Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Home , Baskerville House, Bassetts Pole, Birmingham Crematorium, Deritend, Edgbaston Pool, Hodge Hill

Birmingham

Local Development Framework

ANNUAL

MONITORING REPORT 2007

December 2007

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Birmingham Local Development Framework

ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT 2007

CONTENTS

Section Pages

1. Introduction 5-6

2. Contextual Summary 7-24

3. Local Development Framework – Key Output Indicators 25-69

4. Local Development Framework – Implementation 70-111

5. Local Development Scheme - Progress 112-117

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 This is the third Annual Monitoring Report for Birmingham produced under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

1.2 The aim of the Annual Monitoring Report is to provide a succinct digest of key statistical information relevant to the assessment of the impact of development planning policies in Birmingham. The report is structured as follows:

• Section 2 sets the scene, by providing some general contextual information in relation to Birmingham’s population, environment, economy, housing, transport links and neighbourhoods.

• Section 3 reports on the key development planning output indicators. Its focus is on the nationally defined Core Output Indicators – but it also includes a small number of locally defined indicators reflecting local priorities.

• Section 4 assesses progress in delivering the Core Strategic policies of the Birmingham UDP 2005. The City Council resolved to adopt this plan on 11 October 2005, and currently it is the only document in the Birmingham Local Development Framework.

• Section 5 reviews progress in implementing Birmingham’s Local Development Scheme (LDS).

1.3 In the first Annual Monitoring Report it was noted that there are a small number of national indicators in relation to which there is currently no adequate or consistent data to enable meaningful statistics to be produced. Some progress has been made in filling these gaps (e.g. in relation to biodiversity) and attempts will continue to be made to establish effective monitoring of these indicators in future Monitoring Reports. The potential for identifying additional local indicators will also be kept under review.

1.4 Some broad conclusions can be drawn from the monitoring data:

• Levels of new house building in Birmingham fell from last year, but they are well above current UDP and RSS targets. There are no indications of land supply constraints that could prevent this continuing. However, the city’s housing requirement is likely to increase as a result of the ongoing phase 2 revision of the RSS.

• Levels of employment development have increased from the previous year. The overall supply of industrial land has decreased from the previous year, with ‘readily available’ supply below UDP and RSS targets,

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

however the ‘not readily available’ supply is strong.

• Overwhelmingly, new development in Birmingham is on brownfield sites.

• Almost all new housing development is in locations with good public transport access to employment and essential local services.

• The City Centre continues to attract new investment to strengthen its role.

• The majority of new retail and office development is taking place is in or edge-of-centre locations. Completions have increased significantly from the previous year with a healthy development pipeline.

• Good progress is being made in delivering most of the core strategic policies of the UDP.

• Progress in implementing the Local Development Scheme (LDS) has been variable. Nine Supplementary Planning Documents have now been adopted, and it is expected that the Statement of Community Involvement and several other SPDs will be adopted in early 2008. However there have been significant delays in the preparation of a number of Area Action Plans and other DPDs. The LDS will be reviewed in early 2008 to address this, and to take account of newly emerging priorities.

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

2. CONTEXTUAL SUMMARY

2.1 Population

2.1.1 The Office for National Statistics estimates that Birmingham’s population in 2006 was about 1.006 million. The City extends to 26,777 hectares (267.8 square kilometres), of which about 15,200 hectares are residential. The overall population density of 37.4 persons per hectare is much greater than the English average of 3.85.

2.1.2 Table 2.1 compares the age profiles of Birmingham and England as a whole. The City has a relatively youthful population. About 45% of residents are younger than 30, compared with the England average of 37%. In contrast, only 34% of the city’s residents are older than 45, compared with the national average of about 40%.

Table 2.1 – Age Profile of Resident Population of Birmingham and England, 2006

Age Group (Years) % of population Birmingham England 0 –14 20.7 17.7 15-29 24.6 19.6 30-44 21.1 22.1 45-59 16.0 19.3 60-74 11.0 13.5 75 & Older 6.7 7.7 Source: Mid Year Population Estimates, ONS, © Crown Copyright, 2007.

2.1.3 Between 1991 and 2001, Birmingham’s population drifted downwards. There were many more births than deaths, but this gain was more than offset by net out-migration, mainly to other parts of the West Midlands Region. Since 2001, the City’s population has grown, and by 2005 had regained the million mark. In contrast, the regional and national populations have grown consistently, as shown in Table 2.2. Table 2.3 provides more detail of recent population changes. The gains partly result from a growing natural increase due to more births and fewer deaths. The other contributor has been generally higher levels of international immigration since 2001. The long- standing trend of net out-migration to the rest of the regions and other parts of the UK has continued but at a lower level since 2004. As data sources about international migration, are far from comprehensive or reliable, the population estimates should be regarded with some caution.

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 2.2 – Population in Birmingham, the West Midlands Region and England, 1991 – 2006

1991 2001 2006 Area Population (thousands) Birmingham 1,004.5 984.6 1,006.5 West Midlands Region 5,229.7 5,280.7 5,366.7 England 47,875.0 49,447.7 50,762.9 % change since 1991 Birmingham -2.0% +0.2% West Midlands Region +1.0% +2.6% England +3.3% +6.0% Source: Mid Year Population Estimates, ONS, © Crown Copyright, 2007.

Table 2.3 - Birmingham - Change in Population, 2001-2005

Change (thousands) Year Total Natural Change Migration & Other 2001-2002 +4.2 +4.8 -0.5 2002-2003 +2.7 +5.2 -2.5 2003-2004 +4.0 +5.8 -1.9 2004-2005 +7.0 +6.6 +0.9 2005-2006 +3.5 +6.9 -3.4 Annual Average +4.4 +5.9 -1.5 Source: Mid Year Population Estimates, ONS, © Crown Copyright, 2007. Notes: Figures may not add to totals due to rounding to nearest hundred.

2.1.4 Despite the reduction in population between 1991 and 2001, Table 2.4 shows that the number of households in Birmingham increased. The number of one-person households increased by nearly 14,000, while there was a reduction of 7,000 in other households. There is doubt over the precise change because of technical differences between the Censuses.

Table 2.4 – Change in Households in Birmingham, 1991 and 2001

1991* 2001** Change Households One Person Households 112,463 126,314 +13,851 Other Households 264,765 257,701 -7,064 Total 377,228 384,015 +6,787 Source: Census of Population, 1991 (SAS24) and 2001 (ST053) ONS, © Crown Copyright * 1991 Census undercounts the number of households ** For comparability with 1991, excludes lone student and student-only households (6,778)

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

2.2 Social and Cultural Issues

Ethnic Groups

2.2.1 Birmingham’s residents are from a range of national, ethnic and religious backgrounds. Table 2.5 summarises the proportion of the main ethnic groups present. Just over 10% are Pakistani, with the next largest groups being Indian and Black Caribbean. Between 1991 and 2001, the Black & Minority Ethnic (BME) population increased, particularly in the Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups. BME groups are mainly concentrated in the inner parts of the City. There are differences between groups in housing, the labour market, health and age structure.

Table 2.5 – Birmingham - Largest Ethnic Groups, 2001

% of population Ethnic Group Birmingham England White British 65.6 87.0 Pakistani 10.6 1.4 Indian 5.7 2.1 Black Caribbean 4.9 1.1 White Irish 3.2 1.3 Mixed Groups 2.9 1.3 Bangladeshi 2.1 0.6 All other groups 5.0 5.2 Source: 2001 Census of Population, Key Statistics Table 9, © Crown Copyright.

Social Grade

2.2.2 The 2001 Census contains an approximation to Social Grade, a classification widely used in market research. Table 2.6 below shows that the percentage of residents in grades A & B (higher and intermediate managers, professionals and administrative workers) is lower in Birmingham than in the West Midlands Region and England as a whole.

Table 2.6 – Birmingham - Approximated Social Grade, 2001

% of household residents aged 16 to 64 Grade Birmingham West Midlands England A & B 19.5 22.5 25.5 C1 26.2 27.0 29.9 C2 17.5 20.4 18.2 D 25.5 23.2 20.3 E 11.2 6.9 6.1 Source: 2001 Census of Population Standard Table 66, © Crown Copyright Note: classification of household members based on that of the household representative

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

2.2 Social and Cultural Issues

Ethnic Groups

Table 2.5 – Birmingham - Largest Ethnic Groups, 2001

Social Grade

Table 2.6 – Birmingham - Approximated Social Grade, 2001

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Deprivation

2.2.3 Figure 2.1 below shows the distribution and extent of areas of multiple deprivation within the City in 2004.

2.2.4 According to the Index of Deprivation, in 2004 about 38% of Birmingham’s residents lived in areas that were in the most deprived 10% in England. Concentrations are very high in wards to the east, north and west of the City Centre and also in Tyburn and Kingstanding Wards to the north of the M6 motorway.

Figure 2.1 – Birmingham: Index of Multiple Deprivation, 2004 – Overall Index

Key Areas in the most deprived 3% in England Areas in the most deprived 10% but not the most deprived 3% Areas in the most deprived 25% but not the most deprived 10% Not in the most deprived 25% Non-residential areas

Source: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Indices of Deprivation 2004. Crown Copyright Data calculated at Super Output Area level. For more information see www.odpm.gov.uk

Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission 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

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Crime

2.2.5 Amongst Core Cities, Birmingham has again recorded the lowest overall crime rate per 1,000 population in 2006/2007 (British Crime Survey) and the trend of a marked reduction in overall recorded crime continues. All crime is now 70% of its 2001/2002 level and burglary is just over half.

Table 2.7 - Recorded Crime in Birmingham, 2001-2007

Year All Crime Burglary: Burglary: Dwelling Other 2001/2002 159,833 14,275 11,952 2002/2003 145,770 11,775 11,067 2003/2004 140,888 12,100 9,848 2004/2005 117,637 8,252 7,468 2005/2006 114,834 8,509 6,666 2006/2007 112,806 7,986 6,605 Source: Birmingham Community Safety Partnership: COSMOS

2.3 Environment

The Natural Environment and Open Land

2.3.1 Although much of Birmingham is built up, there is a significant amount of open land within the City. About 15% of Birmingham’s land area is designated as Green Belt. This includes all the open countryside within the City’s boundary, as well as other areas extending into the City, for example along river valleys. There are also areas of open space within the built-up areas of the City, such as parks and playing fields, nature reserves and allotments. The extent of green spaces in Birmingham is shown in Figure 2.2.

2.3.2 The City also has a number of areas that are protected for their nature conservation value, as well as parks, open spaces, allotments, golf courses and playing fields. The City’s nature conservation sites include 2 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs): Sutton Park and Edgbaston Pool. Sutton Park is also designated as a National Nature Reserve (NNR). There are 7 Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) – some of which were designated after the UDP Alterations were prepared. There are also over 40 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) covering various woodlands, grasslands, lakes, streams, and other important wildlife habitats or examples of natural landscape. Some of these areas lie within the designated Green Belt and are subject to UDP policies, which aim to protect them. Table 2.8 summarises the extent of protected nature conservation sites and other open land within Birmingham.

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 2.8 – The Natural Environment and Open Space

Total Area % of City’s Type of Area (Hectares) Area Sites of Special Scientific Interest 893.31 3.35 National Nature Reserves 811.73 3.0 Local Nature Reserves 104.37 0.39 Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation 730.53 2.73 Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation 701.53 2.62 Public Open Space 3033.183 11.32 Public Playing Fields 337.206 1.26 Private Playing Fields 281.469 1.05 Private Open Space 68.69 0.26 Educational Playing Fields 166.781 0.62 Golf Courses 657.866 2.46 Statutory Common Land 11.2545 0.04 Allotments (All) 283.61 1.06

Green Belt 4,185.85 15.63 Source: Birmingham City Council. Note: Some of the above designations may overlap, e.g. some open space has nature conservation value and may be designated as such.

The Historic Environment

2.3.3 Birmingham has a wide variety of distinctive historic townscapes, buildings and landscapes. The extent of the City’s historic resource is summarised in Table 2.9 below.

2.3.4 At present there are 27 conservation areas in Birmingham, whose special character and appearance is protected. These account for 4% of the land area of the City. Some conservation areas, such as the Jewellery Quarter and Bournville, are unique and are nationally recognised. Birmingham also has nearly 1,500 statutorily listed buildings and 14 registered parks and gardens of special historic interest. The City’s listed buildings range in date from mediaeval churches and houses to important examples of 20th century architecture. Historic landscapes include examples of both formal and informal parks and gardens. In addition, Birmingham has an extensive network of historic canals, reflecting its key role during the Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries. All of these resources contribute to the overall quality of the City, and to its unique character and history.

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Figure 2.2 – Birmingham Green Spaces

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

2.3.5 The City’s archaeological resource is surprisingly varied for such a major urban area. Some remains are recognised as being of national importance, and are protected by scheduling. Known remains range in date from prehistoric earthworks to 19th and 20th century industrial buildings and structures. The City Council maintains a Sites and Monuments Record (SMR), which includes details of all known archaeological remains within the City. The total now is almost 4500 records, which has increased in size over the last year.

Table 2.9 – Birmingham – The Historic Built Environment

Type of Resource Number Area (Hectares) Scheduled Ancient Monuments 13 - Statutorily Listed Buildings 1,433 - Locally Listed Buildings 383 - Conservation Areas 27 1,074 Registered Parks & Gardens 14 Length (Kilometres) Canals - 57.4 Source: Birmingham City Council *The number of conservation areas has recently been reduced, due to the amalgamation of some conservation areas.

2.4 Economy

2.4.1 Birmingham is a major employment centre drawing in workers from across the West Midlands region. According to the 2001 Census there were about 84,000 more people with a workplace in the City than there were employed residents. Managers, senior officials and professionals make up about 35% of persons commuting into Birmingham, compared with 23% of the City’s working residents.

2.4.2 Table 2.10 shows the number of jobs at workplaces in the City. The data are not precisely accurate, but show increases between 2001 and 2005 in part-time employment and in the number of females with jobs. In 2005 the service sector accounted for 83% of jobs, five percentage points up on 2001, with manufacturing at 12%, five percentage points down on 2001.

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 2.10 - Full-Time and Part-Time Jobs in Birmingham by Gender

Status 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Number Number Number Number Number Male 247,100 249,700 248,300 248,100 245,900 Female 236,200 234,100 234,000 244,000 249,500

FullTime 346,400 340,600 346,900 342,600 342,500 Workers PartTime 136,900 143,200 141,400 149,500 152,800 Workers

Total 483,300 483,800 488,300 492,100 495,400 Source: ABI 2005, © Crown Copyright. Notes: Numbers rounded to nearest 100. Totals may not add up due to rounding.

2.4.3 Table 2.11 summarises Birmingham residents in employment by gender and by ethnicity. At 63%, Birmingham’s employment rate is noticeably below the England rate of 74%. The female rate is much lower than the male rate, and both are lower in Birmingham than the England averages; for women there is a 14-point difference from the England rate. The non-white employment rate in the city is 49%, 22 percentage points lower than the white rate.

Table 2.11 - Employed Residents in Birmingham by Gender and Ethnic Group

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Number Rat Numbe Rat Numbe Rat Numbe Rat Number Rat Number Rate e r e r e r e e Total 374,00 64 376,00 64 383,40 65 392,40 66 381,50 64 376,400 63% 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Male 209,00 71 213,00 72 213,60 71 219,30 72 211,60 70 213,700 70% 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % Femal 165,00 58 163,00 56 169,70 59 173,20 60 169,90 58 162,800 56% e 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

White 308,50 73 292,20 72 ------266,500 71% 0 % 0 % Non- 49 47 ------82,500 88,200 109,300 49% white % % Source: ONS LFS/APS © Crown Copyright. Note: - = no data available

2.4.4 30% of the working-age population in Birmingham is economically inactive (neither working nor seeking work). This is 9 points higher than the England rate. The female rate of 38% is 16 points higher than the male rate. Table 2.12 summarises economic inactivity by gender and by ethnicity. This 16

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

shows that the non-white economic inactivity rate is 40%, significantly higher than the white rate of 24%. Both rates are above the England averages of 33% and 20% respectively.

Table 2.12 - Economic Inactivity in Birmingham by Gender and Ethnicity

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Numbe Rate Numbe Rate Number Rate Numbe Rat Number Rat Number Rate r r r e e 172,00 30 169,00 29 169,80 29 162,90 28 Total 175,500 30% 178,700 30% 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

21 21 22 21 Male 61,000 61,000 67,400 63,300 67,300 22% 66,600 22% % % % % Fema 111,00 39 108,00 37 102,40 35 34 99,600 108,200 37% 112,000 38% le 0 % 0 % 0 % %

23 White ------96,900 96,500 24% 89,000 24% % Non- 40 ------66,000 79,000 42% 88,400 40% White % Source: ONS LFS/APS © Crown Copyright. Note: - = no data available.

2.4.5 Due to the relatively small sample sizes, variations are in many cases similar to or below the confidence levels, and so data displayed in tables 2.11 and 2.12 should be interpreted with caution, especially when comparing small variations over time.

2.4.6 About 36,000 residents were claiming unemployment benefit in 2006. This is higher than in 2001, and the rate remains above the national average. Unemployment remains particularly high in some areas, with the rates in some inner city wards consistently around twice the city average throughout the period. Around three-quarters of those claiming benefit are males.

Table 2.13 – Unemployment Benefit Claimant Count and Claimant Count Proportion for Birmingham (Annual Average) 2001 - 2006

Year Birmingham West UK Midlands Number of Claimant Claimant Claimant Claimants Count Count Count Proportion Proportion Proportion 2001 31,714 5.5 3.8 3.3 2002 30,159 5.1 3.0 3.1 2003 31,307 5.3 3.0 2.6 2004 30,426 5.2 2.7 2.4 2005 32,544 5.3 2.9 2.4 2006 36,003 5.8 3.3 2.6 17

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Source: ONS/NOMIS, © Crown Copyright.

2.4.7 On the other hand, Table 2.14 below shows that Birmingham’s relative contribution to the economy is above that of the region and country as a whole.

Table 2.14 – Birmingham: Headline Gross Value Added (GVA) per head at Current Basic Prices (£)

2001 2002 2003 2004 Birmingham 15,709 16,26216,976 17,783 West Midlands Region 13,355 13,89114,566 15,325 UK 14,933 15,68216,549 17,451 Source: ONS, ©Crown Copyright Estimates of workplace based GVA allocate income to the region in which commuters work.

Income

Table 2.15 summarises the average household income for each Constituency in Birmingham. The average for the City as a whole is currently around £30,100 per annum. However, there are significant differences between the Constituencies, with Sutton Coldfield households enjoying an average income that is 51% above those in Hodge Hill.

Table 2.15 – Birmingham: Average Household Income by Constituency, 2007

Constituency Total Households Average Income (£) Edgbaston 39,774 32,500 Erdington 40,698 28,700 Hall Green 39,858 30,700 Hodge Hill 38,699 25,600 Ladywood 46,951 27,600 Northfield 42,827 29,700 Perry Barr 38,603 28,900 Selly Oak 41,584 30,400 Sutton Coldfield 40,188 38,600 Yardley 41,945 28,600

Birmingham 411,127 30,100 Source: CACI Ltd

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Figure 2.3 – Birmingham City Council Constituencies

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

2.5 Housing

Households

2.5.1 Table 2.16 below summarises the size of households in Birmingham compared to the national average, according to the 2001 Census. The average household size is greater in Birmingham than in England as a whole: 2.46 persons compared with 2.36. Birmingham has relatively high proportions of households containing one person or with 5 or more people. Average household size has reduced from 2.54 in 1991, largely as a result of growing numbers of one-person households.

Table 2.16 – Birmingham - Persons per Household, 2001

Number of Persons in % of households Household Birmingham England 1 33.2 30.1 2-4 56.2 63.1 5 or more 10.6 6.9 Source: 2001 Census of Population, © Crown Copyright

Housing Stock

2.5.2 Table 2.17 summarises the proportion of different types of housing present in Birmingham. This shows that the City has a relatively low proportion of detached housing and higher proportions of terraced housing and flats.

Table 2.17 - Household Spaces in Birmingham, by Accommodation Type, 2001

% of Household Spaces by Type Semi- Detached detached Terraced Flat Other Birmingham 11.0 34.9 31.3 22.8 0.0 West Midlands 23.8 37.7 23.9 14.3 0.4 England 22.5 31.6 25.8 19.7 0.4 Source: 2001 Census of Population (Key Statistics Table 16) © Crown Copyright

2.5.3 Birmingham also has a relatively high proportion of households renting from the Council, as is demonstrated in Table 2.18.

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 2.18 – Birmingham: Housing Tenure at 1st April 2007

Local Registered Private Total Authority Social sector Landlord Number 66775 40036 308861 415672 Percentage 16.1 9.6 74.3 100.0 Source: Housing Strategy Statistical Appendix (HSSA): 2006-7

Stock Condition

2.5.4 22,998 Local Authority dwellings (34.4% of stock) were judged “non- decent” at 1st April 2007. (HSSA 2007). In the private sector, an estimated 63,529 dwellings failed the decent homes standard (HSSA 2007). Of these, 35,000 were occupied by households in receipt of a means-tested benefit.

Housing Market

2.5.5 Table 2.19 summarises changes in house sales and prices between 2001 and 2006. In terms of property sales, there were 18904 property sales during 2006, which is at a similar level as in 2004, following a 26% fall in 2005

2.5.6 House prices have increased rapidly since 2001 and after a period of slower growth between 2004-05, prices have risen at a slightly higher rate in 2006. At the cheaper end of the market, i.e. the price below which a quarter of sales took place, growth appears to have slowed from the previous year.

2.5.7 The mean and median and lower quartile house prices in the City, are all below the regional average. This is particularly so at the cheaper end of the market (lower quartile).

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 2.19 - Birmingham Residential Property Prices and Sales, 2001-2006

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 House price (£) Mean Price 86,546 101,845 125,702 140,499 146,834 155,424 Median Price 68,000 82,500 105,000 120,000 126,000 132,000 Lower 49,500 60,000 80,000 93,000 102,000 107,000 Quartile % of regional average Mean Price 91.1 91.4 95.9 92.9 91.5 92.1 Median Price 89.5 91.7 95.5 93.8 80.0 92.3 Lower 94.3 96.8 102.6 100.1 84.7 97.3 Quartile Transactions No. of Sales 18,744 20,151 19,226 19,048 14,184 18,904 % of Region 17.4 17.1 17.8 17.4 14.5 16.8 Source: HM Land Registry/ODPM Website, ©Crown Copyright.

Housing Need

2.5.8 Historically, homeless applications in Birmingham have been twice the national average. Table 2.20 summarises the position in 2005/06 and 2006/07. There were 14747 applicants for housing on the Local Authority Housing Register as at 1st April 2007 (HSSA 2006/7).

Table 2.20 - Households accepted as unintentionally homeless and in Priority Need

2005/6 2006/7 Birmingham 3768* 2509* P1E 2007

2.5.9 Increasingly, older and disabled people wish to remain in their own homes. This results in strong demand for property adaptations, and an implication of need for to build homes to ‘lifetime’ standards. There were 8155 referrals for assistance from the City Council in 2006/7.

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

2.6 Transport

2.6.1 Birmingham has good links to the national motorway network and to Birmingham International Airport. A network of strategic highways is focused on the City Centre.

2.6.2 Birmingham New Street Station is a major rail interchange offering direct services to cities across England, Wales and Scotland. There is also a network of suburban and freight rail services and one light rail line. There are express coach links to many parts of the country, and an intensive pattern of local bus services.

Car availability

2.6.3 Birmingham has a relatively high percentage of households without a car: 38% compared to the English average of 27%. The percentages without a car are high in the inner parts of the city and in some more peripheral areas. About two thirds of those in social-rented housing live in households without a car, as do nearly half of unemployed people and those not working because of long-term sickness or disability. Percentages are particularly high among households containing lone pensioners and lone parents. Percentages are also high among Black, Bangladeshi and White Irish households.

Travel to Work

2.6.4 Table 2.21 shows that just over half of people who both live and work in the City use the car to get to work, about a fifth use the bus, a tenth walk and another tenth work at or from home.

Table 2.21 - Means of Travel to Work in Birmingham, 2001

Travel to Work – % of those working Method Live in Live and Work in Work in Birmingham, Birmingham Birmingham, Work Outside Live Outside Work at/from home 0.0 9.5 0.0 Train 2.9 2.4 10.3 Bus 12.8 22.1 10.2 Car 78.3 52.4 75.5 Walk 2.7 10.4 1.2 Other 3.3 3.2 2.8 Total (100%) 79,000 288,000 162,000 Source 2001 Census Theme Table 10, © Crown Copyright

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

2.6.5 In contrast, over three quarters of people commuting into the city use the car, about a tenth use the train, and a further tenth travel by bus. About 120,000 people work in the central area, defined by the Ring Road, and just over half of these travel by car. A further 28% travel by bus and 14% use the train.

Trips into Birmingham City Centre

Table 2.22 – Trips into Birmingham City Centre in the morning peak (0730-0930 hrs) Year Car Bus Rail Metro Total

1995 52992 31694 13619 98305

1997 52710 31387 16813 100910

1999 54827 31048 18987 998 105860 2001 51663 31000 17250 1200 101113 2003 44119 30251 19000 1278 94648 2005 44789 31433 19500 1609 97331

Source: Birmingham Cordon Reports

2.6.6 According to the Birmingham Cordon Surveys undertaken once every two years, the total number of car trips entering Birmingham City Centre during the morning peak hours (0730-0930 hrs) has decreased in the past ten years However, the number of bus trips remained relatively constant, while the number of rail trips has increased over the same time period.

24 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

3. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK – KEY OUTPUT INDICATORS

3.1 Business Development

3.1.1 The City Council has consistently collected land use information on business development for many years, and produces annual Regional Employment Land Studies (RELS) on behalf of the Regional Planning Body (West Midlands Regional Assembly). We are therefore fortunate in having a complete set of data relating to these indicators, for the whole of the period covered by the UDP (i.e. 1991 – 2006).

Core Output Indicator 1a. Amount of land developed for employment by type.

3.1.2 As many planning permissions are “flexible” and permit uses within a range of B1, B2 or B8 uses, it is difficult to monitor employment land by Use Class. Although we have provided this information insofar as it is possible to do so in Table 3.1a (i), it is normal practice in the West Midlands to monitor industrial land by sub-market, and indeed it is more appropriate to do this for Birmingham as the UDP industrial land targets and RSS categories relate to industrial development sub-markets rather than Use Class.

3.1.3 Floorspace figures for employment development by Use Class and industrial development sub-market are set out in Table 3.1a (ii). The sub- markets are as defined in the UDP and RSS, as follows:

• UDP Best Urban = RSS Sub-Regional category – top quality sites suitable for firms with an international/ national/ regional choice of locations

• UDP Good Urban = RSS Good Quality category – good quality sites suitable for locally-based firms

• UDP Other Urban = RSS Other category – land of average or poor quality only likely to be of interest to local firms

There are no sub-markets for offices and the figures for offices, therefore, provide total area and floorspace figures only.

3.1.4 Tables 3.1a (i) and (ii) show that over one and a quarter million square metres of industrial development (i.e. within Use Classes B1 (b) and (c), B2 and B8) has taken place in Birmingham since 1991, using over 360 hectares of employment land. During the same period, over 65,000 square metres of office development (i.e. within Use Class B1 (a)) took place on more than 55 hectares of employment land. In total, land developed with employment uses in Birmingham has increased during 2006/07.

25 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 3.1a (i) Land Developed with Employment Uses in Birmingham 1991 – 2007, by Use Class (area in hectares)

Year Office Industrial Total (B1 (a) only) Manufacturing* Warehousing (B1 (b)/(c), B2, B8) (B8 only) 1991-92/1995-96 16.50 65.03 28.29 109.82 1996-97/2000-01 13.46 95.35 37.31 146.12 2001-02 3.81 8.94 6.98 19.73 2002-03 8.06 23.05 14.35 45.46 2003-04 1.91 21.28 7.13 30.32 2004-05 7.02 17.46 2.51 26.99 2005-06 1.07 15.20 2.38 18.65 2006-07 8.37 16.79 2.70 27.86 TOTALS 60.20 263.10 101.65 424.95 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council. * Manufacturing includes sites developed with uses falling within Us e Classes B1 (b)/ (c), B2 and B8 where a specific end-use is not confirmed. Data for individual years between 1991 and 2001 is contained in the Annual Monitoring Report 2006

Table 3.1a (ii) Employment Development in Birmingham 1991 – 2007, by Use Class and Industrial Development Sub-Market

Year Employment Area/ Sub-Market Total Best Good Other Urban Urban 1991-92/ Manufacturing Area (ha) 33.21 23.30 8.52 65.03 1995-96 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 125067 67697 47497 240261 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 17.76 8.69 1.84 28.29 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 68441 36665 12871 117977 Office (B1 a) Area (ha) 16.50 Floorspace (sqm) 242712 1996-97/ Manufacturing Area (ha) 58.87 27.59 8.89 95.35 2000-01 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 246184 90994 41950 379128 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 25.31 8.31 3.69 37.31 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 77353 34669 22459 134481 Office (B1 a) Area (ha) 13.46 Floorspace (sqm) 169700 2001-02 Manufacturing Area (ha) 3.33 1.42 4.19 8.94 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 13475 5253 18191 36919 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 5.22 0.84 0.92 6.98 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 8041 6700 4401 19142

26 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Office (B1 a) Area (ha) 3.81 Floorspace (sqm) 74411 2002-03 Manufacturing Area (ha) 11.54 9.03 2.48 23.05 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 47841 30895 6940 85676 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 11.37 2.77 0.2 14.35 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 59457 6030 1 67991 2504 Office (B1 a) Area (ha) 8.06 Floorspace (sqm) 41972 2003-04 Manufacturing Area (ha) 13.31 6.57 1.40 21.28 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 81113 24870 7103 113086 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 5.00 0.60 1.53 7.13 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 17300 1680 5660 24640 Office (B1 a) Area (ha) 1.91 Floorspace (sqm) 50267 2004-05 Manufacturing Area (ha) 8.36 8.27 0.83 17.46 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 22712 22369 3420 48501 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 0 1.92 0.59 2.51 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 0 11581 3700 15281 Office (B1 a) Area (ha) 7.02 Floorspace (sqm) 39150 2005-06 Manufacturing Area (ha) 10.49 2.31 2.40 15.20 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 52979 5255 10852 69086 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 2.05 0 0.35 2.40 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 9300 0 1958 11258 Office (B1 a) Area (ha) 1.07 Floorspace (sqm) 5558 2006-07 Manufacturing Area (ha) 12.21 2.71 1.87 16.79 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 35918 11217 11890 59025 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 0.53 1.71 0.46 2.70 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 1986 4866 829 7681 Office (B1 a) Area (ha) 5.61 Floorspace (sqm) 37929 TOTALS Manufacturing Area (ha) 151.23 81.20 30.58 263.10 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 625289 258550 147843 1031682 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 67.24 24.84 9.59 101.67 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 241878 102191 54379 398448 Office (B1 a) Area (ha) 57.44 Floorspace (sqm) 661699 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council.

Notes: Manufacturing includes sites developed with uses falling within Use Classes B1 (b)/ (c), B2 and B8 where specific end-use not confirmed; Warehouse/ Storage includes sites developed with uses falling within Use Class B8 only. Data for individual years between 1991 and 2001 is contained in the Annual Monitoring Report 2006

27 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Core Output Indicator 1b. Amount of land developed for employment, by type, which is in development and/ or regeneration areas defined in the local development framework.

3.1.5 Development/ regeneration areas in Birmingham are defined as the Industrial Regeneration Areas and Industrial Proposals identified in the UDP. The amount of industrial land developed within these areas during the monitoring period (1991 – 2007) is set out in Table 3.1b below. During this period over 860,000 square metres of industrial development took place (i.e. development within Use Classes B1 (b)/(c), B2 and B8) within development and/ or regeneration areas – nearly 60% of the total amount of floor space developed within Birmingham as a whole.

Table 3.1b - Industrial Development within UDP Industrial Development and/or Regeneration Areas in Birmingham, 1991 – 2007, by Use Class and Industrial Development Sub-Market

Year Employment Area/ Sub-Market Total Use Class Floorspace Best Good Other Urban Urban 1991-92/ Manufacturing Area (ha) 31.94 12.75 0.96 45.65 1995-96 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 119989 36731 4753 161473 Warehouse/ Area 13.97 0.56 0.52 15.05 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 59968 3348 5960 69276 1996-97/ Manufacturing Area (ha) 42.73 9.86 1.52 54.11 2000-01 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 159769 34453 7702 201924 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 13.51 2.78 0.96 17.25 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 35333 10874 8940 55147 2001-02 Manufacturing Area (ha) 3.33 0 3.19 6.52 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 13475 0 12671 26146 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 3.74 0 0 3.74 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 6859 0 0 6859 2002-03 Manufacturing Area (ha) 7.60 7.31 1.18 16.09 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 30841 24092 3186 58119 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 11.37 2.77 0.13 14.27 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 59457 6030 1900 67387 2003-04 Manufacturing Area (ha) 11.26 3.28 0.74 15.28 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 73933 12000 3760 89693 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 0 0 0 0 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 0 0 0 0 2004-05 Manufacturing Area (ha) 8.36 2.06 0.37 14.23 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 22712 3739 1079 43899 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 0 0 0.49 0.49 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 0 0 1681 1681 2005-06 Manufacturing Area (ha) 3.89 0.48 1.79 6.16 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 23066 2080 7439 32585 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 2.05 0 0.11 2.16 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 9300 0 968 10268 2006-07 Manufacturing Area (ha) 12.21 0.71 1.62 14.54 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 35918 2263 11280 49461

28 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Warehouse/ Area (ha) 0.53 0 0.04 0.57 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 1986 0 829 2815 TOTALS Manufacturing Area (ha) 121.32 36.45 11.37 169.14 (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Floorspace (sqm) 479703 115358 51870 646931 Warehouse/ Area (ha) 45.17 6.11 2.13 53.41 Storage (B8) Floorspace (sqm) 172903 20252 20278 213433 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council.

Core Output Indicator 1c. Percentage of 1a, by type, which is on previously developed land.

3.1.6 PPS 3 provides a definition of previously developed land. Table 3.1c sets out the percentage of employment development that has taken place in Birmingham on previously developed land each year between 1991 and 2007 by Use Class. This shows that a very high proportion - over 80% - of employment development of all types has been on previously developed land. For office development, the percentage of development on previously developed land has been higher – over 85%. This is largely due to the amount of office development that has taken place in the City Centre.

Table 3.1c – Land Developed with Employment Uses in Birmingham 1991 – 2007: Percentage on Previously Developed Land

Year Office Industrial (B1 (a) only) Manufacturing* Warehousing (B1 (b)/(c), B2, (B8 only) B8)

1991-92/1995-96 100% 97% 75% 1996-97/2000-01 86% 78% 89% 2001-02 100% 100% 100% 2002-03 42% 96% 100% 2003-04 100% 55% 100% 2004-05 56% 68% 100% 2005-06 100% 100% 100% 2006-07 100% 100% 100% Average 85% 83% 83%

29 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council. *Manufacturing includes sites developed with uses falling within Use Classes B1 (b)/ (c), B2 and B8 where specific end-use not confirmed; Warehouse/ Storage includes sites developed with uses falling within Use Class B8 only. Data for individual years between 1991 and 2001 is contained in the Annual Monitoring Report 2006

Core Output Indicator 1d. Employment land supply by type.

3.1.7 Birmingham’s employment land supply includes land that was identified for employment use and classed as either “readily available” or “not readily available” at April 2007. Readily available sites are sites that have no major problems of physical condition, no major infrastructure problems, and are on the market with a willing seller. Readily available land also includes land retained for development by the owner. Not readily available sites have any of the following problems: major problems of physical condition, major infrastructure problems, not on the market, or owner unwilling to sell. These definitions are consistent with the land supply information included in the Regional Employment Land Study (RELS).

3.1.8 Table 3.1d (i) summarises the employment land supply by Use Class. At April 2007, Birmingham had a supply of over 230 hectares of employment land. More than half of this was either under construction or had planning permission for development. Only a limited amount of the land identified was expected to be developed with offices or warehousing only. However, some of the supply classified as general “manufacturing” had flexible permissions which permit development within Class B8 warehousing and distribution.

Table 3.1d (i) Employment Land Supply in Birmingham at April 2007, by Use Class (area in hectares)

Status Office Industrial Total (B1 (a) only) Manufacturing* Warehousing (B1 b/c, B2, B8) (B8 only) Under 1.33 8.79 1.62 11.74 Construction Detailed PP 12.13 29.09 6.85 48.07 Outline PP 4.65 123.45 0 128.10 Other 5.17 40.71 0 45.88 TOTAL 23.28 202.04 8.47 233.79 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council.

Manufacturing includes sites with approval for development with uses falling within Use Classes B1 (b)/ (c), B2 and B8 where specific end-use not confirmed.

30 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

3.1.9 Table 3.1d (ii) summarises the employment land supply by industrial sub-market. This shows that the supply of Best Urban employment land is relatively healthy – at April 2007 there was nearly 150 hectares of “readily available” and “not readily available” Best Urban land. Of this, 33.37 hectares is considered to be “readily available,” which is less than the UDP target supply figure of 64 hectares. However, a significant amount of the “not readily available” land is expected to become available shortly, so this is not considered to be a serious supply problem. The supply of Good Urban land is more of a concern, since this has declined in recent years, however the supply of “readily available” land of 20.75 hectares has increased from the previous year.

Table 3.1d (ii) Industrial Land Supply in Birmingham at April 2007, by Industrial Development Sub-Market (area in hectares)

Sub Status Manufacturing* Warehouse/ Total Market (B1 b/c, B2, B8) Storage (B8 only) BEST Under 3.80 1.62 5.42 URBAN Construction Detailed PP 13.41 3.22 16.63 Outline PP 106.45 0 106.45 Other 9.23 0 9.23 TOTAL 132.89 4.84 137.73 GOOD Under 4.70 0 4.70 URBAN Construction Detailed PP 10.83 1.85 12.68 Outline PP 2.17 0 2.17 Other 26.20 0 26.20 TOTAL 43.90 1.85 45.75 OTHER Under 0.29 0 0.29 Construction Detailed PP 4.03 1.76 5.79 Outline PP 0 0 0 Other 3.67 0 3.67 TOTAL 7.99 1.76 9.75 TOTAL 184.78 8.45 193.23

Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council. * Manufacturing includes sites with approval for development with uses falling within Use Classes B1 (b)/ (c), B2 and B8 where specific end-use not confirmed.

31 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Core Output Indicator 1e. Losses of employment land in (i) development/ regeneration areas and (ii) local authority area.

3.1.10 Data is available for loss of employment land in Birmingham to various other uses, including housing for the period 1991 – 2007. The amount of land lost to other uses within the UDP industrial development sites and industrial regeneration areas is summarised in Table 3.1e (i) below. It will be seen from this that between 1991 and 2005/06, on average, just under 3 hectares a year within development/ regeneration areas was lost to other uses. No land was lost to other uses in 2006/07. This suggests that the UDP policy seeking to retain industrial land in industrial use has been reasonably successful, at least within the UDP industrial regeneration areas and allocated site.

Table 3.1e (i) - Loss of Employment Land to Other uses in Birmingham, 1991 – 2007: Employment Land Lost within UDP Industrial Development and/or Regeneration Areas

Year 1991/92 - Average 2006/07 Total

2005/06 per year

Residential 1.05 0.07 0 1.05

Retail 20.73 1.38 0 20.73

Education 0.29 0.02 0 0.29 Transport 12.89 0.86 0 12.89

Health 0.24 0.02 0 0.24 Public 5.95 0.40 0 5.95 Assembly Total 41.15 2.75 0 41.15

Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council.

32 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 3.1e (ii) – Loss of Employment Land to Other uses in Birmingham, 1991 – 2007: City Wide

Year 1991/92 - Average 2006/07 Total 2005/06 per year Residential 78.19 4.89 8.48 86.67 Retail 47.55 4.74 0.07 47.62

Education 5.73 0.20 0.31 6.04 Transport 23.67 1.10 0 23.67

Health 0.36 0.02 0.21 0.67 Public 13.36 0.63 0 13.36 Assembly Open Space/ 8.75 0.58 0 8.75 Leisure Total 177.61 11.84 9.07 186.68

So Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council.

3.1.11 Table 3.1e (ii) summarises the amount of employment land lost to other uses within Birmingham as a whole between 1991 and 2007. This shows that overall, 186.68 hectares of employment land in Birmingham has been lost to various other uses since 1991. On average, 11.84 hectares of employment land was lost to other uses each year between 1991 and 2005/06. The amount of land lost in 2006/07 was slightly lower than this – 9.07 hectares. This suggests that the UDP loss of industrial land policy has been successful at retaining employment land outside the industrial sites and regeneration areas identified in the UDP.

Core Output Indicator 1f. Amount of employment land lost to residential development.

3.1.12 Between 1991 and 2007, 86.67 hectares of employment land was lost to housing. Housing has accounted for 46% of the total amount of land lost to other uses, and a higher proportion of employment land has been lost to housing than to any other use. On average, nearly 5 hectares of employment land was lost to housing each year between 1991 and 2005/06. Slightly more than this (8.48 hectares) was lost to housing in 2006/07 – 93.5% of the total amount of land lost to other uses that year.

33 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

3.2 Housing

3.2.1 The City Council has collected data on housing completions for many years, and has a complete set of data relating to this for the whole of the period covered by the UDP (i.e. 1991 – 2007). However, data sets which monitor more recent policy initiatives such as performance with regard to the proportion of development taking place on Previously Developed Land (PDL) and the density at which development takes place do not go back quite so far.

Core Output Indicator 2a. Housing trajectory showing:

(i) net additional dwellings over the previous five year period or since the start of the relevant development plan document period, whichever is the longer;

(ii) net additional dwellings for the current year;

(iii) projected net additional dwellings up to the end of the relevant development plan document period or over a ten year period from its adoption, whichever is the longer;

(iv) the annual net additional dwelling requirement; and

(v) annual average number of net additional dwellings needed to meet overall housing requirements, having regard to previous years’ performances

3.2.2 The period covered by the housing trajectory is twenty-four years, from 1991/92 (i.e. the beginning of the period covered by the adopted UDP) to 2014/15 (i.e. 10 years from the adoption of the UDP). The City Council monitors performance with regard to planning for housing in relation to the requirements and policies of both the UDP and the RSS. Both the UDP and RSS housing requirements are expressed as gross figures, which include allowances for new housing provided as a result of clearance and demolition. The City Council has therefore prepared two housing trajectories: one relating to the gross housing requirement (Figure 3.1) and one relating to the net requirement (Figure 3.2). The data underlying the housing trajectories is set out in Tables 3.2a (i) to (iv). Table 3.2a (i) summarises housing completions since 1991. This includes gross completions (i.e. actual number of new dwellings completed), but also shows the number of demolitions that have taken place during this period, and the net gain in dwellings.

34 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Figure 3.1 - Birmingham Housing Trajectory 1: Gross Housing Requirement 1991 - 2015

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

Number of Dwellings 1000

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 01 01 01 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Year

Gross Housing Completions UDP - Potential Gross Supply RSS - Potential Gross Supply UDP Gross Annual Requirement RSS Gross Annual Requirement

3.2.3 The net gain in dwellings between 1991/92 and 2006/07 was 19,067 dwellings, an average of 1,191 dwellings per annum. During this period 19747 dwellings were demolished. The number of demolitions has been slightly higher than the level assumed in the UDP housing supply calculation, which would have been 18,480 between 1991 and 2007 (i.e. 1,155 demolitions per annum). Most of the dwellings demolished during this period were obsolete local authority homes cleared to make way for housing regeneration schemes.

35 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 3.2a (i) - Net Dwelling Completions in Birmingham, 1991 – 2007

Gross Dwelling Demolitions Net Additional Year Completions Dwellings 1991-1992 1651 1034 617 1992-1993 2274 1020 1254 1993-1994 1668 840 828 1994-1995 2640 1012 1628 1995-1996 1560 1138 422 1996-1997 1335 1466 -131 1997-1998 1980 1217 763 1998-1999 2282 1058 1224 1999-2000 1947 1170 777 2000-2001 2382 1819 563 2001-2002 2750 1506 1244 2002-2003 2742 1704 1038 2003-2004 3343 1930 1413 2004-2005 3181 734 2447 2005-2006 4000 859 3141 2006-2007 3079 1240 1839 Total 38814 19747 19067 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service) Birmingham City Council.

3.2.4 The current year (2006/07) continues the recent trend of high completion rates. In part this is due to policy led initiatives to encourage more housing in the City Centre (“City Living”). A further 18,528 dwellings were committed at April 2007, of which 4016 were under construction.

3.2.5 The UDP requirement takes us up to 2011, but the RSS covers a longer period, up to 2021. The current RSS (published in June 2004) includes a target for housing development in Birmingham that covers a different timescale and is slightly different to the UDP requirement for the period up to 2011. Progress to date towards meeting the housing requirement set by the RSS is set out in Table 3.2a(ii).

36 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 3.2a (ii) – RSS Annual Housing Requirement – Recent Performance

Year Minimum Dwellings Annual Surplus Cumulative Requirement Completed / Deficit on Surplus / Minimum Deficit on Requirement Minimum Requirement 2001/2 2,300 2,750 +450 +450 2002/3 2,300 2,742 +442 +892 2003/4 2,300 3,343 +1,043 +1,935 2004/5 2,300 3,181 +881 +2,816 2005/6 2,300 4,000 +1,700 +4,516 2006/07 2,300 3,079 +779 +5,295 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council.

The City, therefore, has two residual requirement figures for Birmingham, as follows:

1) The number of new dwellings required (gross) to meet the UDP requirement up to 2011, and

2) The number of new dwellings (gross) required to meet the RSS requirement for Birmingham up to 2015.

Tables 3.2a (iii) and (iv) summarise the position with regard to these residual requirements.

3.2.6 Table 3.2a (iii) shows that current completions, together with existing commitments and predicted capacity within the UDP assumptions, give a surplus of 18,240 dwellings over and above the UDP requirement. This surplus is also sufficient to meet the RSS requirement up to 2015.

37 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 3.2a (iii) – Birmingham UDP Residual Housing Requirement: Housing Supply, 1991 – 2011

Supply Number of Number of Dwellings Dwellings (Gross) (Net) UDP Total Requirement 1991 – 2011 46,500 23,400 Completions 1991-2007 38,814 19,067 Under Construction at 1st April 2007 4,016 (75%) Detailed Planning Permission (not started) at 1st April 2007 9,701 (75%) Outline Planning Permission at 1st April 2075 2,219 (75%) UDP Proposals and Other Commitments at 1st April 2007 2,592 (75%) Commitments at 1st April 2007 18,528

Total Identified Capacity at 1st April 2007 57,342

Balance to be found 1st April 2007 – 31st March 2011 -10,842

Sources of Capacity (UDP Assumptions) Redevelopment from Clearance 2007 – 2011 3,582 N/A Windfalls (on Brownfield sites) 2007 – 2011 2,908 Conversions 2007 – 2011 908 Total UDP Assumptions 7,398 Total Supply 64,740 Surplus/Deficit on Requirement +18,240 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council) and Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005, Birmingham City Council.

3.2.7 Table 3.2a (vi) summarises the position regarding the RSS residual requirement, taking into account completions since 2001, current commitments, and surplus capacity identified in the latest information on longer term urban capacity, which has been taken from the West Midlands Regional Urban Capacity Study carried out in 2004. This shows that Birmingham has sufficient housing supply to meet the RSS residual requirement up to 2015.

38 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 3.2a (iv) – West Midlands RSS Residual Housing Requirement for Birmingham: Housing Supply, 2001 – 2015

Supply Number of Number of Dwellings Dwellings (Gross) (Net) RSS Total Requirement 2001 – 2015 37,800 21,000

Completions 2001-2007 19,095 11,122 Under Construction at 1st April 2007 4,016 (75%) Detailed Planning Permission (not started) at 1st April 2007 9,701 (75%) Outline Planning Permission at 1st April 2007 2,219 (75%) UDP Proposals and Other Commitments at 1st April 2007 2,592 (75%) Commitments at 1st April 2007 18,623 Total Identified at 1st April 2007 37,623

Balance to be found 1st April 2007–31st March 2015 177

Other Sources of Capacity 2011 – 2015 (from West Midlands Regional Urban Capacity Study 2004) Estimated Capacity from New Build 2,708 2,708 Estimated Capacity from Redevelopment and Clearance 7,000 0 Estimated Capacity 2011 - 2015 9,708 7,027 Total Sources of Capacity 2007 - 2015 17,106

Total Supply 54,729 Surplus/Deficit on Requirement +16,929 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council.) and Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005, Birmingham City Council, and West Midlands Regional Housing Land & Urban Capacity Study 2004, West Midlands Regional Assembly.

39 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Core Output Indicator 2b. Percentage of new and converted dwellings on Previously Developed Land.

3.2.8 For the purposes of annual monitoring, Previously Developed Land is as defined in PPG3. Table 3.2b gives the percentage of housing development on previously developed land each year since 2001/02, the year that this data was first collected. There are two targets for the provision of housing on Previously Developed Land, one in the UDP and one in the RSS. These are as follows:

1) UDP target of 82% new housing on PDL, 1991 – 2011

2) RSS target of 94% new housing on PDL, 2001 - 2021 3.2.9 Table 3.2b shows that the proportion of new housing developed on PDL – which was already very high – is generally increasing, and that the UDP target has been exceeded for the past five years. For the past four years the RSS target has also been exceeded. This trend is expected to continue, as no new greenfield housing allocations have been included in the UDP following its recent review.

Table 3.2b - Dwelling Completions on Previously Developed Land (PDL) and Greenfield Land in Birmingham, 2001 – 2007

Year Total PDL Greenfield Land Completions Completions % Completions % 2001/02 2,800 2,038 73 762 27 2002/03 2,770 2,508 91 262 9 2003/04 3,390 3,221 95 169 5 2004/05 3,232 3,109 96 96 4 2005/06 4,096 4,061 99 35 1 2006/07 3,134 3,094 99 40 1 TOTAL 19,422 18,031 93 1,364 7 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council.Note: These figures include gross completions for housing conversions, and therefore differ slightly from the housing completion figures given in Table 3.2a (i).

40 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Core Output Indicator 2c. Percentage of new dwellings completed at:

(i) less than 30 dwellings per hectare; (ii) between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare; (iii) above 50 dwellings per hectare.

3.2.10 The UDP’s housing density standards exceed the minimum density required in PPG3 – Housing, and are as follows:

• Birmingham City Centre – At least 100 dwellings per hectare • Other Centres/Sites in Transport Corridors – 50 dwellings per hectare • Elsewhere in Birmingham – 40 per hectare

3.2.11 Data on housing density in Birmingham is available from 2000/01 onwards. Table 3.2c summarises the density of housing completions between 2001 and 2007. During the last year (2006/07), almost all housing developments (97%) were built at a density of at least 30 dwellings per hectare, and 76% were built at a density of more than 50 dwellings per hectare.

Table 3.2c – Density of New Housing Completions in Birmingham 2001 – 2007

Density Less than 30 30 to 50 Over 50 (No of Dwellings per ha) Year No. % No. % No. % 2001-02 670 24%971 36%1,109 40% 2002-03 375 14%1,012 37%1,355 49% 2003-04 221 7%953 28%2,169 65% 2004-05 149 5%1,045 33%1,987 62% 2005-06 172 4%1,075 27%2,753 69% 2006-07 100 3%630 21%2,349 76% TOTAL 1,687 9%5,686 30%11,722 61% Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council.

3.2.12 Although completions during 2001/02 and 2002/03 were generally below the density of the UDP targets, this is because they flow from permissions which pre date the publication of Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3) and the drafting and implementation of the UDP’s housing density policy. The UDP density policy has been applied to all development proposals coming forward since 2001, and this together with a recent increase in the number of proposals being brought forward for apartments suggest that the overall density of housing developments is likely to continue to increase over the next few years.

41 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Core Output Indicator 2d. Affordable housing completions.

3.2.13 The UDP Affordable Housing policy defines affordable housing as follows:

a) Housing provided by a Registered Social Landlord or Local Authority which is allocated on the basis of Need (i.e. for social rent or shared ownership); and

b) Low Cost Market Housing (i.e. subsidised private housing available at below open market prices/rents).

3.2.14 Table 3.2d summarises the number of affordable dwellings provided in Birmingham between 1991 and 2007. Although most of the new affordable homes in Birmingham are still provided by Registered Social Landlords through their own development programmes, in recent years, the proportion of affordable homes provided through the City Council’s Affordable Housing Policy has increased. It should be noted that the table only provides information on completions. There will also have been losses from the affordable housing stock as a result of demolitions, changes in tenure (e.g. right to buy) etc over the same period. The most recent information on housing tenure within the city is to be found in table 2.18.

Table 3.2d - Affordable Dwellings Completed in Birmingham, 1991 – 2007

Secured through S106 RSL Total Agreement Development Low Cost Social Shared & Other Affordable Year Market Rent Ownership Completions 1991-1992 N/A N/A N/A 876 876 1992-1993 N/A N/A N/A 971 971 1993-1994 N/A N/A N/A 724 724 1994-1995 N/A N/A N/A 1,534 1,534 1995-1996 N/A N/A N/A 432 432 1996-1997 N/A N/A N/A 618 618 1997-1998 N/A N/A N/A 927 936 1998-1999 24 49 29 864 966 1999-2000 43 43 31 528 645 2000-2001 51 83 51 419 604 2001-2002 51 57 44 364 516 2002-2003 30 72 39 434 575 2003-2004 16 22 37 703 778 2004-2005 64 120 134 414 732 2005-2006 136 60 158 718 1,072 2006-2007 110 51 60 462 683 Totals 525 557 583 10,988 12,662 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council.

42 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Local Indicator 2e. Reduction in vacancies in the existing housing stock.

3.2.15 This local indicator is included as a result of the Inspector’s recommendation following the Public Local Inquiry into the UDP Alterations. The Inspector felt that this should be a monitoring indicator because the UDP housing supply figures include an assumption that vacancy rates will fall to 3% by the end of the UDP period (i.e. by 2011). Vacancy rates between 1991 and 2001 are summarised below in Table 3.2e. Data from the Census indicates that vacancies are decreasing in line with the UDP assumptions. It should be noted that the 2001 Census results had not been published at the time of the Inquiry.

Local Indicator 2f. Net additional dwellings in the City Centre.

3.2.16 The UDP includes a policy to encourage more housing within the City Centre (“City Living”), and a target for the provision of 10,000 new dwellings in the City Centre between 1991 and 2011. Figure 3.2f (i) shows the number of new housing completions (gross completions) in the City Centre since 1991, by type. This shows that a total of 8,946 new dwellings have been provided to date. The trend is one of an increasing number of completions. With a further 2,600 dwellings under construction and nearly 7000 with planning permission (at April 2007) it is likely that the target to 2011 will be exceeded.

43 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 3.2f (i) – New Dwellings Developed in the City Centre 1991 - 2007, by Year and Type

Year Type Total New Build Conversions 1991-1992 36 13 49 1992-1993 41 0 41 1993-1994 55 0 55 1994-1995 150 147 297 1995-1996 228 28 256 1996-1997 121 0 121 1997-1998 85 35 120 1998-1999 292 36 328 1999-2000 259 117 376 2000-2001 211 120 331 2001-2002 315 313 628 2002-2003 788 124 912 2003-2004 1,197 158 1,355 2004-2005 928 49 977 2005-2006 1,602 74 1,676 2006-2007 1,385 39 1,424 TOTAL 7,693 1,253 8,946 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service) Birmingham City Council.

3.2.17 Table 3.2f (ii) shows the net gain in the number of dwellings in the City Centre between 1991 and 2007. This shows that although a large number of new dwellings have been provided, there has also been a significant amount of demolition. This has largely taken place on one large obsolete public sector housing estate, which lies, on the periphery of (but nevertheless, within) the City Centre. Whilst most of the new housing has been provided by the private sector, affordable housing has been secured within most developments.

44 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 3.2f (ii) Net Change in Dwellings in the City Centre 1991 - 2007, by Tenure

Year Private Local Total Authority/RSL 1991-1992 -5 36 31 1992-1993 0 -19 -19 1993-1994 -4 33 29 1994-1995 5 280 285 1995-1996 141 25 166 1996-1997 -4 4 0 1997-1998 -42 -19 -61 1998-1999 182 37 219 1999-2000 220 104 324 2000-2001 252 -277 -25 2001-2002 572 -132 440 2002-2003 829 -213 616 2003-2004 1,267 -16 1,251 2004-2005 947 14 961 2005-2006 1,563 111 1,674 2006-2007 1,367 -61 1,306 TOTAL 7,290 -93 7,197 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service, Birmingham City Council. Notes: RSL = Registered Social Landlord. This includes Housing Association and Community Association housing provision.

3.2 Transport

Core Output Indicator 3a. Percentage of completed non-residential development complying with car-parking standards set out in the local development framework.

3.3.1 There are currently no parking standards in the UDP, adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance or the RSS, and the level of parking provision in new developments has not been monitored. Consequently, there is no information available on the level of parking provision in new developments for 2006/7. However, it is intended to introduce monitoring of parking provision shortly, and it is hoped that it will be possible to provide information about parking provision in non-residential developments in subsequent years. For the time being, it will be necessary to assess provision against the national maximum parking standards in Annex D of PPG13, until new standards for Birmingham have been established through the Car Parking Standards SPD, which is currently in preparation.

45 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Core Output Indicator 3b. Percentage of new residential development within 30 minutes public transport time of a GP, hospital, primary and secondary school, employment and a major shopping centre.

3.3.2 The data relating to this indicator has been generated using “Accession” software. This software is relatively new (released late 2004), and has been developed for the Department for Transport for use in Accessibility Planning. In most cases, the calculations are based on a.m. peak times (Mondays 7.00 – 9.00 a.m.).

3.3.3 The only data provided for residential developments is based on single point locations only. It is therefore possible that errors have been introduced, which may not average out if points are particularly close to public transport stops or distant from them. It is hoped that multiple points can be defined at a later date, so that in future Annual Monitoring Reports the information will be more accurate.

Figure 3.3a – Housing Completions 2006/07 – Percentage of Dwellings within 30 Minutes Public Transport Time of Key Public Facilities

Dwellings Dwellings within 30 Type of Facility/ Completed Minutes Public Transport Time of Travel 2006/07 Time (Number of Dwellings)* Number Percentage

GPs/ Health Centres 3143 3143 100% (Mondays 7.00-9.00 a.m.)

Hospitals 3143 2953 93.95% (Mondays 10.00-11.00 a.m.)

Primary School 3143 3143 100% (Mondays 7.00-9.00 a.m.)

Secondary School 3143 3143 100% (Mondays 7.00-9.00 a.m.)

Employment Areas 3143 3125 99.43% (Mondays 8.00-9.00 a.m.)

Local Centres (as defined 3143 3135 99.75% in the Local Centres Strategy 2006) (Mondays 10.00 a.m.- 11.00 a.m.)

46 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

3.3.4 The location of GP Surgeries/ Health Centres, Hospitals and Schools has been identified using a database of local facilities held by the City Council. For the purposes of this exercise, employment areas have been defined as super output areas containing 1000 + jobs, plus the City Centre and Sutton Coldfield Town Centre which are major centres of employment in their own right.

3.3.5 Major Shopping Centres are not defined in the UDP. However in 2006 the City Council adopted a revised Local Centres Strategy. This defines a network of centres, and this has been used for this purpose.

3.3.6 Of the 6% of housing completions located more than 30 minutes from a hospital, more than half are situated at one residential development at Ley Hill, Bartley Green at the edge of the City boundary.

Local Indicator 3c. Percentage of trips by public transport into Birmingham City Centre

3.3.7 The UDP includes a target for public transport trips into the City Centre, which relates back to targets in the 2003 West Midlands Local Transport Plan (LTP) – Moving with the Times. The UDP/LTP target is as follows: • Maintain a.m. peak share @ 1997 levels (48%) • Maintain all day share @ 1997 levels (48%)

3.3.8 Modal share is monitored by Mott MacDonald on behalf of the West Midlands Metropolitan authorities and Centro every 2 years, by way of cordon counts. The latest data currently available is from 2005. Data for the period 1997 – 2005 is set out in Table 3.3b below. This shows that the targets are being met, and that there has been a slight increase in public transport share since 2001, above the 1997 levels.

Table 3.3b – Percentage of Trips by Public Transport into Birmingham City Centre, 1997 – 2005

Year Total Trips Public Transport Total Trips Public Transport all modes, Share all modes, Share (a.m. peak – (a.m. peak – 0700 – (0700 – 1230) 0730 – 0930) 0730 – 0930) 1230) No. % No. Trips % Trips 1997 100,910 48,20048% 203,727 97,596 48% 1999 105,860 51,03348% 218,174 104,366 48% 2001 101,113 49,45049% 205,282 97,735 48% 2003 94,648 50,529 53%195,267 97,337 50% 2005 97,331 52,54254% 201,804 102,795 51% Source: Birmingham Cordon Surveys 1997 - 2005, Mott MacDonald.

47 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

3.4 Local Services

3.4.1 Local facilities in Birmingham include open space as well as retail, leisure and office developments. For retail, leisure and office developments, the definitions used are as follows:

• Retail = developments falling within Use Class Order A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 • Office = developments falling within Use Class Order B1 (a) • Leisure = developments falling within Use Class Order D2.

3.4.2 Unfortunately, net floorspace information cannot be provided as the City Council only records gross internal floorspace (sq.m.). Retail completions from 2005/07 also include uses falling within the new Use Classes A4 and A5, which came into effect from April 2005.

Core Output Indicator 4a. Amount of completed retail, office and leisure development.

3.4.3 The City Council has collected data on retail, office and leisure completions for many years, and has (gross) floorspace information covering the whole of the period covered by the UDP. Table 3.4a summarises the amount of retail, office and leisure floorspace completed each year since 1991.

Table 3.4a - Retail, Office and Leisure Completions in Birmingham, 1991 - 2007

Year Retail Floorspace Office Floorspace Leisure (sq.m.) (sq.m.) Floorspace (sq.m.) 1991/92 18112 117041 35551 1992/93 5913 29661 5592 1993/94 12700 22423 112 1994/95 24776 39230 23791 1995/96 6612 31201 12803 1996/97 41507 22120 8693 1997/98 36448 48924 7839 1998/99 23647 26873 12980 1999/00 25955 45127 28070 2000/01 59793 25890 44726 2001/02 67410 76443 42200 2002/03 36218 38088 9150 2003/04 146725 44383 19830 2004/05 25323 39064 2828 2005/06 8611 5558 2818 2006/07 24641 72173 9480 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service BCC) TOTAL 564391 684199 266463 Note: All floorspace = gross internal floorspace - net figures are not available.

48 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

3.4.4 The table shows an increase in retail and leisure floorspace between 2006/07 and the previous year. There was in particular a significant increase in office floorspace, the highest level seen since 2001/02.

3.4.5 While fluctuations from year to year may be expected, two-thirds of the retail floorspace completed in the last year occurred in out-of-centre locations. Most retail completions were relatively small developments, either small supermarkets or mixed use schemes comprising mainly residential units but including an element of retail.

3.4.6 In future years, retail floorspace completions are expected to rise again as there are a number of significant proposals ‘in the pipeline’. These include the Martineau Galleries Phase 2 scheme in the City Centre, mixed use developments such as ‘Masshouse’ in Eastside, and larger scale supermarkets in established centres.

3.4.7 Just over half the office flloorspace completions during 2006/07 occurred in out-of-centre locations including ‘The Fort’ in Tyburn, a mixed retail and office development. A number of city centre (and ‘in-centre’) developments containing significant amounts of office floorspace were either completed (Baskerville House) or still under construction (‘Colmore Plaza’). These together with other City Centre planning permissions will maintain completions to levels seen in previous years.

Core Output Indicator 4b. Percentage of completed retail, office and leisure development in town centres.

3.4.8 As the UDP does not define boundaries for any of the shopping centres in Birmingham this has had to be determined on a case-by-case basis, by assessing the relationship of each development to the nearest centre/ main shopping area. Tables 3.4b (i), (ii) and (iii) below summarise how much retail, office and leisure development has taken place in centres, in edge-of-centre locations, and in out-of-centre locations.

3.4.9 This shows that since 1991, two-thirds of the retail floorspace developed in Birmingham (66%) has been within existing centres or in edge- of-centre locations. A significant amount of development has taken place in the City Centre, and it should be noted that the relatively high completion figure for 2003/04 includes the Bullring development, which alone accounted for over 100,000 square metres of floorspace. Other centres that have attracted significant retail developments since 1991 include Sutton Coldfield, New Oscott, Small Heath, Castle Vale, Acocks Green, Hall Green and Harborne.

49 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 3.4b (i) Retail Development in Birmingham 1991 – 2007, by Location

Year Total In Centre Edge-of-Centre Out-of-Centre Floorspace Floorspace % Floorspace % Floorspace % (sq.m.) (sq.m.) (sq.m.) 1991/92 18112 4069 22 11521 64 2522 14 1992/93 5913 675 11 2193 37 3045 51 1993/94 12700 2510 20 0 0 10190 80 1994/95 24776 6099 25 934 4 17743 72 1995/96 6612 1257 19 335 5 5020 76 1996/97 41507 12621 30 434 1 28452 69 1997/98 36448 19545 54 5365 15 11538 32 1998/99 23647 6235 26 2781 12 14631 62 1999/00 25955 5024 19 8084 31 12847 49 2000/01 59793 33756 56 3685 6 22352 37 2001/02 67410 14229 21 38521 57 14660 22 2002/03 36218 4678 13 14941 41 16599 46 2003/04 146725 120892 82 15202 10 10631 7 2004/05 25323 17411 69 5038 20 2874 11 2005/06 8611 1594 19 2063 24 4954 58 2006/07 24641 6370 26 1737 7 16534 67 TOTAL 564391 256965 46 112834 20 194592 34 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service BCC)

Note: All floorspace = gross internal floorspace - net figures are not available. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

3.4.10 Since 1991, over three-quarters (77%) of office development has been built in-centres and in edge-of-centre locations. However, almost all of this has been developed in the City Centre or Edgbaston/ Five Ways. The only other centres that have attracted more than one office development during this period are Sutton Coldfield and Mere Green.

50 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 3.4b (ii) Office Development in Birmingham 1991 - 2007, by Location

Year Total In Centre Edge-of-Centre Out-of-Centre Floorspac Floorspace % Floorspac % Floorspac % (sq.m.) e e (sq.m.) (sq.m.) 1991/92 117041 116148 99 0 0 893 1 1992/93 29661 27501 93 0 0 2160 7 1993/94 22423 12610 56 0 0 9813 44 1994/95 39230 33685 86 0 0 5545 14 1995/96 31201 12477 40 2018 6 16706 54 1996/97 22120 18985 86 0 0 3135 14 1997/98 48924 48754 100 170 0 0 0 1998/99 26873 19400 72 670 2 6803 25 1999/00 45127 16462 36 275 1 28390 63 2000/01 25890 21316 82 3074 12 1500 6 2001/02 76443 73640 96 0 0 2803 4 2002/03 38088 16973 45 0 0 21115 55 2003/04 44383 43633 98 0 0 750 2 2004/05 39064 23747 61 0 0 15317 40 2005/06 5558 5558 100 0 0 0 0 2006/07 72173 29499 41 3277 5 39397 55

TOTAL 684199 520388 76 9484 1 154327 23

3.4.11 Although the majority of retail and office development has taken place in centres or edge-of-centre locations, this is not the case with leisure development. The proportion of leisure development that has taken place in centres has varied considerably year on year, and there appears to be no clear trend or pattern. This is probably in part due to the fact that there are various types of leisure development and some (e.g. sports facilities associated with playing fields or pitches), would not necessarily be expected to be located in centres.

3.4.12 The relatively high proportion of out-of-centre leisure development overall (56%) is skewed by a small number of very large developments, such as Star City, Nechells, and Birmingham Great Park, Rubery, which were committed before the current national planning policy guidance came into effect. There has also been a significant amount of leisure development based around existing sports facilities in out-of-centre locations.

3.4.13 The 2007 figures include two sports halls attached to schools but which may also be used by the community. Other leisure developments include an out-of-centre bingo-hall and sports pitches and a City Centre health club. There are further proposals for sports halls, some under

51 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

construction, and sports facilities in out-of-centre locations, which will increase the floorspace figures over the next few years.

Table 3.4b (iii) Leisure Development in Birmingham 1991-2007, by Location

Year Total In Centre Edge-of-Centre Out-of-Centre Floorspac Floorspace % Floorspace % Floorspace % (sq.m.) (sq.m.) (sq.m.) 1991/92 35551 34376 97 0 0 1175 3 1992/93 5592 0 0 0 0 5592 100 1993/94 112 0 0 0 0 112 100 1994/95 23791 1356 6 0 0 22435 94 1995/96 12803 8370 65 0 0 4433 35 1996/97 8693 4032 46 0 0 4661 54 1997/98 7839 848 11 0 0 6991 89 1998/99 12980 8016 62 0 0 4964 28 1999/00 28070 2267 8 2256 8 23547 84 2000/01 44726 9440 21 649 1 34637 77 2001/02 42200 23642 56 0 0 18558 44 2002/03 9150 0 0 0 0 9150 100 2003/04 19830 0 0 15992 81 3838 19 2004/05 2828 2828 100 0 0 0 0 2005/06 2818 0 0 0 0 2818 100 2006/07 9480 1870 20 0 0 7610 80 TOTAL 266463 97045 36 18897 7 150521 56 Source: BLADES (Birmingham Land Availability and Development Enquiry Service BCC)

Note: All floorspace = gross internal floorspace - net figures are not available. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number and may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Core Output Indicator 4c. Percentage of eligible open spaces managed to “green flag award” standard

3.4.14 The City Council has compiled a list of Town Parks, Country Parks, Nature Reserves, Woodlands, Gardens and Cemeteries that are publicly accessible, and are considered to be eligible for the “Green Flag” scheme. Most, but not all, are owned and managed by the City Council. Table 3.4c summarises the number of each type of eligible open space present in Birmingham, and how many are currently managed to “Green Flag” standard.

52 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 3.4c - Green Flag Awards in Birmingham: Eligible Open Spaces and Open Spaces Awarded Green Flag Status at April 2007

Type of Open Space Total Number in Open Spaces - Eligible for Green Flag Award Birmingham Green Flag Status Country Parks 4 1 Town Parks and Gardens 169 4 Woodlands 14 0 Nature Reserves National 1 0 Local 7 Cemeteries and Crematoria 12 0 TOTAL 216 5 Source: Database of Public Open Spaces, Birmingham City Council, CABE Website.

3.4.15 At April 2007, there were 216 eligible open spaces in Birmingham, and of these, 5 were awarded “Green Flag” status. This is two more than in 2005 and is in line with the Council’s target of increasing the number of parks managed to Green Flag status by one per year over the next three years. A further open space managed to “Green Flag” status – Lickey Hills Country Park – is also owned and managed by the City Council but lies just outside the City boundary in Bromsgrove District.

Local Indicator 4d. Provision of open space:

(i) Net loss/gain in amount of public open space and public and private playing fields;

(ii) Percentage of new dwelling completions within reasonable walking distance of public open space.

3.4.16 The UDP includes policies aimed at protecting open space and includes standards for provision of public open space and public and private playing fields, as follows:

• 2 hectares of public open space per 1000 population • 1.2 hectares of public and private playing fields per 1000 population

The UDP open space policy also requires new housing to be within walking distance (400m) of safe, useable public open space.

3.4.17 During 2006/07, the baseline information relating to public open space and public and private playing fields was updated and is now on the City Council’s GIS system, allowing easier and more accurate monitoring of open space information. Figure 3.4d (i) summarises the current provision of public open space and public playing fields, and public and private playing fields in each Localisation District, per 1000 population, and for the City as a whole. These figures have been further recalculated since the 2005/06 Annual Monitoring Report, to reflect revisions to the District boundaries.

53 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

3.4.18. 9 out of the 10 Districts exceed the UDP public open space standard of 2 hectares per 1000 population and the remaining District almost meets the standard. Only two Districts – Perry Barr and Hodge Hill – currently meet the UDP playing field standard of 1.2 hectares per 1000 population. The lowest level of provision of public and private playing fields is in ladywood (0.32 hectares per 1000 population)

Table 3.4d (i) – Open Space Provision in Birmingham at April 2007, District (hectares per 1000 population)

Localisation Public Open Space & Public and Private District Public Playing Fields: Playing Fields: Provision per 1000 Provision per 1000 Population (ha) Population (ha)

Edgbaston 3.92 0.90 Erdington 2.27 0.78 Hall Green 2.01 0.41 Hodge Hill 2.80 4.36 Ladywood 1.92 0.32 Northfield 2.76 0.25 Perry Barr 2.78 1.57 Selly Oak 2.37 0.79 Sutton 11.90 0.88 Yardley 2.42 0.72

3.4.19 During 2005/06, there were no recorded change in public open space and playing fields provision. It is also possible to provide iformation about the distance of new residential developments to open space. Table 3.4d (ii) summarises the proportion of new housing completed during 2006/07 that is within 400m of open space. It should be noted that the information set out in Table 3.4d (ii) has been obtained from the City Council’s GIS mapping system, by taking a 400m radius from the central point of each new residential development, rather than actual walking distance.

Table 3.4d (ii) - New Residential Developments 01/04/2006 – 31/03/2007 - Proximity to Public Open Space.

Number of Residential Number within 400m Percentage within Developments of Public Open Space 400m of Public Open Completed 2006/07 Space 134 113 84.33%

Source: GIS and BLADES (Birmingham Land and Availability Development Enquiry Service), Birmingham City Council.

54 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

3.4.20 This shows that 113 out of the 134 housing developments (84%) completed during 2006/07 were within 400m of existing open space, suggesting that the UDP policy requirement is generally being met. The majority of developments that failed to meet this requirement are likely to have been in the city centre where in practice it can be difficult to achieve this target.

3.5 Minerals

Core Output Indicator 5a. Production of primary won aggregates

3.5.1 No primary won aggregates were produced during 2006/07 - there are no active mineral workings in Birmingham, and no extant planning permissions for mineral extraction.

Core Output Indicator 5b. Production of secondary/ recycled aggregates.

3.5.2 The most recent information available regarding aggregates production comes from the Survey of Arisings and Use of Construction, Demolition and Excavation Waste in England in 2003, carried out by Capita Symonds Ltd in association with WRc Plc on behalf of the ODPM (October 2004). However, the figures published in the survey report relate to regions, rather than local areas. According to the study, in 2003, about 4.29 million tonnes of recycled aggregate and about 0.65 million tonnes of recycled soil was produced in the West Midlands. At least some of this will have been produced in Birmingham, but it is not known how much.

3.5.3 There are currently 8 companies in Birmingham who are known to produce and supply secondary aggregates (Source: AggRegain Aggregates Supplier Directory, www.aggregain.org.uk). These companies produce a range of granular materials, and none is involved in the recycling of soils. However, we have no information about the quantity of aggregates that these companies produce, and the total capacity of existing facilities is not known.

3.5.4 As well as the main aggregates processors, some waste transfer stations recover waste building materials for re-use, but in most cases we do not know what quantities are involved. There is also anecdotal evidence that a significant amount of construction and demolition waste is processed by mobile plant and re-used on site as hardcore in new development, but again, we do not know how much waste is processed and re-used in this way. A case study published by WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) in 2004 also shows that since 1997, 100,000 tonnes per annum of redundant treatment bed aggregate has been recycled from the Severn Trent Sewage Treatment Works in Minworth, as part of a “closed loop” recycling programme.

55 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

3.6 Waste

3.6.1 The most up-to-date information on waste management capacity comes from studies recently commissioned by the West Midlands Regional Technical Advisory Body for Waste (RTAB) on behalf of the West Midlands Regional Assembly. A study into Future Capacity Requirements by Shropshire County Council (November 2004) included an estimate of waste management capacity in Birmingham at 2001, which is summarised in Table 3.6a (i) below.

Table 3.6a (i) – Indicative Waste Management Capacity in Birmingham at 2001

Type of Facility Estimated Capacity (tonnes) Municipal Recycling 5,000 Municipal Recovery 400,000 Industrial & Commercial Recycling & Treatment 575,000 Construction & Demolition Recycling 125,000 Construction & Demolition Engineering Uses 0 Hazardous Recycling & Treatment 70,000 Disposal – Non-Hazardous 0 Disposal – Hazardous 0 Source: West Midlands Waste Facilities, Phase 2: Future Capacity Requirements, Shropshire County Council on behalf of West Midlands Regional Assembly, November 2004.

3.6.2 However, this is based on a survey of waste treatment capacity which did not include exempt facilities, and therefore did not take into account the capacity of facilities such as the clinical waste incinerator at Yardley Green, the Kappa paper recycling plant in Nechells, and a number of recycling facilities operated by charities in Birmingham. The capacity of Birmingham’s only landfill site at Severn Trent in Minworth is also not included. The figures quoted in Figure 3.6a (i) must therefore be treated with caution, as they under-estimate the current capacity of waste management facilities in Birmingham.

Core Output Indicator 6a. Capacity of new waste management facilities by type.

3.6.3. Between April 2006 and March 2007, no new waste management developments were completed.

56 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Core Output Indicator 6b. Amount of municipal waste arising, and managed by management type, and percentage each management type represents of the waste managed.

3.6.4 . Table 3.6b (i) summarises the information for the years 2002/3 to 2006/7. Recovery and recycling performance can be measured against the Waste Strategy 2000 targets for Municipal Waste:

• Recovery – 40% by 2005, 45% by 2010, 67% by 2015 • Recycling/Composting – 25% by 2005, 30% by 2010, 33% by 2015

3.6.5 Performance in terms of reducing the amount of waste that goes to landfill can be measured against the Landfill Directive targets for biodegradable municipal waste, which aim to reduce this to:

• 75% of 1995 levels in 2010 • 50% of 1995 levels in 2015 • 35% of 1995 levels in 2020

The Government currently uses 2001 figures to assess performance in terms of landfill reduction through the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS). In 2001/02, 195,612 tonnes of the municipal waste arising in Birmingham was sent to landfill, out of a total of 539,742 tonnes arising, i.e. 36.24%.

Table 3.6b (i) – Municipal Waste Arising in Birmingham and Methods of Management, 2002 - 2007

Year Waste Waste Waste Waste Sent to % of Arising Recycled/ Recovered Landfill 2001 (tonnes) Composted EFW level Tonnes % Tonnes % Tonnes % Sent to Landfill 2002/03 536,191 50,519 9.42 352,535 72.8 123,347 23.0 63.08

2003/04 551,691 58,442 10.7 337,491 61.2 126,778 22.97 64.83

2004/05 568,035 69,924 12.30 340,127 59.87 112,726 19.84 57.65

2005/06 557,810 77,744 13.93 338,605 60.70 102,588 18.39 52.46

2006/07 570591 85781 15.03 273433 47.92 99487 17.43 50.85

Source: 2002/03 figures: West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Annual Monitoring Supplementary Series – Waste Planning in the West Midlands: 2004, 2003/04 figures: Birmingham Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2006 to 2026, Birmingham City Council.

3.6.6 The information available shows a decrease in the amount of waste going to landfill since 2001. The City Council has established a three year recycling expansion programme to improve its recycling rate, and the proportion of household waste recycled has increased significantly in recent

57 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

years. It should be noted that the figures for 2002/3 and 2003/4 set out in table 3.6b(i) have been recalculated and differ from those contained in earlier year’s Annual Monitoring Report

3.6.7 There are separate Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI) targets for the recycling of household waste in Birmingham, as follows:

• 10% of household waste to be recycled by 2003/04 • 18% of household waste to be recycled by 2005/06

As Table 3.6 (ii) shows, this target was met in 2003/4 and in 2006/7.

Table 3.6b (ii) – Household Waste Recycling Rates in Birmingham (percentages), 1998 – 2007

Year 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2005/06 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/2007 6 6 7 17 11 13 15 17 18

Source: West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Annual Monitoring Supplementary Series – Waste Planning in the West Midlands: 2004

3.6.8 During 2000/01 (the most recent year for which figures are readily available), 944,000 tonnes of commercial and industrial (C & I) waste was produced in Birmingham. This was 30.9% of the total C & I waste arising within the West Midlands Metropolitan area (3,217,000 tonnes). Of the C & I waste arising in Birmingham, 81,000 tonnes (8.6%) was disposed of to landfill (Source: West Midlands Spatial Strategy Annual Monitoring Supplementary Series – Waste Planning in the West Midlands: 2004). More recent information is available for the West Midlands Metropolitan area as a whole. Table 3.6b (iii) below summarises the position in 1998/99 and 2002/03. Within the Metropolitan area, the amount of C & I waste reduced from 3,519,000 tonnes to 3,147,000 tonnes between 1998/99 and 2002/03. However, this decrease has been entirely within the industrial sector, and the amount of commercial waste has in fact increased. It is unclear to what extent the reduction in industrial waste reflects the continued contraction the size of the industrial sector over this period, but it is likely to have been a significant factor.

58 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 3.6b (iii) – Commercial and Industrial Waste in the West Midlands Metropolitan Area, by Treatment Type, 1998/99 and 2002/03 (’000 tonnes)

Year Land Land Re-used/ Thermal Treatment Not Total Disposal Recovery Recycled & Transfer Recorded Industrial Waste 1998/99 840 0 956 159 404 10 2,368 2002/03 673 0 755 70 145 68 1,711 Commercial Waste 1998/99 505 0 270 148 74 153 1,151 2002/03 755 0 509 54 73 44 1,436 Total Industrial & Commercial Waste 1998/99 1,345 0 1,226 307 478 163 3,519 2002/03 1,428 0 1,264 124 218 112 3,147 Source: Commercial and Industrial Waste Surveys 1998/99 and 2002/03, Environment Agency, published on Environment Agency website (www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

3.7 Flood Protection and Water Quality

3.7.1 Many of Birmingham’s rivers and streams are susceptible to flooding, and the City Council is required to consult the Environment Agency on all planning applications within the floodplain zones defined by the Agency, which have been plotted on the City Council’s GIS system.

Core Output Indicator 7. Number of planning permissions granted contrary to the advice of the Environment Agency on either flood defence grounds or water quality.

3.7.2 During 2006/07 the City Council received 146 responses on planning applications from the Environment Agency. Five of these applications were approved with an outstanding Environment Agency objection, and in these cases it was felt that the Agency’s concerns could be adequately addressed through conditions.

3.7 Biodiversity

Core Output Indicator 8(i): Change in areas and populations of biodiversity importance, including: change in priority habitats and species (by type)

Priority Habitats Using criteria agreed between Birmingham City Council, the Black Country local authorities, EcoRecord and the Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country, 17 priority habitats were identified in last year’s AMR. Limited baseline data for these habitats was reported at that time.

59 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

As part of the ongoing monitoring of these priority habitats, more comprehensive baseline information has been compiled for two habitat types – ancient woodland and grassland.

Ancient Woodland Ancient woodlands have particular relevance in planning terms. PPS9 specifically refers to these habitats as a valuable biodiversity resource, because of their species diversity and their longevity as woodland. PPS9 advises local planning authorities to identify any areas of ancient woodland in their areas that do not have statutory protection, and states that planning permission should not be granted for any development that would result in its loss or deterioration unless the need for, and benefits of, the development outweigh the loss of the woodland habitat.

In March 2007, the Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country, on behalf of the Birmingham and the Black Country Biodiversity Partnership, prepared a draft preliminary inventory of ancient woodland. The objective of this first phase was to collate existing information available from EcoRecord, the Wildlife Trust and Natural England on ancient woodland sites in Birmingham and the Black Country. The location of the currently known sites was recorded as well as its current level of protection through the planning system. A summary of this initial work is presented in Table 1. As an extension to this initial work, 12 potential ancient woodland sites were surveyed in spring/summer 2007 as part of Birmingham’s ongoing SINC review process. The results of this work will be reported on in next year’s AMR.

Table 1: Extent of, and level of “planning” protection afforded to, currently known ancient woodland sites in Birmingham and the Black Country

Local Number of Ancient Woodland sites Total authority SSSI SINC SLINC No designation/not known Birmingham 8 7 8 13 36 Dudley 1 13 3 3 20 Sandwell 0 5 3 0 8 Walsall 1 10 5 2 18 Wolverhampton 0 5 1 1 7 Black Country 2 33 12 6 89 (total) Source: EcoRecord

Birmingham contains a significant proportion of the sub-region’s resource. Therefore it is important that the authority’s planning policies are used effectively to protect and enhance these habitats. In particular, work is required to enable currently unidentified ancient woodland sites, particularly

60 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007 those sites under 2ha which are likely to have been omitted from Natural England’s Ancient Woodland Inventory, to be identified and adequately mapped. These sites should then be granted adequate protection through the planning system. In addition a review of existing levels of protection should be carried out to ensure currently identified ancient woodland sites are adequately protected through the planning system, as over a third of Birmingham’s ancient woodlands have no protection at present. Progress in respect of the above work will be reported in future AMRs, but is subject to availability of additional resources.

Grasslands EcoRecord carried out a review of Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority grasslands in Birmingham and the Black Country as part of this year’s biodiversity monitoring. Natural England’s current Grassland Inventory was used as a starting point for this work; this document identifies no priority grassland sites within Birmingham. However, with the support of local ecologists, 38 priority grassland sites were identified, covering an area of 363.1ha.

Subsequently, GIS data from EcoRecord and other sources was analysed to expand the information provided by local experts. The results of this analysis are provided in Figure 1 and Table 2. The distribution and extent of these grasslands is shown in Figure 1, and a breakdown of the different grassland types is provided in Table 2.

Table 2: Breakdown of potential BAP priority grasslands in Birmingham

Priority grassland type Area (ha) Lowland calcareous grassland 3.35 Lowland dry acid grassland 300.98 Neutral grassland (lowland meadow) 158.34 Other good quality grassland 519.83 Total grassland area 982.5 Source: EcoRecord

There are a number of limitations associated with establishing this baseline:

• Grassland habitat areas are likely to be overestimated because whole sites have been considered rather than the grassland proportion within a site. This is particularly the case for sites where the extent of the grassland resource is not well known. • The identification of priority grassland types is based on the UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Habitat definitions. Priority habitats fulfill at least one of the following criteria: they are at risk, experiencing a high rate of decline, or are important habitats for priority species. This presents some difficulties, particularly in urban areas, as the

61 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

nature of sites and their management can make it difficult for definitions to be strictly adhered to. For example, apart from Dudley, where the “true” habitat type occurs, lowland calcareous grassland in Birmingham and the Black Country refers to base rich versions of neutral grassland. In addition, adequate translation into BAP priority habitats requires more information than that available through this exercise. Survey information will be used in the future to further refine the classifications made. • Although local experts have reliably identified a large proportion of the potential priority grassland resource, it is almost inevitable that some sites have yet to be identified. Other methodologies can be explored to complement this approach. • Further survey work/ground truthing is necessary to identify the actual extent and monitor the condition of the priority grassland resource. This initial analysis has demonstrated that a large proportion of priority grasslands could not be reliably classified into a specific category because of a lack of adequate information - hence the large proportion of “other good quality grassland. A monitoring programme should be devised and implemented as resources become available.

Figure 1: Distribution and extent of potential BAP priority grasslands

62 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

In addition to the baseline data review, EcoRecord also completed an analysis of the current level of protection granted to BAP priority grasslands through the planning system. The results are shown in Table 3.

A significant proportion of the priority grassland resource occurs on non- statutory local wildlife sites (SINCs and SLINCs). Although these sites are protected to some extent by the planning system, the SLINC grasslands in particular still remain vulnerable. In addition, around 15% of the identified resource is not covered by any nature conservation designation. Further work is needed to identify and review these areas, and to monitor the condition of existing designated grasslands; this will be reported on in future AMRs.

Table 3: Level of “planning” protection afforded to BAP priority grasslands in Birmingham

Priority Habitat area (ha) Total grassland SSSI LNR SINC SLINC No area type designation Lowland 0 0 0 1.46 1.89 3.35 calcareous grassland Lowland dry 282.62 0 10.59 1.42 6.35 300.98 acid grassland Neutral 0 0 71.02 43.87 43.85 158.34 grassland (lowland meadow) Other good 115.49 15.56 125.07 93.8 169.91 519.83 quality grassland Total area 398.11 15.56 206.68 140.15 222 982.5 (NB Some sites may have more than one designation – eg SINC and LNR.) Source: EcoRecord.

As resources are made available the extent and condition of priority grasslands will be better known, and there should be opportunities to include these sites as part of Birmingham’s SINC review process. As a result, over time, more adequate protection should be granted to the sites that support BAP priority grassland habitats. This is in line with PPS9 which advises local authorities to use policies in plans to conserve, and to identify opportunities to enhance and add to, important natural habitat types that have been identified in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 section 74 list as being of principal importance for the conservation of biodiversity in England. This work will be the subject of future reporting.

63 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Priority species Using criteria agreed between Birmingham City Council, the Black Country local authorities, EcoRecord and the Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country, 74 priority habitats were identified as part of monitoring for last year’s AMR. Limited baseline data for these species was reported at that time.

As part of this year’s biodiversity monitoring, further baseline information has been compiled by EcoRecord in relation to black redstarts - one of the priority bird species identified. Using black redstart records held by, and made available to EcoRecord, 1km and 500m consideration zones were defined around known black redstart locations (see Figures 2 and 3). The consideration zones also include areas where habitat is likely to be suitable for this species such canals and railways.

The purpose of the zones is to identify areas within Birmingham where development proposals are likely to impact on the species by causing loss of, or disturbance to, nesting sites or foraging habitat, and where adequate mitigation and enhancement measures should be encouraged (extensive green roofs/brown roofs, nesting boxes etc). This is in line with guidance in PPS9 which advises that local authorities should ensure that legally protected species should be protected from the adverse impacts of development. Future AMRs will monitor the implementation of mitigation measures within these

Figure 2: Black Redstart 1km Figure 3: Black Redstart 500m consideration zones consideration zones

64 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007 consideration zones (which will also be updated annually as more survey information becomes available).

Core Output Indicator 8(ii): Change in areas and populations of biodiversity importance, including: change in areas designated for their intrinsic environmental value including sites of international, national, regional or sub-regional significance

Designated sites are defined as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), National Nature Reserves (NNRs), Local Nature Reserves (LNRs), Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINCs) and Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINCs). SSSI, NNR and SINC boundaries are defined in the UDP; LNR and SLINC boundaries are defined in the Nature Conservation Strategy for Birmingham, which was adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance in 1997. Table 4 summarises the area covered by designated nature conservation sites, as they are currently defined.

Monitoring the condition of SSSIs is the responsibility of Natural England. Every unit of an SSSI has to be assessed at least once in a six-year period and in accordance with Common Standards Monitoring. There has been no change in the overall condition of the City’s two SSSIs – Sutton Park and Edgbaston Pool – during the period October 2006-October 2007. 30.5% of the SSSIs remain in a favourable condition; 69.5% remains in an unfavourable (recovering) condition.

An attempt has been made in this year’s AMR to establish a more definitive baseline in relation to LNRs, SINCs and SLINCs following the City Council’s adoption of a formal Local Sites system in May 2007 and the designation and de-designation of a number of SINCs and SLINCs. Use has been made of GIS databases, cross-referenced with paper records such as the Nature Conservation Strategy for Birmingham map of designated sites. The significant changes in area and number of some types of designated sites – SINCs and SLINCs in particular – is a reflection of this work.

65 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 4: Extent of designated nature conservation sites

No. of sites Area designated No. of sites with (ha) management Designation plans type April May April May April May 2006 2007 2006 2007 2006 2007 SSSI 2 2 893.31 893.31 1 1 NNR 1 1 811.73 811.73 1 1

LNR (includes 7 7 86.6 104.37 6 6 one geological LNR) SINC 42 46 339.5 730.53 9 20 SLINC 89 115 267.8 701.53 9 18 Total 140 170 1597.21 2429.91 25 45 Note: there is some overlap between SSSI and NNR, and between LNR, SINC and SLINC, as some sites have more than one designation.

An extension to an existing LNR – Hill Hook – was declared in 2006/07, resulting an increase of 2.01ha of LNR; the additional increase in LNR area can be attributed to the lack of an accurate baseline.

As a result of the formal adoption of a Local Sites system by the City Council in May 2007, there has been a net increase in the number (and consequently area) of SINCs. Seven new SINCs have been designated: Cocks Moors Wood, Elm Road Pool, Hodge Hill Common, Land at Queslett, Land at Rednal Hill, Rubery Hill and The Shire Country Park (The Dingles). Five of these sites were formerly designated as SLINCs. The boundary of one SINC – Rubery Cutting and Leach Green Cutting - has been re-confirmed. Three SINCs have been de-designated, and re-designated as SLINCs – Birmingham Botanical Gardens, Meadowland at Walmley and Water Orton Sidings.

The number of SLINCs has also increased, but this is due as much to the improved baseline calculations as to a net increase resulting from the Local Sites approval process. However, as a result of the SINC review process, two new SLINCs have been designated, one SLINC has been de-designated, two SLINCs have been combined to create one new SLINC, and the boundaries of a further six SLINCs have been revised or re-confirmed.

Although there has been a net increase in the number of SINCs and SLINCs during the reporting period, no new survey work was completed in 2006-07 due to lack of resources. However, the rolling programme of survey and review of the City’s SINCs and SLINCs has continued in 2007-08. The results of this work will be reported on in next year’s AMR.

An audit of site management plans for designated nature conservation sites has also taken place over the reporting period. This has enabled the establishment of a more accurate baseline in relation to the current

66 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007 management of publicly owned wildlife sites. The results of this audit can be found in Table 4.

Between 1st April 2006 and 31st March 2007, a number of planning applications were approved for development within or adjacent to designated nature conservation sites.

One application was approved within Sutton Park SSSI/NNR in 2006/07, the same as in 2005/06. This related to modifications to the existing visitor centre and resulted in no adverse impacts. A further seven applications were approved for development adjacent to Sutton Park SSSI/NNR and one for development adjacent to Edgbaston Pool SSSI. This compares with five applications in 2005/06. These approvals were for residential extensions and other minor schemes with no significant impact on the adjacent designated sites. In addition, one scheme c. 200m upstream of Edgbaston Pool SSSI was approved where conditions were imposed to ensure no adverse impacts on the SSSI. This application was an amendment to the scheme reported in last year’s AMR.

In 2006/07, 46 applications were approved for development within or adjacent to SINC, compared to 35 in 2005/06. Table 5 provides details of the eight schemes located within a SINC. The remaining approvals were for developments adjacent to a SINC; the majority of these related to minor applications such as building extensions, where there will be negligible impact on the adjacent site’s nature conservation interest. For one application adjacent to The Vale SINC – an amendment to the scheme reported in last year’s AMR - conditions were imposed to ensure no adverse impacts on the designated site.

Table 5: Approved planning applications affecting SINCs

Site Development approved Comments Lifford Construction of control Temporary, short term Reservoir kiosk and associated access impacts on small area of SINC and engineering works (c. 0.06ha); conditions imposed to secure ecological mitigation and enhancement for this scheme and associated permitted development works. Mill Lane, Retention of telemetry Minimal impact on SINC Northfield control kiosk Minworth Reclamation/redevelopment Construction of new link road Sewage Works of sludge beds industrial, will impact on SINC (c. storage and distribution 6.8ha), resulting in uses, new link road and disturbance to, and some loss associated works of, low quality habitats.

67 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Section 106 agreement and conditions in place to provide compensation for loss of SINC and to secure ecological mitigation and enhancement. Minworth Relocation of inert recycling Scheme principally restricted Sewage Works facility to operational areas of SINC (c. 3.2ha). Conditions imposed to secure ecological mitigation and enhancement, and site restoration following expiry of temporary approval. Minworth Installation of sewage Schemes restricted to Sewage Works treatment plant, kiosks, operational areas of SINC (c. (3 applications) control buildings and 4.7ha). Conditions imposed to access improvement works secure ecological mitigation and enhancement for these schemes and associated permitted development works. Water Orton Erection of factory and Loss of degraded section of Sidings associated external works SINC (c. 0.8ha). Section 106 agreement in place to secure ecological enhancement of retained SINC. NB SINC review process re-evaluated undisturbed section of SINC as SLINC – approved by BCC, May 2007.

151 planning applications were approved for developments on or adjacent to SLINCs, compared to 157 in 2005/06. Because of the nature of the applications involved (eg for minor/householder schemes, variation of conditions, advertisement hoardings and change of use), the overwhelming majority of these had no material impact on nature conservation interests, and no SLINC losses are anticipated. Of those with some potential impact, three applications related to approval of reserved matters for sites where SLINC losses have been previously reported and accounted for – notably Land south of Vincent Drive SLINC and M&B Recreation Ground SLINC. A further three applications for schemes within SLINCs (Scotland Farm Wood, Beechwood Hotel, Worcester and Birmingham Canal) are likely to result in some short term impacts; in these cases, conditions have been imposed to secure appropriate ecological mitigation/enhancement.

In 2006/07, 18 developments were completed on or adjacent to designated nature conservation sites, but their impact has been limited. A small-scale residential development within Moseley Golf Course Woodland and Pool SINC resulted in the loss of 0.53ha of garden habitat; approval of this scheme was

68 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007 reported in last year’s AMR. In addition, construction of a sports complex within/adjacent to King Edward VI Woodland SLINC in Kings Heath resulted in the loss of 0.17ha of woodland/scrub habitat. These losses are reflected in the SINC and SLINC totals reported in Table 4.

3.9 Renewable Energy

Core Output Indicator 9. Renewable energy capacity installed by type.

3.9.1 The City Council currently does not monitor the provision of new renewable energy capacity, so no information is available for 2006/07. Consideration is currently being given to ways of monitoring additional renewable energy capacity installed through new development and it is hoped to introduce this in the near future. However, some small schemes (e.g. installation of photovoltaic panels on domestic properties) do not require permission and therefore would not be picked up through the monitoring of planning permissions.

3.9.2 The largest renewable energy scheme currently operating in Birmingham is probably the Tyseley Energy from Waste Plant, which generates 25MWh per annum, from the thermal treatment of waste.

69 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

4. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK IMPLEMENTATION

4.1 The Birmingham Local Development Framework

4.1.1 At present the primary document within the Birmingham Local Development Framework (LDF) is the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005 (UDP).In addition to the UDP a number of Supplementary Planning Documents have now been adopted and also form part of the LDF. These are • Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses. • Kings Heath Local Action Plan • Access for People with Disabilities • Parks Strategy • Playing Pitch Strategy • Public Open Space and New Residential Development • Extending your Home • SMURF Planning Framework • Colmore Row and Environments Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan • Steelhouse Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan This section of the Annual Monitoring Report only covers implementation of key UDP policies and targets. Where relevant, we have also cross-referred to targets in the Regional Spatial Strategy – Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands, June 2004 (RSS), as this also forms part of the development plan for Birmingham.

4.2 UDP Core Policies

4.2.1 A series of 25 abridged Core Policies relating to Part One of the UDP was identified in the Environmental Assessment of the UDP and UDP Alterations (Chapters 2 – 7). This provides us with a limited – and therefore manageable - number of key policy areas that we can focus on for monitoring purposes. In some cases, the Core Policies have been adapted slightly, to more closely reflect the issues covered by the key elements of the UDP strategy. The Core Policies are listed in Table 4.1.

4.3 Assessing Performance and Effects

4.3.1 In Table 4.2, we have summarised to what extent each Core Policy is being implemented, by considering performance against relevant Core Output Indicators, Local Indicators and national, regional and local Targets. In most cases, it is possible to relate the Core Policies to specific indicators and targets, but where there are gaps, it has been necessary to refer back to the contextual summary, or to other information that helps us to determine the extent to which the policy is being implemented. Details of the indicators we

70 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007 have used, and the information we have used to assess performance against them is summarised in the Technical Appendix.

4.3.2 For each Core Policy, we have graded its overall performance/ extent to which it is being implemented as follows:

☺ Policy being implemented Progress on implementing policy Policy not being implemented

4.3.3 Although we are starting the monitoring process with a limited set of indicators and targets, over time, the Local Development Framework will expand to include new Local Development Documents (LDDs). As part of the sustainability appraisal process, monitoring indicators and targets will be identified for each of these documents. As and when they are adopted, we will assess progress on the implementation of these new documents in future Annual Monitoring Reports.

71 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

TABLE 4.1 - BIRMINGHAM UDP 2005: ABRIDGED CORE UDP POLICIES

Strategy

STRAT1 Maximise Activity within the Urban Area STRAT2 Maximise the Potential of the City Centre STRAT3 Improve Environmental Quality and Attractiveness of the City STRAT4 Target Action on Priority Areas

Environment

ENV1 Enhancement of Built Environment ENV2 Maintenance of Green Belt ENV3 Protection of Nature Conservation Habitats ENV4 Protection of Open Space ENV5 Waste Treatment and Management

Economy

ECON1 Recycling of Industrial Land ECON2 Peripheral Greenfield Development ECON3 Office Development in Specified Locations ECON4 Encouragement of Tourism

Housing

HOU1 Replacing/Improving the Existing Dwelling Stock HOU2 Provision of New Dwellings HOU3 Maximise Housing Development within the Built-up Area HOU4 Dwellings on Greenfield Land HOU5 Meeting Specific Housing Needs

Transport

TRANS1 Balanced Package: Designation and Improvements to SHN TRANS2 Balanced Package: Encouraging Use of Public Transport TRANS3 Enhance Wider Road, Rail and Air Links TRANS4 Traffic Management Measures

Shopping and Centres

SHOP1 Existing Centres to be Focus for New Developments SHOP2 Enhancement of Shopping Centres SHOP3 Limited Out-of-Centre Development

Source: Environmental Assessment of UDP and UDP Alterations, Birmingham UDP 2005

72 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Table 4.2 – Birmingham UDP Core Policies: Implementation at April 2005

UDP – Strategy

UDP Core Policy Relevant Relevant Targets Implementation of Core Policy – Overall Indicators Summary Performance

STRAT 1: Core Output RSS and UDP targets for housing Overall Levels of Development Maximising Activity Indicators 1a, on previously-developed land ☺ within the Urban 1c, 2b, 2c, 4a 2001 – 2011: Area RSS: 94% Levels of new housing development fell last (RSS Policy CF4 & Table 3) year, but are still well above the UDP and RSS requirement rates (see Core Output UDP: 82% Indicator 2a). Levels of employment (UDP Paragraph 5.25B) development increased from the previous year, and were at levels above the average UDP Housing Density Standards: for the past 15-20 years (see Core Output Indicator 1a). Retail, leisure and office • City Centre -100 dwellings development all increased and office per hectare completions were the third highest since • Other Centres/ Transport 1991 (see Core Output Indicator 4a). Corridors - 50 dwellings per hectare • Elsewhere - 40 dwellings per Development on Previously Developed Land hectare Most of the new housing development taking (UDP paragraph 5.38) place is on previously developed land (99% in 2006/07 – see Core Output Indicator 2b). There is greater year-on-year variation in

73 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

relation to employment development, but on average, over 80% is on previously developed land and 100% was on previously developed land last year (see Core Output Indicator 1c).

Density of Development

Housing densities continue to increase, with only 3% of new dwellings in 2006/07 built at a density of less than 30 per hectare, and 76% at over 50 per hectare (see Core Indicator 2c). Both these figures are higher than in previous years. There are also many examples of high-density mixed-use developments in and around the City Centre.

STRAT 2: Core Output UDP “City Living” target (new Office and Commercial Development Maximising the Indicator 4a dwellings in the City Centre) ☺ Potential of the City 2001 - 2011: The City Centre is the primary commercial Centre Local Indicator office location in the West Midlands Region, 2f 10,000 and is the main location for office investment (UDP Paragraph 15.9) in Birmingham. Following the completion of Brindleyplace, the main focus for new office development is currently Eastside, but other opportunities are coming forward at Snow Hill, Arena Central, and Five Ways/ Edgbaston. Office completions increased in 2006/7 as a result of major schemes ( e.g. Baskerville House) and others are under

74 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

construction (Colmore Plaza).

Retail Development

The completion of the Bullring and the Mailbox raised Birmingham’s status and it is now the premier regional shopping location outside London. Retail completions subsequently have been limited to small schemes, but further investment in the retail sector is in the pipeline, in particular the major Martineau Galleries redevelopment.

Leisure Development

Following recent investment in new hotels (e.g. the Radisson and Etap) and major leisure schemes such as Millennium Point and the Five Ways Leisure complex,

there were no major leisure completions in 2006/7.

Housing Development

From a slow start in the mid-1990s, the number of dwelling completions in the City Centre has increased rapidly (see Local Indicator 2f), and it is now expected that the UDP target of 10,000 new dwellings in the City Centre by 2011 will be exceeded. Almost

75 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

9,000 dwellings had been completed by April 2007.

STRAT 3: None None This is a long-term policy, and one that is Improving difficult to measure through statistical ☺ Environmental indicators. However, there is clear evidence Quality and that it is being implemented. Environmental Attractiveness of the improvements by the City Council during the City late 1980s and early 1990s, such as the development of the ICC and Centenary Square, Victoria Square and the pedestrianisation of New Street, have improved the overall quality of the environment within the City Centre. Emphasis continues to be placed on improving the quality of design of new developments through the preparation of design guidance and through negotiation with developers, and there are a number of clear successes in this respect, for example, the Bullring, which won the RTPI Planning Awards Silver Jubilee Cup in 2004. The development of the Cube, which is now under construction will add to this. The principles of good urban design are

76 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

being extended to other areas of development within the City Centre, such as Eastside and the development of a new city centre park in this area will provide a further boost. Environmental improvements have also been pursued in other parts of the City (e.g. Soho Road, Handsworth) and others are planned (e.g. Northfield and Selly Oak). The focus on recycling previously developed land provides an opportunity to improve environmental quality and at the same time, protect greenfield sites from development. Important environmental assets are protected through statutory designations such as Conservation Areas, Scheduled Ancient Monuments, Listed Buildings, SSSIs, LNRs, SINCs and SLINCs.

STRAT 4: None specific, None, but Priority Areas are The City Centre lies at the heart of the Priority Areas – but relevant identified in the UDP (see UDP Priority Areas identified in the UDP and is Addressing Social information is Figure 2.4). More detailed non readily accessible to these areas, and so the Exclusion contained in the land use targets are contained continued renaissance of the City Centre has Contextual elsewhere (e.g. the Local Area the potential to benefit the Priority Areas. A Summary (Fig Agreement) number of significant regeneration initiatives 2.1) and in are being taken forward in these areas, for relation to example, the industrial proposals at the various former IMI Works in Witton (“The Hub”) and indicators (e.g. the Attwood Green (Central Area Estates)

77 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

2f and 4d). housing regeneration project. In total, not counting completions in the City Centre, 11% of housing completions and 74% of employment completions (excluding offices) took place within the Priority Areas in 2006/07. However, despite this activity, Section 2 of this report (Contextual Summary) demonstrates that the Priority Areas continue to include some of the most deprived communities in the country (see Figure 2.1). In particular, unemployment levels remain persistently high in these areas and addressing this continues to be a serious challenge.

78 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

UDP - Environment

UDP Core Policy Relevant Relevant Targets Overall Indicators Implementation of Core Policy - Performance Summary

ENV 2: None None (Green Belt boundary is The current RSS and UDP have continued the Maintenance of defined in the UDP - see policy towards minimal changes to the Green ☺ Green Belt Proposals Map) Belt, and although there are no specific indicators attached to this, there is evidence that this broad policy approach is being implemented.

Green Belt Changes

The only change to the Green Belt boundary resulting from the adoption of the UDP Alterations (October 2005) is the removal of 37.5 hectares of brownfield land at Minworth Sewage Works. This land has been allocated for employment development, to meet a shortfall in the medium-term supply of Best Urban employment land (see Core Output Indicator 1d).

Control of Development in the Green Belt

During 2006/07 planning permission was granted for five significant developments in

79 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

the Green Belt. One of these was for a replacement school and two were for open air leisure uses. The others were for the change of use of a farm building and an extension to an industrial unit (granted at appeal). One significant development was completed in the Green Belt during 2006/07: the conversion of a derelict farm building on the edge of the Green Belt to a health centre.

Green Belt Management

The UDP proposes that an Urban Fringe Project be established for the Sutton Coldfield Green Belt. This subsequently led to the establishment of the Green Arc Partnership focusing on a broad area of countryside to the north and east of Birmingham to address issues such as sustainable land management, mitigation of the impact of the M6 Toll, pressures for change, raising awareness and public access to the countryside. The project was established by Natural England, Staffordshire County Council, Warwickshire County Council, local authorities, Forestry Commission, Midland Expressway Limited, working in partnership with other interested organisations. Its vision is:

• To address common pressures and forces for change affecting

80 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

the countryside to the north and east of Birmingham • To achieve positive sustainable management within the initiative area • To achieve common understanding and sharing of knowledge and expertise among those involved in implementation initiative

Funding difficulties among some of the partner organizations have limited the potential for progress in 2006/07 and in particular it has not been possible to continue to employ a full-time project staff.

However, within Birmingham S106 monies have been secured to help deliver the objectives of the Partnership. The phase 3 revision of the RSS also provides an opportunity to consider Green Belt management issues in a broader context.

The UDP seeks to protect important nature ENV 3: Core Output Priority Habitats & Species: as conservation sites, and includes policies for Protection of Nature Indicators 8 (i) defined using locally agreed the protection of designated sites of national ☺ Conservation and (ii) criteria; includes UK and local and sub-regional importance, as well as a Habitats Biodiversity Action Plan priority general policy towards wildlife habitats that habitats and species, and legally may be affected by development. The protected species. implementation of this policy has been more

81 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Designated Sites: SSSIs, NNRs, effective following the appointment of a LNRs, SINCs as defined in UDP Planning Ecologist in 2003. Local authorities’ (2005) and SLINCs as defined in new “biodiversity duty”, required under Nature Conservation Strategy Section 40 of the Natural Environment and SPG (1997) Rural Communities Act 2006, adds further justification for effective implementation of RSS targets: this policy, however, no additional resources have been identified to facilitate • No loss of SSSIs implementation. • Maintain current extent of Priority Habitats and Species other Priority Habitats (where known) Currently effective monitoring of development affecting the Priority Habitats (RSS Policy QE7) and Species is being developed, with work focusing on establishing the baseline position in relation to a limited number of habitats and species (see Core Output Indicator 8 (i)).

Designated Nature Conservation Sites

The UDP defines SSSIs, LNRs and SINCs, and the Nature Conservation Strategy for Birmingham (Supplementary Planning Guidance) defines SLINCs. The baseline information for many SINCs and SLINCs dates back to the 1980s, and a rolling programme to survey and review around 80 SINCs and potential SINCs is underway. . As a result of this review process, and a more general audit of SINC/SLINC data, the number and extent of SINCs and SLINCs

82 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

increased in 2006/07. The extent of LNRs also increased in 2006/07, with the declaration of an extension to an existing LNR. Out of a total of 170 designated sites, 45 (26%) are being actively managed (see Core Output Indicator 8 (ii)), which represents an increase over 2005/06. known changes to designated sites as a result of development during 2005/06.There has been some small scale loss (c. 0.7 ha) of designated sites (one SINC and one SLINC) as a result of development completed in 2006/07.

ENV 4: Core Output UDP Open Space and Playing Open Space Protection Protection of Open Indicator 4c Fields targets: ☺ Space During 2006/07, there were no recorded Local Indicators • Public Open Space – 2ha losses of open space (i.e. public open space, 4d (i) and (ii) per 1000 population public playing fields and/or private playing • Public and Private Playing fields) to development, and an additional Fields – 1.2ha per 1000 5.38 hectares of public open space was population provided • Housing to be within 400m of Public Open Space • No loss of any open space of Open Space Provision 1000 sqm or more within the City Centre 9 out of 10 Districts meet the UDP public open space/public playing fields standard of 2 (UDP paragraphs 3.51, 3.53, hectares per 1000 population. However, only 3.53A, and 3.55) 2 Districts currently meet the UDP public and

83 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

private playing fields standard of 1.2 hectares per 1000 population (see Local Indicator 4d (i)). Most new housing has reasonable access to open space – nearly 84%% of the housing developments completed during 2006/07 were within 400m of open space (see Local Indicator 4d (ii)). The City Council has adopted the Supplementary Planning Document (Public Open Space in New Residential Development). This provides clear guidance on where, how and when provision is required in terms of public open space and children’s play as part of new residential developments.

Management - Green Flag Scheme

As well as protecting open space and addressing adequacy of provision, the UDP also supports improvements to the quality of existing open space. Currently 5 out of 216 eligible green spaces in Birmingham are managed to the CABE “Green Flag” standard (Core Output Indicator 4c). This represents an increase of two over the previous year.

ENV 5: Core Output Waste Strategy 2000 Municipal Minerals and Waste Waste Treatment and Indicators 5b, Waste Targets: Management – plus 6a, 6b, 7 and 9 There are no active mineral workings in Water, Air Quality • Recovery – 40% by 2005, Birmingham, and there is no accurate

84 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

and Energy Local Indicator 45% by 2010, 67% by 2015 information on the production of secondary 10 • Recycling/Composting – aggregates (see Core Output Indicator 5b). 25% by 2005, 30% by The latest available estimate of existing 2010, 33% by 2015 waste management capacity in Birmingham does not take into account several known Landfill Directive – facilities, and therefore under-estimates Biodegradable Municipal Waste existing capacity. No additional waste Landfill Reduction Targets: management capacity was developed during 2006/07 (see Core Output Indicator 6a). • 75% of 1995 levels in 2010 Performance against the identified targets is • 50% of 1995 levels in 2015 variable (see Core Output Indicator 6b). The • 35% of 1995 levels in 2020 amount of municipal waste going to landfill is reducing and is below the 75% target rate. BVPI Household Waste Recycling The national targets relating to the recovery Targets for Birmingham: of municipal waste, are being met, but the recycling/ composting targets are not. • 10% by 2003/04 However, the City Council is currently • 18% by 2005/06 meeting its BVPI targets for the recycling of household waste. Over 900,000 tonnes of National and Regional Commercial and Industrial (C & I) waste was Renewable Energy and CO2 produced in Birmingham in 2000/01 (the Reduction Targets: latest year for which figures are available). Within the West Midlands Metropolitan area • Regional Energy Strategy - as a whole, the amount of C & I waste has 5% of energy to be reduced between 1998/99 and 2002/03, but generated from renewable the reduction has been entirely within the sources by 2010 and 10% industrial sector, and may be at least in part by 2020 due to the overall contraction within the

• Energy White Paper -CO2 industrial sector during this period. emissions to be reduced by 60% by 2050 (also Regional

85 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

targets by sector) Water and Drainage UDP targets for City Council energy use/ consumption: During 2006/07, the City Council approved five planning application against the advice of • 15% of energy to be the Environment Agency (see Core Output generated from renewable Indicator 7). However, appropriate sources by 2010 safeguarding conditions were imposed, which

• Reduce CO2 emissions by addressed the Agency’s concerns regarding 30% (@ 1990) by 2010 possible flood risk. The City Council has recently been involved in the Sustainable (UDP paragraph 3.79A) Management of Urban Rivers and Floodplains (SMURF) project for the River Tame, which is supported by the EU LIFE Programme. This is a joint project between the City Council, the Environment Agency, Severn Trent Water, HR Wallingford, Staatliches Umweltamt Herten, the University of Birmingham and King’s College London. The overall aim of the project is to demonstrate how the principles of river basin management can be applied to a heavily modified and degraded river. As part of this project, a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Sustainable Management Of Urban Rivers And Floodplains (SMURF) was adopted in June 2007.

Air Quality

The whole of Birmingham was declared an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) in

86 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

January 2003. A draft Air Quality Action Plan was published in June 2004. The main area of concern is the emission of nitrogen dioxide, the primary sources of which are transport and industrial combustion processes. Emissions are monitored at a number of stations across the City, and the Action Plan aims to reduce emissions to acceptable levels through a number of measures, including several relating to planning (e.g. encouraging City Centre housing development and mixed use development, and considering air quality issues through the planning process).

Renewable Energy

No information is available on new schemes developed in 2006/07.

87 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

UDP - Economy

UDP Core Policy Relevant Relevant Targets Overall Indicators Implementation of Core Policy - Performance Summary

ECON 1: Core Output Industrial Development and Industrial Completions Recycling of Indicators 1a – Regeneration Areas: as defined Industrial Land 1f in the RSS and UDP – RSS Best Urban industrial completions have Urban Regeneration Zones and averaged nearly 14 hectares since 2001/02, High Technology Corridor (CTB), close to the estimated requirement of 16 UDP Industrial Regeneration hectares per annum. Within the Good Urban Areas and Industrial Proposals. industrial category completions have averaged 6.35 hectares since 2001/02, but UDP Annual Requirement for with several years in excess of the 10-hectare Industrial Land: estimated requirement. The Best and Good Urban industrial categories have, therefore, • Best Urban – 16ha generally performed reasonably although • Good Urban – 10ha slightly lower than the UDP estimated • Other – 10ha targets. However, Other employment completions have significantly under- (Figure 4.1: Industrial Land performed, with an average of less than 3 Requirements) hectares of completions since 2001/02 (see Core Output Indicator 1a). UDP Minimum Reservoir of Readily Available Land within Supply of Industrial Land each Sub-Market: The supply of readily available industrial land • Best Urban – 64ha in all categories falls significantly short of the

88 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

• Good Urban – 30ha UDP minimum targets (see Core Output • Other – 20ha Indicator 1d). Within the Best Urban category • At least four Best Urban 33.37 hectares is considered “readily sites @ 10ha distributed available,” significantly short of the UDP across the City. target of 64 hectares. However, the “not readily available” Best Urban supply is strong (UDP Figure 4.1 and paragraph at 116.56 hectares with several large sites 4.31) being brought forward for development. There are also currently four sites of at least 10 hectares within the Best Urban category distributed across the City, namely; Pebble Mill, The Hub, Longbridge and Minworth Sewage Works. Within the Good Urban category there is 20.57 hectares of “readily available” land, compared to the UDP target of 30 hectares. Readily available good urban land has therefore increased from last year but is still short of the UDP target. The “not readily available” supply is also low at 26.89 hectares a decrease from the previous year. The shortage of Good Urban land is a concern, as no new allocations were proposed in the UDP Alterations. There is 10.10 hectares of “readily available” Other Urban land as compared to the UDP target of 20 hectares. The UDP loss of industrial land policy appears to have been reasonably successful in retaining industrial land within the industrial sites and industrial regeneration areas identified in the UDP. The rate of loss City wide was 9.07 hectares a reduction from

89 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

the previous year.

Greenfield Sites

A high percentage of employment development in Birmingham takes place on previously developed sites (see Core Output Indicator 1c). 85% of office development and 83% of industrial development was on previously developed land. These figures illustrate the importance of recycling employment land rather than relying on greenfield land releases.

Development within Regeneration Areas

78% of industrial completions during 2006/07 took place within the areas of industrial regeneration identified in the UDP or on land that was allocated for industrial use (see Core Output Indicator 1b). A high percentage of development was therefore focused within these areas, reflecting the success of the City in undertaking some major industrial regeneration programmes. Significant programmes have included the redevelopment of the Former Dunlop Works in the Heartlands area of industrial regeneration and the ongoing redevelopment of “The Hub” in the Tame Valley Area of Industrial Regeneration.

90 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Development within High-Technology Corridors

High Technology Corridors are intended to encourage the diversification of the regional economy by promoting the development of key technology drivers such as nano- technology. Three high-technology corridors have been identified in the RSS with the Central Technology Belt (CTB) (Birmingham to Worcestershire), covering part of Birmingham. The last 2 years have seen some significant milestones in the implementation of the high-technology corridor strategy in the CTB. Outline planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment of Pebble Mill for high- technology industrial uses. 16 hectares of land at the former MG Rover Works at Longbridge has also been identified for a technology park. A detailed planning consent has now been granted for the phase 1 works (1.48 hectares) at Longbridge and the first 2 buildings are now nearing completion. A further site has been identified in Selly Oak as part of the Birmingham Battery Site redevelopment (1 hectare). These sites will play a major role in the implementation of the corridor strategy. There were no

91 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

completions for Research and Development uses within the Birmingham last year but this should change in future monitoring years as the above sites are progressed.

Loss of Industrial Land

186.68 hectares of employment land was lost to alternative uses during the 1991-2007 period, including 86.67 hectares lost to residential uses (see Core Output Indicators 1e and 1f). On average nearly 5 hectares of employment land is lost per year to a residential use.

ECON 2: None RSS Targets for RIS and MIS: Proposals for a Premium Employment Site Peripheral Greenfield (now known as Regional Investment Sites) Development • RIS – at least one within or and Major Investment Site were deleted from linked by public transport to the UDP on the recommendation of the each HTC and RZ Inspector. Consequently, the adopted UDP • MIS – at least two readily only allocates a limited amount of peripheral available within the Region greenfield land for employment purposes. at all times Regional Investment Sites (RIS) (RSS Policies PA7 and PA8) There are no Regional Investment Sites (RIS) in Birmingham. The East Birmingham and North Solihull Regeneration Zone (EBNS RZ) is currently served by the RIS at Birmingham Business Park in Solihull, which has around

92 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

15 hectares of remaining land available for development. The basic requirement of having a site available to meet the needs of the EBNS RZ is therefore being met, although the deletion of Bassetts Pole from the UDP suggests that further provision may be needed. There are currently no RIS to serve either the West Birmingham/South Black Country RZ or the Central Technology Belt. In respect of the Central Technology Belt the emerging Longbridge Area Action Plan proposes an RIS which would serve this corridor. A potential RIS at East Aston has also been identified in the Aston, Newtown, Lozells Area Action Plan, although this document is still at an early stage. The position in relation to RIS provision and the gaps in existing provision is being considered as part of the Regional Spatial Strategy Review. The Proposed Changes to the RSS suggest that joint working between the relevant local authorities and key partners including AWM should identify how the gaps and potential gaps in provision are to be filled. The outcome of the joint working should then be taken forward through the relevant Core Strategies.

Major Investment Sites (MIS)

There are no Major Investment Sites (MIS) in

93 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Birmingham following the deletion of the proposed MIS at Peddimore from the UDP Alterations. There are currently two MIS in the West Midlands. The MIS at Ansty in Rugby is considered readily available but the RSS Review Preferred Option suggests that the site will now be developed as a Regional Investment Site rather than a MIS. South Staffordshire Council have granted outline planning consent to Advantage West Midlands to develop the Wobaston Road site. In addition to the RIS, the proposal includes a 45.5 hectare/135,000 sq metre MIS.

The review of the Regional Spatial Strategy will need to consider the adequacy of Major Investment Site provision.

Peripheral Greenfield Employment Sites

The only peripheral greenfield employment sites allocated in the UDP are at Hatchford Brook, which has been implemented, and Quinton Meadows, which is partly implemented. The deletion of the proposals at Bassetts Pole and Peddimore has meant that only around 10 hectares of peripheral greenfield land is allocated in the UDP for employment purposes. In addition to the greenfield sites, a previously developed peripheral site at Minworth Sewage Works is

94 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

allocated in the UDP for employment purposes. This has been released from the Green Belt to overcome a medium-term shortfall in employment land within the Best Urban sub-market.

ECON 3: Core Output None, although UDP identifies Office developments (i.e. developments Office Development Indicators 4a City Centre and a number of within Class B1 (a)) have averaged around in Specified Locations and 4b suburban centres as locations 41,500 sq.m. a year since 1991. 1991/92 was for office development/ growth. itself an exceptional year, when 119,565 sq.m. of office floorspace was completed (see Core Indicator 4a). 76% of the completed office floorspace has been within existing centres, and the majority of this has been within the City Centre (see Core Indicator 4b). This is broadly in line with the UDP policy approach. 41% of office completions this year were within a centre, which is lower than average. However, this figure will increase in future years. A number of significant office developments are under construction in the City Centre including Snow Hill and the Post & Mail. The number of office developments taking place in Sutton Coldfield and in the suburban centres identified in the UDP has been relatively limited.

ECON 4: Core Output None A significant amount of the leisure

95 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Encouragement of Indicators 4a development that has taken place in Tourism and 4b Birmingham since 1991 (see Core Output ☺ Indicators 4a and 4b) has been tourism related, for example, the National Sea Life Centre and Millennium Point. The number of international visitors to the City has increased from 520,000 in 2000, to 720,000 in 2003 (Source, Office for National Statistics). Various regeneration initiatives and events have increased the attractiveness of the City as a visitor destination. In support of this, the Bullring shopping centre opened in autumn 2003, and has greatly enhanced the City's retail offer. Other regeneration initiatives such as Eastside are also being progressed. Several events of international significance have also been held in the Birmingham including the World Gymnastics Championships and international athletics.

96 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

ECON 3: Core Output None, although UDP identifies Office developments (i.e. developments Office Development Indicators 4a City Centre and a number of within Class B1 (a)) have averaged around in Specified Locations and 4b suburban centres as locations 41,500 sq.m. a year since 1991. 1991/92 was for office development/ growth. itself an exceptional year, when 119,565 sq.m. of office floorspace was completed (see Core Indicator 4a). Over 80% of the completed office floorspace has been within existing centres, and the majority of this has been within the City Centre (see Core Indicator 4b). This is broadly in line with the UDP policy approach. However, the rate of office completions – and the lack of speculative development – has been a little disappointing. There is potential for this to change, with a number of new City Centre development locations due to come on stream shortly (e.g. Eastside, Snow Hill, Arena Central). The number of office developments taking place in Sutton Coldfield and in the suburban centres identified in the UDP has also been relatively limited.

