Page 1 of 10

Committee Date: 16/04/2015 Application Number: 2014/05572/PA

Accepted: 15/09/2014 Application Type: Full Planning

Target Date: 15/12/2014

Ward: Bournville

Bournville Village Trust, Estate Office, 155 Oak Tree Lane, Bournville, Birmingham, B30 1UB

Retention of facade of existing office, demolition of rest of office and erection of 3 storey block of 21 retirement apartments with associated communal space and parking Applicant: McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd & BVT

c/o Agent Agent: The Planning Bureau Ltd

Unit 3 Edward Court, Broadheath, Altrincham, Cheshire, WA14 5GL

Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement 1. Proposal 1.1. Planning permission is sought for the retention of the façade of an existing office,

which until recently was occupied by Bournville Village Trust with the demolition of the remaining building and the erection of a three storey block of 21 retirement apartments with associated communal space and parking.

1.2. The proposed building would have a similar footprint to the existing albeit being slightly wider, with a maximum depth of approximately 39m and width of approximately 32m. The proposal would have a maximum height of 12m, providing accommodation over three storeys. The building would be constructed of a mixture of brick and render.

1.3. The proposal would consist of 8 no. one-bed flats and 13 no. two-bed flats, provided

across all three floors. There would be a communal lounge and office at ground floor, various ancillary plant and store rooms, a guest suite at second floor, lift and stairs.

1.4. The proposal has approximately 1735sqm of amenity space consisting of

landscaped gardens/ areas.

1.5. The proposed plans show vehicle access retained to the site off Firbank Close. There would be ten parking spaces located to the southern side of the building. A further 8 spaces would be located to the northern side of the building with access directly off Firbank Close. There would be mobility scooter charging facilities. Pedestrian access to the site would be off Oak Tree Lane with the main entrance to the building being located on the northern elevation, and two secondary entrances towards the southern end.

Page 2 of 10

1.6. The following has been submitted in support of the application; Design and Access

Statement, Bat Survey, Heritage Assessment and Design Study, Foul and Service Water Drainage Assessment, Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Planning Statement, Site Investigation Reports, Statement of Community Involvement and Tree Survey.

1.7. Site Area – 0.34ha.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings 2.1. The application site is located on the eastern side of Oak Tree Lane close to its

junction with Woodbrooke Road. The site is an irregular plot of land of approximately 0.34ha. The site was previously occupied by the estate office of the Bournville Village Trust. It consists of a converted Victorian detached house with a modern single and two-storey extension. The building is set within a mature landscaped setting with large trees around the boundaries. The site slopes down to the south –west with a fall of approximately 3m across the site.

2.2. The site has two distinct sections, the northern section, on which the existing buildings are situated and the undeveloped southern section which contains a number of mature trees. The main building is a detached property of brick construction with rendered elevations under a pitched roof. The building has been adapted and extended over its time for use as offices.

2.3. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character. The site is located

within the Bournville Conservation Area. To the northern boundary of the proposed site is a sheltered housing development ‘Oak House’ which shares the same access. To the east and south are bungalows, lock up garages and Dame Elizabeth Hall. The western side of Oak Tree Lane is primarily large detached properties are set beyond front gardens with landscaping and low level walling or formal hedging defining the boundaries of plots.

Site location Street View

3. Planning History 3.1. 07/11/2013 - 2013/07741/PA: Pre-application advice for the erection of 22 self-

contained age-restricted apartments – Considered acceptable in principle

3.2. 25/3/2013 - 2013/01110/PA: Pre-application discussion for demolition of existing buildings and erection of dwellings – The change of use is acceptable but unlikely to support the loss of the existing building without good justification.

4. Consultation/PP Responses 4.1. MP, Local Ward Members and local residents consulted – Three objections

including two from Councillor Sealey and Councillor Huxtable, 3 letters of comment, and 8 letters of support, as summarised below;

4.2. Councillor Huxtable – Supports the proposal in principle but concerned about the loss of green space around Dame Elizabeth Hall, which many community groups

Page 3 of 10

utilise. S106 contributions should be allocated entirely within the Bournville Ward in particular to benefit parks and public open spaces.

Councillor Sealey – Objects to the loss of green space and the impact this would have on Dame Elizabeth Hall. Objection is not against the principle but specifically relates to the proposed parking arrangements which would isolate the hall. Dame Elizabeth Hall is a community hall used by 30 regular groups for over 120 hours a week, which includes Bournville Village Maypole group. Considers that there is a better way of providing the parking which would not have a detrimental impact on the use of the hall. The piece of land between the hall and Oak Tree Lane should remain open.

4.3. Further objection:

- Not clear from plans which trees are being kept - Submitted photographs do not represent the site - Visibility into front bedroom - Loss of greenspace for maypole practice

4.2 Three letters of comment;

- Concern about the height of the ridges - Overbearing – will reduce light into Oak Tree House - Would like to see some bungalows on the site - Suggested amendments to the proposal

4.3 Eight letters of support;

- Excellent use of site - There is a need for such accommodation in a pleasant location close to

services - Bournville is a safe, secure area for older people - Would remove some trees

5. Policy Context 5.1. NPPF, Birmingham UDP, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Places for Living

SPG, Specific Needs SPG, Car Parking Guidelines SPD. 6. Planning Considerations

Policy

6.1. The NPPF sets out the principal aim that proposals should constitute ‘Sustainable Development’, which consists of three strands: Economic, Social, Environmental. I consider the main areas for consideration with this application include: • The principle of re-development in the Conservation Area; • The principle of residential use; • The scale, form and design of the proposals; • Trees and landscape; • Neighbouring residents’ and new Occupiers’ amenities; • Transportation matters; • Planning obligations.

6.2. Policy 3.8 of the UDP recognises the need to protect and enhance what is good in

the city’s environment and improve what is less good. 3.10 notes that proposals

Page 4 of 10

which would have an adverse impact on the quality of the environment will not normally be allowed.

6.3. Paragraph 3.27 of the Birmingham UDP states that development in Conservation Areas should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area.

6.4. Places for Living SPG states that developers must build on local character,

considering context and should exploit and strengthen the characteristics of an area. Places for Living SPG furthermore encourages residential development of sites where there is opportunity to walk, cycle or use public transport instead of cars.

6.5. Principle of Residential Development

6.6. Given that the wider area is predominantly residential, the BVT offices were

somewhat of an anomaly and I have no objection to the principle of residential use at the site.

6.7. Principle of Redevelopment

6.8. There have been many alterations carried out by Bournville Village Trust since

acquiring the site and is considered that the ‘country cottage’ significance that the building once had when built as a private dwelling in 1904 has been somewhat eroded. It is also further noted that the extensive development around the site, particularly to the north, erodes this significance further. It is therefore considered that the benefits of providing modern apartments through substantial demolition and re-build with the retention of the existing façade would outweigh the retention of the building as existing.

6.9. The scale, form and design of the proposals

6.10. The new residential block would sit in approximately the same position as the

existing office buildings. Height would increase from the existing predominantly two-storey, to predominantly three-storey. Massing would be broken up effectively by the mix of brick and render, and by the varied building footprint which, in turn, results in a varied and less massive roofscape. As the extra massing would be sited away from the site frontage, and building footprint would be little changed, I am satisfied the extra scale of the proposal would be satisfactorily accommodated visually and with respect to Conservation Area character. The area’s mature tree landscaping would greatly assist in the assimilation of the new building into the local suburban townscape. There would be a slight pinchpoint at the south-eastern corner of the development next to Dame Elizabeth Hall, due to the increased building height and slightly extended footprint. However, again, I do not consider this would be so different from the current situation, nor so harmful in itself, to warrant withholding consent. Overall, design is satisfactory and, subject to suitable conditions to control such matters as materials, window, door and eaves reveals, would be of sufficient quality for this Conservation Area location.

6.11. The placing of a new parking to the south of the building would cause a loss of part of the site’s green area, but I note it would be relatively limited and self-contained, and would provide a reasonable degree of parking for the site users. I do not consider this would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

6.12. Councillors Huxtable and Sealey both object to the parking area and its link access,

due to effects they fear it would have on the adjacent Dame Elizabeth Hall. I do not

Page 5 of 10

agree that the new accessway would ‘isolate’ the hall – the area will be landscaped and I would expect the frequency of cars coming and going to be low. Bournville Village Trust are aware of the Councillors’ concern, and were keen to find an alternative site for the maypole practice. They have informed me that a suitable site was found at nearby Rowheath Pavilion in time for last year’s activities, and that this will continue for the future.

6.13. Objection is not against the principle but specifically relates to the proposed parking

arrangements which would isolate the hall. Dame Elizabeth Hall is a community hall used by 30 regular groups for over 120 hours a week, which includes Bournville Village Maypole group. Considers that there is a better way of providing the parking which would not have a detrimental impact on the use of the hall. The piece of land between the hall and Oak Tree Lane should remain open.

Trees

6.14. Four small B category and C category trees (Holly, Dogwood, False Acacia, Silver Birch) are to be removed from behind the building in order to connect the car park to Firbank Close. These offer little public amenity and on this basis my Tree Officer does not raise objection to their removal. Other than this the gentle slope of the site away from the existing building and to the south of the site will assist in the construction of the car parking area as root protection areas will not need to be excavated in order for the ground to be levelled. A condition requiring a scheme for the protection of retained trees on the site is recommended.

Neighbouring residents’ and new Occupiers’ amenities

6.15. The closest, facing elevations between the proposal and a neighbouring development is at the northern entrance to the site: a two-storey gable end of the flatted Oak Tree House is 16m away, and sited on higher land. The Oak Tree House flats have French doors and balcony on both floors, facing the proposed development. I believe those rooms are also served by large windows on other elevations. The interface is across the road of Firbank Close. ‘Places for Living’ guidelines suggest 27.5m separation, but note the distance should be more strictly applied at the rear rather than the front. Given the above factors, and that there is already a two-storey building facing Oak Tree House, I do not consider the neighbours’ outlook or privacy would be so changed as to warrant refusal of the application. Similarly, occupiers of the development would not have unacceptable amenity.

6.16. The size of the apartments varies with one bedroom apartments ranging from approximately 48sqm to 65qm in size and two bedroom apartments ranging from approximately 70sqm to 115sqm in size. Indicative furniture layouts indicate that adequate furniture can be accommodated in all rooms proposed. It is noted that there are also other shared residents’ areas in the proposal. The bedroom sizes vary between apartments however all meet the guidelines contained within Places for Living SPG for first and second double bedrooms and single bedrooms. 1735sqm of amenity space is provided. Places for Living SPG recommends 30sqm of amenity space per unit, therefore more than adequate amenity space is provided. Based on the above I am of the opinion that the proposal would provide an attractive environment for its occupiers and have no harmful effect on its neighbours.

Transportation matters

6.17. A new access driveway is proposed, along the eastern side of the property, leading to a rear car parking area with 10 spaces. There are noted to be existing parking

Page 6 of 10

bays directly off Firbank Road, currently providing 7 spaces including 2 suitable for disabled use, which would change to 8 standard spaces. The supporting information states `mobility scooter and cycle facilities are provided within the proposals’. Parking on street at this location is unrestricted and typically fairly light. The regular outer circle bus runs within short walking distance of this site, along Linden Road, throughout the day.

6.18. BCC Car Parking Guidelines SPD (February 2012) for sheltered accommodation states 1 space per 2 units. Therefore, 11 spaces are suggested. A higher level is proposed, with 18 spaces offered. It is noted the proposal is removing the 2 existing disabled spaces from the site. The guidelines suggest at least 2-3 spaces suitable for disabled use are provided. The change of spaces 1-2 to a disabled bay along with 9-11 to 2 disabled bays would still provide 16 spaces, in excess of the suggested 11, but results in 3 wider bays close to the 2 main entrances. While the Planning Statement informs that there will be cycle storage facilities, this is not detailed within the drawings submitted. It is requested this is conditioned. While Category 2 elderly residents may be less likely to cycle, it is hoped staff and visitors will consider this sustainable mode of travel. Transportation Development therefore do not raise objection to the proposal.

Ecology

6.19. A daytime inspection of buildings (internal and external) and trees to assess their potential to support roosting bats, and to search for evidence of bat use, was completed in March 2014. Trees around the site were also inspected from ground level and assessed for their bat roost potential.

6.20. The original office building to the north of the site was assessed as having moderate bat roost potential as it contains a variety of features which allow access to internal loft spaces, and which could also be used by crevice-roosting species. Such features include missing, damaged and lifted tiles, lifted flashing and missing soffit boxes and weatherboarding. The new building with offices and a hall immediately to the south of the main office building, and the flat-roofed annex/extension to the east are of a more modern design and were assessed as having negligible bat roost potential.

6.21. No evidence of bats was found during the internal building inspections. Loft spaces

were found to be damp and mildewed, reducing their suitability for bats. However, a number of bat droppings and staining were found stuck on a rendered wall in a passageway between the main office building and the southern building. It was not possible to determine whether these droppings originated from a bat entering a roost in an adjacent roof section, or whether they were voided by a bat flying over the area. Adjacent roof sections were found to be tightly fitting with the exception of the back wall barge board, which had some small gaps that were densely cobwebbed, indicating there had been no recent access by bats.

6.22. Because of this uncertainty about the origin of the droppings, coupled with the

presence of features suitable for use by roosting bats on the original office building, nocturnal surveys are required to confirm the presence/absence of roosting bats. The report recommends that two dusk emergence and/or dawn re-entry surveys are required. If these surveys confirm the presence of roosting bats, replacement roosting habitat would need to be incorporated within the design of the new apartments, and mitigation measures would need to be implemented to ensure bats were not harmed during building works.

Page 7 of 10

6.23. Five trees along the western boundary were assessed as being of suitable age/size that may result in cracks/crevices being present that could be used by roosting bats, and contained features which had limited potential to support roosting bats. These trees should be included in the nocturnal surveys required in relation to the main office building. I attach a condition for the additional survey(s), and in any event for bat (and bird) boxes to be provided.

6.24. Planning obligations

6.25. As the development is for retirement living, the Local Planning Authority does not

seek a contribution for off-site public open space. Affordable Housing is, however, usually sought for this type of development. My Housing Officer has sought off-site provision, as the Applicant manage the flats themselves and so they could not be offered to a Registered Social Landlord (Housing Association). He has requested a sum of £136,257, which the applicants have accepted, and which I consider to be appropriate.

7. Conclusion 7.1. It is considered that the proposal would not result in harm to visual amenity,

conservation area character, residential amenity, or highway safety. Trees and ecological matters are suitably addressed, and a financial contribution would be made for off-site affordable housing . The proposal would provide much needed housing in a sustainable location with good links to services. The proposal constitutes sustainable development.

8. Recommendation 8.1. That consideration of application no. 2014/05572/PA be deferred pending the

completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement to secure the following:

a) An off-site contribution of £136,257 (index-linked to construction costs from the date of the committee resolution to the date on which payments are made), to be spent on affordable housing within the Bournville and/or adjoining wards

8.2. That the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to prepare, seal

and complete the Section 106 Legal Agreement.

8.3. That in the event of the above Section 106 Legal Agreement not being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, on or before 14th May 2015, planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason;

a) The development does not provide affordable housing and therefore is contrary

to Policies 5.37 A-G and 8.50-8.54 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005, Supplementary Planning Guidance Affordable Housing (2001) and The National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

8.4. That in the event of the Section 106 Legal Agreement being completed to the

satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 14th May 2015, favourable consideration be given to planning application 2014/05572/PA, subject to the conditions listed below:

Page 8 of 10

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

2 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

3 Requires the prior submission of earthworks details

4 Scheme for protection of retained trees

5 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

6 Requires the prior submission of a landscape management plan

7 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

8 Requires the prior submission of sample walling/render panel/stonework/brickwork

9 Requires the prior submission of dormer window/window frame details

10 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

11 Requires the prior approval of an amended car park layout

12 Requires the prior submission of an additional bat survey

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

14 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

15 Sets a minimum age of residents

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

17 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full) Case Officer: Simon Turner

Page 9 of 10

Photo(s)

Page 10 of 10

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