2006957 LAND AT THE JUNCTION OF HIGHLANDS ROAD AND MONKSPATH HALL

							2006/957 LAND AT THE JUNCTION OF HIGHLANDS ROAD AND
MONKSPATH HALL ROAD MONKSPATH
Application No:   2006/957

Ward/Area:             SHIRLEY SOUTH

Location:              LAND AT THE JUNCTION OF HIGHLANDS ROAD AND
                       MONKSPATH HALL ROAD MONKSPATH SOLIHULL

Date Registered:       05/05/2006

Applicant:             BOWDEN DEVELOPMENTS LTD

Proposal:              OUTLINE APPLICATION OF A BUSINESS HOTEL (155
                       BEDROOMS PLUS 1150 SQUARE METRES OF
                       CONFERENCING FACILITIES AND ANCILLARY USES)
                       TOGETHER WITH PARKING AND LANDSCAPING.


PROPOSAL

This application seeks outline approval for the erection of a hotel on the
Solihull Business Park adjacent to the junction with Monkspath Hall Road and
Highlands Road. Although made in outline, siting and means of access are to
be determined at this stage. In addition, as the proposal description makes
reference to the number of bedrooms and an area for conference facilities, the
application also effectively seeks approval for the scale of the development.

The proposals indicate a building with an ‘L’ shaped footprint with the angle
facing towards the roundabout and the longer (43m) section of the building
running parallel to Highlands Road. The other section of the building (which is
31m long) faces onto the entrance into the business park. A central core
containing the main entrance connects the two arms of the building.

Illustrative material has been submitted indicating a 6 storey building with a
height of 20.4m at the central core, and 19m for both arms of the building.
The illustrative layouts indicate conference facilities on the ground and part of
the first floor, with bedrooms on the remainder of the first floor and all of the
second-fifth floors.

The building will be positioned 9m from the boundary with the highway on the
Highlands Road frontage and at the closet point will be 7m from the footway
on the business park frontage.

The Design Statement indicates a building with architectural treatment similar
to the Enterprise Inns building located on the opposite corner – i.e. areas of
buff brickwork framing light & dark glazing and a metallic roof.




                                                                        Page 1
Parking for 186 cars is shown to the rear of the building with a vehicular
access off the estate road serving the business park.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Highway Engineers                        : No objection

Building Control                         : No objection

Severn Trent Water                       : No objection

Neighbours Notified                      : 08/05/06

Site Notice                              : 15/05/06

Press Notice                             : 10/05/06

REPRESENTATIONS

One letter from the developers of the TRW site who wish members to be
informed that they are in advanced discussions with DeVere Hotels for the
provision of a 156 bedroom hotel and conference facilities and that a detailed
submission is anticipated in September 2006 (at the time of writing an
application has been submitted but has not yet been registered). Whilst they
are keen to ensure that a decision on this application does not prejudice the
successful implementation of their proposals, they have not explicitly raised
an objection.

POLICY

RPG11 – Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands (2004)

QE3 – Creating a High Quality Built Environment for All
UR1 - Implementing Urban Renaissance - the MUAs
PA1 - Prosperity for All
PA3 - High-Technology Corridors
PA6 - Portfolio of Employment Land

Solihull UDP (2006)

E2 - General Business Land
E2/1 – Land at Highlands Road, Monkspath
E9 – Retention of Land in Business Use
E7 - Hotel Development
T2 - Accessibility to New Developments
T5 - Promoting Green Travel
T12 - Strategic Highway Network
T13 - Car Parking Provision
ENV2 - Urban Design



                                                                       Page 2
Government Guidance

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development
PPG4 – Industrial, Commercial Development & Small Firms
PPG13 - Transport
PPG

SPGs

Vehicle Parking Standards & Green Travel Plans

PLANNING HISTORY

1999/1901 - Outline application for development of b1 offices business park
and associated parking – Approved 02/04/02.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The site consists on an area of some 0.82 ha located in the south west corner
of the Solihull Business Park which extends further along Highlands Road and
Monkspath Hall Road. The main vehicular entrance into the business park is
via the roundabout junction between Monkspath Hall Road and Highlands
Road which is immediately to the south east.

The site is current vacant and is opposite the Enterprise Inns office building
which was the first building constructed on the business park. The site is
relatively level, although it is raised relative to the adjacent highway by 1m –
2m.

On the opposite side of Highlands Road is the David Lloyd centre which is the
subject of an outstanding appeal against the refusal to allow a B&Q store on
the site.

MAIN ISSUES

The key issues in determining this application relate to:

 The loss of industrial land
 Scale & design of the proposals
 Transportation

APPRAISAL

Policy considerations

The application site falls within a wider area (18ha) designated under the
adopted UDP (policy E2) as land for general business development (within
class B1, B2 or B8 of the Use Classes Order). The commentary to the policy
states that about 7 ha have been developed for industrial/warehousing



                                                                         Page 3
purposes, with offices occupying a further 0.7 ha. About 10ha of land remains
to be developed has consent for B1 development.

The consent for the Solihull Business Park is as a result of application number
1999/1901 which allows the development of 46,450m2 of B1 space

Policy E9 of the UDP states that land currently or previously in business use,
or allocated for employment in the UDP will normally be expected to be
retained or developed for such purposes. Development or re-development for
other uses will only be allowed in the following circumstances:

 It can be demonstrated that the business land, or premises, is redundant for
       business purposes or there is little prospect of employment use
       continuing, resuming or being attracted within the plan period, and
 It can be demonstrated, that there is no longer a need to retain the land or
       premises in business use; and
 The new proposals will support sustainable development principles; and
 There is no conflict with other policies of the Plan.

To support the policies in the then emerging UDP, the Council undertook (via
consultants - East West) an employment land study that was published in
March 2004. One of the conclusions of the report is that Solihull has a very
limited supply of employment land in total terms and in terms of observed
take-up rates over the recent past. A number of policy recommendations are
made including that Solihull should retain existing business land in business
use throughout the Borough.

The employment & prosperity policies of the UDP were developed to deliver
the aims of the Regional Spatial Strategy which under policy PA6 encourages
local authorities to maintain a range and choice of readily available
employment sites to meet the needs of the Regional economy. This is often
referred to as providing a balanced portfolio of sites.

Policy E7 of the UDP relates to hotel development and it indicates that the
Council will permit new hotel development and hotel extensions, including
ancillary accommodation and facilities, in appropriate locations where the
following criteria are satisfied:

 The form, scale and design of the development is appropriate to the site and
     location;
 The highway and environmental impacts are acceptable; and
 There is no conflict with other policies of the Plan.

Planning Policy Statement 6 – Planning for Town Centres is also relevant as it
provides not only advice on retail matters, but also main town centres uses
which includes hotels. In order to deliver the Government’s objective of
promoting vital and viable town centres, development should be focused in
existing centres in order to strengthen and, where appropriate, regenerate
them. As part of the an application submission an applicant should
demonstrate:


                                                                      Page 4
 Need
 That the development is of an appropriate scale
 There are no more centrally sites for the development
 That there are no unacceptable impacts on existing centres
 Locations are accessible

Loss of Industrial Land

In support of the proposals the applicants have indicated the following:

 That the proposed development is in accordance with the Development
      Plan.
 Policy E2 does not seek to exclude particular forms of development from
      designated sites.
 The key criterion of policy E9 is the first in that if it is demonstrated that there
      is little prospect of employment use being attracted to the site during the
      plan period, the development would not be contrary to the policy.
 The applicants fully intend to build out the UDP proposal site as a business
      park. Since they acquired the site in 2001 it has been actively marketed
      and this has secured one occupier – Enterprise Inns which represents
      7% of the amount permitted under the 2002 approval. The applicant has
      recently completed the development of a speculative office building and
      there is a board commitment to a further phase of speculative
      development with commencement on site in January 2007.
 An up to date assessment of office supply undertaken by DTZ has been
      provided as part of the application. This indicates there is at least 11
      years of supply of office floorspace.
 The last two pints indicate that there is little prospects of employment use
      being attracted to the site and therefore policy E9 is complied with.
 The application site represents only 7.5% of the area of the business park.
 The provision of a hotel on the site could stimulate the development of the
      remainder of the site for B1 purposes and result in the creation of 100
      new jobs.
 Policy E7 recognises the contribution that business hotels can make to the
      local economy.
 There is demand for further bed spaces and that the application site would
      provide for business travellers which would be a slightly different market
      to the hotels provided at the airport & NEC.
 That as the site has an extant permission for an alternative main town centre
      uses (offices) there is no requirement to undertake sequential approach
      to site selection.

In considering these issues I believe it is important to note the following in
connection with the policy considerations detailed above:

 The proposal does not fall within a business class and therefore does not
     directly meet the requirements of both RSS or UDP policy is respect of
     the designation of the wider site.


                                                                            Page 5
 The DTZ assessment of office supply not only includes Regional Investment
       Sites (which Solihull Business Park is not and as a RIS is to serve the
       region it is not entirely comparable) but only includes offices, yet the
       UDP designation allows other forms of business use.
 In a recent appeal where an appellant has sought to demonstrate an over
       supply of office space/sites, an Inspector noted that the existing building
       had been vacant for over two years and that the appellant had been
       unsuccessful in attracting a purchaser willing to re-use or redevelop the
       site for employment purposes. His view was that these factors were not
       in themselves sufficient to demonstrate that the building is redundant to
       employment use. Furthermore he did not consider that the marketing
       carried out was sufficiently targeted or sustained to attract those who
       might promote a refurbishment or redevelopment for employment use,
       perhaps by the development of multiple work space facilities. Whilst a
       period of two years may seem a long time (as perceived by an owner
       wishing to dispose of a property), in terms of testing of the employment
       development market it was not, in the Inspector’s view, so long a period
       as to justify what is in practical terms an irrevocable change in land use.
 The inquiry also considered the supply & take up of employment land with
       the Inspector considering that the Council was justified in taking a
       cautious approach to the question of future employment land supply,
       certainly at the present time.
 In terms of a hotel stimulating further B1 development on the site, it is noted
       that some has already taken place and is occupied, other remains to be
       let and further speculative development has been committed to. In the
       DTZ assessment they indicate that whilst a hotel would raise the profile
       of the business park it is unlikely to have a significant impact upon the
       rate of take up.
 The fact that the development does have an extant permission for office
       development does not make it a preferred location for town centre uses
       generally and therefore the requirements of PPS6 have not been met.

With regard to the issue of protecting employment land, the Council has been
supported in adopting a cautious approach that is fully supported by the
policies in the Development Plan. I do not consider that the proposal supports
the existing development on the park (i.e. it is not provided in circumstances
where significant development has already taken place which creates an on
site demand), but rather it is a speculative attempt to stimulate further
development. I am not convinced by the applicants arguments that there is
little prospect of employment use being attracted to the site and that there is
no longer a need to retain the land in business use, nor that the relevant
policy tests of PPS6 have been met. On these grounds permission ought to
be refused.

Scale & design

Although in outline form, the application has been submitted with illustrative
material. This should be taken into account as the applicant is seeking
approval to the scale of development and the submitted details indicate how
such a development may be accommodated on the site. As a gateway into


                                                                        Page 6
the business park it does represent an opportunity to provide a feature
building through its scale or design.

In its use of materials its appearance is indicated to be similar to the building
located on the other corner and it will be complimentary to this. It will provide
an active façade to its principal elevations facing onto the street. The overall
impression is of a clean, crisp modern building which is appropriate to its
setting.

In scale terms it will differ in that it is provided up to 20.4m in height which
compares with the overall height of the Enterprise Inns building at c14m.
Given the location of the site, a building of such a scale can be
accommodated on the site as a feature building without appearing over
dominant. This is achieved through the provision of a building with
appropriate principal elevations providing activity and it sitting within its own
territory – i.e. it has space around it and does not fill the whole site.

On the basis of the above I find that in scale & design terms the proposals to
be acceptable.

Transportation

In terms of transportation, it is valid to compare the proposals against the
existing extant permission. In this respect the level of traffic generated by the
hotel use is expected to be less that the use of the site as offices. In addition
the nature of the flows would be different. As such your highway engineers
do not believe that the proposals would result in a significant impact on the
operation of nearby junctions and therefore no objection is raised to the
proposals.

CONCLUSION

In terms of scale & design, the proposals represent appropriate treatment of a
gateway site with a feature building that has its own territory, contains active &
principal elevations facing the street and compliments the design philosophy
of the building on the opposite corner to the site.

As far as highways are concerned, the development is not anticipated to be
any worse that if the site were to be developed out for office purposes in
accordance with the approved application.

The determination of the application turns on the loss of employment land and
whether the proposals comply with PPS6. In this respect whilst it is noted that
the applicants believe that the site is unlikely to be developed for business
purposes during the plan period and that it will be a stimulus to further B1
development, I believe the Council ought to take a cautious approach to
protecting employment land in the Borough. In this respect, and in the
absence of demonstration that it is no longer required to provide a balanced
portfolio, the land ought to be retained for business purposes in accordance
with policy E9 of the UDP.


                                                                          Page 7
RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons outlined above I recommend refusal.


            (1) The proposed development would result in the loss of a significant site
            allocated for business use in the adopted Solihull Unitary Development Plan
            (February 2006) and the proposals would therefore be contrary to policy E9
            of the UDP.




                                                                   Page 8