Birmingham City Council Planning Committee 12 November 2015

Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 12 November 2015

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Refuse 8 2015/06210/PA

63 - 65 Penns Lane Sutton Coldfield Birmingham B72 1BJ

Approve – Conditions 9 2015/02901/PA

Land at Windsor Street and Kellett Road Nechells Birmingham B7 4NQ

Approve – Conditions 10 2015/06273/PA

Wilkes Green Junior School Antrobus Road Handsworth Wood Birmingham B21 9NT

Redevelopment of existing junior school with partial demolition, extensions and refurbishment works. Erection of two detached classrooms, MUGA and creation of new access road and pedestrian route.

Page 1 of 1 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 12/11/2015 Application Number: 2015/06210/PA Accepted: 21/08/2015 Application Type: Outline Target Date: 20/11/2015 Ward: Sutton New Hall

63 - 65 Penns Lane, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, B72 1BJ

Erection of a 50 bed nursing home (Use Class C2) and associated car parking, boundary treatment and landscaping. Outline application with Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale to be determined and Access to be reserved for later consideration. Applicant: Moundsley Hall Nursing Home Limited Moundsley Hall Nursing Home, Walkers Heath Road, Kings Norton, Birmingham, B38 0BL Agent: Mr Richard Baily 3 Alpha House, Farmer Ward Road, Kenilworth, Warwickshire, CV8 2ED Recommendation Refuse

1. Proposal

1.1. Outline application for the erection of a 50 bed 24 hour residential nursing home (Use Class C2) with associated car parking, boundary treatment and landscaping. Appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be considered only and Access reserved for later consideration.

1.2. The proposed residential care home would be sited over the footprint of the former two detached dwellinghouses that previously occupied the site. The building would follow the front building line of 59 and 67 Penns Lane although it would be set forward 0.4 metres of 61 Penns Lane. The building would be three storeys high with an additional semi-basement (lower ground floor) level and the second floor level accommodated mainly within the roof space. The lower ground floor would be concealed behind a railing fence at the front of the building and would open out onto a sunken garden to the rear. The building would be 30 metres wide and would include a 14.4 metre deep three storey flat roof rear wing. The rear wing would have staggered side elevations to prevent overlooking of the neighbouring rear gardens and a staircase would be located to the rear.

1.3. The building would have a symmetrical design to the frontage with a centrally positioned main entrance contained within a forward projecting brick gable and to either side there would be slightly smaller forward projecting brick gables, dormer windows and ground and first floor windows. The building would have rendered elevations to the front elevation between the gables and to the upper parts of the rear wing. A sedum green roof is also proposed to the flat roof rear wing.

Page 1 of 13 1.4. Internally the accommodation would comprise a kitchen, storage room, staff room, treatment room, ancillary room, treatment room, plant room, a large dayroom and 7 bedrooms (with bathrooms) on the lower ground floor. The accommodation at ground floor and on the first floor would be similar with 16 bedrooms (with bathrooms), a separate bathroom and WC on each. There would also be a reception/managers area on the ground floor and a nursing area, ancillary area and hairdressers on the first floor. The second floor would comprise 11 bedrooms (with bathrooms), a separate bathroom and a dayroom. Access to each floor would be gained via a lift or stairs. All bedroom sizes and the rear garden including the sunken garden would comply with the minimum guidelines set out in Specific Residential Uses SPG.

1.5. 18 car parking spaces are proposed including 1 parking space for disabled people and one for ambulances. The existing footway crossing (that previously served No. 65 Penns Lane) would be widened to 5 metres (currently 4 metres). 7 cycle storage facilities and a bin storage area that would be enclosed by a 2 metre high hit and miss timber boarded fence would be provided to the front of the building.

1.6. The site has been cleared of all buildings and trees except for two trees to the frontage consisting of a Beech tree and a Silver Birch tree, which are both subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO 1223). It is proposed to retain the Silver Birch tree and it has been agreed with my Tree Officer that 2 Holly trees would be planted along the frontage to replace a protected Holly tree that was felled without prior consent in 2013. It is also proposed to provide replacement trees within the rear garden. A 4.5 metre high hornbeam hedge, a 2.1 metre holly or yew hedge would be provided along both side boundaries shared with 61 and 67 Penns Lane. A low brick wall with a 2 metre high hedge behind is proposed for the front boundary.

1.7. The residential care home would employ 10 full time and 25 part time staff members.

1.8. The application has been submitted with a Design and Access Statement, Arboricultural Implication Study, Ecological Appraisal, Noise Impact and Sound Insulation Report, Sustainable Building Statement (which includes a sustainable drainage system and water conservation statement), Transport Note and Specification of Materials.

1.9. Site Area: 0.35 hectares.

1.10. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is rectangular in shape with a 34 metre wide frontage to Penns Lane and is currently cleared of all buildings and vegetation and only two trees remain (which are covered by TPO 1223). The site was previously occupied by two detached two-storey dwellinghouses set back from the road behind deep front gardens and discreet parking areas and with long rear gardens.

2.2. The site extends between 85 metres and 105 metres in length and the ground level falls from 120.50 to 119.90 across the road frontage (from west to east) and gently falls from 120.50 to 118.00 along the side boundary with 61 Penns Lane to the rear of the site. The site also falls gently along the opposite side boundary with 67 Penns Lane from 119.90 to 119.00 and then down to 117.50 in the north-eastern corner of

Page 2 of 13 the site. There are two existing vehicular access points to Penns Lane that served the previous dwellinghouses.

2.3. The surrounding area is a mature suburb, comprising predominantly large two- storey detached and semi-detached dwellings set back from the road on relatively large plots. There have been infill housing developments in the area which have introduced a number of culs-de-sac developments that have involved larger dwellings sited closer to the road and on smaller plots. The area also includes a small number of three storey houses and there is a three-storey block of apartments (known as Riland Court) located on the corner of Penns Lane and Beech Hill Road and a three-storey nursing home at 1 - 3 Beech Hill Road (known as Beech Hill Grange Nursing Home).

2.4. The application site is located within 300 metres of Wylde Green Neighbourhood Centre which contains a number of shops, services and is well served by public transport services. There is also a bus stop and a cycle lane located on the opposite side of Penns Lane.

2.5. Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 17 December 2013 - 2013/07717/PA – Full planning application for the erection of 60 bed residential care home, withdrawn.

3.2. 29 May 2014 - 2014/01482/PA - Full planning application for the erection of 60 bed residential care home (Use Class C2) together with car parking, boundary treatment and landscaping, refused on the following grounds:

a. The proposed development would result in an over-development of the site. The depth, width and height of the rear wing of the building would have an adverse effect on the character of the existing residential area and would therefore fail to take the opportunities available to improve the character and quality of the area and the way it functions. 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, the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

b. The scale, massing and design of the rear wing of the proposed building would result in an overbearing visual impact and an unacceptable sense of enclosure to adjoining dwelling houses and their rear gardens. As such the proposed development would adversely affect the amenity of occupiers of adjoining dwellings contrary to Paragraphs 3.8 and 3.10 of the Birmingham UDP 2005, guidance in Places for Living, the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

3.3. Subsequent appeal (APP/P4605/A/14/2224939) dismissed on 10 November 2014.

3.4. Related planning history at 61, 63, 65 and 67 Penns Lane

3.5. 26 October 2007 - 2007/04751/PA – Refused Outline application for demolition of 4 detached family dwelling houses and erection of 124 bed residential care-home including layout, scale, appearance and means of access. Appeal Withdrawn.

Page 3 of 13 3.6. 4 July 2008 - 2008/01864/PA – Approved Outline application to establish the principle of the demolition of 4 dwellings and the erection of a 61 bed care home and 11 detached houses, subject to conditions. Details of access, appearance, layout and scale were considered. Landscaping details were reserved for future consideration.

3.7. 16 September 2011 - 2011/04189/PA – Refused application to extend the time limit for application 2008/01864/PA for outline consent to establish the principle of the demolition of 4 dwellings and the erection of a 61 bed care home and 11 detached houses on the grounds that no updated Bat Survey was submitted.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. M.P, Ward Councillors, Residents Associations and adjoining occupiers were notified. Press Notice published and Site Notice displayed at site.

4.2. Councillor Yip - Objects to the application on the grounds that it would be out of character with the surrounding roads in terms of other house sizes, style, presence and use; have a substantial visual impact to the road and area and the frontage would not be adequately shielded by foliage from the road; impact traffic and highway safety due to the inadequate access into the site for vehicles and ambulances; cause major disruption for a significant time during building works; impact on neighbouring houses as it would substantially block out and dwarf existing traditional houses; and the quality of development provides substandard bedroom sizes and inadequate provision for recreation and social activities. It is also advised that there has been overwhelming objection and anger at the proposals from local residents towards the developer personally because of his personal background and previous attitude.

4.3. Councillor Barrie - Objects to the application and advises that the development is still too great for this particular area, being out of keeping with surrounding property, and having negative impact on visual amenity. The provision of lower ground floor rooms seems to be a measure simply cost related, and views for residents would be poor. In addition the majority of workers here would not be able to cycle or walk, and there would be extensive reliance on cars in an area with narrow road and mini roundabout with history of minor accidents.

4.4. Councillor Wood - Objects to the application and advises that the scale of the proposed development is not in keeping with the site and raises concerns regarding traffic generated by the development when it is close to a well-used and busy junction. Concerns are also raised about the number of parking spaces available for staff and visitors and that it may lead to parking on Penns Road, which would cause a hazard to motorists and pedestrians alike.

4.5. 39 letters of objection including some with illustrations/photomontages received from public participation, stating the following: • Overdevelopment of the site. • Design of the building including proposed building materials is out of keeping with the character of the area and shows no respect for the existing arts and crafts buildings and their layout. • The side elevations are not in keeping with the area and do not reflect the good design polices set out in local and national planning policies. • Scale of the building being four storeys is massive, significantly out of scale to surrounding properties and disproportionate to the area.

Page 4 of 13 • The building violates the front and rear building lines of neighbouring houses that have a consistent building line, which would fail to respect the character of the area and impact on light and promote significant feelings of enclosure to adjoining residents. • Loss of two beautiful properties and gardens that were demolished prior to planning permission being granted for the redevelopment of the site. • Visually overbearing even though the new design has been reduced in depth. • Loss of amenity to adjoining residents in terms of loss of light, overshadowing and overlooking. • The hedge proposed for the boundaries would block sunlight to adjoining gardens and houses. • 67 Penns Lane has an original Boulton & Paul revolving summer house dating from the early years of the last century, which has been in the rear garden for the best part of the last 100 years and is sited facing south to catch the sun. The proposed building would make it impossible for the residents to enjoy the use of this summerhouse as they would be severely overlooked by potentially dozens of residents, visitors and staff who would have a grandstand view from the windows within the rear elevation of the proposed building. • The size, depth, width, height and massing of the building would have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of the properties immediately adjacent to the site and the surrounding area. • Noise disturbance due to 24/7 entry to and from the site. • Lack of space for overloading of service vehicles and turning circle of large supply vehicles and other vehicles, which would create a hazard. • Highway safety caused by employees and service vehicles. • Increase traffic and congestion close to a dangerous and busy road junction with many report and unreported accidents. • Inadequate parking area and would result in vehicles overhanging the footpath and obstructing pedestrians and cyclist. • Unacceptable access for safety vehicles (such as the Fire Service). • Smells. • Loss of trees and no action has been taken against the applicant for the removal of protected trees prior to this application being submitted. • Local, strategic, regional and national planning policies have not been considered. • Government circulars, orders and statutory instruments have been totally ignored by the local Authority and this matter needs to be addressed and each individual held responsible for allowing the project to reach the demolition stage. • Impact on Nature Conservation. • The business use of the residential care home would be unneighbourly. • Public services (for example drainage) are already inadequate and will not sustain the volume from an additional residential home. • Nearby doctor facilities would not support the additional patients as it is already difficult to book a appointment. • A previous application for outline consent that included a residential care home was on a much larger site (as it also included 61 and 67 Penns Lane) and included houses which provided a different context for the residential care home compared to the current proposed scheme. • A previous application (48450002) to change the use of 63 Penns Lane into a residential care home and erect a modest extension was refused planning permission in 1984 on the grounds that the development would be out of

Page 5 of 13 character with the area, and would result in too intensive use of the premises, unsatisfactory internal layout, inadequate car parking facilities and would adversely affect the amenities of occupiers of adjoining dwellings by reasons of nearness, height and loss of light. • No need for a residential care home given the proposed expansion of Beech Hill Grange and the proposed care homes on Jockey Road and in Erdington. • Poor internal layout for example the dining room/ day room is located on the lower ground level which would feel like a underground car park. • Lack of adequate gardens and landscaping for the care home. • The comments stated in the dismissed appeal by the inspectorate still stand. • Applicant has lack of respect to planning law and policy as he demolished to existing buildings and further removed historic and significant vegetation. • Inadequate information as no proper boundary or topographic survey has been submitted. • The applicant undermines law and local residents. • The Care Quality Commission has already issued warnings about the proposed owner's standards at other locations managed by them.

4.6. Transportation Development – No objection subject to conditions requiring the construction of the new footway crossing/ alterations to the existing footway crossing are carried out to departmental specifications; that any work relating to any street furniture, statutory apparatus are to appropriate specifications/standards at the applicant's expense; all redundant footway crossing to be reinstated with full height kerbs, vehicular and pedestrian visibility splays to be achieved, car parking management plan, parking and vehicular circulation areas to be used for no other purposes, cycle storage facilities to be provided and applicant to affiliate to Travelwise. It is also suggested that an appropriate condition is attached to secure £10,000 for review/implementation of traffic regulation orders.

4.7. Regulatory Services – No objection subject to conditions requiring kitchen extract system details, extraction and odour control details, vehicle charging points, sound insulation between bedrooms and other parts of the building, limit noise levels for plant and machinery, adequate refuse storage and lighting details for the car park.

4.8. Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to a condition requiring suitable drainage.

4.9. West Midlands Fire Service – No objection.

4.10. West Midlands Police – Awaiting comments.

4.11. Drainage - No objection subject to conditions requiring a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Operation and Maintenance Plan.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2005, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG, 45 Degree Code SPD, Mature Suburbs SPD, Places For All SPG, Places For Living SPG, Car Parking Guidelines SPD, TPO 1223, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Planning Practice Guidance.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Policy Context

Page 6 of 13

6.2. The NPPF seeks to ensure the provision of sustainable development, of good quality, in appropriate locations and sets out principles for developing sustainable communities. It encourages the effective use of land by utilising brown-field sites and focusing development in locations that are sustainable and can make the fullest use of public transport, walking and cycling. The NPPF promotes high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Paragraph 58 advises that planning decisions should aim to ensure that developments add to the overall quality of the area, create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit, respond to local character and are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

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

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

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

6.6. Mature Suburbs SPD contains guidelines for residential intensification and sets key design criteria to be used to ensure new residential developments do not undermine or harm the positive characteristics of a mature suburb. The design criteria for developments in mature suburbs includes: building form and massing; siting; boundary treatment; design styles; public realm and landscaping; and cumulative impact.

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

6.8. Policy PG3 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan states that all new development will be expected to be designed to the highest possible standards, reinforcing or creating a positive sense of place and local distinctiveness, with design that responds to site conditions and the local area context.

6.9. Background Information

6.10. The application follows a refused planning application (reference 2014/01482/PA) for the erection of a 60 bed residential care home and a subsequent appeal that was dismissed in November 2014. There have been a number of pre-application discussions with the applicant however each revised scheme has been considered

Page 7 of 13 unacceptable because the proposed building has failed to address the main concerns given by the Planning Inspectorate in the dismissed appeal in terms of the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and the impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.

6.11. It is recognised that the site formed part of a larger site Nos 61, 63, 65 and 67 Penns Lane) that was granted outline consent (2008/01864/PA) in July 2008 for the erection of a 61 bed care home and 11 detached houses, following demolition of the four houses with all matters reserved. The reserved matters application was never submitted and the outline consent has now lapsed. This consent carries limited weight as the site was larger than the current application site and included houses and new access road.

6.12. Whilst the broad principle of a residential care home is considered acceptable on this site, given that it is located within a sustainable residential area, close to local shops and services and without any known physical constraints preventing its development, I am of the view that the proposed development would again have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area and the amenities of existing and future occupiers for the reasons given below.

6.13. Impact on Local Character

6.14. The application site is located within a mature residential suburb, comprising predominantly two-storey detached and semi-detached dwellinghouses set back from the road behind deep front gardens and discreet parking spaces.

6.15. In relation to the previous refused application 2014/01482/PA, the Planning Inspectorate stated in their decision letter that the "appeal scheme would introduce a very substantial three-storey building, with a frontage running the width of what were formerly two discrete, wide plots. The building would also extend back almost the full length of the appeal site, resulting in the loss of what were the characteristic large rear gardens of Nos 63 and 65. Thus, the proposed scheme would appear as a very incongruous intervention and an uncharacteristic intensification of development, in the spacious, green setting of the wider area".

6.16. The current scheme has significantly reduced the length that the rear wing extends into the rear garden compared to the previous refused scheme. However, this has not addressed all of the design issues and in some cases has created new ones that mean that the design is not satisfactory. The proposed building footprint is smaller compared to the previous refused scheme but is now taller, with additional accommodation in a semi-basement (lower ground floor) level and in the roof.

