Name of Applicant Proposal Map/Plan Plan Ref. Type of … · 2013-05-10 · RES 09/0989-DMB...

Name of Applicant Type of Certificate Proposal Map/Plan

Policy Plan Ref. Expiry Date

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PERSIMMON HOMES (SOUTH MIDLANDS) LIMITED 'B'

Erection of 72 dwellings with associated car-parking, access, infrastructure provision and landscaping - Former Alvechurch First and Middle Schools, Tanyard Lane, Alvechurch (as amended by plans received 03.02.2010; and Design and Access Statement and plans received 12.02.2010)

RES 09/0989-DMB 24.03.2010

RECOMMENDATION: that DELEGATED POWERS be granted to the Head of Planning and Environment Services to determine the application following the receipt of a suitable and satisfactory legal mechanism in relation to financial contributions for (a) play space provision; (b) education provision; and (c) public transport enhancement, Alvechurch railway station secure cycle parking and highway improvement works and; the securing of 25 affordable housing units. AND to authorise REFUSAL of the application if an agreed legal mechanism as set out above is not received by the expiry date of the application (24th March 2010). MINDED TO APPROVE Consultations WH Consulted - views received 15.02.2010:

§ No objection subject to Conditions. § The application details will require a minor amendment to alter the

existing access to a drop kerb and footway re-profiling rather than the formation of a bellmouth, the internal visibility splay at the junctions should be 25 metres, not the 23 metres provided, and the embankment south-east corner of the site needs to be re-profiled to maximize the available visibility.

§ The zebra crossing will need to be refurbished to improve the connection to the railway station but this can be done as part of a section 278 agreement.

§ The applicant should enter into a section 106 agreement for the following: • £20,000 to provide two gold standard bus shelters on the

Birmingham Road near the service road. • £10,000 to provide sheltered secure cycle parking at

Alvechurch railway station. • £8,000 to provide remote monitoring to the pelican crossings on

Birmingham Road and Red Lion Street. • £4,000 to provide pedestrian crossing points.

§ These contributions will promote sustainable means of access to the site which are not addressed adequately in the transport assessment.

Drainage Engineer

Consulted - views received 10.01.2010: § No objection subject to Condition.

09/0989-DMB - Construction of 72 No. dwellings with associated car parking, access infrastructure provision and landscaping - Alvechurch C of E Middle School, Tanyard Lane, Alvechurch - Persimmon Homes (South Midlands) Ltd.

Strategic Planning Manager

Consulted - views received 03.02.2010: § The above site is situated within the residential area of Alvechurch

in the Bromsgrove Local Plan. The proposal is to develop a mix of market and affordable dwellings; therefore, PPS1, PPS3, policies S3, S7, S14 and S15 of the adopted Bromsgrove District Local Plan (adopted January 2004) and SPG1 apply.

§ PPS3 states that "good design should contribute positively to making places better for people. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted… To facilitate efficient delivery of high quality development, Local Planning Authorities should draw on relevant guidance and standards and promote the use of appropriate tools and techniques..." Building for Life (www.buildingforlife.org) is one of the tools suggested in PPS3 for assessing the design element of housing development.

§ PPS3 emphasises the importance of achieving a mix of housing on sites. In this instance, this is achieved with a variety of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom properties. In accordance with policy S15, the proposal includes an element of affordable housing. This is also supported by PPS3 as it sets a minimum threshold for affordable housing of 15 units.

§ The Panel Report into the Phase 2 Revision of the RSS proposes that "only exceptionally will the proportion of affordable housing be either below 25% or above 40%". 35% of this scheme will be affordable housing and therefore the figure is towards the upper end of this target. Whilst the figure of 35% falls below the 40% target set within the Draft Core Strategy, it is considered that 35% is still a significant contribution towards the delivery of affordable housing in the district in the current economic climate. The proposal therefore accords with all adopted and emerging affordable housing policies at a national, regional and local level.

§ Guidance contained in SPG10 has now been superseded by polices contained PPS3, the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and the revised housing figures published by the Planning Inspectorate in response to the phase 2 revision of the RSS. This revised guidance currently means SPG10 is no longer enforceable and windfall development of this scale would not result in an over-supply of housing.

§ The views of the Highways Engineer will be of relevance in relation to surrounding highway capacity and sustainability issues. Therefore, PPG13 Transport is also of relevance to this application, together with DS13 Sustainable Development.

Strategic Planning Manager (Open Space)

Consulted - views received 26.01.2010: § The scheme generates a requirement of 4,631m2 of play space.

With the proposed village green measuring approximately 1,137m2, this leaves a deficit of 3,494m2 (75.45%).

§ Providing 24.55% of the open space on-site reduces the on-site maintenance costs to £42,884. With the remaining 75.45%


needing to be provided off-site, the commuted sum now totals £750,662.

§ SPG11 uses a standard formula and therefore does not reflect local circumstances. In the light of existing play space provision close to the site, the figures provided in this email may be used as an appropriate starting point for any negotiation.

Strategic Housing Manager

Consulted - views received 15.02.2010: § I am supportive of the provision of affordable housing within the

proposed development that will assist in meeting district wide and local housing needs.

§ Whilst the proposed tenure split of the affordable element will be included within Section 106 negotiations, it is disappointing to note a lack of housing specifically designed for older persons within the proposed development.

Contaminated Land Officer

Consulted - views received 11.01.2010: § The application form has not been filled out correctly with regards

to Section 15: Existing Use. We consider that a proposed end-use of residential housing is a sensitive end-use and would be particularly vulnerable to the presence of any contamination.

