Page 1 of 19

Committee Date: 17/04/2014 Application Number: 2014/00382/PA

Accepted: 23/01/2014 Application Type: Full Planning

Target Date: 24/04/2014

Ward: Nechells

Land At Millward Street, Small Heath, Birmingham, B9 5BA

Erection of 26 two, three, four and five bed dwellings for affordable rent with associated external works, landscaping and alterations to the highway Applicant: BMHT - Regeneration & Development Team

Planning & Regeneration, Birmingham City Council, 1 Lancaster Circus, Birmingham, B4 7DJ

Agent: Walker Troup Architects 52 Lyndon Road, Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands, B73 6BS

Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions 1. Proposal 1.1 The application proposes the erection of 26 dwellings on an area of public open

space owned by the City Council. It is proposed to develop most of the site with housing but an area of open space, covering 0.16 ha, would be retained adjacent to the site frontage to Little Green Lane. The houses would all be for rent as part of the Council’s Stock Replacement Programme and developed on behalf of Birmingham Municipal Housing Trust (BMHT).

1.2 The 26 dwellings would comprise a mix of two, three, four and five bedroom houses

which would be predominantly two storeys high apart from the five bed house type which would have a higher pitched roof with accommodation in the roof space lit by roof lights. The house types would comprise the following:-

2 bed house - 8 3 bed houses – 2 4 bed houses - 8

5 bed houses – 8 1.3 The development proposed would require most of the site to be cleared, including the

loss of 35 trees, to enable the existing land levels to be reduced in height so that the layout can address the site frontages to Millward Street and Green Lane. The aim has been make use of these existing highways and provide perimeter blocks of dwellings fronting them to create a strong urban form. Two new cul de sacs are also proposed from Millward Street, one of which would allow a short row of dwellings to be provided overlooking the retained area of public open space which would be kept at its current height although bounded by a new retaining wall.

Page 2 of 19

1.4 Most of dwellings proposed would be semi-detached and with the site corners marked by a feature pair of dwellings to help define the built form of the development. Six different house types are proposed which would be mainly wide fronted units and would be built from red brickwork with feature grey brickwork and cream render, grey roof tiles and grey UPVC windows. The designs include large windows and an imitation chimney/sun tube on each roof. The main bedrooms and garden sizes would meet the minimum size standards set out in Places for Living. The dwellings would be built to the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 and meet Homes and Communities Agency Design and Quality Standards, Secured by Design requirements and be built to Lifetime Homes standards.

1.5 It is proposed that the dwellings would be set back behind small front gardens

bounded by low-level brick walls and metal railings supplemented by new tree and hedgerow planting. As the development would require the removal of existing trees on the Millward Street frontage, a new 2 metre strip of landscaping is proposed, between the existing highway and front garden boundary fencing. It is intended that this would become a new area of public realm planted with semi mature trees to create a new tree lined frontage to the street. Additional tree planting, a new paved footpath and retaining wall are also proposed within the area of public open space which would be enclosed with low trip rail fencing and a retaining wall. Along the west boundary of the site a 4 metre high acoustic fence is proposed to protect residents from any noise from the adjacent industrial site.

1.6 44 parking spaces are proposed which is a 169% provision. All the parking would be provided as direct curtilage spaces including several covered by car ports to assist in maintaining the continuous street frontage. The larger properties would have 200% car parking and smaller properties are provided with 100%.

1.7 The site has an area of 0.86 ha and giving a density of 30 dwellings per hectare. 1.8 The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement, Planning

Statement, Transport Assessment and Travel Plan, Ground Investigation Report, Noise Assessment, Habitat Survey and Arboricultural Report.

Site Layout

Street Scene 2. Site & Surroundings 2.1 The application relates to a rectangular area of public open space which has

frontages to Little Green Lane to the north, Millward Street to the east and Green Lane to the south. The west boundary lies adjacent to existing industrial buildings which have driveways close to the boundary. The application site was previously occupied by terraced housing which dated back to 1889 and was cleared during the 1970s. The site was then laid out to provide a play area and public open space bounded by grass embankments that were planted with trees. As a result the much of the site is now elevated above the surrounding road levels particularly at Millward Street. At the top of the embankments a flat plateau area was formed and used to provide a formal play facility which was removed several years ago and the land reinstated to grass.

2.2 The grass embankments have been planted with approximately 60 trees mainly

Lime, Rowan and Norway maples. They are mainly on the Millward Street and Little Green Road frontages. The embankments appear to be relatively well maintained but

Page 3 of 19

the flat section within the centre of the site is overgrown. A small strip of the open space adjacent to the western boundary of the site has been excluded from the application as it has been reserved to allow for the possible improvement of the access to the adjacent industrial buildings.

2.3 The sites longest frontage is onto Millward Street, which is a now, a cul-de-sac, with

the former junction with Little Green Lane having been stopped off with a pavement and bollards. A small turning area is provided at the end and some on street some parking laybys have been provided interspersed with street trees. Millward Street is flanked with a row of original terrace properties and together with some semi -detached properties dating back to the 1960-70s. The frontage to Little Green Lane is shorter and lies partly opposite Wyndcliffe Primary School. Beyond this is a mix of uses including a public house, St Andrew’s retail park, industrial units and a mosque/educational/community facility within a grade 2 listed building. On the Green Lane frontage the site lies opposite existing residential development and nearby is a builder’s yard and industrial premises.

Site Location

Street View

, 3. Planning History 3.1. 4379500 – 24/2/77 – Temporary planning permission granted for erection of an

adventure play area. 3.2 1997/00062/PA – 6/3/97 – Planning permission granted for erection of fencing

between public open space and factory unit. 3.3 2013/0838/PA – 23/1/14 – Application withdrawn for the erection of 26 dwellings on

the current application site and a further dwelling between Nos 14 and 32 Millward Street.

4. Consultation/PP Responses 4.1. Transportation – Have requested some further details and clarification on a few

issues. Additional information has been provided and further comments are awaited. 4.2 Regulatory Services – No objections subject to conditions requiring site investigation

and validation reports and requiring the noise control measures recommended to be provided and retained.

4.3 Local Services – Consider that the supporting information submitted provides

satisfactory exceptional circumstances, informed by the proposals in the Bordesley Park Area Action Plan, to justify the loss of the public open space. However, requests that some compensation is paid for the POS loss and for off-site POS and play facilities. They acknowledge the improvement of the remaining POS which will be aesthetically advantageous to two road frontages but consider that this improvement does not negate the need for compensatory sums.

4.4 School Organisation Team - Request a contribution under Section 106 from any

potential development. 4.5 Severn Trent Water - No objection subject to a drainage condition being imposed.

Page 4 of 19

4.6 West Midlands Police (Crime Prevention Design Advisor) - Advises that the development is the subject of an ongoing Secured by Design application and has been designed to follow the principles of Secure by Design. Recommends that the boundary treatment for the car ports is 1.8 m high with an addition of 0.3 m of trellising.

4.7 West Midlands Fire Service – No objections 4.8 MP, ward councillors, residents groups and neighbours notified of the application.

Press and site notices displayed. A petition with 218 signatures has been presented by Councillor Chauhdry Rashid, 8 individual letter of objection have been received and a further 5 letters have been forwarded from Shabana Mahmood MP

4.9 The petition includes the following statements:- • Keep the green space and trees • We object to the removal of the grass mounding and the mature 35 year old trees

bordered by Green Lane, Millward Street and Little Green Lane • The development has been conceived and planned without consultation and

consideration of local residents or the impact it will have on the area and community life

4.10 The letters of objections contain the following points:-

• The development does not comply with UDP policies in that it does not create a healthier environment for existing residents, there is a lack of open space in Small Heath, the development would have an adverse effect on the local environment, over 40 trees and 50 saplings would need to be removed, the development destroys and does not generate open space, will reduce air quality, it is a green field site not a brown field in one of the most densely populated areas of the city, does not cater for the elderly, will cause a danger to pedestrians due to extra cars and changes at the junction of Green Lane and Great Wood Street and driveways onto Green Lane, fails safety emergency access, highway improvement lines, parking access and numbers and causes parking next to commercial premises.

• Is contrary to proposals for Your Green and Healthy City, Birmingham Plan 2013 and Birmingham’s Statement of Community Involvement as there has been no consultation/involvement with local residents in the decision to use the site.

• The Design and Access statement is inadequate and has been complied by people who have no idea about the history or the people whose lives will be affected by this development which will have a detrimental and lasting effect. There is no mention of the mosque, supermarket or school which are a major factor in the area’s development, ground levels at the rear of the site where levels are much lower. The new trees will never reach a mature size as they will have to be trimmed due to the proximity to the new houses, the character of the street will be lost permanently, existing mature trees, grass mounds and sunlight will be replaced by bricks walls, overlooking and a loss of sunlight, 1.8 metre high walls which are out of keeping, unacceptable loss of an important open space in an area where there are very few green spaces, massive disruption while the development is being built. Local people have been treated with contempt

• The site is valued by the local community as a natural habit, area for playing and walking and for its trees and amenity value.

• The trees should be retained it is one of the positive aspects of the area and the reason most people choose to live in Millward Street.

• The loss of the open space would completely change the character of Millward Street and will make it congested and overcrowded.

Page 5 of 19

• The open space should be left as it is with the 31 trees proposed for removal. • Small Heath is one of the most densely populated areas in Birmingham and

needs areas for children to play • The replacement of 31 mature trees with new saplings does not justify or

compensate for their removal. • If there is a need to build affordable homes in Small Heath, other better sites are

available which will not destroy an abundance of trees and much loved greenery. • The development would exacerbate drainage problems in the area • The development will add to the parking issues in the area – Millward Street

already suffers from congestion and parking issues from the nearby school, mosque and on football match days

• Millward Street is too narrow and if cars are parked on both sides of the road it will be impossible for 2 vehicles to pass

• Increased traffic will make Millward Street dangerous for children who are used to the playing in the cul de sac.

• Wyndcliffe Primary school and nursery are already full and it will make it more difficult for local children to get a place.

• Unacceptable disruption, noise and parking issues during the construction. • If the site is to be developed the trees and banks on the Millward Street frontage

should be retained and kept as they are. Access could be provided from Green Lane and Little Green Lane instead.

• The trees should be left and a car park provided which would be more useful to local people and ease congestion in the Street

• The houses proposed are all Council houses for rent which will devalue existing dwellings in Millward Street, change the character of the area and increase crime.

• The new houses should only be for people already in the area particularly older people who need bungalows otherwise the development will cause resentment.

• All local people are against the plan and if it is approved the Council will be going against the wishes of the local community and will be a sad day for residents.

5. Policy Context 5.1. UDP (2005), Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Bordesley Park Area Action Plan

– Preferred Options Report, NPPF, Places for Living SPG, Car Parking guidelines SPG, Public Open space in New Residential Development SPD, The Future of Birmingham’s Parks and Open Spaces, Affordable Housing SPD.

6. Planning Considerations 6.1 It is considered that the main issues are whether the use of the use of the site for

housing is acceptable in principle and if so whether the layout and design of the proposed scheme is appropriate particularly having regard to its impact on existing trees. Also to be considered is whether the development is acceptable in highway terms, the impact of the development on existing residential properties and whether satisfactory provision can be made for public open space and affordable housing.

6.2 Policy Considerations 6.3 Open space policy

6.4 The application site comprises of an area of public open space and the relevant

planning policies in the UDP contain a presumption against the development of such areas. Paragraph 3.52A, states that:-

Page 6 of 19

“Proposals which would result in the loss of open space will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the City Council will take account of the availability of public open space nearby, its quality and how well it meets local needs. It is unlikely that developers will be able to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist where -

• Existing public open space provision falls below the standard of 2.0 hectares per 1000 population, and/ or

• There would be a loss of land from the open space network. Where developers are able to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist to justify the release of open space for development, the practice will be to seek an appropriate recreational community benefit of equal value to compensate for the open space loss, that is at least as accessible to current and potential users, and at least equivalent in terms of size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality.”

6.5 The NPPF has similar policies and states existing open space, sports and recreational

buildings and land should not be built on unless – • an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open

space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or • the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by

equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location or

• the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.

6.5 Policy TP9 of the emerging Birmingham Development Plan also confirms that

planning permission will not normally be granted for development on open space. However, it does specifically identify an exception to that policy – “where an area of open space is underused, as it has inherent problems such as poor site surveillance, physical quality or layout, which cannot be realistically dealt with, then in this case proposals that would result in the loss of a small part of a larger area of open space will be considered if compensation measures would result in significant Improvements to the quality and recreational value of the remaining area.”

6.6 Current policies relating to open space therefore would only allow the application site

to be developed in exceptional circumstances and require regard to be had to local existing public open space provision. In the case of Nechells ward this has only 1.5 ha of public open space per 1,000 populations less than the minimum of 2ha sought in the UDP.

6.7 Housing Policy 6.8 Other national and development plan policies however support the delivery of new

housing. The NPPF confirms the priority to be given to delivering a wide choice of quality homes, and the need for local planning authorities to significantly boost the supply of housing. Paragraph 49 states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and Paragraph 50, requires local planning authorities to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes and where they have identified that affordable housing is needed, they should set policies for meeting this need.

6.9 The UDP also confirms the high priority given to meeting housing needs and

demands and assumes that a high proportion of the City’s housing requirement will be met within the urban area. The UDP policies also emphasise the importance of

Page 7 of 19

the City’s housing policies in contributing to the strategy for urban regeneration and economic revitalisation of the City. Its policies (5.35 and 5.37) encourage a full range of housing types and sizes including affordable housing and those for other specific needs.

. 6.10 In the emerging Birmingham Development Plan, it is intended that as much as

possible of the new housing the City needs, over the period 2011-2031, is provided within the urban area, subject to maintaining the attractiveness of neighbourhoods as places to live. The draft Plan identifies that within the urban area there is capacity for some 45,000 homes including bringing vacant property back into use and utilising industrial land and some open space that no longer performs its original function. The BDP identifies 7 key areas outside the city centre where there is a significant opportunity for growth, with Bordesley Park identified as one of these areas. The BDP notes that the Area Action Plan (AAP) currently being prepared for that area will, once adopted, deliver 750 new homes.

6.11 The Bordesley Park Area Action Plan Preferred Options report which was published

in July 2013 for consultation, identifies the application site as one of 5 opportunities for the creation of a gateway at the western end of Small Heath Local Centre. The plan specifically identifies “development of the area of underused open space at Millward Street for new community and/or housing development with an improved smaller area of open space”. Within the section dealing with Neighbourhood 5 – Small Heath (North), the development of the application site has been identified as one of ‘a number of potential opportunities and measures for the neighbourhood which could be taken forward through the AAP, which were generally supported during the public consultation on the Options Report’. Thus the development of housing on the application site, whilst retaining an improved smaller area of open space, is specifically proposed as a Preferred Option in the AAP.

6.12 Exceptional Circumstances 6.13 Relevant adopted planning policies therefore result in a conflict between open space

polices designed to protect open space, particularly where an area has less than 2ha per 1,000 populations, and housing policies which encourage the provision of new homes within the urban area. However emerging policies in the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan do allow for the redevelopment of areas of underused open space, subject to various criteria. In addition the Bordesley Park Area Action Plan recognises that the site is “underused” as open space, and it is proposed that it be allocated as a housing site, together with an improved smaller area of open space.

6.14 In considering the policy balance between two conflicting objectives, the UDP states that exceptional circumstances will need to be demonstrated to justify the release of part of the site for housing. In support of the application the applicants advise that the new homes would all be for rent and have been designed to provide for the specific needs of the local community. The mix of dwellings proposed includes 16 (61.5%) 4 and 5 bed dwellings to address the severe shortage of larger houses within the affordable housing stock locally. Currently 4 bed houses account for only 1.7% of the Council housing stock in the Nechells Ward, and there are only 2 dwellings that provide 5 beds or more only 0.05% of the stock. The turnover for 4 or bed house is as a consequence very low and the notional waiting time for a 4 or 5 bed dwelling is in excess of 100 years compared to 2.9 years for a 2 bed house and 5.3 years for a 3 bed house.

Page 8 of 19

6.15 The applicants advise that few opportunities exist in Nechells Ward to address this imbalance in the local housing stock. Therefore this scheme has been specifically designed to provide the type of accommodation for which there is a specific and pressing local need. If the development were to be permitted, the provision of a further 16 four and five bed homes would increase the stock of 4 bed rented homes in the ward to 11% whilst there would be a 5 fold increase in the number of 5 bed houses.

6.16 In addition the applicants advise that for many years the entire application site was

part of an established residential development, consisting of densely developed Victorian terraces fronting onto Millward Street, Green Lane and Little Green Lane, until they were demolished in the 1970’s as part of a housing clearance programme. It was intended at the time that the land would be redeveloped to provide modern housing units and therefore it is still Housing-owned land. Although it was laid out as open space in the 1980’s with a play area and some tree planting, this was only as a temporary measure pending its intended redevelopment, which in the event has not taken place. They therefore contend that this is not a case where a long established recreation ground or public open space is proposed to be developed for housing. The site was historically housing land and was always intended to be redeveloped for that purpose.

6.17 The applicants also point out that the site cannot be regarded as providing a high

quality area of open space, since it is poorly maintained and lacks any facilities following the removal of the play area many years ago. The AAP recognises that it is under used and its physical position whereby it is set up on a plateau means that it is not well overlooked.

6.18 It will be noted from the petition and objections received to the application that

residents consider if the site is developed it will be contrary to the Council’s policies and that the site is an important green space which is valued by the local community particularly as there are few open spaces in the area. It is accepted that there is a shortfall of open space in Nechells Ward but, on balance, the loss of the open space is considered acceptable. This is due to it being underused, being previously occupied by housing, that it is proposed for development in the AAP and as the development provides affordable homes for which there is a significant need. In addition no objections to the loss of the open space have been raised by Local Services who consider that exceptional circumstances have been justified.

6.19 Mitigation 6.20 Relevant policies require that if part of the open space is re-developed then the

remaining space should be improved. The application proposes that an area of the open space will be retained at the northern end of the site fronting Little Green Lane where there is a group of mature trees. It is proposed that the area would be enhanced by further tree planting, provision of a new paved footpath and boundary treatments. Furthermore the applicants have also offered to make a contribution of £50,000 to compensate for the loss of open space and allow improvements to be carried out to enhance existing open spaces in the vicinity such as the Henry Barber Recreation Ground, Green Lane playing fields and Digby Park which are identified for enhancements in the AAP.

6.21 Layout and Design 6.22 The layout proposed for the development follows a traditional pattern of development

with perimeter blocks and dwellings located close to the existing road frontages in

Page 9 of 19

Green Lane and Millward Street. It is also proposed to provide a block of dwellings fronting the improved public open space fronting Little Green Lane to ensure that it is overlooked. However in order achieve this form of development it will be necessary to remove the embankments and reduce site levels to meet those on the adjacent highways. In the case of the Green Lane frontage this will require the loss of three existing trees and an elder, and in the case of the Millward Street frontage 32 trees would need to be removed. The submitted tree survey shows the three trees on the Green Lane frontage as being high quality category A trees and of the 32 trees fronting Millward Street 14 are shown as being category A, 7 category B and 11 category C. Some 25 trees mostly category A would however be retained within the open space.

6.23 To compensate of the loss of these trees the application includes the planting of a

row of 21 large individual semi mature trees on the three road frontages. On Millward Street some 14 trees are shown as being within a new 2 metres wide area of public realm outside front garden areas to allow a new tree lined frontage to be provided. Some 22 further trees are shown to be planted within the site including along the eastern boundary with the adjoining industrial buildings and within front gardens.

6.24 The petition and a number of the objections received express opposition to the loss of

these trees and it is acknowleged they they are an attractive feature which enhances the charcter and apperance of the area. Paragraphs 3. 14 D and 3.16A of the UDP states that any mature trees should be retained where possible and that developers will be expected to give priority to existing trees. However it is not considered to be possible to develop the site in an acceptable way that would allow all the existing trees to be retained. Whilst the loss of 35 trees is regretted, particulary as some 24 are of a high qualty, large replacements are proposed so a tree-lined street can be recreated. My Arboricultural Advisor notes that the scheme requires the removal of many of 60 trees that occupy the site but notes that it does retain 21 trees at the north side of the site. She raises no objection to the application subject to conditions to ensure the retaining wall does not adversely affect the trees within the open space and that they are protected during building operations. She also comments that the replacement trees will only succeed if they are planted in accordance with best practice into properly constructed pits. The applicants have since provided acceptable details of this.

6.25 A number of the objectors have suggested that the site could be developed in a way

which keeps the existing trees and embankment on Millward Street by providing a new access road through the centre of the site linking Green Lane and Little Green Lane. A number of different options for developing the site were considered by the applicants but discounted because it would not be possible to achieve an active street frontage onto Millward Street whilst retaining the trees. If the scheme avoided any access points onto Millward Street by providing an access from Green Lane as suggested, it would produce a line of rear garden walls or fences on top of the embankment and provision of an inward looking development that would relate poorly to the existing street pattern. It would also leave the embankment as a future maintenance liability and the new houses vulnerable in terms of their security. Therefore this was not considered to be acceptable. Instead the applicants propose to provide replacement trees and a landscaped tree zone to Millward Street planted with semi-mature trees so that the character of Millward Street as a tree-lined avenue can be quickly restored. The layout for the site is therefore considered to be acceptable, and to reflect the form of the residential development in the vicinity.

6.26 In terms of design, six house types are proposed most of which would be wide fronted

semi-detached units to allow in-curtilage parking to be provided. Although the

Page 10 of 19

prevailing form of development in the wider area is traditional terraced housing there are more modern infill developments close by, including opposite the site in Millward Street and on Green Lane and therefore the development would not appear out of keeping. Materials proposed would be red brickwork with feature grey brickwork and cream render, grey roof tiles and grey UPVC windows which would complement existing buildings in the locality. The designs also include large windows and an imitation chimney/sun tube on each roof to provide a more modern asthetic. All the main bedroom sizes and the garden areas would meet the minimum requirements set out in Places for Living and the dwellings would be built to the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4.

6.27 In terms of boundary treatments most of the front gardens would be enclosed with

metal railings 0.9 metres high. Higher fences and walls are proposed around rear gardens and between plots and a retaining wall with a protective rail above is also proposed between the new private drive and area of retained public open space. On the west boundary of the site a 4 metre high acoustic fence is proposed to protect occupants of the adjacent dwellings from any noise resulting from the adjacent industrial estate. In order to reduce the impact of this feature on the rear windows and garden areas the dwellings the layout has been designed to provide a side garden with windows repositioned to the side elevation, to avoid the fence being overbearing.

6.28 Objections have been raised to the provision of the 1.8 metre high walls however

these are only proposed to link the front walls of dwellings to help provide a continuous built frontage to the street to reflect the terraced properties in the area, and are considered to be acceptable.

6.29 Highway Considerations 6.30 A number of objections have been received to the development on highway grounds,

particularly that the development would cause a danger to pedestrians, congestion, the access is unsafe, the development will add to the parking issues in the area and that Millward Street is too narrow for more parking and traffic. Most of the dwellings proposed would be served by access from Millward Street either directly from the existing highway or from one of two new cul de sacs proposed. The existing highway is a cul de sac with footways on both sides and has a traffic calming feature close to junction with Green Lane to narrow the entrance. Parking laybys have been provided to one side to allow on street parking and a small turning head is also present at its northern end.

6.31 The proposals have been designed to keep the exiting cul de sac arrangement but to allow a full sized turning head to be formed using the new driveway proposed adjacent to the open space. Transportation Officers consider that Millward Street is of sufficient width and alignment to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development and have raised no objections in principle to the development. They have asked for some amendments to the original layout to show a turning head and vehicle tracking, which has now been provided. Although local residents consider the development will cause highway safety and congestion issues and it is acknowledged that there will be more traffic using the road than at present, it is not considered that this will cause any adverse highway safety issues. The proposals would result in development on both sides of Millward Street as was originally the case and is a common situation. As the new dwellings will have their own on-plot parking spaces there is likely to be less on-street parking than occurs on the more traditional housing streets nearby. It is understood that currently on street parking occurs in Millward Street on football match days and in connection with the nearby

Page 11 of 19

school and mosque however this would not justify an objection being raised to this application.

