1. home and garden

Committee Date:
30/04/2015
Application Number:
Accepted:
12/01/2015
Application Type:
Target Date:
13/04/2015
Ward:
Sutton Trinity
2014/04828/PA
Full Planning
Land adjoining former Sutton Coldfield Council House, King Edward
Square and car park on Upper Clifton Road, Sutton Coldfield,
Birmingham, B73 6AB
Erection of a building containing 41 apartments with associated
landscaping, boundary treatment and external works and use of 14 car
parking spaces within the existing car park off Upper Clifton Road.
Applicant:
Agent:
Gethar Ventures
c/o Agent
Brooke Smith Planning
The Cloisters, 12 George Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 1NP
Recommendation
Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement
1.
Proposal
1.1.
This application is for the erection of a building containing 41 apartments with
associated landscaping, boundary treatment and external works and use of 14 car
parking spaces within the existing car park off Upper Clifton Road.
1.2.
The former Council House including the application site and car park on Upper
Clifton Road was sold to the applicant in 2014 and it was determined that no prior
approval was required (application 2014/02657/PA) to convert the former Council
House offices into 18 apartments (to be known as Sutton Royal Place). This
residential conversion is currently being undertaken.
1.3.
The proposed building would be sited approximately 4.5 metres to the southeast of
the former Council House and would be sited 4.2 metres back from the pavement to
King Edwards Square and then would step back a further 6.5 metres to provide
sufficient separation from the trees to be retained in the southeast corner of the site.
The building would comprise two main elements with an interlinking glazed element
consisting of the communal main entrance and staircase/lift. Access to the building
would be gained from both King Edwards Square and Railway Road. The elevation
to Railway Road would follow the curved road alignment and would then step back
behind new replacement trees along Railway Road frontage.
1.4.
The building would have a contemporary design with a vertical emphasis and the
roof line would be articulated with raised brickwork above the ridge line. It would be
five storeys high with a basement level to King Edwards Square and would increase
to seven storeys to Railway Road to take advantage of the level changes. Amended
plans have been received that reduce the scale of the building nearest to the
southeast corner of the site from five storeys to four storeys to King Edwards Square
Page 1 of 17
and from seven storeys to six storeys to Railway Road, in order to create a greater
difference in building heights between the two main elements and reflect the rise
and fall of the roof line of the adjacent former Council House.
1.5.
Building materials would comprise red facing brickwork, 50mm wide aluminium
windows to lower levels and glazing system with black painted glazed spandrel
panels to upper levels, recessed textured brickwork to head of windows (bricks
rotated through 45 degrees to create texture) and black metal balustrades to Juliet
balconies.
1.6.
The building would accommodate 28 one bed and 13 two bed apartments
comprising open plan kitchen/dining/living room, storage room, bedroom(s) and ensuite(s). All bedrooms would comply with the minimum bedroom sizes outlined in
Places for Living SPG. Sunken gardens are proposed to 2 basement apartments
and all of the ground floor apartments would have separate entrance doors. A 2.2
metre high brick faced refuse storage facility is proposed to the front of the building
adjacent to the communal entrance door.
1.7.
The existing 3 mature trees (Category B) within the southeast corner of the site
adjacent to the cobbled walkway would be retained and pruned where necessary.
It is proposed to remove 9 individual trees, 3 tree groups and part of the woodland
and provide 4 replacement Silver Birch trees along Railway Road. 3 trees would be
removed from within the car park.
1.8.
Boundary treatment would comprise a low brick wall to the back of the pavement to
King Edwards Square with a hedgerow behind and the existing stone boundary wall/
picket fence to the rear of the cobbled walkway would be retained. The historic
sandstone retaining wall and low blue brick retaining wall along the boundary to
Railway Road would be retained except for a 9.6 metre wide section where the
sandstone wall would be reduced to 0.6 metres in height and railings would be
installed above to provide an appropriate outlook and allow light into the ground floor
apartments nearest to the boundary. The existing gate post would be relocated to
the new pedestrian access point on Railway Road and the existing gate opening
would be infilled with reclaimed sandstone. A gated pathway would be provided
between the proposed building and the former Council House to allow access for the
residents of the converted Council House to their communal rear garden. To the car
park, it is proposed to install 1 metre high railings to the top of the existing retaining
wall or a 1.8 metre high railing fence around the boundary and a gate to the access
point.
1.9.
A total of 14 car parking spaces would be provided within the former BCC car park
located off Upper Clifton Road, which is approximately a 5 minute walk from the site.
The applicant has advised that the car parking spaces would be predominantly
allocated to the 2 bed apartments. The remaining 30 spaces would be used by the
residents of the converted Council House.
1.10.
Site Area: 0.36 hectares.
1.11.
The application has been submitted with a Design and Access Statement, Planning
Statement, Ground Engineering Desk Study Report, Bat Survey Report, Open
Space Statement, Crane Location Plan, Construction Methodology Statement, Open
Space Statement, Heritage Assessment, Transport Statement, Travel Plan, Tree
Survey and a Viability Appraisal.
1.12.
Link to Documents
Density: 114 dwellings per hectare.
Page 2 of 17
2.
Site & Surroundings
2.1.
The application site measures 0.36 hectares in area and comprises a triangular plot
of land to the southeast of the former Council House (Grade B locally listed) and
Sutton Coldfield Town Hall (Grade A locally listed) and is located in an elevated and
prominent position on King Edwards Square. The application site also includes the
existing car park located on the north side of Upper Clifton Road, which was
previously owned by Birmingham City Council and contains a number of mature
trees. The site is located within Sutton Coldfield Town Centre and Sutton Coldfield
High Street Conservation Area.
2.2.
The site to the southeast of the former Council House is bounded by King Edwards
Square and a cobbled walkway to the east and by Railway Road to the west, with
the railway station located on the opposite side of Railway Road. The site was
previously occupied by a single storey 1960's side extension to the former Council
House, which has now been demolished and the remaining part of the site is largely
grassed land with a number of mature trees. The ground level falls approximately 7
metres from the highest point in the northern corner of the site adjacent to King
Edwards Square down to the southwest corner of the site, adjacent to Railway
Road. The site boundaries comprise a picket fence and brick wall to King Edwards
Square and a low brick retaining wall and a sandstone retaining wall to Railway
Road. The sandstone retaining wall makes a positive contribution to the local
character.
2.3.
Part of the grassed area within the site is designated as public open space, which is
known as Sutton Town Hall Gardens and extends behind the former Council House,
Town Hall and up to Upper Clifton Road. The site also has a Network Rail tunnel
that encroaches under the southeast corner of the site and there is an easement line
which prevents any development over or in close proximity of the underground
tunnel.
2.4.
The surrounding area comprises residential, commercial, community and office
uses. The buildings in the area date from mid-nineteenth to the early twentieth
century. The former Council House was built in the mid-to-late nineteenth century
as the Royal hotel and later converted into offices for use by Birmingham City
Council when Sutton Coldfield became administratively part of Birmingham in 1974.
Immediately fronting the former Council House is a Grade II listed war memorial,
which comprises a sculpture of a soldier in battle dress, designed and cast in bronze
by the noted sculptor Francis Doyle-Jones. To the east of the site, on the opposite
side of King Edwards Square is a three-storey purpose built office building known as
King Edward Court and beyond are commercial units and a public house fronting the
High Street. On the opposite side of Railway Road is Sutton Coldfield's railway
station and associated car park.
2.5.
The site is highly accessible to local shops and services including public transport
services. The cobbled walkway and King Edwards Square are subject to a highway
improvement line relating to Sutton Town Centre Relief Road.
2.6.
Site Location
2.7.
Street View
3.
Planning History
Page 3 of 17
3.1.
23 September 2014 - 2014/05339/PA - Temporary consent granted for
advertisement consent to display of one non illuminated advertisement hoarding,
subject to conditions.
3.2.
4 June 2014 - 2014/02537/PA - Planning permission granted for external alterations
to existing building consisting of additional windows and doors, demolition of single
storey 1960's extension and associated landscaping works to create sunken rear
gardens, subject to conditions.
3.3.
Related planning history at the former Council Office
3.4.
23 May 2014 - 2014/02657/PA - No approval required for change of use from offices
(Use Class B1[a]) to 18 residential units (Use Class C3).
4.
Consultation/PP Responses
4.1.
Ward Councillors, M.P, Residents Associations and nearby occupiers/ residents
were notified. Press Notice advertised and Site Notice displayed.
4.2.
Sutton Coldfield Civic Society - Objects to the application as the design of the
proposed building is not in keeping with the adjacent Victorian building and the
building would be too high and therefore overbearing in relation to the former
Council House and the semi-open detailing along the roof adds nothing useful and
does not mitigate the height. Also, insufficient regard has been paid to the retaining
wall which relates to the former council office's original purpose as the railway hotel
(comments relate to originally submitted scheme).
4.3.
Trinity Ward Committee - Objects to the application on the grounds that the size of
the development would be over-intensive for the site and not in keeping with the
surrounding area. Also, traffic would be significantly be increased in an already
heavily congested area. There also appeared to be little or no consultation with
residents associations or Sutton Coldfield Civic Society (comments relate to
originally submitted scheme).
4.4.
1 letter of objection from an owner of one of the apartments within the converted
former council offices advising that they were assured no building work was
scheduled for the land adjoining the former council offices and considers that this
development would affect their apartment, the local landscape, the listed buildings,
conservation area and add traffic congestion.
4.5.
English Heritage - No detailed comments to make but considered the immediate
height of the proposed building adjacent to the Council House would be too tall.
4.6.
Transportation Development - No objection subject to conditions/amendments to
secure the following: the access gates to the car park to be set back 5.5 metres:
further information to ensure the proposed boundary treatment and planting to
Railway Road do not obstruct vehicular visibility splays to Railway Road;
reinstatement of the redundant footway crossing on King Edward Square; cycle
storage to be provided; car parking to be appropriately marked on the ground and
signs installed; and a service management plan or contribution for TRO to prohibit
waiting along King Edwards Square to facilitate the movement of service vehicles.
4.7.
Leisure Services - The site would result in the loss of public open space and
although inaccessible there is a clear piece of mown grass retained by a brick wall
and mature trees that deserves consideration. It is advised that to demonstrate
Page 4 of 17
exceptional circumstances the scheme would need to provide an off-site contribution
of £93,200 in terms of Public Open Space and play, as there are more than 20
dwellings and also a contribution of £20,160 for the loss of Public Open Space. This
money should be spent on the provision, improvement and / or maintenance of
public open space and children's play facilities in the Sutton Trinity Ward.
4.8.
Education - Advises that a planning contribution towards education provision should
be made as the development is for at least 10 dwellings and would impact on the
provision of places at local schools.
4.9.
West Midland Fire Service – No objection.
4.10.
Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to suitable drainage of the site.
4.11.
Regulatory Services – No objection subject to a noise insulation scheme,
contamination remediation scheme and a contaminated land verification report.
4.12.
West Midlands Police – No objection.
4.13.
Network Rail - No objection following submission of Construction Methodology
Statement and Crane Location Plan however recommends a condition to secure a
detailed Method Statement and additional Crane Location Plan.
5.
Policy Context
5.1.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012, Planning Practice Guidance,
Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2005; Draft Birmingham Development
Plan (BDP); Car Parking Guidelines SPD, Places for Living SPG, Sutton Coldfield
High Street Conservation Character Appraisal and Management Plan SPD, Sutton
Coldfield Town Centre Regeneration Framework SPD, Regeneration through
Conservation (1999), Public Open Space In New Residential Development (2006)
SPD, Affordable Housing (2001) SPG, Grade B Listed Building, Grade A Listed
Building and Grade II Listed Building.
6.
Planning Considerations
6.1.
Policy Context
6.2.
The NPPF advises that all housing applications should be considered in the context
of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It seeks to ensure the
provision of sustainable development, of good quality, in appropriate locations and
sets out principles for developing sustainable communities. The NPPF promotes
high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future
occupants of land and buildings. It encourages the effective use of land by utilising
previously developed (brown-field) sites and focusing development in locations that
are sustainable and can make the fullest use of public transport, walking and
cycling. The NPPF seeks to boost housing supply and supports the delivery of a
wide choice of high quality homes, with a mix of housing (particularly in terms of
type/tenure) to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. Chapter 12 of
the NPPF relates to conserving and enhancing the historic environment. It requires
new development to make a positive contribution to local character and
distinctiveness and to look for opportunities within Conservation Areas to enhance
the overall heritage value of the area.
Page 5 of 17
6.3.
The NPPG explains that setting can be more than just based on a visual
assessment due to the need for additional considerations such as dust, noise and
vibration from other land uses in the vicinity and by understanding the historic
relationship between places.
6.4.
Policies 3.8 and 3.10 of the adopted UDP seek to protect what is good in the City’s
environment and states that proposals, which would have an adverse effect on the
quality of the built environment, would not normally be allowed. Policy 3.14D seeks
high quality design and requires the scale and design of new buildings and spaces
to respect the area around them and reinforce local character. Policy 3.16A advises
that trees are important for their visual amenity, benefits to health, historic
significance and nature conservation value. Policy 3.20 advises that designated
Conservation Areas are seen as a way of ensuring that architectural and historic
heritage is preserved. Policy 3.22 advises that every effort would be made to
encourage the preservation of locally listed buildings. Policy 3.27 advises that
proposals should respect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
6.5.
The Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) has recently completed its main
Examination in Public, and is due for final adoption later this year. It is therefore now
considered to be of some weight. Policy TP26 states that new residential
development needs to demonstrate that it is creating a sustainable neighbourhood.
Policy TP27 requires new residential development to be located outside of flood
zones 2 and 3a and 3b, be adequately serviced by infrastructure, be accessible to
local services, be sympathetic to historic, cultural or natural assets and satisfy other
important land use related policies of the Plan. Policy GA4 of the Draft BDP advises
that the former Council House falls within the general growth area boundary and that
within these areas, growth and diversification of uses would be encouraged, in
particular the delivery of an improved residential offer and mixed-use residential,
retail and office developments.
6.6.
Conservation Strategy SPG advises that within Conservation Areas development
proposals should respect and enhance their character or appearance.
6.7.
Sutton Coldfield High Street Conservation Character Appraisal and Management
Plan SPD requires new developments to achieve a satisfactory relationship with its
surroundings, demonstrate a regard for the character of the immediate and/or
surrounding townscape and the wider Conservation Area. Permission for new
development would only be granted where it preserves or enhances the character of
the Conservation Area as a whole.
6.8.
Sutton Coldfield Town Centre Regeneration Framework SPD sets out the Council's
aspirations for the regeneration of Sutton Coldfield Town Centre. It seeks to promote
a new use for the Council House, to enable it to act as a catalyst for the
regeneration of the 'Old Town' through new commercial/ residential and leisure
development.
6.9.
Places for Living (SPG) encourage good quality accommodation in attractive
environments. It contains a series of urban design principles with emphasis to
assessing context and responding positively to local character. This guidance also
recommends appropriate separation distances, bedroom and garden sizes.
6.10.
Background to the application
6.11.
Prior to this application there has been extensive pre-application discussions which
has included two presentations to the Conservation and Heritage Panel (CHP).
Page 6 of 17
6.12.
The pre-application scheme initially included the erection of 3 eco-homes on
Railway Road and a detached 6-storey building adjacent to the former Council
House which comprised a commercial unit at lower basement level with access from
Railway Road and a commercial unit at lower ground level with access from King
Edwards Square and 38 (5 x 3 bed, 24 x 2 bed and 9 x 1 bed) apartments on the
upper floors. This scheme included an external staircase adjacent to the former
Council House which provided public access from Railway Road to King Edwards
Square. My officers raised concern that the scheme would have a significant
adverse impact upon the adjacent locally listed buildings and wider conservation
area and would result in a dominant and unsympathetic development that would
create a poor setting for the former Council House and result in the loss of trees, soft
landscaped areas and a substantial part of the historic sandstone wall, which all
make a positive contribution to the setting.
6.13.
A revised pre-application scheme was submitted which omitted the eco-homes and
amended the design, scale and massing of the proposed commercial and apartment
building. Although there was insufficient information submitted to fully consider the
scheme my officers and CHP (July 2014) concluded that the proposed building
would have an institutional monolithic design that would not be appropriate adjacent
to the historic locally listed Council House and would result in the loss of 3 important
trees located in the southeast corner of the site.
6.14.
The pre-application scheme was amended to two main elements in the new building
with an interlinking glazed element comprising 44 apartments (31 one-bed and 13
two-beds). The design of the building was changed to have a more vertical
emphasis with the proportion of solid/window changing over the height of the
building and with larger windows to give a visually 'lighter' scale at the top of the new
building. The building footprint was reduced to retain the existing trees and soft
landscaped area located in the southeast corner of the site and to improve the
building line to the corner section to reflect the sweeping curve alignment of this part
of Railway Road. The height of the block nearest to southeast corner was increased
to add articulation to the corner and variation to the skyline. The separation gap
between the former Council House and the new buildings was increased to 4.3
metres and the new buildings were set back further from King Edwards Square to
give greater prominence to the former Council House when viewed from King
Edwards Square. The internal layout was amended to provide a central single
stair/lift access and the entrance was moved from the corner of the new building to a
new forecourt behind the retained trees.
6.15.
The scheme was presented to CHP in December 2014 where it was concluded that
the new vertical emphasis worked well, but it was noted noted that the scale was still
challenging. CHP expressed concern with regards to its relationship with the former
Council House and the impact on views up towards the Council House from the
railway station car park. CHP also advised that the relationship between the two
main elements of the new building had become blurred and recommended that if
they are not to be twin copies, then they should be distinctly different, whilst
maintaining a common architectural language.
6.16.
In response to the comments received, the pre-application scheme was amended to
reduce the overall height of the building by reducing the floor to ceiling heights,
creating more articulation to the roofscape and emphasising the differences between
the two main elements of the new building, in order to enhance the vertical
emphasis and to complement the design of the former Council House.
Page 7 of 17
6.17.
Principle of Development
6.18.
The proposed development provides an opportunity to build a contemporary
apartment building which would provide a more coherent townscape and increase
natural surveillance of the adjoining cobbled walkway and to Railway Road including
the railway station forecourt. The application site is located in a sustainable Town
Centre location where higher densities of residential development are encouraged.
There are no physical constraints such as contamination, instability or flooding and
the proposed scheme would not prejudice the future development of the proposed
Town Centre relief road.
6.19.
I note that part of the site adjacent to Railway Road and within the southeast corner
of the site forms part of an area of open space known as 'Sutton Town Hall
Gardens', which extends behind the former Council House, Sutton Town Hall and up
to Upper Clifton Road.
6.20.
Policy 3.52A of the UDP states that proposals which would result in the loss of open
space would only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether
exceptional circumstances exist, the City Council would take account of the
availability of public open space nearby, its quality, and how well it meets local
needs. It is unlikely that developers would be able to demonstrate that exceptional
circumstances exist where existing provision falls below the standard of 2 hectares
per 1000 population. The policy also sets out that where developers are able to
demonstrate that exceptional circumstances do exist to justify the release of open
space for development, the practice would 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, an at least equivalent in terms of
size, usefulness, attractiveness and quality. The Public Open Space in new
residential development SPG reaffirms the 2 hectare per 1000 population target.
This is also carried through to the draft Birmingham Development Plan, but also with
emphasis on quality and accessibility.
6.21.
The site is located within Sutton Trinity ward, where current provision of open space
is 3.48 hectares per 1000 population, above the UDP target. The applicant's Open
Space Statement advises that the area is not accessible to the public and has very
limited value due to levels, size and isolated location. The site does not fulfil a public
open space function and has no play or recreational value. I also note that the
proposed scheme would retain the open space and important trees in the southeast
corner of the site and would increase natural surveillance of the adjoining cobbled
walkway, Railway Road and to the forecourt of the railway station. I therefore
consider that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the loss of part of the
area of open space, given that the area to be lost is of low quality due to the levels,
size and isolated location with no public accessibility when compared to the area of
open space in the southeast corner of the site that provides high visual amenity and
would be retained and enhanced as part of the proposed development.
6.22.
I therefore consider that the principle of residential development is acceptable
subject to the following assessment on whether the proposed development would be
acceptable in terms of its impact on Heritage Assets, on residential amenity and
upon highway safety.
6.23.
Impact on the significance of Heritage Assets
6.24.
The Sutton Coldfield High Street Conservation Area is valued for its special
architectural and historic interest. It contains the only example in Birmingham of the
Page 8 of 17
growth of a medieval market settlement into a small country town and of its later
development as a large and prosperous suburb. There are three distinct character
areas within the Conservation Area comprising the Historic Core; the Railway and
Civic Centre; and the Early Twentieth Century Suburbia.
6.25.
The application site falls within the Railway and Civic Centre area and comprises
buildings dating from the mid-nineteenth to the early twentieth century. The former
Council House is a landmark Grade B locally listed building, set at the highest point
in the Conservation Area and comprises a rich use of materials and architectural
detail and has a varied and interesting roofscape. The ground level falls from King
Edwards Square down towards Station Street and the railway station on Railway
Road and allows views over the lower town. There are also good views up towards
the former Council House from the railway station forecourt. The mid-nineteenth
century railway structures on Railway Road, the railway station and station forecourt
and the former goods yard (now the station car park) and the Town Hall on King
Edwards Square which has an Edwardian Baroque architectural style are important
features within the Conservation Area and contribute to the significance of the
heritage asset. The Grade II listed war memorial located in King Edwards Square is
considered significant because of its historic and architectural interest. Furthermore,
the retaining walls and mature trees on Railway Road make a positive contribution
to the local character.
6.26.
The SPD identifies several key design principles for new buildings to follow, these
including: to respond to existing building lines; reflect the building heights
characteristic of the locality or character area; ensure the architectural treatment of
new buildings complement the historic and architectural character of the
Conservation Area; ensure roof forms and roof lines complement the roof forms and
roof lines of adjoining buildings; respect the elevational hierarchy found in traditional
buildings; reinforce local identity through the use of natural materials traditionally
employed in the area; ensure architectural detail is of high quality; ensure space for
planting; preserve views and vistas characteristic of the Conservation Area; and
respect the setting of key historic buildings.
6.27.
I also acknowledge the objections raised about the design, height and size of the
proposed building and the impact this proposal would have on the setting of the
adjacent listed buildings and conservation area.
6.28.
The proposed scheme does not attempt to copy or pastiche the existing design style
of the former Council House and instead seeks to provide an innovative and original
design style that reflects the level changes within the site and reinforces the vertical
emphasis and varied roof line predominantly found in the area, in particular the
adjoining locally listed building. The roof design with the raised brickwork above the
roof would give the building interest and articulation. I am satisfied that there would
be sufficient coherence and consistency in the architectural treatment and detail to
ensure the proposed development relates well and complements the former Council
House and does not detract from its prominence or historic status. I have
recommended conditions to ensure the building materials complement and reinforce
the local identity.
6.29.
The height of the building has been amended during the application process to
ensure the roof steps are significant enough to be read easily from the surrounding
area and to reflect the distinctive rise and fall of the roof line to the former Council
House. I consider that the scale and height of the proposed development is
acceptable in relation to the surrounding development and would not over dominate
Page 9 of 17
or detract from the adjoining historic buildings or the character of the Conservation
Area.
6.30.
The footprint of the building has been reduced during pre-application discussions to
maintain a good separation from the former Council House and existing trees to be
retained and for replacement trees. The public open space located in the southeast
corner of the site would also be retained. I am of the view that the proposed
development would not result in an over-development of the site.
6.31.
The proposed development would retain most of the historic sandstone retaining
wall to Railway Road and the existing gate pillars would be reused. A section of the
sandstone retaining wall would be lowered to provide a better outlook and light into
the ground floor apartments fronting Railway Road which would maintain the
continuity of the sandstone retaining wall and is considered acceptable.
6.32.
In terms of views, the site and the former Council House and Town Hall are located
in a prominent position in the Conservation Area due to their elevated position. The
proposed development would be sited closer to Railway Road than the former
Council House and would reduce views of the former Council House from the south
and southwest (i.e. from the railway station forecourt and car park. However I
consider that this change to the setting of the locally listed buildings and associated
views would not amount to substantial harm to these non-designated heritage
assets or to the conservation area. I also consider that any harm to the significance
of these assets would be outweighed by the benefits of the scheme in terms of the
additional surveillance to Railway Road and the railway station forecourt, which
currently has poor overlooking from any nearby buildings and creates an
undesirable pedestrian environment.
6.33.
I do not consider that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on
the setting of the Grade II war memorial located in King Edwards Square given the
separation distance and the restricted views of the site from the war memorial.
6.34.
My Conservation Officer and Design Advisor raised a number of issues and
amendments have been made to address these issues during the pre-application
stage and during this application. I note the comment from CHP about the height still
being challenging, however amendments have been made to reduce the proposed
building nearest to the southeast corner. Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that
where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the
significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the
public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. In the
case of the proposed development, any harm would be less than substantial. The
development of the site would provide additional housing, jobs during the
construction phase, economic benefits and additional natural surveillance of
adjoining roads and the railway station forecourt.
6.35.
Overall, I am of the view, that subject to safeguarding conditions, the proposed
development would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance
of the adjoining locally listed buildings, listed war memorial and conservation area.
6.36.
Residential Amenity
6.37.
The proposed apartments would comprise an open plan kitchen/ dining and living
room, one or two bedrooms, en-suite and storage cupboard. The one bed
apartments would measure 45-61sqm each and the two-bed apartments would
measure 61-70sqm and all of the bedrooms would comply with the minimum
Page 10 of 17
guidelines contained within Places for Living SPG. The outdoor communal amenity
space would be below the minimum guidelines outlined in Places for Living SPG,
however I am of the view that this is acceptable given the constraints of a corner
plot, the town centre location and the sites close proximity to Sutton Park.
6.38.
Regulatory Services raise no objection subject to conditions to secure an
appropriate noise insulation scheme and have requested a Contamination
Remediation Scheme and a Contaminated Land Verification Report. I concur with
this view and have attached the conditions accordingly.
6.39.
The proposed development would have habitable room windows facing the side
elevation of the former Council House. The former Council House is being converted
into 18 apartments and all of the proposed side facing windows in the former Council
house would serve non-habitable room windows except for a dining/lounge window
at second floor which would be a secondary window. I am satisfied that the
proposed development would not result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of
privacy to future residents within the former Council House.
6.40.
Highway Safety
6.41.
It is proposed to allocate 14 car parking spaces within the existing car park located
on Upper Clifton Road to the two-bed apartments and no parking provision for the
one bed apartments. The Car Parking Guidelines SPD advises that the maximum
parking standard for the proposed scheme would be 62 car parking spaces.
However, the site is located within a town centre location with good public transport
accessibility and the proposed 28 one bed apartments are likely to generate a lower
level of parking demand compared to the two-bed apartments. I also note that the
car parking standards are maximum guidelines and the SPD advises that in areas
with high levels of accessibility by public transport, lower levels of car parking
provision may be acceptable.
6.42.
Transportation Development raises no objection to the proposed development. I
concur with this view and consider that the proposed parking provision is acceptable
given the size of the apartments and the sustainable location of the site.
6.43.
I consider it necessary and reasonable to attach conditions to secure cycle storage,
gates to be set back 5.5 metres from the access point on Upper Clifton Road,
existing footway crossings to be reinstated to full height kerbs and ensure the car
parking area is laid out prior to first occupation. Subject to safeguarding conditions, I
do not consider that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on
highway safety.
6.44.
Impact on Trees and Ecology
6.45.
A number of trees would be removed from the site, however, most of these are selfseeded trees and do not have a high amenity value or contribute positively to the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
6.46.
The two Category B trees within the southeast corner of the site would be retained
and 5 replacement trees are proposed to offset the loss of existing trees. My Tree
Officer is satisfied that the site can be developed without adversely impacting the
retained trees and that the apartments would not be significantly overshadowed by
trees, which could result in future pressure on the Council to fell the retained/
replacement trees. I concur with this view and have recommended conditions to
Page 11 of 17
ensure the trees to be retained would be protected during construction and to secure
replacement trees.
6.47.
The Bat Survey advises that the site has limited potential for bat roosting given the
high levels of street lighting and illumination within the nearby railway station and car
park. The Council's Ecologist concurs with these findings.
6.48.
S106 Heads of Terms
6.49.
Policies 3.53 and 5.20B-520E of the adopted UDP require an off-site contribution
towards Public Open Space and play if there are more than 20 dwellings proposed
and a contribution for the any loss of Public Open Space. Also, when considering
residential developments for 15 units or more the Council will seek 35% affordable
housing as a target in line with policies 5.37 and 5.37A-5.37E of the adopted UDP.
6.50.
The NPPF discusses planning obligations and viability. At paragraph 173, it states
that development “…should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy
burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability,
the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as
requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other
requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and
mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer
to enable the development to be deliverable”.
6.51.
A financial appraisal has been submitted with the application. It demonstrates that
the proposed development would be financially unviable if it provided the above
policy requirements in full. The Council appointed an independent surveyor to
assess the applicant's financial appraisal where it was confirmed that the proposed
scheme would not be financially viable if a policy compliant scheme was proposed. It
was considered that a reduced affordable housing provision should be sought and
this was tested by the Council's appointed surveyor, where it was concluded that a
scheme with 3 (7%) affordable housing units would not be detrimental to the viability
of the scheme.
6.52.
My Housing officer has advised that a registered provider is unlikely to take such a
small number of units in an apartment block and would therefore support an off-site
contribution for 3 affordable units, equating to 30% of Open Market Value (OMV) per
unit. I am satisfied with this position and consider that a commuted sum of £166,500
to be spent on affordable housing within the Sutton Trinity Ward is acceptable, as it
would help to support development of affordable housing in Sutton Coldfield and
potentially provide a much greater value (i.e. more than 3 units) using the commuted
sum with the Council's own funds and HCA grant.
6.53.
Education has requested contribution towards school place provision however the
proposed scheme relates to 41 apartments, with the majority being one-beds. I
therefore do not consider it likely that the proposed development would put pressure
on local school places and as such there has been no request for the applicant to
provide a contribution towards school place provision.
6.54.
Other Matters
6.55.
Severn Trent Water raises no objection subject to suitable drainage of the site,
which I have attached accordingly. West Midlands Police and West Midlands Fire
Services raise no objection.
Page 12 of 17
6.56.
Network Rail and the Council's Tree Officer have raised no objection to the
proposed development subject to further details about construction works including
the location of the crane and materials and a methodology statement. I consider it
necessary to attach a condition to prevent damage of the the underground railway
line and trees to be retained.
7.
Conclusion
7.1.
The proposed development would be of an appropriately high standard of design
and would complement and reinforce the scale, vertical emphasis and varied roof
line of the adjoining former Council House and would retain important historic
features and trees. I am of the view that the proposed development would enhance
the significance of the Conservation Area, as a designated heritage. Subject to
safeguarding conditions, the proposed development would provide a high quality
living environment for future occupiers and not have a detrimental impact on the
amenities of nearby residents or upon highway safety.
7.2.
The S106 offer has been tested by the Council's appointed surveyor and it has been
confirmed that the level of contribution towards off-site affordable housing is at a
maximum without causing detriment to the viability of the scheme. I therefore
consider that the proposed development would comply with relevant local and
national planning policies and guidance.
8.
Recommendation
8.1.
I. That consideration of Application 2014/04828/PA be deferred pending the
completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation which shall require:
a) An off-site contribution of £166,500 to be spent on affordable housing within the
Sutton Trinity Ward.
b) That payment of a monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal
agreement subject to a maximum contribution of £5,827.
II. In the event of the above Section 106 Agreement not being completed to the
satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 21 May 2015 planning
permission be REFUSED for the following reason:a) In the absence of a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing, the
proposal conflicts with Paragraph 5.37, 5.37A-5.37E of the Birmingham UDP 2005,
affordable Housing SPG and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
IV. That the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to prepare, seal
and complete the appropriate Section 106 planning obligation.
8.2.
In the event of the Section 106 Agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the
Local Planning Authority on or before 21st May 2015, favourable consideration be
given to Application 2014/04828/PA, subject to the conditions listed below;
1
Requires the prior submission of level details
2
Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme
Page 13 of 17
3
Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme
4
Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report
5
Requires the prior submission a noise study to establish residential acoustic protection
6
Requires the prior submission of sample materials
7
Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme
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 boundary treatment details
11
Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details
12
Requires the parking area to be laid out prior to use
13
Requires appropriate alterations to the existing footway crossing to the car park off
Upper Clifton Road and reinstatement of redundant footway crossing on King Edward
Square.
14
Requires gates to be set back
15
Requires the prior submission of a Construction Method Statement.
16
Prevents any structures/equipment to be installed to the roof.
17
Requires tree protection during construction
18
Requires tree replacement within 2 years post development
19
Requires refuse storage facilities to be installed.
20
Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans
21
Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)
Case Officer:
Helen Hawkes
Page 14 of 17
Photo(s)
Application Site from Railway Road
Page 15 of 17
Application site adjacent to former Council House
Page 16 of 17
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 17 of 17