Birmingham City Council Planning Committee 01 August 2019

Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 01 August 2019

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve - Conditions 9 2019/03490/PA

Land adjacent 34 Antrobus Road Handsworth Birmingham B21 9NZ

Erection of one dwellinghouse

Refuse 10 2019/03837/PA

91 Booths Farm Road Birmingham B42 2NR

Erection of first floor side extension, new sloping roof to part of existing single storey rear (with roof lights), new larger glazing openings to part rear single storey forward porch, installation of steps, railings and creation of hardstanding to front.

Refer to MHCLG 11 2018/01481/PA

WHS Plastics Ltd Water Orton Lane Minworth Sutton Coldfield B76 9BG

Erection of factory building.

Approve - Conditions 12 2018/08096/PA

Land to r/o 2-24 Douglas Road Sutton Coldfield Birmingham B72 1NG

Erection of 8 no. dwelling houses

Page 1 of 2 Director, Inclusive Growth

Approve - Conditions 13 2019/02190/PA

144 Hamstead Road Handsworth Birmingham B20 2QR

Retention of change of use from dental surgery (Use Class D1) to 1 no. self-contained flat (Use Class C3) and 8-bed HMO (Sui Generis)

Approve - Conditions 14 2019/03129/PA

146 Hamstead Road Handsworth Birmingham B20 2QR

Change of use from dental surgery (Use Class D1) to a 14-bed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis)

Determine 15 2019/03457/PA

1 Calthorpe Cottages Wood Lane Handsworth Wood Birmingham B20 2AX

Installation of new timber gate to side

Determine 16 2019/03494/PA

1 Calthorpe Cottages Wood Lane Handsworth Wood Birmingham B20 2AX

Listed Building Consent for the installation of a new timber gate to side

Approve - Conditions 17 2019/03020/PA

Land to the east of Wellhead Lane Perry Barr Birmingham B42 2SY

Outline application for residential dwellings and a new secondary school with sixth form with all matters reserved

Page 2 of 2 Director, Inclusive Growth

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/03490/PA Accepted: 28/05/2019 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 23/07/2019 Ward: Handsworth

Land adjacent, 34 Antrobus Road, Handsworth, Birmingham, B21 9NZ

Erection of one dwellinghouse Recommendation Approve subject to Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1 Planning consent is sought for the erection of a four bedroom dwelling at 34 Antrobus Road, B21 9NZ.

1.2 The proposed house would be two and a half storey in height. There would be a front lounge bay and a rear dormer to accommodate a habitable room in the loft space.

1.3 The proposed dwelling would be in line with the existing terrace of dwellings, circa 4.5m from the back of the pavement on Antrobus Road.

1.4 Ground floor – lounge, dining room, kitchen, WC room.

1.5 First floor – 2 x double bedrooms and 1 x single bedroom with bathroom.

1.6 Second floor – 1 x double bedroom and a store room.

1.7 In terms of the gross floor area of the proposed dwelling this will be 111sqm excluding the internal stairs.

1.8 Parking is to be served on-street.

1.9 Link to Documents

2 Site & Surroundings

2.1 The application site currently forms part of the curtilage of the adjacent terrace house at no. 34 although it is currently occupied by single storey side outbuildings which occupy the whole of the space. However, Antrobus Road is characterised by terraced dwellings of 2-storey height with small front gardens and varying sized rear gardens.

2.2 Whilst the majority of dwellings in the streetscene are of the Victorian dwelling typology, there is some subtle degree of variance to entrance porches, paving slabs and details to bay windows.

2.3 On-street parking is a common feature within Antrobus Road, however the site is currently being used as a parking space in front of the garage for 1 vehicle.

Page 1 of 8 2.4 Site Location & Street View

3 Planning History

3.1 2007/06383/PA – Construction of new three storey 5 bedroom dwelling – approved

3.2 2019/09602/PA – Erection of a five bedroom dwelling – refused on the grounds of the design not reflecting the character of the area

4 Consultation/PP Responses

4.1 Local ward councillors and the occupiers of neighbouring properties have been consulted. Site notice posted.

4.2 Transportation Development – no objection subject to condition.

4.3 Regulatory Services – no objection subject to condition.

4.4 Severn Trent – no objection and no drainage condition.

4.5 West Midlands Police – no objections subject to condition limiting the use to a single family dwelling.

4.6 Cllr Hendrina Quinnen – objection on the grounds of overdeveloped area with loss of family dwellings to HMOs, no provision for parking and increased pollution levels. If permission is granted a condition be inserted to ensure that the property would remain as a single family home and not converted to a HMO.

4.7 Cllr Paulette Hamilton – objection on the grounds of issues with HMOs and their management, densely populated street, refuse collection and storage. Heightened sense of fear of crime due to the offences carried out down the street and safeguarding. Further comments raised related to foul drainage and impacts to the sewer.

4.8 Chair of the Wilkes Green Residents Association – objection on the grounds that the street is already densely populated and it will have a significant impact to the street. Moreover further comments that were raised of badly managed HMOs, social issues related to crime and issues related to traffic and congestion.

4.9 Circa 8 neighbour letters of objections.

• Overbearing • Impact on parking, congestion and pollution • Visual amenity impact • Scale and size of the extension • Impact on overlooking • Impact on highway safety and overspill onto the highway • Impact on light and loss of amenity • Built on adjoining property boundary • Noise • HMO and not a family home • Existing social issues (poorly managed rental and HMO properties) • Impact on services (bin collection, drainage and police) • Environmental impact of transporting materials and dust from construction.

Page 2 of 8

4.5 1 Signed Petition of 39 signatories objecting to the scheme – Antrobus Road Resident’s Group Representations on the grounds of: • Ongoing environmental, refuse management and social issues associated with the street. • Increasing population and densification of development. • Long term impact on street, highway and road safety. • Street is less safe for children.

5 Policy Context

5.1 The following local policies are applicable: . Birmingham Development Plan (2017) . UDP 2005 (saved policies 3.14 – 3.14D & Chapter 8) . Places for Living (2001) . 45 Degree Code

5.2 The following national policies are applicable: . NPPF: National Planning Policy Framework (2019)

6 Planning Considerations

6.1 The development has been assessed against the objectives of the policies as set out above.

6.2 Policy

6.3 The main considerations are whether the dwelling would be acceptable development in terms of design and character and whether it would have any detrimental impact on neighbouring occupiers, surrounding amenity or highway safety in accordance with the policies above.

6.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (2019) advises that Local Planning Authorities should set out policies which resist inappropriate development of residential gardens and that design policies should concentrate on guiding the overall scale, density, massing, height, landscape, layout, materials and access of new development in relation to neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally. It advises that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

6.5 Policy GP3 of the BDP Plan 2017 states all new development will be expected to demonstrate a high standard of design quality, contributing to a strong sense of place. New development in the City is expected to (inter alia): • Reinforce or create a positive sense of place and local distinctiveness, with design that responds to site conditions and the local area context, including heritage assets and appropriate use of innovation in design. • Make best use of existing buildings and efficient use of land in support of the overall development strategy.

6.6 The above policies are reinforced with the City Council’s ‘Places for All’ and the ‘Places for Living’ SPG’s which advocate for high quality design which reflects its local context and responds to its surrounding environs. In particular the documents state that all proposals will be judged on their own merits. Proposals that follow the

Page 3 of 8 spirit of the guidance will be received positively. Conversely poor quality proposals that ignore the issues and the requirements will be unlikely to gain consent with a particular emphasis on considering their immediate and far wider context and not only the application site itself.

6.7 Saved Paragraphs 3.14-3.14D of the adopted UPD 2015 reinforce a high standard of design for continued improvement of Birmingham, as a desirable place to live, work and visit. Further paragraphs in the UDP state that applications for new development will be expected to demonstrate that the scheme has been considered as part of its context.

6.9 Design and Character

6.10 BDP policies PG1, PG3 and TP27, in compliance with the NPPF, promote sustainable, high quality, growth within Birmingham. Policy TP27 also states that sustainable neighbourhoods are characterised by (amongst others) “a strong sense of place with high design quality so that people identify with, and feel pride in, their neighbourhood”.

6.11 The terraced property would be built as an infill dwelling between an existing row of terraced dwellings between no.34 and no. 36 Antrobus Road. In terms of design and urban typology of the surrounding character, dwellings are predominantly two storey terraced dwellings.

6.12 The proposed property is in line with the frontage and building line of existing residential dwellings whilst the rear protrudes some 2m further back from the rear of no. 34 and 0.5m further than no.36.

6.13 While there is some variation in the façade treatment, Antrobus Road can be seen with the consistent architectural style and detailing in terms of bays, windows, recessed front porches, pitched roofs which is atypical of housing of this period and which also gives the area a distinctive character and synergy in design.

6.14 In terms of design and appearance of the area, it is important to note that many of the original features retained such as tiled paths and detailing above front doors and around windows provide subtle animation to the streetscene and which is considered to positively enhance the area.

6.15 The ridge and eaves height of the proposed dwelling reaches that of the adjacent properties, it is considered that the vertical and horizontal proportions of the windows/openings of the resubmitted dwelling also broadly aspires to the building composition from that of the surrounding area in terms of its design.

6.16 The proportions of the ground floor bay would be set in line with the adjacent property and second floor has been modified from the previous refusal to demonstrate that the window heights are in line with the adjacent properties. This has allowed the second floor in the roofspace to be more in keeping with the proposed buildings eaves and ridge height to ensure appropriate headroom compared to the previously refused 2018 scheme. As such, it is considered this would give the property semblance to the surrounding area in terms of its appearance in relation to the character of the area and as such would not be harmful.

6.17 Impact on Amenity

Page 4 of 8 6.18 The Nationally Described Space Standards (2015) states that a 4bedroom 7person house should provide a gross internal floor area of 115sqm. The proposed new dwellings gross floor area measures some 111sqm and therefore on balance whilst slightly short of the requirement, it is considered it would still provide ample of living space which satisfies that of a family home.

6.19 Moreover the standards state that a dwelling with two or more bedspaces has at least one double (or twin) bedroom and in order to provide one bedspace, a single room has a floor area of at least 7.5m2 and is at least 2.15m wide and that in order to provide two bedspaces, a double (or twin bedroom) has a floor area of at least 11.5m2. One double room should be at least 2.75m wide and every other bedroom is at least 2.55m wide and it is considered to meet this standard.

6.20 Bedroom 1 which is a double will measure 3.9m x 3.1m Bedroom 2 which is a double will measure 2.4m x 3.9m Bedroom 3 which is a single will measure 2.9m x 3.1m Bedroom 4 which is a double will measure 3.9m x 3.1m

6.21 The Council’s Places for Living SPD advises that garden sizes should reach some 70sqm. The proposed dwelling will have a rear garden area of some 112sqm and therefore provides ample of private amenity space.

6.22 The dwelling meets the 45 Degree Code with the neighbouring properties, and would not have any adverse impact by way of loss of light or outlook. In terms of any back- to-back or side-to-flank relationships with other properties, the proposal complies with separation distances contained within the Places for Living SPG.

6.23 Other Matters

6.24 Transportation have considered the scheme and state that there are no objections subject to condition of the footway crossing to be reinstated with full height kerbs to departmental specifications / standards at applicant's expenses. They note that while the applicant is not proposing or providing any off street parking, however, the other dwellings within this road, in the main, do not have off street parking. The site is served with an existing footway crossing with a telegraph pole located in the centre, making the footway crossing un-useable. The footway crossing will require reinstating to BCC specifications and standards at applicants expense. There is good public transport on Grove Lane and by removing the drop crossing this will free up a space, on-street, in front of the proposed building. The existing use of the site is a garage and workshop is likely to generate more or equal to the proposal as a dwelling.

6.25 Regulatory Services have considered the application and have suggested that prior to the occupation of the dwelling a scheme of noise insulation shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and it is considered that this is satisfactory.

6.26 The proposal is for a C3 dwellinghouse and as such it has been assessed on that basis. Comments from local residents that it is likely to be used as a HMO and the Police’s request that a condition be attached limiting it to a single family dwelling are noted. However, the removal of a C3’s permitted development rights to a convert to a C4 use must make the scheme acceptable in planning terms. It is considered that it would not meet the tests relating to necessity and relevance and as such is not attached.

Page 5 of 8 7 Conclusion 7.1 The proposed development would not harm character of the area and it is considered to meet the aspirations of the Council’s BDP in particular relation to PG3 and Nationally Described Space Standards 2015.

8 Recommendation

8.1 Approve subject to conditions.

1 Implement within 3 years (Full)

2 Requires the submission of sample materials

3 Requires the submission of a Noise Insulation Scheme

4 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

5 Requires the submission of a contaminated land verification report

6 Requires the redundant footway crossing to be reinstated as a full height kerb.

7 Requires the submission of boundary treatment details

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

Case Officer: Omar Sharif

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Photo 1: View of the application site in relation to 34 Antrobus Road

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

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

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/03837/PA Accepted: 07/05/2019 Application Type: Householder Target Date: 02/07/2019 Ward: Perry Barr

91 Booths Farm Road, Birmingham, B42 2NR

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the erection of a first floor side extension. It would be approximately 4.77 metres wide by 9.36 metres long. The proposed first floor would be set in approximately 0.3 metres from the existing front elevation and the roof would be set down approximately 0.072 metres.

1.2. A front porch projecting two varying lengths (from the front elevation) by approximately 1 metre and 1.479 metres is proposed.

1.3. A mono-pitched roof on the rear elevation with two roof lights is proposed.

1.4. Steps, railings and the creation of hardstanding area to the front are proposed.

1.5. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site refers to a semi-detached dwelling which is located on the corner of Booths Farm Road and Duxford Road. The prevailing area is residential in character.

2.2. Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 4/4/2019 2019/01352/PA - Erection of first floor side extension, new sloping roof to part of existing single storey rear (with roof lights), new larger glazing openings to part rear single storey forward porch, installation of steps, railings and creation of hardstanding to front. Refused (in summary): By virtue of design and scale, the proposed extension would be out of scale with the existing house and would dominate its appearance/ the street scene.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

Page 1 of 5 4.1. Neighbours and local Councillor’s consulted. Two comments received (in summary):

4.2. (1) 3B's Neighbourhood Planning Forum raise no objections and note the applicant is doing their best to comply with SUDS.

4.3. (2) Councillor John Hunt supports this application and has requested that if minded to refuse, that it is taken to planning committee. This is a very sensitive location in that Booths Farm Road is one of the key feeder roads for flood water in the event of severe flooding. Previous corner developments have been disappointing in that front gardens have been replaced with fully paved surfaces, aggravating the flood risk. The applicant has seen the guidance on sustainable drainage developed for the emerging neighbourhood plan (which ultimately should be a statutory document) and has adjusted their application to meet SUDS guidelines. They have also adjusted the design to meet concerns. To my mind the commitments on SUDS outweigh the extra mass of the development. The summary refers to hardstanding on the front and my comments are based on my understanding that they will retain grassed areas on the front and back, implement some planting as well as a scheme of water buts around the property. In addition I would expect the hardstanding to use a porous surface. Other developments on this road have, regrettably, aggravated the flood risk problem having been approved before the extent of the risk became clear in 2016.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are applicable: • Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005 (saved policies 3.14-3.14D & Chapter 8). • Birmingham Development Plan (2017). • Places For Living 2001. • Extending Your Home 2007. • 45 Degree Code SPD.

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

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. This application has been assessed against the objectives of the policies as set out above.

6.2. The proposed first floor extension would infill space directly above the existing single storey element of the dwelling, which is located on the corner of Booths Farm Road and Duxford Road. The application has been amended since the previous approval 2018/03475/PA (see history) by setting the proposed first floor level in by 0.3 metres from the existing front elevation (previously in line with the existing front elevation) and setting the roof line down by approximately 0.072 metres (previously in line with the existing roof line). The proposed amendments to the roof and first floor do not adequately address the previous concerns raised and subsequent reason for refusal. This proposal would still not be subordinate in relation to the original dwelling when viewed from the street scene and the previous reasons for refusal are still applicable.

6.3. The cumulative impact would, by virtue of design and scale, create an extension of an excessive scale which would harm the visual appearance of the existing dwelling

Page 2 of 5 and street scene, including an unacceptable imbalance to the pair of semi-detached properties. The first floor extension would fail to comply with the design principles contained within the design guide 'Extending Your Home' and would be contrary to policy. Refusal is recommended.

6.4. Whilst I note that the distance between the side window that would serve the en- suite at the first floor of the application premises and the ground floor side windows that serve habitable rooms to number 97 Booths Farm Road (across the road from the application site) would be approximately 16.6 metres, I do not consider that this should give rise to over-looking as the window to the en-suite would be opaque.

6.5. I raise no concerns with the proposed porch or rear mono pitched roof with two roof lights which would be modest additions to the dwelling and are acceptable.

6.6. I raise no concerns with the proposed steps, railings and hardstanding to the front and conditions could be imposed to ensure satisfactory material and landscaping. I consider this element of the proposal to be acceptable.

6.7. The proposed development complies with the 45 Degree Code and the numerical guidelines set out in 'Places For Living' and 'Extending Your Home' Design Guide, as a result there is no detrimental impact on neighbours light, outlook or amenity.

6.8. Other issues

6.9. The comments noted from Councillor Hunt regarding the application meeting SUDS guidelines are noted. However, the applicant has not submitted any details of this. The LLFA have advised that they have no comment to make on this application and confirm that the development is not at risk of surface water flooding or located within an easement of a culverted watercourse.

7. Conclusion

7.1. By virtue of design and scale, the proposed first floor extension would be out of scale and character with the existing house and would appear dominant in its appearance in context of the existing dwelling and street scene, contrary to national and local planning policy. Refusal is recommended.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Refuse.

.Reason for Refusal

1 By virtue of design and scale, the proposed extension would be out of scale with the existing house and would dominate its appearance/the street scene. As such it would be contrary to Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, saved Paragraphs 3.14C-D of the Birmingham UDP 2005, guidance in Extending Your Home adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Case Officer: Daniel Ilott

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Front of site

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

21 126

122.4m

127 26

116 125

HESTON AVENUE

5 14

BOOTHS FARM ROAD

10 124.6m 113

98 106 107

127.3m 97

80 7 91

76 DUXFORD ROAD 105

34.0m 79

64 106

95 69

131.6m LB 65

94 87

61 86

79 53 75

137 80

135.6m 134 65

132 125

68 126

Figure 2: Location Plan

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2018/01481/PA Accepted: 05/03/2018 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 22/02/2019 Ward: Sutton New Hall

WHS Plastics Ltd, Water Orton Lane, Minworth, Sutton Coldfield, B76 9BG

Erection of factory building. Recommendation Refer to the MHCLG

1. Proposal

1.1. The application seeks consent for the erection of a new factory building and associated yard to form part of the existing WHS Plastics business operations. The building is to be 155.4m long by 45m wide and therefore the total footprint will be 6,523m2 with a height to eaves of 10m and to ridge of 12.95m. A turning area is also proposed within the site.

1.2. The proposed building is for the provision of a new paint line, which is currently situated within an existing storage building which is located within the existing WHS Plastics site. The new building will provide a new purpose built facility and return the existing building for storage use.

1.3. The application has been submitted with a Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Sequential Test, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Noise Impact Assessment, Transport Statement, Ground Investigation Report, Flood Risk Assessment, Ecological Appraisal and full detailed plans.

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site amounts to 1.34 hectares and is part of the land owned and operated by WHS Plastics an injection moulding business providing products to a number of car manufacturers including Jaguar Land Rover. The site is south of Water Orton Lane between Minworth and the village of Water Orton, which itself lies within North Warwickshire. A railway line runs directly to the south of the site, Minworth Sewage Treatment Works lie to the north beyond Water Orton Lane and a variety of large scale industrial/distribution buildings lie further to the west of the site within Minworth.

2.2. The existing premises at Water Orton Lane comprise of 4 no. factory buildings, associated car parking, access and yard area and are the operational headquarters of the business. Also within the same access gate is a separate business providing pallet refurbishment both within an industrial building and also within open yard areas.

2.3. Site Location

Page 1 of 17

3. Planning History

3.1. The planning history for the application site and the parts of the WHS Plastics site that are within Birmingham are as follows. The boundary between Birmingham and North Warwickshire runs along the internal access road and as such part of the wider site, and the adjacent pallet repair business, are within North Warwickshire.

3.2. 2012/00209/PA – Certificate of Lawfulness for proposed use of existing factory (use class B2) premises as a PVC-U window and Door Recycling Plant, permission not required 20.03.12.

3.3. 2002/02014/PA – Erection of extrusions factory (Class B2) and associated external works, approved subject to conditions 05.07.06.

3.4. 1993/02598/PA - Erection of extension to existing extrusions factory, approved subject to conditions 02.11.93.

3.5. 1991/03711/PA - Section 31A planning application to develop land for factory and offices as permitted under PA E/C/74480 without compliance with condition 7, approved subject to conditions 24.10.91.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. A site notice was erected and the immediate neighbours notified in addition to Ward Councillors and local MP. No comments have been received as a result of this consultation.

4.2. North Warwickshire Borough Council – Following comments received; • The Borough Council recently dealt with a similar application to extend the existing buildings at this site further to the east alongside the railway. That proposal was granted a planning permission as the Council considered that notwithstanding the harm to the Green Belt, there were sufficient planning considerations to amount to the very special circumstances such as to clearly outweigh both Green Belt and other harm. In short the actual level of Green Belt harm was found to be limited and there was no other harm. The considerations put forward by the applicant were those that he now puts forward in this case – namely economic development matters. It is clearly a matter for you to assess the planning balance in your case, but I suggest that the recent consent in North Warwickshire should be afforded some weight in that assessment. • One of the matters that was raised by local residents in our case and which was dealt with under “other harm”, was the potential for noise nuisance affecting the residents occupying property in Mytton Road, Water Orton, on the other side of the railway line. I would therefore recommend that you notify these occupiers and secondly that you request the applicant to submit a Noise Impact Assessment.

4.3. Employment Access Team – Recommended S106 or conditions to require a construction employment plan and local employment plan.

4.4. Transportation Development – No objection, subject to conditions; • Secure cycle storage in accordance with current guidelines to be provided at appropriate locations.

Page 2 of 17 • Update of travel plans. • Circulation area to be kept free at all times. • No outside storage.

4.5. Network Rail – No objection, subject to comments/conditions;

• The applicant must ensure both during construction and as a permanent arrangement that the development does not affect the safety, operation or integrity of the existing operational railway. • Require appropriate trespass proof fence 0.5m from railway boundary, to be agreed with Network Rail. • All work within 10m of boundary and drainage proposals will need Network Rail agreement. • Require high kerbs around vehicle turning areas. • No trees to be planted next to railway land. • 2m gap between buildings/structures and railway land.

4.6. Regulatory Services – Imposition of planning conditions;

• Contamination Remediation Scheme, • Contamination Verification Report, • Extraction/Odour Control Details, • Noise levels for plant and machinery, • Noise management plan, • A close boarded fence shall be constructed at the site boundary between the rail line and the noise sensitive receptors that are in line of sight of the development, • Electric vehicle charging points.

4.7. Natural England – No comments. Recommend use of Standing Advice. Encourage use of green infrastructure. The lack of comment from Natural England does not imply that there are no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated nature conservation sites or landscapes. It is for the local planning authority to determine whether or not this application is consistent with national and local policies on the natural environment.

4.8. Environment Agency – No objections in principle. The proposed development will only meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework if the measures detailed in the flood risk assessment are implemented and secured by way of condition.

4.9. Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to foul and surface water condition.

4.10. Lead Local Flood (and Drainage) Authority (LLFA) – Accept of the overall principles of the development and recommend that the following conditions be applied to any approval granted:

• Details of surface water drainage and SUDS to be submitted. • Submission of a Sustainable Drainage Operation & Maintenance Plan.

4.11. West Midlands Police – No objections. Recommends Secured by Design.

4.12. West Midlands Fire Service – Provided advice on firefighting requirements.

Page 3 of 17

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following policies are applicable: • Development Plan (BDP) 2017; • Unitary Development Plan 2005 (saved policies 3.14-3.14D and Chapter 8); • Nature Conservation Strategy SPD (); • Car Parking Guidelines SPD (2012); and • National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The application needs to be assessed against the policies set out above. Firstly consideration needs to be given to assessing the scheme against the Green Belt policies within the NPPF (2019) and local policy and then assessing it against all other planning matters before carrying out a planning balance.

6.2. In addition to the general purpose of the NPPF to achieve sustainable development, it also provides advice on the consideration of development within identified Green Belt. This is additional guidance over and above the environmental role of sustainable development in protecting and enhancing the natural environment. The presumption in favour of sustainable development within paragraph 11 of the Framework is not applicable to Green Belt, as detailed in footnote 6.

6.3. Section 13, paragraph 133 of the NPPF states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts and sets the fundamental aim to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 134 details 5 purposes of green belts; to check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; to prevent towns merging; to safeguard the countryside from encroachment; to preserve the setting and character of historic towns; and to assist in urban regeneration by use of derelict or urban land.

6.4. Paragraph 143 advises that “inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.” When considering applications paragraph 144 advises that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

6.5. The NPPF advises that new buildings are inappropriate and provides some exceptions at paragraph 145. The exceptions include “limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development”.

6.6. Policy TP10 of the BDP continues the general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Development will not be permitted unless very special circumstances exist. PG3 of the BDP is also relevant in that it expects development to demonstrate high design quality. The key issue with this application is therefore firstly whether the proposal is inappropriate development and if it is whether there are very special circumstances to justify the proposed development.

Secretary of State Referral

Page 4 of 17 6.7. Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 allows the Secretary of State (SOS) to give directions requiring applications for planning permission, or for the approval of any local planning authority required under a development order, to be referred to them instead of being dealt with by local planning authorities.

6.8. Circular 09/2009 outlines the types of development and the circumstances in which proposals should be referred to the SOS. In this case, the development proposal relates to “Green Belt development” which means development which consists of or includes inappropriate development on land allocated as Green Belt in an adopted local plan, unitary development plan or development plan document and which consists of or includes- (a) the provision of a building or buildings where the floor space to be created by the development is 1,000 square metres or more; or (b) any other development which, by reason of its scale or nature or location, would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

6.9. As such, should the LPA recommend approval of the development proposal then the application will require referral to the SOS offering them the opportunity to ‘call-in’ the application for them to assess and ultimately determine.

Greenbelt Assessment

6.10. Within the submitted planning statement the agent comments that the site is previously developed land (PDL) and as such considers that the redevelopment of this part of the wider site would not be inappropriate development when considered against paragraph 145 the NPPF. However the agent does also acknowledge that the development will have some impact on openness and as such the planning statement seeks to justify very special circumstances. This issue is considered below.

6.11. The planning statement comments on the ‘Coventry and Warwickshire Joint Green Belt Study – stage 2 final report (April 2016)’, prepared on behalf of all Warwickshire and Coventry local authorities. This report classifies the whole of the WHS Plastics site, including the application site, as one of the lowest performing parcels of the green belt. It advises that this classification is due to the existing infrastructure/ development. The report therefore advises that this part of the green belt could be considered for removal from the green belt and which any further development would effectively be infill contained by existing features and the landscape.

6.12. In response to the 5 purposes of green belts in paragraph 134 of the NPPF the agent has commented that the proposed building would relate well to the existing pattern of development; the previous appeal granted consent on this site; the development of this site would not cause the merger of towns; as PDL the development would not cause loss of countryside; there is no impact on historic towns; and the development would not discourage urban regeneration.

6.13. The Planning Strategy Officer has provided advice on this matter generally in agreement with the applicant’s assessment on the contribution of the site to the Green Belt and the visual impact of the development on the Green Belt. The NPPF (2019), specifically paragraph 144, requires local planning authorities to attach significant weight to any harm to the green belt. It is officer’s opinion that the proposed development is, in principle, inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it represents limited infilling of previously developed land that would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development on the site (NPPF paragraph 145(g). As such, consideration needs to be given to

Page 5 of 17 whether very special circumstances have been put forward by the applicant to overcome the principle objection.

6.14. The agent has quoted from the previous decision which was allowed by the Secretary of State on the grounds of very special circumstances. These included concentrating the manufacturing processes on one site; additional jobs and maintaining applicant’s other local sites; the accessibility of the site; the high level of workers from areas of high deprivation and the businesses training schemes; and the ecological benefits. The Secretary of State concluded that this was an unusual case and that cumulatively the very special circumstances amount to very special circumstances to outweigh the harm to the green belt.

6.15. Pre-application advice was given to the applicant that advised that a sequential assessment should be carried out to show consideration of alternative sites in the Core Employment Areas and outside the green belt. The sequential site assessment submitted with the application has set out what the applicant considers are their commercial requirements for a new factory in terms of site area, building size and parking availability. The assessment has considered sites on the market within Birmingham and Warwickshire and narrowing down the sites by consideration against the commercial requirements and carried out both desk top and site surveys. The applicant was asked to clarify, through submitting further information, that sites outside of Birmingham could be considered within the Sequential Test for robustness as well as clarification of one of the sites considered. This has been done in the form of an Addendum to the original Sequential Test which now satisfactorily concludes that there are no other alternative and suitable sites for the proposal within a reasonable distance (5.0 miles). A total of 6 no. sites, including the current application site, were given greater consideration.

6.16. Plot 3B and Unit 4, The Hub, Aston have been discounted as they both currently occupied and therefore not available. 53 Opus Aspect and 62 Coleshill Road are both available but the agent considers that frequent HGV movements would cause disruption to neighbouring uses. The land adjacent to Aston Goods Station and the Former Parkinson Cowans Works has both been discounted due to access difficulties. The final site is Unit 12-15 Maybrook Business Park which is currently rented by the applicant but is not big enough either in footprint or height to accommodate the paint line. The statement notes that the application site is identified as ‘good urban’ land in the Council Employment Land and Retail Provision and ‘readily available’ in the Council Employment Land Review.

6.17. In conclusion the agent suggests that there are no sequentially preferable sites and that the lack of an alternative sequential site is a material consideration in favour of the proposed development. The same ‘very special circumstances’ that were noted by the Secretary of State in allowing the previous application are put forward by the applicant. The planning statement suggests that operational efficiency and cost savings should be given significant weight. A letter has been received from the Group Managing Director setting out the costs if the proposed facility was provided at an alternative location. In addition the proposal will create 65 jobs, in addition to the existing 600 staff, with training and apprenticeship opportunities. This is also put forward as a benefit of the proposal by the applicant.

6.18. Also, it is noted that the applicants are a Tier 1 supplier to Jaguar Land Rover who are one of the region's major employers and therefore would service a local employer in close proximity to the application site – Water Orton/Minworth to Castle Bromwich/Solihull. It is also noted that the demand driving this proposal already exists as the applicants are currently leasing a nearby building that is not fully

Page 6 of 17 suitable for the applicant’s requirements to address this demand in the short term. As such, I attach significant weight to the economic benefits of the proposal in this regard, a view shared by my planning strategy colleagues.

6.19. The applicant has provided robust figures on the financial impact to the business of operating an alternative off-site solution and that the majority of these costs are related to employing additional staff such as site managers and drivers that would not be required if the proposed application was to be approved. The total additional staffing would be 18 no. FTE employees and as such I consider that while the financial savings to the business should be considered a benefit of this scheme that conversely not creating these 18 jobs by taking an off-site solution is a negative consequence of this scheme. Overall I consider that these two issues balance each other out, particularly as there is no guarantee that the business would locate an off- site solution in Birmingham, or that Birmingham residents would be employed in these roles.

6.20. In previous comments made by my Planning Strategy colleagues, the applicant was asked to clarify, through submitting further information, that sites outside of Birmingham could be considered within the Sequential Test for robustness as well as clarification to one of the sites considered. This was subsequently undertaken in the form of an Addendum to the original Sequential Test which I consider now satisfactorily concludes that there are no other alternative and suitable sites for the proposal within a reasonable distance (5.0 miles).

6.21. With regards to the impact upon the openness of the Green Belt I agree with the findings of the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which notes that the proposed development will be perceived as a natural and logical extension to the existing buildings. I also note that the retention of the mature boundary planting will ensure that a green edge will be maintained. As such I consider that the proposed development will have limited impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Given the limited contribution of the site to the five purposes of the Green Belt and the limited impact on the openness of the Green Belt I consider the application to have limited negative impacts on the Green Belt. However, paragraph 144 of the NPPF attaches significant weight to any harm to the Green Belt.

6.22. In conclusion and, on balance, it is concluded that the significant weight attached to the economic benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm it would bring to the green belt. Furthermore, it is considered that the land in question makes a limited contribution to the purposes of the green belt, that the proposal could be regarded as creating limited harm to the openness of the green belt due to it being previously developed land within the curtilage of the WHS Plastics site and that there are no other alternative and suitable sites of sufficient size within a reasonable distance for the company to relocate.

6.23. As such, in line with the Planning Inspector’s decision to the previous application, the current proposal is considered to be in compliance with the requirements of the Green Belt policies in both the NPPF (2019) and BDP (2017).

Layout, Scale and Design

6.24. The proposal is for a new factory building to house a paint line associated with the existing factory buildings on the WHS Plastics site. The proposed building has a footprint of 6,523sqm being 155.4m by 45m with a height to eaves of 10m and to ridge of 12.95m. The application form and plans suggest that the building will be finished with silver/ grey metal sheet cladding with personnel doors and roller shutter

Page 7 of 17 doors on the east and west elevations and personnel doors in the north and south elevations so as to allow delivery access for HGV’s. The submission also includes the provision of a yard area so that larger vehicles can access and manoeuvre within the site sufficiently which is welcomed. Transportation Development has requested that no external storage is undertaken within the yard area and that the proposed circulation area is kept free for use for vehicle manoeuvring at all times. I agree with such an approach.

6.25. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been submitted which concludes that the development will not have a direct harm on the purposes of including land in the green belt and there would be limited harm by reason of the impact upon the openness of the green belt. The LVIA suggests that the susceptibility of the landscape to change, the landscape quality, scenic quality, rarity of the landscape and conservation interest to all to be low. Furthermore the LVIA also considers that the landscape sensitivity is low.

6.26. The LVIA identifies that the site is within the Natural England ‘Arden’ character area though accepts that this is an overview of a wider landscape. The LVIA suggests that the character area does not necessarily reflect the particular qualities of the application site. The LVIA author comments that the site is influenced by the existing buildings, railway line and electricity pylon which have urbanised the landscape and considers that the site is brownfield.

6.27. Eight viewpoints were identified around the site seven of which are from roads, one from Prologis Park. The sensitivity of the views is medium to high, except Prologis Park which is classified as low. Photographs of the views as existing have been provided. The LVIA considers that where it can be seen, the building will be within the context of existing large scale industrial development which is the feature within the local landscape.

6.28. The conclusions raised within the submitted LVIA, in that the development will not have a direct harm on the purposes of including land in the green belt and that there would be limited harm by reason of the impact upon the openness of the green belt are considered to be appropriate conclusions which the LPA supports. Furthermore, the LVIA adds that additional landscaping in addition to maintaining the existing mature landscaping so as to integrate the proposed building within the sites existing landscaping. The city’s landscape officer has outlined that they have previously supported the principle of a factory building on this site, subject to the provision of native tree and hedgerow screen planting with sufficient space for it along all site boundaries. Subject to the imposition of this planning condition I am of the view that the development proposal would not adversely impact upon the landscape in visual terms.

Amenity Impacts

6.29. The site is enclosed by the railway line to the south, existing business buildings to the east and open land to the north and west. Beyond these immediate uses are other industrial uses to the west, open land to the north and residential to the south and east. The nearest residential properties are the houses to the south on Birmingham Road in Water Orton and the houses on Water Orton Lane to the north. All of these properties are at least 280m away from the application site with the houses to the south separated by the railway line.

6.30. To consider the impact the application has been submitted with a noise survey. This report confirms that survey work was carried out on site on week days and

Page 8 of 17 weekends to establish the existing noise level. The report advises that the main sources of noise are HGV movements, loading/ unloading and the paint plant machinery. Other sources of noise are road traffic and railway traffic.

6.31. The noise measurements taken show that that starting up and pulling away of a HGV caused the greatest single noise event but that this noise was for a short time. The longest noise event was caused by unloading. The report makes recommendations to reduce noise including unloading inside the building; turning off engines whilst stationary; white noise reversing; site management and signage.

6.32. As noted previously the proposal will reduce HGV movements and therefore should also reduce noise levels from the site. Furthermore, the noise survey report concludes that the noise from the proposed development, once completed, will not exceed background levels.

6.33. The concerns raised by North Warwickshire Council are noted. However, their experience related to a proposed building that was substantially closer to existing residents and furthermore, the noise survey at the time confirmed that the noise issues were caused by the pallet business rather than WHS Plastics. As such, the distance between the proposed building and the nearest residents, the level of noise and the proposed mitigation measures should ensure that the residential properties in the area are not adversely affected by the proposed development.

6.34. The development proposal has been assessed by Regulatory Services who whilst not raising fundamental objections to the proposal has raised queries regarding the submitted noise assessment and contaminated land assessment. In the first instance they are of the view that the submitted contaminated land assessment is insufficient on the basis that no gas sampling has been undertaken and that intrusive ground testing has only been carried out on a small part of the western part of the site. They are of the view that such matters can be satisfactorily addressed by planning condition.

6.35. In addition, Regulatory Services are of the view that the submitted noise assessment has not adequately taken into account sensitive receptors on the basis that no background survey in Smyth’s Drive has been undertaken. Again, the officer raises no objection to this point subject to the imposition of a planning condition securing the provision of a close boarded fence at the site boundary between the rail line and the noise sensitive receptors that are in line of site of the new development. In addition, the officer has requested the imposition of planning conditions related to Extraction/Odour Control Details for works/processes undertaken on site, noise levels for plant and machinery, the submission of a noise management plan incorporating the mitigation measures outlined within the submitted noise assessment (Section 5.1.1), and the provision of electric vehicle charging points within the car park area. I agree with the imposition of such conditions in order to render the development proposal acceptable.

Ecology Matters

6.36. An ecological appraisal has been carried out which has assessed the site and previous records. The appraisal notes that the site is spoil, scrub and bare ground which the assessment considers to be of low ecological value. The small areas of semi-natural broad leaved woodland are considered to be of medium ecological value. The assessment acknowledges that part of the site is within Water Orton Sidings SLINC but advises that the calcareous grasses (the reason for the SLINC designation) have been removed.

Page 9 of 17

6.37. The assessment notes that there is a potential for birds to be using the existing scrub and woodland and several species were recorded. However, no evidence was found of other protected species. The assessment suggests that the site has a low to medium potential for use by bats for foraging and commuting; low likelihood of reptiles, amphibians, badgers, otters or other protected mammals; and low population of invertebrates taking into account the widespread and common habitats.

6.38. As the proposed development is on the whole of the application site the ecological appraisal has recommended biodiversity enhancements on another part of the applicant’s land to mitigate the loss of habitat resulting from the development. The assessment also recommends work outside nesting season; covering excavations; bat appropriate lighting; specialist removal of the invasive Himalayan balsam.

6.39. The Tree Officer has been consulted on the proposal and notes that whilst no tree survey has been submitted, the ecological assessment notes that there is birch, thorn, willow, elder and oak on the site. The officer is of the view that any trees on site would have limited public amenity value and therefore a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) would not be appropriate in this case but that there should be some mitigation for the loss of trees onsite but anticipates that such could not be secured on the site.

6.40. Policy TP28 of the BDP resists developments which directly or indirectly cause harm to SLINCs unless the benefits of the proposal outweigh the need to safeguard the site and where damage is minimised and mitigated. The planning statement along with the submitted ecological assessment suggests that other land within the applicant’s ownership could be used to secure biodiversity enhancements as a mitigation measure.

6.41. Such measures have been assessed by the city’s ecologist who is in general agreement with the findings of the submitted ecological assessment and habitat impacts assessment calculator. The submitted ecological assessment demonstrates that the development proposal can deliver a small biodiversity net gain by undertaking ecological enhancements to existing habitats in an area of land to the east of the proposed development site, although it is noted that all habitats within the redline boundary would be lost.

6.42. On this basis, I have no objection in principle to securing habitat enhancements to the land to the east as summarised within the submitted assessment so as to adequately compensate for the loss of habitats associated with the development proposals which in turn results in a net gain in biodiversity. Given that the habitat mitigation measures would take place on land outside of the application site, but within control of the applicant, such matters would need to be secured by a S.106 agreement. Such an approach is agreed with the city’s ecologist.

6.43. In order to secure appropriate mitigation the S106 agreement should require the submission and approval of a habitat management plan along with its implementation as subsequently approved with the habitat management plan to include the following details:

Page 10 of 17 e) Prescriptions for management actions. f) Preparation of a work schedule for the duration of the plan period (a minimum of 33 years). g) Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan, including details of the legal and funding mechanisms by which long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the applicant with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. h) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures, including details of how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented to ensure the required biodiversity objectives are achieved in the event that the results from monitoring show the conservation aims and objectives of the habitat management plan are not being met.

6.44. The city ecologist has outlined that the Biodiversity Impact Assessment assumes a biodiversity net gain will be delivered on the basis that the target condition of the various habitats will be achieved within specified timescales – i.e. 10 years for the wetland habitats and 33+ years for the broadleaved semi-natural woodland. As such, the S.106 agreement is required to ensure delivery of the habitat management plan for a minimum of 33 years. I agree with this approach.

6.45. In addition, to the S.106 as outlined above the city ecologist has recommended that a number of planning conditions are imposed should planning permission be granted so as to secure other ecological requirements, which include a method statement for the removal of invasive weeds on site, the provision of bird/bat boxes along with the submission of a landscaping scheme to secure native planting around the sites boundaries, which would coincide with the imposition of a landscaping scheme as discussed in paragraph 6.25.

6.46. Furthermore, insufficient information has been submitted at this stage to demonstrate that light spillage within the railway corridor will not exceed 1 lux, therefore ensuring disturbance to nocturnal wildlife such as foraging and commuting bats is minimised. On this basis the City’s Ecologist has requested that a lighting design strategy for biodiversity be submitted for assessment and implemented once approved. I agree with such an approach.

Flooding and Drainage

6.47. A flood risk assessment (FRA) has been submitted with the application. The site is located within flood zones 1 and 2 although a large proportion of the site is located within flood zone 2. Furthermore, the site is located within an area that has a high/very high susceptibility of groundwater flooding and a low risk of surface water flooding with the ground not suitable for the use of soakaways. There have been no records of flooding at the site.

6.48. The submitted assessment notes the ground levels as existing to be between 75.3m AOD to 86.2m AOD, that the estimated finished floor level of the proposed building to be 78.5m AOD and that the assessment also advises that of the 1.28ha site area approximately 1.23ha would be impermeable. The existing factory buildings are noted to discharge surface water to the watercourse to the north of the site (via oil separators for the hard standing areas) and foul drainage is pumped to a main pumping station south of the site which would remain unchanged.

6.49. The FRA acknowledges that the site is predominately flood zone 2 but suggests that the development passes the sequential test as there are special circumstances in that flood zones 1 would be off site and therefore increase cost, operational

Page 11 of 17 inefficiencies and traffic movements and as such the FRA has not carried out an exception test. Industrial development is considered to be “less vulnerable” with surface water, as noted above is to be discharged to the watercourse. This is to be at a rate of 3.6l/s with storage provided for 970m3. Whilst this is not a greenfield rate, the submitted FRA suggests that a greenfield rate would not be possible due to the size of pipes that would therefore be required.

6.50. However, the submitted FRA has been assessed by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) who have concluded that given the context of the development proposal and the information provided, that they are in acceptance of the overall principles of the development proposal and associated drainage proposals. They have however, requested the imposition of two planning conditions so as to secure details of surface water drainage and a Sustainable Urban Drainage Scheme and to also secure the provision of a Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan. I agree with the imposition of such conditions so as to render the development acceptable in this regard.

Highway Impacts

6.51. The site is located off Water Orton Lane, the junction of which is not the subject of a Traffic Regulation Order. The development proposal is to be located well within the confines of the site red line boundary in excess of 550m from the main access from Water Orton Lane. The applicant has stated within the submitted Design & Access Statement that no alterations to the existing access will be required and that there will be no loss or gain in existing parking levels.

6.52. However, the development will increase traffic to and from the site after installation. The site currently employs 625 no. full time staff and proposes an additional 65 no. members of staff as a result of the development proposal hence a new total staff number of 690 no. At present the overall WHS Plastics site provides 231 no. car park spaces and 12 no. motor cycle spaces. No existing or proposed details have been provided for onsite cycle storage.

6.53. According to the Car Parking Guidelines SPD (2012), a standard of 1 no. space per 60sqm of floorspace for industrial development located within ‘area 3’ equates to a maximum additional parking provision of 108 no. spaces. However, on the basis that the site operates 24/7 over 3 no. shift patterns, the accumulation of parking need would be spread to approximately 36 no. extra vehicles per shift and it is deemed that this increase could be accommodated with no detriment to the existing highway or surrounding junctions within the site using existing onsite provision, a view shared by the Transportation Development.

6.54. The proposed factory building will have 3 no. roller shutter doors measuring 6m x 5.2m and positioned upon the western elevation with 2 no. roller shutter doors of the same measurements located on the buildings eastern elevation sufficient to allow HGV access into the building. On this basis the development will also reduce HGV movements from any off site development keeping the paint line and proposed uses under one roof.

6.55. The building is proposed to be used for paint spray line. At present there is a small paint line at Water Orton. However, the applicant has advised that the majority of goods produced at Water Orton are currently transported to Runcorn for painting. The submitted Transport Statement (TS) therefore concludes that constructing the building on this site would remove 46 no. HGV movements per day which currently transport goods off-site for painting.

Page 12 of 17

6.56. The TS also details traffic counts carried out on site which includes; accident data; the level of existing and proposed parking; and predicted traffic flows. It is noted that the site is served with relatively poor public transport options, with bus stops and Water Orton Train Station located between 600m and 900m away. In addition, given the 24/7 nature of the sites operations it is highly likely that the predominant use would be by private car. Given the sites existing onsite parking provision it is considered that such parking requirements can be adequately accommodated on site, a view shared by Transportation Development. In addition, they have requested that the sites commercial travel plans are updated to reflect the proposed increase in development/staffing numbers so as to try and reduce reliance upon the private motor car and to also provide secure, covered onsite cycle storage provision so as to promote more sustainable transport options for employees. I agree with such an approach.

Other Matters

6.57. CIL – The applicant has completed and submitted a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) form. However, as the proposal is for industrial development, the Council’s adopted CIL Charging Schedule confirms that the development will subject to a zero charge.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The application seeks consent for the erection of a new factory building and associated yard to form part of the existing WHS Plastics business operations and is located within green belt land. It is the officer’s opinion that the proposed development is, in principle, inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that the development will have some level of harm of which significant weight must be given too.

7.2. In conclusion and, on balance, it is concluded that the significant weight attached to the economic benefits of the proposal outweigh the harm it would bring to the green belt. Furthermore, it is considered that the land in question makes a limited contribution to the purposes of the green belt, that the proposal could be regarded as creating limited harm to the openness of the green belt due to it being limited infilling of previously developed land within the curtilage of the WHS Plastics site and that there are no other alternative and suitable sites of sufficient size within a reasonable distance for the company to relocate.

7.3. It is noted that the development proposal can deliver a small biodiversity net gain by undertaking ecological enhancements to existing habitats in an area of land to the east of the proposed development site, although it is noted that all habitats within the redline boundary would be lost. Given that the habitat mitigation measures would take place on land outside of the application site, but within control of the applicant, such matters would need to be secured by a S.106 agreement. This is considered to be an acceptable approach in the context of the proposals, and the proposed development would achieve benefits for the local environment. For the reasons set out throughout this report, I recommend that the application should be approved.

8. Recommendation

8.1. The proposal constitutes inappropriate development on land allocated as Green Belt, the floorspace to be created by the development is in excess of 1000sq.m and the local planning authority is minded to approve the development proposal. The

Page 13 of 17 Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 therefore requires the local planning authority to refer the application to the Ministry of Housing, Community and Local Government (MHCLG) for consideration of call-in.

8.2. The recommendation is therefore that the application be referred to the MHCLG and should it not be called in, that consideration of application 2018/01481/PA is deferred pending the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

i) the submission and approval of a habitat management plan along with its implementation as subsequently approved to include the following details:

a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed. b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management. c) Aims and objectives of management. d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives. e) Prescriptions for management actions. f) Preparation of a work schedule for the duration of the plan period (a minimum of 33 years). g) Details of the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan, including details of the legal and funding mechanisms by which long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the applicant with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. h) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures, including details of how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented to ensure the required biodiversity objectives are achieved in the event that the results from monitoring show the conservation aims and objectives of the habitat management plan are not being met.; and

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

8.3. In the event of the above legal agreement not being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority within 1 month from the date of MHCLG’s decision to not call-in the application, planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason;

i) The proposal represents an unacceptable form of development as it would not achieve Section 106 Planning Obligations in the form of appropriate habitat and biodiversity management. This is contrary to Policy TP8 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2031, the Nature Conservation Strategy for Birmingham SPG and the National Planning Policy Framework 2019.

8.4. That the City Solicitor be authorised to prepare, complete and seal the appropriate planning obligation via an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

8.5. In the event of the planning obligation being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority within 1 month from the date of MHCLG’s decision to not call-in the application, favourable consideration be given to this application, subject to the conditions listed below.

Page 14 of 17

1 Implement within 3 years (Full)

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

3 Requires the submission of sample materials

4 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

5 Requires the submission of a contaminated land verification report

6 Prevents outside storage

7 Requires the submission of cycle storage details

8 Requires the submission of a commercial travel plan

9 Requires the delivery and service area prior to occupation

10 Requires the submission of extraction and odour control details

11 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

12 Provision of noise attenuation fencing

13 Requires the submission of noise management plan

14 Requires the provision of vehicle charging points

15 Requires the prior submission of a foul and surface water drainage scheme

16 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

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

18 Requires the submission of hard and/or soft landscape details

19 Provision and Implementation of Ecological Mitigation Measures

20 Requires the prior submission of a method statement for the removal of invasive weeds

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

22 Requires the submission of a lighting scheme

23 Requires the prior submission of a construction employment plan.

Case Officer: Christopher Wentworth

Page 15 of 17 Photo(s)

Photo 1 – Site looking East

Photo 2 – Site looking West

Page 16 of 17 Location Plan

Page 17 of 17

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2018/08096/PA Accepted: 04/01/2019 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 02/08/2019 Ward: Sutton Trinity

Land to r/o 2-24 Douglas Road, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, B72 1NG

Erection of 8 no. dwelling houses Applicant: Rugeley Ltd 35 Copperfield Court, 239 Dickens Heath Road, Shirley, Solihull, West Midlands, B90 1QD Agent: The Space* Studio First Floor, The Lambournes, Great Hampton Works, 170-174 Great Hampton Row, Birmingham, B19 3JP Recommendation Approve subject to Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Planning permission is sought for the erection of eight no. bungalows with associated car parking. The proposed bungalows would be sited on land to the rear of 2 to 24 Douglas Road with vehicular access gained from an existing private road, situated between no. 20 and no. 22 Douglas Road.

1.2. The development would provide 8 no. dormer bungalows arranged in a line along the proposed access road in an east/west fashion facing onto the access road with each bungalow set in pairs (4 pairs of semi-detached dwellings) along the access road with 2 no. on plot parking spaces (200% provision) provided per dwelling. The dwellings would follow the natural fall in the site levels and would be stepped down across the site and retaining walls would be provided to support the change in levels.

1.3. The dormer bungalows would be low in scale (2.8m to eaves and 6.7m to ridge) with bedroom accommodation within the roof space and would be designed with a pitched roof, two sets of dormer windows at first floor level to the front elevation and 1 set of dormer windows and a roof light to the rear elevations. Building materials would comprise brickwork with rendering and concrete or natural clay roof tiles, timber or UPVC doors and windows.

1.4. Internally, dwellings would provide 3 no. bedrooms (2 no. doubles and 1 no. single) at first floor level, one with an en-suite shower room and at ground floor level a lounge/dining room, separate kitchen and bathroom with access to the private rear garden with each dwelling providing approx. 86sq.m of internal floor area (GIA). The rear gardens would measure between 80sq.m and 135sq.m.

1.5. Amended plans were received during the application process which reduced the number of dwellings from 12 no. to 8 no., provided a revised site layout and altered the types of dwellings from traditional two storey terraced dwellings to the currently

Page 1 of 13 proposed dormer bungalows. The application is supported with a Design and Access Statement, Transport Statement and Drainage calculations.

1.6. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is located to the rear of residential properties fronting Douglas Road, Coles Lane and Maple Road. The site is currently occupied by rental garages and is also used unlawfully for the storage of touring caravans.

2.2. The site comprises mainly grass land and hard surfacing and the site levels fall gradually southwest to northeast. There are two mature trees located along the west boundary and a number of mature trees located in neighbouring gardens that overhang the boundary of the site. Access to the site is via an existing private access road, approximately 4.4 metres wide and 42 metres long, located between 20 and 22 Douglas Road.

2.3. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and comprises mainly semi-detached dwellinghouses, of similar design, scale and plot size, and the majority of houses have road frontages and are set back on a regular building line with parking to the front and some with garages to the rear. I also note that there are bungalows in the surrounding area at 1, 3 and 5 Maple Road.

2.4. The site has good accessibility to public transport services with regular bus services on Coles Lane and Sutton Coldfield Railway Station is located within approximately 1.5km to the northwest of the site. Sutton Coldfield Town Centre is located approximately 1.4km north of the site.

2.5. Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 26 October 2017 – 2017/06498/PA – Demolition of existing garages and the erection of 6 bungalows with garages and associated parking and landscaping, approved subject to conditions.

3.2. 17 January 2008 - 2007/06751/PA - Certificate of Lawfulness for the use of the premises for the storage of caravans for a period in excess of 10 years, refused.

3.3. 16 December 2010 - 2008/02388/PA - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of the premises for storage of caravans for a period in excess of 10 years, refused because insufficient evidence had been provided to demonstrate that the application site has been used for the storage of caravans for a continuous period of ten years prior to the date on which the application was submitted.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Ward Councillors, M.P, Residents Associations and adjoining occupiers were notified. Site Notice displayed outside site on Douglas Road.

4.2. Sutton Coldfield Town Council - Objects to the application on the grounds of Layout and density of development is not in keeping with the area and increased parking demand.

Page 2 of 13 4.3. 2 no. letters of support received in response to the provision of housing on site.

4.4. 29 no. letters of objection have been received from nearby occupiers on the following points;

• Lack of parking for additional family and visitors and no consideration has been given to emergency vehicles when refuse is being collected, or the access road is blocked by visitors. • Inadequate parking on Douglas Road to accommodate additional parking demand. • Access road is very narrow; would only allow single lane traffic with no pedestrian footpath; and would be difficult for refuse vehicles and delivery trucks to manoeuvre. • Increase traffic congestion in a residential area and would cause disruption and a potential safety hazard for pedestrians, especially children. • Harm the amenities of existing residents, in terms of noise and air pollution and impact on safety, privacy, light and enjoyment of existing properties. • Out of character. • Development is poorly integrated, fails to complement, the neighbouring buildings and the local area more generally in terms of scale, layout, density and access. • Site is too small for eight dwellings and would result in a clear example of town cramming and constitute over development of the site. • Location of the bungalows, behind other properties and some considerable distance from the highway, would be isolated from, and not relate to, surrounding development. • Contrary to Mature Suburbs SPD, which seeks to ensure that new developments relate well to the identified character of the area, overlooks public space and does not have an adverse effect on the quality of the build environment. A similar application to the rear of 7 Maple Road was refused twice for these same reasons. • The existing garages to be retained by Douglas Road residents would appear unsightly to potential new residents. • Concern that the right of way access to the rear of properties in both Douglas Road and Coles Lane would not be maintained throughout the development works. • High risk of flooding and the site will not cope during torrential rain and if this continues to occur insurance companies will not insure properties in the area. • Existing trees would present a risk to the proposed bungalows and reduce light. • It is requested that the trees to the rear of 25 Maple Road are not damaged or removed as they provide privacy and wildlife habitats. It is also requested that the bungalows are not allowed to increase by an extra storey in the future and that the metal fence to the boundaries remain. • Impact on the local wildlife, in particular bats. • Increase anti-social behaviour and crime in the area. • Construction of these properties would be a massive inconvenience and would cause disruption of access to garages and to the rear of properties in Douglas Road. There is also a concern for highway safety during construction as debris could fall from vehicles onto other vehicles and/or be left in the road.

Page 3 of 13 4.5. Regulatory Services – No objection subject to conditions to require a contamination remediation scheme and land verification report and a charging point for electric vehicles.

4.6. Transportation Development – No objections subject to conditions;

• Pedestrian visibility splays. • Alterations to the footway crossing at the applicant’s expense. • Confirmation as to who would maintain private access drive. • Parking areas and access road laid out prior to first occupation.

4.7. Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to suitable foul and surface water drainage.

4.8. Lead Local Flood and Drainage Authority (LLFA) – Accept the overarching principles of submitted drainage information and recommend the imposition of the following conditions;

• Sustainable Drainage Scheme. • Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan.

4.9. West Midlands Police – Raise concerns regarding the provision of a “Secondary pedestrian access” and is it unclear how this footpath/alleyway is to be used and incorporated in the scheme. It is outside of the redline boundary of the site and appears to be either shared access, un-registered land or not owned by the applicant. In its current form it is unlikely to be used by most future occupiers of the proposed dwellings, particularly during the hours of darkness.

5. Policy Context

5.1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019), Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005) saved policies; Birmingham Development Plan (2017); Car Parking Guidelines SPD, Mature Suburbs SPD, Places for Living SPG.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The main considerations are whether the proposed development would be an acceptable location for housing in principle and whether the development would result in a detrimental impact on the local character, on residential amenity, highway safety, biodiversity and trees.

Policy Context and Principle of Development

6.1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires housing applications to be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It also advises within its core planning principles that planning should encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed, provided that it is not of environmental value. It also advises that planning should actively manage patterns of growth in order to make the fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling.

6.2. Policy PG3 for the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) 2017 advises that all new development would be expected to demonstrate high design quality, contributing to

Page 4 of 13 a strong sense of place’ and ‘make best use of existing buildings and efficient use of land in support of the overall development strategy.

6.3. Policy TP28 of the BDP advises that new residential developments should be located outside flood zones 2, 3a and 3b; be adequately serviced by existing or new infrastructure, which should be in place before the new housing for which it is required; be accessible to jobs, shops and services by modes of transport other than the car; be capable of remediation in the event of any serious physical constraints, such as contamination or instability, by sympathetic to historic, cultural or natural assets; and not conflict with any other specific policies in the BDP, in particular the policies for protecting core Employment Areas, open space and the revised Green Belt.

6.4. The application site does not fall within a high risk area for flooding and would be adequately serviced by the existing private access road. The development would also require new drainage and lighting to the access road, which would be secured through planning conditions, if mindful to approve the application. The application site is also located in an accessible location close to jobs and shops in Sutton Coldfield Town Centre, which can be accessed by regular bus services that operate along Coles Lane and where there is a bus stop close to the road junction between Douglas Road and Coles Lane. I am not aware of any physical constraints and the site does not contain any historic or cultural assets.

6.5. I therefore consider that the application accords with Policy TP28 of the BDP and the NPPF and would be a suitable location for new housing in principle, subject to the following site specific considerations.

Impact on Local Character

6.6. Places for Living SPG notes that a high standard of design is required to overcome any constraints and should also consider the effect on the existing street frontage and neighbouring buildings, local character, existing trees/landscaping, satisfactory access and the amenity of neighbouring occupants.

6.7. The Council's Mature Suburbs: Guidelines to Control Residential Intensification SPD also applies to this application because the surrounding area is generally uniform in character. The SPD advises that when considering new developments within a mature suburb the key is to ensure that the development does not harm the distinctive character and identity of an area.

6.8. The proposed scheme comprises eight dormer bungalows located to the rear of the existing properties in Douglas Road, Coles Lane and Maple Road on previously developed land. I recognise that the proposed development would not reflect the prevailing character of the adjoining roads, which are identified primarily by frontage development. However, there are already examples of similar, smaller, developments in the area that comprise one or two dwellings which are accessed by similar long and narrow access roads, for example, at 151a and 151b Coles Lane, 12a and 12b Maple Road and 55 Elms Road. There are also bungalows in the immediate area at 1, 3 and 5 Maple Road.

6.9. The proposed bungalows would be of a scale and design that would be appropriate for this previously developed land location set behind the main 2-storey built frontage and the proposed layout shows a good spatial arrangement between the bungalows and separation from neighbouring properties. The development would provide an acceptable back to back relationship with the existing dwelling houses in

Page 5 of 13 Maple Road and the access road to the front of the plots would provide a defensible space between the proposed bungalows and the adjoining rear gardens to the properties in Douglas Road. The development would not appear cramped or result in an over development of the site and I am satisfied that the proposed development would provide a high quality scheme that would not have a detrimental impact on the character of the local area, a view shared by the city design officer who has provided advice and ongoing dialogue with the applicants throughout the planning application process.

6.10. I acknowledge that there have been two previous refused applications for the demolition of existing garages and erection of one bungalow on land to the rear of 7 Maple Road to the north-west of the application site, with the only differences between the two applications being made to the scale and design of the bungalow. Appeals were lodged for each refused application and both were dismissed. In the last appeal (decision dated 15 June 2010), the Planning Inspector concluded that 'The proposed location of this bungalow, behind other properties and some considerable distance from the highway, would be isolated from, and not relate well to, surrounding development. It would result in a form of development out of keeping with the general linear and regular layout of properties within the area'.

6.11. The current proposal is distinctly different to the appeal decision referred to above, with it representing a more comprehensive approach to such a development. Whilst it clearly does not accord strictly with the character of existing residential development, taking into account the application site’s previously development land status set behind the main built frontage, not forming part of domestic curtilages and the scale and nature of the proposed residential units, it is considered that on balance it represents a form of development where the benefits outweigh the limited harm.

6.12. Furthermore, the application site was the subject of a planning consent in 2017 (2017/06498/PA) for the provision of 6 no. bungalows. That proposal was the subject of design discussions with the local planning authority which resulted in a low rise development of dwellings (5.4m total height and 2.4m to eaves) were considered to be unobtrusive and subordinate in scale and which reflected the character of the garages they would be replacing and being markedly different from the ‘traditional’ two storey dwellings within the locality. The current proposal has resulted in an increase in total number of dwellings since the 2017 approval as the footprints are smaller due to provision of habitable accommodation within the roofspace. As such, the spatial composition of the site has not been compromised in this regard. Furthermore, it is noted that the proposed dwellings are now to be dormer bungalows with an increase in height over those previously approved resulting in a total height of 6.7m and 2.8m to eaves. Whilst this is a minor increase in scale to that previously approved, the dwellings are still considered to be different in terms of scale and design to existing surrounding 2-storey dwellings and it is not considered that the proposal would detract from the character of the area to an extent to support a reason for refusal.

Impact on Residential Amenity

6.13. The rear windows to the majority of the proposed dormer bungalows would be set back at least 10 metres from the proposed dwellings rear garden boundaries, although it is noted that plots 1-3 would fall below this with distances of 6.9m-9.3m proposed. However, given that the land beyond the proposed garden boundaries is not private residential garden land, but instead a garage/lock up area with a shared access road, it is not considered that the separation distance below the 10m

Page 6 of 13 minimum results in harm to existing or future occupiers in this case. Furthermore, the proposal meets or exceeds all other required separation distances. On this basis, I do not consider that the proposed development would result in any adverse impact on the amenities of existing occupiers in terms of overlooking, overshadowing and loss of outlook.

6.14. I also consider that the proposed development would not result in a significant increase in vehicular movement along the access road to cause a noise disturbance to existing occupiers. I therefore consider that the proposed development would retain a good standard of amenity for existing residents, in accordance with Policy PG3 of the BDP, Places for Living SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework. I have attached conditions to remove Permitted Development Rights for any future enlargements or new windows/dormers/rooflights to the proposed bungalows so as to maintain sufficient private amenity space on site and to ensure that residential amenity is not adversely affected. Furthermore, it is considered necessary to impose a condition to secure an acceptable outdoor lighting scheme is provided to the access road that does not impact upon existing residents adversely.

6.15. The proposed development would provide acceptable living environments for future occupiers in terms of room sizes and layouts with room sized and internal floor space provision provided to the housing association requirements with all rooms of a regular, useable shape. Furthermore, all gardens would comply with the minimum guidelines as set out in Places for Living SPG.

6.16. Regulatory Services have raised no objection subject to conditions to require appropriate mitigation against potential land contamination and to require a charging point for electric vehicles. I have attached a condition to secure a strategy for contamination remediation and a land verification report. However, I do not consider it necessary or reasonable, in this instance, to require a charging point for electric vehicles given that the development is for dwellings that could accommodate appropriate in-curtilage infrastructure if desired by future occupiers.

Impact on Highway Safety

6.17. The proposed development would provide 200% parking provision for each bungalow and the level of car parking proposed would comply with the maximum guidelines contained within the Car Parking Guidelines SPD.

6.18. The submitted vehicle tracking plan demonstrates that the access road can provide adequate manoeuvring space for a refuse vehicle. The Transport Statement concludes that the traffic generation from the site would be modest in relation to the flows from the previous use of the site and that the proposed development would have negligible impact in traffic terms.

6.19. Transportation Development has assessed the proposal and engaged in dialogue with the applicant throughout the planning application process and has ultimately raised no objection to the development in principle. It is noted that the proposal would increase dwellings on the site compared to the previously approved scheme (2017/06498/PA) and that an additional two dwellings would unlikely increase traffic to/from the site significantly from previously approved levels. However, they consider that the number of dwellings to be served by the proposed access/driveway should be limited to a maximum of 8 no. on the basis that any further increase in total numbers of dwellings would likely result in an increase to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the narrow access-drive to a level where vehicular-vehicular and vehicular-pedestrian conflicts would occur along with the potential for increased

Page 7 of 13 reversing vehicle movements onto/from public highway of Douglas Rd. I agree with this viewpoint. However, given that the proposal is for 8 no. dwellings no specific planning condition is required in this case to limit the total number of dwellings other than ensuring that any consent issued is done so in accordance with the approved plans which shows 8 no. dwellings.

6.20. Furthermore, Transportation Development has assessed the narrow width of the proposed access road (4.3m) from Douglas Road and which would not allow two vehicles to pass and could result in some reversing movements onto Douglas Road. However, considering the level of traffic likely to be generated to/from the proposed dwellings during peak hour, the occasions of traffic attempting to pass on the access road are likely to be relatively low and would not undermine highway safety significantly. It is noted that most of the adjacent dwellings on Douglas Road have existing off-street parking facilities and on-street parking has been observed as being relatively low. It is also noted that the applicant is proposing to improve the pedestrian visibility splay at the access point with Douglas Road, which can be secured by planning condition. Subject to the imposition of further planning conditions to ensure that the access/driveway and on plot parking are provided prior to first occupation and that alterations to the footway crossing are undertaken at the applicant’s expense (and that confirmation as to who would maintain private access drive is provided as it is not to be adopted highway by the local highway authority) it is considered that the proposal is acceptable with regards to highway impacts and safety.

Biodiversity and Trees

6.21. The application site consists of short grass, dirt tracks and hard surfacing. I am of the view that the proposed dwellings are a sufficient distance away from the existing trees and that there would be no future pressure from prospective occupiers to have any of the trees pruned or removed due to overshadowing or presenting a risk to the bungalows. The tree officer has raised no objection to the proposal.

6.22. With regards to the impact on biodiversity the Council's Ecologist has assessed the proposal and has advised that there could be limited roosting opportunities within some of the existing garages and although there is a low risk of bats using the garages for roosting, it is recommended that a precautionary approach to demolition of the garages should be adopted, to ensure that in the unlikely event that bats are present, the legal protection afforded to bats and their roosts is not breached. I concur with these views and consider it necessary and reasonable to attach a condition to require a method statement for the demolition of the garages in order to safeguard protected species during the development works. The Ecologist has also recommended a condition to enhance the biodiversity value of the site, which I have attached accordingly and I have included an informative for the applicant to ensure they follow suitable safeguarding measures during vegetation clearance in order to protect wild birds and their nests.

Other Matters

6.23. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has been consulted on the proposal and has stated that the proposed use of soakaways and permeable paving, an infiltration rate of 18.427x10.5 m/s, is acceptable in principle. They have however, stated that site- specific soakaway testing in the proposed soakaway locations will be required which can be secured by planning condition. They conclude that two planning conditions are required so as to ensure the use of sustainable drainage principles and exploration of suitable SuDS to achieve the three key principles of SuDS; Quantity

Page 8 of 13 Control, Quality Control and Biodiversity & Amenity Value. These conditions would secure the provision of a sustainable drainage scheme and also the provision of a Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan.

6.24. Severn Trent Water have also been consulted on the proposal and have raised no objections subject to the imposition of a planning condition to secure the provision of foul and surface water drainage details. I agree with such an approach from both consultees and that the imposition of the requested planning conditions would ensure that drainage is adequately dealt with on site and would not adversely impact upon surrounding land uses and residential dwellings.

6.25. West Midlands Police have been consulted on the proposal and have raised concerns regarding the provision of a “secondary pedestrian access” and that it is unclear as to how this footpath/alleyway is to be used and incorporated into the proposed scheme given that it is located outside of the redline boundary of the site and appears to be either shared access, un-registered land or not owned by the applicant. In its current form it is unlikely to be used by most future occupiers of the proposed dwellings, particularly during the hours of darkness given that it is unlit and overgrown. However, the most recent plans submitted make no reference to the provision of a secondary access although it is noted that the footpath is existing and is to remain, falls outside the application site and is land not in control of the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant is unable to gate the access to the footpath from within their site as they are obliged to provide access to the garages around the sites boundaries without obstruction. They have however, offered to clear the footpath (as it is currently overgrown) although this would fall outside the remit of the planning application. Furthermore, a condition is recommended to secure appropriate lighting throughout the site which may provide an opportunity to site lighting closer to the footpath, resulting in an improvement to the immediate environment for its users. In addition, the proposal would introduce a level of natural surveillance and security where there is currently none.

6.26. I note that residents have expressed concern that the site boundary is incorrect and that the site includes land that is also owned by adjoining residents in Douglas Road and Coles Lane. Concern has also been raised about whether the right of way access to the rear of the properties in both Douglas Road and Coles Lane would be maintained throughout the development work so residents can access the rear of their properties and garages. The applicant has responded and advised that the site boundary is correct and that the access road is in their ownership. They have also confirmed that they have a vested interest in ensuring that the right of way and access road are well maintained and attractive and are happy to engage with local residents on this matter.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

6.27. The submitted site plan and drawings outline that the total floor area of the development would be 680sq.m GIA and this would equate to a CIL payment of £54,189.30 based upon current CIL figures.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed development would make efficient use of a previously developed site and would provide eight bungalows. I recognise that there is a highway safety concern about the narrow width of the access road from Douglas Road, however, the harm to highway safety would not be significant to justify a refusal and the proposed development would bring a number of benefits, including a contribution to

Page 9 of 13 the housing supply and securing a long term use of the site. I also consider that the development would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of existing occupiers, trees and wildlife.

7.2. Whilst the proposal does not reflect the predominant established frontage residential development character of the locality, taking into account the application site’s previously development land status, a previous approval for residential development on the site (albeit at a lower density), not forming part of domestic curtilages and the scale and nature of the proposed residential units, it is considered that on balance it represents a form of development where the benefits outweigh the limited harm in this case.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve, subject to conditions.

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

2 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

3 Requires the submission of a contaminated land verification report

4 Requires the prior submission of level details

5 Requires the submission of sample materials

6 Requires the prior submission of foul and surface water drainage scheme

7 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

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

9 Implementation of landscape scheme

10 Requires the submission of hard surfacing materials

11 Requires the submission of boundary treatment details

12 Requires the submission of a lighting scheme

13 Requires the prior submission of a protected species method statement for the demolition of the garages

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

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

16 Removes PD rights for new windows

17 Removes PD rights for extensions

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

Page 10 of 13

19 Prevents occupation until the service road has been constructed

20 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

21 Alterations to the footway crossing at the applicants expense

22 Implement within 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Christopher Wentworth

Page 11 of 13 Photo(s)

Photo 1 - Existing Garages

Photo 2 – Looking towards rear of dwellings fronting Maple Road

Page 12 of 13 Location Plan

1 1

12b 121

COLES LANE

100a 131 100

12 111.6m 108.7m 141

151

15 112

25 122

ROAD

37 1

11 15

DOUGLAS ROAD

26 25

Page 13 of 13

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/02190/PA Accepted: 25/04/2019 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 01/08/2019 Ward: Birchfield

144 Hamstead Road, Handsworth, Birmingham, B20 2QR

Retention of change of use from dental surgery (Use Class D1) to 1 no. self-contained flat (Use Class C3) and 8-bed HMO (Sui Generis) Recommendation Approve subject to Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought for the retention of a change of use from dental surgery (Use Class D1) to 1 no. 2 bedroom self-contained flat (Use Class C3) and 8-bed HMO (Sui Generis) at 144 Hamstead Road, Handsworth.

1.2. The internal layout of the proposal is as follows:

• Ground floor: 1 x 2 bed self-contained flat comprising kitchen, bathroom, lounge and bedroom with gross internal area of 59sqm. - 2 x HMO bedrooms with room sizes ranging between 12.3 to 16.1sqm, communal lounge (27sqm) and 2 bathrooms. • First floor: lounge (10.3sqm), kitchen (15.6sqm), 2 x HMO bedrooms with room sizes of ranging from 10.1sqm to 18.5sqm. Bedroom 3 is ensuite and a separate bathroom. • Second floor: 4 x HMO bedrooms ranging between 9.6sqm and 18.3sqm and a separate bathroom.

1.3 Two parking spaces will be provided to the front and a further four spaces within the rear courtyard.

1.4 The previous planning proposal was refused on the basis of its unacceptable internal layout and amenity for future occupiers of the proposed development (2018/04002/PA).

1.5 The application has been submitted in conjunction with the adjacent property no.146 (ref: 2019/03129/PA) for a change of use from dental surgery to a 14 bedroom HMO, which can be found elsewhere on this agenda.

1.6 Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site comprises of a three storey property with link at first floor to No. 146 Hamstead Road. The premise is a former dental/medical treatment centre (Use

Page 1 of 9 Class D1). The application site is located within a predominantly residential area and many of the large semi-detached and detached houses along this frontage have been converted to flats.

2.2 Properties are reminiscent of substantially sized detached and semi-detached Victorian properties which are setback from the highway with shallow boundary walls along the stretch of the application site. On the opposite side of the road there is Welford Primary School and further residential dwellings mainly made up groups of post-war terraces. There is a mixture of residential through family occupied dwellings as well properties which have been converted into flats.

2.3 Site Location & Street View

3. Planning History

3.1 2018/04002/PA – Change of use from dental surgery (Use Class D1) to 2 no. self- contained flats (Use Class C3) and 8 bedroom HMO (Sui Generis) – Refused.

3.2 28/01/2009 - 2008/06549/PA - Installation of disabled access ramp at rear - Approved subject to conditions.

3.3. 05/07/2007 - 2007/02782/PA – Display of 1 no. double sided non illuminated freestanding totem sign APPROVE: Display of externally illuminated signage and banner to front – Part approved/refused.

3.4 12/07/2001 - 2001/01231/PA - Change of use of part of premises from school to five flats, alterations and extensions at side and rear to form car port, conservatory and balcony area – Approved with conditions.

3.5 1999/03417/PA - Change of use to residential care home for children with learning disorders – Approved

3.6 28/06/1973 – 35695001 - Extension to preparatory school cloakroom & storage Approved.

3.7 10/08/1972 – 35695000 - Change of use to school annexe with dining room Approved.

3.8 2018/1019/ENF - Alleged unauthorised change of use – current case.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objections, subject to a condition requiring secure and covered cycle storage.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objections, subject to a condition for noise insulation scheme.

4.3. Severn Trent – No objections.

4.4. West Midlands Police – Objection – the police have stated concerns on the crime figures for the location, the management of the HMO property and the intended clientele. They have also raised apprehensions regarding the security measures onsite in terms of CCTV and the location and proximity to a primary school.

Page 2 of 9 4.5. Neighbouring properties, residents groups and Councillors consulted with site notice posted.

4.6. 7 x Neighbour objections (in summary): • Impact on layout/outlook and amenity. • Worsen existing high crime rate and levels of anti-social behaviour. • Increase in noise and disturbance • Illegal and unregulated HMOs and hostels in the vicinity. • Mismanaged HMOs. • Over concentration of HMOs and within an Area of Restraint.

5. Policy Context

5.1. National Planning Policy Framework (2018) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

5.2. The following local policies are applicable: • Birmingham Development Plan (2017) • Birmingham UDP (saved policies) (2005) • Places for Living (adopted SPG 2001) • Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG. • Area of Restraint Handsworth, Sandwell and Soho.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The development has been assessed against the objectives of the policies as set out above.

Principle of Development: 6.2. The NPPF has the golden thread of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It has a clear need to significantly boost housing supply and offer a wide choice of quality homes.

6.3. The Birmingham Development Plan builds upon the principles of the National Planning Policy Framework and is clear that Birmingham is a growth point and will need new employment and housing opportunities to support these aspirations. Whilst the plan contains no policies directly relating to HMO uses, policy TP27 relates to sustainable neighbourhoods. It requires development to have a wide choice of housing sizes, types and tenures to ensure a balanced community for all age groups.

6.4. The Birmingham UDP plan has guidance relating specifically to HMOs in ‘saved’ policies 8.23 to 8.25. These set out the criteria to assess proposals including the effect on amenities, size and character of the property. Account will be taken of the cumulative effect of such uses on the residential character and appearance of the area.

6.5. The Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG is clear that the nature of the type of people to occupy the premises is not a material planning consideration, and that HMO accommodation has a role to play in providing housing for certain groups in society. The SPG guidelines for internal standards for people having a bedroom and shared living rooms and kitchen are 6.5sqm for a single bedroom and 12.5sqm for a double bedroom.

Page 3 of 9 6.6. The application site is located in the Handsworth Area of Restraint which seeks to avoid over-concentration of non-family dwelling houses within particular road frontages. It is important to note that the loss of a single family home has long been established within this large property which has last been in use as a dental/medical treatment centre and it is proposed to convert the existing property into a 1 x 2 bedroom self-contained flat and an 8-bedroom sui generis HMO. The proposal is sustainably located in respect of proximity to facilities and public transport and as such the principle of development is acceptable subject to other material planning considerations.

Impact on the Character of the Area: 6.7. It is noted that within this frontage of Hamstead Road between Radnor Road and Gibson Road, which measures some 261 meters, a number of properties have been converted into self-contained flats and commercial uses. As previously stated, the proposed development would not result in the loss of a further single family dwelling due to the previous D1 use. In terms of the building typologies in the area, there is a mixture of large villa style dwellings which have been converted into flats and commercial units as demonstrated with the application site. The post-war terraced dwellings remain as C3 residential use and all of which contribute to the mixed character of the vicinity.

6.8. According to a search of the address points, the following conversions have already taken place along Hampstead Road between Radnor Road and Gibson Road:

• 11 properties converted to self-contained flats, equating to 26.2% of the 42 properties. There are also 4 commercial properties including offices and a training therapy centre within this frontage between Radnor Road and Gibson Road on both sides of the road within the 261 meter stretch. • Only no.166A registered as a HMO on the Council’s public register within this particular frontage.

6.9 As such it is considered that the principle of the proposed use of this property as a large 8-bedroom HMO including 1 x 2 bedroom self-contained flat would have a neutral impact on the residential character of the road and surrounding area as the existing property is non-domestic use.

Residential Amenity: 6.10 In terms of the internal layout, the property would provide shared facilities including a lounges and kitchens. Similar to the previous application refusals, there would be individual bathrooms on all three floors and that the bedroom sizes are similar acceptable in that the bedroom sizes of the HMO would be between 9.6sqm and 18.5sqm and that this is considered to be acceptable. The previous submission noted that the HMO bedrooms, especially on the 2nd floor had a poor outlook directly onto flank wall of the neighbouring property no.142 Hampstead Road, which was considered unacceptable. In order to address this, the revised plans show that bedroom 7 and 8 would have new windows which would improve the outlook for future occupiers.

6.11 The ‘Places for Living’ SPG requires 30sqm per flat and there is no guideline for outdoor amenity space in relation to HMOs. There appears to be hard surfaced outdoor space to the rear which is to be mainly used as a car park for 4 cars, however it is considered on balance that there would be satisfactory space for dealing with washing and laundry for future occupiers. The site is located within the vicinity of Handsworth Park which is a distance of some 580 meters away and is

Page 4 of 9 within 10 minute walking distance which on balance is not considered to represent a reason for refusal for this scheme.

6.12 The Nationally Described Space Standards requires an internal floor area 50sqm for a 1 bedroom 2 person flat and 2 bedroom 3 person flats should meet a standard of 61sqm. The previous 2 x 1-bed bedroom studio flats have been amalgamated into a single 1 x 2 bedroom flat in this revised submission, with a rear facing lounge, with side facing bedroom windows which addresses the concerns raised in the previous submission. The proposed flat will have an internal gross floor area of 59sqm whilst it is marginally short of the required standard; it is considered this alone would not warrant a refusal for the application.

6.13 The proposed HMO and flat will make use of the existing footprint and will not be extended beyond or behind the existing building envelope. The distance from the rear windows of the flat to the plot boundary measures some 17.8meters and a back-to- back distance with the property on Wye Cliff Road measures over 40 meters away and as such it is not considered that concerns of loss of privacy to other properties amenity spaces can be substantiated.

Noise Impacts: 6.14 Regulatory Services have raised no objections, subject to a condition for the provision of acoustic double glazing to habitable rooms. As such, it is considered that subject to the safeguarding condition for a noise insulation scheme; the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of future occupiers in terms of noise and disturbance. It is considered that the self-contained flat and a 8- bed HMO is unlikely to affect the amenities of the existing neighbouring residential occupiers in terms of general noise and disturbance within the context of the previous use.

Highway Safety: 6.15 Transportation Development has raised no objections, subject to a conditions relating to secure cycle storage. Parking provision to the front of the property is proposed for two vehicles and a further four parking spaces within the rear courtyard to be accessed within a shared central driveway with no.146. It is considered that the application site is located within a sustainable location with accessible transport networks. Whilst there is no cycle storage facility is shown on the submitted plans, it is considered that there would be adequate space within the site for this to be accommodated. As such, it is considered that the proposed use is unlikely to increase parking demand significantly and there would be no adverse impact on highway safety.

Crime 6.16. West Midlands Police object and raise the same comments as the previously refused scheme regarding the intended clientele for the site and how people are referred to the accommodation and managed and whether residents could pose a threat to the local community. In the last 6 months, figures provided by the police have been provided which demonstrate this area has suffered 1,971 recorded crimes. By those standards it is accepted as being significantly high number of offences. Of these offences, 665 (33.7 % of all of the crime) were of a violent nature and 165 (8.3 %) were classified as burglary offences. Whilst these figures give an indication as to the nature of offending in this area, it is important to reiterate that the specific needs residential uses SPG is clear that the nature of the type of people to occupy the premises is not a material planning consideration, and that HMO accommodation has a role to play in providing housing for certain groups in society. There is no evidence

Page 5 of 9 that occupiers of HMOs are inherently more likely to participate in crime or anti-social behaviour.

6.17 Further comments from the Police pertain to matters regarding the proposed internal layout of rooms and postal delivery proposals. They recommend that suitable CCTV systems are installed, lighting scheme and a suitable access control system is installed.

6.18 Objections have been raised by neighbours with regards to the management of HMOs and this is considered to be outside of the control of planning legislation. To obtain a license under separate Housing Legislation, the Council (Private Rented Services) must be satisfied, amongst other things that proper management standards are in place. The Council records show that an application for a HMO licence has been made at the application premises.

Other Matters: 6.19. Severn Trent raises no objections and a drainage condition is not required.

6.20 Refuse storage could be appropriately sited within the curtilage of the application site boundary and details are covered by condition. The refuse storage to the front of the proposal would need to be positioned to the rear of the property.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The application site is located in the Handsworth Area of Restraint which seeks to avoid over-concentration of non-family dwelling houses within particular road frontages. The loss of a single family home has long been established within this large property which has last been in use as a dental/medical treatment centre.

7.2 The character of the area is mixed consisting of Victorian villa style housing set in spacious plots and of which many have been mainly converted into self-contained flats and a limited number of commercial uses and smaller post-war terrace single family housing. The Council’s public register identifies only 1 registered HMO along this particular stretch of Hamstead Road.

7.3 The amended scheme has addressed previous reasons for refusal and there are no planning grounds to refuse this application.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions

1 Requires the submission of a scheme for Noise Insulation

2 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

3 Requires the submission of details of refuse storage

4 Requires the submission of a CCTV scheme

5 Requires the submission of a lighting scheme

6 Restricts the number of occupants to a maximum of 8 persons

Page 6 of 9

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

Case Officer: Omar Sharif

Page 7 of 9 Photo(s)

Figure 1: View of Application Site

Page 8 of 9 Location Plan

Page 9 of 9

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/03129/PA Accepted: 30/04/2019 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 01/08/2019 Ward: Birchfield

146 Hamstead Road, Handsworth, Birmingham, B20 2QR

Change of use from dental surgery (Use Class D1) to a 14-bed House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis)

Recommendation Approve subject to Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought for change of use from dental surgery (Use Class D1) to a 14-bed HMO (Sui Generis) at 146 Hamstead Road, Handsworth, B20.

1.2. The internal layout of the proposal is as follows:

• Ground floor: 6 x HMO bedrooms (ranging between 9.4sqm - 22sqm with ensuites, and lounge (10sqm), kitchen (6.5sqm) as well as a store. • First floor: 4 x HMO bedrooms (ranging between 11sqm - 19sqm) with ensuites and with lounge (14.6sqm) and kitchen (6.8sqm). • Second floor: 4 x HMO bedrooms (ranging between 13sqm and 20sqm) with ensuites with lounge (13.9sqm) and kitchen (6.8sqm).

1.3 The development contains parking spaces to the front for three vehicles and a further eleven spaces in the rear parking court which is accessed between no.144 and no.146 as a shared access drive off Hamstead Road.

1.4 The application has been submitted in conjunction with the adjacent property no.144 (ref: 2019/02190/PA) for a change of use from dental surgery to a 8 bedroom HMO and 1 flat, which can be found elsewhere on this agenda.

1.5 Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site comprises of a two storey property with rooms in the roof. The property shares a link at the first floor to No. 144 Hamstead Road. The premise is a former dental/medical treatment centre (Use Class D1). The application site is located within a predominantly residential area and many of the large semi-detached and detached houses along this frontage have been converted to flats.

Page 1 of 8 post-war terraces. There is a mixture of residential through family occupied dwellings as well properties which have been converted into flats.

2.3 Site Location & Street View

3. Planning History

3.1 2018/04157/PA – Change of use from dental surgery (Use Class D1) to 14 bedroom HMO (Sui Generis) – Withdrawn

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objections, subject to a condition requiring secure and covered cycle storage and parking to be marked out clearly.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objections, subject to a condition for a noise insulation scheme.

4.3. West Midlands Police – Objection – the police have stated concerns on the crime figures for the location, the management of the HMO property and the intended clientele. They have also raised apprehensions regarding the security measures onsite in terms of CCTV and the location and proximity to a primary school.

4.4. Neighbouring properties,, residents groups and Councillors consulted with site notice posted.

4.5. 8 x Neighbour objections (in summary): • Impact on layout/outlook and amenity. • Worsen existing high crime rate and levels of anti-social behaviour. • Increase in noise and disturbance • Illegal and unregulated HMOs and hostels in the vicinity. • Mismanaged HMOs. • Over concentration of HMOs and within an Area of Restraint.

5. Policy Context

5.1. National Planning Policy Framework (2019) National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The development has been assessed against the objectives of the policies as set out above.

Principle of Development:

Page 2 of 8 6.2. The NPPF has the golden thread of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It has a clear need to significantly boost housing supply and offer a wide choice of quality homes.

6.5 The Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG is clear that the nature of the type of people to occupy the premises is not a material planning consideration, and that HMO accommodation has a role to play in providing housing for certain groups in society. The SPG guidelines for internal standards for people having a bedroom and shared living rooms and kitchen are 6.5sqm for a single bedroom and 12.5sqm for a double bedroom.

6.6 The application site is located in the Handsworth Area of Restraint which seeks to avoid over-concentration of non-family dwelling house within particular road frontages. It is important to note that this large property which has recently been in use as a dental/medical treatment centre and a loss of a single family dwelling is long established. The proposal is sustainably located in respect of proximity to facilities and public transport and as such the principle of development is acceptable subject to other material planning considerations.

Impact on the Character of the Area: 6.7 It is noted that within this frontage of Hamstead Road between the stretch of Radnor Road and Gibson Road, which measures some 261 meters, a number of properties have been converted into self-contained flats and commercial uses including a health shop and legal services practice. As previously stated, the proposed development would not result in the loss of a further single family dwelling due to the existing D1 use. In terms of the building typologies in the area, there is a mixture of large villa style dwellings which have been converted into flats and commercial units as demonstrated with the application site. The post-war terraced dwellings appear to remain as C3 residential use.

6.8 According to a search of the address points, the following conversions have already taken place along Hampstead Road between Radnor Road and Gibson Road:

• 11 properties converted to self-contained flats, equating to 26.2% of the 42 properties. There are also 4 commercial properties including offices and a training therapy centre within this frontage between Radnor Road and Gibson Road on both sides of the road within the 261 metre stretch. • Only no.166A is registered as a HMO on the Council’s public register within this particular frontage.

Page 3 of 8 6.9 As such it is considered that the principle of the proposed use of this property as a large 14-bedroom would have a neutral impact on the residential character of the road and surrounding area as the existing property is non-domestic use.

Residential Amenity: 6.10 In terms of the internal layout, the property would provide shared facilities including a lounge and kitchen spread throughout the different floors. Whilst there are concerns on outlook and overlooking, no windows overlook into neighbouring properties which could be considered harmful. In order to address this concern on the second floor, the applicant has revised the floor plans/elevations with the introduction of velux windows to ensure the satisfactory internal amenity is maintained.

6.11 Whilst there is no guideline for HMO’s in the Council’s Places for Living SPD for amenity space, the hard surfaced space to the rear is intended to provide 11 spaces and it is considered the residual space for amenity is acceptable for washing/laundry facilities. However, the site is located within the vicinity of Handsworth Park which is a distance of some 580 meters away and is within 10 minute walking distance which on balance is not considered to represent a reason for refusal for this scheme.

Noise Impacts: 6.12 Regulatory Services have raised no objections subject to the safeguarding condition for a noise insulation scheme. It is considered that subject to the safeguarding condition for a noise insulation scheme; the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of future occupiers in terms of noise and disturbance. It is considered that a 14-bed HMO is unlikely to affect the amenities of the existing neighbouring residential occupiers in terms of general noise and disturbance within the context of the previous use.

Highway Safety: 6.13 Transportation Development has raised no objections, subject to a conditions relating to secure cycle storage. Parking provision to the rear is provided for 3 vehicles to the front and 11 spaces to the rear garden/courtyard area, the application site is located within a sustainable location with accessible transport networks. It is considered that the application site is located within a sustainable location with accessible transport networks. Whilst there is no cycle storage facility is shown on the submitted plans, it is considered that there would be adequate space within the site for this to be accommodated. As such, it is considered that the proposed use is unlikely to increase parking demand significantly and there would be no adverse impact on highway safety.

Crime 6.14 West Midlands Police object and raise the same comments as the previously refused scheme regarding the intended clientele for the site and how people are referred to the accommodation and managed and whether residents could pose a threat to the local community. In the last 6 months, figures provided by the police have been provided which demonstrate this area has suffered 1,971 recorded crimes. By those standards it is accepted as being significantly high number of offences. Of these offences, 665 (33.7 % of all of the crime) were of a violent nature and 165 (8.3 %) were classified as burglary offences. Whilst these figures give an indication as to the nature of offending in this area, it is important to reiterate that the specific needs residential uses SPG is clear that the nature of the type of people to occupy the premises is not a material planning consideration, and that HMO accommodation has a role to play in providing housing for certain groups in society. There is no evidence that occupiers of HMOs are inherently more likely to participate in crime or anti-social behaviour.

Page 4 of 8

6.15 Further comments from the Police pertain to matters regarding the proposed internal layout of rooms and postal delivery proposals. They recommend that suitable CCTV systems are installed, lighting scheme and a suitable access control system is installed.

6.16 Objections have been raised by neighbours with regards to the management of HMOs and this is considered to be outside of the control of planning legislation. To obtain a license under separate Housing Legislation, the Council (Private Rented Services) must be satisfied, amongst other things that proper management standards are in place. The Council records show that an application for a HMO licence has been made at the application premises.

Other Matters: 6.17 Severn Trent raises no objections and a drainage condition is not required.

6.18 Refuse storage could be appropriately sited within the curtilage of the application site boundary and details are covered by condition. The refuse storage to the front of the proposal would need to be positioned to the rear of the property.

7 Conclusion

7.3 There are no planning grounds to refuse this application.

8 Recommendation

Approve subject to conditions

1 Implement within 3 years (Full)

2 Requires the submission of a scheme for Noise Insulation

3 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

4 Requires the submission of details of refuse storage

5 Requires the submission of a lighting scheme

6 Requires the submission of a CCTV scheme

7 Restricts the number of occupants to a maximum of 14 persons

Page 5 of 8 8 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

Case Officer: Omar Sharif

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Figure 1: View of the Application Site

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/03457/PA Accepted: 23/04/2019 Application Type: Householder Target Date: 04/07/2019 Ward: Handsworth Wood

1 Calthorpe Cottages, Wood Lane, Handsworth Wood, Birmingham, B20 2AX

Installation of new timber gate to side Recommendation Determine

Report Back

Members will recall that this application was presented to Planning Committee on 4th July 2019 and deferred, minded to refuse on the grounds of an adverse impact on the visual amenity of this grade II statutory listed building as well as effecting the safety of local residents. Officers consider that the original recommendation to grant planning consent with conditions is appropriate; however if Members remain minded to refuse the application then the following reason for refusal is suggested:

The proposed development by virtue of its height and design would adversely affect the significance and setting of this listed building and affect residents’ safety by reason of restricting natural surveillance and security between the entrances to the cottages and Wood Lane. As such it would be contrary to Policies PG3 and TP12 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

1. Proposal

1.1. This application seeks full permission for the replacement of a side gate at 1 Calthorpe Cottages. The proposed gate would be located to the side of the property providing access to Wood Lane. The proposed gate would be a timber panel construction and measure approximately 1.5m in height.

1.2. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application property is a small estate cottage, erected from red brick, with clay roof tiles. The application site is Grade II Listed and sits at the end of a row of terraced housing, comprising a further 3 estate cottages; these are also Grade II listed. This block of four properties are accessed via a low wrought iron gate to the side of the site, off Wood Lane.

2.2. The surrounding area is largely residential with traditional two-storey semi-detached and detached dwellings located on Wood Lane and Butlers Lane. St Teresa's RC Junior and Infant school is located to the northwest on Butler's Road.

2.3. Site Location

Page 1 of 6

3. Planning History

3.1. 14/07/2010 - 2010/01275/PA – Restoration works to Grade II Building – Approved subject to conditions – Approved subject to conditions

3.2. 26/05/2010 - 2010/01274/PA – Alterations and extensions to Grade II Listed Building to include rebuilding of chimney, replacement titles and guttering, new porch to front and 1.1m rear boundary wall – Withdrawn

3.3. 20/07/2017 - 2017/04726/PA - Listed Building Consent for retention of relocated boiler flue - Approved subject to conditions

3.4. 08/04/2019 - 2019/01127/PA – Installation of replacement gate – Refused

3.5. 08/04/2019 - 2019/01128/PA - Listed Building Consent for installation of replacement gate – Refused

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Local ward councillors and the occupiers of neighbouring properties have been consulted. 46 letters of objection have been received in addition to comments from the Handsworth Wood Residents Association, Birchfield Neighbourhood Forum and Councillor Kooner on behalf of local residents. Objections in respect of:

• Detract from the original character and appearance of the listed buildings • Will remove views of the cottages for passers by • Will remove resident’s right of access to the properties. • Applicant has caused existing anti-social issues and anxieties caused by their dog. • Would increase security concerns as it would reduce natural surveillance. • Not in keeping with guidance contained in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order • Works having commenced on site

4.2. Transportation Development - No objections subject to conditions requiring the proposed new gate to open into the application site rather than over the footpath

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are applicable: • Birmingham Development Plan (2017) • Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005 (Saved Policies)

5.2. The following national policies are applicable: • National Planning Policy Framework (2018) • Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. This application has also been submitted together with a Listed Building Consent for the erection of the new gate (2019/03494/PA).

Page 2 of 6 6.2. The National Planning Policy Framework (2018) contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development and it requires planning to secure economic growth and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers of land.

6.3. Paragraph 192 of the NPPF state that when determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

6.4. Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) advises that all new development would be expected to demonstrate high design quality, contributing to a strong sense of place’ and to ‘make best use of existing buildings and efficient use of land in support of the overall development strategy’.

6.5. Policy TP12 of the Birmingham Development Plan advises that great weight will be given to the conservation of the City’s heritage assets. Proposals for new development affecting a designated or non-designated heritage asset or its setting, including alterations and additions, will be determined in accordance with national policy.

6.6. The application follows a recently refused scheme (2019/01127/PA full application and 2019/01128/PA Listed Building Consent). The previous scheme was submitted at a height of 2.1m and was refused due to its scale and impact on the character of this statutory listed building. The scale of the proposed gate has now been reduced in height.

6.7. The Conservation Officers has raised no objection in respect of the proposed new gates impact on the character or appearance of the listed building subject to the inclusion of a safeguarding condition relating to matching materials. I concur with this view and consider that the scale and design of the proposal is acceptable.

6.8. The development would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties by way of loss of light, outlook or overlooking.

6.9. Comment has been raised that the proposal falls outside the provision of the GDPO for gates and boundary treatments. It is acknowledged that this is the case and the applicants require full planning consent and listed building consent, and is therefore the reason for the submission of this application and the listed building application.

6.10. Concern has been raised that some works have started on site and a timber gate frame erected. This does not prevent the determination of this submission.

6.11. With respect to the concerns that have been raised, rights of private access are not material planning considerations and are a civil matter between neighbours. Anti- social issues and anxieties caused by the applicant and their dog is also not a material consideration in the determination of this planning application.

6.12. Finally security concerns have been raised in respect on the replacement of the existing low metal gate with a taller timber one. The proposed new gate at 1.5m in height will still allow a degree of outlook over the top.

Page 3 of 6

7. Conclusion

7.1. Notwithstanding the comments received, this application is recommended for approval because the proposal complies with the objectives of the policies as set out above and is of acceptable scale and design. The previous reasons for refusal have been suitably overcome.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to Conditions

1 Requires the submission of sample materials

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

3 Requires the gate to open into the site

4 Implement within 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Philip Whittaker

Page 4 of 6 Photo(s)

Photo 1: View from highway

Page 5 of 6 Location Plan

Page 6 of 6

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/03494/PA Accepted: 23/04/2019 Application Type: Listed Building Target Date: 04/07/2019 Ward: Handsworth Wood

1 Calthorpe Cottages, Wood Lane, Handsworth Wood, Birmingham, B20 2AX

Listed Building Consent for the installation of a new timber gate to side Recommendation Determine

Report Back

The proposed development by virtue of its height and design, would adversely affect the significance and setting of this listed building and affect residents’ safety by reason of restricting natural surveillance and security between the entrances to the cottages and Wood Lane. As such it would be contrary to Policies PG3 and TP12 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

1. Proposal

1.1. This application seeks Listed Building Consent for the replacement of a side gate at 1 Calthorpe Cottages. The proposed gate would be located to the side of the property providing access to Wood Lane. The proposed gate would be a timber panel construction and measure approximately 1.5m in height.

1.2. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.3. Site Location

Page 1 of 6

3. Planning History

3.1. 14/07/2010 - 2010/01275/PA – Restoration works to Grade II Building – Approved subject to conditions – Approved subject to conditions

3.3. 20/07/2017 - 2017/04726/PA - Listed Building Consent for retention of relocated boiler flue - Approved subject to conditions

3.4. 08/04/2019 - 2019/01127/PA – Installation of replacement gate – Refused

3.5. 08/04/2019 - 2019/01128/PA - Listed Building Consent for installation of replacement gate – Refused

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Site and press notices posted. Correspondence received from Councillor Kooner on behalf of local residents who raises objections in respect of:

• Detract from the original character and appearance of the listed buildings • Will remove resident’s right of access to the properties. • Applicant has caused existing anti-social issues and anxieties caused by their dog. • Would increase security concerns as it would reduce natural surveillance

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are applicable: • Birmingham Development Plan (2017) • Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005 (Saved Policies)

5.2. The following national policies are applicable: • National Planning Policy Framework (2018) • Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. This application has also been submitted together with a full planning for the erection of the new gate (2019/03457/PA).

6.2. The National Planning Policy Framework (2018) contains a presumption in favour of sustainable development and it requires planning to secure economic growth and a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers of land.

6.3. Paragraph 192 of the NPPF state that when determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of:

a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation;

Page 2 of 6 b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

6.7. The Conservation Officer has raised no objection in respect of the proposed new gates impact on the character or appearance of the listed building subject to the inclusion a safeguarding condition relating to materials and finish. I concur with this view and consider that the scale and design of the proposal is acceptable.

6.8. With respect to the concerns that have been raised, rights of access are not material planning considerations and are a civil matter between neighbours. Anti-social issues and anxieties caused by the applicant and their dog is also not a material consideration in the determination of this application.

6.9. Finally security concerns have been raised in respect on the replacement of the existing low metal gate with a taller timber one. The proposed new gate at 1.5m in height will still allow a degree of outlook over the top.

7. Conclusion

7.1. Notwithstanding the comments received, this listing building application is recommended for approval because the proposal complies with the objectives of the policies as set out above and is of acceptable scale and design. The previous reasons for refusal have been suitable overcome.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to Conditions

1 Requires the submission of sample materials

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

3 Requires the gate to open into the site

4 Implement within 3 years (Full)

Page 3 of 6

Case Officer: Philip Whittaker

Page 4 of 6 Photo(s)

Photo 1: View from highway

Page 5 of 6 Location Plan

Page 6 of 6

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/03020/PA Accepted: 12/04/2019 Application Type: Outline Target Date: 01/08/2019 Ward: Perry Barr

Land to the east of Wellhead Lane, Perry Barr, Birmingham, B42 2SY

Outline application for residential dwellings and a new secondary school with sixth form with all matters reserved Recommendation Approve subject to Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Proposal is an outline application for new residential dwellings and a secondary school on approx. 12.84 hectares. The application is submitted to support the City’s CPO which is necessary to deliver of the Commonwealth Games and identifies a clear legacy for development post Games. Subsequently, all matters are reserved but a land use masterplan submitted shows how the uses would be accommodated on site with the school to the north east of the site, the existing Doug Ellis Sports Centre retained and the remaining site for residential development. A more detailed site masterplan, including max storey heights has been submitted, but this is indicative only.