ECON 4: Core Output None A significant amount of the leisure Encouragement of Indicators 4a development that has taken place in ☺ Tourism and 4b Birmingham since 1991 (see Core Output Indicators 4a and 4b) has been tourism related, for example, the National Sea Life Centre and Millennium Point. The number of

97 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

international visitors to the City has increased from 520,000 in 2000, to 720,000 in 2003 (Source, Office for National Statistics). Various regeneration initiatives and events have increased the attractiveness of the City as a visitor destination. In support of this, the Bullring shopping centre opened in autumn 2003, and has greatly enhanced the City's retail offer. Other regeneration initiatives such as Eastside are also being progressed. Several events of international significance have also been held in the Birmingham including the World Gymnastics Championships and international athletics.

98 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

UDP - Housing

UDP Core Policy Relevant Relevant Targets Overall Indicators Implementation of Core Policy – Performance Summary

HOU 1: Core Output None, but housing supply Since 1991 19,747 dwellings have been Replacing/Improving Indicator 2a (i) calculation includes assumptions demolished in Birmingham (see Core Output ☺ the Existing Dwelling re: demolition and clearance. Indicator 2a (i)). The number of demolitions Stock has in fact exceeded the UDP assumption of 1,155 demolitions per annum between 1991 and 2007 (i.e. 16 years x 1,155 = 18,480). Most of the demolitions that have taken place were obsolete public sector dwellings cleared for redevelopment with new homes. Many were within Housing Regeneration Areas allocated in the UDP such as Castle Vale, Pype Hayes, Perry Common and the Central Area Estates (Attwood Green).

HOU 2: Core Output RSS and UDP Housing UDP Housing Requirement Provision of New Indicators 2a (i) Requirement for Birmingham ☺ Dwellings – (v) 1991 - 2015: Sufficient land to meet the UDP housing requirement has already been identified. Local Indicator RSS - 37,800 dwellings 2001 - 38,814 dwellings have been completed to 2e 2015 (6 years @ 2,300 per date. Assumptions indicate that additional annum = 13,800 + 8 years @ capacity for a further 18,240 dwellings will

99 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

3,000 per annum = 24,000) come forward before 2011 (see Core Output (RSS Policy CF3, Table 1) Indicator 2a, Housing Trajectory 1).

UDP - 46,500 dwellings (2,325 RSS Housing Requirement per annum) between 1991 – 2011 The minimum requirement of 2,300 completions per annum has been exceeded (UDP Figure 5.5: Housing each year between 2001 and 2007. 5,295 Provision in Birmingham, 1991 – dwellings in excess of the minimum were 2011) completed by 2006/7. The step change required to 3,000 dwellings per annum due to UDP Target for Reduction in take effect in 2007 was achieved in 2003/04, Vacancies: and has been maintained since. The assumptions in the UDP to 2011 and work for • 3% by 2011 the West Midlands Regional Urban Capacity Study 2004 for the period beyond 2011 (UDP paragraph 5.25D) suggest that land will be available for 16,929 dwellings over and above the RSS minimum requirement for the period 2001-2015 (see Core Output Indicator 2a, Housing Trajectory 2).

Vacancy Rates

1991 and 2001 Census information shows that the vacancy rate is falling, in line with the UDP assumptions (see Local Indicator 2e).

HOU 3: Core Output UDP Housing Density Standards: The UDP includes housing density standards

100 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Maximise Housing Indicators 2c and also includes a target for new dwellings Development within and 3b • City Centre -100 dwellings in the City Centre (City Living). ☺ the Built-up Area per hectare Local Indicator • Other Centres/ Transport Housing Densities 2f Corridors - 50 dwellings per hectare The UDP seeks to maximise the use of • Elsewhere - 40 dwellings per housing land, and includes challenging hectare housing density targets that significantly exceed the indicative minimum set out in (UDP paragraph 5.38) PPS3. However, as the UDP housing density policy was not implemented until 2001, UDP City Living Target: housing developments approved prior to that were generally at a lower density. There has 10,000 new dwellings in City been a marked increase in the density of Centre 1991 - 2011 housing developments completed since 2003/04, which in part reflects very intensive (UDP paragraph 15.9) housing developments that have taken place within the City Centre (see Core Output Indicator 2c). Almost all of the new housing built during the last three years was within the built-up area, and was within 30 minutes public transport time of key facilities (see Core Output Indicator 3b).

City Centre Development

Good progress has been made towards meeting the UDP target of 10,000 new dwellings in the City Centre by 2011. At April 2007, 8,946 completions have taken place, 2,903 dwellings were under construction and

101 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

a further 7,310 had planning permission (see Local Indicator 2f).

HOU 4: Dwellings on Core Output RSS and UDP targets for housing Both the UDP and RSS seek to concentrate Greenfield Land Indicator 2b on previously-developed land new housing on previously developed land ☺ (PDL) 2001 – 2011: (PDL) within urban areas, and to restrict peripheral greenfield development. RSS: 94% Accordingly, targets have been set for (RSS Policy CF4 & Table 3) housing development on previously developed land (PDL). UDP: 82% (UDP Paragraph 5.25B) UDP and RSS PDL Targets

The percentage of housing development that has taken place on previously developed land has increased as the UDP policies to achieve this have taken effect. With the last of the greenfield allocations from the early 1990s now having been built out, the amount of housing development which has taken place on PDL has risen from 91% in 2002/03 to 95% in 2003/04 and to 99% in 2005/6, where it has remained since (see Core Output Indicator 2b).

HOU 5: Core Output UDP Private/Public Sector The UDP aspires to meet the full range of Meeting Specific Indicator 2d Housing Assumptions: housing requirements in Birmingham, Housing Needs including the need for affordable homes and • 51% Private homes that meet the requirements of people

102 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

• 49% Public Sector with special needs.

(UDP paragraph 5.36)

UDP Affordable Housing Policy Affordable Housing Requirement (applies to all developments on sites of 1 Satisfactory progress has been with regard to hectare and over and/or with 25 the provision of affordable housing. Since dwellings or more): 1991, 69% of all completions have been private sector housing (26,152 out of a total • 25% of dwellings to be of 38,814), which is higher than the rate affordable homes provided assumed in the UDP. Of the private sector by RSL or similar provider housing completed just under 2% was • 10% of dwellings to be low- affordable housing. cost market homes. A significant number of public sector (City (UDP paragraph 5.37A) Council/RSL) dwellings have been demolished (16,678). These have not been replaced at the same rate largely because the intention has been to create sustainable communities and redevelopment, therefore, tends to be mixed tenure.

Since 199110,988 public sector dwellings have been provided using traditional grant funding. A further 1,665 affordable homes have been provided through the Affordable Housing Policy over the period 1997 to 2007. The policy has gradually gained momentum since its introduction. In 2006/7 almost 400 affordable dwellings were secured by section

103 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

106 agreement and 221 were completed. (see Core Output Indicator 2d).

Specific Needs Housing

Although the UDP supports the provision of housing to meet special needs, such as the needs of larger family groups, the elderly and people with disabilities, at present, it is not possible to provide data on the extent to which these specific housing needs are being met. Consideration will be given towards addressing this in future reports if possible. The UDP does not include a Lifetime Homes policy as this was deleted on the recommendation of the Inspector. In practice, however, all Housing Corporation Social Housing Grant funded schemes require affordable homes to be built to Scheme Design Standards (SDS), which incorporate “lifetime homes” standards.

104 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

UDP - Transport

UDP Core Policy Relevant Relevant Targets Overall Indicators Implementation of Core Policy - Performance Summary

TRANS 1: None None, although the SHN is Although designated in the 1993 UDP, a Balanced Package: defined in the UDP, and the UDP number of the primary route changes have ☺ Designation and also identifies a number of yet to be implemented. Awaiting scheme Improvements to Improvement Priorities improvements in the South and West of SHN Birmingham.

However, progress has been made in relation to a number of the Improvement Priorities identified in the UDP, including: • Commencement of Northfield Relief Road • Development of proposals for Selly Oak New Road – Phase 1 started in 2007 • Development of “Red Route” schemes including the Stratford Road / Walsall Road (A34) Tyburn Road (A38) have been implemented. Proposals for the Ring Road(A4540) and Coventry Rd(A45) have been consulted upon.

TRANS 2: Local Indicator UDP Public Transport Modal As Local Indicator 3c shows, there is a

105 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Balanced Package: 3c Share Targets – Birmingham continuing gradual increase in the proportion Encouraging Use of City Centre: of trips into the City Centre, which are ☺ Public Transport undertaken by public transport and these • Maintain a.m. peak share @ now exceed 50%. The main change has been 1997 levels (48%) the continued increase in rail usage, even • Maintain all day share @ though there is a decline in bus patronage in 1997 levels (48%) the West Midlands Metropolitan area, as recorded in the 2006 West Midlands Local (UDP paragraph 6.18 (f)) Transport Plan. There are a number of current initiatives aimed at improving public 2006 LTP Target: transport use, including further Bus Increase the morning peak Showcase Routes, and the extension of proportion of trips by public workplace travel plans. Other longer-term transport into the 9 LTP centres initiatives that are supported in the UDP as a whole from the 2005/6 include: forecast baseline of 32.73 to 33.8% by 2009/10 • The redevelopment of New Street Station • City Centre Midland Metro Extension • Provision of improved public transport interchange in Sutton Coldfield Town Centre.

TRANS 3: None None. Improvements to national and international Enhance Wider Road, transport links require substantial investment, Rail and Air Links and therefore take a long time to deliver. There have been no major changes since the UDP was drafted. However, significant progress has been made on the redevelopment of New Street Station, which is now awaiting funding announcement and

106 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

which is expected to be completed by 2014. In addition, the Local Transport Plan seeks to increase the accessibility of major industrial areas to motorway junctions for freight traffic.

Rail service improvements have been achieved on the Cross-Country routes and to London with a half-hourly interval provided to most cities.

Birmingham International Airport has adopted a 30-year Masterplan.

A new coach station for Digbeth has been given planning permission and work is due to commence in 2007.

TRANS 4: None None, although the 2006 LTP for The West Midlands Local Transport Plan Traffic Management the West Midlands Metropolitan (LTP) (2006) identifies making the best use ☺ Measures area identifies a number of key of the existing transport network as the priorities – this includes journey starting point for the LTP Strategy. This time monitoring, to be carried includes a number of elements, such as: out in conjunction with the Department for Transport • Red Routes • Urban Traffic Management & Control Improvements • Park & Ride • Demand Management.

107 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Road maintenance is also a significant factor, and in this respect, the PFI scheme being developed in Birmingham provides the opportunity for a significant increase in resources for this area. This is expected to be in place by 2009 however, forecasts indicate that the number of trips will continue to increase and that addressing congestion issues remains a major challenge.

108 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

UDP - Shopping and Centres

UDP Core Policy Relevant Relevant Targets Implementation of Core Policy - Overall Indicators Summary Performance

SHOP 1: Core Output None. There has been a significant amount of new Existing Centres to be Indicators 4a retail development in Birmingham since 1991 ☺ Focus for New and 4b (a total of 539,750sq.m.), although there Developments have been wide variations from year to year (see Core Output Indicator 4a) and completions were at a low level in 2005/06. The majority of this development has been focused on existing centres, in line with the UDP policy – since 1991 about two-thirds of retail development in Birmingham has been either in-centre or edge-of-centre (see Core Output Indicator 4b). The City Centre has been a significant focus for this development, particularly in recent years, with the Bullring development completed in 2003 and this is set to continue with the future development of the Martineau Galleries scheme. However, smaller scale retail developments have taken place in a wide range of other centres across the City.

SHOP 2: None None, although investment The City Council has adopted a Local Centres Enhancement of priorities are identified in Local Strategy (revised in 2006) and a Local ☺

109 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Shopping Centres Centres Strategy and Centres Regeneration Programme to take Regeneration Programme. forward this policy. This provides an ongoing programme of investment aimed at enhancing local centres. The programme uses a range of funding sources including the Council’s own capital programme, SRB, ERDF and NRF, as well as private sector contributions. Centres currently benefiting from the programme, or about to benefit, include: Northfield, Selly Oak, Stirchley, The Swan (Yardley), Fox and Goose and Erdington. The revised Local Centres Strategy identifies 68 local centres in Birmingham and identifies 14(21%) as strong, 34(50%) as stable and 20(29%) as weak. Further allocations of resources from this programme will be made during 2006/07 with one of the objectives being to reduce the number of weak centres.

SHOP 3: Core Output None. Overall, since 1991, 33% of retail Limited Out-of-Centre Indicator 4b development has taken place on out-of- ☺ Development centre sites (see Core Output Indicator 4b). The amount of out-of-centre development has varied significantly year on year, but the general trend has been for the proportion of out-of-centre development to decline. This reflects the increasing impact of PPG6 and now PPS6 on the location of new retail development, as well as the UDP policy.

110 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

However, it is likely that there will always be a requirement for at least some out-of-centre retail development in Birmingham, to meet specific needs. In this respect it should be noted that during 2005/06 planning permission was granted by the Secretary of State for a large out-of-centre retail scheme on the site of Joseph Chamberlain College.

111

Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

5. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME - PROGRESS

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 Birmingham’s initial Local Development Scheme came into effect on June 2005. In addition to identifying the Development Plan Documents and Supplementary Planning Documents, which the Council proposes to prepare over the next 3 years, it also identifies the expected timescales for completing the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan Alterations. The City Council’s Cabinet agreed a revised LDS, which came into effect in December 2006. This section reviews progress against the revised LDS.

5.2 The Unitary Development Plan Alterations

5.2.1 The LDS set the following target dates:

• Publication of Proposed Modifications following Inspector’s Report – April 2005 • Adoption – October 2005

Both of these targets were met. The final period for potential legal challenge of intervention by the Secretary of State ended in December 2005 and no challenge was received.

5.3 Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Documents

5.3.1 Progress in relation to Development Plan Documents, Supplementary Planning Documents and the Statement of Community Involvement is set out in the attached table. This identifies the key milestones set in the revised LDS 2006 for each document, and reports on the progress made towards achieving them.

113 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Appendix 1: Birmingham Local Development Scheme - Proposed Development Plan Documents and Statement of Community Involvement

TITLE LDS MILESTONE CURRENT POSITION

Title Public Submission to Pre-Examination Commencement Adoption Participation on the Secretary Meeting of Examination Preferred of State Options Core Strategy January 2008 November 2008 June 2009 September 2009 May 2010 Submission expected May 2009 Timescale is Examination expected designed to follow January 2010 on from the RSS process Centres DPD January 2008 November 2008 June 2009 September 2009 May 2010 Submission expected May 2009 Examination expected January 2010 Statement of June 2006 January 2007 April 2007 June 2007 October 2007 Submission September Community 2007 Involvement Consultation Adoption expected May process does not 2008 involve options or sustainability appraisal

114 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

TITLE LDS MILESTONE CURRENT POSITION

Title Public Submission to Pre-Examination Commencement Adoption Participation on the Secretary Meeting of Examination Preferred of State Options Aston, Newtown July 2007 January 2008 April 2008 July 2008 March 2009 and Lozells Area Need for additional work arisen Action Plan from consultation of issues and options and scoping report. Preferred Option now expected in late 2008 June 2007 December 2007 April 2008 July 2008 April 2009 Primrose, Pool Farm It is no longer intended to and Hawkesley produce this DPD as it has been considered in discussion with the Government Office that the regeneration of the area can be achieved without a DPD. January 2007 April 2007 July 2007 October 2007 June 2008 Delay due to additional Longbridge Area transportation and baseline Action Plan work and agreements with partners.

Submission expected January/February 2008 City Centre January 2008 November 2008 June 2009 September 2009 May 2010 Master Plan Initial delay in procurement of Masterplanning. Preferred Option now expected August 2008.

115 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

Appendix 2: Birmingham Local Development Scheme – Proposed Supplementary Planning Documents

TITLE LDS MILESTONE CURRENT POSITION

Title Consultation Adoption Location of Telecommunications September 2005 March 2006 • Consultation commenced September 2007. Equipment (Mobile Phone Delayed due to revised research and overview of Infrastructure) scrutiny report. • Adoption now expected January 2008. Parks Strategy May 2005 November 2005 • Adopted November 2006.

Playing Pitch Strategy May 2005 November 2005 • Adopted November 2006.

Large Format Banners January 2007 April 2007 • Delayed due to consideration of revised guidance from English Heritage • Consultation commenced September 2007 • Adoption expected January 2008 Public Open Space and New September 2006 March 2007 • Adopted July 2007 Residential Development

Places for the Future January 2006 July 2006 • No progress due to lack of funding

Lighting Places January 2007 May 2007 • Consultation expected February 2008 • Adoption expected May 2008 Extending your Home June 2006 November 2006 • Adopted March 2007

116 Birmingham Local Development Framework Annual Monitoring Report 2007

TITLE LDS MILESTONE CURRENT POSITION

Title Consultation Adoption SMURF Planning Framework November 2006 May 2007 • Consultation took place in November 2006. • Adopted June 2007

Colmore Row and Environs July 2006 December 2006 • Adopted December 2006 Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan Steelhouse Conservation Area February 2007 July 2007 • Consultation took place March 2007. Character Appraisal and Management • Adopted August 2007 Plan Digbeth, Deritend and Bordesley September 2007 March 2008 High Streets (Digbeth/Deritend) • Consultation November 2007 Conservation Area Conservation • Adoption expected March 2008 Character Appraisal and Management Plan Warwick Bar Conservation Area September 2007 March 2008 • Consultation near completion, adoption Character and Management Plan expected March 2008

Tree Policy December 2007 July 2008 • Progress on target with LDS.

Car Parking Guidelines January 2007 September 2007 • Consultation expected February 2008 and Adoption October 2008 Mature Suburbs Residential February 2007 June 2007 • Consultation commenced September 2007 Development Guidelines • Adoption is expected January 2008

117