bull Ring multi storey car park to serve Phases 2 and 3 of the Beorma development. Unfortunately, the owners of this and other multi-storey car parks are not willing to enter into such an agreement and as such alternative arrangement are now proposed:-

• a landscaped 30 space car park would be provided in Phase 2 on part of the Phase 3 site as an interim measure. Phase 2 would not be occupied until this landscaped car park is available; • funding of 9 car club spaces for a period of five years.

6.30. As an interim measure, I consider that use of part of the Phase 3 site to provide 30 car parking spaces is acceptable and a condition is attached to ensure that it is available for use before occupation of the Phase 2 building.. Conditions are also attached to ensure that the temporary car park would be landscaped and has a suitable boundary treatment. This would ensure that it positively contributes to the character of the Conservation Area.

Page 17 of 29 6.31. BCC Transportation have raised no objections in principle to car club spaces being provided on-street in the vicinity of the development site. They have contacted City Car Club who have indicated that the location is ideal and they would be interested managing a car club for the development and wider area. Providing a car club space for the development would be a cost effective way of providing residents with access to a car. The cost of providing a car club space would be as follows:-

• Initial set up cost - £15,000 (per car) • Traffic Regulation Orders £10,000 per Traffic Regulation Order • Annual Membership - £60 per apartment per annum

Funding 9 car club vehicles for 5 years would therefore cost £283,200

* N.B. No allowance is made for loss of car parking revenue.

6.32. Although the proposed cycle parking provision is below the minimum guidelines, which would equate to 260 cycle stands (rather than the 152 spaces proposed), BCC Transportation Development consider the level of cycle parking satisfactory. BCC Transportation Development have, therefore, raised no objections in principle and as recommended by them conditions are attached to secure the off-site highway works, a travel plan, cycle parking, service area to remain clear, pedestrian visibility splays, a servicing management plan and a construction management plan.

Environmental Impacts

6.33. In support of the planning application an Environmental Statement and Addendum has been submitted examining the full range of environmental impacts anticipated with the proposed development. The ES concludes that whilst there would inevitably be a number of negative impacts during the construction phase, mainly from traffic and noise, positive impacts dominate the operation phase with only daylighting, sun lighting and overshadowing resulting in a minor negative impact. The conclusions of the different topic areas within the ES are considered below.

6.34. Socio economic issues – it is estimated that the construction phase of the project would provide temporary job opportunities for around 66 people. Once developed the Beorma Quarter would provide a significant contribution to the office market in Birmingham. Overall the commercial space (office and retail) would generate 1,724 employment opportunities. The scheme also provides 194 apartments to help meet the City’s Housing needs. The Beorma scheme would also help regenerate this part of Digbeth.

6.35. Townscape and Visual Impact – the application site is within a conservation area and there are several listed buildings nearby, most notably St. Martins in the Bull Ring. The ES notes that the impact of this high density, mixed use scheme needs to be considered in the context of the drive for redevelopment of this area as an extension to the City Centre Core. Overall, therefore, I concur with the ES that the scheme would have a moderate beneficial impact.

6.36. Archaeology and cultural heritage – there is potential for disturbance to archaeological remains and conditions are therefore attached to secure archaeological examination and recording. The scheme also retains the majority of locally listed buildings and facades. The ES, therefore, concludes that the impact on these historic structures is not significant.

Page 18 of 29 6.37. Traffic and Transport – the ES notes the scheme would provide improvements to pedestrian connectivity to the Bull Ring and beyond by means of a new route through the site, wider footways on Digbeth and wider crossings at the Digbeth / Park Street. It also states that there would be a reduction in vehicle trips as the amount of available parking on the site would reduce from what is available at present. The site would also benefit from a Travel Plan. During construction the ES notes that there would be traffic impacts associated with construction vehicles. Whilst this would be relatively short lived, the ES notes that the impacts would need to be mitigated by appropriate scheduling and traffic management. Appropriate conditions are attached.

6.38. Air Quality – the construction phase is likely to create dust, which would need to be controlled through effective environmental management on site. A condition is therefore attached to secure a Construction Management Plan. During the operational phase, no significant air quality issues have been identified and no mitigation measures are necessary.

6.39. Noise and Vibration – the ES predicts that, even with mitigation measures, noise from construction of the development would be significant; although the impacts would be short lived. During operation, as recommended by BCC Regulatory Services, conditions are attached to safeguard the amenities of existing and prospective residents from noise and disturbance nuisance.

6.40. Ecology and Nature Conservation - no new ecological constraints have been identified as a result of the updated surveys. I therefore have no objections subject to a condition to secure the standard, good practice mitigation measures proposed (a further black redstart survey and a supervised soft strip of the building) to address potential risks to nesting birds and solitary/low numbers of roosting bats as a result of demolition of the remaining buildings and removal of vegetation. To mitigate potential adverse impacts associated with the loss of nesting sites and small areas of foraging habitat, the proposals incorporate green / brown roofs, a green wall, bird boxes, holes and ledges to provide alternative nesting and roosting locations and landscape planting. I have no objections in principle to any of the ecological design features/ecological enhancement measures proposed subject to conditions to secure further details.

6.41. Water Quality and Hydrology – the ES considers that the proposed development would have a minor positive impact on the surrounding area. However, as recommended by the Local Lead Drainage Authority and Severn Trent Water conditions are attached to secure sustainable drainage details and drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows.

6.42. Soils, Geology and Land Contamination – a site investigation undertaken for this site shows that there is localised, relatively minor contamination present. The ES concludes that the nature and level of contamination does not pose a significant risk. As recommended by the Environment Agency, a condition is attached to secure a remediation strategy detailing measures for dealing with unsuspected contamination.

6.43. Wind Assessment – the ES notes that the proposed buildings are relatively tall with respect to the immediate neighbours, which could lead to localised wind eddy effects on strong windy days and localised mitigation measures may be required at these entrances. It adds that all thoroughfares within the development are suitable for leisure walking or standing during the windiest season.

Page 19 of 29 6.44. Daylight, Sunlight, Overshadowing and Nightlight – the overshadowing and daylight assessment identifies that the majority of the residential properties adjacent to the site would be unaffected by the development but a small minority would suffer a minor adverse impact in terms of reduced daylight, but not to an extent uncharacteristic of a built up City Centre environment.

6.45. I note the objections from residents within the Brolly Works about loss of light. In response revised plans have been submitted in respect of Building 3B on the corner of Allison Street and Well Lane, in order to comply with the originally approved Rights to Light envelope. The upper floors of the building (above level 3 have been set further back from the Well Lane frontage and the residential Brolly Works building. There are now two discrete step backs in the façade as opposed to the one in the original submission and the building is 3 storeys shorter. In addition both Building 3B and the live/work units fronting Well lane would also be lower than the originally approved scheme. I therefore consider that there would be no significantly greater impact on the properties within the Brolly Works than the originally consented scheme.

6.46. In addition, the S106 agreement attached to the previous consent included provisions for the applicant to meet the costs incurred in installing up to 3 roof lights within the most affected apartment within the Brolly Works to mitigate loss of light as a result of the development. A similar requirement is proposed within the S106 to be attached to this application. In terms of night light, the applicant has appointed lighting specialists to develop a lighting strategy, which involves lighting the canopy area, functional lighting to pathways, feature lighting, tree up-lights and façade lighting. These proposals are consistent with Lighting Places SPD and a condition is attached to secure further details.

6.47. Telecommunication Interference – the ES considers it unlikely that the proposed development would cause any interference to digital terrestrial TV services based on the current good reception and the lack of sensitive receptors using low mounted antenna systems in areas where signal shadowing could occur. During the Digital TV Switchover, DTT transmission powers increased and transmission modes changed to ensure better coverage in urban areas. It therefore considers that the telecommunication impacts, during both the construction and operation phases, would be insignificant. Whilst I note the comments of the Police I consider that no mitigation measures are required.

6.48. Waste Management – during construction, excavated and waste construction material would be re-used or recycled where possible. Once operational, waste would be collected by the Council in the normal way. Dedicated refuse stores are proposed and no further mitigation measures are necessary.

Sustainability

6.49. The supporting Sustainability Statement notes that the proposed development would make a significant contribution to sustainable development in Birmingham because:-

• it makes efficient use of land and buildings by maximising use of the available land and reusing or preserving existing structures that are architecturally significant; • the development would seek to limit carbon emissions through the detail design stage;

Page 20 of 29 • the development would provide a combination of open space, shelter, green roofs, rainwater attenuation and soakaways; • non-polluting building materials would be used where possible; • no on-site parking is provided and the Travel plan would promote sustainable modes of transport; and, • the development allows for high quality pedestrianised areas, accessible to all site users.

Planning Obligations

6.50. An extensive legal agreement was secured on the original agreement and the relevant obligations applicable to Phase 1 of development have been complied with. In particular, the developer has:

• made financial contributions of £50,000 towards a Digbeth-Deritend Design and Highways Study, £10,000 support for the running of St Martin’s Church Café, £66,666 towards off site public transport improvements and £25,000 toward Shopmobility; • committed to providing local employment and training; • undertaken public realm works and provided public art in the form of feature gates to the southern entrance off Digbeth; • renovated the listed Coldstore and provided an archaeological interpretation board; and, • committed to providing affordable retail and business space within the Coldstore building.

6.51. As part of the current planning application the applicant has offered a financial contribution of £900,000 towards off-site affordable housing, off-site highway works and car club funding. In addition, they are willing for the legal agreement to include local employment and training provisions, provide public art, 24 hour pedestrian-only public access through the site and phasing obligations. The developer is also required to meet the reasonable costs incurred in installing roof lights within apartment 40 at the Brolly Works to mitigate loss of light as a result of the development.

6.52. The applicant is not able to meet the affordable housing requirements in full but has submitted a financial appraisal to justify their offer. The financial appraisal has been independently assessed and they consider that the proposed S106/S278 sum of £900,000 is reasonable.

6.53. I note the various requests for S106 monies and consider that funding the car club and affordable housing. Whilst I note Local Services have requested monies for off- site public open space provision, the scheme provides a new public square as part of the development. Given that the scheme is for mainly one and two bedroom apartments then the number of families with children is likely to be low. I do not therefore consider that an education contribution can be justified. Therefore, based on the current S106 offer, I recommend that £200,000 estimated as the cost of the off-site highway improvement works (secured via a S278 Agreement) be deducted from the overall £900,000 sum with the remainder being used towards the following:-

• £406,800 towards off site affordable housing; and, • £283,200 for car club funding.

Page 21 of 29 6.54. With regard to the car club sum, £225,000 would be required for the initial set up costs, with a further £11,640 for on-going costs paid annually on each of the following four anniversaries of the first payment. This would then provide the development with a car club facility for 5 years.

7. Conclusion

7.1. In 2009, planning, listed building and conservation area consents were granted for comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of this key city centre site. In 2012 permission was granted to extend the time limit to implement the original planning consent. Revisions have also been granted to Phase 1, and this part of the scheme – the aparthotel at the corner of Digbeth and Allison Street, renovation of the Coldstore Building and landscaping is now complete.

7.2. The principle of redevelopment of this site with a tall building at the corner of Park Street and Digbeth, and smaller towers stepping down in height along Well Lane and Allison Street has, therefore already been established. Introduction of a larger residential element, particularly within the upper floors of the tower (previously offices) and the inclusion of live / work units along Well Lane would create a more balanced mix of uses. The rationalisation of the tower design with a more slender profile to the upper floors is also a welcome change. The current scheme would, therefore, have no greater impact on the conservation area and nearby listed buildings, particularly St Martin’s in the Bull Ring than the consented scheme.

7.3. An Environmental Statement has been submitted and subject to suitable mitigation measures no significant adverse impacts have been identified. Conditions are attached to secure the mitigation measures identified together with appropriate safeguarding conditions as suggested as recommended by the various consultees.

7.4. Overall, I consider that this revised scheme is an improvement on the previously consented proposals and is generally consistent with both local and national planning policies. I therefore consider that subject to safeguarding conditions and completion of a suitable legal agreement, that the application is acceptable and will help deliver redevelopment of this key City Centre Enterprise Zone site.

