Page 1 of 18

Committee Date: 12/12/2013 Application Number: 2013/06311/PA

Accepted: 20/08/2013 Application Type: Outline

Target Date: 19/11/2013

Ward: Longbridge

Land east of Lickey Road, Longbridge, Birmingham

Outline application for residential development (up to 215 dwellings) access, parking and landscaping. All matters reserved. Applicant: St Modwen Developments Ltd

c/o Agent Agent: Planning Prospects Ltd

1 Broomhall Business Centre, Broomhall Lane, Worcester, WR5 2NT

Recommendation Determine Report Back

Members will recall that the above application was reported to Planning Committee on 14th November. Members resolved to defer the application for further information regarding the employment and land status of the wider Longbridge site. The Longbridge AAP covers an area of 195 Ha of which approximately 140 Ha are for development. Approximately 117 Ha are owned by the applicant. Some 67 Ha have already been developed or have planning permission, and this is outlined in Table 1 below. Future development sites by the applicant are outlined in Table 2 below. Table 1: Development Already Taken Place or has Planning Permission MG Motors Site 24.80 HaPhase 1 and 2 Housing Lickey Road 2.85 HaCofton Centre – industrial (Bromsgrove) 12.13 HaEast Works Housing (Bromsgrove) 17.96 HaTown Centre Park 1.00 HaTown Centre (including College) 5.23 HaTechnology Park Construction College 0.29 HaTechnology Park Youth Centre 0.35 HaTechnology Park (excluding the two above) 2.35 Ha

Page 2 of 18

Table 2: Future Development Sites Phase 3 Lickey Road Housing 2.10 HaFlightshed Housing 3.13 HaPhase 4 Housing (North Works) 4.21 HaRemaining North Works including employment,leisure and town centre phases 3, 4 and 5 10.04 Ha

West Works Park 3.30 HaWest Works Regional Investment Site (RIS) 17.59 HaWest Works Infrastructure 2.35 HaWest Works Housing 6.78 Ha

The applicants have provided the following employment numbers: Development to date:

• Construction jobs - 196 gross full time equivalent (FTE) jobs have already been delivered.

• Future Construction Jobs - 354 gross FTE jobs. • Operational employment - between 2007 and 2012 - 1,528 gross FTE jobs.

Future operational employment: • 1,932 FTE projected within Phases 1 and 2 of the town centre and the Cofton

Centre to be delivered between 2013 and 2015. • Planned development of the remaining town centre phases 3, 4 and 5 and

Longbridge West - 1,075 FTE’s on Longbridge North and 2,078 FTE’s on Longbridge West.

• In addition to those employed by MG Motors UK (400), this would provide a total projected operation employment figure of 7,013 FTE’s.

Background

The three applications, 2013/06311/PA, 2013/06476/PA and 2013/06429/PA forming the basis of this report back are to be determined as a single package as the applications are integral and inter-reliant to each other and cannot therefore be determined in isolation. The applications propose up to 392 dwellings across three sites with the provision of 60 affordable units provided on Phase 3 (2013/06476/PA). The 60 units would be funded by off-site contributions from the Phase 4 development (2013/06311/PA) and the proposed development on the former flightshed site (2013/06429/PA). This affordable housing provision would equate to 15% across the three sites, which the applicant states is greater than could be achieved if provision were made separately on each site (11%).

Phase 4 (2013/06311/PA) seeks planning permission for up to 215 dwellings. Phase 3 (2013/06476/PA) seeks planning permission for 18 houses and 64 flats. Flightshed (2013/06429/PA) seeks permission for up to 95 dwellings.

The Area Action Plan (AAP) designates the sites under Policies EZ1 and EZ2.

EZ1 is: ‘An Employment Zone Adjacent to the Centre’ The land for Phase 4 is approximately half in EZ1, and half in EZ2.

EZ2 is: ‘Nanjing’, for Employment uses. The land at Phase 3 and Flightshed are within EZ2.

Page 3 of 18

EZ1 Paragraph 3.60/3.61 of the AAP states that “between the local centre and the Nanjing factory site is an opportunity to develop a range of property for the small and medium enterprise sector, which has an important role in maintaining business competitiveness and driving forward change in the sectoral composition of the economy. The physical scale and built form of these more traditional employment spaces will need to be carefully graded to balance with other uses within the local centre and with the Nanjing factory. As part of this grading in height and massing towards the northern boundary of the quarter, live/work units may be included as well as supporting business hubs for micro and home based enterprises.”

EZ1 states the land uses will comprise B1b (research/development) and B1c (light industry), B2 (general industry) and B8 (storage and distribution); Live/work units; Biomass plant or other sustainable energy facility and a recycling facility.