6.17. The proposed building would be three storeys high with three storey front projecting gables and a three storey flat roof rear wing. It would be 31.5 metres wide and would result in a continuous frontage of the proposed building that would extend nearly the full width of the site, which previously contained two discrete dwellinghouses. The building would be significantly taller than 67 Penns Lane in terms of both eaves and ridge height and the proposed eaves would be taller than 61 Penns Lane. The height of the building would be exacerbated at the rear as the semi-basement (lower ground floor) level would effectively make the rear elevation four storeys high. The split in the roofline and the proposed number of dormer windows both to the front and rear elevations only emphasises the scale and intensity of the proposed development.

Page 8 of 13 6.18. In addition, two of the front projecting gables would extend above the roof of the main building and would appear incongruous and not subservient building features compared to gable features in neighbouring houses. It is recognised that the neighbouring houses on this side of Penns Lane are relatively large two-storey houses with references from the Arts and Crafts style however the proposed building would dwarf these houses, appear excessively large within the street scene and would not reflect the Arts and Crafts style of the adjoining houses.

6.19. The submitted street scene plan outlines the dwellings that were previously on the site and it shows that the previous dwellings in terms of building height and frontage width related well with the neighbouring dwellings.

6.20. I acknowledge that there are some three storey buildings in the area however these developments are exceptions to the overall character of the area. Riland Court is a three-storey building, but is located on a corner plot with a greater degree of public realm and is also three-storeys only in part and does not extend deep into the plot between two existing dwellings. The three storey residential care home known as Beech Hill Grange is also located on a large corner plot that backs onto Walmley Golf course. I do not consider that these examples establish any kind of a precedent for the proposed scheme.

6.21. The building would have a formal symmetrical appearance that would not relate to the design or appearance of adjoining dwellings which have juxtaposition building features that are typical of the Arts and Crafts movement. The regular position of the front projecting gables, the window position and the use of rendered materials in the recessed elements together would result in a building that appears unrelated to the local area and would undermine the quality of this built environment, contrary to policies 3.8, 3.10, 3.14C and 5.20 of the adopted UDP, Places for Living SPG, Mature Suburbs SPD, the NPPF, the Planning Practice Guidance and the draft Birmingham Development Plan.

6.22. My City Design Advisor recommends refusal of this application on the grounds of the proposed building having an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the area, in terms of building scale and design. I agree that the proposed building would detract from the quality and character of this mature suburb and would appear unrelated and incongruous in the street scene.

6.23. Impact on Residential Amenity

6.24. The proposed building would appear as a four storey building when viewed from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. The scale and massing of the building extends across nearly the full width of the plot. The building would have a dominant presence, even with additional planting along the side boundaries, and would result in an unacceptable overbearing impact on neighbouring occupiers. I therefore consider that the proposed development would significantly reduce the enjoyment of the rear gardens for neighbouring occupiers.

6.25. Furthermore, the row of dormer windows within the rear roof slope of the proposed four storey building would result in overlooking and perceived overlooking of the neighbouring rear gardens although I recognise that the views from these windows would be at an oblique angle. Overall, I consider that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings, in terms of outlook and overlooking.

Page 9 of 13 6.26. I also consider that the quality of the living environment for future occupiers would be substandard. The rooms within the rear wing would have a poor aspect with only a small bedroom window to the rear elevation that due to the orientation of the site would have limited sunlight.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider that the scale of the proposed building would result in an excessively large building that would be out of character with the area and would result in an unacceptable overbearing and overlooking impact on neighbouring residents. The design is considered to be poor that fails to reinforce or relate to the architectural styles and building materials of neighbouring properties. The proposed bedrooms within the rear wing would have a poor aspect with little sunlight that would result in unsatisfactory living accommodation.

7.2. I therefore consider that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area and would adversely impact the amenity of existing and future occupiers, contrary to policies 3.8, 3.10, 3.14C and 5.20 of the adopted UDP, Places for Living SPG, Mature Suburbs SPD, the NPPF, the Planning Practice Guidance and the draft Birmingham Development Plan.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That planning permission be refused for the following reason:

Reasons for Refusal

1 The proposed development in terms of building scale and design would result in a excessively large building that would be out of character with the area, and would undermine and harm the quality of the mature suburb. As such the development 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, the National Planning Policy Framework and the draft Birmingham Development Plan.

2 The proposed development would be four storeys in height at the rear including a semi-basement (lower ground floor) level and would include a row of dormer windows in the rear roof slope that would result in a dominant building that would have an unacceptable overbearing impact and result in overlooking and the loss of enjoyment to the rear gardens of neighbouring properties and as such the proposal would be contrary to Paragraphs 3.8, 3.10, 3.14C and 5.20 of the Birmingham UDP 2005, guidance in 'Places for Living' adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance, the National Planning Policy Framework and the draft Birmingham Development Plan.

3 The proposed development would provide substandard living accommodation for future occupiers living in the bedrooms within the rear wing, due to a poor aspect and limited window sizes, and as such the proposal would be contrary to Paragraphs 3.8, 3.10, 3.14C and 5.20 of the Birmingham UDP 2005, guidance in 'Places for Living' adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance, the National Planning Policy Framework and the draft Birmingham Development Plan.

Case Officer: Helen Hawkes

Page 10 of 13 Photo(s)

Application Site, 61 Penns Lane and Properties to the rear of the site within Beech Hill Close

Page 11 of 13

Road frontage of Application Site and 67 Penns Lane

Page 12 of 13 Location Plan

26a

BEECH HILL ROAD 41 4

BEECH HILL CLOSE 8

43 3

123.1m 11

7 47

36 1

THE COBBLES

2 49

121.9m 69 69a

69b

119.8m 71

326 72 83 311

84 PENNS LANE 98

16 ORPHANAGE ROAD

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

Page 13 of 13

Committee Date: 12/11/2015 Application Number: 2015/02901/PA Accepted: 18/08/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 17/11/2015 Ward: Nechells

Land at Windsor Street and Kellett Road, Nechells, Birmingham, B7 4NQ

Erection of 72 no. bedroom student accommodation block consisting of 35 no. studios and 37 no. bedrooms arranged into 8 clusters with associated kitchen/living spaces, ancillary facilities to comprise common room, launderette, cycle store, management office, refuse store and plant room Applicant: Millenium Holdings Ltd 49-51 Park Road, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8AH Agent: Oconnell East Architects 63 Newton Street, Manchester, M1 1ET Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. The proposal seeks permission for the erection of a 72 no. bedroom student accommodation block consisting of 35 no. studios and 37 no. bedrooms arranged into 8 clusters with associated kitchen/living spaces, ancillary facilities to comprise common room, launderette, cycle store, management office, refuse store and plant room.

1.2. The building would be between two and four storeys tall. Peaking at four storeys in height towards the northern end of the site, the building would drop down to three storeys at either side before stepping down to two storeys at the southern most point of the site.

1.3. The proposed student accommodation block would be finished with blue and buff brickwork, zinc sheet cladding and curtain walling.

1.4. The ground floor would consist of 10 en-suite bedrooms, 5 studios, 2 lounge/kitchen rooms, bike store, plant room, bin store, management room, launderette and a common room.

1.5. The first floor would consist of 20 en-suite bedrooms, 15 studios and 2 lounge/kitchen rooms.

1.6. The second floor would consist of 10 en-suite bedrooms, 2 lounge/kitchen rooms and 11 studios. A green roof would also be provided at this level.

Page 1 of 9 1.7. The third floor would consist of 7 en-suite bedrooms, 2 lounge/kitchen rooms and 4 deluxe studios. A green roof would also be provided at this level.

1.8. The main entrance would be located off Windsor Street. Each floor would be accessed by the provision of two staircases and a lift.

1.9. No on-site parking would be provided. An internal bike store would be provided on the ground floor providing 34 covered cycle spaces.

1.10. In support of this application the following documents have been submitted: • Planning statement • Design and access statement • Transport statement • Travel plan • Management plan • Noise assessment • Contaminated land desk study report • Student accommodation needs assessment • Sustainable drainage assessment (including sustainable drainage operation and maintenance plan)

1.11. Site Area: 0.127 hectares.

1.12. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is vacant land, currently used as pay & display car parking, on Windsor Street / Kellett Road. The site was formerly occupied by a two storey flat roof building. This building was positioned centrally within the site and provided a collection of small retail units. The shop units faced onto Kellett Road with the service area and rear of the building facing onto Windsor Street. The building was subsequently demolished between 2008 and 2009. Since then the site has been cleared and has remained undeveloped.

2.2. The application site is situated north-east of Birmingham City Centre and can be accessed just off the Dartmouth Middleway.

2.3. The land use in the immediate area is mixed.

2.4. To the east and beyond the land use is largely residential. The immediately adjacent buildings form medium density low-rise housing dating from 1990s. There are also a number of high rise residential buildings scattered amongst this area.

2.5. To the north and west there is a character of light industrial and warehouse units. These are largely bounded by Windsor Street, Nechells Parkway, Lord Street and Dartmouth Middleway.

2.6. The site is approximately a five minute walk from Aston University campus. The Birmingham City University Parkside city campus is also within walking distance of the development site.

Page 2 of 9 3. Planning History

3.1. 01/08/2014 - 2014/05126/PA - Pre-application discussion for proposed student accommodation development of 97 beds in 4 storeys – Pre-application discussion finalised. 4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Surrounding occupiers, MP, Local Councillors, residents associations have been notified. Press and site notice posted – Three objections from residents have been received with the following concerns: • Noise and disturbance (including through the night) • Parking • Alcohol and the use of drugs • Not an appropriate place for a residential area • Overcrowding issue in the area • Affect families with children in the area • Attempts of crime on people and property will also arise • Area already largely populated by students • Rubbish in the road and in gardens • No respect for residents • Bad language • Damage to property • Devalue property • Block views and light due to its size

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection subject to conditions relating to noise insulation, contaminated remediation scheme, contaminated land verification report and limit the noise levels for plant and machinery.

4.3. Transportation Development - No objection subject to conditions relating to the proposed accommodation to be used only for student accommodation, the redundant footway crossings to be reinstated with full height kerbs to departmental specifications at applicant’s expense through appropriate agreement and the travel plan to be finalised in consultation with BCC Smarter Choices Team prior to occupation.

4.4. West Midlands Police – Generally supportive of the proposals and also make comments in relation to the CCTV system and lighting scheme.

4.5. West Midlands Fire Service – No objection.

4.6. Severn Trent – No objection subject to a drainage condition.

4.7. Centro – No comments received.

4.8. Birmingham Public Health – No comments received.

4.9. The Lead Local Flood Authority – Recommended a SuDS drainage assessment and sustainable drainage operation and maintenance plan pre commencement condition.

Page 3 of 9 5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005), Places for All (2001), Places for Living (2001), Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG (2005), Car Parking Guidelines SPD, National Planning Policy Framework and Draft Birmingham Development Plan.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Policy Paragraph 19 of the NPPF places significant weight on economic growth within the planning system, with paragraph 37 supporting a balance of uses within an area which would minimise travel times. Paragraph 32 states that developments should have safe and suitable access for all people. On environmental concerns, the NPPF is unequivocal in its view that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the proposed use (paragraph 122), with paragraph 123 stating that developments should mitigate and reduce other adverse impacts on health and quality of life, including through the use of conditions.

6.2. Within the draft Birmingham Development Plan, policy SP28 refers to student accommodation and states that it will only be considered favourably where the development is well located to educational establishments and local facilities by walking, cycling and public transport and does not have an unacceptable impact on the character of the local area. A supporting student accommodation needs assessment has been received to address the requirement of policy to adequately demonstrate a need for the proposed student accommodation.

6.3. Policy 3.8 of the adopted UDP highlights that there is a need to recognise the key relationship between environmental quality and levels of economic activity and policy 3.10 states that, ‘proposals which would have an adverse effect on the quality of the built environment will not normally be allowed.’

6.4. Places for Living encourages appropriate densities in developments, active frontages and schemes which reflect local context.

6.5. The Specific needs Residential Uses SPG refers to essential facilities for student accommodation including; space for a single bed, storage, a desk and chair and a heating system. The SPG suggests that this should be incorporated in a single bedroom no less than 6.5 sq. m.

6.6. Principle A student residential development such as this is considered appropriate for this location within easy access to the City Centre and the reuse of previously developed land is welcomed. The application site is considered suitable for access to the City’s three main universities via public transport, bicycle or on foot, along with the University College Birmingham (the former College of Food) and the College of Law, both located within the City Centre. The site is approximately a five minute walk from Aston University campus. The Birmingham City University Parkside city campus is also within walking distance of the development site. It is therefore considered the proposal is acceptable in principle.

Page 4 of 9 6.7. Layout and operation Each outlook is deemed acceptable and the proposal would not have an adverse impact on other residential properties in terms of overlooking. At the highest point of the building (4 storey) the nearest residential property is over 25m away from the habitable room serving the lounge/kitchen room, which is in accordance with Places for Living (2001). Rooms would be cellular in nature and would have breaks between windows. Room layouts and sizes, combined with the communal lounge/kitchens on each level are considered to provide an acceptable living environment in terms of space and facilities for each student occupying a unit.

6.8. The proposed bedroom sizes comply with the requirements outlined in the Specific Needs for Residential Uses SPG and the proposed rooms could accommodate furniture in order to function accordingly. The proposed layout means that the proposed layout and operation of the scheme would create an acceptable living environment for students.

6.9. Visual amenity My City Design advisor raises no objections to the proposed development. Boundary treatments and landscape treatment of external spaces are recommended to be agreed by condition to achieve attractive street scene, secure living environment and useable outdoor amenity spaces for students.The scheme has taken on board advice provided during pre-application discussions.

6.10. The scale and massing of the building has been designed relative to the constraints of the site particularly the relationships with the neighbouring residential properties to the south and east. The scale of the building would provide a building of substance and presence that would contribute to the urban fabric of the area. The built form is designed to relate to all four sides of the site as the principle front and rear elevations of the building would be visible from the public realm. The building would be accessible from Kellett Road and Windsor Street, reflecting the prominence of the building and the freedom of movement around it.

6.11. Residential amenity Regulatory Services raises no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to noise insulation, contaminated remediation scheme, contaminated land verification report and limit the noise levels for plant and machinery. I concur with this view. The building layout ensures that there is an adequate distance between the rear windowed elevations and the side gable elevations of the proposed development. The design and setting of the proposal has been devised to maximise residential amenity of the surrounding properties to the east on Kellett Road. The eastern elevation of the building outlooks onto Kellett Road and provides suitable separation distances to preserve residential amenity.

6.12. The applicant has provided a noise assessment in support of this application. The recommendations contained within the report are to be included in the proposals, which would be fully incorporated to the benefit of the students living on the premises and adjacent users, both residential and commercial.

Page 5 of 9 6.13. Highway safety Transportation Development raise no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to the proposed accommodation to be used only for student accommodation, the redundant footway crossings to be reinstated with full height kerbs to departmental specifications at applicant’s expense through appropriate agreement and the travel plan to be finalised in consultation with BCC Smarter Choices Team prior to occupation. I concur with this view. All conditions are considered to be relevant and appropriate to the development in order to ensure the site is appropriately managed and have been attached accordingly.

6.14. The conditions proposed, coupled with the location of the scheme within close and easy access of the City Centre means that the scheme is considered to be acceptable on highway grounds. The site is located within a highly sustainable location in relation to public transport and the level of secure cycle parking is seen as appropriate for a student residential scheme.

6.15. Drainage Severn Trent have raised no objection to the proposed development subject to a drainage condition. The Lead Local Flood Authority have also recommended a condition which requires the prior submission of a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan in the absence of any drainage design or considerations. I concur with this view.

