Milford Road, Land off, Harborne, Birmingham, B17 9RL

Committee Date: 18/12/2014 Application Number: 2014/06259/PA Accepted: 01/10/2014 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 26/11/2014 Ward: Harborne Milford Road, Land off, Harborne, Birmingham, B17 9RL Erection of 5 detached dwellings on land off Milford Road. Creation of associated vehicular access and landscaping and retrospective demolition of No. 31 Milford Road (Resubmission of approval 2010/06918/PA) Applicant: Agent: Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions Harborne Parish Lands Charity 109 Court Oak Road, Harborne, Birmingham, B17 9AA Lapworth Architects Ltd Somerville House, 20-22 Harborne Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 3AA 1. Proposal 1.1. The proposal is for the erection of five, large, 5-bed, detached, single family dwellinghouses on land forming part of the rear garden of Dore House. The demolition of No. 31 Milford Road enables a new vehicular access to be created off Milford Road to serve the proposed dwellings. A previous application was submitted for the same proposal (2010/06918/PA), the consent for which expired on 13 th October 2014. 1.2. The proposed dwellings would be three storeys in height and would be set around a new cul-de-sac. Proposed dwellings on Plots 1 and 2 would be located on the western half of the site, whilst dwellings on Plots 3, 4 and 5 would be located on the eastern half of the site. All dwellings would be set back from the new access, with frontages comprising of driveways and lawned areas. The density of development would be 11 dwellings per hectare. Proposed car parking would be at 400%. 1.3. Each dwelling would typically comprise of a double garage, study, living room, hall, utility, dining room and kitchen/breakfast room at ground floor, five en-suite double bedrooms and landing at first floor, and two attic rooms, landing and bathroom at second floor/in the roofspace. 1.4. The proposed Plot 1 dwelling would measure a maximum of 20m in length, 16.2m in width and 10m in height to its roof ridge. The proposed Plot 2 dwelling would measure a maximum of 18.3m in length, 13.8m in width and 10.5m in height to its roof ridge. The proposed Plot 3 dwelling would measure a maximum of 15.7m in length, 14m in width and 10m in height to its roof ridge. The proposed Plot 4 dwelling would measure a maximum of 13.7m in length, 12.3m in width and 10m in Page 1 of 17

height to its roof ridge. The proposed Plot 5 dwelling would measure a maximum of 20.6m in length, 12.3m in width and 10m in height to its roof ridge. 1.5. All proposed dwellings would appear traditional in architectural style, with the use of gables, single storey elements and recesses to break up massing. The proposed materials are mainly brick with detailing, and feature roughcast rendered porches, garages or gables. Windows would be of casement design and roofs would be punctuated by full height chimneys. Windows and doors would be timber framed or UPVC. Roofs, which would be hipped, would be clad in plain clay tiles. Two storey bay windows are incorporated on the front elevations of the Plot 2 and Plot 4 dwellings. Hipped roof, dormer windows would be incorporated on the front roof slopes of Plot 1, 2 and 3 dwellings. Rooflights of varying sizes would be incorporated on all proposed dwellings. 1.6. No. 31 Milford Road, a residential terraced property, has been demolished to allow for the new vehicular access to be created. A new brick gable end wall would be erected to No. 33 Milford Road. The proposed new access road would have a width of 4.8m, widening to 8m where it joins Milford Road. It would be surfaced in tarmacadam. It would end in a turning head located towards the centre of the site, and the access would be gated off from Milford Road with gates set in 6.5m from Milford Road. 1.7. The proposed development would result in the loss of 14 trees on the application site, which are covered by Tree Preservation Order 662 (including four groups of trees). Five of these trees would be Category B, five would be Category C and four would be Category R. 29 trees (including two groups of trees) would be retained on the site. 1.8. The remaining rear garden of Dore House would measure 1639m2 in size. 1.9. A Tree Survey, Aboricultural Method Statement, Bat Survey, Ecological Survey and Construction Ecological Mitigation Plan have been submitted in support of this application. Proposed Site Plan Proposed Streetscene Elevations 2. Site & Surroundings 2.1. The application site was formerly part of the rear garden of Dore House, a large Victorian house fronting Lordswood Road, currently accommodating supported care flats. The currently maintained garden of this property is separated from the application site, which has essentially been unmaintained for many years. These trees, along with trees on adjoining land to the north and south are protected under Tree Preservation Order 662. There is a boundary fence of around 1.8m in height around most of the site and certain sections also have hedge planting which defines the site boundary. 2.2. The application site is surrounded by rear gardens of residential properties fronting Lordswood Road and Court Oak Road to the north, and Yew Croft Avenue to the west. The eastern site boundary in part backs on to Weather Oaks and the vacant former elderly residential care home of Oaklands, as well as the residential property of No. 1 Milford Copse. Page 2 of 17

2.3. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character, with a variety of house styles and ages. Large Victorian properties typically front Lordswood Road, Court Oak Road and Milford Road; semi-detached, Inter-War properties front Yew Croft Avenue; 1960s development is found fronting Weather Oaks and found in the form of smaller terraced houses fronting the cul-de-sac end of Milford Road; whilst recent 1980s/1990s infill residential development is found at Milford Copse and at Nos. 22 and 24 Court Oak Road. 2.4. Site Location Map 2.5. Street View 3. Planning History Site: 3.1. 13 th October 2011-2010/06918/PA: Erection of 5 detached dwellings on land off Milford Road. Creation of associated vehicular access and landscaping and demolition of No. 31 Milford Road -Approved Larger site including planning application site; 3.2 8 th April 1992-1991/04670/PA Permission refused for 32 dwellings, construction of access road and access drive and 15 new lock up garages on land to rear of 15-25 Milford Road, 2-46 Yew Croft Av and 2-26 Court Oak Rd Refused on grounds of being too intensive use of site, noise and disturbance to adj occupiers from increased traffic, increased traffic would prejudice safety and freeflow of highway and loss of mature trees. 3.3 3 rd September 1992-1992/02104/PA Permission refused for alts/exts to existing building to provide flats for elderly and erection of 8 new dwellings at rear/formation of car parking at 56A Lordswood Rd Refused on grounds of inadequate access, interference with highway traffic, inadequate amenity space, inadequate access for service vehicles, too intensive use of site, detrimental to architectural appearance of building, loss of mature trees, inadequate light to new dwellings and prejudice comprehensive dev of wider area. Adjacent site (land to rear of Nos. 15-25 Milford Rd, now Milford Copse) 3.4 29 th June 1995-1994/02166/PA Permission granted for construction of 7 detached houses and 15 lock up garages, access drives and access road on land to rear of 15-25 Milford Road. Adjacent site (former builders yard, now Nos. 22 & 24 Court Oak Road) 3.5 9 th May 1996-1995/03555/PA Permission granted on appeal for erection of 2 detached houses with detached garages, garage to serve 20 Court Oak Road, bin storage space, formation of access road and access drives at 20 Court Oak Road and land to rear Appeal against non-determination of application allowed 10 th July 1996. 4. Consultation/PP Responses 4.1. Local Ward Members, Residents Associations and local residents consulted One letter of objection from Councillor James McKay, 11 letter of objection (including one from the Harborne Society) and two letters of comment, as summarised below; Page 3 of 17

OBJECTIONS: Destruction of flora and fauna, badger setts, foxes, hedgehogs, squirrels, bats and owls exist TPOs across site, Enforcement complaint regarding works to trees has not been dealt with View will be impaired Traffic congestion Harm to road safety Road narrow at entrance Noise Loss of light, Overshadowing of garden and patio Loss of privacy Boundary on plans is not correct Design of houses is out of keeping with area Not everyone who said would be consulted last time have been Garden grabbing Houses too large for site Outstanding planning application at rear of 2-4 Milford Road if this is constructed the traffic flow on Milford Road into/from War Lane will be exacerbated further. COMMENTS: Generally happy with development design and density is good The tree plan has been amended so that houses are obscured from view Concern it will end up as high density housing Concern there will be a second access onto Weather Oaks Would like written confirmation that tree preservation measures will be implemented Incorrectly drawn site boundary 4.2 Transportation Development No objection subject to conditions requiring amended/widened footway crossing, pedestrian visibility splay and bin store to be within 25m of highway 4.3 Regulatory Services No objection 4.4 West Midlands Fire Service No objection subject to the provision of suitable water supplies to the site 4.5 West Midlands Police No objection 4.6 Severn Trent No objection subject to condition requiring satisfactory drainage plans 5. Policy Context 5.1. NPPF, Birmingham UDP, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Places for Living SPG, Tree Preservation Order 662, West Harborne Wildlife Action Area, 45 Degree Code SPG, Nature Conservation Strategy for Birmingham SPG, Mature Suburbs: Guidelines to Control Residential Intensification SPD 6. Planning Considerations Page 4 of 17

6.1. The NPPF states that one of the Government s key objectives is to increase significantly the delivery of new homes that are well designed and located in sustainable locations. The NPPF encourages the reuse of land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) and advises that private residential gardens are excluded from the definition of previously developed land. The NPPF does not prevent development from taking place on residential gardens providing it satisfies policies contained within the development plan and relevant planning documents which resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area. 6.2. The Birmingham UDP requires new developments to protect and enhance what is good in the environment and to improve what is less good. Proposals, which would have an adverse effect on the quality of the built environment, would not normally be allowed. Paragraph 3.14D identifies good urban design principles which new development must comply with. Policy 5.20 requires all new residential developments to have a good standard of design to ensure that they do not detract from the character of the surrounding area. 6.3. Mature Suburbs SPD states that new housing can have a significant impact on local distinctiveness and the character of an area and that new development must be of 'good design' resulting from a good understanding of the local character and circumstances. It states that design should determine density and not vice versa. It concludes that proposals that undermine and harm the positive characteristics of a mature suburb will be resisted. 6.4. Places for Living requires new residential developments to respond well to the local context to ensure that the unique identity of a place is not harmed. 6.5 Aside from the demolition already taken place, this planning application is the same as planning approval 2010/06918/PA) however since the approval of the previous application there has been a change in planning policy, being the replacement of Planning Policy Statements with the NPPF. It is considered that the principle of the proposal is in accordance with the NPPF. Character and Appearance of Proposed Development 6.6 Mature Suburbs SPD states that new housing can have a significant impact on local distinctiveness and on the character of an area and that new development must be of good design resulting from a good understanding of the local character and circumstances. It states that design should determine density and not vice versa. It concludes that proposals that undermine and harm the positive characteristics of a mature suburb will be resisted. Mature Suburbs SPD identifies seven factors which enable a character to be assessed: built form, spatial composition, architectural style, enclosure, density, degree of landscaping and the character of the public realm. Built Form 6.7 The built form of the surrounding area varies considerably, but generally residential properties are two storeys in height and are either detached or semi-detached. The proposed dwellings would be two storeys in height (plus roofspace) and would be detached. Although undoubtedly larger in footprint than surrounding residential dwellings on Milford Road and Yew Croft Avenue, I do not consider the proposed dwellings would have unduly large footprints in the context of the earlier properties fronting Lordswood Road/Court Oak Road, and they would sit comfortably on the site with enough remaining space left between dwellings. Page 5 of 17

6.8 Whilst the proposed dwellings would undoubtedly appear taller in height than surrounding dwellings I consider this height would not be excessive given the large footprints. This height is also required in order to successfully replicate the style and verticality of a traditional house type. The inclusion of a second storey in roofspace, the use of single storey elements, gables and irregular footprints would help to break up the massing of the buildings.i am satisfied that the proposed development would offer acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with both bedroom sizes and garden sizes exceeding the minimum size recommended by Places for Living SPG. Spatial Composition 6.9 Local roads (such as Milford Road, Yew Croft Avenue and Court Oak Road) comprise of well defined building lines, with houses set back from the highway between 2.5m 10m. The Post-War, infill development on land between these roads takes the form of cul-de-sacs (such as Weather Oaks, Milford Copse and Nos. 22 & 24 Court Oak Road), where buildings are arranged more informally. Here, set backs from highways range from 5m-20m lending a more spacious, semi-private character and appearance to these cul-de-sac developments. In some cases rear gardens and side elevations of buildings front the highway, again reinforcing this informal character. 6.10 The proposed dwellings would be set back from the highway between 4.5m-15m. This set back distance and variation in set back follows the typically informal, suburban, cul-de-sac type of development described above, and takes into account the natural constraints of existing trees on the site. 6.11 Plot sizes vary considerably in the surrounding area, ranging from approx. 120m2 in size (plots fronting the end of Milford Road) to approx 1415m2 in size (plots fronting Court Oak Road). Plot sizes of the proposed development would also vary, from the smallest (Plot 4) being 508m2 in size to the largest (Plot 1) being 956m2 in size. Therefore I consider their individual plot size and variation in plot size across the site would be in keeping with the character of the local area. 6.12 Rear gardens surrounding the application site vary widely in size from 36m2 (properties at the end of Milford Road) to 936m2 (No. 6 Court Oak Road). I note local residents concerns that rear gardens would be small. However, whilst they are rather short to neighbouring rear gardens (for example the Plot 1 dwelling would be located only 5m from the boundary with Nos. 42 and 44 Yew Croft Avenue at one point), they are actually still large gardens, ranging in size from 527m2 in the case of Plot 1 to 153m2 in the case of Plot 4. Therefore I am satisfied that garden size is representative of the surrounding area. Density 6.13 I have calculated the density of development surrounding the site to range from approx. 15 dwellings per hectare (dwellings fronting Court Oak Road) to approx. 52 dwellings per hectare (dwellings at the end of Milford Road). At 11 dwellings per hectare, the proposed development would have a much lower density than residential areas immediately adjoining the site and the housing density recommended by the Birmingham UDP, which seeks 40 dwellings per hectare. However, in this instance I consider the low density approach to developing this site is the right approach in order to fit in with the suburban character of the area and maintain as many trees and open space as possible on the site. Page 6 of 17

Architectural Style 6.14 There is no specific architectural style prevalent in the surrounding area, the area being characterised by a mix of building ages and architectural styles. Therefore I consider the traditional, Arts and Crafts style chosen for the proposed dwellings would not look out of place. 6.15 Each dwelling would benefit from individual styling, detailing and materials, providing for visual interest. Amended plans have been submitted which lessen the visual impact of garages by drawing them further back into front elevations and in the case of the Plot 1 dwelling swapping it over to the other side of the elevation to make for a more active and attractive frontage, allowing for improved natural surveillance over the access drive. Enclosure 6.16 The surrounding area is characterised by varying degrees of enclosure, with earlier houses such as those on Court Oak Road and Milford Road generally having well defined front gardens with boundary walls, whilst later cul-de-sac development at the end of Milford Road and on Weather Oaks generally comprising of grassed, open plan frontages. In the case of Weather Oaks frontages, these are often enclosed by hedging and interspersed with trees. 6.17 I consider the proposed development would most closely correspond to the style of development at Weather Oaks, with open driveways bordered by grassed front gardens interspersed with trees, and as such would have a form of enclosure that would be in keeping with this local character. Degree of Landscaping 6.18 The surrounding area is characterised by a large number of mature trees, mostly sited in rear gardens of residential properties. Later Post-War cul-de-sac infill development has grassed front gardens, with trees and hedging. The application site is defined by its large number of mature trees, protected by Tree Preservation Order 662. 6.19 I consider that, as the scheme seeks to retain a large number of trees identified as having amenity value, the proposed development would retain the mature landscaped character of the surrounding area. Character of Public Realm 6.20 The established character of the local area has plots and frontages which vary in size and width. The character of public realm on Post-War cul-de-sacs, such as Weather Oaks is more informal and semi-private, with distinctions between private and public realm being less obvious and fenced rear gardens occasionally fronting the highway. 6.21 The proposed dwellings would largely front on to the access road with open frontages continuing the informal, semi-private character of Post-War cul-de-sacs. A long initial stretch of the access road would be fronted by the rear gardens of the proposed Plot 1 dwelling, No. 33 Milford Road and No. 1 Milford Copse, again reinforcing this secluded, semi-private character. However, Places for Living SPG advises against gated communities, because they prevent natural surveillance, privatise space and reduce permeability. Given there are no gated communities in Page 7 of 17

the vicinity of the site I consider a condition should be attached to any consent which removes the proposed gate across the access. 6.22 I note local residents concerns about the opening up of the application site. However, I consider the proposed dwellings would provide for a reasonable level of natural surveillance over the access road in the form of active frontages. Although the initial section of the access road would benefit from no natural surveillance, I consider security could adequately be addressed by appropriate lighting and boundary treatment to protect entry into the rear gardens of Nos. 33 Milford Road, 1 Milford Copse and 48 Yew Croft Avenue. The proposed layout provides a back to back perimeter block development with only one weak area located adjacent to the turning head and rear gardens of Nos. 2, 4 and 6 Court Oak Road. Overall I consider security for neighbouring rear gardens would be improved with new boundary treatment. Trees and Landscape 6.23 Some site works have taken place since approval of the previous application, although the consent was not formally implemented. These works included demolition of no. 31, removal of knotweed, and replacing a boundary fence, and resulted in some damage to trees to be retained. However, the damage was not significant and the affected trees can all be retained as per the previously-approved plans. Therefore, the effects of the proposed housing development on the site s trees remains as previously, and is acceptable to my Tree Officer, subject to adherence to tree conditions. Wildlife 6.24 The application site is located within West Harborne Wildlife Action Area, a defined area where accessibility to designated nature sites is low. The Birmingham Nature Conservation Strategy SPG states that wherever possible development proposals should include the creation of new habitats or features within Wildlife Action Areas. There has been ongoing ecological involvement in this site with respect to the discharge of conditions 8, 9, 10 and 11 attached to approval 2010/06918/PA. 6.25 The results of the badger monitoring surveys carried out in Autumn 2013 indicate that badgers continue to use the site for foraging and as an occasional resting site during the day, despite the damaging site works which took place in April 2013. However, there is no evidence (as of October 2013) that any of the burrows/potential setts identified during the various surveys are in current use. A procedure for ongoing monitoring of badger activity, prior to commencement of site works, is set out in the 2013 report and my Ecologist states that it is essential that the site is checked by a qualified ecologist for signs of use by badgers before any sett destruction works take place, as badgers may re-open old setts or excavate new ones at any time. If any new signs of sett excavation/occupation are found, further monitoring is likely to be required to determine sett status and level of use. A Natural England badger licence may also be required before any newly active setts can be closed. 6.26 My Ecologist has no objection to the badger mitigation measures described in the 2012 report, or to the revisions identified in the 2013 report. In both cases, the measures described are reasonable and proportionate to the level of badger activity identified as a result of the monitoring surveys. It is essential that relevant aspects of the mitigation set out in the 2012 and 2013 reports are appropriately addressed in the scheme design, for example proposed boundary treatments should not conflict with mitigation required to maintain badger movement corridors post-construction. My Page 8 of 17

Ecologist recommends that a condition should be attached to secure implementation of the identified mitigation measures. 6.27 Surveys of no. 31 Milford Road in 2011 and 2013 found no evidence of roosting bats and concluded that the house had low potential as a roost site. The site s trees are assessed as having low potential as roosting habitat. The site may be used by foraging/commuting bats, but its small size limits its value in this respect. Appropriate precautionary measures are identified to minimise impacts on roosting bats during tree works, in the unlikely event that individual bats are using the mature trees for roosting. 6.28 Features suitable for nesting birds are present at no. 31 Milford Road; trees, ivy and dense scrub and removal of these habitats may impact on nesting birds. The submitted reports identify good practice mitigation measures to ensure compliance with the legal protection afforded to wild birds and their nests. 6.29 Limited areas of habitat suitable for non-breeding great crested newt and reptiles are also present, although the likelihood of these species using the site is considered to be extremely low, because of the small areas of suitable habitat present and the lack of ecological connectivity to other areas of suitable semi-natural habitat. Nevertheless, good practice precautionary measures are identified to minimise the risk of impacts on these species during development. 6.30 My Ecologist recommends a condition should be attached to secure implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the construction ecological mitigation plan and badger survey. 6.31 The applicant has detailed ecological enhancement measures to be provided as part of the proposed development including beneficial landscape planting, badger commuter routes, provision of roost units, nest boxes for various speciies, sensitive lighting and creation of log piles for invertebrates, amphibians and reptiles. My Ecologist does not object to these subject to specific location details and maintenance requirements for new residents. Traffic and Car Parking 6.32 Transportation Development have raised no objection to the proposal. They consider that each dwelling would have an adequate level of parking provision, with two integral garage spaces, along with frontage driveway parking. I note local residents concerns about Milford Road being heavily parked and there being highway safety issues where Milford Road meets War Lane. However, Transportation Development consider that traffic generated at this location as a result of the proposed dwellings would have a negligible impact upon the existing situation. I concur that the proposal would create no need for additional car parking on Milford Road, and the net addition of four new dwellings (No. 31 being demolished) on a road that currently serves 57 dwellings is unlikely to result in a material increase in traffic. Transportation Development advise that the site is within walking distance of the local centre of Harborne and has good public transport links. Impact on Residential Amenity 6.33 I note local residents concerns about overlooking. However, amended plans have been submitted which remove all dormer windows on rear elevations and allow for their replacement with high level rooflights, which afford no overlooking opportunities to neighbouring residential gardens from the roofs of the proposed dwellings. Page 9 of 17

6.34 The southernmost first floor window on the rear elevation of the proposed Plot 1 dwelling would be located 9m from the boundary with the garden of No. 42 Yew Croft Avenue. Places for Living SPG recommends that for two storey dwellings there should be a 10m minimum set back distance from neighbouring rear gardens. Although this particular window falls 1m short of this distance I consider there would not be an adverse impact on the amenity of occupiers of No. 42 given they have a rear garden length of some 17m, all other first floor windows on the rear elevation of the proposed Plot 1 dwelling would exceed this minimum set back distance and the proposed dwelling would be obliquely orientated. New boundary planting could also mitigate the overlooking effects of this particular window. Similarly, the 21m separation distance between the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling and rear elevations of Nos. 40 and 42 Yew Croft Avenue, as recommended by Places for Living SPG for two storey dwellings, would be exceeded. Therefore I am satisfied that the proposed Plot 1 dwelling would not result in any undue overlooking or loss of privacy for adjoining occupiers. 6.35 Amended plans have been submitted which re-adjust the building footprint of the proposed Plot 2 dwelling, demonstrating that this dwelling would now comply with the Council s 45 Degree Code SPG in respect of the nearest habitable room windows on the rear elevation of No. 24 Court Oak Road. Given the proposed Plot 2 dwelling is set 2.5m in from the boundary with No. 24, has no habitable room windows in its side elevation and complies with the Council s 45 Degree Code I am satisfied there would be no loss of light or amenity to the occupiers of this adjoining dwelling. The proposed Plot 2 dwelling would exceed minimum set back and separation distances in relation to Nos. 36 and 38 Yew Croft Avenue, as recommended by Places for Living SPG, and the oblique orientation of this dwelling would help avoid overlooking to these neighbouring properties. 6.36 The proposed Plot 3 dwelling does not adjoin any residential properties and therefore there are no issues of overlooking or loss of privacy. 6.37 First floor windows on the rear elevation of the proposed Plot 4 dwelling would be located 11m distant from the remaining rear garden of Dore House and so would comply with the 10m set back distance recommended by Places for Living SPG. Although the occupiers of No. 2 Court Oak Road would see the proposed Plot 4 dwelling when in their rear garden, the length of this neighbouring rear garden is 73m, the proposed dwelling would only adjoin the bottom of this garden and the proposed dwelling would be set in from the garden boundary by 2.5m. Therefore I do not consider the proposed plot 4 dwelling would appear unduly dominant or result in loss of light to the rear garden of No. 2. 6.38 First floor windows on the rear elevation of the proposed Plot 5 dwelling would be located 10m distant from the remaining rear garden of Dore House and so would comply with the 10m set back distance recommended by Places for Living SPG. There are no residential properties adjoining the site to the east. 6.39 Although the proposed dwellings are tall, they would not be located right up against site boundaries and therefore I consider their height and siting would not adversely affect the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers through nearness, loss of light or undue dominance. There will of course be a change in outlook enjoyed from rear windows and gardens of neighbouring properties, with the proposed dwellings being visible in views. However, with the retention of most boundary trees I am satisfied that this would soften the visual impact of the proposed development and would therefore not materially adversely affect the amenity of adjoining occupiers. I am Page 10 of 17

satisfied that the pinch points at the rear of the proposed Plot 1 dwelling and side elevation of the proposed Plot 2 dwelling would not be so great as to materially adversely affect the amenity of adjoining occupiers. I recommend a condition be attached to any consent withdrawing permitted rights to install any future windows in the proposed dwellings in order to protect the amenity of adjoining occupiers by overlooking. 7. Conclusion 7.1. In summary, the proposals for five new houses are the same as the scheme consented three years ago, and policy continues to support new housing in appropriate contexts where the effects on local character, amenity and other factors are within reasonable bounds. 7.2. Although the proposed development would have a short term adverse impact upon existing trees and wildlife on the site, I consider this could be adequately mitigated by appropriate ecological enhancements and new tree planting. In all other aspects the low density nature of the proposed development would respect existing site characteristics and those of the surrounding area, and would not be harmful to residential amenity or highway matters. The development would contribute to the City s housing supply and would, in-the-round, constitute Sustainable Development. Therefore I recommend that planning permission be granted. 8. Recommendation 8.1. Planning permission is approved. 1 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans 2 Requires the prior submission of level details 3 Requires the implementation of tree protection 4 Development to be carried out in accordance with Aboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan 5 Requires the prior submission of hard and/or soft landscape details 6 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials 7 Requires the prior submission of sample materials 8 Removes PD rights for new windows 9 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided 10 Requires the prior submission of amended footway crossing details 11 No consent for gated access 12 Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage 13 Additional ecological survey requiring badger surveys Page 11 of 17

14 Development carried out in accordance with Construction Ecological Mitigation Plan 15 Development carried out in accordance with ecological mitigation measures 16 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details 17 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme 18 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme 19 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full) Case Officer: Andrew Conroy Page 12 of 17

Photo(s) Figure One Looking East to Weather Oaks Page 13 of 17

Figure Two: Looking to south west corner to Milford Road Page 14 of 17

Figure Three: Access off Milford Road (no.31 on right-hand side now demolished) Page 15 of 17

Figure Four: Towards Yew Croft Road Page 16 of 17

Location Plan This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Birmingham City Council. Licence No.100021326, 2010 Page 17 of 17