COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 14/02810/OUT

Applicant Rosconn Group

Reason for Referral to Committee

Applicants have appealed against the non-determination of the application

Case Officer Tony Horton

Presenting Officer Tony Horton

Ward Member Councillor Barnes

Parish Council Welford on Avon

Site Address Land North of Millers Close, Welford-on-Avon

Description of Proposals

Outline planning application with all matters except for access arrangements reserved for: Residential development of up to 30 dwellings with associated

infrastructure Demolition of existing glasshouse and storage building Vehicular access via Millers Close with highway alterations Separate pedestrian cycle route to Millers Close Illustrative Layout submitted showing general layout of built

development Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping Reserved for

further approval

Description of Site Constraints

0.99 ha of land currently used as agricultural greenhouses with storage building

Edge of village site but beyond the built up area boundary Existing residential development to the west off High Street

and to the south at Millers Close, Open countryside land to the north and generally to the east, Agricultural land to the east with some tree and hedge

planting along boundary Welford on Avon Conservation Area boundary forms the

western boundary of the site Grade II listed building and curtilage lie to the west adjacent

to SW corner of site The site is generally level with a slight fall (approx. 0.5m over

75m distance) from south to north and a gradual fall from west to east of around 0.9m over 135m distance

Northern, western and eastern boundaries have hedgerows and trees, some gappy areas. Southern boundary with Millers Close gardens has some planting but generally open to view

Summary of Recommendation

RAISE OBJECTION AND DEFEND COUNCIL’S POSITION IN RELATION TO CURRENT APPEAL LODGED AGAINST NON-DETERMINATION OF THE PLANNING APPLICATION

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”.

Relevant Policies in the Development Plan for this application, including for the supply of housing, are: PR.1, PR.7, PR.8, DEV.1, DEV.3, DEV.4, DEV.8, DEV.10, COM.9, COM.13,

IMP.1, IMP.6 – consistent with Framework DEV.2, DEV.7, DEV.9, EF.6, EF.7, EF.9, EF.10, EF.11, EF.13, EF.14 COM.4

COM.5, IMP.4, IMP.5 – some consistency but Framework is less restrictive STR.1, STR.2, STR.2A, STR.2B, STR.4, DEV.5, DEV.6, COM.1, CTY.1, IMP.2

– inconsistent with Framework / out-of-date

Other Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework 2012 Planning Policy Guidance 2014 Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation English Heritage Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (The

Setting of Heritage Assets).

Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance

Meeting Housing Needs 2008 Car and Cycle Parking Standards 2007 Provision of Open Space 2005 Stratford on Avon District Design Guide 2002 PPG17 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Assessment and Playing Pitch

Strategy (Arup, April 2011) Corporate Strategy 2011-2015 Planning and Community Safety - Design and Crime Reduction 2006:

Planning Advice Note Welford on Avon Parish Plan (2007) – States that the village population at

that time was around 1,300 (Draft 9 of the Neighbourhood Plan states there is a population of 1,420 in the Parish and 605 dwellings + park homes). Primary school numbers are around 250. In relation to traffic matters speeding cars through the village major roads was the greatest concern and that 86% of residents travel by car. Improvements to the local bus service were thought necessary. In relation to housing 53% thought affordable housing was needed but 40% did not believe there was any need for any more housing. There was a higher level of support for small scale housing schemes but only 3% supported schemes of over 20 dwellings. There was little problem travelling to health services for the great majority. 61% did not feel the need for additional children’s playground but additional equipment was supported.

Welford on Avon Village Design Statement (1998) – Design principles include:- the need to allow space between properties; that developments should be small scale and complementary to existing density; incorporation of boundaries with natural features; development to be sympathetic to existing design, silhouette, scale, density, materials and colour.

Other Documents

Draft Core Strategy

This document was submitted to the Secretary of State on 29 September 2014, with the examination in public (EIP) in January 2015. The Inspector’s interim report was published on 19 March 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, it is officers’ opinion that draft Core Strategy carries limited weight for decision making purposes. At Full Council on 22 June 2015, Members will consider whether some emerging Core Strategy policies should be endorsed for Development Management purposes. Where the changes affect this application Members will be updated on the status of the Core Strategy policies and the appropriate weight to be attributed in the Update Sheet.

The key relevant policies are:-CS.1 – Sustainable DevelopmentCS.5 – LandscapeCS.6 - Natural Environment CS.7 - Green InfrastructureCS.8 - Historic EnvironmentCS.9 - Design and Distinctiveness CS.15 – Distribution of DevelopmentCS.16 – Housing DevelopmentCS.17 – Affordable HousingCS.18 – Housing Mix and TypeAS.10 – Countryside and villagesCS.25 – Transport & CommunicationCS.26 – Developer Contributions

The 2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Review –

The SHLAA has only looks 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 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. The site is identified as parcel WEL101, a broad location for development with a suggested capacity of 30 dwellings with no obvious constraints subject to a new highway access arrangement and considered to be a sustainable location.

• Landscape Sensitivity Study (July 2011)

This document forms part of the evidence basis underpinning the preparation of the Core Strategy. Part B of the document covers land parcels/sensitivity

assessments for the main towns and villages. Whilst the application site was not included in the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment it does lie between the built up area and Parcel We01 to the north and east. The assessment of WE01 therefore offers some information that can be considered when assessing the application site.

Parcel We01 is described as a series of enclosures enclosed by strong tree cover making the area discreet and not widely visible, with only filtered views through to the settlement and glasshouses (on the application site). The Study concludes that We01 is of medium sensitivity to new residential development where housing development may be possible, preferably in large plots to maintain vegetation.

Historic Environment Assessment (2012)

This document forms part of the evidence basis underpinning the preparation of the Core Strategy. The application site is identified as being of medium archaeological sensitivity. Land to the west of the site, forming the Conservation Area is of high archaeological sensitivity.

Ecological & Geological Study (2012)

This document forms part of the evidence basis underpinning the preparation of the Core Strategy. The site is identified as having linear hedges to the northern boundary but having no particular ecological/geological designation. The site falls within a larger zone of potential for bats, reptiles and amphibians.

Welford on Avon Housing Needs Survey (2008)

Welford on Avon Housing Needs Survey Addendum (April 2012)

The Parish Council has also undertaken a review of the housing needs in the village (April 2012) which identifies a need for 17 affordable housing units and 4 local market housing units. This local need is understood to have been met by recently approved schemes within Welford on Avon.

Welforward Neighbourhood Plan (Pre-Submission Consultation Draft

January 2015) – Paragraph 7 of the Planning Practice Guidance states: “What weight can be attached to an emerging neighbourhood plan when determining planning applications? An emerging neighbourhood plan may be a material consideration. Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the weight that may be given to relevant policies in emerging plans in decision taking. Factors to consider include the stage of preparation of the plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies…It is for the decision maker in each case to determine what is a material consideration and what weight to give to it” As such, it is for the LPA to decide what weight to give to an emerging NDP.

A recent letter from the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) in relation to the appeal by Gladman Developments at Oxhill Road, Tysoe sets out their thoughts on ‘weight’. The letter indicates that the recovery of an appeal on an application would only be considered “at or beyond the stage where a LPA had formally accepted a NP as having been submitted to them”. Clearly, this indicates that in the opinion of PINS, the ‘tipping point’ of any weight afforded NPs in the decision making process must be formal submission. The Welford NP has not yet reached this stage.

I therefore hold the view that a draft NDP, such as Welford’s, can only have very limited weight in the decision making process, since the policies held within the plan have yet to be assessed/confirmed, let alone tested through independent examination.

Water Cycle Studies 2010 & 2012

Foul drainage flows from Welford drain to Weston on Avon Pumping Station and then directly to Milcote sewage treatment works. Capacity issues arise at a pumping station during storm conditions but no capacity issues to sewage treatment works. Recommends hydraulic modelling.

Other Legislation

Human Rights Act 1998 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 2011 Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations

2011

Summary of Relevant History

There are no recent or relevant planning applications on the site.

Applicant’s Supporting Documents

Planning Statement Statement of Community Involvement Design & Access Statement Transport Statement Ecological Appraisal Heritage Assessment Tree Survey Geo-Environmental Report Archaeological Assessment

Ward Member(NB The full responses are available in the application file)

Councillor Barnes - Objection – The site is Greenfield with no planning approval (unlike Ashgrove). - The plants grow on this Grade 1 & 2 best quality land. The Milcote site was

partly refused due to loss of agricultural land, some 3A.- The loss of wildlife should be protected. - The road infrastructure is inadequate in Millers Close, High Street and

Chapel St and emergency vehicles need to reach the east part of the village.

- It will urbanise the area.- Welford has had its quota of housing up to 2031.- We have a 5 Year Housing Land Supply.

- This is not sustainable development, there is no presumption in its favour and it should be refused.

- Recent Planning Committee East had great concerns about the village road infrastructure for just 6 dwellings let alone this massive development.

- Construction traffic will cause dangers to road users and children.- Should be refused on highway grounds as access is not safe and will affect

old homes on both sides of the road.- There are no school places in Welford Primary School children from new

homes are having to go to Worcestershire. Children 11 and over are going to Gloucestershire to find places this is not sustainable.

- Health care is over full in Bidford and Quinton, this is not sustainable. (3.1.15 & 2.3.15 & 16.3.15)

Parish Council(NB The full response is available in the application file)

Objection (5.12.14) based on:- Scale, mass and density – this is not a small scale scheme, it is too dense

in its context and contrary to the VDS and emerging policies of the Core Strategy and Neighbourhood Plan.

Development on agricultural field – does not utilise previously developed land, other, brownfield sites should be developed instead. Likely to be Grade 2 ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land.

Impact on Listed Building – Cress Farmhouse is Grade II listed and adjacent to the site and its setting will be harmed. Possible structural harm to wall from additional traffic.

Impact on Conservation Area – boundary runs alongside site, the high density urban layout will adversely affect the Conservation Area.

Local Wildlife Site – site is adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site which the submitted Ecological Appraisal does not mention. Wildlife affected.

Loss of rural employment – loss of the operational agricultural business, contrary to economic sustainability principles.

Highway issues – access to High Street is very narrow (3.15m) only allowing single file and has poor forward visibility. This route is already difficult and unsafe and unsuitable for additional traffic from 30 dwellings which will be likely to cause collisions and backing up of traffic on High Street. Alternative route via Chapel Street is unsuitable due to narrow width and poor visibility.

Transport Statement/Proposals – is flawed due to failing to take into account Frasers Way and other properties. The proposed visibility splays are insufficient. The proposed footway leads to the narrow section of road which is unsafe.

Drainage and Flooding – will increase off site risk of flooding and on site groundwater flooding. This should be sorted out with detailed drainage plans and a Flood Risk Assessment. Additional flows will put pressure on combined sewers in the village which is prone to flooding from the River Avon.

Local Primary School – is at capacity and forecast to remain so, so new residents will be unable to send their children to the school.

Cumulative development – At the date of submission 88 dwellings had recently been granted permission in Welford with 3 more sites at appeal [Officer Note – two of the three appeal cases have been determined resulting in 14 dwellings being allowed and a decision pending on 4 more]. Welford has therefore exceeded its quota of 51-75 dwellings by 2031. Additional housing is unsustainable.

Third Party Responses

A letter from Orbit Homes received 18.12.14 advising that as one of the Council’s preferred Registered Providers they are looking to take the affordable element of the site and are supportive of layout and location and distribution of the affordable housing as shown.

As of 11.6.15 - 227 letters of objection, including from CPRE, and a letter of objection marked from ‘residents of Welford on Avon’ containing 58 names, received raising the following grounds:

Additional traffic generation and congestion on the local highway network including pinch points of the access from Millers Way to High St (only 3.15m wide and no footway), at the Bell Inn, at Duck Lane, Chapel St Maypole Stores and at Binton Bridges and associated highway safety for other road users including cyclists and pedestrians

Access is unsafe with poor visibility and the road unsuitable for 2 vehicles to pass

Traffic generation figures are questionable and unreliable Traffic count is flawed as excluded dwellings in Millers Close and carried

out when High St traffic was diverted Additional school traffic and journeys to schools outside Welford and into

other counties (and not allowing after school activities) Mode of transport for most travel will be the private car which is

unsustainable Not enough school capacity to cope with additional demand, school is full

and cannot take more pupils for safety reasons Not enough local jobs, will need to travel to work No village medical/dental facilities/staff to cope with additional demand

with consequent risks to health Not enough sports/recreation facilities to cope with additional residents Not enough shops & commercial/leisure businesses in the village to meet

demands, residents will have to travel elsewhere Inadequate local public transport to provide alternative to car journeys Encroachment into open countryside outside built up area boundary Harmful to village setting, character and appearance Harmful to the setting, character and appearance of the Conservation Area Harmful to the setting of Listed Building (Cress Farm House) Foul and Surface Water drainage systems will not cope with additional

flows (and cannot cope with existing flows). Surface water cannot use infiltration techniques so drainage strategy is

not viable and proposals are therefore not in accordance with the SPD. Land does not drain well, the water table is high and an aquifer lies

beneath the site, so more flooding risks Failure to provide Flood Risk Assessment or details of drainage Local flooding issues will be made worse, affecting neighbouring properties Power/energy utilities will not cope Telecommunications/broadband coverage is very poor Village will lose its character and become a commuter settlement with no

vitality Excessive density of development Loss of good quality Grade 2 agricultural land for growing food, only 9.6%

of Grade 2 land in the District Greenfield site when brownfield land is available Loss of green open space Harm to neighbouring listed building structural stability through additional

traffic movements

Loss of natural habitat and harm to wildlife, there will be harm to biodiversity not gain

Overdevelopment and density too high, cramped and contrived Employment jobs lost and none (other than temporary construction)

created Little economic benefit to the village No social benefit to the village New Homes Bonus is merely a transfer of funds from one Authority to

another Adverse impacts outweigh the benefits Unsustainable development Contrary to the Policies of the Development Plan Poor public consultation Welford’s planned allocation up to 2031 of 50-75 houses has already been

met and exceeded (some state - 89 permitted/supported + 140 at appeal. Others state 108 permitted), the community should not have to meet the needs of population growth elsewhere

The local community overwhelmingly does not support the proposals Cumulative impacts of other proposed residential developments No need/requirement for additional housing in the village Adverse impacts to highway safety and noise disturbance during

construction programme Overbearing impacts, loss of privacy, additional noise and disturbance,

and loss of light to neighbours infringing Human Rights Act Goes against the Draft Neighbourhood Plan and emerging core strategy

and premature/prejudicial to their outcome Lack of details from the outline nature of the application. Will turn a tourist area into a no go area Likely to affect archaeological remains on the site Against the Village Design Statement which calls for small scale

developments complementing existing density Build the houses in Stratford, not here Geotechnical survey carried out is inadequate Would render the use of the green space by the access unusable for

recreation Refuse vehicles will be unable to access the site due to parked cars on

Millers Close Construction vehicles and related vehicles from workers (for 12-18

months) will cause congestion, damage to properties and vehicles, parking problems, highway dangers and harm to health of residents

Should be refused for the same reasons as the 200 houses at Waterloo Rd Bidford (14/03027/OUT) i.e. traffic generation/highway safety/congestion + outside settlement + loss of Grade 2 agricultural land + education/healthcare demand/supply + prematurity

Core Strategy Interim Report states that with the total number of dwellings increasing to 2,000 for LSV’s any further increase would need to be robustly justified. The Topic Paper states that an over-reliance on a dispersal of development would not be appropriate due to impacts on character and increased need to travel, mostly by car.

Noise report was not during peak flows and 5m from the pinch point.

Consultations(NB The full responses are available in the application file)

WCC Highways – Initial objection due to lack of information regarding TRICS Output data files and lack of tracking diagrams for refuse vehicles using the access. (19.12.14)

Subsequent objection – Visibility at the access is severely constrained to the left. Take account that the site and access serves an existing use but considers there is insufficient evidence of the historic trip profile and that existing vehicles using the site would likely to be less frequent and higher with better visibility consequently available. Recommends access arrangements are revised. Highlight the pinch point at the junction of Millers Close and the High Street narrowing to a single width carriageway with priority to High Street vehicles. Concerned about additional queuing and delay caused by the additional vehicular movements and the potential for increased highway safety risks to occur. Recommends that the impacts on the junction need to be demonstrated and potential mitigation measures identified. Further concerns about the design of the pedestrian cycleway link leading to highway dangers. (2.3.15)

WCC Ecology – Have assessed the submitted survey work and consider it has been carried out in an appropriate manner to the expected standard. Identify that the site is not subject to any wildlife designations and consider that the site is of limited interest to wildlife with most activity taking place in adjacent fields and mature gardens. Some limited use of the site likely by bats and birds but not a legal constraint to development. Pleased to note new hedgerow planting. Cannot find any overriding ecological reason to recommend refusal. Recommend enhancement measures for bats and nesting birds. (3.12.14)

WCC Archaeology – No objection subject to a programme of archaeological work being undertaken prior to the Reserved Matters stage, secured by planning condition. (12.1.15)

WCC Rights of Way – Identify that no public rights of way cross or abut the site. No objection, request a contribution of £4,250 towards upgrading public footpaths within a 1.5 mile radius of the site. (9.12.14)

WCC Drainage – Comment that surface water should preferably be dealt with using at-source sustainable drainage methods. Set out the information that is needed to assess drainage proposals and suggest drainage conditions. (16.3.15)

South Warwickshire (NHS) Foundation Trust (SWFT) – Take account of the cumulative impact of other development in Welford on Avon to conclude that the proposals should contribute a sum of £31,198.96 towards Healthcare. (15.4.15)

Severn Trent Water – No objection, subject to conditions relating to the approval of foul and surface water drainage schemes. (13.1.15)

SDC Conservation Officer – Identifies that the site lies outside the eastern edge of the Conservation Area and behind the Grade II listed Cress Farmhouse. Accepts that existing buildings on the site are poor quality and their removal with acceptable development is not opposed in principle. Highlights that the site is well hidden from most public views

with views into and out of the Conservation Area being limited. Main concern is the proximity to the listed building which could be more exposed if it removed its own evergreen vegetation albeit that positions whereby the listed building and the development could be viewed are limited. Considers the proposals to be substantial and more intensive in density than surrounding housing. Considers there is scope to develop the site but in a linear rather than ‘estate’ layout. Considers there is less than substantial harm to the conservation area and listed building, with only modest harm. (8.2.15)

SDC Environmental Health Officer – No objection to the development but given the narrowness of the High St/Millers Close junction and resulting proximity of passing vehicles to the adjacent residences recommends an assessment of the impact of traffic noise on those properties. Notes the contents of the Geo-environmental report and recommends standard land contamination condition for small developments. (2.12.14)

– Has reviewed the submitted noise impact assessment, note that properties by the junction of Millers Close and High St already experience high levels of noise from High Street traffic. Noise levels are already likely to be exceeded in the front bedroom and living rooms during the daytime and the development would be likely to lead to increases in noise levels during the day time. Noise levels at night time would increase due to the new development but would be well below ‘desirable’ noise levels set by British Standards (BS8233:2014). Does not consider there would be an unreasonable loss of amenity at the properties. Recommends conditions relating to hours of construction and contaminated land. (31.3.15)

WCC Infrastructure Delivery Team (Libraries) – Request for a contribution of £657 (subject to final housing mix) towards Libraries provision. (18.3.15)

WCC Infrastructure Delivery Team (Education) – (23.3.15) Request for a contribution for education provision to be secured via S106.

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 the key material planning consideration. The emerging Core Strategy is also a material consideration.

Housing Land Supply

The Council does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply and therefore, in accordance with para.49 of the NPPF, saved policies in the Local Plan Review that are relevant to the supply of housing cannot be considered up to date. In accordance with para.47 of the NPPF, the Council needs to boost significantly the supply of housing to not only achieve a 5 year housing land supply, but to also maintain this supply thereafter.

The EIP Inspector’s interim report was published on 19 March 2015. The executive summary identifies 4 areas of further work to be carried out by the Council:

To revisit the objective assessment of housing need (OAN) and to increase the housing requirement to provide an improved balance with the projected growth in jobs.

To do further sustainability appraisal (SA) work. To consider an employment land allocation at Atherstone Airfield to

support the delivery of housing via proposal SUA.1 (Canal Quarter), proposal SUA3 having been found to be not justified.

To increase the OAN to provide more headroom in the housing supply trajectory.

The housing policies in the emerging Core Strategy document are subject to significant objections and will now need to be reviewed in light of the 4 areas of work to be completed. For both of these reasons, it is officers’ advice that these draft policies can be given little material weight in decision-making at this time.

The application must be first determined against the Development Plan and a conclusion made as to whether the application accords or does not accord with the Development Plan. The decision-maker should then consider all other relevant material planning considerations, of which the NPPF is the key consideration. The emerging Core Strategy is also a consideration. Irrespective of whether the Council has a 5 year housing land supply or not, para.14 of the NPPF makes clear that there is “a presumption in favour of sustainable development”, the definition of which can be found elsewhere in the NPPF.

The Development Plan

The principle of this proposal does not accord with policies in the Development Plan concerning the principle of development. In particular, under STR.1, new open market housing development is restricted to the main town of Stratford upon Avon and the Main Rural Centres only. In addition, saved policy CTY.1 seeks to control development in the open countryside and states that all forms of development in the countryside, other than those in accordance with provisions elsewhere in the Local Plan, will generally be resisted in order to preserve its character and to ensure that resources are protected. Proposals for forms of development and activity in the countryside that are not covered elsewhere in the Plan will have to be fully justified and show that they would not be contrary to the overall strategy of the Plan and that their impact on the character of the area would not be harmful. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. The authority cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply and therefore policies STR.1 and CTY.1, which are relevant policies for the supply of housing, cannot be considered up to date.

Loss of Employment Land

Policy COM.16 of the Local Plan Review promotes the retention of sites for business use by supporting their expansion in appropriate circumstances and not permitting their redevelopment except in cases of ‘bad neighbour’ development. The policy is more restrictive than the NPPF and therefore not entirely consistent with the Framework which at paragraph 22 highlights that the long term

protection of sites allocated for employment use should be regularly reviewed and alternative uses of such land should be treated on their merits where there is no reasonable prospect of the employment site being used.

The site is currently used for glasshouses and the growing of plants. The owner has confirmed to the agent that there will be no job losses arising from the redevelopment of the site and that other glasshouses are owned elsewhere in the village off Binton Road where operations would be switched to.

I therefore consider that the loss of the land in terms of loss of jobs in the village is neutral. The site is near to existing houses and so any alternative employment use may well have implications in terms of noise and disturbance, although there is no evidence to suggest that the site is a ‘bad neighbour’ development.

I conclude that the loss of the employment land is a material consideration but not one which would lead me to consider that the proposals are objectionable in principle.

Material considerations

The National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that: “Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless:

Any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of this Framework taken as a whole; or

Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

Paragraph 55 of the NPPF says that housing should be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The NPPF whilst promoting the development of brownfield land does not preclude the residential development of greenfield land in principle.

Emerging Core Strategy

Emerging policies in the draft Core strategy follow the approach in paragraph 55 of the NPPF. The methodology used for identifying local service villages (as defined in the Core Strategy) is the most up to date evidence base for identifying sustainable locations for development and is afforded some weight in decision making.

Welford on Avon is classified as a Category 2 Local Service Village in the Draft Core Strategy. The services and facilities are available within the village, which are located within a reasonable walking distance of the site, include:

Village hall Local shops Public houses Primary school Church Bus Service

Conclusion on Principle of Development

Having regard to the above I consider Welford on Avon is, in principle, a sustainable location for new residential development, in accordance with paragraph 55 of the NPPF and in this instance, the proposed dwellings would be adjoining the settlement’s edge. In the absence of a 5 year housing land supply, the Local Plan policies relating to the supply of housing are out-of-date. Notwithstanding that the principle of development does not accord with the Development Plan, the other material considerations explored above lead me to conclude that the principle of development is acceptable.

Impact on the landscape and character of the area

The NPPF requires as part of its core principles (paragraph 17 (5)), 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 policy PR.1 of the Local Plan Review is consistent with this as it states that proposals should respect, and where possible, enhance the quality and character of the area. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF also states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

The Council commissioned a Landscape Sensitivity Study of Local Service Villagesas part of the evidence basis underpinning the preparation of the Core Strategy. Whilst the application site was not included in the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment it does lie between the built up area and Parcel We01 to the north and east. The assessment of We01 therefore offers some information that can be considered when assessing the application site.

Parcel We01 is described as a series of enclosures enclosed by strong tree cover making the area discreet and not widely visible, with only filtered views through to the settlement and glasshouses (on the application site). The Study concludes that We01 is of medium sensitivity to new residential development where housing development may be possible, preferably in large plots to maintain vegetation.

I consider that the application site is not widely visible. It may be seen from parts of Millers Close and Frasers Way but is largely screened by existing housing and areas of planting from medium or long distance views. Whilst the development of the site will change its character and appearance from the glasshouses to larger scale buildings when viewed from short distance vantage points, it have a limited impact on the wider landscape character of the area due to the contained nature of the site. I have also had regard to the potential cumulative impact of committed development proposals within the village. No part of the site is within a statutory designated area or within a proposed Special Landscape Area.

Highways Matters

Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states ‘inter alia’ that decisions should take account of whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people and whether improvements can be undertaken effectively limiting the impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

Paragraph 34 of the NPPF also states that developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised, albeit, this needs to take into account policies throughout the framework relating to rural areas. Saved policies DEV.4 and COM.9 of the Local Plan Review remain generally consistent with this approach. In addition the Core Strategy Proposed Modifications (May 2015) Policy CS.25 requires development to mitigate any unacceptable transport impacts which arise directly from that development by, amongst other things, ensuring that the scale of traffic generated by the proposal is appropriate for the function and standard of the roads serving the area; implementing necessary works to the highway; providing new and improved pedestrian and cycle routes.

Access

The application is in outline form with only the matter of the access to the site submitted for detailed consideration at this point. The proposed vehicular access is off Millers Close. The Highway Authority has assessed the submission and has raised an objection to the access arrangements in terms of highway safety due to visibility being constrained to the left by the boundary of 8 Millers Close to a maximum distance of 33m. The Highway Authority require a visibility splay distance of 43 metres and recommended that access arrangements are revised to achieve this in order to avoid the potential for an increase in vehicle accidents in this location. The Highway Authority also comment that the existing use of the access is understood to be relatively infrequent and used by vans, light goods and occasionally Heavy Goods Vehicles all of which afford the driver a higher seated position in which to see over the wall at no. 8 to achieve better visibility. Taking into consideration the objection of the Highway Authority I conclude that proposed access arrangements are unacceptable in relation to highway safety in the vicinity of the proposed site access.

Traffic Generation/Highway Network

The Highway Authority has also taken into account the submitted Transport Statement (TS) and raises concerns regarding intensification of traffic at the pinch point at Millers Close junction with High Street where the carriageway goes to single width and a priority arrangement is in place. The Highway Authority raised concerns about the additional traffic from the development leading to queuing traffic and delay on the network, leading to increased highway dangers and potential for accidents to occur at this location. The Highway Authority therefore recommended that the applicant provides further evidence to demonstrate the impacts at this junction and to identify any potential mitigation measures. The applicant has not submitted any further evidence or proposed mitigation measures in response to the Highway Authorities concerns.

Concerns have been raised by the Highway Authority regarding the safety of pedestrians and cyclists from the development using the ‘pinch point’ access route from Millers Close to High Street. I note that there is an alternative segregated pedestrian route available via Frasers Way (off Millers Close) to the High Street but consider that this alternative route is likely to be less attractive to persons from the development due to being more distant and convoluted than the proposed route and not appropriate for cyclists. I agree with the Highway Authority that the use of the proposed, more direct route to High Street, will be likely to lead to increased risk of highway dangers for pedestrians and cyclists.

Taking into consideration the concerns of the Highway Authority I consider that the proposals are unacceptable in relation to traffic generation and impacts on the local highway network, particularly in the vicinity of the existing pinch-point

junction of Millers Close and High Street, and are likely to lead to an unacceptable increased risk to all highway users.

Accessibility

The site is located on the edge of the village where local services and facilities are provided and accessible on foot including, amongst others, primary school (800m away), public houses x 3 (400m, 500m, 1.2km), local shop (400m), garage (500m), hall, church and public open space including allotments and a play area on Headland Rd near to the school. The nearest doctors is around 4.8km away near to Bidford on Avon.

Public transport connections within the village include bus stops at the Maypole (approx 300m away) for bus routes 27 (Stratford to Pebworth Daily except Sundays) and route 212 (Stratford-Welford-Bidford-Graftons-Binton-Stratford - only Tuesdays & Fridays) which provide access to a wider range of facilities within Stratford on Avon. A bit further afield (around 1.5km) the 28 bus service (Stratford-Bidford-Evesham Daily) stops at the Welford turn.

In a March 2015 appeal decision for 4 dwellings at Milfield House, Welford (13/03334/FUL) the Planning Inspector highlighted that the village was capable of meeting the day to day needs of its residents. I therefore conclude that the site is reasonably accessible to key services and facilities and is sustainable in terms of its location.

Conclusion on highway matters

Taking into account all of the above, I consider that whilst the location of the site provides a reasonably sustainable level of access to local services and facilities the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety in relation to the access visibility, traffic generation intensifying the use of the Millers Close/High Street junction with associated queuing, delay and highway dangers and in relation to cycle and pedestrian movements. I therefore consider that the proposals are not in accordance with the guidance contained in paragraphs 32 of the NPPF and saved policies DEV.4 and COM.9 of the Local Plan Review, and Policy CS.25 of the Core Strategy Proposed Modifications (May 2015) which remain generally consistent with the NPPF.

Layout, scale, landscaping and appearance

Matters relating to the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are all reserved. The applicants have, as part of their submission, provided an Illustrative Masterplan but this is indicative only.

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 old, 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 published in November 2013.

The scheme is in outline form with details to be secured through reserved matters. The proposal would comprise a mix of dwelling types and sizes, including

affordable housing provision at 35% of units on site. I am satisfied that at reserved matters stage it will be possible to ensure that the housing mix and location of affordable housing is acceptable, should outline permission be granted.

Residential amenity

The submitted Indicative layout demonstrates satisfactory separation distances between proposed properties and those located on neighbouring land are achievable and shows the siting of bungalows along the southern boundary with properties on Millers Close.

These separation distances, when coupled with appropriate new landscaping and retention of existing landscape boundaries, ensures the development will not have a materially adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity by way of loss of light, overshadowing, loss of privacy and without creating an overbearing or dominating impact.

Concerns have been raised regarding the impacts of noise on Cress Farmhouse and Littleton Cottage from additional traffic using the constrained width route to the junction with the High Street. The applicants have commissioned a Noise Assessment relating to the anticipated road traffic noise which concludes that traffic on the busy High Street was the main cause noise impacts on these properties. The Assessment also concludes that High Street traffic noise already leads to noise levels exceeding guidelines within the properties during the day time but night time levels are below guide values in the British Standard. The assessment calculates that with the additional traffic from the development the day time noise levels will marginally increase (by 1 dB), which will not be noticeable and that night time levels would remain within the BS guidelines.

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has considered the Assessment and agrees with the conclusions, finding that there will not be any unacceptable harm to the amenity of the occupiers of the dwellings.

For these reasons, I consider that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity and would ensure the creation of an appropriate quality living environment for future occupiers.

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. Having regard to this, where there is a deficiency in public open space, new development proposals should seek to make new provision available.

The application Indicative Masterplan incorporates an area of Open Space to the south west part of the site. This on site provision is sufficient to meet to incidental needs of the development but there is no on site provision of Adult/Youth Active Recreation space or Children’s Play Area. I am however satisfied that off-site contributions can be secured via S106 Agreement to meet the demands for such Public Open Space and have opened up a ‘without prejudice’ dialogue with the Parish Council to ascertain on what projects any contributions might be used.

Landscaping and Trees

The application, although in outline form, indicates that boundary vegetation would mainly be retained, and that additional planting can be provided. I have reached the view that overall, 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. Tree and hedgerow protection measures can be secured by condition.

Other matters

Matters relating to parking, crime prevention, refuse and bin storage and lighting would be addressed at reserved matters stage in accordance with the NPPF and those saved policies which remain consistent. Bin provision could be secured by condition at this stage in accordance with saved policy IMP.4 of the Local Plan Review. The proposed density, at 30 dwellings per hectare, is considered acceptable for the location and context of the development.

Drainage and Flood Risk

Paragraphs 100 to 104 of the NPPF seek to ensure that 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 by the NPPF in relation to flood risk. The site is less than 1 ha in area and there is therefore no requirement to carry out a Flood Risk Assessment.

Local residents have highlighted that the site may suffer from ground water and surface water flooding. Surface water drainage will be dealt with via SUDs techniques, ideally via infiltration but if subsoils are impermeable, which is likely, then alternative means of on site attenuation, such as holding tanks, will need to be considered. The final drainage arrangements are a technical matter that can be dealt with at the reserved matters stage and via planning conditions. The likely impermeability of the subsoil points to problems from or impacts to groundwaters being unlikely to arise. Severn Trent Water and WCC as Lead Local Drainage Authority raise no objections subject to approval of drainage proposals.

Foul drainage is proposed to be disposed of via the main sewer. This is a technical matter and final drainage proposals will be designed at the reserved matters stage following further discussions between the applicants and STW. Severn Trent Water raises no objections subject to approval of drainage proposals.

The drainage proposals will be the subject of further approval and therefore at this stage I have no reason to believe that the drainage scheme not be in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 93-108 of the NPPF and saved policies PR.7 and DEV.7 of the Local Plan Review, which remain broadly consistent with the NPPF.

Impacts on the setting of Heritage Assets

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development that affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority 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. In addition Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas)

Act 1990 states that special attention should be paid to the desirability or preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

Paragraphs 128 to 139 of the NPPF seek to protect heritage assets, including sites of archaeological importance. However, paragraphs 133 and 134 state that harm to heritage assets may be acceptable if outweighed by public benefits. Saved policies EF.11, EF.13 and EF.14 of the Local Plan Review are less flexible and more restrictive in their approach than the NPPF, as the key requirement is the protection of heritage assets. They are therefore not considered consistent with the NPPF, and consequently afforded limited weight.

The site runs adjacent to the Welford on Avon Conservation Area which lies to the west and near to the Grade II listed building Cress Farmhouse which is also to the west. The site is separated by a degree of boundary planting from the farmhouse and it should be noted that there are existing large scale glasshouses and poor quality outbuildings currently adjacent to the heritage assets which will be removed.

The Conservation Officer has considered the impacts on the setting of the conservation area and listed building and considers that the site is generally well hidden from most public views with views into and out of the conservation area being limited. Positions from which the development and the listed building will be seen together are limited. The Conservation Officer considers that there is scope for an appropriate form of development on the site and concludes that there is less than substantial harm to the conservation area and listed building, which he describes as ‘modest’ harm.

I therefore conclude that there are no overriding constraints in relation to impacts on heritage assets to an appropriate form of development of this site and that the proximity of the conservation area and listed building does not result in an objection to the principle of development on this site. The ‘modest’ harm that may potentially arise is however a negative factor to weigh in the balance.

Archaeology

Archaeological assessments have been submitted as part of this application. WCC Archaeological Services have assessed these and recommend further investigative and evaluative work prior to the submission of any reserved matters application, and this to be secured via planning condition.

For these reasons, I currently consider that the proposed development would be acceptable having regard to the provisions of the NPPF (Section 12). Saved policy EF.11 of the Local Plan is not considered consistent with the NPPF, as it is a more restrictive policy than the NPPF and therefore afforded limited weight.

Loss of Agricultural Land

Paragraph 112 of the NPPF identifies that Local Authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality land. It is understood that the land (less than 1 ha) is Grade 2 agricultural land. The site therefore comprises the best and most versatile land (BMV).

I am aware of appeal cases in the District including Salford Road Bidford (6.61 ha) and Hampton Lucy (2.02 ha) where the loss of BMV land has not resulted in dismissal of the appeal, and I note that the current proposals involve a much smaller amount of BMV than in those other cases. I must however conclude that

the loss of BMV agricultural land is a negative factor to weigh in the balance for the decision taker.

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 raises no objection to the proposals and requests a condition relating to nesting birds and bats.

For these reasons, I consider that the development would have an acceptable ecological impact in accordance with paragraph 118 of the NPPF, saved policies EF.6 and EF.6 of the Local Plan Review and the provisions of the NERC act.

Land Contamination

The application site is within an area with of low potential risk for land contamination. However, subject to the imposition of planning conditions, as recommended by your Environmental Heath Officer, ensuring the identification of any potential risks and any appropriate mitigation, any potential harm to other land uses, health or the natural environment is considered acceptable. This would ensure 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.

Community Facilities & Social Infrastructure

It is noted that a significant number of representations have been made in relation to the inadequacy of the village’s infrastructure, services and facilities to support the impact of this development, as well as cumulative impact from other committed development within the locality. Whilst, it is considered the proposed development would inevitably have some impact, it must recognised that the scale of development is limited to a maximum of 30 dwellings and no objections have been received from the NHS, WCC Education, WCC Rights of Way, WCC Libraries, WCC Drainage and Flood Risk Team, and Severn Trent Water as the key statutory/technical consultee’s in relation to services, facilities and infrastructure.

In such circumstances, there is insufficient evidence to prove any harm would be so significant it would constitute a reason for refusal in officers’ opinion.

Planning Obligations

The below requested contributions are considered by officers to be compliant with the CIL Regulations at the time of writing this report.

Affordable Housing

35% of total housing numbers with tenures expected to reflect the Council’s standard requirement for 75% social rented and 25% intermediate units.

Education

- Early Years 1 pupil = £11,687

- Primary 5 pupils = £58,435- Secondary 3 pupils = £43,827- Sixth Form 1 pupil = £15,794- Total = £129,743

The final calculation will be refined after the reserved matters stage.

Highways

Warwickshire County Highways would normally request the following contribution in the event that a planning permission was granted:-

- £75 per dwelling (up to £2,250) for sustainable welcome packs to help promote safe and sustainable travel in the local area.

Libraries

Warwickshire County Council Library Service has requested a contribution of £657 (based on 30 dwellings) towards the improvement of local library facilities. The final calculation will be refined after the reserved matters stage.

Public Open Space

Off-site Adult/Youth Active Space = up to £2,380Off-site Children’s Play Area = up to £8,118

+ Other POS areas to be provided on the site and in the event that the Council or Parish Council is requested to take on maintenance responsibilities for any such area then an appropriate contribution will be sought for the future maintenance of this.

Public Rights of Way

WCC request a contribution of £4,250 towards improvements to public rights of way within 1.5 mile radius of the site to mitigate increased maintenance costs due to increased usage of rights of way by occupiers of the development.

Healthcare

South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust has requested a contribution of £31,198.96 towards healthcare based on cumulative impacts from this and other development in Welford on Avon.

[N.B. The Council’s Cabinet on 16.3.15 agreed an interim policy that where South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust has sought a contribution towards healthcare that such a contribution should be secured via a S106 agreement, subject to the Head of Environment and Planning being satisfied that such a contribution would be CIL compliant.]

Conclusions

Whilst the proposal conflicts with some of the saved policies of the Development Plan, these policies are not wholly consistent with the NPPF. Whilst the principle of the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan as a whole there are other material considerations that have been taken account of.

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 not sustainable development.

Assessing the planning balance, I consider that the key benefits from the scheme would be:

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

meeting the shortfall in the Council’s 5 year housing land supply. Provision of 35% affordable homes.

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

There would be unacceptable highway safety dangers resulting from the substandard visibility splay of the access

There would be unacceptable highway safety dangers resulting from the intensification of vehicle movements using the Millers Close/High Street restricted width junction

There would be highway safety dangers to users of the proposed pedestrian/cycle route from the site to Millers Close towards the High Street junction

There would be some limited harm to the character of the landscape and some limited harmful visual impacts to the landscape in the immediate area. However, this can be controlled and mitigated to an extent through planning conditions securing an improved landscaped boundaries.

There would be a loss of just under 1 ha of Best and Most Versatile Grade 2 Agricultural land.

Likely ‘modest’ harm to the setting of the Conservation Area and a Grade II Listed Building

Loss of an employment site (but no loss of existing jobs)

Technical issues from statutory consultees can be dealt with by planning conditions. Where potential deficiencies in services and facilities have been identified, financial contributions have been sought to remedy these. The development will not place undue pressure on the local infrastructure.

In my opinion, the benefits of the scheme would not 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 therefore recommended that the Planning Manager be authorised to raise objection to the proposals and defend the Council’s stance in relation to the appeal against non-determination of the application based on the following reasons:-

1. In the opinion of the District Planning Authority the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety in the vicinity of the site caused by:-

an intensification in the use of the proposed (modified) access relating to vehicles leaving the site due to the substandard access visibility splay to the east;

traffic generation from the development intensifying the use of the Millers Close/High Street junction which, due to a pinch point in Millers Close, has restricted width governed by a priority arrangement, will lead to increased queuing and delay on the highway network with the potential to lead to increased accidents in the vicinity of the junction due, amongst other reasons, to drivers behaviour;

the design of the proposed shared cycle and pedestrian link from the site to Millers Close which decants users onto the carriageway and thereafter to negotiate a route to High Street via the pinch-point of the Millers Close carriageway which will experience an intensification in vehicle movements as a result of the development, leading to increased potential for accidents.

The District Planning Authority therefore considers that the proposals will result in unacceptable highway dangers to users of the public highway in the vicinity of the site and that no mitigation measures have been proposed that would overcome such highway dangers. Consequently the District Planning Authority considers that the proposals are not in accordance with the guidance contained in paragraphs 32 of the NPPF and saved policies DEV.4 and COM.9 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, and emerging Policy CS.25 of the Core Strategy. The District Planning Authority considers that the benefits of the development do not outweigh the significant and demonstrable harm caused to highway safety taken together with other identified harm to: the character and visual appearance of the locality; the setting of the Conservation Area; the setting of the listed building Cress Farm House and the loss of Grade 2 Agricultural Land. The development does not therefore constitute sustainable development.

2. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure appropriate planning obligations, objection is raised to the proposals as being contrary to Saved Policies COM.13, IMP.4 and IMP.5 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 and emerging Policy CS.26 of the Core Strategy.

NOTEThe Local Planning Authority has taken into account the National Planning Policy Framework, including paragraphs 186 and 187 which detail the need to work positively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area.

ROBERT WEEKSHEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING