Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
COMMITTEE REPORT
Application Ref. 19/01402/OUT
Site Address Land South Of The A46 West Of The Proposed Western Relief Road
Alcester Road, Stratford-upon-Avon
Description of
Development
Hybrid planning application comprising: Outline planning application
with all matters reserved except for access for a mixed use
business park comprising offices (B1a), research and development
(B1b), light industry (B1c), general industrial (B2), storage and
distribution (B8), car showrooms (sui generis) and bulky goods
store (A1), café / amenity facilities (A1/A3), internal roads, car
parking, service yards, pedestrian and cycle infrastructure and
associated development; and full planning permission for new
roundabout access from A46 and spine road, engineering operations
comprising ground re-profiling, structural landscaping and
associated development (resubmission of application
17/03629/OUT)
Applicant IM Properties (Development) Ltd
Reason for Referral
to Committee Town Council objection
Case Officer Alice Cosnett
Presenting Officer Alice Cosnett
Ward Member(s) Councillor G Cleeve
Town/Parish
Council Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council
Description of Site
Constraints
Allocated under Proposal SUA.2: South of Alcester Road
Adjacent to the A46 (part of the strategic road network)
Public footpath to south
Summary of
Recommendation
GRANT subject to:
a) the response of the Council’s viability advisors to the
satisfaction of officers;
b) the receipt of a consultation response from Highways
England which does not raise objection; and
c) a legal agreement
DESCRIPTION OF SITE
The site extends to approximately 25 hectares and is located on the western edge
of the town of Stratford-upon-Avon; approximately 2.5km from the town centre.
The site is located within the Stratford-upon-Avon Built-Up Area Boundary (as per
both the Core Strategy and NDP). The land is presently in agricultural use.
The A46 Alcester Road lines the northern boundary of the site, with the west of
the site bounded by Drayton Manor Drive and field boundary hedgerows to the
south and east.
The proposed west of Shottery relief road, approved through outline planning
permission 09/02196/OUT, would adjoin the site to the east. Works on the
construction of this road have not yet commenced. Residential development
approved under 15/03408/FUL (68 dwellings) lies beyond this committed road.
The predominant land use to the north, south and west of the site is agricultural,
though a hotel/spa (The Bannatyne Health Club and Spa Wildmoor) also lies to
the north of the site, and a number of residential properties are located to the
west/southwest of the site along Drayton Manor Drive.
The closest public right of way to the site lies approximately 50m to its southern
tip. No public rights of way cross the site itself.
The site is neither within nor adjacent to a Conservation Area and does not
include any statutorily or locally listed buildings. Shottery Conservation Area lies
approximately 820m to the southeast of the site. Drayton Manor (farmhouse), a
Grade II listed building, is located 375m to the southwest of the site, whilst there
are a number of listed buildings within the village of Shottery to the southeast of
the site; the most important of which is Anne Hathaway’s Cottage – a Grade I
listed building. The garden to this listed property is also a designated heritage
asset in that it forms a Registered Park and Garden.
The site is not subject to any Tree Preservation Orders.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
A hybrid planning application has been submitted comprising the following:
Outline planning application, with matters of appearance, landscaping, and
scale reserved, for a mixed use business park comprising offices (B1a),
research and development (B1b), light industry (B1c), general industrial
(B2), storage and distribution (B8), car showrooms (sui generis) and bulky
goods store (A1), café / amenity facilities (A1/A3), internal roads, car
parking, service yards, pedestrian and cycle infrastructure and associated
development;
Full planning application for a new roundabout access from the A46
Alcester Road and internal spine road, engineering operations comprising
ground re-profiling, structural landscaping and associated development.
The application is a resubmission of the previously refused 17/03629/OUT. This
earlier application was refused for the following two reasons:
1. Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to allow a
comprehensive assessment of the highway safety impact of the proposed
development and any mitigation which may be required to make the
development acceptable in highway terms. The development is therefore
contrary to Proposal SUA.2 and Policy CS.26 of the Stratford-on-Avon
District Core Strategy 2011 to 2031.
2. Proposals are required to put in place suitable arrangements to improve
infrastructure and services to mitigate the impact of a development.
Various obligations are required to mitigate the impacts of the proposed
development which are financial contributions toward highway
improvements and biodiversity offsetting, as well as obligations to ensure
the appropriate development of the site in the context of the allocation of
the site under Proposal SUA.2. These obligations have not been secured
by way of a completed S106 legal agreement. The development is
therefore contrary to Proposal SUA.2, and Policies CS.6 and CS.26 of the
Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011 to 2031.
This application is an almost exact resubmission of the refused scheme. The only
change relates to the Parameters Plan which addresses identified inconsistencies
with the Illustrative Masterplan.
The changes between the Parameters Plan considered under the earlier
submission, and the Parameters Plan considered under this resubmission are:
Maximum development in Development Zone 2 has increased from 23,600
sqm to 30,009 sqm
Maximum development in Development Zone 3 has decreased from
17,650 sqm to 13,006 sqm
The following remain the same between the previous and current Parameters
Plan:
Position, area and land uses for each development zone remain unchanged
Maximum heights for buildings in each development zone remains
unchanged
Site access arrangement remains unchanged
Internal access arrangement remains unchanged
Extent of structural landscaping remains unchanged
Location of pedestrian/cycle link to the footway on Alcester Road remains
unchanged
Location of attenuation ponds remains unchanged
A condition is proposed to restrict the overall development quantum and mix of
uses in line with the submitted Transport Assessment (which is consistent with
the Illustrative Masterplan). The proposed mix of uses is as follows:
Land use
Illustrative Masterplan Quantum
Car showroom (sui generis)
5.43ha
Bulky goods retail store (use class A1)
7,432 sqm
Light industrial (use class B2)
6,002 sqm
Storage and distribution (use class B8)
24,006 sqm
Offices (use class B1)
13,006 sqm
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Development Plan
Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011-2031
Stratford-upon-Avon Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-2031
Other Material Considerations
Central Government guidance
NPPF 2019 and PPG
Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Other documents
Development Requirements SPD
Site Allocations Plan (currently out for consultation – limited weight)
Stratford on Avon District Design Guide
Historic England Good Practice Notes 2105:
o GPA 1 – The Historic Environment in Local Plans
o GPA 2 – Manging Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic
Environment
o GPA 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets (Second Edition)
Warwickshire Local Transport Plan (2011-2026)
SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY Reference Number
Proposal Decision and date
17/03629/OUT Hybrid planning application
comprising: Outline planning
application with all matters reserved
except for access for a mixed use
business park comprising offices
(B1a), research and development
(B1b), light industry (B1c), general
industrial (B2), storage and
distribution (B8), car showrooms (sui
generis) and bulky goods store (A1),
café / amenity facilities (A1/A3),
internal roads, car parking, service
yards, pedestrian and cycle
infrastructure and associated
development; and full planning
permission for new roundabout access
from A46 and spine road, engineering
operations comprising ground re-
profiling, structural landscaping and
associated development.
Refused (delegated decision)
08.04.2019
Appeal pending; Public
Inquiry scheduled to
commence 12.11.2019
SCREEN/00057 Hybrid planning application for
development comprising B1 (a,b,c)
(Office, Research and Development
and Light Industry), B2 (General
Industrial), B8 (Storage and
Distribution) and car showroom uses
EIA not required 19.05.2017
(Sui Generis) and A1 (bulk goods
retail store), and new access from the
A46, car parking and service yards,
landscaping, earthworks and
associated works
PREAPP/00092/16 Development of SUA.2 for mixed used
scheme B1, B8 and SuiGeneris uses
including access from A46.
Closed 15.12.2017
15/03408/FUL
(adjacent site)
Erection of 68 dwellings incorporating
vehicular access from Alcester Road,
attenuation basin and associated
earthworks to facilitate surface water
drainage, landscaping, car parking and
other ancillary and enabling works.
Granted 19.01.2016
REPRESENTATIONS
Applicant’s Supporting Documents
List of documents:
Application form
CIL form
Covering letter
Planning Statement
Air Quality Assessment
Arboricultural Impact Assessment
Archaeological and Heritage Assessment
Design and Access Statement
Energy Statement
Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy
Framework Ecological Mitigation Strategy
Report on Supplemental Ground Investigation
Landscape and Ecological Management Plan
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Landscape Management Plan
Noise Assessment
Retail Assessment
Statement of Community Engagement
Transport and Highways (includes Transport Assessment and Workplace
Framework Travel Plan)
Transport Assessment (Volume 2)
Utilities and Connectivity Statement
Workplace Framework Travel Plan
External Lighting Impact Assessment
Economics Benefits Summary Statement
Letter from CWA (submitted in response to LLFA objection to the original
application)
Landscape Note edp5383_r007b_280218 (providing details on the
management and maintenance of the green barrier to the acoustic fence)
Confidential Financial Viability Statement prepared by Turley on behalf of
the applicant
Non-Confidential Financial Viability Statement: Non-Technical Statement
Ward Member
Councillor G Cleeve
None received
Nearby Ward Members
Councillor V Alcock (Bishopton)
None received
Councillor P Barnes (Welford on Avon)
None received
Councillor I Shenton (Wootton Wawen)
No representation (26.06.2019)
Councillor M Cargill (Alcester and Rural)
“Nature of submission. Object
I wish to object to this application due to the impact on the A46 and associated
roads.
I wish to raise my concerns of the provision of a new roundabout to the West of
the Wildmoor entrance, something I was advised by highways Engineers as not
possible just 18 months ago. There are already significant delays leaving
Stratford in the evenings and this can only make it worse.
I also wish to object to the proposed junction modifications to the A46/ Binton-
Billesley crossroad.
The proposal by the developer appears to be the cheapest solution for a very
problematic junction. It is, in my mind, not fit for purpose as it only benefits the
A46 users providing for vehicles turning off the A46. This will inevitably lead to
greater queuing on the roads from Binton and Billesley leading to more
frustration and risk taking. This has the potential to result in more serious injuries
or worse on what is already one of the worst accident junctions in the County. If
a roundabout can be proposed just 0.5 miles from an existing roundabout then
this certainly would be a better location for one.
This is a poor scheme and should be rejected” (25.07.2019)
Parish/Town Councils
Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council
Object to the application for the following planning reasons:
Holding objection – the application will be considered at the TC PPC
meeting on 25 June 2019 (19.06.2019)
Object to the application for the following planning reasons:
Objects to the inclusion of new roundabout for the proposed access; it
should be as per the Core Strategy allocation (SUA.2 and SSB.2), i.e. off
the existing Alcester Road roundabout or the new relief road which now
has more certainty of being delivered
The dualling of the A46 has gained huge momentum in the last 18 months
with the phasing programme now published; phase 2 includes the stretch
between Stratford and Alcester. This proposal would prejudice the dualling
of this part of the A46
Pedestrian and cycle access to the site from town seems to be an
afterthought and not properly considered (25.06.2019)
Object to the application for the following planning reasons:
Amended Parameters Plan is noted but maintain objections as previously
stated (14.08.2019)
Nearby Parish Councils
Luddington Parish Council
Object to the application for the following planning reasons:
Development would extend the built-up area of the town to an
unacceptable level
Harmful to the environment
Increase traffic along the A46 during peak times
Mention of proposed Western Relief Road is misleading in the context of
the application as the road winds through a new housing estate,
incorporates several small traffic islands on the outskirts of Shottery
Noise, air and light pollution would be unacceptable in this rural, edge of
town location
Light pollution to future residents of the Shottery development from the
illuminated car showrooms (25.06.2019)
Billesley Parish Council
None received
Third Party Responses
The planning-related comments made by third parties have been summarised by
the case officer.
12 letters of objection from local residents received, including a letter from
Stratford Town Transport Group and The Bird Group. Planning grounds for
objection:
No justification to extend built-up area boundary
No justification for employment site – low level of unemployment
Insufficient infrastructure
Significantly adverse visual impact
Highway safety
Increased traffic congestion
Impact of congestion on A46 to local businesses and landowners
Proposal does not encourage access to the site by modes other than the
car – contrary to Transport Strategy for the town
Access should be consolidated at the entrance to the Wildmoor Spa
Access arrangement would not operate satisfactorily with future expansion
plans for land to the north of the site – prejudice future development of
this land (The Bird Group)
Access arrangement limits opportunity to improve existing access to
Bannatyne Wildmoor Health Club
Insufficient information to confirm that the proposed highways mitigation
is sufficient to mitigate the development impact
No need for retail to be located on a greenfield site – existing vacant sites
should be used instead
Light pollution
Air pollution
Noise impact to nearby residential properties
Loss of privacy to nearby residential properties
Loss of light to nearby residential properties
Impact on biodiversity
Loss of hedgerow along A46 frontage
No need for additional houses at Timothy’s Bridge Road (Proposal SUA.1
Canal Quarter Regeneration Zone) where businesses would relocate from
No provision for site to be used for businesses relocating from the Canal
Quarter
Demand from businesses at the Canal Quarter wanting to relocate to the
site has diminished – should give rise to the allocated area being reduced
in size
Should include leisure facilities for the local community
Climate change
Other non-planning related matters were also raised, as well as objections to the
west of Shottery relief road which has been granted through 09/02196/OUT.
CONSULTATIONS
The full responses are available in the application file.
Planning Policy consultations
SDC Planning Policy
Make the following comments:
The purposes of allocation SUA.2 are to support the local economy by
providing a high quality site to attract new businesses to the town and to
help facilitate the delivery of the Canal Quarter Regeneration Zone (CQRZ)
Since the Core Strategy was adopted in July 2016, circumstances that
apply to the site have changed considerably as is reflected in evidence
submitted with the application and from work undertaken by the District
Council. The District Council is therefore proposing to amend various
aspects of Proposal SUA.2 through the Site Allocations Plan (SAP)
The Proposed Submission version of the SAP has been published for formal
consultation prior to its submission to the Secretary of State for
examination
The following matters are relevant in this respect:
o Latest evidence has shown there is limited demand in the Stratford
upon Avon area for Class B1(a) office. On that basis, it would seem
appropriate to provide greater flexibility regarding the nature of
employment uses that wold be acceptable on this site to include
manufacturing (class B2) and logistics (class B8). It remains
important to seek to attract office-based companies to the town
and this site remains a key opportunity for doing so due to its
location and image
o There is known to be strong interest from a number of car
dealerships to locate to the site. Facilitating this may also prompt
certain car dealerships on the CQ to relocate to this site which
would help to deliver the Regeneration Zone
o Discussions held by the District Council and applicants with
business on the CQ have revealed that there is little interest in
relocating to this site, and far less than the 13 hectares envisaged
for this purpose in the existing Core Strategy allocation
o The District Council wishes to provide an opportunity for a
comparison/bulky goods (e.g. DIY) retail store to relocate within
the town
The upfront infrastructure needed to open up the site for development is
known to the significant. This includes the new access, diversion of a high
pressure water main which crosses the site, and substantial earthworks to
achieve a level site. On this basis, greater flexibility on the range of
business uses that can occupy the site and the timescales for
implementation may be appropriate to help deliver wider objectives
relating to growth in the local economy and the creation of new jobs
An assessment of other land parcels on the edge of Stratford upon Avon
has been carried out to show that Proposal SUA.2 is the most appropriate
location for car dealerships and a retail store in terms of its availability and
suitability. Justification for the latter use on this site would need to be
supported by a sequential assessment and retail impact assessment in
accordance with national planning policy and Policy CS.23 of the Core
Strategy
The following revisions to Proposal SUA.2 have been proposed in the SAP
Scoping consultation (inter alia):
o Extending the range of suitable employment uses to include class
B2 (general industry) and class B8 (storage and distribution)
o Providing for car dealerships on a maximum of 7 hectares of the
site
o Providing for a bulky goods retail store on a maximum of 2
hectares of the site, subject to a sequential assessment and retail
impact assessment
o Deleting reference to the phasing of release of any part of the site
A comprehensive Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) has been undertaken by
the applicant to support the proposal to provide a bulky goods retail store
on the site. The two factors that need to be satisfied are that there are no
sequentially preferable and available sites in the town and that the store
would cause no demonstrable harm to the vitality and viability of the town
centre
The RIA assesses a range of centre, edge of centre and out of centre sites
that could be considered as sequentially preferable to the application site
Analysis shows that none of these sites are available and/or suitable for
the specific form of retail use proposed
The RIA is robust and concur with its findings and conclusions. On this
basis, the provisions of the NPPF and Policy CS.23 of the Core Strategy are
met
Liaison with WCC Highways has shown that an access off Wildmoor
roundabout or the West of Shottery relief road is unlikely to be acceptable
in order to develop the site in its entirety. As a result, an alternative
access off the A46 has been pursued with Highways England and this
option has been put forward in the Proposed Submission SAP
Highways England will need to be satisfied that the proposed access does
not compromise the effective operation of the strategic road network
Developer will be expected to fund the necessary improvements to the
road network as a result of the scale and nature of the development
It is necessary to ensure that the requirements of Policy SUA.2 are
thoroughly assessed and secured
The revised version of Proposal SUA.2 requires the following:
o Appropriate marketing strategies to attract Class B1(a) office uses
and businesses from the Canal Quarter;
o An effective mechanism to ensure that sufficient opportunity is
provided for businesses to relocate from the Canal Quarter
These should be covered by condition or S106 legal agreement as
appropriate
Subject to these matters being addressed and applied satisfactorily, there
are no overriding reasons why the application should not be granted
planning permission at this time
Substantial benefits would accrue to the local economy through the
creation of a wide range of jobs as a result of the development of the site
for the proposed uses (02.08.2019)
Highways and Transport Consultations
Highways England
Recommend that planning permission not be granted for a specified period (3
months):
Access:
o Preference remains for the site to be accessed from the Wildmoor
roundabout or proposed Western Relief Road, and not from the A46
o Current policy and guidance indicate a presumption in favour of a
connection, except where a clear case can be made to prohibit
connection on the basis of safety or economic impact
o Additional evidence received shows that suitable access from the
Western Relief Road is not realistically achievable, and the
modelling suggests that there would be no direct interaction
between a roundabout at the location proposed and the existing
Wildmoor roundabout under normal conditions up to the end of the
Local Plan period
o On balance there do not appear to be any material safety or
economic basis on which to prohibit connection from this section of
the A46
Traffic impact:
o Modelling indicates that there would be no significant queuing at
the proposed roundabout on the A46 in future years, based on the
worst-based development quantum, and assuming that the
consented improvement scheme for Wildmoor roundabout
(approved through 09/02196/OUT) is implemented
o Modelling work ongoing to ascertain no significant detriment to the
strategic road network or road users
o Analysis has suggested notable impacts as a result of the
development on Wildmoor, Bishopton and Marraway roundabouts
and Billesley crossroad junction – further analysis is ongoing to
better quantify development impact to inform proportionate
responsibility and delivery strategy
Proposed highway alterations:
o Loss of lay-by – having regard to verified collision data, the current
policy position and measures built into the proposed scheme, there
is no clear justification for prohibiting access at this location
o Preliminary design checks for both the proposed access and off-site
highway works ongoing
o Package of measures proposed (to Wildmoor roundabout,
Bishopton roundabout and Billesley crossroads) does appear to
offer adequate mitigation – however, measures are still under
review
o Mitigation at Marraway roundabout is not required
o Final proposals and sequencing of highway works will need to be
understood before a firm view can be taken on the suitability of
pedestrian and cycle access
Boundary impact:
o The proposed roundabout access and other works within or
adjacent to the highway would have environmental impacts
o Discussions involving drainage, utilities, land dedication (land to be
transferred to HE) and landscaping adjacent to the A46 ongoing
Air Quality Impact:
o During construction, measures to minimise and manage dust would
need to be employed
o Recommend Construction Environmental Management Plan
condition
External Lighting Impact:
o Report is acceptable – condition should be added that the external
lighting design is developed, installed and maintained (in
perpetuity) in accordance with the External Lighting Impact
Assessment
Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy:
o FRA is acceptable – condition should be added to control detailed
drainage design for each plot
Landscape Impact:
o Will need to be discussed further as development plots come
forward to ensure acceptable impact on the strategic road network
Noise Impact:
o Changes in traffic noise as a result of increased traffic from the
development is minor and would be practically indiscernible to
humans
o Further noise assessments would be submitted with reserved
matters for plots as they come forward – will review with regard to
noise attenuation for plots adjacent to the A46
Utilities and Connectivity:
o Developer will need to comply with requirements where
connections and diversions are required
Discussions between applicant and HE are ongoing (25.06.2019)
WCC Highways
No objection subject to conditions and planning obligations. Raised the following
comments:
WCC Highways’ review focuses on the local highway network, and the
impact on those arms of junctions which connect and interact with the A46
corridor
Wildmoor roundabout – proposed mitigation scheme has an acceptable
impact on the A422 Alcester Road
Bishopton roundabout – without mitigation the proposed development
could lead to increased traffic flows on the A3400 Birmingham Road. The
proposed mitigation scheme shows an acceptable impact on A3400
Birmingham Road. Recommend this being secured via a S106 legal
agreement (consistent with the residential development at Bishopton Lane
– 15/04499/OUT). This will ensure that instead of providing piecemeal
improvements to Bishopton roundabout, an overall scheme which future
proofs the operation of both the strategic and local highway networks can
come forward, if not in the form of the mitigation proposed
Marraway roundabout – Highways England are satisfied that no mitigation
is required at this junction as a result of the proposed development.
Modelling suggested that queuing would increase on the A439 Warwick
Road in future year assessments. However, the increased queuing is not
as a direct result of the proposed development. There is therefore no
justification to require mitigation at this junction
Billesley crossroads – supports the proposed mitigation. Whilst there is
queuing and delay on the local highway network arms on this junction, the
proposals would improve the safe operation of the junction. The existing
junction arrangement and layout has a poor highway safety record, and
therefore the proposals provide betterment.
Recommend a condition for:
o The provision of a shared footway/cycleway to link to the A422
Alcester Road
o Implementation of the proposed mitigation scheme at Wildmoor
roundabout
o Implementation of the proposed mitigation scheme at Billesley
crossroads (05.09.2019)
WCC Rights of Way
No objection (24.06.2019)
Ramblers Association
None received
Heritage Consultations
Historic England
No comment – suggest seek views of the specialist conservation and
archaeological advisers, where relevant (12.06.2019)
SDC Conservation
No objection but makes the following comments:
Nearest designated heritage assets are the Shottery Conservation Area
and the Grade II listed Drayton Manor (C17th farmhouse) – the
development will not harm the setting of either of these assets
The application site is 375m away from the farmhouse and a large open
field will be retained between the two sites. The farmhouse will be
experienced within a spacious field system and its interrelationship with
the landscape will be preserved. Its status, significance and sense of
isolation will be maintained
In relation to the Conservation Area, appeal decision 09/02196/OUT is
relevant. This was allowed in 2012 and involves two housing
developments close to the Conservation Area, the area between will be left
undeveloped. The Inspector made the following comments on the effect on
the setting of Anne Hathaway’s Cottage:
“I can see no reason to reason to suppose that the existence of unbroken
countryside flowing west from the Cottage is in itself a vital aspect of the
settings of the Cottage or of the Conservation Area. What is of concern is
the preservation of continuous views of open countryside from the orchard
of the Cottage, and also of the open areas to the east of the Cottage,
keeping a partial visual separation between Shottery and the main part of
Stratford”
The Council’s Shottery Conservation Area Appraisal makes no reference to
the rear of the Cottage being of significance
The application site is 820m northwest from the Conservation Area at the
nearest points and the large green buffer around the approved new
housing areas will be maintained the sense of interrelationship between
the village and countryside. The application site cannot be seen from
within the historic village core
The concept’s main design rationale has not extended or changed and as
such there is still no harm to the Shottery Conservation area and
neighbouring listed Drayton Manor farmhouse. The increase in planting
within and around the site to soften and screen the development in a rural
context is an enhancement (18.07.2019)
Ecology Consultations
Natural England
No objection (21.06.2019)
WCC Ecology
Carry forward comments from previous application 17/03629/OUT:
Detailed pre-application advice given prior to submission
Development will impact on the Favourable Conservation Status of the
local population of Great Crested Newts – mitigation required to support
current and predicted future population. Mitigation would need to resolve
two issues:
o the pond cluster retained and enhanced to support the wider newt
population;
o additional habitat made available to existing medium and future
larger population
Recommend that the pond on western boundary is retained in either its
current position or relocated so as to remain within 500m of the pond to
be created in the Sustainable Drainage area to the north and the pond just
offsite to the south
To resolve the available terrestrial habitat concern, recommended that
either:
o an additional 3.6ha of suitable newt habitat is created onsite; or
o wildlife tunnel is created adjacent to new culvert to remove the
Alcester Road fragmentation; or
o a combination of the above
Suggest ensuring pond on western boundary is indeed being retained
As approval is being sought at this stage for landscaping, request
clarification that development will create 3.6ha of suitable newt habitat
Biodiversity Impact Assessment (BIA) identifies a loss of 59.15 units –
significant loss and a large offset site will be required to compensate for it
o Habitat lost is predominantly grassland valued at poor semi-
improved of poor condition – following Defra and Warwickshire
requirements, the offset should be semi-improved grassland of a
moderate condition
o County Council financial calculator indicates that an offset site of
over 20ha will be required to compensate for the -59.15 habitat
unit loss and the cost the County Council would accept as a ‘cap’
payment within a S106 would be £893,168
o May be possible to find a site that delivers 59.15 units at a lower
cost as long as it meets the offset requirements and has a robust
long term management plan
o Despite pre-application advice, no reference is made to biodiversity
offsetting within application submission
o A number of large scale developments on the northwest fringe of
the town have been required to make financial contributions to
offset loss of habitat for farmland birds, in particular skylarks for
which four territories have been identified on this development site
– could look to secure something similar
Recommend the following conditions:
o Submission and approval of Landscape and Ecological Management
Plan
o Each reserved matters application to be accompanied by a
Construction and Environmental Management Plan (24.06.2019)
Warwickshire Wildlife Trust
None received
Landscape and Visual Impact (LVIA) Consultations
Officer note – SDC consulted White Consultants on the previous application
17/03629/OUT to provide a landscape assessment of the proposals. As this
resubmission proposes exactly the same in landscape terms (i.e. the extent of
structural landscaping, proposed species, land levels and building heights remain
the same as previously proposed), the previous consultation responses with the
recommendations included which were provided by White Consultants remain
relevant. I have provided a precise of the consultation responses received under
17/03629/OUT below:
SDC Landscape Consultant (White Consultants)
Make the following comments:
The LVIA has a clear, concise method; though comments/queries were
raised with regards to the method adopted
Construction of the proposed development is likely to have adverse effects
in the short term, but overall are unlikely to be significant
A review of the assessment of the effects on representative viewpoints is
set out at pages 7-9 of the White Consultants report
The review of the selected viewpoints indicates that the LVIA understates
the level/significance of effects and suggests that it cannot be relied upon
in this regard
Views from the public rights of way (PROWs) to the south and west would
be greater and more significantly adverse than suggested by the LVIA with
many direct and/or sustained views
Travellers along the A46 would have a series of glimpsed views of the
development from the west where it would be noticeable and become
prominent, sometimes seen against the backcloth of the low hills
surrounding Stratford upon Avon and other times breaking the skyline. It
would introduce a new element into the view which is primarily
countryside with a residential urban edge
Travellers along the Ridgeway to the north would have glimpsed views of
the development above hedges as a noticeable/prominent extension to the
town
Residents to the east would have views straight into the site without
mitigation within the site
Proposed access off the A46 has more of a landscape impact than the
originally envisaged access of Wildmoor roundabout/western relief road
Effect on the site and its immediate environs is not fully dealt with by the
LVIA
The effects on character of the immediate context area would be
significant adverse
Area St26 as defined in the landscape sensitivity study would also be
significantly adversely affected
However, unlikely to be contrary to SLA policies
Green Belt to the north would remain open
Both significant adverse landscape and visual effects
Landscape mitigation is not sufficient to reduce the effects
The site should be a high profile gateway development to the town with
high standards of design (05.02.2018)
Following the submission of amended landscape details:
Retention of provision of more trees along the car showroom A46 frontage
is welcomed
Retention of hedgerow along the A46 frontage is welcomed, though the
proposed 0.9m height would have a limited softening effect – hedge
should be specified as a minimum of 0.9m
Clarification required over A46 frontage to bulky goods store
Additional native tree planting within new hedgerow adjacent to Drayton
Manor Lane is welcomed
Additional plating to attenuation ponds is welcomed
Width of planting belt to south and west is minimal but the changes in the
proportion of native tree planting to native structure planting is welcomed
Confirmation on the retention of hedgerows outside but adjacent to the
site is welcomed
Checklist for reserved matters in the amended Design and Access
Statement is welcomed to provide assurance regarding on-plot planting
through reserved matters
Increased density of small shrub planting is welcomed
Shrub planting to western end of noise acoustic fence should be
incorporated to soften impact from Drayton Manor Drive
Increased amount of retained vegetation is welcomed
Overall the proposed amendments would assist in softening the effect of
the scheme but overall scale and extent of the built form and earthworks
remains the same as considered in the first review in February 2018
(13.06.2018)
Following the submission of amended landscape details:
Hedge to A46 frontage to bulky goods store removed due to visibility
splays, with replacement outside splays. Replacement hedge should not be
limited to 0.9m in height. Need for high quality building to achieve
attractive gateway into the town
Planting mix in buffers to south and west has been changed – reduces the
number of trees but allows room for larger species to grow – reduce the
immediate screening/filtering effect but would be healthier for the planting
in the longer term
Planting between development zones to the east and southeast would be
needed (which would be secured through reserved matters) to supplement
the basic structural planting in these locations
Hedge to western end of noise attenuation fence still required
The level of effects remain as stated in the June report (04.09.2018)
Drainage and Flood Risk Consultations
Environment Agency
No objection but makes the following comments:
Although the FRA states that the development is in Flood Zone 1, the
Drayton Brook and the minor tributary have not been mapped so the flood
risk is unknown
The LLFA will permit the diversion of the minor tributary within the site
and suggest suitable easements for development purposes (04.06.2019)
WCC Flood Risk Management (LLFA)
No objection subject to conditions:
Development in accordance with submitted Flood Risk Assessment
Submission and approval of surface water drainage scheme
Submission of approval of maintenance plan on how surface water
systems shall be maintained and managed for the lifetime of the
development (19.06.2019)
Severn Trent Water
Recommend informative note (24.06.2019)
Environmental Health Consultations
SDC Environmental Health
No objection subject to noise condition (02.09.2019)
SDC Refuse and Recycling
No comment at this stage (19.06.2019)
Other Consultees
Disability Advisor
None received
WCC Fire and Rescue
No objection subject to condition (18.06.2019)
WCC Infrastructure
Request the following financial contributions:
£20,000 per annum for 5 years (£100,000 total) to secure extension to
the Service X19 bus timetable (23.07.2019)
Warwickshire Police
No objection:
Pleased that crime prevention principles have been incorporated into the
design and layout of this development and issues raised in response to the
previous application have been addressed (17.06.2019)
Bishopton Avenue Residents Association
None received
Gas Distribution
None received
SDC Governance and Community Safety
None received
Stratford upon Avon Society
None received
Stratford Voice
None received
Western Power Distribution
None received
ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES
Principle of Development
The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and
Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a
key material planning consideration.
The application site is allocated for development under Core Strategy Proposal
SUA.2. The allocation seeks to deliver (between 2016/17 – 2030/31)
approximately 25 hectares of development comprising the following:
Employment uses:
1. Class B1(a) office and Class B1(b) research and development uses,
although scope for B1(c) light industry will be considered
2. Relocation of businesses from the Canal Quarter Regeneration Zone
During the plan period up to 10 hectares will be released, plus additional
land to correspond with the area taken up by businesses relocating from
the Regeneration Zone
Housing – approximately 65 dwellings on land to the east of the Western
Relief Road (approved under 15/03408/FUL – now constructed and
occupied)
The Policy outlines the following specific requirements:
vehicle access to the employment development directly off Wildmoor
roundabout or proposed Western Relief Road (also referred to as the west
of Shottery relief road);
improvements to Wildmoor roundabout as required by Highways England;
provision for improvements to A46 adjacent to the site as required by
Highways England;
extensive landscaping on the southern and western boundaries of the
employment development;
appropriate treatment and management of mature hedgerows along road
frontages;
protect and enhance ecological features;
frequent bus service into the development.
Proposal SUA.2 also goes onto state that if a plot that has been developed on that
part of the site allocated for the relocation of businesses from the Canal Quarter
Regeneration Zone (CQRZ) becomes available it should be marketed for a period
of three months in order that another business in the CQRZ has the opportunity
to take it up. This provision will be applied for a period of two years from when
that plot was originally implemented.
Site Allocations Plan
The Council is currently consulting on the Proposed Submission Site Allocations
Plan (SAP) which proposes amendments to Proposal SUA.2. The six week
consultation on this document opened on 8 August 2019 and closes on 20
September 2019. Following the Proposed Submission consultation exercise, the
SAP will be submitted to the Secretary of State for examination and eventual
adoption. On this basis, the current revisions to Proposal SUA.2 which are
proposed through the SAP can be given only limited weight at this time.
The Proposed Submission SAP states that since the adoption of the Core
Strategy, circumstances have changed in various respects and the SAP provides
an opportunity to update and amend the provisions of Proposal SUA.2. It states
that the following matters are of relevance in this respect:
the housing component has been granted planning permission and has
been completed (application reference 15/03408/FUL);
liaison with County Highways has shown that access off Wildmoor
roundabout or the proposed west of Shottery relief road are not acceptable
and therefore an alternative access off the A46 is now being pursued with
Highways England;
latest evidence has shown that there is limited demand in the Stratford-
upon-Avon area for Class B1(a) office and on this basis, it is appropriate to
provide greater flexibility regarding the nature of employment uses that
would be acceptable to include manufacturing (use class B2) and logistics
(use class B8). However, it remains important to seek to attract office-
based companies to the town and this site remains a key opportunity for
doing so due to its location and image;
known to be strong interest from a number of car dealerships to locate to
the site and facilitating this may prompt certain car dealerships on the
Canal Quarter to relocate to the site which would help to deliver the
CQRZ;
discussions with businesses on the Canal Quarter have revealed that there
is limited interest in relocating to this site, and far less than the 13
hectares envisaged for this purpose in the existing Core Strategy
allocation;
the District Council wishes to provide an opportunity for a
comparison/bulky goods (e.g. DIY) retail store to relocate within the town.
In addition to the above, owing to the significant infrastructure costs of opening
the site up for development (including the new access, diversion of a high
pressure water main and substantial earthworks required to achieve a level site),
the Proposed Submission SAP states that greater flexibility on the range of
business uses that can occupy the site and the timescales for implementation
may be appropriate to help the delivery of wider objectives relating to growth of
the local economy and creation of new jobs.
The Proposed Submission SAP states that an assessment has been carried out to
show that the site at SUA.2 is the most appropriate location for car dealerships
and a retail store in terms of availability and suitability. However, justification for
the latter use on this site is dependent on a sequential assessment and retail
impact assessment in accordance with the NPPF and Policy CS.23 of the Core
Strategy. A Retail Assessment has been submitted with the application and I
consider this in more detail below.
The amendment to Policy SUA.2 proposed through the SAP seeks to deliver
approximately 23 25 hectares of development comprising the following
(underlined text is inserted; struck-through text is deleted from Core Strategy
Proposal SUA.2 wording):
What is to be delivered
Employment uses comprising:
1. Employment uses within Classes B1 (Business), B2 (General
Industrial) and B8 (Storage and Distribution
2. Class B1(a) office and Class B1(b) research and development uses,
although scope for B1(c) light industry will be considered
2. Relocation of businesses from the Canal Quarter Regeneration Zone
3. Car Dealerships on a maximum of 7 hectares
4. Bulky goods retail store on a maximum of 2 hectares, subject to a
sequential assessment and retail impact assessment
During the plan period up to 10 hectares will be released, plus additional
land to correspond with the area taken up by businesses relocating from
the Regeneration Zone
Housing – approximately 65 dwellings on land to the east of the Western
Relief Road
The amended Policy outlines the following specific requirements:
Provide a vehicle access to the employment development directly off the
A46 Wildmoor roundabout or proposed Western Relief Road;
Improve Wildmoor roundabout as required by Highways England;
provide for improvements to A46 adjacent to the site as required by
Highways England;
provide extensive landscaping on the southern and western boundaries of
the employment development;
appropriate treatment and management of mature hedgerows along road
frontages;
protect and enhance ecological features;
provide a frequent bus service into the development;
submission and approval of a Travel Plan
The amended Policy also goes on to require an appropriate marketing strategy to
attract Class B1(a) offices and B1(b) research and development uses to the site,
and an appropriate marketing strategy to attract businesses in the Canal Quarter
to relocate to the site. The amended wording to Proposal SUA.2 states that part
of the site identified for Canal Quarter relocation should not be occupied by any
other business for a period of two years from the commencement of
development. If a unit is vacated within that period it should be remarketed to
attract another Canal Quarter business.
Stratford-upon-Avon NDP
Policy E2 states that Proposal SUA.2 of the Core Strategy includes a proposal to
establish a new employment site on the application site. Policy E2 provides
support for the inclusion of this employment allocation, and states that
development proposals would be considered against Policy SSB2 of the NDP.
Policy SSB2 of the Stratford-upon-Avon NDP relates to the application site and
states that development will only be supported if certain requirements are met.
These are outlined below and discussed in detail throughout this report. The
brackets refer to the section of the report to which the specific requirement is
discussed.
a) a high quality design utilising the most up to date technologies in building
construction and renewable technology where feasible and viable (Layout,
Scale, Appearance and Landscaping);
b) a high quality landscape led layout incorporating extensive screening
which takes account of the sensitive landscape in which the site is located
(Impact on Landscape and Character of the Area);
c) a sensitive external lighting scheme designed to minimise light pollution
(Impact on Landscape and Character of the Area and Environmental
Health and Residential Amenity);
d) safe access and egress from the Wildmoor roundabout, western relief road
or other suitable location supported by the Highway Authority (Highways
Matters);
e) use of a high quality palette of external materials which have regard to the
sensitive rural location (Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping); and
f) green travel measures are provided throughout the lifetime of the
development including enhanced links with existing public transport
(Highways Matters).
Policy SSB2 continues to state that the policy supports the use of Design Codes
and Master Planning in accordance with Policy BE3 in consultation with the Design
Review Panel in accordance with Policy BE4.
Policy BE3 requires that for developments of this scale, a Masterplan is submitted
for outline applications. It expects the Masterplan to take account of committed
and potential future development on adjacent sites, and demonstrate
consideration of means to ameliorate the additional demand that the
development would place on the highway system and local infrastructure.
An Illustrative Masterplan has been submitted with the application which shows
the development in the context of adjoining land uses. The impacts of the
development on the highway system and local infrastructure will be considered
throughout this report where relevant.
Policy BE4 expects developments of a significant or sensitive nature to go through
a local design review process once a Design Review panel has been established.
Whilst this may be appropriate at reserved matters stage, given that the majority
of the site is proposed in outline, I do not consider the design review process to
be applicable in this instance.
Assessment
As proposed, the application proposes a mix of A1 (bulky goods
store/café/amenity facility), Sui Generis (car showrooms), B1 (business), B2
(general industry) and B8 (storage and distribution) uses. The proposed quanta
of development are detailed in full in the ‘Description of Proposal’ section of this
report. To be secured by way of a S106 legal agreement, the applicant proposes
no less than 2.3ha of the site being for B1(a/b) uses and not less than 0.6ha for
the purposes of CQRZ relocations. The legal agreement would control the
marketing of the CQRZ units to ensure that this area is for CQRZ relocations in
the first instance, before being marketed on the open market if there is no
demand from relocating businesses from the Canal Quarter.
The adopted Proposal SUA.2 seeks to deliver only use class B1 (a office, b
research and development and c light industry), and land for the relocation of
businesses from the CQRZ. The application therefore proposes a far greater mix
of uses than those that were envisaged at the Core Strategy adoption stage.
However, as I have described above, there have been a number of changes in
circumstances since the Core Strategy was adopted. The Planning Policy Team
has had regard to these changes in circumstances and concurs with them;
resulting in the suggested change to Proposal SUA.2 through the SAP process.
I am mindful that the changes which are proposed to SUA.2 through the Proposed
Submission SAP can be afforded only limited weight due to its stage of progress
(currently out for public consultation). However, the up-front infrastructure costs
needed to open the site for development are known to be significant (new access,
required diversion of a high pressure water main and levelling), so greater
flexibility on the range of business uses that can occupy the site and the
timescales for implementation are appropriate to help deliver wider objectives
relating to growth in the local economy and the creation of jobs. I also note that
the Planning Policy team agree with the principle of development in its proposed
form.
Less traditional ‘employment’ uses are now proposed to include an A1 bulky
goods retail store and car showrooms (Sui Generis). I will now asses the
appropriateness of these uses on the application site.
Policy CS.23 states that large-scale retail development, defined as comparison
retailing schemes exceeding 1,000 sqm (gross) and convenience retailing
schemes exceeding 2,500 sqm (gross), should be located within or on the edge of
Stratford-upon-Avon town centre, or the commercial core of a Main Rural Centre.
It continues to state that the SAP will identify sites for large-scale retail
development based on the justification for such provision to be made in specific
locations, and that any large-scale retail proposal that is promoted elsewhere in
the District requires a comprehensive Retail Impact Assessment to show that:
1. there are no suitable sites available for the proposed development within
or on the edge of Stratford-upon-Avon town centre or the commercial core
of a Main Rural Centre; and
2. the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on the vitality
and viability of:
Stratford-upon-Avon town centre;
town centres outside the District; or
the commercial core of any of the Main Rural Centres.
An updated Retail Assessment (RA) has been submitted with the application. This
assesses the impact of an 8,000 sqm A1 (bulky goods retail) unit on established
trading patterns, as well as the vitality and viability of Stratford town centre.
As required by both national and local planning policy, a sequential test has been
carried out. The sequential test seeks to assess whether the broad type of
development proposed in the application, in relation to size, type and range of
goods, could be accommodated on a sequentially preferable site. The assessment
includes an overview of existing retail provision in the local area to enable the
potential effects of a bulky goods store to be evaluated.
The applicant has assessed centre, edge-of-centre and out-of-centre opportunity
sites that could be feasibly considered to be sequentially preferable to the
application site. The assessment focuses on sites within and around Stratford
town centre.
Analysis is provided on the following four sites:
land bounded by Rother Street/Greenhill Street/Grove Road west of
Stratford town centre – edge-of-centre location; not available, suitable
(proximity to listed buildings, loss of well used car park), or viable (site
too small to accommodate required level of floorspace);
CQRZ as identified in Policy SUA.1 – out-of-centre location; not readily
available due to complex land assembly issues; suitable in terms of size
but less preferable to the application site in terms of location; Proposal
SUA.1 promotes different uses to A1 bulky goods retail, likely to be
unviable due to the time consuming and complex land assembly issues;
Former BHS unit on Bridge Street – town centre location; not presently
available; unsuitable as it is significantly smaller than the land required to
accommodate the A1 bulky goods store; lack of parking/delivery space;
Other industrial areas in Stratford upon Avon – unable to identify other
industrial areas within or adjacent to the town centre which could be
regarded as available or suitable alternatives.
Although the RA assesses the above sites given their identification as potential,
sequentially preferable alternatives, none can accommodate the proposed
scheme, even when applying a degree of flexibility. It therefore concludes that
the application site is the only site that is suitable and available for the broad
type of development proposed by the applicant; and is the only site suitable for
the development proposed. It also states that in the event of the closure of the
existing B&Q store (application 16/01205/FUL approved the demolition of the
existing B&Q store, located at the Maybird Centre, and its replacement with three
smaller retail units), the development would act to ‘claw back’ bulky goods DIY
trade to Stratford which would otherwise be lost to destinations further afield.
The Qualitative Assessment considers the vitality and viability of the town centre
and concludes that the town centre is performing well, primarily acting as a
comparison goods retail destination, but with an important but ancillary
convenience goods and service role.
The Impact Assessment considers the economic implications of the proposed
development. It concludes that the impacts associated with the proposal in the
design year (2024) are low and represent no threat to the vitality and viability of
the town centre; the proposal represents no threat to investment on the basis of
the impact and expenditure analysis; and the assessed impacts are not
‘significantly adverse’.
SDC Planning Policy has considered the RA which has been submitted with the
application. It confirms that the analysis which has been undertaken has
evidenced that there are no available and suitable sites for the specific form of
retail use proposed. It states that the RA is robust and it concurs with its findings
and conclusions.
On the basis of the above, I am satisfied that the RA meets the requirements of
paragraph 89 of the NPPF and Policy CS.23 of the Core Strategy. I am therefore
satisfied that the provision of an A1 bulky goods store on the site is acceptable in
principle subject to an assessment of all other material planning considerations.
Car showrooms (Sui Generis use) are also proposed. Although the development
parcels are in outline form at this stage, the Illustrative Masterplan suggests the
provision of three separate car showroom units. On the basis of the identified
need for flexibility regarding uses on the site, I am satisfied that the provision of
car showrooms is not inappropriate on this site. I am mindful that the proposed
amendment to Proposal SUA.2 accepts the provision of car showrooms which
weighs in favour of this type of development on the site.
Conclusions on Principle of Development
When having regard to the contents of the Proposed Submission SAP and
consultation response from Planning Policy, I concur that greater flexibility is
required in order to facilitate the development of the site. Although the scheme
gives rise to uses which traditionally offer lower levels of employment than B use
classes, it remains that the site as a whole would be for employment generating
uses. I am therefore satisfied that the principle of development is acceptable,
generally according with Proposal SUA.2 and reflecting the updated position as
outlined in the Proposed Submission SAP.
Highways Matters
Policy CS.26 of the Core Strategy states that, amongst other things, proposals
will only be permitted if the necessary mitigation is provided against unacceptable
transport impacts that arise directly from the development.
The currently adopted Policy SUA.2 expects the allocated site to have vehicular
access to the employment development directly off Wildmoor roundabout or the
proposed Western Relief Road (also known as the West of Shottery relief road –
approved through 09/02196/OUT). It also expects improvements to Wildmoor
roundabout, the provision for improvements to the A46 adjacent to the site as
required by Highways England and a frequent bus service into the development.
Proposal SUA.2 as amended through the Proposed Submission SAP also requires
the submission and approval of a Travel Plan.
Policy SSB2 of the NDP states that the development of the site would be
supported if it can be demonstrated that (amongst other matters) safe access
and egress can be achieved from the Wildmoor roundabout, west of Shottery
relief road or other suitable location supported by the Highway Authority; and
green travel measures are provided throughout the lifetime of the development
including enhanced links with existing public transport.
Paragraph 108 of the NPPF specifies that in assessing specific applications for
development it should be ensured that: appropriate opportunities to promote
sustainable transport modes can be taken up; safe and suitable access to the site
can be achieved for all users; and any significant impacts from the development
on the transport network (in terms of capacity or congestion), or on highway
safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.
Paragraph 109 the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or
refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on
highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts of the road network would be
severe.
A Transport Assessment (TA) and Workplace Framework Travel Plan have been
submitted with the application.
Highways England (HE) manages the strategic road network in England,
comprising motorways and some A roads. The A46 is an A road which forms part
of the strategic road network and is therefore managed by HE.
The relevant highway authority (in this case WCC Highways) manages all other
publicly adopted roads and these make up the local highway network.
The proposed development impacts on both the strategic road network (in this
case, the A46) and the local highway network and therefore both HE and WCC
Highways have been consulted on the application.
This application comprises a resubmission of a previously refused application
17/03629/OUT. This application was refused for two reasons, one of which
stated:
1. Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to allow a
comprehensive assessment of the highway safety impact of the proposed
development and any mitigation which may be required to make the
development acceptable in highway terms. The development is therefore
contrary to Proposal SUA.2 and Policy CS.26 of the Stratford-on-Avon
District Core Strategy 2011 to 2031.
At the time that the application was due for determination, the final design for the
off-site highways mitigation schemes to Bishopton roundabout, Wildmoor
roundabout and Billesley crossroads had not been agreed with both HE and WCC
Highways. In addition, it had not been agreed when the various off-site highways
mitigation schemes were required; for example, how much of the site could be
occupied before there was a requirement for the proposed mitigation at Wildmoor
roundabout to be completed. As further information was required from the
applicant before HE and WCC Highways were content to raise no objection, the
application was refused on the basis of insufficient information.
Since the refusal of the application, Council officers have facilitated continuing
discussions between the applicant, HE and WCC Highways to resolve the matters
which led to the refusal of the earlier application.
I will assess the impact of the development on both the strategic and local
highway networks in turn as it currently stands (following the continued dialogue
between the applicant, HE and WCC Highways)
Strategic road network
Through the course of the previously refused application HE issued a number of
consultation responses recommending that the application not be determined for
a specified time period (each for three months) whilst outstanding matters were
resolved. Whilst discussions have continued between HE and the applicant to seek
to resolve the outstanding matters since the refusal of the previous application, I
have received a consultation response to this resubmission from HE
recommending that planning permission not be granted for a three month period,
expiring on 25 September 2019.
The applicant has demonstrated that direct access cannot be achieved from the
existing Wildmoor roundabout or from the west of Shottery relief road as required
by the current wording of Proposal SUA.2. The reasons for this are:
Direct access off Wildmoor roundabout was envisaged if the west of
Shottery relief road were not to come forward – there is now greater
certainty that it will come forward, but timescales are unknown;
Considerable physical and engineering challenges to achieving an access
from the west of Shottey relief road, primarily due to level changes and
the high pressure water main which requires diversion whilst being
maintained at its current level;
Traffic volumes anticipated to be generated by the proposed development
would require a higher order access (i.e. a roundabout) which could not be
delivered on the west of Shottery relief road.
In light of this, HE has confirmed that there are no material safety or economic
reasons on which to prohibit direct connection to the site from this section of the
A46. The access would lead to the loss of an existing lay-by on the A46 but this
is, on balance, accepted by HE. HE therefore raises no objection to the principle
of the site access (though the final design of the new roundabout access junction
is yet to be agreed by HE following the outcome of a Road Safety Audit).
The principle of off-site highways mitigation schemes to the following junctions
has been accepted by HE:
Billesley crossroads (A46/Binton/Billesley);
Wildmoor roundabout (A46/A422 Alcester Road); and
Bishopton roundabout (A46/A3400 Birimingham Road)
However, the final design for these mitigation schemes is yet to be agreed by HE
following the outcome of Road Safety Audits.
The applicant has proposed the trigger points for the off-site highway mitigation
schemes to be implemented/completed. These are as follows:
Billesley crossroads – secured by condition and completed prior to first
occupation;
Wildmoor roundabout – secured by condition and completed when
development approved through reserved matters equates to 40% of the
total trips modelled through the Transport Assessment;
Bishopton roundabout – financial contribution to enable implementation by
WCC Highways.
Discussions between the applicant and HE are ongoing with regards to these
trigger points.
An update regarding the final agreement from HE to the off-site highways
mitigation schemes and trigger points for implementation/completion will be
provided to members on the Committee update sheet.
Local highway network
WCC Highways has undertaken an assessment of the development proposals and
its impact on the local highway network. This has included considerable modelling
work and subsequent correspondence and discussions with the applicants
regarding suitable mitigation schemes to ensure that the impact of the
development on the local highway network is acceptable.
WCC Highways has been involved in ongoing discussions between the applicant
and HE regarding the off-site highways mitigation schemes and trigger points for
their implementation up to and since the refusal of the previous application.
A response of no objection has now been received from WCC Highways. This is
subject to the implementation of mitigation schemes at Billesley crossroads,
Wildmoor roundabout (both to be secured via condition) and Bishopton
roundabout (to be secured via S106 legal agreement). In light of this, I am
satisfied that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the
local highway network.
Sustainable transport
The development proposes a pedestrian/cycle link from the site to the existing
footway/cycleway on the southern side of Alcester Road, to the east of the
Wildmoor roundabout. This would comprise a 3m wide shared footway/cycleway
along the southern side of the A46 along the site frontage and across Wildmoor
roundabout. The creation of suitable crossing facilities on the A46/Wildmoor
roundabout would be provided where appropriate. This would be secured by way
of condition. Subject to this, sufficient access to the site for pedestrians and
cyclists would be available.
Policy SUA.2 identifies the need to facilitate a frequent bus service into the
development. Section 6 of the Transport Assessment (TA) deals with this matter.
WCC Infrastructure has requested a financial contribution of £100,000. This is
requested to cover the cost of extending the Service X19 timetable, in terms of
providing additional bus journeys to cater for key shift change patterns which lie
outside the normal hours of service operation, and extending the route into the
application site. The £100,000 requested covers the cost of securing the
extension to the Service X19 timetable at £20,000 per annum for 5 years.
The Council adopted its CIL Charging Schedule in December 2017, and it came
into effect on 1 February 2018. The Reg 123 List outlined within the Charging
Schedule states that public transport investments will be secured by way of CIL
(rather than S106 legal agreement) except where ‘site specific mitigation for
public transport investment’ is proposed.
I am satisfied that the £100,000 financial contribution request falls within the
definition of ‘site specific mitigation for public transport investment’ meaning that
it can reasonably be secured by way of a S106 legal agreement associated with
the development. Subject to this, I am satisfied that alternative arrangements
will be in place to allow travel to and from the site by means other than the
private motor car.
Other highway matters
Objection has been raised by Stratford Town Council due to their concern that the
proposed development would prejudice future plans to dual the A46. Whilst the
dualling of the A46 is an aspiration for many stakeholders, in discussions, HE has
confirmed that it is not a committed scheme, and no objection is raised by HE to
the application on this basis. Furthermore, the applicant has sought to
accommodate the future possibility of the dualling of the A46, through
incorporating an undeveloped green strip along the northern boundary of the site,
adjacent to the A46.
Conclusions on highways matters
Policy CS.26 requires that the necessary mitigation be provided against
unacceptable transport impacts that arise directly from a development.
Whilst the new access roundabout to the A46 is considered to be acceptable in
terms of its highways impacts, insufficient information has currently been
submitted to demonstrate that the highways impacts of the development more
widely on both the strategic and local highways networks are acceptable.
However, with discussions ongoing between the applicant, HE and WCC Highways
with regards to the off-site highways mitigation schemes and trigger points for
their implementation/completion, an update in respect of this matter will be
provided to members via the Committee update sheet.
Heritage Matters
Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect and enhance the historic
environment and the assets therein, including their settings. The policy does
however allow for any harm to a heritage asset to be weighed against the public
benefits of a proposal.
Policy BE8 of the NDP states that development proposals which result in less than
substantial harm to heritage assets must demonstrate public benefits which
outweigh that harm.
Listed Buildings
Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
requires that, "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."
An Archaeological and Heritage Assessment has been submitted with the
application. This identifies the nearest designated heritage asset as being the
Grade II listed building Drayton Manor, approximately 350m to the southwest of
the site. In addition, although a number of listed buildings are located within
Shottery village to the southeast of the site, the report specifically refers to the
Grade I listed building and associated Registered Park and Garden of Anne
Hathaway’s Cottage due to its sensitivity.
Drayton Manor (Grade II listed)
The Assessment states that the main elevation of the farmhouse faces south over
an enclosed garden, whilst surrounding buildings to the north effectively form an
enclosed courtyard garden. It states that these provide an appropriate setting to
what is now a domestic building and that the key aspect of the setting of the
asset, which contributes to its heritage significance, are these immediate
surroundings, including the garden to the south, from and over which its primary
architectural interest is best experienced. The architectural interest can also be
experienced on the approach from the adopted part of Drayton Manor Drive to
the north, where the proposed development would be to the rear of the viewer.
The Assessment establishes that the current conversion of the barn to the north
of the asset, as well as small-scale industrial/commercial buildings to the west of
Drayton Manor Drive, have altered the agricultural setting of this building.
The Assessment identifies that land within the site has some historical/functional
connection to Drayton Manor as part of the wider agricultural context. However, it
states that there are no designed or intended views in the direction of the site
from the asset, and that the intervening distance and lack of views of or from
Drayton Manor in the direction of the site and filtered views of development
within the site from areas adjacent to the asset, would cause a marginal change
to the setting of the asset and no harm to the heritage significance.
Anne Hathaway’s Cottage (Grade I listed) and its associated Registered Park and
Garden
The Assessment states that the primary architectural interest of the cottage is
best appreciated from the adjacent road and in short northerly views from the
surrounding garden. It states that elements of setting beyond the surrounding
garden make no contribution to its heritage significance. However, the report
states that the description of the Registered Park and Garden identifies
“…significant views west across the adjacent farmland from the orchard…” at the
western edge of the garden.
The Assessment states that owing to the ridge of land at the south and
particularly southwest of the site, and the cut-and-fill nature of the proposed
development, it is unlikely that there would be any views of the proposed
development from this heritage asset. In addition, the Assessment makes
reference to outline planning permission 09/0296/OUT which exists on
intervening land between this heritage asset and the application site. It therefore
concludes that there is no potential for the current proposed development to have
any additional effect on Anne Hathaway’s Cottage.
Assessment
Historic England and the Council’s Conservation Officer have been consulted on
the application.
Historic England offer no comment on the application; advising that the views of
the Council’s specialist conservation advisors should be sought.
The Council’s Conservation Officer raises no objection to the application. Having
assessed the application in detail, it is concluded that the proposed development
would not impact on either the setting of Drayton Manor or Anne Hathaway’s
Cottage.
I concur with this view and am satisfied that the proposed development would
preserve the setting of these listed buildings.
A third party representation has been received which raises concern on the basis
of the impact of associated HGV movements through villages adversely impacting
upon heritage assets. No information is given with regards to which
villages/heritage assets are anticipated to be affected by additional HGV
movements. Whilst I acknowledge that the development would give rise to
additional traffic movements within the area, on the basis of the information
before me I do not consider that the transport impacts of the development would
fail to preserve heritage assets located within the vicinity of the site.
Conservation Areas
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
requires that, “In the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in a
conservation area…..special attention shall be paid to the desirability of
preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.”
The Shottery Conservation Area is located approximately 830m to the southeast
of the application site. No assessment is provided of the impact of the proposed
development on this Conservation Area within the Archaeological and Heritage
Assessment submitted. However, when having regard to the separation to the
Conservation Area I do not consider this to be inappropriate.
The Council’s Conservation Officer has had regard to the Shottery Conservation
Area in assessing the proposed development. Reference is made to outline
consent 09/02196/OUT on intervening land between the Conservation Area and
application site. The Conservation Officer states that the large green buffer
around the development approved under 09/02196/OUT would maintain the
sense of interrelationship between Shottery village and the countryside, and that
views to the site from the historic village core would not be available. Harm is
therefore not identified to the Shottery Conservation Area as a result of the
proposed development.
I concur with this view and am satisfied that the proposed development would
preserve the setting of the Shottery Conservation Area.
Archaeology
The Archaeological and Heritage Assessment identifies some local historic
landscape interest, although ridge and furrow earthworks within the site do not
survive well and this interest is therefore at a very low level.
It states that a geophysical survey has been undertaken as part of this
assessment and the archaeological potential of the site is generally assessed as
being low. It identifies the only archaeological interest as being the low value
remains of medieval or early post medieval ridge and furrow cultivation, and two
small areas of activity identified by the geophysical survey that probably relate to
either infilled ponds, or post medieval industrial activity. It states that the
northern boundary of the site – Alcester Road – is recorded as a route of a
Roman road known as The Saltway; although no physical remains of the Roman
road are known to survive in the area. Archaeological field evaluation to the east
of the site identified no features of archaeological interest within the site, with
only a few locally-important features outside it to the southwest.
The Assessment states that should any below ground archaeological remains
survive within the site, there is no reason to expect that these would be of such
significance to require preservation in situ and therefore constrain the proposed
development.
Subject to a suitably worded condition, I am satisfied that any unknown
archaeological features that may be present on site would be adequately
protected.
Conclusion on Impact on Heritage Matters
I concur with the views of the expert heritage consultees in that the development
would preserve the settings of listed buildings and Shottery Conservation Area. In
addition, I do not consider that, subject to a suitably worded condition, the
development would have an adverse impact on archaeological deposits within the
site. I therefore consider the development to accord with Policy CS.8 of the Core
Strategy and Policy BE8 of the NDP.
Ecology and Nature Conservation
Policy CS.6 of the Core Strategy states that development will be expected to
contribute towards a resilient ecological network throughout the District that
supports ecosystems and provides ecological security for wildlife, people, the
economy and tourism.
Policy CS.7 promotes the protection, enhancement, restoration and creation of
the green infrastructure network in the District.
Proposal SUA.2 seeks the appropriate treatment and management of mature
hedgerows along the road frontage as well as the protection and enhancement of
ecological features.
As part of the submission, a range of ecological surveys and appraisals have been
carried out.
The applicant undertook formal pre-application engagement with WCC Ecology
prior to submission. This gave rise to a number of queries that the applicant has
sought to address within the submission.
WCC Ecology has been consulted on the application, and no objection is raised
subject to the conditions and the provision of biodiversity offsetting secured by
way of a legal agreement.
With regards to great crested newts (GCN), it is acknowledged that the
development would impact on the Favourable Conservation Status of the local
population of GCN, and that, unless mitigated, the site would not be able to
support the current and predicted future population within the immediate pond
cluster. The pond located on the western boundary of the site is to be retained in
situ, in line with WCC Ecology’s recommendation.
WCC Ecology has also requested that, in order to resolve the available terrestrial
habitat concern, an additional 3.6ha of suitable newt habitat be created on site;
or a wildlife tunnel is created adjacent to the new culvert to remove the Alcester
Road fragmentation. I am satisfied that these matters could be satisfactorily
resolved through forthcoming reserved matters submissions, or conditions
attached to any forthcoming consent for this hybrid application.
With regards to biodiversity offsetting, the development gives rise to a significant
biodiversity loss. The lost habitat is predominantly grassland valued at semi-
improved of poor condition. Subject to an offset site and/or financial contribution
which would be secured through a legal agreement, WCC Ecology is satisfied that
sufficient biodiversity offsetting would be achieved.
Existing hedgerows and trees within the site have been retained, where possible,
to ensure the protection of green infrastructure and the biodiversity (and other)
benefits that arise as a result.
Subject to suitably worded conditions relating to newt habitat, the submission
and approval of a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan and Construction
and Environmental Management Plan, and biodiversity offsetting secured by legal
agreement, I am satisfied that the biodiversity impacts of the development are
acceptable in accordance with Core Strategy Policies CS.6, CS.7 and Proposal
SUA.2 and the NERC Act.
Impact on Landscape and Character of the Area
Policy CS.5 of the Core Strategy requires development to minimise and mitigate
impacts on the landscape character and quality, including cumulative impacts.
Proposal SUA.2 seeks extensive landscaping on the southern and western
boundaries of the employment development and the appropriate treatment and
management of mature hedgerows along the road frontage.
Policy SSB2 of the Stratford upon Avon NDP requires the scheme to demonstrate
(amongst other things) a high quality landscape led layout incorporating
extensive screening which takes account of the sensitive landscape in which the
site is located; and a sensitive external lighting scheme designed to minimise
light pollution.
The application site lies within the Avon and Stour Valleys landscape character
area as defined in the Stratford on Avon District Design Guide.
The Parameters Plan identifies development zones with maximum building
heights above AOD defined to ensure that the visual impact of the development
would be mitigated in short and longer views.
The full planning permission element of the application seeks consent for a new
roundabout access from the A46 and internal spine road within the development
site and engineering operations comprising ground re-profiling. Full planning
permission is also sought at this stage for structural landscaping adjacent to the
boundaries of the application site.
The main development proposals are in outline only. Consequently, matters of
detailed design would be subject to the approval of reserved matters and subject
to conditions on any approved hybrid permission. The submitted Illustrative
Masterplan identifies a potential layout, though it should be noted that the
subsequent detailed proposals may take a different form.
I note that the Illustrative Masterplan shows structural landscaping to the eastern
and southern boundaries beyond the red line of the application site. This area of
land is within the red line associated with the west of Shottery development
(09/02196/OUT) and falls between the application site boundary and the west of
Shottery relief road approved through this consent. Structural landscape plans
have been submitted under condition 37 of 09/02196/OUT (discharge of condition
reference DISC/00246/19). The plans show native woodland mix planting
adjacent to the eastern and southern boundaries of the application site. Although
these plans have not been approved, I consider that it is reasonable to afford
them some weight and expect some structural planting beyond the red line for
this application.
A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA), undertaken by Environmental
Dimension Partnership Ltd (EDP) on behalf of the applicant has been submitted.
In respect of the previous application 17/03629/OUT, the Council appointed a
Landscape Consultant (White Consultants) to review and advise upon the content
of the applicant’s LVIA. Through the course of this earlier application various
meetings took place between the case officer, SDC’s Landscape Consultant,
applicant, and EDP (applicant’s landscape consultant). Following these meetings
various amended plans were submitted. The scheme now submitted incorporates
the same landscape proposals considered at the time of the previous application’s
determination. The scheme proposes the following:
Retention of the hedgerow at a height of 0.9m along the A46 frontage to
Development Zone 1B and part of Development Zone 1A;
Removal of hedgerow along the A46 frontage to part of Development Zone
1A and its replacement with new hedgerow outside of visibility splays;
Planting of new trees (to include field maples, birch, beech, oak, alder and
apple) along the A46 frontage;
Retention and protection of the Drayton Brook stream course/corridor and
associated vegetation north of the site access road;
Native Structure planting to the southern and western boundaries, to
include Native Tree Mix (oak, beech, scots pine, field maple, alder, bird,
crap apple, rowan and shrubs such as dogwood, hazel, hawthorn, spindle
and holly) to the outer band of the buffer planting and Native Structure
Mix (oak, field maple, malus and rowan and shrubs such as dogwood,
hazel, hawthorn, spindle, privet, dog rose and goat willow) to the inner,
development side part of the buffer;
Wildflower meadow planting to the eastern boundary of the site (the
diverted high pressure water main spans the eastern boundary of the site
restricting tree planting in this location);
New trees and hedgerow planting around the attenuation basins at the
entrance to the site and along the internal spine road.
Landscaping within development parcels would be important to supplement the
infrastructure planting to reduce the landscape and visual effects over time. This
landscaping would be secured through forthcoming reserved matters
submissions. In order to assist in ensuring an adequate level and quality of soft
planting for development parcels Section 13 of the Design and Access Statement
sets out a checklist for reserved matters. This checklist includes a landscape
section and seeks to ensure the following:
enhancement of ecological corridors;
habitat creation;
landscape amenity (the provision of amenity green space for communal
use to promote health and wellbeing);
new planting to reflect landscape character;
incorporation of new hedgerows and low growing shrub planting along
pedestrian/cycle/vehicular entrances and around on-plot car parks;
provision of mesh fencing and hedgerows to exposed development plot
frontages;
hedgerow and low shrub planting or tree planting between individual
development plots;
tree and structural plating between Development Zones 2 and 3 where
feasible.
There was some disagreement between SDC’s Landscape consultant and EDP in
respect of the landscape impacts of the development. In assessing the
development SDC’s Landscape Consultant appreciates the allocation of the site
for development, which inevitably leads to a change to character and some
adverse effects. However, the assessment considers whether the effects of the
proposed development exceed what might be expected as a reasonable effect and
whether the development provides a suitable gateway to the town. It concludes
that the development on the site appears to be maximised with landscape
infrastructure and mitigation constrained to more limited areas than might be
expected for the scale and height of development.
Full planning permission is sought for the internal spine road and accesses into
each of the development zones. Associated with this is the lighting columns which
line these proposed routes, and also the public footpath which links to the A46
toward the northeastern corner of the site.
An External Lighting Impact Assessment and External Lighting Layout plan (plan
no. Q10408/E/501 Rev P7) has been submitted with the application. The report
states that the lighting design coupled with the proposed luminaire lanterns
demonstrate a low energy lighting scheme with zero upward waste light and very
tightly controlled downlight.
On balance, I consider the landscape impacts of the development, both in terms
of character and visual impact, to be acceptable in line with Policy CS.5 of the
Core Strategy. I identify landscape harm through the development of this
greenfield site for employment uses and this will be weighed up in the planning
balance discussed within the ‘Conclusion’ section of this report.
Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping
Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy states that developments will improve the quality
of the public realm and enhance the sense of place. High quality design will be
achieved, and innovation will be encouraged where it reflects and complements
the immediate local environment and maximises sustainability benefits.
The application has been submitted in hybrid form, with the majority of the site
being in outline with all matters reserved. The full element of the scheme
proposes detailed consideration for a new roundabout access from the A46 and
internal spine road within the development site, engineering operations
comprising ground re-profiling and structural landscaping.
A Parameters Plan has been submitted in respect of land use, building heights,
floor areas for development and finished floor levels.
An Illustrative Masterplan (plan no. 15100 P002) has also been submitted, based
upon the parameters for development as outlined on the Parameters Plan. This
shows how the site could possibly be developed following the submission of
reserved matters submissions, for buildings, service yards and car parking. This
masterplan is illustrative only, and if permission is granted would not form part of
the approved permission.
A Design and Access Statement has been submitted with the application. As well
as reviewing the context of the application site, it also provides an explanation of
matters such as the key design principles, Photomontage Views and Elevation
Treatment and Landscape Design.
Should outline permission be granted for the development I would wish to ensure
that the details of development as provided on the Parameters Plan be “fixed” by
way of an approved plan condition to inform future developments at the reserved
matters stage. This is in addition to a separate condition to govern the maximum
quanta of development as outlined in the ‘Description of Proposal’ section above.
Policy SSB2 of the Stratford-upon-Avon NDP requires the scheme to demonstrate
(amongst other things) a high quality design utilising the most up to date
technologies in building construction and renewable technology where feasible
and viable; and the use of a high quality palette of external material which have
regard to the sensitive rural location. The first of these matters would be matters
considered in forthcoming applications for reserved matters, whilst a condition
requiring the submission and approval of details of external materials would be
attached to any forthcoming grant of this hybrid application.
Conclusion on Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping
Detailed matters of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping would need to
adhere to the submitted Parameters Plan. I am satisfied that compliance with this
plan, which would be secured by way of condition, would adequately safeguard
the future development of the site via reserved matters approvals to achieve a
high quality scheme, in accordance with Proposal SUA.2 and Policies CS.5 and
CS.9 of the Core Strategy, as well as Policy SSB2 of the NDP.
Drainage and Flood Risk
Policy CS.4 of the Core Strategy states that all development should take into
account the predicted impact of climate change on the District’s water
environment. Measures will include sustainable use of water resources,
minimising water consumption and minimising flood risk. Policy CS.7 promotes
Green Infrastructure requirements to, amongst other things, reduce flood risks
and achieve sustainable drainage. Policy CS.9 seeks measures to secure effective
water management and flood protection.
A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) and Drainage Strategy has been submitted with
the application. This identifies that the application site falls within Flood Zone 1 in
its entirety. There are two existing ponds within the site to be retained, one
located on the northern boundary, with the smaller second pond on the western
boundary. Drayton Brook runs north to south along the western edge of the site
and extends into the site itself at its western section. A network of perimeter
field drains also run through the site.
WCC Flood Risk Management (LLFA) and the Environment Agency have been
consulted on the application.
The LLFA has raised no objection to the application This is subject to the
attachment of a number of conditions to ensure that the development is carried
out in accordance with the FRA, the submission of a detailed surface water
drainage scheme and the submission of a condition survey of the culvert at the
proposed outfall.
The Environment Agency has raised no objection to the application. It states that
whilst the FRA identifies the development as falling within Flood Zone 1, the
Drayton Brook and the minor tributary have not been mapped so flood risk is
unknown. Objection is however not raised on this basis.
No objection is raised by Severn Trent Water.
Subject to the attachment of conditions as recommended by the LLFA, I am
satisfied that the development accords with Policies CS.4, CS.7 and CS.9 of the
Core Strategy.
Environmental Health Issues and Residential Amenity
Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy requires occupants of new and neighbouring
buildings to be protected from (inter alia) noise, contamination and pollution, loss
of daylight and privacy, and adverse surroundings.
Noise
A Noise Assessment has been submitted with the application which considers the
existing noise climate in the area and the likely noise emissions from the site.
Assessments carried out identify that rating levels, due to the operation of the
proposed development, are likely to lead to an adverse impact at receptors close
to the site. However, subject to appropriate mitigation this would reduce to a ‘low
impact’. Night-time maximum noise levels are predicted to meet the criterion set
out in the World Health Organisation’s ‘Guidelines for Community Noise’. An
assessment of off-site road traffic noise suggests that there would be, at worst,
minor impacts where no mitigation is considered necessary.
The Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has been consulted. No
objection is raised subject to a condition requiring the submission of further noise
assessments to confirm the need for, and extent of, noise mitigation measures
with any reserved matters submission. This would cover all proposed uses except
for the proposed A1 (bulky goods retail). The noise impacts of this use have been
fully considered at this stage, with the provision of a 3m acoustic barrier
proposed to the southwest of the internal spine road to mitigate any noise impact
to the residential dwellings located on Drayton Manor Drive. In light of this, I am
satisfied that a further noise assessment would not be required for any reserved
matters submissions for the A1 (bulky goods retail) use.
Subject to this condition, I am satisfied that the noise impacts of the
development are acceptable.
Ground conditions and land contamination
A Report on Supplementary Ground Investigation has been submitted with the
application which considers contamination risks of the application site. Following
appropriate investigation, the report concludes that there is a negligible risk to
both human health and controlled water receptors. It therefore states that further
assessment or remedial actions are not warranted for the development.
The Council’s EHO has been consulted and no objection is raised in respect of
contaminated land and no conditions are recommended.
Air quality
Whilst the application site itself does not fall within an Air Quality Management
Area (AQMA), there is one in place for the town of Stratford upon Avon and some
surrounding areas. This is located approximately 100m to the east of the
application site. The District has a second designated AQMA in Studley,
approximately 12km from the application site.
An Air Quality Assessment has been submitted with the application which
considers the air quality impacts of the development, particularly in light of the
nearby AQMA. It identifies that the main pollution sources in the vicinity of the
site are vehicles travelling on the road network, particularly the A46 and A422.
Following monitoring it concludes that the proposed development could give rise
to emissions that may cause some dust soiling effects on adjacent uses,
mitigated through general good practice, whilst no significant changes in annual
pollutant concentrations are predicted to either existing or new receptors.
The Council’s EHO has been consulted and no objection is raised in respect of air
quality and no conditions are recommended.
Lighting impact
Full planning permission is sought for the internal spine road and accesses into
each of the development zones. Associated with this is the lighting columns which
line these proposed routes, and also the public footpath which links to the A46
toward the northeastern corner of the site.
An External Lighting Impact Assessment and External Lighting Layout plan (plan
no. Q10408/E/501 Rev P7) has been submitted with the application. The report
states that the lighting design coupled with the proposed luminaire lanterns
demonstrate a low energy lighting scheme with zero upward waste light and very
tightly controlled downlight.
The Council’s EHO has been consulted and on the basis of the information
submitted, no objection is raised.
With the development zones being in outline form at this stage, the lighting
design for these areas is not known. Subject to a condition requiring the
submission of lighting designs through reserved matters submissions, I am
satisfied that an acceptable solution would be secured.
I am therefore satisfied that appropriate conditions could ensure that lighting
design would not cause harm to neighbouring residential amenity.
Residential Amenity (Loss of Light, Overbearing, Overlooking)
A number of existing residential properties are to the east and west/southwest of
the application site.
I have had regard to the heights detailed on the submitted Parameters Plan in
conjunction with the separation distances which would remain between residential
properties and development zones.
Development Zones 1B and 3 would be located within closest proximity to the
residential dwellings to the east. A separation distance of approximately 87m to
the closest neighbouring boundary would be retained.
The Parameters Plan identifies that buildings within Development Zone 1B could
extend to a maximum height of 12m, measured from finished floor levels ranging
from between 50.4m and 53.8m AOD.
The Parameters Plan identifies that buildings within Development Zone 3 could
extend to a maximum height of 18m, measured from finished floor levels ranging
from between 54.0m and 58.5m AOD.
The Council’s 25 degree test is complied with by a significant margin based on the
highest form of development and shortest separation distance to dwellings to the
east of the site.
The Parameters Plan would be approved as part of any forthcoming grant of this
hybrid application. However, matters of layout, appearance and scale, which
would determine the siting and massing of buildings, are reserved. This means
that a subsequent application for approval of those details would be required.
Accordingly, subsequent consideration of detailed designs would provide a further
opportunity for the Local Planning Authority to consider the proximity of proposed
development to nearby residential properties. Consequently it would be possible
to ensure that separation distances between dwellings and proposed
buildings/associated service yards are sufficient to ensure that there would be no
unduly adverse impact in terms of overbearing, loss of light and loss of privacy.
Subject to consideration of the detailed design of any forthcoming reserved
matters submissions, I am satisfied that the proposed development would have
an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity.
Conclusion on Environmental Health Issues and Residential Amenity
Concern has been raised locally in respect of the impact of the development on
residential amenity; specifically noise, light and air pollution as well as the
overbearing, loss of light and loss of privacy impact of the development. I am
satisfied that the development would not give rise to unacceptable impacts with
regards to noise, light and air pollution. In addition, when having regard to the
separation distances between development zones and residential properties, I am
satisfied that it would not give rise to an unacceptable overbearing, loss of light
or loss of privacy impact. The proposal therefore accords with Policy CS.9 of the
Core Strategy.
Energy Conservation
Policy CS.2 requires all non-residential development to be compliant with BREEAM
‘Good’ standard, but that developers should seek to exceed these standards
where it is viable to do so.
An Energy Statement has been submitted with the application. It states that the
applicant is keen to enhance the sustainable credentials of the development
proposal both from an estate and public perspective. It states that low or zero
carbon technologies will be incorporated into the design, as deemed appropriate,
as part of an integrated services strategy as opposed to a ‘bolt-on’ approach. It
states that the proposed design will promote reduced carbon dioxide emissions
from delivered energy consumption by minimising operational energy demand
through passive and best-practice measures.
The report concludes that the approach proposed in this case involves energy
demand minimisation through effective building form and orientation to promote
high levels of daylight, good envelope design and proficient use of building
services such that the buildings themselves are being used as the primary
environmental modifier. It states that the feasibility of installing low and zero
carbon technologies beyond this will be explored in specific detail at reserved
matters stage for each individual plot.
I am satisfied that this is the correct approach to seek energy conservation and
adaption to climate change in accordance with Policy CS.2.
Crime Prevention
Policy CS.9 also seeks to ensure high quality design, an element of which includes
measures to help to reduce crime and the fear crime.
The proposal has been considered by the Warwickshire Police Crime Prevention
Design Officer who has raised a number of comments in respect of the detailed
design of the development, to include boundary treatments, roller shutter doors,
windows, lighting, CCTV coverage and car park areas. I am satisfied that at
reserved matters stage the crime prevention issues raised could be appropriately
incorporated into the detailed design of the scheme and, if Members are minded
to approve, I would recommend the attachment of an advisory note to ensure
that these comments are considered in the detailed design of any forthcoming
reserved matters submissions.
SDC’s Governance and Community Safety (CCTV) team have been consulted on
the application and no conditions or legal obligations are requested.
I consider that issues relating to crime prevention can be adequately addressed
at reserved matters stage and the development would accord with Policy CS.9 of
the Core Strategy in respect of this matter.
Loss of Agricultural Land
Policy AS.10 of the Core Strategy seeks to avoid the loss of large areas of higher
quality agricultural land. Higher quality land is categorised as Grades 1, 2 and 3a.
The Planning Statement states that a desktop review utilising Natural England’s
Post 1998 Agricultural Land Classification Map confirms that the site is classified
as largely Subgrade 3b (Moderate) to the northern, eastern and western extents
of the site with areas of Grade Subgrade 3a (Good) agricultural land quality to the
southern extent of the site.
I acknowledge that some harm would arise through the loss of a small area of
Grade 3a land and this harm needs to be weighed in the planning balance.
Community Engagement
As well as engaging with the Council in formal pre-application advice in respect of
the previous application, the applicant also undertook a consultation programme
which involved the following:
two days of public exhibitions at two locations in Stratford upon Avon;
presentations for relevant political stakeholders at Stratford upon Avon
Town Council;
inviting local residents, business stakeholders and elected members to
public exhibitions;
providing a variety of feedback mechanisms and channels of
communication for enquiries;
responding to queries and requests for more information where
appropriate.
A Statement of Community Involvement has been submitted with the application
which outlines how the above has been undertaken.
Developer Contributions/Infrastructure Provision
Policy CS.27 states that the Council will introduce a Community Infrastructure
Levy (CIL) to fund infrastructure and community facilities necessary to
accommodate growth and to mitigate cumulative impacts.
As members will be aware, the introduction of the CIL Regulations requires any
planning obligations, including financial contributions, sought from developers to
be assessed under Regulation 122 of the Regulations. This Regulation states that
planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning
permission if they are:
1. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
2. directly related to the development; and
3. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
The NPPF and PPG re-affirm the statutory tests set out within Regulation 122.
Since the submission of the application, the Council has adopted its CIL Charging
Schedule, with it coming into effect on 1 February 2018.
Requests for the following contributions/obligations have come forward:
Highways
£100,000 to cover the cost of extending the Service X19 timetable, in terms of
providing additional bus journeys to cater for key shift change patterns which lie
outside the normal hours of service operation. The £100,000 requested covers
the cost of securing the extension to the Service 19 timetable at £20,000 per
annum for 5 years.
The Reg 123 List outlined within the Council’s CIL Charging Schedule states that
public transport investments will be secured by way of CIL (rather than S106
legal agreement) except where ‘site specific mitigation for public transport
investment’ is proposed.
I am satisfied that the £100,000 financial contribution request falls within the
definition of ‘site specific mitigation for public transport investment’ meaning that
it can reasonably be secured by way of a S106 legal agreement associated with
the development.
Provision of off-site highways mitigation to Bishopton roundabout.
Ecology
The submission, agreement and implementation of a biodiversity offsetting
scheme. As this matter is not included on the Reg 123 List I am satisfied that it
can reasonably be secured by way of S106 legal agreement.
Proposal SUA.2 provisions
As required by Proposal SUA.2, a legal agreement is required to ensure that a
minimum area of the site is secured for B1(a/b) uses and for those businesses
who may wish to relocate from the CQRZ.
A draft legal agreement is in circulation and the principle of the above financial
contributions are accepted by the applicant. However, a confidential Financial
Viability Assessment (FVA) has been submitted which seeks to test the viability of
the proposed development of the application site, anticipating that the requested
financial contributions, if collected in full, would render the scheme unviable. The
Council has instructed Lambert Smith Hampton to provide an independent
assessment on the FVA submitted. Members will be provided with an update in
respect of this on the Committee update sheet.
Conclusions
I consider that the current application should be determined in accordance with
the adopted Development Plan. The site is allocated under Proposal SUA.2 in the
Core Strategy. The site is allocated for employment use to facilitate the delivery
of employment land to serve the District.
The issue relating to the mix of uses has been discussed in detail above and I am
satisfied that the uses proposed are acceptable.
The planning application has been informed by extensive discussions with various
stakeholders and consultees, as well as extensive pre-application and application
discussions through the course of the previous submission 17/03629/OUT. The
current scheme has been designed to ensure that potential impacts have been
addressed or can be satisfactorily mitigated through the appropriate conditions
imposed on a planning application and financial contributions/obligations secured
by way of a S106 legal agreement.
Assessing the planning balance against the relevant Core Strategy policies, I
consider the potential benefits which arise from the scheme are:
fulfil the need for employment land which formed the basis for the
allocation of the site for development in the Core Strategy;
provide a location for businesses which currently occupy the Canal Quarter
to relocate to, thereby assisting the delivery of the redevelopment of the
Canal Quarter (Proposal SUA.1 of the Core Strategy);
inward investment from businesses relocating to Stratford-upon-Avon and
generating associated employment opportunities to the area;
employment during the construction phase of development;
facilitate investment in public transport provision which existing
workers/residents in the area could benefit from.
As described in the ‘Highways Matters’ section above, there are currently
unresolved issues relating to the final design for the off-site highways mitigation
schemes at Billesley crossroads, Wildmoor roundabout and Bishopton roundabout.
In addition, there are unresolved issues with the timings for
implementation/completion of these mitigation schemes.
Discussions between the applicant, HE and WCC Highways are ongoing in respect
of these unresolved matters, and it is anticipated that both HE and WCC
Highways will have removed their holding objection by the 18 September (when
the application is due to be heard at Planning Committee).
Subject to no objection being raised by HE and WCC Highways, I am content that
the highways impacts of the development are acceptable and suitably mitigated.
In addition to the benefits outlined above, I have also identified the following
harm which arises from the scheme:
moderate landscape harm;
greater mix of uses than those identified in Proposal SUA.2 of the Core
Strategy;
increased traffic on both strategic and local highway networks;
environmental effects of noise, disturbance, dust, during construction
(though this could be adequately mitigated through planning conditions if
minded to approve);
loss of some Grade 3a agricultural land.
I am satisfied that the harm is outweighed by the significant benefits that arise as
a result of the proposed development.
It is highlighted that the final form of the proposals for individual development
parcels would be the subject of consultation with the local community,
stakeholders and key technical consultees at the reserved matters stage to
ensure the delivery of high quality and appropriate form of development.
Overall, the proposed development generally accords with the Core Strategy and
can properly be characterised as sustainable development for the purposes of the
NPPF.
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, based on their judgement of the available
evidence.
Subject to:
a) the response of the Council’s viability advisors to the satisfaction of
officers;
b) the receipt of a consultation response from Highways England which does
not raise objection; and
c) a legal agreement to secure:
i. financial contribution to fund the extension of the Service X19
timetable;
ii. Off-site highways mitigation works (at Bishopton roundabout);
iii. Biodiversity offsetting scheme; and
iv. Proposal SUA.2 provisions;
the Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT this hybrid planning application,
subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering
of which is delegated to officers:
1. Commencement of full element within 3 years
2. Full element carried out in accordance with approved plans
3. Outline element carried out in accordance with approved plans
4. Details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (the reserved
matters) to be submitted and approved
5. Timescales for submission/implementation of reserved matters
6. Restrict amount of floorspace to correspond with highways modelling
undertaken
7. Development to be carried out in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment
8. Archaeological written scheme of investigation
9. Implementation of programme of archaeological works in accordance with
written scheme of investigation
10. Surface water drainage scheme to be submitted and approved
11. Phasing strategy to be submitted and approved
12. External materials to be submitted and approved with reserved matters (in
respect of appearance)
13. Details of vehicle and cycle parking to be submitted and approved with
reserved matters (in respect of layout)
14. Details of electric vehicle charging points to be submitted and approved
with reserved matters (in respect of layout)
15. Landscape and Ecological Management Plan to be submitted and approved
16. Construction and Environmental Management Plan to be submitted and
approved
17. Noise assessment to be submitted with reserved matters where use
classes B1c, B2, B8 and/or sui generis (car showrooms) are proposed
18. Transport Update Report to be submitted with each reserved matters to
identify the cumulative traffic generation of that phase (to enable LPA to
identify when/whether highways mitigation is required)
19. Site levels to be submitted and approved with reserved matters (in respect
of layout and landscaping)
20. Design and Access Compliance Statement to be submitted and approved
with each reserved matters submission
21. Protection scheme for all retained trees and hedgerows
22. Implementation of off-site highways mitigation scheme at Wildmoor
roundabout
23. Implementation of off-site highways mitigation scheme at Billesley
crossroads
24. Implementation of off-site highways mitigation scheme at Bishopton
roundabout
25. External lighting to be submitted and approved with reserved matters (in
respect of appearance)
26. Details of water supplies and fire hydrants for firefighting purposes for
each phase
27. Implementation of pedestrian/cycle link to existing footway on Alcester
Road
28. Employment Travel Plan to be submitted and approved
29. Details of maintenance of surface water systems to be submitted and
approved
30. Installation and maintenance of acoustic fence and associated soft
landscaping
31. Where new planting fails within 5 years of planting, planting replaced
32. Removal of PD for gas compounds, substations, electronic communications
buildings and water pumping stations
Notes:
1. NPPF
2. Associated legal agreement
Robert Weeks
HEAD OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