EZ2 EZ2 notes that Nanjing’s then-current lease allowed land to be handed back to St Modwen where surplus to operational requirements. At the time of AAP publication, it was noted this could include land located at the northern end of EZ2, adjacent to the local centre, and on the Lickey Road frontage.

So, although being allocated for employment uses within the same use classes as EZ1, EZ2 envisaged that the land was likely to become surplus to the requirements of the then Nanjing company (now MG Motors) and therefore available for development. Proposal EZ2 states that “the site is allocated for employment uses within Class B1b and c, Class B2 and Class B8. Surplus land within the site is likely to become available for development. Future uses on this land will be considered within the context of the overall aims of the Area Action Plan and the adjoining land uses.” LC4 Adjacent to the north of EZ1 is Area LC4: ‘Mixed Use Quarter’, which includes housing as a designated land use. It was originally anticipated that this area would accommodate some 400 dwellings.

The Draft Birmingham Development Plan identifies the three sites as sitting within a Core Employment Area. Core employment areas, under Policies TP18 and TP19, are identified and safeguarded for employment development and its ancillary uses.

Observations

The MG Rover plant closed in April 2005. Preparation of the AAP commenced in April 2006 and was adopted in April 2009. St Modwen and Advantage West Midlands assisted in developing the AAP along with Bromsgrove District Council and Worcestershire County Council. The aim of the AAP is to create an urban eco-centre “delivering 10,000 jobs, a minimum of 1450 houses, new education facilities, retailing, leisure, community and recreation uses underpinned by quality public transport and infrastructure”.

Very significant development and regeneration has already taken place, following the site remediation carried out by the applicants. A new town centre has been delivered, which to date comprises Bournville College, various retail developments including a Sainsbury’s supermarket, leisure uses, 3,240 sqm of B1a offices, and a new urban park of 0.99 ha. North of Longbridge Lane is the two-thirds completed Technology Park, the new youth centre, and the plot for the recently-consented re-

Page 4 of 18

located Construction College. 132 dwellings have been provided on Lickey Road and residential development is progressing on the former East Works site along with employment development on the Cofton Centre. Despite the challenging economic climate of the last few years, the applicants have delivered the above development, with the corresponding job creation as set out in the bullet points on page 2 above. The proposed developments constitute the following areas: Phase 4: 4.21 ha; Phase 3: 2.10 ha; Flightshed: 3.13 ha. TOTAL: 9.44 ha.

The majority of the land constituting the three proposed housing sites was originally leased to MG Motors UK Limited by St Modwen following the motor plant’s closure in 2005. These sites were handed back to St Modwen as surplus to their requirements in 2009. This ‘surplus to requirement’ land is located at a significantly lower land level than the main MG site and is therefore somewhat detached from the car manufacturing base. MG still occupies some 24.8 ha, much of which the applicant states is not fully operational, i.e. MG Motors has sufficient land and more jobs could be provided on-site, should the company grow. Despite the proposed redevelopment for housing of 9.44 ha of AAP - allocated employment land, there would remain very significant areas available for employment use to accommodate wide-ranging inward-investment opportunities, as outlined in Table 2 above.

Aside from the above employment land, housing supply may be considered as the other half of the equation. The AAP originally envisaged the delivery of approximately 400 dwellings in the town centre. 40 residential apartments were consented as part of the Town Centre permission, but these were subsequently replaced with office accommodation with an application in 2012. Further, the applicants state that although not all of EZ1 would provide employment land as originally set out (as half of Phase 4 Housing would be on EZ1), it is their intention to provide further employment land uses elsewhere, in lieu of the originally-envisaged 400 dwellings. This may include a high-profile, office-led employment block fronting the new park, as well as an employment block adjacent to Bournville College.

Of the total of 1,450 dwellings envisaged by the AAP, a minimum of 700 were proposed on 19 ha of the former East Works in Bromsgrove District. The first phase of this site is currently under construction. A further 350 dwellings minimum would be located adjacent to the RIS on the former West Works. 132 dwellings have also been provided on former EZ2 surplus land fronting Lickey Road (Phases 1 and 2). This totals to 1,574 dwellings.

If the three current applications were to be approved, there would still remain significant areas of employment land within the AAP redevelopment area – mostly at the RIS and North Works - some of which is immediately available and is currently being marketed. Both the remaining employment areas and the proposed housing continue to contribute to the overall vision of Longbridge and progress the site’s and area’s regeneration.

Page 5 of 18

Conclusions All development to date within the AAP redevelopment area has been determined within the context of the overall aims of the Area Action Plan and adjoining land uses. EZ2 in the AAP always envisaged that land would be declared surplus to car manufacturing, and Phase 3 and the Flightshed fall within EZ2. If these three sites are consented for housing, significant areas of land would still remain available for employment development across the wider Longbridge site. The proposals would accord with the overall aims and objectives of the AAP.

On this basis, I consider that the applications should be approved, as per the three reports of 14th November. Additionally, I propose the following minor amendments to the original recommendation:

• recommendation 9.1(c) to amend the 60% employment target, to be calculated on people hours rather than number of jobs;

• recommendation 9.3 and 9.4 to change the date for completion of the legal agreement to 30th January 2014.

Original report 1. Background 1.1 This application and a further two applications 2013/06476/PA and 2013/06429/PA

on this agenda are to be determined as a single package as the applications are integral and inter-reliant to each other and cannot therefore be determined in isolation. The applications propose up to 392 dwellings across three sites with the provision of 60 affordable units provided on Phase 3 (2013/06476/PA). The 60 units would be funded by off-site contributions from this development and the proposed development on the former flightshed site (2013/06429/PA). This affordable housing provision would equate to 15% across the three sites, which the applicant states is greater than could be achieved if provision were made separately on each site (11%).

1.2 Phase 4 (2013/06311/PA) seeks planning permission for up to 215 dwellings. Phase 3 (2013/06476/PA) seeks planning permission for 18 houses and 64 flats. Flightshed (2013/06429/PA) seeks permission for up to 95 dwellings. 2. Proposal 2.1. This application seeks outline planning permission for the erection of residential

development consisting of up to 215 dwellings. The application has all matters reserved.

2.2. The application is supported by a ‘Development Framework’ Plan that identifies

areas of the site for high density and lower density development, access points and footpath links. The vehicle access would be from the recently completed traffic signalled junction at Lickey Road. The roads throughout the site are to be determined elsewhere on this agenda under reference 2013/06431/PA.

2.3. The accompanying Design and Access Statement provides details of indicative

building heights, layout, appearance, car parking and access. Indicative building heights are identified within two zones: up to 3 storey and up to 4 storey with

Page 6 of 18

dwellings of 2, 2.5 and 3 storey proposed within both areas. Parking provision is indicatively outlined as 1 space per apartment, 1-2 spaces per 2 bedroom house and 2 spaces per 3 and 4 bedroom house. The statement also provides a list of key principles for the site development including building heights, building lines, corner development principles and design.

2.4. A Design and Access Statement, Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Assessment,

Geo-Environmental Summary Report, Report on Existing Noise Climate, Ecology Advice Note, Transport Statement, Planning Statement, Viability Report, Employment Report and Tree Survey and Arboricultural Assessment have been submitted in support of the application.

2.5. The site area is 4.21Ha and the scheme proposes an average density of 51

dwellings per hectare. 2.6. The Local Planning Authority has concluded that an Environmental Impact

Assessment is not required for this proposal. Development Framework Plan 3. Site & Surroundings 3.1. The site is located in Longbridge, immediately east of Lickey Road and to the north

of Phases 1, 2 and 3 Lickey Road housing, occupying an area of 4.21ha. The site was formerly part of the MG Rover works at Longbridge. The site now forms part of the Longbridge North redevelopment area.

3.2. The site is bounded by the Lickey Road housing Phase 1 (113 dwellings recently

completed) and Phase 2 (19 dwellings under construction) to the south. To the west, the site is bordered by Lickey Road. To the north and east, the site is bordered by the former Longbridge North Works which are currently under redevelopment to form the Longbridge town centre.

3.3. Long established residential development is located opposite the site and comprises

a mix of scale, type and design of housing. 3.4. Cofton Park and the new town centre park are within walking distance of the site. Site Location Map Streetview 4. Planning History – Extensive History, including: 4.1. 2013/06431/PA. Highway access road and footway, associated drainage

infrastructure, lighting and landscaping. Awaiting determination elsewhere on this agenda.

4.2. 2013/06476/PA. Residential development comprising 18no 2, 3 and 4 bedroom

houses and 64no 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, access, parking and landscaping. Awaiting determination elsewhere on this agenda.

4.3. 2013/06429/PA. Outline planning application (with all matters reserved, except

access) for the erection of up to 95 dwellings and works associated with profiling of site levels. Awaiting determination elsewhere on this agenda.

Page 7 of 18

4.4. 2013/06430/PA. Re-profiling and remodelling of site levels, remediation works and

creation of two vehicular access points. Awaiting determination elsewhere on this agenda.

4.5. 2012/05330/PA. Application for retail development (Use Class A1), car parking,

access and landscaping comprising - (1) - Outline application for retail unit (Use Class A1), multi level car park (up to two levels), hard and soft landscaping, access and associated infrastructure (all matters reserved except access), and (2) - Full details (matters not reserved) for terrace of retail units (Use Class A1), service space, surface level car parking, hard and soft landscaping, access, roads, footpaths and associated infrastructure. Awaiting determination.

4.6. 10 January 2013. 2012/07066/PA. Planning permission granted for the erection of

19 dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping. 4.7. 9 September 2011. 2011/00773/PA. Planning permission granted for Mixed use

development comprising new superstore, shops (A1), Financial and Professional (A2), Restaurants/Cafes (A3), Public Houses (A4) and Hot Food Takeaways (A5), Offices (B1a), 40 residential apartments, hotel, new public park, associated parking and service infrastructure and new highway access from Longbridge Lane and Lickey Road.

4.8. 30 July 2010. 2009/06423/PA. Planning permission granted for Erection of 115

dwellings, new accesses, parking and landscaping. 5. Consultation/PP Responses 5.1. Local residents, Ward Councillors for both Longbridge and Northfield wards, MP and

Resident Associations notified. Site and Press notices posted advertising the application as a major development that would be a departure from the development plan. A letter of comment has been received from Councillor Corns stating that as changes have been made to the original concept to the Longbridge development in order to introduce this scheme compromising the original intention of the overall development to produce some 10,000 jobs. A letter of comment received from an occupier in St Columbas Drive asking whether the flats will be knocked down.

5.2. Transportation – No objection subject to conditions relating to construction

management plan, infrastructure prior to first occupation and a Section 278 Agreement.

5.3. Local Services - No objections in principle. A development of this size would

normally generate contributions towards public open space and children's play facilities but I understand that the Longbridge Infrastructure Tariff does not expect any public open space contributions from this scheme. It is noted that a pocket park has been included in the sketch design. However, if contributions are expected, I would ask to be consulted again when further details are available.

5.4. West Midlands Fire Service – No objections. 5.5. Severn Trent Water – No objections subject to a drainage condition. 5.6. Centro - The application site is well served by public transport services. The 98 and

145 bus service operate along Lickey Road. There are also a large number of frequent bus services that operate along Bristol Road South and Longbridge Rail

Page 8 of 18

Station is within the vicinity of the development. Centro welcome the inclusion of a Travel Plan as part of the submission.

5.7. Regulatory Services – No objection in relation to contaminated land and noise

subject to safeguarding conditions relating to remediation, monitoring and noise. 5.8. Highways Agency – no objection subject to safeguarding conditions relating to

vehicle trips and impact on the M5 Junction 4. 5.9. Environment Agency – Comments awaited. 6. Policy Context 6.1. Birmingham UDP (2005), NPPF, Longbridge Area Action Plan (2009), Draft

Birmingham Development Plan (DBDP), Places for Living SPG, Affordable Housing SPG, Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses SPD, Public Open Space in New Residential Developments SPD.

7. Planning Considerations Loss of Employment Land 7.1 The application site sits within the Longbridge Area Action Plan (AAP) framework,

which forms part of the Development Plan for the purposes of determining planning applications. The AAP contains a shared vision for Longbridge:

"Longbridge will undergo major transformational change redeveloping the former car plant and surrounding area into an exemplar sustainable, employment led mixed use development for the benefit of the local community, Birmingham, Bromsgrove, the region and beyond. It will deliver new jobs, houses, community, leisure and educational facilities as well as providing an identifiable and accessible new heart for the area. All development will embody the principles of sustainability, sustainable communities and inclusiveness. At the heart of the vision is a commitment to high quality design that can create a real sense of place with a strong identity and distinctive character. All of this will make it a place where people will want to live, work, visit and invest and which provides a secure and positive future for local people."

7.2 The site lies approximately 50% in the AAP’s Policy EZ2: Nanjing, with its northern 50% within Policy EZ1: An Employment Zone Adjacent to the Centre. Paragraph 3.60/3.61 of the AAP on EZ1 states that “between the local centre and the Nanjing factory site is an opportunity to develop a range of property for the small and medium enterprise sector, which has an important role in maintaining business competitiveness and driving forward change in the sectoral composition of the economy. The physical scale and built form of these more traditional employment spaces will need to be carefully graded to balance with other uses within the local centre and with the Nanjing factory. As part of this grading in height and massing towards the northern boundary of the quarter, live/work units may be included as well as supporting business hubs for micro and home based enterprises.”

7.3 Proposal EZ1 states that “the employment quarter will comprise the following uses:

• General and light industrial and warehousing uses (Class B1b and B1c, B2 and B8) including space for small businesses. • Live/work units based on a 50/50 floorspace split to host start up and micro businesses on the northern boundary of the quarter.

Page 9 of 18

• Biomass plant or other sustainable energy facility. • Recycling facility.”

7.4 Paragraph 3.113 of the AAP on EZ2 states that “Nanjing Automobile Corporation

(NAC) has potential to make a significant contribution to the city and region’s economy. NAC has indicated that they wish to continue car manufacturing and to ensure that the land uses adjacent to their boundary do not restrict their core manufacturing business. The continued occupation of the site by NAC is therefore supported. Proposals for further car production and other related manufacturing activities will be encouraged, including activities that intensify production and increase jobs to make efficient use of the landholding.”

7.5 Proposal EZ2 states that “the site is allocated for employment uses within Class B1b

and c, Class B2 and Class B8. Surplus land within the site is likely to become available for development. Future uses on this land will be considered within the context of the overall aims of the Area Action Plan and the adjoining land uses.”

7.6 The Draft Birmingham Development Plan identifies Longbridge as a key area for

housing and economic growth in accordance with the adopted AAP. The DBDP identifies areas of the former MG Motors site as Core Employment Areas and has omitted the sites through the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). The application site sits within an identified DBDP Core Employment Area.

7.5 Policy TP19 states that “The Core Employment Areas, defined on the Policies Map,

will be safeguarded for employment development and other uses appropriate for employment areas such as waste management activities. Outside of Core Employment Areas there are occasions where employment land has become obsolete and can no longer make a contribution towards the portfolio of employment land. In such cases change of use proposals from employment land to other uses will be supported where it can be demonstrated that either:

• The site is considered a non-conforming use, or • The site is no longer attractive for employment development based on the

marketing,viability and other tests set out in the SPD on the Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses.

Proposals involving the loss of employment land will be expected to make a financial contribution towards the upgrading and improvement of the quality of other employment land within the vicinity of the development.”

7.7 Paragraph 22 of the NPPF states that “planning policies should avoid the long term

protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.”

7.8 As the site is designated for employment purposes and residential development is

proposed, the applicant has acknowledged that the proposal should be considered against the Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses SPD. The SPD requires two tests to be complied with; that of a minimum two years worth of marketing and a viability assessment addressing why industrial redevelopment is not a viable option. However, Paragraph 5.9 of the SPD identifies that there will be occasions where it can be demonstrated that there are good planning grounds to depart from the general presumption against the loss of industrial land and that this could include

Page 10 of 18

large-scale mixed-use regeneration proposals that are identified in other Council planning documents. The applicants rely on this exception.

7.9 An analysis of City wide available land has been undertaken by the applicants and

they conclude that this site is not critical to City wide supply and whilst some marginal deficiencies exist City wide, these may not be critical in the current economic climate even against UDP targets which are somewhat out of date. The applicants have then assessed provision at Longbridge and identified the following: • A 25ha Regional Investment Site which includes provision for a 15Ha Technology

Park (the occupied Technology Park element comprises a youth centre and two office buildings);

• New office development within Longbridge North Town Centre (almost completed);

• 12Ha of further industrial land at the Cofton Centre (within Bromsgrove District Council administrative area); and

• Land for MG Motors UK (formerly Nanjing) to meet their operational needs (as existing).

7.10 The applicants have also submitted an employment paper that outlines employment

ratios for development already delivered and for future phases. In relation to construction jobs, the paper identifies that 196 gross full time equivalent (FTE) jobs have already been delivered with future phases projecting a further 354 gross FTE jobs across the whole of the Longbridge AAP redevelopment area. In relation to operational employment, the paper highlights that between 2007 and 2012, the redevelopment to date has provided 1,528 gross FTE jobs including those at Busy Bees Nursery and Bournville College with a further 1,932 projected for development within Phases 1 and 2 of the town centre and the Cofton Centre to be delivered between 2013 and 2015. Planned development of the remaining town centre phases 3, 4 and 5 and Longbridge West provides a projection of a further 1,075 FTE’s on Longbridge North and 2,078 FTE’s on Longbridge West. Not taking into consideration those employed by MG Motors UK, this would provide a total projected operation employment figure of 6,613 FTE’s.

7.11 In relation to the loss of employment land it is worthy of note that the AAP sought 400

residential units within the town centre however due to the economic climate, the 40 approved residential units as part of the town centre Phase 1 development were replaced with 4,777sq.m of town centre offices. I consider it reasonable in principle to try and accommodate that housing elsewhere. Since the adoption of the AAP, the proposals map has been altered through the pragmatic view of the Local Planning Authority and the applicant towards delivering the regeneration of Longbridge, subsequently delivering the identified mix of uses in differing locations to those originally envisaged. The applicants have also identified that the planned nature of the B1 b and c, B2 and B8 uses close to the town centre is of concern to commercial occupiers with Longbridge West and the Cofton Centre being viewed as more appropriate locations.

7.12 Whilst in assessment against the AAP there would be a loss of core employment

area (as defined by the DBDP), employment B1a office uses were envisaged to be provided within the town centre; there remains a Regional Investment Site (RIS) located on Longbridge West and, plots remain within the 15Ha Technology Park on Longbridge Lane providing a good level of employment land when required. On balance, I consider that the proposal for this site’s loss to employment and redevelopment for residential purposes to be acceptable in the interests of continuing current development and regeneration of the wider Longbridge site.