6.16. Other comments West Midlands Fire Service have no objections to the proposal.

6.17. West Midlands Police have recommended further details of the CCTV and lighting scheme. As such, conditions for the installation of CCTV and a lighting scheme have been attached to enhance on site security.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed use of the site would provide a suitable reuse of previously developed land, subject to suitable conditions, would not have an adverse impact on existing commercial and residential uses or harm the amenity of future occupiers.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That a favourable consideration will be given to the application subject to the conditions listed below:

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

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

3 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

4 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

5 Requires the prior submission of level details

6 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

Page 6 of 9 7 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

8 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

9 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

10 Requires the prior submission of drainage plans

11 Noise insulation to windows, any other glazed areas and external doors

12 Requires the prior submission of a CCTV scheme

13 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

14 Prevents the use from changing within the use class

15 The redundant footway crossings to be reinstated

16 Requires the prior submission of a travel plan

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

18 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Stephanie Salmon

Page 7 of 9 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Application site

Page 8 of 9 Location Plan

Works Works

25 to 29 17 Car Park

BULLOCK STREET 24

WINDSOR STREET

Works 8

262

262 Works Works Works Works 6 109.7m

Works 235 to 238 110.9m

Works 260 Warehouse 257 GREAT LISTER STREET Works 244 to 248 Works 250 to 37 253 252 35 33

39 Depot 101

PH 41 Depot

d Garage 43

256 97

45 57

257 110.9m 43

Works

49 271 41

Welsh 246 Works Baptist 91 Church

m 55

Works 89

ADAMS STREET

Warehouse 77

222 to 230 to 222 85

KELLETT ROAD 21 113.4m 17

Warehouse 245 9

WINDSOR STREET

Warehouse Surgery 218 to 220 to 218 Works 66

33 to 1 35

Depot 206 to 212 to 206 239

60 72 Corporation 64 Yard

235

20 204

52 50

Works 231

48 65

25 46 63 194 HENEAGE STREET

Works 59 241 to 243 47 115.8m Works

El Sub Sta 244 225 45 to 245

Page 9 of 9

Committee Date: 12/11/2015 Application Number: 2015/06273/PA Accepted: 17/08/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 16/11/2015 Ward: Lozells and East Handsworth

Wilkes Green Junior School, Antrobus Road, Handsworth Wood, Birmingham, B21 9NT

Redevelopment of existing junior school with partial demolition, extensions and refurbishment works. Erection of two detached classrooms, MUGA and creation of new access road and pedestrian route. Applicant: Wilkes Green Junior School Antrobus Road, Handsworth Wood, Birmingham, B21 9NT Agent: CS Architects 35 St Pauls Square, Birmingham, B3 1QX Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application is for the redevelopment of an existing junior school with partial demolition, extensions and refurbishment works. The proposal also includes the erection of two detached classrooms, a multi-use games area (MUGA) and the creation of a new access road and pedestrian route.

1.2. The redevelopment works proposed involve:

• Albert Road access - The creation of a new emergency vehicle access route onto the school site is proposed. There would also be a new pedestrian access path into the Junior School from Albert Road. • Antrobus Road access and car park - The new site layout would reconfigure the car park layout according to BCC standards. The realigned parking would add an additional 7 spaces to the parking for the Junior School. This would include 2no. disabled bays adjacent to the access gate into the school. The existing 14no. infant school parking bays are retained on land under ownership of the Infant School. • New main entrance - The new 2 storey extension would form a new entrance which would face onto the new pedestrian access. • Facades – The existing two storey block would be retained and is in need of refurbishment. This block (and others) would be re-clad with coloured aluminium panels on an external metal frame. • Extensions - One of the key extensions would be to the main hall. It would be extended both horizontally and vertically to create a large multipurpose space. The height would be increased to allow for new temporary tiered seating to be installed at the rear of the hall. The larger hall would be linked

Page 1 of 10 back to the main school building by a new corridor from the existing fire escape doors. The courtyard in between the two corridors would be in filled with a new community room and Headmaster’s office. The other key extension would be to the north of the existing building. This extension would house the two new dedicated kitchen spaces. The existing shared kitchen would be partially demolished and extended to create both the infant school kitchen and a new separate plant room for the junior school. The remainder of the extension would house a new junior school kitchen; a minibus garage; new enlarged hall store as well as a bin store for both kitchens. • External classroom - The existing temporary building, which sits between the two playgrounds would be demolished and replaced with a slightly larger single storey building, which can also be used as a gymnasium. • ‘Forest school’ - Additional land has been made available for the school to create additional alternative teaching facilities. The ‘forest school’ would be designed as an external classroom which would connect directly with the outside and would only be used for indoor teaching elements and in extreme weather. • Outdoor areas - The lower larger playground is mainly used for sports activities and currently slopes from north to south. To overcome the changes in level it is proposed to create a ‘MUGA’ style flat area, which is marked out for various pitches.

1.3. There would be no increase in student or staff numbers. There are 28 full time employees directly employed by the school and 356 pupils currently.

1.4. Existing gross floor area is 3015sqm and the new site total taking into account demolitions and extensions would be 3799sqm.

1.5. Site area 1.18 hectares.

1.6. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is an existing junior school site set back from the road within a large area containing play areas and a car park. There are residential properties to all sides of the site.

Site Location Map

3. Planning History

3.1. 10/04/2015 - 2015/01724/PA - Pre-application discussion for redevelopment of existing Junior School with either new buildings or adaptions of existing ones – Pre- application discussion finalised.

3.2. The junior school has had many extensions and alterations over the previous years.

Page 2 of 10 4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Site and press notices displayed, surrounding occupiers, residents associations, local members and MP notified – 2 letters of objection have been received including one from the adjoining infant school with the following comments:

• Lack of consultation with the adjoining infant school. • Initially, the planning application was in the name of Wilkes Green Junior and Infant School which is highly misleading to consultees. • Changes to land occupied by Wilkes Green Infant School will not be authorised. The car park is a joint car park and no changes can be made by one party without agreement from the other • Proposed car park spaces for the infant school are on a slope that becomes dangerous in winter. These would become unusable as cars would slide down the driveway. Junior new spaces are perpendicular to the driveway making them safer. • Removing our land would prevent us from ever increasing our car parking capacity. We have more staff than junior school but significantly fewer spaces. • Our gate for deliveries from the car park will be rendered useless as the planned extension comes in front of this • The plan for the “extended” kitchen for infant school use only reduces available space, not increases it, as all food stores, the kitchen office and toilet facilities are on the junior school side, with no access shown for the Infants. • We had planned to move our refuse area away from the building, but the Junior Plans show that this will not be possible as they would be moving our car parking onto the land we had identified for this. Planning a new refuse area adjacent to the school building is not advisable as it has proved to be a fire risk in other schools and not recommended by fire services personnel. • The shared land from the Albert Road entrance is used as a pathway for a large number of infant school parents and siblings, many of whom use pushchairs etc. Limiting the walkway and channelling through what appears to be a small gateway to allow them to cross the redeveloped playground does not seem practical. • The access gates at the Albert Road entrance will be intercom controlled but there is no mention of this being controlled by both schools.

4.2. Sport England – Does not wish to comment on this particular application.

4.3. Regulatory Services – No objection subject to a condition relating to the hours of use of the MUGA.

4.4. Lead Local Flood Authority – Recommend a condition which requires the prior submission of a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan.

4.5. Transportation Development – No objection subject to a condition relating to visibility splays.

4.6. Severn Trent – No objections subject to a drainage condition.

4.7. West Midlands Fire Service – No comments received.

Page 3 of 10 4.8. West Midlands Police – Generally supportive of the proposals and also make comments in relation to an alarm system, CCTV, lighting plan being reviewed, any IT equipment being installed and the location of the bicycle shelter.

4.9. Environment Agency – No objection.

4.10. Education – State no comments.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005), Places for All SPG (2001), SPD: Car Parking Guidelines, National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and Draft Birmingham Development Plan.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The main considerations in the determination of this application are the impact of the extension on the visual appearance of the building and locality and also the impact on residential amenity.

6.2. Policy UDP policies recognise the need to protect and enhance what is good in the city's environment and to improve what is less good. Proposals, which would have an adverse impact on the quality of the environment, will not normally be allowed.

6.3. Policy TP35 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan states Proposals for the upgrading and expansion of existing schools and development of new schools in locations where additional provision is required will be supported subject to the criteria below. The City Council may use its Compulsory Purchase powers to facilitate the development of new schools where this is necessary. Proposals for new schools should: • Have safe access by cycle and walking as well as by car • Have safe drop-off and pick-up provision • Provide outdoor facilities for sport and recreation • Avoid conflict with adjoining uses.

6.4. Paragraph 72 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 states the Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should: • Give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and 18 | National Planning Policy Framework • Work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.

6.5. Principle I am of the opinion that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the environment and would assist in the improvement of the school for the pupils attending.

Page 4 of 10 6.6. Residential amenity Regulatory Services raise no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition relating to the hours of use of the MUGA being restricted to 0900 – 1800 Monday to Friday. I concur with this view. The school site is surrounded by residential properties. Adequate separation distances and the use of high level windows in some places would help prevent overlooking or loss of privacy.

6.7. Amended plans were sought and submitted to overcome concerns with regards to overlooking and loss of privacy in other places on the site and the overbearing visual impact from the rear of some nearby surrounding residential dwellings. The hall has been reduced by 2m away from the western boundary with the houses on Centenary Drive, the hall would be 19.8m (at the narrowest point) with the rear of the houses and 9.45m from the rear garden boundary, the overall height of the hall has been reduced by 850mm, an existing tree can now be retained and the planting buffer would be expanded by 2m as well to improve the landscape buffer zone in this area. Obscure glazing has also been used for the first floor windows closest to the boundaries with the surrounding residential dwellings.

6.8. Visual appearance The City Design Team raise no objections to the proposed development. I concur with this view. The proposed extensions by virtue of their height and size would be in keeping with the existing school buildings. It is considered the proposed development would not impact on the visual amenity of the street scene due to the majority of the site not being visible from the public realm. I consider that subject to the use of satisfactory materials, the appearance of the proposed development is satisfactory and raise no design-based objections.

6.9. Highway and pedestrian safety Transportation Development raise no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition relating to visibility splays. I concur with this view. The application site is located on Antrobus Road, which is an unclassified road maintainable at public expense. There are no TROs enforced except for the yellow zigzag lines outside the school. There would be no increase in student or staff numbers according to the submitted data.

6.10. The site currently has an off street parking provision of 31 car spaces and the applicant is proposing to reconfigure the car park within the schools boundary and provide 9 more parking spaces to current guidelines and 32 cycle spaces within a new cycle block.

6.11. There would be a pedestrian automatic access gate with CCTV camera controlled & monitored in school office. There would be an emergency access gate at Albert Road also with CCTV camera controlled also monitored in school office. Visibility splays from all accesses are appropriate providing good sight lines to standards and these can be retained by way of condition.

6.12. The works would make the school more efficient and safer and would pose no highway safety issues.

6.13. Trees The Tree Officer raises no objection to the proposed development. I concur with this view. The application site does not have any tree preservation orders and is not in a conservation area. Ten trees on the site would be lost, but they have limited public amenity value. One highway tree would also be lost, however this would be replaced by two highway trees in nearby locations.

Page 5 of 10 6.14. Drainage Severn Trent have raised no objection to the proposed development subject to a drainage condition. The Lead Local Flood Authority have also recommended a condition which requires the prior submission of a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan in the absence of any drainage design or considerations. I concur with this view.

6.15. Objections I note the objections received in in particular from the adjacent infant school. The applicant has been made aware of these concerns and has responded to each point as follows:

• Notice was served on the infant school, as well as giving them an opportunity to discuss the scheme design. It has always been the intention to improve facilities and access for both schools. • There was no intention to mislead anyone over the application. • In a letter to the infant school, dated 27th July 2015, they were advised that the existing car park layout does not comply with highways standards’. The aisles are only 4m wide which doesn’t allow a car to manoeuvre. The divide between the land which is under the junior school control & the land under control of the infant school remains. The junior school car park has been adjusted within their own land. We have not encroached any junior school parking onto infant school land. • There is the option of adding additional spaces for the infant school. • We have not removed any land under control of the infant school. We have indicated how the car park will need to be remodelled using both schools land. The 14 spaces indicated for the infant school are the number of spaces there currently. • None of the existing gates from the car park have been amended or access impaired. There is 2.5m gap for access to this gate. The intended layout would improve the access for deliveries and refuse vehicles. • The intention was to provide separate kitchen facilities for the two schools. The space for the infant school kitchen matches that shown for the junior school. • The bin store will be fully insulated and fire resistant. Currently the bins are exposed and open. The proposed design improves the existing situation. There is very little scope within the grounds for a bin store. The only spaces are on the boundaries of the school which the neighbours would not agree to. The bin store is designed for both schools use. • There is a need for improved emergency vehicle access. The current route, from Antrobus Road, requires travel through the congested car park and then 4 sets of gates. The new pedestrian route is 2.5m wide and allows direct access to both schools. • The new access gate will be designed with an intercom from both schools.

6.16. I am satisfied that the response from the applicants fully addresses the issues raised by the adjoining infant school. I do not consider the proposals would have an adverse impact on the operation of the infant school or would warrant the refusal of planning permission.

Page 6 of 10 7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed development would not result in any harm to visual or residential amenity and is in accordance with policies of the Development Plan. I am therefore recommending that the application is approved.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That planning permission is granted.

1 Limits the hours of use of MUGA to 0900-1800 Monday to Friday

2 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

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

4 Appropriate visibility splays from all accesses

5 Requires the prior submission of a school travel plan

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

7 Requires the prior submission of drainage plans

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

9 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Stephanie Salmon

Page 7 of 10 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Main school entrance

Page 8 of 10

Figure 2 – Existing car park

Page 9 of 10 Location Plan

Page 10 of 10 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 12 November 2015

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Section 191/192 11 2015/06560/PA Permission Not Required 1-41 Sutton Road Erdington Birmingham B23 6QH

Application for a Lawful Development Certificate to confirm the full element of planning consent 2011/08251/PA has been implemented within the required time period

Page 1 of 1 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 12/11/2015 Application Number: 2015/06560/PA Accepted: 13/08/2015 Application Type: Existing Lawful Development Target Date: 08/10/2015 Ward: Erdington

1-41 Sutton Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B23 6QH

Application for a Lawful Development Certificate to confirm the full element of planning consent 2011/08251/PA has been implemented within the required time period Applicant: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd 33 Holborn, London, EC1N 2HT Agent: WYG Ropemaker Court, 11-12 Lower Park Row, Bristol, BS1 5BN, Recommendation Section 191 / 192 Permission Not Required

1. Proposal

1.1. This application is for a lawful development certificate to confirm that the full element of planning consent 2011/08251/PA has been implemented within the required 3- year time period (i.e. by 25th July 2015). The 2011/08251/PA consent was a hybrid planning application with the full element relating a retail superstore (Use Class A1), 3 no retail units (Use Class A1, A2 & A3), cash point (ATM's), car parking, public realm works, landscaping and associated works.

1.2. In order to implement that part of the planning permission the applicant has discharged all relevant pre-commencement conditions and undertaken construction works located to the south of the Council offices building on the Orphanage Road frontage. The works comprise of a single manhole and connecting pipework which forms the final manhole within the application boundary, before it connects to the public sewer on Orphanage Road. The following supporting documents have been provided in support of the application:

• Cover letter ref: A089345/ZJ dated 11 August 2015 • Decision Document (Application ref: 2011/08251/PA) • Discharge of Condition - Decision Document (Application ref: 2015/02865/PA) • Discharge of Condition - Decision Document (Application ref: 2015/03792/PA) • Existing Site Plan/ Red line Boundary (Drawing no. PL01) • Drainage Proposals. Phase 1 Works (10-115-00403 Rev. C) – As Built Drawing 27/07/2015 • Drainage Proposals, Sheet 1. (Drawing No. 10-115-00400 Rev. P1) • Drainage Proposals, Sheet 2. (Drawing No. 10-115-00401 Rev. P1) • Drainage Details. Sheet 1. (Drawing No. 10-115-00406 Rev. 1) • Drainage Details. Sheet 2 (Drawing No. 10-115-00407 Rev. 1) • Drainage Details Sheet 3. (Drawing No. 10-115-00408 Rev. 1) • Drainage Details. Sheet 4. (Drawing No. 10-115-00409 Rev. 1)

Page 1 of 7 • Email exchange correspondence from Nicholas Jackson (Birmingham City Council Principal Planner) sent to Sarah Hawkins (Director – Planning WYG) on 22nd July 2015 on implementation of works • Evidence of Drainage Works 21-23 July 2015 (Newspaper/ photographic images) prepared by WYG • Watching Brief for Utilities Works - August 2015 – 2011/08251/PA prepared by WYG • Email correspondence from Sarah Hawkins (Director – Planning WYG dated 15th September 2015. • Email correspondence from Martin Brown (Principal Archaeologist at WYG) dated 15th September 2015. • Letter from Sarah Hawkins (Director – Planning WYG) dated 28th September 2015 (Ref: A089345/SH/sh) • Sainsbury’s Erdington Construction Report (Job No. SA100642 date: 5th October 15) prepared by ISG Retail Ltd. This includes Statutory Declaration by Hemant Tailor of ISG PLC dated 5th October 2015.

1.3. The outline element of planning consent 2011/08251/PA for approximately 15 residential units has lapsed as no reserved matters application was submitted within the three year time period (expiry 25th July 2015). No buildings on site have been demolished.

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site comprises 2.58 ha that is situated to the northeast of Erdington District Centre as defined by Shopping and Local Centres SPD. The application site comprises a number of commercial uses ranging from single-storey car showrooms, vehicle repair garages and the nine-storey Honeywell House office block. The three car showrooms are currently vacant with “To Let” marketing boards following the relocation of the wider Colliers operation to other parts of the city. The relocation, as with the acquisition of the office block at the southern end of the wider site, was carried out in anticipation of the new Sainsbury’s redevelopment. There have been a number of planning consents granted to change the use of former showrooms to retail shops for a temporary period of two years. There are significant areas of hardstanding throughout the site, including prominent areas facing Sutton Road and Orphanage Road, including a number of vehicular accesses. There is also a change in ground levels across the site, falling from its highest point on Sutton Road by approximately 6 metres to its lowest point on Orphanage Road.

