Committee Date: 21/08/2014 Application Number: 2014/03677/PA Accepted: 28/05/2014 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 23/07/2014 Ward: Moseley and Kings Heath 124 Billesley Lane, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 9RD Demolition of existing single storey outbuilding, erection of single and two-storey extensions to side and rear, to extend the existing retail unit and provide a new shop front, provide a new retail unit, provide security shutters to both retail units and provide two first-floor flats Applicant: Agent: Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions Mrs K Kaur c/o Agent Gurmukhi Building Design Ltd The Old School House, School Road, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 9SW 1. Proposal 1.1. This application proposes the demolition of an existing single storey flat roofed outbuilding and the erection of a two storey extension to the side and rear of No. 124 Billesley Lane to create a new retail unit (Use Class A1) at ground floor level and a one-bed flat at first floor level. The ground floor of the existing retail unit at No. 124 Billesley Lane is proposed to be extended to the rear, and create a new two-bed flat above at first floor level. 1.2. The proposed two storey extension to create a new retail unit (Retail Unit 2) would measure 10.6m in length, 5m in width, 7.4m in height to its roof ridge and 4.9m in height to eaves. Single storey lean-to elements would then extend the footprint at ground floor by a further 0.5m to the front, 1.4m to the side, and 1.5m to the rear. The floorspace provided at ground floor for the new retail unit (Retail Unit 2) would be 79sqm. The proposed extension would have a hipped tiled roof, and facades would be externally finished in render. A chimney would be incorporated on the end of the roof. A basement level for storage is proposed to be provided. 1.3. The one-bed flat proposed to be accommodated above Retail Unit 2 would comprise of a lounge, kitchen, shower room and double bedroom. The bedroom would measure 15.6sqm in size, whilst the overall floorspace of the flat would be 43sqm in size. 1.4. The proposed single storey rear extension to the existing retail unit (Retail Unit 1) would follow the line of the boundary fence with the adjoining property No. 122, being splayed and extending out by 4.5m in depth. Page 1 of 10
1.5. The two-bed flat proposed to be accommodated above Retail Unit 1 would comprise of a lounge, kitchen, shower room, a double bedroom (with a floorspace of 13.2sqm) and a single bedroom (with a floorspace of 8.9sqm). The overall floorspace of this flat would be 49sqm. The proposed flat would replace existing storage space for the ground floor shop. 1.6. Both first floor flats would be accessed via a separate door located on the rear elevation and communal stairwell and landing. 1.7. The proposal also includes the installation of new shopfronts to both retail units incorporating centrally located door, glazed shop windows on either side, stallrisers, pilasters and fascia for signage. New aluminium security shutters with large punched holes would be provided to each shopfront, and to a smaller shop window on the Southlands Road elevation of Unit 2. 1.8. The proposed opening hours of retail Unit 2 would be 8am to 11.30pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 10.30pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays, employing one full time and one part time member of staff. 1.9. Two staff parking spaces and two customer parking spaces are proposed to be accommodated on the site frontage. Proposed Ground Floor Plan Proposed First Floor Plan and Elevations 2. Site & Surroundings 2.1. The application site comprises of No. 124 and its curtilage. No. 124 is located on a corner site fronting Billesley Lane and with a single storey flat roofed outbuilding located to the side, adjacent to Southlands Road. There is a single storey garage serving No. 122 immediately adjoining the site to the rear, beyond which is the single storey flat roofed garage of No. 6 Southlands Road. No. 124 is the only commercial premises in this terraced row, all other properties in this row are residential terraced houses, including the immediately adjoining property No. 122. Southlands Road comprises entirely of residential dwellings. The surrounding area is residential in character. 2.2. The frontage to No. 124 is tarmaced for car parking, and a timber close boarded fence is located at back of pavement defining the site boundary to Southlands Road. There is an existing A1 convenience store located approximately 90m from the site on the corner of Billesley Lane and Blenheim Road. On the opposite corner of Billesley Lane and Southlands Road is the entrance to allotments which are adjacent to Moseley Golf Course. Site Location Map Streetview 3. Planning History 3.1. 2010/05871/PA: Erection of two storey and single storey side and rear extension to create extended ground floor shop and two first floor flats Withdrawn Page 2 of 10
3.2. 2010/05026/PA: Extension of A1 unit, creation of A5 unit and two flats Withdrawn 3.3. 2010/03563/PA: Extension of A1 unit, creation of A5 unit and two flats Withdrawn 3.4. 2012/03514/PA: Demolition of existing stores, erection of single and two storey extensions to provide a rear enlargement to the existing Class A1 retail unit, a new Class A5 hot food takeaway unit (with roller shutters), and two self-contained flats at first floor Withdrawn 4. Consultation/PP Responses 4.1. Transportation Development No objection Subject to condition requiring secure cycle storage 4.2. Regulatory Services No objection Subject to condition requiring noise insulation between commercial and residential 4.3. Severn Trent Water There may be a public sewer located on the site 4.4. West Midlands Fire Service No objection 4.5. West Midlands Police No objection Recommend a number of design security measures 4.6. Local residents, Ward Councillors and Residents Associations notified: 34 letters of objection received from local residents raising the following concerns as summarised: Extension would have adverse impact on streetscene doubling in size of No. 124, forward of building line along Southlands Road, inappropriate and ugly development Inadequate arrangements for parking on frontage, shop servicing and storage Access to frontage parking in dangerous corner location No off-street parking provided so would add to parking and congestion problems along Southlands Road Likely conversion to hot food takeaway Site has been allowed to fall into disrepair Lack of demand for current retail premises so not logical to create two new retail units Long opening times and late night opening would be disruptive to residential amenity, Area is quiet and residential Nearness of extension, loss of privacy, light, adversely affect residential amenity Robberies have previously occurred at premises Likely to attract anti-social behaviour with youths hanging round outside Site is not well served by public transport No pavement left as a result of extension 43 letters of support raising the following comments as summarised: New shop would add vitality to area Extension would present improve streetscene and would obscure poor condition of existing property, Extension would respect existing architecture Page 3 of 10
Other properties have been extended in a similar way in the locality Need for more local shops, should support small retail and would be beneficial for those that cannot access supermarket Ample car parking in immediate area Shortage of flats in City Would contribute to building of strong responsive and competitive economy and support growth and innovation Would provide employment opportunities 2 letters of general comment Moseley Society Use Classes should be restricted to A1 in line with Moseley SPD, and details of signage and lighting should be provided to safeguard the amenity of residents Kings Heath Business Association Support Provides sustainable use. Small businesses should be given flexibility for expansion and regeneration in line with NPPF 5. Policy Context 5.1. The following local policies are applicable: Birmingham UDP Draft Birmingham Development Plan Places for All SPG Places for Living SPG Shopping and Local Centres SPD Car Parking Guidelines SPD Moseley SPD Shop Fronts Design Guide SPG 5.2. The following national policies are applicable: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 6. Planning Considerations 6.1. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (Para. 14). I deem the main planning considerations in the determination of this application to be the principle of additional retail in this location; the siting, scale and appearance of the proposed extension; the impact of the proposal on residential amenity (existing residents, and proposed occupiers); and its impact on highway safety and parking. Principle of Additional Retail 6.2. Paragraph 7.31A of the Birmingham UDP recognises the importance of corner shops and local parades of shops and states that so far as its powers permit the Council will seek to support such facilities. It goes on to explain that in some instances the City Council will support the redevelopment of local parade or conversion to a more appropriate use. Page 4 of 10
6.3. The Council s Shopping and Local Centres SPD is not applicable to this application as the premises is not located within a defined shopping centre nor does it form part of a local parade. 6.4. Paragraph 1.3.11 of the Moseley SPD explains that there are incidental or small parades of convenience shops in other parts of the neighbourhood. These can be found on Church Road, junction of Wake Green Road and Swanshurst Lane, on Wake Green Road and Billesley Lane. These provide a range of services such as groceries, pharmacies and post offices, as well as restaurants, hairdressers, takeaway food and solicitors. Policy EA10 of the SPD states that The loss of A1 convenience shops away from the centre in local parades and located throughout Moseley, will be resisted. 6.5. The application premises is a longstanding corner shop that serves the immediate catchment area and this is likely to always remain the case. I do not consider the proposed additional retail unit, which has a relatively modest retail floorspace, would noticeably commercialise this residential area, and is likely only to attract footfall from those within the immediate locality and passers-by. Whilst I concur with the sentiment of local residents that if there is no need/demand for the current retail unit then there is unlikely to be any need/demand for two retail units, it does not fall under the remit of the Local Planning Authority to assess small scale need and demand in a locality, and this aspect is best left to market forces, especially for a small-scale proposal. 6.6. Local residents have raised concerns that the proposed retail unit could become a hot food takeaway. However, planning permission would be required for any change of use and the Applicant has previously been advised that a hot food takeaway in this location would be contrary to planning policy and planning permission would unlikely be forthcoming. 