COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 16/02684/FUL

Site Address Land Adjoining Church Farm Court And Main Road, Main Street,Tysoe

Description of Development Erection of 10 dwellings

Applicant Mr Mark Roberts

Reason for Referral to Committee

Scale of developmentObjection from Parish Council

Case Officer Louise Koelman

Presenting Officer Louise Koelman

Ward Member(s) Councillor J Feilding

Town/Parish Council Tysoe Parish Council

Description of Site Constraints

Close to the Tysoe Conservation Area Close to Listed Buildings (Grade I and II) Adjacent to the Cotswolds Arear of Outstanding Natural

Beauty Existing agricultural land and the boundaries are defined by

hedgerows and post and rail fencing A public footpath runs along the northern boundary of the

site and on the opposite side of Main Street in an east west direction

Summary of Recommendation

GRANT subject to a S.106 Agreement and conditions

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

Full application for the erection of 10 dwellings comprising;1 x 1 bed, 2 x 2 bed, 4 x 3 bed and 3 x 5 bed dwellings

All the dwellings are proposed to be open market dwellings with 35% affordable housing via an off-site financial contribution

The dwellings would be served by a new vehicular access off Main Street and the existing vehicular field access closed off.

Vehicular field access is proposed to be retained to enable access into the agricultural field to the rear of the site

Landscaping buffers on all boundaries

Houses are proposed to be two-storey

Associated works including landscaping

Drainage swales are proposed in the rear gardens of some of plots

Description of site and surroundings

The site measures 0.87 hectares in area and is located to the north east of MiddleTysoe. The site lies between the recent development of Church Farm Court and buildings to the north which make up 'Lower Grounds', which is a residential property (C3 use). Permission has been granted at ‘Lower Grounds’ for five dwellings which are currently under construction. The application site is currently accessed off Main Street with no other access points into the site.

Although located outside the Conservation Area and the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty the boundaries of both designated areas lie in close proximity to the site. The boundary of the Conservation Area which covers Middle Tysoe lies approximately 30m to the south of the site and cuts through the centreof the neighbouring development, Church Farm Court. The Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty lies directly opposite the site, the boundary being just the other side of the road (approximately 10m away). There is a public footpath that runs along the north western boundary of the site and another public footpath extends diagonally across the field opposite on the other side of Main Street in a west-east direction away from the site, before turning northwards.

The site boundaries are defined by hedgerows and fencing. The hedgerow along the northern boundary is supplemented by conifer planting which screens the site from 'Lower Grounds" The fencing along the southern boundary is adjoined by Church Farm Court which comprises former barns converted to residential use and also additional new build houses. Main Street runs along the eastern site boundary and outside the site beyond the western site boundary is open agricultural land. The Landscape Sensitivity Study (2012) describes the site as comprising improved but over grazed grassland, with patchy or poorly managed hedgerows and relatively flat. It is closely associated with the indented edge of the settlement and is visible from the road on the northern approach to the settlement.

'Lower Grounds' sits to the north and is located 28m from the northern site boundary and approximately 30m from the nearest built edge of the development. The closest residential property in Church Farm Court (no.9) which lies to the south is located very close to, and in places sits on, the southern site boundary, thus making it approximately 18m away from the nearest proposed dwelling.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONSDevelopment Plan

Core StrategyRelevant Policies in the Development Plan for this application are;

CS.1 Sustainable Development CS.2 Climate Change and Sustainable Construction CS.4 Water Environment and Flood Risk CS.5 Landscape CS.6 Natural Environment CS.7 Green Infrastructure CS.8 Historic Environment CS.9 Design and Distinctiveness CS.11 Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty CS.18 Affordable Housing CS.19 Housing Mix and Type AS.10 Countryside and Villages CS.25 Healthy Communities CS.26 Transport and Communications

Other Material Considerations

Central Government guidance NPPF 2012 & PPG 2014 Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Historic England Good Practice Advice Notes 1-3 (2015)

Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance Stratford on Avon District Design Guide – While no longer having the

status of a Supplementary Planning Document, it still contains substantial and relevant guidance on design.

Corporate Strategy 2015-2019 ‘Meeting Housing Needs’ – While no longer having the status of a

Supplementary Planning Document, it still contains substantial and relevant guidance on the provision of open space.

Cotswolds AONB Management Plan

Other documents

Tysoe Housing Needs Survey (2012) Tysoe Parish Plan was adopted by the District Council in 2010. The Parish

Plan was adopted as a local information source and as a material consideration in processing planning applications. Whilst material considerations, these documents pre-date the adopted Core Strategy and can only be given limited weight.

Landscape Sensitivity Study (2012) Water Cycle Study (2012) Historic Environment Assessment (2012)

Tysoe Neighbourhood Plan – Pre-submission draft stage – As the plan is at pre-submission stage it can only be afforded limited weight.

Other Legislation

Human Rights Act 1998 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Localism Act 2011 Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY

Reference Number Proposal Decision and Date

14/02029/FUL Proposed residential development of 9 units together with new access, open space and landscape works

Originally approved 02.10.2014 but quashed on 16.02.2015 by order of the court.Re-assessed and Approved [committee decision] on 07.04.2015

13/03340/FUL Proposed residential development of 9 dwellings together with new access, open space and landscape works

Approved 23.05.2014 and was quashed on 4.9.14 by order of the Court.

13/00994/FUL Proposed residential development of 20 units together with new access, open space and landscape works

Refused 09.08.2013 [committee decision](Appeal withdrawn)

84/01372/FUL Four bedroomed, two bathroom, three reception rooms, detached house with detached double garage

Refused 25.04.1985Dismissed at appeal 10.01.1986

Background preceding the consideration of this current application

A development proposal for the erection of 20 no. residential units and associatedworks, under the reference 13/00994/FUL, was refused on 9th August 2013. Thisapplication was due to be heard through an Informal Hearing, scheduled for 22ndMay 2014 but the appeal was withdrawn following the revised scheme for ninedwellings being approved by Members at committee on 14th May 2014(13/03340/FUL).

13/03340/FUL was subsequently quashed by order of the Court resulting in thedecision status reverting back to 'pending consideration'.

A duplicate application was submitted by the applicant (14/02029/FUL) andgranted permission on 2nd October 2014. This decision was also quashed by order of the Court resulting in the decision status reverting back to 'pendingconsideration'. The application subsequently was brought before Members again to be re-determined with no changes to the originally submitted scheme under the same reference number.

The application was subsequently approved again on 07.04.2015.

The application before Members now is for a revised scheme increasing the number of units on site to 10 dwellings.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant’s Supporting Documents

The planning application has been supported by detailed documentation and assessments. These include the following;

Planning Statement Design and Access Statement Archaeological Report Heritage Statement Flood Risk Assessment Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Updated Ecological Survey Statement of Community Involvement Transport Statement Drainage Statement

Applicant’s StatementThe site is situated between an existing development (Church Farm Court) and a recently approved development (Jan 2017) for 5 large detached dwellings and one existing dwelling at Lower Grounds, currently under construction. Both developments are significantly denser than this proposal at 18 and 13 dwellings per hectare respectively. The proposal is 11.5 dwellings per hectare.• The site is around 100m walking distance from the school and the

proposal is for a policy- compliant mix of stone family homes in large generous gardens.

• All car parking is off-street and hidden from view (especially distant views from the AONB).

• The site has an extant permission for nine dwellings comprising a total of 34 bedrooms. The proposal includes an additional unit, but the total number of bedrooms is reduced to 28, a reduction of 18% in total.

• The application site is smaller than the approved site and protrudes less into open countryside at the rear of the development.

• The proposed housing mix is now fully compliant with adopted CS policy 18. The extant permission, if implemented, would not comply.

• The application is fully compliant with CS15, contributing just one additional dwelling to the current shortfall in Tysoe of over 30 dwellings.

• There are no objections from any statutory consultees regarding access, drainage, ecology, design or policy principle.The applicant has moved significantly towards the Parish Council’s position of objection in the following ways:

• The road frontage properties have been moved further back from the main road and are now in line with existing development at Church Farm Court and the neighbouring development approved in January at Lower Grounds. This modification was carried out following a meeting with the conservation officer and the case officer.

• The PC did not like the former mix of materials, insisting that the development should be all Hornton stone. The development is now all Hornton stone.

Finally, the application will provide significant S106 off-site contributions, including in excess of £400k for affordable housing. It is thus fully compliant with

the adopted CS policy 18 and current government policy as upheld recently at the Court of Appeal.

Ward Member

Cllr Feilding - No response(30/11/2016)

Tysoe Parish Council

Objects to the application for the following reasons;

Previously objected to 14/02029/FUL and their historical and visual objections they were as follows:

1. The site area is immediately adjacent to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Saved Policy EF.1 of the Stratford on Avon Local Plan Review 1996 ~ 2011 states that the special qualities the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty should be protected and, where opportunities arise be enhanced, which is also in accordance with paragraph 115 of the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF)

2. Considered the development would cause irreparable damage to the highly attractive 'gateway' to Middle Tysoe from the North, would contaminate the enjoyment of the existing conservation area and listed buildings in the immediate vicinity, in particular the particularly fine Grade 1 listed church close by

3. Considered that these views are supported by the NPPF

Consider that in granting the previous application, Planning Committee believed that whilst there would be damage to the existing setting, this was mitigated by the provision of three affordable social houses.

The current proposal removes the social housing content meaning that the full impact of the damage is not minimised at all

State that the developer identifies that on-site affordable homes are not necessary on a site of this size however feedback from the draft versions of the Neighbourhood Plan identify a need for affordable houses

Tysoe residents want to enable young people to remain in the Parish and one of the main ways to achieve this is the provision of affordable houses

Consider that the affordable housing was part of the social sustainability of the village

Raise serious concerns about road safety in the immediate vicinity and highlight that parking obstructions around school drop off and collection times are a real issue and have led to several near accidents and increasing the number of houses can only add to this issue

Highlight existing draining issues on the site stating that the area of the site close to Main Street and adjacent to Church Farm Court is generally under water for days when there is significant rain

Consider that the removal of the SUDs pond is a retrograde step

Raise concerns over the additional hard standing together with the increased roof cover which will have a greater impact than what is there presently.

Raise concern about the impact this would have in Oxhill Parish, which is downstream from Tysoe, and where they are known to have flooding issues (07.11.2016)

Additional comments Continue to object to the proposals; The inclusion of 3 affordable houses was a major contributing factor to the

Ward Member supporting the previous application Plots 4 & 5 are sited beyond the existing rear housing line of Church Farm

Court and the adjoining site to the north east and present an intrusion of built form into the countryside and would dominate and be detrimental to the visual amenities of the people using the public footpath to the rear of the site, the church , school and neighbouring dwellings

Commuted sum of £400,000 will not help the affordable homes required by the young families in Tysoe

Site needs very careful architectural consideration. House design appear lifted from an internet website and layout has a

urban cul-de-sac appearance Site requires an integral design/layout compatible with the surrounding

buildings. Design of plots 3,4 and 5 have a building depth which is too great and to reduce the building height and mass of the buildings, hip roofs are introduced which is alien to the area

Mock Georgian elements is porches and windows are inappropriate and front back measurements create buildings with an unsuitable mass of structure

Use of multi materials are out of place and contrived Gross floor area excluding garages has increased from approximately 1405

sq m as previously approved to approximately 2345 sq m as proposed The mix of dwelling types are a token mix and dwellings could be

rearranged in future to provide mainly 4/5 bed houses which does not meet the housing needs of Tyose (09.03.2017)

Third Party Responses

25 letters of objection have been received. Planning grounds for objections are summarised as follows;

Site lies adjacent to series of listed buildings (Grade I and II) and is important to their setting

Provides a green buffer to the village and maintains integrity of the listed buildings and the historic setting of the village

Will result in ribbon development between Middle Tysoe and Lower Tysoe which is not desirable in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan

The layout is linear and appears to anticipate further development westwards and the road is wider than necessary for agricultural purposes

Community supports some development but wish to see small organic growth. The site pre-empts a greater scale of development

Housing requirements of the village will be easily met by the sites identified in the emerging neighbourhood plan

Emerging Neighbourhood Plan identified a need for social housing for rent and small starter homes and inclusion of a 1 bed house does not fulfil the needs of the village

Previous report of the 7th April 2015 for the 9 dwellings recognised that there would be harm to the setting of heritage assets, landscape and visual aspects but due to the inclusion of 3 affordable houses on site to provide for local needs the benefits of the development outweighed the harm. The removal of the affordable houses on site removes this benefit

resulting in the environmental damage not being outweighed by the harm and the development is un-sustainable

Consider the extant permission and the adjoining development at Lower Grounds should be set aside and the development assessed under the Core Strategy Policies on its own right

Consider that there are sufficient 4 and 5 bed units in the village Site was previously referred to as being outside the physical confines of

the village in previous committee reports and consider that the site is contrary to provisions of Core Strategy CS.15

The issuing of planning consent for dwellings at Lower Grounds (15/01174/FUL -16.05.2015) does not affect the position that the site remains outside of the physical confines of the village. Case officers in relation to this site have states that the applications for Lower Grounds and the application site are independent of each other and should be determined on their own merits

The proposed layout is very urban and the proposed street scene would appear out of character with the area which is beyond the existing settlement boundary

Dwellings are all 2 storey beyond the scale of adjoining houses. Consider the roofs should be lowered to 1.5 storey

• There is a severe traffic problem at peak times in the area (adjacent to the church and school) and a danger from speeding vehicles

• Negative impact on the setting in terms of views of and from the AONB• Scheme removes the previously approved SuDS pond designed to alleviate

flooding concerns• The site is subject to frequent flooding with surface water flowing from

adjoining hills Relationship between Plot 2 and 9 Church Farm Court is unacceptable and

results in unacceptable overlooking

Revised Layout

Consider that all previous objections to the development still stand Development still doesn’t include the provision of on-site affordable

housing and highlight the Council’s policies to secure on site affordable housing which is considered to fail to adhere to

Raise concerns over the position of the agricultural vehicular access road which adjoins a property at Church Farm Court. Raise query of the proposed level of traffic, the need for the access and potential future development of the adjoining agricultural field

Consider the justification for granting the original permission no longer is valid as the Council and met its obligations with respect to housing stock and there is no longer a requirement for affordable housing. Consider the original arguments need to be revisited

Housing need is not evidence by Tysoe Housing Needs Survey 2016 The revised plans are larger in footprint than previously and further breaks

the existing fence line to the field behind Consider that the design of the approved scheme is far more in keeping

with the settlement and the bulk and mass are overbearing on the site The style and design of the houses are more suited to the edge of a town

rather than rural location Consider that the Council’s Conservation Officer’s comments in relation to

the original layout will not be overcome by the revisions to the layout Identify the drainage objections received by the LLFA have not been

overcome Raise concern over the impact of the development on 9 Church Farm Court

with respect to unacceptable overlooking, considers the full extent of this

property isn’t shown on the site plan, proposed boundary fencing contravenes the boundary stipulation in their land conveyance contract with only open style post and railings permitted, impact of the fencing, proximity of the new plots and impact on their light haven’t been taken into account

Raise concerns regarding surface water drainage from the site not protecting adjoining properties

Raise concerns regarding the scale and height of the houses

2 letters of support have been received. Planning grounds for support are as follows;

Considers the development will introduce a good range of family houses to buy in the village

Will bring new young families into the village helping to keep the village vibrant

Consider the proposals are superior to the approved development and has little or no impact on the AONB or nearby listed buildings

Consider the development at Church Farm Court has a greater visual impact

Housing association houses in the village have been sold off in recent years when vacant and have been subsequently developed privately

Site was originally an orchard and has been subject to several excavations including a large effluent pit and lagoon. Site will have a natural fall of 1 ½ to 2 m the same a Lower Grounds hence no flooding issues

Consider that there are no flooding issues on the site and will not have any adverse impact on the village

(The full responses are available in the application file.)

ConsultationsThe full responses are available in the application file.

WCC Highways No objection subject to conditions and notes (03.11.2016)

Following the receipt of revised plans raise no objection subject to conditions and notes. (15.02.2017)

Ramblers Association

No objection. (01.11.2017)

WCC Footpaths

No objection. Request a financial contribution of £2,622.12 towards maintenance and improvements towards footpaths within 1.5 mile radius.

Following re-assessment in light of the planning practice guidance on planning obligations (para 031), remove their requirement for a financial contribution. (23.03.2017)

Warwickshire Police

No response

Warwickshire County Fire and Rescue

No objection subject to a condition. (22.11.2016)

WCC Ecology

No objection subject to 2 conditions. (08.11.2016 and 15.02.2017)

Natural England

No objection (28.10.2016)

LLFA

Objection due to insufficient information. Require a revised drainage strategy to be submitted. (17.11.2016)

Maintain objection due to insufficient information. (16.02.2017)

Following the submission of additional drainage information and plans- Raise no objection subject to a condition. (14.06.2017)

Seven Trent Water

No objection subject to a condition and note. (21.11.2016)

Confirm they have no objections. State that foul sewage and surface water drainage connection to the public sewer would require sewer connection approval. (10.03.2017)

WCC Infrastructure Team

Do not require any contributions.

Housing and Enabling OfficerRevised site size thresholds contained in Part A of Core Strategy Policy CS.18 have come into force since the original permission for 9 units in 2015. The relevant threshold in the case of the village of Tysoe is development providing 6 or more dwellings.

Identifies that the Tysoe Neighbourhood Plan has yet to emerge, so is unlikely to have any bearing on the question of affordable housing provision.

A financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing provision would be consistent with the approach set out in Policy CS.18.

Request an off-site financial contribution of £370,913 plus appropriate BCIS indexation to be secured by way of a S.106 Agreement. (19.10.2016)

Historic England

Don’t wish to comment in detail. Identify that they objected to the scheme for 9 houses. Request that the current proposals ensure the highest possible standards of design and materials are achieved and the impact of the additional dwelling is an improvement upon the approved development. (06.11.2016)

Conservation Officer

Agrees most closely with the rationales and assessments by English Heritage and Anne Davies (Heritage consultant who provided evidence on the initial 20 unit

scheme on the site). Acknowledges that this scheme differs from previous applications, but the heritage principles involved are very similar, and considers that there would be adverse impacts on the settings of both the conservation area and nearby listed buildings, most notably the grade I listed Parish Church of St Mary and the grade II listed Church Farmhouse for both the approved and current proposals.

Identifies that the harm to the significance of these Heritage Assets is at the 'less than substantial' level in NPPF terms, and paragraph 134 of the NPPF is therefore engaged; the harm lies in the lower half of the 'less than substantial' spectrum, and should be afforded considerable weight in the planning balance exercise.

Notes that part of the public benefit associated with the approved 14/02029/FUL, (3 affordable housing units) does not appear to apply to this application, although it is acknowledged that a S106 arrangement is proposed.

Considers that the layout approved under 14/02029/FUL, had greater merit, particularly with regard to the part of the site immediately adjoining the main road. (05.11.2016)

Comments following the revised layout

Considers that the layout is preferable to the original submission. Identifies that the frontages have been pushed back further from the road, and changes to the layout of the access road through the site have occurred.

Considers that these are welcome but small improvements in design terms, and the layout remains inferior to that for 14/02029/FUL.

Considers that any harm to the settings and significance of the heritage assets is in the lower half of the ‘less than substantial harm’ spectrum, and, as per the NPPF, requires such harm to be given considerable weight through paragraph 134 being engaged. (23.03.2017)

Further Comments Elaborating on Assessment of the Proposals

Clarifies that the listed buildings most affected are the grade I listed Parish Church of St Mary and the grade II listed Church Farmhouse.

Highlights that the impact on the setting of the Conservation Area appeared to be Historic England’s main concern in their previous comments related to planning permission 14/02029/FUL and recommended refusal on that basis.

Comments that the level of impact, in his opinion, does not necessarily justify refusal on this concern alone. Believes that this adverse impact applies to 16/02684/FUL just as it did to 14/02029/FUL, and that together with the impact on the settings of the listed buildings in this northern part of the settlement, principally the two itemised above, the cumulative impact represents ‘less than substantial harm’ in NPPF terms. The harms to the settings of the listed buildings and to the setting of the conservation area are, as indicated previously, closely linked.

Considers the scheme now proposed is a compromise and whilst considers that the layout permitted under 14/02029/FUL has greater merit, considers there are redeeming features with the proposed development. Highlights the frontage set backs being acceptable, variation in materials, scale and ridge heights, garages set back from both the main road and the access road, the visual impact of the car parking hardstanding from the main road being limited.

The plot sizes and arrangements are not out of keeping with some other parts of the settlement, and the plan types of the houses comply with a preference for reasonably wide frontages relative to the depth of the footprints.

Overall, highlights that the design specifics does not cause concern, but rather the impact on heritage assets. The impact does, in his opinion, trigger paragraph 134 of the NPPF, requiring the harm to be weighed in the planning balance. (01.05.2017)

Cotswold Conservation Board

No response

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.

Policy CS.15 of the Core Strategy identifies Tysoe as a category 2 Local Service Village (LSV) where some housing development should be accommodated during the plan period of 2011-2031. Section D of Policy CS.15 states development within LSVs will take place on sites identified in a Neighbourhood Plan and through small-scale schemes on unidentified but suitable sites within the Built-Up Area Boundaries (where defined) or otherwise within their physical confines. This requirement is repeated at Policy AS.10. Small-scale is not defined within the policy; however, it is my view that it should be based on the size of the settlement and the relative proportionality of the proposed development to that settlement. In this context, the proposed ten dwellings are considered to constitute a ‘small-scale scheme’.

The application site lies on an area of agricultural land to the west of Main Road. Planning permission has already been granted under planning permissions 14/02029/FUL for the erection of 9 dwellings. The extant permission incorporates a slightly larger area of land along its western boundary due to the incorporation of an attenuation pond within that part of the site (0.98ha).

In light of the fact that there is an extant planning permission on this site, I consider that the site should be treated as falling within the ‘physical confines of the settlement’.

A Neighbourhood Plan is being prepared for Tysoe, however it has not reached an advanced stage. A pre-submission draft neighbourhood plan has been produced and is currently out for consultation and therefore only very limited weight can be attributed to it at this stage.

Policy CS.16 states that, within Category 2 LSV’s, there should be approximately 700 homes in total during the plan period, of which no more than around 12% (84 homes) should be provided within any individual settlement.

The most recent housing commitments within the District, published in June 2016 and based upon data from between April 2011 and 31 March 2016, shows that 8 dwellings have been built in Tysoe during this period and planning permission

granted for an additional 23. This results in a total number of 31 housing commitments to date within the plan period.

Nine of the dwellings listed in the commitments are the dwellings permitted under the extant planning permission 14/02029/FUL on the application site. The proposed development would therefore result in an additional dwelling towards the settlement requirement, i.e. 32 houses.

Having regard to these considerations, I consider the overall principle of development to be acceptable in accordance with Policies CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 of the Core Strategy.

Landscape and Visual Assessment including impact on the AONB

The overall development site measures 0.87 hectares and is currently grassed. The site lies outside of the AONB although views of the site are available from within the AONB. The site is open in character and is located in-between an existing residential development known as Church Farm Court which lies to the south and Lower Farm which lies to the north (5 additional dwellings are currently under construction). Beyond the western site boundary is open countryside. The proposed density of the development is 11.5 dwellings per hectare.

In assessing the landscape and visual impact of the development I have had regard to a number of documents submitted as part of this application. This includes the applicant's Landscape and Visual appraisal submitted under 14/02029/FUL, an updated LVIA statement to support this current application, the Landscape Sensitivity Study (LSS) (notwithstanding that this is a strategic study rather than a landscape assessment of specific development sites) and relevant sections of the Hearing Statement of Jonathan Bellars in relation to 13/00994/FUL, which incorporates a reference to the now extant planning permission 14/02029/FUL for nine dwellings. The comments of third parties and the Parish Council have also been carefully considered.

Policy CS.5 of the Core Strategy states that the landscape character and quality of the District will be maintained by ensuring that development takes place in a manner that minimises and mitigates its impact and, where possible, incorporates measures to enhance the landscape.

Policy CS.11 of the Core Strategy requires that development proposals in the District involving land either within, or outside but affecting, the Cotswolds AONB should conserve and enhance the special landscape qualities and scenic beauty of the AONB and be consistent with the objectives set out in the Cotswolds AONB Management Plan.

These policies accord with paragraph 115 of the NPPF which requires that great weight be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of national protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The development has not been assessed against paragraph 116 of the NPPF as it is not sited within the AONB and considering the nature of the proposal and its local context.

Further, s.85(1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 provides: "In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in anarea of outstanding natural beauty, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area of outstanding natural beauty."

I note the objections made in relation to the closing of the gap between Middle and Lower Tysoe, and also the comments from my conservation officer. However I would re-iterate the views of the previous case officer under the extant planning permission 14/02029/FUL, in that I consider that whilst the proposal would bring development closer to Lower Tysoe, I do not consider that it would result in a blurring of the settlements.

As detailed in the case officer’s previous report assessing planning permission 14/02029/FUL;

‘Lower Grounds lies to the immediate north-east of the application site and I consider there is still sufficient visual openness between the two settlements to ensure that unacceptable harm in this regard would not arise. The LSS considers a larger area (Ty06) (which includes the development site) and identifies three distinct parts. The southern field is closely associated with the indented edge of the settlement and all three distinct parts are visible from the road on the northern approach to the settlement. The southern part of the area is considered to be of lower sensitivity as it is of lower landscape value and sandwiched between housing land uses and concludes that 'on balance the whole area is considered to be of medium sensitivity to any new housing development. The proximity of the AONB however would suggest that any new development address visual impact on the AONB ‘with sensitivity'.

An assessment of the visual effects of a development takes into account the effects on specific views and on the general amenity experienced by people. Views are available from the road running past the site and from Church Farm Court. There are also a number of key views which would be available of the site from nearby footpaths, including footpaths within the AONB, which would give views of the new development. There is a public footpath which diagonally crosses the field directly opposite to the east. This footpath, at its closest point, is15m from the site frontage, extending diagonally in a north east direction to approximately 235m away before it turns and extends further eastwards. Due to the existing sky line which consists of the Church and buildings in Church Farm Court, together with existing field boundaries and hedgerows and other vegetation, I consider the additional dwellings proposed along the frontage of Main Street would continue the built form in a manner which is appropriate and visually in keeping.’

I consider that although the design and layout of the development has been revised following the consideration of the development under the previous planning permission, the impact of the proposed development on the character of the landscape and AONB will be similar.

Whilst the extant permission 14/02029/FUL includes an area of open space in the southern corner of the site abutting Main Street and around the attenuation basin in the western part of the site, the current scheme would also maintain a sense of openness along the frontage of the site as the siting of the dwellings have been pushed further back into the site, the existing tree grouping in the southern corner of the site is proposed to be retained and large front gardens abut Main Street. In addition the current layout has the benefit of removing a detached garage and car parking area which is approved under the extant permission from the frontage of the site.

The current development does not protrude as extensively into the adjoining agricultural land at the rear of the site as the extant planning permission, (the site area is 0.87ha as opposed to 0.97ha as approved). However I acknowledge that the dwellings in the current application are positioned beyond the building

line with the adjoining Church Farm Court, which will result in the dwellings being more visible from the pubic footpath network which lies to the rear of the site.

Mitigation in the form of planting a new hedgerow along the rear boundary of the site is proposed as part of the development, and I consider that this could be supplemented by additional tree planting to assist in softening views of the development. I consider that this can be controlled by condition. In addition existing planting around the northern, southern and eastern boundaries are also proposed to be retained and enhanced.

Having regard to both the landscape and visual effects of the development I consider that the scheme would result in moderate harm in terms of the landscape and visual impact and the impact on the AONB.

I have considered the increased scale of the development of dwellings on the site, the revised design of the house types which remain traditional in form, the use of local materials, the siting of the development in relation to the established settlement pattern, the revised layout and the views of the development which would be gained from within the AONB, and having regard to both the landscape and visual effects of the development I consider that the scheme would result in moderate harm in terms of the landscape and visual impact and the impact on the AONB. The development therefore does not fully comply with paragraphs 56-59 and 109 of the NPPF and Policies CS.5 and CS.11 of the Core Strategy. There is conflict with policy CS.11 and paragraph 115 to this extent.

The desirability to conserve and enhance the natural environment is a key coreplanning principle of the NPPF. The moderate level of harm I have identified mustbe weighed in the overall planning balance. In doing so, in particular I give greatweight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB, in accordancewith NPPF paragraph 115.

Impact on setting of Listed Buildings and Conservation Area

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a "General duty as respects listed buildings in exercise of planning functions." Subsection (1) provides: "In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses." Similarly Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is a comparable requirement relating to Conservation areas and provides “ In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a conservation area…..special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. These duties affect the weight to be given to the factors involved. Considerable importance and weight should be to these duties when making decisions that affect listed buildings and conservation areas respectively.

Policy CS.8 seeks to ensure that the historic character of the District is maintained and enhanced and sites of historic importance and their settings are protected from harmful development. The policy identifies that where development will result in harm to the significance of heritage assets, this harm must be justified and weighed against the public benefits of a proposal.

Paragraphs 131-134 of the NPPF seek to protect heritage assets; this includes conservation areas, which are also defined as a heritage asset. In particular paragraph 131 states that in determining planning applications, local planning

authorities should take account of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation. Paragraph 132 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 134 states that where a proposed development will lead to ‘less than substantial harm’ to the significance of the heritage asset this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposals.

In assessing this application I have had regard to the Hearing Statement on conservation and design matters undertaken and written by Anne Davies, a specialist in planning and conservation. This statement was produced in response to the refused scheme for 20 dwellings on this site but within it, there is a section (6.5 + 6.6) that provides comments on the redevelopment of the site for 9 dwellings. Whilst I acknowledge that this current application is for 10 dwellings and has not been assessed by Mrs Davies, I nevertheless need to take account of her comments in relation to the impact of development on this site.

In Ms Davies’ opinion, any proposal for the development of the site would result in harm to the significance of the adjacent historic assets by reason of the impact on their settings.

Ms Davies considered that revising the proposals from 20 to 9 dwellings would appear contrived by comparison to the historic nature of settlement development in Middle Tysoe. Ms Davies stated that traditional farmsteads are actually a part of the fabric of the edge of the village and the proposed development for 9 dwellings would not relate naturally to the developed form of the village.

Whilst I acknowledge Ms Davies’ comments, I concur with the views of the officers who dealt with planning permission 14/02029/FUL, who considered in their professional opinion, Ms Davies’ comments fail to express what degree of harm would be caused in accordance with paragraphs 132-134 of the NPPF and furthermore, to which heritage assets, specifically, this harm would be directed.

Whilst acknowledging that Ms Davies’ comments specifically related to the previous scheme for 9 dwellings, I do not agree that the development of the site would appear contrived by comparison to the historic nature of settlement development. I acknowledge there are original farmhouses fronting the road (which are Grade II listed buildings), but the remaining development behind, with the exception of the converted barn range, are new build properties approved in the mid-1990’s. I therefore consider that Church Farm Court, as a residential development, is a very recent addition to what was once the historic edge of the settlement. In addition the recent addition of housing under construction in Lower Farm further extends the settlement pattern of the village.

I also acknowledge Historic England’s comments who highlight their previous objection to the scheme for 9 houses (14/02029/FUL) and request that the current proposals ensure the highest possible standards of design and materials are achieved, and the impact of the additional dwelling is an improvement upon the approved development.

The applicant has submitted a Heritage Statement which also refers to their Heritage Impact Assessment submitted in connection with planning permission 14/02029/FUL. The report highlights that the principle of development has been established with the granting of the extant planning permission 14/02019/FUL and the impact on the nearby heritage assets (the neighbouring conservation area and listed buildings) would be minimal. The report identifies that the road layout is more in keeping with both Church Farm Court and the approved layout

at Lower Grounds (which has permission for the erection of 5 dwellings (16/03572/VARY) and is currently under construction) and the road frontage elevations improve the street scene approach to the listed church. Overall the report considers that the development is more sympathetic to the heritage assets than the extant planning permission 14/02029/FUL.

During the course of the application a revised layout has been submitted which has resulted in the dwellings fronting Main Street being pushed further back into the site in line with the building line established by the dwellings currently under construction at Lower Farm (16/03572/FUL). The creation of a visual termination feature when looking into the site from Main Street, by the re-siting of plots 4 and 5 and realignment of the agricultural access track to the land to the rear of the site.

The Council’s Conservation Officer has assessed the proposals and considers that irrespective of the number of units being proposed on this site the key question is whether any development will have an adverse impact on heritage assets which are the Tysoe Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings, most notably the grade I listed Parish Church of St. Mary and the grade II listed Church Farmhouse.

Whilst he acknowledges that the current scheme differs from the previous applications, the heritage principles involved in both are similar. In his assessment there would be adverse impacts on the settings of both the conservation area and nearby listed buildings with both schemes. This view is contrary to that expressed by the previous Conservation Officer who dealt with planning permission 14/02029/FUL, who concluded that no harm would result to the conservation area and less than substantial harm to the nearby listed buildings. The current Conservation Officer does however states that in his opinion the previous application (14/02029/FUL) does have merit in its relationship with main road and the existing neighbouring built form.

The Conservation Officer considers that the revisions to the layout of the current development, improves the development and that the visual impact as you enter the village along Main Street will now be acceptable. However he notes the layout approved under 14/02029/FUL, had greater merit. He does however acknowledge that the design of the current proposals has redeeming features with the variation in materials, scale and ridge heights. The proposed use of materials has been revised during the course of the application, in light of comments received from the Parish Council, to comprise solely of Horton Stone with plain clay tile or slate roofs. He also acknowledges that garages are set back from both the main access road and Main Street in accordance with the District Design Guide and the visual impact of the development from the Main Street is limited.

In my opinion, the detailing of the dwellings is simple and sympathetic to local vernacular design elsewhere in the village and also reflective of the character of the adjoining dwellings at under construction at ‘Lower Grounds’ to the north of the site.

In terms of layout, I consider that the curving of the access road at the end of the site and the creation of a visual termination feature when looking into the site from Main Street, by the re-siting of plots 4 and 5, results in a road layout which is reflective of the adjoining residential development at Lower Farm. The surfacing treatment of the agricultural access track to the land to the rear has been revised to gravel to create a more rural appearance.

Generally, I consider that the proposal responds to local architectural character, and although the layout is more urban in form than the previously approved

development on the site, I consider that it remains in keeping with the character of the area and accords with the Stratford Design Guide.

Overall that Council’s Conservation Officer considers that there will be some degree of heritage harm to the setting of the Conservation Area in further diluting the distinction between the built settlement edge and the rural surroundings and also a modest harmful impact on the nearby listed buildings. However this harm is considered to be at the lower half of the ‘less than substantial harm’ spectrum, and, as per the NPPF, requires such harm to be given considerable weight through paragraph 134 being engaged.

In weighing the public benefits of the proposals, it is acknowledged that in the approved scheme for 9 units (14/02029/FUL), the provision of 3 affordable housing units and the provision of market housing, (to meet an identified need in the context of a housing shortfall which existed at that time), were considered to be one of the public benefits of the proposals which attracted substantial weight.

Since the issuing of the previous planning permission 14/02029/FUL, the Core Strategy has been adopted and the Council is currently able to demonstrate a 5 year housing supply. Policy CS.18 within the Core Strategy does not require the provision of on-site affordable housing for schemes of 10 or less. However an off-site contribution towards the District wide affordable housing need is required and I still attach considerable weight to this as a public benefit of the proposals. In addition the development would also contribute towards maintaining our housing land supply by the provision of 10 market units, in a sustainable location. Economic benefits would also result benefiting local shops and services.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which I refer to above, I place considerable importance and weight on the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area and the settings of the listed buildings. While in my view the application will result in less than substantial harm in respect of the impact on the setting of Listed Buildings and the character and setting of the conservation area, I do, however, consider that the harm I have identified is marginally outweighed by the public benefits of the development which I also identify throughout this report. In addition to considering the statutory duties I have reached this view having regard to paragraphs 129-137 of the NPPF and policies CS.9 of the Core Strategy.

Archaeology

Over the course of various applications considered at this site, extensive archaeological investigative work has been carried out by the applicant. In addition to the submitted surveys and reports I have had regard to the Historic Environment Assessment 2012, (HEA) one of the evidence based documents to inform the Core Strategy. This identifies Tysoe's areas of archaeological sensitivity and this particular site is designated as being of low-medium sensitivity.

With such an area of sensitivity the document states that a programme of pre-determination assessment may be required which could range from a basic assessment through to trial trenching and/or watching briefs. The County Archaeologist raised no objection subject to a condition requiring a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation under planning permission 14/02029/FUL. Since that time trial trenching has been carried out and this has uncovered some artefacts of archaeological interest. In light of this I therefore recommend a condition is attached requiring a programme of excavation work in accordance with written scheme of investigation.

I am therefore of the opinion that the development is acceptable in this respect and thus complies with policy CS.8.

Design, Layout, Scale, and Appearance

Policy CS.9 states that all forms of development will improve the quality of the public realm and enhance the sense of place, reflecting the character and distinctiveness of the locality.

The proposed development comprises 10 dwellings, arranged in a cul-de-sac form of development. The dwellings comprise a mix of detached and semi-detached properties. They are designed to be traditional in style and are largely reflective of the local vernacular within other parts of the village. I consider that the plot sizes and arrangements are generally in keeping with some other parts of the settlement and the plan types of the houses comply with a preference for reasonably wide frontages relative to the depth of the footprints

The properties are two-storey in height, with a range of ridge heights. As stated previously Horton Stone with plain clay tile or slate roofs are proposed and whilst the dwellings are relatively simple in design, they feature design elements such as chimneys, porches, stone mullioned windows and dormer windows, which add visual interest to the scheme.

Landscaping around the periphery of the site is proposed to be retained and reinforced. The extent of soft landscaping proposed would effectively soften the appearance of the development, ensuring that it reflects the rural characteristics of the site itself and the village of Tysoe.

The positioning of car parking spaces has been located to ensure that parked cars would not dominate the streetscene. Parking areas are located by the side of the proposed dwellings and garages are set back from both the access road and Main Street.

Sufficient levels of outdoor amenity would be afforded to the future occupiers of the development.

Having regard to the above, I consider the design, layout, scale and appearance of the development to be acceptable in accordance with Policies CS.9, and CS.25 of the Core Strategy.

Residential amenity

Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy requires proposal to ensure a good standard of amenity for occupiers. Occupants of new and neighbouring buildings shall be protected from unacceptable levels of noise, contamination and pollution, loss of daylight and privacy, and adverse surroundings.

The layout, siting, size, height and design of the proposed dwellings are such that I am satisfied that the scheme provides acceptable levels of separation, both to future occupiers and existing neighbouring properties.

The impact on 9 Church Court has been carefully assessed. An 18m back to back separation distance exists between the rear elevation of plot 1 and no 9 Church Street. A 21 m separation distance is recommended in the Council’s ‘Extending your Home’ guidance document. In light of this, the applicant has revised the rear elevation of plots 1 and 2 to ensure that no unacceptable overlooking occurs. In

terms of plot 1, the first floor rear garage windows have been removed and all 3 first floor rear windows have been obscure glazed. All three first floor windows serve either a bathroom or dressing room.

With respect to plot 2, a first floor bedroom window located in a two storey rear projection has been re-located so that it faces northwards, so that views of 9 Church Farm Court can no longer be obtained. All remaining first floor windows have also been obscure glazed, however again these primarily serve bathrooms. I consider that in light of these revisions no adverse impact on the amenities of 9 Church Farm Court would result. Concern has been raised regarding the boundary treatment abutting no 9 Church Farm Court. However the existing post and rail fencing on the neighbours land would be able to be retained and close boarded fencing erected behind it on the applicants land, thereby ensuring that the amenities of this property and plots 1 and 2 are retained.

