David Buckland Chief Executive (Head of Paid Service) Elizabeth House, Church Street Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 6HX

For further information about this agenda Contact: Democratic Services Telephone: 01789 260245 Email: committeemanagers@stratford-dc.gov.uk

Telephone 01789 267575 Facsimile 01789 260007

Minicom 01789 260747 DX700737 STRATFORD-ON-AVON 2

website www.stratford.gov.uk

Planning Committee

Notice of Meeting

Wednesday 4 August 2021

6.00 p.m.

Council Chamber

Elizabeth House Church Street Stratford-upon-Avon

This meeting can also be viewed via MS Teams

Members of the Committee are requested to attend

Chairman: Councillor Peter Richards

Vice-Chairman: Councillor Bill Fleming and Councillor Danny Kendall

Councillors:

L Adam

A Crump

D Curtis

T Dixon

N Edden

J Feilding

P Hencher-Serafin

M Jennings

C Mills

PLANNING COMMITTEES

PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS

Welcome to this meeting of the Planning Committee.

Please note that this is not an open forum; it is a meeting of the Councils Planning

Committee at which the public is welcome to watch and listen. Questions cannot be

taken from the audience and only those who have already registered to speak will be

allowed to do so. It is requested that the audience respects the Committee and

allows the meeting to progress in accordance with the procedure described below

and without interruption.

The Chairman will introduce the application which will then be supported by an officer

presentation. These will be commensurate with the scale and complexity of the proposal and

the level of public interest.

The names of those people who have registered to speak on the application will be called in

the following order:

1. Town or Parish Councils; (3 Minutes)

2. any objectors; (3 or 6 minutes)

3. the applicant, their agent, or any supporters (3 or 6 minutes).

If speakers are registered in all three categories, in the interests of fairness time limits will be

increased for either the objectors or supporters depending on whether the Parish Council

opposes or supports the application. For example where the Parish Council speaks in

opposition to the application and objectors are also registered to speak, the Parish Council

representative could speak for 3 minutes and the objectors could speak for 3 minutes,

therefore to ensure equality the applicant or supporters would be entitled to 6 minutes.

After each speaker has finished, the Chairman will ask if the Committee has any questions to

put to them.

Ward Members may then be entitled to address the Committee for up to 5 minutes in

accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 11 The Constitution

Committee Members will then have the opportunity to ask for further information or

clarification following which the debate will be opened up to the Committee.

The Planning Officer will be asked to comment if necessary.

Finally, the Committee will be asked to take a decision on the application, and this will take

the form of a motion from a Councillor to GRANT or REFUSE.

If you wish to speak at this meeting, you must register with the committee

managers (01789 260245) by 2.00pm one working day before the meeting.

If you wish to support your speaking time with a presentation, you must email this

to the committee managers (committeemanagers@stratford-dc.gov.uk) by 2.00pm

two working days before the meeting. You should also ensure that documents

submitted do not incorporate any personal information, including faces or vehicle

registration numbers in photographs. Public Involvement in Planning Committees

Notice of Recording of Meeting

Please note that this meeting may be filmed for subsequent broadcast via the Council's

website and/or YouTube Channel - at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all

or part of the meeting is being filmed.

By registering to speak you are consenting to being recorded and to the possible use of those

sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes.

You should be aware that the Council is a Data Controller under the Data Protection Act. Data

collected during this webcast will be retained in accordance with the Council’s Privacy

Statement

Recording of meetings by Press and the Public

Recording, filming and photography at meetings of the Council, which members of the public

can attend is allowed as long as proceedings at the meeting are not disrupted. Recording is

not allowed when the meeting has agreed to formally exclude the press and public due to the

nature of business discussed. This includes the recording of virtual meeting streamed on the

Internet. If attending a meeting in person, please switch your phone or other mobile device to

silent mode to minimise disturbance.

PLANNING COMMITTEE

4 August 2021

AGENDA

1. Apologies for Absence

To receive any apologies for absence.

2. Disclosure of Interest

Members are reminded that, unless they have been granted a dispensation, if they have

a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter as defined by Regulations made by the

Secretary of State where the interest is theirs, their spouse’s or civil partner’s, or is an

interest of somebody with whom they are living as a husband or wife or as if they were

civil partners, they may not participate in any discussion of or vote on the matter and

must also leave the room for the duration of the matter. They must also disclose the

interest if it has not yet been entered on the Authority’s register unless it is a sensitive

interest.

3. Minutes (Pages 1 - 10)

To confirm and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2021.

Planning Applications

4. Application No. 20/02839/FUL - Land Near To

Bishop's Itchington, Warwickshire, Stratford-upon-

Avon

(Pages 11 - 36)

Construction of a solar farm (82.5ha) together with all associated works, equipment and

necessary infrastructure.

Recommendation: GRANT

5. Application No. 20/03585/OUT - Lock Up Garages,

Hodgson Road, Stratford-upon-Avon

(Pages 37 - 48)

Outline application for up to 5 dwellings including demolition of existing garages and the

redevelopment of existing hardstanding with all matters reserved (appearance,

landscaping, layout and scale) except access (to be determined).

Recommendation: REFUSE

6. Application No. 20/02489/FUL - Riverside Caravan

Park, Tiddington Road, Tiddington, Stratford-upon-

Avon CV37 7AB

(Pages 49 - 58)

Continued use of land as a caravan site (variation of planning permissions 60/11/15,

72/7/4 and 04/00151/VARY).

Recommendation: GRANT

7. Application No. 20/03443/VARY - Edencroft, Fells

Lane, Napton-on-the-Hill, Southam CV47 8ND

(Pages 59 - 68)

Variation of Condition 2 (plans) of planning permission 20/00574/VARY dated 5 June

2019 to allow for changes to the Fells Lane improvement works. Original permission

Self-build 3 bedroom house, workshop and garaging with access and parking plus

improvements to Fells Lane including improved re-surfacing, a turning head and a

passing place.

Recommendation: GRANT

8. Application No. 21/01274/FUL - Welfare Centre ,

Craven Lane, Southam CV47 1PG

(Pages 69 - 82)

Demolition of existing billet hut (Class D1) and the proposed erection of a single

detached dwellinghouse (Class C3).

Recommendation: GRANT

9. Application No. 21/01230/FUL - 87 High Street,

Bidford-On-Avon B50 4BG

(Pages 83 - 92)

First floor extension to previously approved application ref: 20/02122/FUL.

Recommendation: REFUSE

10. Urgent Business

To consider any business which, in the opinion of the Chairman, is urgent in accordance

with the provisions of Section 100B (4) of the Local Government Act 1972.

CHIEF EXECUTIVE (HEAD OF PAID SERVICE)

Please note: The next meeting of the Planning Committee is scheduled to take place on

Wednesday 18 August 2021

PLANNING COMMITTEE

07 July 2021

MINUTES

Held at Council Chamber, Elizabeth House, Church Street, Stratford-upon-Avon

Meeting commenced: 6.01 p.m. Meeting ended: 8.08 p.m.

Present:

Councillor Peter Richards (Chairman) Councillors B Fleming, D Kendall,

A Crump, D Curtis, T Dixon, J Feilding, P Hencher-Serafin, M Jennings and

C Mills

Apologies: Councillors L Adam and N Edden

122. Disclosure of Interest

Application No 20/02745/OUT – Councillor Jennings disclosed that under his

Portfolio Holder remit he had attended a presentation from Jonathan Thompson,

Director at Jonathan Thompson Land and Consultancy Limited, regarding the

Long Marston Airfield site. Councillor Jennings confirmed that there had been no

discussion on this application and he would therefore be participating with an

open mind.

All Councillors disclosed that they had received correspondence re Application

No’s 20/02745/OUT, 20/03286/FUL and 21/00561/VARY.

Application No 20/02745/OUT – Councillor Richards disclosed that under his

previous Portfolio Holder remit he was known to Jonathan Thompson, Director at

Jonathan Thompson Land and Consultancy Limited, but there had been no

discussion on this application and he would therefore be participating with an

open mind. Councillor Richards also disclosed that he resided in Quinton but, as

above, he would be participating with an open mind.

Application No’s 20/03306/FUL and 20/03307/LBC – Councillor Richards

disclosed that he was the Ward Member for these applications, but had not

made any representations and would therefore be participating with an open

mind and would remain in the Chair.

123. Minutes

The Minutes of the meetings held on 26 May, 9 and 23 June 2021 were

confirmed and signed.

124. Application No. 20/02745/OUT - Airfield House (including Part Of

Former Scrap Yard), Campden Road, Lower Quinton, Stratford-upon-

Avon CV37 8LL

APPLICATION SITE Airfield House (including Part Of Former Scrap

Yard), Campden Road, Lower Quinton,

Stratford-upon-Avon CV37 8LL

PROPOSAL Outline application for the erection of up to 60

dwellings with all matters reserved

(appearance, landscaping, layout and scale)

except access (to be determined) including

demolition of existing dwelling and scrap yard

buildings and associated works.

Page 1

Item 3

APPLICANT Anthony Hodges, Campden Road

Developments Ltd

SPEAKERS Cllr Robert Spooner (Chairman) Quinton Parish

Council – Objecting

Mr Reuben Bellamy – Agent and Mr Jonathan

Thompson (answered questions from

Members)

*Dave Pilcher – Warwickshire County Council Highways Officer was also in

attendance and answered questions from Members

Updates since the preparation of the Officer’s report were circulated to the

Committee as set out on the attached sheet.

Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting,

a motion of GRANT, in accordance with the recommendation detailed in the

report, subject to a S106 Agreement and subject to amended conditions and

notes with an additional note as detailed below, was proposed by Councillor

Jennings and seconded by Councillor Feilding.

Thereafter, it was unanimously

RESOLVED:

That Planning Application 20/02745/OUT be GRANTED subject to the

following (the detailed wording of which be delegated to Officers):

Completion of a Section 106 Agreement, with delegated authority to the

Head of Regulatory Services in respect of any final negotiations/sums

and whether they are S106 compliant, as detailed:

Education Total £422,708

Libraries £1,130

Public Rights of Way £3,801.34 - contribution to support the

ongoing maintenance and improvements of public rights of way

within a 1.5 mile radius of the site

Sustainable Travel packs - £600

Road Safety - £3,000

Safe Routes to School - £45,000 towards Zebra Crossing

South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust - £54,968.08

NHS South Warwickshire CCG - £78,256 capital contribution

towards a new multi-purpose primary medical care facility. If it is

decided not to proceed with developing a new primary medical

facility then a capital contribution of £58,692 will be required to

make improvements to existing off-site primary medical care

facilities

No Ransom Strip clause

Open Space - Management of Open Space

Allotments/Community Orchards - either £4253.69 to upgrade

existing allotments/community gardens or £6375.46 to provide

new allotments/community garden

Affordable Housing - Provision of 35% affordable housing issues

including Tenure, Integration (cluster sizes for example and

Accessibility Standards)

Police - £16018

Ecology - Biodiversity offsetting scheme via either a payment of

£23,608 to Warwickshire County Council or the developer using

the services of a broker to find a suitable provider.

Page 2

Monitoring fee - £500 + (5 hours x £40 officer time x number of

triggers)

(Note: confirmation that the level of S106 payments will be

determined by the number of houses approved as part of any

reserved matters application should outline permission be

granted. The numbers reported in the agenda report relate to 60

dwellings being provided on site and these figures may change

should a lower number of dwellings than 60 be provided);

and:

39 conditions contained in the report (subject to the amendments

as detailed below);

27 notes contained in the report (subject to the amendments as

detailed below); and

Additional note to encourage developers to make provision for

homeworking.

Amended Conditions:

Addition of demolition plan to condition 3.

Confirmation that in respect of condition 7 the maximum roof

ridge height is when measured from proposed finished ground

floor level of the dwelling building. Details pertaining to levels will

be required to be submitted under condition 26.

Confirmation that condition 15 will require the provision of Electric

Vehicles charging points for all dwellings.

Confirmation that condition 18 will require the submission of

proposed permanent and temporary boundary treatment.

Confirmation that in respect of condition 19 the submitted scheme

shall provide detailed mitigation that ensures internal ambient

levels of no more that 35dBLAeq (16 hours daytime) in all living

areas and 30dBLAeq (8 hours night time) in bedrooms with

windows shut and other means of ventilation provided. External

ambient levels shall be no more than 50dBLAeq (daytime) in

amenity areas.

Amended Notes:

Deletion of notes 14 and 15 as WCC Highways have verbally

confirmed that these are not required. Deletion of Note 10 as a

duplicate with Note 16. Amend the numbering of Notes

accordingly.

Note 26 should make reference to condition 9 rather than

condition 6.

Page 3

125. Application No. 20/03286/FUL - Land Adjacent To 201, Loxley Road,

Stratford-upon-Avon

APPLICATION SITE Land adj. to 201 Loxley Road, Stratford-upon-

Avon

PROPOSAL Construction of 7no. dwellings and associated

works

APPLICANT MacKenzie Miller Homes

SPEAKERS Mr Doug Glassford - Agent

Cllr Rolfe - District Council Ward Member

Updates since the preparation of the Officer’s report were circulated to the

Committee as set out on the attached sheet.

Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting,

a motion of GRANT, in accordance with the recommendation detailed in the

report and subject to a S106 legal obligation, was proposed by Councillor

Jennings and seconded by Councillor Mills.

Thereafter, by 6 votes in favour to 1 vote against with 3 abstentions, it was

RESOLVED:

That Planning Application 20/03286/FUL be GRANTED subject to the

following (the detailed wording of which be delegated to Officers):

Completion of a Section 106 legal obligation to secure the following (the

negotiation and final wording of which shall be delegated to Officers):

£45,255 – for the purpose of biodiversity offsetting

except that, in the absence of a suitable legal obligation being completed

to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority within six months from

the date of this resolution (or other such date agreed in writing by both

parties), planning permission shall be refused in accordance with wording

which shall first be agreed between the Case Officer and the Committee

Chairman;

and:

17 conditions contained in the report; and

4 notes contained in the report.

126. Application No. 21/00561/VARY - Garages Adjacent To 27, Leigh

Crescent, Long Itchington CV47 9QS

APPLICATION SITE Garages Adjacent To 27, Leigh Crescent, Long

Itchington CV47 9QS

PROPOSAL Removal of condition 10 of planning permission

20/01850/FUL (date of decision 11/12/2020).

Original description of development:

Demolition of existing garages and erection of

3 No. dwellings.

APPLICANT Bain Developments Ltd

SPEAKERS Cllr Barbara Atkins (Chairman) Long Itchington

Parish Council – Objecting

Page 4

Mr Ross Middleton - Agent

Cllr Adam - District Council Ward Member

Updates since the preparation of the Officer’s report were circulated to the

Committee as set out on the attached sheet.

Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting,

a motion of GRANT, in accordance with the recommendation detailed in the

report, was proposed by Councillor Jennings and seconded by Councillor

Kendall. By 4 votes in favour to 6 votes against, this proposal fell.

Accordingly, a motion of REFUSE, for the following reason, was proposed by

Councillor Crump and seconded by Councillor Feilding.

Thereafter, by 6 votes in favour to 4 votes against, it was

RESOLVED:

That Planning Application 21/00561/VARY be REFUSED for the following

reason (the detailed wording of which be delegated to Officers):

Reason for Refusal

In the opinion of the Planning Committee, Policy CS.9 requires

development proposals to be well-integrated with the existing built form

whilst enhancing the network of streets, footpaths and retaining existing

rights of way. The removal of Condition 10 would cause undue harm to

the local area by deleting a condition that requires a scheme for suitable

access to the Grand Union Canal, thus ensuring that the development

would be well integrated with the existing network of streets and built

form. The application to remove Condition 10 from Planning Permission,

20/01850/FUL, is therefore contrary to the objectives and stipulations of

Policy CS.9 of the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy.

127. Application Nos. 20/03306/FUL and 20/03307/LBC - The Old Butchers

Shop, The Green, Claverdon CV35 8LL

APPLICATION SITE The Old Butchers Shop, The Green, Claverdon

CV35 8LL

PROPOSAL 1. Proposed new dwelling

2. Proposed new dwelling

APPLICANT Mrs and Mrs S and L Whitehead and Robinson

SPEAKERS Mr Steev Ellson - Agent

Updates since the preparation of the Officer’s report were circulated to the

Committee as set out on the attached sheet.

Application No. 20/03306/FUL

Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting,

a motion of REFUSE, in accordance with the recommendation detailed in the

report, was proposed by Councillor Mills and seconded by Councillor Jennings.

By 3 votes in favour to 6 votes against with 1 abstention, this proposal fell.

Subsequently, a motion of DEFER in order to conduct a site visit, was proposed

by Councillor Dixon and seconded by Councillor Curtis.

Page 5

Thereafter, by 3 votes in favour to 3 votes against with 4 abstentions, on the

Chairman’s casting vote, it was

RESOLVED:

That Planning Application 20/03306/FUL be DEFERRED in order to

conduct a site visit.

Application No. 20/03307/LBC

Having considered the application and the representations made at the meeting,

a motion of DEFER in order to conduct a site visit, was proposed by Councillor

Dixon and seconded by Councillor Curtis.

Thereafter, it was unanimously

RESOLVED:

That Planning Application 20/03307/LBC be DEFERRED in order to

conduct a site visit.

128. Urgent Business

There were no items of urgent business.

CHAIRMAN

Page 6

Page 1 of 3

Update Report for Planning Committee: 07.07.2021 Committee Planning Manager: Alice Cosnett

20/02745/OUT – Airfield House (including part of Former Scrap Yard), Campden Road, Lower Quinton, Stratford –upon-Avon CV37 8LL

Updates to the Committee Report

Representation/Consultation Responses (Pages 23-40 of committee report)

-Response from Welford Parish Council dated 30.06.2021:

As a neighbouring Parish, Welford on Avon Parish Council Object to this application on the basis

of Highways and traffic concerns. This development will lead to a significant increase in the

volume of traffic using Welford as an alternative to Stratford river bridge. The Parish Council

already have safety concerns about the volume and speed of traffic travelling through the

village, this will exacerbate the problem. In addition, it will cause additional traffic and wear and

tear on Welford Bridge, a single track road and a Listed building.

Landscape and Visual Impact Including Impact on the AONB Section of the Committee Report

(Pages 51-52 of committee report)

-Update in respect of this part of the committee report where reference is made to the removal

of some trees (page 52). It should be clarified that 3 of these trees (3 Cypress trees)

referenced as proposed to be removed are on adjoining land at Willow Cottage and are outside

the application site boundary. Permission will need to be secured from a third party for their

removal. If permission is not granted for their removal their location will have to be taken into

account as part of any reserved matters application should outline permission be granted. The

submitted arboricultural report relates to the indicative layout and may change as a result of

any submitted Reserved Matters application should outline permission be granted. To this effect

details of any trees to be removed will have to be secured under the requirements of condition

18 relating to the soft landscaping details to be submitted at Reserved Matters stage.

Proposed S106 Payments (Page 62-63 and 65 of committee report)

- S106 payments – confirmation that the level of S106 payments will be determined by the

number of houses approved as part of any reserved matters application should outline

permission be granted. The numbers reported in the Committee Report relate to 60 dwellings

being provided on site and these figures may change should a lower number of dwellings than

60 be provided on site.

Proposed Conditions (pages 65-68 of committee report)

-Addition of demolition plan to condition 3.

-Confirmation that in respect of condition 7 the maximum roof ridge height is when measured

from proposed finished ground floor level of the dwelling building. Details pertaining to levels

will be required to be submitted under condition 26.

-Confirmation that condition 15 will require the provision of Electric Vehicles charging points for

all dwellings.

-Confirmation that condition 18 will require the submission of proposed permanent and

temporary boundary treatment.

-Confirmation that in respect of condition 19 the submitted scheme shall provide detailed

mitigation that ensures internal ambient levels of no more that 35dBLAeq (16 hours daytime) in

all living areas and 30dBLAeq (8 hours night time) in bedrooms with windows shut and other

Page 1

Minute Annex

Page 7

Page 2 of 3

means of ventilation provided. External ambient levels shall be no more than 50dBLAeq

(daytime) in amenity areas.

Proposed Notes (Pages 68-69 of committee report)

-Deletion of notes 14 and 15 as WCC Highways have verbally confirmed that these are not

required. Deletion of Note 10 as a duplicate with Note 16. Amend the numbering of Notes

accordingly.

-Note 26 should make reference to condition 9 rather than condition 6

20/02386/FUL – Land Adjacent to 201 Loxley Road, Stratford-upon-Avon

Consultation Responses (page 75)

Objection from Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council removed (01.07.2021); representation

amended as follows:

No Objection – “Now that the car ports have been omitted and the Highways Authority has

withdrawn its objection, the Town Council would also wish to withdraw its holding objection.”

Change wording to page 79 – “and subject to the completion of a S106 legal obligation” in

place of “S106 legal agreement” and on page 80 “except that, in the absence of a suitable

legal obligation” in place of “suitable legal agreement”.

Members Site Visit

A Members Site Visit took place at 10am on 7th July 2021. In attendance were Councillor

Richards, Councillor Dixon, Councillor Curtis and Councillor Rolfe (as Ward Member).

21/00561/VARY - Garages Adjacent To 27, Leigh Crescent, Long Itchington

CV47 9QS

Representation from Howes Percival on behalf of the applicant.

A letter has been received from Howes Percival which reiterates that planning conditions must

meet the 6 tests (necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted,

enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects) and reinforces that condition 10

should be removed. It states that as a matter of law there is no public footpath through the site

and it would be an error of law for the Council to approach this application on the basis of there

being such a link.

Representation from EMW on behalf of Long Itchington Parish Council

A letter has been received from EMW expressing how the access through from the application

site to the canal can be regarded as a public right of way; that it should remain open and

Condition 10 of Planning Permission 20/01850/FUL should not be removed.

20/03306/FUL and 20/03307/LBC - The Old Butchers Shop, The Green, Claverdon CV35 8LL

Page 2Page 8

Page 3 of 3

Reason for refusal (20/03306/FUL) – Page 107

Amendment to recommended reason for refusal no.1:

Removal of reference to “(Claverdon Court)”.

Reason for refusal (20/03307/LBC) – Page 108

Removal of reference to “(Claverdon Court)”.

Correction – Impact on Heritage Assets - Page 102

At bottom of page 102, removal of reference to “(Claverdon Court”). Claverdon Court is the

dwelling approximately 13m to the north of the proposed dwelling. Claverdon Court is not

listed. The Grade II Listed dwelling that is approximately 3.5m to the north is understood to go

by the name of “Old Butchers Shop” and is understood to be in separate ownership to that of

the applicant for these applications.

All other detail, including measurements, assessment of impact on heritage and

recommendation of refusal remain the same.

Correction – Green Belt – page 101

Removal of “(Claverdon Court)” for reason stated above.

Page 3Page 9

This page has been left intentionally blank

Page 10

COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 20/02839/FUL

Site Address: Land Near To Bishop's Itchington, Warwickshire

Description of

Development:

Construction of a solar farm (82.5ha) together with all

associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure

Applicant: Low Carbon Ltd

Reason for Referral

to Committee:

Objection by Parish Council

Objection by Ward Member

Case Officer: Louise Koelman

Presenting Officer: Louise Koelman

Ward Member: Councillor C Kettle

Town/Parish

Council: Bishops Itchington Parish Council

Description of Site

Constraints:

The site is approximately 82.5 ha of agricultural

land made up of 9 fields.

Located approximately 490m to the south of the

settlement of Bishop's Itchington and 480m north

of Knightcote

Fields are mainly bounded by hedgerows, some

with trees

Two Public Rights of Way run along the south

eastern corner of the site linking to another Public

Right of Way running to Bishops Itchington village.

Further public footpaths are located to the south

east running in a north south axis and a number of

public footpaths are located within Christmas Hill

and Pipers Hill which are situated approximately

1.9km to the west of the site Grade II listed Old Town Farmhouse is located

260m from the site and the Grade II/scheduled

monument Beacon Tower and Gredenton Hill

Camp at the Burton Dassett Hills is approximately

2.9km

Site mainly Flood Zone 1 but with a small section

within Flood Zones 2 and 3 running in a

north/south direction

River Itchen SSSI lies 0.9km east of the site

Summary of

Recommendation GRANT

Page 11

Item 4

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Development Plan

Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)

Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

National Design Guide 2019

Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

EU Renewable Energy Directive (2009/28/EC)

Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance

Development Requirements SPD

Other Material Consideration(s) and Emerging Plans

Climate Change Declaration by SOADC 2019

Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019

Stratford on Avon Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity Study 2014

Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Resource Assessment and Feasibility

Study – CAMCO April 2010

Renewable Energy Capacity Study for the West Midlands – March 2011

Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines 1993

UK Solar PV Strategy Part 1: Roadmap to a brighter future – Department

of Energy and Climate Change October 2013

UK Solar PV Strategy Part 2: Delivering a Brighter Future, April 2014

Statement by the Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change

(November 2013)

Written Ministerial Statement on Solar Energy: Protecting the local and

Global Environment (March 2015)

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY No relevant planning history.

REPRESENTATIONS

Ward Member – Cllr Kettle – Object

SDC Policy position on renewable energy

Stratford District Council declared a “Climate Emergency” in July 2019 and

resolved to “to contribute to national carbon neutral targets through the

development of their own practices and policies”. In February 2020 SDC’s Cabinet

resolved to set up a Climate Change Panel and adopted recommendations from

the Council’s Climate Emergency Task and Finish Group.

Page 12

The Council’s position, in summary, is to recognise the issues of climate change

and support actions notably:

• To reduce the Council’s own carbon usage;

• Provide education to residents about energy usage;

• Improve the efficiency of energy usage in both dwellings and vehicles;

• Improve tree planting and biodiversity on council owned land;

• Encourage the use of renewable energy; and

• To develop an energy policy that encourages investment in local and

community renewable energy schemes.

The declaration of the Climate Emergency and adoption of the recommendations

summarised above does not however and cannot override planning policy and

therefor any application needs still to comply with both the NPPF and the Core

Strategy.

The Council’s Planning Policy has resulted in the development of two Solar Parks

within the District, one outside Stratford town itself, Drayton Manor Farm on

heavily contaminated land, and one within the Parish of Bishop’s Itchington. The

exiting solar farm in the Parish, Southam Solar Farm generates approximately

10.4 MWp from 29 ha of land. The site is on flat ground above the village and

whilst it can be seen from two PROWs SM81 and SM83, the site is not visibly from

any part of the surrounding settlements.

Description of the location

This application sits on low ground within the Feldon Vale surrounding by hills

including to the south the Country Park on the publicly owned Burton Dassett

Hills, along with its two designated heritage assets, namely the Beacon Tower

and Gredenton Hill Camp. To the north the site is clearly visible from footpaths

SM83 and SM83b running along the front of the blue lias ridge from Bishop’s

Itchington to Gaydon via Christmas Hill. The site is adjacent to both the

Knightcote Road from Bishop’s Itchignton to Knightcote and the unclassified

Knightcote Bottom Lane from Gaydon to Knightcote.

The site is adjacent to the listed Old Town Farm, the stonework of which itself

dates back to the dissolution of the monasteries in 1547, and is the original site

of the settlement of Bishop’s Itchington, whose existence is recorded as far back

as 1034AD. The now redundant Starbold Farm is in the centre of the application

site. One of the sources of the River Itchen runs though the site.

There are a number of Romano-British sites in close proximity to the site, one of

which was uncovered as part of the archaeological investigations for the refused

application for a wind farm on land adjacent to this site. There are other

significant roman finds in the locality, probably satellite settlements to the largest

roman fort on the Fosse Way between Leicester and Bath just north of

Chesterton, which was discovered in the late 1960’s. Recent surveys indicate the

Town of Chesterton extended for some 27 hectares, making this a very significant

settlement, and it is considered to have been occupied for at least 3 centuries

from the 1st to the 4th century and then subsequently by Anglo Saxons.

That the Old Salt Road, the Knightcote Bottom lane, runs alongside the site

suggests that this area would have seen significant activity, over a substantial

period.

The land has been consistently in use as either arable or grazing land and whilst

not top grade land is still in active use for the production of crops and livestock.

Page 13

Consultation responses

Both parish councils. Bishop’s Itchington (‘BIPC’) and Burton Dassett have

responded with objections in detail on this application and I do not intend to

replicate the extent of their own responses.

However in summary, I concur with them that this application is in contradiction

in terms of scale, visual impact, sustainability with the Stratford District Council’s

Core Strategy and in particular with policies as follows:

CS.1 Sustainable development - The negative impact of the proposal

will be greater than the benefits

CS.3 Sustainable energy - Impact on historic landscape and of direct and

reflected lighting on the Country park and the heritage assets on the hills

and Old Town Farm

CS.5 Landscape Character - The scale of the proposal will have a

material impact on the historic landscape setting of the Feldon Vale, which

owing to its location at the bottom of the bowl will be highly visible

Visual impact -The Site will be highly visible from the Country Park on the

Burton Dassett Hills and from the footpaths on the Blue Lias ridge.

Scale - Contrary to the Council’s Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity

Assessment

CS.7 Green Infrastructure - The historic and archaeological settings, as

referred to in this policy will be heavily impacted by the scale of this

development

CS.8 Historical Environment - The level and sufficiency of the heritage

desk based assessment submitted, as set out by BIPC, is inadequate to

assess properly the heritage impact of this proposal.

The location of a 1,000 year old settlement within 250 metres of the site

surely requires more than a desk based exercise along with the existence

of numerous local roman settlements and the old Salt Road.

CS.22 Economic benefit - Unless the applicant can clearly demonstrate

that through the selection of contractors and the employment

opportunities for business or residents of Stratford District, I cannot see

how this application will bring any economic benefit to the area.

BIPC have raised a number of concerns about the information provided in the

supporting documents to the application, with which I concur. I would also draw

the officer’s attention to the adequacy of some of the photomontages. One

photograph taken from footpath SM83b purports to show that the site would be

invisible from the footpath owing to the existence of a high and thick hedgerow,

and it was taken in the summer when the hedge was in full leaf. Had the

photographer stood on the other side of the hedge, on the footpath, or walked

some two or three meters or even further along the footpath, the view would not

have been obscured by the hedge.

I am concerned that if so obvious a view was obscured in the photograph by the

existence of a hedge, what other impacts have been missed through the careful

selection of view points.

I am aware that the applicant’s agents have carried out a number of consultation

events. However the failure to deliver invitations to the correct addresses and

Page 14

missing out residents of Burton Dassett parish meant that in my opinion the

exercise was flawed. Date: (22/12/2020)

Adjoining Ward Member (Harbury) - Councillor J Harris

No response

Parish Council: – Object

Development fails to adhere with policies CS.1 and CS.3 as the

development fails to provide benefits for the community of Bishops

Itchington and surrounding villages/farms

Major detrimental impact will result during the construction and

decommissioning stages

An excessive number of HGV’s will be required to go through the village

resulting in damage and pollution

The Cotswolds AONB is close

The energy generated will go to the national grid and will not benefit the

local community

Will have a significant detrimental visual impact on the Feldon Farm

Farmlands

Views of the site will be able to be obtained from Burton Dassett Country

Park and will spoil views in an area of natural beauty and landscape

sensitivity

Consider that the applicants have failed to refer to the Renewable Energy

Landscape Sensitivity Assessment

Fails to meet the criteria of the Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity

Assessment for Feldon Vale Farmlands and is far too large for the intended

area

Will have significant impact on agricultural activities as 78.5ha of

agricultural land will be taken out of use

The openness and character of the landscape will be changed considerably

and cannot be hidden by hedges or fences from view

Character of the historic landscape will be adversely changed – the historic

Roman Salt Road (Knightcote Bottoms) is situated in an unspoilt setting

and its setting will be changed by 2.5m high CCTV cameras and 2.4m high

fencing for the next 40 years

Consider the fencing will need to be 2.4m rather than 2m as specified to

be in compliance with the recommendations of the Warwickshire Police

Biodiversity will not be enhanced as trees and hedgerows will be removed

Consider over 150 CCTV cameras will be required and 7,125m of security

fencing leading to a significant visual impact

Fails to comply with CS.4 (Water, environment and Flood Risk)

Request assessment of the Badger report which is unable to be viewed

Fails to address the criteria of CS.7 – Green Infrastructure

Consider the heritage desk based assessment contains errors and

mischaracterisations. A watching brief would be insufficient and the

proposals fail to preserve an area of significant archaeological interest

conflicting with CS.8

Proposal will destroy features that contribute positively to the area due to

its size and scale and will destroy a vast area of agricultural land and alter

the local bio-diversity in a negative way

Whilst the site is grade 3b and 4 agricultural land 95% of the site is 3b

which is still viable crop producing land and has been farmed since the

second world war

Site is open to significant views from longer distances from the south

Page 15

Raise concerns with the submitted construction traffic management plan

(CTMP) and consider there are inconsistencies which questions its

comprehensiveness.

Consider the number of trips within the CTMP is confused by the

inconsistent use and meaning of two-way trip v a vehicle movement

Restrictions and road closures which would eliminate certain routes to the

site haven’t been recognised

Comments on the type and volume of traffic have been made without

supporting evidence

Suggestions are made in the CTMP about mitigation and restrictions which

the Council may consider requesting as conditions

Raise criticism regarding the submitted statement of community

engagement

Date: (14/12/2020)

Burton Dassett Parish Council – Adjoining

Object –

Consider the application ignores the existence of the Burton Dassett

Country Park and its two designated heritage assets, Beacon Tower and

Gredenton Hill Camp and will significantly harm the setting of these

heritage assets contrary to Core Strategy policy CS.8

Consider the development will significantly compromise the tranquil and

remote character of the view across the Feldon vale from the country

park, diminishing the value of the park

Consider the inclusion of CCTV, lighting pillars and possibly 2.4m high

security fencing will result in the visual impact being worse than presented

Insufficient marketing of the second webinar resulted in the meeting only

being attended by parish councillors

Development is contrary to the Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity

Study due to its size as the study identifies small (up to 5ha) or medium

(up to 15ha) sites are brought forward to avoid adverse effects on the

topography

The desk based heritage report fails to investigate the significant evidence

of Iron Age and Roman habitation on and around the site and should be

required prior to any permission being considered

The glint and glare report is insufficient and doesn’t take into account glint

and gare from the Burton Hills Country Park

Renewable energy site should not be sited next to villages

Solar farms should utilise brownfield site or land with little agricultural

value

Date: (22/12/2020)

Continue to object following additional consultation with drainage and landscaping

details. (21.07.2021)

Harbury Parish Council - Adjoining

No representations . Dated (08.12.2012)

Third Party Representations

The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.

24 letters of objection have been received raising the following matters:

The excessive scale of the development is incompatible with the rural

location and harmful to the landscape and character of the area

Page 16

Will lead to 4.5miles of 2.4m high fencing and over 150 CCTV cameras

creating a significant loss of local distinctiveness and local landscape

character

The development will have a detrimental effect on the views in the area,

particularly from Burton Dassett Hills which is a Special Landscape Area,

compromising the panoramic views across the open countryside which is

widely used by locals and visitors

Consider the proposals are in the wrong area. There is already a solar

farm in Bishops Itchington

Query whether the development will result in cheaper electricity supply

and if not will have no benefit to the local community

No implications of the changes to the infrastructure/ power grid have

been provided

Consider that the fields should be retained for agricultural use not solar

farms

Unacceptable loss of grade 3b land and is able to be used for staple corn

cultivation and has been in continuous use for arable crops for many

decades

Query whether a study on the effect on the bird population has been

carried out

Maintenance traffic and the land contamination will affect wildlife

Will create a precedent for further expansion of other solar farms

Will cause harm to the local road network and congestion. HS2 activities

are already causing significant disruption to the road network in the area

The connection point is at Deppers Bridge approximately 3km away and

will cause significant traffic problems on a busy road

The area of Old Town was the centre of a medieval settlement with a

church and market charter. The development is immediately adjacent to

the proposal and would destroy this historic site.

The Old Salt Road is a Roman road and the development could have

significant archaeological issues and traffic would lead to its degradation

Roman heritage sites and points of interest that have historical artefacts

should not be disturbed or destroyed

Will contaminate archaeological remains on the land

Site contains ridge and furrow land which is protected

Highlight that there is already a solar farm in the village and an additional

solar farm of this scale is not required

Brownfield sites and commercial rooftops should be targeted for solar

farms, closer to networks for distribution not near villages

Development fails to meet the criteria of the Council’s Renewable Energy

Landscape Sensitivity Study for Feldon Vale Farmlands in both scale and

location - exceeds the limit of the landscape sensitivity framework by

250% of the recommended maximum – breach of policy CS.3

Consideration should be given to progress its energy policy towards 100%

off shore wind power to supply power demand by 2030

Query how many jobs will be created by the development and how many

of those will be locally employed

Planning permission for 4 wind turbines in this area was refused because

of the visual impact on the AONB and query whether 220 acres of solar

panels any different

Level of public engagement was poor despite COVID restrictions the

webinar meetings were limited

Raise concerns from solar glare from the Burton Dassett Hills further

impacting on important views

Will require land to be dug up to install the connection cables to the grid

connection point in Bishops Itchington

Will cause harm to protected species i.e. badgers in the area

Page 17

The geophysics survey is incomplete and doesn’t include land in close

proximity to the medieval settlement of Nether Itchington therefore fails to

fulfil the requirements of NPPF 189

An independent archaeological survey of the site is needed

The site floods and should therefore not have solar panels placed on it

3 letters of support have been received raising the following matters:

The Climate Change Act and subsidiary legislation have set a target of

100% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and the application

if approved would make an important contribution to this target

Stratford on Avon District Council has declared a Climate Emergency with

a pledge to take action locally to contribute to national carbon neutral

targets through the development of their own practices and policies, with

an aim to be carbon-neutral in Stratford District by 2030

There are no major constraints that would preclude the granting of

planning permission on the site and would make a significant local

contribution to the Council’s Climate Change commitment

Considers the development will not lead to the permanent loss of

agricultural land and the land is poorer land falling outside the Best and

Most Versatile category

The site is underlain by slowly permeable clay or clay loam and historically

mapped as ‘Denchworth Series’ which leads to significant limitations to

agricultural cropping and predominantly winter wheat and oilseed rape.

The main arable crop is feed wheat which contributes Carbon Dioxide,

Methane and Nitrous gases to the atmosphere and leaching of nitrates to

groundwater and watercourses by ploughing and cultivations

The development will minimise greenhouse gases through putting the land

to grass acting as a carbon sink

Using floristically rich grass seed mixtures will provide benefits for a range

of wildlife and undergrazing for sheep so agricultural activity can continue

The site is relatively flat and the greatest visual impact will be within or

immediately adjacent to the site which can be minimised by tree planting

and management of hedgerows.

Whilst there is some impact, it is temporary

Complies with policy CS.1 - will lead to improvements and benefits to the

local economy from increased renewable electricity generation, contribute

to the district climate change mitigation measures, job creation,

biodiversity improvements and landscape mitigation measures

Proposal complies with sustainable energy policy CS.3 – the impacts can

be mitigated

No adverse impact on the water environment and flood risk – policy CS.4

Mitigation measures will lead to improvements in biodiversity – board

compliance with policy CS.6

Consider there is no immediate impact on the historic environment and is

broadly compliant with CS.8

Footpaths will be protected and existing hedges left to grow so wildlife can

thrive

Farmers need to diversify especially in rural locations and once installed

solar farms need little ongoing maintenance

There are not enough brownfield site and rooftop structures are expensive

in terms of carbon footprint and financial outlay to fulfil the requirements

needed to reduce CO2 emissions

The larger the site the better use it can make of the available grid

connection capacity

Page 18

Consider if solar farms are considered to be industrial then so too are

artificial reservoirs. Whilst fiercely resisted previously these are now

regarded as attractive landscape features

The solar farms once installed require little maintenance, minimal noise

and provide a tranquil environment

The site is 2 miles from the Burton Dassett Hills and therefore only covers

a small percentage of any view and any reflection from the panels will be

seen for only a very short period of any day

The character of the Burton Dassett Hills is already compromised by the

presence of the M40 motorway which covers a large percentage of the

view and produces noise. This hasn’t deterred tourists to visit, don’t

consider a solar farm will either

A letter of objection has also been received from the non-statutory body, the

CPRE, raising the following matters:

Refer to the characteristics of the site known as the Feldon Vale Farmland

as detailed in the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines and concludes that

the tranquillity of the landscape would be considerably disturbed is the

development is built and would be completely out of character

Refers to the additional equipment which comprise the development

including inverter/transformer containers, DNO substation and customer

substation, surrounded by 2m security fencing and 2.5m high CCTV poles

posted at 50m intervals and considers that this impact cannot be

mitigated by the measures set out by the applicants landscaping plans

Consider the proposal would fail policy CS.9 by detracting from the sense

of place and would have adverse visual impacts from local and longer

distance viewpoints. Although the application is for a temporary period

considers 40 years to be a considerable period

Consider the development also fails to adhere to policy CS.5 and CS.8

Identifies that the development will harm views from the Beacon Tower

which is located on the Burton Dassett Hill and is a scheduled ancient

monument and listed building. Refers to other listed buildings in the

vicinity of the development in Knightcote and The Old Town Farmhouse

which is 160m east of the site

Refers to the guidance within the Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity

Study and considers that the development fails to adhere to the guidance

within it as the development is significant over the recommended size

thresholds

Refers to the fact that 82.5ha of agricultural land would be taken out of

cultivation if the development is granted

Considers solar panels should be placed on buildings rather than

agricultural land

Other non-planning related comments were also received

CONSULTATIONS

Warwickshire County Council Highways (WCC Highways)

Additional information received to address objection including a Road Safety Audit

of the two accesses, additional information with respect to the Southern splay on

the northern access and updated Construction Traffic Management Plan and

Construction Management Routing Plan. (01.12.2020)

No objection subject to conditions. (22.07.2021)

Historic England

Page 19

Initial objections. Requested further work to be carried out with respect to the

assessment of the scheduled monument of Beacon Tower and Gredenton Hill

Camp within the Burton Hills. Required further archaeological field assessment

work to be carried out.

No objection - Following the receipt of additional geophysical assessment and

removal of field 9 (south western field parcel) from the development and

highlight the potential for the development affect the setting of designated

heritage assets at distance and require the authority to assess this in our

determination. (09.07.2021)

Environment Agency

No objections subject to a condition. (25/11/2020)

NATS Safeguarding

No Objection. (25.11.2021)

Natural England

No objection. Do not consider the development will have any significant adverse

impacts on statutorily protected nature conservation sites or landscapes.

(03.12.2020)

Environmental Health (EHO)

No objection (27.11.2020)

Warwickshire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)

Require additional details to confirm that runoff generated from the supporting

infrastructure to the photovoltaics can be managed safely with an appropriate

outfall. (01.07.2021) Further information has been submitted and further

consultation carried out, a response is anticipated before Committee.

Warwickshire County Council Ecology (WCC Ecology)

No objection. Recommends conditions. (22.12.2020 & 14.07.2021)

Warwickshire Police

No objection - Recommend the boundary protection of the site be sited an

appropriate distance from the panels to discourage theft of the panels,

recommend security fencing is 2.4m in height and certified to LPS 1175 security

level 2, together with any gates.

Construction compound security measures are recommended and CCTV

monitoring and ensuring the cameras are fit for purpose. (26.11.2020)

Warwickshire County Council Fire and Rescue

No objection subject to an advisory note. (26.11.2020)

Ramblers Association

Raise no objection on footpath grounds – two public footpaths SM85 and SM85a

are located adjacent to the south –eastern corner of the site.

Raise objection on countryside protection grounds. Consider the development

conflicts with Core Strategy policies CS.3 and CS.5 and is too large in scale.

(04.12.2020)

Warwickshire County Council Footpaths Officer

No objection subject to a condition and advisory notes.(09.12.2020)

Page 20

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Principle of Development

The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan,

unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and

Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a

key material planning consideration.

The proposal seeks permission to construct a ground mounted solar farm with a

total site area of 82.5ha, of which 56.8ha contains panels, and associated works,

equipment and necessary infrastructure for a temporary 40 year period. The

anticipate capacity is 49.9MW.

The panels themselves have a maximum height of 2.7m and 0.9m at their lowest

point, fencing around the site is 2m high, camera poles 2.5m high and associated

buildings/structures/plant a maximum height of 3.5m.

Development Plan

Policy CS.3 Sustainable Energy relates, at part B, to Solar Energy. This says that

proposals for solar energy will be supported where the impacts are, or can be,

made acceptable, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. An

assessment against a number of criteria would need to be undertaken:

• Impact on agricultural activities and disturbances to agricultural land

• Impact on openness and character of the landscape and on visual amenity

• Impact on the character of the historic landscape

• Impacts of trees and other vegetation which may cause overshadowing,

making allowance for future growth

• Impact on and opportunities to enhance biodiversity

• Impact of direct and reflected lighting on the amenity of occupied affected

buildings or land on light pollution, on aviation and on biodiversity

Proposals will be determined with regard to the Council’s Renewable Energy

Landscape Sensitivity Assessment which was reported to the Council’s Cabinet 8

September 2014 whereat it was received as evidence to inform the application of

Policy CS.3.

Policy AS.10 of the Draft Core Strategy relates to development in the Countryside

and Villages. Whilst promoting a wide range of activities and development in rural

parts of the District in order to maintain balanced rural communities and a strong

rural economy, it stresses that this is subject to development minimising any

impact on the character of the local landscape, communities and environmental

features; minimising the impact on occupiers of existing properties; avoiding a

harmful increase in traffic; prioritising the use of brownfield land and avoiding

development on the best and most versatile agricultural land.

The policy identifies the type of development and uses which may be appropriate

in rural areas, and states that other types of development or activity in the

countryside will need to be fully justified, offer significant benefits to the local

Page 21

area and not be contrary to the overall development strategy for the District.

Solar farms are not specifically identified as being an appropriate use of land,

although farm-based business activities that would help to diversify and support

the viability of agricultural operations are listed.

Stratford District Council declared a “Climate Emergency” in July 2019 and

resolved “to contribute to national carbon neutral targets through the

development of their own practices and policies”. In February 2020 SDC’s Cabinet

resolved to set up a Climate Change Panel and adopted recommendations from

the Council’s Climate Emergency Task and Finish Group.

The Council’s position, in summary, is to recognise the issues of climate change

and support actions notably:

• To reduce the Council’s own carbon usage;

• Provide education to residents about energy usage;

• Improve the efficiency of energy usage in both dwellings and vehicles;

• Improve tree planting and biodiversity on council owned land;

• Encourage the use of renewable energy; and

• To develop an energy policy that encourages investment in local and

community renewable energy schemes.

The overriding vision for the Council is that by 2030, Stratford on Avon District is;

‘..be one of the UK’s first carbon-neutral districts supporting zero-carbon

innovation, technology and construction and be at the forefront of climate change

adaption’.

The provision of a solar farm therefore accords with this commitment, however

also needs to be balanced against all other material considerations.

Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019

On 12 June 2019 the Government laid the draft Climate Change Act 2008 (2050

Target Amendment) Order 2019 to amend the Climate Change Act 2008 by

introducing a target for at least a 100% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

(compared to 1990 levels) in the UK by 2050. This is otherwise known as a net

zero target. The draft order would amend the 2050 greenhouse gas emissions

reduction target in the Climate Change Act from at least 80% to at least 100%,

thereby constituting a legally binding commitment to end the UK's contribution to

climate change.

Written Ministerial Statement on Solar Energy: Protecting the local and Global

Environment (March 2015)

This Written Ministerial Statement is referred to in the NPPG. Eric Pickles

(Secretary of State) in March 2015 made a statement on Solar Energy and

protection of the global and local environments. In respect of the use of

agricultural land, Mr Pickles stated that compelling evidence needed to be

provided for solar on Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land.

The applicant has supported this application with an agricultural land classification

report which has demonstrated that the site is grade 3b (Moderate Quality) and

Grade 4 (Poor Quality) agricultural land. Such land does not form Best and Most

Versatile Agricultural Land and therefore accords with the Written Ministerial

Statement.

NPPF

The updated NPPF was published in February 2021 and sets out the Government's

planning policies for England and how these are expected to achieve sustainable

development. Paragraph 152 of the NPPF states that the planning system should

Page 22

support transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate and should

support renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.

Paragraph 158 also confirms that applicants are not required to demonstrate the

overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and that local planning

authorities (LPAs) should recognise that even small-scale projects provide a

valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. LPAs are directed to

approve applications if impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.

NPPG

The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) states that authorities should

encourage the effective use of land by focusing development on previously

developed and non-agricultural land. However, if a proposal does involve

Greenfield land, authorities should consider whether the proposed use of any

agricultural land has been shown to be necessary and poorer quality land has

been used in preference to higher quality, and the proposal allows for continued

agricultural use and/or encourages bio-diversity improvements around arrays.

As stated above the application site would utilise land which does not fall under

the Best and Most Versatile category and the applicant has set out that the land

beneath and around the arrays would be reverted to floristically rich grass seed

mixtures which can provide benefits for a range of wildlife and undergrazing for

sheep so agricultural practices can remain.

Overall I consider that the principle of development is acceptable but then must

be balanced against all other material considerations.

Impact on the landscape and character of the area

The site comprises of 10 fields of arable farmland of which 56.8ha would contain

solar panels. The site is located approximately 600m south of Bishop's Itchington

and approximately 600m north-west of Knightcote.

The site is situated between Knightcote Road, Knightcote Bottoms and Gaydon

Road. The north-eastern corner of the site and south-eastern parts of the site are

bound by Knightcote Road, and the southern boundaries of the site are bound by

Knightcote Bottoms. To the north, the site is adjacent to detached dwellings and

associated outbuildings. To the east, in addition to the northern corner and south-

eastern parts of the site being adjacent to Knightcote Road, the central part of

the site is adjacent to Glebe Farm, alongside further isolated dwellings,

agricultural buildings and associated land.

Whilst there are no public rights of way that run through the site, there are a two

which adjoin the south eastern corner, SM85 and SM85a. Additional public

footpaths of note are located approximately 1.9km to the west in Pipers Hill and

Christmas Hill and also the Burton Dassett Country Park is located approximately

2.9km south.

The site is situated within part of National Character Area (NCA) 96 Dunsmore

and Feldon which is predominately a rural agricultural open character. It is

described as an important food producing area of mainly large arable fields and

nucleated settlement pattern. This scale of development is not considered to be

significantly harmful to the whole of this extensive scale NCA.

There are no national nor local landscape designations where this development

site is proposed. This is of some relevance as the NPPF wording (para 174) refers

to protecting and enhancing valued landscapes...’in a manner commensurate with

their statutory status or identified quality in the development plan).’ Warwickshire

Page 23

Landscape Guidelines (WLG) (1993) at a more local, county landscape scale, this

site lies within Feldon’s ‘Vale Farmlands’ local landscape character type (LCT)

(Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines 1990).

At the local landscape ‘Vale Farmlands Landscape Character Type’ (LCT) level, the

SDC Renewable Energy Landscape Sensitivity Study (LSS) found that, in

landform, scale and enclosure terms, Vale farmlands LCT is ‘intrinsically the

topography is suitable for solar energy, but the close juxtaposition with higher

ground in places increases overlooking and sensitivity. In terms of landcover,

scale and enclosure the renewable energy study identified: Mixed farmland

landcover, medium to large fields, low hedges; occasional field boundary trees

and riparian vegetation on watercourses.’ The study went on to say that ‘All these

assist in giving some enclosure to this flat landscape and hedges could be allowed

to grow which would assist in screening solar energy in places. The shape and

scale of the fields could also be intrinsically suitable for solar energy

development. However there are locations where enclosure is limited and open

and exposure to views, especially from the rising ground, would make these

areas sensitive to solar energy development’.

The field pattern of the application site is generally regular and geometric at a

medium to large scale, which is more compatible with solar energy. Mature

hedgerow trees exist alongside the streamline, in the middle of this proposed site,

but existing enclosure is noticeably more limited in some parts of the north/north

eastern parts of the site.

In terms of sensitivity of site size, the LSS study is of the view that ‘The potential

for solar energy in Vale Farmlands is limited to broader, flatter or very gently

sloping areas where there is potential for hedge and tree screening and away

from the many views from surrounding higher ground..especially.. Burton Dassett

Country Park’…’Smaller scale developments can be located more easily, away

from highly visible areas and settlement’.

The (approximately) north-south field alignment of the proposed site does largely

fall within the broader flatter, more gentle areas with hedge screening. Views

from higher hill fringes to the site are limited and fairly distant and the site is

located away from Bishops Itchington and Knightcote settlements but it is not of

small scale. The LSS matrix indicates that a site of over 25 ha (and also 15-

25ha) in Vale Farmlands would be considered of high/medium sensitivity to solar

development.

The site being proposed is significantly larger than 25ha, being of 82.5ha of

which 56.8ha would be covered with panels. The submitted LVIA acknowledges

the size is over 25 ha and Vale Farmlands being of ‘high/medium sensitivity’ to

such very large solar farms. However it points out that this sensitivity is for the

whole of the Vale Farmlands landscape character type, some of which is in close

proximity to, e.g. the Cotswold AONB, has pronounced topography and other

sensitive factors which are not present at this immediate site’s surroundings. As a

result they consider this particular part of the wider Feldon’s Vale Farmlands to be

closer to medium sensitivity to solar development.

The Council’s landscape officer agrees that the site does fall with a less sensitive

part of Vale Farmlands local landscape character type. Although significant

landscape character change effects would occur at the site and there would be a

level of harm with the Vale Farmlands landscape, as solar development would

then start to become a more characteristic feature found within it. This would not

be across the entire Feldon Vale Farmlands area and the Vale Farmlands is

identified in SDC’s Renewables LSS Study as being the main landscape type

Page 24

within the district that should be the most able to accommodate solar

development without leading to extensive landscape character harm, although

the proposed size is larger than the study recommended.

The proposal would result in relatively few ‘significant’ and localised harmful

visual effects for such a sizeable site. In particular, such visual effects appear to

be at the south eastern /eastern half of the site where hedge enclosure is limited

and where the development is close to public rural roads and footpaths. Views

from the elevated PROW routes within Christmas Hill and Pipers Hill have been

assessed and considered to be limited, occasional side glimpses through a gate or

gap in the mature height intervening vegetation to the proposed solar

development in the vale. Such visual effects are likely to increase in winter

months. Overall given the length and orientation of the routes such side visual

effects from users of PROW’s on this elevated nearby hill would appear to be

sufficiently mitigated by intervening mature vegetation so that they don’t appear

to amount to an overall continuous significant adverse visual effect.

The Landscape officer acknowledges that there is also likely to be new noticeable

visual effect from the addition of solar development into the panoramic view

experienced by from the elevated Burton Dassett Hills Country Park. However the

panoramic view does contain other built forms of development and is not entirely

rural/agricultural. The proposal would be in the mid-long distance and being of a

low level, it would sit within the existing field pattern retaining the hedgerows and

trees on these boundaries. At a medium level scale of effect, to high sensitivity

receptors at this elevated country park viewpoint, the development may arguably

give rise to a significant visual effect at this particular location. However the

applicant has proposed to carry out landscape mitigation measures including

removing panels within the south western field adjoining Knightcote Bottoms,

allowing existing hedgerows to increase in height to at least 3m and additional

hedgerow and tree planting which would assist in reducing the visual impact of

the proposal and level of effect.

The proposals would result in a local landscape character change and some

harmful visual effects however they are relatively localised with the key longer

distance view being from the Burton Dassett Hills. In coming to this conclusion I

acknowledge that these impacts would vary over time and would be dependent

on various factors, including the maturity and mitigation effects of the tree and

hedgerow planting and the seasonal impact. Impacts during the short term

construction and decommissioning phases would also be greater. I also recognise

that the development is for a temporary 40 year period, and is fully reversible.

This harm identified therefore needs to be weighed up in the planning balance

against the benefits of enabling renewable energy in this part of the District at a

time of climate change emergency.

Historic Environment

The site does not lie within a Conservation Area and there are no designated

assets within the site itself however there are a number within the local area.

There are three which have been identified as being potentially affected by the

proposals.

The closest is the Old Town Farmhouse which is a grade II listed building located

approximately 260m to the east of the site. At a distance from the application

site, (approximately 2.9km)but still of relevance, is the Beacon Tower which is a

Grade II and Scheduled Ancient Monument atop the Burton Dassett Hills. Finally

is also the Gredenton Hill Camp which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument to the

east of the Burton Dassett Hill range.

Page 25

The applicant has provided a revised desk-based Heritage Assessment in order to

assess the significance of the proposals, including any contribution made by their

on their settings, in line with para 189 of the NPPF.

The Council’s Conservation officer has assessed this detail and has identified that

with respect to the Old Town Farmhouse, as an historic farmstead the

surrounding agricultural landscape still makes a positive contribution to its

significance however acknowledges that this has been diminished through the

mature roadside tree and hedgerow planting and additional holdings opposite the

site.

With respect to the Beacon Tower, its elevated position and absence of adjacent

structures makes it a prominent feature in the landscape, which is an important

aspect of its special interest. Equally important are the views afforded out across

the landscape from it. The view northwards to Bishops Itchington encompasses

the application site and would be visible from it albeit as part of a much wider

panoramic view.

The applicants Heritage Assessments makes reference to the Inspector for the

Starbold Wind Farm appeal (SDC Planning Ref. APP/J3720/A/13/2193579) which

adjoins part of the western boundary of the site concluded that:

"... the majority of the Tower's significance revolves around its relationship with

the surrounding landscape, principally the Feldon Vale to the north and views to

and from the Tower. The views that contribute to its significance are restricted to

those within about 3km of the Tower ... In relation to views out from the Tower it

is the panoramic nature of these views which relate to its significance"

The applicants assessment considers that the ‘mid-ground of the long-ranging

northerly views from the Beacon Tower will not alter or compromise an ability to

appreciate its elevated position within the local landscape. The proposed

development will alter the character of a part of the outlying lowland agricultural

landscape but it will not obstruct the current range of the view from the Beacon

Tower to the skyline’…….. ‘the turbines of the proposed Starbold Wind Farm were

anticipated to detract from the long-ranging views of the Beacon Tower from

locations in the surrounding landscape, this is not anticipated for the proposed

solar farm’.

With respect to Gredenton Hill Camp the applicant’s heritage assessment

considers that any visibility of the development from the asset would be glimpsed

at mid-range and not compromise the ability to appreciate the elevated position

of the hillfort within the Feldon Vale.

The Council’s Conservation Officer considers that the addition of panels within the

landscape would result in harm to the significance of these assets, judged to fall

in the level of 'less than substantial' using NPPF wording. Consistent with NPPF

and Core Strategy CS.8 requirements, this harm will need to be weighed in the

planning balance against any the benefits of enabling renewable energy in this

part of the District at a time of climate change emergency.

In term of archaeological Heritage Assets, in light of comments received from

Historic England, the applicant has carried out a geophysical assessment of the

site, together with their initial desk based assessment. The survey has identified

there are 3 zones of archaeological interest within the site which comprise

probable late pre-historic settlements and associated field systems to the north

east and south west of the site (referred to as Areas 5 and 9), the remains of

Starbold Farm to the west (Area 6) and possible activity to the south east (Area

11).

In light of these findings Areas 5 and 9 have been excluded from development

and therefore any remains will be preserved in situ. With respect to the

Page 26

remainder of the site trial trenching is proposed where development is proposed

targeting in particular areas 6 and 11, prior to the commencement of any

development. This may in turn determine a need for further archaeological

investigation and or mitigation before construction begins.

It is considered that any archaeological impact can be adequately mitigated

through the inclusion of appropriate conditions requiring a written scheme of

investigation and archaeological evaluation.

These reports have been assessed by Historic England who have raised no

objection to this approach, welcomes the withdrawal of fields 5 and 9 from the

scheme and have withdrawn their prior objection.

I consider that the proposal complies in part with policy CS.8 of the Core

Strategy.

Residential Amenity

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has carefully assessed the proposals

and raises no objections. Sufficient distance exists between the site and the

nearest residences to ensure that no noise issues will result.

I therefore consider that the proposals will not result in unacceptable harm to the

living conditions of nearby occupiers by virtue of noise or general disturbance.

In order to ensure that the privacy of the nearest neighbours are protected, I

consider that a planning condition to require full camera details to be agreed and

then implemented could overcome such concerns. Subject to such a condition

being complied with, I consider that the proposal complies with policy CS.9 of the

Core Strategy.

Highways Matters and Parking

Construction access will be provided via two separate access junctions off

Knightcote Road on the north-east and south-east site boundary. Both accesses

are existing gated field access which currently serve the existing agricultural land.

Once operational, the northern access will revert to its current arrangement and

the southern access will be retained for operational requirements.

The applicants have supported their application with a Construction Traffic

Management Plan (CTMP) which sets out the construction programme will take

approximately four months (up to 16 weeks) based on the construction of similar

developments. It is estimated that the construction of the solar farm could

generate an overall total of 764 deliveries comprising an average of 8 deliveries

per day or 16 two-way movements per day. However the number of deliveries

will decrease as construction progresses. Once operational the largest vehicle is

anticipated to be no larger than 7.5t.

In of visibility splays the northern access, the CTMP identifies a reduced southern

a ‘Y’ distance of 110m can only be achieved, however the Highway Authority

whilst not objecting to the reduced distance raised concerns due to vegetation

potentially reducing the splay further. The Highway Authority requested the

applicant to demonstrate that they could improve this splay.

The Highway Authority also requested a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit to be carried

with respect to the upgraded accesses into the site and also required revisions to

be made with respect to the construction traffic routes within their CTMP. The

applicants have carried out these revisions to the CTMP, omitting any routing to

occur through Knightcote Bottoms Road, the route via the B4551 contains a

Page 27

weight limit of 7.5t and therefore would not be used by any HGV traffic and the

primary route is via the M40 and Knightcote Road as recommended by the

Highway Authority.

The applicants have also supplied revised proposals with respect to the northern

access splays. Whilst they have submitted revised visibility splay plans, these

require the trimming back of the existing hedgerow. As an alternative they have

proposed a number of alternative measures for the Highway Authority to consider

including having a banksman during the temporary period to ensure no oncoming

traffic is approaching when construction vehicles enter and exit the site, a

temporary Traffic Regulation Order to reduce vehicle speed from 60mph to

30mph in the vicinity of the northern access point during the construction period.

The Highway Authority have assessed these measures confirmed that they

wouldn’t support the use of a banksman within the road due to the speed limit

being above 30mph however have agreed to the details submitted within their

submitted visibility splay plans. The Highway Authority raise no objections to the

proposals in light of these revisions.

The CTMP identifies that connection to the grid would be achieved via

underground cabling along the Knighcote Road and B4551 over a distance of

approximately 2.5km.This would be achieved through temporary road closures

agreed with the Highway Authority and the contractor.

I conclude that the proposal will not result in any unacceptable highway dangers

is acceptable in highway safety terms and would accord with Core Strategy

CS.25.

Water Environment and Flood Risk

The majority of the application site falls within Flood Zone 1 with the exception of

a strip of land located towards the south east of the site which falls within Flood

Zones 2 and 3 which is associated with an un-named watercourse, a tributary to

the River Itchen.

The layout of the proposals places all the control equipment within Flood Zone 1

and only a very small amount of the solar arrays extend into Flood zones 2 and 3.

Only access tracks which are comparable with flood risk in the area extend into

flood zones 2 and 3.

The application has been supported with a Flood Risk Assessment which has been

revised in light of comments received from the LLFA. The ground underneath the

panels is to remain unchanged and only a small amount of impermeable area is

proposed as part of the development which is considered to be negligible. No

formal outfall for surface water runoff from the site is proposed and flows will be

managed as existing through overland flow routing and additional new swales are

considered to provide betterment.

The Environmental Agency have raised no objections to the proposal, subject to

the imposition of a condition relating to surface water drainage.

Warwickshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) whilst agreeing

that the overland flow routes and swales and swale lengths are generally

acceptable have requested additional information to confirm that runoff from the

supporting infrastructure to the panels can be managed with an appropriate

outfall.

Page 28

The applicants have been in discussion with the LLFA and have provided a further

update addressing the issues raised. In essence concluding that the runoff

created with the control equipment will have a minimal effect on runoff rates and

the control equipment will also be surrounded by porous subbase which has

sufficient storage volume to store the 1 in 100 year rainfall event (including

allowance for climate change) with no reliance on infiltration or a positive outflow,

safely managing the runoff and not increasing the flood risk elsewhere.

Subject to the LLFA agreeing to this approach, I consider the development will

accord with the provisions of Policy CS.4 of the Draft Core Strategy.

Natural Environment

The proposals have been supported with an Ecological appraisal and a

Biodiversity Management Plan. WCC Ecology have raised no objections to the

proposal, subject to a recommended condition to ensure the development and

any site clearance works proceed in accordance with the mitigation measures and

ecological enhancement measures detailed in the Biodiversity Management Plan

and also avoidance and protection measures for badgers with the Badger Report.

I concur with this view, and I consider that, subject to the attached

recommended conditions being complied with, that the proposal would not have

an unacceptable harmful ecological impact.

I am, therefore, satisfied that the development complies with Core Strategy

Policy CS.6. I have also given due regard to the provisions of the NERC act.

Climate Change and Sustainable Construction

Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the

transition to a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to

minimising vulnerability and improving resilience and the re-use of existing

resources. Policy CS.2 and SPD Parts D and Q support this stance and the

application is considered to accord with the expectations of the policies.

Other Matters

Cumulative effects

Paragraph 012 of the Planning Practice Guidance states that the approach for

assessing cumulative landscape and visual impact of large scale solar farms is

likely to be the same as assessing the impact of wind turbines. However, in the

case of ground mounted solar panels the impact could be minimal with effective

screening and appropriate topography.

Planning permission has been granted for a solar farm at The Elms off Plough

Lane in Bishops Itchington, referred as Southam Solar Farm. This is located

approximately 1.1km north west of the application site. Due to the topography of

the land and existing landscape cover through mature vegetation, views of the

application site together with this existing solar farm will be extremely difficult to

achieve.

I therefore consider that there would be minimal cumulative impact in terms of

the overall environmental effect of the development.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

This application is not CIL liable

Notification to the Secretary of State

Page 29

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact

Assessment) Regulations 2017, a copy of the application has been sent to the

Secretary of State.

Conclusion and Planning Balance

The application is required to be determined in accordance with the adopted

Development Plan and associated guidance as to the aims and requirements of

the NPPF. Policy CS.1 states that the Council will take a positive approach to

applications that reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development

contained in the NPPF.

Assessing the application against the relevant development plan policies of this

Council, I consider that the principle of the development would generally accord

with those policies.

The ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF is the presumption in favour of

sustainable development. It gives three dimensions to sustainable development:

social, economic and environmental. These should not be assessed in isolation,

because they are mutually dependant. On this basis, I have concluded that the

proposal is sustainable development.

Assessing the planning balance, I consider that the benefits from the scheme

would be:

The significant increase in the generation of a clean source of renewable

energy.

Would contribute to the Council’s commitment to contribute to national

carbon neutral targets as set out in the Climate Change Declaration.

A source of income to the landowner’s business helping farm

diversification over the lifetime of the development.

The possibility of short-term local employment associated with

construction of the panels, landscaping, and long-term employment

associated with maintenance of the equipment.

Biodiversity enhancements through new habitat formation and new soft

landscaping.

With regards to the potential harm arising from the development, I consider that:

The harm to the landscape and visual impact as seen from the surrounding

area including views from public rights of way, would be moderate and

mitigated to a large degree through additional soft landscaping.

Harm to the significance of the heritage assets previously identified,

judged to fall in the level of 'less than substantial' using NPPF wording

Technical issues from statutory consultees can be dealt with by planning

conditions. The development will not place undue pressure on the local

infrastructure.

RECOMMENDATION

Officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and

NDP and other material considerations. It is for the Committee to weigh and

Page 30

balance these in coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available

evidence.

It is therefore recommended that authority is delegated to Officers to GRANT

permission subject to no objections being received from the LLFA and Highway

Authority subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and

numbering of which is delegated to officers:

1. Development to commence within 3 years.

2. Temporary permission – maximum of 40 years only with panels to be

removed prior to the end of this period.

3. Development in accordance with approved plans.

4. Notification to be provided when electricity is first exported to the grid.

5. Approval of Construction Method Plan

6. Notwithstanding the details shown on the submitted soft landscaping

plans, prior to the commencement of any phase of the development,

submission of a soft landscaping scheme for of the development to be

submitted to the LPA and approved in writing and thereafter shall be

carried out in accordance with the approved details within the first planting

season following the first implementation of the development.

7. Details of Tree/hedgerow protection details

8. Details of colour, materials and external appearance of the camera poles,

cameras, inverter(s), transfer station(s), collecting station(s), storage

container(s).

9. Details of CCTV cameras direction and field of vision

10. Full details of the design, height and colour of boundary treatments.

11. Details of any lighting to be agreed and implemented.

12. Written Scheme of Archaeological investigation and archaeological

evaluation

13. Notwithstanding the soft landscape details submitted, submission of a soft

landscape scheme to be submitted

14. Any existing and proposed hedgerow planting that is removed, uprooted,

severely damaged, destroyed or dies within 40 years following the

commencement of development shall be replaced by the approved type

planting and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved

details as identified in condition 7.

15. All hedgerows and tree planting identified on the approved soft

landscaping details shall be retained in situ for a period of 40 years

following the commencement of development, unless agreed in writing by

the District Planning Authority.

16. Hedgerow management Plan

17. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the avoidance and protection measures for badgers contained in the Badger Report by Avian Ecology, version 3, report dated 25/09/2020.

18. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance

with the ecological mitigation and enhancement measures contained in the

Biodiversity Management Plan by Avian Ecology, version 2, report dated

18/09/2020.

19. Within 6 months of cessation of use of panels for electricity generation,

panels and associated apparatus and structures shall be removed, and

land restored to a condition to be firstly approved.

20. Within 6 months of cessation of use of panels for electricity generation,

Decommissioning Management Plan to be approved, including safeguards

Page 31

for protected species, a HGV routeing plan, details of traffic management

measures and measures to prevent mud and debris on the public highway,

and identify suitable areas for the parking of contractors and visitors and

the loading of materials. 21. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted

Flood Risk Assessment by PFA Consulting, Issue 2, dated 5 October 2020

and the following mitigation measure it details:

. All sensitive control equipment and solar arrays to be sited within

Flood Zone 1 - Section 4.49.

This mitigation measure shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and

subsequently in accordance with the scheme's timing / phasing

arrangements. Measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained

thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development.

22. Any conditions as recommended by the LLFA

23. No construction shall be undertaken until the existing northern vehicular

access to the site has been remodelled in accordance with drawing number P20-0362 FIGURE 3. 24. No construction shall be undertaken until visibility splays have

been provided to the northern vehicular access to the site in accordance

with drawing number P20-0362 FIGURE 3 and Designer’s Response document P20-0362 dated May 2021. No structure, tree or shrub shall be

erected, planted or retained within the splays exceeding, or likely to exceed at maturity, a height of 0.6 metres above the level of the public

highway carriageway. 25. No construction shall be undertaken until the existing southern vehicular

access to the site has been remodelled in accordance with drawing number P20-0362 FIGURE 5. 26. No construction shall be undertaken until visibility splays have been

provided to the southern vehicular access to the site in accordance with

drawing number P20-0362 FIGURE 5. No structure, tree or shrub shall be

erected, planted or retained within the splays exceeding, or likely to exceed at maturity, a height of 0.6 metres above the level of the public

highway carriageway. 27. Within six months of the commencement of the development hereby

permitted, all parts within the public highway of the proposed northern

bellmouth access shall be closed and a verge crossing access shall be reinstated in accordance with the standard specification of the Highway

Authority. 28. No construction shall be undertaken until a Construction Management Plan

is submitted to and approved by both the Planning and Highway

Authorities. The Construction Management Plan shall be in general accordance with approved Construction Traffic Management Plan rev A,

shall contain details of measures to prevent mud and debris on the public

highway, and shall identify suitable areas for the parking of contractors

and visitors and the unloading and storage of materials.

Notes:

1) NPPF Note

2) Environment Agency Note: We recommend that any bridging structure built

over the watercourses uses a clear span bank top to bank top design or oversized

culvert and ensure that flood risk is not impacted. A continuous watercourse bed

of a minimum of 600mm depth should also be maintained for the length of the

watercourses to reduce the crossings impact on wildlife.

3) Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Note

4) WCC Footpath Notes

Page 32

a) Public footpaths SM85 and SM85a must remain open and available

for public use at all times unless closed by legal order, so must not be

obstructed by parked vehicles or by materials during works

b) The applicant must make good any damage to the surface of any

public right of way caused during works

c) Any disturbance or alteration to the surface of any public right of

way requires the prior authorisation of Warwickshire County Council's

Rights of Way team, as does the installation of any new gate or other

structure on the public right of way

d) Any new vegetation must be planted at least two metres away from the

edge of any public right of way to help ensure that mature growth will not

encroach onto the public right of way.

5) Section 184 Highway Note

Robert Weeks

HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES

Page 33

This page has been left intentionally blank

approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287

Scale 1:19,500

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

N̂orth

20/02839/FUL - Land Near To Bishops Itchington

approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287

Scale 1:25,000

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

N̂orth

20/02839/FUL - Land Near To Bishops Itchington

Page 35

Item 4

Appendix 1

This page has been left intentionally blank

DELEGATED REPORT

Application Ref. 20/02385/OUT

Site Address: Lock up Garages, Hodgson Road, Stratford-upon-Avon

Description of

Development:

Outline application for up to 5 dwellings including

demolition of existing garages and the redevelopment of

existing hardstanding with all matters reserved

(appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) except

access (to be determined)

Applicant: Mr Clive Stanton

Reason for Referral

to Committee: Ward Member Objection

Case Officer: Amy Flute

Presenting Officer: Amy Flute

Ward Member: Councillor J Fojtik

Town/Parish

Council: Stratford upon Avon Town Council

Description of Site

Constraints:

BUAB

SDC Land

Summary of

Recommendation REFUSE

Page 37

Item 5

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Development Plan

Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)

Stratford-upon-Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan (2011-2031)

Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021

National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)

National Design Guide 2019

Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance

Development Requirements SPD

Other Material Consideration(s) and Emerging Plans

Climate Change Declaration by District Council

Emerging Site Allocations Plan

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY None

REPRESENTATIONS

During the lifetime of the application further consultations have taken place. The

application has been determined based on the details which have been issued for re-

consultation.

Ward Member Cllr J Fojtik Object (17.02.2021)

“I OBJECT this planning application for the following reasons.

The collection of bins is not possible due to the width of the entrance to the planning site

and the distance from the planning site is too far to wheel bins to the entrance which

would cause a hazard as there is no safe place them for collection.

For some years there have been very few vehicle movements as the garages have not

been used. Local children along with family members use this entrance to safely walk to

school. This brings them out at the entrance to Thomas Jolyffee School. The school has

expanded over the years therefore the use of this safe route has also been used more

regularly. A ramp was installed 4 years ago at the rear entrance to Tesco. This is close to

the entrance of the planning site, this in turn has created extra school pedestrian traffic

to use this route. The footpath has been used for more than 70 years, and certainly well

used by school children since the school was built over 60 years ago.

Therefore the only safe way to allow pedestrian access is to build a footpath alongside a

road for vehicular access. The entrance to the planning application site is not wide

enough to accommodate a footpath and a road.

Page 38

The entrance is difficult to pull out of as Hodgeson Road is very narrow therefore

creating visibility issues particularly if cars are parked outside adjacent houses on the

road.

Also the Hodgeson Green which is the large green space in the middle and has large

numbers of children playing in the park, on the football pitch and on the basketball pitch.

The safety issue of cars pulling out on to such a narrow road with limited visibility would

cause great concern and worry for local residents.”

Stratford Town Council Support (12.07.2021)

Inclusion of bin store noted on illustrative layout

Subject to bin collection issue being resolved satisfactorily

Support principle of development particular the provision of 2 beds.

Third Party Representations

The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.

52 letters of objection have been received raising the following matters:

Lack of footpath

Access concerns – inability for refuse/emergency vehicles to access site

No visitor parking – pressure on surrounding roads

No passing bays

Inadequate turning

Highway safety concerns for pedestrian users access not wide enough for

cars/pedestrians

Limited visibility

Out of character

Loss of light

Loss of privacy

Overlooking

Fear of crime

No public benefits

One additional comment was received during the re-consultation the following additional

comments were made:

True representation of footfall not considered

Footfall risk has grown compared to when site was used as garages

Signage will not reduce the risk of collision

Visibility splay does not take into account row of parked cars

CONSULTATIONS

Warwickshire County Council Highways (WCC Highways) email to Officer (19.07.2021)

Objection maintained

It is now the responsibility of the designer to prepare and submit an Exception

Report to set out the case why the access road should remain at its present width

(noting that the hedge is to be pruned/removed and that signage and lining is to

be amended/provided).

The Exception Report will then be submitted for consideration and potential

approval by WCC (management).

Premature to remove the Highway Authority’s objection to the planning

application in advance of the submission and review of the Exception Report.

Previous comments

Page 39

Object (29.06.2021)

Drawing T21515.001 illustrates that visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 43 metres

are achievable. A site visit has also been carried out and established that the

above mentioned visibility splays are conducive.

Vehicle swept path analysis for all vehicles that could need access should be

carried out, especially for blue light service vehicles. A fire engine is the largest

blue light vehicle that may need access to the site and may need access for a

reason other than fire, therefore the Highway Authority consider fire appliance

access to be necessary.

The Highway Authority recognise that the application site has been used

historically for the parking of vehicles, therefore the existing access route has

encountered significant use in previous years. However, subsequent findings

reveal that more recently there has been a significant reduction in the use of the

garages. The access also couples as a shared access for pedestrians and provides

access from Hodgson Road to Kennett Close. Drawing P002 Rev B illustrates that

an extension of the footpath is proposed along the southern edge of the site,

however given the width of the access it cannot be extended along the access to

Hodgson Road. The Highway Authority recognise that WCC Safety Team have

accepted the auditors problem and the recommendation is appropriate, and will

be subject to comment at the Stage 2 Detailed Design RSA, however the

Designers Response only indicates “vegetation along the eastern side of the

access will be regularly maintained as part of the site management”. The Highway

Authority recommend that this is extended along both sides of the access and

that forward visibility around the carriageway bend which leads into the site for a

vehicle traveling at 20mph should be provided, to ensure pedestrian safety.