6.7. Local residents have raised concerns in respect of the proposed development attracting anti-social behaviour. However, West Midlands Police have raised no objection to the proposal and I concur that retail units are generally not known to attract anti-social behaviour. West Midlands Police recommend a number of design security measures such as fixing of gates, securing of fence panels, installation of CCTV, use of door viewers etc. However, whilst informing the Applicant of these measures I consider it would be unreasonable to impose such conditions for retail uses that would be located in area not known for high crime rates. 6.8. The proposed retail uses would provide welcome employment opportunities and provide greater retail choice in the locality, particularly providing corner shop retail provision for those that find it harder to access shopping centres. 6.9. The principle of incorporating first floor flats above the proposed retail units is acceptable and would be a sustainable use of the first floor helping to meet the City s housing demand and shortage. Siting, Scale and Appearance of Proposed Extension 6.10. Chapter 7 of the NPPF focuses on good design as a key element of sustainable development. Paragraph 56 states: The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people. Page 5 of 10
6.11. The character and appearance of the area is generally one of Inter-War and Post- War residential properties of differing sizes and building forms, sited on plots of differing size and shape. As such I do not consider there is a strong uniformity or planned character to the area, that the proposed extension would need to fit into. 6.12. The proposed extension would be sited some 6m forward of the building line along Southlands Road and in this respect would fail to respond to local character. However, there are other examples of corner properties that have extended to the side in the immediate locality, including Nos. 102 and 112 Billesley Lane, and No. 100 Cambridge Road. The existence of a single storey store building at the application premises, which already extends beyond the building line along Southlands Road, is also a factor to take into consideration. 6.13. However, the more important factor is the effect of any side extension at first floor on the streetscene. I note that two storey extensions approved at No. 112 Billesley Lane (the other end of the terrace) and at No. 100 Cambridge Road (opposite the site) extend beyond the building line along Westlands Road and Billesley Lane respectively, although admittedly not to the same degree as is proposed at the application premises. Notwithstanding, the first floor element of the proposed extension would still be set back from the pavement along Southlands Road between 2.5m-3m, ensuring that it would not appear overly obtrusive or dominant in the streetscene. I note that the proposed extension would have a hipped roof, lower roof ridge height than No. 124, and its front elevation would be set back by 0.5m at first floor all making the extension appear subservient to the application premises and diminishing its scale and impact on the streetscene. On balance, I consider the proposed extensions would be acceptable. 6.14. There would be some visual benefits of the proposed extension, namely improving the relationship between No. 124 and its corner by virtue of the new side elevation facing on to Southlands Road achieving a more active frontage (through introduction of a shop window and a greater number of first floor windows) and better addressing the streetscene as a corner building. Although a somewhat uncharacteristic Victorian aesthetic has been chosen as a basis for the design of the proposed new shopfronts, I consider the main factor here is that smart, new shopfronts would be provided. The new punched hole roller shutters would improve upon the visual appearance of the existing metal roller shutters at No. 124, and would comply with the guidance contained within the Shop Fronts Design Guide SPG. I note the concerns of local residents that the Applicant has allowed the site to fall into disrepair. However, the current neglected state of the site is not a factor which materially affects the determination of this application. 6.15. Although there are some design concerns in respect of the proposed extension being sited forward of the building line along Southlands Road, I consider the proposed extension would not appear unduly out of character or dominant in the streetscene particularly given the lack of uniformity of character and precedents set in allowing other corner properties to extend at first floor in the immediate vicinity. As such I do not consider the LPA would be likely to succeed at appeal should the application be refused purely on the basis of extending beyond the building line. Residential Amenity 6.16. Local residents have raised concerns in respect of the proposed development resulting in an increase in noise and disturbance from vehicular movements and from customers coming and going to the premises. Regulatory Services have raised no objection to the proposed development and I concur that it would be unlikely to Page 6 of 10
generate a level of noise and disturbance which would materially affect the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers. 6.17. The existing retail unit has no conditions restricting its opening hours, and in its previous use as an off-licence it was open until 10pm. As such I consider it would be unreasonable to now consider imposing restricted opening hours on this existing retail unit. However, I consider it would be reasonable to attach a condition to any consent to restrict opening hours for the new retail unit, and I consider the proposed closing of 11.30pm every evening apart from Sundays and Bank Holidays to be excessive, given the residential, suburban nature of the area. In consideration of the addition of an extra commercial unit at this quiet residential area, it seems reasonable to impose a closing restriction of 8pm Monday to Saturdays, and 7pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays, to ensure that the amenity of nearby residential occupiers would not be harmed during the evenings when most people would be at home and where background noise levels would generally be lower. I also recommend attaching a condition to any consent restricting delivery hours, plant/machinery noise levels, and details of bin storage in order to further protect residential amenity. 6.18. Regulatory Services recommend that a condition be attached to any consent requiring submission of noise insulation details between the ground floor commercial and first floor residential. 6.19. The proposed extension has been designed so that it does not conflict with the Council s 45 Degree Code in respect of windows to habitable rooms on the rear elevation of the adjoining residential property at No. 122. As such the proposed extension would not result in loss in loss of light to these adjoining occupiers. 6.20. I am satisfied that the proposed extension would not result in any loss of privacy for adjoining occupiers, with first floor windows in the proposed extension looking out on to the window-less flank wall of No. 6 Southlands Road. Parking and Highway Safety 6.21. Transportation Development have raised no objection to the proposal. They advise that whilst parking demand and traffic generated by this development would increase from the existing situation, it would not be of a level to cause concern. They advise that a good level of off-street parking would be provided with four frontage spaces. This level of provision would comply with the maximum car parking provisions for retail and residential uses set out in the Council s Car Parking Guidelines SPD. They note that parking on-street is unrestricted and typically light. They anticipate that a high level of custom to these units would be from local residents therefore increasing the potential for travel by foot or cycle. They recommend that a condition be attached to any consent requiring submission of details of secure cycle storage. 6.22. I note the concerns of local residents in respect of highway safety. However, the position of the existing footway crossing on to Billesley Lane would remain unchanged and the numbers of cars accessing this small frontage would not be so significant as to be detrimental to highway safety. Living Conditions 6.23. I consider the proposed flats, providing 49sqm and 43sqm of floorspace respectively, would be of an adequate size and would not result in cramped living Page 7 of 10
conditions for future occupiers. Bedroom sizes (at 13.2sqm and 15.6sqm for the first double bedrooms and 8.9sqm for the single bedroom) would exceed the minimum size guidelines recommended in the Council s Places for Living SPG. The rear private amenity space provided would be approximately 60sqm. Places for Living SPG recommends that 30sqm of private amenity space be provided per flat. As such I consider that there would be sufficient amenity space provision for the two flats. Given the above, I am satisfied that living conditions for future occupiers of these flats would be adequate. 7. Conclusion 7.1. Whilst there are some design concerns in respect of the proposed development, on balance I consider the effects on local amenity would not be sufficient to warrant refusing the application. I am satisfied that the proposed development would not result in any material increase in noise, disturbance, traffic or parking issues in the locality, subject to appropriate hours control by conditions. Therefore I consider the proposal would constitute sustainable development and I recommend that planning permission be granted. 8. Recommendation 8.1. Approve Subject to Conditions 1 Requires the prior submission of sample materials 2 Requires the prior submission of roller shutter details 3 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation (variable) 4 Limits the hours of use: 0800-2000 hours Mondays to Saturdays, and 0800-1900 hours Sundays and Bank Holidays 5 Limits delivery time of goods to or from the site: 0700-1900 Mondays to Saturdays. 6 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details 7 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme 8 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery 9 Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage 10 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans 11 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full) Case Officer: Andrew Conroy Page 8 of 10
Photo(s) Figure 1 Front elevation of No. 124 Figure 2 Side boundary of site and front elevation of No. 6 Southlands Road Page 9 of 10
Location Plan 10 92 119 143.3m 8 102 NORTHLANDS ROAD 14 102 3 114 11 11a 15 18 117 17 6 12 THORNLEY CLOSE 15 117a 119 110 4 16 77 112 WESTLANDS ROAD 3 85 127 11 15 95 78 124 88 142.3m TCB 6 100 18 133 142.3m 3 SOUTHLANDS ROAD 32 11 15 142.3m 27 1 147 35 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 10 of 10