8. Recommendations

8.1. That consideration of application no. 2015/06678/PA be deferred pending the completion of a Legal Agreement to secure:

a) a financial contribution of £406,800 towards affordable housing paid upon first occupation of the development;

b) a financial contribution towards setting up and ongoing provision of a car club facility with £225,000 paid prior to first occupation of the development and £11,640 on each of the following four anniversaries of the first payment;

c) local employment and training provisions;

d) inclusion of a public art element currently held in storage by the Museum of Birmingham or an alternative artwork to be agreed with the City Council;

e) 24 hour pedestrian-only public access through site;

Page 22 of 29

f) phasing of the development to secure the timely completion of the public realm works;

g) within 2 years of commencement of Phase 3 of the development, the developer shall meet the reasonable costs of the owner of Apartment 40 within the Brolly Works incurred in installing up to 3 roof lights within the apartment to mitigate loss of light as a result of the development; and,

h) a financial contribution of £10,000 for planning administration and monitoring of the legal agreement to be paid upon completion of the legal agreement.

8.2. In the absence of the Legal Agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before the 21st December 2015, planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

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 TP30 of the Draft Birmingham Plan 2031;

b) in the absence of a legal agreement to secure car club funding, the proposal conflicts with 6.20A of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 2005 and TP37 of the Draft Birmingham Plan 2031;

c) in the absence of a legal agreement to secure local employment and training provisions the proposal conflicts with 8.50-8.54 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 2005 and TP25 of the Draft Birmingham Plan 2031;

d) in the absence of any suitable legal agreement to secure phasing of the development, 24 hour pedestrian access through the site and public art, the proposal conflicts with 3.15 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan and PG3 of the Draft Birmingham Plan 2031.

e) in the absence of any suitable legal agreement to mitigation measures to ameliorate loss of light to Apartment 40 within the proposal conflicts with Places for Living SPG and policy 3.15 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

8.3. That the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the legal agreement.

8.4. That in the event of the Legal Agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before the 21st December 2015, favourable consideration be given to this application, subject to the conditions listed below.

1 Requires the prior submission of a programme of archaeological work

2 Requires the submission of unexpected contamination details if found

3 Requires the residential element to only be occupied by the occupier of the business premises

Page 23 of 29

4 Limits the hours of use - A1 and A2 premises 0700-2200 and A3 premises 0800-0100

5 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

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

7 Prevents work within the buffer zone of a public sewer through the site

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

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

10 Requires the implementation of the submitted mitigation/enhancement plan

11 Limits the entertainment noise level

12 Requires the prior submission of extraction and odour control details

13 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

14 Prevents the use of amplification equipment

15 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation (variable)

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

17 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

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

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

20 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

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

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

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

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

25 Removes PD rights for telecom equipment

26 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

27 Requires the delivery and service area prior to occupation

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

29 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

Page 24 of 29

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

31 Requires the applicants to join Travelwise

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

33 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: David Wells

Page 25 of 29 Photo(s)

View along Park Street

Page 26 of 29

View along Well Lane

Page 27 of 29

View along Digbeth

Page 28 of 29 Location Plan

Moor St FB SL 110.9m Multi Car Pk

PARK STREET Multistorey Car Park 31 to 30

111.6m Warehouse

107.3m El Sub Sta Works 1 to 50 Car Park (below)

78 6

The Brolly Works B WELL LANE ALLISON STREET

143

110.3m h 140

138 ORWELL PASSAGE 139 106.7m 91 Works 137

89 PH 136 DIGBETH Warehouses Depot

27 Police ORWELL PASSAGE Station 26

City Gate

25 14

123 Club 106.4m 125 109

Warehouse

rket Wolverley 18

104.9m

House

21 111 40 Posts 110 109 Bank

UPPER 103.6m MILL LANE Smithfield

MOAT LANE

House

38 30 Garage

Page 29 of 29

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/06907/PA Accepted: 24/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 24/12/2015 Ward: Aston

Former Globe Works, Cliveland Street, Newtown, Birmingham, B19 3SH

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a 5 to 10-storey student residential building accommodating 520 student bedrooms with ancillary facilities, cycle parking and landscaping Applicant: Dwell (Birmingham) Ltd c/o Agent Agent: TP Bennett LLP One America Street, London, SE1 0NE Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

Use and Amount of Development

1.1. This is a detailed planning application to demolish all buildings on the site and build a replacement building for student accommodation comprising:

• 520 rooms including a range of 4-9 room cluster rooms with common amenity/kitchen area, 28 accessible studio rooms, 88 “twodio” beds with shared eating facilities, and 176 en suite rooms; • ancillary student facilities including management suite, common room/lounge, laundry and cycle parking; and, • the building would have a total floor space of 16,268m2 (GEA), including 877m2 ground floor entrance and lounge areas and 252m2 other ancillary space.

Layout

1.2. The building comprises four blocks fronting Cliveland Street and three rear wings, one to the east fronting Newtown Row, one to the middle and one to the west. The three wings would each front onto the canal.

1.3. The main entrance is located along Cliveland Street close to its junction with Newtown Row. By the entrance lobby is a reception and management office with the main communal lounge area along the Cliveland Street frontage. A second smaller study area is located along the Newtown Row frontage. Also along Newtown Row are cycle and refuse stores, a laundry and plant room.

1.4. To the rear of the ground floor are three internal landscape courtyards with accommodation adjacent comprising en-suite rooms located in the eastern wing, twodios and a disabled studio located in the middle wing and studios within the

Page 1 of 16 western wing. The upper level comprises a range of 4-9 bedroom clusters and a communal kitchen and lounge area grouped around 3 cores.

1.5. The accommodation comprises:-

• studio rooms designed as mini flats with bedroom, kitchen and work zones together with a separate bathroom. Overall the typical studio size is 17.5-21sqm;

• “twodio’s” comprising 2 separate ensuite bedrooms with work space and a shared kitchen/ eating area. Average unit size is 35.5 - 45sqm; and, • cluster rooms of between 12.5 - 14.5sqm comprising an ensuite bedroom with study space.

Scale and Massing

1.6. The frontage building steps up in height along Cliveland Street from 4 storeys adjacent to numbers 23-24 to 10 storeys at the corner of Newtown Row. The rear wings then step up in height with the western wing 4 storeys the middle wing 5 storeys and the eastern wing 7 storeys. Overall buildings would range in height from 13.5m to 32m.

1.7. Along the Cliveland Street frontage the building is broken down into four main elements with a recessed glazed section between them. Along Newtown Row, the building is broken down into two elements. The Cliveland Street frontage would be nearly 110m long whilst the Newtown Row frontage would be 54m long.

Appearance and Materials

1.8. The proposed elevations comprise a brick frame with windows generally grouped to highlight the vertical nature of the scheme with some variations in their arrangement to help break down the massing into smaller elements. The proposed street frontage includes a taller ground floor with a colonnade wrapping around the Cliveland Street / Newtown Row corner block. The brick frame also oversails the upper floor to create a top to the building.

1.9. Buildings materials comprise buff brick, grey aluminium framed windows and silver grey polyester powder coated metal cladding.

Access and Parking

1.10. Access into the building would be controlled by security barriers opposite the reception area, and all internal doors would be controlled by a key-card system.

1.11. Access for persons with disabilities would be incorporated with level access at the entrance. The ground floor amenity spaces would be at the same level and also provide direct access to the rear garden area. All three lifts would be fully wheelchair accessible. Two/three fully wheelchair accessible studios/en-suites would be provided per floor, giving 28 in total (5.4%).

1.12. Cliveland Street, a two-way street, is the main access point from which all of the vehicles would arrive at the site. There is no on-site parking but a dedicated drop-off / servicing zone near the main entrance is proposed.

Page 2 of 16 1.13. A total of 60 cycle spaces are proposed for residents in a secure parking area located at the ground floor. The store would be accessed via a service access off Newtown Row and would be controlled by a secure card system and monitored by CCTV.

Landscaping

1.14. The landscaped internal courtyards comprise lawns with tree, hedge and shrub planting. Within the courtyards are hardsufaced paved and timber decked areas with benches and table tennis tables.

1.15. A green wall to a neighbouring gable wall is also proposed together with green sedum roofs to the flat roof elements.

Supporting Statements

1.16. The application is supported by the following supporting statements:-

• Design and Access Statement (including landscape strategy); • Student Accommodation Market Summary Statement; • Transport Statement; • Environmental Noise Study; • Sustainable Drainage Assessment; • Updated Ecology Appraisal; • Energy and Sustainability Statement; • Geo-environmental Assessment and Supplementary Geo-environmental Assessment; • Construction Dust Assessment; • Student Management Plan (CRM) Operational Management Plan; • Geo-environmental Assessment; and, • Sustainable Drainage Assessment.

1.17. The application site is shown on the Environment Agency website as being within Flood Zone 1. As the site is less than 1ha in size, no Flood Risk Assessment is required.

1.18. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site extends to 0.4 hectares and is rectangular in shape, bounded by the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal to the south, existing industrial premises to the west, Cliveland Street to the north and Pay and Display car park to the east. The application site is approximately 1.5 kilometres north of the core of the City Centre.

2.2. The application site is currently vacant and was formerly occupied by a metal finishing works with a series of two and three storey red brick factory buildings that are located on the back of pavement. The upper floors appear to have been used as office accommodation. There is a small courtyard area that was used for deliveries and loading. There is also a two storey house with a small rear yard area in the southwest corner of the site.

Page 3 of 16 2.3. The surrounding area is predominantly light industrial in nature. The wider area is a mix of industrial, office and commercial uses. In addition there are student halls of residences on the opposite side of Newtown Row.

2.4. Newtown Row adjacent to the site is subject to a future highway improvement line, in which the west of Newtown Row including the canal bridge would be widened and would replace the existing public car park. The highway would then adjoin the eastern boundary of the application site.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 24 May 2007 Application 2006/02305/PA. Planning consent granted for erection of 141 flats (consisting of 68 two beds, 69 one beds & 4 studio units) and 253sqm of commercial area (A1, A2 or B1(a) use)(shops, financial and professional services, business). Consent subject to a S106 legal agreement to secure 7% affordable housing, £39,250 on canalside improvements and £31,750 towards improvements to street lighting on Cliveland Street.

3.2. 23 March 2010 Application 2009/05303/PA. Planning consent granted for erection of student accommodation for up to 456 students including ancillary theatre and communal facilities and associated landscaping and car parking following demolition of existing buildings. Application subject to a S106 legal agreement to secure £10,000 towards Safer Routes within the City Centre; £30,000 towards Public Transport Services; and £50,000 towards public realm improvements.

3.3. 22 March 2013 Application 2012/08253/PA. Planning consent granted for new planning permission to replace an extant planning permission 2009/05303/PA to extend the time limit for implementation for a further three years. Application subject to a S106 legal agreement as per 2009/05303/PA.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Adjoining occupiers, residents associations, local ward councillors and M.P. notified. Site and press notices displayed. In response three letters have been received as summarised below:-

• letter of comment from the occupier of premises opposite the development site on Cliveland Street querying what measures would be put in place to enable them to continue their business as usual i.e the loading and unloading of vehicles. Students from other nearby halls of residence already use the free parking on Cliveland Street causing obstructions to businesses; and,

• two letters of objection commenting the level of cycle parking is too low and additional cycle parking should be provided.

4.2. BCC Transportation Development - no objections subject to conditions previously applied to applications 2009/05303/PA and 2012/08253/PA. These include conditions to: secure a parking management strategy for term start and finish periods; S278 agreement for highway works with reinstatement of redundant footway crossings on Cliveland Street and associated footway and lighting

Page 4 of 16 improvements; a travel plan; provision of cycle parking prior to first occupation and a pedestrian safety pack.

4.3. BCC Regulatory Services - similar conditions to the previous application should be attached to secure: a scheme for decontamination of the site together with a verification report; installation of appropriate glazing; detail of plant and machinery and restricting occupation of the building to students only. Conditions should also be attached to encourage sustainable modes of transport.

4.4. Lead Local Flood Authority - object as the information provided does not meet the requirements for Sustainable Drainage, alternatively drainage conditions could be attached.

4.5. Severn Trent Water – awaiting comments.

4.6. West Midlands Police –

• support the proposal for a 24 hour staffed reception and proposed location of the main reception desk, which would allow good surveillance opportunities of those entering the building;

• support the intention to install both security barriers opposite the reception and key card access control to all internal doors. Also supports the intention to use laminated glass on all ground floor corridors and rooms to provide further protection;

• suitable lighting and CCTV should be provided;

• request that the standards laid out in the Secured by Design 'New Homes 2014' are followed;

• note that the proposed cycle storage area is set back from the main building line, and is on a passive side of the development, in terms of natural surveillance, however, it is intended to be covered by CCTV;

• consideration should be given to a suitable boundary treatment to restrict access from the canal towpath into the courtyards. They also recommend that, where possible, defensive space is created between the public towpath and the buildings on this site. Where it is not possible they recommend that all exposed surfaces are treated with an anti-graffiti coating;

• no objections to the lack of on-site parking provision given the proximity of the site to some educational sites and transport links to others. However, details of how students would move in / move out should be provided as there is potential to cause traffic congestion around the site; and,

• consideration should also be given to inclusion of a condition to require a telecommunications equipment assessment together with any necessary remedial measures.

4.7. Canal and River Trust – no objections subject to conditions and a legal agreement relating to access improvements and towpath enhancement/maintenance. In particular they comment that:-

Page 5 of 16

• at present the canalside adjacent to the site is unattractive and fails to maximise the potential benefit of its waterside location and southerly aspect. They consider that the proposal would do much to counter this and would enhance this stretch of the Birmingham & Fazeley canal;

• the level of lighting proposed adjacent to the canal is too low and that this may result in a dark and unwelcoming space at night. A condition should therefore be attached to secure additional lighting and CCTV adjacent to the towpath;

• they encourage increased use of the towpath, however the applicant would require a licence for this access;

• the canal should be considered when the dust management plan is produced so that any potential impacts upon boaters and towpath users are minimised;

• given that proximity of the site to the canal, the applicant should consider discharging surface water directly into the canal;

• with any development close to the waterway there is the potential for adverse impacts on the infrastructure of the canal and all works must comply with the Code of Practice for Works Affecting the Canal & River Trust;

• residents and visitors to the development would make use of the canal environment and towpath, which would place additional pressure on this valuable open space. They therefore request that the development makes a contribution towards local canal environment improvements and maintenance of £35,000; and,

• there is an existing access adjacent to Barker Bridge / Lower Loveday Street from the canal that would come under additional pressure as a result of this development. They suggest that the development should make a contribution towards the upgrade of this canal access.

4.8. Inland Waterways Association – support the scheme, which seeks to maximise the visual benefit of the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal to the development.

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; • Loss of Industrial Land SPD; • Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG; • Places for All / Living SPG; • Access for All SPD; • Car Parking Guideline SPD; and • City Centre Canal Study Corridor Framework SPG.

Page 6 of 16

5.2. To the south west there are Grade II listed public conveniences built into Newtown Row Bridge over Birmingham and Fazeley Canal.

6. Planning Considerations

Principle of the Use

6.1. In 2010 planning consent was granted for redevelopment of this site for a building of between four to eight storeys high to provide accommodation for 456 students. Subsequently, in March 2013 an application to extend the period of time to implement the 2010 consent for a further three years was approved, i.e. until March 2016. There is therefore an extant planning permission for development of this site for student accommodation.

6.2. Although the site is currently vacant it was previously in industrial use. However, loss of this industrial site and its redevelopment for student accommodation has already been accepted. Moreover, whilst the site lies within the Gun Quarter industrial area, it is adjacent to the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal and within an area with other nearby student housing schemes. In principle therefore I consider that redevelopment of this industrial site with student accommodation is acceptable and would make a positive contribution to the mixed use character of the emerging Gun Quarter.

6.3. Since the most recent planning consent for student accommodation on this site was granted in March 2013, there has been no relevant change in national planning policy. At a local level, the examination process into the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) has commenced and the inspector’s recommendation is expected early next year. The BDP is intended to provide a long term strategy for the whole of the City and will replace the saved policies of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2005, with the exception of the City Wide policies contained within Chapter 8 of that plan, which will continue in force until the adoption of the Council’s proposed Development Management DPD. Consequently, both the UDP and the newer draft BDP policies are relevant.

6.4. Policy TP32 of the BDP refers specifically to student housing, advising that proposals for off campus provision will be considered favourably where:-

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

Need for the Development

6.5. Dealing with the first policy test – need – the applicant has submitted a Student Accommodation Market Statement. It notes that there are approximately 56,000 full- time students within Birmingham. Of these, 10,000 (18%) are in university halls of

Page 7 of 16 residence and a further 7,400 (13%) are in private sector purpose-built student accommodation. In addition there some 9,000 bedspaces in purpose-built student housing schemes in the pipeline (including the extant planning consent on this site), although not all these are likely to proceed.

6.6. The report notes that 69% of students not in purpose-built accommodation do not necessarily all need such accommodation; however, it estimates that some 35,000 students are likely to have a firm requirement for accommodation. This is still considerably in excess of the current supply including schemes in the pipeline. The report concludes that whilst there are several other student housing schemes nearby, city-wide there is a significant shortage of purpose-built accommodation. I am therefore satisfied that there is demand for further student accommodation.

Access and Parking

6.7. The extant planning consent granted in 2013 for a student accommodation building comprised 458 bedspaces and four car parking spaces for use by site management staff and disabled residents. The current application proposes a 520 bed space student residence with no car parking.

6.8. In support of the application a Transport Assessment has been submitted. It notes that the site is within walking distance to the City Centre, as well as Aston and Birmingham City universities. There are also a limited number of local shops and facilities within the immediate vicinity of the site. Also adjacent to the site there is access to the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal, which provides a traffic free footpath and cycle route. The site is also well served by public transport with Snow Hill Railway Station and a Metro stop about 700m away. There are also bus services that run along Newtown Row.

6.9. The development is proposed as car fee, with no parking spaces within the site. The peak hour vehicular traffic movements projected for the site are limited as the development would have no on-site parking provision. Only deliveries and servicing vehicles, taxis (drop-off and collection) and disabled driver traffic movements would be associated with the development thereby reducing traffic on the roads around the site. The report therefore anticipates that the vast majority of trips generated by the site would be made by pedestrians (83%), with 10% of trips made by public transport and just 3% by cyclists.

6.10. BCC Transportation Development have raised no objections to the scheme. However, they note that only 60 cycle parking spaces are proposed, whereas BCC guidelines seek 25% cycle parking provision, which would equate to a minimum of 130 spaces. They note that the proposed cycle parking provision could be increased by double height stacking and suggest that a review of cycle parking be incorporated within the Travel Plan. As recommended by BCC Transportation Development conditions are therefore attached to secure a parking management strategy for term start and finish periods, a S278 agreement for highway works, a travel plan; cycle parking and a pedestrian safety pack.

Design

6.11. The general character of the area is one of flat roof brick industrial factories and warehouses sited at the back of the pavement. The proposed scheme would provide a development with buildings sited at the back of the pavement along Cliveland Street in keeping with the established building line of the area. The

Page 8 of 16 building would also be constructed up to the highway improvement line along Newtown Row.

6.12. Building heights within the local context range from single-storey to four-storeys with some larger buildings such as 36 Cliveland Street (5 storeys), 2-28 Staniforth Street (7 storeys), Lancaster House (6 storeys), 72 Newtown Row (4 storeys) and with a general character of 3 and 4 storeys on Newtown Row. There are also two student housing schemes of between 10 and 17 storeys in height at the junction of Bagot Street and Lancaster Street approximately 70 metres southeast of the application site. Additionally, in 2011, planning consent was granted for a student housing scheme of two blocks of 8 to 16 storeys on the opposite side of Newtown Row.

6.13. The proposed development would be between four and six storeys on Cliveland Street with a ten storey block at the corner of Cliveland Street and Newtown Row. The three rear wings would then decrease in height from seven storeys along Newtown Row to four adjacent to the neighbouring properties on Cliveland Street. The previous approved was four storeys in height adjacent to the neighbouring properties on Cliveland Street rising to 8 storeys at the corner of Cliveland Street and Newtown Row. I consider that the proposed building heights would respect the character of the area and the 10 storey element at the corner of Cliveland Street and Newtown Row would provide a focal point when approaching the building from the north along Newtown Row. In addition, the scale of the buildings adjacent to the canal and adjoining properties would step down in height to four-storeys, which is in keeping with the height of the buildings within the area and would ensure the proposed building does not have an overbearing impact on the canal towpath.

6.14. The development provides an active frontage to Cliveland Street with a large communal lounge fronting the street. A smaller communal lounge provides an active frontage to Newtown Row. In addition there are lounge / kitchen and bedrooms within the rear wings overlooking the canal. The scheme would therefore provide good natural surveillance of the streets and canal frontages around the site.

6.15. The building is designed to provide a clear definition between the private public realm. In addition the applicant has confirmed that it is their intention to provide a robust boundary treatment along the canal frontage. This would ensure that the landscaped courtyards are safe and secure. Safety and security would be further enhanced by CCTV and lighting and conditions are attached to secure these details.

6.16. The proposed design is contemporary in style with a brick frame in a regular grid pattern, feature glazing and powder metal panels. The site has a wide frontage to Cliveland Street and the use of the brick frame with recessed glazed transitional elements helps to break up the block and provide articulation to the street scene. The design of the building is well conceived and the detail of the building has been well thought through.

6.17. Overall, the scheme provides a clear definition of public and private area, has a strong architectural style and good articulation. I am therefore satisfied that the buildings would make a positive contribution to the street scene and wider area.

Impact on residential amenity and the local neighbourhood

6.18. Whilst there are other student housing schemes nearby there are no residential properties that would be affected by this development. However, there are business premises along Cliveland Street and it is important to ensure that they are not

Page 9 of 16 adversely affected by the development. The scheme is designed as a car free scheme, and has no on-site parking. This should deter students from using cars. In addition a condition is attached to secure a parking management plan for the start / end of term to reduce congestions and these times. A condition is also attached to secure a travel plan to encourage sustainable modes of transport.

Creation of Positive Living Experience

6.19. Draft policy TP32 refers to the need to create a positive living experience. The layout of the scheme has been designed to provide a modern student living experience with ancillary facilities including a large ground floor communal lounge, smaller lounge / kitchen areas and landscaped courtyard gardens. Furthermore a range of accommodation would be provided, including studios, shared apartments, or clusters, to meet different needs. Furniture layouts have also been submitted to show that the rooms can function satisfactorily.

6.20. The site has a range of different uses on its boundaries. Immediately adjoining the site to the west and on the opposite side of Cliveland Street are existing industrial uses including a print works. Adjoining the site to the east is a public car park. Regulatory Services raise no objections to the proposed development subject to conditions to mitigate the impacts of noise to future residents and conditions are accordingly.

6.21. In support of the application an Estate Management Plan has been submitted setting out how the development would be managed. It covers, site management, emergency management, security, working with neighbours, student care, meeting the needs of students with disabilities, management of health and safety, communal areas and refuse. The report notes that the site would have 24/7 on site management. Additionally, safety measures are proposed including CCTV and controlled access into the building. Overall, I consider that subject to safeguarding conditions the design of the proposed building and management plan would create a good student living experience in a safe environment.

Biodiversity

6.22. In support of the application an Ecological Report has been submitted. It notes that although the site has limited ecological interest it is located adjacent to the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal, which is recognised as a key wildlife corridor. The report notes that bats are a possibility in the factory building, its location alongside the canal offers some foraging habitat and commuting lines while the building in its derelict state offers some limited roosting potential. The addition of some bat roosting features in the new build is recommended as appropriate compensation. The report also notes that Black Redstarts (BRS) are highly likely to be found on or near this site. A green roof is therefore recommended as compensation.

6.23. My Ecologist has no objections, but recommends that demolition of the buildings takes place outside of the non-breeding winter months (September to March). However, if demolition takes place outside this period then additional surveys should be undertaken and a condition to this effect is attached. Also attached as recommended by my Ecologist are conditions to secure measures to improve the diversity and quality of wildlife habitats.

Flooding and Ground Conditions

Page 10 of 16 6.24. The application site is in Flood Zone 1 where there is a low probability of flooding. As recommended by the Local Lead Flood Authority suitable drainage conditions are attached.

6.25. Given previous historical uses on the site, is it likely that the land is contaminated. Safeguarding conditions are therefore attached as recommended by BCC Regulatory Services to secure a land remediation strategy and verification report.

Planning Obligations

6.26. The Birmingham UDP at paragraphs 8.50-8.54 advises that the City Council will take all appropriate opportunities to negotiate planning obligations to enable development to proceed, and to secure the proper planning of the area. Subsequently, new Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations have been introduced, which set out tests that planning obligations must meet. These tests are that they are necessary, directly related to the development and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

6.27. The proposed student building provides significantly more floorspace than the existing offices and there are also likely to be many more people using the proposed building than the existing buildings. I therefore consider that it is reasonable to secure a financial contribution toward public realm and public transport enhancements.

6.28. The two previous applications secured £90,000 towards Safer Routes within the city centre, public transport and public realm improvements. Based on the increased number of students and an allowance for increased build costs the applicant is willing to contribute £135,000. I consider that this sum is reasonable and comparable with other recently approved student housing schemes. However, to meet the new CIL regulations the spend purpose needs to be more specific than before and I therefore propose that £100,00 be spent on improvements to the cycle/pedestrian network within 500m of the site and £35,000 be spent on the local canal environment between Newtown Row and Lower Loveday Street.

7. Conclusion

7.1. In principle, I consider that redevelopment of this vacant industrial site with a purpose built student housing scheme is acceptable. Furthermore I am satisfied that there is a need for additional student housing within the City.

7.2. The proposed student housing scheme would be well located within walking distance of the City Centre and Birmingham City / Aston universities. It is also readily accessible by public transport. I note the concerns about lack of cycle parking and include a condition to secure a Travel Plan with a review mechanism. Additionally, a condition is attached to to secure a car parking management plan for the start / end of term to mitigate congestion in the area.

7.3. The scheme is well designed and would make a positive contribution to the street scene and canal corridor. It would also create a good living environment for students.

7.4. Subject to safeguarding conditions, I consider that the scheme is acceptable subject to a legal agreement to secure £135,000 towards improvements to the local pedestrian / cycle network and canal environment.

Page 11 of 16

8. Recommendation

8.1. That consideration of application 2015/06907/PA be deferred pending the completion of a legal agreement to secure:

a) A financial contribution of £100,000, to be paid upon implementation of the development toward improvements to the pedestrian / cycle network within 500m of the application site;

b) A financial contribution of £35,000, to be paid upon implementation of the development towards improvements to the local canal environment between Newtown Row and Lower Loveday Street; and,

c) Payment of a monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal agreement of 3.5% of the pedestrian / cycle and canal environment sums, subject to a maximum of £10,000.

8.2. In the absence of the planning obligation being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 23 December 2015 planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

a) In the absence of any suitable legal agreement to secure a financial contribution toward improvements to the local pedestrian / cycle network the proposal conflicts Paragraph 6.43 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan and Policies TP1 and TP39 of the Draft Birmingham Plan 2031.

b) In the absence of any suitable legal agreement to secure a financial contribution toward local improvements to the canal environment the proposal conflicts with Paragraph 3.34 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan and Policy TP6 and TP7 of the Draft Birmingham Plan 2031.

8.3. That the Director of Legal Services be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the planning obligation.

8.4. That in the event of the planning obligation being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 23 December 2015, favourable consideration be given to this application, subject to the conditions listed below:

1 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

2 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

3 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

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

5 Requires the prior submission of an additional ecological survey bats and black redstart

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

Page 12 of 16

7 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

8 Requires the prior submission a noise study to establish residential acoustic protection

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

10 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

11 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

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

13 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

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

15 Requires the prior submission of a CCTV scheme

16 Units shall only be occupied by students in full time education.

17 Submission of a pedestrian safety pack

18 Removes PD rights for telecom equipment

19 Requires the prior submission of a residential travel plan

20 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

21 Requires the prior submission of a car park management plan for the start / finish of term

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

23 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: David Wells

Page 13 of 16 Photo(s)

View from Canal Bridge

Page 14 of 16

View along Cliveland Street

Page 15 of 16 Location Plan

BRE WA

Tower Works 111.9m Commercial Vehicle Park (Public)

Car Park

112.2m 82 to 89 to 82

NEW TOWN ROW

77 83 89 to 9 to 89 114.9m

Garage

Works

75 Car Park 74 Works 82

114.0m

CECIL STREET

84 111.9m Globe Works

86 74 21 to 16

Works 68 to to 68

Mills 22

Works 23 to 34 to 23

114.6m

54 to 67 CLIVELAND STREET

Lancaster Towing Path Gate

El Sub Sta 5 114.0m

112.8m

Birmingham and Fazeley Canal El

Sub Sta 63 to 68 to 63

Trav C 16 to 18

62 19 61

Works Works LANC

ACLANC 20 PRINCIP STREET 113.7m

Page 16 of 16

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/03050/PA Accepted: 07/05/2015 Application Type: Outline Target Date: 06/08/2015 Ward: Ladywood

Tennant Street, City Centre, Birmingham, B15 1EH

Outline Planning Application with details of proposed access submitted (with all other matters reserved) for the erection of a residential development of up to 6 storeys to provide 13 car parking spaces and up to 40no. residential self-contained apartments Applicant: Romar Investments Ltd c/o Agent Agent: Knight Frank LLP No 1 Marsden Street, Manchester, M2 1HW Recommendation Determine

Report Back

This application was considered at the planning committee meeting on 29th October 2015 when members resolved that they were minded to refuse planning permission for the development due to the lack of parking and the loss of the existing car park. The original plans indicated the provision of two retail units at floor with no on site car parking spaces to serve the development.

Applicant’s response

The applicant has submitted:

i. a revised ground floor plan indicating that the ground floor is capable of accommodating 13 car parking spaces including one disabled space (32.5%);

ii. a note providing further information regarding parking in the surrounding area to support the previously submitted Transport Statement.

Members raised concerns about the price of car parking available within the vicinity of the site. Prices per hour range from 50p to £1.50. Prices per 24 hours range from £4.00 to £14.20, although the most expensive (Jurys Inn) is high compared to the average price per 24 hours on the majority of car parks is £6.00. The majority of the Council owner car parks / parking bays are restricted to a maximum of four hours during the day (08.00 – 18.00). Outside of these hours, these car parks / parking bays are free of charge.

The applicants have also undertaken a planning history search to determine which of the existing car parks have received planning permission for their redevelopment. Whilst some current available car parks are to be lost due to redevelopment there is still a significant number of spaces that would be available close to the site. It should be noted that these are

Page 1 of 12 private car parks that could stop operating. The City Council cannot insist on private car parks being retained in use. The loss of the existing car park could not in our view be sustained as a reason for refusal.

Comment

The applicant has revised the current plans to provide a total of 13 parking spaces at ground floor to serve the proposed development. The current application is in outline with only access to be determined at this stage and therefore the overall total number of apartments would only be determined at the reserved matters stage. There could however be 40 apartments equating to a provision of 32.5%. It is considered that this is a reasonable response to members concerns.

Your officers conclude that with the revisions submitted the same recommendation should stand subject to amending the description of the development to include reference to the provision of 13 on-site car parking spaces and a condition to secure a car park management plan.

Original report

1. Proposal

1.1 The application seeks consent for a residential development of up to six storeys in height to provide up to forty residential apartments and two A1 retail units at ground floor.

1.2 The application has been submitted in outline with only access to be determined at this stage. The remaining matters regarding scale, appearance, layout and landscaping are reserved for determination at a later stage. Whilst the submitted floor plans are only illustrative they show a building measuring approximately 20m by 35m accommodating a total retail floor space of approximately 277 sq.m gross, with 2 x 2 bed apartments and x 15 bed apartments above. No on site parking is proposed. The proposed access would be off Tennant Street as existing.

1.3 The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, a Geo- environmental Desk Study Report, Noise Assessment, Planning Statement, and Transport Statement and Travel Plan. In addition the applicant has submitted a financial appraisal to justify not fully meeting affordable housing or public open space policies. They have agreed a financial contribution of £150,000.

1.4 Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1 Tennant Street runs parallel to and one block behind Broad Street. It accommodates a number of car parks, with surface car parks located to the north east and south west of the application site. A residential apartment block known as Trident House adjoins the site to the east, whilst on the opposite side of Tennant Street lies the rear accesses to the commercial buildings fronting Broad Street. The car park to the north east accommodates nine London Plane trees that are protected under TPO 1379.

2.2 The site comprises of approximately 777 square metres of land and is currently used as a private pay and display surface car park accommodating 36 parking spaces.

Page 2 of 12 2.3 Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. 1995/01402/PA - Retention of Steel Palisade Security Fencing Approved 20.07.95

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1 BCC Regulatory Services - No objection subject to conditions to:

• restrict cumulative noise from all plant and machinery;

• require the submission of a scheme of noise insulation between the commercial and residential premises;

• require the submission of details of facilities for the storage of refuse within the curtilage of buildings;

• restrict the hours of use of the commercial premises to between the hours of 0700 and 2300 daily;

• restrict the times of deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site;

• require the submission of a travel plan and measures to promote low emission delivery vehicles;

• require the submission of a site investigation and remediation scheme;

• require the submission of a remediation verification report; and

• require a noise assessment and glazing/ventilation scheme.

4.2 BCC Transportation Development – No objection subject to conditions to require the applicants to:

• implement the suggested highway works to provide dropped pedestrian crossing facilities with tactile paving to BCC specification at the applicant’s expense under a suitable highway agreement;

• affiliate to Company Travelwise;

• progress the Draft Travel Plan included in the Transport Assessment to encourage non-car modes of travel;

• submit a `construction travel plan` that defines the phases of development and activity that may have an effect on the surrounding highway network including details of demolition, construction, deliveries and temporary works; and

• provide cycle parking prior to the residential use being occupied.

4.3 BCC Education - planning obligation request for £221.803.63 to be split between nursery, primary and secondary education provision.

Page 3 of 12 4.4 Local Lead Flood Authority - As the application is an outline application, there would be no requirement at this stage for a detailed Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme (SuDS) document, however it is recommended that it be submitted prior to the commencement of development.

4.5 BCC Local Services - Although this is still an outline application the estimated potential offsite Public Open Space (POS) contribution is £52,000. This would likely be spent on the provision, improvement and or maintenance of the Ryland Road POS within the Ladywood Ward

4.6 West Midlands Police:

• although there is some on-street parking provision around the site and a number of car parks in the area, any vehicle brought to the site by residents or visitors will adversely impact on the existing heavy demand for spaces in the area;

• serious concerns as to the open access nature of the central, covered shared space on the ground floor;

• any work be undertaken to the apartments should be to the standards laid out in the Secured by Design 'New Homes 2014' guide; and

• recommend a lighting plan, CCTV, appropriate door security and internal access control measures.

4.7 Severn Trent Water - no objections subject to a condition to require a drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows.

4.8 Birmingham City Centre Management, Birmingham Health, West Midlands Fire Service, local residents groups, action groups, community forum and neighbourhood forum, local ward councillors and the MP have been consulted and no responses received.

4.9 The application site has also been publicised via site and press notices. In response five objections from neighbours have received raising the following concerns summarised below:

• the area already has enough housing and more housing would cause more congestion and also increase more anti-social behaviour;

• loss of views out to Broad Street;

• it may block some of the noise from Tennant Street and Broad Street;

• constant noise and dust 7 days a week, lack of sleep and oxygen deprivation affecting residents’ health;

• would there be compensation in place for existing residents?;

• this monstrosity would be constructed within approximately 30 metres from lounge and bedroom windows that are the only source of natural daylight/sunlight;

Page 4 of 12 • the potential residents of the proposed block would have a full and unrestricted view into nearby apartments, constituting a gross invasion of the right to privacy under European law;

• the development would cause a possible extra 120 cars/vans to find somewhere to park; and

• additional congestion along Tennant Street used by commuters as a short cut to avoid traffic jammed up on Broad Street.

5. Policy Context

5.1 Birmingham UDP (2005); Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2031);Places for Living SPG; Car Parking Guidelines SPD; and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. Planning Considerations

Principle of Proposed Residential and Retail Uses

6.1 The Adopted Birmingham UDP and the Draft Development Plan support city living, with Policy GA1.1 of the emerging plan acknowledging that the City Council will continue to promote the City Centre as the focus for retail, office, leisure and residential development. Furthermore the aspiration is for the majority of new housing to be located on previously developed land within the existing urban area. This is to ensure that residential occupiers live in sustainable locations that are close to public transport and places of work, and also to reduce pressure to release more greenfield sites.

6.2 It is considered that the proposed residential and retail uses at this location are consistent with local planning policy and the NPPF, which also supports development at sustainable locations.

Proposed Height of the Development

6.3 Whilst the matters of scale, appearance, landscaping and layout are reserved the application proposes up to 40 apartments within a building of up to 6 storeys in height. It is therefore necessary to consider whether a building of such a height would be acceptable at this location, and to consider the relevant material considerations associated with the proposed number of apartments.

6.4 In terms of the proposed height there are a number of tall buildings in close proximity to the application site. A Travelodge hotel is located at the junction of Granville Street and Broad Street, which comprises of 8 storeys, The Hampton by Hilton to the south west of the site fronting Broad Street comprises of 17 storeys and Trident House which lies immediately adjacent to the application site accommodates a 12 storey building.

6.5 When originally submitted the plans proposed a building of 12 storeys in height. Whilst it is acknowledged that there are tall buildings within the vicinity, as outlined above, I was concerned about the height adversely affecting the character of the street, with the proposed 12 storey block potentially creating a canyoning effect as a result of the proposed development on one side of the street opposite the tall commercial properties located along Broad Street backing onto Tennant Street on the other.

Page 5 of 12 6.6 It is considered that the amended plans indicating a development of up to 6 storeys in height would mitigate against this potential problem and provide a development which is appropriate to its context and setting.

Impact upon the Amenity of Neighbours

6.7 The matter of appearance is reserved and therefore subsequently the floor plans are not to be determined at this stage, however the agents have submitted a typical ground floor and upper floor plan. The plans show a 6 storey development providing retail units and a concierge lobby at ground floor with five floors of one and two bed residential apartments per floor above.

6.8 Guidance within the Places for Living SPD seeks to ensure that there is a 5 metre set back where development with main windows would overlook existing private amenity space. In this instance the adjoining area of amenity space serving Trident House is small in size, dominated by the adjacent 12 storey building and separated from the main communal area serving the existing building. There is also a further requirement set out in the SPD for a separation distance of 27.5m between habitable windows and 15.5m to a flank wall. The plans submitted indicate that only a separation distance of between 17.5m and 20m could be achieved, however it is considered that the design of the building at a reserved matters stage would minimise the potential loss of privacy, depending upon the location of the windows. These distances are not uncommon in city centre locations. Insisting on the full 27.5m would mean that almost half of the depth of the site could not be developed.

6.9 Policy TP29 of the emerging Development Plan indicates that new residential development should be provided at a target density responding to the site, its context and the housing need, with densities of at least 100 dwellings per hectare within the City Centre. Whilst the proposed density at 571 dwellings per hectare is over five times this target density the illustrative plans indicate that the development could accommodate 40 apartments that would accord with the minimum bedroom sizes as indicated in the Places for Living SPD

6.10 Neighbours from Trident House to the rear have raised concern regarding loss of outlook and light, however the plans indicate the closest separation distance of approximately 17.5m could be achieved which is considered sufficient to resolve these concerns. Notably no letters of objection have been received during the re- consultation period following the receipt of amended plans reducing the height of the development from 12 to 6 storeys.

Impact Upon the Highway and Parking

6.11 The matter of access is to be determined at this stage with the proposed vehicular access off Tennant Street that would also provide access to the proposed cycle store shown illustratively at ground floor. No-on site car parking is proposed. The adopted Car Parking Guidelines SPD advises that a development of 40 units would require a maximum of 40 parking spaces. In response the submitted Transport Assessment explains that Birmingham New Street railway station lies within a 15 minute walk and Five Ways railway station within a 10 minute walk, whilst the nearest bus stops serving 15 routes are located at a distance of approximately 161m on Broad Street. It is therefore considered to be highly accessible by public transport.

6.12 The results of a parking survey undertaken earlier this month have been submitted. This highlights that there is a total of 2166 combined on and off street parking

Page 6 of 12 spaces within 200m of the site, plus an additional 2550 spaces within a 15 minute walk or 1200m radius of the site. BCC Transportation Development have raised no objections subject to conditions including the submission of a travel plan that would progress the draft plan that formed part of the planning application and the provision of cycle parking storage. The illustrative floor plan indicates sufficient capacity for 50 cycles that would meet the SPD guidance.

6.13 It is therefore considered that the proposed scheme is acceptable in terms of its impact upon traffic generation, highway safety and parking provision.

Environmental Considerations

6.14 A number of the objections raised from neighbours refer to the impact of noise both during the construction phase and thereafter. However BCC Regulatory Services have raised no objections subject to conditions to require a construction management plan to restrict the hours of demolition and construction, and thereafter to control the potential noise levels of plant and machinery, the hours of use of the ground floor retail element and to require details of noise insulation to the ground floor and glazing / ventilation within the proposed apartments.

6.15 No objections have been raised with respect to the protected trees on the adjacent site subject to a condition to require, at the stage of the submission of the first reserved matters, a full up to date tree survey and Arboricultural Implications Assessment.

6.16 As recommended by the Local Lead Flood Authority and Severn Trent Water a drainage condition is attached to secure drainage details.

Planning Obligations

6.17 Given the number of proposed apartments the City Council’s policies for Affordable Housing and Public Open Space in New Residential Development apply. BCC Schools Organisation Team have also requested a sum of monies as the development has the potential to impact on the provision of places at local schools.

6.18 The applicant has submitted a financial appraisal to justify not meeting these obligations in full but has offered £150,000. The financial appraisal has been independently reviewed and the assessment concludes that this figure is reasonable.

6.19 I note the various requests for S106 monies and consider that affordable housing and public open space provision are greater policy priorities. I therefore suggest that the full public open space contribution is secured with the balance put toward off-site affordable housing. Given that the scheme is for one and two bedroom apartments then the number of families with children is likely to be low. I do not therefore consider that an education contribution can be justified, particularly as Perry Beeches have recently opened a school nearby.

7 Conclusion

7.1 The principle of the redevelopment of this site for residential and retail development is consistent with local and national planning policy.

Page 7 of 12 7.2 I am of the view that a building of the height proposed would fit in with its surroundings and would not cause a significant loss of amenity to existing residential occupiers.

7.3 I therefore consider that the application is acceptable subject to safeguarding conditions and completion of a S106 agreement to secure a financial contribution of £150,000 toward affordable housing and public open space improvements.

8 Recommendation

8.1 That consideration of the application be deferred pending the completion of a suitable legal agreement to secure:-

a) A financial contribution of £98,000 (index linked from the date of this resolution) toward off site affordable housing to be paid prior to first occupation;

b) A financial contribution of £52,000 (index linked from the date of this resolution) toward enhancements to improve and /or maintain Ryland Road Public Open Space, to be paid prior to first occupation; and, c) Payment of a monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal agreement of 3.5% of the affordable housing and public open space sum, subject to a maximum of £10,000.

8.2 That, in the event of the above legal agreement not being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 24th December 13th November 2015, planning permission be refused for the followings 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; and,

b) In the absence of any suitable legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards off site public open space the proposal conflicts with 3.53B of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005, Public Open Space in New Residential Development SPD and Policy TP9 of the Draft Birmingham Plan 2031.

8.3 That the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the planning obligation.

8.4 That in the event of the planning obligation being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 24th December 15th November 2015, favourable consideration be given to this application, subject to the conditions listed below.

1 Limits the approval to 3 years (outline)

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

Page 8 of 12

3 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the approved plan

4 Limits the building heights (20m)

5 Tree Survey and Arboricultural Implication Assessment

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

7 Requires the applicants to join Travelwise

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

9 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

10 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

11 Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage

12 Details of glazing and ventilation

13 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

14 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

15 Requires the prior submission of a parking management strategy

Case Officer: Julia Summerfield

Page 9 of 12 Photo(s)

View South West

Page 10 of 12 View North East

Page 11 of 12 Location Plan

Page 12 of 12

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/07682/PA Accepted: 17/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 17/12/2015 Ward: Nechells

96-104 Bristol Street, City Centre, Birmingham, B5 7AH

Conversion and new build to provide 2 no. ground floor commercial units (Use Class A1-A5, D1, D2) and student accommodation (75 beds) (Sui Generis) comprising 12 no. five bed clusters, 1 no. four bed cluster, 7 no. double studios and 2 no. twin studios together with the installation of new shop fronts and bin stores Applicant: Benacre Properties Co c/o Penycuick Collins, 54 Hagley Road, Birmingham, B16 8PE Agent: St Paul's Associates The Mews, 13A St Paul's Square, Birmingham, B3 1RB Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought to convert an existing locally listed building, create a new infill building and extend the existing building to create clusters of managed student and ancillary accommodation. The remaining ground floor accommodation would be refurbished including the installation of new shop fronts and the proposal also seeks to extend the ground floor uses to include A1-A5 and D1-D2 uses. The application is a resubmission of a previously refused scheme (2014/09471/PA) which is detailed in the planning history.

Ground Floor

1.2. Would consist of 2 no. commercial units fronting Bristol Street with student accommodation to the upper floors and rear. Two accesses to the student accommodation are proposed; one on Wrentham Street and one on Henstead Street both of which, would have secure gated access and would lead into the courtyard area which is where the main entrance to the student accommodation is proposed. There would be 1 x 4 bed cluster and 1 x 5 bed cluster at this level. All clusters have a shared common room which includes kitchen facilities.

First Floor and Second Floors

1.3. Would consist of 3 x 5 bedroom clusters, 2 in the rear wing facing onto Wrentham Street/internal courtyard and the other facing Bristol Street. 3 double studios and 1 twin studio is also proposed in the retained part of the building.

Third Floor

Page 1 of 11 1.4. Would consist of 3 x 5 bedroom clusters, 2 in the rear wing facing onto Wrentham Street and the internal courtyard and the other facing Bristol Street. 1 double studio is also proposed in the retained part of the building.

Fourth Floor

1.5. Would consist of 2 x 5 bedroom clusters in the rear wing facing onto Wrentham Street and the internal courtyard.

1.6. Overall, the total number of bedrooms proposed is 64 plus 7 double studios and 2 twin studios (75). The clusters would comprise of individual en-suite bedrooms and a shared kitchen/living room whilst the studios would be fully self-contained. The intention is for the rooms to be used by students in full time education; as such the residents will not own the property and will not be able to occupy the property for 52 weeks of the year.

Physical alterations

1.7. The appearance of the Bristol Street façade of the retained building (100-102 Bristol Street) would remain as existing. The shopfronts have extensively changed over the years from their original Edwardian design. Where the original Edwardian elements remain they would be retained and secondary glazing introduced to the front and side elevation to achieve acceptable levels of thermal and acoustic insulation.

1.8. The existing two storey building (96 Bristol Street) would be replaced with a new four storey contemporary infill building, albeit of an Edwardian influence. Indicative materials include light terracotta however materials would be secured by condition.

1.9. The Wrentham Street elevation would retain the Edwardian corner building and 3 storey element, as well as the 2 storey access whilst the remainder of the two storey rear wing would be demolished. A five storey building with a pitched roof is proposed and the massing would be spilt to read as two different blocks. The first block (adjacent to the retained building) would have dormers in the roof and the corner block would have dormer on the building eaves whilst dropping to below eaves level as the windows turn the corner onto Henstead Street. Obscurely glazed windows are proposed on Henstead Street and the extension would also have windows onto the courtyard. The overall height of the new build would not exceed the existing height of the Edwardian buildings at the corner of Bristol Street and Wrentham Street.

1.10. Indicative materials for the new build include facing brickwork with polyester powder coated windows, screens and entrance doors.

1.11. Bin stores are proposed on Henstead Street.

Access and Parking

1.12. Public access to the retail/commercial premises would be from Bristol Street with service access from Wrentham Street. Pedestrian access to the proposed student accommodation would be through secure gated access on Henstead Street and Wrentham Street.

1.13. The existing student accommodation adjacent has 32 car parking spaces (reduction by 1 due to the proposed development). These car parking spaces would be shared with the proposed development as they are currently underused. A link is proposed

Page 2 of 11 between the courtyard to the adjacent car park and management office. 2 cycle stores are proposed at each entrance off Henstead Street and Wrentham Street providing 20 cycles stands in total.

1.14. There would be two accessible bedrooms provided at ground floor level facing the courtyard.

1.15. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site includes a two storey mid twentieth Century ‘infill’ building (96 Bristol Street), a locally listed Edwardian four-storey building (100-102), and mid twentieth century warehouse accommodation. The rear of the site is bounded by Henstead Street. The buildings fronting onto Bristol Street are Grade A locally listed. Opposite Henstead Street there is a vacant plot of land which is currently partially used as a car park.

2.2. Existing uses along Bristol Street include student accommodation at upper levels and a range of retail, food and other commercial premises at ground floor level. To the east, the site is close to the thriving area around Hurst Street which is home to a vibrant mix of theatre, restaurants, pubs and new residential accommodation, as well as Birmingham’s Chinese and Gay communities. To the west on the opposite side of Bristol Street there is a hotel and further to the northwest is the St Catherine of Siena Catholic Church, Primary and Nursery School. There are 2 residential apartments located to the rear of 74 Bristol Street which front onto Henstead Street.

2.3. Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

Application site

3.1. 10/07/2015 - 2014/09471/PA. 96-104 Bristol Street. Conversion and extension to existing building to provide two ground floor commercial units (A1 - A5, B1a & D1) and 80 student rooms (SG) with associated works. Refused for the following reasons:

1. The proposal would result in an over intensive, cramped and out of character form of development which would adversely affect the street scene on Henstead Street and the amenities of future occupiers.

2. The proposed development would prejudice the redevelopment of the development plot opposite at the junction of Henstead Street and Wrentham Street and discourage investment and regeneration opportunities.

3.2. No history for the upper floors. Several change of use applications for the ground floor units but none relevant to the consideration of this application.

Adjacent sites

3.3. 18/10/2013 – 2013/06379/PA. Building to the rear of 74 Bristol Street. Change of use of bakery (use class A1) to 2no. two bedroom apartments (use class C3) with associated parking. Approved subject to conditions.

Page 3 of 11 3.4. 16/08/2012 – 2012/03213/PA. 74-94 Bristol Street. Conversion of upper floors to create 12 clusters (81 bed spaces) of student accommodation (Sui Generis) with ground floor management office and laundry, and ground floor refurbishment including new shop fronts, and extension of ground floor uses to include A1-A5 and D1-D2 uses with parking to rear. Approved subject to conditions.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Regulatory Services – No objection subject to conditions in relation to ground contamination/remediation, noise insulation, plant and machinery noise levels, commercial units delivery hours, commercial waste storage, hours of operation (commercial units), extraction and odour control, travel plan, glazing and ventilation strategy including air quality assessment.

4.2. Transportation Development – No objection subject to conditions in relation to car park management plan, secure cycle storage, reinstatement of redundant footway crossings on Henstead Street and S106 contributions towards public transport improvements in City Centre.

4.3. West Midlands Police – Seek measures to be installed to address any potential increase in the calls for service to West Midlands Police/crimes being committed on the site, supports 24 hour staff presence on the site, installation of CCTV and appropriate signage, no details of lighting scheme or access control into the building/site, development should be laid out in the compliance with Secured by Design New Homes 2014, cycle areas should be subject to CCTV, commercial units should have separate intruder alarms and CCTV coverage, concerned about the proposed locations for the refuse bins, lack of defensible space between windows and the public pavement.

4.4. West Midlands Fire Service – No objections.

4.5. Local Lead Flood Authority – No objections subject to a condition in relation to a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan.

4.6. Education – No objections.

4.7. Public Health – Recommends refusal of any proposal for a hot food takeaway if it is located within 400m of a school.

4.8. Birmingham Civic Society – Proposal generally welcomed and it is important that the original Edwardian shop fronts are reinstated to a high quality.

4.9. Site and Press Notices displayed. Local occupiers, Councillors, MP, Resident Associations and the Southside Business Improvement District were consulted. No comments were received.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP 2005; Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2031); Specific Needs for Residential Uses SPG 1992; Places for All SPG 2001; Places for Living SPG 2001; Shop Fronts Design Guide SPG; National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

6. Planning Considerations

Page 4 of 11 6.1. The adopted Birmingham UDP (2005) still forms the basis of the statutory planning framework. There are no site specific policies within the UDP for this site, nor does it contain policies specifically with regard student accommodation. However it does include policies that seek to ensure that education establishments within the city thrive and expand and it also encourages city living (5.32b).

6.2. The public examination into the Birmingham Development Plan 2031 took place at the end of last year and although not adopted, weight should be given to the policies within this submission draft. Policy TP32 refers, specifically, to student housing and states that proposals for off campus provision will be considered favourably where: there is a demonstrated need; that it is well located to educational establishments; that it does not result in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity; it would be of a good quality design and would provide a positive living experience. A Student Need Statement has been submitted in support of the application which demonstrates the ‘need’ for additional student accommodation in this location.

6.3. Local and national policies also encourage a mix of uses, within central locations and on previously developed land to ensure the creation of well designed, viable and sustainable developments/communities.

6.4. I therefore consider the principle of conversion and new build student accommodation in a well located city centre location, adjacent to existing student accommodation is acceptable. In addition the provision of a mixed use development is particularly encouraged, in terms of promoting urban renaissance and sustainable locations for new development. Consequently, I raise no objection in land use policy terms subject to all other material considerations including design and appearance, impact on Grade A locally listed building, residential amenity, highway safety and parking.

Uses

6.5. The uses proposed at ground floor level vary from A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1, D2 and I consider these would be acceptable in this sustainable city centre location. However I consider it necessary to restrict the amalgamation of the two ground floor units for the creation of the same use. This is to avoid a single use taking over the ground floor of the building which, due to its intensity may have negative implications in terms of the amenity of the upper floors as well as implications on highway safety. I consider it necessary to safeguard this matter by condition. This is consistent with the adjacent student accommodation approval.

Design/Appearance

6.6. The proposed new build on Wrentham Street and Henstead Street would be laid out in blocks around a secure courtyard. The overall height of the new build would not exceed the height of existing buildings fronting Bristol Street and the mass would be broken down into separately identifiable elements. The elevations would be articulated with regular fenestration which respond to that of the existing buildings. The existing two storey wing offers little architectural merit and therefore its loss is acceptable.

6.7. The existing two storey building fronting Bristol Street (No.96) is incongruous with adjacent buildings both in terms of scale and design, offering little architectural merit, therefore the principle of its loss is acceptable. The demolished building would be replaced with a 4 storey infill building, the design of which would take some

Page 5 of 11 influence from the neighbouring Edwardian buildings in terms of scale and choice of materials whilst appearing as a contemporary addition.

Impact on Heritage Asset

6.8. Regarding the impact on the heritage asset, the Edwardian buildings on the corner would be retained in their entirety and refurbished where necessary. Secondary glazing would be used to achieve acceptable levels of acoustic insulation without altering the appearance of the elevations.

6.9. The ground floor shop fronts would be reinstated to match number 74-94 Bristol Street which has been successful following a unified and standardised rhythm. This would be carried through with the exception of the infill building which would have a more contemporary design at ground floor level.

6.10. My conservation officer raises no objection in principle however considers that the design could have been improved on the Wrentham Street elevation and the windows at the corner of Wrentham Street and Henstead Street could have been designed with more interest.

6.11. Taking all matters into consideration, the design and appearance, mass and scale of the new buildings is acceptable with positive implications on the heritage asset. The proposed materials are in keeping with the existing building and will be secured by condition.

Residential Amenity

6.12. Residential amenity – The proposed bedroom sizes comply with the requirements outlined in the Specific Needs for Residential Uses SPG. I am satisfied that the proposed rooms could accommodate furniture in order to function satisfactorily. The windows would have secondary glazing to prevent any noise from the traffic on the surrounding roads adversely affecting the students of the accommodation. Regarding ground floor uses, these are not known for each unit at this stage however Regulatory Services have requested that conditions are attached in relation to noise insulation to prevent the ground floor uses causing any nuisance to the student accommodation. Other conditions have also been requested from Regulatory Services in relation to a glazing and ventilation strategy which I consider are justified.

6.13. In terms of the impact on existing residents, the closest residential accommodation consisting, of two residential apartments is located to the rear of 74 Bristol Street, which is approximately 60m from the application site. It is noted that the residents are located adjacent to a public house at the corner of Bristol Street and Bromsgrove Street. Furthermore, 74 Bristol Street is directly adjacent which contains commercial use at ground floor level and student accommodation above. It is therefore concluded that further student accommodation located approximately 60m to the south of these residential apartments would have no adverse impact on any adjoining uses or nearby residential accommodation.

6.14. The windows on the Henstead Street elevation would be obscurely glazed to avoid overlooking and prejudicing the redevelopment of the plot opposite at the junction of Henstead Street and Wrentham Street, which formed a reason for refusal on previous planning application (2014/09471/PA). There are no other overlooking or overshadowing issues.

Page 6 of 11 Air Quality

6.15. The whole of Birmingham falls within an air quality management zone where the introduction of new residential accommodation needs to be carefully considered. An air quality report, containing a minimum of 3 months of data, should therefore be submitted in support. However, this proposal is for student accommodation and, in contrast to C3 residential accommodation, is only occupied on a short term basis. I also note that due to the retail/commercial provision at ground floor student accommodation is proposed from first floor and above only. I am therefore satisfied that should any of the student accommodation fall within areas of unacceptable air quality then an appropriate solution could be achieved which would not adversely affect the design or appearance of the scheme or adversely affect the amenities of future occupiers. I therefore concur with Regulatory Services who require a condition to secure a full air quality assessment prior to commencement of development and mitigation as appropriate. This is consistent with other similar student proposals in the City Centre.

6.16. A travel plan was requested by Regulatory Services however I do not consider this is justified as there are no new car parking spaces proposed. In addition Transportation Development have not requested a travel plan is submitted.

Highway Safety and Parking

6.17. The site is located within a sustainable city centre location where public transport links are excellent. There are 32 car parking spaces available for the student accommodation scheme to the north and these are currently underutilised with only 3 spaces allocated to commercial tenants and 5 spaces being currently used by students. Therefore 24 spaces are regularly unused and this reflects recent site visits. These car parking spaces would therefore be shared with the proposed scheme and a pedestrian link is proposed from the car park to the courtyard of the new development.

6.18. 20 cycle storage spaces are also proposed. Transportation Development raise no objection to the proposal. I do not consider the proposed use would have any adverse implications on parking or highway safety.

6.19. Transportation Development also raise the need for a financial contribution to public transport. Whilst a number of larger student schemes have made financial contributions there is no specific policy that requires this. Therefore given the smaller nature of this development and the fact there are no current transportation projects directly relevant to this development a financial contribution would not be necessary and would not therefore pass the relevant legislative tests.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider the proposed changes would sustain and enhance the heritage asset whilst putting vacant buildings back into viable uses consistent with their conservation. I consider the proposed development would make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness of the area with no adverse implications on visual amenity, residential amenity and highway safety subject to conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to the following conditions:

Page 7 of 11

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 noise insulation (variable)

4 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

5 Limits delivery time of goods to or from the site

6 Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage (commercial waste)

7 Requires the submission of extraction and odour control details

8 Requires the submission of air quality assessment and glazing and ventilation details

9 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

10 Requires a package of highways measures

11 Requires the prior submission of a parking management strategy

12 Requires the submission prior to occupation of the properties of a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan

13 Requires the prior submission of a CCTV scheme

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

15 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

16 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

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

18 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

19 Requires any damage to the locally listed building to be made good

20 Ground floor units shall not be amalgamated.

21 Users restricted to students only.

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

23 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Joanne McCallion

Page 8 of 11 Photo(s)

Figure 1 Corner of Bristol Street and Wrentham Street

Figure 2 Corner of Wrentham Street and Henstead Street

Page 9 of 11

Figure 3 View of proposed development from Henstead Street

Page 10 of 11 Location Plan

Page 11 of 11

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08038/PA Accepted: 30/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 14/12/2015 Ward: Aston

83-84 Old Snow Hill, City, Birmingham, B4 6HW

Change of use of units to a take-away (Use Class A5), installation of two cold room condensers to rear, installation of a fume extraction system to rear wall and installation of new shopfront. Applicant: DHOKE Ltd 12 Holcombe Road, Birmingham, B11 3PL Agent: @ Architect Limited Suite 7 Ripon House, 35 Station Lane, Hornchurch, Essex, M12 6JL Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1 Proposal

1.1. The application seeks planning permission for the change of use of two adjoining ground floor units at 83 and 84 Old Snow Hill to a hot food takeaway (A5 use), together with the installation of a new shop front and mechanical plant to the rear including two condensers and an extraction system.

1.2. The ground floor area would be reconfigured with the provision of a customer waiting area and a kitchen area. There is also space within the unit for the storage of delivery motorbikes. The total floor space is 119m².

1.3. The proposed kitchen extract system would mainly be fitted internally; however it would include two louvre grills to the rear. The condensing units would also be sited externally within the undercroft area to the rear. The replacement shopfront would be a modern grey aluminium frame structure with full height glazing.

1.4 The unit has pedestrian access from Old Snow Hill. The site is well located for public transport links with bus stops located within 10 m of the site.

1.5 There are 2 vehicle car parking spaces in the undercroft area to the rear of the unit. There is also space to the rear for external refuse storage.

1.6 The proposed opening hours are 11:00 – 23:00 Monday to Sunday.

1.7 The application is a resubmission of a former application for the change of use of this site to a hot food takeaway (ref: 2015/04328/PA) which was refused on the 03/08/2015. The reason for refusal was:

The proposed means of air extraction to serve the proposed hot food takeaway would adversely affect the amenity of residential occupiers in the vicnity by reason of odour of cooking fumes. As such the proposal would be contrary to Paragraphs

Page 1 of 8 3.8, 3.10 and 8.7 of the Birmingham UDP 2005 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

1.8 This resubmission includes an amended kitchen extract system with additional technical information.

1.9 Link to Documents

2 Site & Surroundings

2.1. The site forms part of a building known as City Heights which is located at the junction of Old Snow Hill and Summer Lane on the B4100. The building is currently vacant at ground floor with 5 storeys of residential use above. The building is in close proximity to the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal and on the opposite side of the road is the boundary to the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area.

2.2. It is a busy, highly trafficked area with a range of commercial uses at ground floor. The site is at present vacant with all of the openings to the front elevation boarded up with shutters. The remaining unit closest to the service road and canal is in use as a travel agents with an entrance to the side elevation.

2.3. Site Location Plan

3 Planning History

3.1. 2015/04231/PA - Display of one internally illuminated fascia and one internally illuminated projecting signs (Awaiting Determination)

3.2. 1995/04760/PA - Erection of 86 residential flats with associated parking and limited provision for retail/commercial facilities (Class C3-dwellinghouses and Class A1- retail/B1-business). Approved 18.04.96.

3.3 2015/04328/PA – Change of use of units to a hot food take-away (Use Class A5). Refused - 03/08/2015.

4 Consultation/PP Responses

4.1 BCC Transportation – No objections

4.2 Regulatory Services – No objections subject to the extract system serving the indicated two deck pizza oven only and subject to standard planning conditions on maximum noise levels, noise insulation, refuse storage, hours of use (9-11pm) and delivery time restrictions (9-7pm).

4.3 West Midlands Police – No objection subject to an alarm system and CCTV. It is recommended that the use be for a temporary period of time only, to allow for monitoring of any potential noise impact.

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.

Page 2 of 8 4.5 Birmingham City Centre Management, Birmingham Settlement, Trafalgar Area Action Group, KB Services and Local Ward Councillors have also been consulted. No responses have been received.

4.6 6 responses have been received to the public consultation raising the following objections:

• Increased noise, odour, pests, litter, anti-social-behaviour and disturbance, all to the detriment of local amenity. • There is an over-concentration/over-provision of hot food takeaways in the area. • Increased fire risk. • Inadequate consultation as consultation letters were not received in the City Heights building. • The application form indicates that certificate B was served but no notification was received. • Inadequate parking and disruption and highway safety problems caused by illegal parking or waiting. • Use of the adjacent bus stop to consume take away food with resulting noise impact and disturbance.

5 Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005), The Draft Birmingham Plan (2031) and the National Planning Policy Framework, Shopping and Local Centres Supplementary Planning Document (2012).

6 Planning Considerations

Principle of Development

6.1 The application proposes the change of use of the existing vacant retail units (A1 use) at 83-84 Old Snow Hill to a hot food takeaway (A5 use).

6.2 The premises lie within a mixed commercial area and has consent for A1 retail. There are other retail and similar uses including a convenience store, travel agents, barbers, nail bar and another hot food takeaway in the area.

6.3 Although the site is not located within the primary retail core or a designated local centre, the proposed hot food takeaway use (A5) is a suitable commercial use with an active frontage which would be acceptable in principle in this location. It is noted that there is an existing pizza takeaway opposite the site and further hot food takeaways on Constitution Hill to the north, however I do not consider that there is an over-concentration of A5 uses in the vicinity of the site.

Impact upon Residential Amenity

6.4 The potential impact should be considered in terms of noise and disturbance and odour.

6.5 It is acknowledged that the site is located within a residential block known as City Heights where there are residential apartments sited immediately above the proposed hot food takeaway use, and therefore there is the potential for noise and disturbance.

Page 3 of 8 6.6 It is however considered that in this instance that there is already significant noise and disturbance from the heavily trafficked road which forms a strategic route into and out of the city. Furthermore the site lies close to a traffic junction where there are five lanes of traffic and a bus stop and layby plus there are other late night commercial uses within the vicinity.

6.7 Details of the proposed kitchen extract system have been submitted. The proposal would include a 2 deck pizza oven with a kitchen extract system fitted internally, with a low level extract louvre fitted on the rear wall in the undercroft to the rear, an air conditioning unit would also be fitted internally with an external louvre fitted on the rear wall in the rear uncroft area, 2 condenser units would also be installed to the rear. The proposed extract louvres would be fitted at low level close to habitable windows and balconies associated with the residential units above.

6.8 It is acknowledged that the previous application on this site was refused; on the basis that the proposed air extraction system would adversely affect the amenity of residential occupiers in the vicinity, by reason of odour. However, additional technical information regarding the proposed extract system has been submitted with this application including details of a three stage filtration system, silencers and the type and capacity of the oven. BCC Regulatory Services have reviewed the application and consider that with these measures in place the proposal would not significantly impact on the amenity of neighbours. Regulatory Services have requested several planning conditions to mitigate the potential impact including limiting the use of the extract system to the indicated two deck pizza oven only, setting the maximum noise levels, requiring noise insulation, details of refuse storage, limiting the hours of use to 09:00-23:00 and limiting the bulk delivery and waste collection times to 09:00 – 19:00. Motorcycle service deliveries to customers would be able to operate between the 09:00-23:00 hours of operation.

6.9 The proposed hot food takeaway is only considered to be acceptable when operated with the proposed kitchen cooking equipment (2 deck pizza oven) and extract system. Other, more intensive types of hot food takeaway, involving grilling or deep fat frying may result in increased odours and noise, which may impact on residential amenity. The proposed planning condition stating that extract system should only be used in association with the proposed kitchen equipment is therefore considered to be reasonable in this case. Any future proposal to use different kitchen equipment within this hot food takeaway would require a discharge or variation of condition application including details of the new kitchen equipment and extract system. Given the small size of the unit, bulk deliveries are unlikely to cause a significant issue, so I do not consider that a restriction on delivery hours is required.

6.10 Overall, it is acknowledged that there are residential flats above the site, however with all of these controls in place, including restricting the type of hot food takeaway; it is considered that the proposed use would not have a significant impact on local amenity.

Impact upon Traffic Generation

6.11 The availability of public transport and parking together with cycle parking provision and the impact upon highway safety should be considered.

6.12 The site has good links with public transport, although there is no specific cycle parking provision for the site. There are double red lines restricting parking to the front of the application site and at the junction of Old Snow Hill and Summer Lane, and although there is a car park round the corner on Summer Lane there is no on

Page 4 of 8 street parking spaces available for customers to make a quick visit to pick up food except for on-street pay and display parking available in the vicinity of the application site. Nevertheless BCC Transportation Development have raised no objections and it is considered that the proposed Pizza Hut Delivery shop relies upon delivery to customers by motorcycle shown on the plans as stored within the premises and customers arriving by foot. The agent has confirmed that only 10% of pizza made at this kind of premises is collected by customers.

6.13 Furthermore BCC Transportation Development consider that due to the level of active traffic management/enforcement, particularly at busy times, by street wardens and police officers it is highly unlikely that parking illegally would become an issue at this site.

Design and Visual Impact.

6.14 The proposed contemporary glazed shopfront with black/grey aluminium framing would harmonise with this modern block of flats and would enhance the street scene in accordance with UDP Policies 3.8 and 3.14 and BDP policy PG3.

Other Issues Raised in Consultation

6.15 West Midlands Police Authority suggests allowing a temporary consent in order to assess the impact of the proposed use. However, as set out above with the conditional controls in place, including restricting the type of hot food takeaway, it is considered that the proposed use would not have a significant impact on local amenity. It is therefore considered that a temporary consent if not justified in this case.

6.16 Local residents have raised several other issues including pest infestation, fire safety and anti-social behaviour. In response, a planning condition has been applied regarding refuse storage, operational food safety issues would be dealt with by other regulatory bodies, fire safety issues would be dealt with at the building control stage and the change of use itself would not directly result in an increase in anti-social behaviour.

6.17 The comments from Birmingham Public Health are noted however the nearest school, St George’s Junior school is located more than 400m away.

6.18 The comments regarding notification and consultation are noted, however the applicant has served certificate B on the adjoining unit and a site notice was erected at the site in accordance with the statutory consultation requirements.

7 Conclusion

7.1 Overall, the principle of the change of use of these vacant retail units to a hot food takeaway is supported subject to conditions relating to the type of hot food takeaway use, noise mitigation and controlling hours of operation the use would not operate with significant harm to amenity or highway safety.

Recommendation

Approved with Conditions

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

Page 5 of 8

2 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

3 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation (variable)

4 Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage

5 Extraction only to be used in conjuction with kitchen equipment

6 Limits the hours of operation (09:00-23:00)

7 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Robert Lester

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Photo of the Front Elevation Looking East

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

Beacon 16 8

House

163 164

6 Car Park 25 23 5

21 Birmingha

19 SM 393

2 394 13 El Sub Sta

120.1m 11 1 9 396 CR

1 to 7 Hub

TCB

1 to 151 10 to 16 to 10 CLIVE PASSAGE City Building

Heights 8 6 Towing

81 to 85 2 to 4 to 2 Birmin LB 118.3m

LB 86a

86c 86b

OLD SNOW HILL WILLIAM BOOTH LANE

Snow Hill Bridge 63 El

Warehouse Sub Sta

86 87

Hostel 115.2m

88 1

Lock

89 Focus Foyer

117.7m

Def Warehouse Locks 1 Farmer's Bridge

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/05297/PA Accepted: 09/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 04/11/2015 Ward: Ladywood

Land at 46, 47 & 48 Blucher Street, City Centre, Birmingham, B1 1QJ

Single storey building to be used as a private hire booking office Applicant: Mr Major Singh 19 Nelson Street, West Bromwich, West Midlands, B71 1EE Agent: Home Design 3 Monway Buildings, Holyhead Road, Wednesbury, West Midlands, WS10 7PY Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application seeks permission for the installation of a single storey brick built building to be used as a private hire booking office at land at 46, 47 and 48 Blucher Street.

1.2. The proposed single storey building would measure 3.6m (w) x 7.4m (l) x 3.8m to the top of the pitched roof made of brick with upvc windows. The building would be set back 6.7m from the road with four car parking space to the front and side. The private hire base would operate 24 hours and employ 2 full time and 1 part time staff to work at the office. It would have three desk and a WC.

1.3. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site relates to part of a site currently used as a privately run pay and display car park accessed from Blucher Street. To the north of the site is a Synagogue which is a Grade II* Listed Building, to the east is a surface car park. To the south is the locally listed Craven Arms public house. Adjacent is a mixed use building with commercial uses on the ground floor and apartments above, beyond is The Mailbox.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 12/05/2015 - 2015/01024/PA - Use of land for private hire parking and installation of a portable cabin for use as a private hire base – Refused on the following grounds:

* The proposed use of the site as private hire base would adversely affect the amenity of occupiers of dwellings adjacent to the application site by reason of noise

Page 1 of 5 and general disturbance. As such the proposal would be contrary to Paragraphs 3.8, 3.10 and 8.11- 8.13 of the Birmingham UDP 2005, Private Hire Car Booking Offices (2000) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. MP, Local Councillors, residents associations and nearby occupiers have been notified. Site notice posted. 30 letters of objection were received in relation to the original scheme and 18 letters of objection were received after the scheme was amended from occupiers of the adjacent apartments and Birmingham Hebrew Congregation on the grounds of noise, increased anti-social behaviour, highway safety and its impact on the appearance of the nearby Listed Building and surrounding area.

4.2. West Midlands Police – Have no comments to make.

4.3. Regulatory Services – No objections subject to no passengers shall be picked up from the proposed site at any time, noise insulation, radio control base between the hours of 2000-0800.

4.4. Transportation Development – no objections subject to no passengers being picked up from the site at any time and temporary consent.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The Birmingham Plan (2005), Draft Birmingham Plan 2031, Private Hire Booking Offices, (2000), Places for All (2001), National Planning Policy Framework

6. Planning Considerations

POLICY

6.1. Policy 8.12 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005 and Private Hire Car Booking Offices (2000) direct that applications for taxi booking office will normally be approved where:

*There is no residential accommodation within 50m of the proposed premises. *The proposed development would not adversely affect the amenities of the occupiers of dwellings in the area because of noise and disturbance. *The proposal does not make use of accommodation which would readily be used for housing purposes. *Nearby highways are not subject to ‘no waiting’ restrictions. *Off street parking is available adjacent to the booking office and is adequate for the number of vehicles used by the applicant.

NOISE AND DISTURBANCE

6.2. The original application for a portcabin to be used a taxi hire booking office received a number of objections from nearby occupiers. The application has since been amended for a permanent structure to be used as a taxi hire booking office, a number of objections have been received on the same grounds. Regulatory Services have raised no objections to the proposal subject to no passengers shall be picked up from the proposed site at any time and no taxi’s are allowed to the site between 2000-0800. Whilst it is noted that the proposal would be located within 50m of residential accommodation, this is a city centre location and it is considered

Page 2 of 5 that attaching the recommended conditions would safeguard nearby occupiers and not have a detrimental impact in terms of noise and disturbance from comings and goings to the premises.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

6.3. Transportation Development have noted the Traffic Regulation Order double yellow lines fronting the application site, there is Pay and Display on street parking available within the vicinity, site has an existing large vehicular crossing and the site is on a one way street. As such no objections have been raised subject to conditions that passengers are not to be picked up from the site to ensure the safety and free flow of the highway network and temporary consent to monitor impact.

6.4. Amended plans were received amending the original temporary portacabin structure for a permanent structure to ensure it is more in keeping with the adjacent locally listed building. It is considered the design of the building which would also develop part of this unkempt site that is currently being used as a temporary car park is acceptable and would be in keeping with the nearby locally listed building and the surrounding area.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to conditions safeguarding the amenities of nearby residents.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve Subject to Conditions

1 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

2 Restricts members of the public from ordering or waiting for taxis at the premises

3 Limits the site as a radio control base only between the hours of 2000-0800 daily

4 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation (variable)

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

6 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Anh Do

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

View South

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 10/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/09214/PA Accepted: 05/11/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 31/12/2015 Ward: Aston

St Chads Queensway, Opposite Lancaster Circus, City Centre, Birmingham,

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a freestanding double sided static digital advertisement unit to be located on the pedestrian pavement on the north eastern side of St Chads Queensway opposite Lancaster Circus.

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

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

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The advertisement would be located on the pedestrian pavement on the north eastern side of St Chads Queensway opposite Lancaster Circus.

2.2. The adjacent dual-carriageway and the associated highway land are the dominant features in the character of the area. The surrounding area contains several large buildings including Lancaster Circus, Ronald McDonald House and the Dental Hospital.

2.3 Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. No Planning History

Page 1 of 5 4 Consultation/PP Responses

4.1 Transportation Development - No objection subject to conditions to restrict the interval between successive displays, to restrict the display of any special visual effects, to prohibit message sequencing, to prevent the emission of noise, sound, smoke, smell or odours; to include a default mechanism that would freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs; to prevent the display of interactive messages or advertisements; to include controls to monitor ambient light conditions and adjust sign brightness accordingly including a maximum luminance limit. A Grampian condition has also been requested for the relevant highway agreements to be in place prior to the unit being installed. The proposed advert would maintain 2 m of clear pedestrian footway width to ensure adequate pedestrian movement.

5 Policy Context

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

6 Planning Considerations

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

AMENITY

6.2 The proposed advert would be located on the pedestrian pavement on the north eastern side of St Chads Queensway opposite Lancaster Circus. This a wide section of pedestrian pavement adjacent to Vesey Street/Lench Street car park. There is existing highway signage within the vicinity of the site and a large digital banner advert located in the Vesey Street/Lench Street car park to the west. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of highway land, particularly considering the scale of the adjacent buildings and prominence of the dual carriageway in this location. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would also not impact on trees near the site.

PUBLIC SAFETY

6.4 Transportation Development have advised that the proposed replacement advertisement would raise no issues in terms of footway width or visibility requirements and no objections are raised to the proposal on the grounds of public safety, subject to conditions to restrict animated displays in the interests of highway safety. However, the requested condition for the relevant highway agreements to be in place prior to the unit being installed would not be reasonable and will not be applied. The proposed advert would maintain 2 m of clear pedestrian footway width to ensure adequate pedestrian movement.

7 Conclusion

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

8 Recommendation

Page 2 of 5 8.1 Approve Temporary

1 Limits the use of advert

2 Limits length of the display of advert

3 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

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

5 Design of power supply/damage made good

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Robert Lester

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Photo of the Site Looking North East

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5 REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION

PLANNING COMMITTEE 10 DECEMBER 2015

CONSERVATION AND HERITAGE PANEL - REVIEW

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to set down:

• The current modus operandi • Revise Terms of Reference

Background and context

The criteria for referring schemes to the Conservation and Heritage Panel (CHP) was reviewed in December 2012. Since then the City Design and Conservation Team have undergone further changes in personnel and the upturn in the property market has resulted in a marked increase in planning applications. As this is likely to be maintained or increased over the coming years, it is considered necessary and appropriate to review the scope of referrals to CHP at this time to use their expertise efficiently.

History

The Conservation and Heritage Panel was established in 1970. The Panel advises the Planning Committee on major planning application proposals affecting Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas. It meets on a monthly basis at 1 Lancaster Circus and members consist of local councillors, independent experts and representatives of national and local amenity groups. The criteria has been amended a number of times enabling the group to focus on the more significant issues and developments.

Adopted criteria for reporting applications to the Conservation and Heritage Panel

The current criteria (approved by planning committee on 6 December 2012) is set out below:

• All applications for listed building consents for Grade 1 buildings, or planning applications significantly affecting Grade 1 buildings or their setting. • All applications for listed building consents significantly affecting Grade ll* buildings or their setting. • All planning applications with major archaeological implications. • Proposals for the substantial alteration or complete demolition of Grade ll listed buildings. • Major new development within conservation areas or parks and gardens on the National Register. • Proposals for demolitions in conservation areas. • Major developments significantly affecting conservation areas and listed buildings. • Additions to the statutory and local list. Since the previous review of the CHP criteria in 2012 there has been an upturn in the market and therefore a marked increase in the number of applications received which in turn would be required to be referred to CHP.

Given the legislative time limits of planning applications and the existing criteria for referral to CHP, there is now a need to review the criteria in order to meet the statutory 8 and 13 week time limit for live applications.

The current criteria for referral overlaps the statutory requirements for consultation with a number of national organisations including Historic England and amenity societies. It is therefore considered that a review of the criteria could make better use of panellists time and resources by refocusing onto schemes that other consultees may be less involved in.

Proposed criteria for reporting applications to the Conservation and Heritage Panel

The existing criteria is proposed to be deleted and replaced with the following in order to streamline the CHP review process and refocus on those schemes where CHP can add value through their expert opinion. This is set out as follows:

1. All requests for pre-application advice (subject to consent by the applicant/agent) and subsequent applications for major planning application within the curtilage of a listed building; 2. All requests for pre-application advice (subject to consent by the applicant/agent) and subsequent applications that affect the character and appearance of a conservation area, where development involves the demolition of a building (over 1,000sqm) and or the erection of a new building or extension (over 1,000sqm or comprising 10 or more residential units); 3. All requests for pre-application advice (subject to consent by the applicant/agent) and subsequent applications for major schemes that affect registered park and gardens and sites of potential archaeological sensitivity; 4. All planning policy and associated guidance documents affecting the historic environment; and 5. All proposals to add to the Local List.

Reasons for the deletions of each of the existing criteria is set out below: • All applications for listed building consents for Grade 1 buildings, or planning applications significantly affecting Grade 1 buildings or their setting.

REASON: This is replaced by criteria 1 to better focus CHP Panellists time on more significant schemes.

• All applications for listed building consents significantly affecting Grade ll* buildings or their setting.

REASON: This is replaced by criteria 1 to better focus CHP Panellists time on more significant schemes.

• All planning applications with major archaeological implications.

REASON: This is replaced by criteria 3 to better focus CHP Panellists time on more significant schemes.

• Proposals for the substantial alteration or complete demolition of Grade ll listed buildings.

REASON: This is replaced by criteria 1 to better focus CHP Panellists time on more significant schemes.

• Major new development within conservation areas or parks and gardens on the National Register.

REASON: This is replaced by criteria 2 and 3 to better focus CHP Panellists time on more significant schemes.

• Major developments significantly affecting conservation areas and listed buildings.

REASON: This is replaced by criteria 1 and 2 to better focus CHP Panellists time on more significant schemes.

• Strategic issues having implications for conservation e.g... Local plans and frameworks, development briefs, conservation area appraisals.

REASON: This is replaced by criteria 4 to more comprehensively capture all planning of relevance to the historic environment.

• Additions to the local list.

REASON: This is replaced by criteria 5 to consider requests from the public.

Adopted management proposals and recommendations

Below are the current management proposals in relation to the membership of the Panel as recommended in 2012.

• Both the Chair of the Conservation and Heritage Panel and the Director of Planning and Regeneration will identify and select new members. • Membership will be refreshed every three years. • The City Design and Conservation Manager will provide appropriate induction. It is anticipated that the above will take between 1 – 2 hours. • Half a day every three years to arrange training for elected members and appoint new members. • Conservation officers will set the agenda. • Committee Services Support will draft the agenda and circulate. • Planning Case Officers will continue to provide a written report for each agenda item excluding any new additions to the City Councils locally listed buildings list. • Minutes to be produced by Officers in the form of bullet point notes on decisions.

Proposed

Since then there has been no refreshment of the panel membership and it is therefore proposed that it is now appropriate for this process to be undertaken in accordance with the endorsed recommendations.

1. That approval is given to disband the current Conservation and Heritage Panel (CHP) and create a new panel that reflects a diverse range of professional practitioners with a sound track record of working within the historic environment rather than a panel consisting of numerous societies and interest groups. The new panel will be appointed by the Chair of Planning Committee and Director.

2. The panel will continue to consist of three Councillors and external members as outlined above. At least one elected Member must be present to conduct the business of the panel.

3. Statutory amenity groups that have an expertise in conservation heritage will be invited to attend CHP for discussion of applications in their specific area of expertise. For example the Victorian Society would not have standing membership but would be invited to attend CHP to contribute to specific discussions if none of the new panel members were a Victorian Society Member.

4. Membership will be refreshed every three years and could be extended to widen the range of expertise represented on the panel, in particular to cover design quality within the wider historic environment as reflected in the latest planning document NPPF.

Recommendation

1: To adopt the revised criteria for referral to CHP. 2: To refresh membership of CHP as per the adopted management recommendations

Financial Implications

• The cost will be contained within the existing budget.

Other considerations

• Updating to be undertaken with planning officers.

Contact Officer

Simon Delahunty-Forrest City Design and Conservation Manager Tel No: 0121 464 8258

______

WAHEED NAZIR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION