COMMITTEE REPORT
Application Ref.
15/03798/FUL
Applicant
Mr Ian Drury
Reason for Referral
to Committee
Discretion of Head of Planning
Case Officer
Erin Weatherstone
Presenting Officer
Erin Weatherstone
Ward Member(s)
Councillor P Richards
Town/Parish
Council
Hampton Lucy
Site Address
The Thatched House, Grove Field Farm Road, Hampton Lucy
Description of
Development
Description of Site
Constraints
Summary of
Recommendation
Demolition of existing dwelling, garages and outbuildings and
erection of a replacement dwelling and new dwelling including
associated works and access.

PROW SD313 to north of site and east

Open countryside

Flood zone 1 but site over 1 hectare

Road to south

Hampton Wood to north

Copdock Hill to south

REFUSE
Description of site and surroundings
The application site lies in open countryside to the north west of Wasperton
Village. The site currently consists of a dwelling and associated outbuildings.
The site includes garden land and other pasture land surrounding the application
site. The road abuts the application site to the west and south. There is an access
to the east serving the closest neighbour positioned to the north east of the
application site.
Hampton Wood lies to the north of the application site and Copdock Hill to the
south with a number of public footpaths set within the immediate area.
Planning permission is sought for a replacement dwelling and one new dwelling
including associated works and access.
The proposed new dwelling has been put forward by the applicant as a dwelling of
exceptional quality or innovative nature under the provisions of Paragraph 55 of
the NPPF.
Development Plan
Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that
“due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to
their degree of consistency with this framework”.
Relevant Policies in the Development Plan for this application are
 PR.1, DEV.1, DEV.4 – consistent with Framework
 EF.14 – high degree of consistency
 EF.7,EF.10, EF.11, DEV.3, DEV.6, DEV.7, DEV.8, COM.12 d,STR.1, – some
consistency but Framework is less restrictive
 STR2, 2A, 2B, 4, DEV.5 – inconsistent with Framework/out-of-date
Other Material Considerations
Central government guidance
 NPPF 2012 & PPG 2014
 Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance
 Stratford on Avon District Design Guide
Other Documents
 Core Strategy: Proposed Submission with Modifications June 2015
Following a full Council meeting on 22.06.2015, Members resolved to adopt some
of the policies in the emerging ‘Core Strategy (As submitted September 2014
showing subsequent proposed modifications) June 2015’ for development
management purposes. Those policies have some weight in decision taking.
Proposed modifications in response to the Inspector’s Interim Conclusions were
consulted on in August 2015 and submitted, with representations, to the
Inspector on 23 October 2015.
The policies relevant to this application and which have some weight are:
• CS.1 Sustainable Development;
•CS.2 Climate Change and Sustainable Construction, CS.3 Sustainable Energy,
CS.4 Water and Flood Risk, CS.5 Landscape, CS.6 Natural Environment and CS.9
Design and Distinctiveness (District Resources policies);
Other key policies which continue to have limited weight are:• AS.10 – Countryside and villages, CS.15 Distribution of Development and
CS.16 Housing Development, CS.19 Existing Housing Stock and Buildings
Paragraph 216 of the NPPF allows for weight to be given to relevant policies in
emerging plans, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise, and only
subject to the stage of preparation of the plan, the extent of unresolved
objections and the degree of consistency of the relevant emerging policies to the
NPPF policies.

Other Evidence base documents etc
Hampton Lucy Neighbourhood plan - Neighbourhood area designated by Cabinet
6/10/14.
Hampton Lucy Parish Appraisal (Oct 2002)
Other




Legislation
Human Rights Act 1998
Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
Localism Act
Summary of Relevant History
Reference Number
Proposal
Decision and date
14/01861/FUL
Demolition
of
existing
dwelling,
erection of two new dwellings and
associated
garages,
creation
of
revised access driveway including
change of use of a small part of
agricultural land (re-submission of
14/00615/FUL).
Refused 6.11.2014
14/00615/FUL
Demolition
of
existing
dwelling,
erection of two new dwellings and
associated
garages,
creation
of
revised access driveway including
Withdrawn 4.6.2014
13/01265/LDE
Formal verification of material start to
planning permission 13/00536/VARY
for Variation of condition 8 of planning
Approved 28.8.2013
permission 12/01020/FUL - Erection of
a replacement dwelling, including
basement pool, changing facilities and
gym (amendment to 09/01834/FUL
for replacement dwelling) - in relation
to allowing the garage to be built
outside of further archaeological works
being undertaken
13/00536/VARY
Variation of condition 8 of planning
permission 12/01020/FUL - Erection of
a replacement dwelling, including
basement pool, changing facilities and
gym (amendment to 09/01834/FUL
for replacement dwelling) - in relation
to allowing the garage to be built
outside of further archaeological works
being undertaken
Approved 01.05.2013
12/01020/FUL
Erection of a replacement dwelling,
including basement pool, changing
facilities and gym (amendment to
09/01834/FUL for replacement
dwelling)
Approved 4.7.2012
11/01332/FUL
Change of use of land from
agricultural to domestic curtilage for
use as principal access to The
Thatched House and erection of brick
piers and entrance gates (part
retrospective)
Approved 15.08.2011
09/01834/FUL
Replacement dwelling and minor
repositioning and alterations to
windows of previously approved
garage (09/018/FUL dated 3 June
2009)
Approved 16.11.2009
09/00374/FUL
Re-site new garage with store room
over (approved under permission
application no. 05/02070/FUL) to new
position in garden.
Approved 3.6.2009
The most recent reason for refusal (14/01861/FUL) related to the sustainability of
the new dwelling and impact of the development on the character of the area. It
is also noted that application site has an extant planning permission for a
replacement dwelling (references 13/00536/VARY and 12/01020/FUL). A material
start was confirmed by a Lawful Development Certificate in 2013
(13/01265/LDE).
Applicant’s Supporting Documents
List of documents:
 Flood Risk Assessment
 Arboricultural impact assessment
 Design and access statement
 Energy estimate
 Ecological appraisal
 Bat survey
 Tree Survey
 Landscape Visual Appraisal and detailed site analysis
Ward Member(s)
Cllr Richards - Supports the application as the design and layout are of particular
architectural merit and provide betterment to the site (24.12.2015).
(These comments were received outside of the fifteen working day consultation
period and therefore would not trigger the application to be considered at
planning committee in line with the Council’s constitution).
(The full response is available in the application file)
Parish Council
Support the application – the application fully accords with the 4th bullet point of
the NPPF due the exceptional quality and innovative nature of design. The
development would have a smaller footprint than the current planning permission
and a lesser visual impact on the rural location from all site lines. There is a
comprehensive drainage and surface water plan (18.12.2015).
(These comments were received outside of the fifteen working day consultation
period and therefore would not trigger the application to be considered at
planning committee in line with the Council’s constitution).
(The full response is available in the application file)
Third Party Responses
No comments received.
Consultations
The full responses are available in the application file.
WCC Highways– No objection (24.12.2015)
WCC Ecology–
Confirmed that dimensions and position of bat loft and bird boxes be submitted
prior to determination (11.1.2016).
Requires details of the bat loft and bird boxes prior to determination shown within
the plans and recommends conditions (9.12.2015).
WCC Archaeology– Recommends condition (23.12.2015).
WCC PROW – Recommends advisory note (9.12.2015).
Environment Agency – No comments received.
SDC Forestry and Landscape Officer – Verbal comments through informal
discussions (6.1.2015).
Building Control –Informal discussions (6.1.2015)
MADE comments – Conclusion cannot unequivocally endorse the proposal as
having met the requirements of paragraph 55 (23.12.2015). Full details within
the application file.
Severn Trent – No comments 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 emerging Core Strategy is also a
material consideration.
The development includes two elements the proposed new dwelling and the
replacement dwelling. Both will be assessed individually below as the principle of
development differs between them.
Proposed new dwelling
Under saved policy STR.1, new open market housing development is restricted to
the main town of Stratford upon Avon and Main Rural Centres only. The principle
of a settlement hierarchy is consistent with objectives contained within the
Framework and the new settlement hierarchy, published as part of the evidence
base for the emerging Core Strategy, is consistent with the approach taken in
paragraph 55 of the NPPF.
Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in
the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that the
relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if
the Local Planning Authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable
housing sites. The authority is able to demonstrate a 5.2 housing land supply as
of 31st December 2015 therefore STR.1, which is relevant to the supply of
housing, can be considered up to date and has some consistency with the NPPF.
