APPLICATION REFERENCE NO. 10/00907/FUL and 10/00909/LBC

Site Address Shipston House, Tilemans Lane, Shipston on Stour

Proposals

1. Proposed development of 45 no. residential units of mixed tenure, including demolition of curtilage listed buildings and conversion of Shipston House to form 8 no. dwellings along with landscaping, car parking and new access.

2. Demolition of curtilage listed buildings and conversion of

Shipston House to 8 apartments (mix of 1 and 2 beds) including internal and external works

Case Officer Jayne Cashmore Presenting

Officer Carol Stephens

Committee Date 14 July 2010 Type of Application

1. Full Planning Application

2. Listed building consent

Applicant Orbit Heart of England Housing Association

Ward Members Cheney Vial

Town Council Shipston on Stour

Referral to Audit and Regulation Committee

No Previous Committee No

Description of Proposals

� 100% affordable housing scheme. � 38 dwellings per hectare � Mix of house sizes: 19 x two bed houses, 14 x three bed

houses, 4 x four bed houses, 5 x one bed apartments and 3 x two bed apartments.

� Mix of tenures: 17 shared ownership, 28 rented � Two storey houses proposed � Demolition of 2 single storey wings of Grade II Listed building

and conversion of retained part to 8 apartments. � Provision of children’s play area and landscaping � Provision of car parking spaces; 2 for all units except 1.5 spaces

each for Plots 28-34 and 1 space each for Plots 35-42. � Mix of materials – render and bricks to walls � Amended drawing received 23/06/2010 which changed the

scheme to 100% affordable housing, minor layout changes, addition of play area, alterations to landscaping, alterations to parking layout including deletion of visitor parking, change to elevations of Plots 44 and 45 and other minor changes.

Reason for Referral to East Planning Committee

� Scale of development

Planning Constraints

� Within the built up area boundary of Shipston on Stour – a Main Rural Centre

� Brownfield land � Shipston House is Grade II Listed � Lies adjacent to public footpath to the west of site � Allocated site – saved policy SHIP.C of the Local Plan Review � Industrial units to west beyond footpath

Key Issues

� Site context and planning history � Policy and principle of development � Mix of dwelling types � Impact of development on Shipston House � Design, layout and density � Accessibility � Impact on surrounding residential amenity � Impact on other surrounding land uses � Impact of adjacent industrial land uses on the development � Landscaping � Parking and Highway Safety � Impact on adjacent public footpath � Public open space � Drainage, Flooding and contamination � Archaeology � Ecology � Sustainability and Energy Conservation � Developer contributions � Other matters � Referral to Secretary of State � Conclusion

Recommendation 1. FUL: GRANT subject to completion of S106 agreement 2. LBC: GRANT

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Reference Number

Proposal Decision and date 07/02029/LBC Demolition of existing single storey

extensions and outbuildings and conversion of Shipston House and ancillary outbuilding to form 10 residential units

Refused 10.09.2007 (delegated decision)

07/02028/FUL Demolition of existing extensions and outbuildings and conversion of Shipston House and outbuildings to form 10 no. residential units and erection of 61 no. additional residential units, associated access and landscaping.

Pending Consideration

06/00047/LBC Demolition of single storey contemporary extensions; Conversion of Shipston House to form 8 no. dwellings; Conversion of outbuilding to form 2 no. dwellings.

Refused 17.07.2006 (committee decision) Dismissed at appeal

06/00044/FUL Residential development comprising 89 dwellings total. Erection of 79 no. dwellings and conversion of Shipston House to provide 8 no. one and two bed flats, conversion of outbuilding to provide

Refused 17.07.2006 (committee decision) Dismissed at appeal

2 no. two bed flats, formation of vehicular access and ancillary works.

04/02953/LBC Demolition of outbuildings and part of rear extension. Conversion and extension to create 11 no. apartments. Erection of 11 no. new dwellings and garage blocks.

Withdrawn 15.11.2004

04/02948/FUL Conversion and extension to create 11 no. apartments and erection of 11 no. new dwellings and garage blocks. Alterations to existing vehicular access and formation of new vehicular access to serve retained commercial premises. Related works.

Withdrawn 15.11.2004

SUMMARY OF POLICY AND BACKGROUND PAPERS POLICY The Development Plan The Regional Spatial Strategy RR1 Rural Renaissance RR3 Market Towns CF2 Housing beyond the Major Urban Areas CF3 Levels and Distribution of Housing Development CF5 Delivering affordable housing and mixed communities Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996 - 2011 (saved policies) T10 Developer Contributions Stratford–on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 STR.1 Settlement Hierarchy STR.2 New Housing Provision STR.2A The release of Housing Land STR.2B Housing Density STR.4 Previously Developed Land PR.1 Landscape and Settlement Character PR.7 Flood Defence PR.8 Pollution Control PR.11 Bad neighbour uses EF10 Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows EF.11A Archaeology DEV.1 Layout and Design DEV.2 Landscaping DEV.3 Amenity Space DEV.4 Access DEV.5 Car Parking DEV.6 Services DEV.7 Drainage DEV.8 Energy Conservation DEV.9 Access for people with disabilities DEV.10 Crime Prevention DEV.11 Public Art COM.4 & 5 Open Space COM.2 & 3 Local Shops and Services

COM.9 Walking and Cycling COM.13 Affordable Housing COM.14 Mix of Dwelling Types COM.15 Accessible Housing COM.16 Existing business uses MRC.5 Public open space SHIP.C Shipston on Stour – Proposal SHIP.C IMP. 2 Supplementary Planning Guidance IMP.4 Infrastructure Provision IMP.5 Infrastructure Provision Other Material Considerations Central Government Guidance PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 3 Housing (amended 9 June 2010) PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS 5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPG13 Transport PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control PPG24 Planning and Noise PPS25 Development and Flood Risk Circular 5/05 Planning Obligations Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact etc) Regulations 1999 Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment Circular 02/2009 The Town and Country Planning (consultation) (England) Direction 2009 DCLG letter dated 27 May 2010 to Chief Planning Officers re abolition of Regional Strategies Regional Spatial Strategy Preferred Option Policy CF3 Level and Distribution of New Housing CF4 Phasing of New Development Supplementary Planning Guidance and Documents Stratford-on-Avon District Design Guide (April 2001) Provision of Open Space (March 2005) Car and Cycle Parking Standards for Stratford-on-Avon District (April 2007) Meeting Housing Needs in Stratford-on-Avon District (July 2008) District Design Guide (April 2001) Stratford-upon-Avon Town Design Statement (September 2002) Sustainable Low Carbon Buildings (October 2007) Developer Contributions towards Transport Schemes in Stratford upon Avon (April 2007) Other Documents Open Space Audit Manual for Streets Transport and Roads for Developments: The Warwickshire Guide 2001

Design and Crime Reduction Extending your Home Planning Obligations Stratford on Avon District Council Corporate Strategy Improving the Quality of Life for Everyone. A 2026 Vision for Stratford District. A Sustainable Community Strategy. Statement of Community Involvement Shipston on Stour Town Plan Other Legislation Human Rights Act 1998 REPRESENTATIONS Town Council Comments for 10/00907/FUL and 10/00909/LBC • Fully support in principle, although some councillors would have preferred

Shipston House to be converted for community use, had funding been available.

• Believe that the proposal by Orbit addresses the real need for affordable rented social housing in the town

• Request legal agreement similar to that used on the London Road affordable housing application.

• Suggest a number of areas where they consider the existing applications could be strengthened and improved upon: 1. The houses fronting Tileman's Lane should have their own access roads and parking to the rear of the dwellings rather than the proposal to have their driveways on the road itself - this for safety and traffic reasons 2. The exit road from the site should enter Tileman's Lane via a roundabout directly opposite Beecham Road thus providing better traffic management and traffic calming 3. There should be a zebra crossing to the south of the suggested roundabout on Tileman's Lane i.e. to the south of Beecham Road, to ensure safer crossing for the primary school. 4. There should be careful consideration of the drainage of surface water from the housing development so that it does not add to the existing problems of water overflowing the road drain in Tileman’s Lane and entering the town. (28.5.2010)

Ward Members Councillor Cheney: Makes the following comments: ‘In supporting this application to provide affordable housing I agree with all the comments made by Shipston Town Council and would like to add the following. The need for affordable housing in Shipston has been demonstrated by the numbers bidding for each property in the Home Choice Plus scheme. Local people must be given first choice when applications are considered for this accommodation, this should be secured through a Section 106 Agreement. The views of the Conservation architect should be carefully considered to ensure that the architectural features of this Grade II Listed building are preserved.

Although not directly a planning issue, some form of community use of at least part of Shipston House would be appreciated by many residents of Shipston who feel that this building was and should remain, a community asset. I share the concerns about the traffic issues along Tilemans Lane, traffic calming and some means of preventing cars backing into the road from the 7 driveways proposed is needed to ensure safety for pedestrians and cars. Reinstating the once proposed roundabout at the junction of Beecham Road and Tilemans Lane would enhance road safety. I think it is unfortunate that there is no provision for a children’s play area in the development. The community orchard could be a useful feature but there is also a demand for allotments in Shipston’. (1.6.2010) Councillor Vial: Comments on 10/00907/FUL ‘Although I am generally supportive of the scheme, concerns have been raised by local residents about the traffic flow onto Tilemans Lane from the scheme. There are a number of driveways leading on to Tilemans Lane which will inevitably lead to cars reversing onto the road (either when leaving or arriving). With cars parked on the opposite side of the road, cars parked when dropping off/collecting children from the Primary School and the busy industrial area at the top of Tilemans Lane I share residents concerns about traffic management from the proposed development. I would like to see a clearer idea about how these concerns will be met, including plans for either better traffic management on Tilemans Lane, or limiting the number and type of access to the development’. (2.6.2010) Comments on 10/00909/LBC ‘I am generally supportive of this scheme, but would like to be reassured that both the exterior and interior features of the building will be preserved’. (2.6.2010) Third Party Representations 4 letters received, 2 of which support the proposal (from Shipston on Stour Primary School and Parish Priest) and 2 letters of objection. A letter of comments has also been received from Shipston on Stour Town Management Partnership. Reasons for support:

• Proposal would make good social use of a site that deserves to be put to a good use

• Brownfield site – better than building on the edge of Shipston • Would provide for homes which are needed • Adaption of the former workhouse is sympathetic and in line with PPS5 • The church is a significant building, nearby the site, but will not be

adversely affected • Security of the church would be improved and the redevelopment would

stop the current anti-social behaviour that occurs on the site • Natural surveillance from the development would give school grounds and

Children’s centre greater security Reasons for objection:

• Harm to highways safety • Main entrance proposed is dangerous and should be moved to opposite

Beecham Road • Cars reversing onto Tilesmans Lane would constitute a hazard

• Should be a roundabout opposite Beecham Road • Considers pedestrian crossings should be installed • Existing drain capacity is not enough, so does not know how drains would

cope with new development • Shipston House should be converted into library, museum or other

recreational facility. It should not be demolished. • Would have a harmful impact on those who live in ‘The Village’

development (opposite) Comments:

• Statement of Community Involvement is not an accurate reflection of the public consultation event – people suggested Shipston House should be used for a community use

• Obtaining names for a petition to keep Shipston House in community use • Allege that deceased inmates were buried along what is now the boundary

with the public footway between Tileman's Lane and Darlingscote Road. Since, by nature, these would have been the equivalent of "Paupers' Graves – excavations and development work would have an impact on these.

• Questions ownership of site - whilst the "responsibilities" for work houses were transferred, as above, was the ownership of the land and buildings actually part of a legal conveyance between the various parties mentioned above.

Miss E. Dixon: Disabled Access Advisor No representations. 23.5.2010 No third party responses have been received in relation to 10/00909/LBC Applicant's Comments The applicants have submitted the following documents:

• Planning Statement • Affordable Housing Statement • Design and Access Statement, including Heritage Statement • Building Condition Survey • Transport Assessment • Flood Risk Assessment • Contamination Report • Ecological Assessment • Tree Survey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Landscape

proposals • Energy Statement • Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment Report • Commitment to S106 contributions • Series of amended plans received by the Local Planning Authority on 23

June 2010 The applicants have provided a summary of each document as follows: Orbit Homes are a Housing Association who have secured funding from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) to develop the site at Shipston House for residential use. The proposals incorporate the sensitive redevelopment of Shipston House, a Grade II listed building that is currently falling into disrepair. The proposals have been subject to extensive discussion with Officers at the pre-application stage of the planning process and a number of changes to the scheme

have been made by the developers to meet with comments from Conservation Officers, Urban Design Officers, Landscape and Planning Officers of the Local Planning Authority during the application process. The planning application was accompanied by a number of supporting reports. The Planning Statement found that the site is allocated in the Stratford Local Plan Review for residential development and the proposals put forward by Orbit are for a mixed tenure scheme including social rented and shared equity affordable homes which will meet the Housing moratorium requirements that are currently in place within the District. The proposals are policy compliant and offer a high quality design for this sensitive site in Shipston on Stour. The Planning Statement was accompanied by an Affordable Housing Statement this has shown that the discussions that have taken place with the Local Planning Authority’s Development and Enabling Officer have resulted in the scheme being amended to provide more family housing to assist in meeting the needs of the optimum stock profile set out in the Council’s SPD ‘Meeting Housing Needs’ The Design and Access Statement included a Heritage Statement in accordance with requirements of PPS5. The conversion of Shipston House into apartments will ensure that the historic fabric of the building is retained, importantly the façade of the main building and two original staircases that have been identified as important will be retained. The Heritage Statement confirms that the extent of demolitions and proposed alterations are required to ensure the long term future of the listed building. A Building Condition Survey was undertaken in respect of Shipston House. This identified parts of the building that were in need of repair and replacement including areas in need of extensive re-building and remedial works. A Transport Assessment that accompanied the planning application showed that the development of the site would only result in a small number of net additional trips. The existing commercial use will end and the HGV movements will cease to the benefit of the local highway network. The site access junction and internal access roads offer appropriate visibility splays and junction spacing. The site is in a sustainable location and the report confirms there are no transport reasons why planning permission should be withheld. A Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken in accordance with provisions of PPS25 as it is larger than one hectare in size. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 identified as low risk. The report found that there will be no impact on flood risk to other land provided that the site levels and overland flow paths are carefully designed and drainage systems are regularly maintained. Mitigation measures in the form of swales and permeable paving are proposed. A Contamination Report in the form of a Phase I desk study and Phase II Ground Investigation has been undertaken. This has recommended as part of the site clearance all foundations, basements and voids are infilled with a suitable clean infill material. It is considered that it should be possible to achieve the required depth for foundation excavations using traditional hydraulic plant. From the results of the contamination testing, it is recommended that a ‘clean’ cover layer be installed across the site. An Ecological Assessment has been undertaken including a desk top assessment and on site surveys. There are no statutory or non statutory sites of nature conservation interest within the application site. In respect of the ecological surveys undertaken, with the use of appropriate safeguards there is no

evidence to suggest that there are overriding ecological constraints to the development of the site for residential purposes. The scheme proposals are accompanied by Tree Survey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment and Landscape proposals that will ensure that the open setting of Shipston House is respected. The tree survey has shown that the majority of trees that are to the perimeter of the site are generally low to moderate quality with the occasional higher quality tree. Landscape proposals have been adapted to meet with comments from the Landscape and Planning Officers of the Authority. There are a number of areas of improved landscaping throughout the development particularly around the entrance and to the east of Shipston House, a children’s play area has been included on site to meet with comments from the Planning Officer. An Energy Statement and Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-Assessment Report have been undertaken. These have been undertaken in accordance with the Council’s SPD ’Sustainable Low-Carbon Buildings’. The development will obtain a Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 which entails a 25% reduction in regulated CO2 emissions. It is proposed that the target is achieved through a combination of energy efficient measures and on-site Low and Zero Carbon technologies. The applicant is committed to providing Section 106 contributions and discussions have taken place with the Authority in respect of appropriate contributions arising from the development. These include financial contributions towards education, highways, libraries and footpaths and the on site affordable housing provision. To summarise, the applicants Orbit Homes are committed to the development of the site that has been allocated within the Local Plan Review for housing development. The proposals will ensure the long term future of Shipston House, a grade II listed building. Extensive negotiations have taken place with Officers of the Council to provide a high quality scheme that will ensure the important heritage aspects of the site are restored and retained. There are no overriding material planning considerations that would warrant planning consent being withheld on this site for the proposals put forward. CONSULTATIONS Georgian Group Objects for the following reasons:

• Objected to a previous scheme on 3rd May 2006. This scheme was refused consent by your authority and was ultimately rejected by the Planning Inspectorate following a Public Inquiry. The Inspector's decision letter giving the reasons for the dismissal of the appeal highlighted very similar concerns to the Group's regarding the impact of the proposals on the setting of Shipston House and historical fabric of the site. Most of the concerns raised regarding the previous scheme (06/00047/LBC) have not been addressed under this current application.

• Application should never have been validated without detailed information on the significance of the curtilage structures and also on the significance of both the wings of Shipston House and its surviving internal spaces.

• The Group has reservations about the proposed conversion of the Grade II building into eight flats. While subdivision of the main building may well be possible the applicant's should provide plans showing the historical phasing of the internal walls and fixtures and fittings before the impact on surviving fabric and the original floor-plan can be assessed. It would

appear that the proposed subdivision of Shipston House is quite intensive and may not respect the historic significance of the building as much as would be expected under an application for listed building consent.

• The proposed demolitions appear to involve the removal of buildings of at least some historical significance. As no detailed historical analysis of the curtilage structures or cartographical evidence of their construction dates has been provided the Group must object to any proposal to demolish the curtilage structures on this site.

• The proposed demolition of the single storey flanking wings to Shipston House is wholly unacceptable. This range pre-dates 1900 and is likely to be of historical significance, relating to the building's former use as a workhouse. Along with the curtilage structures on this site the single-storey ranges are important to the understanding of the historical function of the site, as well as making a strong contribution to the historical setting of the Grade II building.

• The current application would be detrimental to the setting of the Grade II listed building. The principal elevation of Shipston House would be hemmed in by unsympathetic new buildings on each side, and the gables of the houses behind would project above the roofline of the listed building. (comments on both FUL and LBC 8.6.2010)

Severn Trent No objection subject to condition for drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage. (2.6.2010) WCC Fire and Rescue No objection subject to condition for fire hydrants. (24.5.2010) Warwickshire Police Has been liaising with applicants. No objection to proposals. (21.5.2010) SDC Building Control Consider that the measures proposed in terms of the solar photovoltaic panels that the 10% on-site renewable requirements will be able to be met. Recommend condition that the proposed measures will be carried out. (21.5.2010) Development and Enabling Officer Strongly supports proposals:

• The proposals offer particular benefits in strategic housing terms, arising from the timely delivery of a much higher proportion of affordable housing than would otherwise be the norm on a site such as this.

• I am fully satisfied with the proposals overall, in terms of its content and stock mix. More specifically, I am also fully satisfied with the affordable housing package on offer. This will make a valuable and much-needed contribution to the supply of such housing.

• I am also satisfied that the proposals meet, or should be capable of meeting, all this Authority's relevant standards in respect of the accessibility, versatility and sustainability of new housing. Where necessary, any outstanding issues should be capable of being dealt with by way of condition.

• Requires completion of S106 Agreement to deliver affordable housing. (18.5.2010)

Comments on amended plans Support: Changes are as follows in housing terms:

• Change of tenure profile to 100% affordable, realised with a switch from market sale to Shared Ownership sale of 4 x 2 bedroom and 3 x 3 bedroom houses (Plots 1 to 7)

• Change of overall stock profile to: 5 no. 1 bed flats (conversion) 3 no. 2 bed flats (conversion) 19 no. 2 bed houses 14 no. 3 bed houses 4 no. 4 bed houses

Welcome the increased affordable housing yield Content with the resulting overall stock profile, and particularly welcome the introduction of additional 4 bedroom houses. Welcome the introduction of a formal children’s play area. This is beneficial in strategic housing terms, as it improves provision for families with children. (23.6.2010) Natural England On the basis of the information provided, Natural England has no objection to the proposed development. Bat surveys should be undertaken on any buildings to be demolished, prior to determination of the application. (2.6.2010) Warwickshire Wildlife Trust Comments:

• Recommends that the site, including the building(s) is inspected for the presence of bats or roosts by a qualified ecologist prior to the determination of the application.

• Nesting bird note required(19.5.2010) Environment Agency With regard to Groundwater and Contaminated Land No objections in principle to the application however based on the information reviewed recommend that conditions are imposed With regard to Development and Flood Risk Comments that the site lies outside Flood Zones 2 and 3, the higher risk flood zones. Therefore looking at surface water management and treatment. The information provided in the Flood Risk Assessment is acceptable to us at this stage. Request conditions. (11.6.2010) SDC Landscape Officer Comments

• The linear car parking row that currently defines the western edge of the POS is undesirable and conflicts with public open space

• The area around Shipston House is still of concern in terms of the functional, hard, car parking dominated southern side. Prefers softening to the southern side. Paviors should be random coursed in this area.

• The street view dominated parking at plots 22-24 and to a lesser extent plots 12-13 is also potentially very unattractive. Soft landscaping required in this area to soften.

• Concern about location of swale and impact on Shipston House. • Concern about aspects of boundary fencing adjacent to footpath. • Soft landscape proposals generally acceptable but requests larger tree

species in the public open space and to the front of Plots 1-6

• Communal orchard would be difficult to maintain and may result in nuisance to occupants (e.g wasps from fruit fall)

• Tree protection plan acceptable. • Tree report has identified the better existing trees which the site layout

has respected • Arboricultural Implications Assessment is well written and content agreed.

(9.6.2010) English Heritage Objects

• The application is for the partial demolition of the main listed building and some of the adjoining outbuildings, for the conversion of the listed building and the construction of new houses within the curtilage of the listed building. The demolitions have not been adequately justified and the scheme does not respect the historic building and its setting.

• The PPS5 justification for the scheme contained in pages 34 to 37 of the Design and Access statement is a rather thin and inadequate piece of work.

• Turning to the demolitions which the scheme involves, it includes removing the single storey wings to either side of the main block: these are firmly attached to the listed building and thus are a part of the principal listed building; they are described in the list description: they are of intrinsic interest on this site in defining the historic character of the site.

• The proposals involve the construction of new housing, mostly of two storeys, which does little to respect the historic layout of the site (admittedly much altered by the more recent development behind the main block).

• The scheme does little to preserve or enhance the listed building. The demolition of historic parts of the principle listed building is to be deprecated, and has not been justified.

• Proposals are damaging to the heritage asset. (comments on both FUL and LBC 14.6.2010)

Following communication between English Heritage, the case officer and Conservation Officer, English Heritage are proposing to revise their response as they recognised on 16 June 2010 that their response had been based on misinterpreting the list description. This has not been received at the time of writing this report, but will be included in the Update Report. WCC Archaeology No objection subject to condition

• Does not consider that the proposed development will have a significant negative impact upon archaeological deposits.

• No record of any burials from this area, and no burial grounds are shown on any of the Ordnance Survey maps from the 1880s onwards. Detailed research has been undertaken into workhouses, including this one, across England by Peter Higginbottom. This has involved extensive survey of archive records and mapping; no indication of any burials at this workhouse has been recorded at this site during his research. Have also accessed the records held by the Warwickshire County Record Office, these do not make reference to any burials across this area. The evidence available to WCC and available in the County Record Office, does not therefore suggest that paupers were buried across this site, although this cannot be completely discounted. Does not consider that the proposed development would be likely to disturb any such burials in the location where the burials are alleged.

• it may be appropriate for a programme of building recording to be undertaken prior to any alterations to the existing buildings (16.6.2010)

SDC Conservation Comments:

• Has focused predominantly on the listed building and the impact of the proposal on its character, appearance and setting.

• Given the history of the listed building, and its current context and condition, an ideal development proposal would be characterised by (i) a radical improvement in the context of the site surrounding the main listed building, (ii) retention of all C19 elements, (iii) a full and high quality restoration of the listed building (including retention of key architectural and historic features), combined with a high degree of community use, and (iv) with internal spaces largely honouring the historic layout, enabling appreciation of the internal architectural spaces and features. However, the reality is that for years the building has lain dormant, occasionally vandalised, and gradually deteriorating, and no such 'ideal' proposal has been forthcoming. This is hardly surprising. Stating the obvious, financial considerations have in the past been, and continue to be, a central and major factor in shaping any viable scheme.

• In principle, proposals for the re-use of this site for residential use are guardedly welcomed to the extent that they provide the opportunity to ensure the survival, preservation and restoration of the most significant architectural and historic aspects of Shipston House, which has fallen into serious disrepair in recent years.

• In terms of retention of fabric, this current application is, in my opinion, far superior to previous submissions, which involved substantial loss of key features such as fireplaces, highly significant internal walls, doorways and doors.

• Considers the Design and Access statement, and particularly its PPS5 assessment, incorporated in the application documentation, does substantively address the key issues of significance.

• The list description gives an unequivocal message on the significance of the long flanking wings and other later extensions. It notes specifically that these ‘C19 and C20 extensions are not of special architectural interest’. I would not object to the demolition of the long flanking wings provided the merits of the overall scheme justify this when balancing all the factors relevant to securing a meaningful and viable future for the building. This position would be fundamentally conditional on other aspects of the proposals having counterbalancing merit.

• Has carried out an internal inspection of Shipston House. While the plans positively incorporate retention of most existing features, the site visit did indeed throw up some issues with regard to the central stairs and one or two doors and doorways. These appear to have been addressed to some extent, but not entirely.

• Two key issues therefore remain to be resolved, before I could give the overall scheme my support (or at least not object to it). These are as follows :- 1. Confirmation that the existing stairs and balustrades in the centre of the building will remain in situ in their entirety. 2. A re-arrangement of the large ground floor area to the left of the central front entrance to address the concerns outlined above.

• Ultimately, while accepting that the current scheme does not by any means meet the criteria for an ‘ideal’ conservation-focused outcome, and that this makes it an easy target for criticism (based on departure from this ideal), I believe it to be a realistic and pragmatic opportunity to secure the future of this important, but currently seriously compromised and

deteriorating, listed building. In the absence (both in recent years and now) of viable, and significantly preferable, alternatives, and with no real prospect of any such alternatives in the foreseeable future, I would very much regret the continuing deterioration of this heritage asset within an ongoing planning vacuum.

• Requires amended plans and conditions (4.6.2010) Additional comments in respect of amended plans: The revised plans incorporate the two amendments I had requested, and these adequately deal with the main issues I noted in my initial consultation comments. However, in reviewing these plans I realise that I had not previously commented on the addition of the proposed bin store to the left of the main Shipston House front elevation. While I have been willing not to object to the demolition of the two single storey C19 flanking wings, added after the original build, it would not be appropriate in my opinion to add back any new element or elements impacting visually and physically on the main original front elevation and exposed side elevations. Therefore object to this additional element, which will need to be removed from the proposals in order to have my support. An alternative site for this second refuse store will need to be agreed, well away from the main front and side elevations. (30.6.2010) SDC Urban Design (Summary of detailed response) There are a number of aspects of the redevelopment of the site that have been encouraged at pre-application stage. These have been largely addressed through the current scheme. These are:

• Retaining the open setting to the north and east of Shipston House. • The potential for an appropriate scheme for the refurbishment of Shipston

House. • The creation of a strong residential frontage to Tilemans Lane. • The creation of a positive frontage that provides natural surveillance to the

existing public footpath along the western boundary. • The use of the existing vehicular access to Shipston House as an attractive

pedestrian/cycle route, creating an enhanced setting to the listed building. • Ensure that the new build residential remains subservient to Shipston

House. The buildings have been intentionally set back from the frontage building line of Shipston House.

• The demolition of the curtilage listed buildings and single-storey wings to Shipston House has been considered and accepted by the District Council’s Conservation Officer.

There are clearly many positive aspects to the scheme which are to be encouraged and applauded. However, there are a number of issues that remain of concern.

• There are significant benefits to the scheme in terms of the provision of affordable housing, and the restoration and reuse of Shipston House. However, I also highlight the importance of a high quality design response for this key site, and a scheme which would enhance the setting of Shipston House. It is clear that design is not the only consideration in terms of assessing the benefits of the scheme, and the importance of the design issues should be balanced against a number of other key matters.

• Despite a significant reduction in the number of plots on the site, the scheme appears overdeveloped. The lowering of the density is related to an overall increase in the number of family homes and a reduction in the

number of apartments. Therefore the density calculation may be rather misleading, with overall site coverage being a more accurate indication of the overall density of the built form. The site is within a sustainable location, and therefore higher densities are appropriate but need to be balanced against the constraints of the site and the need to create a well designed scheme. In my opinion a reduction in the number of plots would assist in creating an improved design and layout.

• I remain concerned that the proposed development had a weak relationship to Shipston House, with standard house types fitted on to the site rather than responding to the constraints and opportunities of the site. It is not clear how the proposed house types will respond to the character of Shipston House. However, the applicant has set the houses back from the main frontage building line of Shipston House, leaving the listed building as the dominant feature, with the houses subservient to this feature building. I consider that the materials and details can be conditioned to ensure they are complementary to those at Shipston House.

• There are areas of the proposed development where car parking and associated hardstanding is dominant within the street frontages. It is accepted that terraced houses create a strong building line to the street, although car parking solutions that place the majority of parked cars between the frontage and the street are to be avoided. However the applicant has undertaken amendments to reduce this domination by introducing areas of soft landscaping to break up the areas of hard standing and cars. They have also removed all parking from the frontage to Shipston House to improve the setting of the listed building. The parking layout and design has improved throughout these revisions to the original plans, although as indicated, a reduction in plot numbers would also reduce the amount of parking required. The hard and soft landscaping treatment of these areas will need further consideration and be subject to a relevant condition to ensure that they become attractive courtyard spaces.

• Although plots 7-9 have been amended to create a stronger frontage to Tilemans Lane, the plots fail to positively turn this key corner into the site. The current arrangement would have a relatively long stretch of private boundary and a three bay wide parking area, resulting in a very weak street scene to this access road. Although I note that Orbit are concerned that by amending this layout to address this corner positively, a plot would have to be lost, this is a highly visible corner within the new development and its design should reflect this importance.

• There was a poor relationship between the rear boundary of plots 43-45 and the public open space/Shipston House, which has been the subject of revisions from the original layout plan. The rear boundary treatment to plots 43-45 has been replaced with a curved feature wall, with hedge planting in front. The associated parking has also been revised to avoid its impact on the public open space. The appearance of this boundary has been improved, and there is a reduction to the amount of boundary visible as viewed from the public open space and the views on the approach from the town centre side of the site along Tilemans Lane.

• The types of boundary treatment have been amended throughout the process of revisions to the layout plan. There are areas of the site where boundaries will be of particular importance and an appropriate treatment to these areas is needed. Further clarification regarding the issue of boundary treatments is needed, but following ongoing discussions with the applicant, could be dealt with by a relevant condition.

• It appears that there is a new bin store proposed attached to the southern wing of Shipston House. This would potentially have a detrimental impact

on the listed building – detracting from the symmetrical form of the building which is a key part of the buildings character. (16.6.2010)

SDC Environmental Health Comments: The wording of the noise limit condition on adjacent industrial site is far from perfect and the limits specified are a little out of date, not in terms of the numbers but in the criteria used. They should however be sufficient to protect the new property occupiers. This is on the assumptions:

a) that the condition applies to the adjacent site despite the demise of Aqua Pipes, and

b) that the condition would apply to any other like uses of the site (B2) More concerns about plastic extrusion as a process if it was to return to the site. Apart from noise generation, its other potential impact is from smells arising from the heating of the plastic material but this should be controllable by technological means. (17.6.2010) Warwickshire County Council Highway Authority No objection subject to conditions and notes. (22.6.10) Warwickshire County Council Museum (Ecology) No objection. No known sites of nature conservation interest will be adversely affected by the development and nor will any habitats of significant ecological value. If minded to grant recommends conditions to relate to landscaping, bat worker to be present on site, schedule of bat mitigation measures, lighting details, bird nesting boxes, supervision of groundsworks in relation to reptiles and notes (21.6.2010) Warwickshire County Council Education Contributions towards Shipston on Stour Primary School and Shipston High School requested based on 41 relevant units (i.e. 41 units 2 beds or over). Primary Education £84,084 for 7 additional places and Secondary Education £90,500 for 5 additional places making a total of £174,584) (7.6.2010) Warwickshire County Council Library Services Requests contribution of £6,066 towards local library facilities. (25.5.2010) Warwickshire County Council Countryside Recreation No objection. Path SS122b is in a very good condition and requires no attention. Requests £1000 to be spent within a 3 mile radius of the site, to improve access to the rights of way network by replacing stiles with gates. (10.6.2010) ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES Site context and Planning History The application site contains a range of brick buildings formerly comprising the Shipston Poor Law Institution or Union Workhouse. The central 9-window range and flanking single-storey one-window ranges date from approximately 1837 and are listed Grade II. The three other linked ranges and several detached buildings are later C19 and of less interest but must be considered curtilage listed. The buildings occupy a prominent elevated site, outside the centre of the town but adjacent to a significant new residential development known as ‘The Village’, and have an important landscape setting. The structures all form an important group with the Grade II-listed elements and the C19 Gothic-style Roman Catholic

Church, which was formerly the Workhouse chapel. The application site also contains an existing business use with associated modern industrial unit. The site is bounded by different land uses; to the west a public footpath and beyond this some industrial units, to the north, a new residential development ‘The Village’, to the east, Shipston on Stour Primary School and to the south a catholic church and residential area. It is undoubtedly a site surrounded by a number of different land uses with associated planning constraints. Shipston House is currently vacant and falling into disrepair. The exterior of the building has been subjected to graffiti and as time passes, more and more of its historic character and fabric deteriorates and is lost. The industrial unit accommodates a business currently supplying agricultural machinery, and its proximity to Shipston House, has an undesirable impact on the setting of the Listed Building. There have been a number of planning applications submitted on this site in recent years, which sought to redevelop the site, including Shipston House for residential purposes. Application references 06/00044/FUL and 06/00047/LBC sought to conversion Shipston House to 8 flats, and to convert the outbuilding to 2 dwellings and to erect 79 dwellings within the remainder of the site. This application was refused and dismissed on appeal. The reasons why the appeal were dismissed included that the Inspector was not satisfied that the proposed conversion (of Shipston House) could be carried out without harming the architectural and historical interest of the listed buildings; that there was no detailed justification for the demolition of two listed buildings and single storey wings; and that the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and in particular on the setting of the listed buildings on the site. More recently, application reference 07/02029/LBC was refused. This formed part of a proposal to convert Shipston House and its ancillary outbuilding to 10 residential units and build 61 dwellings in the remainder of the site. The listed building consent application was refused for two reasons; firstly it was considered that the applicant has not submitted an adequate justification in accordance with PPG15 for the demolition works proposed. Secondly, the proposed conversion scheme was considered to pay insufficient respect to the special architectural and historic interest of the listed buildings. The concurrent planning application is still pending consideration. Officers however had raised objection to the application for a number of reasons, including the harm to the listed building setting. The site has since changed ownership to Orbit (the previous applicants were Banner Homes) and the application has never been withdrawn or formally determined. The current applications seek to address the previous objections to the schemes. There are some considerable differences, particularly relating to the demolition and impact on curtilage listed and listed aspects of Shipston House, a much lower density development is proposed to that previous, the massing and scale of the proposed housing has changed now being only two storeys high, houses now front onto to the public footpath and the setting of listed building has been opened up. What is clear in coming to a recommendation on any planning application on this site is that an ideal development proposal would be characterised by (i) a radical improvement in the context of the site surrounding the main listed building, (ii) retention of all C19 elements of the listed building, (iii) a full and high quality restoration of the listed building (including retention of key architectural and historic features), combined with a high degree of

community use, and (iv) with internal spaces largely honouring the historic layout, enabling appreciation of the internal architectural spaces and features. However, the reality is that for years the building has lain dormant, occasionally vandalised, and gradually deteriorating, and no such 'ideal' proposal has been forthcoming. The starting point for assessing any application on this site should be the maximum retention of significant architectural and historic fabric but I consider that a pragmatic approach also needs to be taken to secure an appropriate scheme which prevents the further loss of historic fabric. Policy and Principle of the Development Saved Policy SHIP.C of the Local Plan Review 1996-2011 is directly related to this site. This policy states that ‘land comprising 1.0 hectare (gross) at Shipston House, Tilemans Lane is allocated for residential development (including a proportion of affordable units)’. The explanatory text goes on to state that the redevelopment of the site provides the opportunity to ensure the preservation of Shipston House that was originally built as a workhouse. It is expected that any development scheme should include the conversion of Shipston House. The development should take into account 3 aspects; firstly preserving the existing open setting of Shipston House in an appropriate manner; secondly, remove unsympathetic extensions to Shipston House as part of any conversion scheme; and thirdly, consider the relationship of the site to adjacent industrial activities to the east. The proposal does indeed comprise a residential development, sought for under Policy SHIP.C. Moreover, the proposal incorporate the conversion of Shipston House to 8 apartments. The development seeks to provide a 100% affordable housing scheme, i.e. all 45 units would be for either rented or shared ownership. The extent to which the scheme meets the three aspects listed above will be explored in the relevant key issues below. Policy COM.16 of the Local Plan Review seeks to retain sites in existing business uses, by not permitting their redevelopment for other uses, including housing, except in those cases specifically identified in this Plan. Part of the application site is occupied by an existing business. However, I do not consider this proposal contrary to Policy COM.16 given that Policy SHIP.C directly seeks to redevelop the site for residential purposes, therefore weighing in favour of the proposal. Shipston House itself, is currently vacant, dilapidated and falling into disrepair. It was most previously used for employment purposes however I consider saved Local Plan Review policy SHIP.C actively supports its redevelopment for residential purposes. During pre-application discussions, and as part of the application process, third parties, local Ward Members and the Town Council have supported the potential for Shipston House to be either fully or partly converted to a community use. I note that the Shipston Town Management Partnership consider that this has not been covered adequately in the Statement of Community Involvement submitted by the applicants. Whilst a community use within the building would be desirable and of community benefit in view of the historic contribution of the building to society and in terms of the impact of the conversion on listed fabric (a community use would not require so many partitions as a residential conversion), Policy SHIP.C does not require such provision. Were a proposal for a community use in the building to come forward, it would not be resisted by Officers, however the submitted application does not provide for a community use and Officers cannot raise objection to the proposal on the grounds of a lack of community use given the policy basis. I therefore raise no objection to the application for the principle of converting Shipston House to residential use.

I acknowledge that at present there is a moratorium on new housing in the District. However, the Managing Housing Supply Supplementary Planning Document on the Housing Moratorium states, inter alia, at paragraph 4.1 that housing proposals put forward for development that is solely for affordable housing and accords with Policy COM.13 are exempt from the moratorium. The application proposal is for 100% affordable housing. In addition to this, the District Council’s Development and Enabling Officer has confirmed that given that the proposal is for 100% affordable housing the requirements of adopted policy COM.13 (that requires a minimum of 35% on-site affordable housing prevision) are met. It should also be noted that the provision of affordable housing is a key aim of both the Corporate Strategy and Sustainable Community Strategy. I consider that in light of the above that the proposal is acceptable in principle. Mix of dwelling types Adopted policy COM.14 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 seeks to provide a balanced mix of housing stock. This policy is further interpreted in policy MHN11 of the District Councils adopted Supplementary Planning Document entitled ‘Meeting Housing Needs’. Key Principle MHN11 seeks to ensure that broadly 75% of market properties on the site should comprise two and three bedroom dwellings. The application proposes a mix of dwellings types and sizes. The development would provide for the conversion of Shipston House in 8 apartments (5 one-bed and 3 two-beds), and 37 two-storey houses (19 two-beds, 14-three beds and 4-four beds). 84% of the units would be 2 and 3 beds. In terms of tenures, of the 45 units, 17 would be shared ownership and 28 rented. The number of one beds apartments is a reflection of the restrictions on converting Shipston House, where to minimise partitions, a proposed two-bed has had to be changed to a one bed through the amended plans received during the course of the application. Key Principle MHN13 sets out expectations with respect to the optimum stock profile of the affordable housing. The stock profile actually proposed does differ in detail from the optimum mix however the Development and Enabling Officer is fully satisfied that that the stock mix proposed is appropriate having regard to the overall scale of development and the attributes and constraints affecting the site. The Council’s Development and Enabling Officer has confirmed that the minimum size standards are met and for some house types, minimum standards exceeded. Impact of development on Shipston House In coming to an assessment of the impact of development on Shipston House, it is important to be mindful of the list description. This main aspects of this are that the list description identifies a two-storey nine window range with a double plan depth and to either side of this, a contemporary one-storey one window range. The list then states that further 19th century and 20th century extensions are not of special architectural interest. In also coming to an assessment on this matter, I have had particular regard to the consultation responses from the Council’s Conservation Officer, English Heritage and the Georgian Group. An updated English Heritage response is awaited at the time of report writing due to their initial misinterpretation of the list description. The Council’s Conservation Officer acknowledges the current context of the site and how redevelopment of the listed building is needed urgently to prevent further deterioration. Objection is

not raised to the demolition of the single storey flanking wings, particularly if this is the only way of making the site viable, however this is conditional on other aspects of the proposals having counterbalancing merit. To address the Council’s Conservation Officer’s concerns, amended plans have been received during the course of the application and ensure that the existing stairs and balustrades in the centre of the building are preserved and retained and the ground floor flat has removed proposed partitions (with the exception of one) to retain an open space, characteristic of the listed building and its original proportions. Other aspects of the proposal seek to preserve the setting of the listed building; plot 45 and 34 have been set westwards of the front building line of Shipston House; the area to the north of Shipston House has been secured as open space; the existing car lay-by to the east of Shipston House has been removed; the main access road into the development provides a view of Shipston House; Shipston House would be visible from the public footpath running adjacent to the western site boundary; and none of the development is greater than two storeys to respect Shipston House. There are however some negative impacts on the listed building which must be considered and balanced against those more positive impacts; the loss of the listed and curtilage listed parts of the building is regrettable; the hard landscaped area to the south of Shipston House is far from ideal, the proximity of the children’s play area to Shipston House is not ideal (but in my opinion, is the best position for the play area to ensure natural surveillance); the cycle shelters so close to Shipston House is undesirable; the use of standardised house types and restrictions from Lifetime Homes initiative and ultimately a residential conversion is not the best conservation means of reutilising the building. Many of these factors are directly related to the Lifetime Homes initiative, which requires parking spaces to be within a certain distance of houses, parking spaces which can be wide enough to become disabled spaces, hard standing and paths to houses etc. However, when weighing up all the relevant matters, I share the pragmatic position of the Conservation Officer and conclude that the proposal, on balance, does not have a harmful impact on the either the setting or fabric of Shipston House. Whilst I accept that the current scheme does not by any means meet the criteria for an ‘ideal’ conservation-focused outcome (being a residential conversion and having dwellings built in its setting), and that this makes it an easy target for criticism, I believe it to be a realistic and pragmatic opportunity to secure the future of this important, but currently seriously compromised and deteriorating, listed building. In the absence (both in recent years and now) of viable, and significantly preferable, alternatives, and with no real prospect of any such alternatives in the foreseeable future, the continuing deterioration of this heritage asset within an ongoing planning vacuum would be regrettable and I therefore conclude insufficient harm is caused to justify a refusal of permission on these grounds. I disagree with the Georgian Group regarding the assessment of significance required by PPS5. I consider that this has been adequately done to enable the validation and an assessment of the application. Whilst I accept some of the Georgian Group’s criticism of the proposal, I do not consider that the demolition of the single storey flanking wings is unacceptable. Indeed the list description describes them as ‘not of special architectural interest’. Whilst they undoubtedly have historic importance and relationship to Shipston House, their retention is not imperative. Design, layout and density The density of the proposed development is 38 dwellings per hectare. Whilst I recognise that the minimum density requirement of 30 dwellings per hectare has been removed from PPS3, policy STR.2B still retains the requirement. I consider

that the density proposed is suitable for the site which is located in a sustainable location, balanced against preserving the setting of the listed building. Moreover, the proposed density is in-keeping with the developments to the north and south of the site. It is undoubted that this proposal, when compared to previous applications submitted on the site, is an improvement in terms of design and density. In terms of the layout of the site, due to the site constraints, and in particular ensuring that some dwellings front onto the footpath running to the west, the layout has resulted in a number of un-typical relationships between dwellings. In addition to this separation distances required to dwellings at Brickhall Close and preserving the settling of Shipston House have resulted in further constraints to the site layout. Particularly undesirable features of the site layout are the car dominated area to the south of Shipston House, the parking court to the rear of Plots 14-17 and the parking dominated new street to the north of Plots 22-24. The applicants have tried to soften these areas by introducing individual trees and small landscaped areas. The amended plans have reduced the amount of parking along the access road which helps improve the setting of the listed building. The proposed houses comprise two-storey dwellings, predominately semi-detached although some terraces are proposed. The dwellings along Tilemans Lane all front onto the road and address the road appropriately. In an ideal situation, any development in the setting of a listed building would respond directly to the listed building and take on some form of its characteristics. However due to standard house types used by the applicant, this has not occurred. It would have been desirable for example for Plots 9 and 43 on the entrance to the scheme to have ‘turned the corner’. However, it is important to balance the benefits of bringing a listed building back into use and the provision of affordable housing, both of which call for a pragmatic design and landscaping approach to be taken. The majority of garden sizes are standard or above standard. Plots 15, 16 and 17 do however have substandard garden sizes. Due to the constraints of the site additional garden area cannot be secured for these plots. However in view of the public open space provided for on the site, I do not object. The rear gardens would accommodate hard standing for the provided wheelie bins for segregated refuse collection, secure cycle storage and secure garden sheds. The site layout also provides for a water butt for each dwelling, and I also propose to condition that the water butt shall be installed and space for the wheelie bins shall be provided in accordance with the submitted plan. The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has raised no objection to the application. In accordance with advice in PPS1, the District Council has adopted guidance on ‘Design and Crime Reduction’ in order that these matters can be addressed through the planning system. I consider that the proposal meets the 4 key principles detailed in this document: Integration, Sense of ownership and responsibility, Natural surveillance and Movement. The proposed dwellings would have a mix of brick and render, which I consider appropriate to the location and material samples can be conditioned. Whilst I accept the concerns of the Council’s Urban Designer, The Georgian Group and English Heritage, on balance, subject to the imposition of conditions I do not consider that the design and site layout have a harmful impact on the setting of the Listed Building.

Accessibility Adopted Policy COM.15 states that in all proposals for housing development, designs will be encouraged which ensure that the approaches, entrances and layout of dwellings are accessible to all potential occupants and visitors, in particular the elderly and disabled. The concept of ‘Lifetime Homes’ is becoming more widely recognised and applied and the Local Planning Authority will encourage house builders to incorporate such principles into the design of dwellings. Part (1) of Key Principle MHN12 of the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document ‘Meeting Housing Needs’ seeks to develop a new model of housing provision that will better meet the needs of the whole population by securing the delivery of a more flexible and versatile housing stock. In this way the District Council also seeks to discharge its statutory Disability Equality Duty. The provision of at least 50% of the proposed housing to satisfy Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards is therefore sought. The applicant has confirmed that all of the dwellings will meet ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards. The proposed development does indeed meet Lifetime Homes requirements, however in meeting this, this matter has had to be finely balanced against impact on the setting of the listed building (discussed in the key issue relating to impact on the listed building above). For example, this has meant parking has had to be provided in close proximity to Shipston House which is not desirable. However, from a pragmatic perspective, to the north and west of Shipston House, the setting has been enhanced and therefore on balance, I accept that the requirements of Lifetime Homes cannot be avoided and on balance, the scheme is acceptable on this basis. Impact on surrounding residential amenity The application site lies adjacent to residential properties at Brickhill Close to the south and opposite a relatively recent development ‘The Village’ to the north. I have carefully assessed the impact of the proposed new dwellings on the houses lying in proximity to the development. In terms of Brickhall Close, the proposed Units 18-21 which back onto the rear gardens of Brickhall Close have a separation distance of 21 metres. This meets the minimum separation distance required for a two-storey rear – rear relationship as set out in the Extending Your Home advice note. I have also carefully assessed the impact on No 18 Brickhill Close which would have Unit 27 sited to its north west. I consider there is adequate separation distance between the two properties and Unit 27 does not contravene the 45 degree line when drawn from the rear windows of No 18. I therefore do not consider that Unit 27 would create an overbearing impact to No 18. In addition, the orientation of the two properties in relation to each other would prevent a harmful loss of light. In terms of proposed units fronting onto Tilemans Lane, all have a minimum separation distance of 21m to dwellings on the opposite northern side of Tilemans Lane, with the exception of Plot 43, which has a 19.5m separation distance to No 15. On balance, I do not raise objection to this sub-standard separation distance given that Unit 43 does span the whole frontage of No 15. I do not consider that the increase in the number of dwellings will have a detrimental impact in terms of increased noise from vehicular movements.

In light of the above I consider that the proposal will be acceptable in terms of impact on residential amenity. Impact of development on other surrounding land uses The development also lies adjacent to Shipston on Stour Primary School, a church and industrial uses. In my opinion the development would have no adverse impact on any of these adjacent land uses. Indeed I agree with both third party comments of support received, in that redeveloping the site will reduce the anti-social behaviour that currently occurs on the site and create additional natural surveillance. Impact of adjacent industrial uses on the development Policy SHIP.C identifies that a consideration of the relationship of the site to adjacent industrial activities to the east is required. The site lies adjacent to 3 industrial units. Recent applications on this site did not provide housing which fronted onto the footpath and industrial sites. Whilst in order to prevent noise disturbance this may be preferable, in order to create a less oppressive and safer pedestrian environment, I consider a key aspect of the proposals is the provision of 4 units fronting onto the footpath. Having researched the planning history for the industrial units, all of the relevant permissions include a condition that provides a noise level control of 45dBA and 35 dBA at the site boundary (the noise level difference depending on the hours and day the activity is occurring). The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that such a condition is adequate to prevent a harmful noise impact arising on the occupants of the proposed units lying adjacent to this boundary. I therefore consider that the relationship of the proposed development to the industrial activities to the east of the site is acceptable in terms of noise impact. Any other environmental nuisance, were it to arise from the industrial units, such as unpleasant odours, could be controlled through Environmental Health legislation. Landscaping A large number of trees are proposed to be removed through the development proposals, including those along the western boundary with the public footpath. No objection is raised to the loss of these. Between Plots 17 and 18, a landscaped area is proposed, with large tree species, and larger tree species are proposed in the open area in the setting of Shipston House. The landscape officer’s original concerns have been addressed by reducing the amount of parking along the access road, providing for larger native tree species, removing the orchard from the scheme. I acknowledge the concern expressed by the District Council’s landscape officer regarding the amount of hardstanding in the scheme and car domination especially to the south of Shipston House and plots 22-25, however I consider that the density is appropriate at this site in view of its sustainable location, and in view of the site constraints, do not raise objection to this on balance. In addition, some individual feature tree planting is proposed for example in front Plots 28-34 which will provide some softening. In order to prevent the front gardens from being converted to hardstanding in what is already a hardstanding dominated development in some parts of the site, I consider that it is appropriate to impose a condition removing permitted development rights to undertake hardstanding within the curtilage of the dwelling.

Subject to conditions, I consider that the proposal is acceptable in terms of landscaping. Parking and highway safety The District Council’s SPD entitled Car and Parking Standards for Stratford on Avon District allows a maximum of 2 spaces per dwelling. The development seeks to provide 80 spaces (including disabled spaces and visitor parking), the majority of which are in a tandem arrangement which is a typical feature of such development and to which the County Highways Authority raise no objection. In view of the highly sustainable location, in walking distance of a leisure centre, both primary and secondary school, shops, church and other amenities, I consider the parking provision adequate. I note the contents of the two third party representations and comments of the Town Council and Ward Members with regards to highways matters and alternative solutions they suggest. Warwickshire County Council Highways have no objection to the units fronting Tilemans Lane, accessing their parking spaces directly from Tilemans Lane, even if this involves them reversing onto the road. I accept that there is a variety of traffic utilising this road including residential, industrial, school and other traffic, however it does have a 30mph limit. Since Warwickshire County Council highways have raised no objection to the development I raise no objection on highways grounds. In terms of the internal roads of the development, the applicants have agreed with Warwickshire County Council which aspects would be adoptable highway. Warwickshire County Council have also raised no objection subject to conditions to the proposed access onto Tilemans Lane. In view of this, I raise no objection to the application in terms of impact on highways safety. The Highways Authority has also confirmed that a contribution will be required for welcome packs for each new household to help promote sustainable travel. I consider that this is appropriate and proposed to secure this through a S106 Agreement. Impact on adjacent public footpath Public footpath SS122b runs along the adjacent western site boundary. It is currently an intimating alleyway bounded by close board fencing to the east and high security fencing to the west. I consider that the proposed development would have a beneficial impact on the footpath and for its users. The proposal would provide for Plots 14-17 fronting onto the footpath, and the majority of the boundary would be low 1m high metal railings. This added natural surveillance would accord with DEV.10 in seeking to prevent crime and is a beneficial feature of the scheme. Public Open Space Policy COM.4 provides the basis for standards of open space which are required. The 2005 Audit refers to a modest shortfall of public open space in Shipston and a poor distribution of children's equipped playspace within the settlement. The nearest children’s play area is at Railway Crescent, approximately 400 metres away which just meets the maximum distance specified in the Open Space Supplementary Planning Document. The proposal provides for a large amount of open space, which is not equipped. In gross terms there is a relatively modest degree of under-provision against the

notional requirement. Originally a community orchard was proposed, however this was deleted from the scheme, due to likely maintenance issues and its contrived appearance in the setting of the listed building. The amended plans have provided a children’s play area (the equipment would be resolved through condition, but Officers would seek to secure wooden/natural equipment which would preserve the listed building). Whilst I have concerns about its proximity to the listed building, I consider that it is necessary on a development of this scale to provide the facility and the proposed location is most appropriate based on the current layout of the housing. Whilst the development would be a slight under provision of public open space, in view of the proximity of the site to the leisure centre, I raise no objection to the proposal. I do not consider a financial contribution towards public open space is necessary given the nature of the site. Drainage, flooding and contamination The site lies in Flood Zone 1 and the applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment. This assessment concludes that the proposals are at negligible risk from flooding and that there will be no impact on flood risk to other land provided that the site levels and overland flow paths are carefully designed and drainage systems maintained. Policy DEV.7 states that ‘all development proposals will be expected to incorporate sustainable drainage systems which provide for the disposal of surface water’. The proposals incorporate a swale which would be located to the east of Shipston House. Subject to conditions, both the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water have no objections to the proposal. In terms of contamination, the site has a former industrial use. The applicants have undertaken a Phase I and II Desk Study and geotechnical/ geoenvironmental Ground Investigation. There is the potential for contamination on the site but subject to conditions to identify contaminants, risk and remediation, I concur with the Environment Agency and have no objection to the proposal on these grounds. Archaeology During the course of the application, the Shipston Town Management Partnership have alleged that there may be paupers graves on the site. Warwickshire County Council Archaeology have fully assessed this matter. Based on an assessment from records held by the Warwickshire County Records Office, research into workhouses and other evidence available, there nothing to suggest that paupers were buried across this site, although this cannot be completely discounted. Warwickshire County Council Archaeology do not therefore object to the development and do not consider that the proposed development will have a significant negative impact upon archaeological deposits. In view of the listed building on the site, WCC Archaeology have requested that a photographic record of the building is secured by condition, to which I have no objection. Ecology No objection has been raised by Warwickshire County Council Ecology Department who consider that no known sites of nature conservation interest or habitats of significant ecological value would be adversely affected by the development. WCC Ecology have requested various conditions and notes, including conditions to secure landscaping, a bat worker to supervise destructive works, a detailed schedule of bat mitigation measures, details of external lighting, a scheme for suitable bird nesting boxes, supervision of ground works to protect

reptiles. I propose such conditions and conclude that subject to these, the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on ecology. Sustainability and Energy Conservation Part (1) of the Key Principle MHN 15 of the District Councils adopted supplementary Planning Document entitled ‘Meeting Housing needs’ requires all new housing to achieve a minimum rating of Level 3 against the Code for Sustainable Homes. Part (2) requires the submission of a method statement explaining how this standard will be met or exceeded. Policy DEV.8 and the SPD Low Carbon Buildings also requires a minimum of 10% reduction in carbon emissions. The applicant has submitted an Energy Statement and Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-assessment in support of the planning application that states that all the units will be designed to a minimum of Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 that is in excess of the District Council’s minimum standards. Energy efficiency measures including the use of solar photovoltaics will reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions by more than the 10% required under the Council’s SPD which I consider is appropriate. I consider that these works can be secured through the imposition of a condition. Developer Contributions In accordance with the adopted supplementary planning guidance for developer contributions I consider that the developer will be required to make a financial contribution towards the provision of sustainability packs for each proposed household which would be £50 per household. Whilst the scheme has a slight under provision of Public Open Space, in view of the site constraints and need to preserve the setting of the listed building, it is considered that an off site open space financial contribution is not required. The applicant will also be required to make a financial contribution towards primary and secondary school education. The applicant has agreed to pay the full contribution requirements of £84,084 to primary education and £90,500 to secondary education. This is acceptable. The applicant has also agreed to make a payment of £6,066 towards library facilities. I have consulted with NHS Warwickshire with regards to this application and the potential impact on current healthcare capacity as a result of the scheme. At the time of report writing, no request has been made. In view of the fact that a robust Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) has not yet been produced, I do not consider it reasonable at this stage to recommend refusal of this application on the grounds of a lack of a financial contribution towards health care. Warwickshire County Council Countryside Recreation have requested £1,000 to be spent within a 3 mile radius of the site, to improve access to the rights of way network by replacing stiles with gates. In view of the acceptable surfacing of the adjacent public footpath, and the likely increased use of nearby footpaths, I consider such a request is reasonable and appropriate. In addition to this I do not consider that a contribution is required towards public art. Other Matters

The Shipston Town Management Partnership have questioned the actual ownership of Shipston House and its associated land. This is not a material planning consideration, but relevant for the legal agreement to which the applicants would need to sign. Evidence has been provided of registered freehold title which names Orbit as owner. There is a note on the property Register which refers to a transfer of land from WCC to Renault Agriculture Ltd in 1980. As such it would appear that Land Registry have been satisfied as to WCC having ownership at some point in the past. I therefore raise no objection on these grounds. The legal agreement would secure a phasing programme to ensure that Shipston House is development, as this is an imperative part of the scheme, in bringing back a redundant and deteriorating listed building into use.

Referral to the Secretary of State Under the criteria of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation)(England) Direction 2009 it is not necessary for the planning application to be referred to the Government Office for the West Midlands. However, due to the objection from the Georgian Group, and potentially from English Heritage, in accordance with Circular 08/2009 “Arrangements for Handling Heritage Applications” the listed building application will have to be referred to the Government Office if Members are minded to approve the development. Conclusion I consider that the principle of development is acceptable given that it is proposed for 100% affordable housing scheme to provide 45 dwellings. On balance, objection is not raised to the demolition of parts of the listed building and curtilage listed structures. The development provides a realistic and pragmatic opportunity to secure the future of Shipston House. On balance I consider that the design, layout and density of the site is acceptable and preserves the setting of the Listed Building. I do not consider that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on highway safety and adequate provision of parking can be provided on site. I do not consider the scheme would have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of existing residents. The proposal would create an improved pedestrian environment on the public footpath and the adjacent industrial land uses would not give rise to a harmful impact on the proposed dwellings. The measures for Energy Conservation are acceptable. Issues relating to drainage, contamination, archaeology and ecology can be controlled by the imposition of conditions. Other matters can be satisfactorily secured through a Section 106 agreement. The decision to grant planning permission has been taken having regard to the policies as set out in the policy section above. RECOMMENDATION 2 recommendations: Grant FUL and LBC subject to the below: 1. Recommendation for 10/00907/FUL A. That, subject to the signing of a legal agreement to secure the following:

� Affordable dwellings � Sustainability welcome pack (£50 per dwelling) � Libraries contribution (£6,066.00) � Education contribution (£84,084 to primary education and £90,500 to

secondary education) � £1,000 to footpaths within 3 miles of the site the Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT planning permission, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording of which is delegated to officers: 1. 3 year timescale to commence development 2. Samples of roof and walling material including schedule of materials for

each Plot. Including samples of materials for new refuse store to Shipston House

3. Large scale details of eaves, verges, heads, cills and all external joinery

(this should include all window types, all door types and all porches/canopies)

4. Provision of water butt for each dwelling prior to occupation 5. Soft Landscaping carried out in accordance with submitted details. 6. Notwithstanding the plans already submitted a Hard landscape scheme,

including boundary treatments, site and finished floor levels and detail of retaining walls

7. Service Runs 8. Following substantial completion of the development, all soft landscape

works shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. All soft landscape maintenance works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and to a standard in accordance with the relevant recommendations of British Standard 4428 1989 Code of Practice for general landscape operations.

9. Tree and hedgerow protection in accordance with submitted detail 10. Surface water drainage scheme 11. Foul water drainage scheme 12. Large scale details for works to Shipston House (those details requested

by Conservation Officer) 13. Provision of renewable energy in accordance with submitted details 14. Submission of phasing of development plan (to include the bringing

forward of conversion of Shipston House at an appropriate stage of development in consultation with Conservation Officer)

15. Boundary treatment in accordance with drawing number 2039 Rev F. 16. WCC water supplies and fire hydrants 17. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Town and

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no buildings, compounds, structures or enclosures which are required temporarily in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be placed or erected on the site or adjacent land until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Any matters covered by this condition shall thereafter only by sited in accordance with these approved details.

18. Removal of permitted development rights relating to hard surfacing of

front gardens 19. Removal of permitted development rights for Part 1 (all classes) and Part

2. 20. Management of the site shall be in accordance with the drawing number

B4372 PL 2040 received by LPA on 23 June 2010. 21. Photographic recording of Shipston House and curtilage listed and listed

buildings to be demolished and affected by development. 22. Qualified bat worker to supervise all demolition works 23. Detailed schedule of bat mitigation measures

24. Details of all external light fittings and light columns 25. Scheme for nesting bird boxes 26. Qualified ecologist to supervise all ground works to ensure adder, grass

snake, slow worm and common lizard are protected 27. Access for vehicles to the site from the public highway D66230 Tilemans

Lane shall not be made other than at the position identified on the approved drawing number B4371 PL 2039 Rev F.

28. Prior to first occupation of any dwelling hereby permitted, the existing

vehicular access for Shipston House shall be remodelled to become a footpath / cyclepath.

29. The access to the site for vehicles shall not be used unless a bellmouth has

been laid out and constructed within the public highway in accordance with the standard specification of the Highway Authority.

30. The development shall not be occupied until visibility splays have been

provided to the vehicular access to the site passing through the limits of the site fronting the public highway with an ‘x’ distance of 2.4 metres and ‘y’ distances of 43 metres to the near edge of the public highway carriageway. 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.

31. The construction of the estate road serving the development including footways, cycleways and verges and footpaths shall not be other than in accordance with the standard specification of the Highway Authority.

32. Preliminary risk assessment for contamination, site investigation scheme,

risk assessment, verification plan 33. If during development, contamination is found, works shall stop and no

further development shall be carried out without written approval and details of how contamination will be dealt with submitted and approved.

34. Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the

site, based on the principles of sustainable drainage, and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

35. Obscure glaze south facing first floor windows to Plot 27 and west facing

first floor windows to Plot 28 to protect amenity of 18 Brickhill Close. 36. Space for wheelie bins to be laid out in accordance with drawing 2039 F

prior to the occupation of each relevant unit. 37. Those trees identified to be retained in the Arboricultural Implications

report shall be retained. 38. Details of play equipment (schedule of types of equipment and materials

and surfacing material) to be submitted to and approved in writing by LPA prior to commencement of development. The play area shall be laid out and equipped in accordance with the approved details and available for use prior to the occupation of the fifteenth unit.

39. Details of boundary treatment to swale to be submitted and approved in

writing Notes 1. Bat note 2. Nesting bird note 3. Protected Species licence note 4. Hours of construction 5- 8. Highways Notes (as identified on WCC Highways consultation response) 9. Plans to which development relates 10. Any further notes requested by other consultees 11. Public footpath S122b must remain open during construction B. Should the legal agreement securing the matters listed above not be completed, to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager, by 31.7.2010, planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:- In the absence of a completed legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Local Planning Authority considers that the proposals would fail to make adequate contributions towards the full range of physical and social infrastructure necessary to serve and support the proposed development, in accordance with policies COM.13, IMP.4, IMP.5 and IMP.7 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996 – 2011.

2. Recommendation for 10/00909/LBC That, the subject to the application being referred to GOWM, and no objections being raised, the Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT listed building consent, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording of which is delegated to officers: 1. Three year timescale of commencement 2. Photographic recording of listed structures 3. Large scale details of eaves, verges, heads, cills and all external joinery and glazing (this should include all window types, all door types and all porches/canopies, rooflights, stairs, architraves and skirting profiles) 4. Large scale details of Shipston house as requested by Conservation Officer 5. Samples of all external materials, including stone, bricks, tiles and slates 6. Works to Shipston House to be completed and written confirmation obtained from LPA prior to any part of the development being occupied or used. 7. Any proposed loss of features such as door linings, architraves, cills, panelling and glazing should be notified to LPA and approved prior to removal. 8. Where it is not possible to retain and refurbish windows notification shall be given to the LPA and approved. Any replacements shall exactly match the original form, to the approval of the LPA. Any other conditions requested by Conservation Officer and other Heritage bodies following consultation on amended plans (these will be on Updates Sheet) Notes 1. LBC bat note 2. Nesting bird note