2.2. The surrounding area is mixed commercial and residential in character. To the southwest lie a number of small retail units, a doctor’s surgery, Fire Station and workshops and beyond that The Green and the uppermost tip of the main retail area of Erdington Town Centre. To the south, on the opposite side of Orphanage Road is a Council pay-and-display public car park and predominantly residential properties. To the northwest, on the opposite side of Sutton Road is Erdington Abbey and Highclare School, which are both Grade II Statutory Listed Buildings.

3. Planning History

3.1. 25/07/2012 – Approval - 2011/08251/PA - Hybrid planning application (Part Full and Part Outline) comprising: 1) - Full planning application for a retail superstore (Class A1), 3 no. retail units (Class A1, A2 & A3), cash point (ATM's), car parking, public

Page 2 of 7 realm works, landscaping and associated works 2) - Outline planning application for approximately 15 residential units and 3) - Demolition of existing buildings – Approved subject to conditions

3.2. 11/06/2015 - 2015/02865/PA - Confirmation of discharge of conditions no. 1 and 5 attached to approval 2011/08251/PA – Approve

3.3. 03/07/2015 - 2015/03616/PA - Temporary change of use of former car showrooms (Sui Generis) to retail (Use Class A1) for a period of 2 years (Site 03 – Building 1 – former Land Rover car showroom) – Temporary Approval

3.4. 03/07/2015 - 2015/03617/PA - Temporary change of use of former car showrooms (Sui Generis) to retail (Use Class A1) for a period of 2 years (Site 02 - Building 2 - former Honda car showroom) – Temporary Approval

3.5. 03/07/2015 - 2015/03618/PA - Temporary change of use of former car showrooms (Sui Generis) to retail (Use Class A1) for a period of 2 years (Site 04 - Building 4 - former Mazda car showroom) – Temporary Approval

3.6. 06/08/2015 - 2015/03619/PA - Temporary change of use of former car showrooms (Sui Generis) to retail (Use Class A1) and workshop for use as a foodbank (Sui Generis) for a period of 2 years (Site 01 - Buildings 3 and 10) – Temporary Approval

3.7. 09/07/2015 - 2015/03792/PA - Application to determine the details for Condition Nos. 2 (written scheme of demolition), 3 (contamination remediation scheme), 7 (hard/soft landscaping), 8 (hard surfacing materials), 9 (boundary treatment), 10 (sample materials), 11 (brickwork), 12 (levels), 13 (ecological/biodiversity/enhancement measures), 14 (construction method statement/management plan), 16 (external treatment of fire exit), 18 (protection of trees) and 42 (treatment of public square) attached to approval 2011/08251/PA – Approve

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Site notices displayed. Ward Councillors and “New River Retail” (in respect of Central Square) consulted. Councillor Gareth Moore requested that the application be determined by Planning Committee on parking and highway safety grounds.

4.2. Councillor Robert Alden, Erdington Ward Committee (16th September 2015) Chaired by Councillor Robert Alden, a petition letter comprising 104 signatures and two neighbours letter raised the following concerns: • There has been No significant work undertaken on site. The work to the manhole was purely site maintenance and not actual work to the development site. • Evidence put forward by Sainsbury’s that small scale work undertaken in relation to the manhole cover on one part of the site is insufficient for the planning condition in relation to drainage to be discharged. • No works have taken place on the site and no conditions have been discharged. • It is noticeable that the work was undertaken at the very last minute, within days of the existing planning permission lapsing. • The work under 21st-23rd July clearly gives impression that it was done to try and achieve a certificate of lawful development.

Page 3 of 7 • Erdington Ward Committee had over 80 people attend and objected to this application with regards to the abandonment/ derelict appearance of the site by Sainsbury’s which is creating a “run down” appearance on the area. • Sainsbury’s need to take responsibility for the site to ensure that it is properly maintained. Currently, there is overgrown grass, hedge and weeds and broken glass littering the site. • Sainsbury’s attempt to lease the buildings was a clear indication that they did not intend to build on the site. However, high rental costs of the retail space on offer gives impression that there is no serious intention to let the space. • The site has not been made secure and greater security is required to ensure unlawful access. This again gives the impression that the site was not important to the applicant or that development was imminent. • Sainsbury’s does not intend to develop the site, has not discharged conditions and has not commenced work on site. Councillor Alden and residents strongly object to any Lawful Development Certificate being granted. • Sainsbury’s have announced that they will not be building the proposed store in the foreseeable future. • Residents feel that Sainsbury’s should “come clean” about its intentions and make better use of the site for housing, school or leisure provision to improve the local amenity and assist with the regeneration of Erdington. • The site should be explored for new leisure centre and not Hart Road car park together with increase in parking provision • Question – Is Sainsbury’s in breach of condition/ agreement as the site was sold that included the demolition of the Honeywell building to build a new store, retail and housing as per approved plans? • Question - Can the Council do anything to persuade Sainsbury’s to build as this is not good customer relations and results in animosity towards their brand? • Issue of certificate of lawful development will allow Sainsbury’s to “mothball” the site, impacting on the residential amenity of the local area.

4.3. Legal Services – A lawful development certificate should be granted.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and Planning Practice Guidance.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Planning Practice Guidance states that the onus of proof in applications for Lawful Development Certificates is on the applicant. The relevant test in the determination of these applications is that, provided the applicant's evidence alone is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the grant of a certificate "on the balance of probability", then a Lawful Development Certificate should be granted. The Local Planning Authority needs to consider whether, on the facts of the case and relevant planning law, the specific matter is or would be lawful. Members should note that planning merits are not relevant at any stage in this particular application for a certificate of lawful development or any associated appeal process.

6.2. Section 56(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) states that a material operation includes “(c) the laying of any underground main or pipe to the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building or to any such trench as is mentioned in paragraph (b)”. Paragraph (b) refers to “the digging of a trench which is to contain the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building”.

Page 4 of 7

6.3. As stated above, the 2011/08251/PA consent was a hybrid planning consent with this lawful development certificate application only relating to the full part of the planning consent, i.e. for a retail superstore (Use Class A1), 3no retail units (Use Class A1, A2 & A3), cash point (ATM's), car parking, public realm works, landscaping and associated works. The consent was granted on 25th July 2012, therefore for the approval to remain extant, the development needed to have commenced prior to 25th July 2015. All of the pre-commencement planning conditions in respect of the full element of the consent were discharged on 11th June 2015 and 9th July 2015. Your officers have considered the evidence submitted and are satisfied that the specific works carried out by the applicant amount to implementation and are a “material operation” as described by Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The works were also carried out within the time limit set out in Condition 33 attached to 2011/08251/PA. As such, your officers consider that the full element of the consent has been correctly implemented. No evidence has been submitted to contradict the applicant’s description of events. Your officers therefore conclude that the evidence submitted by the applicant is sufficiently precise and unambiguous on the balance of probability to justify the grant of a certificate for “full” element of the 2011/08251/PA consent.

6.4. Other concerns – The minutes from the Erdington Ward Committee, petition and Ward Councillors relate to the planning merits of the case, lease of buildings, and whether the applicant would carry out the whole development. These concerns, whilst noted, cannot be taken into account in the determination of this application for a certificate of lawfulness as the relevant test is a legal one, on the balance of probability, dependant on factual evidence about the history and planning status of the building or other land and the interpretation of any relevant planning law or judicial authority. Views expressed by third parties on the planning merits of the case are irrelevant to the determination of the application.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I am satisfied that, on the balance of probability, the applicant’s evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to justify the grant of a lawful development certificate for the “full” element of the 2011/08251/PA consent.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That a lawful development certificate be granted

Case Officer: Mohammed Akram

Page 5 of 7 Photo(s)

Figure 1: View from Sutton Road

Figure 2: View from Orphanage Road

Page 6 of 7 Location Plan

Page 7 of 7 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 12 November 2015

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve - Conditions 12 2015/04355/PA

Land at 83-92 Bromsgrove Street City Centre Birmingham

Erection of 8 storey building comprising 140 units of student accommodation (SG) with ground floor unit for flexible range of uses A1-A5 and D1-D2

Defer – Informal Approval 13 2015/07146/PA

Land at Edward Street, Helena Street and Scotland Street City Centre Birmingham B1 2RX

Approve - Conditions 14 2015/03231/PA

21 -23 St. Pauls Square City Centre Birmingham B3 1RB

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Approve - Conditions 15 2015/07328/PA

40 Cox Street City Centre Birmingham B3 1RD

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to a drinking establishment (Use Class A4).

Approve - Temporary 16 2015/07648/PA

Suffolk Street Queensway Outside 7-8 City Centre Birmingham

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve - Temporary 17 2015/07645/PA

The Priory Queensway (Near NCP Car Park) City Centre Birmingham

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve - Temporary 18 2015/07646/PA

Weaman Street (NCP Car Park) Birmingham

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve - Temporary 19 2015/06963/PA

New John Street Central Reservation Area opposite Scholefield Tower City Centre Birmingham B19

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 12/11/2015 Application Number: 2015/04355/PA Accepted: 19/06/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 18/09/2015 Ward: Nechells

Land at 83-92, Bromsgrove Street, City Centre, Birmingham

Erection of 8 storey building comprising 140 units of student accommodation with ground floor unit for flexible range of uses A1-A5 and D1-D2 Applicant: Southside Central Ltd c/o Agent Agent: PJ Planning Regent House, 156-7 Lower High Street, Stourbridge, West Midlands, DY8 1TS, Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Proposal is for the erection of an 8 storey building for 1 commercial unit, 140 student studios, ancillary accommodation and associated works.

1.2. The building would be a modern flat roofed 8 storey rectangular building with a simple proportional window grid module approach, grounded to Bromsgrove Street with double width glazing. The proposed materials comprise of buff brick cladding with brick bonding, pre-cast concrete banding or a brick soldier course, aluminium window and door frames, glazing and a single ply membrane roof covering. The specific details of which would be secured by condition.

1.3 A large entrance lobby would be provided at ground floor off Bromsgrove Street for the student accommodation and this would include ancillary office and storage facilities. A cycle store (40 spaces) and access would also be provided directly off Bromsgrove Street in between the main lobby and the commercial unit. There would be no on site parking. The commercial unit would be accessed directly off the street, independent of the student accommodation and approx. 304sqm. There is currently no end user and consent is sought for a use that falls within A1-A5, D1 or D2.

1.4 From first floor and above each floor would comprise of 19 single aspect studios, a 1 bed apartment and a communal room (36sqm) – at first floor this would be a gym, at second floor a games room, at third floor and fourth floor a communal lounge, at fifth and sixth floor a communal study and a further communal lounge on the top floor. The studios would be 19 sq m and the 1 bed apartments would be 36 sq m. A stairwell and two lifts would service the student accommodation.

Link to Documents

Page 1 of 8 2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The site itself is approx. 0.1 hectares and is currently occupied as a surface level car park with access from Bromsgrove Street. The site is of a triangular shape with a 50m wide frontage to Bromsgrove Street but is of limited depth, tapering from 27.5m at its top (north-east) end to only 4.5m adjacent to the junction of Bromsgrove Street and Bristol Street. The site falls from west to east along main frontage by approx. 1m and also slopes downwards from front to rear.

2.2. The surrounding area comprises a mix of uses with residential, commercial and leisure uses in the vicinity. Immediately to west/north west are commercial uses and a surface level car park to the south.

Site location

3. Planning History

Significant site history, most relevant being:

3.1 14th September 2007 – 2007/00500/PA Erection of new building to provide 46 apartments and ground floor commercial uses within classes A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes) and B1 (business) including new means of access and car parking. Approved with S106 and conditions.

3.2 25th November 2010 – 2010/02474/PA Application for a new planning permission to replace extant planning permission 2007/00500/PA for the erection of new building to provide 46 apartments and ground floor commercial uses within classes A1 (retail), A2 (financial and professional services), A3 (restaurants and cafes) and B1 (business) including new means of access and car parking in order to extend the time limit for implementation. Approved with S106 and conditions.

3.3 16th August 2013 – 2013/03096/PA Application for the variation of conditions 1-12 inclusive, 17, 18 and 21 following grant of planning permission 2010/02474/PA. Approved.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Local residents’ associations, neighbours, Ward Councillors and the MP were notified. Site and press notices were also displayed.

4.2. 9 objections (2 of which were duplicate following consultation on amended plans) from local businesses/residents’ have been received. Objections were raised on the basis of increased parking/traffic, proposal would obstruct current views, increased noise, anti-social behaviour, adverse impact on property values, loss of sunlight, loss of privacy, no need for additional student accommodation, increased mess, prevent rear deliveries to existing businesses on Bristol Street and the proposal would compromise the future development of surrounding sites.

4.3. 1 letter of support was received which welcomed the investment in the area. A further letter was received confirming that the amended plans addressed the concerns previously raised with regard compromising development of adjacent sites.

4.4. Environment Agency – no objection subject to condition.

Page 2 of 8 4.5. Lead Local Flood Agency – additional information required and condition recommended to secure this.

4.6. Regulatory Services – no objection subject to conditions including additional noise and air quality monitoring,

4.7. Transportation Development – student management plan required but subject to this, no objection subject to conditions including S106 contribution.

4.8. West Midlands Police – number of concerns raised primarily in relation to internal security measures, but also raise query over the lack of on-site security and security outside the building.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Adopted Unitary Development Plan (2005), submission draft Birmingham Development Plan, Bull Ring/Markets Quarters Framework, Places for Living, Places for All and NPPF.

6. Planning Considerations

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 Planning Statement has been submitted in support of the application which demonstrates the ‘need’ for additional student accommodation.

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. Planning permission was granted in 2007 and 2010 on this site for 46 residential apartments including ground floor commercial which established that residential accommodation was acceptable in this location.

6.5. I also note that there are also few primary/secondary schools in the area, that the tight nature of the site means there is little space for external amenity space or parking and that it is therefore less suitable for family accommodation. In contrast however, I note it is well linked to public transport, is within walking distance of a number of higher educational establishments and is in close proximity to a wide variety of amenities, including food shops.

6.6. Given all of the above I raise no objection in land use policy terms, to the proposed development subject to all other detailed matters.

Page 3 of 8 Design/appearance

6.8 In support of the application the agent claims that the 2010 planning permission was implemented and whilst I do not disagree with the interpretation of the case law submitted I have not seen any evidence that the ‘development works’ commenced on site. I do not therefore accept the 2010 permission is extant.

6.9 Notwithstanding this, I note that an 8 storey building was previously considered acceptable in this location. I also note that policy has changed little in the intervening period and I therefore consider the previous consent is material to the consideration of the current proposal.

6.10 In terms of the building parameters the current scheme is not significantly different in that it proposes an 8 storey building at the back of footpath. It differs slightly in that the 8th storey is now proposed across the full width of the site and due to single aspect accommodation to the front and rear of the site; the overall depth has increase from 10m to 14m. However, whilst the depth of the previous building was only 10m it also had a substantial decked access to all levels on the rear resulting in a total structure depth of 15m. Therefore, given the nature of the accommodation to be provided and the nature of the surroundings I do not consider either of these matters to be significantly different to warrant a different decision than previously. I also note that windows on the side return and nearest ‘pinch point’ to the rear have been removed. Consequently the buildings position would not compromise the amenity of future or existing occupiers, or future redevelopment opportunities on sites within the immediate vicinity.

6.11 The design follows the principles of the previous scheme and is simple and honest in form, articulated with regular fenestration that is well recessed. ‘False’ windows have been expressed on the south west elevation to ensure this visible elevation is articulated without compromising future development of the adjacent site.

6.12 Plans show that the studios could accommodate all necessary furniture, an additional common room would also be provided on each floor and a satisfactory level of internal accommodation would be provided.

6.13 I therefore raise no objection to the scale, design or appearance of the development.

Transportation Development

6.14 The site is located on the fringe of the city centre core and has good accessibility to transport links including a bus stop within 250 metres and is within walking distance of a wide variety of amenities and educational establishments. 40 covered bicycle storage spaces would also be provided which would be in excess of the guidance for this level of student accommodation. I therefore concur with Transportation Development who, subject to safeguarding conditions, do not consider the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the safe operation of surrounding streets or highway and raise no objection to the proposed development. I also note there are previous consents for building on this private car park.

6.15 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.

Page 4 of 8

Air Quality/noise

6.16 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.

6.17 A noise assessment has been submitted with the application however it fails to fully assess commercial noise from properties to the rear of the site about which Regulatory Services have previously received complaints. However, given the nature of accommodation proposed and safeguarding conditions, including the submission of a further assessment and incorporation of mitigation prior to construction, no objections are raised to the proposal. The proposed use is also not expected to generate noise sufficient to adversely affect any existing residents’ in the vicinity.

Other

6.18 The Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Agency raise no objection to the development subject to conditions.

6.19 West Midlands Police raise a number of comments with regard to safety. The agent has confirmed that there will be on site security/site management, the specific details of which can be secured by condition and conditions regarding CCTV and lighting have also been recommended.

6.20 Property values are not a matter for planning to consider. Concerns have also been raised over rear delivery access which may be a common right of way however this would be a civil matter to be dealt with outside the remit of planning.

7. Conclusion

7.1. Proposal would result in a student led development on a current temporary car park which, subject to safeguarding conditions, would be in accordance with policy. Proposal should therefore be approved.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions.