Page 11 of 18

Development for Housing 7.13 The NPPF 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 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.

7.14 The UDP also supports a sustainable pattern of development by re-using brown-field

sites in suitable locations. The UDP requires that new housing developments should provide an appropriate environment (paragraphs 5.20-5.20A), a suitable housing density and mix (paragraph 5.40) and encourages a full range of housing types and sizes including those for people with disabilities and other specific needs (5.35 and 5.37). Paragraph 5.38 identifies that densities of at least 50 dwellings per hectare will be expected in local centres and corridors well served by public transport, with 40 dwellings per hectare elsewhere. Paragraphs 5.37 (A-G) relate to the requirement for the provision of affordable housing. The NPPF seeks affordable housing for schemes of 15 units or more. Paragraphs 3.14D-E, of the UDP state that new housing development should be designed in accordance with good urban design principles.

7.15 Places for Living encourages 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. ‘Places for All’ SPG also emphasises the importance of good design, high quality environments, again with an emphasis on context.

7.16 Policy TP27, of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan, states that the location of

new housing should be on previously developed land, be accessible to jobs, shops and services by other modes of transport, be sympathetic to natural assets and not conflict with other core strategy policies in relation to the protection of core employment areas, green belt and open space. Policy TP29 refers to new housing offering a choice of type, size and tenure to create balanced and sustainable communities.

7.17 Aside from the issue of industrial land, the principle of redeveloping this site for

residential purposes would be a positive move in line with national and local policy. The sites around the application site are being redeveloped for housing and the proposal is supported by AAP policy. The site is located adjacent to a public transport corridor that leads to the City Centre and to Bromsgrove.

7.18 The scheme proposes buildings generally of 2 and 2.5 storeys, with 3 and 4 storeys

on corners and in the higher density section of the site. I am satisfied that the proposed scale would be appropriate for the local context. I am also satisfied that Places for Living can be suitably met in terms of separation distances, garden sizes and bedroom sizes when further details are available when considering reserved matters later. My City Design advisor considers that the indicative layout is generally acceptable subject to a number of issues that would need to be addressed for a reserved matters submission. These issues include car parking, parking courtyards and some separation distances and have been raised with the applicant. I am satisfied that up to 215 dwellings could be accommodated on the site, as applied for.

Page 12 of 18

7.19 Landscaping is reserved for future approval and as such no detailed proposals have

been submitted. My landscape officer has reviewed the landscaping strategy outlined in the design and access statement and notes that a number of issues that are raised by the indicative plans will need to be addressed, concerning the proposed 1in3 landscaping strip on the northern edge of the site and any residential development’s relationship with the road; front gardens and proposed street landscaping and the proposed central park space. Whilst these are valid concerns regarding detailed layout issues, landscaping and layout are both matters reserved for later consideration. I consider that an acceptable layout for the site can be achieved at a reserved matters stage when layout and landscaping are to be determined. Transportation

7.20 Access is afforded by the construction of a new highway link road (Austin Avenue and Cooper Way to be determined elsewhere on this agenda) that would facilitate access to the future town centre phase 2 in addition to providing vehicular and pedestrian access to the proposed residential development and mixed use proposals for Longbridge North generally and would link to the adopted highway at Lickey Road. This arrangement is considered acceptable in layout and design terms albeit that the road layout would create residential design problems that will require careful consideration at reserved matters stage.

7.21 The supporting Transport Assessment notes no significant impacts as a result of

increased traffic flows from these developments and Transportation are in agreement with this and the Travel Demand model results. The TAs for each scheme have used the accepted methodology on trip generation and distribution as agreed in the LAAP and initial area wide outline applications. However they do not provide any comparison between what the sites could have been developed for and the traffic associated with this, ie employment B1 type uses on Longbridge North which would have a greater level of traffic impact.

7.22 The northern edge of the residential development would front onto the new access

road, Coopers Way. This road would also serve the joint Town Centre public car park, and the service areas of the Town Centre phase 2 proposals yet to be determined. This is an unusual design principle with new residential fronting roads that will have a significant level of passing traffic and a level of service vehicle movements. From the undetermined application for the Town Centre phase 2 (2012/05330/PA), Transportation estimate around 8 articulated HGV`s and 15 other LGV`s would use this route on a daily basis. However the route defined for the car park and service access along roads called "Austin Avenue" and "Cooper Way" and through "Austin Circus" are designed with suitable lane widths and separate footway provision to accommodate this.

7.23 Transportation has raised no objection to the proposal subject to a Section 278

condition. I concur with these conclusions. 7.24 The Highways Agency have reviewed this proposal alongside the other development

proposed within the site that are to be determined elsewhere on this agenda. Due to impacts likely to arise at the M5 Junction 4, a number of safeguarding conditions are directed that relate to trip generation in relation to occupation of the dwellings and subsequent improvement works to the junction.

Noise

Page 13 of 18

7.25 A noise assessment was undertaken to support the proposal of residential development on this site. The report concluded that the overall noise climate is determined by road traffic movement on Lickey Road and the A38 Bristol Road South. Train movements on the Cross City Line, to the east of the site, are screened from the site but have some limited additional noise contribution. There was no significant noticeable noise from the MG Motors works and, consequently, the works have no influence on the overall noise levels measured at site. It is noted that the works site level is elevated above the development site. Proposed sound levels for habitable rooms overlooking the existing perimeter roads would fall within BCC Categories C (i) and acoustic rated glazing would need to be installed. The report also identifies that background ventilation can be achieved by the use of appropriate acoustic rated trickle vents.

7.26 Regulatory Services have raised no objections to the proposal on noise grounds and

recommend a safeguarding condition relating to noise insulation requirements. Ecology 7.27 The City Ecologist has no objections to the application as the site does not contain

any protected species or habitats and has limited scope to support these without significant ecological enhancement. A number of safeguarding conditions relating to submission of a construction ecological mitigation plan, a scheme for ecological/biodiversity enhancement measures and the submission of a habitat/nature conservation management plan are recommended.

Longbridge Infrastructure Tariff and Section 106 Issues 7.28 As the scheme proposes residential development in excess of 15 units, 35%

affordable housing across the whole Longbridge site would normally be required. Policy TP30 of the draft BDP states that “the level of developer subsidy will be established taking account of the above percentage and the types and sizes of dwellings proposed. The City Council may seek to negotiate with the developer in order to revise the mix of affordable dwellings (for instance to secure additional larger dwellings) or to adjust the level of subsidy on individual dwellings (a higher subsidy may be required in high value areas). Where such negotiations impact on the number of affordable dwellings secured the level of developer subsidy should be unchanged. There will be a strong presumption in favour of the affordable homes being fully integrated within proposed development. However the City Council may consider off site provision, for instance to enable other policy objectives to be met, subject to an equivalent level of developer contribution being provided. Off site provision could be either by way of the developer directly providing affordable dwellings on an alternative site, or by making a financial contribution which would enable provision either through new build on an alternative site, by bringing vacant affordable dwellings back into use or through the conversion of existing affordable dwellings to enable them to better meet priority needs. In phased housing developments, developers will be expected to provide details of the affordable housing provision in each phase, including the number and type of affordable dwellings to be provided.”

7.29 In accordance with the requirements of the Area Action Plan Longbridge

Infrastructure Tariff (LIT), the proposed residential development of 215 dwellings would require a payment of £16,500 per unit equating to a total of £3,547,500.

7.30 Paragraph 4.5 of the AAP states that where viability is an issue in terms of difficult

market conditions “a flexible approach to any negotiations at planning application stage will be required to ensure viability and that the delivery of an acceptable

Page 14 of 18

scheme on the ground is not constrained or delayed.” This is further explained in Paragraph 4.25 which states “It is recognised that market conditions are subject to change, and that these can impact on the viability of development. If at the time planning applications are submitted, it can be shown through an open development appraisal, that a scheme may be unviable if the LAAP’s policies have to be applied in full, then the Local Authorities will enter into detailed negotiations with the applicants to determine what may be acceptable to enable the scheme to proceed.”

7.31 Two viability assessments have been provided assessing two different options in

relation to the LIT and affordable housing. Option A would provide 11% on-site affordable housing provision of 24 affordable units comprising 16 x 2 bedroom apartments and 8 x 1 bedroom apartments, and a LIT contribution of £537,500 (equating to £2,500 per dwelling) with a 17.5% profit on cost (14.91% profit on gross development value) return. Option B would provide no affordable housing on this site but would provide an off-site cross subsidy contribution of £1.65 million towards the provision of 60 affordable units (a 15% provision across the three sites from up to 392 units) on Phase 3 Lickey Road (to be determined elsewhere on this agenda), and a LIT contribution of £537,500 with a 17.48% profit on cost (14.88% profit on gross development value) return. The 60 affordable units would comprise 9no. 1 bedroom apartments, 49no. 2 bedroom apartments both of which would be available as affordable rent and 2no. 2 bedroom houses which would be offered for shared equity.

7.32 My Housing Officer has advised that either option could be acceptable but that

Option B would ensure the delivery of affordable units much earlier in the development programme because Phase 3 is programmed for construction starting in 2014 and delivery of the affordable units would be linked to the occupation of units on Phase 4 and Flightshed. It is noted that the units offered would be 1 and 2 bedroom apartments. An agreement between the City and Bromsgrove District Council allows cross boundary housing needs to be met (on a 50/50 split) and as such, the proposed apartments would meet a greater housing need for this type of accommodation from Bromsgrove District in accordance with the AAP and the larger properties that are required by the City would potentially be provided by East Works (under Bromsgrove District). The two bedroom houses proposed would meet the City’s requirements.

7.33 I note the viability appraisals submitted by the applicant and that these outline that

the scheme is unable to support a greater level of LIT contribution or affordable housing provision. The viability assessment has been reviewed in-house and I concur with the assessment’s conclusions. On this basis, I consider that the provision of no on site affordable housing but, in conjunction with 2013/06429/PA, the provision of 60 affordable apartment units provided on Phase 3 Lickey Road housing site (2013/06476/PA) to be determined elsewhere on this agenda and a LIT contribution of £537,500 to be acceptable and broadly in accordance with policy.

8. Conclusion 8.1 The proposed development would see a commitment from St Modwen to continue

delivering new homes at Longbridge. The development proposals continue to contribute to the vision and objectives for Longbridge established within the AAP. The proposal would result in the loss of land allocated within the AAP for employment however, AAP policy expected some of this to become surplus and so be made available for other development. The land has been returned to St Modwen by MG Motors UK and the policy identifies that future uses on this land will be considered for

Page 15 of 18

other development within the context of the overall aims of the Area Action Plan and adjoining land uses.

9. Recommendation 9.1 That consideration of application number 2013/06311/PA is deferred pending the

completion of a suitable legal agreement to secure the following:

a) An index linked financial contribution from the date of this planning committee of £537,500 towards the spend priorities of the Longbridge Infrastructure Tariff identified in Table 2 of the Longbridge Area Action Plan 2009 payable as 25% on commencement of development, 25% on first occupation, 25% on 50% occupation and 25% on 95% occupation.

b) The provision, in conjunction with application 2013/06429/PA, of 60 affordable

housing units comprising 9, 1 bedroom apartments; 49, 2 bedroom apartments both for affordable rent and 2, 2 bedroom houses for shared equity on Phase 3 Lickey Road (2013/06476/PA).

c) A continued commitment to remain in a Local Training and Employment

Scheme with the City Council and other agencies and employ local people (target of 60%) during construction of the development.

d) Payment of a monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal

agreement subject to a minimum contribution of £1,500 and a maximum of £10,000.

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

and complete the appropriate agreement. 9.3 That in the event of the above legal agreement not being completed to the

satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, on or before 18 November 2013, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

a) In the absence of any suitable planning obligation to secure a Longbridge Infrastructure Tariff financial contribution of £537,500 and the provision, in conjunction with application 2013/06429/PA, of 60 affordable housing units comprising 9, 1 bedroom apartments; 49, 2 bedroom apartments both for affordable rent and 2, 2 bedroom houses for shared equity on Phase 3 Lickey Road (2013/06476/PA), the proposed development conflicts with the Longbridge Area Action Plan 2009 and specifically Part D Delivery and Implementation, paragraphs 2.2, 2.5, 2.17 and 3.6; Paragraphs 5.20 and 5.20A of the Birmingham UDP.

9.4 That in the event of the above legal agreement being completed to the satisfaction of

the Local Planning Authority on or before 18 November 2013, favourable consideration would be given to application 2013/06311/PA subject to the conditions listed below.

1 Requires the submission of reserved matter details following an outline approval

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

3 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

Page 16 of 18

4 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

5 Requires the submission of unexpected contamination details if found

6 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

7 Requires the prior submission of a construction ecological mitigation plan

8 Requires the prior submission of a scheme for ecological/biodiversity/enhancement measures

9 Requires the prior submission of a habitat/nature conservation management plan

10 Requires the prior submission a noise study to establish residential acoustic protection

11 Limits the maximum number of dwellings to 215

12 Limits the number of apartments

13 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

14 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

15 Requires the prior submission of a landscape management plan

16 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

17 Requires the prior submission of a construction method statement/management plan

18 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

19 Requires the prior submission of level details

20 Requires submission of a Trip Generation Schedule

21 Requires submission of Vehicular Trip Monitoring Scheme

22 Implementation of the Vehicular trip Monitoring System

23 Occupation restricted on vehicular trip rates at Junction 4 of the M5 until improvement scheme implemented.

24 Road Infrastructure Required Prior to First Occupation

25 Requires the prior submission and completion of works for the S278/TRO Agreement

26 Limits the approval to 3 years (outline) Case Officer: Pam Brennan

Page 17 of 18

Photo(s)

Figure 1: View from Town Centre Offices to Phase 3 and 4

Figure 2: View of Phase 4 link to Town Centre and Phase 3/MG Motors beyond

Page 18 of 18

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