It is a requirement that the Design Team in conjunction with the Project Sponsor

prepare a Response Report, in response to the recommendations made within the

Audit Review.

Email to Officer requesting Road Safety Audit (20.04.2021)

Object (11.02.2021)

The application site has been used historically for the parking of vehicles,

therefore the existing access route has encountered significant use. The proposal

will result in lower or comparable vehicle movements than what would be

generated from full use of the garages. The access width is suitable for the low

volume of vehicle movements.

Refuse walking distance for the collection of wheeled bins and walking distances

for householders as prescribed by Part P of Stratford - on - Avon's Development

Requirements SPD, adopted July 2019 cannot be achieved.

The Highway Authority are concerned that if any bins were to be left along

Hodgson Road they could block the access and this would have a detrimental

impact on public highway safety.

Achievable visibility splays from the access should be illustrated.

It is recommended that a footway is provided within the site to enable a safe and

convenient passage, which would connect with the existing footway to the east of

the application which links to Maple Grove.

Email correspondence (13.04.2021)

Refuse collection: The proposed securing by condition of private refuse collection

from the site is acceptable. A suitable condition would be required stating that the

private collection arrangement would be in perpetuity. The Waste Collection

Strategy should include details of the proposed vehicles to be used and be

supported by swept path analysis showing that these can turn within the site such

that they can leave and re-enter the public highway in a forward gear.

Page 40

Footpath: It is noted that the provision of a footpath linking the development with

Maple Grove could be secured by condition. However, the proposed development

plans should be updated to clearly indicate the footpath location and dimensions

and the associated link to Maple Grove.

Visibility Splays: These are acceptable, noting that satellite navigation equipment

recorded traffic speeds along Hodgson Road are low (<10 miles/hr on average)

and that there have been no recorded road traffic (personal injury) collisions

along Hodgson Road over the period since 2015, with 2 recorded collisions during

the period 1990 - 2015.

Warwickshire County Council Planning Authority None received

Warwickshire County Council Ecology (WCC Ecology) No objection (09.02.2021)

WCC Rights of Way No objection (23.02.2021) (21.05.2021)

No recorded public right of way crossing or immediately abutting the site.

SDC Environmental Health No objection (19.02.2021)

Contamination and remediation condition

SDC Streetscene Object (05.02.2021)

Exceeds Part P carry distance for a bin collection point from highway

Potential for nuisances and obstruction of footway/driveway

SDC Operation Council Land (10.03.2021)

No issues with the proposal. SDC is selling the land to the applicant‘s client.

Seven Trent No objection subject to condition and note (23.02.2021)

Surface and foul drainage

Western Power None received

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Principle of Development

The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan, unless

material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and Section 70(2)

TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a key material planning

consideration.

The site is a former garage site accessed off Hodgson Road within the BUAB of Stratford.

Against CS.15 Stratford is the Main Town in the Distract and is a suitable location for

housing development. Policy CS.16 states that Stratford will provide up to approximately

3,500 homes. As of 31st March 2020, Stratford had 3,434 homes built or committed. I

consider that a further five dwellings would be acceptable in this location.

Policy H1 of the Stratford upon Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan also guides

housing to within the BUAB of Stratford where it will be supported in principle. I also

note that Policy H4 is supportive of the use of brownfield land.

I find that the principle of housing in this location is acceptable with regards to Core

Strategy Policies CS.15, CS.16 and NDP Polices H1 and H4.

Page 41

Landscape, Design and Distinctiveness

The application is an outline application with all matters reserved except for access. As

such, the final scale, layout, appearance and landscaping of the site is not for

consideration under the current application. Nevertheless, an indicative site plan showing

a building block to comprise 4no. 2 bed maisonettes and 1no. 2 bed house has been

provided. The existing access of Hodgson Road would be utilised. This is 3.5m at its

narrowest point.

Whilst the scheme shown on the indicative drawings is subject to change at reserved

matters stage, it does provide a helpful guide in assessing the suitability of the site to

achieve an appropriate design of development.

The indicative site plan shows that the plot could comfortably accommodate four

maisonettes and one traditional dwelling in one single building block over two storeys.

Spacing around the built form could be retained to avoid a cramped appearance and the

properties could be designed to respect the adjacent built form.

Notwithstanding this view, I do have concerns that five traditional dwellings may result

in overdevelopment of the site and have a knock-on effect on neighbouring amenity,

access and other associated issues. Therefore, if permission is forthcoming, I consider

that a condition should be imposed that limits the future design of the scheme at

reserved matters so that the dwellings permitted shall not exceed 4no. 2 bed

flats/maisonettes and 1no. 2 bed traditional dwelling as indicated within the application

form and indicative plans submitted for this proposal. Subject to the inclusion of such

condition, I am therefore satisfied that a suitable layout could be achieved at the site at

reserved matters stage to respect its context.

No indicative plans of the buildings design have been provided. It is suggested within the

submitted Design and Access Statement that the storey heights should not exceed two

storey. Although I note that the overall design and size of the property is subject to

detail at Reserved Matters Stage, I do consider that it is appropriate to condition that the

building height is restricted so that the proposed ridge of any dwellings to be submitted

at Reserved Matters, does not exceed two storey in height which is the character of the

surrounding built form.

I also note that the proposed redevelopment of the site will improve natural surveillance

between properties and reduce fear of crime.

I am satisfied that a suitably designed scheme could be achievable at reserved matters

stage to accord with policies CS.5, CS.9, CS.15 and AS.1 of the Stratford-on-Avon

District Core Strategy 2011-2031 and Polices H4, BE1, BE2 and BE5 of the Stratford-

upon-Avon Neighborhood Development Plan 2011-2031.

Residential Amenity

The indicative layout of the proposed dwellings shows a building block with its

frontage/access to the south. A communal garden will serve the maisonettes and a

single garden will serve the dwelling. I am mindful that all plans submitted as part of this

application are indicative only and are subject to change at reserved matters stage.

The proposed layout shows that 4 maisonettes and one dwelling could be reasonably

designed on the site. In addition, the dwellings would benefit from outdoor amenity

space, which would comfortably exceed the minimum size as outlined in the

Development Requirements SPD.

It is considered that each property could be designed to benefit from sufficient natural

light levels. Furthermore, the spacing between each property and the surrounding built

form could be designed to ensure sufficient outlook for future residents of each property.

Page 42

It is therefore considered that adequate residential amenity standards would be achieved

for future occupants of each property.

Using the positioning of the proposed dwelling on the indicative site plan as a guide, a

rear to side separation distance of approximately 12.8m will be achieved between the

proposed building block and the dwelling to the north No. 15 Maple Grove. I note part D

of the Development Requirements SPD Requires 13m for 2 storey side to rear separation

distances and I consider there is scope for this distance to be achieved. A side to side

relationship will exist with No.14 and the proposed development will have to ensure it

doesn’t breach any 45/25 degree sightlines when taken from the their nearest habitable

room windows. I consider this can be achieved. I consider that there is sufficient

separation distance between the application site and No.25 and 26 Hodgson Road which

will have a rear to side relationship.

I also note my Environmental Health Officer has not objected subject to land

contamination and remediation conditions.

As such, I consider a scheme could be easily devised at reserved matters stage that

would provide a suitable standard of residential amenity for future occupiers of the

dwelling and the amenity of existing neighbouring properties so that the development

would not result in an unacceptable level of overbearing impact on these neighbours nor

adversely impact through overshadowing, overlooking or loss of light.

Highways Matters and Parking

Access to the site is being considered at this stage.

The plan shows that the existing access will be utilised. WCC Highways have noted that

the application site has been used historically for the parking of vehicles; therefore the

existing access route has encountered significant historical use. In their initial comment

WCC stated that the proposal will result in lower or comparable vehicle movements than

would be generated from full use of the garages. Notwithstanding the above, an

objection was raised by WCC, raising concerns relating to refuse collection, visibility

splays and pedestrian access. Following officer correspondence with WCC in respect of

the above concerns, a Road Safety Audit (RSA) was required to demonstrate that the

change of use from occasional garages trips to residential usage would in fact be safe.

An RSA has subsequently been submitted by the applicant for consideration by WCC

Highways, further information and responses from WCC have been received however

WCC have not been able to confirm they are satisfied with the proposed arrangements.

WCC Highways have required an Exception Report which the applicant has recently

provided. This sets out the case why the access road may acceptably remain at its

present width (noting that the hedge is to be pruned/removed and that signage and

lining is to be amended/provided). At the time of writing this report, officers are awaiting

further response from WCC. The findings of the report and an updated view from

Highways will be reported to Members via the update sheet.

I note that WCC Highways alongside the SDC Streetscene and the Ward Member have

raised concerns with refuse collection. Due to the location of the site along a narrow

access Part P of the Development Requirements SPD is unable to be met. I consider that

refuse collection will need to be secured via a private waste collection service. Full

details of such management can be secured by condition which should ensure the refuse

collection is managed in perpetuity.

The proposal seeks a total of five two bed dwellings. Whilst the final location of parking

spaces may change when the final layout is considered, the indicative site plan shows

that the site is able to accommodate the associated 10 parking spaces and one visitor

parking space to accord with Part O of the SPD.

Page 43

WCC Rights of Way do not consider that there are public rights of way crossing or

immediately abutting the site.

Although I consider that a refuse collection management strategy can be conditioned

and that the site will contain sufficient parking, at this stage I cannot be satisfied that

the Applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the access to and from the site will be

safe for all users. Therefore, on balance, pending confirmation from WCC that they

accept the above-mentioned Exceptions Report, I am not satisfied that the proposal

accords with Core Strategy Policies CS.9, CS.26 and NDP Policy BE5.

Water Environment and Flood Risk

The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk of flooding) where development is

considered acceptable in principle. Given the location of the proposed dwellings, I do not

consider that they would result in an unacceptable risk to flooding.

Full details of provision for the drainage of foul and surface water, to take into account

SUDs principles, should be provided at reserved matters stage and this detail can be

requested by condition.

Natural Environment

A bat assessment was submitted with the application. It found negligible potential for

roosting. No nesting birds or opportunities for nesting birds were found. The County

Council Ecologist has reviewed the proposal and has no objection to make. The proposal

is considered to accord with CS.6 and relevant NDP Polices.

Trees

A tree survey was submitted with the application which included trees within the site and

those that abut the site. The report states that G1, T1 and G5 will be removed and are

not of sufficient amenity to warrant their retention. Where access will overlap T2 and T3

RPA’s a load bearing cellular confinement system can be used. Pruning will need to take

place to G2. As the trees are outside of the Applicants ownership they will require the

landowners permission to facilitate such works. I note that any future landscaping details

to be submitted at Reserved Matters can secure replacement landscaping. Subject to the

development being carried out in accordance with the submitted Tree Survey &

Preliminary Arboricultural Implications Assessment I consider the proposal accords with

CS.5 and NDP Policy BE5.

Climate Change and Sustainable Construction

Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the transition to

a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to minimising vulnerability

and improving resilience and the re-use of existing resources. Policy CS.2 and SPD Parts

D, V and Q support this stance and the application is considered to accord with the

expectations of the policies and guidance including the requirement for water butts,

recycling points and EV charging points and SUDS (where appropriate).

Further consideration of measures to reduce the carbon footprint of each dwelling shall

be considered at reserved matters stage through the submission of a sustainability

statement.

Other Matters

Fire Safety

Given the restricted access and that compliance for emergency vehicles is unlikely to be

met, having discussed with Building Control Officers, I consider that it is reasonable to

condition that all properties would include domestic sprinkler systems to BS9251

standards and would be fitted by an accredited BADSA installer.

Page 44

Page 45

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

This application is seeking outline planning consent and is not liable for CIL.

SDC Landownership

During the course of the application, it has been identified that SDC are selling land to

the Applicant and SDC have no objection to this proposal.

Conclusion and Planning Balance

The application is required to be determined in accordance with the adopted

Development Plan and associated guidance as to the aims and requirements of the NPPF.

Policy CS.1 states that the Council will take a positive approach to applications that

reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF.

In regard to the above the application has not satisfactorily demonstrated that there will

be safe access and egress by pedestrians and vehicles and as such it cannot be

concluded that there will not be a highway safety conflict as a result of the use if the site

for residential contrary to Core Strategy Polices CS.9, CS.26 and BE5 of the NDP. In

conclusion the application cannot be supported.

RECOMMENDATION

Officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and NDP

and other material considerations. It is for the Committee to weigh and balance these in

coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available evidence.

It is therefore recommended that the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1. Insufficient information has been submitted to conclude that the development will

not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. In particular it has not been

demonstrated that a safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all

users thus there is the potential for vehicular and pedestrian conflict along the

access point to serve the development. The applicant has therefore failed to

demonstrate that that any adverse highways impact raised by a development are

suitably mitigated. The proposal is contrary to Policies CS.9, CS.26 of the

Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031) and Policy BE5 of the

Stratford-upon-Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan (2011-2031).

Notes

1. NPPF

Robert Weeks

HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES

Page 46

")

D

")

D

")

")

D

D

")

D

")

2

4

7

1

6

1

8

1

9

3

2

7

9

1

1219

PO

27

27

El

21

El

3631

13

11El

17

15

34 43

1422

12

24

18

10

19

31

113

24a

185

161

114

132

131

164

149

128

173

24b

169

167

126

157

121

TCB

175

105

141

111

168

197

169A

Post

167A

14 to

L Twr

43.9m

57.0m

57.6m

L Twr

52.4m

L Twr

54.6m

L Twr

Posts

1 to 7

Sub Sta

1 to 12

Sub Sta

Sub Sta

Ward Bdy

Play Area

211 to 221

Superstore

203 to 209

El Sub Sta

223 to 237

El Sub Stas

MAPLE GROVE

CLOPTON MEWS

CLOPTON ROAD

HODGSON ROAD

KENNETT CLOSE

Oakdene Court

Playing Field

Jolyffe Court

The Maybird Centreapprox - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287

Scale 1:2,500

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

N̂orth

20/03585/OUT - Hodgson Road, Stratford-upon-Avon

approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287

Scale 1:25,000

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

N̂orth

20/03585/OUT - Hodgson Road, Stratford-upon-Avon

Page 47

Item 5

Appendix 1

This page has been left intentionally blank

DELEGATED REPORT

Application Ref. 20/02489/FUL

Site Address: Riverside Caravan Park, Tiddington Road

Tiddington, Stratford-upon-Avon, CV37 7AB

Description of

Development:

Continued use of land as a caravan site (variation of

planning permissions 60/11/15, 72/7/4 and

04/00151/VARY).

Applicant Avon Estates Ltd

Case Officer: Sarah MacPherson

Presenting Officer: Sarah MacPherson

Ward Member: Councillor K Rolfe

Town/Parish

Council: Stratford-upon-Avon

Reason for

Committee: Ward member objection

Description of Site

Constraints:

Area of restraint

Flood zones 2 and 3

NDP

Summary of

Recommendation GRANT

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Development Plan

Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)

Stratford-on-Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan 2018

Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021

National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)

National Design Guide 2019

Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance

Development Requirements SPD

Page 49

Item 6

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY

Reference Number

Proposal Decision and

date

18/00563/LDP

Use of the site for the stationing of 266

caravans for residential occupation between 1st

April or the first Thursday before Easter Sunday

(whichever is the sooner) and 31st October

inclusive each year

Permitted

29.11.2018

04/00151/VARY

Variation to conditions to permit use of caravan

park for holiday purposes between 1 April or the

first Thursday before Easter Sunday (whichever

is sooner) and 31 October inclusive each year.

Approved

12.03.2004

96/00145/PDEV Siting of 40 touring caravans Permitted

11.01.1996

75/01005/FUL Siting of 2 no. caravans for use as a shop and a

store ancillary to the use as a shop Granted

24.12.1975

72/2/4

The siting of 25 additional caravans in

accordance with the above mentioned

application and plans submitted therewith

Granted

30.10.72

60/11/15 The siting of 90 caravans in accordance with the

above-mentioned application Granted

14.03.1961

There are several other applications relating to other parcels within the

applicant’s ownership, the full details of which are available online. Withdrawn or

undetermined applications have also been omitted.

REPRESENTATIONS

Ward Member – Cllr Rolfe

Objection 07/11/20

- The main reason for objection is that these 180 permanent (10 months)

homes will create a settlement of homes placed on tarmac displacing

grassed areas which protect to some extent the floodplain. By placing

these on tarmac with associated parking etc. it will increase the run off on

the water and increase the risk of flooding

- There will be a further increase of around 1-2 cars per property putting a

he strain onto the Tiddington Road and have an impact on the only access

and egress for this development

- There will also be an impact on health services

- It will significantly change the aspect from a touring caravan park to a

more permanent home site

- This proposal will change the streetscene aspect on the Tiddington Road

particularly during the winter months when the leaves are off the trees

Parish/Town Council

No representation 26/10/2020

Third Party Representations

The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.

10 letters of objection have been received raising the following matters:

Inaccuracies or omissions in the application

Page 50

Impact on flooding – increase in hardstanding and loos of grassed areas

Change in character of site

Impact on local village and amenities

Visual impact

Loss of touring caravan facility and the economic benefits this tourism

generates

Impact on wildlife

Impacts on traffic

Objectors have also sent various photographs of the site to illustrate their

concerns regarding flooding. An objector has also submitted an annotated version

of the indicative site plan showing 266 static caravans. The annotations point out

what they consider to be errors or issues with the plan.

A letter of objection has also been received from local groups the Tiddington

Village Residents Association, raising the following matters:

Proposal favours a change from touring static caravans

Concern that occupation would be almost permanently residential in

nature

Increase in traffic

Impact on village and local services

Impacts on flooding

Reduction in grassed areas

Visual impacts

Contrary to CS and NDP policies

Other non-planning related comments were also received including fears for

future development, which would be assessed on its own merits and is not a

material consideration.

CONSULTATIONS

Warwickshire County Council Highways (WCC Highways)

No objection 11/11/20

Environment Agency

No objection 07/12/20

- Recognises that reduction in number of caravans on site presents a

betterment in flood risk

- Necessary to ensure the stated flood mitigation measures are

implemented

- Conditions and advisory notes recommended

Environmental Health (EHO)

No objection 21/10/20

Warwickshire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)

No objection 29/10/20

Warwickshire County Council Ecology (WCC Ecology)

No representation 02/11/20

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Principle of Development

The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan,

unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and

Page 51

Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a

key material planning consideration.

The principle of the use of the site for these purposes has already been assessed

and approved under previous applications on this site, and remains extant. As

such, the use of the site as a caravan site does not need to be re-assessed. The

assessment under this application is limited to the proposal to increase the

months of occupation from 7 to 10.

Policy CS.24 of the Core Strategy sets a strategic objective for the Development

Plan that ‘the value of tourism to the district will have substantially increased’ and

it provides a number of policy considerations pertinent to this proposal including

inter alia that:

‘The role of tourism will be increased by supporting the growth and improvement

of existing attractions’, that,

‘schemes for visitor attractions and overnight accommodation should, wherever

possible, be located within the urban areas of Stratford-upon-Avon', and that;

‘All forms of tourism and leisure development should be sensitive to the character

of the area and designed to maximise the benefits for the communities affected in

terms of job opportunities and support for local services.’

I note in this respect that the application site falls within the Built-up Area

Boundary for Stratford-Upon-Avon

Before beginning the assessment, it is necessary to set out firstly what the

established lawful use of the site is, secondly what is proposed, and thirdly, what

the material considerations are.

The current lawful use of the site edged red on the location plan (parcel A) was

assessed in 18/00563/LDP, which recognised that it would be lawful to position

266 residential caravans, of any type, within the site and that these could be

used for any residential purpose – holiday or longer term – within the 1st April or

1st Thursday before Easter to the end of October time period in any given year (7

months). Adherence to emergency evacuation procedures as set out in a 2016

document entitled ‘Stratford Caravans Avon Estates Ltd: Flood Risk for Avon

Park, Rayford Park, Riverside Park 1st December 2016’ is also cited as a

limitation within the decision.

To reiterate, the salient points in respect of the extant use of the caravan park

are as follows:

266 caravans are permitted

There is no control over the type of caravan which may occupy the site

(both tourers or static caravans could occupy the site in any proportion)

Caravans of any type may remain on the site for 12 months

Occupation of the caravans on the site is restricted to 7 months

Adherence to emergency evacuation procedures is required

The proposal before members is to extend the occupancy period from 7 to 10

months. In addition, the number of units would be reduced from the 266 units

recognised in the LDP to 180 units. The site would remain in holiday use and the

units would not be permitted to be anyone’s sole or main residence, or in

Page 52

permanent residential use. No restriction is proposed with regards to the ratio of

static and touring caravans.

There is no support in policy for permanent residential accommodation in this

location, as the site lies outside of any BUAB. As such, it is important that the site

remains in holiday use only, as is proposed and this would necessarily be secured

by planning condition.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that the development proposed supports the

objectives of the Development Plan and accords with the requirements of the

Core Strategy subject to an assessment of the material considerations including

whether the proposal is sensitive to the character of the area and designed to

maximise the benefits for the communities affected in terms of job opportunities

and support for local services.

Turning to the material considerations in this application, they are:

Visual impact

Residential amenity

Water environment and flood risk

Highways matters and parking

Economic impacts

Visual Impacts

This site is visible via long range views from Tiddington Road. The site is set back

considerably from the road, being 120m distant at the closest point. The site is

most visible during the winter months when the trees are not in leaf, but it is

generally not obtrusive within the landscape, and is not a dominant feature as

one walks or drives down Tiddington Road. It is acknowledged that at present,

while there is no restriction on the type of caravan stationed there, the site is

largely used as a touring caravan site, so it is often less visually impactful than if

it were predominantly static units.

Overall, the site is not visually a dominant feature in the landscape, and while an

extension to the occupancy period would mean that the site is in use for an

extended period when leaf coverage is lowest, the impacts would still not be

visually significant. Officers consider that the proposal would not result in a

significant change in the character of the site given the lawful position in respect

of the extant permission. The proposal is considered neutral in this regard. The

proposal is therefore considered to accord with policies CS.5, CS.9 and CS.13 of

the Core Strategy, and policies BE1 and BE2 of the NDP.

Residential Amenity

In terms of residential amenity, one should have regard to the likely impact on

neighbouring properties. In making this assessment, it is noted that the

Environmental Health department has not raised any concerns or objections. I

also note that while local residents have objected to the proposal for a variety of

reasons, impact on their residential amenity is not given as a concern. I find that

overall the site has no negative impacts on the neighbours in terms of noise and

disturbance, and is in accordance with policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy in that

regard.

Water Environment and Flood Risk

In assessing the impact that this proposal would have on the water environment

and flood risk, it is important to remember that this application does not propose

any alterations to the existing levels of hardstanding. The existing lawful use of

Page 53

the site also does not impose any restriction on the level of hardstanding, or the

ratio of static to touring caravans.

The application before members expressly seeks to reduce the overall number of

caravans on site but would extend the occupancy period. This extension of

occupancy period would increase the period of occupation during the winter

months when the risk of flooding is highest. The proposal would not however

have any impact on the types of caravans or the ratio of caravan types lawfully

allowed to occupy the site or the duration that such caravans would be permitted

to remain on site (which is already 12 months and will remain so).

The environment agency have been consulted on this application and raised no

objection, subject to recommended conditions and advisory notes. The conditions

require that development is carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood

Risk Assessment, and must not be commenced until anchoring and tethering

details of the caravans have been submitted and approved. An emergency

evacuation procedure should also be submitted and approved.

It is noted that should the applicant decide to increase the proportion of static

caravans on site, as they have indicated they intend to, it may increase the

hardstanding. As such, officers recommend a condition ensuring that, prior to

implementation, a site plan indicating the location and extent of all structures,

hardstandings and infrastructure is submitted, as well as a condition requiring

that all parking spaces are permeable.

Subject to the above conditions and notes I find that the application accords with

CS.4.

Highways Matters and Parking

The highways Authority has been consulted on this application and has raised no

objection.

Should permission for this scheme be forthcoming I note that there would be a

reduction in the maximum permitted number of caravans on site at any one time.

I consider therefore that there would be a corresponding reduction in the peak

number of vehicles likely to attend the site at any one time. The extension to the

occupancy period will not have a detrimental impact on the traffic in the locality,

it would simply mean that the ‘on-season’ level of traffic is experienced for

longer, but will be less in terms of traffic volume, due to the reduction in number

of units. I do not find that the scheme proposed gives rise to any unacceptable

impacts in terms of highways or parking, and is therefore in accordance with

CS.26.

Economic Impacts

It is noted that the proposal may, hypothetically, lead to a change in character of

the site and the type of holiday maker it attracts. Information has been submitted

to show that Avon Estates intends to fill the site with static caravans in the next

four years, to the extent that their existing permission permits. At present that

would mean up to 266 static caravans for 7 months of the year. If granted and

implemented, this application would permit no more than 180 caravans for 10

months of the year. It is likely that these units would be available to buy for use

as a personal holiday home. There is some discussion in the objections received

that this could lead to visitors making longer, or more regular stays at the site,

and therefore less likely to spend money in the town as they are already familiar

with its attractions and amenities. This would be in contrast to a customer who

might visit the touring site for a short holiday and would visit many attractions,

ships and restaurants during that time as they are only there for a short period.

However, it is noted that no evidence has been presented or found during the

course of this application to suggest that this will occur at all. No evidence which

speaks to the extent to which it is likely that such a change would have a

noticeable impact on the economy and no evidence that the extended holiday

period would not substantially outweigh such considerations. Visitors to the park

Page 54

will still be holidaymakers, and will still generate tourist income for the town and

wider district. In fact the period of tourism will increase as a result of the

extension to occupancy period. It is also noted that individuals who purchase a

holiday home on these sites often rent them out to other holidaymakers for short

stays, via providers such as hoaseaons, booking.com and Airbnb, which will mean

that short-stay visitors are still coming to the park and spending in the town.

In conclusion, there is no evidence to suggest that this proposal would be

contrary to CS.22 (economic development), indeed CS.22 is supportive of local

businesses and this application does enable to applicant to extend their offering.

Similarly, with respect to CS.24 officers consider on balance that the proposal is

most likely to maximise the benefits for the communities in terms of job

opportunities and support for local services by extended visitor stays by 5

months. As such, the development is considered to accord with the requirements

of CS.22 and CS.24.

Natural Environment

This application is not considered to give rise to any ecological concerns, the

county ecologist has no given a representation, and as such the proposal is

considered to accord with CS.6.

Climate Change and Sustainable Construction

Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the

transition to a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to

minimising vulnerability and improving resilience and the re-use of existing

resources. Policy CS.2 and Part V of the Development Requirements SPD require

proposals to take account of climate change adaptation and mitigation. However,

as this application is for a use of land, and does not involve a change of use, it is

not considered that those polices and requirements are relevant or practicable in

this instance, and therefore a climate change checklist is not required and this

proposal is considered to be acceptable in regards to climate change.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

This development is not CIL liable.

Conclusion

Having considered this application against the material considerations, I conclude

that the application conforms to the Development Plan and associated guidance

and to the aims and requirements of the NPPF. I can find no material

considerations that warrant an alternative approach.

RECOMMENDATION

Officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and

NDP and other material considerations. It is for the Committee to weigh and

balance these in coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available

evidence.

It is therefore recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to the

following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is

delegated to officers:

Conditions:

1. 3 years to implement permission

2. Development in accordance with approved plans

Page 55

3. Parking spaces to be permeable

4. Occupation limited to 10 months

5. Caravans to be in holiday use only not sole/main residence

6. Prior to implementation: site layout plan to be submitted and approved (to

include proposed locations of the caravans and associated parking areas,

roads, circulation areas and infrastructure, including ancillary buildings

and structures)

7. Prior to implementation: Hard and soft landscaping to be submitted and

approved

8. Within red line boundary there shall be, at any time, no more than 180

caravans of any type

9. Development in accordance with flood risk assessment

10. Prior to implementation: evacuation procedure to be submitted and

approved

Notes:

1. NPPF

2. EA advisory note

Robert Weeks

HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES

Page 56

D

D

D

")

D

D

")

D

D

D

1

1

1

2

8

6 7

2

8

5

2

4

4

1

5

2

16

7

8 5

2

1

3

1

9

8

1

1

8

1

4

8

2

3

3

1121

11

12

CR

2727

30

15 26

18

15

16

41

28

21

25

45

13

11

22

42

2b

PO

17

1a

30

19

15

8a

17

17

21

19

41

13

7a16

23

27

11

3325

24

27

33

20

12

2a

19

12

34

24

11

31

35

31

36

16

39

42

Pav

119

15a102

117

258

11a

15b

Car

The

30b

256

FBs

124

108

TCB

104

107

252

121

20a

15aESSs

Pond

Ruin

Mast

Path

Pine

Avon

Pond

(PH)

Pond

Park

119a

Path

House

41.1m

Court

40.2m

Eynon

River

Track

Green

Croft

41.1m

40.5m

Green

Court

40.5m

Lodge

House

Holly

41.1m

Croft

Gibbs

Drain

House

41.1m

House

B 4086

Feldon

Sewage

School

Outfall

Walcote

9 to 38

CottageShelter

Cottage

The OldFrazier

Lanterns

The Oaks

Eastcote

The Elms

Elmcroft

(SITE OF)

Toad Hall

Rivermead

Play Area

DARK LANELong Barn

Avonhurst

Beechcroft

Marys Acre

Pine Trees

The Cedars

El Sub Sta

El Sub Sta

Boat House

River SideRiver Lodge

Gay Willows

Camden HouseTennis CourtGreensleeves

LAWSON AVENUE

ED & Ward Bdy

Riverside Park

Rayford Caravan Park

Electricity Sub Station

approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287

Scale 1:5,000

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

N̂orth

20/02489/FUL - Riverside Caravan Park, Tiddington Rd, Tiddington

approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287

Scale 1:25,000

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

N̂orth

21/02489/FUL - Riverside Caravan Park, Tiddington Rd, Tiddington

Page 57

Item 6

Appendix 1

This page has been left intentionally blank

COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 20/03443/VARY

Site Address: Edencroft, Fells Lane, Napton-on-the-Hill

Description of Development:

Variation of Condition 2 (plans) of planning permission

20/00574/VARY dated 5 June 2019 to allow for changes to

the Fells Lane improvement works. Original permission Self-build

3 bedroom house, workshop and garaging with access and

parking plus improvements to Fells Lane including improved

re-surfacing, a turning head and a passing place.

Applicant: Mr & Mrs M And J Sanchez

Reason for Referral to

Committee: Objection from Parish Council

Case Officer: Erin Weatherstone

Presenting Officer: Erin Weatherstone

Ward Member: Councillor N Rock

Parish Council: Napton-on-the-Hill

Description of Site Constraints:

Ironstone Hill Special Landscape Area Outside of Built Up Area Boundary Public footpaths to north and southwest

Summary of

Recommendation GRANT subject to s106

Page 59

Item 7

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Development Plan

Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)

Napton-on-the-Hill Neighbourhood Development Plan (2018-2031)

Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

National Design Guide 2019

Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance

Development Requirements SPD

Other Material Consideration(s) and Emerging Plans

Climate Change Declaration by District Council

Site Allocations Plan Preferred Options (October 2020)

Landscape Visibility Assessment Local Service Villages (2012)

Napton on the Hill Housing Needs Survey (March 2018)

Napton on the Hill Parish Plan (2007- updated in 2011)

SUMMARY OF RECENT RELEVANT HISTORY

Reference Number

Proposal Decision and

date

20/00574/VARY

Variation of Condition 2 (plans) of planning

permission 18/03239/FUL dated 19 November

2019 to allow for changes to the approved

drawings including the replacement of solar

slates with panels, alteration to the fenestration

on the south elevation and changes to the

position and size of rooflights, increase in the

height of the flue, re-location of the car barn to

the north and alterations to the openings,

change in materials of the car barn to timber,

incorporation of landscaping and cut in

pavement on the site plan. Original permission

Self-build 3 bedroom house, workshop and

garaging with access and parking plus

improvements to Fells Lane including improved

re-surfacing, a turning head and a passing

place.

Granted

05/06/2020

18/03239/FUL

Self-build 3 bedroom house, workshop and

garaging with access and parking plus

improvements to Fells Lane including improved

re-surfacing, a turning head and a passing place

Granted

19/11/2019

Page 60

REPRESENTATIONS

Ward Member – Object (09/02/2021).

“Erin, after 10 years of planning experience as a councillor - I am a bit perplexed how to

respond to this variation.

It seems to me one of the main objections to the house build was an earlier controversial

requirement to alter the character of Fells Lane, involving some sort of upgrade. Neither

the community nor the applicants wanted this. This variation is apparently to overcome

such a change to the lane. It was, inter alia, a requirement of WCC and SDC based on a

misassumption about the needs of the refuse truck, to which this application refers. This

variation seems to call for minimum change to the lane, and restoration back to as close

to as possible to its original condition. Thus, I support the application in nearly all

respects, as it seems to respect the characteristics of the lane and return it to original

condition prior to the development. This objective is covered by the Napton NDP section

5.45 and specifically the photograph of Fells Lane on page 30.

I do however object to the provision of a passing place. I understand that this has been

included at the request of WCC and once again, neither the community nor the

applicants wanted this, because of the change to the character of the lane. If a condition

is to be required it should be evidenced based. Fells Lane is lightly used by vehicles - if

fact so lightly used to the south of Briars Furlong that I have never seen a car use it in

35 years living within 250 m of the lane. I attach a traffic data plot from wee which

supports the light usage.

Apart from the lack of traffic and need, I contrast the request for a passing bay in Fells

Lane to relieve a length of 200m, with Daniells Hill on the other side of the sports field.

This single track road, the main thoroughfare to Priors Marston from the A425, has

passing bays spaced at 770m.

I would request we go back to WCC to discuss the need, justification and evidence base

for the passing bay, please, with the objective of removing that element from the

approved scheme.”

Parish Council- Partial Support

The Parish Council support the application with the exception of the passing place.

Concerns have been raised with the passing place for the following reasons:

Increased traffic; and

Impact on an oak tree (09/06/2021, comments confirmed 07/07/2021).

Third Party Representations The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.

5 letters of objection have been received raising the following matters:

Concerns regarding the introduction of a passing bay regarding the visual impact;

and

The condition of the surface of the lane.

1 letters of support has been received raising the following matters:

Page 61

Concerns raised regarding the extent of the works including the proposed passing

bay.

1 letter of no objection has been received raising the following matters:

Comments received regarding the surfacing works of the lane and the impact on

trees.

Other non-planning related comments were also received.

CONSULTATIONS

Warwickshire County Council Highways (WCC Highways) –No Objection (21/06/2021).

Warwickshire County Council Highways Fire and Rescue – Comments received

(05/02/2021).

Warwickshire County Council Ecology (WCC Ecology) – No representation (04/02/2021).

SDC Waste and Recycling Officer –No Comments (11/02/2021).

Warwickshire County Council Rights of Way- No objection (11/02/2021 and

02/06/2021).

SDC Environmental Health – No objection (12/02/2021).

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Principle of Development

This planning application is made under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990 that relates to determination of applications to develop land without compliance

with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.

In deciding an application under section 73, the Local Planning Authority must only

consider the disputed condition that is the subject of the application – it is not a

complete re-consideration of the application. In this case, the applicant is seeking a

material amendment through the use of a section 73 application.

On such an application the local planning authority shall consider only the question of

the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted, and—

(a) if they decide that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions

differing from those subject to which the previous permission was granted, or

that it should be granted unconditionally, they shall grant planning permission

accordingly, and

(b) if they decide that planning permission should be granted subject to the same

conditions as those subject to which the previous permission was granted, they

shall refuse the application.

The principle of the development has already been established by planning application

18/03239/FUL for the erection of a ‘Self-build 3 bedroom house, workshop and garaging

Page 62

with access and parking plus improvements to Fells Lane including improved re-

surfacing, a turning head and a passing place’ dated 19 November 2019.

Planning permission was granted for alterations to the development granted by planning

permission 18/03239/FUL as part of application 20/00574/VARY on the 5 June 2020.

Works have commenced on site and the prior commencement conditions linked to

planning permission 20/00574/VARY have been discharged.

This application seeks a minor material amendment to planning permission

20/00574/VARY to amend the highways works associated with the development to

include:

The reduction in the width of the vehicular access into the site (3.5m rather than

5.5m in width for 7.5m from the edge of the main carriage way);

The removal of the widening works of Fells Lane to 3 metres and associated re-

surfacing works; and

The removal of the proposal to install drainage grips along Fells Lane.

The intervisible passing bay is still proposed to be provided along Fells Lane in

accordance with the highways works granted as part of extant permission

20/00574/VARY.

Since the determination of planning application 20/00574/VARY the Napton-on-the-Hill

Neighbourhood Plan has been made (6 May 2021). This is a material change to the

Development Plan. The extant planning permission is a realistic fall-back position to

which I afford significant weight within this assessment.

The minor material amendments to the development are assessed below.

Landscape, Impacts on SLA and Design and Distinctiveness

The site lies to the east of Napton-on-the-Hill settlement outside of the Built Up Area

Boundary identified within the NDP. The site falls within the East (South) character area

as identified within the NDP. This character incorporates Godsons Lane and Fells Lane.

The area is considered to be characterised by dwellings set back from the road with

mature front gardens.

Fells Lane is considered within the Character Area as a ‘minor/track road serving a few

residential properties at the top end but soon becomes a ‘green’ lane, linking Vicarage

Lane in the north to Dog Lane to the south’. The character area assessment considers

that the route is popular with people walking through the village as it connects the

School and other facilities. The character of the area is considered to be rural in

character.

Public footpaths SM45 and SM42c lie within close proximity to the application site and

afford views from the public realm of the application site. Views are also available from

Fells Lane.

The site lies within important View 6 as identified by NDP Policy 9 and will be viewed

within the context of the existing development which lies adjacent to Fells Lane. As such

the proposal must ensure that the openness and key features of the important views are

retained.

No changes are proposed to the size, design or siting of the dwelling or associated

outbuilding as part of this application.

Page 63

Works have commenced on the development associated with planning permission

20/00574/VARY. The highways works granted as part of permission 20/00574/VARY

include the following:

The widening of Fells Lane to a width of 3m and associated re-surfacing works;

The installation of drainage grips along Fells Lane;

The provision of an inter-visibility passing bay along Fells Lane; and

The creation of a vehicular access point off Fells Lane (5.5m in width for 7.5m

from the edge of the main carriage way).

The works which have been granted as part of the existing planning permission are a

material consideration and represent a realistic fall-back position to which I afford significant weight within this assessment.

Concerns have been raised during the course of the application that the proposed

passing bay will have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area experienced

along Fells Lane and an existing oak tree. However, the impacts of this passing bay were

fully considered under the previous applications at the site, and were considered to be acceptable.

When considering the extant permission on the land the works will be lesser than the

approved scheme. The approved passing bay will be retained, but the scale of the other

highways works required by the scheme have been reduced (which include the reduction

in width of the vehicular access, removal of widening works on Fells Lane and removal of drainage grips along Fells Lane).

Subject to conditions and notes which relate to landscaping, materials and approved

plans I am satisfied that the development will meet the requirements of Core Strategy

Policies CS.5, CS.9 and CS.12 and Policies 1, 9, 10 and 11 of the NDP.

Highways Matters and Parking

The development seeks to make a number of changes to the approved highways works

which include:

The reduction in the width of the vehicular access into the site (3.5m rather than

5.5m in width for 7.5m from the edge of the main carriage way);

The removal of the widening of Fells Lane to 3 metres and associated re-surfacing

works; and

The removal of the requirement to install drainage grips along Fells Lane.

Due to the nature of the works proposed, a Road Safety Audit was required to

accompany the application and was received during the application period.

When considering the details submitted with the application WCC Highways Authority

has raised no objection to the development. I consider it reasonable to attach conditions

to tie the development in with the submitted details and to ensure the temporary site

access (previously agreed) remains secured.

In addition, WCC Rights of Way has raised no objection to the development subject to a

note and WCC Fire and Rescue have provided comments.

Subject to conditions and a note I am satisfied that the development would comply with

Core Strategy Policy CS.26, Policy 10 of the NDP and Part O (Parking and Travel) of the SPD.

Climate Change and Sustainable Construction

Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the transition to

a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to minimising vulnerability

and improving resilience and the re-use of existing resources. Policy CS.2 of the Core

Page 64

Strategy, Policy 5 of the NPD and SPD Parts D, Q and V support this stance and the

application is considered to accord with the expectations of the policies and guidance

including the requirement for water butts, recycling points and EV charging points and

SUDS (where appropriate).

A Climate Change Checklist has been submitted to accompany the application. Many of

the features listed have been approved as part of the extant permission.

The development is for a self-build Passivhaus certified development and seeks to

include a number of technologies to work towards a zero carbon dwelling. The

development is therefore considered to accord with the requirements of the above

Policies. I consider it reasonable to attach conditions for the proposal to be carried out in

accordance with the approved plans and to attach conditions requiring waterbutts and an

Electric Vehicle Charging point.

Other Matters

Other material considerations

Planning permission is not sought for any changes to the size, design or siting of the new

dwelling and only seeks to make changes to the highways works.

In light of the above, I am satisfied that the development will not give rise to any

adverse impacts, over and above the extant permission, in relation to flood risk, ecology,

Heritage Assets or residential amenity in line with Core Strategy Policies CS.4, CS.6,

CS.8, CS.9 and CS.26, NDP Policies 1, 5, 6, 10 and 11 and the associated guidance set

out in Parts F (Residential Amenity), L (Open Space), N (Biodiversity and Green

Infrastructure), O (Parking and Travel) subject to the conditions and notes applied to

the previous permission (which have been updated to reflect the original submission,

changes proposed here and discharge of condition submissions).

S106 Planning Obligations

The proposal is subject to a S106 which will limit the development as a Local Needs

Dwelling. Heads of Terms have been submitted to accompany the application and a legal

agreement is recommended to be secured to accompany the development.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

The development does not seek to increase the floor area associated with the

development over and above the extant permission.

Conclusion

The application is required to be determined in accordance with the adopted

Development Plan and associated guidance as to the aims and requirements of the NPPF.

Policy CS.1 states that the Council will take a positive approach to applications that

reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF.

RECOMMENDATION

Officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and NDP

and other material considerations. It is for the Committee to weigh and balance these in

coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available evidence.

It is therefore recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to the following

conditions and notes (and the completion of a S106 agreement), the detailed wording

and numbering of which is delegated to officers:

Page 65

1. Approved plans

2. Materials as approved by DISCN/00301/20

3. Highways access as approved by DISCN/00303/20

4. CMP- as approved by DISCN/0035/19

5. Contamination – linked to recommendations of report approved as part of

DISCE/00014/20

6. Landscaping as approved by DISCN/00302/20– retained/replaced for 5 years

7. In accordance with recommendations of Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated 15

June 2018).

8. Electric Vehicle Charging point

9. Bins

10. Water butts

11. Removal of Permitted development rights Part 1 Classes A-E

12. Garage ancillary

Notes:

1. NPPF

2. Highways note

3. S106 note

4. SM225 Must remain open at all times

5. Removal of PDR

and, subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the following; the

negotiation and final wording of which shall be delegated to officers:

a) Local Needs Housing provisions

Robert Weeks

HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES

Page 66

D

E

E

D

")

E

D

D

E

E

9

1

1

3

7

2

5

2

2

3

7

8

5

1

1

72

17

15

Pp

10

18

15

10

11

WAY

The

11a

The

The

The

The

Sta

Elm

High

Path

Pond

Bank

LANE

Vine

Hill

Pond

House

Ridge

House

Glebe

House

House

House

House

HouseHolly

House

Beech

House

MEULAN

Briars

117.4m

Gables

CORNER

133.4m

El Sub

QUINCY

Medlar

Irwins

Bramley

Granary

Stables

Welcome

Cottage

Furlong

MEADOWS

Hollies

Cottage

Laskett

GODSONS

Hackwell

Wychwood

Shambles

The Elms

Sunstone

DOG LANE

Tarrants

Windrush

Mulberry

CottagesWood View

Normandie

Path (um)

Downlands

Stonycroft

Alpine Rise

Sports Court

Tennis Court

The Hermitage

Hackwell Cott

Vicarage Place

ST LAWRENCE CLOSE

High Over Cottage

The Stone Cottage

Little Greencroft

Napton Sports Club

FELL'S LANE (TRACK)

approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287

Scale 1:2,500

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

N̂orth

20/03443/VARY - Edencroft, Fells Lane, Napton-on-the-Hill

approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287

Scale 1:25,000

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

N̂orth

20/03443/VARY - Edencroft, Fells Lane, Napton-on-the-Hill

Page 67

Item 7

Appendix 1

This page has been left intentionally blank

COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 21/01274/FUL

Site Address: Welfare Centre, Craven Lane, Southam, CV47 1PG

Description of

Development:

Demolition of existing billet hut (Class D1) and the proposed

erection of a single detached dwellinghouse (Class C3)

Applicant: Mr Dhaliwal

Reason for Referral

to Committee: Ward Member Objection

Case Officer: Joseph Brooke

Presenting Officer: Joseph Brooke

Ward Member: Councillor A Crump

Town/Parish

Council: Southam

Description of Site

Constraints:

BUAB

Highways

Conservation Area

Listed Buildings

Summary of

Recommendation GRANT

Page 69

Item 8

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Development Plan

Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)

Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

National Design Guide 2019

Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance

Development Requirements SPD

Other Material Consideration(s) and Emerging Plans

Climate Change Declaration by District Council

Site Allocations Plan (draft)

Southam Neighbourhood Development Plan – Area Designation.

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY Reference Number Proposal Decision and date

19/03442/FUL Demolition of existing Billet Hut (Class

D1) and the proposed erection of 2No.

semi-detached dwellings (Class C3)

Refused, 14.08.2020

APP/J3720/W/20/3260901

Appeal dismissed,

18.02.2021

13/03096/FUL Repair and refurbishment of existing

hall incorporating new disabled access

facilities

Permitted, 03.02.2014

09/00382/FUL Refurbishment of existing hall, new

roof covering wc's etc.

Permitted, 27.04.2009

79/00716/FUL Welfare Centre Craven Lane Southam

– Renewal of Temporary Permission

for a Playground

Permitted, 04.19.1979

78/00212/FUL Welfare Centre Craven Lane Southam

– Proposed Playgroup

Permitted, 13.07.1978

76/01484/FUL Infant Welfare Centre Craven Lane

Southam – Change of Main Use for a

Playgroup

Permitted, 21.04.1977

REPRESENTATIONS

All consultation responses and supporting documents are available to view, in full,

via the online planning register.

Ward Member – Cllr A Crump

I have concerns about visibility and overlooking (19.05.2021)

Parish/Town Council – Southam

Page 70

No objection, subject to the removal of PD Rights on the parking area

(09.05.2021)

Third Party Representations

The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.

6 letters of objection have been received raising the following matters:

Concerns over the height

Concerns over the design

Loss of light

Overbearing

Overlooking

Not in keeping with the street scene

Overdevelopment

Inadequate parking

Loss of a non-designated heritage asset

Visibility splays

Concerns over traffic safety

5 letters of support have been received raising the following matters:

Great design

Provides adequate parking

In keeping with the street scene

Existing building is an eyesore

Smaller development than the previous refusal (19/03442/FUL)

Much less traffic than the existing hut

CONSULTATIONS

Warwickshire County Council Highways (WCC Highways)

No objection, subject to four conditions (04.05.2021)

Warwickshire County Council Ecology (WCC Ecology)

No representation (11.05.2021)

Warwickshire Fire and Rescue

No objection (21.05.2021)

SDC Environmental Health

No objection (29.05.2021)

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Background

Application 19/03442/FUL related to the application site and proposed the

demolition of the billet hut and erection of two dwellinghouses. The application

was refused by Planning Committee for two reasons; firstly due to the adverse

impact on highway safety as no off-street parking was proposed and secondly as

Page 71

a result of the lack of possibility of supporting sustainable modes of transport

and/or the impact of climate change.

This refusal was subsequently appealed and the appeal was dismissed. The

Inspector concluded that, owing to the lack of off-street parking provision to

serve the two dwellings, the development would have an adverse impact on

highway safety.

Planning permission is now sought for the demolition of the billet hut and erection

of one dwellinghouse with two off-street parking spaces proposed to the side of

the house.

Principle of Development

The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan,

unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and

Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a

key material planning consideration.

Policy CS.15, in consideration of Policies CS.16 and AS.7, permits suitable

construction/conversion of small scale housing schemes within the Built-up Area

Boundaries (BUABs) or the physical confines of Main Rural Centres.

The application site is located within the adopted Built-Up Area Boundary map of

Southam, a Main Rural Centre, and is therefore deemed to be within the physical

confines of the settlement.

It is noted that the lawful use of the building is for a Community Hall

(13/03096/FUL). The Development Management Considerations for CS.20,

although not Policy, expresses the principle of the change of use from non-

residential to residential will be assessed against the relevant policies within the

Core Strategy, including CS.25 (community uses).

Policy CS.25 specifies that existing community facilities will be retained unless it

can be demonstrated at least one or more of the following criteria is satisfied:

that there is no realistic prospect of the facility continuing operating in its

current form;

the property has been actively marketed or otherwise made available for

similar or alternative type of facility that would benefit the local

community;

the facility can be provided effectively in an alternative manner or on a

different site in accordance with the wishes of the local community; and

there are overriding environmental benefits in the use of the site being

discontinued.

It is noted that the Hall was listed as a Community Asset on the 20 December

2013, as the Craven Lane Community Centre, Southam. However, the listing

expired on the 19 December, 2018. I note that an application was approved in

2013 (13/03096/FUL) to repair and refurbish the Centre; however, the

permission was never implemented and, as stated by the applicant, subsequently

became vacant and unused. At the time of my site visit, I can confirm that the

centre was vacant and rundown. Furthermore, I note that a number of third party

comments (including in response to the previous application, 19/03442/FUL)

refer to the fact that the Hut has been vacant for a number of years and the

Town Council has not objected to the principle of development.

Page 72

An asset of community value was introduced via the Localism Act, 2011. The Act

stipulates (in accordance with CS.25) that an asset of community value is a

building or other land (in a local authority’s area) deemed to have community

value if:

(a) an actual current use of the building or other land that is not an

ancillary use furthers the social wellbeing or social interests of the local

community, and

(b) it is realistic to think that there can continue to be non-ancillary use of

the building or other land which will further (whether or not in the

same way) the social wellbeing or social interests of the local

community.

As expressed above, the community asset listing has now expired, the Hut has

been vacant for a number of years, is in a state of disrepair and has been sold to

a new private owner. As evident by the submission of this application and the

recent history of the site; on planning balance, I cannot consider that there is

realistic possibility that use for a community centre will be retained in the near

future. Consequently, as conveyed by CS.25, there is no realistic prospect of the

facility continuing to operate in its current form.

In addition, CS.25 expresses that if the facility can be provided effectively in an

alternative manner or on a different site in accordance with the wishes of the

local community then the principle of development can be further established.

Southam’s Grange Hall (located approximately 450m away from the Billet Hut)

has a number of facilities; including, a large hall, two committee rooms, bar

room, kitchen and gardens and is presently holding a number of community

events and private gatherings. Although I note that the Parish Council has not

expressed a desire to move the existing Billet Hut, I have to consider in this

instance, that the Hut is in a state of disrepair and has been vacant for a number

of years. Consequently, with other facilities available within the locality (acting as

a Community Hall) and the continued vacancy and dilapidation, it cannot be

reasonably conceived as a vital community asset anymore. I am also mindful that

the previous application for the redevelopment of the site for two dwellings was

not refused on the basis of the loss of the Billet Hut/associated community use.

In light of the above, I conclude the development does accord with the provisions

of CS.15, CS.16, CS.25 and AS.7 of the Core Strategy and is therefore considered

acceptable in principle.

Design, Impact on the Landscape and Character of the area

The surrounding street scene is defined by a number of different scales, masses

and heights. Immediately to the east of the site (its principle elevation facing

onto Craven Lane) is a three storey block of apartments (Craven Court).

However, the dwellings then step down in height to two storey all the way to

Pendicke Street. Directly adjacent to the Billet Hut is a 1.5 storey dwelling, with a

row of single storey shops and then a large 2 storey dwelling (facing onto

Pendicke Street) which is taller than the neighbouring properties on Craven Lane.

To the rear of the site is a private car park and a number of three storey

apartments. The predominant materials are red brick and grey slate roofing with

additional white render.

If approved, the development would see the removal of the existing Hut and the

development a 2.5 storey dwelling. The dwelling would be sited to front onto

Craven Lane keeping the same development line as the neighbouring properties.

Page 73

The dwelling would be set at 8.7m to ridge which, as demonstrated on the Street

Scene Plan (1910-05 PL-4 Rev F), preserves the step down street scene along

this side of Craven Line. The dwelling would be constructed out a redbrick, grey

slate roofing, sash style UPVC windows and timber framed canopies.

As a result, I conclude that the dwelling’s design, layout and form are

representative of a number of nearby properties (Craven Lane and Pendicke

Street), would not dominate the neighbouring dwellings, safeguards the existing

building line and would suitably harmonise with the existing street scene, without

appearing out of context and/or visually incongruous.

It should be noted that the Inspector for APP/J3720/W/20/3260901, which was

for the development of two dwellings set at a similar height and scale, did not

raise any concerns in respect to design and/or dominance on the street scene.

Nonetheless, I do consider it prudent, if permission is forthcoming, for conditions

to be imposed to secure exact finishes for all material and fenestration, as well as

a hard and soft landscaping details to ensure that all aspects of the development

are duly considered and examined.

In light of the above, the development is considered to be in accordance with

Policies CS.5 and CS.9.

Historic Environment

Considerable importance and weight should be given to the duties set out in the

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, when making

decisions that affect listed buildings and conservation areas respectively. These

duties affect the weight to be given to the factors involved.

The application is sited within the Southam Conservation Area as well as in close

proximity to the Grade II Listed Craven Arms Hotel. The Hut is essentially a long

rectangular single storey building, largely of rudimentary timber framing

construction, under a shallow pitched corrugated iron roof with a brick plinth. The

building is in a poor state of repair, is not listed and does not have any

architectural merit.

However, it is noted that the Hut does have some historical significance due to

the fact that it was used as a billet hut for soldiers in Belgium during WWI. In

1919, along with several other redundant barrack huts, it was flat packed and

shipped back to England where it was eventually bought by the Southam

residents to be used as recreational hall. Nevertheless, during that time the Hut

has had many alterations, has been vacant for a number of years and has now

become severely run down and would require a significant amount of investment,

including the need to replace a number of the internal and external aesthetics, to

bring the Hut back to a viable use. Moreover, as expressed above, there is not a

realistic probability that the Hut can continue in its current use/form.

Consequently, due to the fact that the Hut is in disrepair (and would need a

significant amount of investment), been vacant for a number of years, is of no

‘architectural’ merit, is not listed and is considered not to be of a working viable

use; on planning balance, I consider that the loss of the Hut would not cause

harm to the Conservation Area.

As expressed above, the design of the dwelling is considered to be representative

of a number nearby properties, respects the existing building line, utilises the

Page 74

same building materials and does not dominate the adjacent properties along

Craven Lane.

On this basis, I consider that the scheme would preserve the character and

appearance of the Conservation Area. I am also satisfied that the development

would preserve the setting of the Grade II Listed Craven Arms Hotel (which spans

down Craven Lane within close proximity to the application site). The

development is therefore acceptable with regards to the provisions of Paragraph

193 of the NPPF and Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy.

Residential Amenity

As highlighted above, the application would respect the existing step down design

on this side of Craven Lane and is therefore not considered to dominate the

neighbouring properties.

Immediately opposite is a 1.5 storey dwelling which has three roof lights facing

onto the application site. One of the dormer windows in the proposed dwelling

would provide light to the master bedroom’s ensuite bathroom and as such,

would be conditioned to be obscure glazed. The second dormer window would be

needed to facilitate the necessary light into the master bedroom. However, the

positioning of the roof-lights on the opposite neighbour creates an obscure angle

in respect to any overlooking concerns with the front to front relationship, and I

am therefore satisfied that the proposed dwelling would not cause overlooking to

such a degree so as to be unacceptable.

I also have to consider that roof-lights are acceptable under permitted

development without the need to assess any overlooking constraints, in this

respect. This is also reflected in the Council's Development Requirements SPD

which expresses that front separation distances are for windows (affording

habitable rooms) between windowed elevations and opposing gable end walls.

In addition, I am satisfied that the development would not have an unacceptable

overbearing or loss of light impact to these rooflights. I also note that the 1.5

storey dwelling has a further three roof-lights to the rear of the dwelling to

provide additional daylight into the property.

The application respects the existing building line and, in consideration of the

neighbouring properties to each side of the site (i.e. the three storey apartments

and two storey dwellings), would not dominate the adjacent dwellings. Moreover,

the dwelling is sited directly onto the public footpath of Craven Lane and

therefore, in accordance with Part F of the Development Requirements SPD,

front-facing windows cannot be afforded the same level of protection because a

passer-by can readily look into the dwelling's windows.

The proposed dwelling would be sited 13m away from the side elevation of the

three storey apartments (to the west) and 7.5m away from the from the side

elevation of the two storey dwelling (to the east). The application is not proposing

any side elevation windows which will serve habitable rooms and therefore, will

not cause any overlooking constraints on the neighbouring properties.

It is noted that the neighbouring two storey property (to the east) has two

ground floor side facing windows (one situated on the original elevation with the

other window and door situated on the ground floor extension). However, I have

to respect the fact that the application would have a 7.5m gap between the two

properties and as stipulated by the Development Requirements SPD; neighbours'

side facing windows on adjoining properties which get their light across another

Page 75

property’s land will not normally be given the same degree of protection as front

and rear facing windows. Therefore, due to the fact that these are ground floor

windows (consequently, boundary walls/fencing already provides a level of

obscurity), have a 7.5m gap and are situated on the side elevation gable; on

planning balance, the development will not cause significant overbearing on the

neighbouring properties.

It should be noted that the Inspector for APP/J3720/W/20/3260901, which was

for the development of two dwellings set at a similar height and scale (which was

also proposing two dormer windows facing onto Craven Lane), did not raise any

concerns in respect to overbearing, loss of daylight and/or overlooking to the

neighbouring properties.

The application is proposing a private rear garden which would equate to 80sq.m.

The garden accords with Part D of the Development Requirements SPD and

provides a level of private amenity space for future occupants which is also

reflective in terms of size and orientation with a number of nearby properties on

Craven Lane, Pendicke Street, Daventry Street and Bull Yard.

SDC Environmental Health was consulted on the application and raised no

objection.

Overall, in consideration of the area's existing character and Part F of the

Council's Development Requirements SPD; on planning balance, I consider that

the application accords with the provisions of Policies CS.9 and AS.10 of the Core

Strategy.

Highways Matters and Parking

The application is proposing two tandem parking spaces to the east elevation.

This accords with Part F of the Developments Requirements SPD which states that

three bedroom dwellings will have two allocated parking spaces.

It is noted that WCC Highways stated that a parking space bounded on both sides

by a wall or fence should have a minimum width of 3.5m to allow for adequate

space for a car door to open. However, the Council’s Development Requirements

SPD expresses; where boundary features are situated to both sides, the parking

space should be 3m wide (Table 03: Parking Bay Sizes). As indicated on the

submitted plans, the parking spaces are proposed to be set at 3m wide.

It should also be noted that WCC Highways stated, that in this instance, the issue

alone was not sufficient to warrant an objection.

I have to also consider that the application site is located within Southam Town

Centre which is categorised as a Main Rural Centre within the Core Strategy. As a

consequence, the development benefits from higher levels of public transport

accessibility, local amenities (i.e. shops, a library, community facilities, public

houses, etc.) and is well served by cycle and walking facilities as well as public

car parks. Moreover, although I note that the Planning Inspector made no

reference to the existing lawful use of the Community Hall

(APP/J3720/W/20/3260901), I have to acknowledge that the Community Hall

facility (which could be brought back into a working use without the need of

planning permission) necessitates a greater need of parking.

WCC Highways also undertook an assessment on the visibility splays and

determined that the vehicle speeds on Craven Lane would be relatively low and

as such, the necessary visibility splays could be achieved. WCC Highways also

Page 76

noted that there are existing access points on Craven Lane with similar or worse

visibility. Additionally, there has not been any significant records of personal

injury accidents relating to their use.

Overall, WCC Highways raises no objection to the application subject to four

conditions:

The footway crossing to be laid out and constructed in accordance with the

standard specification;

For the access to be laid with a surface bound material;

The access’s gradient not to be steeper than 1 and 15 for a distance of

7.5m; and

Gates/barriers not to be hung so as to open within 7.5m of the near edge

of the public highway.

WCC Fire and Rescue was also consulted on the application in respect to access

for emergency services and raised no objection.

Therefore, with the imposition of the said conditions, it is considered that the

application is in accordance with the provisions of Policy C5.26 and the expressed

stipulations of the Framework, as well as the Council's parking standards, as

stipulated in the Development Requirements SPD, Part O.

Water Environment and Flood Risk

Surface Water:

The site is located within Flood Zone 1 and no conditions would be required to

deal with any anticipated flood risk on-site.

Foul Water:

I am of the opinion that there is sufficient space within the site to accommodate a

suitable installation package to serve the proposed dwellings, as depicted by Part

H of the Building Regulations and The Land Drainage Act, 1991.

The proposed development therefore complies with Policy CS.4 of the Core

Strategy.

Natural Environment

The impact upon local ecology/biodiversity has been taken into consideration in

the determination of this application. Warwickshire County Council Ecology has

been consulted on this application and has raised no objection. I therefore

consider that the proposal accords with Policy CS.6 in this regard.

Climate Change and Sustainable Construction

Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the

transition to a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to

minimising vulnerability and improving resilience and the re-use of existing

resources.

The applicant has submitted Part V of the Climate Change Checklist which will

also be secured via planning condition to support all reasonable steps to help

tackle climate change.

Furthermore, the applicant has submitted a sustainability statement expressing

clear objectives and drivers to ensure the development, if approved, will help to

Page 77

provide an environmentally sustainable development. The proposed measures are

also supported by Part V (Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation) of the

Development Requirements SPD, which expresses the need for cycling

storage/facilities, energy efficient technologies (the applicant is proposing

monitoring equipment for lighting fixtures), fabric first approach and water

conservation.

Policy CS.2 and SPD Parts D, Q and V support this stance and the application is

considered to accord with the expectations of the policies and guidance contained

therein.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

The proposal would result in the creation of a single dwelling and is therefore CIL

liable. In accordance with The Community Infrastructure levy (Amendment)

Regulations 2014, the applicant must demonstrate there has, in the last three

years, been a continuous lawful use of the premises for a period of at least six

months. The application is consequently considered CIL chargeable and would

attract a CIL payment of £9168.64, unless demonstrated otherwise.

Page 78

Conclusion

The current application conforms to the Development Plan and associated

guidance and to the aims and requirements of the NPPF. I can find no material

considerations that warrant an alternative approach.

RECOMMENDATION

Officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and

other material considerations. It is for the Committee to weigh and balance these

in coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available evidence.

It is therefore recommended that the application be GRANTED subject to the

following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is

delegated to officers:

1. Time limit (3 years)

2. Approved plans

3. Schedule of materials (Samples where necessary)

4. Hard and soft landscaping

5. Footway crossing

6. Access to be surfaced with a bound material

7. Gradient of the access

8. Gates/barriers

9. Climate Change Checklist

10. EVCPs

11. Water butts

12. Obscure glaze

13. Broadband

Notes:

1. NPPF

2. Highways

Robert Weeks

HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES

Page 79

This page has been left intentionally blank

D

")

D

1

2

3

3

89

1

5

3

8

2

9

4

7

5

1

4

3

7

1

6

1

7

1

3

5

1

1

2

3

1

2

2

4

1

7

419a

38

28

22

44

10

17

St

13

21

14

12

11

10

35

25

21

17

13

43

12

17

12

17

14

PH

49

39

The

The

TCB

The

Mews

Bull

Mews

Club

Hall

View

Arms

CourtJames

82.5m

Posts

HouseCourt

House

85.1m

Court

House

Craven

1 to 6

Meadow

1 to 6Falcon

Craven

School

1 to 7

2 to 5

7 to 151 to 15

Surgery

Nursery

Gardens

Car Park

Minstrel

The CoachKirk View

El Sub Sta

Craven End

Mountfield

Bull Street

CRAVEN LANE

BULL STREET

OXFORD STREET

THE BULL YARD

Pendicke Court

SOVEREIGN COURT

PENDICKE STREET

Chickabiddy Lane

Pendyke Pastures

approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287

Scale 1:1,250

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

N̂orth

21/01274/FUL - Welfare Centre, Craven Lane, Southam

approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287

Scale 1:25,000

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

N̂orth

21/01274/FUL - Welfare Centre, Craven Lane, Southam

Page 81

Item 8

Appendix 1

This page has been left intentionally blank

COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 21/01230/FUL

Site Address: 87 High Street, Bidford on Avon

Description of

Development:

First floor extension to previously approved application ref:

20/02122/FUL

Reason for Referral

to Committee Ward Member support

Applicant Mr & Mrs Morris

Case Officer: Catherine Gibbons

Presenting Officer Louise Koelman

Ward Member: Councillor D Pemberton

Town/Parish

Council: Bidford Parish Council

Description of Site

Constraints:

Main Rural Centre

Conservation Area

Summary of

Recommendation REFUSE

Page 83

Item 9

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Development Plan

Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)

Bidford-on-Avon Parish Neighbourhood Plan (2011-2031)

Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2021

National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)

National Design Guide 2019

Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance

Development Requirements SPD

Other Material Consideration(s) and Emerging Plans

Bidford on Avon Parish Plan (June 2003)

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY

Reference

Number

Proposal Decision and

date

21/01564/AMD

First floor extension eaves lowered to match existing

neighbours eaves line. Ground floor extension roof

built with overhanging soffit

Approved

20.05.2021

20/02122/FUL Proposed two storey and single storey rear extensions Approved

10.12.2020

19/00621/FUL Proposed two storey and single storey rear extensions Approved

19.06.2019

96/01600/FUL Change of use of part of garden area for the sale of

plants, logs and xmas trees. Approved

27.02.1997

96/00874/FUL The erection of 2 greenhouses. Size is 12' x 8' in both

cases. Approved

02.09.1997

96/00008/LDE Residential property with business commercial use for

growing and sale of plants and sale of logs. Refused

21.11.1996

95/00060/FUL Two storey & single storey extensions Approved

30.03.1995

REPRESENTATIONS

Ward Member

Councillor D Pemberton –

I do not consider that the 2nd floor extension would be overbearing on the

neighbouring property at No 89 even at 5m separation from its boundary. The

application property is set at an angle of 45 degrees (or thereabouts) to No 89

and so any window would do not directly face onto the garden of No 89. The

Page 84

applicant has gone to considerable lengths to produce a design acceptable within

the site constraints to meet her family's accommodation requirements.

The separation of 5 m is to the neighbouring properties boundary, however, Part

F of The Development Requirements SPD measures the separation distance

between habitable room windows. Consequently, the separation distance is in

accordance with policy.

In light of this I support the application. Member site visit requested.

(08.06.2021)

Parish Council–

Object to the application for the following planning reasons:

Over-development of the site

Loss of amenity

Harmful impact on neighbours

Impact on the street scene - overcrowding

Parking - insufficient parking spaces will result in the turning point being

used for parking which will make it difficult/impossible for the refuse

lorries to carry out their business (02.06.2021)

Third Party Representations

The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer:

Overbearing impact due to height and proximity close to boundary

Overdevelopment of site

Previous applications 19/006211FUL and 20/02122/FUL amended to omit

additional first floor extension now being sought.

Proposed roof encroaches application site boundary with nos. 3 & 4

Holland Close.

Negative impact on neighbour amenity

Harmful visual impact

CONSULTATIONS

Warwickshire County Council Ecology (WCC Ecology) –

No objection. Recommend the below advisory note is attached to the decision

notice should approval be granted to make the applicant and agent aware of their

responsibilities for nesting birds.

Birds and their nests are fully protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside

Act (as amended). So as to avoid impacting any potential nesting activity it is

recommended the works affecting the roof at the rear elevation commence

outside of the period late March to early August. (17.05.2020)

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Principle of Development

The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan,

unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and

Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a

key material planning consideration.

Page 85

Following grant of planning permission 19/00621/FUL it came to light that the red

outline had been drawn incorrectly and application 20/02122/FUL was submitted

to rectify the situation. Included in the application was a proposal to enlarge the

first floor extension.

Following officer objection, the submitted scheme was amended to omit the

additional first floor extension. The extent of the approved scheme remains the

same as that approved under planning reference 19/00621/FUL with the only

difference being that 20/02122/FUL scheme details the corner of the extension

cut off to fit within the application site denoted by the correct red line.

The approved scheme is now under construction. This current application again

seeks a first floor rear extension on the south eastern side of the property to

provide an additional bedroom.

Design and Distinctiveness

The application property was originally two terraced houses which have been

combined to form one large end of terrace dwelling. Views of the first floor

extension will be available from the gap between properties on Holland Close

located to the rear of the application site and glimpse views of the proposed

extension will be available when travelling in an easterly direction along the

Salford Road (B439) or when stopped at the traffic lights.

Although the eaves height of the proposed extension is higher than the approved

first floor extension to the north east of the site and there are unusually, no

windows proposed in the first floor rear elevation, the first floor pitched roof gable

extension is considered to be sympathetic to the design of the main house.

The ridge height of the extension will be set lower than the existing ridge and will

therefore be subservient to the main dwelling.

In terms of materials and finishes, the extension would have a painted rendered

finish to match the existing house. In the event that planning permission is

forthcoming, a condition to ensure that the materials match the existing property

will be applied.

I am satisfied that the proposal would harmonise with the character and local

distinctiveness of the host dwelling, street scene and the wider local area. I

therefore consider the proposal is in accordance with policies CS.5, CS.9 and

CS.20 of the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy (2011-2031) and Policy ENV9 of

the Bidford on Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Residential Amenity

The proposed extension would not project beyond the approved rear building line.

No 85 will be screened from the proposal by the existing approved extension

located on the boundary with no 85 which is currently under construction. As

such, I consider that there would be no overlooking, overshadowing or

overbearing impact on the amenity of no.85 as a result of the proposed

extension.

No.4 Holland Close is a detached bungalow located to the south with its rear

garden adjoining the rear garden of the application dwelling, the main amenity

area of No.4 is located at the apex of the garden immediately adjacent to the

boundary with the application property. I note that No.4 has an existing rear

Page 86

conservatory and there are currently direct views into this and the garden of No.4

from the existing first floor rear windows of the application dwelling.

Whilst I note there is no window proposed in the rear elevation of the extension,

the proposed extension is located less than 1m (0.83m) at the closest point from

the boundary with the neighbour. The separation distance to the conservatory is

8.8m with the garden area located between the two. Given the separation

distance, the small garden sizes and the existing relationship of the application

property with the neighbour at no 4, I consider that the proposed extension

would have an unduly oppressive and overbearing impact on No.4 to the further

detriment of the existing amenity of this property.

No.3 Holland Close and no 89 High street are both neighbouring properties to the

south west. There is a close boarded fence, sheds and mature conifers located

along this boundary. At its closest point, the first floor extension would be located

approximately 3.6 metres from the shared boundary with No.3 and 4.9m from no

89. The houses are further separated from the extension by their rear gardens at

a distance of 18.7m and 16.2m respectively. The main amenity areas are located

between the house and the boundary. Part F of the Development requirements

SPD requires a minimum separation distance for a window looking towards a rear

garden of 10m unless obscure glazed. The plans do not show the window to be

obscure glazed. Whilst it is possible to use a condition to ensure that a window is

obscure glazed, it is considered that the resulting living conditions of the occupier

of the proposed bedroom would be unacceptable if the window was obscure

glazed. I therefore consider that the proposal would result in harmful overlooking

to no 89 High Street and no 3 Holland Close. It is noted that there is a row of

mature conifers on this boundary however unacceptable development should not

be justified by the presence of such non-permanent features.

In light of the above, I consider that the proposal would unacceptably detract

from the amenities of the neighbouring properties by way of overlooking and

overbearing impact. The proposal therefore is not in accordance with policies CS9

and CS20 of the Core Strategy (2011-2031) and policy ENV9 of the

Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Historic Environment

The property is located within the Bidford Conservation Area, with the boundary

of the Conservation Area running along the southwest boundary of the application

site.

Views of the first floor extension will be available from the gap between

properties on Holland Close located to the rear of the application site and glimpse

views of the proposed extension will be available when travelling in an easterly

direction along the Salford Road (B439) or when stopped at the traffic lights.

I do not consider that the proposal would be a prominent feature when viewed

from High Street and Salford Road streetscenes that would cause sufficient harm

to the character and appearance of the conservation area that would warrant an

objection on these grounds.

The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with the

duties set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990,

Core Strategy Policy CS.8 and Policy ENV8 of the Neighbourhood Development

Plan as well as the provisions of the NPPF.

Page 87

Highways Matters and Parking

The proposal would result in an additional bedroom, making the property a 4

bedroom property. The parking requirement for a 4 bed property in this location

is 3 parking spaces.

Previous permissions 19/00621/FUL and 20/02122/FUL increased the dwelling to

a 3 bed property. This was allowed on the basis that the lack of parking was a

historic situation. The proposed plan shows the provision of one parking space

within the site which is the additional parking required by the proposed additional

bedroom and was not a part of the previous application. It is noted that the

property is located at the dead end of the High Street where there is unrestricted

parking on the southern side of the street. It is also a consideration that the

application property was originally 2 separate dwellings and is situated in a

sustainable location with shops, services and public transport within walking

distance of the property.

On balance, I do not consider there is sufficient grounds to warrant objection in

this respect and consider that the proposal accords with the intentions of Policy

CS.26 of the Core Strategy.

Natural Environment

The County Council Ecologist has been consulted on this application and has

referred back to previous applications where an advisory bird note was

recommended. As such and subject to the addition of a nesting bird note in the

event that planning permission is forthcoming, I am satisfied that the proposal

accords with Policy CS.6 of the Core Strategy, Policy ENV10 of the Neighbourhood

Development Plan and Paragraph 175 of the NPPF.

Climate Change and Sustainable Construction

Government policies in the NPPF require the planning system to support the

transition to a low carbon future and shape places in ways that contribute to

minimising vulnerability and improving resilience and the re-use of existing

resources. Policy CS.2 and SPD Parts D, Q and V support this stance.

The applicant has demonstrated that due consideration has been given to the

climate change adaptation and mitigation measures as set out in SPD Part V

relating to climate change. Ample measures have been identified to comply with

the requirements of the SPD and policy ENV1 of the Bidford Neighbourhood

Development Plan. In the even that planning permission forthcoming, a condition

will be applied to ensure the development is built in accordance with the

information submitted.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

This development is not liable for the Community Infrastructure Levy as the

additional floor space created is less than 100 sqm.

Other matters

The red line on the existing site plan originally submitted with the application was

incorrect. The same error had been included on the approved plans of

19/00621/FUL and was corrected in the submission of application 20/02122/FUL.

The error was picked up during the course of the current application and

corrected plans have been submitted. Furthermore, the Agent advises that the

scheme approved under reference 20/02122/FUL is currently being constructed

Page 88

and it does fit the site within its clearly defined boundary’s. I am satisfied that the

proposed development is situated within the domestic curtilage of the application

property.

Conclusion

The current application does not conform to the Core Strategy, the Bidford

Neighbourhood Development Plan and associated guidance or to the aims and

requirements of the NPPF. I can find no material considerations that warrant an

alternative approach.

RECOMMENDATION

Officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and

NDP and other material considerations. It is for the Committee to weigh and

balance these in coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available

evidence.

It is therefore recommended that the application be REFUSED for the following

reasons:

1. The introduction of additional built form and its close proximity to the

boundary with No 4 Holland Close would result in an unduly oppressive

and overbearing impact on No. 4 Holland Close to the further detriment of

the existing amenity of this neighbouring property contrary to adopted

polices CS.9 and CS.20 of the Core strategy, policy ENV8 of the Bidford

upon Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan and the Council’s

Development Requirements SPD.

2. The proposed first floor window in the side elevation of the proposed

extension would result in harmful overlooking of no 89 High Street and no

3 Holland Close by reason of its location in close proximity to the boundary

contrary to adopted polices CS.9 and CS.20 of the Core Strategy, policy

ENV8 of the Bidford upon Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan and the

Council’s Development Requirements SPD.

ROBERT WEEKS

HEAD OF REGULATORY SERVICES

Page 89

This page has been left intentionally blank

")D

D

")

12

4

2

2

1

3

13

1

1

2

4

2

6

2

1

5

1

LB

67

71

87

12

94

89

14

2a

93

7998

7396

PO

112

108

67b

TCB

100

106

73b

67a

THE

92b

GVC

92a

73a

WalkWALK

29.0m

CLOSE

CLOSE

Sunny

PLECK

1 to 6

Chapel

Sewage

CHAPEL

CHAPEL

Church

Slipway

Shelter

Heights

Ppg Sta

Gardens

HOLLAND

Boat Yard

Avon Nest

Riverview

Pleck Close

Birch House

HIGH STREET

Water's Edge

Landing Stage

Landing Stage

Landing Stage

Landing StagesBOATYARD DRIVE

approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287

Scale 1:1,250

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

N̂orth

21/01230/FUL - 87 High Street, Bidford-on-Avon

approx - Do not scale© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 onwardsOrdnance Survey 100024287

Scale 1:25,000

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

Crown Copyright

N̂orth

21/01230/FUL - 87 High Street, Bidford-on-Avon

Page 91

Item 9

Appendix 1

This page has been left intentionally blank