(public pack)agenda document for planning committee, 04/08
TRANSCRIPT
David Buckland Chief Executive (Head of Paid Service) Elizabeth House, Church Street Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 6HX
For further information about this agenda Contact: Democratic Services Telephone: 01789 260245 Email: [email protected]
Telephone 01789 267575 Facsimile 01789 260007
Minicom 01789 260747 DX700737 STRATFORD-ON-AVON 2
website www.stratford.gov.uk
Planning Committee
Notice of Meeting
Wednesday 4 August 2021
6.00 p.m.
Council Chamber
Elizabeth House Church Street Stratford-upon-Avon
This meeting can also be viewed via MS Teams
Members of the Committee are requested to attend
Chairman: Councillor Peter Richards
Vice-Chairman: Councillor Bill Fleming and Councillor Danny Kendall
Councillors:
L Adam
A Crump
D Curtis
T Dixon
N Edden
J Feilding
P Hencher-Serafin
M Jennings
C Mills
PLANNING COMMITTEES
PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS
Welcome to this meeting of the Planning Committee.
Please note that this is not an open forum; it is a meeting of the Councils Planning
Committee at which the public is welcome to watch and listen. Questions cannot be
taken from the audience and only those who have already registered to speak will be
allowed to do so. It is requested that the audience respects the Committee and
allows the meeting to progress in accordance with the procedure described below
and without interruption.
The Chairman will introduce the application which will then be supported by an officer
presentation. These will be commensurate with the scale and complexity of the proposal and
the level of public interest.
The names of those people who have registered to speak on the application will be called in
the following order:
1. Town or Parish Councils; (3 Minutes)
2. any objectors; (3 or 6 minutes)
3. the applicant, their agent, or any supporters (3 or 6 minutes).
If speakers are registered in all three categories, in the interests of fairness time limits will be
increased for either the objectors or supporters depending on whether the Parish Council
opposes or supports the application. For example where the Parish Council speaks in
opposition to the application and objectors are also registered to speak, the Parish Council
representative could speak for 3 minutes and the objectors could speak for 3 minutes,
therefore to ensure equality the applicant or supporters would be entitled to 6 minutes.
After each speaker has finished, the Chairman will ask if the Committee has any questions to
put to them.
Ward Members may then be entitled to address the Committee for up to 5 minutes in
accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 11 The Constitution
Committee Members will then have the opportunity to ask for further information or
clarification following which the debate will be opened up to the Committee.
The Planning Officer will be asked to comment if necessary.
Finally, the Committee will be asked to take a decision on the application, and this will take
the form of a motion from a Councillor to GRANT or REFUSE.
If you wish to speak at this meeting, you must register with the committee
managers (01789 260245) by 2.00pm one working day before the meeting.
If you wish to support your speaking time with a presentation, you must email this
to the committee managers ([email protected]) by 2.00pm
two working days before the meeting. You should also ensure that documents
submitted do not incorporate any personal information, including faces or vehicle
registration numbers in photographs. Public Involvement in Planning Committees
Notice of Recording of Meeting
Please note that this meeting may be filmed for subsequent broadcast via the Council's
website and/or YouTube Channel - at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all
or part of the meeting is being filmed.
By registering to speak you are consenting to being recorded and to the possible use of those
sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes.
You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act. Data
collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s Privacy
Statement
Recording of meetings by Press and the Public
Recording, filming and photography at meetings of the Council, which members of the public
can attend is allowed as long as proceedings at the meeting are not disrupted. Recording is
not allowed when the meeting has agreed to formally exclude the press and public due to the
nature of business discussed. This includes the recording of virtual meeting streamed on the
Internet. If attending a meeting in person, please switch your phone or other mobile device to
silent mode to minimise disturbance.
PLANNING COMMITTEE
4 August 2021
AGENDA
1. Apologies for Absence
To receive any apologies for absence.
2. Disclosure of Interest
Members are reminded that, unless they have been granted a dispensation, if they have
a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter as defined by Regulations made by the
Secretary of State where the interest is theirs, their spouse’s or civil partner’s, or is an
interest of somebody with whom they are living as a husband or wife or as if they were
civil partners, they may not participate in any discussion of or vote on the matter and
must also leave the room for the duration of the matter. They must also disclose the
interest if it has not yet been entered on the Authority’s register unless it is a sensitive
interest.
3. Minutes (Pages 1 - 10)
To confirm and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2021.
Planning Applications
4. Application No. 20/02839/FUL - Land Near To
Bishop's Itchington, Warwickshire, Stratford-upon-
Avon
(Pages 11 - 36)
Construction of a solar farm (82.5ha) together with all associated works, equipment and
necessary infrastructure.
Recommendation: GRANT
5. Application No. 20/03585/OUT - Lock Up Garages,
Hodgson Road, Stratford-upon-Avon
(Pages 37 - 48)
Outline application for up to 5 dwellings including demolition of existing garages and the
redevelopment of existing hardstanding with all matters reserved (appearance,
landscaping, layout and scale) except access (to be determined).
Recommendation: REFUSE
6. Application No. 20/02489/FUL - Riverside Caravan
Park, Tiddington Road, Tiddington, Stratford-upon-
Avon CV37 7AB
(Pages 49 - 58)
Continued use of land as a caravan site (variation of planning permissions 60/11/15,
72/7/4 and 04/00151/VARY).
Recommendation: GRANT
7. Application No. 20/03443/VARY - Edencroft, Fells
Lane, Napton-on-the-Hill, Southam CV47 8ND
(Pages 59 - 68)
Variation of Condition 2 (plans) of planning permission 20/00574/VARY dated 5 June
2019 to allow for changes to the Fells Lane improvement works. Original permission
Self-build 3 bedroom house, workshop and garaging with access and parking plus
improvements to Fells Lane including improved re-surfacing, a turning head and a
passing place.
Recommendation: GRANT
8. Application No. 21/01274/FUL - Welfare Centre ,
Craven Lane, Southam CV47 1PG
(Pages 69 - 82)
Demolition of existing billet hut (Class D1) and the proposed erection of a single
detached dwellinghouse (Class C3).
Recommendation: GRANT
9. Application No. 21/01230/FUL - 87 High Street,
Bidford-On-Avon B50 4BG
(Pages 83 - 92)
First floor extension to previously approved application ref: 20/02122/FUL.
Recommendation: REFUSE
10. Urgent Business
To consider any business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, is urgent in accordance
with the provisions of Section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972.
CHIEF EXECUTIVE (HEAD OF PAID SERVICE)
Please note: The next meeting of the Planning Committee is scheduled to take place on
Wednesday 18 August 2021
PLANNING COMMITTEE
07 July 2021
MINUTES
Held at Council Chamber, Elizabeth House, Church Street, Stratford-upon-Avon
Meeting commenced: 6.01 p.m. Meeting ended: 8.08 p.m.
Present:
Councillor Peter Richards (Chairman) Councillors B Fleming, D Kendall,
A Crump, D Curtis, T Dixon, J Feilding, P Hencher-Serafin, M Jennings and
C Mills
Apologies: Councillors L Adam and N Edden
122. Disclosure of Interest
Application No 20/02745/OUT – Councillor Jennings disclosed that under his
Portfolio Holder remit he had attended a presentation from Jonathan Thompson,
Director at Jonathan Thompson Land and Consultancy Limited, regarding the
Long Marston Airfield site. Councillor Jennings confirmed that there had been no
discussion on this application and he would therefore be participating with an
open mind.
All Councillors disclosed that they had received correspondence re Application
No’s 20/02745/OUT, 20/03286/FUL and 21/00561/VARY.
Application No 20/02745/OUT – Councillor Richards disclosed that under his
previous Portfolio Holder remit he was known to Jonathan Thompson, Director at
Jonathan Thompson Land and Consultancy Limited, but there had been no
discussion on this application and he would therefore be participating with an
open mind. Councillor Richards also disclosed that he resided in Quinton but, as
above, he would be participating with an open mind.
Application No’s 20/03306/FUL and 20/03307/LBC – Councillor Richards
disclosed that he was the Ward Member for these applications, but had not
made any representations and would therefore be participating with an open
mind and would remain in the Chair.
123. Minutes
The Minutes of the meetings held on 26 May, 9 and 23 June 2021 were
confirmed and signed.
124. Application No. 20/02745/OUT - Airfield House (including Part Of
Former Scrap Yard), Campden Road, Lower Quinton, Stratford-upon-
Avon CV37 8LL
APPLICATION SITE Airfield House (including Part Of Former Scrap
Yard), Campden Road, Lower Quinton,
Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 8LL
PROPOSAL Outline application for the erection of up to 60
dwellings with all matters reserved
(appearance, landscaping, layout and scale)
except access (to be determined) including
demolition of existing dwelling and scrap yard
buildings and associated works.
Page 1
Item 3
APPLICANT Anthony Hodges, Campden Road
Developments Ltd
SPEAKERS Cllr Robert Spooner (Chairman) Quinton Parish
Council – Objecting
Mr Reuben Bellamy – Agent and Mr Jonathan
Thompson (answered questions from
Members)
*Dave Pilcher – Warwickshire County Council Highways Officer was also in
attendance and answered questions from Members
Updates since the preparation of the Officer’s report were circulated to the
Committee as set out on the attached sheet.
Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting,
a motion of GRANT, in accordance with the recommendation detailed in the
report, subject to a S106 Agreement and subject to amended conditions and
notes with an additional note as detailed below, was proposed by Councillor
Jennings and seconded by Councillor Feilding.
Thereafter, it was unanimously
RESOLVED:
That Planning Application 20/02745/OUT be GRANTED subject to the
following (the detailed wording of which be delegated to Officers):
Completion of a Section 106 Agreement, with delegated authority to the
Head of Regulatory Services in respect of any final negotiations/sums
and whether they are S106 compliant, as detailed:
Education Total £422,708
Libraries £1,130
Public Rights of Way £3,801.34 - contribution to support the
ongoing maintenance and improvements of public rights of way
within a 1.5 mile radius of the site
Sustainable Travel packs - £600
Road Safety - £3,000
Safe Routes to School - £45,000 towards Zebra Crossing
South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust - £54,968.08
NHS South Warwickshire CCG - £78,256 capital contribution
towards a new multi-purpose primary medical care facility. If it is
decided not to proceed with developing a new primary medical
facility then a capital contribution of £58,692 will be required to
make improvements to existing off-site primary medical care
facilities
No Ransom Strip clause
Open Space - Management of Open Space
Allotments/Community Orchards - either £4253.69 to upgrade
existing allotments/community gardens or £6375.46 to provide
new allotments/community garden
Affordable Housing - Provision of 35% affordable housing issues
including Tenure, Integration (cluster sizes for example and
Accessibility Standards)
Police - £16018
Ecology - Biodiversity offsetting scheme via either a payment of
£23,608 to Warwickshire County Council or the developer using
the services of a broker to find a suitable provider.
Page 2
Monitoring fee - £500 + (5 hours x £40 officer time x number of
triggers)
(Note: confirmation that the level of S106 payments will be
determined by the number of houses approved as part of any
reserved matters application should outline permission be
granted. The numbers reported in the agenda report relate to 60
dwellings being provided on site and these figures may change
should a lower number of dwellings than 60 be provided);
and:
39 conditions contained in the report (subject to the amendments
as detailed below);
27 notes contained in the report (subject to the amendments as
detailed below); and
Additional note to encourage developers to make provision for
homeworking.
Amended Conditions:
Addition of demolition plan to condition 3.
Confirmation that in respect of condition 7 the maximum roof
ridge height is when measured from proposed finished ground
floor level of the dwelling building. Details pertaining to levels will
be required to be submitted under condition 26.
Confirmation that condition 15 will require the provision of Electric
Vehicles charging points for all dwellings.
Confirmation that condition 18 will require the submission of
proposed permanent and temporary boundary treatment.
Confirmation that in respect of condition 19 the submitted scheme
shall provide detailed mitigation that ensures internal ambient
levels of no more that 35dBLAeq (16 hours daytime) in all living
areas and 30dBLAeq (8 hours night time) in bedrooms with
windows shut and other means of ventilation provided. External
ambient levels shall be no more than 50dBLAeq (daytime) in
amenity areas.
Amended Notes:
Deletion of notes 14 and 15 as WCC Highways have verbally
confirmed that these are not required. Deletion of Note 10 as a
duplicate with Note 16. Amend the numbering of Notes
accordingly.
Note 26 should make reference to condition 9 rather than
condition 6.
Page 3
125. Application No. 20/03286/FUL - Land Adjacent To 201, Loxley Road,
Stratford-upon-Avon
APPLICATION SITE Land adj. to 201 Loxley Road, Stratford-upon-
Avon
PROPOSAL Construction of 7no. dwellings and associated
works
APPLICANT MacKenzie Miller Homes
SPEAKERS Mr Doug Glassford - Agent
Cllr Rolfe - District Council Ward Member
Updates since the preparation of the Officer’s report were circulated to the
Committee as set out on the attached sheet.
Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting,
a motion of GRANT, in accordance with the recommendation detailed in the
report and subject to a S106 legal obligation, was proposed by Councillor
Jennings and seconded by Councillor Mills.
Thereafter, by 6 votes in favour to 1 vote against with 3 abstentions, it was
RESOLVED:
That Planning Application 20/03286/FUL be GRANTED subject to the
following (the detailed wording of which be delegated to Officers):
Completion of a Section 106 legal obligation to secure the following (the
negotiation and final wording of which shall be delegated to Officers):
£45,255 – for the purpose of biodiversity offsetting
except that, in the absence of a suitable legal obligation being completed
to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority within six months from
the date of this resolution (or other such date agreed in writing by both
parties), planning permission shall be refused in accordance with wording
which shall first be agreed between the Case Officer and the Committee
Chairman;
and:
17 conditions contained in the report; and
4 notes contained in the report.
126. Application No. 21/00561/VARY - Garages Adjacent To 27, Leigh
Crescent, Long Itchington CV47 9QS
APPLICATION SITE Garages Adjacent To 27, Leigh Crescent, Long
Itchington CV47 9QS
PROPOSAL Removal of condition 10 of planning permission
20/01850/FUL (date of decision 11/12/2020).
Original description of development:
Demolition of existing garages and erection of
3 No. dwellings.
APPLICANT Bain Developments Ltd
SPEAKERS Cllr Barbara Atkins (Chairman) Long Itchington
Parish Council – Objecting
Page 4
Mr Ross Middleton - Agent
Cllr Adam - District Council Ward Member
Updates since the preparation of the Officer’s report were circulated to the
Committee as set out on the attached sheet.
Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting,
a motion of GRANT, in accordance with the recommendation detailed in the
report, was proposed by Councillor Jennings and seconded by Councillor
Kendall. By 4 votes in favour to 6 votes against, this proposal fell.
Accordingly, a motion of REFUSE, for the following reason, was proposed by
Councillor Crump and seconded by Councillor Feilding.
Thereafter, by 6 votes in favour to 4 votes against, it was
RESOLVED:
That Planning Application 21/00561/VARY be REFUSED for the following
reason (the detailed wording of which be delegated to Officers):
Reason for Refusal
In the opinion of the Planning Committee, Policy CS.9 requires
development proposals to be well-integrated with the existing built form
whilst enhancing the network of streets, footpaths and retaining existing
rights of way. The removal of Condition 10 would cause undue harm to
the local area by deleting a condition that requires a scheme for suitable
access to the Grand Union Canal, thus ensuring that the development
would be well integrated with the existing network of streets and built
form. The application to remove Condition 10 from Planning Permission,
20/01850/FUL, is therefore contrary to the objectives and stipulations of
Policy CS.9 of the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy.
127. Application Nos. 20/03306/FUL and 20/03307/LBC - The Old Butchers
Shop, The Green, Claverdon CV35 8LL
APPLICATION SITE The Old Butchers Shop, The Green, Claverdon
CV35 8LL
PROPOSAL 1. Proposed new dwelling
2. Proposed new dwelling
APPLICANT Mrs and Mrs S and L Whitehead and Robinson
SPEAKERS Mr Steev Ellson - Agent
Updates since the preparation of the Officer’s report were circulated to the
Committee as set out on the attached sheet.
Application No. 20/03306/FUL
Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting,
a motion of REFUSE, in accordance with the recommendation detailed in the
report, was proposed by Councillor Mills and seconded by Councillor Jennings.
By 3 votes in favour to 6 votes against with 1 abstention, this proposal fell.
Subsequently, a motion of DEFER in order to conduct a site visit, was proposed
by Councillor Dixon and seconded by Councillor Curtis.
Page 5
Thereafter, by 3 votes in favour to 3 votes against with 4 abstentions, on the
Chairman’s casting vote, it was
RESOLVED:
That Planning Application 20/03306/FUL be DEFERRED in order to
conduct a site visit.
Application No. 20/03307/LBC
Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting,
a motion of DEFER in order to conduct a site visit, was proposed by Councillor
Dixon and seconded by Councillor Curtis.
Thereafter, it was unanimously
RESOLVED:
That Planning Application 20/03307/LBC be DEFERRED in order to
conduct a site visit.
128. Urgent Business
There were no items of urgent business.
CHAIRMAN
Page 6
Page 1 of 3
Update Report for Planning Committee: 07.07.2021 Committee Planning Manager: Alice Cosnett
20/02745/OUT – Airfield House (including part of Former Scrap Yard), Campden Road, Lower Quinton, Stratford –upon-Avon CV37 8LL
Updates to the Committee Report
Representation/Consultation Responses (Pages 23-40 of committee report)
-Response from Welford Parish Council dated 30.06.2021:
As a neighbouring Parish, Welford on Avon Parish Council Object to this application on the basis
of Highways and traffic concerns. This development will lead to a significant increase in the
volume of traffic using Welford as an alternative to Stratford river bridge. The Parish Council
already have safety concerns about the volume and speed of traffic travelling through the
village, this will exacerbate the problem. In addition, it will cause additional traffic and wear and
tear on Welford Bridge, a single track road and a Listed building.
Landscape and Visual Impact Including Impact on the AONB Section of the Committee Report
(Pages 51-52 of committee report)
-Update in respect of this part of the committee report where reference is made to the removal
of some trees (page 52). It should be clarified that 3 of these trees (3 Cypress trees)
referenced as proposed to be removed are on adjoining land at Willow Cottage and are outside
the application site boundary. Permission will need to be secured from a third party for their
removal. If permission is not granted for their removal their location will have to be taken into
account as part of any reserved matters application should outline permission be granted. The
submitted arboricultural report relates to the indicative layout and may change as a result of
any submitted Reserved Matters application should outline permission be granted. To this effect
details of any trees to be removed will have to be secured under the requirements of condition
18 relating to the soft landscaping details to be submitted at Reserved Matters stage.
Proposed S106 Payments (Page 62-63 and 65 of committee report)
- S106 payments – confirmation that the level of S106 payments will be determined by the
number of houses approved as part of any reserved matters application should outline
permission be granted. The numbers reported in the Committee Report relate to 60 dwellings
being provided on site and these figures may change should a lower number of dwellings than
60 be provided on site.
Proposed Conditions (pages 65-68 of committee report)
-Addition of demolition plan to condition 3.
-Confirmation that in respect of condition 7 the maximum roof ridge height is when measured
from proposed finished ground floor level of the dwelling building. Details pertaining to levels
will be required to be submitted under condition 26.
-Confirmation that condition 15 will require the provision of Electric Vehicles charging points for
all dwellings.
-Confirmation that condition 18 will require the submission of proposed permanent and
temporary boundary treatment.
-Confirmation that in respect of condition 19 the submitted scheme shall provide detailed
mitigation that ensures internal ambient levels of no more that 35dBLAeq (16 hours daytime) in
all living areas and 30dBLAeq (8 hours night time) in bedrooms with windows shut and other
Page 1
Minute Annex
Page 7
Page 2 of 3
means of ventilation provided. External ambient levels shall be no more than 50dBLAeq
(daytime) in amenity areas.
Proposed Notes (Pages 68-69 of committee report)
-Deletion of notes 14 and 15 as WCC Highways have verbally confirmed that these are not
required. Deletion of Note 10 as a duplicate with Note 16. Amend the numbering of Notes
accordingly.
-Note 26 should make reference to condition 9 rather than condition 6
20/02386/FUL – Land Adjacent to 201 Loxley Road, Stratford-upon-Avon
Consultation Responses (page 75)
Objection from Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council removed (01.07.2021); representation
amended as follows:
No Objection – “Now that the car ports have been omitted and the Highways Authority has
withdrawn its objection, the Town Council would also wish to withdraw its holding objection.”
Change wording to page 79 – “and subject to the completion of a S106 legal obligation” in
place of “S106 legal agreement” and on page 80 “except that, in the absence of a suitable
legal obligation” in place of “suitable legal agreement”.
Members Site Visit
A Members Site Visit took place at 10am on 7th July 2021. In attendance were Councillor
Richards, Councillor Dixon, Councillor Curtis and Councillor Rolfe (as Ward Member).
21/00561/VARY - Garages Adjacent To 27, Leigh Crescent, Long Itchington
CV47 9QS
Representation from Howes Percival on behalf of the applicant.
A letter has been received from Howes Percival which reiterates that planning conditions must
meet the 6 tests (necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted,
enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects) and reinforces that condition 10
should be removed. It states that as a matter of law there is no public footpath through the site
and it would be an error of law for the Council to approach this application on the basis of there
being such a link.
Representation from EMW on behalf of Long Itchington Parish Council
A letter has been received from EMW expressing how the access through from the application
site to the canal can be regarded as a public right of way; that it should remain open and
Condition 10 of Planning Permission 20/01850/FUL should not be removed.
20/03306/FUL and 20/03307/LBC - The Old Butchers Shop, The Green, Claverdon CV35 8LL
Page 2Page 8
Page 3 of 3
Reason for refusal (20/03306/FUL) – Page 107
Amendment to recommended reason for refusal no.1:
Removal of reference to “(Claverdon Court)”.
Reason for refusal (20/03307/LBC) – Page 108
Removal of reference to “(Claverdon Court)”.
Correction – Impact on Heritage Assets - Page 102
At bottom of page 102, removal of reference to “(Claverdon Court”). Claverdon Court is the
dwelling approximately 13m to the north of the proposed dwelling. Claverdon Court is not
listed. The Grade II Listed dwelling that is approximately 3.5m to the north is understood to go
by the name of “Old Butchers Shop” and is understood to be in separate ownership to that of
the applicant for these applications.
All other detail, including measurements, assessment of impact on heritage and
recommendation of refusal remain the same.
Correction – Green Belt – page 101
Removal of “(Claverdon Court)” for reason stated above.
Page 3Page 9
This page has been left intentionally blank
Page 10
COMMITTEE REPORT
Application Ref. 20/02839/FUL
Site Address: Land Near To Bishop's Itchington, Warwickshire
Description of
Development:
Construction of a solar farm (82.5ha) together with all
associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure
Applicant: Low Carbon Ltd
Reason for Referral
to Committee:
Objection by Parish Council
Objection by Ward Member
Case Officer: Louise Koelman
Presenting Officer: Louise Koelman
Ward Member: Councillor C Kettle
Town/Parish
Council: Bishops Itchington Parish Council
Description of Site
Constraints:
The site is approximately 82.5 ha of agricultural
land made up of 9 fields.
Located approximately 490m to the south of the
settlement of Bishop's Itchington and 480m north
of Knightcote
Fields are mainly bounded by hedgerows, some
with trees
Two Public Rights of Way run along the south
eastern corner of the site linking to another Public
Right of Way running to Bishops Itchington village.
Further public footpaths are located to the south
east running in a north south axis and a number of
public footpaths are located within Christmas Hill
and Pipers Hill which are situated approximately
1.9km to the west of the site Grade II listed Old Town Farmhouse is located
260m from the site and the Grade II/scheduled
monument Beacon Tower and Gredenton Hill
Camp at the Burton Dassett Hills is approximately
2.9km
Site mainly Flood Zone 1 but with a small section
within Flood Zones 2 and 3 running in a
north/south direction
River Itchen SSSI lies 0.9km east of the site
Summary of
Recommendation GRANT
Page 11
Item 4
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Development Plan
Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)
Material Considerations
Central Government Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
National Design Guide 2019
Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
EU Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC)
Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance
Development Requirements SPD
Other Material Consideration(s) and Emerging Plans
Climate Change Declaration by SOADC 2019
Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019
Stratford on Avon Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity Study 2014
Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Resource Assessment and Feasibility
Study – CAMCO April 2010
Renewable Energy Capacity Study for the West Midlands – March 2011
Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines 1993
UK Solar PV Strategy Part 1: Roadmap to a brighter future – Department
of Energy and Climate Change October 2013
UK Solar PV Strategy Part 2: Delivering a Brighter Future, April 2014
Statement by the Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change
(November 2013)
Written Ministerial Statement on Solar Energy: Protecting the local and
Global Environment (March 2015)
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY No relevant planning history.
REPRESENTATIONS
Ward Member – Cllr Kettle – Object
SDC Policy position on renewable energy
Stratford District Council declared a “Climate Emergency” in July 2019 and
resolved to “to contribute to national carbon neutral targets through the
development of their own practices and policies”. In February 2020 SDC’s Cabinet
resolved to set up a Climate Change Panel and adopted recommendations from
the Council’s Climate Emergency Task and Finish Group.
Page 12
The Council’s position, in summary, is to recognise the issues of climate change
and support actions notably:
• To reduce the Council’s own carbon usage;
• Provide education to residents about energy usage;
• Improve the efficiency of energy usage in both dwellings and vehicles;
• Improve tree planting and biodiversity on council owned land;
• Encourage the use of renewable energy; and
• To develop an energy policy that encourages investment in local and
community renewable energy schemes.
The declaration of the Climate Emergency and adoption of the recommendations
summarised above does not however and cannot override planning policy and
therefor any application needs still to comply with both the NPPF and the Core
Strategy.
The Council’s Planning Policy has resulted in the development of two Solar Parks
within the District, one outside Stratford town itself, Drayton Manor Farm on
heavily contaminated land, and one within the Parish of Bishop’s Itchington. The
exiting solar farm in the Parish, Southam Solar Farm generates approximately
10.4 MWp from 29 ha of land. The site is on flat ground above the village and
whilst it can be seen from two PROWs SM81 and SM83, the site is not visibly from
any part of the surrounding settlements.
Description of the location
This application sits on low ground within the Feldon Vale surrounding by hills
including to the south the Country Park on the publicly owned Burton Dassett
Hills, along with its two designated heritage assets, namely the Beacon Tower
and Gredenton Hill Camp. To the north the site is clearly visible from footpaths
SM83 and SM83b running along the front of the blue lias ridge from Bishop’s
Itchington to Gaydon via Christmas Hill. The site is adjacent to both the
Knightcote Road from Bishop’s Itchignton to Knightcote and the unclassified
Knightcote Bottom Lane from Gaydon to Knightcote.
The site is adjacent to the listed Old Town Farm, the stonework of which itself
dates back to the dissolution of the monasteries in 1547, and is the original site
of the settlement of Bishop’s Itchington, whose existence is recorded as far back
as 1034AD. The now redundant Starbold Farm is in the centre of the application
site. One of the sources of the River Itchen runs though the site.
There are a number of Romano-British sites in close proximity to the site, one of
which was uncovered as part of the archaeological investigations for the refused
application for a wind farm on land adjacent to this site. There are other
significant roman finds in the locality, probably satellite settlements to the largest
roman fort on the Fosse Way between Leicester and Bath just north of
Chesterton, which was discovered in the late 1960’s. Recent surveys indicate the
Town of Chesterton extended for some 27 hectares, making this a very significant
settlement, and it is considered to have been occupied for at least 3 centuries
from the 1st to the 4th century and then subsequently by Anglo Saxons.
That the Old Salt Road, the Knightcote Bottom lane, runs alongside the site
suggests that this area would have seen significant activity, over a substantial
period.
The land has been consistently in use as either arable or grazing land and whilst
not top grade land is still in active use for the production of crops and livestock.
Page 13
Consultation responses
Both parish councils. Bishop’s Itchington (‘BIPC’) and Burton Dassett have
responded with objections in detail on this application and I do not intend to
replicate the extent of their own responses.
However in summary, I concur with them that this application is in contradiction
in terms of scale, visual impact, sustainability with the Stratford District Council’s
Core Strategy and in particular with policies as follows:
CS.1 Sustainable development - The negative impact of the proposal
will be greater than the benefits
CS.3 Sustainable energy - Impact on historic landscape and of direct and
reflected lighting on the Country park and the heritage assets on the hills
and Old Town Farm
CS.5 Landscape Character - The scale of the proposal will have a
material impact on the historic landscape setting of the Feldon Vale, which
owing to its location at the bottom of the bowl will be highly visible
Visual impact -The Site will be highly visible from the Country Park on the
Burton Dassett Hills and from the footpaths on the Blue Lias ridge.
Scale - Contrary to the Council’s Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity
Assessment
CS.7 Green Infrastructure - The historic and archaeological settings, as
referred to in this policy will be heavily impacted by the scale of this
development
CS.8 Historical Environment - The level and sufficiency of the heritage
desk based assessment submitted, as set out by BIPC, is inadequate to
assess properly the heritage impact of this proposal.
The location of a 1,000 year old settlement within 250 metres of the site
surely requires more than a desk based exercise along with the existence
of numerous local roman settlements and the old Salt Road.
CS.22 Economic benefit - Unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate
that through the selection of contractors and the employment
opportunities for business or residents of Stratford District, I cannot see
how this application will bring any economic benefit to the area.
BIPC have raised a number of concerns about the information provided in the
supporting documents to the application, with which I concur. I would also draw
the officer’s attention to the adequacy of some of the photomontages. One
photograph taken from footpath SM83b purports to show that the site would be
invisible from the footpath owing to the existence of a high and thick hedgerow,
and it was taken in the summer when the hedge was in full leaf. Had the
photographer stood on the other side of the hedge, on the footpath, or walked
some two or three meters or even further along the footpath, the view would not
have been obscured by the hedge.
I am concerned that if so obvious a view was obscured in the photograph by the
existence of a hedge, what other impacts have been missed through the careful
selection of view points.
I am aware that the applicant’s agents have carried out a number of consultation
events. However the failure to deliver invitations to the correct addresses and
Page 14
missing out residents of Burton Dassett parish meant that in my opinion the
exercise was flawed. Date: (22/12/2020)
Adjoining Ward Member (Harbury) - Councillor J Harris
No response
Parish Council: – Object
Development fails to adhere with policies CS.1 and CS.3 as the
development fails to provide benefits for the community of Bishops
Itchington and surrounding villages/farms
Major detrimental impact will result during the construction and
decommissioning stages
An excessive number of HGV’s will be required to go through the village
resulting in damage and pollution
The Cotswolds AONB is close
The energy generated will go to the national grid and will not benefit the
local community
Will have a significant detrimental visual impact on the Feldon Farm
Farmlands
Views of the site will be able to be obtained from Burton Dassett Country
Park and will spoil views in an area of natural beauty and landscape
sensitivity
Consider that the applicants have failed to refer to the Renewable Energy
Landscape Sensitivity Assessment
Fails to meet the criteria of the Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity
Assessment for Feldon Vale Farmlands and is far too large for the intended
area
Will have significant impact on agricultural activities as 78.5ha of
agricultural land will be taken out of use
The openness and character of the landscape will be changed considerably
and cannot be hidden by hedges or fences from view
Character of the historic landscape will be adversely changed – the historic
Roman Salt Road (Knightcote Bottoms) is situated in an unspoilt setting
and its setting will be changed by 2.5m high CCTV cameras and 2.4m high
fencing for the next 40 years
Consider the fencing will need to be 2.4m rather than 2m as specified to
be in compliance with the recommendations of the Warwickshire Police
Biodiversity will not be enhanced as trees and hedgerows will be removed
Consider over 150 CCTV cameras will be required and 7,125m of security
fencing leading to a significant visual impact
Fails to comply with CS.4 (Water, environment and Flood Risk)
Request assessment of the Badger report which is unable to be viewed
Fails to address the criteria of CS.7 – Green Infrastructure
Consider the heritage desk based assessment contains errors and
mischaracterisations. A watching brief would be insufficient and the
proposals fail to preserve an area of significant archaeological interest
conflicting with CS.8
Proposal will destroy features that contribute positively to the area due to
its size and scale and will destroy a vast area of agricultural land and alter
the local bio-diversity in a negative way
Whilst the site is grade 3b and 4 agricultural land 95% of the site is 3b
which is still viable crop producing land and has been farmed since the
second world war
Site is open to significant views from longer distances from the south
Page 15
Raise concerns with the submitted construction traffic management plan
(CTMP) and consider there are inconsistencies which questions its
comprehensiveness.
Consider the number of trips within the CTMP is confused by the
inconsistent use and meaning of two-way trip v a vehicle movement
Restrictions and road closures which would eliminate certain routes to the
site haven’t been recognised
Comments on the type and volume of traffic have been made without
supporting evidence
Suggestions are made in the CTMP about mitigation and restrictions which
the Council may consider requesting as conditions
Raise criticism regarding the submitted statement of community
engagement
Date: (14/12/2020)
Burton Dassett Parish Council – Adjoining
Object –
Consider the application ignores the existence of the Burton Dassett
Country Park and its two designated heritage assets, Beacon Tower and
Gredenton Hill Camp and will significantly harm the setting of these
heritage assets contrary to Core Strategy policy CS.8
Consider the development will significantly compromise the tranquil and
remote character of the view across the Feldon vale from the country
park, diminishing the value of the park
Consider the inclusion of CCTV, lighting pillars and possibly 2.4m high
security fencing will result in the visual impact being worse than presented
Insufficient marketing of the second webinar resulted in the meeting only
being attended by parish councillors
Development is contrary to the Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity
Study due to its size as the study identifies small (up to 5ha) or medium
(up to 15ha) sites are brought forward to avoid adverse effects on the
topography
The desk based heritage report fails to investigate the significant evidence
of Iron Age and Roman habitation on and around the site and should be
required prior to any permission being considered
The glint and glare report is insufficient and doesn’t take into account glint
and gare from the Burton Hills Country Park
Renewable energy site should not be sited next to villages
Solar farms should utilise brownfield site or land with little agricultural
value
Date: (22/12/2020)
Continue to object following additional consultation with drainage and landscaping
details. (21.07.2021)
Harbury Parish Council - Adjoining
No representations . Dated (08.12.2012)
Third Party Representations
The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.
24 letters of objection have been received raising the following matters:
The excessive scale of the development is incompatible with the rural
location and harmful to the landscape and character of the area
Page 16
Will lead to 4.5miles of 2.4m high fencing and over 150 CCTV cameras
creating a significant loss of local distinctiveness and local landscape
character
The development will have a detrimental effect on the views in the area,
particularly from Burton Dassett Hills which is a Special Landscape Area,
compromising the panoramic views across the open countryside which is
widely used by locals and visitors
Consider the proposals are in the wrong area. There is already a solar
farm in Bishops Itchington
Query whether the development will result in cheaper electricity supply
and if not will have no benefit to the local community
No implications of the changes to the infrastructure/ power grid have
been provided
Consider that the fields should be retained for agricultural use not solar
farms
Unacceptable loss of grade 3b land and is able to be used for staple corn
cultivation and has been in continuous use for arable crops for many
decades
Query whether a study on the effect on the bird population has been
carried out
Maintenance traffic and the land contamination will affect wildlife
Will create a precedent for further expansion of other solar farms
Will cause harm to the local road network and congestion. HS2 activities
are already causing significant disruption to the road network in the area
The connection point is at Deppers Bridge approximately 3km away and
will cause significant traffic problems on a busy road
The area of Old Town was the centre of a medieval settlement with a
church and market charter. The development is immediately adjacent to
the proposal and would destroy this historic site.
The Old Salt Road is a Roman road and the development could have
significant archaeological issues and traffic would lead to its degradation
Roman heritage sites and points of interest that have historical artefacts
should not be disturbed or destroyed
Will contaminate archaeological remains on the land
Site contains ridge and furrow land which is protected
Highlight that there is already a solar farm in the village and an additional
solar farm of this scale is not required
Brownfield sites and commercial rooftops should be targeted for solar
farms, closer to networks for distribution not near villages
Development fails to meet the criteria of the Council’s Renewable Energy
Landscape Sensitivity Study for Feldon Vale Farmlands in both scale and
location - exceeds the limit of the landscape sensitivity framework by
250% of the recommended maximum – breach of policy CS.3
Consideration should be given to progress its energy policy towards 100%
off shore wind power to supply power demand by 2030
Query how many jobs will be created by the development and how many
of those will be locally employed
Planning permission for 4 wind turbines in this area was refused because
of the visual impact on the AONB and query whether 220 acres of solar
panels any different
Level of public engagement was poor despite COVID restrictions the
webinar meetings were limited
Raise concerns from solar glare from the Burton Dassett Hills further
impacting on important views
Will require land to be dug up to install the connection cables to the grid
connection point in Bishops Itchington
Will cause harm to protected species i.e. badgers in the area
Page 17
The geophysics survey is incomplete and doesn’t include land in close
proximity to the medieval settlement of Nether Itchington therefore fails to
fulfil the requirements of NPPF 189
An independent archaeological survey of the site is needed
The site floods and should therefore not have solar panels placed on it
3 letters of support have been received raising the following matters:
The Climate Change Act and subsidiary legislation have set a target of
100% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and the application
if approved would make an important contribution to this target
Stratford on Avon District Council has declared a Climate Emergency with
a pledge to take action locally to contribute to national carbon neutral
targets through the development of their own practices and policies, with
an aim to be carbon-neutral in Stratford District by 2030
There are no major constraints that would preclude the granting of
planning permission on the site and would make a significant local
contribution to the Council’s Climate Change commitment
Considers the development will not lead to the permanent loss of
agricultural land and the land is poorer land falling outside the Best and
Most Versatile category
The site is underlain by slowly permeable clay or clay loam and historically
mapped as ‘Denchworth Series’ which leads to significant limitations to
agricultural cropping and predominantly winter wheat and oilseed rape.
The main arable crop is feed wheat which contributes Carbon Dioxide,
Methane and Nitrous gases to the atmosphere and leaching of nitrates to
groundwater and watercourses by ploughing and cultivations
The development will minimise greenhouse gases through putting the land
to grass acting as a carbon sink
Using floristically rich grass seed mixtures will provide benefits for a range
of wildlife and undergrazing for sheep so agricultural activity can continue
The site is relatively flat and the greatest visual impact will be within or
immediately adjacent to the site which can be minimised by tree planting
and management of hedgerows.