The application site lies within open countryside. Paragraph 55 of the NPPF seeks
to promote sustainable development and advises that Local Planning Authorities
should avoid new isolated homes in the open countryside unless there are special
circumstances.
The statement submitted with the application seeks to justify that the proposed
new dwelling would satisfy bullet point four of paragraph 55 of the NPPF which
relates to dwellings of an exceptional quality or innovative nature. This bullet
point states that such a design any new dwellings should:
‘– be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more
generally in rural areas;
– reflect the highest standards in architecture;
– significantly enhance its immediate setting; and
– be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.’
The development must fulfil all the above criteria, as such, I will assess each
point individually.

To be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design
more generally in rural areas
The NPPF makes reference to the design being truly outstanding or innovative.
The dwelling therefore does not have to fulfil both the criteria but only one.
Due to the nature of the proposed development expert design advice was sought
on the application. Therefore MADE who provides services to promote good
design were consulted on the application.
MADE has provided comments on the application and have concluded that they
had reservations about the design and were divided with respect to the dwelling
being truly outstanding.
In terms of innovative the proposed new dwelling seeks to include a number of
technological elements. The NPPF does not make it clear whether the design of
the dwelling includes only physical visual elements of the dwelling or if it also
encompasses any technological elements incorporated into the dwelling proposed.
I consider that the overall design would include all these factors as the physical
appearance is designed to respond somewhat to the technologies incorporated.
The most significant element in the innovation to my mind is how these elements
correspond.
The key elements of the dwelling include a fabric first approach with Passivhaus
(PH) elements as a result of the low carbon strategy produced for the dwelling. It
is noted however, that the applicant has chosen not to have the dwelling
accredited formerly as a Passihaus (PH).
The position of the dwelling seeks to enhance solar gain due to the position and
form of the dwelling. The design also incorporates 300mm of insulation with triple
glazed and argon filled sealed windows set on eco-concrete reinforced raft
foundation. This approach would insulate the dwelling and allow it to retain heat
above and beyond standard construction methods.
The dwelling would be served by a single dual log burner/pellet boiler, log burner,
with a heat pump and 28 fourth generation Photovoltaic Thermal Panels set on
the attached garage roofslope.
The heat and energy produced by the above technologies will be managed by a
number of other technological appliances including a Mechanical Ventilation
System which will regulate the heat and air within the dwelling as well as
recovering 90% of the heat from the stale air. A home battery and back-up
power system will also be introduced to manage the energy produced to remove
the need for the occupier to sell or buy energy from the main electrical grid.
In addition to the above, below the house an earth energy bank is proposed
which will use the soil as a battery to store the solar energy created. The bank
will be filled with Phase Change Materials including paraffin wax balls which are
considered to be effective for heat storage.
Individually the technologies and approaches proposed have been incorporated
into other dwellings nationally. The technologies and approaches therefore are
not considered to be innovative in nature when viewed in isolation. The proposed
dwelling seeks to go beyond renewable technologies and a fabric first approach
through incorporating all these elements into the single proposed dwelling.
Consequently, MADE concludes that this adopted holistic approach demonstrates
the dwelling has a high degree of innovation.
Having regard to the above, including the cumulative incorporation of
approaches, technologies and features I consider the dwelling would have an
innovative design. I consider it reasonable, should permission be forthcoming, to
secure the features described above which are incorporated into the design to be
controlled by planning condition. This first bullet point of paragraph 55 is
therefore met.
 To reflect the highest standards in architecture
The agent has confirmed that the design concept for the proposed new dwelling
has been largely steered by the Council’s District Design Guide. This guide states
that the general vernacular of buildings within District tend to have ‘T’ and ‘L’
shaped plan forms. The proposed new and replacement dwelling both follow this
form approach, however, the design seeks to introduce curves to their plan form
and to the ridgeline of the proposed dwelling.
The District Design guide states that transformation of local forms are
encouraged, however, it continues to state that a principle aim of design should
be a balance of between innovation and local character.
MADE reviewed the design and identified a disconnection between the plan form
and the curve of the building. The panel concluded that the curved approach on
the replacement dwelling which has a simpler form would make this more
successful.
A disconnection was also raised with respect to the proposed architectural
treatment. The uses of the materials proposed are considered to be appropriate
by MADE, however, the extent of the slate roofs proposed within the landscape
was considered significant. The use of the materials was considered unusual on a
50 degree pitch roof with an apex of over approximately 9.5m but considered
suitable to detail on a curve.
MADE concluded that despite the concerns regarding the distortion of the
vernacular form that the proposals represented a high standard of architecture
and also accepted there is a level of subjectivity surrounding this assessment.
Notwithstanding the above, the MADE panel were divided. Some members
considered the distortion to the vernacular from to fall short of this requirement
of the NPPF which requires the development to reflect the highest standards in
architecture.
MADE therefore could not fully support that the proposed
development met the requirements of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.
I conclude therefore that the development does not meet the second part of
bullet point four of paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

Significantly enhance its immediate setting; and be sensitive to the
defining characteristics of the local area.
The application site lies in an elevated position from the road sitting in the wider
undulating landscape which comprises of both agricultural pasture land with some
wooded areas. Within the immediate area there are scattered dwelling and
farmsteads with country lanes connecting the area to the villages beyond.
The application site has mixed boundary treatment with a mature hedge
enclosing part of the parcel of the application site. The wider site has paddock
areas, a coppice, a garden and built form across it with vehicular access points.
Currently within the application site there is a single two storey dwelling set in a
prominent position and a detached one and half storey outbuilding which is visible
from the wider area. There are a number of other single storey flat roof
outbuildings located across the site.
Within the wider area there is a network of public footpaths and roads which
provide views towards the application site. The most prominent views, I consider,
are achieved from the road adjacent to the PROW which runs to east of the
application site. Longer views are clearly available from the higher land located to
the south of the site from the PROW which follows the ridgeline.
Whilst paragraph 55 of the NPPF relates to the principle of the proposed new
dwelling, however, the replacement and proposed new dwelling cannot be viewed
in isolation. The parcel of land and landscape features proposed extend across the
wider application site which include the gardens and built form of the two
dwellings. The NPPF test is quite strict and states that the development should
significantly enhance its immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining
characteristics of the local area.
MADE concludes that the approach taken with the application was outstanding
and thoroughly thought through. Some concerns were raised about possible
which overshadowing would affect part of the landscaping proposed within the
orchard. The panel concluded that the proposal is positioned well and an
improvement to the area compared to the existing structures and treatment of
the site. MADE conclude the development would sit well in the context of the area
have a low visual impact.
In terms of solely landscaping I consider that the introduction of an orchard,
wooded area between the dwellings and overall landscaping approach is
sympathetic to the characteristics locally in the area. Woodland with open pasture
land is a feature of the landscape and the proposal seeks to integrate the
landscaping across the site into the wider area. I further consider that a simple
landscaping condition can be attached to alleviate the MADE concerns with
respect to overshadowing within the proposed orchard.
Notwithstanding MADE’s comments I have concerns regarding the design of the
dwelling, use of materials and position of the dwelling within the application site
and have discussed the application with the Council’s Landscape Officer. The
agent confirms that the visual foil and position of the dwellings set off of the
ridgeline of the site would soften appearance of the dwellings in the wider
landscape.
As discussed above, the site lies in a visible public position and I consider
consequently that the distortion of the traditional vernacular form would jar with
the defining characteristics of the local area. The surrounding area is broadly
characterised by detached dwellings of simple form set within the undulating rural
countryside and pasture land. The prominence and modelling of the curved
dwelling and ridge line to my mind would not be sensitive to the defining
characteristics of the area.
In addition, whilst it is accepted that slate is a material used in the area more
locally within the immediate area properties tend to have tile roofs with Cotswold
stone generally a feature of the southern part of the district. The agent notes that
slate is used on other properties including a nearby Georgian Farmhouse;
however, it is the steep pitch proposed and the extent of slate roof which I
consider contributes to the dwellings dominance within the landscape.
Having regard to the above, I do not consider that the development would be
sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
The agent confirms that there would be ecological gain from the proposal with a
bat loft and nesting bird boxes provided through the site. Additional planting and
landscaping is also proposed which can be secured through planning condition. I
consider that these elements would introduce a positive enhancement across the
application site.
I consider that the proposed development would result in some enhancement;
however, I do not consider this would be a significant enhancement.
The existing vegetation across the site does not detract, in my opinion, from the
wider landscape nor is it of such a poor quality that the improvement in terms of
landscaping would be considered, in my view, significant. The overall
development and positioning of the new dwelling and replacement dwelling would
introduce two large dominant structures within the site.
In light of this, the enhancement of the overall scheme does not in my view result
in a significant enhancement to the immediate setting of the site and would not
be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the area. I therefore do not consider
that parts three and four of bullet point four of paragraph 55 of the NPPF to be
fulfilled.
Conclusion of principle for new dwelling
In conclusion, I consider that the dwelling would be highly innovative due to the
holistic approach taken in the design and use of varying technologies. Having
carefully considered the MADE comments and reviewed the proposals in detail I
am not satisfied that the development would represent the high standard of
architecture and therefore raise concerns with the design of the proposed
dwelling. Consequently, due to design of the dwellings and wider landscaping it is
not considered the proposal would significantly enhance the immediate setting or
be sensitive to defining characteristics of the local area.
I therefore consider that the development, considered at this time, would not
successfully fulfil all of the criteria set out in bullet point 4 of paragraph 55 of the
NPPF.
The development would therefore result in an isolated dwelling in open
countryside. Due to the position of the site which is not linked by lit, level
footpaths to public transport or facilities/services I do not consider the application
site lies in a sustainable location. The principle of the proposed new dwelling can
therefore not be supported under paragraph 55 of the NPPF.
Replacement dwelling
COM.12 part d of the Saved Local Plan supports the replacement of a permanent
lawful dwelling outside the main built up area boundaries of Stratford upon Avon
and the main Rural Centres. This support however only extends to replacement
dwellings where the scale, design and location would not have an adverse impact
on the character of the area.
In addition policy COM.12 part d states that the dwelling should be within the
same curtilage unless significant environmental benefits of extending the
curtilage would occur.
There is nothing to suggest that the replacement of an existing lawful dwelling
would be contrary to the policies and aims of the NPPF. In addition emerging Core
Strategy Policy CS.19 states that where the existing dwelling is not suitable of
retention the replacement will be sited well in relation to existing buildings and
not be significantly larger than the dwelling it replaces.
Subject to the proposed replacement dwelling not having an adverse impact on
the character of the area the principle of the dwelling is supported by COM.12.
The replacement dwelling and garden are positioned within the curtilage of the
existing dwelling. The proposed replacement dwelling is larger than the one it
replaces. The overall size is increased from three bedrooms to five and ridgeline
increased to approximately 7.5m. Regard is given to the extant planning
permission on the site which grants permission for a dwelling with a similar ridge
height and number of bedrooms to the replacement dwelling proposed.
Conclusion of principle for replacement dwelling
Based on the above, I am satisfied that the principle of the replacement dwelling
is supported subject to no adverse environmental impacts being raised.
Impact on the landscape and character of the area
Saved policies DEV.1 and PR.1 expect development respect the quality and
character of the local area. EF.10 states that the value of trees, woodlands and
hedgerows will be preserved and enhanced. CS.5 seeks to ensure proposals have
regard to the local distinctiveness and historic character of the District and states
that development should not take place in a manner which minimises and
mitigates its impact.
Paragraph 63 of the NPPF states that great weight should be given to outstanding
or innovative designs which help raise the standard of design more generally in
an area. With respect to design, paragraph 56, 57 and 58 seek to ensure all
development is of good design which ‘responds to local character’. Paragraph 58
states development should be visually attractive as a result of good architecture
and have appropriate landscaping.
Due to the curved form, size and position of the proposed dwellings I have
concerns that this would have an adverse impact on the character of the area
which consists mainly of simple dwellings set in undulating countryside.
Paragraph 60 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should not attempt to
impose architectural styles or tastes, however, how the proposal integrates within
the landscape and character of the area is a material consideration.
Viewed as a whole the development is not considered to respect the
characteristics of the area due to the massing, position and distorted vernacular
forms of the dwellings proposed. The materials are considered to reflect those
used in the wider area of the district generally, however, the use of Cotswold
stone tends to be located to the south of the District. Notwithstanding this, I
consider that the extent of the slate roofs proposed would emphasise the
dominance of the dwellings within the landscape due to the ridge heights and
expands of roof. Consequently, I consider that the development would be at odds
with the scattered simple form of dwellings within the immediate locality.
The site is highly visible from the public realm. Therefore although the dwellings
would be set at a lower level than the existing dwelling and afforded some
screening by the proposed and existing vegetation public views would be
available within the context of the wider landscape. Whilst at present the existing
dwelling is dominant within the landscape it is simple in design with the
outbuildings viewed as ancillary structures.
The extant planning permission for the replacement dwelling is a material
consideration. Planning permission has been granted for a larger dwelling than
that currently occupying the application site. I consider, however, that the
introduction of two dwellings of this design, materials and position would have a
greater impact on the character of the area than the extant permission for a
single dwelling and outbuilding.
Having regard to the above, I consider the overall development would introduce
dominant elements into the landscape which would be harmful to the character of
the area. The proposal therefore is contrary to the above policies.
Ecology
The proposal seeks to introduce an orchard semi improved grass land and
enhanced the existing woodland structure. These elements are considered to
introduce an ecological benefit to the site.
WCC Ecology has recommended conditions to secure the full detail of the
mitigation measures proposed. WCC Ecology has also requested that the
dimensions and positions of the nesting bird boxes and bat lofts are shown on the
plans prior to the determination of the application. This additional information has
been requested from the agent; however, detailed plans incorporating these
features have not been submitted to date.
Having regard to the above, I am therefore not satisfied, having regard to Natural
Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006, that the proposal complies
with paragraph 118 of the NPPF, saved Local Plan Policy EF.7 and Emerging Core
Strategy policy CS.6 as the applicant has failed to demonstrate that suitable
mitigation for protected species has been provided.
Sustainable development
The NPPF paragraph 98 states that Local Authorities should not require applicants
to demonstrate the need for renewable energy and should approve application
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
Saved Local Plan policy DEV.8 seeks to encourage design and layouts of
development which minimise the resources consumed by its occupation.
Emerging Core Strategy CS.2 seeks to encourage high standards of sustainability.
CS.3 also seeks to encourage low carbon and building integrated renewable
technologies. The District Design Guide seeks to encourage developments which
reduce resource and energy use.
The proposed new dwelling incorporates a number of renewable energy
technologies and follows a fabric first approach with Passivhaus (PH) elements.
The property would benefit from solar gain due to its position, design and
orientation.
I am satisfied that the proposed new proposed dwelling would introduce an
innovative approach to energy conservation and use of renewable energy
technologies in line with the above policies.
Impact on Heritage Assets
Considerable importance and weight should be to the duties set out in the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, when making
decisions that affect listed buildings and conservation areas respectively. These
duties affect the weight to be given to the factors involved.
EF.14 seeks to preserve the setting of listed buildings similar to paragraphs 131
to 132 of the NPPF. Emerging core strategy policy CS.8 states priority will be
given to protecting and enhancing historic and cultural assets.
The nearest listed buildings are some distance from the application site.
I am satisfied therefore that the development would not result in a detrimental
impact on the setting of these assets due to the distance of the assets from the
development.
WCC Archaeology has been consulted on the above application and has advised
that there are undated features within the area which could date from prehistoric
periods. WCC Archaeology has therefore recommended a condition. I am
therefore satisfied the development would not introduce an adverse
archaeological impact in line with EF.11.
I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in an adverse impact on heritage
assets.
Highways Matters
The proposal is therefore not considered to have an adverse impact on highways
safety the proposal therefore complies with DEV.4 of the saved local plan or
paragraphs 32, 35 and 39 of the NPPF.
I am satisfied that sufficient parking is provided on site for the proposed
dwellings. WCC Highways have raised no objection to the proposed development.
I am therefore satisfied the proposal complies with the above policies.
Amenity
Policy DEV.1 is consistent with the NPPF and seeks to protect the amenity of
neighbours. In addition paragraph 56 of the NPPF requires development to be of a
high quality design with a ‘good standard of amenity for existing and future
occupants’.
The application site has a neighbour positioned to the north east of application
site set some distance from the proposed dwellings. I am satisfied therefore that
the development would not result in a detrimental impact on this neighbouring
property’s amenity in line with DEV.1.
Policy DEV.3 seeks to ensure that sufficient amenity space is available for the
future occupants of the dwellings. For the avoidance of doubt it is considered
reasonable to apply a condition to ensure that each garden is clearly defined.
