Page 1 of 8

Committee Date: 06/03/2014 Application Number: 2013/09258/PA

Accepted: 22/01/2014 Application Type: Full Planning

Target Date: 19/03/2014

Ward: Springfield

15 Miraj Avenue, Land adjacent, Sparkhill, Birmingham, B11 4JW

Erection of 4 dwellings (1 x 3-bed dormer bungalow and 3 x 4-bed dwelling houses) with associated parking and amenity space Applicant: Ikon Estates Ltd

7 Miraj Avenue, Sparkhill, Birmingham, B11 4JW Agent: Stoneleigh Architectural Services Ltd

Compton Wharf, Bridgnorth Road, Compton, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV6 8AA

Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions 1. Proposal 1.1. Planning permission is sought for the erection of 4 dwellings adjacent to the existing

properties on Miraj Avenue. The proposed dwellings would comprise of 1, 3-bed dormer bungalow and 3, 4-bed 2-storey houses utilising the roof space.

1.2. The proposed dwellings would be of traditional construction, with pitched roofs,

velux roof lights to the houses and dormer windows to the bungalow, gable features, window sills and headers, bay windows and porches.

1.3. The dwellings comprise of 2 living rooms, a kitchen/dining room, utility room, 4

bedrooms (3 en-suite), a bathroom and a study. The domer bungalow would comprise of 2 living rooms, a dining room/kitchen, utility, downstairs toilet, 3 bedrooms (1 with en-suite bathroom) and a separate bathroom.

1.4. The proposed dwellings would be accessed from Miraj Avenue, which is a private

cul-de-sac. The proposals would extend the private drive off the northern stub of the turning head by approximately 20m and the 4 houses would line the southeastern side of the road following the building line of 5 – 15 Miraj Avenue. The continuation of the private drive includes extended footway links on both sides of the carriageway.

1.5. A total of 8 off-street parking spaces are proposed at a ratio of 200%. 1.6. Site area: 0.1622 ha approx. 1.7. Density: 25 dwellings per ha.

Proposed Layout

Proposed Elevations

Page 2 of 8

2. Site & Surroundings 2.1. The application site comprises a vacant area of land located between the houses

fronting Miraj Avenue, Nora Road, Phillip Sidney Road and Showell Green Lane. Miraj Avenue is a gated, privately maintained cul-de-sac development off Showell Green Lane containing 8 existing dwellings, approved under 2004/01131/PA. The application site also includes narrow gated accesses to Phillip Sidney Road, Nora Road and the rear service road to the houses fronting Eileen Road. On-street parking is generally unrestricted in the surrounding road. The land slopes down to the northeast by approximately 1m.

2.2. The surroundings are predominantly residential, comprising a mix of modest

Victorian terraced houses (Phillip Sidney Road, Geoffry Road and Eileen Road), 1950-60’s semi-detached houses (Nora Road), 1930’s semi-detached houses (Showell Green Lane) and large modern semi-detached houses (Miraj Avenue). There is a car repair garage located on Showell Green Lane opposite Miraj Avenue.

Location Plan

Street View

3. Planning History 3.1. Applications Relating to the Application Site 3.2. 22/04/2004 – App. No. 2004/01131/PA – 170-180 Showell Green Lane - land at

rear, Sparkhill – Erection of 8 dwellings, access, car parking and landscaping works, approved.

3.3. 19/10/2005 – App. No. 2005/03242/PA – 12-14 Philip Sidney Road – land to rear of

– Erection of 2-bed dwelling together with car parking, refused. Reasons for refusal: i) height, loss of privacy and outlook ii) design out of keeping with the surrounding area iii) prejudice the comprehensive redevelopment of the wider site.

3.4. Enforcement History 3.5. 20/07/2005 – 2005/0484/ENF – 170-180 Showell Green Lane - land at rear,

Sparkhill – Development not taking place as per approval on pa C/01131/04/FUL, case closed.

3.6. 06/04/2006 – 2006/0475/ENF – 170-180 Showell Green Lane - land at rear,

Sparkhill – Windows not fitted with obscure glazing. No gate erected as approved plan, case closed.

4. Consultation/PP Responses 4.1. MP, local Ward Councillors, residents associations and surrounding occupiers. 4.2. 7 letters of objection received from local residents on the following grounds:

• Loss of privacy; • Loss of trees;

Page 3 of 8

• Loss of light; • Insufficient parking; • Right of way obstruction; • Devalue existing properties; • Previous development not building in accordance with plans;

4.3. Transportation – Requests additional information as follows:

• An amended red/blue line boundary to demonstrate right of way of the private Miraj Avenue;

• A site visit to inspect the internal layout of the existing development; • Explore option to provide additional overspill car parking for existing

development. 4.4. Regulatory Services – No objections. 4.5. West Midlands Police – No objections. 4.6. Severn Trent Water – No objections subject to a condition to secure drainage

details. 4.7. West Midlands Fire – No objections. 5. Policy Context 5.1. National Planning Policy Guidance:

• National Planning Policy Framework. 5.2. Local Planning Policy Guidance:

• UDP (2005); • Draft Birmingham Development Plan; • Places for Living – SPG; • Car Parking Guidelines – SPD; • TPO – 987.

6. Planning Considerations 6.1. POLICY 6.2. The UDP and Places for Living SPG, in accordance with guidance contained within

the NPPF, encourage the more efficient use of previously developed land but requires development to respect and respond to the context. The environment chapter of the UDP also requires proposals for new development to respect the character of the area in which they would be located and respond in a positive way. Proposals which would have an adverse effect on the environment will not normally be allowed. UDP policy places a great emphasis upon good design and sets out a series of good urban design principles against which proposals are assessed.

6.3. Further reference to good design is made within the Housing chapter that states that

proposals for new residential developments should be carefully designed so that they do not detract from the character of the surrounding area. To ensure this, all proposals are expected to be designed in accordance with your Committee’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, Places for Living, which is aimed at encouraging

Page 4 of 8

quality residential proposals. Places for Living also states that the design of new development should reinforce and evolve local characteristics that are considered positive.

6.4. The principle of redeveloping this vacant, overgrown plot of land located within a

residential context, for residential purposes is supported. I regard the main considerations to be the impact of the proposals on the character and appearance or the area, residential amenity (for both existing and future occupiers) and highway safety.

6.5. CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE

6.6. The erection of 8 dwellings around a ‘T’ shaped access road known as Miraj Avenue

was approved under application 2004/01131/PA and subsequently implemented. The current proposals would effectively be an extension of this development, which would be similar in terms of design, appearance and layout to the implemented scheme. I am therefore of the view that the proposals would reinforce and evolve the local characteristics set by the previously implemented scheme.

6.7. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY (SEPARATION DISTANCES)

6.8. The original scheme, proposing 4, 2-storey dwellings utilising the roof space, would

have had an overbearing impact on the residents Phillip Sidney Road. This was due to the height and proximity of the proposed dwellings to the existing dwellings, coupled with the application site being approximately 1m higher than the adjoining site and the small size of the rear gardens. An amended scheme was thereafter submitted which now includes a dormer bungalow immediately adjacent to the rear of 14 and 16 Phillip Sidney Road.

6.9. Places for Living SPG advises a minimum separation guideline of 12.5m between

the windowed elevations and opposing 1 and 2 storey flank walls, this guideline increases to 15.5m between windowed elevations and opposing 3 storey flank walls. Additionally, Places for Living advises the distance separation guidelines should be increased by 1m given that the land levels of the application site are approximately 1m higher than the dwellings fronting Phillip Sidney Road.

6.10. As proposed, the distance between the windowed rear elevations of 14 and 16

Phillip Sidney Road and the flank wall of the dormer bungalow would be approximately 11m. This would fall below the minimum guideline of 13.5m (12.5m plus 1m for the land levels increase) advised by Places for Living, however the closest rear facing habitable windows affected by the proposed development would be at first floor of 14 and 16 Phillip Sidney Road and the light to and outlook from these windows would be unlikely to be adversely affected to an unacceptable degree by the flank wall of the dormer bungalow proposed. I also note that the separation distance between the flank elevation of the proposed 2-storey dwelling, utilising the roof space, (visible over the existing boundary fence) and the windowed rear elevations of 14 and 16 Phillip Sidney Road comply with the minimum separation distance guideline contained within Places for Living SPG, even taking into account the change in levels. I am therefore satisfied that the revised proposals would adequately safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of 14 and 16 Phillip Sidney Road.

6.11. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY (IMPACT ON ADJOINING GARDENS)

Page 5 of 8

6.12. The flank wall of the bungalow would be approximately 6.9m high and 1.1m from the rear garden boundary of 14 and 16 Phillip Sidney Road. As mentioned above the levels of the application site are also approximately 1m higher than the adjoining residential properties. Whilst I acknowledge the proximity of the proposed bungalow to the rear gardens of 14 and 16 Phillip Sidney Road, I am satisfied that as it would be a dormer bungalow it would not have an overbearing impact on the residents. I also note that the flank wall of the 2-storey dwellings utilising the roofspace would be approximately 9.9m high and 6.6m from the rear gardens of 14 and 16 Phillip Sidney Road. I am however also satisfied that this would not have an overbearing impact on the garden given the distance separation and that views from the garden to the east/southeast and west/southwest would remain as existing.

6.13. There are no side facing windows proposed that would directly overlook existing

amenity space. The proposals would not therefore adversely affect privacy of the existing neighbours.

6.14. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY FOR FUTURE OCCUPIERS

6.15. The proposed bedroom sizes would comply with the minimum guidelines for 1st, 2nd

and single bedrooms contained within Places for Living SPG. The proposed amenity space would range between 36sqm-46sqm which would fall below the minimum guidelines of 70sqm for family accommodation. However, it is noted that the garden sizes are not wholly dissimilar to some of those within Miraj Avenue approved under application 2004/01131/PA, or the wider locality, and are therefore on balance considered acceptable in this instance.

6.16. HIGHWAY SAFETY

6.17. The agent has provided an amended location plan which shows that the proposed

dwellings would be accessed from Showell Green Lane via the private Miraj Avenue and has confirmed that there is no option to accommodate overspill parking from Miraj Avenue within the application site. Transportation has not commented on the additional information. I accept the confirmation of how the site would be accessed but do not consider that the current application should accommodate overspill parking from the adjoining development which has already been approved by your Committee. Additionally, as Miraj Avenue is a gated private road the over-spill parking is not affecting the free flow of traffic on the public highway.

6.18. Each house would have a 200% level of parking provision. This would be

accommodated within the plot curtilage for the northernmost dwelling (the dormer bungalow), and for the remaining 3 dwellings a tandem parking arrangement is proposed within a separate area on the opposite side of the internal road. Transportation advises that the 200% level of provision would be essential, as any lower provision would be likely to further compound the evident parking issues on Miraj Avenue. Furthermore, Transportation advises that the additional movements from the four dwellings would not be problematic in terms of junction safety and capacity. I concur with this view.

6.19. OTHER MATTERS

6.20. My Tree Officer advises that the protected trees would have been a constraint to this

proposal (particularly the oak tree adjacent to No. 15) but have been accepted for removal due to an unreasonable proximity to existing buildings. The Tree Preservation Order was made prior to the development of Miraj Avenue and its private access has removed any meaningful public amenity that the trees could have

Page 6 of 8

been claimed to provide. Tree conditions for existing trees should not be necessary. I concur with this view.

7. Conclusion 7.1. On balance, the revised proposals are considered acceptable despite falling below

the minimum separation distance guidelines between a windowed rear elevation and opposing 1 and 2-storey flank walls. The closest rear facing habitable windows to 14 and 16 Phillip Sidney Road would be at first floor and therefore light to, outlook from this window would, in my view, not be adversely affected to an unacceptable degree by a dormer bungalow. I am therefore satisfied that the proposals would be acceptable in terms of visual amenity, residential amenity and highway safety.

8. Recommendation 8.1. Approve subject to the following safeguarding conditions: 1 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

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

3 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

4 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

5 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

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

7 Removes PD rights for extensions

8 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

9 Requires the prior submission of level details Case Officer: Justin Howell

Page 7 of 8

Photo(s)

Figure 1Rear of houses on Philip Sidney Road

Figure 2View from 14 Philip Sidney Road Showing Land Levels

Page 8 of 8

Location Plan

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

50

38

53

43

150

52

48

6

1

54

6

10

1

8

36

12

6

183

17

40

29

412

51

1

1719

197

1

63

WOODLANDS ROAD 24

62

11

15

4

13

24

23

2

13

15

9

11

14

26

5

8

7

RHONE CLO

NORA

RO

AD

PHILIP SIDNEY ROAD

EILEEN ROAD

Sub Sta

1a

156

El

PHILIP SIDNEYROAD

15

10

MIRAJ AVENUE

148

167

11

11a

1

180

198

163

159

166

176

2

184

135.6m

SHO

WEL

L G

REEN

LAN

E

EILEEN ROAD

2

24

1 TCB CLOSE

21

18

84

19

22

17

4of

Garage

41

206

135.3m3

187

193

212