• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
BY EMAIL to john.davies@birmingham.gov.uk COPY BY POST
John DaviesPlanning ServiceBirmingham City CouncilPO Box 28Alpha Tower Suffolk Street QueenswayBirminghamB1 1TU1 August 2009Dear Mr Davies
Objection to Planning Application number C/02504/09/FUL
r 
elating to
 
94-101Cheapside, Digbeth, Birmingham, B12 0PU
I strongly object to the above proposed change of use from residential (Use Class C3)to hostel (Use Class Sui Generis) on the following grounds:
1. Loss of privacy and intrusion to local community
Like other residents in the Digbeth Rea Village area, I have made the IrishQuarter/Rea Village area my home on the understanding that the balance of residentialand commercial buildings would make it a unique city village for permanentresidents. The proposed change of use is incompatible with the unique character of thelocal area and there is
neither available nor planned additional infrastructure
tosupport the change of use to a hostel (such as specific services (e.g. touristinformation) and other general public services (e.g. transport, policing andenvironmental health)). Therefore the proposed change of use is contrary to policy3.7A of the
Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (Adopted 2005)
,which is concerned with improving quality across the city and states that “A keyelement in achieving this will be to take advantage of the opportunities provided by proposals for…redevelopment to create high quality new environments and improvewhat already exists” and policy 3.14D which is concerned with provision of a safeand pleasant living environment.The proposed change of use would mean that the site will become temporaryaccommodation to a large number of low-budget
transient visitors
who
make littleor no positive (financial or other) contribution
whatsoever to the area or the city.Further, use as a hostel would be incompatible with future plans to
enhance
the1
 
Digbeth area for use as social and higher-end residential accommodation and higher-end retail leisure facilities for the local community, for example, that highlightedunder the Birmingham Big City Plan (seehttp://consult.birmingham.gov.uk/portal/ps/birmingham_big_city_plan/bcpwip?pointId=685#section-685).
 The proposed hostel use is uncharacteristic and over-intensive useof the site, providing cramped and inadequate livingaccommodation. The proposal would require the significantadaptation of family-sized dwellings of apparently sound, brand-newcondition luxury apartments. The development would harm localcharacter and local residents' amenity. The proposal would thereforebe contrary to Policies 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, 3.10, 3.14-3.14D, 5.19A, 5.20,5.28. 5.38 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005),Places for Living (2001) and the 45 Degree Code which have bothbeen adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance, Planning PolicyStatement 1 (PPS1) and Planning Policy Statement 3 (PPS3).Furthermore, hostel use would result in an inappropriate andpiecemeal development, which would compromise thecomprehensive and appropriate development of the wider Digbetharea and would therefore fail to make the most effective or efficientuse of previously developed land contrary to policies 3.8 and 3.10 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005), PPS1 and PPS3. The development by virtue of its layout would fail to provide asatisfactory, safe and attractive environment for future users of thesite and would be contrary to policies 3.8, 3.10, 3.14. 3.14A-D of theBirmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005), "Places for Living"(2001) and PPS1. In particular, hostel use is incompatible with thelocal character of the community as an urban village communityand only serves to weaken rather than reinforce that characterunder policy 3.14D. The proposal conflicts with numerical standards contained within'Places for Living', adopted by the Birmingham City Council asSupplementary Planning Guidance that seeks to protect bothexisting and future occupiers' amenity.In addition to the usual residential developments in the local area,there are at least two elderly residential schemes directly next tothe site, namely, Father Joe Taaffe House and Cherish House. Theproposed use for young transient occupants and any (perceived oractual) problems (such as increase in crime and pollution)associated with the occupancy of the site as a hostel is incompatiblewith policies 3.14D and 3.16 of the Birmingham UnitaryDevelopment Plan (2005).
2. Visual amenity, layout and density of the building
2
 
The existing building is designed and constructed as 28 (one and two bedroom)luxury apartments, which is consistent with other residential developments in theimmediate vicinity both in terms of visual appearance and use.If the site is to be used as a hostel, it is inevitable that the frontage of the buildingwould need to be adapted or changed. For example, because the existing frontage wasconstructed as a residential block with a showroom-style glass-fronted retail space onthe ground floor, it is likely that visually unattractive
bold external signage
will beneeded to advertise the location of the hostel business in an area otherwise comprisingof predominately private residential blocks and small businesses. It is also likely that part of the existing glass frontage will be
boarded-up
(as is the case for theapplicant’s other Journeys Group Hostels). There may also be other changes to thecurrently visually neutral frontage given that the ground floor of the building is to beconverted to be used for retail, kitchen and bedroom use. Indeed, it would appear thatthe applicant’s other hostels are indicative of a propensity towards
garish colourschemes, boarded-up frontages and bold signage
, which is not in keeping with theexisting low-key residential environs (see attached photographs of other JourneysHostel signs and boarded-up frontages).
 Therefore the proposed change of use is discordant and incongruousto the property and the surrounding street scene and detrimental tothe visual amenities of the area contrary to policies 3.1, 3.8, 3.10and 3.14D of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005).By reasons of scale, mass and external design, the intensive use of the proposed hostel detracts from the architectural appearance of the property and would adversely affect the visual amenity andcharacter of the surrounding area. The proposed development wouldtherefore conflict with 'Places For Living' Supplementary PlanningGuidance, and is also contrary to paragraphs 3.8, 3.10, 3.14A,3.14C, 3.14D, 3.17, 5.38 and 5.20 of the Birmingham UnitaryDevelopment Plan (2005). It would not provide adequate livingconditions for prospective occupiers, and it would prejudice theproper planning of the area. As such, the development also conflictswith the policies 3.13, 3.14, 3.16A of the Birmingham UnitaryDevelopment Plan (2005) and with the provisions of the adoptedSupplementary Planning Guidance, Places for Living, and PPS1 andPPS3. The proposal does not anticipate provision of any smoking shelter.Whether one is to be provided later or no provision at all, resultingin hostel occupants smoking in the streets, by reason of its siting,design and scale, this would be detrimental to appearance andsetting and the visual amenity of the local area. This developmentwould therefore be contrary to policies 3.8, 3.10 and 3.26 of theBirmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005).
3. Inadequacy of parking, traffic generation and endangerment to highwaysafety
3
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...