Page 1 of 13 1.1. Information submitted in support of the application includes; Planning Statement; Affordable Housing Statement; Statement of Community Involvement; Design and Access Statement, Energy Statement; Transport Assessment and Travel Plan; Tree Survey; Ecological Appraisal, Archaeological Assessment and Built Heritage Statement; Air Quality Assessment; Noise Assessment; Geo-Environmental Report; Mineral Safeguarding Appraisal and Flood Risk Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Assessment.

1.2. A screening request was considered prior to the formal application submission which concluded an ES was not required.

1.3. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The site is approx. 12.84 ha and is located approx. 3.5km to the north of Birmingham City Centre adjacent to the local centre of Perry Barr. The site is bounded by Holford Drive to the north, Aldridge Road to the west, Wellhead Lane to the east/south east and Oscott Road to the south.

2.2. The site currently comprises the Doug Ellis Sports Centre, National Express bus garage, industrial accommodation, numerous residential properties and former Birmingham City University student accommodation Oscott Gardens.

2.3. There are a wide mix of uses within the immediate area including a greyhound stadium, allotments, recycling centre, police custody suite, sporting pitches and residential accommodation. There are a number of trees across the site, particularly to the boundaries.

2.4. Site location

3. Planning History

3.1 Numerous planning applications across the site, of particular relevance;

North east of the site 3.2 9th August 2005 1998/04911/PA Provision of student residential accommodation and general facilities accommodation, new sports centre building, provision of all-weather sports pitch and 4 tennis courts, construction of access road and car parking. Approve subject to conditions and S106.

Existing Doug Ellis site 3.3 29th April 2008 2008/00349/PA Redevelopment of southern part of former sports ground and adjacent to no 152 Wellhead Lane to facilitate provision of sports centre including a sports hall and floodlit all-weather sports pitch, creation of 98 car parking spaces (including fours spaces for disabled peoples) and two coach parking bays and new access to Wellhead Lane; provision of associated landscaping. Approve subject to conditions.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Cadent Gas – There are gas apparatus within the application site and the applicant must ensure that proposed works do not infringe on Cadent’s legal rights.

Page 2 of 13 4.2. Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions with regard contamination remediation, verification of remediation and restrictive piling condition. Standard advice issued with regard flooding.

4.3. Education and Skills (employment) – request employment plan.

4.4. Education and Skills (schools) – The proposal to include a new secondary school fits the Local Authorities strategy.

4.5. Highways Agency – No objection.

4.6. Lead Local Flood Authority – Accept overall principles of the proposed development with the use of both above ground and below ground attenuation subject to conditions to secure sustainable drainage scheme and an operation and maintenance plan.

4.7. Leisure Services – Object to the proposal on the basis of the loss of playing fields which are not being compensated for (£417,500) or alternative provision being made for. A financial contribution of accordance with BDP policy would also be required – this is likely to generate a contribution of approx. £953,375 which would be directed towards the provision, improvement and/or biodiversity enhancement of POS and play at Perry Hall Playing Fields within the Perry Barr Ward. Reason: This is required as a pre-commencement condition in accordance with the SI 2018 566 The Town and Country Planning (Pre-Commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 as the information is required prior to development

4.8. Regulatory Services – No comments received

4.9. Severn Trent – No objection subject to conditions to secure appropriate drainage. They also note that there is a public sewer which crosses the site and that this may restrict future development.

4.10. Sport England – Unable to support the application because it is not considered to accord with any of the exceptions to Sport England's Playing Fields Policy or with Paragraph 97 of the NPPF in relation to the loss of playing field, nor does it appropriately make provision to address the needs of the proposed development for sports facilities to serve the proposed development.

4.11. Transportation Development – No objections.

4.12. Wayleave (Western Power) – Object to proposal on the basis of extensive network in this area.

4.13. West Midlands Fire Service - Proposal will need to comply with Part B of the Building Regulations 2010.

4.14. West Midlands Police – Development should meet secure by design standards for residential, non-residential properties and parking areas. Secure boundaries are needed between the proposed school and adjacent police station to prevent items being thrown over. Traffic congestion is a concern particularly in relation to the proposed school and traffic calming and prevention of ‘rat running’ will be necessary. Parking to the rear of properties would not be supported. A lighting scheme will be necessary.

Page 3 of 13 4.15. Local residents associations’, neighbours Ward Councillors and the MP were consulted. Press and site notices were also displayed.

4.16. 1 letter of support welcoming the use of this brownfield site but considers the loss of public open space to be disappointing and considers the bus garage, as a non- designated heritage asset, should be re-used and could become a landmark building.

4.17. 2 letters of objection have been received on the basis that the proposal lacks sufficient details about its sustainability credentials i.e. no details on the thermal efficiency of the buildings, whether green/brown roofs are proposed, use of renewable energy etc…, that the proposed development should not compromise the security of existing uses/business’ in the area, opportunities for overlooking to existing private areas should not be provided, boundary treatment details are required, residential premises to north east of site should not be allowed due to noise and disturbance and monies towards social infrastructure i.e. police should be secured.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP 2005 saved policies; Birmingham Development Plan 2017; Places for Living SPG; Places for All SPG; Access for People with Disabilities SPG; Car Parking Guidelines SPD; Lighting Places SPD; Public Open Space in new residential Development SPD; Affordable Housing SPG; Sustainable Management of Urban Rivers and Floodplains (SMURF) SPD, Aston Area Action Plan (AAP); Planning Policy Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework,

6. Planning Considerations

Background

6.1. This application is an outline application which seeks to establish a clear legacy development for the site following its (temporary) use in delivering the Commonwealth Games. The outline application therefore works on the basis that the site will be cleared, with the exception of the Doug Ellis Sports Centre and associated playing pitches. Matters of demolition of existing buildings and temporary uses required by the Commonwealth Games will be dealt with by separate prior approval/planning applications.

Policy

6.2 In January 2017 the City Council adopted the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP). The BDP is intended to provide a long term strategy for the whole of the City and replaced the UDP 2005 with the exception of the saved policies in Chapter 8 of that plan.

6.3 Policy PG1 advises that over the plan period significant levels of housing, employment, office and retail development will be planned for and provided along with supporting infrastructure and environmental enhancements. Policy GA3 identifies this area as part of the Aston Newton and Lozells Growth Area (reinforces the Aston Area Action Plan (AAP)) and identifies this area as a wider area of change. The site also appears in the latest SHLAA (2018) and Policy TP27 expects new residential development to contribute to making high quality sustainable developments. Further, in respect of housing need the BDP states that its objectively assessed need is 89,000 across the plan period (until 2031) to meet the forecast

Page 4 of 13 increase in Birmingham’s population of 150,000. Due to constraints across the administrative area the Plan only plans to provide 51,100. Policy TP36 supports the provision of additional education facilities in localities where there is a need.

6.4 I therefore consider this outline application, for residential redevelopment and a new secondary school, would result in development on a sustainable and well-linked site, present additional investment to this part of the City and make a further important contribution to the housing stock in this locality in accordance with land use policy. As such I concur with my Strategic Planners who raise no objections to the proposal in principle.

Loss of playing field

6.5 The north eastern extent of the site, beyond the Doug Ellis Sports Centre, is identified within the masterplan for a new secondary school with sixth form. This provision would meet an existing need in accordance with the Local Authorities Education Strategy. However, this 1.67ha parcel of land was formerly private playing field and Leisure Services have therefore objected to its loss due to lack of compensation. I also note Sport England are unwilling to support the current proposal on this basis.

6.6 However, Sport England accepts that the playing field has not been used for in excess of 5 years and accepts that they are therefore not a statutory consultee. Further I note that the redevelopment of the private playing fields has previously been accepted by way of 1998/04911/PA, subject to compensation of on and off site sports provision, and that the matter of compensation was further considered under 2008/00349/PA. As whilst the 2008 application excluded the playing field subject to this application, at the point of consideration the 1998 application could still have been implemented. Consequently, planning permission 2008/00349/PA reconsidered the ‘loss of playing fields’ and secured full community access to the sports hall (an increase from 30 hours previously secured) and included a condition that required that the sports centre and pitches were provided prior to the student accommodation being built. 2008/00349/PA has been implemented and this condition therefore complied with - the site operates as the Doug Ellis Sports Centre and is identified as being retained as part of this application. As such I consider the playing fields have previously been compensated for.

6.7 Notwithstanding this I also note the proposed school needs to be accommodated on this site after being displaced from the former BCU site due to the City’s successful bid for the Commonwealth Games. The City’s award of the Commonwealth Games means the City is attracting significant Government investment – approaching £1billion – into the City and West Midlands region, through direct funding to the Organising Committee, investment in Perry Barr and investment at Alexander Stadium (1.1km to the north) and facilitates the accelerated delivery of previously identified infrastructure schemes such as Sprint whilst acting as a catalyst for environmental, social and economic regeneration in the immediate and wider locality. Without the Games this level of public sector investment could not be achieved. Therefore, the redevelopment of this site, and the subsequent loss of a playing field, is essential to facilitate the wider delivery of the Commonwealth Games and I consider it is clear that the delivery of the Commonwealth Games will result in a numerous benefits including the provision of better quantity and quality sports provision than that lost. As such the proposal would also accord with TP9 of the BDP and para 97 of the NPPF.

Loss of employment

Page 5 of 13

6.8 Whilst this application does not seek demolition of the existing buildings it does seeks to establish the sites long term redevelopment which would result in the loss of employment uses from the site, namely the National Express Bus Garage and Midland Chromium Plating Co Ltd. As noted in para 6.3 the application site is identified as part of a growth area and the continuation of these uses in this context would be non-confirming. I also note that the redevelopment of this site will result in job opportunities during the construction phase and that the future operation of the school will also create a number of on-site jobs. I therefore raise no objection to the proposal on this basis.

Parking/highways

6.9 Application is outline with all matters reserved but the masterplan tests the overall capacity of the site to accommodate traffic movements for up to 500 new dwellings and a secondary school of up to 1,260 pupils. A Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted on this basis and includes consideration of the alterations to the road network ie. as a result of 2018/06313/PA. Consequently the TA demonstrates that the site can reasonably accommodate trips generated by this level of development without having an adverse impact on the highway network.

6.10 Future reserved matters applications will detail specific access points, access across the site, present opportunities to improve pedestrian access along Holford Drive, increase junction capacity and offer betterment to the wider road corridor area. I also note that the site is excellently located close to existing amenities and public transport networks and that the site will benefit significantly from the accelerated delivery of infrastructure projects such as Birmingham Cycle Revolution, Sprint, station improvements and better pedestrian and cycle permeability due to investment and regeneration opportunities presented as the result of the Commonwealth Games. I therefore concur with Transportation Development who raise no objection, in principle, subject to all detailed matters.

Air and noise

6.11 The whole of Birmingham falls within an air quality management zone (AQMA) an Air Quality assessment has therefore been submitted in respect of both the construction and operational phase of this future development. Due to the scale of the project the assessment concludes mitigation during construction would be required but that this could be controlled by condition. However, in respect of the future residential uses it considers that there would be no expected exceedance of the relevant air quality objectives at the development facades in the earliest anticipated opening year of 2023. Regulatory Services have offered no comments on the application and I cannot therefore disagree with this conclusion. However in line with phase 1 development, immediately to the south west, I recommend a further additional air quality survey is required prior to first occupation.

6.12 A noise assessment in support of the application has assessed potential noise sources in respect of both future residential and secondary school uses on the site and includes consideration of the existing Perry Barr Stadium (to the west) and UniPress (to the south east). The assessment identifies that most of the noise disturbance is attributable to road traffic on Aldridge Road with intermittent noise from speedway events and occasional low-level noise break-out from UniPress. Therefore it considers that appropriate mitigation could satisfactorily address this issue. In the absence of technical advice from Regulatory Services I have to concur with the noise assessment and recommend conditions accordingly.

Page 6 of 13

6.13 In terms of the school the noise report identifies the internal noise levels could be exceeded on the northern façade (to Holford Drive) by transport noise. However it also notes that the measurements were taken only 10m from the back of pavement and that any future building could reasonably include various mitigation solutions. I therefore consider a future reserved matters application could address this matter and recommend a condition accordingly.

Planning obligations

6.14 The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution but given the level of development indicated Policy TP9, which requires new public open space to be provided in accordance with the Public Open Space in New Residential Development SPG, and Policy TP31, which requires 35% affordable housing unless it can be demonstrated that this would make the development unviable, are applicable.

6.15 The application is an outline application and specific details of the development are not yet know. I also note that a financial appraisal has not been submitted and the supporting information identifies that future development would comply with policy requirements in this respect.

6.16 I note the request received from the Police for financial contributions to ensure the new development is effectively and efficiently policed to deter and respond to incidents of anti-social behaviour, crime and effectively address the fear of crime. Our position is that we do not consider the request would meet the tests for such Section 106 contributions in particular the necessity test (Regulation 122(2)(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms). We believe the interval from approval to occupation of the proposed development, along with published information (such as the BDP and SHLAA) gives sufficient information to plan for population growth.

6.17 I note that Sport England is currently unwilling to support the proposal, in part, due to the lack of sporting provision for future occupiers. However given this is an outline application with all matters reserved it would be unreasonable to expect to see sporting provision details at this stage. Furthermore, future reserved matters applications may generate monies which could be used to enhance/provide opportunities for sport in the locality. I also note that the Games results in additional and significant investment in sporting venues which would not otherwise have occurred.

6.18 The City Council is the applicant and it would not be appropriate to require it to enter into a legal agreement with itself. Therefore to secure affordable housing and POS contributions, conditions, including a personal permission, are recommended. This approach is entirely consistent with other City Council developments. Conditions with regard employment opportunities during construction are also recommended in line with TP26.

Other

6.19 The masterplan submitted in support of the application works on the basis that approx. 400-500 houses would be provided with approx. 90% provision of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bed houses across the site. Reserved matters applications will secure the detail and will need to satisfy policy on mix however I welcome this intent.

Page 7 of 13 6.20 Given the nature of the application there are limited details with regard the proposed developments sustainability credentials. However, the site is well located to reduce its reliance on the private car, and would be ideally located to build upon blue and green infrastructure networks established by phase 1 but this and specific details such as the proposed building fabric credentials, the extent of green/brown roofs and its specific compliance with Policies TP1-4 would be secured by future applications. Notwithstanding this I recommend conditions with regard construction management and detailed energy statements to ensure this.

6.21 The site has the potential for archaeological remains as it is crossed by the route of Ryknield Street Roman Road and I note Roman period remains were discovered a few years ago during the construction of the Doug Ellis Sports Centre. The site also contains the remains of the former Wellhead Brewery which is also of potential archaeological interest. However, subject to conditions to secure further evaluation, mitigation and on site interpretation my Conservation Officer raises no objection to the proposed development, and I recommend these conditions accordingly. My Conservation Officer also notes that the bus garage is an interesting inter-war building and that it should be recorded before its demolition, however as this application does not seek demolition of existing on site buildings it would not be appropriate to attach such a condition.

6.22 Ecological reports submitted in support of the application provide a satisfactory assessment of the site’s habitats, potential to support protected/notable species, and of the likely impacts associated with the outline proposals including requirements for avoidance, mitigation, compensation and enhancement. As such my Ecologist raises no objection in principle subject to conditions to secure a construction ecological management plan, ecological enhancement, landscaping, lighting, green/brown roofs and bird/bat boxes to ensure that the development results in a net bio-diversity gain in accordance with the NPPF. Specific details will be secured by reserved matters applications but an ecological management plan and ecological enhancement strategy are necessary. I also note particular attention will need to be given to the potential loss of habitat and ecological function along Holford Road and that this will need to be carefully mitigated for in the detailed school proposals. I also concur with my Ecologist that the vegetation to the east provides a useful habitat and north-south commuting route between Holford Road allotments and the rail corridor to the south and that this should be retained and I recommend a condition to specifically secure this. Conditions with regard additional bat surveys are not recommended given the scope of the application but this information has been passed to the agent to address as part of future demolition application(s).

6.23 Tree and Landscape Officers raise no objection in principle subject to securing more details in terms of tree protection, retention and details of proposed landscaping.

6.24 West Midlands Police have made a number of comments that would be addressed by the reserved matters application and/or would be covered by other legislation but their response has been forwarded to the applicant for information. However, I agree that an external lighting strategy is necessary for a successful overall development and a condition is recommended accordingly.

6.25 Comments from Wayleave (Western Power) and Cadent Gas are noted and have been passed to the applicant for information but could be addressed by the reserved matters application and would not be sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.

6.26 PP comments raised have been addressed elsewhere within this report.

Page 8 of 13 7. Conclusion

7.1. The application is outline and seeks to reserve all matters with the masterplan details submitted as indicative only. The application would establish a clear vision for the redevelopment of this site post games and re-enforce the regeneration legacy potential of the Commonwealth Games 2020. As such I consider the proposal would accord with both local and national planning policies and that this future development should be welcomed.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions.

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

2 Requires retention of eastern boundary

3 Requires submission of a Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan

4 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme in a phased manner

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

6 Tree Survey and Arboricultural Implication Assessment Submission Required (Outline Application)

7 Requires the prior submission level details on a phased manner

8 Requires submission of a masterplan

9 Secure noise mitigation for residential buildings

10 Additional noise survey for school required

11 Requires financial contributions

12 Grants personal condition

13 Requires the submission of a scheme for ecological/biodiversity/enhancement measures on a phased basis

14 Requires programme of archaeological work

15 Requires the prior submission of contamination remediation scheme on a phased basis

16 Requires the submission of a contaminated land verification report

17 Restricts piling

18 Requires the prior submission of a construction ecological mitigation plan on a phased basis

Page 9 of 13 19 Requires energy statement

20 Requires the submission of a lighting scheme in a phased manner

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

22 Requires a further air quality assessment

23 Requires employment construction plan

Case Officer: Joanne Todd

Page 10 of 13 Photo(s)

Photo 1: Ariel view of existing site

Page 11 of 13

Photo 2 – view south down Wellhead Lane

Photo 3 across site from Holford Drive

Page 12 of 13 Location Plan

Page 13 of 13 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 01 August 2019

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve – Conditions 18 2019/01933/PA

46 Selly Hill Road Selly Oak Birmingham B29 7DL

Demolition of existing vehicle repairs premises and erection of 15 new cluster apartments to provide purpose built student accommodation comprising 57 spaces and associated facilities

Approve – Subject to 19 2019/04109/PA 106 Legal Agreement Lordswood Girls School Knightlow Road Harborne Birmingham B17 8QB

Retention of 3G Artificial Grass Pitches (AGP) in new position and erection of 4.5m tall perimeter fence, associated hardstanding areas around the AGP and installation of 6 x 15m tall floodlighting columns

Approve – Conditions 20 2018/07853/PA

Morrisons Supermarket Bristol Road South Rubery Birmingham B45 9AH

Erection of a drive-thru coffee shop (Use Classes A1/A3) with car parking, drive-thru lane, landscaping and associated works

Page 1 of 2 Director, Inclusive Growth

Determine 21 2018/09560/PA

Land off Ash Bridge Court and rear of Leach Green Lane Rednal Birmingham B45 8EP

Outline planning application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of ten dwellings.

Page 2 of 2 Director, Inclusive Growth

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/01933/PA Accepted: 08/04/2019 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 02/08/2019 Ward: Bournbrook & Selly Park

46 Selly Hill Road, Selly Oak, Birmingham, B29 7DL

Demolition of existing vehicle repairs premises and erection of 15 new cluster apartments to provide purpose built student accommodation comprising 57 spaces and associated facilities Recommendation Approve subject to Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application is for the demolition of an existing vehicle repair business, and redevelopment of the site with a purpose-built student accommodation building comprising of 57 bedspaces. The scheme proposes a three storey main block and two storey rear wing, accommodating fifteen ‘cluster units’.

1.2. The proposed building would be sited 0.5m from the highway. It would measure 43.8m in width and generally has a depth of 10.6m however where the rear wing is positioned the depth extends to 25m. The proposed three storey element would measure 9m in height, whilst the proposed two storey rear element would measure 5.8m high. The proposed student accommodation building would provide 1679sqm of internal floorspace.

1.3. The proposed building would be of a contemporary design, with a flat roof. The building would be constructed of red brick with sections of aluminium cladding and also the use of textured bricks in certain areas.

1.4. Internally, the proposed accommodation would comprise of fifteen clusters accessed from either of the two entrances on the front elevation. Each cluster would accommodate an internal corridor providing access to between three and five double bedrooms and a shared diner/kitchen/lounge. Bedrooms would be provided with an en-suite shower room and storage space, and achieve room sizes of between 14.9sqm - 24.9sqm (inclusive of en-suite). Study areas would be located by the windows. The shared diner/kitchen/lounge areas would range between 20.7sqm and 24.16sqm.

1.5. The landscaped communal amenity space for residents’ to the rear would measure approximately 412sqm.

1.6. An integral bin store and cycle store would be incorporated on the side elevation of the rear wing of the building at ground floor level.

1.7. No parking would be provided on site.

Page 1 of 12 1.8. This application is supported by a Planning Statement, Student Needs Assessment, Design and Access Statement, Noise Survey, Site Investigation Report, Travel Plan, Sustainable Drainage Assessment, and Arboricultural Report.

1.9. The proposed development is liable for a CIL contribution of £133,807.

1.10. The site area is 0.13ha in size.

1.11. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site comprises of an irregular shaped single storey building that extends across the full width of the site with an area of hardstanding at the front used for parking. The building is part render and part red brick with metal sheeting on the pitched roof. The site is used as a vehicle repair business. There are two vehicular accesses from Selly Hill Road into the site. Palisade fencing and metal gates define the site boundary to Selly Hill Road.

2.2. Immediately adjoining the site to the south is a block of purpose built student accommodation which is nearing completion. Immediately adjoining the site to the west is a steep wooded embankment leading down to Unity Place - a row of Victorian terraced houses which have their front elevations/front gardens facing the site, and are located on land that is approximately 4m lower than the application site. Immediately adjoining the site to the north is a former drinking establishment known as Soxs Sports and Social Club. However this use has ceased and planning permission has since been granted for residential development under reference 2017/08369/PA. Located opposite the site, on the other side of Selly Hill Road, are two storey houses.

2.3. The application site is located in a predominantly residential part of Selly Oak, comprising of two storey Victorian terraced houses largely occupied by students.

2.4. Parking is unrestricted and on-street along Selly Hill Road. Selly Oak District Centre is located a five minute walk to the north.

2.5. Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. None relevant

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1 Transportation Development – No objection subject to conditions requiring S278 agreement, Construction Management Plan, cycle storage, student management plan and travel plan and S106 contribution of £18,012 towards parking and traffic monitoring.

4.2 Regulatory Services – No objection if adjacent social club is no longer in use.

4.3 West Midlands Police – No objection – Subject to conditions that all interior bedroom doors and the communal front door is to PAS 24 standard and window restrictors fitted.

Page 2 of 12 4.4 Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to condition requiring drainage details.

4.5 Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) – No objection subject to conditions requiring submission of revised sustainable drainage assessment and sustainable drainage operation and maintenance plan.

4.6 Adjacent occupiers, Councillors, M.P. and residents associations notified and site/press notices posted. One letter of objection received raising the following concerns: • Increased noise and disturbance; • Increased demand for parking spaces; and • Already too many students in the area

4.7 An objection has been received by the Community Partnership for Selly Oak (CP4SO). The following concerns have been raised: • Increase in population density; • Increase in building coverage across the site; • Increased pressure on public services; • Increased traffic and greater demand for parking; • Student population will further out number resident population

4.8 An objection has been received by Steve McCabe MP raising the following concerns: • No need for further purpose built student accommodation; • Off-street parking is needed; and • Loss of local business and 3 jobs

5. Policy Context

5.1 The following local policies are applicable: • Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) 2031 • Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Saved Policies 2005 • Places for Living SPG • Car Parking Guidelines SPD • 45 Degree Code • Wider Selly Oak SPD

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

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. I consider the key planning issues in the determination of this application are: loss of industrial land; the principle of student accommodation on this site; the siting, scale and appearance of the proposed building; living conditions for prospective occupiers; impact on parking and highway safety; noise impact; impact on neighbouring residential amenity; and impact on trees and landscape;

6.2. Loss of Industrial Land

6.3. The application site is not designated for any particular use in the BDP and is not within one of the Core Employment Areas identified by the BDP. Policy TP20 ‘Protection of employment land’ is therefore relevant to the site. This policy seeks to

Page 3 of 12 protect employment land which is not within a Regional Investment Site or Core Employment Area. However, the policy also acknowledges that there may be occasions where employment land has become obsolete and can no longer make a contribution to the portfolio of employment land. The policy indicates that change of use proposals from employment land to other uses will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that either:

The site is considered a non-conforming use; or

The site is no longer attractive for employment development having been actively marketed, normally for a minimum of two years, at a price which accords with other property of a similar type in the area. Where it is argued that redevelopment for employment purposes would be commercially unviable, a viability assessment may also be required which should include investigations into the potential for public sector funding to overcome any site constraints.

6.4. The Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses SPD provides more detail on the information required with planning applications and defines a non-conforming site as: “Non-conforming sites will mostly consist of small (generally less than one acre) isolated industrial sites within predominantly residential areas, although larger sites may come forward from time to time”. The application site is 0.13 hectares in size, and was previously located adjacent to another small industrial unit, No. 50 Selly Hill Road. Now that employment use has been replaced by student accommodation there are no other industrial uses in this otherwise residential area. As such, I am satisfied that the site can be justified as a non-conforming use and that the loss of industrial land at this location can be supported.

6.5. Principle of Student Accommodation

6.6. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that for decision making this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Paragraph 117 encourages the use of as much previously developed (brownfield land) as possible.

6.7. The Birmingham Development Plan (BDP), at Policy TP33, has a set of criteria for off-campus development which includes; a demonstrated need for development; a good location in relation to the educational establishment, local facilities and public transport; that the development would not have an adverse impact on the local neighbourhood or residential amenity; the scale, massing and architecture of the development is appropriate for the location; and that the design and layout of the accommodation would create a positive living experience.

6.8. The application site does not have any land use designation within the Wider Selly Oak SPD, and is located outside of the defined District Centre. The Wider Selly Oak SPD acknowledges the attractiveness of Selly Oak for student accommodation and identifies some (larger) sites for potential purpose-built provision. However, there is no policy preventing purpose built student accommodation being developed on other windfall sites within the Selly Oak Area, subject to compliance with the criteria set out at Policy TP33 of the BDP, as re-iterated in the Wider Selly Oak SPD – in particular for accommodation to be well related to the educational establishment that it serves.

6.9. The application is supported by a Student Needs Accommodation Survey. The Report, using 2018 data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA)

Page 4 of 12 identifies that the University of Birmingham (UoB) has a total of 28,900 full time students. Including both existing and proposed campus and off-campus purpose built accommodation serving the University of Birmingham there are 11,042 bed spaces leaving 17,858 students (61.7%) to find an alternative form of accommodation.

6.10. The Survey highlights that there has been a 19% increase in the number of students between 2008 and 2018. Much of this growth is due to the increase in the number of international students. This group has a high tendency to choose purpose-built accommodation, including for reasons of security, location, facilities and a managed environment where bills and maintenance are included in overall charges.

6.11. I note local objectors’ concerns regarding a purported over-supply of student accommodation (and associated impacts in creating an unbalanced community). However, I am satisfied that, existing and currently consented developments for student accommodation fall short in terms of providing sufficient residential accommodation to meet the identified need for student accommodation to serve the University of Birmingham. Even if all the current permitted schemes come forward, a significant undersupply of purpose built student accommodation in the areas serving the University of Birmingham will remain. The increasing trend in full-time students at the University, and in particular overseas students, means there is a demonstrated demand for this type of purpose built accommodation. Bournbrook will always likely be a popular location for students to live in because of its close proximity to the University.

6.12. Whilst this site is not immediately adjacent to the University campus, it is an 8 minute walk from the edge of the campus, and also easily accessible by cycling or public transport. In addition, it has a similar relationship (in terms of distance) to other recently approved student schemes, such as the Birmingham Battery site. As such, I consider the application site is in a suitable location to provide for purpose built student accommodation, being a brownfield site in close proximity to the University and local services/amenities, including Selly Oak District Centre and would, consequently, achieve sustainable benefits. Current planning policy does not restrict the provision of student accommodation at this site and therefore I consider such development would be acceptable in principle, and the need for additional student accommodation has been demonstrated in accordance with Policy TP33 of the Birmingham Development Plan.

6.13. Siting, Scale and Appearance

6.14. Policy PG3 of the BDP explains that “All new development will be expected to demonstrate high design quality, contributing to a strong sense of place.” It goes on to explain that new development should: reinforce or create a positive sense of place and local distinctiveness; create safe environments that design out crime and make provision for people with disabilities; provide attractive environments that encourage people to move around by cycling and walking; ensure that private external spaces, streets and public spaces are attractive, functional, inclusive and able to be managed for the long term; take opportunities to make sustainable design integral to development; and make best use of existing buildings and efficient use of land.

6.15. Paragraph 124 of the NPPF states that “The creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, creates better places in which to live and work and helps make development acceptable to

Page 5 of 12 communities”. Saved Policies 3.14-3.14D in the Birmingham UDP, Places for Living SPG and Places for All SPG also give significant weight to achieving high quality design which recognises local character and distinctiveness.

6.16. The existing car repair building on the application site is of no architectural merit. It is a single storey building which is mix of brick and render and spans the full width of the site and has corrugated metal sheeting on the pitched roof. As such, its removal would be welcomed, as it currently appears as an incongruous feature in the streetscene.

6.17. Following amendments the proposed development presents a 3 storey frontage with a 2 storey rear wing at the northern end of the development which mirrors the recently constructed scheme to the south.

6.18. The proposed building is set further forward than the existing building on site but maintains a similar building to the adjacent block of accommodation.

6.19. Properties along Selly Hill Road are generally two storeys in height although many have a third storey provided within the loft space. Whilst the proposed development would front the street with a three storey flat roofed design it would not exceed the height of the adjacent block of accommodation. The rear wing of the development is reduced in height to two storeys which helps reduce the overall bulk of the development.

6.20. The use of red brick with sections of aluminium cladding gives the rhythm of a series of individual properties similar to a row of terraced houses where there would be different brick colours or render providing distinction between individual properties.

6.21. The proposed development would be sympathetic to the local vernacular of surrounding Victorian houses, through utilising vertical windows and red facing brickwork. With a large number of windows on the frontage including much larger windows to kitchen/lounge areas the proposed development has been designed to provide surveillance/activity to the street.

6.22. In light of the above, I am satisfied that the proposal meets policy requirements on providing good design and the siting, scale and appearance of the proposed development would be appropriate and sympathetic to the surrounding area, and an improvement on the incongruous industrial building that is currently located on the application site.

6.23. Living Conditions

6.24. The Council’s Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG (1992) recommends that a single bedroom within purpose built student accommodation should measure a minimum of 6.5sqm in size. Each proposed cluster flat bedroom would have an internal floorspace of between 14.9sqm - 24.9sqm (inclusive of en-suite). The communal areas within the clusters, each being between 20.7sqm and 24.16sqm are relatively generous, with furniture layouts provided to demonstrate the accommodation of kitchen, dining and lounge facilities. I concur with my City Design Officer that the overall internal layout is logical and works well. Two front doors are sensibly located on the front elevation and circulation space is fairly generous.

6.25. A communal garden area (approximately 412sqm) is proposed to the rear of the block. This area is considered sufficient to provide a suitable setting for the building and opportunities for occupiers to take advantage of the outdoor space.

Page 6 of 12

6.26. In light of the above, I am satisfied that the proposal meets policy requirements in terms of creating a positive living experience for future occupiers.

6.27. Parking and Highway Safety

6.28. Policy TP38 of the BDP states that “The development of a sustainable, high quality, integrated transport system, where the most sustainable mode choices also offer the most convenient means of travel, will be supported.” One of the criteria listed in order to deliver a sustainable transport network is ensuring that that land use planning decisions support and promote sustainable travel. Policy TP44 of BDP is concerned with traffic and congestion management. It seeks to ensure amongst other things that the planning and location of new development supports the delivery of a sustainable transport network and development agenda.

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

6.30. The Council’s Car Parking Guidelines SPD recommends a maximum of 1 space per 5 beds and a minimum of 1 cycle space per 4 beds for purpose built student accommodation. There is no minimum parking provision requirement. The proposal provides cycle storage and no off-street car parking.

6.31. The site is located within a five minute walking distance of Selly Oak District Centre and the local facilities that exist here. There are bus stops located along the Bristol Road which have very frequent services into the City Centre. Selly Oak Rail Station is located approximately 570m distant from the site, and again provides frequent rail links to the City Centre. I am therefore satisfied that the site benefits from good public transport links, and is located within easy walking/cycling distance of the University of Birmingham and local facilities at Selly Oak District Centre.

6.32. Transportation Development have raised no objection to the proposal noting that the development is car free, but incorporates secure cycle storage. However, they note that a disabled parking space should be provided within the public highway to enhance accessibility which can be delivered through the completion of a S278 agreement.

6.33. A Travel Plan will be required to make residents fully aware of the non-car opportunities of travel, this matter can be addressed via condition. Furthermore, it is understood that the lease agreement would prevent students from parking along local roads and within a certain distance of the site. A Student Management Plan will also be required to set out procedures for drop-off/pick up at the start/end of each term to ensure that this is carried out on a phased basis.

6.34. A S106 contribution has been requested for potential parking and traffic monitoring and/or minor highway works and maintenance thereof and/or traffic regulation orders and/or local highway improvement measures in Selly Hill Road, Harrow Road, Coronation Road, Dawlish Road, St Edwards Road and Rookery Road. On the basis that the development is car free it is considered that such a contribution is not

Page 7 of 12 required to make the development acceptable in planning terms and the request would not meet the CIL tests. Whilst there is a high level on street parking in the Bournbrook area S106 contributions should not be utilised to address existing issues.

6.35. Noise

6.36. Paragraph 180 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should aim to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development, and that decisions should aim to mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions.

6.37. Concerns were initially raised by Regulatory Services regarding the drinking establishment located to the south of the site. However, the venue closed 2 years ago and there is a planning consent for residential development of the site. There are therefore no noisy uses surrounding the site. Regulatory Services therefore raise no objection to the scheme.

6.38. Amenity of Existing Residential Occupiers

6.39. The closest development to the proposal is the adjacent block of student accommodation. However, neither the proposed development nor the adjacent block contains habitable windows in their side elevations meaning no loss of privacy would occur. The blocks of student accommodation are of the same depth meaning there is no breach of the 45 degree code.

6.40. In respect of the proposed development and its relationship with properties on Unity Place to the west of the site, I note that the application site is located at a ground level which is 4m higher than the terraced properties in Unity Place. The steep embankment between the two is covered by a number of trees. Many of the Unity Place properties are unusual in that their front elevation and front gardens face eastwards towards the application site and front on to a footway, rather than a road. The most likely properties to be affected are No’s 6 to 10 Unity Place.

6.41. The Council’s Places for Living SPG recommends a separation distance of 21m between windowed elevations in new two storey development and windows in existing dwellings, and the separation distance increases to 27.5m where this relates to new three storey development. It states that the separation distance should be increased by 2m for every 1m rise in ground level between new and existing. It also states that this standard will be more strictly applied at the rear rather than the front.

6.42. Taking into account the aforementioned ground level difference, the recommended separation distance to Unity Place windows would be 35.5m for windows in the three storey element and 29m for windows in the two storey element. The proposed development would only achieve a separation distance of 25m for windows in the three storey element. Whilst this falls far short of the guidance, the guidance is clear that the standard should be more strictly applied in a rear-rear situation, rather than a front-rear situation, as is the case here. I also note that the wooded embankment (which does contain some evergreen species) would continue to provide some screening between the application site and Unity Place to mitigate overlooking. Having visited the site and experienced the adjacent block from Unity and Hope Place it is considered the ground level difference and angle of view means that some of the three storey element is not visible. It is also important to remember that

Page 8 of 12 the existing building on the application site is set against the rear embankment meaning that the proposal is provides a greater level of separation than the existing building and therefore appears less dominant.

6.43. No. 11 Unity Place has a different relationship with proposed development in that it is the blank side elevation of the property that faces the projecting 2 storey rear wing. The rear wing of the proposal includes no windows on the rear elevation ensuring no overlooking of the private garden.

6.44. Places for Living SPG also recommends a separation distance of 5m per storey where new development with main windows overlooking existing private space is proposed. However, in this unusual instance the rear windows of the development look towards the front gardens of No’s 6 to 10 Unity Place which is not considered private space and therefore the above mentioned standards would not apply.

6.45. Taking into account that a similar relationship was accepted on the adjacent development, I am satisfied with the relationship between the proposed development and Unity Place is acceptable. On balance, I do not consider the amenity of these occupiers would be harmed as a result of overlooking or overbearingness to such an extent that the application could be successfully refused.

6.46. Whilst the front to front separation between with the opposite houses on Selly Hill Road is only 17m, I consider this to be acceptable, as the proposed development block would follow an established building line, and as set out above Places for Living SPG allows more flexibility with a front to front relationship.

6.47. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed development would not result in material loss of light, outlook or privacy to existing residential occupiers.

6.48. Trees and Landscaping

6.49. Policy TP7 of the BDP seeks to conserve and enhance Birmingham’s woodland resource and states that all new development schemes should allow for new tree planting.

6.50. The majority of the site is predominantly hard surfaced although there are 7 mature trees along the western boundary in the embankment. These consist of 5 sycamore trees and 2 leyland cypress trees. In total 2 trees are being removed, 1 sycamore and 1 cypress tree. The Council’s Tree Officer raises no objection identifying that there is the opportunities for replacement planting which would lead to an enhancement in tree cover overall.

6.51. My Landscape Officer has raised no objection to the proposed development and I concur with his recommendation to attach a boundary treatment condition to any consent.

6.52. Other Issues

6.53. The City’s Ecologist has raised no objection to the proposed development. She notes that the existing buildings at the site at present offer negligible opportunities for wildlife. She supports the planting plan proposed which will deliver habitat improvements. A condition requiring bat and bird boxes is also requested to deliver further enhancements.

Page 9 of 12 6.54. The development would be liable for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which I calculate to be in the region of £133,807.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider the development of this site for purpose built student accommodation would be acceptable in principle, given this is a brownfield site in a highly sustainable location within walking distance of the University of Birmingham campus. The siting, scale and appearance of the proposed development would be acceptable and would sit comfortably in the streetscene. There would be no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential occupiers and the development would provide an acceptable living environment for future occupiers. The proposal would support the function of the University of Birmingham as a key provider of employment, culture, and learning in the City. Therefore I consider the proposal would constitute sustainable development and I recommend that planning permission is granted.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approval subject to conditions.

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

2 Requires the submission of sample materials

3 Requires the submission of a Student Management Plan

4 Requires the submission of a residential travel plan

5 Redundant crossings reinstated with full height kerbs

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

7 Requires the prior submission of level details

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

9 Requires the submission of boundary treatment details

10 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

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

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

13 Implement within 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Andrew Fulford

Page 10 of 12 Photo(s)

Photo 1: Front elevation of application site on Selly Hill Road

Photo 2:Relationship with adjacent block of accommodation at 50 Selly Hill road

Page 11 of 12 Location Plan

Page 12 of 12

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/04109/PA Accepted: 29/05/2019 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 28/08/2019 Ward: Harborne

Lordswood Girls School, Knightlow Road, Harborne, Birmingham, B17 8QB

1. Proposal

1.1. This application seeks planning permission for the retention of an Artificial Grass Pitch (AGP) within the school grounds of Lordswood Girls’ School in the centre of the playing fields. The AGP has not been built in accordance with the approved plans.

1.2. It measures 70m x 116m and has the following features:

• 6 x 15m tall floodlighting columns; • 4.5m tall perimeter fencing; and • a storage container measuring 6m long, 2.4m wide and 2.6m high and located to the immediate north of the AGP within a small compound area.

1.3. The playing fields occupy land between Lordswood Girls’ School (LGS) and Lordswood Boys’ School (LBS) and are a shared resource. As a result of the proposal the existing playing pitches would have to be reconfigured with the loss of one junior football pitch. Plans provided with the application suggest two ways of rearranging the grass pitches around the retained AGP.

1.4. The AGP would be available to the local community with access gained through the Girls’ School where accessible changing facilities, showers and WCs are located.

1.5. Proposed hours of use of the AGP are:

8am to 9pm Monday to Saturday 8am to 6pm on Sundays

1.6. Site area 0.8ha.

1.7. The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement.

1.8. Link to Documents

Page 1 of 12 2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site forms part of the playing fields serving Lordswood Girls’ School and Lordswood Boys’ Schools. The playing fields are divided into two by a spinney. The east half is used by the Boys’ School, accessed to the north of the spinney along a track from their site and is relatively flat. The west half, where the AGP is located, is used by the Girls’ School and although flat in the centre, has a steep bank up to the north to the Boys’ School site; a shallower bank to the west leading to the tennis courts; and to the south there is a more gradual incline into a marshy area.

2.2. The surroundings are residential and comprise the following:

- To the north, Hagley Road ExtraCare Retirement Village which overlooks the Boys’ School playing field. - To the west, Nos. 323 and 299 Lordswood Road lie to the north and south of the tennis courts. Properties on Lordswood Road are generally large, two-storey dwellings with generous gardens. - To the south, properties on Knightlow Road and The Oaks are two-storey dwellings with well-landscaped rear gardens.

2.3. There are mature trees within the spinney at the centre of the site and at residential boundaries.

2.4. Site location

3. Planning History

Application site

3.1. 11/12/12 - 2012/07105/PA - Erection of full sized artificial grass pitch and associated fencing, lighting and access arrangements. Approved with conditions to limit the hours of use 0800-2100 Mon-Sat, 0800-1800 Sunday and given a 3 year consent.

3.2. 06/06/2017 - 2016/09701/PA - Creation of 3G Artificial Grass Pitches (AGP), including the erection of 4.5m high perimeter fence, associated hard standing areas around the AGP, installation of 6 x 15m high floodlighting columns and erection of maintenance/sports equipment storage container – Approved with conditions including:

- Hours of use – 0800-2100 Monday to Saturday, 0800-1800 Sundays. - Submission of a landscaping scheme to the rear of residential gardens. - Submission of levels details prior to commencement of the development. - Submission of all boundary treatment within the AGP prior to commencement. - Laying out of the reconfigured playing pitches prior to first use of the AGP. - Demonstration prior to first use that the development accords with the lighting scheme permitted.

3.3. 22/01/2018 - 2017/09206/PA - Application to determine the details for Condition No. 2 (levels) 4 (fencing) 5 (landscape) attached to approval 2016/09701/PA – Approved.

3.4. 27/04/2018 - 2017/10976/PA - Application to determine the details for Condition No. 1 (community access agreement) and 3 (management schedule) attached to approval 2016/09701/PA – Approved.

Page 2 of 12

3.5. 17/08/2018 - 2018/1094/ENF - Development not in accordance with planning approval reference 2016/09701/PA. Case closed 07/09/2018 as a retrospective planning application was expected.

Wider campus

3.6. 23/11/06 - 2006/06220/PA - Re-surfacing of five tennis courts, erection of perimeter chain mesh fencing, erection of eight no. 8 metre tall lighting columns to serve the three eastern courts, and erection of electrical services box - Approved with conditions.

3.7. 07/12/16 Pa no 2016/06833/PA. Demolition of existing gym and erection of two- storey extension for new sports hall and sixth form centre, alterations and addition to car park - Approved with conditions.

3.8. 05/07/2018 - 2018/02217/PA – Lordswood Boys’ School - Erection of new school building (Use Class D1), demolition of the existing main school buildings, relocation of existing courts and playgrounds, new service yard, revision to parking layouts and associated landscape works across the site – Approved with conditions.

Martineau Centre, 74-100 Balden Road, Harborne, Birmingham

3.9. 14/10/14 - 2014/05096/PA - Demolition of the majority of the existing buildings on site and residential development of 121 dwellings and associated works. Change of use of clock tower building from office (Use Class B1a) to 6 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) and community floor space (Use Class D1), addition of associated landscaping and two access points onto Balden Road (revised scheme) - Approved with conditions and a S106 agreement providing funding for a replacement football facility. Sum paid 7/5/15 with a 7 year spend-by time frame.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Site and press notices posted; Local MP, Councillors and Residents’ Associations, and the occupiers of nearby properties notified of the application. 2 responses received from the Hagley Road Residents’ Association objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:

- its deleterious impact on residents, including the elderly and frail, in terms of noise and floodlight leakage due to the closer proximity of the AGP to Hagley Road Retirement Village; - Sport England’s recommendation for use of the AGP until 10pm instead of 9pm as previously approved; - lack of an explanation or apology for construction in the wrong place; and - a specious claim in the Planning Statement that in its correct position the AGP would undermine the foundations of the new Boys’ School.

4.2. Transportation Development: No objection subject to secure and sheltered cycle storage to be installed in line with BCC minimum standards. No change is proposed to the existing 62 parking spaces (including 2 accessible spaces) provided at the Girls’ School. Peak traffic movement is typically each week day from 8am to 8.30am each morning and then from 3.00pm to 3.45pm each afternoon when the school closes. At the end of each school day the site typically clears very quickly with students and staff departing the site so the parking spaces would become available for community users of the AGP. There would be increased traffic movement as a

Page 3 of 12 result of the new facility, but sufficient car parking provision would be available on the site. It is expected that on occasions when the Girls’ School has evening activities, such as parents’ evening or open evenings, the school would manage traffic appropriately to mitigate congestion.

4.3. Regulatory Services: No objection subject to a condition as follows:

- Floodlighting only to be used between 0800-2100 Monday to Saturday and 0800- 1800 hours on Sunday, and not at all on Public and Bank Holidays.

4.4. Leisure Services: Supports the proposals and welcomes the applicant's willingness to offer £50,000 compensation for the loss of the junior grass pitch to be spent at Senneleys Park. Requests assurance that the laying out of the remaining sports pitches illustrated are achievable and funded given they will be partly located on land owned by the separate Lordswood Boys’ School.

4.5. Sport England: No objection in principle subject to conditions as the proposal, with the financial compensation offered for loss of a junior football pitch, meets Exception 5 of Sport England’s policy to oppose the loss of playing field land. Exception 5 states:

“The proposed development is for an indoor or outdoor facility for sport, the provision of which would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport as to outweigh the detriment caused by the loss, or prejudice to the use, of the area of playing field.”

Drawing 2042/RET/04 offers the only workable layout for the retained grass pitches as it would minimise overlapping. It is also recommended that the S106 Agreement includes a list of alternative sites for provision of the junior football pitch instead of only identifying Senneleys Park.

Requested conditions:

- Prior to first use, submission of a community use agreement. - Prior to first use, confirmation that the AGP meets FIFA Quality Concept for Football Turf and that the facility has been registered on the FA’s Register of Football Turf Pitches. - Use of the AGP and floodlighting shall only be between 0800-2200 hours Monday to Saturday and 0800-1800 hours on Sundays and Public Holidays.

4.6. West Midlands Police: No objection.

4.7. Severn Trent Water: Awaiting comments.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Development Plan (2017); Birmingham UDP 2005 (saved policies), SPG Places for All (2001), SPG Floodlighting of Sports Facilities, Car Parks and Secure Areas (2001).

5.2. NPPF; NPPG.

6. Planning Considerations

Background

Page 4 of 12 6.1. Planning permission for the AGP was granted in June 2017 (2016/09701/PA) based on an amended location. It was originally proposed in a central position within the Girls’ School playing field but Sport England raised concern about the ability of the site to accommodate all of the grass pitches to be retained. Consequently, it was repositioned approximately 40m west towards Lordswood Road and a plan was provided showing how the remaining pitches were to be laid out. The amended and additional plans satisfied Sport England and a condition was attached requiring the grass pitches to be laid out prior to first use of the AGP.

6.2. Work commenced on the AGP in June 2018 in accordance with the superseded plan rather than the approved amended plan and was halted in September when this error became apparent. The applicant does not consider the AGP could have been constructed in its approved position due to level differences within the site. Since September, the applicant has been in dialogue with the Council and Sport England to try and address the issues raised by the erroneous location and this application now seeks planning permission to retain the AGP in its current position, some 40m west of the approved location. Most of the work has been completed. The AGP is being funded through the Section 106 Agreement secured on the Martineau Centre consent.

Policy Approach

6.3. BDP Policy TP9 relates to the loss of playing field land and states that permission will not normally be granted for the loss unless,

“The lost site will be replaced by a similar piece of open space, at least as accessible and of similar quality and size.” (Bullet point 2.)

“The development is for alternative sport or recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss.” (Bullet point 4.)

6.4. BDP Policy TP11 relates to new sporting facilities and states,

“The provision and availability of facilities for people to take part in formal or informal activity, that contributes to healthier lifestyles… will be supported and promoted.”

and

“Facilities within the City’s educational establishments that can be used by the local community provide a useful contribution towards the recreational and leisure requirements of the City and this will be encouraged”.

6.5. In terms of lighting, BDP Policy TP11 states,

“Appropriate and sympathetic sports lighting can enhance the use and sustainability of community sports provision... However, any development involving sports lights should balance the benefits for sport with the amenity of local residents.”

6.6. The Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy states that the City Council has a significant short-fall of natural turf and artificial grass pitches and BDP Policies TP36 (Education) and TP37 (Health) seek to reduce health inequalities, increase life expectancy and improve quality of life by encouraging physical activity through the provision of open space and playing fields.

Page 5 of 12 6.7. Paragraph 97 of the NPPF states,

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

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

6.8. The proposal would result in the loss of playing field however, as it seeks to convert the playing field into another sporting use, BDP Policy TP9 and paragraph 97 (bullet point 3) of the NPPF would be satisfied. The AGP would provide an improved and more robust facility with greater potential for use due to the illumination and without the need for a resting period as is required with grass pitches. Planning permission had already been granted for the AGP so the principle is acceptable.

6.9. As a result of the new location, the applicant has indicated how the grass pitches to be retained could be laid out around the AGP within the wider playing fields. It is no longer possible to accommodate an existing junior football pitch which was due to be located immediately east of the AGP in its previously approved position. Consequently, the applicant has offered as compensation for this loss the sum of £50,000 towards the provision of a new junior football pitch. Leisure Services indicates this could be used to provide a pitch at Senneleys Park where the Council is already in the process of creating a sports hub.

6.10. Your Planning Policy Officer supports the principle of the proposal, based on Sport England’s acceptance of the siting of the AGP and subject to the suggested Section 106 contribution.

Impact on Local Residents

6.11. The playing field between the two schools is at a lower level than both school buildings, with a particularly steep embankment to the north of the AGP adjacent to the Boys’ School.

6.12. The two nearest residential properties are Nos. 299 and 323 Lordswood Road. The rear boundary of No. 323 is 55m northwest of the AGP and it has a 50m rear garden (total 105m between AGP and rear elevation). The rear boundary of No. 299 is 53m southwest of the AGP and it has a 70m rear garden (total 123m between AGP and rear elevation). Tennis courts sit in the 75m gap between these two properties; they are floodlit and are used between 8am and 9pm, Monday to Saturday by both schools and the Lawn Tennis Association. The tennis courts are bounded by a 3m high fence and 8 x 8m tall lighting columns (and a total of 12 lamps).

6.13. In respect of Hagley Road Village, the AGP is 71m from the boundary with the communal gardens and 91m from the rear elevation of the closest apartments.

Page 6 of 12 6.14. The proposed AGP would be located about 2.5m lower than both the properties on Lordswood Road and Hagley Road Village.

6.15. Regulatory Services comment that the main issues relating to this application would be the potential noise and disturbance arising from ball impacts, shouting, and whistles as well as glare/lighting.

6.16. Noise levels would already be relatively high in the area due to traffic on Lordswood Road and Hagley Road, the existing school activity, the illuminated tennis courts and the existing school playing fields. The playing fields are not currently illuminated so the floodlit AGP would extend the use of this area into the evenings in the winter.

6.17. The agent has confirmed to the satisfaction of Regulatory Services that noise from footballs would be limited in the absence of kickboards and through the use of fixed metal fencing with rubber mounts, as opposed to flexible mesh which would vibrate on impact. More general noise impacts from shouting, whistles and the comings and goings associated with the use could be controlled through the hours of use.

6.18. Proposed hours are 8am to 9pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 6pm on Sundays, in accordance with the previous approval, and these are acceptable to Regulatory Services. However, Sport England has requested a longer period of use into the evenings Monday to Saturday until 10pm to maximise use of the facility by the community and to bring the permission in line with the peak period of use which Sport England recognises.

6.19. The views of Regulatory Services and local residents are noted, but, taking account of the following factors, a 10pm closing time is considered reasonable:

- the need to ensure full community use of the facility which has been funded through a S106 agreement; - existing noise levels in and around the site, including from community use to other facilities within the school buildings; and - the existing ability to use the school field until around 9pm in the summer time without the need for floodlighting.

6.20. It is noted that the previous approval included a condition requiring some gaps in the landscaping at residential boundaries along Lordswood Road to be filled in with new planting. Given the increased distance to the AGP in its current location this condition is no longer considered necessary to make the development acceptable.

6.21. With regard to the impact of the floodlighting, UDP Saved Policy DC20 (chapter 8) states that “…proposals including floodlighting should include the minimum level of lighting required … and should be designed to minimise light glare and spillage.” The floodlighting SPG expands on DC20 and goes on to identify that rear elevations would be subject to a light sensitivity level of E2. This requires that lighting columns must be located at least 12.5m from residential windows, that sky glow should not increase by more than 2.5%, and that lux levels do not exceed 5lux before curfew and 1lux after curfew.

6.22. It is noted that the lights are focussed task lighting that are shown to provide a limited amount of light spill. The lighting matrix for the AGP in its previously approved position illustrated that lighting would not spill further than 20m beyond the edges of the enclosure and that the 5lux level, the lowest recorded contour, intruded by only 10m into the residential garden of No. 323 Lordswood Road and a corner of No. 297. Floodlighting in the current, more central position within the playing field

Page 7 of 12 would no longer intrude into these gardens or the grounds of Hagley Road Village and consequently the impact of the floodlighting on local residents would be acceptable.

Impact on parking and highway safety

6.23. The Boys’ School car park is accessed off Hagley Road and the Girls’ School car park off Knightlow Road. In addition each school has a pedestrian access off Lordswood Road.

6.24. Transportation Development has no objection to the AGP subject to the provision of secure and sheltered cycle storage. A 30-cycle shelter was shown on the previously approved plans as permitted development and is already in place so it is not necessary to secure any further cycle parking by condition. A good level of car parking is provided on the site (62 spaces) and the Transportation Development comments indicate the realistic expectation that these would be available for community users of the AGP in the evening when generally the school would be closed. In addition, public transport is very good at this location, with many buses services running along Hagley Road throughout the day and evening.

Ecology

6.25. A wildlife corridor crosses the playing field area and the site, however the area of land affected by the AGP is considered to be low quality grassland. The Chad Brook is to the east of the site and would be unaffected by the proposal. Bats are known to be active in the spinney and retaining the AGP in its current position, would bring the floodlighting closer to the spinney. The floodlights proposed would cause ultra-violet (UV) light-spill in the region of 25-50lux at the edge of the spinney which is above the recommended 1lux. Insects would be attracted to this UV light while the bats would be repelled by it, thus putting their main food source beyond reach. There are two possible options for mitigating this impact: adjustment of the floodlights already installed or their exchange for a different type which more effectively deals with light- spill to the rear of the unit. A condition is recommended which would secure this mitigation prior to first use of the floodlights.

Other issues

6.26. The public participation comment regarding the lack of an explanation or apology for the current situation is noted however it is not the role of the planning process to apportion blame for a situation which has arisen.

6.27. Also acknowledged are the public participation comments disagreeing with the claim that, in its originally approved position, the AGP would have undermined the foundations of the new Boys’ School currently under construction. Having considered the level changes across the site it is likely that significant engineering works would have been required in order to create a flat area on which to construct the AGP in its approved position, and it is not clear from the previous application if the extent of these works was fully understood at the time of the decision. Irrespective, with the compensation offered for the loss of the junior football pitch and the laying out of the remaining grass pitches to be secured by condition, the AGP in its proposed location is considered to comply with the relevant planning policies and there would be no grounds to resist it.

7. Conclusion

Page 8 of 12 7.1. The AGP would complement the existing range of sports facilities provided at the school and across the wider site to the benefit of pupils and the local community. The replacement of playing field land with sports facilities of a better standard and the provision of funding towards a new off-site junior football pitch accords with the aims of the BDP and the NPPF.

7.2. Access by public transport and bicycle would be available as well as by car and parking on the site should ensure that local roads are not adversely affected by the presence of an additional facility on the site. With the conditions recommended below, the impact on local residents would be acceptable.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That consideration of application 2019/04109/PA be deferred pending the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure:

a) The provision of £50,000 towards the provision of a junior football pitch at Senneleys Park, Bartley Green.

b) Payment of a £1,750 monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal agreement.

8.2. In the absence of a suitable legal agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority by 1st October 2019, planning permission be refused for the following reason:

8.3. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure the sum of £50,000 towards the provision of a junior football pitch, the proposal conflicts with policies TP9 (Open Space, Playing Fields and Allotments) and TP47 (Developer Contributions) of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017 and with the NPPF.

8.4. That the City Solicitor be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the appropriate legal agreement.

8.5. That in the event of an appropriate legal agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority by 1st October 2019, planning permission be APPROVED subject to the conditions listed below.

1 Complete the development within six months

2 Requires the submission of a bat impact mitigation scheme

3 Requires the grass pitches to be laid out prior to first use of the AGP

4 Requires the prior submission of a Community Access Agreement

5 Certification of artificial grass pitch and registration of facility

6 Requires the development to be maintained in accordance with a specified programme

7 Limits the hours of use: 8am-10pm Mon-Sat and 8am-6pm Sun and public holidays

Page 9 of 12

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

Case Officer: Amy Stevenson

Page 10 of 12 Photo(s)

Photograph 1: View from Hagley Road Village across AGP towards Lordswood Girls’ School

Photograph 2: View across AGP towards rear of 323 Lordswood Road and new Boys’ School

Page 11 of 12 Location Plan

Page 12 of 12

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2018/07853/PA Accepted: 28/09/2018 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 02/08/2019 Ward: Rubery & Rednal

Morrisons Supermarket, Bristol Road South, Rubery, Birmingham, B45 9AH

Erection of a drive-thru coffee shop (Use Classes A1/A3) with car parking, drive-thru lane, landscaping and associated works Recommendation Approve subject to Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Planning permission is sought for the erection of a drive-thru coffee shop (Use Class A1/A3) with car parking, a drive-thru lane, landscaping, refuse area and associated works.

1.2. The proposed coffee shop would be a single storey building, located in the north west of the existing Morrisons car park, between the petrol filling station and main store building on Bristol Road South. The car park currently comprises 467 spaces including 417 standard spaces, 25 disabled spaces and 25 parent & child spaces. The proposal would result in the loss of 3 disabled spaces, 2 parent & child spaces and 42 standard spaces: 47 spaces in total. The application proposes the installation of 6 cycle parking spaces in the form of 3 Sheffield stands close to the pedestrian entrance to the coffee shop.

1.3. The coffee shop building would have a mono-pitch roof with a maximum height of 4.6m. There would also be a projecting feature in the centre of the building which is proposed to include signage. A refuse area with a flat roof design would be located to the south of the building and could be accessed from the main building. The building would have a maximum length of 18m and maximum width of 11.6m. The refused area, proposed to be attached to the main buildings, would measure 6.7m in length and 3.8m in width.

1.4. 15 full-time and 15-part time jobs are proposed as part of this development.

1.5. The proposed opening hours would be 05:30 to 23:00 Monday to Sunday and Bank Holidays.

1.6. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site relates to an area in the north west of Morrisons car park on Bristol Road South, Rubery that is currently used for car parking. The application

Page 1 of 15 site lies between the petrol filling station on the west of the site and the main store to the east. The main parking area for the supermarket is at the south of the site, adjacent to Bristol Road South whilst vehicular access is gained from Park Way, off Bristol Road South. There is a landscape buffer of trees and vegetation along the perimeter of the site facing Bristol Road South and Park Way.

2.2. Colmers School lies to the east of the main Morrisons store, commercial premises lie on the opposite site of Park Way and this section of the south side of Bristol Road South is predominantly residential in nature. The Callow Brook runs to the north of the site with Birmingham Great Park beyond this. This part of Bristol Road South is a dual-carriageway, with a landscape buffer between the two directions of traffic. There is a separate lane on Bristol Road South for vehicles travelling west and turning right into Park Way.

2.3. The site lies outside of a defined local centre as identified in the BDP, however is located within a setting surrounded by other local centre uses including a cinema, bowling alley, hotel, restaurants, bingo hall, gym and nursery. The closest centres to the site are Longbridge District Centre, approximately 1.2km to the east, and Frankley Local Centre approximately 900m to the north west. Rubery Centre lies within the boundary of neighbouring authority Bromsgrove District Council and is identified in their District Plan (2017) as a shopping area. This centre lies approximately 700m to the west of the site.

2.4. Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. 07/10/1993 - 1993/02463/PA - Siting, external layout and parking-retail store, petrol station, access/egress and diversion of Callow Brook - Approved subject to conditions.

3.2. 17/02/1994 - 1993/04519/PA - Construction of class A1 retail store, coffee shop, dry cleaners, hot delicatessen, car parking & petrol station - Approved subject to conditions.

3.3. 30/07/1998 - 1998/02506/PA - Variation of Condition 13 attached to Planning Application No. S/02463/93/OUT to allow trading 0800 to 2200 hours Mondays - Saturdays and 0800 to 1800 hours on Sundays - Approved

3.4. 07/02/2002 - 2001/03105/PA - Extension to existing Class A1 retail store - Approved subject to conditions.

3.5. 07/08/2003 - 2003/02284/PA - Extension to existing class A1 retail store, revised car parking layout and landscaping - Approved subject to conditions.

3.6. 18/07/2011 - 2011/02691/PA - Application for variation of condition 13 attached to planning approval 1993/02463/PA to allow trading between 0700 to 2200 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 0800 to 1800 hours on Sundays - Approved subject to conditions.

3.7. 19/05/2016 - 2016/01265/PA - Variation of condition 7 attached to planning approval 2011/02691/PA to extend the opening hours from 7am to 10pm to 6am to 11pm Monday to Saturday with no change to the Sunday opening hours. Also to extend

Page 2 of 15 opening hours from 6am to 12am on the four days prior to Christmas Eve only (excluding a Sunday) - Approved subject to conditions.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objections

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection subject to conditions

4.3. Residents Associations and Ward Councillors have been consulted and a site notice has been displayed.

4.4. 14 objections and 1 comment have been received on the following grounds:

• Highways, transportation and parking matters o Loss of existing car parking spaces o Loss of disabled and parent & child spaces to coffee shop users o Car park already busy, especially at peak times and access around the site is difficult. o Safety concerns for children walking/cycling across car park. o Congestion problems would worsen with more cars coming to the site o Site is where large vehicles such as delivery vehicles, bin lorries and buses come in. o Car park is used for school pick-up and drop-off – concerns that these cars would be pushed onto nearby roads and cause disruption. o Increased congestion and parking on surrounding roads. o Parking issues at Morrisons would stop people from shopping there. • Other matters o Already a number of similar facilities nearby; another is it not needed; this proposal could have an impact on the other takeaway coffee facilities o Proposal is in the wrong location – it should be at Longbridge; rear of Morrisons; or where Aldi was planned. o Supermarkets just need to be supermarkets o Concerns about increased litter and pollution, particularly around the River Rea which is used for dumping. o Belief that the land is owned by the City Council and will be given approval without people having the chance to object.

4.5. 2 letters of support have been received on the grounds that the proposal will help Rubery to thrive whilst Longbridge expands and that it would be more convenient to visit than the Northfield one.

4.6. Councillor Adrian Delaney – Concerns about the loss of car parking spaces, even though some new ones are being provided. At peak times the car park is full and the loss of some spaces will be missed. Request that opening hours for the proposal are the same as the supermarket and opposed to 24 hour opening, as this would have a negative impact on the quality of life of residents nearby.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Relevant Local Planning Policy:

Page 3 of 15 • Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) 2017 • Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Saved Policies 2005 • Shopping and Local Centres SPD 2012 • Places for Living SPG 2001 • Longbridge AAP 2009

5.2. Relevant National Planning Policy: • National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The main factors for consideration in the determination of this application are the principle of the development in this location, the impact on highway safety and other transportation issues, residential amenity and visual amenity.

6.2. The applications seeks consent for the erection of a drive-thru coffee shop (Use Class A1/A3) with car parking, a drive-thru lane, landscaping, refuse area and associated works outside of a local centre.

Planning Policies and the Principle of Development

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019

6.3. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2019 explains in Paragraphs 7 and 8 that the purpose of the planning system is to achieve sustainable development, which contains three dimensions: economic, social and environmental.

6.4. Paragraph 86 of the NPPF states ‘local planning authorities should apply a sequential test to planning applications for main town centre uses which are neither in an existing centre nor in accordance with an up-to-date plan. Main town centre uses should be located in town centres, then edge of centre locations; and only if suitable sites are not available (or expected to become available within a reasonable period) should out of centre sites be considered.’

6.5. Paragraph 87 continues, stating ‘when considering edge of centre and out of centre proposals, preference should be given to accessible sites which are well connected to the town centre. Applicants and local planning authorities should demonstrate flexibility on issues such as format and scale, so that opportunities to utilise suitable town centre or edge of centre sites are fully explored.’

6.6. Paragraph 89 states ‘when assessing applications for retail and leisure development outside town centres, which are not in accordance with an up-to-date plan, local planning authorities should require an impact assessment if the development is over a proportionate, locally set floorspace threshold (if there is no locally set threshold, the default threshold is 2,500m2 of gross floorspace). This should include assessment of: a) the impact of the proposal on existing, committed and planned public and private investment in a centre or centres in the catchment area of the proposal; and

b) the impact of the proposal on town centre vitality and viability, including local consumer choice and trade in the town centre and the wider retail catchment (as applicable to the scale and nature of the scheme).’

Page 4 of 15

6.7. Paragraph 90 states ‘where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have significant adverse impact on one or more of the considerations in paragraph 89, it should be refused.’

Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) 2017

6.8. Policy TP21 of the BDP (the network and hierarchy of centres) states that the vitality and viability of the centres identified within the network and hierarchy will be maintained and enhanced and are the preferred locations for retail, office and leisure developments and community facilities. This policy also states that proposals for main town centre uses outside of the boundaries of the centres will not be permitted unless they satisfy the requirements set out in national policy and that an impact assessment will be required for proposal greater than 2,500 sqm. (gross).

6.9. Policy GA10 of the BDP relates to Longbridge and identifies that an AAP is in place to secure comprehensive redevelopment over a 15-20 year period. The policy identifies the level of development that the AAP sought including 13,500sq.m gross of retail floor space. The policy goes on to state ‘A total of 28,626sq.m of retail floor space has been committed to date, reflecting changing circumstances since the AAP was adopted. Proposals for further retail development will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated through a full retail impact assessment that there will be no significant adverse impact on investment in, and on the viability of centres in the catchment area.’

6.10. Paragraph 5.115 identifies that the AAP ‘seeks to respond to the closure of the former MG Rover plant by proposing an employment led approach to regeneration.’ Paragraph 5.116 goes on to state that ‘all the proposals in the AAP emerged from extensive consultation with the local community, stakeholders and other key partners. For example, the new local centre responds to the need to provide a new heart for the community and improve the quantity and quality of retail provision in the area.’

6.11. As part of the BDP adoption, the Longbridge centre was upgraded from a neighbourhood centre to a District Centre and the boundary extended from that identified within the AAP and the Shopping and Local Centres SPD.

6.12. Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP), states all new development will be expected to demonstrate high design quality, contributing to a strong sense of place and make best use of existing buildings and efficient use of land in support of the overall development strategy.

Longbridge Area Action Plan (AAP)

6.13. The application site sits within the Longbridge Area Action Plan (AAP) framework, which forms part of the Development Plan for the purposes of determining planning applications. The AAP contains a shared vision for Longbridge:

"Longbridge will undergo major transformational change redeveloping the former car plant and surrounding area into an exemplar sustainable, employment led mixed use development for the benefit of the local community, Birmingham, Bromsgrove, the region and beyond. It will deliver new jobs, houses, community, leisure and educational facilities as well as providing an identifiable and accessible new heart for the area. All development will embody the principles of sustainability, sustainable communities and inclusiveness. At the heart of the vision is a commitment to high

Page 5 of 15 quality design that can create a real sense of place with a strong identity and distinctive character. All of this will make it a place where people will want to live, work, visit and invest and which provides a secure and positive future for local people."

6.14. The AAP proposes a mixed use centre to meet local needs by providing a range of retail, commercial, service, leisure, education and residential uses. The wide range of uses in the centre are structured into distinct but connected quarters: the learning quarter, retail quarter and mixed-use quarter.

Sequential Test

6.15. The application proposes a new A1/A3 use outside of a local centre. Whilst the proposal falls below the 2,500sqm floor space threshold identified in the NPPF and the BDP, the applicant has carried out a sequential test to identify other potential sites within the area and assess their suitability for the proposed development, even though a test is not required.

6.16. The originally submitted sequential test identified sites within Longbridge District Centre, Rubery Local Centre, Cofton Hackett Local Centre and Frankley Local Centre. Further information was requested relating to available sites at Longbridge and Rubery Centres which the applicant has provided.

Longbridge

6.17. In Longbridge District Centre, Units 3 and 4 Longbridge Lane were assessed, as they are currently being marketed. These were discounted based on being within a terraced frontage and therefore being unsuitable to accommodate the proposed drive-thru format of development, which I agree is suitable grounds to discount. The additional information requested identified four other sites within the Centre: the Pavillion site to the south east of Austin Park, land adjacent to Smyths Toy Store, land adjacent to Park Square and land adjacent to Bournville College.

6.18. The Pavillion site in Longbridge relates to a triangular plot contained within the Phase 2 planning permission for Longbridge (2013/09229/PA) and has consent for an A3/A5 use through this permission. Whilst this is still valid, no development has commenced on site.

6.19. The applicant was asked to consider the suitability of this site, which they have done and their statement was accompanied by a preliminary sketch of a drive-thru unit on the site. The applicant argues the building is required to be between 140sqm and 180sqm to meet commercial requirements, with the proposed building in Morrisons car park being 167sqm. The preliminary sketch shows an irregular shaped building of 124sqm, which the applicant argues is not the ideal format and does not meet commercial requirements. The length of the drive-thru lane is also said to be insufficient, as it does not allow the required 6 cars to sit on the lane and would cause overspill onto Austin Way, with the drive-thru lane also located close to a pedestrian crossing. There would be a smaller refuse area and little scope to accommodate outdoor seating. The applicant considers the size and shape of the site would lead to a highly compromised development that would not meet commercial requirements and cause highways issues to arise.

6.20. Whilst this site is available and there is a current A3 permission, I agree with the arguments of the applicant and consider that the site can be suitably discounted on the grounds of not being large enough to accommodate the proposal. The applicant

Page 6 of 15 has demonstrated flexibility, as required by the NPPF, however the site would fail to meet their requirements.

6.21. The Land Adjacent to Smyths Toy Store was originally discounted on the basis of the site having obtained planning permission in May 2018 (2018/01697/PA) for a discount food store which the applicant argues shows the aspirations of the land owner to deliver such a development and there being a commercial requirement for a discount food store in the area, following the refusal of another application on Bristol Road South in August 2018 (2017/03370/PA). They also argue that this 0.55ha site is much larger than required for the drive-thru coffee shop and the sub- division of the site to accommodate this could prevent the delivery of the food store.

6.22. Further information was submitted with additional reasons to discount the site, including that the site would achieve a greater income from a discount food store, that there is a clear requirement for a discount food store in the area, that a drive- thru coffee shop would prevent the delivery of the food store and that it would be unrealistic for the landowner to release part of the site for this application at the expense of a higher value use. An additional point is that a discount food store within Longbridge Centre would lead to an increase in the convenience goods turnover of the town centre and diversify its wider offer. As such, it is argued that the food store would help to enhance the attractiveness of Longbridge as a shopping destination, having a positive impact on other shops and services in the Centre through linked trip spending. The applicant therefore considers that the discount food store would have a positive impact on the vitality and viability of Longbridge District Centre.

6.23. The sequential test argues that whilst a drive-thru coffee shop would secure some positive impacts on the vitality and viability of Longbridge, these benefits would not be as pronounced as those delivered by a discount food store, particularly in relation to enhancing the attractiveness of Longbridge as a shopping destination and the creation of linked trips. It is considered that a coffee shop would be an ancillary element of the centre, whilst a food store or leisure use would be a key anchor. The provision of a drive-thru coffee shop could therefore undermine the benefits that would be delivered by the discount food store.

6.24. I consider that whilst the site is available, it would not be a suitable or sequentially preferable site. The site is too large for the proposed development, meaning it would have to be split and the consented discount food store would be the more preferable development, as it would be in accordance with the aspirations of Policy GA10 of the BDP and the Longbridge AAP which seek a sustainable mixed use development at Longbridge. As stated in the applicant’s sequential test, the provision of a large discount food store at this site would be of greater commercial benefit to the vitality and viability of the District Centre by enhancing the attractiveness of Longbridge as a shopping destination. I therefore consider that it is acceptable for this site to be discounted.

6.25. The Land Adjacent to Park Square is another large site of 1.06ha. The sequential test argues the site is larger than required meaning it would require sub-division. There is also a previous outline consent (2014/09425/PA) (now expired) for office development, which the applicant argues would deliver significant regeneration and economic benefits to the centre, increasing the vitality and viability of Longbridge District Centre. As such, the sequential test argues that the sub-division of the site could create challenges to the delivery of an office scheme that may prejudice a key development opportunity within the Mixed-Use Quarter of the District Centre. The applicant considers that a comprehensive approach should be taken to

Page 7 of 15 redevelopment to support regeneration in Longbridge and the role of the District Centre. It is argued that a piecemeal development of part of this site to accommodate the proposal would not be appropriate as it could significantly undermine the potential delivery of a high-end office development.

6.26. In terms of access, the applicant states that operators would ideally require direct frontage onto Bristol Road South and/or Lickey Road to provide the necessary commercial presence, however they question whether direct access could be achieved from the existing roundabout junction. It is also stated that from an urban design perspective, the provision of a single storey unit to the main road frontage would not create a strong main frontage that is delivered by the neighbouring retirement village.

6.27. I concur with the sequential test that the site is not suitable or available. The site is still being marketed for an office development showing the aspirations of the land owner to achieve such a development. The site is too large and would require sub- division, which would not allow a major office development to occur. The drive-thru coffee shop would need to be developed as part of a wider mixed use development on the site which would not be feasible speculatively. The proposal would compromise the ability of the site to deliver a high-quality development that would more appropriately fit within the Mixed-Use Quarter. As such, I consider that the site is not suitable or available and would not fit with the aspirations of the AAP or BDP whilst the piecemeal development would compromise the wider regeneration of Longbridge. With regards to access, I agree that the proposed location in Morrisons car park would better achieve the commercial presence required by such an operator, as it would benefit from existing users of the supermarket and sites to the north.

6.28. The final site identified in Longbridge is the land adjacent to Bournville College. This triangular site is approximately 0.68ha in size and lies within the Learning Quarter. It is currently used as a car park following temporary consents in 2015 (2014/07124/PA) and 2018 (2018/00640/PA) with the latter expiring on 23rd March 2020. The applicant argues that the site is therefore not available within a reasonable time frame.

6.29. The site is argued to be much larger than required and there were aspirations to deliver a large office development at this site. Again, the applicant argues a comprehensive approach would be required to any future redevelopment of this site, in view of its strategic importance in terms of supporting the future role of the District Centre. The applicant considers that the piecemeal redevelopment of part of this site to accommodate the drive-thru coffee shop would be inappropriate in this context; particularly as such an approach could reduce the scope to successfully integrate any future regeneration scheme with the remainder of the centre.

6.30. The applicant argues that the site is detached from the main retail area and more closely related to the college and park in physical and functional terms. The sequential test raises concerns about the adjacent large-scale buildings next to a single storey unit in terms of urban design and visibility of the proposal. Direct access could not be achieved from Bristol Road South meaning customers would be required to take a convoluted route via Longbridge Lane and College Street.

6.31. The applicant referred to a refused planning application for a food store at 1631- 1649 Bristol Road South in August 2018 (2017/03370/PA), whereby this site was discounted in a sequential test. The case officer agreed with the applicants argument that the site is detached from the town centre; is more associated with the

Page 8 of 15 park and college; direct access from Bristol Road South is unachievable; the access route would have to pass other similar uses; and the site has insufficient commercial presence to support the proposal.

6.32. The applicant in this application argues that the site doesn’t meet their commercial requirements to accommodate a drive-thru coffee shop, including a prominent and visible roadside presence with a high volume of passing traffic or next to established retail/leisure destinations. Independent retail consultants Holliss Vincent worked with BCC on the previous application (2017/03370/PA) and agreed with the previous applicant in that whilst the site is available and suitable, it would not provide sufficient commercial presence for the site to be viable.

6.33. Finally, the applicant argues that the proposed site in Morrisons car park is in a prominent position in a shopping destination with scope to capture trade from customers entering/exiting the car park and passing traffic associated with the leisure, office and residential uses to the north. The proposed unit would be visible from the A38 and the applicant does not consider that the access route to the site is comparable to accessing the site adjacent to Bournville College.

6.34. Whilst this site is available and suitable for the proposed development, I concur with the views of the case officer of the previously refused application at 1631-1649 Bristol Road South (2017/03370/PA) in that the site would not provide the sufficient and necessary commercial presence for the development to be viable. I consider that this argument is justified in line with the Supreme Court Judgment in respect of Tesco Stores Limited (the appellant) v Dundee City Council (the respondent) (21 March 2012), whereby the Court decided that there is a need for ‘flexibility and realism from developers and retailers as well as planning authorities’ and that the sequential criteria ‘…are designed for use in the real world, in which developers wish to operate, not some artificial world in which they have no interest doing so’.

6.35. I also consider that the proposed location in Morrisons car park would be a more prominent location benefitting from vehicular movement from supermarket visitors and users of the sites to the north of Morrisons. As such, I consider that this site can be appropriately discounted.

Conclusion to Longbridge

6.36. The applicant has provided an in depth sequential test to discount these three large sites in Longbridge. To summarise, I consider that the land adjacent to Smyths Toy Store, land adjacent to Park Square and land adjacent to Bournville College can be appropriately discounted. I consider that the development of a drive-thru coffee shop on any of these three sites would be contrary to the aims and aspirations for Longbridge set out in the AAP and Policy GA10 of the BDP, which seek a mixed-use development of the whole site. The size of these three sites far outweighs the size of the proposed development, which would result in piecemeal developments of these sites, impacting upon the wider regeneration aspirations and potential of Longbridge, comprising the overall growth of the Centre.

Rubery

6.37. Three sites within Rubery Local Centre were identified and assessed for their suitability. The first relates to the New Rose and Crown Pub and Kingdom Hall. This 0.51ha site is currently occupied by an operational public house and car park and a Jehovah’s Witness Kingdom Hall. This site was discounted by the applicants for various reasons; the two uses on the site are separated by a stream which

Page 9 of 15 represents a significant physical constraint; they are within different ownerships; neither property is currently being marketed; and the site adjoins New Road which does not accommodate a sufficient volume of traffic to meet the commercial requirements of the development.

6.38. The second site in Rubery is the Rubery Social Club and Adjoining Properties. This 0.45ha site includes ground floor shops and upper floor flats. The site was discounted by the applicants on the grounds of availability given that the site is occupied and not being marketed in addition to the insufficient volumes of traffic on New Road mentioned previously, which makes the site unsuitable also.

6.39. The final site in Rubery is the Rubery and Rednal Royal British Legion Club and Car Park. Like the other two sites in Rubery, this 0.27ha site is currently occupied and not being marketed and the local road network does not accommodate enough traffic to meet the requirements of the development. It was therefore discounted due to being neither suitable nor available.

Cofton Hacket and Frankley

6.40. The applicant also considered sites in Cofton Hackett to the south and Frankley to the north west. Cofton Hackett is a small centre within the boundary of Bromsgrove District Council. The applicant did not identify any sites within or to the edge of this centre that are currently available or may become available, so the centre was discounted. Similarly, Frankley Local Centre was discounted due to no sites being available currently or likely to become available in the future, in addition to the road network around the centre not accommodating sufficient volumes of vehicular traffic for the development.

Conclusion to Sequential Test

6.41. Taking into account the evidence provided by the applicant, they have reached a conclusion that Morrison’s Car Park is the sequentially preferable site as an available and suitable location for the proposed drive-thru coffee shop. It is not considered that the proposal would impact on the vitality or viability of the nearby local centres. I acknowledge the comments raised relating to other sites being better suited for the development, however I concur with the assessments contained within the sequential tests and consider that the site is a suitable location for the proposed use. The site is also located within an area of other local centre uses including a cinema, bowling alley, hotel, restaurants, bingo hall, gym and nursery, meaning the site would not be an isolated use. As such, I consider that the principle of development is acceptable in this location.

Highway Safety and Transportation Issues

6.42. A large proportion of the public participation responses received relate to transportation matters. A Transport Statement was submitted with the application and Transportation Development have been consulted on the proposal.

6.43. Transportation Development initially raised concerns about the proposal following the review of the Transport Statement. Firstly, the statement noted the use of TRICS (Trip Rate Information Computer System) data for fast food drive-thru developments as the TRICS doesn’t yet hold information of coffee shop drive-thrus. Transportation Development noted that there are various drive-thru coffee shops in Birmingham and around the country and requested that the applicant surveys some of these to gain an insight into vehicle attraction to this use.

Page 10 of 15

6.44. The applicant subsequently surveyed a drive-thru Costa coffee shop in Leamington Spa which is located adjacent to a Morrisons food store and accessed from a signalised junction which is shared with a Morrisons petrol filling station (PFS).The survey was carried out on a Friday (3:30pm to 6:30pm) and Saturday (11am to 3pm) with the peak hours for movements to and from the drive-thru being 4pm to 5pm on Friday and 11am to 12pm on Saturday.

6.45. This survey revealed that the predicted trip generation is higher than the trip generation presented in the original Transport Statement based on TRICS data, particularly for the Friday evening peak hour. Consideration was given to what proportion of the trip generation will actually be ‘new’ trips on the local highway network: the majority of trips will either be ‘pass-by’ trips where the vehicle is already on the local road network, or ‘linked’ trip associated with Morrisons store customers. Given the nature of the drive-thru development and its location within the car park of an existing Morrisons food store, trip generation data assumes that 40% are ‘pass- by’ trips, 40% are ‘linked’ trips and 20% are ‘new’ trips.

6.46. The survey data suggested that of the total development generated trips, only 18 two-way trips during the Friday evening peak hour and 23 trips during the Saturday peak hour would be new to the road network. This equates to 1 vehicle approximately every 3 minutes during both the Friday and Saturday peak hours. Transportation Development therefore consider that the expected level of new trips which would be generated by the proposal would not have a material impact on the operation of the local highway network.

6.47. In addition to the above, Transportation Development also requested that the applicant undertakes parking capacity surveys at the busiest periods, generally Fridays and Saturdays, given the references made in consultation responses to how busy the car park is and as parents use the it for pick-up and drop-off at the adjacent schools.

6.48. The applicant carried out car park accumulation surveys on a Friday (3:30pm to 6:30pm) and Saturday (10:30am to 2:30pm). The survey revealed that the existing car park peak occupancy (104%) occurred on the Friday at 3:30pm and by 3:45pm the car park was quickly back to operating well under-capacity (82%). The occupancy then gradually decreased during the survey period to 55% at 6:30pm. The short time period when the car park is at capacity appears to correlate with the time when the car park is being used for pick-up from the adjacent school. On the Saturday, the peak occupancy was 71% between 12:45pm and 1:00pm. This shows that the car park is generally operating with ample spare capacity, other than the 15 minute period around school finishing time.

6.49. The Leamington Spa Costa survey was used to calculate the parking demand for the proposal throughout the day. This exercise showed that as a result of the additional development trip generation and the loss of 47 car parking spaces (3 disabled spaces, 2 parent & child spaces and 42 standard spaces), the maximum occupancy at 3:30pm is expected to rise from 104% to 118% and will reduce to 94% by 3:45pm. On a Saturday, the maximum occupancy is predicted to rise from 71% to 82% between 12:45pm and 1:00pm as a result of the development.

6.50. I note the concerns raised relating to service vehicles and large vehicles at the site. The Transport Statement has provided a ‘swept path analysis’ of a 10m long rigid vehicle demonstrating how service vehicles will access and egress the site. The

Page 11 of 15 swept path analysis shows that the proposed development can be satisfactorily serviced and the vehicle can manoeuvre around the site.

6.51. The Transport Statements show that the increased trips to the site would equate to 1 vehicle approximately every 3 minutes. Further, the parking surveys showed that the issues experienced on a Friday during school pick-up time are of a relatively limited duration and the car park is predicted to be back to operating within capacity by 3:45pm, with the occupancy then gradually decreasing to 62% by 6:30pm. Transportation Development therefore raise no objection to the proposal.

6.52. Visual Amenity

6.53. The scale, mass and design of the proposed building would be acceptable in this location. The development would be non-imposing and the proposed materials would be sympathetic to the surroundings. I consider that the building would have an overall acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the setting and would comply with Policy PG3 of the BDP. I note the elevation plans indicate the location of proposed signage on the building. Any signs on the building would require advertisement consent.

6.54. The application proposes new soft landscaping to the north and south of the building, which I consider would further improve visual amenity. A condition has been attached requiring the submission of soft landscaping details.

Residential Amenity and Other Matters

6.55. The application site is located within Morrisons car park, bounded by parking spaces, a petrol filling station and the store building. The closest residential properties are located on the southern side of Bristol Road South, over 120m away.

6.56. I note the concerns raised by Councillor Delaney relating to the potential impact on neighbouring residents. Regulatory Services have been consulted on the application raising no objection to the proposal. They have requested that a condition is attached stating that the premises shall only be open for customers between the hours of 5.30am to 11pm Monday to Sunday, as outlined on the application form.

6.57. I acknowledge the request of Councillor Delaney that opening hours are the same as the supermarket: the approved opening hours of the main Morrisons store are 6am to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 6pm on Sundays (application reference: 2016/01265/PA). However, the supermarket is restricted by national trading hours due to its size and I consider it inappropriate to unnecessarily restrict the proposed coffee shop to this. In addition, the McDonald’s Restaurant at No. 1661 Bristol Road South has consent to operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week (application reference: 2014/07534/PA). I therefore consider that the proposal would not have an impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

6.58. Regulatory Services have also reviewed the application in relation to land contamination and have requested conditions be attached for a Contamination Remediation Scheme and a Contaminated Land Verification Report. The former is a pre-commencement condition and the agent has confirmed that they agree to this condition being attached.

6.59. I note the concerns raised relating to the purpose of the development; that a supermarket should be just that; and that the development will prevent people from shopping at Morrisons. Morrisons supermarkets have submitted this planning

Page 12 of 15 application and as such these matters do not form any part of the determination of this application. The land is owned by Safeway Store and not the City Council as suggested by a respondent, with the appropriate Certificate being signed.

6.60. I note the concerns relating to litter, pollution and dumping in the River Rea. These matters are not planning considerations and are covered under separate legislation. However, a condition has been attached requiring the provision of a litter bin within the forecourt of the premises to alleviate any potential littering issues.

7. Conclusion

7.1. Whilst the application site is located outside of a local centre boundary, the sequential tests have discounted other sites within the area. I am therefore satisfied with the conclusion of the test: that the application site is the sequentially preferable site. The principle of the development in this location is therefore acceptable and the proposal would comply with the policies contained within the NPPF and BDP.

7.2. The overarching aim of the NPPF is to achieve sustainable development, which is identified as having three stems: economic, social and environmental. The proposal would have an acceptable impact on residential and visual amenity, would not have a material impact on the operation of the local highway network and would provide the equivalent of 22.5 full time jobs. I therefore consider that the proposal would constitute sustainable development and recommend that planning permission is approved, subject to conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions.

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

2 Requires the submission of sample materials

3 Requires the submission of a litter bin

4 Limits the hours of use to 05:30-23:00 Monday to Sunday and Bank Holidays

5 Requires the submission of soft landscape details

6 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

7 Requires the submission of a contaminated land verification report

8 Implement within 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Caroline Featherston

Page 13 of 15 Photo(s)

Photograph 1: Application site from Bristol Road South

Photograph 2: Morrisons Car Park Page 14 of 15 Location Plan

Page 15 of 15

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2018/09560/PA Accepted: 07/01/2019 Application Type: Outline Target Date: 07/06/2019 Ward: Rubery & Rednal

Land off Ash Bridge Court and rear of Leach Green Lane, Rednal, Birmingham, B45 8EP

Outline planning application with all matters reserved except access for the erection of ten dwellings. Recommendation Determine

1. Report Back

1.1. Members will recall that this application was presented to Planning Committee on 4 July 2019. At that Committee, Members deferred the application, minded to refuse planning permission on the grounds of backland development, loss of trees and loss of residential amenity.

1.2. Members are reminded that any reasons for refusal must be made in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

1.3. With regards to the issue of backland development; the Birmingham Development Plan does not contain any policies that specifically include the phrase ‘backland development’, nor does the NPPF. Policy PG3 of the BDP on Place Making makes reference to the reinforcement or creation of a sense of place and local distinctiveness that responds to site conditions and the local area context. The Homes and Neighbourhoods Chapter in Policies TP27 to TP30 makes reference to the location of new residential development and the type, size and density of new housing in relation to creating sustainable neighbourhoods. None of these policies makes reference to the concept of ‘backland development’.

1.4. Mature Suburbs SPD identifies that residential development in mature suburbs should be assessed against the characteristics of the suburb including built form, spatial composition, architectural style, density, landscaping and level of public realm. It should be assessed against the design criteria of plot size, building form, siting, landscape treatment, plot access, parking provision and design style.

1.5. Members are reminded that this is an outline application with access being the only matter not reserved for future consideration. In other words it is the principle of residential development for 10 dwellings and the access that can be assessed. No determination of the illustrative layout can be made.

1.6. When assessed against the above relevant policy context, including; surrounding density, built form, size of plots, siting and plot access, and given that the site would be accessed from a development that was already constructed on rear gardens and the plot of an existing house, I consider that a refusal on the grounds of ‘backland

Page 1 of 16 development’ would not be defendable. Should an appeal be lodged by the applicant I consider that a Planning Inspector would not support the City Council and would likely grant planning permission with a likely award of costs due to unreasonable behaviour. This is because the City Council has no policy basis on which to refuse permission.

1.7. With regards to reasons for refusal relating to loss of trees and residential amenity; the application is made in outline form with only the principle of development and access being considered. Landscaping is a reserved matter. As such, it would be inappropriate to refuse planning permission on matters of detail relating to layout. At present, whilst a loss of trees is acknowledged, the exact number is not known and given that the trees have been surveyed and their Category ‘C’ or ‘U’ accepted; it would be unacceptable for the City Council to object to their loss. A number of trees around the boundary of the site would be retained. Members are reminded that the Council’s Tree Officer has no objection to the application.

1.8. In relation to loss of residential amenity; once again this would be a matter for detail following a reserved matters submission. It would be inappropriate at this time to conclude that the indicative layout (which may or may not be submitted for future consideration) would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of adjacent residential occupiers sufficient to warrant a refusal. This is particularly pertinent given that the indicative layout complied with Your Committee’s guidelines established in Places for Living SPG.

1.9. Based on this assessment; I consider that neither of these reasons for refusal would survive scrutiny by a Planning Inspector at an appeal and would leave the City Council exposed for a Costs claim by the applicant, which I consider would also succeed.

1.10. As such, I consider that your Committee should consider the application in light of these comments and the original report and recommendation. I consider that the original recommendation to approve subject to conditions remains the correct recommendation.

1.11. However, if Your Committee remains of the view that outline planning permission should be refused then I would advise the following reason for refusal:

The proposed development of ten houses would not reinforce or create a positive sense of place and local distinctiveness that responds to site conditions and the local area context. As such, the proposed development would not be in accordance with Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan, policies contained within the NPPF and Mature Suburbs SPD.

2. Proposal

2.1. Outline planning permission with all matters (except access) reserved for future consideration is sought for the erection of ten dwellings with associated parking and landscaping.

2.2. The application site currently forms part of the rear gardens of 213 to 229 Leach Green Lane and would be accessed from the existing Ash Bridge Court (a development of 8 houses built on the site of 211 Leach Green Lane).

2.3. An indicative site plan, floor plans and elevations have been submitted to illustrate that the site can accommodate the proposed 10 dwellings and meet the required

Page 2 of 16 guidelines in Places for Living including separation distances and amenity areas, National Technical Space Standards and provide sufficient car parking. These details however remain illustrative and reserved for future consideration.

2.4. The illustrative plans indicate that the development could comprise 4, three bedroom properties and 6, four bedroom properties.

2.5. The application is accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Drainage Strategy, Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy, Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Maintenance Plan, Energy Statement, Sustainable Construction Statement, Transport Statement, Design and Access Statement and Tree Survey.

2.6. Site area: 0.39ha. Density: 26 dwellings per hectare.

2.7. Link to Documents

3. Site & Surroundings

3.1. The application site forms part of the rear gardens of 213 to 229 Leach Green Lane. 213 to 229 Leach Green Lane are detached houses set within extensive front and rear gardens on the north-east side of Leach Green Lane. The surrounding area is residential with a mix of detached and semi-detached properties. The site slopes gently downwards from Leach Green Lane to the rear site boundary with properties in Himley Grove with levels falling by approximately 8m over a distance of 93m. The application site would be accessed from the existing Ash Bridge Court which comprises 8 detached dwellings constructed around 2002/3 on the site of 211 Leach Green Lane.

3.2. Rubery centre is located approximately 1.4km west of the site whilst Longbridge town centre is located some 2.2km north east of the site. Rednal Infant and Junior School is approximately 600m east of the site and St James Catholic Primary School is approximately 650m north of the site.

Site Location

4. Planning History

4.1. 7 February 2002. 2001/04024/PA. Planning permission granted for the demolition of the existing house and the erection of 8 detached houses with associated road, drives and parking at 211 Leach Green Lane, Rednal.

5. Consultation/PP Responses

5.1. Local residents, Ward Councillors, MP and resident associations notified. Site and Press Notice posted. 21 letters of objection received from 14 residents in Ash Bridge Court, Leach Green Lane, Himley Grove, Chadwick Avenue and Ormscliffe Road based on the following grounds: • The existing Ash Bridge Court Road is private and not adopted. It is therefore not constructed to take heavy vehicles and is a narrow road where turning is limited. • Already have to pump sewerage from the previous development. • Outlook would be compromised.

Page 3 of 16 • Loss of privacy/overlooking • The properties would be elevated and three storeys in places leading to direct views into bedrooms and living rooms. • Proposal would make currently inaccessible rear gardens accessible for crime purposes. • Impact on surface water from loss of gardens. • Loss of trees. • Object to ‘garden grabbing’. • Refuse has to be brought to top of road as refuse truck cannot access the road. • Impact on adjacent residential amenity. • Contrary to NPPF paragraphs 109/110. • Impact on road safety. • Loss of light to properties and rear gardens. • Parking is already an issue. • Impact on ecology. • In 2013, development was acceptable as there were no residents but now this will cause problems for existing residents.

5.2. Councillor Adrian Delaney – Objects on the following grounds: • Loss of privacy as the proposed new dwellings will overlook existing houses. • Drainage and Surface Water flooding. • Loss of trees • Increase in crime due to opening up of rear boundaries. • Existing access is narrow and totally unsuitable to be used for and by any additional traffic especially refuse wagons and delivery vehicles. • Ash Bridge Court is a private road, who will pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the damage caused by an increase in traffic especially heavy goods vehicles that use this road to access the new development. • The cross bund approximately 50 metres from Leach Green Lane was installed to prevent heavy goods vehicles going past this point because the sub base of the road is not designed to take heavy loads from vehicles like refuse wagons. • The sharp bend which will need to be navigated by cars when entering and exiting the new development make this road unsuitable for the proposed increase in vehicle usage. • The usage of this road by heavy construction vehicles will seriously damage this road, who will pay for the repair and upkeep of this road if this development is given permission. • Please can the pictures provided by the local residents be included in any report that goes to the planning committee. • Impact on existing infrastructure, green space and ecology. • Impact on road safety.

5.3. West Midlands Police – No objection. The proposal site is policed by Longbridge Neighbourhood Team and calls for service are high. I have looked at recorded crime on Leach Green Lane and Ash Bridge Court and there have been 56 incidents in the past 12 months, these have included burglaries and vehicle crime. I have also looked at road traffic collisions (as this proposal, should it be allowed, will increase the traffic flow in the area) for the same locations, of which there have been 10 in the past 12 months. The proposed car parking spaces are in curtilage and this is supported.

Page 4 of 16 5.4. West Midlands Fire Service – No objection. Building Regulations Approval is required. Access roads should have a minimum width of 3.7m between kerbs, noting that WMFS appliances require a minimum height clearance of 4.1m and a minimum carrying capacity of 15 tonnes. Any dead end greater than 20m in length should have an appropriate turning facility for a pump appliance.

5.5. Severn Trent Water Limited – With regards to drainage and sewerage – no objections subject to a drainage condition.

5.6. Lead Local Flood Authority - the LLFA are content to accept a surface water pumped solution as the current viable outfall and are thereby content to recommend the development to be conditioned. We note the submitted application is for outline permission with all matters reserved except for access. As such, there is suitable scope for the layout to be adapted to include a surface water pumping station if necessary and we understand discussions with adjacent land-owners for permission to connect to their drainage under a gravity solution remain on-going.

5.7. Regulatory Services – no objection.

5.8. Transportation - no objection. The development is to be an extension of Ash Bridge Court, noted to be privately maintained. The existing 4.8m carriageway width is continued, along with the addition of footway alongside. In terms of traffic, the addition of 10 dwellings would have a negligible impact upon the surrounding highway network. The current constrained layout of the site provides limited opportunities to pass/manoeuvre. With the addition of a large turning head at the southern end it would be expected current issues would be improved. Regarding issues with the current road surface, this is a privately maintained road.

6. Policy Context

6.1. Birmingham BDP, Saved Policies of the UDP, NPPF, NPPG, Mature Suburbs SPD, Places for Living SPG, Car Parking Guidelines SPD, TPO 976 – The Birmingham (Ash Bridge Court, Rednal) TPO 2003.

7. Planning Considerations

Policy Context

7.1. The NPPF seeks to ensure the provision of sustainable development, of good quality, in appropriate locations and sets out principles for developing sustainable communities. Paragraph 17 promotes high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. It encourages the effective use of land by utilising brownfield sites and focusing development in locations that are sustainable and can make the fullest use of public transport, walking and cycling. The BDP similarly supports a more sustainable pattern of development by re-using brownfield sites in suitable locations.

7.2. The NPPF, at Paragraphs 47-50, seeks to boost housing supply and supports the delivery of a wide choice of high quality homes, with a mix of housing (particularly in terms of type/tenure) to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

7.3. Policy TP27 of the BDP explains that new housing in Birmingham is expected to contribute to making sustainable places by offering: a wide choice of housing sizes, types and tenures; access to facilities such as shops, schools, leisure and work opportunities within easy reach; convenient options to travel by foot, bicycle and

Page 5 of 16 public transport; a strong sense of place with high design quality; environmental sustainability and climate proofing through measures that save energy, water and non-renewable resources and the use of green infrastructure; attractive, safe and multifunctional public spaces for social activities, recreation and wildlife; and effective long-term management of buildings, public spaces, waste facilities and other infrastructure.

7.4. With respect to the location of new housing, Policy TP28 of the BDP explains that proposals for new residential development should be located in low flood risk zones; be adequately serviced by existing or new infrastructure which should be in place before the new housing is provided; be accessible to jobs, shops and services by modes of transport other than the car; be capable of land remediation; be sympathetic to historic, cultural or natural assets; and not conflict with any other specific policies in the BDP.

7.5. Paragraphs 3.14D-E of the Saved Policies of the UDP explain that new housing development should be designed in accordance with good urban design principles. Policies PG3 and TP27 of the BDP also confirm the importance of place making and creation of sustainable neighbourhoods. Policy TP30 details density requirements and states that in areas well served by public transport developments should achieve at least 50 dwellings per hectare and elsewhere a minimum of 40 dwellings per hectare. The Council’s Places for Living SPG encourages good quality residential accommodation in attractive environments. It contains a series of urban design principles with emphasis to assessing context and responding positively to local character.

7.6. Policy TP6 of the BDP requires that as part of their Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Sustainable Drainage Assessment developers should demonstrate that the disposal of surface water from the site will not exacerbate existing flooding and that exceedance flows will be managed. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) should also be utilised in order to minimise flood risk.

7.7. Paragraph 109/110 of the NPPF identifies that “development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.” Within this context, development should give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, to facilitate access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use; create places that are safe, secure and attractive and allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles. This is supported by Policy PG3 of the BDP.

7.8. Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that the planning system should recognise the wider benefits of ecosystem services, minimise impacts on biodiversity, provide net gains in biodiversity where possible and contribute to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity (including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures). Policy TP8 of the BDP similarly identifies that all development should, where relevant, contribute to enhancing Birmingham’s natural environment, having regard to strategic objectives for the maintenance, restoration and creation of ecological and geological assets.

Principle

Page 6 of 16 7.9. The application site forms half of rear gardens to 213 to 229 Leach Green Lane and would be accessed via the existing Ash Bridge Court development comprising 8 dwellings and road constructed on the site of 211 Leach Green Lane in 2013. Whilst the site is excluded from being assessed as previously developed land due to their use as private rear gardens, Mature Suburbs SPD identifies that residential development in mature suburbs should be assessed against the characteristics of the suburb including built form, spatial composition, architectural style, density, landscaping and level of public realm. When assessed against this context, including surrounding density, built form, mix of architectural styles, size of plots and that the site would be accessed from a development that was already constructed on rear gardens and plot of an existing house, I consider that this proposal would be acceptable and as such, the principle of residential development in this location is acceptable and in accordance with BDP and NPPF policy.

Design, Layout and Scale

7.10. The application is supported by a detailed site plan along with elevations and floor plans for the proposed ten dwellings. These are for information and illustrative purposes only to indicate that the development can satisfactorily be accommodated within the red line site boundary. The detailed matters are reserved for future consideration within a future reserved matters submission – these will include matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. However, based on the illustrative layout and taking into consideration the significant change in site levels across the site from Leach Green Lane to the west and Ormscliffe Road/Himley Grove to the east of the site boundary, the proposed development would comply with all required layout guidelines including rear amenity areas, size of properties against the National Technical Housing Standards and relevant separation distances.

7.11. My City Design Officer considers that the proposed illustrative layout for ten dwellings would not be an over intensification of the application site as the Places for Living separation distances could be met by the illustrative layout. The access road would serve the proposed houses providing an active frontage and a secure and safe access, minimising the opportunity of potential crime. The properties would front on to the street and two plots would be directly visible from the entrance into the site providing a clear orientation into the site and clear sense of place should the illustrative layout be submitted for approval under reserved matters. The scale of the proposed residential development is considered appropriate to the local context and in keeping with the character and appearance of the neighbouring properties as these currently vary in scale and size. I concur with my City Design Officer’s comments and consider that the site can satisfactorily comply with the guidelines in Places for Living and as such, the illustrative layout, elevations and floor plans would be considered acceptable.

Impact on Existing occupiers

7.12. The illustrative layout of the proposed residential development has been designed to minimise the impact on adjacent occupiers. The proposed houses would continue the existing building line along Ash Bridge Court with fronts facing the rear boundaries of properties fronting Leach Green Lane and their backs abutting rear garden boundaries of properties in Himley Grove. A further 6 houses would then be at a right angle to the existing Ash Bridge Court as a turning head would be provided at the end of the cul-de-sac extension. The 6 houses would face the turning head and would look up Ash Bridge Court. Plots 9 and 10, if developed as shown on the illustrative layout would face the side wall and rear garden of plot 4. The illustrative

Page 7 of 16 layout provides sufficient separation distances between the front elevations of the new properties and the rear windowed elevations (in excess of 40m) and rear garden boundaries of properties (15m) fronting Leach Green Lane (which sit higher than the proposed development). The layout also illustrates separation distances exceeding the Places for Living guidelines for the existing properties located at the rear of the site in Himley Grove (28-38m) and Ormscliffe Road (number 69) (approximately 13m at a 45 degree angle) and 12m to 71/73 Ormscliffe Road, taking into consideration the level differences between the site and the existing houses to the rear. On the basis of the illustrative layout; I consider that the site could be developed with no impact on residential amenity through overlooking or loss of privacy. Garden sizes and relevant separation distances would comply with Places for Living.

7.13. In terms of loss of light, the properties backing onto the rear boundaries of houses in Himley Grove would be located on the same alignment as the existing and as such, their impact on the adjacent properties would be the same. No loss of light would occur to morning sunlight and there may be some shadowing from western sun. However, given the separation distances that would occur between the new and existing houses; I do not consider that this would be of sufficient impact on residential amenity to warrant a refusal of planning permission. The proposed houses would comply with the 45 degree code to existing houses in Ash Bridge Court. There would be a breach in the code from the existing property at 69 Ormscliffe Road however, this breach would occur some 13m from the windowed elevation and despite the proposed plot 10 being sat some 2m above number 69, I do not consider that this breach would create sufficient loss of light to sustain a refusal of planning permission.

7.14. As such, I consider that there would be no impact on the amenity of existing occupiers bordering the application site and that the proposal complies with the relevant policy.

Highway impacts, access and parking

7.15. The application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of 10 dwellings with access to be agreed through this application. All other matters are reserved for future consideration. The application is accompanied by a transport assessment. This supporting statement identifies that Ash Bridge Court is an existing 4.6m wide cul-de-sac accessed from Leach Green Lane, a single carriageway road, with an approximate width of 7m and subject to a 30mph speed limit. Bus service provision is assessed as part of the existing situation and identifies that the bus stop is approximately 100m from the site on Leach Green Lane. 3 bus services are available within walking distance of the site being the 19, 42 and 202. These services would link to Maypole, Northfield, Longbridge, West Heath, Frankley, Halesowen and Bromsgrove. Longbridge railway station is located approximately 2.6km north east of the site and has regular services to Bromsgrove, Redditch, City Centre, Sutton Coldfield and Lichfield.

7.16. The Assessment identifies that the number of road accidents in the vicinity of the site in the last five years is low and as such, the development would not be detrimental to the safe operation of the local highway network. Access would be via an extension to the existing 4.6m wide Ash Bridge Court for a length of approximately 44m. The road would terminate as a ‘T’ creating a turning head for vehicles. The proposed road extension would provide a turning head at its culmination to allow vehicles to enter and exit Ash Bridge Court on a forward gear. It is proposed that each dwelling would be provided with 2 parking spaces. The Assessment identifies

Page 8 of 16 that the trip generation associated with the site would be negligible as it would amount to 1 vehicle every 12 minutes during both the morning and evening peak hours.

7.17. Transportation note that the existing Ash Bridge Court road is privately maintained and that the proposal would see the existing 4.6m carriageway width continued, along with the addition of footway alongside. They have advised that they have no objection in principle to this residential development, with consideration of Access only as the access is a continuation of an existing carriageway.

7.18. Transportation also notes that in terms of traffic, the addition of 10 dwellings would have a negligible impact upon the surrounding highway network. The current constrained layout of the site provides limited opportunities to pass/manoeuvre. With the addition of a large turning head at the southern end it would be expected current issues would be improved. Regarding issues with the current road surface, this is a privately maintained road.

7.19. I concur with Transportation and consider that whilst the existing development is constrained by its road width and existing residential parking; the extension of the road to provide a further ten dwellings and a turning head, which doesn’t exist within the existing Ash Bridge Court development, would improve the existing situation. 200% parking provision is considered acceptable and in accordance with policy. I note the reference to paragraphs 109/110 of the NPPF by objectors. As already identified, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or have a severe impact on the existing road network. As such, I consider that the proposed development is in accordance with paragraphs 109/110 of the NPPF. I note the comments received from the existing residents of Ash Bridge Court regarding the road being privately owned and maintained. As the residents own and maintain the road, a separate civil agreement would be required for the applicant (and future occupiers) to progress the proposed development in order to utilise the existing road. As such, this is not a planning matter.

Ecology/trees

7.20. The application is supported by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal that identifies the site as primarily amenity grass, scrub, vegetation and an ornamental pond alongside a number of native and non-native mature trees. No notable species were recorded on site.

7.21. The City Ecologist notes that the proposal would result in a loss of mature gardens located within part of a corridor that links to the Rednal section of Lickey Hills Country Park. A revised ecological mitigation plan has been submitted that addresses and mitigates for the loss as far as practicable. The City Ecologist therefore raises no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions relating to the inclusion of hedgehog passing points within boundary treatments, provision of bird and bat boxes and lighting. Whilst I concur with this recommendation and the appropriate conditions are recommended below, I do not consider that a lighting scheme condition is required. The existing road has one road lamp standard for the existing eight dwellings and whilst further road lighting would be required, I do not consider that this would be of such significance as to cause disturbance to foraging bats.

7.22. The tree survey has identified and surveyed 58 individual trees and 6 tree groups within/adjacent to the application site. Of the individual trees, the survey identified 1 Category B Maple; 9 Category U Hazel, Apple, Birch, Cherry, Goat Willow and

Page 9 of 16 Sycamore and 48 Category C trees comprising Birch, Cherry, Ash, Holly, Plum, Sycamore, Hazel, Goat Willow, Cypress, Rowan, Maple, Hawthorn and Pine. The 6 tree groups all fall within Category C and comprise Hawthorn, Apple, Cypress and Holly.

7.23. At present, given the illustrative layout, the number of trees proposed to be removed is unknown. It is likely that a significant number of those surveyed would be required to be removed. My Arboriculutral Officer, whilst concerned over the loss and the inability to replace a significant number of trees on site considers the proposed development acceptable and raises no objection subject to a condition relating to the prior submission of an Arboricultural Method Statement. The trees are within Categories C and U and the applicant has confirmed that as many trees as possible would be retained on site. I concur with the view of my Arboricutural Officer and the relevant condition is recommended below.

Flooding

7.24. A Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Maintenance Plan; Drainage Strategy and Sustainable Drainage Options accompany the submitted planning application. The supporting documents identify that a full flood risk assessment is not required as the site is located within Flood Zone 1 and is less than 1 hectare in size and the existing surface water currently drains through the land towards the lower eastern boundary of the site.

7.25. The proposed scheme would provide porus paving within the driveways; an attenuation tank within the car parking area providing 120 cubic metre storage and surface water would drain and connect to the existing surface water drain between 69 and 71 Ormscliffe Road at a maximum 2 litres per second.

7.26. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has reviewed the submission and further supporting information has been provided during the course of the application. The LLFA accepts the submitted SuDS assessment and notes above-ground SuDS may be considered cheaper to install, maintain and provide additional water quality and amenity benefits and as such, further consideration should be given at the next stage of design as to the inclusion of above ground SuDS.

7.27. With regards to drainage; the applicant is currently in negotiations with third parties. The LLFA accept that whilst these negotiations continue, the drainage would be pumped up to Leach Green Lane, whilst noting that the preferred option would be downstream via third party land. As such, the LLFA are content to accept a surface water pumped solution as the current viable outfall and are thereby content to recommend the development to be conditioned. Severn Trent Water has also raised no objections to the proposed development subject to a drainage condition.

7.28. I concur with the views provided by Severn Trent and the LLFA and the relevant conditions are recommended below. Detailed drainage design will come forward as part of a reserved matters submission for layout and is also covered under Building Regulations.

Other issues

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

7.30. I note the issue of crime raised by the objector’s and Ward Councillor. West Midlands Police has raised no objections to the proposed development. Should the

Page 10 of 16 illustrative layout be submitted for reserved matters approval, whilst the new road extension would further expose rear boundaries, all of these would be overlooked by the proposed dwellings. As such, I concur with the view of West Midlands Police and consider that the illustrative layout would be acceptable and would create a safe environment that has designed out crime in accordance with Policy PG3 of the BDP.

7.31. I also note Councillor Delaney’s request regarding photographs submitted by local residents being provided to Members prior to determination. This is not normal practice and the photographs attached to this report taken by the Principal Planning Officer are considered sufficient for determination purposes.

8. Conclusion

8.1. The development of the site for housing accords with both national and local planning policy. The proposed development would provide new housing within the City boundary; would not have an adverse impact on the adjacent residential amenity and would have a beneficial impact on the character and amenity of the surrounding area.

8.2. I note that key principle in the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development and this is identified as having three principle stems of economic, social and environmental. The proposal would see the extension of an existing development for a further ten houses providing further local housing provision which, would in turn, provide economic and social benefits for the existing and new residential occupiers. The development would support the provision of local employment in construction and would not have an adverse environmental impact. As such, I consider the proposal to be sustainable development and on this basis, should be approved.

9. Recommendation

9.1. That outline planning permission with all matters reserved except access is granted subject to the conditions listed below.

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

2 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

3 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

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

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

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

7 Limits the maximum number of dwellings to 10.

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

9 Requires the submission of boundary treatment details

Page 11 of 16 10 Requires the prior submission of a construction method statement/management plan

11 Requires the submission of sample materials

12 Prevents occupation until the service road has been constructed

13 Arboricultural Method Statement - Submission Required

14 Requires the submission of reserved matter details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following an outline approval

15 Implement within 3 years (outline)

Case Officer: Pam Brennan

Page 12 of 16 Photo(s)

Photograph 1 – properties fronting Leach Green Lane looking south

Photograph 2 – Properties fronting Leach Green Lane and towards Ash Bridge Court entrance looking north

Page 13 of 16

Photograph 3 – View of Ash Bridge Court from Leach Green Lane

Page 14 of 16

Photograph 4 - View East into Ash Bridge Court

Photograph 5 – 9 Ash Bridge Court, Corner of Number 7 and Road for Extension

Page 15 of 16 Location Plan

Page 16 of 16 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 01 August 2019

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve - Conditions 22 2019/01853/PA

164 Stratford Road Sparkbrook Birmingham B11 1AG

Change of use from office (Use Class A2) to Cafe (Use Class A3)

Approve - Conditions 23 2019/02660/PA

Rockwood Academy and Nansen School (part) Naseby Road Saltley Birmingham B8 3HG

Demolition of existing buildings, redevelopment of existing car park to provide a two storey teaching block extension to Rockwood Academy, provision of additional car parking to the north of Nansen School and associated works

Determine 24 2019/02464/PA

693 Chester Road Erdington Birmingham B23 5TH

Change of use from dwelling (Use Class C3) to a care home for up to 4 children (Use Class C2) and installation of footway crossing

Determine 25 2019/03098/PA

191 Sheldon Heath Road Sheldon Birmingham B26 2DR

Change of use of former police station (Sui Generis) to Supported Living Centre (Use Class C2)

Page 1 of 2 Director, Inclusive Growth

Determine 26 2018/09836/PA

Frank Stones Garage Ltd School Lane Stechford Birmingham B33 8PD

Erection of metal railing fence and sliding mechanical vehicular access gate

Page 2 of 2 Director, Inclusive Growth

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/01853/PA Accepted: 08/04/2019 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 02/08/2019 Ward: Sparkbrook & Balsall Heath East

164 Stratford Road, Sparkbrook, Birmingham, B11 1AG

Change of use from office (Use Class A2) to Cafe (Use Class A3) Recommendation Approve subject to Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. The proposal involves a change of use of the ground floor offices (Use Class A2) to a café (Use Class A3).

1.2. The internal, modified ground floor plan shows food display area, customer seating area for 12 covers to the front with a rear food preparation/ kitchen and storage area as well as toilet facilities. Total floor area is approximately 124 sq. metres.

1.3. The proposed café would operate between the hours of 10:00 – 23:00 hours daily.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site relates to ground floor offices located on the northern side of Stratford Road. There are two floors of residential accommodation above.

2.2. The surrounding area is mixed residential and commercial in character. The site is located within the Primary Shopping Area of Sparkbrook Neighbourhood Centre, which is a predominantly commercial area with a large number of premises housing residential flats at first and second floor.

2.3. The application site forms part of a wider parade and street frontage between Farm Road and Braithwaite Road and comprises overall 24no. units to include 17no. A1 units, 2no. A5 units and 2no. D1 Places of Worship. There is Council public car park at the junction of Farm Road and Stratford Road. Stratford Road is part of Red Route and there are TRO’s in the form of double red lines to the road frontage. Parking is permitted on-street on either side of Stratford Road for a limited time only.

Site Map

3. Planning History

3.1. 05/11/2004 - 2004/06244/PA - Erection of single storey rear extension to existing shop and erection of external staircase with privacy screen, to provide access to first floor flat – Approved subject to conditions.

Page 1 of 6 3.2. 06/06/2000 - 2000/01890/PA - Change of use from clothing manufacturers with ancillary storage to Insurance Brokers [Use Class A2 - Financial and Professional Services] – Approved subject to conditions.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Adjoining neighbours, Residents Association and Ward Councillors consulted and Site Notice posted.

4.2. Councillor Azim has requested that the application be determined by Planning Committee and not under delegated powers on the grounds of parking, fly tipping and neighbour concerns.

4.3. One further response received from Councillor Shabrana Hussain on the grounds of no parking facilities, overconcentration of eating and drinking places and increase in litter.

4.4. Transportation – No objections.

4.5. Regulatory Services – No objections subject to conditions: • Extraction and odour control details • Noise insulation scheme • Hours of operation are 1000-2300 daily. • Deliveries restricted from 1000-1800 hours daily.

4.6. West Midlands Police – No objections.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Development Plan (2017), Birmingham Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (2005), National Planning Policy Framework (2019), Car Parking Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (2012), Shopping and Local Centres Supplementary Planning Document (2012).

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The application has been assessed against the objectives of the policies as set out above. The main issues for consideration in the determination of the application are as follows:

6.2. Planning Policy - The site is located within the Primary Shopping Area of Sparkbrook Neighbourhood Centre and Policy TP21 (The network and hierarchy of town centres) of the BDP identifies such centres as a preferred location for retail and office development. Proposals which will make a positive contribution to the diversity and vitality of these centres will be encouraged.

6.3. Policy TP24 of the BDP (Promotion and diversity of uses within centres) encourages a mixture of uses within centres including restaurants. However, whilst it recognises the niche role of some centres in terms of the mix of uses (for example the Balti triangle in Sparkbrook), it stipulates the importance of maintaining the predominant retail function and that it is not undermined by an over-concentration of non-A1 uses.

6.4. In addition, the Shopping and Local Centres SPD, adopted as guidance in 2012, is consistent with the NPPF and identifies and defines Birmingham’s District and

Page 2 of 6 Neighbourhood Centres as well as Primary Shopping Areas within these centres. Retail development and other town centre uses, including those that generate significant numbers of people will be encouraged. These include: shops, offices, assembly and leisure, health, religious buildings, restaurants, pubs and hot food takeaways.

6.5. Principle of the use - The premises is located within an established run of units consisting of a mix of other commercial uses including retail shops, place of worship, etc. Consequently, I consider the proposed change use to a cafe at this location is acceptable in principle.

6.6. Vitality and Viability - Councillor Hussain has made representations that there are over-concentration of food and dessert places within the area. The application site is located within the Primary Shopping Area as identified within the Shopping and Local Centres SPD and Policy TP24 of the BDP.

6.7. Policy 1, 2 and 4 of the Shopping and Local Centres SPD advocates that at least 50% of all ground floor units within Neighbourhood Centres should be retained in retail use (Use Class A1) and when a change is considered to a non-retail use, that regard will be had to the need to avoid an overconcentration or clustering of non- retail uses in order to prevent a negative impact on the vitality and viability of existing centre.

6.8. The application site is located within the linear Spartbrook Neighbourhood Centre and most recent survey data of 2019 identify 63.38% of units retained within retail (Use Class A1). It is acknowledged that there are a number of hot food uses on both sides along this end of Stratford Road. However, the proposal would not result in the number of retail units (Use Class A1) falling below the required threshold of 50% as recognised within Policy 1 of the Shopping and Local Centres SPD.

6.9. With regards to Policy 2 & 4 of the Shopping and Local Centre SPD, there are a total of 24no. units within this parade from Brathwaite Road and Farm Road of which 17no. units are in retail use. The proposed opening hours from 10:00am until 2300pm daily would have a positive impact on the character and function of the centre and would not result in a dead frontage. Consequently, I consider the proposed café use would also not result in an over-concentration as there is a mix of uses provided within the parade.

6.10. Residential Amenity - The application property is a three-storey mid-terraced building with commercial on the ground floor with residential accommodation on upper floors. Regulatory Services raise no objection subject to conditions in relation to the submission of extraction and odour control details, noise insulation scheme and restriction of opening hours. I largely concur with this view but consider that it would be unreasonable to impose a delivery hours condition as the site is situated within busy Stratford Road and Sparkbrook primary shopping area.

6.11. The refuse storage area (including location of bins for recycling and food waste) is shown to the rear of the ground floor and a condition would be attached to any grant of planning permission to ensure the refuse area will be laid out and maintained in accordance with the details submitted. I note concerns from Councillor Hussain in respect of litter and would consider that it is reasonable that a condition is attached to any grant of planning permission requiring that a litter bins are provided to the forecourt of the premises. Consequently, I consider that the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact on amenity of adjoining occupiers within the immediate vicinity of the site.

Page 3 of 6 6.12. Highway Safety- The application site is located within the Primary Shopping Area of Sparkbrook Neighbourhood Centre which is a sustainable location with good public transport accessibility. There is limited on-street vehicle parking and Council car park approximately 75 metres on junction of Farm Road. Transportation Development has assessed the proposal in terms of the use and its location and raises no objections. Consequently, I consider that the proposal is unlikely to have detrimental impact on highways or pedestrian safety.

6.13. Design and character - There has been unauthorised access door installed within the existing shop front, which the agent has confirmed that it would be removed together with reinstatement of glazing panel as it would not comply with Shop Front Design Guide. Consequently, I consider that it is reasonable to impose a condition for remedial works to shop front to remove access door within 3 months from the date of this permission.

6.14. Other Issues: Comments have been received from West Midlands Police who has raised no objections to the scheme. I do not consider there would be any adverse amenity issues relating to the submission in this case.

6.15. Concerns raised by Councillor Azim in relation to fly tipping within the area are dealt under separate legislation separate to planning.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal is for a change of use to cafe and would not compromise the vitality and viability of the existing centre and I am satisfied that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on residential amenity or highways safety. I consider there are no sustainable grounds that would warrant refusal of the application. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approved subject to conditions.

1 Requires the submission of extraction and odour control details

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

3 Limits the hours of operation (1000-2300 hours daily)

4 Requires the submission of noise insulation prior to occupation (variable)

5 Requires remedial works to shop front alterations within 3 months

6 Implement within 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Mohammed Akram

Page 4 of 6 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Stratford Road

Figure 2: Application site

Page 5 of 6 Location Plan

117 119

121 36 42

132 24 12 6 8 2 4 BRAITHWAITE ROAD

65 118.0m

62 27

5 3

1 133

134 136 20.4m Christ Church C of E Controlled

Primary School and Nursery 138

139 1

11 8

Garage

141 143 TCB 150 143a 143b

66 145 56 54 145.5

145a

147 149

57 166

151 60 153 58

53 Factory LB 174 121.0m 118.6m

178 180

155 182 157

159

163

161 44

31 TCB 45

SPARK STREET

167 LB 119.8m

29 21 169 1 165a PO 2a 2b

2e 23 15 2f 2g 186

11 5

El Sub Sta

183 190

3 7 1 16 17 18 19 22 20 27 192a 26 25 24 23 21 194

194a 14 196

8 89 6a

Page 6 of 6

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/02660/PA Accepted: 10/04/2019 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 02/08/2019 Ward: Alum Rock

Rockwood Academy and Nansen School (part), Naseby Road, Saltley, Birmingham, B8 3HG

1. Proposal

1.1. Planning Permission is sought by BCC Education, Skills and Infrastructure for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of existing car park to provide a two storey teaching block extension to Rockwood Academy, and provision of additional car parking to the north of Nansen School including associated works.

Site 1 – Rockwood Academy

1.2. The proposal is required as the demand for secondary places is increasing as larger primary cohorts reach secondary school age. This has resulted in additional places being required and it is the Local Authority’s statutory duty requirement to ensure there are sufficient pupil places available, promote diversity and increase parental choice through planning and securing additional provision.

1.3. The scheme proposes the demolition of the existing single storey administration building which is located adjacent to the main entrance into the Rockwood school which is set back from Naseby Road; and the construction of a two-storey extension on the grounds of the former administration building and surrounding car park. The proposed extension would be situated at a prominent location on the Naseby Road frontage. It would follow the building line of the existing residential dwellings adjoining the site to the south and the proposed materials would include cream masonry brick, cladding panels and metal screens. The proposal would have a size of approximately 36 metres in length by 30 metres in width and would have a floor space of 2,272 square metres, providing an additional 14 classrooms, offices and workrooms, a library, circulation space and toilet facilities. The proposed expansion would result in an increase of pupil places from currently 650 to 1050 (an increase of 400 pupils) and 12 additional full-time staff.

1.4. Planting beds are proposed around the building and in addition three new trees would be planted on the building’s frontage, replacing the three trees lost in order to accommodate the two-storey extension.

Page 1 of 11 Site 2 – Corner of Nansen Road/ Naseby Road

1.5. The proposal also seeks permission for the demolition of vacant buildings on the corner junction of Naseby Road and Nansen Road to the north of the Nansen Primary School and the use of the area for additional car parking. The adjoining car park currently provides parking for 36 vehicles and this would be increased to 84 car parking spaces for both school sites. Overall, the number of vehicle parking for the school would increase from 104 to 106 spaces.

1.6. The existing trees along the Nansen Road frontage would be retained and additional landscaping provided along the boundaries with adjoining residential dwellings.

1.7. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

Site 1 – Rockwood Academy

2.1. Rockwood Academy (formerly known as Park View School) is a mixed secondary school located to the west side of and accessed off Naseby Road in Alum Rock. The school extends into backland area beyond, sharing its further site boundaries with the rear of properties along Gown Road to the south, Mendip and Tary Road to the west and Nansen Road to the north. On the opposite side of Naseby Road lies Nansen School.

2.2. The ground of the application site is sloping in a westerly direction and there is a noticeable change in level across the frontage of the site. The site on the corner of Naseby/Nansen Road to the north, and proposed for additional parking, also lies significantly lower than Rockwood Academy.

2.3. The school itself comprises several buildings erected incrementally since the school was originally built in the 1960s. It comprises a mix of single and two storey buildings mostly with flat roofs. In 2010 planning permission was granted for the demolition and replacement of existing sports hall and changing rooms and extension to dining room with first floor addition (2010/03132/PA).

2.4. The administration building and adjacent Youth Centre to the north are detached from the school building and located at the front of the site on Naseby Road. Car parking is currently provided around the two buildings at the front.

Site 2 - Corner of Nansen Road/ Naseby Road

2.5. The site proposed for additional car parking is located on the corner junction of Nansen and Naseby Road and currently comprises a vacant single-storey building. There is already parking provided on part of the site and further to the south accessed from Nansen Road. The boundary treatment comprises of a low brick wall with metal fencing and ornamental brick pillars. There are a number of trees and dense vegetation located on the northern boundary with Nansen Road.

2.6. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character.

Site Location

3. Planning History

Page 2 of 11

3.1. 22.12.1994 – 1994/03269/PA: Erection of three-storey craft, design and technology block and single-storey office extension and additional car parking. Approved subject to conditions.

3.2. 23.05.2002 – 2002/00446/PA: Creation of additional secure parking area (on land to the side and rear of community centre) for school use. Approved subject to conditions.

3.3. 26.08.2010 – 2010/03132/PA: Demolition of existing sports hall and changing rooms, erection of 4 court sports hall and changing rooms, extension of dining room with new first floor above and erection of external covered walkways connecting existing buildings with new sports hall, entrance building and forecourt on Naseby Road, erection of new lift and new floodlights to car park and perimeter lighting to building. Approved, subject to conditions.

3.4. 07.03.2011 - 2010/06671/PA: Variation of condition 11 attached to application 2010/03132/PA for the removal/relocation of existing pond. Approved subject to conditions.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Site Notice displayed. Press Notice advertised. MP, Ward Members, Residents Association and neighbours notified. No comments received.

4.2. Transportation Department – No objections subject to conditions in relation to a construction method statement, measures to prevent mud on the highway, means of access for construction and subsequent use, construction of turning and parking areas, parking management strategy (including disabled spaces), cycle storage, Section278 agreement for works on the highway and Travel Plan.

4.3. Leisure Services – No objections.

4.4. West Midlands Fire Services – Objection, as no sprinkler system is provided within building.

4.5. West Midlands Police – No objections

4.6. Severn Trent – No objections subject to a condition in relation to the provision of drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows.

4.7. Local Lead Flood Authority – No objections subject to conditions in relation to the scheme being implemented in accordance with the sustainable drainage assessment and the provision of a sustainable drainage operation and maintenance plans.

4.8. Regulatory Services – No objections subject to conditions in relation to noise levels for plant and machinery, contamination remediation scheme and contaminated land verification report.

4.9. Ecology – No objections subject to conditions.

4.10. Education Infrastructure – Supports application.

Page 3 of 11

5. Policy Context

5.1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019); Birmingham Development Plan (BDP, 2017); Birmingham Unitary Development Plan Saved Policies (UDP, 2005); Places for All SPD (2001); Car Parking Guidelines SPD (2012).

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The application has been assessed against the objectives of the policies as set out above and the main considerations in the assessment of the applications are:

Principle of Use 6.2. The NPPF is clear at paragraph 94 that 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. It advises that Local Planning Authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement. Furthermore, great weight should be given to the need to create, expand or alter schools through the preparation of plans and decisions on applications.

6.3. Policy TP36 of the BDP recognises that as the City’s population grows there will also be a need for additional Primary, Secondary and Special Needs schools and college provision. It adds that proposals for the upgrading and expansion of existing schools and the development of new schools in locations where additional provision is required will be supported subject to having safe access, safe drop-off and pick-up provision, provision of outdoor facilities for sport and recreation and avoiding conflict with adjoining uses.

6.4. There is an established need for additional secondary places within the catchment area of the School. The application sites are existing school sites and owned by the Council that have been identified as suitable to deliver additional secondary pupil places to meet Birmingham’s identified education provision demands. Consequently, the provision of additional pupil places is considered to be acceptable in principle at this location subject to appropriately addressing matters such as design, impact on highways safety and impact on residential amenity.

Design and Visual Amenity 6.5. The proposal seeks to demolish the former single storey administration building and replace it with a larger two-storey extension, introducing a prominent high quality building to the Naseby Road frontage which would follow the building line of the residential dwellings to the south. The administration building is currently set back from Naseby Road and not immediately visible within the existing streetscene. It is considered that demolition of this building would not have an impact on the character or appearance of the area.

6.6. The new building would create a distinct, quality primary façade by using grid and colonnades which acknowledge the plot width of adjacent properties. The double height element is considered to add structure whilst the stepped scale of the façade assists in reducing the perceived mass of the development and making it sit more sensitively with its residential neighbours which is supported. The introduction of permeable screens/ gate systems mounted between colonnades is welcomed and would negate the need for a standalone boundary treatment, further enhancing the buildings engagement with its surrounding. Overall it is considered that the scheme

Page 4 of 11 proposes a simple, well detailed façade which would deliver a high quality building, positively enhancing the character of the site and surrounding area.

6.7. The proposal also seeks amendments to the proposed parking layout and design on the corner of Naseby Road and Nansen Road by removing vacant buildings. The single storey structure is currently visible from both Nansen and Naseby Road, however is of poor architectural quality and demolition would not impact on the visual amenity or character of the area. The additional parking would make use of the entrance to the existing car park off Nansen Road negating the need for an additional entrance. The design and layout of the parking area is considered to be acceptable. It provides enhanced landscaping along the boundaries with residential dwellings and proposes to maintain the trees on the corner of Nansen and Naseby Road which is supported.

Impact on Highways Safety 6.8. The proposed development would displace part of the current on-site parking provision from the site at Rockwood Academy to Nansen School, approximately 120 metres to the north. A Transport Assessment has been submitted with the application which states that the existing parking provision on the school site (including the parking to the north of Nansen School) is 104 which would increase to 106 following the demolition of the buildings, construction of the proposed extension and provision of additional parking. The existing parking at Rockwood Academy would be reduced from 68 parking spaces to 24, whilst the parking to the north of Nansen School would be increased from 36 to 84. In addition, the vehicle access from Naseby Road in the centre of the site would be removed, leaving the existing vehicle access at the northern end. Two cycle stands are currently provided on site and the supporting statement confirms that sustainable modes of transport to include cycling would be further encouraged as part of the Travel Plan.

6.9. The site is located within a sustainable location with the nearest bus stops located approximately 300 metres to the south of the site on Alum Rock Road. The proposal would provide school places for additional secondary age pupils, who are generally mobile and travel to attend a particular school.

6.10. Transportation Department has been consulted on the application and raise no objections to the proposal subject to conditions in relation to a construction method statement, measures to prevent mud on the highway, means of access for construction and subsequent use, construction of turning and parking areas, parking management strategy (including disabled spaces), cycle storage, Section278 agreement for works on the highway and Travel Plan. I concur with this view and consider it is unlikely the proposal would have an adverse impact on highway safety.

Impact on Residential Amenity 6.11. The school is located within a predominantly residential area and the application site backs onto rear gardens of residential dwellings. The nearest residential dwellings are located to the south on Naseby Road. The proposed extension would be constructed along the road frontage on the same building line as the adjoining properties. Adjacent to the nearest residential dwellings to the south, the extension would be single-storey in height, with a flat roof and lower ridge height, therefore not having an overbearing impact on adjoining dwellings or negatively impacting on the streetscene. It is noted that there are no windows within the side elevation of the adjoining dwelling at no. 84 Naseby Road. Side windows are proposed on the first floor level classrooms of the proposed extension (Naseby Road frontage) which would face onto a gable end blank wall of the existing dwelling. In addition, side windows to the rear would be provided at an angled position, therefore preventing

Page 5 of 11 any possible overlooking of rear amenity space of nearby residential dwellings. The windows to the staircase in the southern elevation would be condition to be obscure glazed in order to protect privacy of the adjoining residential occupiers at no. 84 Naseby Road.

6.12. Regulatory Services have been consulted and raise no objection to the application subject to conditions in relation to noise levels for plant and machinery, provision of a contamination remediation scheme and contaminated land verification report. I concur with this view and conclude that subject to the conditions, the proposal would not harm the amenities of occupiers of dwellings within the vicinity of the site.

Ecology and Landscaping 6.13. The applicant has provided preliminary ecological appraisals for the two sites at Rockwood Academy and north of Nansen School. In terms of the Rockwood Academy site, the site was assessed to have low potential for support of roosting bats and one bat activity survey was recommended, whilst the Nanson School site was assessed to have moderate potential for roosting bats and two bat activity surveys were recommended. The additional bat surveys were provided during the assessment of the application and no bats were recorded emerging from, or returning to, the two buildings during the surveys, and only limited foraging/commuting activity by common pipistrellis were recorded. City Ecology has accepted that there is no evidence of bats currently roosting in the buildings to be demolished; therefore bats do not currently present a constraint to development. Subsequently, City Ecology has no objections to the application subject to conditions that if development has not commenced by June 2021 (two years) a further bat survey shall be carried out prior to commencement of works; no demolition works shall be carried out between 1st March and 31st August inclusive unless a competent ecologist has undertaken a check of the built structure for active bird nest’s and provided written confirmation to the LPA; provision of bird and bat boxes; and landscape planting to include ecologically beneficial planting. I consider the conditions to be acceptable and subject to the conditions the scheme would have no adverse impact in terms of ecology.

6.14. The scheme proposes the removal of 3no. Category C trees situated on the Naseby Road frontage at Rockwood Academy in order to accommodate the proposed extension. My Landscape Officer has reviewed the supporting information and amended drawings have been provided, showing the provision of 3no. new trees to the frontage along Naseby Road and an appropriate planting bed along boundaries with residential dwellings and to the rear of the proposed extension. In addition, the trees along the boundary of the new car park on Nansen Road would be kept. It is therefore considered the proposed landscaping is acceptable subject to conditions in relation to details of hard and soft landscaping (including planting plans), hard surfacing, boundary treatment and a landscape management plan.

Flooding and Drainage 6.15. The applicant has submitted a Drainage Strategy as part of the planning application covering both sites. Severn Trent and the Council’s Local Lead Flood Authority have been consulted on the application. Severn Trent confirmed they have no objections to the planning application subject to conditions in relation to drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flow. The LLFA initially objected to the application awaiting the provision of additional information. Following extensive discussions, an amended drainage layout has been provided and the LLFA have confirmed they have no objection to the proposed drainage scheme subject to conditions that the scheme is being implemented in accordance with the Sustainable Drainage Assessment provided and the provision of a sustainable drainage operation and

Page 6 of 11 maintenance plan. I concur with this view and subject to those details I consider the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on existing drainage or result in additional risk of flooding.

Other Matters 6.16. Birmingham City Council’s Employment Team has recommended a condition to be attached to any grant of planning permission for the prior submission of a Construction Employment Plan. However, I consider that the proposal is of relatively small-scale. Attaching the condition would therefore not be reasonable and would not meet the six tests (use of conditions) as set out in National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG).

6.17. West Midlands Fire Services have raised objections to the proposal as no provisions have been made within the proposed extension for a sprinkler system. The applicant has been made aware of the concerns and as this is a building regulations matter, it will be discussed at a later stage and would not form part of the consideration of this planning application.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The application scheme proposes the demolition of the existing administration building and replacement with a two-storey extension to the frontage of Naseby Road; and the demolition of vacant buildings to the north of Nansen School to relocate the existing car parking. It is considered the proposed development is acceptable and would be of a high quality design. There would be no impact on residential amenity, highway safety or ecology and concerns in respect of landscaping and drainage have been sufficiently addressed prior to determination of the application. The proposal is therefore in accordance with adopted planning policies set out in the BDP 2017 and NPPF 2019 and recommended for approval.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve, subject to conditions.

1 Requires the proposed materials to be in accordance with details submitted

2 Requires the level details to be in accordance with details submitted

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

4 Requires the submission of hard surfacing materials

5 Requires the submission of boundary treatment details

6 Requires the submission of a landscape management plan

7 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

8 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with submitted contamination remediation scheme

Page 7 of 11 9 Requires the submission of a contaminated land verification report

10 Requires the submission of a lighting scheme

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

12 Requires the submission of details to prevent mud on the highway

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

14 Requires the submission of the siting/design of the access

15 Requires the submission of a parking management strategy

16 Requires the submission of details of parking

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

18 Requires the submission of cycle storage details

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

20 Requires the applicants to join Travelwise

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

22 Requires submission of further bat survey if development has not commenced by June 2021

23 No vegetation clearance to take place between 1st March and 31st August unless checks for active birds nests have been carried out by competent ecologist prior to works

24 Requires sustainable drainage scheme to be in accordance with details submitted

25 Requires submission of Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan

26 Requires drainage plans for disposal of foul and surface water to be in accordance with details submitted

27 Requires the staircase windows in the southern elevation to be obscure glazed.

28 Implement within 3 years (Full)

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

Case Officer: Laura Pohl

Page 8 of 11 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Building to be demolished for proposed extension

Figure 2: Area of proposed extension

Page 9 of 11

Figure 3: Boundary of application site along Naseby Road

Figure 4: Building to be demolished for additional car parking

Page 10 of 11 Location Plan

Page 11 of 11

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/02464/pa Accepted: 28/03/2019 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 18/07/2019 Ward: Erdington

693 Chester Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B23 5TH

Change of use from dwelling (Use Class C3) to a care home for up to 4 children (Use Class C2) and installation of footway crossing Recommendation Determine

Report Back

1.1 Members will recall that this application was reported to Committee on June 20th 2019. The decision was deferred by Members in order that a) further information could be provided relating to the operation of the proposed care home, and b) consultation could be undertaken with West Midlands Police. Members considered that this was necessary to enable a full assessment to be made of the proposal.

1.2 The applicant has advised that the premises would provide personal care and support for children aged between 8-17 years old with social and emotional difficulties. The children would be schooled locally, supervised at all times by staff and will not have front door keys. The referral of children to the premises will accord with Ofsted regulations.

1.3 West Midlands Police (WMP) have advised that young looked after children have been placed at this house by Children’s Services since June 2019 and that the onsite security of the dwelling could potentially be improved (new external doors and locks) in the interests of safety and security. WMP have confirmed that, having discussed the proposal with Children’s Services, there is no objection to the application.

1.4 The remainder of this report is unchanged from the report considered on June 20th.

Addendum Report

Proposal

1.1. Link to Documents

1.2 This is an application to convert a 5 bedroom house (C3 use) to a care home for up to 4 children (C2 use). The applicant has advised that 2-3 staff will be present during the day, and that 2 staff will be on site overnight. Parents will visit on a pre-planned basis. The only internal alterations proposed are the conversion of a gym room to a laundry at ground floor and an existing office at the top floor to be used as a store.

Page 1 of 6 The proposal involves the installation of a footway crossing to provide vehicular access to the forecourt of the property.

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The site lies within a row of large, three storey terraced dwellings on the northern side of the A452 Chester Road. The forecourt can accommodate two vehicles. The rear garden is 16m long and approximately 100sq.m in area. The site lies on the edge of the primary shopping centre within Wylde Green Neighbourhood Centre, although the immediate surrounding area within the vicinity of the site is residential. Chester Road railway station is approximately 225m walking distance from the site to the north-west.

3. Planning History

3.1. None relevant to the assessment of the application.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1 Regulatory Services – No objection subject to a condition requiring the submission of a noise insulation scheme.

4.2 Transportation Development - The site is located in an edge of centre location with good public transport accessibility. There are minimal opportunities for on-street parking in the vicinity of the site, with the single yellow TRO fronting the site enforcing a clearway restriction on all days from 0800-0000 for this length of Chester Rd, with double yellow TROs in force nearer to the signal controlled junction to the south-east of the site.

The Car Parking Guidelines SPD recommends a maximum provision of 1 parking space per 3 bed spaces for C2 specialist care uses. The installation of a footway crossing to serve the proposed forecourt parking is considered acceptable. Details of cycle store facilities for staff use and a commercial travel plan to maximise use of sustainable modes of travel by staff and visitors should be provided.

4.3 Local residents and Ward Councillors have been notified and a site notice displayed. Letters of objection have been received from 4 properties on Chester Road, raising the following concerns over the proposal:

• Noise disturbance as the building has not been sound-proofed;

• There are already multiple care homes and HMOs in the vicinity of the site which have caused ‘disruptions’ within the community, resulting from residents, visitors and ambulance and police vehicles frequenting the area at all hours. The establishment of an additional care home would overcrowd the

Page 2 of 6 area with such facilities, and detract from its character and the ability of residents to enjoy the use of their property and neighbourhood;

• The proposed use will exacerbate existing parking problems in the area.

4.4 A petition of objection, signed by the occupants of 7 properties on Chester Road, has also been received. The petition states the following:

• Proliferation of care homes/HMO’s in the area, which adversely affects community spirit and the character of the area;

• Noise disturbance from activities at the property;

• The development will result in additional on-street parking.

5. Policy Context

6. National Planning Policy Framework 2019 Saved 2005 UDP Policies Car Parking Guidelines SPD Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG

7. Planning Considerations

7.1 The guidance set out in Paragraph 8.29 of the Saved 2005 UDP and the Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG is of paramount relevance in the assessment of planning applications for proposed residential care uses. Paragraph 8.29 sets out several criteria against which a proposal should be addressed:

Harm to the occupiers of nearby properties

7.2 The development of residential care homes in terraced houses will not be acceptable unless adjoining occupiers can be safeguarded against loss of amenity due to undue noise and disturbance. It is not considered that the proposed use would be so intensive so as to result in undue noise disturbance over and above that of a large family home. In addition, Regulatory Services have raised no objection subject to a noise insulation requiring the submission of details of measures to be incorporated to minimise sound leakage to neighbouring properties. The site lies on a busy main road and is on the edge of a local centre – noise from activities associated with the proposed use, including the comings and goings of staff members in particular, would to some extent be screened by the existing noise climate within the area and as in this respect would not be so harmful to amenity as to warrant refusal of the application.

Impact on the character of the area

7.3 The cumulative effect of existing uses in the area similar to that proposed, as well as existing HMOs and flats, will be taken account of in the context of the residential character and appearance of the area. The appearance of the building will not be altered as a result of the development. In terms of the character of the area, the

Page 3 of 6 prevailing residential nature will be maintained by the use – a small scale care home accommodating up to 4 children would not be unsuitable in this location, particularly as the necessary services and community facilities for the occupants would be readily accessible.

Highway safety

7.4 The site can accommodate sufficient parking in accordance with Parking Guidelines SPD requirements. With regard to the comments of Transportation it is considered that the proposed use would not have any detrimental impact on the safety and free flow of traffic on the adjoining highway. The Travel Plan condition recommended by Transportation is not considered to be necessary as there would be limited on site parking provision available, staff would have good access to public transport.

Amenity space

7.5 The garden area at the site exceeds the SPG requirement for outdoor amenity space of 16 sq.m per occupant. A satisfactory living environment would therefore be provided.

8. Conclusion

8.1. Paragraph 59 of the NPPF stresses the importance of addressing the needs of groups with specific housing requirements. This proposal meets these aims and does not contravene the specific criteria for assessment set out in the Saved 2005 UDP and the Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG.

9. Recommendation

9.1. Approve with conditions.

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

2 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

3 Requires the submission a Noise Insulation Scheme to establish residential acoustic protection

4 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation (variable)

5 Implement within 3 years (Full)

6 Limit no. of children to maximum of 4

Case Officer: Faisal Agha

Page 4 of 6 Photo(s)

Page 5 of 6 Location Plan

56 129.2m Boro Const & Ward Bdy

26 25

1 43

24a BROADFIELDS ROAD

24 51 BP

418 16 420 422

7 426 667 8

430

6a Bank 6

Shelter Boro Const & Ward Bdy 432 671 4

677 CR 670

134 676

687

130

132.0m 688 130.5m 697 126

El Sub Sta 698

Surgery

130.8m

Posts 122 The Ye

704 125

Malcolm Locker

Youth Centre Posts 710

Posts

712 to 716 to 712 718

132 140 715 150 142

152 134 154 136 156 138

158 Shelter

CHESTE

Page 6 of 6

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2019/03098/pa Accepted: 10/04/2019 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 01/08/2019 Ward: Garretts Green

191 Sheldon Heath Road, Sheldon, Birmingham, B26 2DR

Change of use of former police station (Sui Generis) to Supported Living Centre (Use Class C2) Recommendation Determine

Report Back

1.1. Members will recall that this application was presented to Planning Committee on 06th June 2019 with a recommendation to approve subject to conditions. At determination, the application was deferred, pending the carrying out of a site visit. The site visit was conducted on the 11th July 2019 and the application returned to Committee on 18th July 2019. At determination, Members will recall that the application was deferred, minded to refuse for the following reason:

a) The impact of the proposal on the residential amenity of the adjoining properties as a result of increased noise and disturbance arising from the use of the external amenity space and outbuilding.

1.2. Officers consider that the recommendation to approve the application for a C2 use in accordance with the original report dated 06th June 2019 remains appropriate; however if Members remain minded to refuse the application then the following reason for refusal is suggested:

a) The proposed development would adversely affect the amenities of occupiers of adjoining dwellings in terms of noise and disturbance through the use of the external amenity spaces and outbuilding. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, saved paragraph 8.7 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Addendum Report

1.3 As per the conclusions within the original report, the principle of the proposed development is considered acceptable and would be in accordance with the Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) and NPPF.

1.4 The additional representations received following the original planning committee meeting on 06th June and site visit on 11th July have been considered in terms of whether there are matters raised which would change the original recommendation on the application. The principle of the change of use of the building to a C2 (Supported Living Centre) was supported by the Inspector in the appeal decision in relation to the previous proposal (2017/10747/PA). The only matters in dispute in the

Page 1 of 9 appeal decision were the adequacy of the proposed amenity space and the matter of the internal layout of certain bedrooms (addressed in paragraphs 6.7 – 6.8 of the original report to Planning Committee). As outlined in the representations above, the impact of the proposed use on the amenity of local residents was considered in the appeal decision and the Inspector considered that this was acceptable. Residents have expressed concern in relation to the impact of the proposal depending on occupation but the proposal must be considered on its individual merit in planning terms and the applicant has provided an updated Management Plan which sets out how the facility will operate in terms of user group and the level of care provided. Officers consider that it would comply with the adopted policies of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) and Supplementary Planning Guidance as set out in Section 6.11 of the Officer Report.

Original Report

1. Proposal

1.1 This proposal seeks planning permission for a change of use of the former Sheldon police station to form a 20 No. bedroom supported living centre (C2 use) with associated shared facilities for B Living Group.

1.2 The proposed accommodation and associated facilities are set out over two floors and comprises the following:

20 bedrooms (11 bedrooms on the ground floor and 9 on the first) as follows: • Ground Floor Bedroom 1: 8sqm, Bedroom 2: 15sqm, Bedroom 3: 9.2sqm, Bedroom 4: 11.2sqm, Bedroom 5: 10sqm, Bedroom 6: 12.5sqm, Bedroom 7: 9.5sqm, Bedroom 8: 12.2sqm, Bedroom 9: 9.6sqm, Bedroom 10: 25sqm, Bedroom 11: 17.2sqm.

• First Floor Bedroom 12: 14.8sqm, Bedroom 13: 9sqm, Bedroom 14: 7.7sqm, Bedroom 15: 13.1sqm, Bedroom 16: 15.3sqm, Bedroom 17: 8sqm, Bedroom 18: 12.7sqm, Bedroom 19: 13.8sqm, Bedroom 20: 9.5sqm

• Office (Ground Floor) 23sqm • 3 No. shared kitchens (ground and first) and 2 tea points • 7 shower rooms (incl toilets) Ground and First, and 4 toilets (Shared) • Parking (courtyard 4 spaces, including disabled), access from Hengham Road and not Sheldon Heath Road • Courtyard amenity space 50sqm, roof gardens of 30 and 33sqm, external amenity space of 204sqm • Living room (Ground Floor) 23sqm, 2 Living rooms (First Floor) of 14sqm. • Pedestrian access (main door facing island) (3 fire escape routes) • Meeting rooms, storage and maintenance and boiler room (Ground, first and lower Ground) • There is an outbuilding to be used for recreation as well as functional services.

Page 2 of 9 1.3 The applicant has stated that the proposed accommodation would be for ‘supported living’ to provide accommodation/services to prevent homelessness to a range of users. These users will include: • homeless persons • individuals who have experienced domestic violence • people with specialist needs (i.e. mental health) • substance misuse • and asylum seekers

1.4 The centre will provide a facility to encourage individuals to live within the community rather than relying on services. It is envisaged that this will encourage people to both maintain and sustain permanent living accommodation.

1.5 Prior to individuals being housed within the centre, a thorough assessment of referred individuals are undertaken to ensure that the centre will meet their needs and to ensure that residents are compatible with one another. Higher-risk individuals are guided to more appropriate centres and residences.

1.6 The centre will be staffed by up to seven members of staff including an Administrator, Two Support Worker, Two security staff (Part-time), Part time Maintenance Staff, part time cleaner.

1.7 The premises will further be protected by CCTV and the management of the building will control visitors arriving through the main entrance and visitors in the week must leave by 9pm and no overnight stays are allowed.

1.8 The proposed use will be self-contained inside the existing building/ external store, amenity space and existing parking courtyard. No external changes are proposed as the works will involve internal works (such as the insertion of partition walls) to effect this conversion. The appearance of the building from the outside would remain unchanged.

1.9 The application is supported by the following documents: Planning Statement, Plans - Existing ground floor and First floor plans, Proposed Lower, Ground and First Floor Plans, Site layout Plan, B Living Group Management Statement

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1 The premises subject to this application is an existing building that occupies a prominent location set back from the roundabout. The building is two storeys high, the shape is roughly in a ‘u’ shape with a courtyard in the centre. To the rear is a compound which is surrounded by high walls and is the main vehicle access.

2.2 The premises are currently vacant but appear in reasonable condition as it was formerly a police station and has been maintained externally. The building is of brick construction with what appears to be a parapet/flat roof arrangement set over 2 floors. The main access is made from the front of the building from a series of steps up to the building through ‘brick detail’ feature door. The frontage has a symmetrical design with windows spread evenly down either side of the building at ground and first floor. The building is set within its own plot with a small area of grass around the

Page 3 of 9 perimeter which is set behind a brick wall. The land slopes up towards the rear of the building. At the rear is small brick outbuilding within a tarmac courtyard parking area/compound to the rear. Vehicle access points are made from both Sheldon Heath Road and Hengham Road.

2.3 The building is located within a well-established residential area of Sheldon.

Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1 04.06.2018. 2017/10747/PA Change of Use of former police station (Sui Generis) to Supported Living Centre (Use Class C2). Refused due to 1) inadequate amenity space, 2) configuration of bedrooms and 3) harm to residential amenity of adjoining occupiers. Appeal dismissed (on grounds 1 and 2) 22.03.2019.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1 MP, Ward members, residents associations and neighbouring residents notified. Site notice posted. Responses include the following points:

4.2 7 Objections received outlining the following concerns:

• Concerned over safety and security in the vicinity • The plans have only been slightly amended from the previous application • The external amenity space is not weather proof and would result in noise and disturbance for neighbours • Unsuitable for vulnerable people • The plans also remove the only natural light, through the removal of a skylight in the office space, resulting in loss of amenity to this space. • Inadequate toilet and washing facilities

Cllr Mike Ward raised the matter of the impact of the proposal on neighbouring residents.

Cllr Neil Eustace raised concerns over suitability of the building due to its lack of facilities and communal areas, noise, nuisance and disturbance to local residents and lack of off street parking.

4.3 Transportation - No objections subject to conditions in relation to cycle parking and the closure of the vehicular access on Sheldon Heath Road.

4.4 Regulatory Services – No objections.

4.5 West Midlands Police - No objections.

5. Policy Context

5.1 Birmingham Development Plan 2017 and Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005 (Saved Policies); Car Parking Guidelines 2012 SPD; Places for Living SPG 2001; Special Needs Residential Uses SPG and National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

Page 4 of 9

6. Planning Considerations

Planning History/Background 6.1 Members will be aware that planning permission for the change of use of the building to a 24 bedroom supported living centre (Sui Generis use) was refused on 04th June 2018 (2017/10747/PA). The applicant appealed the decision and the appeal was dismissed in relation to the proposed layout and configuration of rooms and inadequate amenity space. The Inspector considered that the principle of development was acceptable and, subject to appropriate management would not result in material harm to the residential amenity of local residents.

6.2 The current proposal has been amended from the previous refused consent in that the number of bedrooms has been reduced from 24 to 20. The bedrooms on the ground floor which previously overlooked the internal courtyard have been removed and replaced with a living room. There will be a door from the living room linking to the internal courtyard allowing internal and external recreation. The windows serving the living room have been increased in size to allow sufficient light into the room. It is proposed to provide a courtyard garden to the rear of the building, within part of an existing car park. There are also two additional living rooms proposed on the first floor.

6.3 The main issues for consideration of this proposal are whether the principle of the proposed use is acceptable in this location, whether the configuration of the building would provide sufficient amenity space for residents, the potential impact on highway safety and the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Principle

6.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) indicates that sustainable development is in three definite strands, these being 1 - Economic, 2 - Social and 3 - Environmental. There should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development where a proposal accords with the Development Plan.

6.5 The adopted Birmingham plan identifies the main areas of growth in the plan period. This envisages that housing provision and delivery will be made city wide. Policy PG1 and PG3 suggest a housing mix is required, all new development should demonstrate a high design quality and contribute positively to a strong sense of place. Moreover the development should respond to site conditions and local context. Policy TP27 further encourages a sustainable approach in the type and location of housing provision.

6.6 The proposal seeks to re-use an established building. The application site is a large detached ex-police station and is of substantial construction situated within its own plot and is considered ‘in principle’ an appropriate type of re-use for the building. The appeal decision also endorses the reuse of the building for supported living purposes and the economic benefits of the proposal and the benefits of the reuse of the building were accorded weight in the appeal decision. The proposal is located within walking distance of shops and public transport routes (routes 71 and 72). Lea Hall Rail Station is located within 20 minutes walk. Therefore the proposal amounts to the beneficial reuse of a redundant building in a sustainable location and the principle of development is considered acceptable.

Page 5 of 9

Internal and external space standards

6.7 The main concerns expressed in the refusal of the previous application and the subsequent dismissal of the appeal were whether the proposed bedrooms located centrally in the building and overlooked the courtyard would provide a sufficient level of amenity for the occupiers of these rooms. The rooms contained high level windows only. In the current proposal, these bedrooms have now been replaced by a living room with enlarged windows and a door provided to the courtyard amenity space. It is considered that all of the rooms are afforded with adequate natural light. I consider that the amendments fully address the concerns outlined in the previous decisions to reject the proposal. The bedroom sizes comply with the requirements of the Special Needs Residential Uses SPG.

6.8 The Inspector raised concern in relation to the quantity and quality of private amenity space when the UDP and Special Needs Residential Uses SPG recommended the provision of a minimum of 16sqm per room. Therefore 320sqm of private amenity space needs to be provided and the revised scheme provides 50sqm in the central courtyard, 204sqm in the rear curtilage and 66sqm in roof terraces (320sqm in total). In addition, it is noted that green space exists around the building. The arrangement of linking the courtyard garden to a proposed living room is beneficial and the overall provision of a series of smaller private amenity spaces (smaller living rooms and courtyard) would meet the needs of proposed supported living centre. Given the reduction in the number of bedrooms, the quantity and quality of private amenity space provision is considered acceptable.

Highway Matters

6.9 There are currently two access points from Hengham and Sheldon Heath Road. The proposal would seek to close the Sheldon Heath Road access and retain the Hengham Road access. There would be four parking spaces (including one disabled space) provided to the rear of the building. Transportation has no objections to the level of car parking provision on the site and the associated access arrangements. Conditions have been attached in relation to the closure of an existing access and to cycle parking provision.

6.10 Concerns have been raised in the Third Party Representations in relation to the level of parking provision. However, the proposal would be in a sustainable urban location with public transport provision. There are no objections raised by Transportation in relation to the proposal and the matter did not carry weight in the previous decision and appeal which related to a larger number of bedrooms.

Amenity of neighbouring residents

6.11 The representations received during the consultation exercise are noted. Local residents have raised the matters of noise, disturbance and security arising from the proposal. One of the representations also raised concern in relation to the internal layout. This matter has been addressed in paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8 above. In terms of noise and disturbance, it is accepted that the use of the property as a supported living centre is likely to attract coming and goings in excess of the surrounding residential properties. However, the property has a history of non-residential use as a police station which was likely to attract similarly higher levels of movement. On this basis I am satisfied that that there would not be an undue increase in noise and

Page 6 of 9 disturbance to local residents as a result of the proposal. Regulatory Services have expressed no objections.

6.12 In terms of the matter of security, the application is accompanied by a Management Plan which sets out detailed arrangement for monitoring and security of the site. There are no objections raised by WM Police and a suitable condition has been imposed to ensure compliance with the management plan. Members should note that the appeal was dismissed on the inadequacy of the proposed living environment for future residents. The impact on the amenity of the neighbourhood, in respect of the larger proposed number of bedrooms in application (2017/10747/PA), was considered acceptable.

7. Conclusion

7.1 It is considered that the revised site layout provides adequate useable on site amenity space for the residents and the quantity and quality of private amenity space is now considered acceptable. The number of bedrooms has been reduced and the internal layout reconfigured to address the reasons for the dismissal of the previous appeal. The proposal would enable the retention and viable reuse of a prominent former public building and the proposal complies with the adopted development plan and the NPPF.

8. Recommendation

8.1 Approve subject to conditions.

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

2 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

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

4 Vehicular Access Closure

5 Development in accordance with Management Plan

6 Use of Outbuilding to accord with Management Plan

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

8 Occupancy Restriction (20 Residents)

9 Implement within 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: David Kelly

Page 7 of 9 Photo(s)

Front of Building

Rear Curtilage

Page 8 of 9 Location Plan

SHELDON HEATH ROAD

190 189 194

Surgery 191

132

134

Police Station GARRE

111 117

Depot

104.9m

Page 9 of 9

Committee Date: 01/08/2019 Application Number: 2018/09836/pa Accepted: 05/12/2018 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 23/04/2019 Ward: Yardley East

Frank Stones Garage Ltd, School Lane, Stechford, Birmingham, B33 8PD

Erection of metal railing fence and sliding mechanical vehicular access gate Recommendation Determine

Report Back

1.1. Members will recall that this application was presented to Planning Committee on the 5th July 2019 with a recommendation to approve the application subject to a number of conditions.

1.2. Officers verbally updated members on the following points

1.3. Councillor Eustace – objected to the application. He considers that the proposal is appalling. The site has an expanding car storage operation in the Yardley conservation area which is unacceptable. The former operators used to put all vehicles out of view in the garage when closed. The proposed development blocks off the access to existing residential properties. There has never been a gate at this location. The former owners of the garage never needed a gate so one is not needed now. It is a conservation area and the gate would be an eyesore creating an outdoor compound where there has never been one.

1.4. Councillors were also informed of the statutory tests and protection afforded to heritage assets. Policies TP12 of the Birmingham Development Plan and national policy in the Framework, taken together, all require that development should take account of the importance of heritage assets and not cause material harm to them. These policies, reflect the general duty, at s66(1) and section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, amongst other matters, to have special regard to the setting of listed buildings and conservation areas. To emphasise that duty the Courts have held that the presumptive desirability of preserving heritage assets and their setting must be given considerable importance and weight in the overall balance of considerations. This has been considered as part of the application.

1.5. At determination members will recall that the application was deferred, minded to refuse for the following reasons

a) The intensification of the site, the use of car sales from the site, vehicle storage and the industrial nature of the proposed design would be harmful to visual amenity and the Conservation Area.

Page 1 of 10 1.6. Officers consider that the recommendation to approve the application in accordance with the original report dated the 26th June 2019 remains appropriate; however if members remain minded to refuse the application then the following reason for refusal is suggested:

a) The proposal would form an incongruous development by virtue of its scale and design. The industrial scale and nature of the proposal would remove the open character of the area resulting in harm to visual amenity and would not preserve or enhance the character of the Old Yardley Conservation Area. As such it would be contrary to Policies PG3 and TP12 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, the Regeneration Through Conservation, Birmingham Conservation Strategy Supplementary Planning Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019).

Addendum Report

Proposal

1.1. This application seeks consent for the construction of metal railings on top of a wall, metal electronic sliding gates and brick pillars. The applicant also proposes to construct 1.8 metre tall timber panel fence set within the site boundary.

1.2. The two brick pillars are proposed to be approximately 2.15 metres tall, the electronic sliding gates between these pillars are proposed to be set back from the carriageway by approximately 5 metres. They are proposed to be approximately 3.5 metres wide and 2 metres tall. The remaining 9 metres of the site frontage is proposed to be constructed of a 1.1 metre high brick wall with 900mm black metal railings on top.

1.3. The gates, wall and metal railings are proposed to provide security to the car garage and vehicles on site.

1.4. The application has been amended through the planning application process. Initially larger 2 metre tall railings were proposed with the gates set back from the highway by 3.5 metres. The application has amended in response to comments raised by the Council’s Conservation Officer and the Transportation department.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The site is an existing operational car garage within the Old Yardley Conservation Area and is part of the identified Yardley Medieval Village which is around St Edburgha’s Church. At the present time there is no barrier to site access and the site is open. The western boundary of the site consists of hedging, to the west of the application site is a small green, to the south west of the site approximately 60, metres away is St Edburgha’s Church a grade I listed building.

2.2. The church has thirteenth century origins, and acquired a tower and spire in the fifteenth century. Next to the church is the Trust School, which is 16th century. Blakesley Hall to the west is a yeoman's farmhouse of 1590. These buildings and Hay Hall are the oldest surviving buildings in what is now understood as Yardley.

Page 2 of 10 2.3. Approximately 55 metres east of the application site is ‘Holly Croft’ a grade II listed building. This building is accessed via School Lane and vehicles need to travel past the application site.

2.4. To the east and adjoining the application site are two dwellings Ivy House and Ivy Cottage. These dwellings face towards the application site and are accessed via the application site. It is understood these properties have a right of access through the application site.

2.5. An Article 4 (2) direction has been made covering the conservation area. this requires applications to be submitted for permitted development of Class I (1-5 inclusive) and Class II (1,2 and 3).

2.6. The report prepared for the Article 4 direction details that Yardley old village is one of the Cities’ most significant Conservation Areas and retains much of the character and atmosphere of a rural village.

Site map

3. Planning History

• 2006/03264/PA - Installation of a vehicle lift on driveway for vehicle repair – refused – 12/09/2006

• 2002/00489/PA - Erection of dwelling house and garage – withdrawn – 17/06/2002

• 1992/04295/PA – erection of new boundary wall – withdrawn 08/06/1995

• 1991/05571/PA – extension of commercial garage for MOT testing and repairs – withdrawn – 11/06/1992

Enforcement History:

• 2006/0041/ENF - Erection of ramp outside garage in a conservation area – case closed – 04/04/2006

• 2018/1569/ENF - Alleged unauthorised erection of fence and gates – no evidence of breach – 19/01/19

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Site and Press notices posted. Neighbours and local Councillor notified.

4.2. Regulatory Services - No objections.

4.3. Transportation Development - No objection in principle, although it would be preferable for the proposal to be amended for the access gate to be set back into the site by a further 1.5m, giving a 5m setback from the carriageway edge.

4.4. Yardley Conservation Society – objects. Plans do not show sufficient information and confusing information. Concerns are raised regarding the presence and

Page 3 of 10 protection of the hedge on the site boundary, the proposed scheme gives the impression of a fortress.

4.5. Two letters of objection were received from local residents, objectors outlined the following concerns: 4.6. • Plans submitted are not accurate and do not detail all properties in the area • The proposals are very `industrial’ by design • The hedge should not be removed • Fence proposed is very high • Access to site frontage is needed for maintenance • External lighting could impact upon ecology • Concern about future access to properties adjacent to the site.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following national policies are applicable:

- National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

5.2. The following local policies are applicable:

- Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (Saved Polices) - Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) - Car Parking Guidelines SPD - Places for Living SPG - Places for All SPG - Nature Conservation Strategy for Birmingham SPG - Mature Suburbs SPD - Regeneration Through Conservation, Birmingham Conservation Strategy

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Background

6.2. The site has a longstanding history related to vehicle repairs, with references dating back to 1952. In recent years there have been a number of applications for various extensions / operational development, the majority of which have been refused or withdrawn.

6.3. Design and conservation

6.4. The NPPF states in paragraph 184 that heritage assets ‘…are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations’.

6.5. The BDP relating to the historic environment states in Policy TP12 that ‘it will be valued, protected, enhanced and managed for its contribution to character, local distinctiveness and sustainability and the Council will seek to manage new development in ways which will make a positive contribution to its character.’

Page 4 of 10 6.6. It goes on to state that ‘great weight will be given to the conservation of the City’s heritage assets’. This reflects national policy relating to conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

6.7. The application site is within a conservation area, within the defined Yardley Medieval Village and adjacent to and within the setting of listed buildings. The article 4 direction has ensured the high quality character of the area has been retained over the years and has not been eroded by successive developments.

6.8. In terms of design and conservation, the proposal has been amended from initial submission. Securing the site frontage and access has the potential to create a development which does not relate to its surroundings, however, the applicant has proposed to break up the railings with a low brick wall which reduces the impact of metal railings. The gates have been set back further which assists with highway safety but also moves the gates further into the site reducing their impact on the street frontage. The Conservation Officer initially objected to the application as they viewed the design was harmful to the character and appearance of the Yardley Conservation Area. However, following receipt of amended plans the Conservation Officer has withdrawn their objections.

6.9. The proposal is within a conservation area, therefore in a sensitive environment which can be severely harmed by inappropriate development. The existing use on site is a car garage and has associated vehicles being present; the site has therefore the appearance of a light industrial use. The development proposed being appropriately designed is therefore not at odds with the surrounding land uses.

6.10. The proposal is considered to be an appropriate form of development which would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would be sympathetic to the historic asset of the Conservation Area complying with Policy TP12 of the BDP.

6.11. Residential Amenity

6.12. It is not considered the proposed development would harm residential amenity in terms of loss of light, outlook or privacy.

6.13. Concern has been raised by residents that the proposed gates would restrict access to their properties and obstruct their right of access across the land. Whilst this concern is noted, matters relating to access are a civil matter between the parties and cannot be considered as part of the planning application.

6.14. The agent for the application has stated that the applicant has visited all of the adjoining/affected properties and has an agreement to provide keys for access should it be required. Any resident either current or future will be given keys to access the gates after business hours.

6.15. It is not proposed to make this agreement a condition on the application. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF sets out the six tests which need to be passed before planning conditions are imposed, these are:

1. necessary; 2. relevant to planning and; 3. to the development to be permitted; 4. enforceable; 5. precise and; 6. reasonable in all other respects.

Page 5 of 10 6.16. As the matter is related to a civil matter it is considered the imposition of such a condition would not meet the six tests set out above

6.17. Transportation

6.18. Transportation Development has no objection to the application subject to the requests to move the gate further back on site. Amended plans have been received which addresses this issue. It is therefore considered the proposed development would have no adverse impact upon highway safety and the highway network.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, would reinforce and create a positive sense of place and distinctiveness and would therefore be compliant to Policy PG3 and TP12 of the BDP.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to Conditions

1 Requires the submission of sample materials

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

3 Implement within 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Kirk Denton

Page 6 of 10 Photo(s)

Fig 1 – view to Ivy Cottage on the right, Ivy house on the left

Fig 2- site entrance

Page 7 of 10

Fig 3 – site entrance

Fig 4 site entrance

Page 8 of 10

Fig 5 – site entrance, garage viewed in the background.

Fig 6- view to site entrance

Page 9 of 10 Location Plan

Page 10 of 10