In terms of no 8 Church Farm Court, a minimum distance of 24m back to back distance exists between plot 3 and this property. Furthermore a distance of 15m exists between the rear elevation of the detached garage and no windows are proposed within the roof space of the rear elevation. In light of these separation distances I consider that no adverse impact on the amenities of 9 Church Farm Court would result.

I have also considered the impact of the development on the adjoining development currently under construction at Lower Farm and consider that no adverse impact on the amenities of these properties will result. I consider that the removal of permitted development rights in relation to extensions aswell as driveways to frontages will ensure that the amenities of adjoining neighbours and the rural character of the site is preserved. This can be controlled by condition.

I consider that the development is would therefore comply with Core Strategy policy CS.9.

Affordable Housing and Housing Mix

Affordable Housing

In line with Policy CS.18 of the Core Strategy, development of 10 dwellings or less are not required to provide on-site affordable housing. The applicant is therefore proposing to make a contribution to provide affordable housing off-site. The Council’s Housing and Enabling officer has assessed the development and has confirmed that this will equate to a payment of £370,913 plus appropriate indexation. This can be secured by a S.106 Agreement.

Under the extant planning permission 14/02029/FUL, the applicant has voluntarily provided 3 on-site affordable housing units within the development rather than provide an off-site contribution as required by in para 020 of the PPG (as published in 2015).

Whilst the current proposals will not be providing on-site affordable housing, as set out in policy CS.18, the development will be providing a substantial off-site contribution which will assist in meeting the district wide need for affordable housing, to which significant weight can still be attributed. I therefore consider that the development accords with Policy CS.18 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Housing MixPolicy CS.19 states that all new homes will contribute to the creation of balanced and sustainable communities by meeting identified local and District housing

needs in terms of mix, size, tenure and type to cater for the full range of different households.

Having regard to the scale of development proposed, I consider the housing mix comprising;

1 x 1 bed, 3 x 2 bed, 3 x 3 bed and 3 x 4 bed houses

to be acceptable and results in a better mix than previously approved under planning permission 14/02029/FUL. The proposal includes the provision of a one bed dwelling and has a greater provision toward 2 and 3 bed units. I therefore consider the mix to be acceptable in accordance with Policy CS.19.

Highways Matters

Policy CS.26 of the Core Strategy requires development to mitigate against any unacceptable transport impacts that arise from the development. Furthermore, parking provision needs to reflect local circumstances and be sufficient to avoid unacceptable impact on the amenity of the local area or highway safety.

The site is currently served via an existing farm access directly onto Main Street. This access is proposed to be closed off and additional hedgerow planting reinstated. A new 5m wide vehicular access is proposed off Main Street which would enable a single point of access and egress. The internal access road is designed for two way movements and there is sufficient space within a turning head at the end of the road to enable refuse vehicles and emergency services to enter and exit the site in a forward gear and sufficient space is available for collection of bins along the frontage of the dwellings on collection days.

The proposal includes the provision of vehicular access to the agricultural land to the rear of the site via a gravelled surfaced driveway located in the north western corner of the site. This will also enable pedestrian access to the public footpath network to the rear.

The Highway Authority raise no objections subject to the attachment of conditions, I consider that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on highway or pedestrian safety in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS.26.

Parking Provision

The layout identifies that there will be provision for a minimum of 2 on-site parking spaces with all of the plots including garage bays. I consider that this provision is acceptable, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 39 of the NPPF and policy CS.26 of the Core Strategy. I am satisfied that appropriate levels of parking are provided for the types and sizes of dwellings proposed.

Other matters

Ecology

Policy CS.6 of the Core Strategy requires development to contribute towards a resilient ecological network throughout the District that supports ecosystems and provides ecological security for wildlife, people, the economy and tourism. It is also the duty of the Authority to have regard to conserving biodiversity, including in relation to living organisms or types of habitat, restoring or enhancing a

population of habitat under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

The County Council Ecologist has raised no objections to the proposal and recommends the attachment of 2 conditions requiring the recommendations identified the submitted ecological appraisal to be carried out and a method statement for enhancing bio-diversity on site to be submitted

I therefore consider that the proposals would not result in any ecological harm. As such the development is acceptable in this respect and complies with policy CS.6 of the Core Strategy.

In reaching this conclusion I have also given careful consideration to the standing advice put forward by English Nature and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

Drainage and Flood Risk

Policy CS.4 of the Core Strategy states that all development proposals will take into account, dependent on their scale, use and location, the predicted impact of climate change on the District’s water environment and that all development proposals should be located in Flood Risk Zone 1 (Low Probability Flood Risk).

The location of the site within Flood Zone 1, which is the least susceptible to main river flooding. The applicant initially failed to provide sufficient drainage information to demonstrate that the proposals would not result in surface water flood risk to future occupiers or existing areas nearby. The LLFA as a result raised an objection to the development requiring the submission of a revised drainage scheme. A reconfiguration of the drainage design has been undertaken and a revised drainage strategy has now been submitted by the applicant in response to the objections raised by the LLFA.

The drainage strategy proposes to utilise a combination of swales and filter trenches in the rear of some of the plots to provide both surface water attenuation and treatment through the gravel medium contained within the trenches. The system incorporates attenuation for the 1 in 100 year event plus 40% (for climate change allowance event)

The surface water is proposed to discharge to an open watercourse 60m to the west of the site in accordance with the NPPF hierarchy.

In terms of maintenance and management of the drainage system the applicant has identified that a management company will be established which will cover the maintenance of the SUDS for the design life of the development. Additionally, the management company will be responsible for landscaping, shared space maintenance and road maintenance in the event the road remains private.

In order to protect the SUDS features from being filled in or tampered with in the future, the features will be transferred to each individual plot owner with a restrictive covenant preventing the owners from filling the features in.

In terms of flood water risk from overland flows the majority of the flow is intercepted by the highway drainage ditch which runs along the front of the road adjacent to the site. In addition ground levels are proposed to be raised slightly at the frontage of the site, diverting the flow down Main Street and into existing highway drainage ditches as previously proposed under planning permission 14/02029/FUL. In addition, finished floor levels are proposed to be set 300mm above existing ground level. The foul water is proposed to discharge to into an

existing combined public foul sewer to the rear of the site via a gravity sewer system.

Seven Trent and the LLFA have raised no objections to the development subject to a condition.

I consider that drainage matters can be adequately addressed and the development will not result in increased risk of flooding to either the site itself or the wider area and I consider the proposal to accord with Policy CS.4 of the Core Strategy.

Loss of Agricultural Land

The site comprises of 0.87ha of unimproved grassland, occasionally used for grazing by the tenant farmer. Historical maps suggest that the area was once a fruit orchard. In any case the land is not designated as high quality Grade 2 or 3 agricultural land. Paragraph 112 of the NPPF identifies that Local Authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality. I therefore raise no objection to its loss on these grounds.

Cumulative Impact

The adjacent abutting land to the north east, comprises an existing dwelling 'Lower Grounds' and a development site currently under construction for the erection of 5 dwellings.

I have had regard to the potential cumulative impact of both the proposed development and the adjoining development being built out, resulting in a total of 15 dwellings on these two adjacent sites.

I do not consider the cumulative impact would give rise to further harm in terms of landscape character (including rurality) or visual harm including the AONB and the setting of listed buildings or to the to the setting, character and appearance of the conservation area.

In terms of the impact on existing infrastructure I am satisfied that the impacts would be acceptable, subject to the proposed conditions. In terms of drainage, subject to the receipt of no objections from the LLFA, the impact on the drainage will be considered to be acceptable and off-site affordable housing provision will be secured by the proposed S.106 agreement. In terms of residential amenity I consider the developments would not harm one another given the orientation of properties and the separation distances between buildings.

Wheelie Bins and Water Butts

As is a standard requirement of all new dwellings within the District, I propose acondition to secure wheelie bins and water butts.

Public Open Space

Policy CS.2S (Healthy Communities) of the Core Strategy seeks to secureappropriate standards of open space provision. Given this, where there is adeficiency in Public Open Space (POS), new development proposals should seekto make new provision available.

I have had regard to the Arup PPG17 Open Space, Sport, Recreation Assessment Update (September 2014). The Open Space update 2014 identifies that Category

2 Local Service Villages have a deficit in children and young people's equipped play facilities, and allotments and community gardens,

There is no provision of Allotments and Community Gardens or young people's equipped play facilities on site and therefore an off-site contribution of £14,188.29 would also be required (£13,575.74 towards children’s equipped play facilities and £612.56 towards allotments and community gardens). A recreation play space is located approximately 425m south east of the application site and monies can be directed towards improvements to these facilities if requested by the Parish Council.

I consider that, subject to a legal agreement being completed to secure the aforementioned off site financial contribution, the proposal complies with Policy CS.25 of the Core Strategy.

Planning Obligations

Affordable Housing - Require £370,913 plus appropriate BCIS indexation

Rights of Way – Require £2,622 towards improvements to rights of way within 1.5mile radius of the site

Conclusions

I consider that the current application should be determined in accordance with the adopted Development Plan and a conclusion made whether the application accords or does not accord with the Development Plan. I can identify no material considerations that warrant an alternative approach.

The golden thread running through the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy CS.1 states that the Council will take a positive approach to applications that reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

There are some Development Plan policies with which the development complies and there are others with which the development does not fully comply. Notwithstanding that the site lies outside of the Cotswolds AONB, I have identified harm from views within the AONB and moderate landscape/visual harm from the proposed development which I consider to be an adverse impact. In addition I have identified ‘less than substantial harm’ to the setting of the Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings. The development therefore does not fully comply with policies CS.5, CS.8 and CS.11 of the Core Strategy.

Against this harm, I have identified that there is an existing permission on the site for 9 dwellings and the scheme provides a number of benefits. The development would contribute towards maintaining our housing land supply by the provision of 10 market units, in a sustainable location. Furthermore the development would provide an off-site contribution towards the provision of affordable housing which would serve the district-wide needs which I attach substantial weight, and economic benefits would also result benefiting local shops and services.

As set out in the Barnwell Manor judgement, considerable importance and weight should be placed on the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the setting of the listed buildings and Conservation Area. I give the harm to the settings of the nearby listed buildings and adjoining Conservation Area considerable importance and weight, but that the ‘less than substantial

harm’ in this case is marginally outweighed by the public benefits of the proposals as set out above.

Paragraph 115 of the NPPF advises that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in an AONB. I have given great weight to the harm identified to the AONB and I consider that the benefits of the proposals marginally outweigh this harm in the overall planning balance.

I consider that the overall principle of development to be acceptable and in accordance with Policies CS.15, CS.16 and AS.10 of the Core Strategy. Technical issues from statutory consultees can be dealt with by planning conditions. Furthermore, where potential deficiencies in services/facilities have been identified, financial contributions have been sought to remedy these. The development therefore will not place undue pressure on the local infrastructure.

On the basis of the above considerations, I have concluded that the proposal is sustainable development. I therefore consider that the presumption in favour does apply in this case and that Planning Permission should be granted.

RECOMMENDATION

Whilst 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.

It is therefore recommended that subject to:-

(a) a satisfactorily submitted CIL Liability Notification Form once CIL is adopted, and/or the satisfactory completion of a S.106 agreement, to provide:

• Financial contributions of £14,188.29 toward upgrading and maintaining the existing children and young people’s play facilities and allotments and community gardens

Off-site financial contribution of £370,913 towards affordable housing Rights of Way financial contribution of £2,622 towards improvements to

rights of way within 1.5mile radius of the site• £75 per dwelling (total of £750) to provide Sustainable Welcome Packs

(b) To the confirmation of no objections being received by the LLFA

the Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT full planning permission, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is delegated to officers:

1. 3 year limit2. Approved plans3. Samples of materials 4. Large scale details (windows, dormers, doors, porches, eaves, verges,

cills, lintels and rainwater goods) 5. Details of all external light fittings and light columns6. Hard landscaping 7. Soft landscaping8. Hedgerow and tree protection details9. Development to be carried out in accordance with recommendations

contained in Section 4 of the ecological appraisal by Cotswolds Wildlife Surveys dated 29.07.2016

9. Onsite bio-diversity enhancement method statement

10. Water butts11. Bins12. Levels details 13. Fire Hydrant provision to be agreed15. Foul water drainage details16. Finished floor levels to be set 300mm above existing ground level17. Written Scheme of Investigation for Archaeological excavation and post

excavation analysis, report production and archive deposition18. Provision of visibility splays with ‘x’ distance of 2.4m and ‘y’ distance of

87m north and 90m to the south19. Construction method statement20. Details of surface water and foul drainage systems for the site based on

sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development

21. Obscure glazed first floor rear windows serving plot 1 and to plot 2 (with the exception of the first floor side bedroom window to plot 2)

22. The development shall not be occupied until all parts of the existing access within the public highway not included in the permitted means of access have been closed and the kerb, footway and verge have been reinstated in accordance with the standard specification of the Highway Authority.

23. The development shall not be occupied until the public highway has been improved so as to provide for dropped kerbs at the access of Church Farm Court to facilitate pedestrian movements in accordance with a scheme approved in writing by the local Planning Authority

24. Removal of permitted development rights relation to extensions, hard surfacing to frontages of the properties

Notes:

1. Paragraph 186 and 187 NPPF2. To be read in conjunction with associated legal agreement3. Severn Trent Water note4. Highway Notes5. Public footpath SS33 free from obstruction note

Robert WeeksHEAD OF PLANNING AND HOUSING