Subject to appropriate conditions, I am satisfied that the development would
result in an acceptable level of amenity for both dwellings. I consider this is
acceptable having regard to Policy DEV.3 and paragraph 57 of the NPPF.
Drainage
Saved Local Plan policy DEV.7 is generally consistent insofar they expect
developments to have regard sustainable drainage systems. Emerging core
strategy CS.4 seeks to ensure developments do not result in flooding elsewhere.
Similarly paragraph 103 of the NPPF states that Local Authorities have regard to
flood risk and ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere.
The application site lies in flood zone 1, however, the total site area (including the
paddocks, coppice, gardens and dwellings) would exceed 1 hectare in area. The
Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the application concludes that the
development would be no risk resulting from the development proposal within the
site or surrounding area. I am therefore satisfied that the development would
have sufficient drainage and comply with the above policies.
Other Matters
Water Butts
Saved local plan policy DEV.6 requires all development proposals to provide
sustainable measures for dealing with surface water run-off in the interest of
water conservation in new developments. I consider that it is acceptable to
require a water butt to be installed onto the dwellings by the imposition of a
standard condition if planning permission were forthcoming.
Bin storage
I am satisfied that there is adequate bin storage on site, however, it is considered
to be reasonable to apply a condition to ensure this space is retained and bins are
provided for the new dwelling.
Conclusions
The principle of the proposed new dwelling is not supported as it is not considered
that the criteria of parts two, three or four of bullet point four of paragraph 55 of
the NPPF have been met. The proposed dwelling would therefore result in an
isolated dwelling in open countryside which is contrary to paragraph 55 of the
NPPF.
The principle of a replacement dwelling is supported by Saved Local Plan policy
COM.12 part d and emerging Core Strategy Policy CS.19.
I consider that the proposed development by reason of the design, layout and
position would have a harmful impact on the character of the area contrary to
Saved Local Plan Polices DEV.1, PR.1, Emerging Core Strategy Policy CS.5 and
paragraph 56, 57 and 58 of the NPPF.
In addition I consider that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the
proposal would provide sufficient mitigation for protected species.
Assessing the planning balance, I consider that the benefits from the scheme
would be:


An enhancement through landscaping
A replacement dwelling of an improved quality
With regards to the potential harm arising from the development, I consider that
 A new dwelling in an isolated location
 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that suitable mitigation is provided
for protected species. This harm cannot be controlled or mitigated through
planning conditions.
The ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF is the presumption in favour of
sustainable development. It gives three dimensions to sustainable development:
social, economic and environmental. These should not be assessed in isolation,
because they are mutually dependent. On this basis, I have concluded that the
proposal is not sustainable development. I therefore recommend permission is
refused.
Recommendation
Whilst officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development
Plan and other material considerations it is for the Committee to weigh and
balance these in coming to a decision.
It is therefore recommended that the application be REFUSED for the following
reasons:
1. The development will result in a net gain of one dwelling in an open
countryside location. The proposal has been put forward to meet bullet
point four of paragraph 55 of the NPPF as a dwelling of exceptional design
or innovative nature. The proposed dwelling is not considered to fulfil parts
two, three or four of bullet point four of paragraph 55 of the NPPF and
therefore does not represent a dwelling of exceptional quality or
innovative design. The application site lies in open countryside and is not
connected by a lit, level footpath to local services or facilities. This location
is considered to result in the future occupiers being highly likely to be
reliant on the use of the private car. As such, the proposal would result in
a new open market dwelling in an unsustainable location and therefore be
contrary to paragraph 55 of the NPPF.
2. The proposed development by reason of the design, layout and position of
the dwellings would have a harmful impact on the character of the area.
The proposed development is therefore contrary to Saved Local Plan
Polices DEV.1, PR.1, Emerging Core Strategy Policy CS.5 and paragraph
56,57 and 58 of the NPPF.
3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development
not have a detrimental impact on protected species through providing
sufficient information in relation to bats and nesting birds. As such, the
proposal is contrary to saved local plan policy EF.7 and paragraph 118 of
the NPPF.
Notes
Paragraph 187 and 187- The applicant’s agent was updated during the course of
the application.
ROBERT WEEKS
HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING