COMMITTEE REPORT Application Ref. 13/02784/FUL

Applicant Spitfire Properties LLP

Reason for Referral to Committee Scale of development

Case Officer Rebecca Lock

Presenting Officer Rebecca Lock

Site Address Shottery Hall, Church Lane, Shottery, Stratford-upon-Avon

Description of Proposals

� Erection of 32 dwellings together with proposed access, parking and landscaping.

Description of Site Constraints

� Built up area Boundary (main hall site, not grounds) � Area of Restraint (grounds) � Conservation Area (whole application site) � Tree preservation orders (individual trees, small groups and one

small woodland area) served – not yet confirmed

Summary of Recommendation

� GRANT SUBJECT to Completion of S106 AGREEMENT and

Conditions

Applicant’s Supporting Documents Summary provided by applicant: The application provides for a good mix of quality family homes with 35% on site affordable units. The layout utilises the large open gap in the centre of the site and retains the majority of trees around the perimeter of the site. The trees will be managed as part of the development going forward and will secure their future growth. The proposal includes a footpath link to the Alcester Road, which will enable easier access for Shottery residents to the High School and other facilities such as Morrisons. The development has been carefully designed to respect the Conservation Area and its setting We are pleased to note that the Town Council have supported the scheme and note there have only been three letters of objection to the application. In response to highway comments: We confirm that the development is to remain as a private road thus removing many of the concerns raised. The site layout plan in relation to parking courtyards has undergone some amendments in respect of spacing between the garages and carports to allow easier manoeuvring. Tracking has demonstrated that a refuse lorry can turn within the site. In response to Ecology comments: Bat boxes have been included to accommodate long eared bats. Drainage: Following objection from the EA in relation to runoff rates a revised FRA has been submitted. County Council drainage engineers have advised they have no objection to the scheme subject to conditions. Further discussions are taking place with the EA. Infiltration methods are not suitable for the site and most appropriate solution is attenuation within the site with discharge being at green field rates. Town Council Comments in relation to adjacent site. The high hedge on plots 31 and 32 which borders the Dudfields site is to be retained reducing any potential impact on occupiers of either site. Furthermore windows on plot 31 serving a store room and an en-suite have been obscurely glazed to ensure no overlooking occurs. Distances between dwellings meet with separation standards. List of documents:

� Planning Statement; � Design and access statement; � Landscape and visual impact assessment; � Transport Assessment; � Ecology report; � Arboricultural report; � Tree shadowing report; � Flood risk and drainage assessment and addendum;

Ward Member(s) Cllr J Fradgley – Comments made in relation to concerns about highways safety on Church Lane. Request for provision of signage. (09.04.2014) (The full response is available in the application file)

Town Council Support, subject to minimising loss of trees, request for up-to-date traffic surveys. Comments relating to encroachment into the Area of Restraint and impacts on properties proposed at Dudfields Nursery Site. (15.04.14) (The full response is available in the application file) Third Party Responses 4 letters have been received including 2 from the same resident and one from CPRE. All 4 letters object to the development on the following summarised grounds:

� Loss of open countryside; � Loss of space between Shottery and Stratford Town; � Adverse impact on character of area and Conservation Area when viewed

from Tavern Lane and Church Lane; � Impact exacerbated in light of Dudfields Nursery development; � Impact on heritage assets including Listed Buildings; � Access and highway safety; � Traffic generation; � Traffic congestion; � Noise; � Light; � Impact on tourism.

Consultations

� SDC Building Control: No objection: fabric first approach to energy reduction could achieve a 10% saving. (27.11.2013)

� SDC Conservation: Object: due to the loss of open space and the gap

between buildings on Church Lane which does not respect the historic road layout, contrary to the grain and character of Shottery village. (12.02.2014)

� SDC Environmental Health: No objection subject to conditions for construction management contamination and noise levels (16.01.2014)

� WCC Ecology: No objection subject to condition for Construction and Environmental Management Plan (16.12.2013 & 11.06.2014)

� WCC Highways: No objection subject to the imposition of conditions and

notes and a contribution towards transport schemes of £39,424 (06.06.2014)

� WCC Education: No objection, request contributions towards primary,

secondary and sixth from education of £272,617. (09.01.2014)

� WCC Libraries: No objection, request contribution towards library provision of £5,205. (05.12.2013)

� WCC Fire and Rescue: No objection subject condition to secure fire

hydrants/fire fighting equipment (28.11.2013)

� WCC Drainage: No objection subject to conditions (12.05.2014)

� English Heritage: Objection relating to harm to the significance of the Conservation Area (14.02.2014); amended plans do not overcome previous concerns (02.05.2014)

� South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust – Acute and Community Healthcare: Objection due to the additional burden on existing healthcare infrastructure. Request contribution of £53,696. (11.03.2014) [Officer note: since this application was last heard at Planning Committee West on 18th June 2014, the NHS Foundation Trust has confirmed that contributions are now only being sought for developments with 50+ units.]

� Severn Trent Water: No objection subject to condition requiring drainage details (23.05.2014)

� Environment Agency: Initial objection as the layout has not considered sustainable drainage and no space allocated to natural drainage features. (12.03.214). Final comments: No objection following receipt of revised Flood Risk Assessment (18.06.2014).

� Police: No objection, suggest design ideas via advisory notes (20.11.2013)

Development Plan Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework”. Policy ref.

Title

Consistency with NPPF

STR.1 Settlement hierarchy Consistent (Paragraphs 7, 10,49) PR.1 Landscape and Settlement

Character Consistent (Paragraphs 56, 57, 61, 64 of NPPF)

PR.7 Flood Defence Consistent (Paragraphs 100-104) PR.8 Pollution Control Consistent (Paragraphs 109 [bullet

points 5 & 6], 110, 120, 123, 125) EF.3 Area of Restraint Not wholly consistent (Paragraph 113) EF.6/7 Nature Conservation and

Geology Partially Consistent (Paragraphs 109,118 of NPPF)

EF.9 & EF.10

Trees, woodland and hedgerows

Partially Consistent (118)

EF.11 Archaeology Not Consistent (Paragraph 135) EF.13 Conservation Areas Not Consistent (Paragraphs 133, 134) EF.14 Listed Buildings Not Consistent (Section 12) DEV.1 Layout and Design Consistent

(Paragraphs 56, 57, 61, 64 of NPPF) DEV.2 Landscaping Consistent

(Paragraphs 56, 57, 58 [bullet point 6] of NPPF)

DEV.3 Amenity Space Consistent (Paragraph 17 [bullet point 4] of NPPF)

DEV.4 Access Consistent (Paragraphs 32, 35 of NPPF)

DEV.5 Car Parking Not Consistent (Paragraph 39 of NPPF) DEV.6 Services Not Consistent (Paragraphs 9, 10, 17) DEV.7 Drainage Partially Consistent (Paragraph 103 of

NPPF) DEV.8 Energy Conservation Partially Consistent

(Paragraphs 95,98 of NPPF) DEV.10 Crime Prevention Consistent (Paragraph 58) COM.1 Local Choice Partially Consistent (Paragraphs 66,69) COM.4/5 Open Space Partially Consistent (Paragraphs 73-74) COM.9 Walking and Cycling Partially Consistent (Sections 4 & 7) COM.13 Affordable Housing Consistent (Paragraph 50) COM.14 Mix of Dwelling types Partially Consistent (Paragraphs

50,66,69) COM.15 Accessible Housing Consistent (Paragraph 50) SUA.1 Town Setting Partially Consistent (Section 7) SUA.2 Town Character Partially Consistent (Section 7) IMP.1 Supporting Information Consistent (Paragraph 192 of NPPF) IMP.2 Supplementary Planning

Guidance Out of Date (NPPF principles)

IMP.4 & 5 Infrastructure Provision Partially Consistent (Section 4) IMP.6 Transport Assessments Consistent (Paragrph 32) Other Material Considerations � NPPF 2012 & PPG 2014 � Circular 11/95 (Annex A only) � Setting of Heritage Assets – English Heritage � Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance � Meeting Housing Needs 2008 � Car and Cycle Parking Standards 2007 � Sustainable Low Carbon Buildings 2007 � Provision of Open Space 2005 � Stratford on Avon District Design Guide 2002 � Stratford Town Design Statement � Stratford upon Avon – Design in Residential Areas SPG (2005) Other Documents � High Court judgements on Shottery appeal and Tewkesbury appeal � Recent appeal decisions � Coventry & Warwickshire Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA)

(November 2013) and addendum September 2014 � Extending Your Home Guide � PPG17 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Assessment and Playing Pitch

Strategy (Arup, April 2011) � Corporate Strategy 2011-2015 � Landscape Sensitivity Study (incl. Part C – Areas of Restraint Assessments)

(July 2011) � Historical Environmental Assessment (2008) � Water Cycle Study

� Proposed Submission Core Strategy 2014:

- This document was submitted to the Secretary of State on 29 September 2014, with the examination in public (EIP) expected to take place in early 2015.

- Paragraph 216 of the NPPF allows for weight to be given to relevant policies in emerging plans, unless other material considerations indicate

otherwise, and only subject to the stage of preparation of the plan, the extent of unresolved objections and the degree of consistency of the relevant emerging policies to the NPPF policies. To date, the draft Core Strategy carries limited weight for decision making purposes.

- The relevant policies are: o CS.5 – Landscape o CS.8 – Historic Environment o CS.13 – Areas of Restraint o CS.15 – Distribution of Development o CS.16 – Housing Development o CS.17 – Affordable Housing o CS.18 – Housing Mix and Type o AS.1 – Stratford-upon-Avon Area Strategy o CS.25 – Transport & Communication o CS.26 – Developer Contributions

� Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and updates (SHLAA)

- site falls within parcel no STR107 identified for potentially 40-50 dwellings.

- In analysing the site the panel considered that the greenfield parts of the site are unsuitable, as development in this location would have an unacceptable impact on landscape character, as per the findings of the Landscape Sensitivity Study. Therefore the only part of the site suitable for development would be on the old previously developed part of the site at Shottery Hall. Any proposal would need to protect the setting of surrounding listed buildings and be sensitively designed in this historic location.

- The SHLAA has only looked at suitability for housing, using obvious site constraints (“potential show-stoppers”). It does not follow that what it shows as a ‘suitable’ site is necessarily an ‘appropriate’ site. The SHLAA 2012 does not assess appropriateness against the emerging Core Strategy. In officers’ opinion the conclusions reached by the SHLAA should be given limited weight and the appropriateness of the site should be assessed against relevant development plan policies and all relevant material considerations.

Other Legislation � Human Rights Act 1998 � Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 � Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (any site in a

rural location) � The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 � Community and Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Legislation � Localism Act � Equality Act 2010 � Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

Summary of Relevant History Reference Number

Proposal Decision and date

13/02874/FUL Erection of 32 dwellings together with proposed access, parking and landscaping.

Resolved to Grant at Committee: 18.06.2014 S106 exchanged, not completed. Decision notice

pending.

12/01941/FUL Erection of six detached dwellings, creation of new access, together with associated parking and landscaping

Granted: 27.08.2013 (Committee) An appeal against the imposition of condition 7 (code level 4) was allowed dated: 16.05.2014

06/00759/FUL Erection of 21 no. retirement apartments and cottages and a courtyard manager's apartment including the conversion and restoration of Shottery Hall together with 5 no. affordable housing retirement units, new access and car parking.

Granted: 28.03.2007 (Permission Lapsed)

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES Background This application was first reported to Planning Committee West on 18 June 2014, when Members resolved to support the application, subject to the signing of a legal agreement and subject to further dialogue between officers and the developers regarding the potential for traffic calming. This was also subject to consideration of the imposition of any tree preservation orders. The application is being brought back to Committee due to the significant change in the Council’s five year housing land supply position. At the time of the previous committee meeting, officers’ advice to the committee was that the Council did not have a 5 year housing land supply. Since 5 August, the Council considers that it does have a 5 year housing land supply. It is considered that this represents a material change in the consideration of the development which goes to the heart of the permission. At the time this application was previously considered, it was recognised in the officers’ report that part of the development site lies outside the built-up area boundary and that there would be conflict with the Area of Restraint saved policy EF.3, as well as some harm to the character of the area, which includes the Conservation Area. However, in the planning balance and conclusions, officers concluded that the lack of a 5 year housing land supply should be given significant weight against these factors. Clearly, Members need to now re-consider the planning balance in the determination of this application, taking into account the updated officers’ report. 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 emerging Core Strategy is also a material planning consideration. Housing Land Supply There is a strong imperative in favour of housing delivery in the NPPF. To “boost significantly the supply of housing”, local planning authorities should identify a supply of "specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years’ worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5%...” The draft Core Strategy (June 2014) seeks to deliver 10,800 homes for the period 2011 to 2031. This figure is based on an up-to-date objective assessment of housing need as required by the NPPF. Using this approach the housing land supply available in the District as at 31 March 2014 is equivalent to a 5.4 years supply. The Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply as required by the NPPF. The housing policies in the development plan are therefore not automatically “out of date” (para.49 NPPF) although they may still be found to be out of date for other reasons (para.215 NPPF). And so in considering applications for housing development, decision makers should give due weight to all relevant saved local plan policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Having a five year supply of deliverable sites does change the planning balance. Where due weight can be given to saved policies, the so-called “additional presumption” in favour of sustainable development – namely that the adverse

impacts of a development would need to “significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits” if permission were to be resisted - is no longer engaged. This judgement will need to be made case by case. Whilst in some instances this will alter the balance, decision makers must continue to recognise the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development, which remains an underlying consideration for development proposals. In order to judge whether a proposal is sustainable it must be assessed against the economic, social and environmental roles as set out in the NPPF. Whilst the Council currently has an adequate land supply, the objective is not just to achieve a 5 year supply of housing, but to maintain it over the life of the Core Strategy as houses are developed. Stratford-on-Avon District needs to continually deliver some 540 homes on average every year over the plan period. In the shorter term it needs to deliver a minimum of 729 homes in each of the next 5 years to meet the backlog of provision from the period 2011 to 2014. Decision makers must continue to recognise that the government’s intention is to “boost significantly the supply of housing”. The Development Plan Saved policy STR.1 provides a settlement hierarchy for the purposes of controlling and regulating development and to reflect the wider functions of settlements. This hierarchy identifies Stratford-upon-Avon as the main town in the District and therefore, in principle, a sustainable location for development. The brownfield element of the site (the site of the former main hall) falls within the built-up area boundary of Stratford, whilst the undeveloped area of the site lies outside the built-up area boundary and falls within the Area of Restraint. Saved policy EF.3 sets out only 3 circumstances in which development will be permitted in a defined Area of Restraint. Whilst it is undeniable that all of the Local Plan policies are now quite old, a landscape assessment was carried out in 2011 of all the District’s Areas of Restraint and recommendations were made to the Council on both the principle and the detailed boundaries of these Areas. In respect of the application site, this remains within the Area of Restraint that has been identified on the plan associated with emerging Core Strategy policy CS.13, As a consequence, I am satisfied that the Area of Restraint protection for this site should be retained. The proposed development clearly fails to meet the first bullet point in policy EF.3 (development ancillary to agriculture or existing authorised uses). With regards to the second (development that would not harm or threaten the generally open nature of the area), it is my opinion, for the reasons set out further on in this report, that this particular development would not result in such unacceptable harm to the area that the proposal conflicts with policy EF.3. The third circumstance cited in the policy is the demonstration of “exceptional circumstances” that would allow the principle of development to be supported. In the explanatory text to the policy (para.4.4.4) these are described as “demonstrable benefits” and schemes that “contribute significantly to meeting Local Plan objectives”. The developer would also have to demonstrate that no alternative site outside the Area of Restraint would be feasible. Whilst the developer has not considered alternative sites, I have given weight to the need to maintain the 5 year housing land supply, the local support for the scheme and the high quality of the design. I have concluded that these could all be considered as “demonstrable benefits”, even if they are not “exceptional circumstances”. With regards to the consistency of policy EF.3 with NPPF advice related to the protection of landscape areas, paragraph 113 of the NPPF advises that local planning authorities should set criteria based policies and make distinctions

between international, national and locally designated sites. Whilst saved policy EF.3 is broadly consistent with this approach, it is a very restrictive policy, and arguably more restrictive than policies to protect nationally designated areas, such as Green Belt and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Paragraph 113 expects that protection of these areas should be commensurate with the status of the designation. In my opinion, the weight to be given to saved policy EF.3 should be tempered by the national guidance in determining the application. Saved policy PR.1 (Landscape and settlement character) provides protection for the quality and character of an area, with saved policies SUA.1 and SUA.2 making direct reference to the consideration of developments within and on the edge of Stratford-upon-Avon. Saved policy EF.13 sets out the Council’s approach to the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of a Conservation Area or its setting. This is discussed in detail below. There is no in-principle objection to residential development on the brownfield element of the site that falls within the built-up area boundary. In officers’ opinion, there is some conflict with saved policies STR.1 and EF.3 with regards to the undeveloped part of the site that falls outside the built-up area boundary and lies within the Area of Restraint. However, as set out in this report, there are other material considerations that need to be considered in determining this application. The detailed assessment of the scheme is set out below. Impact on the landscape and character of the area The NPPF requires as part of its core principles (paragraph 17 -5th bullet point), that, amongst other things, planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Saved policies PR.1, SUA.1 and SUA.2 of the Local Plan Review state that proposals should respect, and where possible, enhance the quality and character of the area. Proposals that would damage or destroy features that contribute to the distinctiveness of the local area will not be permitted unless significant public benefit would arise from the scheme. The value attached to such features by local communities will be taken into account. These policies are considered to have a high degree of consistency with the NPPF. In the Landscape Sensitivity Study (LSS) 2011, the site, which forms part of a much larger parcel of land (St23), is identified as being of high/medium landscape sensitivity to housing. The study acknowledges that there is very limited opportunity for housing in the area. The only possible site may be east of the Lodge along the A422 provided this does not extend further south than the adjacent development to the east in order to maintain a green corridor, this southern boundary is well screened, and the northern and western boundary trees are managed in accordance to an approved management plan to maintain strong tree cover in perpetuity in order to screen the housing from the west in particular where it forms the skyline. Landscape character The LSS describes the zone (and I acknowledge that this is the zone in the wider context that includes the application site) as forming a rolling lowland focussed on the valley of the Shottery Brook with its winding course forming part of a green corridor that runs into the settlement from the west. There is a high proportion

of tree cover along the brook and combined with strong hedges that enclose small scale irregular permanent pasture paddocks and traditional settlement form, especially focussed around Anne Hathaway's Cottage to the west of the brook. This area has an intimate scale with very attractive cottages and other dwellings, some thatched and many listed and all in Shottery Conservation Area. To the north and west the scale and openness increase slightly and along with permanent pasture there are allotments and playing fields with more modern development such as the Catholic Church. Here, the urban edge is apparent and the A422 reduces tranquillity. The area is intrinsically very sensitive due to its character with its intimate pattern, permanent pasture, trees and settlement form and is important to Stratford due to the presence of Anne Hathaway's Cottage. The character complements and acts as the setting for this popular visitor attraction. The area's function as a green corridor linking into the settlement and joining onto A422 is also important and should be protected. The application site is relatively flat and comprises the site of the former Shottery Hall, a large house set in substantial grounds. The site consists of part brownfield and part greenfield land. The site is contained by mature vegetation/tree planting to the west, north and east. A boundary wall also separates the site from Church Lane (west) and in part to the south where it adjoins the former Dudfields Nursery site. Development on that part of the site which has an extant planning permission would not impact harmfully on landscape character. It is accepted, however, that development on the greenfield part of the site, despite the retention of much of the existing vegetation, would result in the loss of open space resulting in harm to the wider landscape character. Visual Impact Views of the application site are primarily limited to those from Church Lane. Even with the proposed tree removal/tree works required, in order to facilitate the development and ensure appropriate management of existing trees, the site would be visible only in part. Views from Church Lane are also tempered by the extant planning permission which through the creation of an access of Church Lane would open views into the site. Views are also possible from Tavern Lane across the adjacent Dudfields Nursery site. However, these views from Tavern Lane have already been materially affected by the granting of development on both the Dudfields Nursery Site and on the application site. Very limited glimpsed views are also possible, when trees are not in leaf, from the Shottery Brook Walk and Cottage Lane to the west of the site. It is my opinion that residential development on this site would result in a change to localised views but that this change would not be significant given the limited view points and retention of existing boundary walls and vegetation. The visual impact is also lessened by being viewed in the context of existing development and that proposed on the site and adjacent Dudfields Nursery Site. Conclusion on impact on the character of the area and rural landscape and visual amenity I consider development on the part of the site, which benefits from an extant permission would cause no adverse impact on the character of the area and rural landscape, area of restraint or visual amenity.

I accept that development on the greenfield part of the site would have an adverse impact on the landscape character, area of restraint and visual amenity and is identified as not being suitable for housing development in the Panel report of the 2012 SHLAA. However, the proposed development, despite extending into the area of restraint and resulting in the loss of an area of open land, would retain the extensive planting/tree belts along Church Lane and to the north/northeast of the site, both softening its impact and providing for a natural extent/enclosure of the site as well as maintaining an existing screen cover. In addition, the development forms an infill development, i.e. restricting the built form along Church Lane, albeit, I accept this closes one of the existing green open spaces gaps, but would not involve development protruding out into the existing green corridor, which provides the main separation between Shottery Village and Stratford Town. The reasons for retaining this Area of Restraint (as set out in the Landscape Sensitivity Study 2011) are:

• Providing an attractive setting to Shottery Conservation Area and related buildings enhancing its rural, green character

• Creating a strong green corridor into the settlement • Providing a green corridor for recreation and access linking close to the

core of the settlement • Providing a corridor for nature conservation habitats.

Taking these into account, I consider that the development, given its limited extent into the area of restraint, retains an attractive setting to Shottery Conservation Area, which is assessed in more detail below, and related buildings; retains the strong green corridor into the settlement; retains the green corridor for recreation and access linking and retains a corridor for nature conservation habitats. The harm is therefore limited. In conclusion, I do not consider that the proposal harms or threatens the generally open nature of the Area of Restraint. Some of the impact of this current proposal has been mitigated by the extant permission and the proposed development of the Dudfields Nursery site. I consider that in the wider context of the Area of Restraint and the Conservation Area, the proposal represents a relatively small area of development. The whole of the development is located within the boundary of the wider Shottery Hall site, and does not encroach upon the open countryside to the north and east towards Stratford. Overall, taking into account the landscape character of the area and the visual impact resulting from the proposed development, I consider that the development would cause some harm to the character of the area and rural landscape and visual amenity but I have concluded that this harm would not be so unacceptable as to justify a reason for refusal. Impact on Heritage Assets (Archaeology/Listed Buildings/Conservation Areas) Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 ") imposes a "General duty as respects listed buildings in exercise of planning functions." Subsection (1) provides: "In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses."

Paragraphs 128-137 of the NPPF seek to protect heritage assets, as do saved policies EF.13 and EF.14 of the Local Plan Review. However, unlike the local plan, the NPPF at paragraphs 133 and 134 provides scope whereby harm to heritage assets may be acceptable if outweighed by public benefits. I consider the local plan policies (EF.13 and EF.14) to have limited consistency with the NPPF and they are therefore afforded significantly less weight. The site is located within the Conservation Area and affects the setting of a number of Grade II listed Buildings. The character of the village is derived from the development of a series of informal clusters of buildings separated by open land, linked by roads and paths. Although its relationship with surrounding areas has changed significantly in places with the encroachment of surburban Stratford (including the potential take up of the recent Shottery appeal decision) the rural or semi-rural character of the village is retained. To the north and north east of the village the separation from the suburban sprawl of Stratford is maintained by open pasture, allotments and playing fields. Cottage Lane is characterised by scattered linear development either side of the road with open stretches of land separating the buildings. The modern developments of the Catholic Church and hospice have been kept deliberately low level to help to maintain this separation in views from Alcester Road toward the village. It is clear the heritage assets are of high significance. The previous permissions were on the basis that any development was confined to the site of the former hall buildings and ancillary buildings leaving the former the mature landscaped garden, amenity space and open setting retained. The proposed scheme proposes 32 dwellings spaced over the entirety of the site. The Council’s Conservation Officer raises objection on the basis that this development utilises the entire width and depth of the plot, filling the gap between the Church, 1 Church Lane and the former nursery site and would neither preserve or enhance, and therefore, harms the character of the Shottery Conservation Area. In addition, she recommends that not only does the loss of open space harm the character of the area but the layout of the inward looking development is at odds with the traditional grain and road layout. Concerns over the layout are reinforced by the comments received by English Heritage. Development has already been permitted on part of the site and this permission remains extant. Whilst it is accepted that harm would arise from developing the remainder of the site, I consider that this harm would be reduced by development already being permitted on part of the site and on adjacent sites. Furthermore, the development is of high quality design and appearance. In relation to the layout, it must be accepted that by allowing the previous scheme, the access and use of a single road/cul-de-sac arrangement has already been accepted both for this site and the adjacent Dudfield Nursery site and that neither approved layouts address the historic road network. A layout fronting Church Lane may be more beneficial but it would also lead to the loss of the wall and involve removal of significant trees/vegetation from along Church Lane. The resulting impact, to achieve a layout more characteristic of the area, would in my opinion cause much greater harm to the Conservation Area and setting of adjacent Listed Buildings. Whilst I acknowledge the concerns/objections raised, the extent of this harm is agreed as being less than substantial to the significance of the heritage assets in accordance with paragraphs 129 and 134 of the NPPF. The significance of the Conservation Area as a heritage asset in this instance is the clusters of buildings

separated by open land. Whilst the development beyond the brownfield land extends over an open area of land, the remaining open land remains unaffected. This enables the retention of the gap between Shottery village and the Alcester Road area of Stratford. Within the wider landscape, I consider that the harm to the heritage asset’s conservation and the conflict with the development is adequately mitigated through landscaping, layout and design. I also consider that the protection of the trees on the site will help to retain the sense of green and open space along Church Lane and within the Conservation Area. In conclusion, I consider that the harm to heritage assets is less than substantial and that the public benefits of the scheme would outweigh this identified harm. The public benefits would be the contribution that the dwellings would make towards maintaining a five year housing land supply, the high quality of the proposed design and the local support for the proposed scheme. Highways Matters Access and highway safety Paragraph 32 of the NPPF seeks to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. Saved policy DEV.4 of the Local Plan Review remains consistent with this approach. The application proposes to utilise an access point that has already been accepted for previous developments. Whilst it is accepted that this development increases the number of units served from the access, the County Highways Officer has raised no objection, subject to conditions being imposed. The applicants have also confirmed that the road will not be adopted. This is considered acceptable and a benefit in that it means the access arrangements do not become overly engineered (other than to allow refuse/emergency vehicles to access and manoeuvre) keeping the design/layout more informal and in keeping with the area. The applicants have provided tracking details for the car parking areas (car barns) and refuse/delivery vehicles to show that these can access, turn/manoeuvre and egress in a forward gear. The layout is considered acceptable subject to the imposition of conditions. Concerns have been raised by one of the Ward Members and by local residents in relation to approach speeds along Church Lane together with increased traffic generation. The Ward Member has requested that County Highways consider securing a contribution towards traffic calming measures to address these concerns. The response of County Highways is that traffic speeds and the impact of this development would not justify the provision of traffic calming measures. Furthermore, I am concerned what impact potential traffic calming measures could have on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and that the creation of a new access would, once created, provide a further measure of traffic calming especially on the approach to Bell Lane/Cottage Lane. The Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposed development will not compromise the operation of the local or wider highway network and is unlikely to be detrimental to public highway safety. Accessibility The site is located immediately adjacent the built form of Stratford and has excellent pedestrian, cycle and public transport links to existing shops and