§ In accordance with Annex 2 of Planning Policy Statement 23 the developer must submit "sufficient information" to demonstrate that the site is either not adversely affected by contamination or that the site can be made suitable for use with regards to any contamination prior to the granting of any planning consent; that is, at the application stage. This applies where a sensitive receptor is proposed; that is, residential housing. Ideally we would like to see this information submitted as part of the application prior to any consent being granted. This could possibly avoid the need for any planning conditions relating to contaminated land.

Tree Officer Consulted - views received 15.02.2009:

Tree Issues § No objection subject to Conditions. § Although the proposal requires the loss of some of the existing

trees from the site, the majority and those of greatest merit are shown to be retained.

§ In most cases, the layout of the proposed development has provided good separation between trees and built structures particularly residential dwellings.

§ Such separation will facilitate protection of the trees during construction and result in a more sustainable long-term situation for the future life of the development and the trees.

§ In the case of four plots (nos. 56, 57, 58 and 65) the separation between trees and buildings is more limited and some problems of shading and close growth of branches are likely to result. This will lead to pressure to carry out works to the trees to alleviate these problems and so, in these instances, the development does not entirely meet the sustainable requirements of policy DS13 of the BDLP. However, provided that the trees are suitably protected to control the extent and quality of any works, I consider that minor


pruning of some trees could be carried out to reduce these problems to an acceptable level.

Biodiversity Issues § I concur with the findings of the ecological assessment regarding

the limited biodiversity value of the current site. The principle habitats are the native hedgerow on the frontage with Tanyard Lane, the trees and the woodland area at the rear of the site. Excluding the creation of the new main entrance through the hedgerow, these principle habitat areas are retained by the proposed development and thus meets the requirement of policy C10A of the BDLP.

WWT Consulted 23.12.2009: views awaited. Natural England Consulted 23.10.2009: views awaited. West Midlands Regional Assembly

Consulted - views received 08.01.2010: § By reason of its scale, nature or location, the land is NOT of major

importance for the implementation of the RSS or a relevant regional policy.

§ Accordingly, the WMRA will not be providing bespoke advice on this application.

Worcestershire County Council Schools Information and Planning Section

Views received 12.01.2010: § I note that an application for the redevelopment of the former

Alvechurch Middle School site has been submitted. Although this is a former school site, in the interests of fairness, it is established practice to apply the same education contributions policy as to any housing development in this catchment area.

§ The catchment schools are Crown Meadow First School, Alvechurch Middle School, North Bromsgrove High and South Bromsgrove High.

WMC Consulted - views received 27.10.2010: § There are no objections to this application but please note the

following observations: § I ask that agreement is sought with the developer to construct the

dwellings to 'Secured by Design' standards as this will greatly enhance the security.

§ I feel that the area around plots 64 and 67 are vulnerable due to the lack of surveillance opportunities around the footpath.

§ The footpath link in the area of plot 56 to Swann's length has a history of anti-social behaviour. Is such a link required?

§ I have concerns in relation to the link to Birmingham Road. I understand the developer's concept but it does add an additional escape route for offenders with the excuse of legitimate use.

§ The car park at the side of plot 10 is vulnerable. Whilst I appreciate there is a small window in the gable end, it offers limited natural surveillance opportunities. Certainly the parking bays furthest away are most vulnerable.

WCC (CA) Views received 21.01.2010: § I have checked the above application, and despite the size of the

development there is no known physical or circumstantial evidence


indicating that the site is of historic environment potential; therefore, in this instance, I have no comments to make.

Sport England Consulted 05.01.2010: views awaited. GPU Power Limited

Consulted 12.01.2010: views awaited.

Alvechurch PC Consulted - views received 05.02.2010: § We have taken a necessary broad view in looking at the merits of

this application. This application comprising both market and affordable properties follows the proposal for affordable housing at Birmingham Road and the affordable housing nearing completion at Hopwood. Taken together, this is a very substantial programme for new housing in Alvechurch. We are also aware of the position of Alvechurch in likely developments at our parish boundary with Redditch to respond to that town's housing needs.

§ We are inclined to the view that too much housing in a too tight time frame is potentially coming to this Parish. We emphatically want to retain features of village life in a green belt setting for this Parish while supporting appropriate new housing schemes.

§ We have also been looking at the important content in the BDC draft supplementary planning document (SPD) on affordable housing and relating that to the developing new housing scene in Alvechurch. We think the housing needs studies as available for this Parish are either out of date (2004 study through Community First) or misleading by significantly overstating what is the real local and high priority requirement for affordable housing (Housing Vision report 2010). Given the completion of the Hopwood affordable housing scheme and the proposed 35% of affordable housing to be part of the proposed Middle School development, we contend the Birmingham Road site in the current proposal may now contain too many properties relative to the real level of local housing need.

§ This is a major scheme for Alvechurch village centre and an important development for Bromsgrove District in emerging from the 2003 moratorium on new market housing. We are surprised that we have had no contact from Persimmon Homes or their agents about this proposal as it has been in preparation. It has many attractive build features and meets a number of policy considerations in the smaller type of properties to be constructed and in the number, type and on-site location of the designated affordable homes.

§ We do, however, have a number of significant points of concern with the application: • We are concerned about the housing density on this site and

the resulting too close proximity of some of the proposed properties to existing ones. This also contributes to our vehicle movements concern as below. About sixty properties would be more appropriate for this site.

• We consider some of the properties with 2 and a half storeys as positioned will provide an unattractive roof line next to others in the design.


• We regard as excessive in number, and contrary to the BDC statements to the RSS independent panel, that seven 4-bed detached properties can be part of the plan.

• We do not see the affordable housing part of this development as responding to the particular needs of the ageing population in this Parish and the District. This is a serious concern given the overall number of affordable houses proposed for this Parish, which do not appear to be specifically designed for the needs of the current Alvechurch population with more older people than most other parts of the District. The affordable housing draft SPD also stresses the high level of need for accommodation that is suitable for the increasing pensioner population in the District.

• We think there is poor recognition of the impact of vehicle movements, whether used by residents of this new site or their visitors, on the junction of the new access road with Tanyard Lane and, in turn, at the main road mini-roundabout next to the Red Lion public house. We also see hazards in the chosen location for the new road to join Tanyard Lane, given the situation of the existing, well-used Zebra crossing (still part of the route to the new schools site) and the proximity of the entrance to a sheltered housing scheme.

• We consider the development of this site, along with others nearing completion or in planning, will inevitably bring more children to the parish with education needs that should be meet from the local Alvechurch schools. While growing admission rates to the Alvechurch first school might be managed with first schools in surrounding parishes playing their part, the wider catchment area of the Alvechurch middle school (and lack of additional surrounding capacity at that educational stage) is more problematical. This could mean that the proposed number of new properties for Alvechurch is scaled back or the phasing of housing construction should be influenced by estimates of the future availability of school places.

§ In conclusion, we find beyond the initial attraction of the Middle School planning application, there are too many matters of concern for Alvechurch Parish Council to do other than object to the application in its current form.

Reconsulted on amended plans 04.02.2010: views awaited. Publicity 31 letters sent 06.01.2010 (expired 27.01.2010).

6 site notices posted 21.10.2010 (expired 05.02.2010). 1 press notice published 15.01.2010 (expired 05.02.2010).

35 responses received: 1 letter in support of the scheme

34 responses objecting to the scheme on the following principal grounds: § Loss of open land. § Is there a need for such housing? Why not Beoley, Barnt Green,

Rowney Green or Lickey?


§ Lack of real consideration for affordable housing suitable for the elderly and very elderly.

§ No provision for retirement living. § Development contains too many dwellings and the scheme is thus

disproportionately large and dense relative to the surrounding area.

§ Dwellings are located too close to each other. § The development will leave Swans Walk in a tunnel. § Two and a half storey dwellings are out of keeping, visually

oppressive and intrusive, with particular regard to the new dwellings fronting Tanyard Lane on the elevated section of the site.

§ The 3-storey (sic) townhouses are not appropriate or sympathetic in a village location.

§ Concern over rooflines, with particular regard to Plots 2 and 3 facing Tanyard Lane.

§ Loss of sunlight to dwellings in Birmingham Road and resultant loss of amenity.

§ Loss of tree cover. § Boundary treatments are too obtrusive. § Overlooking issues and loss of privacy. § Noise issues. § Village green is not needed or required - Alvechurch already has a

central focal centre. § Traffic concerns, including volume and speed of vehicles. § Conflict of vehicular traffic with Tanyard Close and a second

driveway to two further properties specifically for older persons. § Concern over proximity of pedestrian crossing to new access. § Allocation of vehicle parking provision is inadequate. § Creation of pollution from motor vehicles. § The infrastructure in Alvechurch is inadequate to cope with the

number of new occupiers. § Concern over construction traffic on local roads. § The cycleway from the new site should not be opened until the site

is fully completed. This needs to be adequately fenced when opened.

§ Concern that services, such as shopping facilities, the doctor's surgery, dentist and the existing schools, will be able to cope with the influx of new residents.

§ Concern over drainage and the attenuation basin, including the use of SUDs.

§ The pedestrian access to the Birmingham Road will encourage anti-social behaviour seen in the MUGA nearby. Anti-social behaviour will stretch the Policing resources.

Alvechurch Village Society - views received 08.02.2010: § In general, the Society supports housing development on the old

school site and is happy to see social / affordable housing incorporated into the layout.

§ AVS does, however, have a number of comments and concerns about the proposals:


• The overall density of properties is too high and leaves virtually no open space on the site. These features are more suited to urban development rather than in a village the size of Alvechurch.

• Some properties are more than 2 storey and combined with the high density will mean reduced privacy and lighting to surrounding houses and their gardens. This is especially true of houses in Birmingham Road.

• Although building designs are not yet known in detail, it is vital that they are in complete accord with the Village Design Statement, approved by Alvechurch Parish Council and your own Council in 2000 / 2001.

• The development will have a significant impact on traffic levels in Tanyard Lane, especially at morning and evening peaks. In view of the relatively-frequent problems at the mini-roundabout junction of Tanyard Lane and Birmingham Road, it's important that future traffic levels are modelled and the mini-roundabout situation kept under close review.

• A development of this scale will also have significant implications for sewerage and other utility services in the Tanyard Lane area and for the capacity of village educational establishments, from nursery level upwards. AVS asks that these issues are all fully investigated before any approval is given to a 72-unit development.

• If and when the site is developed, it is assumed that Section 106 monies will be an important part of the process. AVS strongly believes that such monies from this (and any other housing developments in the Parish) should be ring-fenced and used to develop youth facilities in Alvechurch and surrounding communities in the Parish. The current lack of these facilities is widely acknowledged as a key community issue at present and all available funds should be directed towards addressing the problem.

• As a general point, the Village Society believes it is essential that housing schemes in the Parish are developed in harmony with other elements of the local community as part of a planned approach to future developments and are in line with the recently updated Parish Plan.

• For schemes which are fully or partly affordable housing, these should have the diversity to cater for the aged, those with disabilities and young single people rather than simply those who need "standard" 3-bedroom houses and are allocated according to published criteria to local people with a proven housing need.

Alvechurch Residents Group - views received 10.02.2010: § Concern over lifting of the housing moratorium and the legality of

doing so. § Too high a density and suggest a reduction to 55 units, to include a

realistic percentage of dedicated properties for the elderly and disabled.


§ Concern over access leading off Tanyard Lane, with considerable excavation of the banking on both sides, gradient issues, shine of vehicle headlights would cause nuisance to residents opposite and close proximity of sharp blink bend towards the Red Lion Public House.

§ Spine road through the site is too narrow should a heavy delivery vehicle enter.

§ Concern over construction traffic. § Availability of other brownfield sites (Old Brickworks) § Inappropriate architectural design. § Lack of school places at First and Middle Schools. CPRE - views received 28.01.2010: § We consider this to be an attractive application. § The site is, in principle, subject to the developed for housing. It is

a brownfield site and not in the Green Belt. § The house types proposed conform to the emphasis on smaller

houses in the Draft Core Strategy. However, robust action will be required to ensure that the developers do, in fact, build houses of these sizes to meet local needs and not larger houses to meet the aspirations of those moving out of Birmingham.

§ We are correct in identifying the current housing target as 108 (or perhaps 120) per year; this approval would represent 66% of a year's housing target, and all within one district. Additionally, there is a pending application for 28 affordable dwellings in Birmingham Road, Alvechurch. This represents a disproportionate focus of the housing target for the whole district on Alvechurch. If this application is granted, it should be subject to phasing, so that development takes place over (perhaps) four years.

§ CPRE suggest that all planning consents for new housing require conditions as to the phasing of development to ensure that the District does not again exceed housing targets under WMRSS until the Council can adopt a new policy on managing housing supply.

33 letters sent re-consulting on amended plans 04.02.2010: 2 responses received: § Whilst the handing of Plots 2 and 3 goes a little way to easing the

daylight and sunlight issue, it does not alleviate the concerns completely.

§ This does not address the issue of the uneven roofline of the two properties which are out of character for the whole of the buildings both within the vicinity of the development and those older properties on Tanyard Lane.

§ The amendment to Plot 1 has not alleviated any of the concerns previously expressed in relation to loss of light and privacy.

§ Loss of tree cover. § The development is architecturally poor, to the detriment of the

existing character-rich area. CPRE - views received 08.02.2010: § The changes as described do not change the views of CPRE,

which are primarily concerned with the principle of development, not the details of the precise house locations and types


The site and its surroundings The application site consists of 2.375 hectares and was previously occupied by Alvechurch First and Middle Schools and Alvechurch Library (now demolished). The site has been vacant since the schools moved into new facilities on Birmingham Road to the north-east of the site at the start of the 2008 / 2009 academic year. The land slopes from north to south and varies in level between approximately 125.00 metres AOD to 117.00 metres AOD. There is also a very gradual fall from west to east. The site lies within a predominantly residential area with existing residential development to the east, south, and west of the site. Immediately to the north is an existing area of public open space that includes a MUGA and equipped childrens' play facility. Established woodland planting lies adjacent to the northern boundary. Tanyard Lane borders the southern boundary with a stepped access leading into the site from the south western corner. A public footpath, Swans Walk, runs along the western boundary which also has a number of existing trees along its length. Within Swans Walk is an existing storm water sewer. A gas main also runs alongside the western boundary up to a gas governor situated off the north western corner of the site. Following demolition of the former buildings, the site is generally open, with hardstanding largely made up of hardcore, crushed rubble and asphalt arising from demolition works. The northern part of the site is dominated by grassland and comprises the former school playing fields and amenity areas. Following the departure of the school use, the grass has become more rank and tussocky than its former mown appearance. A number of mature trees are located towards the centre of the site. An existing retaining wall runs along part of the Tanyard Lane frontage. The existing vehicular access is located in the south-eastern corner leading off Tanyard Lane. A further vehicular access is located to the eastern boundary that leads onto the service road from Birmingham Road. The application site is located in a recognised residentially zoned location, with the proposed development areas located wholly within Flood Zone 1, indicating no risk of flooding during a 0.1% flood probability from Main Rivers. Proposal This is a full application for 72 dwellings, comprising a mix of 47 market dwellings and 25 (35%) affordable dwellings of the following mix: Market Dwellings

Property Type Number 2 bedroom semi-detached / terrace 4 3 bedroom semi-detached 26 3 bedroom detached 10 4 bedroom detached 7 Total 47


Affordable Dwellings

Property Type Number 2 bedroom semi-detached / terrace 13 3 bedroom semi-detached 12 Total 25

The proposed density is 40 dwellings per hectare. A varied range of houses are proposed in detached, semi-detached and terraced forms. The dwellings are predominantly two-storey, interspersed with two and a half storey buildings. The main vehicular access into the site is from a new access off Tanyard Lane with pedestrian links leading from Swans Walk and a pedestrian / cycle access to the eastern boundary from the service road between 35a Birmingham Road and 37 Birmingham Road. Vehicular access here will only serve the existing garage in private ownership, with bollards preventing access other than pedestrian / cycles into the site. The existing vehicular access to the south-eastern corner is to be retained to serve five dwellings off a private drive. The majority of tree cover and existing screen planting fronting Tanyard Lane is to be retained, with the dwellings set back behind the existing landscaping. In the south-western corner the existing steps leading up into the site are to be retained and will provide pedestrian access into the site. The site contains a central village green which serves to maintain the existing mature tree cover. This links to Swans Walk to the western boundary. A wildlife corridor is located to the western and northern boundaries which allows existing planting to be retained and protected, whilst also providing a green buffer to the existing residential dwellings. A Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Transport Statement, Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Tree Survey and Flood Risk Assessment have accompanied the application and are available in the planning file and online should Members wish to view them. Relevant Policies WMSS UR3, UR4, RR1, RR3, RR4, CF2, CF3, CF4, CF5, PA1, QE1, QE2, QE3,