1 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

Page 5 of 8 2 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

3 Requires the applicants to join Travelwise

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

5 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

6 Requires submission of student management plan

7 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

8 Requires the prior submission of a CCTV scheme

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

10 Requires the prior submission of details of bird boxes

11 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

12 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

13 Requires the prior submission of extraction and odour control details

14 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

15 Limits the hours of operation (commercial)

16 Limits delivery time of goods to the site (commercial)

17 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation (variable)

18 Requires air quality details

19 Secures an employment policy

20 Requires the prior submission a noise study to establish residential acoustic protection

21 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Joanne Todd

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Photo 1: site from Bromsgrove Street

Photo 2: looking north-east

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 12/11/2015 Application Number: 2015/07146/PA Accepted: 14/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 14/12/2015 Ward: Ladywood

Land at Edward Street, Helena Street and Scotland Street, City Centre, Birmingham, B1 2RX

Construction of 5 storey building to Edward Street, Helena Street and Scotland Street comprising 63 apartments (27 x 1 bed and 36 x 2 bed) and 2 no. ground floor units flexible use (Use Classes A1-A4, B1 and D1) Applicant: Trigram Edward Street Ltd & KEVI Governors c/o Agent Agent: PJ Planning Regent House, 156-7 Lower High Street, Stourbridge, West Midlands, DY8 1TS Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

1.1 The application seeks consent for the redevelopment of the existing surface level car park for 63 apartments and 2 commercial units at ground floor within a five storey building. The proposed development would provide 27 x 1 bed and 36 x 2 bed in two separate blocks within a site measuring approximately 0.158 hectares in area, giving a density of 398 dwellings per hectare.

1.2 The first block would be ‘L’ shaped and have frontages to Edward Street and Helena Street. It would rise to five storeys in height with 347 square metres of gross internal floorspace for a flexible use at ground floor (Use Classes A1 to A4, B1 and D1).

1.3 The second block would be rectangular shaped and front onto Scotland Street providing five storeys of residential accommodation. Due to the difference in site levels a separate pedestrian entrance is proposed to serve this block.

1.4 The internal layout shows the apartments arranged around a central corridor with primary windows to the front and rear overlooking an area measuring approximately 200 square metres of communal amenity space in the centre of the development at first floor level. The one bedroom apartments would range in size from 41 to 48 square metres and the two bedroom apartments from 59 to 67 square metres in area.

1.5 The development would have a vehicular entrance off Helena Street at ground floor leading to a car park with 20 spaces (31%) and 72 cycle parking spaces.

Page 1 of 11 1.6 The proposed materials would comprise blue brick for the walls with colour coated steel windows and standing seam copper panels linking some of the windows to add visual interest. A charred timber cladding is proposed for the section of the Helena Street elevation that accommodates the car park entrance and plant that would be set in a louvre pattern.

1.7 The application has been submitted with a Design and Access Statement, a Drainage Strategy, and a Ground Conditions Study. In addition the applicant has submitted a financial appraisal to justify not fully meeting affordable housing or public open space policies but has offered a financial contribution of £152,600.

1.8 Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1 Edward Street links Sand Pits and the Barclay Card Arena located to the south west and is largely residential in character. The remainder of the development block accommodates the Qube residential apartments which rise to six storeys in height and Lexington Apartments that are 4 storeys high. The site previously accommodated Westfield House, a two storey former industrial facility before being demolished to make way for a car park.

2.2 From the corner of Helena Street and Edward Street the site topography slopes upwards by approximately 3.5m to its highest point on Scotland Street, hence the development is divided into two separate blocks with a separate block facing Scotland Street.

2.3 Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 1997/02611/PA – (10 Scotland Street), Formation of car park – Approved 17/02/1998

3.2. 1997/04208/ - (Lexington Apartments) Redevelopment of site comprising construction of seven, 2 and 3 bedroom apartments with five parking spaces – Approved 04.06.1998

3.3. 2009/02043/PA - Outline application for 58 residential units contained within a four to seven storey apartment block, with all matters reserved – Approved subject to a S106 Agreement for affordable housing 04/08/2009

3.4. 2012/03901/PA - Application to extend time of extant Planning Application 2009/02043/PA for outline application for 58 residential units (use class C3) contained within a four to seven storey apartment block, with all matters reserved and demolition of Westfield House – Approved 05/09/2012

3.5. 2012/05303/PA - Demolition of existing buildings to form a temporary car park with chain link fencing to Helena Street and Edward Street boundaries – Approved 12/10/2012

4. Consultation/PP Responses

Page 2 of 11 4.1 BCC Transportation Development – No objections subject to conditions regarding a package of highway measures to include reinstatement of redundant footway crossings on Edward Street and possible amended footway crossing position on Helena Street; to ensure that the vehicle parking area has been constructed, surfaced and marked out in accordance with the approved details; to provide the covered bicycle store before occupation; to require details of a construction management plan detailing the programme of construction, site materials storage and any likely highway closures required.

4.2 BCC Regulatory Services – No objections subject to conditions to:

• require the submission of site investigation, remediation and validation reports;

• require extraction and odour control details;

• limit noise levels for plant and machinery;

• require the prior submission of details of the noise insulation between the commercial and residential units;

• restrict delivery times for the commercial use (07:00 to 19:00 Mondays to Saturdays and 10:00 to 16:00 on Sundays);

• require details of refuse storage for the commercial premises;

• restrict the hours of operation of the commercial premises (A1 Use Class 06:00 to 24:00; A3, A4 and D1 07:00 to 23:00 only);

• provide details of a scheme of glazing and ventilation for the residential apartments; and

• reduce the impact upon air quality by submitting a travel plan measures to promote low emission vehicles.

4.3 BCC Education - planning obligation request for £190,117.40 to be split between nursery, primary and secondary education provision.

4.4 Local Lead Flood Authority – Whilst a drainage assessment has been submitted additional clarification is required. Therefore a drainage condition is requested.

4.5 West Midlands Police:

• any work on the apartments be carried out to the standards laid out in the Secured by Design 'New Homes 2014' guide;

• there are 20 parking spaces provided for vehicles and a further 72 cycle parking spaces provided and this would appear sufficient;

• any work in relation to the retail units should be carried out to the standards laid out in the Secured by Design ‘Commercial 2015’ guide;

• recommend CCTV, appropriate door security, internal access control measures and a lighting plan be implemented that follows the 'Lighting Against Crime' guidance; and

Page 3 of 11 • the refuse store at ground floor could be vulnerable during the refuge collection process when it could be easy for off-site staff to leave doors open or unlocked.

4.6 BCC Local Services - This scheme of over 20 residential units would be liable for an off-site Public Open Space (POS) contribution of £79,200 that would be spent on the provision, improvement and/or maintenance of the POS at Ledsam Street and Edgbaston Reservoir within the Ladywood Ward.

4.7 Severn Trent Water, Birmingham Public Health, BCC Housing, Birmingham City Centre Management, Local Action Groups, Residents Associations, Community and Neighbourhood Forums, Local Councillors and the MP have been consulted but no responses received.

4.8 A total of 6 letters have been received in response to the neighbour notification procedure, the site notice and press notice. In summary the concerns are with respect to the following:

• The scheme would reduce natural light to adjacent properties and affect right to light;

• What plans are in place for a pre build party wall inspection and how will the wall of the new development be connected (or will it not be connected) to the adjacent Lexington Apartments?;

• what are the daily working hours likely to be for the construction activity and will these be a condition of the planning permission?;

• only 20 allocated parking spaces are included in the development and it would replace an existing car park adding further pressure to the parking situation in the area. Current residents in the area would struggle to find spaces near to their homes;

• The new building is planned to be 5 storey compared to the existing 4 storey L- shaped building on the corner of the Helena Street and Scotland street which would create an unequal and distorted appearance;

• it would bring the new building too close to the existing residential apartments known as the Qube potentially creating a very claustrophobic feeling particularly for those residents who overlook the inside parking yard of the complex;

• great support for the proposed plan of the inside green courtyard;

• no affordable housing is proposed, which seems incongruous with central Birmingham.

5. Policy Context

5.1 Birmingham UDP (2005); Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2031); Places for Living SPG; Car Parking Guidelines SPD; Affordable Housing Policy; Public Open space in New Residential Development; and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. Planning Considerations

Page 4 of 11 PRINCIPLE OF PROPOSED 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 The proposal also has the potential to include a café/restaurant or drinking establishment at ground floor. According to the Adopted Plan such uses should be confined to shopping areas or areas of mixed commercial development, and that account will be taken of cumulative impact, residential amenity, vitality and viability of existing shopping centres, highway impacts and opening hours. Whilst the surrounding area could not be described as a shopping area and therefore would not impact upon issues of vitality, Edward Street lies close to Sand Pits which accommodates a range of commercial uses and the surrounding largely residential area has a few office and light industrial units including 14 live work units within the adjacent Qube development. The application site is well served by public transport and BCC Transportation Development have not raised any objections. It is acknowledged that residential properties would be located above the proposed ground floor units within and on the adjoining site, and as recommended by BCC Regulatory Services conditions are attached to secure fume extraction details and to ensure that the premises are closed by 23:00 each day of the week.

6.3 It is considered that the proposed residential and commercial uses at this location are consistent with local planning policy and the NPPF, which also supports the reuse of previously developed land at sustainable locations. Notably in 2009 the site received consent for the principle of residential development; and this was renewed in 2012.

DESIGN & APPEARANCE

6.4 The proposed development would provide a mixed use development with a flexible use at ground floor and one and two bedroom apartments above; offering a choice of housing in addition to the commercial floorspace that could change use to adapt to market requirements. The proposed bedroom sizes would meet the Spaces for Living SPD guidelines.

6.5 The proposed layout shows a scheme that would complete the development block enclosed by Edward Street, Helena Street, Scotland Street and Louisa Street with the siting of the proposed blocks at back of pavement reinstating the incomplete street frontages along Edward Street, Helena Street and Scotland Street.

6.6 The proposed floor plans indicate the provision of 20 private parking spaces at ground floor with a communal outdoor amenity area measuring approximately 200 square metres at first floor, level with the ground floor of the apartments fronting Scotland Street. The proposed area of amenity space would equate to approximately 3.17 square metres per apartment, however it should be acknowledged that the apartments within the separate block to Scotland Street would not have direct access to this courtyard amenity space or to the parking area. However the parking spaces would be secure and contained whilst the proposed amenity space would be overlooked, providing a safe private area.

Page 5 of 11 6.7 The proposed use of brick would harmonise with the surrounding brick built developments, however it is considered that the use of a contrasting blue brick would provide a more contemporary feel, complemented by the copper panels and part charred timber cladding.

6.8 In terms of the height of the proposed blocks they would follow the existing ground levels with the roof lines stepping down in height from the adjacent existing developments. Two neighbours have raised an objection based upon the loss of light to their properties, however the position of the proposed blocks at back of pavement would meet the Council’s 45 degree code. Furthermore the Lexington Apartment block is single aspect, therefore its windows to the rear are to circulation space only. Secondly it is acknowledged that the proposed block fronting Scotland Street is five storeys in height, however it would mirror the existing buildings to this frontage, would step down in height and fit in well with the street scene. Furthermore whilst the building would be one storey higher than the adjacent four storey Lexington Apartments in Helena Street its ridge height is lower, reducing its overall scale.

6.9 There is a separation distance of 21m between facing windows across the communal amenity area. Whilst this is less than the 27.5m target within the ‘Places for Living’ SPD for 3 storeys and above this distance is not uncommon in this part of the city, and is similar to the facing separation distance within the adjacent Qube apartment development.

6.10 Another neighbour comment refers to the development creating a claustrophobic feel for existing residents particularly those who would overlook the inside parking yard of the proposed development. However the ground floor units of the adjacent Qube apartments accommodate the work floorspace associated with live work units. Furthermore it is considered that the position of the existing and proposed perimeter blocks resulting in a large rectangular courtyard would not create a claustrophobic or oppressive outlook for existing and proposed residents.

6.11 The impact of a potential A3 or A4 use has also been considered with respect to the amenity of neighbours. However there is space for an extraction system via an internal riser whilst the opening hours and means of noise insulation could be controlled via conditions that have been attached.

6.12 It is considered that the proposed scheme is of an appropriate layout, height and materials for its surroundings that follows the main principles as set out in the Places for Living SPD and subject to conditions would not detract from the amenity currently enjoyed by neighbours.

IMPACT UPON HIGHWAYS AND PARKING

6.13 The application site is an existing surface level car park that currently accommodates between 50 and 60 parking spaces following planning approval in 2012. A total of 20 parking spaces are proposed for the proposed 63 apartments and ground floor commercial floorspace. A secure and sheltered cycle store for 72 cycles is also proposed. BCC Transportation Development recognise that the level of trips on the highway would reduce as a result of the development replacing the existing car park, and are satisfied with the level of car parking provision at this location close to the City Centre. No objections have been submitted subject to conditions that have been attached.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

Page 6 of 11 6.14 The site lies within flood zone 1 and the submitted drainage assessment advises that any flood attenuation necessary could be in the form of storage tanks. The Local Lead Flood Authority have raised points of clarification and a suggested drainage condition is attached.

6.15 The comments of BCC Regulatory Services have been noted and it is proposed to attach conditions to secure a land remediation strategy, a restriction on noise from plant and machinery, a noise insulation scheme, delivery hours and hours of operation restrictions.

OTHER

6.16 A neighbour has raised concern regarding the Party Wall Act, however this is separate legislation and not a material planning consideration. The proposed development would not physically adjoin the existing adjacent apartments blocks.

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 money 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 which concludes that they cannot meet the obligations in full but can contribute £152,600. The financial appraisal has been independently reviewed and the assessment concludes that this figure is reasonable.

6.19 The various requests for S106 monies have been noted and it is considered that affordable housing and public open space provision should take priority. It is therefore suggested 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. It is therefore considered that an education contribution cannot be justified.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The principle of the redevelopment of this site has been established previously and the proposed uses are consistent with local and national planning policy.

7.2 It is considered that the proposed design and site layout is appropriate to complete the development block and would not cause a significant loss of amenity to existing residential occupiers.

7.3 It is therefore considered that the application is acceptable subject to safeguarding conditions and completion of a S106 agreement to secure a financial contribution of £152,600 towards 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:-

Page 7 of 11 a) A financial contribution of £73,400 (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 £79,200 (index linked from the date of this resolution) toward enhancements to improve and /or maintain POS at Ledsam Street and Edgbaston Reservoir within the Ladywood Ward, 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 14th December 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 14th December 2015, favourable consideration be given to this application, subject to the conditions listed below.

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

2 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

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

4 Requires the prior submission of a Landscape Scheme

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

6 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

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

8 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

9 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

10 Requires the prior submission of extraction and odour control details

Page 8 of 11

11 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

12 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation (variable)

13 Limits delivery time of goods to or from the site (07:00 to 19:00 Mondays to Saturdays and 10:00 to 16:00 on Sundays only)

14 Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage

15 Limits the hours of operation (Use Class A1 between the hours of 06:00 and 24:00 only; Use Classes A3, A4 and D1 between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00 only)

16 Prior approval of glazing and ventilation scheme for apartments

17 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

18 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Julia Summerfield

Page 9 of 11 Photo(s)

From Helena Street looking west, into the site

From Edward Street looking south east into the site

Page 10 of 11 Location Plan

Page 11 of 11 +

Committee Date: 12/11/2015 Application Number: 2015/03231/PA Accepted: 27/04/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 22/06/2015 Ward: Ladywood

21 -23 St. Pauls Square, City Centre, Birmingham, B3 1RB

Refurbishment and conversion of existing building to provide ground floor commercial unit with 3 apartments above, erection of roof extension to form one additional apartment, demolition of single storey rear workshop building and erection of 4, three storey townhouses. Applicant: Statrex Ltd / Toller & Clark Ltd c/o agent Agent: The Space* Studio 15a The Orb, Albion Street, Birmingham, B1 3ED Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1 The application relates to a vacant former office building which fronts St Paul’s Square. It is 3 storeys high and has a single storey workshop wing and a parking courtyard to the rear. It is proposed to convert the ground floor of the building to a commercial unit for A1, A2, A3 or B1 use and to convert the two upper floor of the building into three apartments. The commercial unit would have a floor area of 145 square metres and share the use of the existing entrance form St Paul’s square with the proposed apartments. The first floor would be subdivided to provide a 1 bed and 2 bed apartment and a 3 bed apartment is proposed on the second floor. The apartments would have floor areas of 54, 78 and 113 square metres.

1.2 The roof of the existing building is largely flat apart from a lift overrun which projects above the roof by about 4.5 metres. It is proposed to erect a further floor of accommodation above the flat roof to provide an additional two bed apartment having a floor area of 85 square metres. The roof top extension would have a height of 2.8 metres and be slightly set back from the front elevation behind an existing parapet. It is proposed that the roof top extension would be clad with slate and have metal windows to match the style and proportions of the main building. The lift overrun would also be reconfigured with a flat roof and clad with slate to improve its appearance.

1.3 At the rear of the existing building there is a single storey workshop building which extends along the full length of the eastern boundary of the site which would be demolished and replaced with a three storey building. This would provide a terrace of four 2 bed town houses with floor areas of 123 square metres. They would be linked to the rear of the existing building by a single storey extension which would provide bin and cycle storage areas.

Page 1 of 12 1.4 The terrace of town houses would be built from red/orange bricks with feature recessed courses, have large aluminium windows with a feature copper vent panels at first and second floor and have flat roof. They would have a small private courtyard area to the rear and front onto the existing parking area which would be reconfigured to provide 8 car parking spaces (100%) provision and landscaping. The access to the parking would be from the existing archway entrance from St Pauls Square which it is proposed to secure with new gates.

1.5 The applicants also advise that the existing building would be refurbished and repaired, the rear brickwork would be repaired and existing air conditioning units and ducting would be removed. The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, Heritage Statement, noise and odour reports.

1.6 Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1 The application site of 0.093 ha lies on the east side of St Paul’s Square close to the junction with Cox Street. It is currently occupied by a three storey building known as St Paul’s House which the submitted Heritage Statement concludes was originally built as a manufactory between 1845-1851 but was substantially altered in the 1950’s when the facade was simplified, its roof and top storey removed and most of the rear wing was demolished leaving a single wing attached. The main façade now has a three storey stuccoed façade of seven bays, with traditional sash windows on the ground and first floor but with ‘Crittal-style’ casements on the second floor. The building is not listed but lies within the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area,

2.2 The northern side of the building is attached to 24 St Paul’s Square a two storey former town house and to the southern side adjoins the Ropewalk a modern 3 storey brick replacement building. Both building are currently empty although the Ropewalk is currently being refurbished to provide a restaurant/bar on the ground floor with hotel bedrooms above. The northern boundaries of the site adjoin a single storey commercial building that fronts Cox Street which is occupied by a Cantonese restaurant and a modern block of three storey apartments known as Church Court.

2.3 Other buildings in the vicinity of the site are predominantly residential but there are several commercial/office uses nearby. There are also a number of listed buildings close by including St Paul’s Church, No’s 11-14 St Paul’s Square, 92-95 Livery Street and 36 Cox Street.

2.4 Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1 18/1/99 - 1998/04591/PA – Planning Permission granted for extension at roof level to form additional office accommodation

3.2 13/2/15 - 2014/09200/PA – Application withdrawn for refurbishment of existing building to provide ground floor restaurant/cafe with 3 apartments above, roof extension to form one apartment, demolition of single storey rear building and erection of 4, four storey townhouses.

4 Consultation/PP Responses

Page 2 of 12 4.1 Transportation – No objection subject to conditions to require car parking spaces to be formally marked out, vehicle circulation areas to be kept free from obstructions and secure cycle storage to be provided. Comments that it is unlikely that the proposed development would have any significant impact in terms of highway safety and free flow, the site is situated within Jewellery Quarter and benefits from excellent links by all modes of transport.

4.2 Regulatory Services – Recommend refusal of the application. Consider that the area is affected by odour from the oriental kitchen and possibly from the extraction system at the Ropewalk which would have an adverse impact on the amenities of future residents. Also that the noise mitigation measures proposed would rely on future occupiers of the development keeping their windows closed and may not be not be sufficient to address noise from the Ropewalk.

4.3 Jewellery Quarter Development Trust – No objection and support the principle of the upward extension as it looks like a roof rather than a rain screen clad storey. However they would like to see the townhouse elevations improved as they are visible from St Paul’s Square. Consider the opportunity to remove the lift overrun should be taken.

4.4 Jewellery Quarter Neighbourhood Forum – Express concerns about the visual effect of the additional floor to be added to the existing main building and the use of zinc cladding which they consider to be inappropriate and should be replaced by slates. They also point out errors in the references and illustrations in the Design and Access Statement, which refer to and show a fourth storey on the town houses. They comment that if the height of the town houses is reduced to three storeys, the application has much to commend it, including the gated access through the main building to provide an active courtyard, which is a typical characteristic of the mid- 19th Century expansion of the Quarter. They also support the proposed ground floor use of the main building as a restaurant/cafe opening out onto the square.

4.5 Local residents, businesses, ward councillors, residents associations notified of the application, press and site notices displayed. 5 letters received. Two letters are from the occupier/owners of the two adjoining business premises at the Ropewalk and Henry’s Cantonese restaurant They express concern that occupiers of the new development may complain about noise from their premises and comment that – • There are bound to be some odours and noise from our kitchen etc. and as we have been here for 30 years and it would not be fair for us to have to change or do works at a cost to fit new occupants in the surrounding area. • It should be noted that the Ropewalk Public House has an existing 2.00am licence and conflict with residents in such close proximity to late licensed premises is common. • As the Rope Walk is to provide hotel accommodation guests that will be arriving 24 hours a day which in itself may also generate additional noise. • Any building works on the site may create noise for our hotel guests and may also restrict access to our site • St Paul's Square is well known for been a vibrant area at weekends and any residential developers should take this into consideration. • The existing kitchen extraction to the rear of the Ropewalk will be in close proximity to the proposed development of the four Town Houses and consideration should be made with respect to any noise or fumes from the plant. • As the four Town Houses would back onto the Rope Walk site this could preclude any future development of the hotel against the boundary line between the two sites.

Page 3 of 12 4.6 The 3 other letters, which include one on behalf of Kings Court residents contain the following objections:- • The proposals to add the additional floor to the main building, especially the use of zinc cladding would be unsightly and unsympathetic and out of character with the original parts of the building. • The addition of a further 4th storey to the building is not in keeping with St. Paul’s Square where the buildings are generally 3 storeys and would be contrary to the Jewellery Quarter Design Guide which advises against any “setback” additional stories for proposed developments. • The plans are misleading as they do not show the development in context with the other building elevations on the east side of the square. • Existing residents of Kings Court, Colmore Place and Midland Court on Cox Street will suffer a lack of privacy being directly opposite the habitable spaces of the proposed townhouses and upper levels of the refurbished 21/23 St. Paul’s Square. • The proposed upper storey will obscure or partly obscure views of St. Paul’s from properties along Cox Street contrary to the Jewellery Quarter Design Guide which advises that views to local landmarks should be maintained where possible. • Concerned that proposal to create any bar/café/restaurant on the ground floor would cause more noise and disturbance to residents although they do not wish to see more empty retail units.

5. Policy Context

5.1 Birmingham Unitary Development Plan, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, NPPF, Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan, Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Design Guide, Places for All.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1 The main issues are considered to be the erection of a residential led mixed use development on the site is acceptable in principle and if so whether the design of the new build elements of the scheme are appropriate and would have any adverse impact on nearby listed buildings or the Conservation Area. Also to be considered is the impact on the adjacent commercial and residential developments.

6.2 Policy

6.3 The NPPF supports sustainable economic development to deliver the homes and businesses to create the thriving local places the country needs. It encourages the use of brownfield land and promotes new housing and mixed use developments particularly in locations well served by public transport. The adopted Birmingham UDP (2005) also contains policies to support city living and paragraph 15.68 supports the provision of an urban village in the Jewellery Quarter and encourages opportunities for mixed use development including new homes, small scale convenience shopping and activities to promote a café culture and evening economy. Mixed use proposals are encouraged through the UDP and Paragraph 3.20 states that redundant historic buildings offer a range of opportunities for conversion to new uses and can be an important focus for wider urban regeneration schemes.

6.4 The Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan allows for the change of use of buildings provided the new use would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the conservation area. It

Page 4 of 12 encourages mixed uses to add character, quality and interest. The site is within the St Paul’s/Canal corridor area of the Jewellery Quarter where there are no restrictions in terms of new residential development. Therefore in land use policy terms there is no objection to the proposed commercial and residential uses, subject to all other material considerations being considered.

6.5 Although objections have been raised to the inclusion of a commercial use within the ground floor of the existing building the provision of active uses at street level is encouraged to add the vitality of the area. As the commercial use would also adjoin a bar/restaurant at the Ropewalk it is considered to be appropriate to provide a non- residential use in this part of the building.

6.6 Design

6.7 Local and national planning policies seek to ensure high quality design. In addition, policies specific to the Jewellery Quarter identify its unique historic environment and that permission for new development will normally only be granted where it respects the scale, form and density of the historic pattern of development, where it protects views and roofscapes and where it preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area.

6.8 The alterations proposed to renovate and refurbish the existing building are welcomed as is the proposal to remove the air conditioning units and ducting on the rear façade. With regard to the roof extension the materials have been amended to delete the original zinc cladding and replace it with slate. In addition the lift overrun on the roof would also be clad with slate to improve its appearance as it cannot be removed completely. Although objections have been raised to the provision of a fourth floor on the building the extension has been designed as a pitched roof rather than a setback box which the Jewellery Quarter design guide seeks to avoid. The Heritage statement submitted with the application also provides a historical analysis of site to show that this part of the building was originally a floor higher and would probably had a more conventional pitched roof. In addition planning permission was previously granted for a roof top extension in 1999. The applicants claim that it was partly implemented and was to provide a low mansard type roof which would not now be considered appropriate.

6.9 The provision of the town houses at the rear of the site to replace the existing workshop building is also considered to be acceptable and to reflect traditional building forms found in the Jewellery Quarter. Originally it was proposed to provide a 4 storey row of town houses to the rear of the existing building but following negotiations this has been reduced to 3 storeys so it is subservient to the main building to give the impression of a shopping wing. The Heritage Statement submitted concludes that the rear wing was originally built as 3 storeys the top floors having been lost at the same time as the roof on the frontage block. Although part of the three storey wing remains immediately to the rear of the main building the remainder was reduced to just one storey and demonstrated by the sections of the walling that remain but which would now be removed.

6.10 The design of the town houses have also been amended to improve the design and materials and to include windows of diminishing proportions which are characteristic of the Jewellery Quarter. The layout for courtyard area which would lie in front of the town houses has also been reconfigured to provide 8 car parking spaces (100%) provision and landscaping.

6.11 Impact on nearby listed buildings and Conservation Area

Page 5 of 12

6.12 The UDP and BDP policies on listed buildings seek to ensure their protection and that any external or internal alterations do not adversely affect their architectural or historic interest. National planning policies as set out in NPPF seek to protect heritage assets and to prevent any loss which would harm their significance. With regard to listed buildings special regard should be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting.

6.13 It is not considered that the site would have any adverse impact on the historical significance or setting of any of the nearby listed buildings. The submitted Heritage statement comments that that whilst there are several listed buildings in St. Paul’s Square that are visible from the site and other buildings have views of the site however the proposals would have little impact on the visual appearance on these historic buildings and if anything the refurbishment work would enhance the appearance of the site and its surroundings. Officers support these conclusions.

6.14 With regard to the impact on the conservation area the development would involve the demolition of the single storey wing at the rear of the existing building provide a three storey replacement building. The building to be demolished is considered to be of no historical of visual interest being largely rebuild with modern alterations including provision of metal roller shutter doors and openings infilled with blockwork. Its removal would therefore improve the appearance of the conservation area although generally it is screened from view by existing buildings.

6.15 The new town houses would however be visible from the rear of adjacent properties including from the car park serving the Ropewalk and from upper windows of nearby apartments where it may be seen over the roof of the adjacent Chinese restaurant. However the design of the new building is considered appropriate and it is therefore it is not considered that there would be any adverse impact on the conservation area.

6.16 The objectors also consider that the roof extension could obscure or partly obscure views of St. Paul’s Church from properties in Cox Street whereas the Jewellery Quarter Design Guide advises that views to local landmarks should be maintained where possible. The roof top extension would be 2.8 metres high and have a sloping roof set back behind a parapet some distance from nearby residential properties and St Paul’s Church. It is not considered that there would be an adverse impact on any important views of St Paul’s Church

6.17 Overall the development would re –use an existing vacant building, remove an unattractive extension, restore the rear of the existing building, erect sympathetically designed new buildings and improve the appearance and security of the rear courtyard by adding new landscaping and gates. These developments are therefore considered to benefit the conservation area and the overall appearance of the Jewellery Quarter.

6.18 Impact on neighbouring development

6.19 The application site lies between several commercial properties, including No 24 St Paul’s Square last used as offices, the rear wall of the Cantonese restaurant, a workshop building used by Birmingham Case and Cabinet makers and the Ropewalk bar/hotel. It will be seen from the consultation responses received to the application that the occupiers of two of these adjacent businesses are concerned that the presence of residential development on the application site could be in conflict with their commercial uses and lead to complaints.

Page 6 of 12 6.20 The applicants have submitted a noise report with the application and this concludes that the general noise climate around the site is attributable to traffic flows. It has assessed noise from the Cantonese Restaurant and found that this part of the site is significantly quieter due to the screening effect of the existing building. They comment that although the restaurant was open and in operation during the overnight monitoring period, background noise levels did not appear to rise during those periods noise levels are controlled by the volume of traffic in the local area rather than the restaurant or associated kitchen extraction plant.

6.21 The noise consultants were unable to measure noise from the Ropewalk as it is currently closed however they point out that changes are taking place within the building where by the first and second levels are being opened as hotel rooms. As the hotel room windows are closer to the plant than the proposed dwellings they consider that any noise output should not adversely affect the proposed dwellings.

6.22 The noise report has also considered the impact on future residents occupying the converted floor space in the existing building as the Ropewalk bar/restaurant and hotel rooms would be adjacent. The main bar area is located at ground floor level but is separated from the application site by a 6 metres wide series of rooms used for access and administration. The layout proposed for the existing building locates a commercial unit on the ground floor and adjacent to the shared boundary would be a staircase providing access to the apartments. Although at first and second floor level it is proposed to locate a living room adjacent to the Ropewalk these rooms would adjoin a staircase/circulation space with the proposed hotel rooms beyond. The report therefore concludes it is unlikely, particularly during the night time that noise levels from the attached public house bar would impact on future residents.

6.23 Regulatory Services have considered the noise report and noise mitigation measures proposed but are concerned that this would rely on future occupiers of the development keeping their windows closed and may not be not be sufficient to address noise from the Ropewalk even though the applicants propose that acoustic glazing with trickle vents be provided. To further address their concerns the application has been further amended to relocate the bedroom windows of the proposed town houses to the front of the units facing the quieter courtyard elevation rather than the rear elevation facing the Ropewalk car park. Whilst this may not totally eliminate any noise it is considered that this is an acceptable compromise bearing in mind that the Jewellery Quarter is a mixed use area and that there are many instances of commercial and residential properties in close proximity to each other. In addition a condition can be imposed to require further noise monitoring and mitigation in the event that the Ropewalk has re-opened before the new dwellings are first occupied.

6.24 Regulatory Services also consider odour from the adjoining restaurants could be an issue for future residents. The applicants have therefore also provided an odour assessment which found that the odour from the restaurant was very low and hardly detectable. No complaints regarding odour from these adjacent premises have been received from existing residents and therefore whilst the concerns on noise and odour are noted it is not considered that they justify refusal of the application.

6.25 The owner of the Ropewalk has also objected to the development on the grounds that the presence of the town houses could prejudice further development on their site however each case is dealt with on its merits. It is also common for there to be rear shopping style wings in the Jewellery Quarter and there was previously a 3 storey building on this part of the application site.

Page 7 of 12 6.26 There have also been objections to the application on the grounds that occupants of the existing apartment’s schemes in the area will be overlooked from windows by occupants of the proposed townhouses and new flats. However the existing apartments on the north side of Cox Street are some 35 metres from the development and there is the existing restaurant between the two buildings. The apartments at Church Close adjoin the north boundary of the side but have a blank gable end facing the site. There are however windows in the southern end of Church Court which have an oblique view over the application site and the proposed town houses. The application has therefore been amended since originally submitted to relocate a projecting staircase wing in order to avoid undue overshadowing or loss of light to neighbours. Therefore it is not considered that there would be any adverse impact on the amenities of adjacent dwellings

6.27 Overall it is considered that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring development and is acceptable.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The application proposals would bring an existing vacant building back into use by providing a ground floor commercial unit and four apartments. It would also replace a former workshop to the rear of the building with a terrace of 4 three storey town houses. These proposals are considered to be appropriate for the site and would benefit the character and appearance of the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area. Although objections have been raised from adjacent businesses that there could be a conflict between the proposed residential development and the adjacent restaurant/bars mixed used developments are considered to be appropriate in city centre locations and are encouraged in the Jewellery Quarter. Conditions are recommended to require provision of noise mitigation measures to reduce the likelihood of noise disturbance to future residents.

8. Recommendation

8.1 Approve subject to the following conditions:-

1 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

2 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

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

4 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

5 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

6 Requires the prior submission of a demolition method statement

7 Requires the prior submission of window and door details

8 Requires the prior submission of new walls, railings & gates & gate posts/piers details

9 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation.

10 Requires the prior submission a noise study to establish residential acoustic protection

Page 8 of 12

11 Removes PD rights for extensions

12 Limits the hours of operation of the commercial unit to 7am to 11pm Monday - Friday and 9am -11pm at weekends

13 Prevents occupation until the turning and parking area has been constructed

14 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

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

16 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Lesley Sheldrake

Page 9 of 12 Photo(s)

Figure 1: View of site from St Paul’s Square

Figure 2: View to rear of building and courtyard Page 10 of 12

Figure 3: View of rear wing to be demolished

Figure 4: View towards site from Ropewalk car park Page 11 of 12 Location Plan

Page 12 of 12

Committee Date: 12/11/2015 Application Number: 2015/07328/PA Accepted: 18/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 13/11/2015 Ward: Ladywood

40 Cox Street, City Centre, Birmingham, B3 1RD

Change of use from retail (Use Class A1) to a drinking establishment (Use Class A4). Applicant: Mr Amanjot Johal 8 Hitchcock Close, Smethwick, West Midlands, B67 7RF Agent:

Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. The application seeks full planning permission for the change of use of the vacant ground floor unit at 40 Cox Street from retail (use class A1) to a drinking establishment (use class A4).

1.2. The site is located at ground floor level within Midland House, located on the north eastern corner of St Paul’s Square, within the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area. Midland House is a seven storey mixed use development constructed in the 1990s containing two ground floor commercial units and 28 flats above (permission ref: 1992/04395/PA). The two ground floor commercial units are separated by a vehicle access way to a car parking area to the rear. The upper floors of the block are built over this accessway and the main pedestrian access to the flats is located on its western side.

1.3 Midland House has a traditional design with a stucco-rendered ground floor level; brick built upper floors with stone banding, metal Juliette balconies and a two storey mansard roof.

1.4 The vacant ground floor retail unit is a small unit measuring 5.4 m width x 7.2 m depth (39 m2 approx.). The main access doorway is located within a chamfered section of wall at the front of the unit. The other commercial unit in the block is occupied by a sandwich shop (A1 use).

1.5 The site is located adjacent to the building at 36-37 Cox Street, which is a Grade II Listed Building. There are several other drinking establishments/restaurants in the vicinity of the site including Henry’s Restaurant opposite the site at no. 8 Cox Street Andersons Bar & Grill at no. 30 Mary Ann St, The Actress & Bishop at 36 Ludgate Hill and several units on St Paul’s Square including: The Jam House at no’s 3 & 4, The Rope Walk at no 15 and The Rectory at no’s 50-54.

Page 1 of 8 1.6 Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site located at 40 Cox Street contains a vacant retail unit (A1 use class). The property is located at ground floor level within Midland Court, a seven storey mixed-use development built in the 1990s, containing two ground floor commercial units and 28 flats. The two ground floor commercial units are separated by an under-croft vehicle access to a car parking area to the rear.

2.2. The site is located to the north east of St Paul’s Square within the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area. The square is located at the heart of the Conservation Area and contains the Grade I Listed St Paul’s Church set within open space at the centre surrounded by 18th century townhouses.

2.3. In the immediate vicinity of the site, there is a modern 6 storey office building at no. 30 Cox Street to the west of the site, the other commercial unit within Midland Court in use as a sandwich shop (A1 use) is located to the east of the site at no. 38 Cox Street and Henry’s Restaurant is located to the south of the site on the opposite side of Cox Street.

2.4. Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. 1992/04395/PA - Residential Development of 28 Flats & 2 Ground Floor Units (Dentist & Barber) with Car Park. Approved with Conditions - 29/04/1993.

3.2. 1995/04399/PA - Change of Use of Two Small Commercial Units on Ground Floor From Dentists and Barber Shop to Class A1 Retail Use - Approved with Conditions - 18/01/1996.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation - no objection. The change of use is not likely to significantly affect highway safety. There is no on-site parking, however, there is adequate parking available on street, plus the site is highly accessible by all means of public transport. A minimum of 1 cycle parking space is required. Transport does not consider that the proposed use of the site would be likely to have a detrimental impact on the safe operation of surrounding streets. There are no significant reasons why the proposal should be resisted on highway grounds.

4.2 Regulatory Services – no objection subject to planning conditions including details of a noise limiting device for amplified music, details of floor ceiling noise insulation, controlling hours of operation to 11pm at the latest, limiting the maximum noise level, preventing drinking outside the premises and making the permission temporary for 1 year to allow for a period of monitoring of the use.

4.3 West Midlands Police - no objection - the development should comply with secured by design standards, a CCTV system is required, and a lighting scheme and alarm system is required.

4.4 Access Committee for Birmingham – no objection an accessible toilet facility would be provided. The facility should provide level access.

Page 2 of 8 4.5 Local residents and businesses were notified of the application, a press and site notice was also displayed. 15 responses were received with the following summarised points of objection.

• There is already a high density of drinking establishments in the area and too many drinking establishments would be detrimental to the area. • Increased noise and disturbance, particularly in the evenings, noting how close residential properties are to this proposal, many of which have single glazed windows. • The bar would be small and may not be safe for patrons and bar staff. • The bar would be small and the area to the front may be used as an external drinking area. • No smoking area would be provided and patrons may use the front of the premises or the undercroft access area to the side for smoking. • Inadequate waste management arrangements. • Increased anti-social behaviour in the area. • Inadequate information on how this proposed small bar would operate. • The bar would only have one unisex toilet which would not meet British Standards. The inadequate toilet facilities may result in patrons using the adjacent street/undercroft area as a toilet. • The unit would not have adequate storage facilities to operate as a bar and there are inadequate delivery arrangements. • Increased traffic and disturbance generated by taxis. Residents state that this is already an issue with the restaurant located opposite the site. • There would be a conflict between pedestrians accessing the bar vehicles accessing down the access road. • No car parking would be provided. • The impact on the value of the adjacent properties.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, NPPF, Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan, Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Design Guide, Places for Living.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The main issues to consider are the principle of development, impact on residential amenity, transport and highway safety issues, refuse storage issues and crime prevention.

Principle of Use

6.2 The site is a vacant retail unit (A1 use) located at 40 Cox Street within the Jewellery Quarter. The site is located within the St Pauls/Canal Corridor area of the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area. The Conservation Area Appraisal notes that town centre commercial uses are common in this part of the Conservation Area. There are several other town centre commercial uses including drinking establishments and restaurants located on St Paul’s Square and in the surrounding area. It is also noted that the UDP encourages new leisure and entrainment uses in suitable town centre locations.

6.3 The site is not located within the Jewellery Quarter Neighbourhood Centre and therefore the proposed change of use would not be subject to the policy tests for loss

Page 3 of 8 of retail use set out in the Shopping and Local Centres SPD. Overall, the proposed drinking establishment (A4 use) is a suitable town centre use with an active frontage which would be acceptable in principle in this location.

Residential Amenity

6.4 It is important to ensure that the proposed new drinking establishment use does not result in a detrimental impact on local residential amenity. There are residential properties located at upper floor level within Midland Court and on neighbouring sites. Particular attention should be given to ensuring that the proposed use does not result in harm to the residential unit(s) located at first floor level directly above the site. It is acknowledged that residents have objected to the application on the grounds of noise and disturbance.

6.5 The applicant has submitted information setting out what type of bar is proposed. This states that the proposed bar would be a high quality lounge bar with an emphasis on providing a refined experience. However, the proposal is for a change of use to a drinking establishment (A4 use) and any permission would run with the land, therefore limited weight can be attributed to the type of bar proposed. The proposed drinking establishment (A4 use) must be assessed on its own merits in terms of the planning issues.

6.6 Regulatory Services have confirmed that they would not object to the proposed bar, subject to planning conditions including a noise limiting device for amplified music, floor/ceiling noise insulation, controlling hours of operation to 11pm, limiting the maximum noise level, preventing drinking or smoking directly outside the premises and making the permission temporary for 1 year to allow for a period of monitoring for the use.

6.7 The proposed bar would be small (39 m2 approx.) and would only have a modest capacity (25 persons approx.) which would reduce the level of disturbance outside the premises. It is considered that the recommended conditions would result in a high level of noise mitigation to the apartments above and it is therefore accepted that the bar would operate without significant detriment to residential amenity. Furthermore, considering the small size of the bar and the high level of noise mitigation, it is recommended that there is no need to restrict the permission to a 1 year temporary permission. It is also noted that there are some existing evening entertainment uses in the area; however, the development would not result in an over-concentration of such uses. It is noted that the police have no objection to the proposal.

Transport Impact

6.8 Transportation have been consulted on the proposal and have raised no objections. The application site is located within the Jewellery Quarter, close to the city centre and is highly accessible by walking, cycling and public transport. The development would not provide any on-site car parking, however adequate on-street car parking would be provided within the vicinity of the site. A delivery schedule would be obtained via planning condition, considering the low level of on-site storage provided. However, there is no space for a cycle parking space on the site and considering the proposed use this would not be required in the circumstances. Overall, the proposed use of the site would not be likely to have a detrimental impact on the safe operation of surrounding streets and there are no significant reasons why the proposal should be resisted on highway grounds. Considering the modest size and capacity of the proposal it is not considered that taxi movements would have an impact on highway

Page 4 of 8 congestion or safety or that there would be a conflict between pedestrians and vehicles on the access road.

Refuse Storage Issues

6.9 No external refuse storage area is proposed. The applicant has stated that waste would be stored internally in separate containers and they would use a private waste management company to collect the waste regularly. The proposed bar would be small with a modest capacity and would not include cooked food. The proposal would not be expected to generate a high level of waste, therefore the proposed internal storage and private collection arrangements are considered to be acceptable in principle. It is acknowledged that residents have objected on the basis that there is no capacity with the existing external refuse storage area at Midland Court and waste should not be stored in the access road or public highway. Therefore a planning condition would be added to prevent external refuse storage in the interests of local residential amenity.

Crime Prevention

6.10 In accordance with West Midlands Police advice the scheme should comply with secured by design standards, a CCTV system should be provided and a lighting scheme and alarm system is required.

Other Issues

6.11 The application does not include any external alterations or extensions and would not therefore impact on the character of the streetscene or conservation area.

6.12 In response to the remaining objections: it is noted that residents have objected to the provision of one toilet and the potential use of external areas as a toilet; however, adequate toilet facilities would be provided. The safety arrangements for patrons and staff and impact on property values are not planning issues.

Conclusion

6.13 Overall, the principle of the change of use of this small unit to a drinking establishment is supported and subject to conditions relating to noise mitigation and controlling hours of operation the use would not operate with significant harm to amenity or highway safety.

7. Recommendation

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

2 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation

3 Limits the entertainment noise level from attached entertainment premises

4 Requires the prior submission of noise limiting device details

5 Limits the hours of operation to 12:00-23:00 only.

6 Limits the hours that materials can be delivered to 08:00-20:00 only.

Page 5 of 8

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

8 Prevents outside storage

9 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Robert Lester

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Photo of the Site

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 12/11/2015 Application Number: 2015/07648/PA Accepted: 18/09/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 13/11/2015 Ward: Ladywood

Suffolk Street Queensway, Outside 7-8, 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 seeks advertisement consent for the installation of 1 no. internally illuminated double sided digital freestanding advertising unit on Suffolk Street Queensway.

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 1.1m (w). The unit would be digital matrix and stainless steel and would be internally illuminated at 300cd/m. The design of the advertisement is the same as the Interconnect totems that are displayed within the City Centre.

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

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site relates to a pavement outside 7-8 Suffolk Street Queensway. The surrounding area is predominantly commercial made up of a mix of retail, takeaways and bars.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. None relevant.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Birmingham City Centre Management and Southside Business Improvement District have been notified. No response has been received.

Page 1 of 5 4.2. Transportation Development – No objections subject to conditions that intervals between successive displays are instantaneous, no special visual effects, no fading, swiping or other animated transition methods, no special visual effects, no animated, flashing, scrolling, intermittent or video elements, minimum display time of 8 seconds, the complete screen display must change instantly, there must not be change in light patterns, limited to two dimensional display, must not display messages, emit noise, sound, smoke, smell or odours, default mechanism, not include interactive messages, the advert should include a dimmer control and photo cell to constantly monitor ambient light conditions and adjust sign brightness and illumination shall be no greater than 300 candelas.

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The National Planning Policy Framework states that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety.

AMENITY

6.2. The proposed advertisement unit would be a new unit that would be located within a predominantly commercial area. It is considered the proposal would not result in a concentration of advertisements within the surrounding area. On balance, it is considered the proposal would not result in unacceptable clutter and would be acceptable in this location.

PUBLIC SAFETY

6.3. Transportation Development have noted that the proposed advertisement would be a new sign that would sit in a wide footway that would have a suitable passing width for pedestrians and would have no negative effects on visibility splays or driver sightlines. As such no objections have been raised subject to conditions. It has been advised to attach a condition to require the necessary highway agreements to be in place prior to the construction of the advertisement on site. It is however considered that such a condition would duplicate other controls and would therefore be unreasonable. Therefore an informative is proposed to advise as such.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider the proposal to be acceptable.

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

Page 2 of 5 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: Anh Do

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

View South East

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 12/11/2015 Application Number: 2015/07645/PA Accepted: 18/09/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 13/11/2015 Ward: Ladywood

The Priory Queensway, (Near NCP Car Park), 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 seeks advertisement consent for the installation 1 no. internally illuminated double sided freestanding advertising unit on Priory Queensway.

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

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site relates to a pavement on Priory Queensway. Opposite the site is a multi storey office building, to the south are a number of bus shelters and retailers. The surrounding area is predominantly commercial.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. None relevant.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Birmingham City Centre Management have been notified. No response has been received.

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The National Planning Policy Framework states that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety.

AMENITY

6.2. The proposed advertisement unit would be located within a predominantly commercial area where there is street furniture. The nearby bus shelters do have advertisements on, however, it is considered the proposal would have not result in a concentration of advertisements within the surrounding area. On balance, it is considered the proposal would not result in unacceptable clutter and would be acceptable in this location.

PUBLIC SAFETY

6.3. Transportation Development have noted that the proposed advertisement would be a new sign that would be located in a wide footway and would retain suitable visibility splays, sightlines and passing pedestrian widths. As such no objections have been raised subject to conditions. It has been advised to attach a condition to require the necessary highway agreements to be in place prior to the construction of the advertisement on site. It is however considered that such a condition would duplicate other controls and would therefore be unreasonable. Therefore an informative is proposed to advise as such.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider the proposal to be acceptable.

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

Page 2 of 5

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: Anh Do

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

View West

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

182

The Crown

180

159 178 (PH) 157 176 to 170

155 NEWTON STREET

153a 168

166 Gazette CORPORATION STREET 164 Buildings

162 74

LB 160

150 to 158 to 150 Londonderry House 2

DALTON STREET Multistorey 66 to 70 Car Park El PH Sub Sta

Maple House 38

38 to 40

42 to 44 Masshouse Circus THE PRIORY QUEENSWAY 2 Mclaren Car Park Building TCB 46

27 Shelters

33 2 to 14 to 2

5 to 11 DALE END

Priory Walk

Dale Street Car Park (below) Dale House 52 to 58

Def

2 to 6 Albert Street

14 to 31 to 14 Multistorey Car Park

y re Ramp

Shelters

59 to 65

DALE END Bank DINGLEY'S

7 ALBERT STRE PASSAGE

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 12/11/2015 Application Number: 2015/07646/PA Accepted: 18/09/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 13/11/2015 Ward: Ladywood

Weaman Street, (NCP Car Park), 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 seeks advertisement consent for the installation 1 no. internally illuminated double sided freestanding advertising unit on Weaman Street.

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

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site relates to a pavement on the corner of Weaman Street and Whitall Street. The site is adjacent to a multi storey car park. To the north is a clinic. To the west is a hotel. The surrounding area is predominantly commercial.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. None relevant.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Birmingham City Centre Management and Colmore Business Improvement District have been notified. No response has been received.

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The National Planning Policy Framework states that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety.

AMENITY

6.2. The application site is located within a predominantly commercial area. It is considered the proposal would be in scale with the surrounding buildings and structures. It is considered the proposal would not result in a concentration of advertisements within the surrounding area. On balance, it is considered the proposal would not result in unacceptable clutter and would be acceptable in this location.

PUBLIC SAFETY

6.3. Transportation Development have noted that the proposed advertisement would be in a wide footway area clear of the required visibility splays at the junction and pedestrian desire lines. As such no objections have been raised subject to conditions. I concur with this view and have attached conditions accordingly. It has been advised to attach a condition to require the necessary highway agreements to be in place prior to the construction of the advertisement on site. It is however considered that such a condition would duplicate other controls and would therefore be unreasonable. Therefore an informative is proposed to advise as such.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider the proposal to be acceptable.

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

Page 2 of 5

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: Anh Do

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

View from Whitall Street

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 12/11/2015 Application Number: 2015/06963/PA Accepted: 16/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 11/12/2015 Ward: Aston

New John Street, Central Reservation Area, opposite Scholefield Tower, City Centre, Birmingham, B19

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 New John Street West.

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 New John Street West, which is a grassed area containing a number of trees.

2.2 The dual-carriageway and the associated landscaped highway land are the dominant features in the character of the site. The area has a mixed character; there are several blocks of high rise flats set within landscaped grounds to the south of the site and a large area of open space to the north.

2.3 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. A Grampian condition has also been requested for the relevant highway agreements to be in place prior to the unit being installed.

5 Policy Context

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

6 Planning Considerations

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

AMENITY

6.2 The proposed advert would be located on the central reservation on New John Street West, which is a grassed area containing several trees. 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

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

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 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 Site Looking West

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5 BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION

PLANNING COMMITTEE 12 November 2015

WARD: Ladywood

ISSUES REPORT

SUMMARY

This report advises Members of a detailed planning application submitted on 22nd September 2015, by Primark Stores Ltd, for remodelling of the existing structure incorporating a pedestrian access route, revised façade treatment and new plant at the Pavilions Shopping Centre, High Street, City Centre. The report sets out likely issues to be considered when the proposal returns to your Committee and your views on these issues and other issues that may not be included are sought.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That this report be noted.

Comments of your Committee are requested.

CONTACT OFFICER

David Wells City Centre Planning Management Team Tel. No. 0121-303-1115 Email: [email protected]

PURPOSE

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

PLANNING COMMITTEE 12 November 2015 2015/07809/PA

DISTRICT: CITY CENTRE

LOCATION: Pavilions Shopping Centre, High Street, City Centre, B4 7SL.

PROPOSAL: Remodelling of existing structure incorporating pedestrian access route, revised facade treatment and new plant and service.

APPLICANT: Primark Stores Ltd, PO Box 644, 47 Mary Street, Dublin, Ireland.

AGENT: Charter Plan (2004) Ltd, 65 Mansard Cottage, Stoneleigh Road, Limpsfield Chart, Oxted, Surrey, RH8 0TP.

POLICY CONTEXT:

National Planning Policy Framework, Birmingham Unitary Development Plan, emerging Birmingham Development Plan, Shopfront Design Guidelines SPG, Places for All SPG, Access for People with Disabilities SPD, Lighting Places SPD, Big City Plan, Birmingham Curzon Masterplan and Draft Retail Strategy.

The site is nearby Moor Street Station and the Rotunda, both of which are Grade II listed buildings.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:

20 June 1985 Planning Application E/C11237/019. Planning consent granted for construction of a covered shopping centre trading on four levels with ancillary service and management area.

9 June 1994 Planning Application 1994/01219/PA. Planning consent granted for replacement of existing entrance canopy and doors with new canopy, doors, doors and roller shutters.

25 May 2001 Planning Application 2001/01612/PA. Planning consent granted for alterations to rear elevation, with new shop fronts, entrance doors, glass canopy, granite surround and enamelled street cladding.

1 June 2005 Planning Application 2005/01637/PA. Planning consent granted for alterations to High Street entrance.

In addition there have been several applications for minor external works to the shopping centre such as shop fronts and advertisement.

NATURE OF SURROUNDINGS:

The Pavilions Shopping Centre, constructed in 1988, is a 4-5 storey building fronting High Street and adjacent to the Bull Ring Shopping Centre. The existing building has a

2 gross internal area of 24,490 sqm and provides 14,680 sqm of retail floor space but with irregular floor plates it does not meet modern day retail requirements.

The building is currently occupied by various retail stores including H&M, Thorntons and Three. Marks & Spencer also occupies the eastern section of the building with customer entrances to the building on all floors of the Shopping Centre. Part of the Shopping Centre has already been vacated with only 26 of the total 48 units occupied (equating to a 52% occupancy level). This includes M&S and Waterstones.

The site is located in a highly accessible location being within the retail core of Birmingham City Centre. It is located opposite Moor Street Station, nearby the proposed HS2 Station and close to numerous existing bus and rail links, all within a short walk from the site.

The main customer entrances to the Shopping Centre are from street level on High Street with additional access to the existing occupier frontages. There is also an entrance to the Shopping Centre from Moor Street, which is accessed via shallow ramps parallel to the site. There is a difference of 7.5 metres in level between the 2 frontages.

The existing service yard is accessed from Carrs Lane with the access road running along the Moor Street frontage above street level. The service yard for the Pavilions is located on the second level and accommodates 3 large loading bays with associated dock levellers suitable for HGV deliveries in addition to 7 smaller loading/ parking bays suitable for cars and vans.

Site Location

DETAILS OF PROPOSAL:

The scheme seeks to reconfigure the existing Pavilions to create a new retail flagship store for Primark with entrances, display windows and new façade treatments to both High Street and Moor Street. The remodelling would lead to the reconfiguration of the internal layout of the building to regularise the existing floor space and provide an access through the building. This access would link High Street and Moor Street during the stores opening hours. The reconfiguration would not change the existing development envelope but would result in an increase in floorspace of 1,750 sqm to 26,240 sqm GIA. The existing retail stores occupied by H&M, Thornton’s and Three would be retained as part of the proposals.

It is envisaged that the trading hours of the proposed store would be Monday to Saturday 8am to 8pm and Sunday 11am to 5pm. In terms of staff numbers, it is expected that employees from the existing store on New Street would transfer to the new store once open. Currently, the existing New Street store employs 460 full and part-time staff. This would increase to circa 800 full and part-time staff at the new store.

Access

Conceived along the same lines as Primark’s store off Princes Street in Edinburgh, the proposal seeks to provide a pedestrian route from the High Street to Moor Street entrances with direct sight-lines through the retail areas. Two central escalators traverse the level change from Moor Street to High Street. These escalators would have a 7.5m clear height.

The route is marked externally by full-height back-lit Texlan cladding with triangular ETFE cushions with a dot matrix frit and feature lighting. Internally two full-height atria are proposed to match the appearance of the Texlan façade cladding. Customer lifts

3 provide access to all floors. At high level the route is traversed by a series of bridges to connect the two halves of the upper sales floors.

No alterations are proposed to the elevated service road access, which serves a number of retail developments.

External Elevations

Although the proposal is conceived with a single, distinctive and coherent identity, High Street and Moor Street represent two different context and two different responses are proposed. The High Street façade forms part of an historic streetscape and along this frontage the elevation is broken down into a sequence of contiguous facades giving oblique views along the street. The geometry of the Moor Street façade seeks to respond to long-range vistas. A consistent (full-height) treatment is proposed to the central feature that marks the route through the block.

In summary the works to the High Street elevation comprise:-

• existing façade removed and renewed with Anodised Aluminium Mesh Faced Rainscreen Cladding System incorporating lighting and signage; • full-height Texlan ETFE feature back - lit with LED lighting to mark the Main Entrance and through route to Moor Street; • new shopfront systems comprising low-iron structural glazing with polished granite plinth & framing; and, • Illuminated signage with back-enamelled glass above entrance, display windows and adjoining retail units.

To Moor Street the following works are proposed:-

• existing façade retained and overlaid with new Anodised Aluminium Mesh Screens incorporating facade lighting and signage above the existing service road; • full-height Texlan ETFE feature at high level back lit with LED lighting to mark the through-route to High Street; • new entrance / shopfront systems beneath the service road but raised to street framing; • illuminated signage with back enamelled glass above entrance and display windows; • all existing masonry exposed at service road level to be stained black.

Although not part of this application the drawings show a new advertising screen to the splayed gable adjoining the rear of Waterstones, alongside the Bullring.

Public Realm

Along High Street the proposals seek to activate the High Street frontage with a generous access into the store with shop window displays either side. The new entrance would provide level access into the building.

The proposals also seek to activate the Moor Street frontage with an entrance and shop window displays either side. The shallow ramps parallel to the building together with the retaining wall would then be removed. The footpath would then be re-graded and re-surfaced to coordinate with public realm improvements proposed in the One Station Project.

Furthermore the applicants note that the proposals would not prevent future improvements to the existing pedestrian route from Station Square to the Rotunda, via a ‘gently sloping’ terraced route running along the line of the existing shared service road. 4

Supporting Information

The application is supported by the following documents:-

• Design and Access Statement • Heritage Impact Audit on Rotunda and Listed Buildings • Planning Statement • Transport Statement • Servicing Management Plan • Construction Management Resume • Signage and Lighting Strategy • Sustainability and Energy Audit • Noise Impact Assessment

Link to Application

CONSULTATIONS:

As part of this application, widespread public participation is underway with nearby occupiers, residents associations, local ward councillors and the M.P. being notified. Site and Press notices have also been displayed.

ISSUES:

Issue 1 - Principle of Remodelling the Existing Building

Paragraphs 15.5 / 15.6 of the Birmingham UDP state that the overriding aims of planning policy are to welcome and encourage activity within the City Centre. As the City Centre is already intensively developed it recognises that future development opportunities will be based upon:

• the refurbishment / conversion of existing premises which contribute to the townscape quality of the City Centre; and, • the redevelopment of existing premises.

A key element of the UDP strategy is the recognition of the importance of the City Centre and that the success of retailing within the City Centre is fundamental to its success as a whole. Accordingly, it advises that retailing within the City Centre will be maintained and enhanced through improvements to:-

• the range and quality of shopping facilities, together with the retention of the existing range of shops; • the centres accessibility; • the quality of the built environment; and, • the links between the main shopping area and other activities in the City Centre.

Paragraph 7.18 therefore encourages appropriate new retail development or renewal within the Regional Shopping Centre and whilst paragraph 15.12A does not envisage that there will be a need for significant additional retail floor space in the City Centre, it supports the refurbishment of existing retailing.

The Draft BDP reinforces this approach further, stating that the continued revitalization and modernisation of the City’s economy will be central to the growth agenda of Birmingham. In addition, Policy GA1.1 sets out how the City Council will continue to promote the City Centre as the focus for retail, office, residential and leisure activity within the context of the wider aspiration to provide a high quality environment and visitor experience. New development should therefore make a positive contribution to 5 improving the vitality of the City Centre and should aim to improve the overall mix of uses. It adds that the Retail Core in Birmingham will continue to be focused around The Bullring, New Street, Corporation Street, The Mailbox and Grand Central areas and improvements to the quality of the environment and the shopping experience within this area is encouraged.

The existing building contributes little to the townscape quality of the City Centre and the internal layout does not meet modern retailer requirements. I therefore have no objections to the remodelling of the existing building, which would give it a new lease of life and bring it back into beneficial use. In principle I therefore welcome the proposals and the employment benefits the new store would bring. Furthermore, the scheme provides an opportunity to improve pedestrian connectivity both through and around the building.

Your Committee may wish to comment on the principle of remodelling the existing building, the employment generation benefits and the opportunity to improve pedestrian connectivity.

Issue 2 - Public Realm and Pedestrian Connectivity

The UDP at paragraph 15.36 UDP states that within the City Centre core the creation of a more pedestrian-friendly environment is a priority. Furthermore, transportation improvements and the development of new open spaces and general pedestrian improvements should assist the promotion of an improved physical environment in the City Centre core (paragraph 15.38).

Policy GA1.4 of the Draft BDP sets out measures to improve accessibility to and within the City Centre including:-

• an enhanced high quality network of pedestrian/cycle routes, public open spaces and squares; • improvements to and prioritisation of pedestrian and cycle accessibility; and, • integration of public transport.

The Birmingham Curzon Masterplan adds that the remodelling of the High Street and Pavillions area will, in the longer term, provide the opportunity to fully integrate the City Centre Core seamlessly into the adjoining Eastside and Digbeth area. A new street through the Pavillions block will connect HS2 to High Street and through to New Street Station bringing new life and activity to this part of the retail core.

Major improvements are planned for Birmingham’s public transport network including the transformation of New Street Station, the Metro Extension and the new HS2/Curzon Station. In particular, the One Station project seeks to improve links between Moor Street and New Street Stations.

In response, the scheme seeks to create a ‘permeable flagship’ store with escalators and customer lifts providing a direct route through the building during opening hours. A new entrance to Moor Street flanked by display windows would be formed beneath the service road but raised to provide active frontage at street level. To address the requirement for enhanced legibility, full-height back-lit ETFE facade treatments would provide a strong visual connection between the High Street and Moor Street entrances. Internally the route would be marked with two full-height atria.

I welcome the inclusion of a pedestrian accessway from the Moor Street entrance through to the High Street, thereby improving connections from Moor Street railway station to the central retail district and New Street. However, consideration needs to be given as to whether or not it is necessary to secure the route via a planning condition or through a legal agreement.

6 I also welcome the new entrance and shop window display, which would help animate the High Street and north side of Moor Street. The proposed public realm works to remove the shallow ramps parallel to the building together with the retaining wall would also help open up this frontage. Further discussions are necessary to ensure that the footpath re-graded and re-surfaced works coordinate with public realm improvements proposed in the One Station Project.

I note that the applicant states that their proposals would not conflict with the City Council’s aspirations for public realm enhancements from Station Square to the Rotunda. However, given that the scheme includes additional retail space and the site would in the future benefit from public realm improvements planned between Moor Street and New Street Stations, it seems reasonable to seek to secure a financial contribution towards the planned public realm improvements.

Your Committee may wish to comment on the proposed route through the building and possible S106 planning obligations to secure pedestrian access and a financial contribution towards public realm improvements.

Issue 3 - External Appearance

One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to secure high quality design. It sets out how the Government attaches significant importance to the design of the built environment and that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

The NPPF adds that planning policies and decisions ‘should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness’. Furthermore it states that ‘local planning authorities should not refuse planning permission for buildings or infrastructure which promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about incompatibility with an existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).’

Chapter 3 of the UDP advises that the environment strategy is based on two principles:-

• the need to protect and enhamce what is good in the City’s environment, and to improve what is less good, and

• the need to recognise the key relationship between environmental quality and levels of economic activity.

The existing building is tired and dated. It presents a poor image of the City when arriving by train from Moor Street station and contributes little to the street scene along the High Street. In principle, I therefore welcome the re-cladding of the building, which, similar, to the redevelopment of New Street Station, would be fixed to the existing structure.

The aluminium mesh screen would create a distinctive building. The metal cladding system allows the elevations to be modulated to break down the massing of the building. Along the High Street greater modulation is proposed to break the elevation down to reflect the street scape and provide oblique views of the building. The Moor Street elevation, on the other hand, is broken down into larger elements to respond to the more distant views. To further breakdown the massing of the building both the High

7 Street and Moor Street elevations, have a full height central feature that marks the route through the block. Key to the success of the proposed cladding system is in the detail and how the various angles would match.

The scheme includes new shop fronts to the Primark Store to both the High Street and Moor Street elevations. There is also a new shop front to the H&M store on High Street, that is designed to match the proposed Primark shopfronts. However, it is disappointing that the scheme does not include new shop fronts to the Thortons and Three stores.

Your Committee may wish to comment on the external design of the building in particular the design and materials of the High Street and Moor Street façades, the legibility of the entrances and shopfronts.

Issue 4 - Lighting Strategy

Paragraph 3.14(G) of the UDP, advises that the image of the City at night, and particularly of the City Centre, should have the highest quality to ensure that Birmingham is seen as an attractive place after dark. At a basic level, well-designed lighting helps to improve pedestrian safety, road safety and legibility and the USP states that ‘combining high quality lighting of buildings, places and spaces, can enhance the quality of the environment and even change it to create a more exciting night-time character’. However, the City Council wishes to limit light pollution by avoiding unnecessary up lighting and the Council encourages developers to provide imaginative lighting that enhances the night-time appearance of the scheme and the amenity of the area. Lighting Places SPD provides more detailed guidance.

The Lighting Strategy proposed comprises:-

• full-height back-lit ETFE facade treatments above the High Street and Moor Street entrances to provide a strong visual marker; • use of white downlighters and blue up lighters to highlight the façade treatment; and, • functional lighting to the shop window displays.

The lighting strategy proposed provides feature lighting to illuminate the building and functional lighting to the shopfront displays. The lighting scheme therefore help mark the building and the route through between Moor Street and High Street.

Your Committee may wish to comment on the proposed lighting strategy.

Issue 5 – Indicative Signage

A separate application for advertisement consent would be submitted for the proposed signage. However, the following signage is indicated on the submitted plans:

• illuminated Facia signs above the High Street and Moor Street entrances and shop window displays;

• a high level vertical sign on the return of the cladding adjacent to the full-height back-lit ETFE facade treatment above the High Street entrance; and,

• a high level advertising screen displayed on the splayed gable wall adjoining the rear of Waterstones, alongside the Bullring.

The Shopfront Design Guide Advises that well designed signs coupled with well- designed shop fronts will add to the quality of the area. It adds that shop signs should be thought of as part of the overall shop front design, they should relate sympathetically to the character of the shop front and signs should normally be limited 8 to the fascia. In addition, one well designed projecting or hanging sign can normally be added.

With regard to the fascia signs the Shopfront Design Guide advises that only one fascia board is normally acceptable. I therefore have no objections to the fascia signs, however, there is a need to ensure that the height and depth of the signage zone is appropriate. In particular, the fascia sign above the Moor Street entrance appears excessively deep.

With regard to the high level vertical sign on the High Street frontage, the Shofront Design Guide advises that in modern shopping frontages projecting box signs form a prominent element in the street scheme and should be carefully designed. Projecting signs should relate in vertical dimensions to the fascia and are often best positioned centrally on a pilaster at fascia level, when they are designed as an integral part of the fascia itself. Signs should not extend above fascia level.

Whilst the Shopfront Design Guide resists high level signage the proposed projecting sign is designed to fit onto the return of the cladding above one side of the High Street entrance and would not therefore project forward of the building. Furthermore other large department stores such as Marks and Spencer’s and the recently opened John Lewis store have high level signage.

I have reservations about the high level advertising screen indicated on the splayed gable wall adjoining the rear of Waterstones. This sign would be viewed in the context of an existing sign on the Bull Ring facing toward the listed Grade II Moor Street Station. I would therefore be concerned about another large high level advertisement in this location.

Your Committee may wish to comment on the indicative signage proposals, particular the high level sign on the Moor Street elevation.