Committee Date:
02/04/2015
Application Number:
Accepted:
02/02/2015
Application Type:
Target Date:
04/05/2015
Ward:
Tyburn
2014/08581/PA
Full Planning
119 Eachelhurst Road, Former Saab Garage, Erdington, Birmingham,
B24 0NY
Erection of an alternative provision school with ancillary landscaping and
car parking.
Applicant:
Agent:
East Birmingham Network
1580 Coventry Road, Yardley, Birmingham, B26 1AL
Robothams Architects
The Old Library, 12 Church Street, Warwick, Warwickshire, CV34
4AB
Recommendation
Approve Subject To Conditions
1.
Proposal
1.1.
This application proposes the erection of a two-storey alternative provision school
upon the site for the former SAAB garage.
1.2.
East Birmingham Network (EBN), a network of 12 secondary schools, provides
alternative provision school places across the eastern part of the City. The proposal
would respond to an existing demand for this form of school accommodation and
would build upon the existing bespoke provision offered by the network’s first school
which opened in 2013 at the Swan Centre in Yardley.
1.3.
Alternative provision is a tailored educational environment for children who have not
thrived in mainstream secondary schools. As it is not a Pupil Referral Unit, the
proposed school would not provide places for students excluded from other schools.
The school will offer both GCSE and vocational subject options.
1.4.
The school would offer up to 90 school places for 13-16 year olds and would employ
approximately 20 staff.
1.5.
The proposed school would be sited towards the northern end of the site with its
shorter 12m end parallel to Eachelhurst Road and the longer 37m side of the
building facing onto the 22 space car park situated at the corner of Hanson’s Bridge
Road and Eachelhurst Road. The car park would provide for visitors and staff
together with the network’s two minibuses. A roughly 47m X 12m outdoor space
would be provided to the north of the school building.
1.6.
The building would provide a total of 1,136 sq.m of internal floor area. Roughly half
of the ground floor would provide staff accommodation with the remainder given
over to an assembly/dining hall, a 48 sq.m vehicle workshop and ancillary storage,
Page 1 of 12
plant and isolation room facilities. The first floor would principally provide classroom
space, with nine classrooms proposed.
1.7.
This two storey flat-roofed building would be approximately 8m in height and would
benefit from wide windows, which are full height in the dining room and two
staircases. A dark blue brick would be used on the Eachelhurst Road end of the
building and along the ground floor plinth fronting the car park.
1.8.
Due to the level changes around the site the building would be situated almost one
floor level lower than the residential properties fronting Hanson’s Bridge Road.
1.9.
Existing planting on the site is limited in its scale given that much of the site was
previously given over to hard standing / buildings. There is a row of small Cyprus
and Silver Birch along the Hanson’s Bridge Road boundary, a cluster of trees nearby
in the south-eastern corner of the site together with some planting on the boundaries
of the outdoor space. The Tree Survey identifies 4 no. Category B trees together
with two Category B groups. All trees identified for removal are either Category C or
U. Replacement tree planting is shown on both the Eachelhurst and Hanson’s
Bridge Road frontages.
1.10.
A Design and Access Statement, Transport Statement, Noise Assessment,
Contaminated Land Assessment, an extended Phase1 Habitat Survey Report, Tree
Survey and Drainage Strategy have been submitted in support of this application.
Link to Documents
2.
Site & Surroundings
2.1.
The application site is a cleared former garage site previously occupied by a SAAB
dealership. The site meets Eachelhurst Road at grade but drops in relation to
Hanson’s Bridge Road to the east. The bulk of the site is roughly square in shape
with a further section of land running behind the adjacent cleared former petrol
station site to the north, terminating adjacent to a pedestrian route into Plant’s Brook
Local Nature Reserve.
2.2.
The site fronts Eachelhurst Road, which is a busy duel carriageway, from which it
has an existing vehicular access utilising the adjacent slip road which separates
from the main carriageway. The site is surrounded on three sides by residential
development, with Pype Hayes park situated on the opposite side of Eachelhurst
Road to the west.
Site Location
Streetview
3.
Planning History
3.1.
23.10.2012 – 2012/04793/PA – No prior approval required – Demolition of existing
SAAB garage buildings
4.
Consultation/PP Responses
4.1.
Transportation Development – Consider that the proposals can be considered
acceptable in highway safety terms on the basis that the applicant has offered to
fund additional mitigation measures consisting of a TRO application for the reduction
Page 2 of 12
in the speed limit of Eachelhurst Road, interactive speed signage and ancillary
works to prevent footway parking and rationalise pedestrian movements on the site
frontage.
4.2.
Regulatory Services – No objection subject to conditions controlling the maximum
level of noise from plant and machinery, details of extraction and odour control,
limiting the hours of use to 08:00 to 17:00, details of a lighting scheme and that
electric vehicle charging points are provided for 10% of the parking spaces.
4.3.
Severn Trent – Notes that a public sewer crosses the site and that no development
should be situated within 3m of this sewer without consent. Recommends a
condition requiring details of foul and surface water drainage proposals.
4.4.
West Midlands Police Service – Recommends that the scheme is developed to
Secured by Design standards.
4.5.
West Midlands Fire Service – Raise highway safety concerns and notes that
enforcement and physical changes could mitigate this impact including relocating
the bus stop or crossing, traffic calming measures and monitoring and enforcing
speed limits.
4.6.
Site and Press Notices displayed. Local occupiers, Ward Members, the MP have
been consulted with 23 objections from local occupiers received. Concerns raised
are as follows:
•
Highway safety. The school will cause disruption to the free flow of traffic
(including emergency service vehicles) and the proposed access will present a
highway safety problem with vehicles likely to ignore the existing double yellow
lines around the junction. Proposal would result in an increase in traffic, including
min buses. Insufficient circulation space is provided. Eachelhurst Road is
already congested at rush hour and this will exacerbate this existing problem.
The existing access was used infrequently by the former occupiers. Lack of
adherence to speed limits on the adjacent roads. Inconsiderate parking would
result. Would conflict with Chester Road works which are currently on site.
Pedestrian safety is cited as a particular concern, note history of accidents in the
past and physical measures to segregate pedestrians and vehicles are
necessary.
•
Noise and disturbance from children shouting in the playground and anti-social
behaviour from children outside of school hours. In addition, the plant room is
adjacent to a residential property and will cause noise, fumes and a fire risk.
Object to the location of the bin store.
•
Insufficient car parking facilities
•
Design. Proposal is out of keeping with the area including scale, massing and
materials. Site is too cramped/small for the proposal and not in the interests and
well-being of the pupils who it will be catering for who could be suffering from
long term illness, bullying or in some other way be vulnerable.
•
Three metre tall fencing around the outdoor area provides prison-like
appearance.
Page 3 of 12
•
Lack of details of boundary treatment details to show that the privacy of the
adjacent gardens would be maintained.
•
Overlooking and overshadowing of adjacent residential properties. Loss of views
of Pype Hayes Park.
•
The area is residential in character and the proposal is out of keeping with this.
•
Will devalue neighbouring residential properties. Particularly when it is realised
that this is a school for ‘problem pupils’.
•
Question how the premises will be serviced. Object to the location of a refuse
store adjacent to their home due to smells, appearance, fire risk and noise.
•
Citing the school in an area of poor air quality is unacceptable and contrary to
recent legislation.
•
How will the school manage a significant bomb or fire threat?
•
There are several large water hazards in the local area and this is a safety risk to
pupils. The adjacent petrol station also poses a safety risk to pupils.
•
Development of this site in isolation of the adjacent vacant petrol station could
prejudice its likelihood of being a viable proposition for redevelopment.
•
Insufficient consultation by the school. Consultation was undertaken at the same
time as the local fireworks display, when roads were closed. A second event had
insufficient time to enable effective consultation. Consultation period on the
planning application expired on Christmas Day.
•
Inaccuracies in the submission. The supporting statement makes reference to
students using a bus which does not travel along Eachelhurst Road. The only
bus which does is the 914 which is a limited, leading to students loitering for
much longer than anticipated and resultant antisocial behaviour.
•
Existing telephone masts present a safety hazard to pupils.
4.7.
In addition a 353 signature petition has been received with pupil safety implications
in relation to the existing highway arrangements raised as the key concern
submitted by Councillor Clinton.
4.8.
Councillor Alden and Clifton Welch have submitted a further petition of 87 signatures
objecting to the proposal citing highway safety, out of keeping with the residential
area, scale, ecological impact and noise issues. In addition a supplementary
objection on behalf of the Conservatives Association has been submitted citing
these issues but providing more detailed comments.
4.9.
Former Councillor Guy Roberts objects on the basis that the proposal is out of
character, the site is too small, safety concerns for pupils, safety concerns regarding
nearby phone masts and that additional traffic will cause added disruption to local
residents.
5.
Policy Context
Page 4 of 12
5.1.
Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005; the submission draft Birmingham
Development Plan; Places for All (2001) SPG; Car Parking Guidelines (2012) SPD
and the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
6.
Planning Considerations
POLICY
6.1.
The National Planning Policy Framework states that the Government attaches great
importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet
the needs of existing and new communities. Local Planning Authorities should take
a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to
development that will widen choice in education. It adds that Local Authorities
should work with schools’ promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues.
6.2.
The Framework is based around a presumption in favour of sustainable
development and places good design at the heart of its definition of sustainable
development.
6.3.
The UDP attaches significant weight to achieving good design and requires
schemes to respond positively to their context. The Places for All SPG provides
further guidance on considering design. The UDP highlights the needs of
pedestrians. Car Parking Guidelines SPD recommends a maximum parking
provision of 1 space for 2 staff members.
PRINCIPLE
6.4.
The application site is a cleared site, and is in an accessible location. The applicant
has undertaken a search of available premises/sites and concluded that the
proposed site fits well with the network’s needs and is well sited in relation to the
catchments of the existing schools that would principally feed into this facility. The
site is also well sited when considering the relationship with the existing EBN1
building in Yardley.
6.5.
I therefore raise no objection to the principle of a school being situated on this site,
subject to detailed considerations.
AMENITY
6.6.
The supporting Noise Assessment notes that the dominant existing noise is road
noise from Eachelhurst Road.
6.7.
Regulatory Services raises no objection subject to safeguarding conditions. I concur
with their conclusion and the recommended conditions in relation to the maximum
noise levels from plant and requiring details of external lighting. I have not attached
a condition requiring extraction details as there would not be a commercial scale
kitchen on site, with only food warming undertaken within the on-site kitchen.
6.8.
I do not consider it reasonable to require electric vehicle charging points given the
scale and nature of the development. I note the request by Regulatory Services to
limit opening times due to potential disturbance from the external play area, however
I do not consider that this is reasonable and note that the typical school day for this
school would be between 08:30 and 14:30. A condition limiting overall hours would
remove the ability for staff to work beyond the suggested time and prevent evening
activities such as parent’s evenings. However I recommend a condition limiting the
Page 5 of 12
use of the outside play area to the suggested hours to safeguard local occupiers.
The school would inevitably bring additional activity and impact for local residents
compared with a cleared site, however there was previously a commercial garage
on this site which would have had an impact, including at weekends. Therefore,
considering the school’s scale, location and main operating times, and noting
Regulatory Services’ lack of objection, I do not consider the impacts of noise and
disturbance such that would warrant refusal of this application.
6.9.
In terms of the direct amenity impacts upon neighbouring occupiers, there are no
side-facing windows towards the neighbouring property at 22 Hanson’s Bridge
Road. At its closest point it is, at an oblique angle, 14.5m from this neighbouring
property. As the building is aligned with Eachelhurst Road the distance to the garden
of this property is between 10.5m and 8m. It should be noted that the building also
would sit at a lower level than this neighbouring property. At its closest, the
proposed building would be 39m from the front elevation of the properties on the
opposite side of Hanson’s Bridge Road and again is situated at a lower level. I
therefore conclude that there would be no material overlooking, overshadowing or
loss of light to neighbouring residential dwellings.
6.10.
I therefore raise no amenity-based objections to the proposals.
DESIGN
6.11.
My City Design Officer confirms that she has no objections to the principle, scale,
massing, internal arrangements, space for planting and boundary treatments. She
notes the applicant’s conclusion that an alternative layout with the longer elevation
of the building running parallel to Eachelhurst Road is not feasible due to the inability
to secure vehicular access from Hanson’s Bridge Road and resolving levels. In
addition there is a foul sewer easement constraint to the north of the site.
6.12.
I consider the scale of the building is consistent with the prevailing built form context
and is appropriate to its plot size. I raise no objection to the contemporary approach
to the fenestration of the building and consider the use of a combination of brick and
render appropriate, subject to a condition requiring prior approval of samples.
6.13.
I concur with my Design Officer that the location of the bin store is not optimal from a
design perspective, however the proposed car park could not accommodate a
refuse vehicle and therefore collection would be via Hanson’s Bridge Road (as per
the domestic collections). Amended plans have been received to locate this as far
away from the neighbouring property as possible, whilst achieving satisfactory
levels, and I recommend additional landscaping to be provided in order to soften its
appearance from the street. An appropriate condition is recommended.
6.14.
I therefore raise no design-based objections.
TREES / LANDSCAPING
6.15.
My Tree Officer raises no objections and considers that the replacement planting is
adequate. I concur with this conclusion and have attached the recommended
condition in relation to tree protection measures. The replacement planting along the
road frontages is welcome and this would have a wider benefit that the trees to the
rear of the site which are less visible from the public realm and are of limited amenity
value.
ECOLOGY
Page 6 of 12
6.16.
The site is of limited ecological value. The City’s Ecologist raises no objection and
concurs with the recommendations of the supporting Habitat Survey Report of
exercising a precautionary approach to removal of rubble and vegetation to protect
potential reptiles and bird nests and that bird boxes should be provided. In addition
the report recommends that additional bat mitigation work is undertaken in relation
to potential disturbance caused by construction, however the City’s Ecologist does
not consider that this should be required from a planning perspective. Conditions
requiring the recommended mitigation measures are attached.
6.17.
The Ecologist had requested the feasibility of incorporating a brown roof be explored
as an ecological enhancement measure. However this would prejudice the financial
viability of the proposals.
HIGHWAY MATTERS
6.18.
There has been significant local objection to the proposals on the grounds of
highway safety and, in light of the proposed use; Transportation Development has
considered this issue in great detail.
6.19.
This application has been the subject of detailed negotiations with the current
proposed package of highways measures including changes such as the installation
of guard railing and the change in the speed limit of Eachelhurst Road from 40mph
to 30mph with associated signage and ‘interactive’ speed displays. This package of
measures has been developed in response to highway safety concerns arising from
the proximity of the school to Eachelhurst Road and the potential for pedestrians to
cross directly outside of the school building rather than the designated pedestrian
crossing to the south. As with any proposals requiring S278 consent, ultimately
further public consultation and Highways consent will be required before these
measures could be implemented. Therefore the condition would not guarantee the
implementation of these measures, but would secure the applicant’s commitment to
fund and pursue such an application prior to the commencement of the
development.
6.20.
Transportation Development raise no objection and considers that subject to the
applicant pursuing the revised package of measures, the safety of the highway
environment would be acceptable in respect of the proposed school. I concur with
this conclusion subject to suitable safeguarding conditions.
6.21.
In terms of operational matters, the 22 space off street car park is adequate and I
note that there are opportunities for drop-off and pick-ups on the highway network
within the vicinity. As above, refuse wagons would need to service the site from
Hanson’s Bridge Road; however I consider that given the scale of the school this is
acceptable. Smaller vehicles (e.g. food deliveries) would be able to utilise the
school’s car park.
6.22.
I therefore raise no highway-based objections subject to the imposition of suitable
safeguarding conditions.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
6.23.
There has been a significant level of public interest in this application, including two
petitions. In addition to the issues discussed above, and in response to the points
raised I add the following: the impact upon the value of neighbouring properties is
not a planning consideration; the matters of bomb/fire threats are operational and
Page 7 of 12
building control considerations; the presence of bodies of water (such as Plant’s
Brook) in the wider area is not a valid planning reason to refuse the application;
whilst the extent of the school’s pre-application community engagement is not a
planning requirement I consider that level of consultation in addition to the formal
consultation on the planning application was sufficient. The closest telephone mast
is on the opposite side of Eachelhurst Road adjacent to the northbound carriageway
of the duel carriageway. When this application was considered the applicant
provided an International Commission on Non Ionising Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP) certificate as recommended by Paragraph 46 of the NPPF and it therefore
is not necessary for a Local Planning Authority to consider health concerns further.
6.24.
Finally, I do not consider that the proposal would compromise the redevelopment of
the adjacent former petrol filling station site. The proposed building shows a 10m
buffer between the proposed building and this site to the north.
7.
Conclusion
7.1.
The proposed school would offer alternative provision for pupils within the East
Birmingham Network’s area in line with the NPPF’s aspiration to create a choice in
education provision to meet the community’s needs. The scale of the proposed
building is in keeping with the surrounding built form and utilises levels to minimise
impact upon its neighbours. There are no significant amenity impact concerns and
the negotiated package of highway works has overcome highway safety and free
flow concerns.
7.2.
I therefore recommend that this application is approved subject to safeguarding
conditions.
8.
Recommendation
8.1.
Approve subject to the following conditions:
1
Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme
2
Requires the prior submission of details of bird boxes
3
Requires the prior submission of hard and/or soft landscape details
4
Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details
5
Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme
6
Requires the prior submission of sample materials
7
Requires the prior submission of level details
8
Requires the submission of a package of highway measures
9
Requires the prior submission of a construction method statement/management plan
10
Requires a detailed School Travel Plan to be provided.
11
Requires the prior submission of a parking management strategy
Page 8 of 12
12
Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details
13
Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided
14
Requires the implementation of tree protection
15
Prevents the use of the outdoor play area outside of 08:00 - 17:00
16
Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery
17
Requires the implementation of the submitted mitigation/enhancement plan
18
Limits the number of children able to attend the school at any one time to 90
19
Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans
20
Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)
Case Officer:
Nicholas Jackson
Page 9 of 12
Photo(s)
Figure 1. The Application Site and Eachelhurst Road
Page 10 of 12
Figure 2. The Entrance to Hanson’s Bridge Road
Page 11 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
Page 12 of 12