Whilst there is some impact, it is temporary
Complies with policy CS.1 - will lead to improvements and benefits to the
local economy from increased renewable electricity generation, contribute
to the district climate change mitigation measures, job creation,
biodiversity improvements and landscape mitigation measures
Proposal complies with sustainable energy policy CS.3 – the impacts can
be mitigated
No adverse impact on the water environment and flood risk – policy CS.4
Mitigation measures will lead to improvements in biodiversity – board
compliance with policy CS.6
Consider there is no immediate impact on the historic environment and is
broadly compliant with CS.8
Footpaths will be protected and existing hedges left to grow so wildlife can
thrive
Farmers need to diversify especially in rural locations and once installed
solar farms need little ongoing maintenance
There are not enough brownfield site and rooftop structures are expensive
in terms of carbon footprint and financial outlay to fulfil the requirements
needed to reduce CO2 emissions
The larger the site the better use it can make of the available grid
connection capacity
Page 18
Consider if solar farms are considered to be industrial then so too are
artificial reservoirs. Whilst fiercely resisted previously these are now
regarded as attractive landscape features
The solar farms once installed require little maintenance, minimal noise
and provide a tranquil environment
The site is 2 miles from the Burton Dassett Hills and therefore only covers
a small percentage of any view and any reflection from the panels will be
seen for only a very short period of any day
The character of the Burton Dassett Hills is already compromised by the
presence of the M40 motorway which covers a large percentage of the
view and produces noise. This hasn’t deterred tourists to visit, don’t
consider a solar farm will either
A letter of objection has also been received from the non-statutory body, the
CPRE, raising the following matters:
Refer to the characteristics of the site known as the Feldon Vale Farmland
as detailed in the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines and concludes that
the tranquillity of the landscape would be considerably disturbed is the
development is built and would be completely out of character
Refers to the additional equipment which comprise the development
including inverter/transformer containers, DNO substation and customer
substation, surrounded by 2m security fencing and 2.5m high CCTV poles
posted at 50m intervals and considers that this impact cannot be
mitigated by the measures set out by the applicants landscaping plans
Consider the proposal would fail policy CS.9 by detracting from the sense
of place and would have adverse visual impacts from local and longer
distance viewpoints. Although the application is for a temporary period
considers 40 years to be a considerable period
Consider the development also fails to adhere to policy CS.5 and CS.8
Identifies that the development will harm views from the Beacon Tower
which is located on the Burton Dassett Hill and is a scheduled ancient
monument and listed building. Refers to other listed buildings in the
vicinity of the development in Knightcote and The Old Town Farmhouse
which is 160m east of the site
Refers to the guidance within the Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity
Study and considers that the development fails to adhere to the guidance
within it as the development is significant over the recommended size
thresholds
Refers to the fact that 82.5ha of agricultural land would be taken out of
cultivation if the development is granted
Considers solar panels should be placed on buildings rather than
agricultural land
Other non-planning related comments were also received
CONSULTATIONS
Warwickshire County Council Highways (WCC Highways)
Additional information received to address objection including a Road Safety Audit
of the two accesses, additional information with respect to the Southern splay on
the northern access and updated Construction Traffic Management Plan and
Construction Management Routing Plan. (01.12.2020)
No objection subject to conditions. (22.07.2021)
Historic England
Page 19
Initial objections. Requested further work to be carried out with respect to the
assessment of the scheduled monument of Beacon Tower and Gredenton Hill
Camp within the Burton Hills. Required further archaeological field assessment
work to be carried out.
No objection - Following the receipt of additional geophysical assessment and
removal of field 9 (south western field parcel) from the development and
highlight the potential for the development affect the setting of designated
heritage assets at distance and require the authority to assess this in our
determination. (09.07.2021)
Environment Agency
No objections subject to a condition. (25/11/2020)
NATS Safeguarding
No Objection. (25.11.2021)
Natural England
No objection. Do not consider the development will have any significant adverse
impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes.
(03.12.2020)
Environmental Health (EHO)
No objection (27.11.2020)
Warwickshire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)
Require additional details to confirm that runoff generated from the supporting
infrastructure to the photovoltaics can be managed safely with an appropriate
outfall. (01.07.2021) Further information has been submitted and further
consultation carried out, a response is anticipated before Committee.
Warwickshire County Council Ecology (WCC Ecology)
No objection. Recommends conditions. (22.12.2020 & 14.07.2021)
Warwickshire Police
No objection - Recommend the boundary protection of the site be sited an
appropriate distance from the panels to discourage theft of the panels,
recommend security fencing is 2.4m in height and certified to LPS 1175 security
level 2, together with any gates.
Construction compound security measures are recommended and CCTV
monitoring and ensuring the cameras are fit for purpose. (26.11.2020)
Warwickshire County Council Fire and Rescue
No objection subject to an advisory note. (26.11.2020)
Ramblers Association
Raise no objection on footpath grounds – two public footpaths SM85 and SM85a
are located adjacent to the south –eastern corner of the site.
Raise objection on countryside protection grounds. Consider the development
conflicts with Core Strategy policies CS.3 and CS.5 and is too large in scale.
(04.12.2020)
Warwickshire County Council Footpaths Officer
No objection subject to a condition and advisory notes.(09.12.2020)
Page 20
ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES
Principle of Development
The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and
Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a
key material planning consideration.
The proposal seeks permission to construct a ground mounted solar farm with a
total site area of 82.5ha, of which 56.8ha contains panels, and associated works,
equipment and necessary infrastructure for a temporary 40 year period. The
anticipate capacity is 49.9MW.
The panels themselves have a maximum height of 2.7m and 0.9m at their lowest
point, fencing around the site is 2m high, camera poles 2.5m high and associated
buildings/structures/plant a maximum height of 3.5m.
Development Plan
Policy CS.3 Sustainable Energy relates, at part B, to Solar Energy. This says that
proposals for solar energy will be supported where the impacts are, or can be,
made acceptable, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An
assessment against a number of criteria would need to be undertaken:
• Impact on agricultural activities and disturbances to agricultural land
• Impact on openness and character of the landscape and on visual amenity
• Impact on the character of the historic landscape
• Impacts of trees and other vegetation which may cause overshadowing,
making allowance for future growth
• Impact on and opportunities to enhance biodiversity
• Impact of direct and reflected lighting on the amenity of occupied affected
buildings or land on light pollution, on aviation and on biodiversity
Proposals will be determined with regard to the Council’s Renewable Energy
Landscape Sensitivity Assessment which was reported to the Council’s Cabinet 8
September 2014 whereat it was received as evidence to inform the application of
Policy CS.3.
Policy AS.10 of the Draft Core Strategy relates to development in the Countryside
and Villages. Whilst promoting a wide range of activities and development in rural
parts of the District in order to maintain balanced rural communities and a strong
rural economy, it stresses that this is subject to development minimising any
impact on the character of the local landscape, communities and environmental
features; minimising the impact on occupiers of existing properties; avoiding a
harmful increase in traffic; prioritising the use of brownfield land and avoiding
development on the best and most versatile agricultural land.
The policy identifies the type of development and uses which may be appropriate
in rural areas, and states that other types of development or activity in the
countryside will need to be fully justified, offer significant benefits to the local
Page 21
area and not be contrary to the overall development strategy for the District.
Solar farms are not specifically identified as being an appropriate use of land,
although farm-based business activities that would help to diversify and support
the viability of agricultural operations are listed.
Stratford District Council declared a “Climate Emergency” in July 2019 and
resolved “to contribute to national carbon neutral targets through the
development of their own practices and policies”. In February 2020 SDC’s Cabinet
resolved to set up a Climate Change Panel and adopted recommendations from
the Council’s Climate Emergency Task and Finish Group.
The Council’s position, in summary, is to recognise the issues of climate change
and support actions notably:
• To reduce the Council’s own carbon usage;
• Provide education to residents about energy usage;
• Improve the efficiency of energy usage in both dwellings and vehicles;
• Improve tree planting and biodiversity on council owned land;
• Encourage the use of renewable energy; and
• To develop an energy policy that encourages investment in local and
community renewable energy schemes.
The overriding vision for the Council is that by 2030, Stratford on Avon District is;
‘..be one of the UK’s first carbon-neutral districts supporting zero-carbon
innovation, technology and construction and be at the forefront of climate change
adaption’.
The provision of a solar farm therefore accords with this commitment, however
also needs to be balanced against all other material considerations.
Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019
On 12 June 2019 the Government laid the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (2050
Target Amendment) Order 2019 to amend the Climate Change Act 2008 by
introducing a target for at least a 100% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
(compared to 1990 levels) in the UK by 2050. This is otherwise known as a net
zero target. The draft order would amend the 2050 greenhouse gas emissions
reduction target in the Climate Change Act from at least 80% to at least 100%,
thereby constituting a legally binding commitment to end the UK's contribution to
climate change.
Written Ministerial Statement on Solar Energy: Protecting the local and Global
Environment (March 2015)
This Written Ministerial Statement is referred to in the NPPG. Eric Pickles
(Secretary of State) in March 2015 made a statement on Solar Energy and
protection of the global and local environments. In respect of the use of
agricultural land, Mr Pickles stated that compelling evidence needed to be
provided for solar on Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land.
The applicant has supported this application with an agricultural land classification
report which has demonstrated that the site is grade 3b (Moderate Quality) and
Grade 4 (Poor Quality) agricultural land. Such land does not form Best and Most
Versatile Agricultural Land and therefore accords with the Written Ministerial
Statement.
NPPF
The updated NPPF was published in February 2021 and sets out the Government's
planning policies for England and how these are expected to achieve sustainable
development. Paragraph 152 of the NPPF states that the planning system should
Page 22
support transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate and should
support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.
Paragraph 158 also confirms that applicants are not required to demonstrate the
overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and that local planning
authorities (LPAs) should recognise that even small-scale projects provide a
valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. LPAs are directed to
approve applications if impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.
NPPG
The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) states that authorities should
encourage the effective use of land by focusing development on previously
developed and non-agricultural land. However, if a proposal does involve
Greenfield land, authorities should consider whether the proposed use of any
agricultural land has been shown to be necessary and poorer quality land has
been used in preference to higher quality, and the proposal allows for continued
agricultural use and/or encourages bio-diversity improvements around arrays.
As stated above the application site would utilise land which does not fall under
the Best and Most Versatile category and the applicant has set out that the land
beneath and around the arrays would be reverted to floristically rich grass seed
mixtures which can provide benefits for a range of wildlife and undergrazing for
sheep so agricultural practices can remain.
Overall I consider that the principle of development is acceptable but then must
be balanced against all other material considerations.
Impact on the landscape and character of the area
The site comprises of 10 fields of arable farmland of which 56.8ha would contain
solar panels. The site is located approximately 600m south of Bishop's Itchington
and approximately 600m north-west of Knightcote.
The site is situated between Knightcote Road, Knightcote Bottoms and Gaydon
Road. The north-eastern corner of the site and south-eastern parts of the site are
bound by Knightcote Road, and the southern boundaries of the site are bound by
Knightcote Bottoms. To the north, the site is adjacent to detached dwellings and
associated outbuildings. To the east, in addition to the northern corner and south-
eastern parts of the site being adjacent to Knightcote Road, the central part of
the site is adjacent to Glebe Farm, alongside further isolated dwellings,
agricultural buildings and associated land.
Whilst there are no public rights of way that run through the site, there are a two
which adjoin the south eastern corner, SM85 and SM85a. Additional public
footpaths of note are located approximately 1.9km to the west in Pipers Hill and
Christmas Hill and also the Burton Dassett Country Park is located approximately
2.9km south.
The site is situated within part of National Character Area (NCA) 96 Dunsmore
and Feldon which is predominately a rural agricultural open character. It is
described as an important food producing area of mainly large arable fields and
nucleated settlement pattern. This scale of development is not considered to be
significantly harmful to the whole of this extensive scale NCA.
There are no national nor local landscape designations where this development
site is proposed. This is of some relevance as the NPPF wording (para 174) refers
to protecting and enhancing valued landscapes...’in a manner commensurate with
their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan).’ Warwickshire
Page 23
Landscape Guidelines (WLG) (1993) at a more local, county landscape scale, this
site lies within Feldon’s ‘Vale Farmlands’ local landscape character type (LCT)
(Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines 1990).
At the local landscape ‘Vale Farmlands Landscape Character Type’ (LCT) level, the
SDC Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity Study (LSS) found that, in
landform, scale and enclosure terms, Vale farmlands LCT is ‘intrinsically the
topography is suitable for solar energy, but the close juxtaposition with higher
ground in places increases overlooking and sensitivity. In terms of landcover,
scale and enclosure the renewable energy study identified: Mixed farmland
landcover, medium to large fields, low hedges; occasional field boundary trees
and riparian vegetation on watercourses.’ The study went on to say that ‘All these
assist in giving some enclosure to this flat landscape and hedges could be allowed
to grow which would assist in screening solar energy in places. The shape and
scale of the fields could also be intrinsically suitable for solar energy
development. However there are locations where enclosure is limited and open
and exposure to views, especially from the rising ground, would make these
areas sensitive to solar energy development’.
The field pattern of the application site is generally regular and geometric at a
medium to large scale, which is more compatible with solar energy. Mature
hedgerow trees exist alongside the streamline, in the middle of this proposed site,
but existing enclosure is noticeably more limited in some parts of the north/north
eastern parts of the site.
In terms of sensitivity of site size, the LSS study is of the view that ‘The potential
for solar energy in Vale Farmlands is limited to broader, flatter or very gently
sloping areas where there is potential for hedge and tree screening and away
from the many views from surrounding higher ground..especially.. Burton Dassett
Country Park’…’Smaller scale developments can be located more easily, away
from highly visible areas and settlement’.
The (approximately) north-south field alignment of the proposed site does largely
fall within the broader flatter, more gentle areas with hedge screening. Views
from higher hill fringes to the site are limited and fairly distant and the site is
located away from Bishops Itchington and Knightcote settlements but it is not of
small scale. The LSS matrix indicates that a site of over 25 ha (and also 15-
25ha) in Vale Farmlands would be considered of high/medium sensitivity to solar
development.
The site being proposed is significantly larger than 25ha, being of 82.5ha of
which 56.8ha would be covered with panels. The submitted LVIA acknowledges
the size is over 25 ha and Vale Farmlands being of ‘high/medium sensitivity’ to
such very large solar farms. However it points out that this sensitivity is for the
whole of the Vale Farmlands landscape character type, some of which is in close
proximity to, e.g. the Cotswold AONB, has pronounced topography and other
sensitive factors which are not present at this immediate site’s surroundings. As a
result they consider this particular part of the wider Feldon’s Vale Farmlands to be
closer to medium sensitivity to solar development.
The Council’s landscape officer agrees that the site does fall with a less sensitive
part of Vale Farmlands local landscape character type. Although significant
landscape character change effects would occur at the site and there would be a
level of harm with the Vale Farmlands landscape, as solar development would
then start to become a more characteristic feature found within it. This would not
be across the entire Feldon Vale Farmlands area and the Vale Farmlands is
identified in SDC’s Renewables LSS Study as being the main landscape type
Page 24
within the district that should be the most able to accommodate solar
development without leading to extensive landscape character harm, although
the proposed size is larger than the study recommended.
The proposal would result in relatively few ‘significant’ and localised harmful
visual effects for such a sizeable site. In particular, such visual effects appear to
be at the south eastern /eastern half of the site where hedge enclosure is limited
and where the development is close to public rural roads and footpaths. Views
from the elevated PROW routes within Christmas Hill and Pipers Hill have been
assessed and considered to be limited, occasional side glimpses through a gate or
gap in the mature height intervening vegetation to the proposed solar
development in the vale. Such visual effects are likely to increase in winter
months. Overall given the length and orientation of the routes such side visual
effects from users of PROW’s on this elevated nearby hill would appear to be
sufficiently mitigated by intervening mature vegetation so that they don’t appear
to amount to an overall continuous significant adverse visual effect.
The Landscape officer acknowledges that there is also likely to be new noticeable
visual effect from the addition of solar development into the panoramic view
experienced by from the elevated Burton Dassett Hills Country Park. However the
panoramic view does contain other built forms of development and is not entirely
rural/agricultural. The proposal would be in the mid-long distance and being of a
low level, it would sit within the existing field pattern retaining the hedgerows and
trees on these boundaries. At a medium level scale of effect, to high sensitivity
receptors at this elevated country park viewpoint, the development may arguably
give rise to a significant visual effect at this particular location. However the
applicant has proposed to carry out landscape mitigation measures including
removing panels within the south western field adjoining Knightcote Bottoms,
allowing existing hedgerows to increase in height to at least 3m and additional
hedgerow and tree planting which would assist in reducing the visual impact of
the proposal and level of effect.
The proposals would result in a local landscape character change and some
harmful visual effects however they are relatively localised with the key longer
distance view being from the Burton Dassett Hills. In coming to this conclusion I
acknowledge that these impacts would vary over time and would be dependent
on various factors, including the maturity and mitigation effects of the tree and
hedgerow planting and the seasonal impact. Impacts during the short term
construction and decommissioning phases would also be greater. I also recognise
that the development is for a temporary 40 year period, and is fully reversible.
This harm identified therefore needs to be weighed up in the planning balance
against the benefits of enabling renewable energy in this part of the District at a
time of climate change emergency.
Historic Environment
The site does not lie within a Conservation Area and there are no designated
assets within the site itself however there are a number within the local area.
There are three which have been identified as being potentially affected by the
proposals.
The closest is the Old Town Farmhouse which is a grade II listed building located
approximately 260m to the east of the site. At a distance from the application
site, (approximately 2.9km)but still of relevance, is the Beacon Tower which is a
Grade II and Scheduled Ancient Monument atop the Burton Dassett Hills. Finally
is also the Gredenton Hill Camp which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument to the
east of the Burton Dassett Hill range.
Page 25
The applicant has provided a revised desk-based Heritage Assessment in order to
assess the significance of the proposals, including any contribution made by their
on their settings, in line with para 189 of the NPPF.
The Council’s Conservation officer has assessed this detail and has identified that
with respect to the Old Town Farmhouse, as an historic farmstead the
surrounding agricultural landscape still makes a positive contribution to its
significance however acknowledges that this has been diminished through the
mature roadside tree and hedgerow planting and additional holdings opposite the
site.
With respect to the Beacon Tower, its elevated position and absence of adjacent
structures makes it a prominent feature in the landscape, which is an important
aspect of its special interest. Equally important are the views afforded out across
the landscape from it. The view northwards to Bishops Itchington encompasses
the application site and would be visible from it albeit as part of a much wider
panoramic view.
The applicants Heritage Assessments makes reference to the Inspector for the
Starbold Wind Farm appeal (SDC Planning Ref. APP/J3720/A/13/2193579) which
adjoins part of the western boundary of the site concluded that:
"... the majority of the Tower's significance revolves around its relationship with
the surrounding landscape, principally the Feldon Vale to the north and views to
and from the Tower. The views that contribute to its significance are restricted to
those within about 3km of the Tower ... In relation to views out from the Tower it
is the panoramic nature of these views which relate to its significance"
The applicants assessment considers that the ‘mid-ground of the long-ranging
northerly views from the Beacon Tower will not alter or compromise an ability to
appreciate its elevated position within the local landscape. The proposed
development will alter the character of a part of the outlying lowland agricultural
landscape but it will not obstruct the current range of the view from the Beacon
Tower to the skyline’…….. ‘the turbines of the proposed Starbold Wind Farm were
anticipated to detract from the long-ranging views of the Beacon Tower from
locations in the surrounding landscape, this is not anticipated for the proposed
solar farm’.
With respect to Gredenton Hill Camp the applicant’s heritage assessment
considers that any visibility of the development from the asset would be glimpsed
at mid-range and not compromise the ability to appreciate the elevated position
of the hillfort within the Feldon Vale.
The Council’s Conservation Officer considers that the addition of panels within the
landscape would result in harm to the significance of these assets, judged to fall
in the level of 'less than substantial' using NPPF wording. Consistent with NPPF
and Core Strategy CS.8 requirements, this harm will need to be weighed in the
planning balance against any the benefits of enabling renewable energy in this
part of the District at a time of climate change emergency.
In term of archaeological Heritage Assets, in light of comments received from
Historic England, the applicant has carried out a geophysical assessment of the
site, together with their initial desk based assessment. The survey has identified
there are 3 zones of archaeological interest within the site which comprise
probable late pre-historic settlements and associated field systems to the north
east and south west of the site (referred to as Areas 5 and 9), the remains of
Starbold Farm to the west (Area 6) and possible activity to the south east (Area
11).
In light of these findings Areas 5 and 9 have been excluded from development
and therefore any remains will be preserved in situ. With respect to the
Page 26
remainder of the site trial trenching is proposed where development is proposed
targeting in particular areas 6 and 11, prior to the commencement of any
development. This may in turn determine a need for further archaeological
investigation and or mitigation before construction begins.
It is considered that any archaeological impact can be adequately mitigated
through the inclusion of appropriate conditions requiring a written scheme of
investigation and archaeological evaluation.
These reports have been assessed by Historic England who have raised no
objection to this approach, welcomes the withdrawal of fields 5 and 9 from the
scheme and have withdrawn their prior objection.
I consider that the proposal complies in part with policy CS.8 of the Core
Strategy.
Residential Amenity
The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has carefully assessed the proposals
and raises no objections. Sufficient distance exists between the site and the
nearest residences to ensure that no noise issues will result.
I therefore consider that the proposals will not result in unacceptable harm to the
living conditions of nearby occupiers by virtue of noise or general disturbance.
In order to ensure that the privacy of the nearest neighbours are protected, I
consider that a planning condition to require full camera details to be agreed and
then implemented could overcome such concerns. Subject to such a condition
being complied with, I consider that the proposal complies with policy CS.9 of the
Core Strategy.
Highways Matters and Parking
Construction access will be provided via two separate access junctions off
Knightcote Road on the north-east and south-east site boundary. Both accesses
are existing gated field access which currently serve the existing agricultural land.
Once operational, the northern access will revert to its current arrangement and
the southern access will be retained for operational requirements.
The applicants have supported their application with a Construction Traffic
Management Plan (CTMP) which sets out the construction programme will take
approximately four months (up to 16 weeks) based on the construction of similar
developments. It is estimated that the construction of the solar farm could
generate an overall total of 764 deliveries comprising an average of 8 deliveries
per day or 16 two-way movements per day. However the number of deliveries
will decrease as construction progresses. Once operational the largest vehicle is
anticipated to be no larger than 7.5t.
In of visibility splays the northern access, the CTMP identifies a reduced southern
a ‘Y’ distance of 110m can only be achieved, however the Highway Authority
whilst not objecting to the reduced distance raised concerns due to vegetation
potentially reducing the splay further. The Highway Authority requested the
applicant to demonstrate that they could improve this splay.
The Highway Authority also requested a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit to be carried
with respect to the upgraded accesses into the site and also required revisions to
be made with respect to the construction traffic routes within their CTMP. The
applicants have carried out these revisions to the CTMP, omitting any routing to
occur through Knightcote Bottoms Road, the route via the B4551 contains a
Page 27
weight limit of 7.5t and therefore would not be used by any HGV traffic and the
primary route is via the M40 and Knightcote Road as recommended by the
Highway Authority.
The applicants have also supplied revised proposals with respect to the northern
access splays. Whilst they have submitted revised visibility splay plans, these
require the trimming back of the existing hedgerow. As an alternative they have
proposed a number of alternative measures for the Highway Authority to consider
including having a banksman during the temporary period to ensure no oncoming
traffic is approaching when construction vehicles enter and exit the site, a
temporary Traffic Regulation Order to reduce vehicle speed from 60mph to
30mph in the vicinity of the northern access point during the construction period.
The Highway Authority have assessed these measures confirmed that they
wouldn’t support the use of a banksman within the road due to the speed limit
being above 30mph however have agreed to the details submitted within their
submitted visibility splay plans. The Highway Authority raise no objections to the
proposals in light of these revisions.
The CTMP identifies that connection to the grid would be achieved via
underground cabling along the Knighcote Road and B4551 over a distance of
approximately 2.5km.This would be achieved through temporary road closures
agreed with the Highway Authority and the contractor.
I conclude that the proposal will not result in any unacceptable highway dangers
is acceptable in highway safety terms and would accord with Core Strategy
CS.25.
Water Environment and Flood Risk
The majority of the application site falls within Flood Zone 1 with the exception of
a strip of land located towards the south east of the site which falls within Flood
Zones 2 and 3 which is associated with an un-named watercourse, a tributary to
the River Itchen.
The layout of the proposals places all the control equipment within Flood Zone 1
and only a very small amount of the solar arrays extend into Flood zones 2 and 3.
Only access tracks which are comparable with flood risk in the area extend into
flood zones 2 and 3.
The application has been supported with a Flood Risk Assessment which has been
revised in light of comments received from the LLFA. The ground underneath the
panels is to remain unchanged and only a small amount of impermeable area is
proposed as part of the development which is considered to be negligible. No
formal outfall for surface water runoff from the site is proposed and flows will be
managed as existing through overland flow routing and additional new swales are
considered to provide betterment.
The Environmental Agency have raised no objections to the proposal, subject to
the imposition of a condition relating to surface water drainage.
Warwickshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) whilst agreeing
that the overland flow routes and swales and swale lengths are generally
acceptable have requested additional information to confirm that runoff from the
supporting infrastructure to the panels can be managed with an appropriate
outfall.
Page 28
The applicants have been in discussion with the LLFA and have provided a further
update addressing the issues raised. In essence concluding that the runoff
created with the control equipment will have a minimal effect on runoff rates and
the control equipment will also be surrounded by porous subbase which has
sufficient storage volume to store the 1 in 100 year rainfall event (including
allowance for climate change) with no reliance on infiltration or a positive outflow,
safely managing the runoff and not increasing the flood risk elsewhere.
Subject to the LLFA agreeing to this approach, I consider the development will
accord with the provisions of Policy CS.4 of the Draft Core Strategy.
Natural Environment
The proposals have been supported with an Ecological appraisal and a
Biodiversity Management Plan. WCC Ecology have raised no objections to the
proposal, subject to a recommended condition to ensure the development and
any site clearance works proceed in accordance with the mitigation measures and
ecological enhancement measures detailed in the Biodiversity Management Plan
and also avoidance and protection measures for badgers with the Badger Report.
I concur with this view, and I consider that, subject to the attached
recommended conditions being complied with, that the proposal would not have
an unacceptable harmful ecological impact.
I am, therefore, satisfied that the development complies with Core Strategy
Policy CS.6. I have also given due regard to the provisions of the NERC act.
Climate Change and Sustainable Construction
Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the
transition to a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to
minimising vulnerability and improving resilience and the re-use of existing
resources. Policy CS.2 and SPD Parts D and Q support this stance and the
application is considered to accord with the expectations of the policies.
Other Matters
Cumulative effects
Paragraph 012 of the Planning Practice Guidance states that the approach for
assessing cumulative landscape and visual impact of large scale solar farms is
likely to be the same as assessing the impact of wind turbines. However, in the
case of ground mounted solar panels the impact could be minimal with effective
screening and appropriate topography.
Planning permission has been granted for a solar farm at The Elms off Plough
Lane in Bishops Itchington, referred as Southam Solar Farm. This is located
approximately 1.1km north west of the application site. Due to the topography of
the land and existing landscape cover through mature vegetation, views of the
application site together with this existing solar farm will be extremely difficult to
achieve.
I therefore consider that there would be minimal cumulative impact in terms of
the overall environmental effect of the development.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
This application is not CIL liable
Notification to the Secretary of State
Page 29
In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2017, a copy of the application has been sent to the
Secretary of State.
Conclusion and Planning Balance
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the adopted
Development Plan and associated guidance as to the aims and requirements of
the NPPF. Policy CS.1 states that the Council will take a positive approach to
applications that reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development
contained in the NPPF.
Assessing the application against the relevant development plan policies of this
Council, I consider that the principle of the development would generally accord
with those policies.
The ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF is the presumption in favour of
sustainable development. It gives three dimensions to sustainable development:
social, economic and environmental. These should not be assessed in isolation,
because they are mutually dependant. On this basis, I have concluded that the
proposal is sustainable development.
Assessing the planning balance, I consider that the benefits from the scheme
would be:
The significant increase in the generation of a clean source of renewable
energy.
Would contribute to the Council’s commitment to contribute to national
carbon neutral targets as set out in the Climate Change Declaration.
A source of income to the landowner’s business helping farm
diversification over the lifetime of the development.
The possibility of short-term local employment associated with
construction of the panels, landscaping, and long-term employment
associated with maintenance of the equipment.
Biodiversity enhancements through new habitat formation and new soft
landscaping.
With regards to the potential harm arising from the development, I consider that:
The harm to the landscape and visual impact as seen from the surrounding
area including views from public rights of way, would be moderate and
mitigated to a large degree through additional soft landscaping.
Harm to the significance of the heritage assets previously identified,
judged to fall in the level of 'less than substantial' using NPPF wording
Technical issues from statutory consultees can be dealt with by planning
conditions. The development will not place undue pressure on the local
infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATION
Officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and
NDP and other material considerations. It is for the Committee to weigh and
Page 30
balance these in coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available
evidence.
It is therefore recommended that authority is delegated to Officers to GRANT
permission subject to no objections being received from the LLFA and Highway
Authority subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and
numbering of which is delegated to officers:
1. Development to commence within 3 years.
2. Temporary permission – maximum of 40 years only with panels to be
removed prior to the end of this period.
3. Development in accordance with approved plans.
4. Notification to be provided when electricity is first exported to the grid.
5. Approval of Construction Method Plan
6. Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted soft landscaping
plans, prior to the commencement of any phase of the development,
submission of a soft landscaping scheme for of the development to be
submitted to the LPA and approved in writing and thereafter shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details within the first planting
season following the first implementation of the development.
7. Details of Tree/hedgerow protection details
8. Details of colour, materials and external appearance of the camera poles,
cameras, inverter(s), transfer station(s), collecting station(s), storage
container(s).
9. Details of CCTV cameras direction and field of vision
10. Full details of the design, height and colour of boundary treatments.
11. Details of any lighting to be agreed and implemented.
12. Written Scheme of Archaeological investigation and archaeological
evaluation
13. Notwithstanding the soft landscape details submitted, submission of a soft
landscape scheme to be submitted
14. Any existing and proposed hedgerow planting that is removed, uprooted,
severely damaged, destroyed or dies within 40 years following the
commencement of development shall be replaced by the approved type
planting and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved
details as identified in condition 7.
15. All hedgerows and tree planting identified on the approved soft
landscaping details shall be retained in situ for a period of 40 years
following the commencement of development, unless agreed in writing by
the District Planning Authority.
16. Hedgerow management Plan
17. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the avoidance and protection measures for badgers contained in the Badger Report by Avian Ecology, version 3, report dated 25/09/2020.
18. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance
with the ecological mitigation and enhancement measures contained in the
Biodiversity Management Plan by Avian Ecology, version 2, report dated
18/09/2020.
19. Within 6 months of cessation of use of panels for electricity generation,
panels and associated apparatus and structures shall be removed, and
land restored to a condition to be firstly approved.
20. Within 6 months of cessation of use of panels for electricity generation,
Decommissioning Management Plan to be approved, including safeguards
Page 31
for protected species, a HGV routeing plan, details of traffic management
measures and measures to prevent mud and debris on the public highway,
and identify suitable areas for the parking of contractors and visitors and
the loading of materials. 21. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted
Flood Risk Assessment by PFA Consulting, Issue 2, dated 5 October 2020
and the following mitigation measure it details:
. All sensitive control equipment and solar arrays to be sited within
Flood Zone 1 - Section 4.49.
This mitigation measure shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and
subsequently in accordance with the scheme's timing / phasing
arrangements. Measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained
thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.
22. Any conditions as recommended by the LLFA
23. No construction shall be undertaken until the existing northern vehicular
access to the site has been remodelled in accordance with drawing number P20-0362 FIGURE 3. 24. No construction shall be undertaken until visibility splays have
been provided to the northern vehicular access to the site in accordance
with drawing number P20-0362 FIGURE 3 and Designer’s Response document P20-0362 dated May 2021. No structure, tree or shrub shall be
erected, planted or retained within the splays exceeding, or likely to exceed at maturity, a height of 0.6 metres above the level of the public
highway carriageway. 25. No construction shall be undertaken until the existing southern vehicular
access to the site has been remodelled in accordance with drawing number P20-0362 FIGURE 5. 26. No construction shall be undertaken until visibility splays have been
provided to the southern vehicular access to the site in accordance with
drawing number P20-0362 FIGURE 5. No structure, tree or shrub shall be
erected, planted or retained within the splays exceeding, or likely to exceed at maturity, a height of 0.6 metres above the level of the public
highway carriageway. 27. Within six months of the commencement of the development hereby
permitted, all parts within the public highway of the proposed northern
bellmouth access shall be closed and a verge crossing access shall be reinstated in accordance with the standard specification of the Highway
Authority. 28. No construction shall be undertaken until a Construction Management Plan
is submitted to and approved by both the Planning and Highway
Authorities. The Construction Management Plan shall be in general accordance with approved Construction Traffic Management Plan rev A,
shall contain details of measures to prevent mud and debris on the public
highway, and shall identify suitable areas for the parking of contractors
and visitors and the unloading and storage of materials.
Notes:
1) NPPF Note
2) Environment Agency Note: We recommend that any bridging structure built
over the watercourses uses a clear span bank top to bank top design or oversized
culvert and ensure that flood risk is not impacted. A continuous watercourse bed
of a minimum of 600mm depth should also be maintained for the length of the
watercourses to reduce the crossings impact on wildlife.
3) Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Note
4) WCC Footpath Notes
Page 32
a) Public footpaths SM85 and SM85a must remain open and available
for public use at all times unless closed by legal order, so must not be
obstructed by parked vehicles or by materials during works
b) The applicant must make good any damage to the surface of any
public right of way caused during works
c) Any disturbance or alteration to the surface of any public right of
way requires the prior authorisation of Warwickshire County Council's
Rights of Way team, as does the installation of any new gate or other
structure on the public right of way
d) Any new vegetation must be planted at least two metres away from the
edge of any public right of way to help ensure that mature growth will not
encroach onto the public right of way.
5) Section 184 Highway Note
Robert Weeks
HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES
Page 33
This page has been left intentionally blank
approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287
Scale 1:19,500
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
N̂orth
20/02839/FUL - Land Near To Bishops Itchington
approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287
Scale 1:25,000
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
N̂orth
20/02839/FUL - Land Near To Bishops Itchington
Page 35
Item 4
Appendix 1
This page has been left intentionally blank
DELEGATED REPORT
Application Ref. 20/02385/OUT
Site Address: Lock up Garages, Hodgson Road, Stratford-upon-Avon
Description of
Development:
Outline application for up to 5 dwellings including
demolition of existing garages and the redevelopment of
existing hardstanding with all matters reserved
(appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) except
access (to be determined)
Applicant: Mr Clive Stanton
Reason for Referral
to Committee: Ward Member Objection
Case Officer: Amy Flute
Presenting Officer: Amy Flute
Ward Member: Councillor J Fojtik
Town/Parish
Council: Stratford upon Avon Town Council
Description of Site
Constraints:
BUAB
SDC Land
Summary of
Recommendation REFUSE
Page 37
Item 5
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Development Plan
Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)
Stratford-upon-Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan (2011-2031)
Material Considerations
Central Government Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021
National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
National Design Guide 2019
Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance
Development Requirements SPD
Other Material Consideration(s) and Emerging Plans
Climate Change Declaration by District Council
Emerging Site Allocations Plan
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY None
REPRESENTATIONS
During the lifetime of the application further consultations have taken place. The
application has been determined based on the details which have been issued for re-
consultation.
Ward Member Cllr J Fojtik Object (17.02.2021)
“I OBJECT this planning application for the following reasons.
The collection of bins is not possible due to the width of the entrance to the planning site
and the distance from the planning site is too far to wheel bins to the entrance which
would cause a hazard as there is no safe place them for collection.
For some years there have been very few vehicle movements as the garages have not
been used. Local children along with family members use this entrance to safely walk to
school. This brings them out at the entrance to Thomas Jolyffee School. The school has
expanded over the years therefore the use of this safe route has also been used more
regularly. A ramp was installed 4 years ago at the rear entrance to Tesco. This is close to
the entrance of the planning site, this in turn has created extra school pedestrian traffic
to use this route. The footpath has been used for more than 70 years, and certainly well
used by school children since the school was built over 60 years ago.
Therefore the only safe way to allow pedestrian access is to build a footpath alongside a
road for vehicular access. The entrance to the planning application site is not wide
enough to accommodate a footpath and a road.
Page 38
The entrance is difficult to pull out of as Hodgeson Road is very narrow therefore
creating visibility issues particularly if cars are parked outside adjacent houses on the
road.
Also the Hodgeson Green which is the large green space in the middle and has large
numbers of children playing in the park, on the football pitch and on the basketball pitch.
The safety issue of cars pulling out on to such a narrow road with limited visibility would
cause great concern and worry for local residents.”
Stratford Town Council Support (12.07.2021)
Inclusion of bin store noted on illustrative layout
Subject to bin collection issue being resolved satisfactorily
Support principle of development particular the provision of 2 beds.
Third Party Representations
The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.
52 letters of objection have been received raising the following matters:
Lack of footpath
Access concerns – inability for refuse/emergency vehicles to access site
No visitor parking – pressure on surrounding roads
No passing bays
Inadequate turning
Highway safety concerns for pedestrian users access not wide enough for
cars/pedestrians
Limited visibility
Out of character
Loss of light
Loss of privacy
Overlooking
Fear of crime
No public benefits
One additional comment was received during the re-consultation the following additional
comments were made:
True representation of footfall not considered
Footfall risk has grown compared to when site was used as garages
Signage will not reduce the risk of collision
Visibility splay does not take into account row of parked cars
CONSULTATIONS
Warwickshire County Council Highways (WCC Highways) email to Officer (19.07.2021)
Objection maintained
It is now the responsibility of the designer to prepare and submit an Exception
Report to set out the case why the access road should remain at its present width
(noting that the hedge is to be pruned/removed and that signage and lining is to
be amended/provided).
The Exception Report will then be submitted for consideration and potential
approval by WCC (management).
Premature to remove the Highway Authority’s objection to the planning
application in advance of the submission and review of the Exception Report.
Previous comments
Page 39
Object (29.06.2021)
Drawing T21515.001 illustrates that visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres
are achievable. A site visit has also been carried out and established that the
above mentioned visibility splays are conducive.
Vehicle swept path analysis for all vehicles that could need access should be
carried out, especially for blue light service vehicles. A fire engine is the largest
blue light vehicle that may need access to the site and may need access for a
reason other than fire, therefore the Highway Authority consider fire appliance
access to be necessary.
The Highway Authority recognise that the application site has been used
historically for the parking of vehicles, therefore the existing access route has
encountered significant use in previous years. However, subsequent findings
reveal that more recently there has been a significant reduction in the use of the
garages. The access also couples as a shared access for pedestrians and provides
access from Hodgson Road to Kennett Close. Drawing P002 Rev B illustrates that
an extension of the footpath is proposed along the southern edge of the site,
however given the width of the access it cannot be extended along the access to
Hodgson Road. The Highway Authority recognise that WCC Safety Team have
accepted the auditors problem and the recommendation is appropriate, and will
be subject to comment at the Stage 2 Detailed Design RSA, however the
Designers Response only indicates “vegetation along the eastern side of the
access will be regularly maintained as part of the site management”. The Highway
Authority recommend that this is extended along both sides of the access and
that forward visibility around the carriageway bend which leads into the site for a
vehicle traveling at 20mph should be provided, to ensure pedestrian safety.
It is a requirement that the Design Team in conjunction with the Project Sponsor
prepare a Response Report, in response to the recommendations made within the
Audit Review.
Email to Officer requesting Road Safety Audit (20.04.2021)
Object (11.02.2021)
The application site has been used historically for the parking of vehicles,
therefore the existing access route has encountered significant use. The proposal
will result in lower or comparable vehicle movements than what would be
generated from full use of the garages. The access width is suitable for the low
volume of vehicle movements.
Refuse walking distance for the collection of wheeled bins and walking distances
for householders as prescribed by Part P of Stratford - on - Avon's Development
Requirements SPD, adopted July 2019 cannot be achieved.
The Highway Authority are concerned that if any bins were to be left along
Hodgson Road they could block the access and this would have a detrimental
impact on public highway safety.
Achievable visibility splays from the access should be illustrated.
It is recommended that a footway is provided within the site to enable a safe and
convenient passage, which would connect with the existing footway to the east of
the application which links to Maple Grove.
Email correspondence (13.04.2021)
Refuse collection: The proposed securing by condition of private refuse collection
from the site is acceptable. A suitable condition would be required stating that the
private collection arrangement would be in perpetuity. The Waste Collection
Strategy should include details of the proposed vehicles to be used and be
supported by swept path analysis showing that these can turn within the site such
that they can leave and re-enter the public highway in a forward gear.
Page 40
Footpath: It is noted that the provision of a footpath linking the development with
Maple Grove could be secured by condition. However, the proposed development
plans should be updated to clearly indicate the footpath location and dimensions
and the associated link to Maple Grove.
Visibility Splays: These are acceptable, noting that satellite navigation equipment
recorded traffic speeds along Hodgson Road are low (<10 miles/hr on average)
and that there have been no recorded road traffic (personal injury) collisions
along Hodgson Road over the period since 2015, with 2 recorded collisions during
the period 1990 - 2015.
Warwickshire County Council Planning Authority None received
Warwickshire County Council Ecology (WCC Ecology) No objection (09.02.2021)
WCC Rights of Way No objection (23.02.2021) (21.05.2021)
No recorded public right of way crossing or immediately abutting the site.
SDC Environmental Health No objection (19.02.2021)
Contamination and remediation condition
SDC Streetscene Object (05.02.2021)
Exceeds Part P carry distance for a bin collection point from highway
Potential for nuisances and obstruction of footway/driveway
SDC Operation Council Land (10.03.2021)
No issues with the proposal. SDC is selling the land to the applicant‘s client.
Seven Trent No objection subject to condition and note (23.02.2021)
Surface and foul drainage
Western Power None received
ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES
Principle of Development
The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan, unless
material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and Section 70(2)
TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a key material planning
consideration.
The site is a former garage site accessed off Hodgson Road within the BUAB of Stratford.
Against CS.15 Stratford is the Main Town in the Distract and is a suitable location for
housing development. Policy CS.16 states that Stratford will provide up to approximately
3,500 homes. As of 31st March 2020, Stratford had 3,434 homes built or committed. I
consider that a further five dwellings would be acceptable in this location.
Policy H1 of the Stratford upon Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan also guides
housing to within the BUAB of Stratford where it will be supported in principle. I also
note that Policy H4 is supportive of the use of brownfield land.
I find that the principle of housing in this location is acceptable with regards to Core
Strategy Policies CS.15, CS.16 and NDP Polices H1 and H4.
Page 41
Landscape, Design and Distinctiveness
The application is an outline application with all matters reserved except for access. As
such, the final scale, layout, appearance and landscaping of the site is not for
consideration under the current application. Nevertheless, an indicative site plan showing
a building block to comprise 4no. 2 bed maisonettes and 1no. 2 bed house has been
provided. The existing access of Hodgson Road would be utilised. This is 3.5m at its
narrowest point.
Whilst the scheme shown on the indicative drawings is subject to change at reserved
matters stage, it does provide a helpful guide in assessing the suitability of the site to
achieve an appropriate design of development.
The indicative site plan shows that the plot could comfortably accommodate four
maisonettes and one traditional dwelling in one single building block over two storeys.
Spacing around the built form could be retained to avoid a cramped appearance and the
properties could be designed to respect the adjacent built form.
Notwithstanding this view, I do have concerns that five traditional dwellings may result
in overdevelopment of the site and have a knock-on effect on neighbouring amenity,
access and other associated issues. Therefore, if permission is forthcoming, I consider
that a condition should be imposed that limits the future design of the scheme at
reserved matters so that the dwellings permitted shall not exceed 4no. 2 bed
flats/maisonettes and 1no. 2 bed traditional dwelling as indicated within the application
form and indicative plans submitted for this proposal. Subject to the inclusion of such
condition, I am therefore satisfied that a suitable layout could be achieved at the site at
reserved matters stage to respect its context.
No indicative plans of the buildings design have been provided. It is suggested within the
submitted Design and Access Statement that the storey heights should not exceed two
storey. Although I note that the overall design and size of the property is subject to
detail at Reserved Matters Stage, I do consider that it is appropriate to condition that the
building height is restricted so that the proposed ridge of any dwellings to be submitted
at Reserved Matters, does not exceed two storey in height which is the character of the
surrounding built form.
I also note that the proposed redevelopment of the site will improve natural surveillance
between properties and reduce fear of crime.
I am satisfied that a suitably designed scheme could be achievable at reserved matters
stage to accord with policies CS.5, CS.9, CS.15 and AS.1 of the Stratford-on-Avon
District Core Strategy 2011-2031 and Polices H4, BE1, BE2 and BE5 of the Stratford-
upon-Avon Neighborhood Development Plan 2011-2031.
Residential Amenity
The indicative layout of the proposed dwellings shows a building block with its
frontage/access to the south. A communal garden will serve the maisonettes and a
single garden will serve the dwelling. I am mindful that all plans submitted as part of this
application are indicative only and are subject to change at reserved matters stage.
The proposed layout shows that 4 maisonettes and one dwelling could be reasonably
designed on the site. In addition, the dwellings would benefit from outdoor amenity
space, which would comfortably exceed the minimum size as outlined in the
Development Requirements SPD.
It is considered that each property could be designed to benefit from sufficient natural
light levels. Furthermore, the spacing between each property and the surrounding built
form could be designed to ensure sufficient outlook for future residents of each property.
Page 42
It is therefore considered that adequate residential amenity standards would be achieved
for future occupants of each property.
Using the positioning of the proposed dwelling on the indicative site plan as a guide, a
rear to side separation distance of approximately 12.8m will be achieved between the
proposed building block and the dwelling to the north No. 15 Maple Grove. I note part D
of the Development Requirements SPD Requires 13m for 2 storey side to rear separation
distances and I consider there is scope for this distance to be achieved. A side to side
relationship will exist with No.14 and the proposed development will have to ensure it
doesn’t breach any 45/25 degree sightlines when taken from the their nearest habitable
room windows. I consider this can be achieved. I consider that there is sufficient
separation distance between the application site and No.25 and 26 Hodgson Road which
will have a rear to side relationship.
I also note my Environmental Health Officer has not objected subject to land
contamination and remediation conditions.
As such, I consider a scheme could be easily devised at reserved matters stage that
would provide a suitable standard of residential amenity for future occupiers of the
dwelling and the amenity of existing neighbouring properties so that the development
would not result in an unacceptable level of overbearing impact on these neighbours nor
adversely impact through overshadowing, overlooking or loss of light.
Highways Matters and Parking
Access to the site is being considered at this stage.
The plan shows that the existing access will be utilised. WCC Highways have noted that
the application site has been used historically for the parking of vehicles; therefore the
existing access route has encountered significant historical use. In their initial comment
WCC stated that the proposal will result in lower or comparable vehicle movements than
would be generated from full use of the garages. Notwithstanding the above, an
objection was raised by WCC, raising concerns relating to refuse collection, visibility
splays and pedestrian access. Following officer correspondence with WCC in respect of
the above concerns, a Road Safety Audit (RSA) was required to demonstrate that the
change of use from occasional garages trips to residential usage would in fact be safe.
An RSA has subsequently been submitted by the applicant for consideration by WCC
Highways, further information and responses from WCC have been received however
WCC have not been able to confirm they are satisfied with the proposed arrangements.
WCC Highways have required an Exception Report which the applicant has recently
provided. This sets out the case why the access road may acceptably remain at its
present width (noting that the hedge is to be pruned/removed and that signage and
lining is to be amended/provided). At the time of writing this report, officers are awaiting
further response from WCC. The findings of the report and an updated view from
Highways will be reported to Members via the update sheet.
I note that WCC Highways alongside the SDC Streetscene and the Ward Member have
raised concerns with refuse collection. Due to the location of the site along a narrow
access Part P of the Development Requirements SPD is unable to be met. I consider that
refuse collection will need to be secured via a private waste collection service. Full
details of such management can be secured by condition which should ensure the refuse
collection is managed in perpetuity.
The proposal seeks a total of five two bed dwellings. Whilst the final location of parking
spaces may change when the final layout is considered, the indicative site plan shows
that the site is able to accommodate the associated 10 parking spaces and one visitor
parking space to accord with Part O of the SPD.
Page 43
WCC Rights of Way do not consider that there are public rights of way crossing or
immediately abutting the site.
Although I consider that a refuse collection management strategy can be conditioned
and that the site will contain sufficient parking, at this stage I cannot be satisfied that
the Applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the access to and from the site will be
safe for all users. Therefore, on balance, pending confirmation from WCC that they
accept the above-mentioned Exceptions Report, I am not satisfied that the proposal
accords with Core Strategy Policies CS.9, CS.26 and NDP Policy BE5.
Water Environment and Flood Risk
The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk of flooding) where development is
considered acceptable in principle. Given the location of the proposed dwellings, I do not
consider that they would result in an unacceptable risk to flooding.
Full details of provision for the drainage of foul and surface water, to take into account
SUDs principles, should be provided at reserved matters stage and this detail can be
requested by condition.
Natural Environment
A bat assessment was submitted with the application. It found negligible potential for
roosting. No nesting birds or opportunities for nesting birds were found. The County
Council Ecologist has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to make. The proposal
is considered to accord with CS.6 and relevant NDP Polices.
Trees
A tree survey was submitted with the application which included trees within the site and
those that abut the site. The report states that G1, T1 and G5 will be removed and are
not of sufficient amenity to warrant their retention. Where access will overlap T2 and T3
RPA’s a load bearing cellular confinement system can be used. Pruning will need to take
place to G2. As the trees are outside of the Applicants ownership they will require the
landowners permission to facilitate such works. I note that any future landscaping details
to be submitted at Reserved Matters can secure replacement landscaping. Subject to the
development being carried out in accordance with the submitted Tree Survey &
Preliminary Arboricultural Implications Assessment I consider the proposal accords with
CS.5 and NDP Policy BE5.
Climate Change and Sustainable Construction
Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the transition to
a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to minimising vulnerability
and improving resilience and the re-use of existing resources. Policy CS.2 and SPD Parts
D, V and Q support this stance and the application is considered to accord with the
expectations of the policies and guidance including the requirement for water butts,
recycling points and EV charging points and SUDS (where appropriate).
Further consideration of measures to reduce the carbon footprint of each dwelling shall
be considered at reserved matters stage through the submission of a sustainability
statement.
Other Matters
Fire Safety
Given the restricted access and that compliance for emergency vehicles is unlikely to be
met, having discussed with Building Control Officers, I consider that it is reasonable to
condition that all properties would include domestic sprinkler systems to BS9251
standards and would be fitted by an accredited BADSA installer.
Page 44
Page 45
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
This application is seeking outline planning consent and is not liable for CIL.
SDC Landownership
During the course of the application, it has been identified that SDC are selling land to
the Applicant and SDC have no objection to this proposal.
Conclusion and Planning Balance
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the adopted
Development Plan and associated guidance as to the aims and requirements of the NPPF.
Policy CS.1 states that the Council will take a positive approach to applications that
reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF.
In regard to the above the application has not satisfactorily demonstrated that there will
be safe access and egress by pedestrians and vehicles and as such it cannot be
concluded that there will not be a highway safety conflict as a result of the use if the site
for residential contrary to Core Strategy Polices CS.9, CS.26 and BE5 of the NDP. In
conclusion the application cannot be supported.
RECOMMENDATION
Officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and NDP
and other material considerations. It is for the Committee to weigh and balance these in
coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available evidence.
It is therefore recommended that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. Insufficient information has been submitted to conclude that the development will
not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. In particular it has not been
demonstrated that a safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all
users thus there is the potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflict along the
access point to serve the development. The applicant has therefore failed to
demonstrate that that any adverse highways impact raised by a development are
suitably mitigated. The proposal is contrary to Policies CS.9, CS.26 of the
Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031) and Policy BE5 of the
Stratford-upon-Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan (2011-2031).
Notes
1. NPPF
Robert Weeks
HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES
Page 46
")
D
")
D
")
")
D
D
")
D
")
2
4
7
1
6
1
8
1
9
3
2
7
9
1
1219
PO
27
27
El
21
El
3631
13
11El
17
15
34 43
1422
12
24
18
10
19
31
113
24a
185
161
114
132
131
164
149
128
173
24b
169
167
126
157
121
TCB
175
105
141
111
168
197
169A
Post
167A
14 to
L Twr
43.9m
57.0m
57.6m
L Twr
52.4m
L Twr
54.6m
L Twr
Posts
1 to 7
Sub Sta
1 to 12
Sub Sta
Sub Sta
Ward Bdy
Play Area
211 to 221
Superstore
203 to 209
El Sub Sta
223 to 237
El Sub Stas
MAPLE GROVE
CLOPTON MEWS
CLOPTON ROAD
HODGSON ROAD
KENNETT CLOSE
Oakdene Court
Playing Field
Jolyffe Court
The Maybird Centreapprox - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287
Scale 1:2,500
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
N̂orth
20/03585/OUT - Hodgson Road, Stratford-upon-Avon
approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287
Scale 1:25,000
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
N̂orth
20/03585/OUT - Hodgson Road, Stratford-upon-Avon
Page 47
Item 5
Appendix 1
This page has been left intentionally blank
DELEGATED REPORT
Application Ref. 20/02489/FUL
Site Address: Riverside Caravan Park, Tiddington Road
Tiddington, Stratford-upon-Avon, CV37 7AB
Description of
Development:
Continued use of land as a caravan site (variation of
planning permissions 60/11/15, 72/7/4 and
04/00151/VARY).
Applicant Avon Estates Ltd
Case Officer: Sarah MacPherson
Presenting Officer: Sarah MacPherson
Ward Member: Councillor K Rolfe
Town/Parish
Council: Stratford-upon-Avon
Reason for
Committee: Ward member objection
Description of Site
Constraints:
Area of restraint
Flood zones 2 and 3
NDP
Summary of
Recommendation GRANT
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Development Plan
Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)
Stratford-on-Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018
Material Considerations
Central Government Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021
National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
National Design Guide 2019
Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance
Development Requirements SPD
Page 49
Item 6
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY
Reference Number
Proposal Decision and
date
18/00563/LDP
Use of the site for the stationing of 266
caravans for residential occupation between 1st
April or the first Thursday before Easter Sunday
(whichever is the sooner) and 31st October
inclusive each year
Permitted
29.11.2018
04/00151/VARY
Variation to conditions to permit use of caravan
park for holiday purposes between 1 April or the
first Thursday before Easter Sunday (whichever
is sooner) and 31 October inclusive each year.
Approved
12.03.2004
96/00145/PDEV Siting of 40 touring caravans Permitted
11.01.1996
75/01005/FUL Siting of 2 no. caravans for use as a shop and a
store ancillary to the use as a shop Granted
24.12.1975
72/2/4
The siting of 25 additional caravans in
accordance with the above mentioned
application and plans submitted therewith
Granted
30.10.72
60/11/15 The siting of 90 caravans in accordance with the
above-mentioned application Granted
14.03.1961
There are several other applications relating to other parcels within the
applicant’s ownership, the full details of which are available online. Withdrawn or
undetermined applications have also been omitted.
REPRESENTATIONS
Ward Member – Cllr Rolfe
Objection 07/11/20
- The main reason for objection is that these 180 permanent (10 months)
homes will create a settlement of homes placed on tarmac displacing
grassed areas which protect to some extent the floodplain. By placing
these on tarmac with associated parking etc. it will increase the run off on
the water and increase the risk of flooding
- There will be a further increase of around 1-2 cars per property putting a
he strain onto the Tiddington Road and have an impact on the only access
and egress for this development
- There will also be an impact on health services
- It will significantly change the aspect from a touring caravan park to a
more permanent home site
- This proposal will change the streetscene aspect on the Tiddington Road
particularly during the winter months when the leaves are off the trees
Parish/Town Council
No representation 26/10/2020
Third Party Representations
The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.
10 letters of objection have been received raising the following matters:
Inaccuracies or omissions in the application
Page 50
Impact on flooding – increase in hardstanding and loos of grassed areas
Change in character of site
Impact on local village and amenities
Visual impact
Loss of touring caravan facility and the economic benefits this tourism
generates
Impact on wildlife
Impacts on traffic
Objectors have also sent various photographs of the site to illustrate their
concerns regarding flooding. An objector has also submitted an annotated version
of the indicative site plan showing 266 static caravans. The annotations point out
what they consider to be errors or issues with the plan.
A letter of objection has also been received from local groups the Tiddington
Village Residents Association, raising the following matters:
Proposal favours a change from touring static caravans
Concern that occupation would be almost permanently residential in
nature
Increase in traffic
Impact on village and local services
Impacts on flooding
Reduction in grassed areas
Visual impacts
Contrary to CS and NDP policies
Other non-planning related comments were also received including fears for
future development, which would be assessed on its own merits and is not a
material consideration.
CONSULTATIONS
Warwickshire County Council Highways (WCC Highways)
No objection 11/11/20
Environment Agency
No objection 07/12/20
- Recognises that reduction in number of caravans on site presents a
betterment in flood risk
- Necessary to ensure the stated flood mitigation measures are
implemented
- Conditions and advisory notes recommended
Environmental Health (EHO)
No objection 21/10/20
Warwickshire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)
No objection 29/10/20
Warwickshire County Council Ecology (WCC Ecology)
No representation 02/11/20
ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES
Principle of Development
The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and
Page 51
Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a
key material planning consideration.
The principle of the use of the site for these purposes has already been assessed
and approved under previous applications on this site, and remains extant. As
such, the use of the site as a caravan site does not need to be re-assessed. The
assessment under this application is limited to the proposal to increase the
months of occupation from 7 to 10.
Policy CS.24 of the Core Strategy sets a strategic objective for the Development
Plan that ‘the value of tourism to the district will have substantially increased’ and
it provides a number of policy considerations pertinent to this proposal including
inter alia that:
‘The role of tourism will be increased by supporting the growth and improvement
of existing attractions’, that,
‘schemes for visitor attractions and overnight accommodation should, wherever
possible, be located within the urban areas of Stratford-upon-Avon', and that;
‘All forms of tourism and leisure development should be sensitive to the character
of the area and designed to maximise the benefits for the communities affected in
terms of job opportunities and support for local services.’
I note in this respect that the application site falls within the Built-up Area
Boundary for Stratford-Upon-Avon
Before beginning the assessment, it is necessary to set out firstly what the
established lawful use of the site is, secondly what is proposed, and thirdly, what
the material considerations are.
The current lawful use of the site edged red on the location plan (parcel A) was
assessed in 18/00563/LDP, which recognised that it would be lawful to position
266 residential caravans, of any type, within the site and that these could be
used for any residential purpose – holiday or longer term – within the 1st April or
1st Thursday before Easter to the end of October time period in any given year (7
months). Adherence to emergency evacuation procedures as set out in a 2016
document entitled ‘Stratford Caravans Avon Estates Ltd: Flood Risk for Avon
Park, Rayford Park, Riverside Park 1st December 2016’ is also cited as a
limitation within the decision.
To reiterate, the salient points in respect of the extant use of the caravan park
are as follows:
266 caravans are permitted
There is no control over the type of caravan which may occupy the site
(both tourers or static caravans could occupy the site in any proportion)
Caravans of any type may remain on the site for 12 months
Occupation of the caravans on the site is restricted to 7 months
Adherence to emergency evacuation procedures is required
The proposal before members is to extend the occupancy period from 7 to 10
months. In addition, the number of units would be reduced from the 266 units
recognised in the LDP to 180 units. The site would remain in holiday use and the
units would not be permitted to be anyone’s sole or main residence, or in
Page 52
permanent residential use. No restriction is proposed with regards to the ratio of
static and touring caravans.
There is no support in policy for permanent residential accommodation in this
location, as the site lies outside of any BUAB. As such, it is important that the site
remains in holiday use only, as is proposed and this would necessarily be secured
by planning condition.
Accordingly, I am satisfied that the development proposed supports the
objectives of the Development Plan and accords with the requirements of the
Core Strategy subject to an assessment of the material considerations including
whether the proposal is sensitive to the character of the area and designed to
maximise the benefits for the communities affected in terms of job opportunities
and support for local services.
Turning to the material considerations in this application, they are:
Visual impact
Residential amenity
Water environment and flood risk
Highways matters and parking
Economic impacts
Visual Impacts
This site is visible via long range views from Tiddington Road. The site is set back
considerably from the road, being 120m distant at the closest point. The site is
most visible during the winter months when the trees are not in leaf, but it is
generally not obtrusive within the landscape, and is not a dominant feature as
one walks or drives down Tiddington Road. It is acknowledged that at present,
while there is no restriction on the type of caravan stationed there, the site is
largely used as a touring caravan site, so it is often less visually impactful than if
it were predominantly static units.
Overall, the site is not visually a dominant feature in the landscape, and while an
extension to the occupancy period would mean that the site is in use for an
extended period when leaf coverage is lowest, the impacts would still not be
visually significant. Officers consider that the proposal would not result in a
significant change in the character of the site given the lawful position in respect
of the extant permission. The proposal is considered neutral in this regard. The
proposal is therefore considered to accord with policies CS.5, CS.9 and CS.13 of
the Core Strategy, and policies BE1 and BE2 of the NDP.
Residential Amenity
In terms of residential amenity, one should have regard to the likely impact on
neighbouring properties. In making this assessment, it is noted that the
Environmental Health department has not raised any concerns or objections. I
also note that while local residents have objected to the proposal for a variety of
reasons, impact on their residential amenity is not given as a concern. I find that
overall the site has no negative impacts on the neighbours in terms of noise and
disturbance, and is in accordance with policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy in that
regard.
Water Environment and Flood Risk
In assessing the impact that this proposal would have on the water environment
and flood risk, it is important to remember that this application does not propose
any alterations to the existing levels of hardstanding. The existing lawful use of
Page 53
the site also does not impose any restriction on the level of hardstanding, or the
ratio of static to touring caravans.
The application before members expressly seeks to reduce the overall number of
caravans on site but would extend the occupancy period. This extension of
occupancy period would increase the period of occupation during the winter
months when the risk of flooding is highest. The proposal would not however
have any impact on the types of caravans or the ratio of caravan types lawfully
allowed to occupy the site or the duration that such caravans would be permitted
to remain on site (which is already 12 months and will remain so).
The environment agency have been consulted on this application and raised no
objection, subject to recommended conditions and advisory notes. The conditions
require that development is carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood
Risk Assessment, and must not be commenced until anchoring and tethering
details of the caravans have been submitted and approved. An emergency
evacuation procedure should also be submitted and approved.
It is noted that should the applicant decide to increase the proportion of static
caravans on site, as they have indicated they intend to, it may increase the
hardstanding. As such, officers recommend a condition ensuring that, prior to
implementation, a site plan indicating the location and extent of all structures,
hardstandings and infrastructure is submitted, as well as a condition requiring
that all parking spaces are permeable.
Subject to the above conditions and notes I find that the application accords with
CS.4.
Highways Matters and Parking
The highways Authority has been consulted on this application and has raised no
objection.
Should permission for this scheme be forthcoming I note that there would be a
reduction in the maximum permitted number of caravans on site at any one time.
I consider therefore that there would be a corresponding reduction in the peak
number of vehicles likely to attend the site at any one time. The extension to the
occupancy period will not have a detrimental impact on the traffic in the locality,
it would simply mean that the ‘on-season’ level of traffic is experienced for
longer, but will be less in terms of traffic volume, due to the reduction in number
of units. I do not find that the scheme proposed gives rise to any unacceptable
impacts in terms of highways or parking, and is therefore in accordance with
CS.26.
Economic Impacts
It is noted that the proposal may, hypothetically, lead to a change in character of
the site and the type of holiday maker it attracts. Information has been submitted
to show that Avon Estates intends to fill the site with static caravans in the next
four years, to the extent that their existing permission permits. At present that
would mean up to 266 static caravans for 7 months of the year. If granted and
implemented, this application would permit no more than 180 caravans for 10
months of the year. It is likely that these units would be available to buy for use
as a personal holiday home. There is some discussion in the objections received
that this could lead to visitors making longer, or more regular stays at the site,
and therefore less likely to spend money in the town as they are already familiar
with its attractions and amenities. This would be in contrast to a customer who
might visit the touring site for a short holiday and would visit many attractions,
ships and restaurants during that time as they are only there for a short period.
However, it is noted that no evidence has been presented or found during the
course of this application to suggest that this will occur at all. No evidence which
speaks to the extent to which it is likely that such a change would have a
noticeable impact on the economy and no evidence that the extended holiday
period would not substantially outweigh such considerations. Visitors to the park
Page 54
will still be holidaymakers, and will still generate tourist income for the town and
wider district. In fact the period of tourism will increase as a result of the
extension to occupancy period. It is also noted that individuals who purchase a
holiday home on these sites often rent them out to other holidaymakers for short
stays, via providers such as hoaseaons, booking.com and Airbnb, which will mean
that short-stay visitors are still coming to the park and spending in the town.
In conclusion, there is no evidence to suggest that this proposal would be
contrary to CS.22 (economic development), indeed CS.22 is supportive of local
businesses and this application does enable to applicant to extend their offering.
Similarly, with respect to CS.24 officers consider on balance that the proposal is
most likely to maximise the benefits for the communities in terms of job
opportunities and support for local services by extended visitor stays by 5
months. As such, the development is considered to accord with the requirements
of CS.22 and CS.24.
Natural Environment
This application is not considered to give rise to any ecological concerns, the
county ecologist has no given a representation, and as such the proposal is
considered to accord with CS.6.
Climate Change and Sustainable Construction
Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the
transition to a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to
minimising vulnerability and improving resilience and the re-use of existing
resources. Policy CS.2 and Part V of the Development Requirements SPD require
proposals to take account of climate change adaptation and mitigation. However,
as this application is for a use of land, and does not involve a change of use, it is
not considered that those polices and requirements are relevant or practicable in
this instance, and therefore a climate change checklist is not required and this
proposal is considered to be acceptable in regards to climate change.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
This development is not CIL liable.
Conclusion
Having considered this application against the material considerations, I conclude
that the application conforms to the Development Plan and associated guidance
and to the aims and requirements of the NPPF. I can find no material
considerations that warrant an alternative approach.
RECOMMENDATION
Officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and
NDP and other material considerations. It is for the Committee to weigh and
balance these in coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available
evidence.
It is therefore recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to the
following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is
delegated to officers:
Conditions:
1. 3 years to implement permission
2. Development in accordance with approved plans
Page 55
3. Parking spaces to be permeable
4. Occupation limited to 10 months
5. Caravans to be in holiday use only not sole/main residence
6. Prior to implementation: site layout plan to be submitted and approved (to
include proposed locations of the caravans and associated parking areas,
roads, circulation areas and infrastructure, including ancillary buildings
and structures)
7. Prior to implementation: Hard and soft landscaping to be submitted and
approved
8. Within red line boundary there shall be, at any time, no more than 180
caravans of any type
9. Development in accordance with flood risk assessment
10. Prior to implementation: evacuation procedure to be submitted and
approved
Notes:
1. NPPF
2. EA advisory note
Robert Weeks
HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES
Page 56
D
D
D
")
D
D
")
D
D
D
1
1
1
2
8
6 7
2
8
5
2
4
4
1
5
2
16
7
8 5
2
1
3
1
9
8
1
1
8
1
4
8
2
3
3
1121
11
12
CR
2727
30
15 26
18
15
16
41
28
21
25
45
13
11
22
42
2b
PO
17
1a
30
19
15
8a
17
17
21
19
41
13
7a16
23
27
11
3325
24
27
33
20
12
2a
19
12
34
24
11
31
35
31
36
16
39
42
Pav
119
15a102
117
258
11a
15b
Car
The
30b
256
FBs
124
108
TCB
104
107
252
121
20a
15aESSs
Pond
Ruin
Mast
Path
Pine
Avon
Pond
(PH)
Pond
Park
119a
Path
House
41.1m
Court
40.2m
Eynon
River
Track
Green
Croft
41.1m
40.5m
Green
Court
40.5m
Lodge
House
Holly
41.1m
Croft
Gibbs
Drain
House
41.1m
House
B 4086
Feldon
Sewage
School
Outfall
Walcote
9 to 38
CottageShelter
Cottage
The OldFrazier
Lanterns
The Oaks
Eastcote
The Elms
Elmcroft
(SITE OF)
Toad Hall
Rivermead
Play Area
DARK LANELong Barn
Avonhurst
Beechcroft
Marys Acre
Pine Trees
The Cedars
El Sub Sta
El Sub Sta
Boat House
River SideRiver Lodge
Gay Willows
Camden HouseTennis CourtGreensleeves
LAWSON AVENUE
ED & Ward Bdy
Riverside Park
Rayford Caravan Park
Electricity Sub Station
approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287
Scale 1:5,000
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
N̂orth
20/02489/FUL - Riverside Caravan Park, Tiddington Rd, Tiddington
approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287
Scale 1:25,000
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
N̂orth
21/02489/FUL - Riverside Caravan Park, Tiddington Rd, Tiddington
Page 57
Item 6
Appendix 1
This page has been left intentionally blank
COMMITTEE REPORT
Application Ref. 20/03443/VARY
Site Address: Edencroft, Fells Lane, Napton-on-the-Hill
Description of Development:
Variation of Condition 2 (plans) of planning permission
20/00574/VARY dated 5 June 2019 to allow for changes to
the Fells Lane improvement works. Original permission Self-build
3 bedroom house, workshop and garaging with access and
parking plus improvements to Fells Lane including improved
re-surfacing, a turning head and a passing place.
Applicant: Mr & Mrs M And J Sanchez
Reason for Referral to
Committee: Objection from Parish Council
Case Officer: Erin Weatherstone
Presenting Officer: Erin Weatherstone
Ward Member: Councillor N Rock
Parish Council: Napton-on-the-Hill
Description of Site Constraints:
Ironstone Hill Special Landscape Area Outside of Built Up Area Boundary Public footpaths to north and southwest
Summary of
Recommendation GRANT subject to s106
Page 59
Item 7
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Development Plan
Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)
Napton-on-the-Hill Neighbourhood Development Plan (2018-2031)
Material Considerations
Central Government Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
National Design Guide 2019
Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance
Development Requirements SPD
Other Material Consideration(s) and Emerging Plans
Climate Change Declaration by District Council
Site Allocations Plan Preferred Options (October 2020)
Landscape Visibility Assessment Local Service Villages (2012)
Napton on the Hill Housing Needs Survey (March 2018)
Napton on the Hill Parish Plan (2007- updated in 2011)
SUMMARY OF RECENT RELEVANT HISTORY
Reference Number
Proposal Decision and
date
20/00574/VARY
Variation of Condition 2 (plans) of planning
permission 18/03239/FUL dated 19 November
2019 to allow for changes to the approved
drawings including the replacement of solar
slates with panels, alteration to the fenestration
on the south elevation and changes to the
position and size of rooflights, increase in the
height of the flue, re-location of the car barn to
the north and alterations to the openings,
change in materials of the car barn to timber,
incorporation of landscaping and cut in
pavement on the site plan. Original permission
Self-build 3 bedroom house, workshop and
garaging with access and parking plus
improvements to Fells Lane including improved
re-surfacing, a turning head and a passing
place.
Granted
05/06/2020
18/03239/FUL
Self-build 3 bedroom house, workshop and
garaging with access and parking plus
improvements to Fells Lane including improved
re-surfacing, a turning head and a passing place
Granted
19/11/2019
Page 60
REPRESENTATIONS
Ward Member – Object (09/02/2021).
“Erin, after 10 years of planning experience as a councillor - I am a bit perplexed how to
respond to this variation.
It seems to me one of the main objections to the house build was an earlier controversial
requirement to alter the character of Fells Lane, involving some sort of upgrade. Neither
the community nor the applicants wanted this. This variation is apparently to overcome
such a change to the lane. It was, inter alia, a requirement of WCC and SDC based on a
misassumption about the needs of the refuse truck, to which this application refers. This
variation seems to call for minimum change to the lane, and restoration back to as close
to as possible to its original condition. Thus, I support the application in nearly all
respects, as it seems to respect the characteristics of the lane and return it to original
condition prior to the development. This objective is covered by the Napton NDP section
5.45 and specifically the photograph of Fells Lane on page 30.
I do however object to the provision of a passing place. I understand that this has been
included at the request of WCC and once again, neither the community nor the
applicants wanted this, because of the change to the character of the lane. If a condition
is to be required it should be evidenced based. Fells Lane is lightly used by vehicles - if
fact so lightly used to the south of Briars Furlong that I have never seen a car use it in
35 years living within 250 m of the lane. I attach a traffic data plot from wee which
supports the light usage.
Apart from the lack of traffic and need, I contrast the request for a passing bay in Fells
Lane to relieve a length of 200m, with Daniells Hill on the other side of the sports field.
This single track road, the main thoroughfare to Priors Marston from the A425, has
passing bays spaced at 770m.
I would request we go back to WCC to discuss the need, justification and evidence base
for the passing bay, please, with the objective of removing that element from the
approved scheme.”
Parish Council- Partial Support
The Parish Council support the application with the exception of the passing place.
Concerns have been raised with the passing place for the following reasons:
Increased traffic; and
Impact on an oak tree (09/06/2021, comments confirmed 07/07/2021).
Third Party Representations The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.
5 letters of objection have been received raising the following matters:
Concerns regarding the introduction of a passing bay regarding the visual impact;
and
The condition of the surface of the lane.
1 letters of support has been received raising the following matters:
Page 61
Concerns raised regarding the extent of the works including the proposed passing
bay.
1 letter of no objection has been received raising the following matters:
Comments received regarding the surfacing works of the lane and the impact on
trees.
Other non-planning related comments were also received.
CONSULTATIONS
Warwickshire County Council Highways (WCC Highways) –No Objection (21/06/2021).
Warwickshire County Council Highways Fire and Rescue – Comments received
(05/02/2021).
Warwickshire County Council Ecology (WCC Ecology) – No representation (04/02/2021).
SDC Waste and Recycling Officer –No Comments (11/02/2021).
Warwickshire County Council Rights of Way- No objection (11/02/2021 and
02/06/2021).
SDC Environmental Health – No objection (12/02/2021).
ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES
Principle of Development
This planning application is made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 that relates to determination of applications to develop land without compliance
with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.
In deciding an application under section 73, the Local Planning Authority must only
consider the disputed condition that is the subject of the application – it is not a
complete re-consideration of the application. In this case, the applicant is seeking a
material amendment through the use of a section 73 application.
On such an application the local planning authority shall consider only the question of
the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted, and—
(a) if they decide that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions
differing from those subject to which the previous permission was granted, or
that it should be granted unconditionally, they shall grant planning permission
accordingly, and
(b) if they decide that planning permission should be granted subject to the same
conditions as those subject to which the previous permission was granted, they
shall refuse the application.
The principle of the development has already been established by planning application
18/03239/FUL for the erection of a ‘Self-build 3 bedroom house, workshop and garaging
Page 62
with access and parking plus improvements to Fells Lane including improved re-
surfacing, a turning head and a passing place’ dated 19 November 2019.
Planning permission was granted for alterations to the development granted by planning
permission 18/03239/FUL as part of application 20/00574/VARY on the 5 June 2020.
Works have commenced on site and the prior commencement conditions linked to
planning permission 20/00574/VARY have been discharged.
This application seeks a minor material amendment to planning permission
20/00574/VARY to amend the highways works associated with the development to
include:
The reduction in the width of the vehicular access into the site (3.5m rather than
5.5m in width for 7.5m from the edge of the main carriage way);
The removal of the widening works of Fells Lane to 3 metres and associated re-
surfacing works; and
The removal of the proposal to install drainage grips along Fells Lane.
The intervisible passing bay is still proposed to be provided along Fells Lane in
accordance with the highways works granted as part of extant permission
20/00574/VARY.
Since the determination of planning application 20/00574/VARY the Napton-on-the-Hill
Neighbourhood Plan has been made (6 May 2021). This is a material change to the
Development Plan. The extant planning permission is a realistic fall-back position to
which I afford significant weight within this assessment.
The minor material amendments to the development are assessed below.
Landscape, Impacts on SLA and Design and Distinctiveness
The site lies to the east of Napton-on-the-Hill settlement outside of the Built Up Area
Boundary identified within the NDP. The site falls within the East (South) character area
as identified within the NDP. This character incorporates Godsons Lane and Fells Lane.
The area is considered to be characterised by dwellings set back from the road with
mature front gardens.
Fells Lane is considered within the Character Area as a ‘minor/track road serving a few
residential properties at the top end but soon becomes a ‘green’ lane, linking Vicarage
Lane in the north to Dog Lane to the south’. The character area assessment considers
that the route is popular with people walking through the village as it connects the
School and other facilities. The character of the area is considered to be rural in
character.
Public footpaths SM45 and SM42c lie within close proximity to the application site and
afford views from the public realm of the application site. Views are also available from
Fells Lane.
The site lies within important View 6 as identified by NDP Policy 9 and will be viewed
within the context of the existing development which lies adjacent to Fells Lane. As such
the proposal must ensure that the openness and key features of the important views are
retained.
No changes are proposed to the size, design or siting of the dwelling or associated
outbuilding as part of this application.
Page 63
Works have commenced on the development associated with planning permission
20/00574/VARY. The highways works granted as part of permission 20/00574/VARY
include the following:
The widening of Fells Lane to a width of 3m and associated re-surfacing works;
The installation of drainage grips along Fells Lane;
The provision of an inter-visibility passing bay along Fells Lane; and
The creation of a vehicular access point off Fells Lane (5.5m in width for 7.5m
from the edge of the main carriage way).
The works which have been granted as part of the existing planning permission are a
material consideration and represent a realistic fall-back position to which I afford significant weight within this assessment.
Concerns have been raised during the course of the application that the proposed
passing bay will have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area experienced
along Fells Lane and an existing oak tree. However, the impacts of this passing bay were
fully considered under the previous applications at the site, and were considered to be acceptable.
When considering the extant permission on the land the works will be lesser than the
approved scheme. The approved passing bay will be retained, but the scale of the other
highways works required by the scheme have been reduced (which include the reduction
in width of the vehicular access, removal of widening works on Fells Lane and removal of drainage grips along Fells Lane).
Subject to conditions and notes which relate to landscaping, materials and approved
plans I am satisfied that the development will meet the requirements of Core Strategy
Policies CS.5, CS.9 and CS.12 and Policies 1, 9, 10 and 11 of the NDP.
Highways Matters and Parking
The development seeks to make a number of changes to the approved highways works
which include:
The reduction in the width of the vehicular access into the site (3.5m rather than
5.5m in width for 7.5m from the edge of the main carriage way);
The removal of the widening of Fells Lane to 3 metres and associated re-surfacing
works; and
The removal of the requirement to install drainage grips along Fells Lane.
Due to the nature of the works proposed, a Road Safety Audit was required to
accompany the application and was received during the application period.
When considering the details submitted with the application WCC Highways Authority
has raised no objection to the development. I consider it reasonable to attach conditions
to tie the development in with the submitted details and to ensure the temporary site
access (previously agreed) remains secured.
In addition, WCC Rights of Way has raised no objection to the development subject to a
note and WCC Fire and Rescue have provided comments.
Subject to conditions and a note I am satisfied that the development would comply with
Core Strategy Policy CS.26, Policy 10 of the NDP and Part O (Parking and Travel) of the SPD.
Climate Change and Sustainable Construction
Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the transition to
a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to minimising vulnerability
and improving resilience and the re-use of existing resources. Policy CS.2 of the Core
Page 64
Strategy, Policy 5 of the NPD and SPD Parts D, Q and V support this stance and the
application is considered to accord with the expectations of the policies and guidance
including the requirement for water butts, recycling points and EV charging points and
SUDS (where appropriate).
A Climate Change Checklist has been submitted to accompany the application. Many of
the features listed have been approved as part of the extant permission.
The development is for a self-build Passivhaus certified development and seeks to
include a number of technologies to work towards a zero carbon dwelling. The
development is therefore considered to accord with the requirements of the above
Policies. I consider it reasonable to attach conditions for the proposal to be carried out in
accordance with the approved plans and to attach conditions requiring waterbutts and an
Electric Vehicle Charging point.
Other Matters
Other material considerations
Planning permission is not sought for any changes to the size, design or siting of the new
dwelling and only seeks to make changes to the highways works.
In light of the above, I am satisfied that the development will not give rise to any
adverse impacts, over and above the extant permission, in relation to flood risk, ecology,
Heritage Assets or residential amenity in line with Core Strategy Policies CS.4, CS.6,
CS.8, CS.9 and CS.26, NDP Policies 1, 5, 6, 10 and 11 and the associated guidance set
out in Parts F (Residential Amenity), L (Open Space), N (Biodiversity and Green
Infrastructure), O (Parking and Travel) subject to the conditions and notes applied to
the previous permission (which have been updated to reflect the original submission,
changes proposed here and discharge of condition submissions).
S106 Planning Obligations
The proposal is subject to a S106 which will limit the development as a Local Needs
Dwelling. Heads of Terms have been submitted to accompany the application and a legal
agreement is recommended to be secured to accompany the development.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
The development does not seek to increase the floor area associated with the
development over and above the extant permission.
Conclusion
The application is required to be determined in accordance with the adopted
Development Plan and associated guidance as to the aims and requirements of the NPPF.
Policy CS.1 states that the Council will take a positive approach to applications that
reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF.
RECOMMENDATION
Officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and NDP
and other material considerations. It is for the Committee to weigh and balance these in
coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available evidence.
It is therefore recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to the following
conditions and notes (and the completion of a S106 agreement), the detailed wording
and numbering of which is delegated to officers:
Page 65
1. Approved plans
2. Materials as approved by DISCN/00301/20
3. Highways access as approved by DISCN/00303/20
4. CMP- as approved by DISCN/0035/19
5. Contamination – linked to recommendations of report approved as part of
DISCE/00014/20
6. Landscaping as approved by DISCN/00302/20– retained/replaced for 5 years
7. In accordance with recommendations of Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated 15
June 2018).
8. Electric Vehicle Charging point
9. Bins
10. Water butts
11. Removal of Permitted development rights Part 1 Classes A-E
12. Garage ancillary
Notes:
1. NPPF
2. Highways note
3. S106 note
4. SM225 Must remain open at all times
5. Removal of PDR
and, subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the following; the
negotiation and final wording of which shall be delegated to officers:
a) Local Needs Housing provisions
Robert Weeks
HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES
Page 66
D
E
E
D
")
E
D
D
E
E
9
1
1
3
7
2
5
2
2
3
7
8
5
1
1
72
17
15
Pp
10
18
15
10
11
WAY
The
11a
The
The
The
The
Sta
Elm
High
Path
Pond
Bank
LANE
Vine
Hill
Pond
House
Ridge
House
Glebe
House
House
House
House
HouseHolly
House
Beech
House
MEULAN
Briars
117.4m
Gables
CORNER
133.4m
El Sub
QUINCY
Medlar
Irwins
Bramley
Granary
Stables
Welcome
Cottage
Furlong
MEADOWS
Hollies
Cottage
Laskett
GODSONS
Hackwell
Wychwood
Shambles
The Elms
Sunstone
DOG LANE
Tarrants
Windrush
Mulberry
CottagesWood View
Normandie
Path (um)
Downlands
Stonycroft
Alpine Rise
Sports Court
Tennis Court
The Hermitage
Hackwell Cott
Vicarage Place
ST LAWRENCE CLOSE
High Over Cottage
The Stone Cottage
Little Greencroft
Napton Sports Club
FELL'S LANE (TRACK)
approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287
Scale 1:2,500
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
N̂orth
20/03443/VARY - Edencroft, Fells Lane, Napton-on-the-Hill
approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287
Scale 1:25,000
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
N̂orth
20/03443/VARY - Edencroft, Fells Lane, Napton-on-the-Hill
Page 67
Item 7
Appendix 1
This page has been left intentionally blank
COMMITTEE REPORT
Application Ref. 21/01274/FUL
Site Address: Welfare Centre, Craven Lane, Southam, CV47 1PG
Description of
Development:
Demolition of existing billet hut (Class D1) and the proposed
erection of a single detached dwellinghouse (Class C3)
Applicant: Mr Dhaliwal
Reason for Referral
to Committee: Ward Member Objection
Case Officer: Joseph Brooke
Presenting Officer: Joseph Brooke
Ward Member: Councillor A Crump
Town/Parish
Council: Southam
Description of Site
Constraints:
BUAB
Highways
Conservation Area
Listed Buildings
Summary of
Recommendation GRANT
Page 69
Item 8
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Development Plan
Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)
Material Considerations
Central Government Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
National Design Guide 2019
Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance
Development Requirements SPD
Other Material Consideration(s) and Emerging Plans
Climate Change Declaration by District Council
Site Allocations Plan (draft)
Southam Neighbourhood Development Plan – Area Designation.
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY Reference Number Proposal Decision and date
19/03442/FUL Demolition of existing Billet Hut (Class
D1) and the proposed erection of 2No.
semi-detached dwellings (Class C3)
Refused, 14.08.2020
APP/J3720/W/20/3260901
Appeal dismissed,
18.02.2021
13/03096/FUL Repair and refurbishment of existing
hall incorporating new disabled access
facilities
Permitted, 03.02.2014
09/00382/FUL Refurbishment of existing hall, new
roof covering wc's etc.
Permitted, 27.04.2009
79/00716/FUL Welfare Centre Craven Lane Southam
– Renewal of Temporary Permission
for a Playground
Permitted, 04.19.1979
78/00212/FUL Welfare Centre Craven Lane Southam
– Proposed Playgroup
Permitted, 13.07.1978
76/01484/FUL Infant Welfare Centre Craven Lane
Southam – Change of Main Use for a
Playgroup
Permitted, 21.04.1977
REPRESENTATIONS
All consultation responses and supporting documents are available to view, in full,
via the online planning register.
Ward Member – Cllr A Crump
I have concerns about visibility and overlooking (19.05.2021)
Parish/Town Council – Southam
Page 70
No objection, subject to the removal of PD Rights on the parking area
(09.05.2021)
Third Party Representations
The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.
6 letters of objection have been received raising the following matters:
Concerns over the height
Concerns over the design
Loss of light
Overbearing
Overlooking
Not in keeping with the street scene
Overdevelopment
Inadequate parking
Loss of a non-designated heritage asset
Visibility splays
Concerns over traffic safety
5 letters of support have been received raising the following matters:
Great design
Provides adequate parking
In keeping with the street scene
Existing building is an eyesore
Smaller development than the previous refusal (19/03442/FUL)
Much less traffic than the existing hut
CONSULTATIONS
Warwickshire County Council Highways (WCC Highways)
No objection, subject to four conditions (04.05.2021)
Warwickshire County Council Ecology (WCC Ecology)
No representation (11.05.2021)
Warwickshire Fire and Rescue
No objection (21.05.2021)
SDC Environmental Health
No objection (29.05.2021)
ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES
Background
Application 19/03442/FUL related to the application site and proposed the
demolition of the billet hut and erection of two dwellinghouses. The application
was refused by Planning Committee for two reasons; firstly due to the adverse
impact on highway safety as no off-street parking was proposed and secondly as
Page 71
a result of the lack of possibility of supporting sustainable modes of transport
and/or the impact of climate change.
This refusal was subsequently appealed and the appeal was dismissed. The
Inspector concluded that, owing to the lack of off-street parking provision to
serve the two dwellings, the development would have an adverse impact on
highway safety.
Planning permission is now sought for the demolition of the billet hut and erection
of one dwellinghouse with two off-street parking spaces proposed to the side of
the house.
Principle of Development
The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and
Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a
key material planning consideration.
Policy CS.15, in consideration of Policies CS.16 and AS.7, permits suitable
construction/conversion of small scale housing schemes within the Built-up Area
Boundaries (BUABs) or the physical confines of Main Rural Centres.
The application site is located within the adopted Built-Up Area Boundary map of
Southam, a Main Rural Centre, and is therefore deemed to be within the physical
confines of the settlement.
It is noted that the lawful use of the building is for a Community Hall
(13/03096/FUL). The Development Management Considerations for CS.20,
although not Policy, expresses the principle of the change of use from non-
residential to residential will be assessed against the relevant policies within the
Core Strategy, including CS.25 (community uses).
Policy CS.25 specifies that existing community facilities will be retained unless it
can be demonstrated at least one or more of the following criteria is satisfied:
that there is no realistic prospect of the facility continuing operating in its
current form;
the property has been actively marketed or otherwise made available for
similar or alternative type of facility that would benefit the local
community;
the facility can be provided effectively in an alternative manner or on a
different site in accordance with the wishes of the local community; and
there are overriding environmental benefits in the use of the site being
discontinued.
It is noted that the Hall was listed as a Community Asset on the 20 December
2013, as the Craven Lane Community Centre, Southam. However, the listing
expired on the 19 December, 2018. I note that an application was approved in
2013 (13/03096/FUL) to repair and refurbish the Centre; however, the
permission was never implemented and, as stated by the applicant, subsequently
became vacant and unused. At the time of my site visit, I can confirm that the
centre was vacant and rundown. Furthermore, I note that a number of third party
comments (including in response to the previous application, 19/03442/FUL)
refer to the fact that the Hut has been vacant for a number of years and the
Town Council has not objected to the principle of development.
Page 72
An asset of community value was introduced via the Localism Act, 2011. The Act
stipulates (in accordance with CS.25) that an asset of community value is a
building or other land (in a local authority’s area) deemed to have community
value if:
(a) an actual current use of the building or other land that is not an
ancillary use furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local
community, and
(b) it is realistic to think that there can continue to be non-ancillary use of
the building or other land which will further (whether or not in the
same way) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local
community.
As expressed above, the community asset listing has now expired, the Hut has
been vacant for a number of years, is in a state of disrepair and has been sold to
a new private owner. As evident by the submission of this application and the
recent history of the site; on planning balance, I cannot consider that there is
realistic possibility that use for a community centre will be retained in the near
future. Consequently, as conveyed by CS.25, there is no realistic prospect of the
facility continuing to operate in its current form.
In addition, CS.25 expresses that if the facility can be provided effectively in an
alternative manner or on a different site in accordance with the wishes of the
local community then the principle of development can be further established.
Southam’s Grange Hall (located approximately 450m away from the Billet Hut)
has a number of facilities; including, a large hall, two committee rooms, bar
room, kitchen and gardens and is presently holding a number of community
events and private gatherings. Although I note that the Parish Council has not
expressed a desire to move the existing Billet Hut, I have to consider in this
instance, that the Hut is in a state of disrepair and has been vacant for a number
of years. Consequently, with other facilities available within the locality (acting as
a Community Hall) and the continued vacancy and dilapidation, it cannot be
reasonably conceived as a vital community asset anymore. I am also mindful that
the previous application for the redevelopment of the site for two dwellings was
not refused on the basis of the loss of the Billet Hut/associated community use.
In light of the above, I conclude the development does accord with the provisions
of CS.15, CS.16, CS.25 and AS.7 of the Core Strategy and is therefore considered
acceptable in principle.
Design, Impact on the Landscape and Character of the area
The surrounding street scene is defined by a number of different scales, masses
and heights. Immediately to the east of the site (its principle elevation facing
onto Craven Lane) is a three storey block of apartments (Craven Court).
However, the dwellings then step down in height to two storey all the way to
Pendicke Street. Directly adjacent to the Billet Hut is a 1.5 storey dwelling, with a
row of single storey shops and then a large 2 storey dwelling (facing onto
Pendicke Street) which is taller than the neighbouring properties on Craven Lane.
To the rear of the site is a private car park and a number of three storey
apartments. The predominant materials are red brick and grey slate roofing with
additional white render.
If approved, the development would see the removal of the existing Hut and the
development a 2.5 storey dwelling. The dwelling would be sited to front onto
Craven Lane keeping the same development line as the neighbouring properties.
Page 73
The dwelling would be set at 8.7m to ridge which, as demonstrated on the Street
Scene Plan (1910-05 PL-4 Rev F), preserves the step down street scene along
this side of Craven Line. The dwelling would be constructed out a redbrick, grey
slate roofing, sash style UPVC windows and timber framed canopies.
As a result, I conclude that the dwelling’s design, layout and form are
representative of a number of nearby properties (Craven Lane and Pendicke
Street), would not dominate the neighbouring dwellings, safeguards the existing
building line and would suitably harmonise with the existing street scene, without
appearing out of context and/or visually incongruous.
It should be noted that the Inspector for APP/J3720/W/20/3260901, which was
for the development of two dwellings set at a similar height and scale, did not
raise any concerns in respect to design and/or dominance on the street scene.
Nonetheless, I do consider it prudent, if permission is forthcoming, for conditions
to be imposed to secure exact finishes for all material and fenestration, as well as
a hard and soft landscaping details to ensure that all aspects of the development
are duly considered and examined.
In light of the above, the development is considered to be in accordance with
Policies CS.5 and CS.9.
Historic Environment
Considerable importance and weight should be given to the duties set out in the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, when making
decisions that affect listed buildings and conservation areas respectively. These
duties affect the weight to be given to the factors involved.
The application is sited within the Southam Conservation Area as well as in close
proximity to the Grade II Listed Craven Arms Hotel. The Hut is essentially a long
rectangular single storey building, largely of rudimentary timber framing
construction, under a shallow pitched corrugated iron roof with a brick plinth. The
building is in a poor state of repair, is not listed and does not have any
architectural merit.
However, it is noted that the Hut does have some historical significance due to
the fact that it was used as a billet hut for soldiers in Belgium during WWI. In
1919, along with several other redundant barrack huts, it was flat packed and
shipped back to England where it was eventually bought by the Southam
residents to be used as recreational hall. Nevertheless, during that time the Hut
has had many alterations, has been vacant for a number of years and has now
become severely run down and would require a significant amount of investment,
including the need to replace a number of the internal and external aesthetics, to
bring the Hut back to a viable use. Moreover, as expressed above, there is not a
realistic probability that the Hut can continue in its current use/form.
Consequently, due to the fact that the Hut is in disrepair (and would need a
significant amount of investment), been vacant for a number of years, is of no
‘architectural’ merit, is not listed and is considered not to be of a working viable
use; on planning balance, I consider that the loss of the Hut would not cause
harm to the Conservation Area.
As expressed above, the design of the dwelling is considered to be representative
of a number nearby properties, respects the existing building line, utilises the
Page 74
same building materials and does not dominate the adjacent properties along
Craven Lane.
On this basis, I consider that the scheme would preserve the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area. I am also satisfied that the development
would preserve the setting of the Grade II Listed Craven Arms Hotel (which spans
down Craven Lane within close proximity to the application site). The
development is therefore acceptable with regards to the provisions of Paragraph
193 of the NPPF and Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy.
Residential Amenity
As highlighted above, the application would respect the existing step down design
on this side of Craven Lane and is therefore not considered to dominate the
neighbouring properties.
Immediately opposite is a 1.5 storey dwelling which has three roof lights facing
onto the application site. One of the dormer windows in the proposed dwelling
would provide light to the master bedroom’s ensuite bathroom and as such,
would be conditioned to be obscure glazed. The second dormer window would be
needed to facilitate the necessary light into the master bedroom. However, the
positioning of the roof-lights on the opposite neighbour creates an obscure angle
in respect to any overlooking concerns with the front to front relationship, and I
am therefore satisfied that the proposed dwelling would not cause overlooking to
such a degree so as to be unacceptable.
I also have to consider that roof-lights are acceptable under permitted
development without the need to assess any overlooking constraints, in this
respect. This is also reflected in the Council's Development Requirements SPD
which expresses that front separation distances are for windows (affording
habitable rooms) between windowed elevations and opposing gable end walls.
In addition, I am satisfied that the development would not have an unacceptable
overbearing or loss of light impact to these rooflights. I also note that the 1.5
storey dwelling has a further three roof-lights to the rear of the dwelling to
provide additional daylight into the property.
The application respects the existing building line and, in consideration of the
neighbouring properties to each side of the site (i.e. the three storey apartments
and two storey dwellings), would not dominate the adjacent dwellings. Moreover,
the dwelling is sited directly onto the public footpath of Craven Lane and
therefore, in accordance with Part F of the Development Requirements SPD,
front-facing windows cannot be afforded the same level of protection because a
passer-by can readily look into the dwelling's windows.
The proposed dwelling would be sited 13m away from the side elevation of the
three storey apartments (to the west) and 7.5m away from the from the side
elevation of the two storey dwelling (to the east). The application is not proposing
any side elevation windows which will serve habitable rooms and therefore, will
not cause any overlooking constraints on the neighbouring properties.
It is noted that the neighbouring two storey property (to the east) has two
ground floor side facing windows (one situated on the original elevation with the
other window and door situated on the ground floor extension). However, I have
to respect the fact that the application would have a 7.5m gap between the two
properties and as stipulated by the Development Requirements SPD; neighbours'
side facing windows on adjoining properties which get their light across another
Page 75
property’s land will not normally be given the same degree of protection as front
and rear facing windows. Therefore, due to the fact that these are ground floor
windows (consequently, boundary walls/fencing already provides a level of
obscurity), have a 7.5m gap and are situated on the side elevation gable; on
planning balance, the development will not cause significant overbearing on the
neighbouring properties.
It should be noted that the Inspector for APP/J3720/W/20/3260901, which was
for the development of two dwellings set at a similar height and scale (which was
also proposing two dormer windows facing onto Craven Lane), did not raise any
concerns in respect to overbearing, loss of daylight and/or overlooking to the
neighbouring properties.
The application is proposing a private rear garden which would equate to 80sq.m.
The garden accords with Part D of the Development Requirements SPD and
provides a level of private amenity space for future occupants which is also
reflective in terms of size and orientation with a number of nearby properties on
Craven Lane, Pendicke Street, Daventry Street and Bull Yard.
SDC Environmental Health was consulted on the application and raised no
objection.
Overall, in consideration of the area's existing character and Part F of the
Council's Development Requirements SPD; on planning balance, I consider that
the application accords with the provisions of Policies CS.9 and AS.10 of the Core
Strategy.
Highways Matters and Parking
The application is proposing two tandem parking spaces to the east elevation.
This accords with Part F of the Developments Requirements SPD which states that
three bedroom dwellings will have two allocated parking spaces.
It is noted that WCC Highways stated that a parking space bounded on both sides
by a wall or fence should have a minimum width of 3.5m to allow for adequate
space for a car door to open. However, the Council’s Development Requirements
SPD expresses; where boundary features are situated to both sides, the parking
space should be 3m wide (Table 03: Parking Bay Sizes). As indicated on the
submitted plans, the parking spaces are proposed to be set at 3m wide.
It should also be noted that WCC Highways stated, that in this instance, the issue
alone was not sufficient to warrant an objection.
I have to also consider that the application site is located within Southam Town
Centre which is categorised as a Main Rural Centre within the Core Strategy. As a
consequence, the development benefits from higher levels of public transport
accessibility, local amenities (i.e. shops, a library, community facilities, public
houses, etc.) and is well served by cycle and walking facilities as well as public
car parks. Moreover, although I note that the Planning Inspector made no
reference to the existing lawful use of the Community Hall
(APP/J3720/W/20/3260901), I have to acknowledge that the Community Hall
facility (which could be brought back into a working use without the need of
planning permission) necessitates a greater need of parking.
WCC Highways also undertook an assessment on the visibility splays and
determined that the vehicle speeds on Craven Lane would be relatively low and
as such, the necessary visibility splays could be achieved. WCC Highways also
Page 76
noted that there are existing access points on Craven Lane with similar or worse
visibility. Additionally, there has not been any significant records of personal
injury accidents relating to their use.
Overall, WCC Highways raises no objection to the application subject to four
conditions:
The footway crossing to be laid out and constructed in accordance with the
standard specification;
For the access to be laid with a surface bound material;
The access’s gradient not to be steeper than 1 and 15 for a distance of
7.5m; and
Gates/barriers not to be hung so as to open within 7.5m of the near edge
of the public highway.
WCC Fire and Rescue was also consulted on the application in respect to access
for emergency services and raised no objection.
Therefore, with the imposition of the said conditions, it is considered that the
application is in accordance with the provisions of Policy C5.26 and the expressed
stipulations of the Framework, as well as the Council's parking standards, as
stipulated in the Development Requirements SPD, Part O.
Water Environment and Flood Risk
Surface Water:
The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and no conditions would be required to
deal with any anticipated flood risk on-site.
Foul Water:
I am of the opinion that there is sufficient space within the site to accommodate a
suitable installation package to serve the proposed dwellings, as depicted by Part
H of the Building Regulations and The Land Drainage Act, 1991.
The proposed development therefore complies with Policy CS.4 of the Core
Strategy.
Natural Environment
The impact upon local ecology/biodiversity has been taken into consideration in
the determination of this application. Warwickshire County Council Ecology has
been consulted on this application and has raised no objection. I therefore
consider that the proposal accords with Policy CS.6 in this regard.
Climate Change and Sustainable Construction
Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the
transition to a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to
minimising vulnerability and improving resilience and the re-use of existing
resources.
The applicant has submitted Part V of the Climate Change Checklist which will
also be secured via planning condition to support all reasonable steps to help
tackle climate change.
Furthermore, the applicant has submitted a sustainability statement expressing
clear objectives and drivers to ensure the development, if approved, will help to
Page 77
provide an environmentally sustainable development. The proposed measures are
also supported by Part V (Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation) of the
Development Requirements SPD, which expresses the need for cycling
storage/facilities, energy efficient technologies (the applicant is proposing
monitoring equipment for lighting fixtures), fabric first approach and water
conservation.
Policy CS.2 and SPD Parts D, Q and V support this stance and the application is
considered to accord with the expectations of the policies and guidance contained
therein.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
The proposal would result in the creation of a single dwelling and is therefore CIL
liable. In accordance with The Community Infrastructure levy (Amendment)
Regulations 2014, the applicant must demonstrate there has, in the last three
years, been a continuous lawful use of the premises for a period of at least six
months. The application is consequently considered CIL chargeable and would
attract a CIL payment of £9168.64, unless demonstrated otherwise.
Page 78
Conclusion
The current application conforms to the Development Plan and associated
guidance and to the aims and requirements of the NPPF. I can find no material
considerations that warrant an alternative approach.
RECOMMENDATION
Officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and
other material considerations. It is for the Committee to weigh and balance these
in coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available evidence.
It is therefore recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to the
following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is
delegated to officers:
1. Time limit (3 years)
2. Approved plans
3. Schedule of materials (Samples where necessary)
4. Hard and soft landscaping
5. Footway crossing
6. Access to be surfaced with a bound material
7. Gradient of the access
8. Gates/barriers
9. Climate Change Checklist
10. EVCPs
11. Water butts
12. Obscure glaze
13. Broadband
Notes:
1. NPPF
2. Highways
Robert Weeks
HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES
Page 79
This page has been left intentionally blank
D
")
D
1
2
3
3
89
1
5
3
8
2
9
4
7
5
1
4
3
7
1
6
1
7
1
3
5
1
1
2
3
1
2
2
4
1
7
419a
38
28
22
44
10
17
St
13
21
14
12
11
10
35
25
21
17
13
43
12
17
12
17
14
PH
49
39
The
The
TCB
The
Mews
Bull
Mews
Club
Hall
View
Arms
CourtJames
82.5m
Posts
HouseCourt
House
85.1m
Court
House
Craven
1 to 6
Meadow
1 to 6Falcon
Craven
School
1 to 7
2 to 5
7 to 151 to 15
Surgery
Nursery
Gardens
Car Park
Minstrel
The CoachKirk View
El Sub Sta
Craven End
Mountfield
Bull Street
CRAVEN LANE
BULL STREET
OXFORD STREET
THE BULL YARD
Pendicke Court
SOVEREIGN COURT
PENDICKE STREET
Chickabiddy Lane
Pendyke Pastures
approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287
Scale 1:1,250
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
N̂orth
21/01274/FUL - Welfare Centre, Craven Lane, Southam
approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287
Scale 1:25,000
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
N̂orth
21/01274/FUL - Welfare Centre, Craven Lane, Southam
Page 81
Item 8
Appendix 1
This page has been left intentionally blank
COMMITTEE REPORT
Application Ref. 21/01230/FUL
Site Address: 87 High Street, Bidford on Avon
Description of
Development:
First floor extension to previously approved application ref:
20/02122/FUL
Reason for Referral
to Committee Ward Member support
Applicant Mr & Mrs Morris
Case Officer: Catherine Gibbons
Presenting Officer Louise Koelman
Ward Member: Councillor D Pemberton
Town/Parish
Council: Bidford Parish Council
Description of Site
Constraints:
Main Rural Centre
Conservation Area
Summary of
Recommendation REFUSE
Page 83
Item 9
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Development Plan
Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)
Bidford-on-Avon Parish Neighbourhood Plan (2011-2031)
Material Considerations
Central Government Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021
National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
National Design Guide 2019
Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance
Development Requirements SPD
Other Material Consideration(s) and Emerging Plans
Bidford on Avon Parish Plan (June 2003)
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY
Reference
Number
Proposal Decision and
date
21/01564/AMD
First floor extension eaves lowered to match existing
neighbours eaves line. Ground floor extension roof
built with overhanging soffit
Approved
20.05.2021
20/02122/FUL Proposed two storey and single storey rear extensions Approved
10.12.2020
19/00621/FUL Proposed two storey and single storey rear extensions Approved
19.06.2019
96/01600/FUL Change of use of part of garden area for the sale of
plants, logs and xmas trees. Approved
27.02.1997
96/00874/FUL The erection of 2 greenhouses. Size is 12' x 8' in both
cases. Approved
02.09.1997
96/00008/LDE Residential property with business commercial use for
growing and sale of plants and sale of logs. Refused
21.11.1996
95/00060/FUL Two storey & single storey extensions Approved
30.03.1995
REPRESENTATIONS
Ward Member
Councillor D Pemberton –
I do not consider that the 2nd floor extension would be overbearing on the
neighbouring property at No 89 even at 5m separation from its boundary. The
application property is set at an angle of 45 degrees (or thereabouts) to No 89
and so any window would do not directly face onto the garden of No 89. The
Page 84
applicant has gone to considerable lengths to produce a design acceptable within
the site constraints to meet her family's accommodation requirements.
The separation of 5 m is to the neighbouring properties boundary, however, Part
F of The Development Requirements SPD measures the separation distance
between habitable room windows. Consequently, the separation distance is in
accordance with policy.
In light of this I support the application. Member site visit requested.
(08.06.2021)
Parish Council–
Object to the application for the following planning reasons:
Over-development of the site
Loss of amenity
Harmful impact on neighbours
Impact on the street scene - overcrowding
Parking - insufficient parking spaces will result in the turning point being
used for parking which will make it difficult/impossible for the refuse
lorries to carry out their business (02.06.2021)
Third Party Representations
The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer:
Overbearing impact due to height and proximity close to boundary
Overdevelopment of site
Previous applications 19/006211FUL and 20/02122/FUL amended to omit
additional first floor extension now being sought.
Proposed roof encroaches application site boundary with nos. 3 & 4
Holland Close.
Negative impact on neighbour amenity
Harmful visual impact
CONSULTATIONS
Warwickshire County Council Ecology (WCC Ecology) –
No objection. Recommend the below advisory note is attached to the decision
notice should approval be granted to make the applicant and agent aware of their
responsibilities for nesting birds.
Birds and their nests are fully protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside
Act (as amended). So as to avoid impacting any potential nesting activity it is
recommended the works affecting the roof at the rear elevation commence
outside of the period late March to early August. (17.05.2020)
ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES
Principle of Development
The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and
Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a
key material planning consideration.
Page 85
Following grant of planning permission 19/00621/FUL it came to light that the red
outline had been drawn incorrectly and application 20/02122/FUL was submitted
to rectify the situation. Included in the application was a proposal to enlarge the
first floor extension.
Following officer objection, the submitted scheme was amended to omit the
additional first floor extension. The extent of the approved scheme remains the
same as that approved under planning reference 19/00621/FUL with the only
difference being that 20/02122/FUL scheme details the corner of the extension
cut off to fit within the application site denoted by the correct red line.
The approved scheme is now under construction. This current application again
seeks a first floor rear extension on the south eastern side of the property to
provide an additional bedroom.
Design and Distinctiveness
The application property was originally two terraced houses which have been
combined to form one large end of terrace dwelling. Views of the first floor
extension will be available from the gap between properties on Holland Close
located to the rear of the application site and glimpse views of the proposed
extension will be available when travelling in an easterly direction along the
Salford Road (B439) or when stopped at the traffic lights.
Although the eaves height of the proposed extension is higher than the approved
first floor extension to the north east of the site and there are unusually, no
windows proposed in the first floor rear elevation, the first floor pitched roof gable
extension is considered to be sympathetic to the design of the main house.
The ridge height of the extension will be set lower than the existing ridge and will
therefore be subservient to the main dwelling.
In terms of materials and finishes, the extension would have a painted rendered
finish to match the existing house. In the event that planning permission is
forthcoming, a condition to ensure that the materials match the existing property
will be applied.
I am satisfied that the proposal would harmonise with the character and local
distinctiveness of the host dwelling, street scene and the wider local area. I
therefore consider the proposal is in accordance with policies CS.5, CS.9 and
CS.20 of the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy (2011-2031) and Policy ENV9 of
the Bidford on Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan.
Residential Amenity
The proposed extension would not project beyond the approved rear building line.
No 85 will be screened from the proposal by the existing approved extension
located on the boundary with no 85 which is currently under construction. As
such, I consider that there would be no overlooking, overshadowing or
overbearing impact on the amenity of no.85 as a result of the proposed
extension.
No.4 Holland Close is a detached bungalow located to the south with its rear
garden adjoining the rear garden of the application dwelling, the main amenity
area of No.4 is located at the apex of the garden immediately adjacent to the
boundary with the application property. I note that No.4 has an existing rear
Page 86
conservatory and there are currently direct views into this and the garden of No.4
from the existing first floor rear windows of the application dwelling.
Whilst I note there is no window proposed in the rear elevation of the extension,
the proposed extension is located less than 1m (0.83m) at the closest point from
the boundary with the neighbour. The separation distance to the conservatory is
8.8m with the garden area located between the two. Given the separation
distance, the small garden sizes and the existing relationship of the application
property with the neighbour at no 4, I consider that the proposed extension
would have an unduly oppressive and overbearing impact on No.4 to the further
detriment of the existing amenity of this property.
No.3 Holland Close and no 89 High street are both neighbouring properties to the
south west. There is a close boarded fence, sheds and mature conifers located
along this boundary. At its closest point, the first floor extension would be located
approximately 3.6 metres from the shared boundary with No.3 and 4.9m from no
89. The houses are further separated from the extension by their rear gardens at
a distance of 18.7m and 16.2m respectively. The main amenity areas are located
between the house and the boundary. Part F of the Development requirements
SPD requires a minimum separation distance for a window looking towards a rear
garden of 10m unless obscure glazed. The plans do not show the window to be
obscure glazed. Whilst it is possible to use a condition to ensure that a window is
obscure glazed, it is considered that the resulting living conditions of the occupier
of the proposed bedroom would be unacceptable if the window was obscure
glazed. I therefore consider that the proposal would result in harmful overlooking
to no 89 High Street and no 3 Holland Close. It is noted that there is a row of
mature conifers on this boundary however unacceptable development should not
be justified by the presence of such non-permanent features.
In light of the above, I consider that the proposal would unacceptably detract
from the amenities of the neighbouring properties by way of overlooking and
overbearing impact. The proposal therefore is not in accordance with policies CS9
and CS20 of the Core Strategy (2011-2031) and policy ENV9 of the
Neighbourhood Development Plan.
Historic Environment
The property is located within the Bidford Conservation Area, with the boundary
of the Conservation Area running along the southwest boundary of the application
site.
Views of the first floor extension will be available from the gap between
properties on Holland Close located to the rear of the application site and glimpse
views of the proposed extension will be available when travelling in an easterly
direction along the Salford Road (B439) or when stopped at the traffic lights.
I do not consider that the proposal would be a prominent feature when viewed
from High Street and Salford Road streetscenes that would cause sufficient harm
to the character and appearance of the conservation area that would warrant an
objection on these grounds.
The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with the
duties set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990,
Core Strategy Policy CS.8 and Policy ENV8 of the Neighbourhood Development
Plan as well as the provisions of the NPPF.
Page 87
Highways Matters and Parking
The proposal would result in an additional bedroom, making the property a 4
bedroom property. The parking requirement for a 4 bed property in this location
is 3 parking spaces.
Previous permissions 19/00621/FUL and 20/02122/FUL increased the dwelling to
a 3 bed property. This was allowed on the basis that the lack of parking was a
historic situation. The proposed plan shows the provision of one parking space
within the site which is the additional parking required by the proposed additional
bedroom and was not a part of the previous application. It is noted that the
property is located at the dead end of the High Street where there is unrestricted
parking on the southern side of the street. It is also a consideration that the
application property was originally 2 separate dwellings and is situated in a
sustainable location with shops, services and public transport within walking
distance of the property.
On balance, I do not consider there is sufficient grounds to warrant objection in
this respect and consider that the proposal accords with the intentions of Policy
CS.26 of the Core Strategy.
Natural Environment
The County Council Ecologist has been consulted on this application and has
referred back to previous applications where an advisory bird note was
recommended. As such and subject to the addition of a nesting bird note in the
event that planning permission is forthcoming, I am satisfied that the proposal
accords with Policy CS.6 of the Core Strategy, Policy ENV10 of the Neighbourhood
Development Plan and Paragraph 175 of the NPPF.
Climate Change and Sustainable Construction
Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the
transition to a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to
minimising vulnerability and improving resilience and the re-use of existing
resources. Policy CS.2 and SPD Parts D, Q and V support this stance.
The applicant has demonstrated that due consideration has been given to the
climate change adaptation and mitigation measures as set out in SPD Part V
relating to climate change. Ample measures have been identified to comply with
the requirements of the SPD and policy ENV1 of the Bidford Neighbourhood
Development Plan. In the even that planning permission forthcoming, a condition
will be applied to ensure the development is built in accordance with the
information submitted.
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)
This development is not liable for the Community Infrastructure Levy as the
additional floor space created is less than 100 sqm.
Other matters
The red line on the existing site plan originally submitted with the application was
incorrect. The same error had been included on the approved plans of
19/00621/FUL and was corrected in the submission of application 20/02122/FUL.
The error was picked up during the course of the current application and
corrected plans have been submitted. Furthermore, the Agent advises that the
scheme approved under reference 20/02122/FUL is currently being constructed
Page 88
and it does fit the site within its clearly defined boundary’s. I am satisfied that the
proposed development is situated within the domestic curtilage of the application
property.
Conclusion
The current application does not conform to the Core Strategy, the Bidford
Neighbourhood Development Plan and associated guidance or to the aims and
requirements of the NPPF. I can find no material considerations that warrant an
alternative approach.
RECOMMENDATION
Officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and
NDP and other material considerations. It is for the Committee to weigh and
balance these in coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available
evidence.
It is therefore recommended that the application be REFUSED for the following
reasons:
1. The introduction of additional built form and its close proximity to the
boundary with No 4 Holland Close would result in an unduly oppressive
and overbearing impact on No. 4 Holland Close to the further detriment of
the existing amenity of this neighbouring property contrary to adopted
polices CS.9 and CS.20 of the Core strategy, policy ENV8 of the Bidford
upon Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan and the Council’s
Development Requirements SPD.
2. The proposed first floor window in the side elevation of the proposed
extension would result in harmful overlooking of no 89 High Street and no
3 Holland Close by reason of its location in close proximity to the boundary
contrary to adopted polices CS.9 and CS.20 of the Core Strategy, policy
ENV8 of the Bidford upon Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan and the
Council’s Development Requirements SPD.
ROBERT WEEKS
HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES
Page 89
This page has been left intentionally blank
")D
D
")
12
4
2
2
1
3
13
1
1
2
4
2
6
2
1
5
1
LB
67
71
87
12
94
89
14
2a
93
7998
7396
PO
112
108
67b
TCB
100
106
73b
67a
THE
92b
GVC
92a
73a
WalkWALK
29.0m
CLOSE
CLOSE
Sunny
PLECK
1 to 6
Chapel
Sewage
CHAPEL
CHAPEL
Church
Slipway
Shelter
Heights
Ppg Sta
Gardens
HOLLAND
Boat Yard
Avon Nest
Riverview
Pleck Close
Birch House
HIGH STREET
Water's Edge
Landing Stage
Landing Stage
Landing Stage
Landing StagesBOATYARD DRIVE
approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287
Scale 1:1,250
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
N̂orth
21/01230/FUL - 87 High Street, Bidford-on-Avon
approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287
Scale 1:25,000
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
Crown Copyright
N̂orth
21/01230/FUL - 87 High Street, Bidford-on-Avon
Page 91
Item 9
Appendix 1
This page has been left intentionally blank