QE4, QE7, QE8, QE9, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T7 WCSP SD.2, SD.3, SD.4, SD.5, SD.8, CTC.1, CTC.5, CTC.6,.CTC.8, CTC.9, CTC.15,

D.6, D.8, D.14, T.1, T.3, T.9 BDLP DS1, DS3, DS8, DS11, DS13, D.43, S7, S14, S15, C4, C5, C12, C16, C17,

C18, TR1, TR8, TR11, TR13, ES1, ES2, ES4, ES6, ES7, ES11, ES14A, RAT5, RAT6

Others PPS1, PPS3, PPS4, PPS7, PPS9, PPG13, PPG16, PPG17, PPG24, PPS25, Circular 05/05, Circular 06/98, Circular 06/05, SPG1, SPG11, Alvechurch Village Design Statement


Relevant Planning History None Notes The site is within an established residential area and therefore residential development is acceptable in principle. The application site consists of the site of the former Alvechurch First and Middle Schools and public library, together with associated hardstanding areas and therefore, in my opinion, the site falls within the definition of previously developed land as set out in PPS3. Advice in this Government guidance states that priority should be given to the redevelopment of previously developed sites in preference to greenfield sites. Given this context, is it felt that residential development of this site would, on the face of it, be acceptable in principle. I consider the main issues to consider in connection with this particular application relate to whether the proposed development accords with the criteria set out in policy S7 and, if not, whether any disadvantages to the scheme are so substantial to justify refusing permission, despite the policy support for residential development on such sites. I also note the comments from third parties arising from the consultation exercise, with particular reference to those relating to the scale and design of the development. Density The proposed development would result in a housing density of 40 dwellings per hectare. This figure sits comfortably within the guidance set out in PPS3 which promotes the efficient use of land and the encouragement of Local Planning Authorities to promote development of generally 30-50 dwellings per hectare. I note the views arising from the consultation exercise raising concern over the number of dwellings. Members must strike a balance between the consideration of the character of the locality and the guidance set out by Government guidance that strives to make effective use of such brownfield sites. I acknowledge the views that have been submitted on this issue but I consider the density as submitted to be acceptable in this instance. On this basis, it is my view that the density as proposed does not provide sufficient grounds for refusing permission. Design, Form and Layout Policy DS13 of the BDLP requires development to protect the Plan area's essential character and main environmental assets, including the open and undeveloped nature of the countryside and the Green Belt. Policy C4 states that development will not be permitted where it would have a materially detrimental effect on the landscape, especially within Landscape Protection Areas (LPAs). Policy CTC.1 of the WCSP sets out a general requirement that the Local Planning Authority, in considering development proposals, should take every opportunity to safeguard, restore or enhance, as appropriate, the landscape character of the area in which they are proposed. Proposals for development and associated land use change or land management must demonstrate


that they are informed by, and sympathetic to, the landscape character of the area in which they are proposed to take place. PPS1 states that planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design in the layout of new developments and individual buildings in terms of function and impact, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development (paragraph 13). Paragraph 38 of PPS1 goes on to state that Local Planning Authorities should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness particularly where this is supported by clear plan policies or supplementary planning documents on design. Design which is inappropriate in its context, or which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions, should not be accepted Members will note the BDLP does not contain any specific policy relating to design. It is apparent that Alvechurch is characterised by a mix of housing stock. The local area is diverse in character with many different styles of architecture, ranging from the 15th Century buildings of Bear Hill in the oldest part of the village, through to more modern buildings of the 20th Century adjacent to the application site on Birmingham Road. The Alvechurch Village Design Statement states there is little uniformity of building lines and styles but instead, a diversity of character associated with historic periods of development. A mixture of suburban, medieval, Victorian, Georgian and country cottage style housing creates variety in the area (Section 1.4)….. Despite the urban-style development, which has taken place in blocks between 1950 and the present, many parts of the village retain a rural character… (Section 2.3). The dwellings on Tanyard Lane, Birmingham Road, and Swans Walk are predominantly two-storey set in large to medium sized plots. There is a wide use of different built forms with detached, semi-detached and terraced dwellings in the village. Simple detailing is apparent, with the use of bay windows and brick banding, together with the use of render tile hanging. Red brick is the predominant material finish, with render and boarding on older properties. The dwellings in Swans Walk are of relatively modern design. Members will note that the scheme introduces a range of house types, according with PPS3 that emphasises the importance of achieving a mix of housing on sites. According to the submitted Design and Access Statement, the proposed building styles and forms have been based upon the local vernacular utilising simple variations in traditional elevation detailing such as split arched brick detailing to window heads with header details to cills, horizontal bar casement windows, feature splay bay windows, dormer windows, gablette details and barge board / fascias to the eaves. The dwellings are predominantly two storeys to reflect the existing residential units surrounding the site. The 2½ storey buildings and differencing roof pitches have been used to create variations in roofscape and to highlight key areas within the scheme as recommended in the Alvechurch Village Design Statement. I raise no objection to the style of the dwellings and the mix of house types and architectural detailing adds interest and defines the development. The dwellings fronting Tanyard Lane provide a strong presence to the streetscene. Although I note the views of third parties in relation to the use of 2½ storey dwellings, I raise no objection to these housetypes given that the variation in rooflines add interest to the streetscene and the


development in general. The use of roofspace and resultant dormer windows are a common feature of the village and I do not consider such features would be so demonstrably harmful or out of keeping to warrant a refusal on the design of these dwellings. As such, I consider the two-storey form of the new dwellings would not be so out of keeping in this location and would sit comfortably with the established form and character of existing development in Alvechurch. Members will note the views of the West Mercia Crime Risk Manager - PC S. Baker. The applicant's agent has responded to these views raised by addressing each point in turn. In relation to plots 64 and 67, the agent has commented that given the location of these plots within the development, reference may have been made to these in error. It is more likely that PC Baker is referring to plots 58 and 65. Both these plots have side windows which provide surveillance to the pathway, together with a 1.8 metre high screen wall to the rear / side boundary. In relation to the footpath link adjacent to plot 56 to Swans Walk and the link to Birmingham Road to the eastern boundary, these links are important to provide connectivity between the development and the surrounding area, with particular reference to the existing play facilities to the north of the site and the new schools to the north on Birmingham Road. The link is overlooked by the proposed dwellings, with direct reference to plots 54 and 55. In relation to plot 10, revised plans have been received indicating a larger side window to the lounge of plot 10. Plot 9 also has a side window overlooking onto the parking court. As such, I consider the issues raised by the Crime Risk Manager have been adequately addressed. I propose to impose an informative if Members are mindful to approve consent pertaining to 'Secured by Design' standards. Play Space Provision The application falls within the threshold for affordable housing as detailed in policies RAT5 and RAT6 of the Bromsgrove District Local Plan. A recently refurbished equipped play area and newly installed MUGA are located immediately to the north of the site, with specific pedestrian access from the development linking to Swans Walk to access these facilities within approximately five minutes walking distance. Members will note the scheme includes an element of on-site play space provision through the provision of the central village green aspect. Members will note the views of the Open Space Officer and the use of SPG11 which uses a standard formula for the calculation of contributions and is used as a starting point for negotiation. SPG11 relates to the assessment of the need to make contributions towards the maintenance of on-site open space and commuted payments in lieu of on-site provision. Such monies are thus made available for the capital expenditure towards the quantitative and qualitative improvement of areas of open space which residents of the development could then make use of. Members will be aware that the circumstances under which financial contributions should be considered appropriate are detailed in Circular 05/2005 Planning Obligations. The applicant's agent has taken the view that the on-site provision is primarily likely to be used by residents of the development to which the planning application relates and, on this basis, a maintenance contribution, in principle, is deemed to be acceptable. The


applicant's agent, however, has pointed out that an analysis of the existing level of play space provision in the locality is required in order to establish whether this provision is sufficient to meet the needs of the new occupiers of the development. Members will note that the site is located adjacent to an existing off-site open space that caters for younger children with an equipped play area and youth / adult play though the provision of the MUGA. The applicant has agreed to enter into a suitable legal mechanism to deal with this matter. I will update Members at the meeting of the Committee on this issue. Housing Oversupply Issues and Affordable Housing Provision For the reference of Members, guidance contained in SPG10 has now been superseded by polices contained within Planning Policy Statement 3 Housing (PPS3), the adopted Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and the revised housing figures published by the Planning Inspectorate in response to the phase 2 revision of the RSS. This revised guidance currently means SPG10 is no longer enforceable and windfall development of this scale would not result in an over-supply of housing. Although I note the views of third parties on this issue, I therefore consider it appropriate to consider this application as falling outside an environment of housing oversupply and Members are thus entitled to determine the application accordingly. In accordance with policy S15 of the BDLP, the proposal includes an element of affordable housing, with the provision of 25 affordable two and three bedroom units. This is also supported by PPS3 as it sets a minimum threshold for affordable housing of 15 units. These are pepper-potted within the site and fully integrate with the proposed full market housing. The Panel Report into the Phase 2 Revision of the RSS proposes that only exceptionally will the proportion of affordable housing be either below 25% or above 40%. 35% of this scheme will be affordable housing and therefore the figure is towards the upper end of this target. Whilst the figure of 35% falls below the 40% target set within the Draft Core Strategy, it is considered that 35% is still a significant contribution towards the delivery of affordable housing in the District in the current economic climate. The proposal therefore accords with all adopted and emerging affordable housing policies at a national, regional and local level. The applicant has agreed to enter into a suitable legal mechanism to secure the provision of the 25 affordable units. Loss of Trees and Hedgerows According to the submitted ecological report, a number of areas of former amenity planting and hedges remain present within the site. A Hornbeam hedge is located to part of the eastern boundary associated with the former main entrance in the south, and a further short section of hedge comprising a well clipped Hazel is also present in the south of the site. A further hedge is located along the southern boundary dominated by Elm and Field Maple which appears to have been regularly maintained to a height of two metres. Small areas of former amenity planting are present to the western boundary. A number of semi-mature to mature trees are present throughout the site, particularly to the site boundaries and extending to the centre of the site. Occasional landscape planted


conifers are present within the site, particularly to the former main entrance to the school. Two areas of landscape planted trees are located to the north east of the site and along the northern site boundary. Members will note the views of the Tree Officer. Although it is noted that the proposal requires the loss of some of the existing trees within the site, the majority and those of greatest merit are shown to be retained. A scheme of tree planting is proposed to the perimeter of the site, together with strategic planting within the body of the site. Although raising concern over the separation distances between trees and buildings to Plots 56, 57, 58 and 65 is limited, the Tree Officer is of the view that this is acceptable provided that appropriate measures are applied to protect those trees being retained during the course of the development. Ecological and Biodiversity Issues The Habitats Regulations implements the requirements of the Habitats Directive for species listed in Annexe IV of the Directive (European Protected Species). Stricter provisions than those contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 apply for these species and regulation 3(4) of the Habitats Regulations places a duty on Local Planning Authorities, in the exercise of their functions, to have regard to the requirements of the Directive so far as they might be affected by those functions. All European protected species are also separately protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. An ecological report has accompanied the application, based around an extended phase 1 survey methodology. The site is dominated by amenity grassland and hardstanding, along with small areas of landscape planted trees, amenity planting and hedges, all of which are of low ecological value, supporting a limited number of common and widespread species. The loss of this habitat would be of negligible ecological importance. A number of trees are present within the site, which offer some ecological interest, the majority of which will be retained. A single, small amenity pond is located the extreme south of the site. The pond has measurements 3 metres by 7 metres, with a depth of 50 cm. The pond supports abundance aquatic vegetation. The margins of the pond are largely continuous with the surrounding former amenity grassland, which merges in with the aquatic / marginal vegetation in places. New areas of landscape planting are proposed, particularly in the form of a wildlife corridor along the western boundary. It is recommended that these areas be planted with native tree and shrub species common to the local area for the benefit of wildlife. There are no statutory nature conservation designations within or adjacent the site. The nearest such designation is Bittell Reservoirs Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is located approximately 1 kilometre north west of the site. The nearest non-statutory nature conservation designations are the River Arrow Special Wildlife Site and Alvechurch Playing Fields, both of which are located approximately 0.35 kilometres east of the site. The report concludes that the proposals are unlikely to result in any adverse effects on any statutory or non-statutory ecological designations, all of which are well separated from the site. Following the recommendations set out in Section 5 of the submitted


report, protected species will be fully safeguarded, while any existing nature conservation value of the site will be retained and enhanced under the scheme. Such enhancements include the erection of bat and bird boxes, and the provision and maintenance of new landscape planting of native species for the benefit of wildlife. As such, I consider the scheme is reasonably compliant with the requirements of PPS9 and the relevant policies set out in the WCSP and the BDLP relating to biodiversity. Although Members will note the views of Natural England and Worcestershire Wildlife Trust are currently awaited, the Tree Officer concurs with the findings of the ecological assessment regarding the limited biodiversity value of the current site and is of the view that the scheme meets the requirement of policy C10A of the BDLP. Harm to Amenities of Neighbouring Properties SPG1 sets out design guidance for residential development including separation distances to existing dwellings so as to avoid detriment to residential amenity due to overlooking, overshadowing and overbearing effects. The Guidelines suggests that new development with main windows overlooking existing private spaces should be set back by a distance of 5 metres per storey from the site boundary where it adjoins a private garden area. It is usual to have a minimum garden depth of 10.5 metres for family dwellings with 3 bedrooms with an absolute minimum area of 70 square metres for dwellings with 6 habitable rooms. This area, the rear garden space, should not be used for the provision of a garage or car hardstanding. A proportionally greater garden area will be required for dwellings with a greater number of habitable rooms commensurate with the scale of the intended dwelling and appropriate to the character / form of other plots in the vicinity. While variations will be considered, the garden area proposed must be considered appropriate to the house type and character of the area. Members will note the views of third parties raising concern over the proximity of the new development to existing residential properties. This is with particular regard to the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the dwellings on the service road leading off Birmingham Road and Tanyard Lane to the eastern boundary and the impact on the occupiers facing onto the site on Swans Walk, Buckleys Green and Swans Length. In the light of these concerns and following negotiations, the applicant has amended the original scheme with particular regard to Plots 1, 2, 3, 25 and 26. This has enabled greater separation distances to the boundaries of the existing dwellings located on Birmingham Road and Tanyard Lane. Although the proposals will inevitably have a greater impact on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers than the use of the existing site, this is not an automatic reason for rejecting the application. Furthermore, paragraph 29 of PPS1 notes that the planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one person against the activities of another. While I note local residents whose properties overlook the site from Birmingham Road would not wish to lose this view, the fact that they would be replaced by views of dwellings would not amount to a loss of amenity which ought to be protected in the public interest. The new dwellings reasonably accord with amenity space and garden length distances suggested by SPG1 and the new properties will face onto proposed open space areas,


providing natural surveillance. As part of the requested amendments, plot 1 and plot 26 now sit further from the boundary and subject to the imposition of suitable conditions relating to obscure glazing for windows facing the boundary and to restrict the provision of any further window insertions, I raise no further concern on residential amenity impacts to these plots. Given all considerations on this issue, I am reasonably satisfied the development would not affect the existing amenities of the adjoining occupiers and to be able to secure and accommodate an acceptable level of privacy and separation as detailed in criteria (e) of policy S7 of the Bromsgrove District Local Plan and the guidance within SPG1. Ground Conditions and Drainage Issues Following the views of the Contaminated Land Officer, the applicant has commissioned a ground investigation survey. I am currently awaiting the submission of this document and I will update Members at the meeting of the Committee on this issue. Policy ES2 of the Bromsgrove District Local Plan states that proposals involving new development will not normally be permitted where there is a known risk of flooding, or where the Environment Agency indicates there are potential problems. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has accompanied the application. The application falls outside the threshold for consultation with the Environment Agency. The FRA indicates that the whole of the site and its wider surroundings fall within Flood Zone 1 and are therefore not at risk of flooding from a 0.1% probability event. The new surface water drainage system will be designed in accordance with nationally agreed standards and development topography will ensure that any flooding experienced from the system will be kept away from the proposed buildings within designed surface features and attenuation storage. Due to the reduction in run-off rates and volumes when compared to the previous development, there should be no increase in flooding threat. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) form the basis of the surface water drainage proposals. Members will note the Council's Drainage Engineer has raised no objection to the scheme, subject to the imposition of suitable Conditions. Traffic and Highway Implications Highway safety is detailed in policy TR11 of the BDLP and policy T.1 of the WCSP. These policies require that all development incorporate safe means of access and egress appropriate to the nature of the local highway network. I note the views relating to highway safety and egress raised by third parties and, whilst the proposal would increase the number of vehicle movements in the locality, Members will note that WH has raised no objection to the scheme, subject to the imposition of suitable Conditions, although some minor alterations to the existing access and visibility splays will be required. These points have been put forward to the applicant and I will update Members at the meeting of the Committee on this issue.


In reaching this conclusion, WH have taken into consideration the contents of the submitted Transport Statement, which includes an assessment of the Tanyard Lane access road and the implications for the wider highway network. Members will also note that WH has requested the applicant enters into a legal agreement for financial contributions amounting to £44,000 to promote sustainable means of access to the site which are not addressed adequately in the transport assessment. This issue has also been put forward to the applicant and I will update Members at the meeting of the Committee on this issue. Other Issues Members will note that views of third parties relating to the impact of the development on existing services and functions. This is with particular regard to school places. Members will be aware that it is particularly difficult to accurately assess what school place pressures would, in fact, arise from a development upon occupation and in subsequent years, particularly due to issues such as demographic change and / or with flexible or overlapping school catchments. No definitive evidence has been submitted to substantiate the perceived increased demand for education and health facilities in Alvechurch. Members will note, however, that Worcestershire County Council Education Services has commented that monetary contributions towards education provision will be required in this instance based on the adopted SPG for residential developments. The applicant has agreed to enter into a suitable legal mechanism to deal with this matter. I also note the issue raised by third parties regarding the perceived lack of housing provision for the elderly and disabled within the development. This point is reiterated by the Strategic Housing Manager, whereby he cites disappointment that a lack of housing specifically designed for older persons has not featured in the scheme. Members will note that the site contains a mix of dwelling types, with an emphasis on smaller house types, together with an element of affordable housing. The development plan does not contain any policies that direct residential schemes to contain such specific housing provision or which set out the proportion of housing to be provided for older people in new developments. To a degree, it is perfectly plausible that the smaller units would be suitable for such residents and, furthermore, the 25 affordable dwellings will need to be designed to Lifetime Homes Standard, whereby the design of each unit must have in-built flexibility to suit all lifestyles and to respond to changing circumstances of the family unit from first time home to retirement. Although the Government has agreed that the next review of PPS3 will look at how the needs of older people should be satisfied, the proposed mix of housing types catering for different sectors of the community in this instance is presently outside the scope of the planning regime. I thus consider it would be extremely difficult to refuse the application on this issue without a robust planning policy background to support this stance. Conclusions Members will be aware that Local Plan policies still form the development plan for the area, and any decision needs to be made in accordance with these policies unless material considerations indicate otherwise.


I note that the application would in principle be acceptable in that it proposes residential development in an area designated for residential use. The site falls within the definition of a previously developed site and, as such, its development would be in general accordance with Government objectives set out in PPS3. However, it is noted that Government guidance does not automatically allow the development of urban sites and issues such as layout and effect upon character and residential amenity are all material factors that may result in a residential scheme in an urban area being unacceptable. Advice within National Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Statements and policies within the WCSP and BDLP makes it clear that the impact upon the character of the locality, as well as the relationship of proposed developments to the surrounding area, to be legitimate material factors to take into account in the determination of planning proposals. Indeed, Government guidance advocates the rejection of poorly designed developments, including those that are clearly incompatible with their surroundings. Members will note the site is located on a recognised public transport corridor and is within reasonable walking distance of the services within the central core of Alvechurch, together with Alvechurch railway station to the south-west of the village. The village contains a good range of facilities, including schools (Crown Meadow First School and Alvechurch Church of England Middle School), shops and services (including a Co-op store, greengrocers, off-licence, bank and restaurants and takeaways) and health and leisure facilities including a local cricket and football club. Direct trains between Alvechurch and Redditch run every half hour between 06.45 and 23.45 Monday to Saturday and 09.45 - 23.00 on Sundays. Alvechurch Station also offers direct train services to Birmingham New Street. The application site is also served by a number of regular bus services to nearby centres, including Redditch, Bromsgrove and Birmingham. There are several bus stops in Alvechurch village. In this respect, I do not consider that the scheme raises issues of being in an unsustainable location that will promote heavy reliance on the private car given the relationship of the site to alternative modes of transport opportunities in Alvechurch. The development would represent an opportunity to redevelop a previously developed site that is vacant, whilst offering an opportunity for the provision of on-site affordable housing units, together with elements of ecological enhancement works. The scheme provides a density that is considered to be appropriate in order to balance the need to make more efficient use of land, together with a well designed development in line with the requirements of PPS3. I am thus minded to approve the application. The applicant is in the process of submitting a legal agreement to deal with the issues of play space provision, education provision and the securing of the 25 affordable housing units. I am seeking delegated powers from Members to deal with this matter upon submission and completion. RECOMMENDATION: that DELEGATED POWERS be granted to the Head of Planning and Environment Services to determine the application following the receipt of a suitable and satisfactory legal mechanism in relation to financial contributions for (a) play space provision, (b) education provision and (c) public transport enhancement, Alvechurch railway station secure cycle parking and highway improvement works and; the securing of 25 affordable housing units.


AND to authorise REFUSAL of the application if an agreed legal mechanism as set out above is not received by the expiry date of the application (24th March 2010).

Name of Applicant Proposal Map/Plan Plan Ref. Type of … · 2013-05-10 · RES 09/0989-DMB...

Documents

Transcript of Name of Applicant Proposal Map/Plan Plan Ref. Type of … · 2013-05-10 · RES 09/0989-DMB...