Page 1 of 12

Committee Date: 19/02/2015 Application Number: 2014/08371/PA

Accepted: 26/11/2014 Application Type: Full Planning

Target Date: 25/02/2015

Ward: Kingstanding

Former Hare & Hounds PH, Kingstanding Road, Kingstanding, Birmingham, B44 9TG

Demolition of existing public house building and clearance of site. Redevelopment to provide 34 new residential units (16 houses and 18 flats) together with parking and associated infrastructure Applicant: Keepmoat Regeneration Ltd & Waterloo Housing Association Ltd

Regeneration House, Gorsey Lane, Coleshill, Birmingham, B46 1JU Agent: Calfordseaden

214A Stewart Court, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B16 9PH

Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement 1. Proposal 1.1. This application proposes the demolition and clearance of a public house and the

redevelopment of the site it occupies through the erection of 16 houses and a three storey apartment block that would contain 18 flats. The scheme intends to provide a fully 100% affordable scheme. The tenure of the scheme would be 100% affordable rent and shared ownership. The tenure of the proposed units would be:-

1.2. Shared Ownership 6 x 2 bed houses 2 x 3 bed houses Affordable Rent 9 x 1 bed flats 9 x 2 bed flats 8 x 2 bed houses

1.3. The development would be set out so that 8 houses would face onto Kingstanding Road whilst to the rear of them the new apartment block and remaining houses would be erected with a new internal service road and bellmouth crossing linking the site to Rushden Croft which is currently a cul de sac.

1.4. The proposed site arrangement would allow for parking to be provided to the front of the proposed houses. This would be provided at 200% for the houses along Kingstanding Road and 100% to the front of houses proposed further east into the site. Parking at 100% would be provided for the 18 apartments to the front of the block and to its side.

Page 2 of 12

1.5. The breakdown of the proposed development would be as follows:- 14 two bedroom houses; 2 three bedroom houses, 9 one bedroom apartments and 9 two bedroom apartments.

1.6. The design of the proposed houses would allow for facing red colour lower level brickwork with cream colour render above and front doors with arch canopies over. The front and rear facade of the houses would incorporate windows with red brick lintels. The houses would have pitched roofs with brick banding at lower level.

1.7. The design of the proposed apartment block would also incorporate low level red brickwork with cream render above. The roof would be slightly angled so that it sloped whilst the exterior façade would incorporate rectangular glazing throughout.

1.8. The internal layout of the proposed dwellings would provide hallway; kitchen/dining room, lounge and W.C on the ground floor. On the first floor there would be either two or three bedrooms, store and bathroom.

1.9. Each house would be provided with a rear garden ranging in size between 52 sq.m and 87 sq.m. The apartment block would be provided with a rear amenity area that measures approximately 330 sq.m.

1.10. Supporting statements in the form of design and access statement; tree survey, financial viability appraisal, ground investigation report, arboricultural method statement, noise survey, ecological appraisal, planning statement and transport statement have been submitted with this application.

1.11. Policy guidance for a scheme of this size triggers the requirement for the provision of affordable housing, public open space and children’s play space as well as financial compensation for the loss of the bowling green within the rear of the site. The applicant has provided a financial appraisal of the proposed scheme which concludes that the scheme could not support a contribution towards on or off site public open space, compensation for the loss of the bowling green and or any contribution towards education provision.

1.12. The site area measures just over 0.5 hectares. The proposed development density would equate to approximately 68 units per hectare.

1.13. The application has been the subject of a screening opinion which has determined

that the proposal would not require an Environmental Impact Assessment to be carried out.

1.14. Proposed site layout plan.

1.15. Proposed elevations of apartment building.

1.16. Site elevations and sections drawing 112 rev D.

1.17. Site elevations and sections drawing 113 Rev C. 2. Site & Surroundings 2.1. The application site is currently occupied by the former Hare and Hounds public

house. Within the rear of the site is an overgrown bowling green. To the north, south and east of the site are houses with apartments and commercial across

Page 3 of 12

Kingstanding Road to the west. The land levels of the site step downwards from west to east, so that the existing public house is situated at a higher level in comparison to the centre of the site ( the location of the overgrown bowling green area), whilst it slopes further after this to its eastern boundary.

2.2. Site location

2.3. Street view 3. Planning History 3.1. 19.08.2013- 2013/04060/PA- Change of use of front car park of public house (A4) to

car wash and valeting (Sui Generis) and installation of fencing to frontage- approved for a temporary period until the 20th August 2014.

4. Consultation/PP Responses 4.1. Surrounding occupiers, local councillors, local MP and resident/community group

notified as well as site and press notices displayed- 9 letters of objection received from local residents. In addition to this a petition objecting to the scheme containing the names of 38 local residents as well as councillors Gary Sambrook, Ron Storer and Robert Alden has also been received. The objections can be summarised as follows:- concerns about traffic generation; concern about loss of existing parking spaces within Rushden Croft, the new development is out of keeping with the local area, the proposed flats would affect the right to light and private space of homes on Tansley Road and Tansley Grove, lead to the loss of amenities such as trees, green open space and vegetation, it would look an eyesore, would have an adverse highway safety impact, there are bats flying about in the area with a potential roost in the existing pub building, it would destroy the local neighbourhood, Rushden Croft is already congested, concerns about potential structural damage to existing adjacent properties, would cause congestion, concern about anti social behaviour, noise, no privacy to existing occupiers nearby, concerns about footpath being removed to allow for vehicle access, consider a wider range of residents should have been notified about the application, would not feel safe in their house/garden with a housing development to the rear garden, concern about crime, increase in litter, will affect right to light and private space for residents on Tansley Road and Grove, there was a previous refusal on the site when they wished to convert the car wash to a restaurant and they wanted access from the rear, access from Kingstanding road could be achieved instead and that the flats would be too close to houses on Tansley Grove.

4.2. Separately to the above responses, councillors Sambrook and Storer have written in individually with respect to the application. They raise concerns that Rushden Croft would be unsuitable access to the site; would cause a significant increase in traffic on Rushden Croft, increase litter, would be out of keeping with the local area, would affect right to light and private space of homes on Tansley Road and Grove and would lead to the loss of amenities such as trees, green open space and vegetation. Councillor Sambrook has also expressed his wish to speak at planning committee.

4.3. Response from Councillor Kane received which states he is happy that at last something positive is being proposed and that he fully supports it.

Page 4 of 12

4.4. 2 further letters received from local occupier’s one of which states that they think the proposal is very nice whilst the other enquires about the boundary treatment to the development, the distance between flats and the site perimeter and how high the flats would be.

4.5. Transportation Development- No objection subject to safeguarding conditions.

4.6. Regulatory Services- no objection subject to a scheme of noise insulation and site

decontamination.

4.7. Leisure Services- Request that if exceptional circumstances for the loss of the bowling green can be satisfactorily demonstrated then a compensatory sum of £48,300 would be required. A sum of £48,800 should be provided as a contribution to be spent on the provision, improvement and or maintenance of public open space in Kingstanding Ward in lieu of on site Public Open Space (POS) and children’s play.

4.8. Severn Trent- no objection subject to a drainage condition being applied to any

approval.

4.9. Sport England- requires justification for the loss of the bowling green.

4.10. West Midlands Police- no objections and offers advice on security improvements.

5. Policy Context 5.1. UDP; Draft Birmingham Development Plan (BDP), SPG Places for Living, SPG

Places for All, 45 Degree Code, SPD Car Parking Guidelines, SPG Planning Guidelines for Development involving Public Houses and the NPPF.

6. Planning Considerations 6.1. The proposed development gives rise to a number of issues which are considered

below:-

6.2. National policy- Within the National Planning Framework (NPPF) paragraph 17 supports sustainable economic development to deliver new homes and encourages the use of brownfield land. Paragraph 19 states that significant weight is placed on economic growth within the planning system, with paragraph 50 highlighting that residential development should reflect local demand and create mixed and balanced communities. On design, paragraph 56 attaches great importance to the design of the built environment as this is a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 60 notes that policies and decisions should not impose architectural styles or tastes, should not stifle innovation or originality, but should reinforce local distinctiveness.

6.3. On environmental concerns, the NPPF is unequivocal in its view that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the proposed use (paragraph 122) with paragraph 123 stating that developments should mitigate adverse impacts on health and quality of life, including through the use of conditions.

Page 5 of 12

6.4. Local policy- The adopted UDP seeks in paragraph 5.12 to maximise the

replacement rate of housing on cleared sites subject to the provision of high quality accommodation within a high quality environment. One of the ways this will be achieved is through a variety of housing to meet the full range of needs throughout the City. The UDP requires that the new housing developments should provide an appropriate environment (paragraphs 5.20-5.20A), a suitable housing density and mix (paragraph 5.40) and encourage a full range of housing types and sizes including affordable housing. Paragraphs 3.14D and 3.14E of the UDP identify that new housing development should be designed in accordance with good urban design principles.

6.5. Within the emerging Birmingham Development Plan policy TP27 states that the location of new housing should be accessible to jobs, shops and services by other modes of transport, be sympathetic to historic, cultural and natural assets and not conflict with other development policies in relation to employment land, green belt an open space. Policy TP29 identifies that densities of at least 50 dwellings per hectare will be expected in local centres and corridors well served by public transport with 40 dwellings per hectare elsewhere.

6.6. Places for Living supports the creation of safe places, with clear definition between public and private spaces, active frontages, convenient routes, balance the needs of cars and pedestrians and the provision of schemes which reflect local context.

6.7. Other local policy such as Planning Guidelines for Development Involving Public Houses requires applications to take account of the availability of alternative public houses where developments propose their loss.

6.8. Use-The site is set in a built up predominantly residential area. The clearance of the

public house and associated bowling green and its replacement with a new build residential scheme would provide compliant land use in this setting.

6.9. Loss of public house and bowling green- The proposal would lead to the loss of a vacant public house and associated disused bowling green. Adopted SPG seeks to minimise the loss of the amenity value provided by pubs by aiming to ensure satisfactory alternative provision exists. The information submitted by the applicant demonstrates that there are 8 alternative public houses within 2 miles of the application site. In addition to this the applicant highlights the planning history of the site which includes a recent temporary approval for a car wash in the forecourt in order to sustain the site. I consider the evidence provided by the applicant satisfactorily demonstrates limited demand for the re-use of the public house and that alternative public houses exist within reasonable distance of the site.

6.10. With respect to the loss of the former bowling green, the UDP defines bowling

greens as playing fields and therefore their loss is subject to paragraph 3.57 of the UDP which requires demonstration of exceptional circumstances and equivalent recreational community sporting benefit to be provided. The NPPF requires either an upto date assessment of need showing the facility to be surplus for all sporting or open space use or alternative provision to be provided at least as good if not better in terms of quality, quantity and accessibility.

6.11. In this case the applicant confirms the redundant bowling green has not been in use

for 25 years. Its current state is that it is overgrown and it would take significant investment to return it to a condition suitable for use as a bowling green. The

Page 6 of 12

applicant has identified a number of other bowling green sites in close distance, including clubs which have capacity for increased membership. In terms of alternative sporting use, given the size and location of this site, based on the evidence available and past experience an alternative sporting and open space use for the site would not be a realistic option. I therefore consider the evidence presented meets the policy test of NPPF on surplus provision and alternative provision. Similarly, I consider that the evidence provided would meet the exceptional test set out in the UDP.

6.12. With respect to the issue of the provision of compensation to be provided in the form

of alternative equivalent recreational facilities, I consider there exists within this proposal the offer of a 100% affordable residential scheme that would help meet the City’s residential target on brownfield land whilst also providing it at an affordable level. The evidence presented demonstrates that the scheme cannot be delivered whilst also supporting the provision of a compensatory sum to pay for alternative leisure facilities as well as the provision of an off site public open space contribution. I therefore conclude, that the current proposal should be supported.

6.13. Design- The proposed development would be built out using a common theme in the

choice of materials and using a similar design for each house and the block of flats. The design of the proposed buildings allows for the incorporation of features such as canopies and brick banding to help add visual interest to the appearance of the buildings. The layout of the scheme would be logical and connect to Kingstanding Road and Rushden Croft, thereby helping ensure the development fits into the wider urban built environment. Overall, the design and layout of the development is considered acceptable in this setting.

6.14. Parking/highway impact- Transportation Development raise no objection to the proposal subject to safeguarding conditions. I concur with this view.

6.15. I note that objections to the scheme include concerns with respect to a possible increase in traffic and loss of parking spaces on Rushden Croft. Eight of the proposed 16 houses would front Kingstanding Rd with associated vehicular accesses off Kingstanding Rd. A total of 26 residential units (18 flats + 8 dwellings) would be accessed off Rushden Croft. It is considered that 26 residential units are likely to generate approximately 18 two-way trips during peak hour. This level of traffic is unlikely to have a significant impact on surrounding highways.

6.16. Current parking guidelines specify a maximum parking provision of 2 spaces per residential unit (200% provision). Therefore, the maximum parking provision for the proposed 26 units off Rushden Croft and 8 units on Kingstanding Rd would be 52 and 16 spaces respectively. The applicant is proposing 200% parking provision for the dwellings proposed on Kingstanding Rd with 100% parking provision for the proposed houses and flats on the part of site accessed off Rushden Croft, apart from 200% provision for plot 27. This provision is considered acceptable for this site given mitigating factors such as a very good level of accessibility to public transport with frequent bus-services accessible from Kingstanding Rd, which is within easy walking distance from the site. Further bus-services are also accessible from Hawthorn Rd/Dyas Rd and Kingstanding centre. In addition local amenities such as shops are noted to be within walking distance of the site, thereby further reducing the need for car based journeys from the site. In addition, 9 out of the proposed 18 flats are one-bedroomed which are likely to generate a lower level of parking demand.

Page 7 of 12

6.17. Approximately 4 parking spaces would be lost on Rushden Croft due to the

proposed access off Rushden Croft. This is likely to increase parking demand within other parts of Rushden Croft. However, from site visits, on-street parking was noted to be light on Rushden Croft in the vicinity of the site. A turning head is proposed within the site and could accommodate some additional parking.

6.18. In conclusion, subject to safeguarding conditions, I consider that the scheme is acceptable from a transportation perspective.

6.19. Amenity area- All the houses except for plot 8 (3 bedroom) would be provided with a

private amenity area that exceeds minimum size guidelines contained within SPG Places for Living. In the case of that dwelling (plot 8) the level of amenity area achieved would measure approximately 60 sq.metres. Overall, I therefore consider the provision to be acceptable.

6.20. With respect to the amenity area for the proposed flats, this would equate to approximately 648 sq.metres. This would equate to approximately 36 sq.metres of amenity area per flat, which is compliant with guidance.

6.21. Bedroom sizes- The scheme would comply with minimum bedroom size guidance. In addition to this, submitted plans demonstrate the bedrooms would be capable of accommodating furniture for practical everyday use.

6.22. Impact on residential amenity- The application site is situated at a higher level along

the western (Kingstanding Road) frontage in comparison to the centre and east of the site. In terms of distance separation to neighbouring private boundaries and habitable windows, the premises to the front would be set approximately 5 metres higher than the rear of the apartment block with a distance separation of 27 metres between that block of apartments and houses and 19 metres from the houses and the rear amenity area of the apartments. I consider this distance separation is acceptable in this instance.

6.23. The proposed houses along the eastern boundary would be set 4 metres higher than the existing houses on Tansley Road. The distance separation between the proposed houses and the nearest house on Tansley Road (number 98) within sight line of them would be 25 metres. The distance separation between the new house and number 98 Tansley Road garden would be approximately 11 metres. When account is taken of the fact that the proposed houses and existing houses on Tansley Road would be set at oblique angles to one another and the presence of boundary treatment such as fencing to the site boundary, I consider the distance separation and relationship between these sets of properties is acceptable.

6.24. The submitted plans demonstrate that the 45 degree code to the nearest dwellings on Kingstanding Road, either side of the application site, would not be breached. The gable wall of number 29 has a first floor window that faces the site which is obscurely glazed.

6.25. Environmental issues- Regulatory Services raise no objection to the proposal

subject to a satisfactory scheme of noise insulation and site decontamination. I concur with this view. The proposed development would establish a residential scheme within a predominantly residential setting.

Page 8 of 12

6.26. Trees- There are no protected trees on the application site. 16 trees and small groups of immature trees would need to removed, largely to provide for access from Rushden Croft and along the southern boundary of the site. 4 category B trees would be retained on the site boundaries and 16 new trees would be planted. New planting would include within the garden areas facing Kingstanding Road. Whilst my tree officer has concerns over the extent of tree removal; the retention of a large number would prevent the redevelopment of the site in an appropriate form and I must acknowledge the wider planning benefits of the scheme.

6.27. Ecology- The applicant has submitted an ecological survey with this application. My ecological advisor has reviewed this submission. The evidence gathered by this survey identified potential bat roosts as well as birds nesting within the site. Common frog was also recorded on site and there is potential for common toad and smooth newt. On the basis of the survey evidence, I consider the scope exists to allow for the development to be accommodated on the site whilst making provision for mitigating measures in relation to species identified. There are a number of measures already recommended in the submitted survey report. I therefore recommend that mitigation measures are incorporated as conditions as part of any approval.

6.28. Other matters- I note the concerns of residents and councillors with respect to

matters they have set out in their response to the application and most of these matters (those that relate to planning) have been assessed elsewhere in this report. With respect to issues raised such as a view that not enough consultation has been carried out, I confirm that the application has been consulted on over widely including the use of press and site notices (including notices being posted on Rushden Croft). With respect to the matter of concerns about anti social behaviour, I remind members that the proposed use is for a residential scheme in predominantly residential setting and that no objections to the scheme has been raised by WM Police. I also note that the proposal would see the removal of a currently vacant public house site which potentially exposes neighbouring occupiers to trespass, crime and anti social behaviour. In contrast, the proposed scheme would introduce a scheme that provides a layout that largely secures boundaries to neighbouring plots through private gardens and would establish natural surveillance from the new dwellings, hence increasing security and limiting the potential for anti social behaviour.

6.29. Planning obligation- All of the dwellings proposed on the site would be provided as affordable, well in excess of the 35% target in the UDP. These are recommended to be secured through a S106 agreement requiring 100% of the units to be provided as affordable.

7. Conclusion 7.1. The proposed scheme would deliver 100% affordable housing and flats. The layout

and design satisfies your committees policy and guidance and the principles of the NPPF.

8. Recommendation

Page 9 of 12

8.1. Recommendation

8.2. Approve subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

8.3. 1. That consideration of application 2014/08371/PA be deferred pending the completion of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the following:-

8.4. i) 100% affordable housing in the form of 8, two and three bed houses (shared ownership) and 26, one and two bedroom flats and houses (affordable rent).

8.5. ii) Payment of a monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal agreement subject to a contribution of £1,500.

8.6. 2. In the absence of the completion of a suitable planning obligation to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before the 24th February 2015, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

8.7. i) In the absence of a suitable planning obligation to secure affordable housing on the site, the proposed development conflicts with policy 5.37-5.37G of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005.

8.8. 3. That the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the appropriate planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

8.9. That in the event of the planning obligation being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before the 24th February 2015, favourable consideration will be given to the application subject to the conditions listed below:

1 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

2 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

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

4 Requires details of drainage works

5 Requires the prior submission of a construction ecological mitigation plan

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

measures

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

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

9 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

10 Requires the prior submission of a landscape management plan

11 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

Page 10 of 12

12 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

13 Requires the prior submission of level details

14 Removes PD rights for boundary treatments

15 Protects retained trees from removal

16 Removes PD rights for new windows

17 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

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

19 Removes PD rights for extensions

20 Requires the prior submission of a parking management strategy

21 Requires the submission of cycle storage details

22 Requires details of non openable obscure glazing to the gable ends of the apartment

building

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

24 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full) Case Officer: Wahid Gul

Page 11 of 12

Photo(s)

View looking east from the rear of the existing vacant pub building.

Page 12 of 12

Location Plan

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