6.32 Five of the proposed dwellings would have access directly onto Green Lane served

by two shared driveways. One of the driveways is located near to the junction with Great Wood Road, the mini round-a-bout and adjacent industrial building and the other driveway lies close to any existing traffic calming feature. Although Transportation does not consider that these two driveways are likely to cause any highway safety issues they have requested that a safety audit be undertaken. The results of this any further views from Transportation will be reported at Committee.

6.33 The parking provision of for the development at 169% is considered to be acceptable

and appropriate. Although the proposed development is likely to result in the displacement of any on-street parking on the site frontage to Millward Street the likely remedy would be to consider Traffic Regulation Orders to regulate and minimise any obstructive parking if this proves to be a problem.

6.34 Impact on Neighbours/Resiential amenity 6.35 In terms of the impact on existing residents the separation distance between the front

of the of the proposed dwellings and the closest existing dwellings on the opposite side of Millward Street would be 16 metres. Although Places for Living seeks a separation distance of 21 metres between building faces the guidance is that the standard will be more strictly applied to the rear than the front. In this case the terraced properties that originally occupied the site were located close to the pavement whereas the proposed dwellings are set back by 4 metres.

6.36 Objections have been raised by local residents that the development would cause a

loss of sunlight and overlooking of neigbouring properties as well as completely changing the character and apperance of Millward Street. Although there would be changes to the character and appearance of the street it is not considered that the immediate environment will be affected to an unacceptable degree or that there would be undue loss of light or overlooking. Whilst there will inevitably be some short term impact caused through the loss of the existing street trees, their replacement by an avenue of semi-mature trees will enable that impact to be overcome.

6.37 Public Open Space 6.38 Where applications propose more than 20 dwellings the UDP and supplementry

planning guidance sets out the need for new public open space to serve the occupants of the new homes. If this cannot be provided on site contributions towards appropriate off site provision would normally be sought through Section 106 Agreements. Although a small improved area of public open space will be available on site this is not a new open space. Local Services have calculated the contribution required for off site public open space to be £107,600 which would be used to improve other areas of POS play facilities in the area.

6.39 The applicants have submitted a financial appraisal with the application which

confirms that as the scheme is entirely affordable housing the properties would be funded entirely from internally generated resources, with the land being provided to the schemes at no cost. Normally any Section 106 Agreements would be funded from the land value however in this case no land is being sold or private sale dwellings provided to help fund the development. The rented properties would form a part of the Housing Revenue Account, with rents constrained to be set in accordance with current and proposed Government Rent Setting Guidance. In

Page 12 of 19

addition the properties will be built to a high standard, including Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4, Secured by Design, Building for Life and Lifetime Homes which result in relatively high construction costs compared to a traditional private development. The financial modelling of the scheme demonstrates that the Millward Street development generates a negative value with debt not repaid until Year 44. If the scheme considered over the normal 30 year time-span it would make a deficit. The applicants have however offered to make a contribution of £50,000 to compensate for the loss of the open space as mentioned above but contend that further contributions cannot be made without increasing the debt to the Council to an unacceptable and unaffordable level.

6.40 It is accepted that further contributions cannot be provided due to the fact that the

development will be entirely funded by prudential borrowing by the Council, the relatively high development costs and as all the housing will be affordable.

6.41 Affordable Housing 6.42 As the development proposes more than 15 dwellings the UDP and Affordable

Housing SPD seek to achieve 35% affordable housing provision. The entire development would provide affordable homes for rent therefore giving a 100% provision, well in excess of adopted policy requirements. The provision of 100% affordable homes is one of the reasons considered to justify this development and therefore it is recommended planning conditions be used to ensure the affordable units are provided including a personal condition so that the planning permission can only be implemented by the City Council.

6.43 Other Matters 6.44 Education has raised no objections in principle to the development but have

requested a contribution from any potential development. However it is accepted the scheme cannot afford to make any further financial payments as set out above.

6.45 No objections have been raised to the development on drainage grounds from Severn

Trent Water subject to a suitable drainage condition being imposed as recommended. The comments that Wyndcliffe Primary School and nursery are already full are noted but any capacity issues at the adjacent school would not justify refusal of this application.

6.46 Although objections have been raised concerning the lack of consultation with local

residents in drawing up the proposals for the site, there is no requirement for applicants to develop schemes in conjunction with residents. However there has been consultation with local residents in connection with the publication of the Bordesley Park Area Action Plan – Preferred Options report development including events at a number of venues in the area during the summer last year. In addition an information briefing on proposals for BMHT housing schemes in the area including the application site was given to Nechells Ward Committee in June 2013.

6.47 With regard to the comments received from local residents that the development may

cause disruption in terms of dirt, noise and parking issues during the build period, the applicants will require the developer to sign up to the considerate contractor scheme. In addition the construction period will be relatively short lived and conditions are recommended to require submission of a construction management plan. The comment that the development may devalue existing properties is not a material planning consideration.

Page 13 of 19

7.0 Conclusion 7.1 Although the application site comprises of an area of public open and its development

for housing would not therefore normally be acceptable its development for housing is, on balance considered to be acceptable as the applicants have demonstrated exceptional circumstances. These relate to the site being underused, that it was previously occupied by housing, it is proposed for development in the Bordesley Park AAP and as the development would provide affordable homes for which there is a significant need in Nechells Ward. The submitted scheme shows a suitable layout for the site which reflects its surroundings and compensation has been provided for the loss of existing trees by the provision of new tree planting and improvements to the smaller retained area of public open space. The mix of dwellings proposed, layout, design and parking provision are considered to be appropriate. Compensation of £50,000 has been offered for the loss of the open space to allow improvement of site public open space improvements in Nechells ward.

8.0 Recommendation 8.1 Approve subject to the following conditions:- 1 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

2 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

3 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

4 Requires the prior submission of a construction ecological mitigation plan

5 Requires the implementation of the submitted mitigation/enhancement plan

6 Requires the prior submission of a method statement for the removal of invasive

weeds

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

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

9 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

10 Requires the prior submission of earthworks details

11 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

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

13 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

14 Requires the prior submission of level details

15 Removes PD rights for extensions

16 Requires the implementation of the noise mitigation measures.

Page 14 of 19

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

18 Requires the prior submission of a residential travel plan

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

20 Protects retained trees from removal

21 Requires the prior submission of details for tree works

22 Requires the implementation of tree protection

23 Requires the prior submission of an arboricultural method statement

24 Requires tree replacement within 2 years post development

25 Requires the replacement of any trees removed during construction

26 Grants a personal planning permission to Birmigham City Council

27 Requires all the dwellings to be affordable homes

28 Requires the dwellings to be built to the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4

29 Requires the provision of financial contributions towards off site public open space in

Nechells Ward.

30 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full) Reason for Approval 1 Birmingham City Counci; grants Plannig Permssion subject to the conditions listed

below. The reason for granting planning permission is that although the application site comprises of an area of public open and its development for housing would not therefore normally be acceptable it is considered that the applicants have demonstrated exceptional circumstances which justify its development for housing. In particular the development is to provide affordable housing for rent for which there is a significant need in Nechelles Ward.

Case Officer: Lesley Sheldrake

Page 15 of 19

Photo(s)

Figure 1: View of site from Millward Street

Page 16 of 19

Figure 2: View of the embankment

Page 17 of 19

Figure 3: View across site

Page 18 of 19

Figure 4: View of Green Lane frontage

Page 19 of 19

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

HO

LMW

6458

66

60 62

129.5m

25

47

35

38

48

WYN

DC

LIFF RO

AD

19

Gardens

114116

Allotment

14

6

2

5

3

8

1366

25

73

83

11

87

9

7775

81

15

131.1m

44

18

28

32

32

56

MILLW

AR

D STR

EET

61 to 63

47 to 59

66

Works

PH

132.3m

Bank

116

Industrial Estate

48

31

20

131.4m

45

62

37

Depot

AR

SENA

L STREET

Cricke

ters

(PH)Arm

s

132.3m

LITT

LE G

REEN L

ANE

35

37

Haw

ksmill

GREEN LANE

Depot