services. Furthermore, a new footpath along the route of the former access is to be provided to link the site with the Alcester Road thereby providing easy access to facilities such as the schools, college, train station and hospital. I consider the site to be a highly sustainable location for new development. Parking Provision Paragraph 39 of the NPPF states that if setting local parking standards, authorities should take into account the accessibility of the development, the type, mix and use of the development, availability of public transport; local car ownership levels and the overall need to reduce the use of high emission vehicles. Saved policy DEV.5 of the Local Plan and the car and cycle parking SPD use maximum standards and are not consistent with the framework and are therefore afforded less weight. This application provides a minimum of 2 spaces per dwelling except for units 29, 30 and 31, whereby 1 space is provided. Whilst in general 2 spaces per unit would be requested I accept that lack of 2 spaces for two 2-bed properties and a single space of a 1-bed maisonette, whilst likely resulting in some on-street parking is not so harmful in that it is likely to give rise to a small amount of on-street parking, provides for natural traffic calming and is a feature not uncommon in and around Shottery. The Highway Authority is satisfied with the level of parking provided on site will not generate a demand for on-street parking on Church Lane. The access improvements and new pedestrian linkages can be secured by condition and a contribution towards transport improvements secured by way of S.106 agreement. I therefore consider the development would cause no significant or demonstrable harm in terms of car parking provision. Taking into account all of the above, I consider that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on highway safety in relation to access, traffic generation or parking in accordance with the guidance contained in paragraphs 32 and 39 of the NPPF and saved policy DEV.4 of the Local Plan Review, which remains consistent with the NPPF. Design, Layout, scale, and appearance The NPPF requires as part of its core principles (paragraph 17), the delivery of a wide choice of high quality homes of good design and a good standard of amenity and supporting local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing. Paragraphs 56, 57 and 58 of the NPPF also attach great importance to the design of the built environment and ensuring the achievement of high quality and inclusive design. Paragraph 61 acknowledges that securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations and that decisions should address the connections between people and places and the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment. Paragraph 64 states permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

Saved policies PR.1 and DEV.1 of the Local Plan Review state that proposals should respect and enhance the quality and character of the area through the layout and design of new buildings and should have regard to the effect of development on the surrounding area in terms of its position, shape, size and height. In officers’ opinion these policies have a high degree of consistency with the guidance contained in the NPPF. Further guidance is also provided in the District Design Guide, Design in Residential Areas SPG and the Stratford Town Design Statement. Appearance The scale, design and use of traditional materials and extensive detailing are welcomed and provides for a high quality design for each unit and the scheme as a whole. Notwithstanding her comments above, the Council’s Conservation Officer accepts that the design and appearance of the proposed properties and the use of local vernacular and materials are reflective of the character of the area. Housing mix and affordable housing Paragraph 50 of the NPPF refers to the need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, and to include appropriate provision of affordable housing. Saved policies COM.13 and COM.14, whilst now quite dated, seek to secure affordable housing and a mix of housing types and therefore still have some consistency with the NPPF. Whilst the Council has an adopted SPD Meeting Housing Needs, the most recent evidence base is now the Coventry & Warwickshire SHMA. The scheme provides a wide range and mix of properties comprising a 1-bed maisonette to executive 5-bed units. Whilst a range of properties are provided the majority (66%) are 2 and 3 bed units in line with the latest SHMA, with (3%) 1-bed units and the remainder (31%) being 4 and 5 bed units. In addition, the scheme provides for 35% of the units to be affordable. Overall, I consider that the mix of housing on the site is acceptable. Impact on neighbouring residents’ amenity/properties The site has residential and other buildings to the north, south and west albeit to the west these are on the opposite side of Church Lane. The nearest building to the north is St. Andrews Church. The development, given its low density form, the proposed level of separation, its orientation, flat topography and extent of existing vegetation (protected by its location in the Conservation Area) all amount to a scheme that would cause no unacceptable impact on neighbouring residents amenity/properties. In addition, a scheme for 12 residential properties immediately to the south of the site on the former Dudfields Nursery Site (11/02803/FUL) has been considered and the committee resolved to grant. Although not yet issued or commenced on site I consider that this scheme is likely to come forward and is therefore a material consideration. The relationship between these two sites, in the relationship of plots 25 to 31 along the southern boundary is a concern of the Parish Council, as it may give rise to future conflict. The applicants have provided an overlay of the two schemes to show the relationship together with carefully designing the house types, their orientation to

ensure the best relationship and separation is achieved. Although the layout will require the use of obscure glazing for plot 31, these windows are non-habitable and overall the available separation distances and potential for overlooking is mitigated. Notwithstanding the concerns of the Town Council I am satisfied that the layout ensures adequate protection of amenity for future occupiers on both sites. Taking into account all the above, I consider that the proposed development would cause no unacceptable overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking impact on the amenity of neighbouring residential properties, having regard to saved policy DEV.1 of the Local Plan, the NPPF and the guidance contained Residential amenity within the site The scheme provides each property with a private garden in accordance with the indicative space standards set out in the Meeting Housing Needs SPD and provides for adequate separation distances between all properties on site in accordance with the extending your home guide. The proposed properties and their amenity areas are located close to traffic noise, and although no objection is raised, the Council’s EHO has requested that a noise assessment be carried out prior to works commencing on site to ensure levels are acceptable and any mitigation required (i.e. glazing levels/mechanical ventilation) is agreed to ensure residential amenity of future occupiers is secured. I therefore consider that the proposed development would not cause any significant or demonstrable harm in terms of overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking impact to residential amenity within the site, having regard to saved policy DEV.1 of the Local Plan, the NPPF and the guidance contained in Extending Your Home guide. Provision of Public Open Space The NPPF, at paragraphs 58 and 73, encourages access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation. Saved policies COM.4 and COM.5 also seek to secure appropriate standards of open space provision and therefore remain broadly consistent with the provisions of the NPPF. It must be recognised, however, that the Open Space SPG applies only to Stratford Town and the main rural centres. The latest evidence base is contained in PPG17 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Assessment and Playing Pitch Strategy (April 2011) undertaken as part of the core strategy preparation. The PPG17 audit indicates there is some deficiency in public open space. Where there is a deficiency in public open space, new development proposals should seek to make new provision available in order to help address any shortfall. The scheme provides informal/incidental open space within the site (as well as private gardens), which enables retention of existing trees and maintains an element of openness and in particular rural character taking into account its position and surrounding landscape. The scheme does not provide any formal play provision on site. The site is within walking distance of other public open spaces including ‘Shottery Fields’ and the play area off Cottage Lane.

Taking into account the accepted shortfall, scale of development and proximity of accessible play areas, officers consider that an off-site contribution be sought in accordance the Councils standard formulae. A contribution is therefore sought for £7,700 (Youth and Adult active) and £32,390 (Children’s play equipment). The contribution and long term management on-site of landscape and informal open space would be secured by way of the S.106 agreement. The scheme is therefore acceptable in respect of open space provision subject to conditions and the completion of a S.106 agreement in accordance with paragraphs 58, 73 of the NPPF and saved policies COM.4 and COM.5 and the tests set out in paragraph 122 of the CIL regulations. Landscaping and Trees Paragraphs 58 and 109 of the NPPF seek to ensure development is visually attractive as a result of appropriate landscaping and to protect and enhance valued landscapes. Saved policies PR.1 and DEV.2 reflect these policies and therefore remain generally consistent with the NPPF. The site falls within the Conservation Area and the trees on site are therefore statutorily protected. During consideration of the development proposed in June 2014, Members requested that the more significant trees within the site be protected by a Tree Preservation Order. This assessment has been carried out and a number of trees have been protected as individual specimens or groups of trees. A wooded area to the south-east of the site (not included within the residential curtilage) has been protected as a woodland area. These trees are considered to be of high public amenity value and are worthy of retention. The Tree Preservation Order was served on 11th August 2014, however is yet to be confirmed. The applicants have submitted an arboricultural report/assessment. In officers’ opinion, there is harm, albeit limited, by the need to remove some of the existing trees/vegetation on site to enable the development. However, the trees/vegetation to be removed are not considered worthy of retention (generally self-seeded) and by removing and managing the site would enable retained trees of the greatest importance to prosper. The TPO will protect the important trees from any felling or other work prior to consent. Furthermore, new planting can be secured by condition to mitigate for the loss. The rear gardens/dwellings are partly subject to overshadowing given their proximity to existing mature trees and their orientation. However, the applicants have submitted a detailed tree shadowing report, which confirms that although some overshadowing would take place this is not considered to cause any unacceptable harm to residential amenity or bring about requests to fell/carry out works to the remaining trees on site. In addition, given the size of some of the rear gardens and the proximity of built form to existing trees and their root protection areas, I consider that permitted development rights (Part 1, Classes A and E) be removed from all properties. I therefore consider the scheme is acceptable, having regard to the provisions of paragraphs 58 and 109 of the NPPF and saved policies PR.1 and DEV.2 and the imposition of conditions and securing of long term maintenance/management secured by a S.106 agreement.

Lighting Paragraph 125 of the NPPF encourages good design to limit the impact of pollution. Details of lighting can be secured by condition and is not considered to cause significant or demonstrable harm. Furthermore, the roads are not to be adopted by highways and therefore street lighting is not a necessary and further limits light intrusion. Other matters Matters relating to crime prevention, refuse and bin storage provision are all considered acceptable. Bin provision can be secured by condition in accordance with saved policy IMP.4 of the Local Plan Review. Taking into account all of the above, I consider the development to be acceptable in relation to the schemes layout, scale and appearance, subject to the imposition of conditions, having regard to the provisions in the NPPF and those saved policies which remain consistent with the NPPF. Other matters Drainage and Flood risk Paragraphs 100 to 104 of the NPPF seek to ensure development considers impact of flood risk. Saved policies PR.7 and DEV.7 remain generally consistent with the NPPF. The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk of flooding) where residential development is considered acceptable in principle. The applicants have considered/assessed alternative surface water drainage methods including soakaways and discharge to existing watercourses, which is the preferred option for dealing with surface water drainage in accordance with EA standing advice. However, on analysis to date, these alternatives are not viable due to ground conditions and availability of a connection to a watercourse within the applicant’s ownership. The applicants have therefore confirmed through their flood risk assessment and subsequent addendums that that foul drainage would be connected to the existing sewerage system with surface water attenuated on site before being discharged at agreed rates into the combined sewer. This approach, subject to details being secured by condition is accepted by Severn Trent and Warwickshire County Council Drainage Officers. The Environment Agency has raised no objection following receipt of the updated information. I raise no objection on grounds of flood risk or drainage, having regard to the provisions in the NPPF and saved Local Plan policies. Ecology One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to conserve and enhance the natural environment, as expanded upon by paragraph 118. Saved policies EF.6 and EF.7 of the Local Plan Review generally accord with the NPPF as they relate to the retention, protection, management and, where appropriate, creation of wildlife habitats, albeit, the NPPF is less restrictive.

The County Council Ecologist has assessed the development site and although in close proximity to habitat features e.g. Shottery Brook, accepts that this development would not have any unacceptable impact. However, as with the previous application (ref: 12/01941/FUL) a condition shall be imposed to ensure that a bat roost is provided on site, in accordance with details to be submitted, for long eared bats. The applicants have confirmed they are happy to provide this mitigation on site and the new roost would be provided in car barn 3. I consider that this development is acceptable in accordance with paragraph 118 of the NPPF, subject to completion of the S.106 and imposition of conditions. I have also had regard to the provisions of the NERC act in assessing this development. Energy Conservation Paragraphs 95 and 98 of the NPPF require schemes to incorporate renewable saving measures. Saved policy DEV.8 and the Council’s Low Carbon Buildings SPD remain generally consistent with the NPPF, as they also seek to improve energy conservation and promote use of renewable technologies. The core strategy, albeit of limited weight, is moving away from a reliance on renewable technology to a fabric first approach thereby reducing energy usage in the first instance. The applicants, taking into account the nature and sensitivity of the site (Conservation Area/significant trees), have put forward a fabric first approach to securing a minimum 10% CO2 saving, above that of the requirements to meet current Building Control regulations. Although not entirely consistent with saved policy DEV.8 or the SPD, this is the Councils current direction of travel and would ensure reduced CO2 emissions without utilising technology such as solar panels/heat pumps that could cause harm to the character of the area or existing features such as trees on site. A condition can also be imposed to ensure all the properties meet a minimum of code level 3 of the Code for sustainable homes. Land Contamination The application site is within an area at low risk of contamination, and therefore, subject to the imposition of planning conditions to mitigate any potential harm to other land uses, health or the natural environment, the proposed development is not considered to give rise to any land contamination issues in accordance the provisions of saved policy PR.8 and the principles of the NPPF. New Homes Bonus The creation of new homes would in economic terms provide money to support local communities under the Governments ‘New Homes Bonus’ and is a material consideration and one that gives some support to the consideration of the application. Planning Obligations Highways A contribution is sought for £39,424 in line with the Council Transport Schemes for Stratford SPD given the proposed development will increase vehicle trips on the local highway network.

The County Highways Officer has also requested a contribution towards sustainable travel packs. Whilst they quote £75, no evidence has been provided to date to justify this figure. A figure of £50 has been historically secured and has been justified in line with CIL regulations. I therefore consider it appropriate to only secure a contribution of £50 only. Education Based on current and future forecast surplus/deficit capacity of pupil numbers in catchment schools, contributions of £272,617 is requested by Warwickshire County Council to address the shortfall in primary, secondary and sixth form school places.

Libraries Warwickshire County Council Library Service has requested a contribution of £5,205 towards the improvement of library facilities. The above requested contributions are considered to be compliant with the CIL Regulations. Conclusions 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. Assessing the planning balance, I consider that the benefits from the scheme would be:

� Creation of short term construction jobs; � Longer term support for the local economy from new residents. � Provision of new homes in a sustainable location, contributing towards

maintaining the Council’s 5 year housing land supply. � Provision of eleven affordable homes.

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

� There would be some harm to the Conservation Area and the Area of Restraint. However, on balance, this has been adequately mitigated through the layout and design of the proposal. The recently protected trees ensure the retention of the green space along Church Lane and the development does not extend beyond the boundaries of the existing Shottery Hall.

In my opinion, the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the identified harm. Recommendation Whilst officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and other material considerations it is for the Committee to weigh and balance these in coming to a decision.

It is recommended that, subject to the following conditions and completion of the S106 agreement, the Planning Manager be authorised to grant outline planning permission, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is delegated to officers: Conditions 1. 3 years to implement planning permission; 2. Development in accordance with amended plans 3. No occupation until the footpath link to Alcester Road from the site along the

former access as shown on drawing AR_950_001 has been created the details of which shall have first been submitted to the LPA for approval in writing;

4. The development shall not be commenced until an access for vehicles has been provided to the site not less than 5 metres in width for a distance of 15 metres, as measured from the near edge of the public highway carriageway.

5. The gradient of the access for vehicles to the site shall not be steeper than 1 in 15 for a distance of 10 metres, as measured from the near edge of the public highway carriageway.

6. Gates/barriers/doors shall not be hung at the entrance to the site for vehicles. 7. The access to the site shall not be constructed in such a manner as to reduce

the effective capacity of any drain or ditch within the limits of the public highway.

8. The access to the site for vehicles shall not be used unless a bellmouth has been laid out and constructed within the public highway in accordance with the standard specification of the Highway Authority.

9. The development shall not be commenced until visibility splays have been provided to the vehicular access to the site with an ‘x’ distance of 2.4 metres and ‘y’ distances of 70 metres to the near edge of the public highway carriageway. No structure, tree or shrub shall be erected, planted or retained within the splays exceeding, or likely to exceed at maturity, a height of 0.6 metres above the level of the public highway carriageway.

10. The development shall not be commenced until a turning area has been provided within the site so as to enable vehicles to leave and re-enter the public highway in a forward gear.

11. The development shall not be commenced until space has been provided within the site for the parking/loading/unloading of vehicles in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

12. The access to the site for vehicles shall not be used in connection with the development until it has been surfaced with a suitable bound material for a distance of at least 15 metres as measured from the near edge of the public highway carriageway in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority.

13. Notwithstanding details submitted – sample materials to be submitted for approval;

14. Notwithstanding details submitted – large scale details of all joinery, eaves, verge, headers, footers, chimneys, porches to be submitted for approval;

15. Hard and soft landscaping – including boundary treatments; 16. Tree protection; 17. Service runs; 18. Works to trees carried out in accordance with submitted arboricultural

statement; 19. External lighting details; 20. PD rights removed Part 1, Classes A and E; 21. Plot 31 – Obscure glazing first floor rear facing windows; 22. Details of surface water drainage; 23. Foul water drainage;

24. Water butts; 25. Bin provision; 26. Fire Hydrants; 27. Contamination condition; 28. Code level 3; 29. 50% lifetime home standards; 30. Noise assessment to be carried out and any details of any mitigation; 31. Construction management plan including wheel wash and hours of

construction; 32. Construction and Environmental Management Plan (Ecology)

Notes 1. Highway notes 2. Drainage notes; 3. Police notes; 4. S.106 note; 5. Para. 187/188 note;

ROBERT WEEKS HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING