COMMITTEE REPORT
Application Ref.
15/01834/OUT
Applicant
Mr Michael Carr
Scale of development (> 10 dwellings)
Objection by Ward Member
Objection by Parish Council
Reason for Referral
to Committee



Case Officer
David Jeffery
Presenting Officer
David Jeffery
Site Address
Land off Stratford Road A3400, Tredington
Outline Planning application (with all matters relating to access,
layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent
approval) for the erection of up to 29 dwellings with all associated
works including open space (resubmission of application
13/03301/OUT)
Description of
Proposals
Sustainable drainage to be provided on site
Amenity open space and play area to be provided on site
Illustrative layout submitted showing general layout of the built
development
The proposal includes possible pedestrian/cycleway accesses
35% of dwellings to be affordable.






Description of Site
Constraints
Summary of
Recommendation





Site is located to the north of Tredington between the A3400
and the A429 (Fosse Way)
Comprises gently rising, undivided agricultural land
Open countryside / edge of village site
Lower parts of the site affected by flood zones 1, 2 & 3
Adjacent to Conservation Area
Bounded by Back Brook to the south (beyond which is the built
up area of Tredington), the A3400, the river Stour and
countryside to the east, Fosse Way and open countryside to
the west and properties and domestic curtilage of dwellings on
Old Fosse Way to the north.
GRANT SUBJECT CONDITIONS & S106 AGREEMENT
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:PR1, DEV1, DEV.4, DEV.10 EF.11, COM.9, COM.13, IMP.1, IMP.6 – consistent
with Framework
DEV.2, DEV.7, DEV.9, EF.6, EF.7, EF.9, EF.10, EF13, EF.14, COM.4, COM.5,
COM.14, SUA.1, IMP.4, IMP.5 – some consistency but Framework is less
restrictive
STR.1, STR2, 2A, 2B, STR.4, DEV.5, DEV.6, COM.1, CTY.1, IMP.2 – inconsistent
with Framework/out-of-date
Other Material Considerations
Central Government Guidance




NPPF National Planning Policy Framework 2012
Planning Policy Guidance 2014
Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation English Heritage
Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3 (The
Setting of Heritage Assets).
Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance





Meeting Housing Needs 2008
Car and Cycle Parking Standards 2007
Provision of Open Space 2005
Stratford on Avon District Design Guide 2002
PPG17 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Assessment and Playing Pitch
Strategy (Arup, April 2011)
 Corporate Strategy 2011-2015
 Planning and Community Safety - Design and Crime Reduction 2006:
Planning Advice Note
Stratford upon Avon Town Design Statement 2002
Other Documents
 Draft Core Strategy 2014
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 which the relevant emerging policies
have with the NPPF policies.
The Council has published a Core Strategy Proposed Modifications document
setting out the suggested changes to the Core Strategy following publication of
his interim report in March 2015.
In June 2015 the Council adopted, on an interim basis, a number of the Core
Strategy policies to help inform decisions about planning applications. The policies
that have been adopted are those
representations or unresolved concerns.
that
are
not
subject
to
significant
The following have therefore been regarded as material considerations carrying
some weight in the evaluation of the proposal.
CS.1 – Sustainable Development
CS.2 – Climate Change and Sustainable Construction
CS.4 – Water Environment and Flood Risk
CS.5 – Landscape
CS.6 - Natural Environment
CS.7 - Green Infrastructure
CS.8 - Historic Environment
CS.9 - Design and Distinctiveness
CS.25 – Transport & Communication
CS.26 – Developer Contributions
Other emerging policies within the plan will carry limited weight for decision
making purposes may be referenced where they support the aims of the NPPF. In
particular CS.10, CS.15, CS,16 CS.17 and CS.18 may provide helpful information.

The 2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Review
The SHLAA has only looked at suitability for housing, using obvious site
constraints (“potential show-stoppers”). It does not follow that what it shows as
a ‘suitable’ site is necessarily an ‘appropriate’ site. The SHLAA 2012 does not
assess appropriateness against the emerging Core Strategy. In Officers’ opinion,
the conclusions reached by the SHLAA should be given limited weight and the
appropriateness of the site should be assessed against relevant development plan
policies and all relevant material considerations.

Landscape Sensitivity Study (July 2011, updated June 2012)
This document forms part of the evidence basis underpinning the preparation of
the Core Strategy.
Part B of the document covers land parcels/sensitivity
assessments for the main towns and villages. The application site is identified as
being within land cover parcel (LCP) TR03. The document assesses the site’s
sensibility to housing development as being high/medium.

Neighbourhood Plan
Other Legislation








Human Rights Act 1998
Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990
Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (any site in a
rural location)
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
Localism Act 2011
Equality Act 2010
Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Community and Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Legislation
Summary of Relevant History
The site has been subject to one earlier application for residential development of
35 dwellings which was withdrawn prior to determination (application
13/03301/OUT).
This application is a resubmission of that proposal with
amendments to the number of dwellings.
Further amendment of this application was made during the application process
which reduced the number of dwellings shown in the indicative layout to 29. The
description of development was also altered to limit the outline permission to no
more than 29 dwellings
Applicant’s Supporting Documents
Summary of statements provided by applicant:

The proposed development would support the Local Service Village of
Tredington in meeting its housing requirements as set out in the SDC
Draft Core Strategy. The application proposes 34 dwellings in a mix that
includes detached, semi-detached and terraced houses. The layout
provides varied accommodation and property sizes suitable for families of
differing sizes, couples or single person households.

The scheme would provide a mix of dwelling types to meet market,
affordable and social housing needs and add to the choice available in the
local housing stock.

The application site measures approx. 2.5 hectares. It is roughly triangular
in shape, sloping gently down from north to south and from east to west.
The topography appears concave in form. Views into and out of the site
are restricted by the existing hedgerows even during the winter months
when there is less leaf growth on the hedges.

Adjacent to the brook, development would not be undertaken and the land
would remain largely undeveloped as open space. This would provide a
substantial ecological wildlife corridor within the flood zone and would in
effect form a linear park with footpaths.

The proposed dwellings and access roads will only be built in Zone 1, well
above the floodplain and any flood risk, making it fully sustainable in the
longer term as required and defined by the NPPF.

Vehicle and pedestrian access to the site has been carefully assessed and
the County Highway Authority has no objections or recommendations. A
new footpath away from the main road system would form part of the
development and provide an additional access to the centre of the village,
the school and bus services.

The development can be accommodated without harm to the village or the
surrounding countryside, and should therefore not be refused planning
consent for any reason of adverse effects on landscape character or visual
amenity.
List of documents:


Design and Access Statement
Flood Risk Assessment and Addendum letter (initial and revised versions)










Ecological Appraisal
Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
Archaeological Survey Report
Heritage Statement
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
Noise Assessment
Sustainable Low-Energy Statement
Contamination Statement
Agricultural Statement
Planning Statement
Ward Member(s)
Cllr C Saint – Object (10/08/2015)
Councillor Saint’s comments were made prior to the amendments which further
reduced the scheme to 29 dwellings and removed dwellings from areas of flood
risk.





Supports the principle of some development on this site
Notes that the recreational pathways added are an improvement to
the scheme
Identifies a number of concerns which has lead him to conclude the
scheme may be overdevelopment:
o Plots 22, 23, and 24 are in an area prone to flooding
o The amenity of the property known as Fosseway on the
A429 is compromised by the density of properties 2, 3, 4
and 5
o Amenities of the property known as Greenacres on the A429
is heavily compromised by terraced housing to their ESE and
SSW boundaries
Suggests that design and flooding issues may be addressed by a
reduced density layout
States that outline permission for more than 30 dwellings should
not be permitted
(The full response is available in the application file)
Parish Council
Object to the proposal on the following grounds:







Visual harm to the rural aspect and landscape
Creation of an isolated development outside of the village envelope
Lack of employment opportunities and services in Tredington
Generally unsustainable and car reliant development
Concerns about garages and gardens in or on the immediate boundary of
higher flood risk zones
Over development of Tredington with regard to the identified capacity in
the emerging Core Strategy
Impact on local services
Review of the earlier application shows that the Parish initially objected on the
grounds of flood risk, layout, sewage capacity and the scale of development
(11/06/14). However, following re-consultation on additional information received
(revised FRA, site layout etc removed their objections relating to flood risk and
layout and design (03/12/14).
Third Party Responses
29 letters received from a total of 23 local residents (some residents have
submitted more than one letter). A further letter has also been received from the
Council for the Protection of Rural England. A photo of the site and adjacent
properties in flood were attached to letters.
27 letters raise an objection to the application on the following grounds:

Flood risk







Sewage




The site floods annually, often very quickly and for prolonged periods
Danger to children from flood risk
The River Stour backs-up to the site when it is in flood
Increased flood risk on the site and up / down stream
Inadequate / misleading Flood Risk Assessment
Flooding of adjacent road (A3400)
Inadequate sewer capacity
Floodwaters include sewage due to pumping station failing
Sewage backing up the vicinity of the site (Shakesfield Close)
Layout & design








An urban form and scale of development out of character with the rural
location
An unattractive form of development on a sloping site
Density too high and out of character with the village
Extension to the village (not infill)
Visual impact on the landscape, the character of the village and the
Conservation Area
Undesirable separation from Tredington due to flood management area
Undesirable elongation of the village
Danger to children from the pond and recreation area being situated in
the flood zone – this area has dangerous currents and submerged
bushes when in flood

Other inadequate infrastructure – shops, schools, medical care, bus
services, unreliable electricity supply, low water pressure and poor
broadband and mobile phone coverage

Residential amenities




Too close to existing dwellings, resulting in loss light and privacy
Noise from adjacent roads (proposed dwellings)
Noise and disturbance to existing properties from the proposed
recreational area alongside Back Brook
Highways








Poor pedestrian access / narrow pavement into the village
Inadequate street lighting
National speed limit at access to site
Access too close to roundabout on the Fosse Way
Traffic calming required
reduction to 30 mph speed limit required
Additional traffic leading to less efficient road network
Other















Loss of prime arable land
Impact on the following ecology, which have been sighted on / in the
vicinity of the site – deer, bats, dormice, great crested newts (50
metres away), otters, adders, grass snakes and kingfishers
Inadequate ecological survey
Noise, dust and traffic during the course of construction
Unstable land / potential for landslip due to flooding, underlying clay
and the gradient of the site
No need for affordable housing in the village
No jobs in the village, leading to increase in commuter traffic
Management of the pond
Not sustainable development
Need to invest in the village particularly local playgrounds
Lack of sustainable power/water
Management of the Open Spaces
Parish Plan seeks for smaller developments more in keeping with
village aesthetic.
Decision should be postponed to allow adoption of Parish Plan
Decision should be deferred until such time as appeals elsewhere in
Tredington have been determined
1 letter of ‘no representation’ was received but raises concern regarding flood
1 letter of support was received on the grounds that the development would not
be affected by the flood water that can gather on site as the houses are proposed
away from this low land.
Consultations

WCC Lead Local Flood Authority – No Objection subject to 1 Condition
(24/08/2015)

Highways Agency – No comments (30/05/14).

WCC Highways – No objection subject to 7 conditions and a contribution
towards sustainability packs (02/10/15).

Environment Agency – No objection (29/09/15).

Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to 1 condition (18/09/15).

Natural England – No objection

WCC Ecology – No objection subject to two conditions (07/08/2015)

WCC Archaeology – No objection subject to one condition (07/08/15).

Conservation Officer –Finds the Cultural Heritage Statement provided by
the applicant to be somewhat deficient however concludes that (i) the
development would have a negligible impact on the setting of nearby
listed buildings; and (ii) that level of harm to the setting of the
Conservation Area would be less than substantial but still noticeable.
Comments that the harm referred to at (ii) must be balanced against the
public benefits of the scheme (22/09/15).

Historic England – No objection. Application should be determined on
the basis of specialist conservation advice.

WCC Archaeology Team – No objection subject to 1 condition.

WCC Rights of Way – No correspondence received.

Environmental Health – No objection subject to conditions relating to
contamination, controls during the course of construction and road
generated noise in relation to the proposed dwellings (05/08/15)

WCC Fire & Rescue Services – No objection subject to 1 condition
(04/08/2015)

Warwickshire Police – No correspondence received.

South Warwickshire NHS Trust – No correspondence received.

WCC Library Service – Contribution sought (02/10/15).

WCC Education – No contribution sought (02/10/15).

SDC Environmental Health – No objection subject to 2 conditions
The full responses are available in the application file.
ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES
Principle of Development
The Council is required to make a decision in line with the Development Plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and
Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is the
key material planning consideration. The emerging Core Strategy is also a
material consideration.
Housing Supply
There is a strong imperative in favour of housing delivery in the NPPF. It states
that a Council must always be able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing
land.
It provides that where a five-year housing land supply is absent then relevant
policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date and the
determining authority should therefore make decisions in accordance with
paragraph 14 of the NPPF.
Paragraph 14 requires that, authorities should grant permission for development
unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework taken
as a whole; or where specific policies in the Framework indicate development
should be restricted.
The most recent assessment in Stratford-on-Avon establishes that the district is
unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land. Consequently, it is
necessary to determine this application in the context of paragraph 14.
As such, unless specific NPPF policies indicate otherwise, or the impacts of doing
so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, the development
should be approved.
Accordingly, it is necessary for decision makers handling this application to
consider whether any identifiable impacts will significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits of the development.
The Development Plan
Policies for the supply of housing within the development plan must be considered
out of date, as the district cannot at this time demonstrate a five-year housing
land supply. As such, they cannot be afforded full weight in the determination of
this proposal.
Notwithstanding the above, the saved policies within the Local Plan provide useful
guidance regarding the sustainability of proposals and the general approach to
development across the district.
Saved policy STR.1 provides a settlement hierarchy for the purposes of
controlling and regulating development and to reflect the wider functions of
settlements. The principle of a settlement hierarchy, as set out in saved policy
STR.1, is consistent with objectives contained within the Framework, which seeks
to direct development to locations that reduce car based travel and the need to
travel.
The application site falls outside the built up area boundary of Stratford upon
Avon or any Main Rural Centre and is not an identified Local Centre Village.
Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with policy STR.1.
Saved policy CTY.1 seeks to control all forms of development within the
countryside which is not consistent with the rural principles of the NPPF, by taking
a more restrictive approach to development than that set out in the national
document. In seeking to preserve the intrinsic quality of the countryside, policy
CTY.1 does however still carry some weight, but only where this is weighed in the
planning balance against the more flexible approach taken in the Framework.
In summary, whilst the proposal is fundamentally contrary to the above saved
policies of the Development Plan, these policies are not wholly consistent with the
NPPF. STR.1 in particular is considered out of date. Therefore whilst the principle
of the proposal does not accord with the adopted Development Plan as a whole
there are other material considerations to take account of which suggest that
approval should be considered in more detail.
Material Considerations
Emerging Core Strategy
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.
The Council has published a Core Strategy Proposed Modifications document
setting out the suggested changes to the Core Strategy following its examination
in January 2015.
In June 2015 the Council adopted, on an interim basis, a number of the Core
Strategy policies to help inform decisions about planning applications. The policies
that have been adopted are those that are not subject to significant
representations or unresolved concerns.
Policies CS.4, CS.5, CS.6, CS.7, CS.8, CS.9, CS.12, CS24 and CS.26 will
therefore be regarded in the determination of the proposal.
Other policies within the plan are out of date for decision-making purposes
however may be regarded where they support the aims of the NPPF. In particular
CS.15, CS,16 CS.17 and CS.18 may provide helpful guidance.
Accordingly, it is relevant that the emerging Core Strategy identifies Tredington
as a Local Service Village and as a suitable location in principle for the
development of a strategic allocation of housing. And, whilst the above approach
is contained within a policy which is subject to challenge through the local plan
process, and the specifics within cannot therefore be relied upon to remain
unchanged, the evidence base which supports the policy development is a
material consideration. It is therefore considered reasonable to infer that
Tredington is a location which is sustainable in principle, and which is likely to be
a location where the Authority will aim to meet at least some part of its housing
needs.
This is confirmed in the Core Strategy Examination Inspector’s
Conclusions published on 18 March 2015 in which he states:
Interim
‘In my view the list of villages, as proposed to be modified, is a reasonable basis
on which to direct the 2,000 dwellings currently proposed, in order to achieve a
sustainable outcome. This level of housing would help to sustain the existing
services and facilities in these villages, including public transport, primary schools
and shops. At a minimum it would maintain the vitality of rural communities and
therefore comply with the policy in paragraph 55 of the Framework, which seeks
to promote sustainable development in rural areas’. (Paragraph 198)
He further stated at paragraph 202 that: ‘I have no reason to find that the
existing allocation is undeliverable. However it would need to be shown why any
further increase in the numbers allocated to LSVs would be a sustainable option
when, taking account of Green Belt, other villages in some categories might
already need to take, in relative terms, a large number of dwellings’.
Accordingly, it is apparent in the inspector’s view that a balance must be struck,
between the need to deliver housing to ensure the vitality of LSV’s across the
district and the need to ensure development is appropriately proportioned and
distributed to ensure a sustainable pattern of development
It is self-evident that a large-scale housing scheme will have a greater potential
impact on a settlement than a small-scale scheme. The scale of the development
and a comparison against the number of dwellings already approved during the
plan period in a particular LSV are material considerations and the potential for
harm needs to be considered thoroughly based on robust evidence.
Tredington is identified within the Core Strategy as a Category 3 Local Service
Village and an allocation of no more than around 59 dwellings is seen as
potentially appropriate. Since the start of the plan period there have been
approvals amounting to 2 dwellings. Consequently, as this threshold has not been
exceeded officers do not consider that the proposal conflicts with the interim
findings of the inspector or the emerging Core Strategy. Furthermore they do not
conclude that the proposals when assessed on the above basis are
disproportionate in scale and kind with the future expectations of the village.
Conclusion on the principle of development
The current application is for outline permission for up to 29 dwellings on a site
outside the built up area of the adjacent village of Tredington on land that, in
planning terms, is considered to be greenfield and located in the open
countryside. The policies of the development plan most relevant to determining
the acceptability of the principle of development in this case therefore are STR.1
(settlement hierarchy) and CTY.1 (control over development). These suggest that
Tredington is not a sustainable location for residential development of this kind,
however in the absence of a 5 year housing land supply are out of date.
In the absence of a five-year housing land supply, the NPPF is preeminent in
determining the principles of this scheme. The principle of a settlement hierarchy,
as set out in saved policy STR.1, is consistent with objectives contained within
the Framework. The settlement hierarchy, published as part of the evidence base
for the emerging Core Strategy, is also consistent with the approach taken in
paragraph 55 of the NPPF and Tredington is identified there within, as a Category
3 Local Service Village (LSV). Accordingly, it is understood that Tredington will
receive a strategic allocation of housing and it is therefore accepted that
Tredington is a sustainable location in principle for some amount of new
residential development.
On that basis I consider that material considerations suggest that some level of
development is potentially acceptable in principle. The benefits of the scheme in
providing new housing and helping address the councils 5-year housing land
supply are strongly endorsed by the NPPF and weigh significantly in favour of the
principle of development being acceptable.
It therefore falls to the Authority to assess the detail of the proposal to ensure
there is no hitherto unassessed harm that may suggest significant and
demonstrable conflict with the policies of the NPPF and refusal of the application.
Detailed Assessment
Flood risk & surface water drainage
Many of the letters of representation refer to concerns regarding flooding on the
site and in this respect the southern part of the site is, indeed, within Flood Zones
2 and 3.
Paragraphs 100 to 104 of the NPPF seek to ensure that development considers
impact of flood risk. Saved policies PR.7 and DEV.7 remain generally consistent
with the NPPF. Policy CS.4 of the emerging Core Strategy seeks to maintain the
floodplain; manage the risk of flooding in a catchment area and achieve good
status for water bodies by, amongst others, locating development in Flood Zone
1, securing SUDs solutions to surface water drainage, managing run off from sites
and ensuring that foul drainage flows are kept separate to surface water
drainage.
In this regard it is notable that the revised proposal has reduced the number of
dwellings proposed (and therefore runoff from roofs hardstanding etc should be
reduced) and sought to avoid direct impacts on the flood plain by locating all
sensitive developments away from these areas. Areas identified by the
Environment Agency as falling within flood risk zones, would be reserved
exclusively for open space and attenuation measures where necessary. The areas
identified for housing would be located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk of
flooding) where residential development is considered acceptable in principle by
the NPPF in relation to flood risk.
In this matter, it is notable that the Environment Agency has not objected to the
proposal on this occasion.
Sewage disposal
Whilst I would recognise that there have been local concerns which identify this
matter as a significant consideration, in the absence of similar concerns from
statutory consultees I am satisfied that these matters will be successfully
addressed through the Reserved Matters application.
Neither Severn Trent Water nor the Environment Agency has raised concerns
regarding the proposed development subject to the imposition of a number of
conditions. In view of this, I would not recommend consideration of refusal on
these grounds.
Impact on the landscape and character of the area
The NPPF requires as part of its core principles (paragraph 17 (5)), that, amongst
other things, planning should take account of the different roles and character of
different areas and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the
countryside. Saved policy PR.1 of the Local Plan Review is consistent with this as
it states that proposals should respect, and where possible, enhance the quality
and character of the area. Policy CS.5 of the emerging core strategy requires
development to minimise and mitigate impacts on the landscape character and
quality, including cumulative impacts. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF also states that
the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local
environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.
At a large scale the sites landscape character is within National Character Area
96: Dunsmore and Feldon. This is described as a transitional National Character
Area (NCA), moving from the wooded landscape of Arden in the north to the
more agricultural and market garden lands of the Severn and Avon Vales in the
south west. It is mainly bordered by rural and agricultural landscape.
More locally, the landscape evidence base for the Councils Core Strategy was
extended in 2012 to cover the additional settlements identified as Local Service
Villages within the. Tredington was one of these villages.
The study identified and mapped separate Land Parcels/zones and assessed their
sensitivity to housing and commercial development and included assessment of
the application site. The study stated:
"This zone consists of a sloping area with Back Brook (Flood Zone 3) along its
south eastern edge, with the north western edge of Tredington beyond. It is in
arable cultivation, with a srnall area at the south western end in use as small
paddocks. It is bound to the west by the A429 and to the east by the A3400, with
a small number of houses associated with a roundabout forming the northern
apex of the roughly triangular site. Boundaries are well managed low to medium
thorn hedges and riparian trees associated with Back Brook, including mature
willow and poplar. The zone functions as a green corridor between the northern
end of Tredington and the small area of development around the roundabout to
the north and is an important deterrent to coalescence. Such coalescence would
have a detrimental impact on the northern approaches to Tredington by implying
a very different character to that currently experienced and for this reason, as
well as the presence of a flood zone within, housing development is not
considered appropriate."
The application site was one of four land parcels considered by the study, and,
whilst it was rated to have a High/Medium sensitivity to housing development,
(along with one other parcel of land) two others were given even higher
sensitivity ratings.
Clearly, in the view of the consultants who undertook the assessment, the site is
sensitive in nature and provides an important element of separation between the
north of Tredington and the cluster of development around the roundabout on the
A3400. But that, in terms of Tredington, the application site doesn’t represent the
most sensitive site in the vicinity.
My own view in respect of the key visual impacts of the development, having had
regard to the applicants LVIA, the Councils evidence base on landscape sensitivity
and the comments received from the public and other interested parties is that
there will be significant impacts. Some of these impacts are those which must
inevitably arise from any residential development on a greenfield site. Others
however, due to the location and the proximity of neighbours and sensitive
receptors, may be of major-moderate significance and which must be given
appropriate weight.
In particular, by virtue of the loss of the greenfields between the roundabout (and
its associated garage) and the main village there may be the potential for a
perceived coalessence of the two areas and that this may be harmful to the
setting and character of the Tredington.
In all such circumstances it is necessary that such harm is assessed to see if
mitigation may be possible and that any residual harm be balanced against the
benefits of the scheme
Accordingly, I consider that at least some proportion of the potential harm which
could be caused by this proposed development could be mitigated over time
through the retention of the majority of existing hedgerow and substantial
additional planting in the open space areas and within the public realm of the site
itself. I am mindful that the application under consideration is outline and there is
therefore considerable scope for the design of dwellings and open spaces in the
final development to consider the need for mitigation in detail. This potential
mitigation would improve overtime as the development matures and settles into
the landscape which surrounds.
Consequently, I have concluded that there would be only a modest amount of
residual harm to the landscape arising from this development after mitigation.
There would be changes to the character of the village approach and exit as
viewers pass by, however I do not conclude that these, or any longer distance
views would amount to impacts that either significantly or demonstrably outweigh
the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the NPPF’s policies.
Impact on heritage assets
Archaeology
The County Archaeologist has raised no objection to the proposed development,
subject to a condition requiring appropriate investigation.
Listed buildings
Conservation advice suggests that there would not be anything other than a
negligible impact on setting of any listed buildings, the only slight visual effect
being partial views of the church when entering the settlement from the north,
but even here the change in the foreground caused by the development would
have only marginal effect.
Conservation Area
The village conservation area boundary borders the south eastern edge of the
application site. Conservation advice suggests that overall, the level of harm to
the setting of the conservation area would be less than substantial (in NPPF
terms), but still noticeable.
The views out which are affected are predominantly from private houses near the
edge of the conservation area boundary, where the effect would be to replace a
view over agricultural land with a view over the proposed development. There
would be limited visual impact from public spaces or highways in the conservation
area, but the clear delineation between settlement and surrounding open
countryside would be diluted.
This harm should, as per the NPPF (paragraph 134), be balanced against public
benefit as part of the overall planning balance exercise.
Highways
It should be noted that all matters are reserved including access.
Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states ‘inter alia’ that decisions should take account of
whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up; safe
and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people and whether
improvements can be undertaken effectively limiting the impacts of the
development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport
grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.
There are no significant highway issues raised by the proposals which suggest
that the highway impacts are likely to be severe. Matters of access and road
layout can be formalised at reserved matters and can be appropriately handled by
condition. Accordingly, neither Highways England nor Warwickshire County
Council raises any objections.
Design, layout, scale, and appearance
Matters relating to the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are all
reserved. The applicants have, as part of their submission, provided an
Illustrative Masterplan/layout but this is indicative only.
Housing mix and affordable housing
Appropriate affordable housing would be provided as an integral part of the
proposals – delivered through a Section 106 agreement.
35% of total housing numbers with tenures expected to reflect the Council’s
standard requirement for 75% social rented and 25% intermediate units.
Residential amenity
All matters are reserved for future consideration. However, the illustrative layout
submitted demonstrates the scope for adequate amenity space and relationships
between dwellings.
Public Open Space
Areas are shown on the illustrative layout for communal open space, canine
exercise area, stormwater balancing pond and flood zone. These areas are
proposed as integral components in a Section 106 agreement for maintenance
purposes. These proposals are satisfactory.
Impact on existing residential amenities
There is no information provided which suggest that the applicant could not
successfully design a scheme which appropriately safeguards residential
amenities of existing residents near to the application site at reserved matters
stage.
Other matters
Ecology
I acknowledge that representations have been made in respect of the loss of
ecological habitat. One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to conserve
and enhance the natural environment, as expanded upon by paragraph 118.
Saved policies EF.6 and EF.7 of the Local Plan Review generally accord with the
NPPF as they relate to the retention, protection, management and, where
appropriate, creation of wildlife habitats, albeit, the NPPF is less restrictive.
The County Council Ecologist raises no objection to the proposals and requests a
condition relating to nesting birds, details of lighting and a Landscape and Ecology
Management/Enhancement Plan.
For these reasons, I consider that the development would have an acceptable
ecological impact in accordance with paragraph 118 of the NPPF, saved policies
EF.6 and EF.6 of the Local Plan Review and policy CS.6 of the emerging Core
Strategy and the provisions of the NERC act.
Loss of agricultural land
Paragraph 112 of the NPPF identifies that Local Authorities should seek to use
areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality land.
It is understood on the basis of the applicants submissions that the land is Grade
3 agricultural land. However, it is not defined whether the land is Grade 3(a) or
Grade 3(b)
It is not clear therefore whether the land should be regarded as the best and
most versatile land (BMV) which is classified as grades 1, 2 and 3a. Accordingly,
in the absence of greater detail it is considered that policies which seek to protect
BMV in the NPPF would apply in this instance.
Notwithstanding the above, I am aware of appeal cases in the District including
Salford Road Bidford (6.61 ha) and Hampton Lucy (2.02 ha) where the loss of
BMV land has not resulted in dismissal of the appeal.
This proposal results in a loss of no more than 2.5 ha of agricultural land. In light
of this, I conclude that the loss of land for agricultural purposes should not be a
determinative factor to weigh in the balance for the decision taker.
Community Facilities & Social Infrastructure
It is noted that a significant number of representations have been made in
relation to the inadequacy of the village’s infrastructure, services and facilities to
support the impact of this development. Whilst, it is considered the proposed
development would inevitably have some impact, it must recognised that the
scale of development is limited to a maximum of 29 dwellings and no objections
have been received from the NHS, WCC Education, WCC Libraries, WCC Drainage
and Flood Risk Team, and Severn Trent Water.
As the key statutory/technical consultee’s in relation to services, facilities and
infrastructure it would be expected that if the development was likely to be
challenging from an infrastructure point of view then these authorities may have
commented/objected.
In the absence of any objection from these sources, I consider that there is
insufficient evidence to prove any harm would be so significant it would constitute
a reason for refusal.
Planning Obligations
The applicant has agreed to enter into a Section 106 legal agreement with the
following provisions:
Highways – £2,175 (£75 per dwelling in relation to providing Sustainable
Welcome packs)
Libraries – £635
POS & SUDS – Standard clauses to be included to ensure the on-going
maintenance of public open spaces and the drainage of surface water.
Affordable Housing – 35% to be provided in accordance with the Council’s
standards
Footpath link – Clauses to also be included to require the proposed footpath link
to be provided and adequately surfaced prior to occupation of any of the
dwellings and to ensure the ongoing maintenance of the footpath.
Conclusions
The 'golden thread' running through the NPPF is the presumption in favour of
sustainable development (para.14). The NPPF states that there are three,
mutually dependant, dimensions to sustainable development: social, economic
and environmental.
Arising from these dimensions the policies in paragraphs 18-219 can be taken as
a whole constitute the Government's view of what sustainable development in
England is and what that means in practice for the planning system.
Therefore, if a development proposal accords with the guidance and policies
within the NPPF, the development may be considered inherently sustainable.
Whilst assessment of this application against the relevant development plan
policies of this Council suggests that the principle of the development would not
generally accord with those policies, it is apparent that consideration of the NPPF
and the Emerging Core Strategy, which are significant material considerations,
demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable in principle. On this basis, I have
concluded that the proposal is sustainable development.
Assessing the planning balance, I consider that the benefits from the scheme
would be:






Delivery of housing
Delivery of affordable housing
Addressing the districts 5-year housing land shortfall
Supporting the local economy
New Homes Bonus
Construction Jobs (short term)
With regard to the potential harm arising from the development, I consider that
there would be impacts on:



Landscape character,
Heritage assets,
Loss of agricultural land
Technical issues from statutory consultees can be dealt with by planning
conditions. Based on the above, it is considered that the proposed development
will not place undue pressure on the local infrastructure.
Recommendation
Whilst officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development
Plan and other material considerations it is for the Committee to weigh and
balance these in coming to a decision.
It is recommended that subject to:
the satisfactory completion of a S.106 agreement to provide the
following requirements and contributions with delegated authority to
the Head of Environment and Planning in consultation with the
Chairman of the Planning Committee in respect of any final
negotiations:
Highways – £2,625 (£75 per dwelling in relation to providing Sustainable
Welcome packs)
Libraries – £635
POS & SUDS – Standard clauses to be included to ensure the on-going
maintenance of public open spaces and the drainage of surface water.
Affordable Housing – 35% to be provided in accordance with the
Council’s standards
Footpath link – Clauses to also be included to require the proposed
footpath link to be provided and adequately surfaced prior to occupation of
any of the dwellings and to ensure the ongoing maintenance of the
footpath.
the Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT outline planning permission,
subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering
of which is delegated to officers:
Permission Definition Conditions
1. Details of the Access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping.
2. Application for approval of reserved within 3 years,
3. Development not begun later than 2 years from the date of approval of
last reserved matters to be approved.
4. Plans to which decision relates for the avoidance of doubt.
5. Maximum number of dwellings to be erected on site of 29.
6. Development shall not commence between 1 March and 31 August
inclusive (including ground clearance and any vegetation removal) unless
a competent ecologist has checked the site for active birds’ nests.
7. No HGV movements during construction to occur during peak weekday
traffic hours
Reserved Matters Requirements Conditions
8. Reserved matters application shall be in general accordance with the
Indicative Layouts
9. Reserved matters application shall provide:
a. A scheme of noise attenuating measures
b. A scheme of surface water Drainage proposals including SuDS
provision, specification, siting, maintenance scheme
c. A scheme of Foul drainage proposals
d. Existing/finished levels details
e. A detailed scheme for the provision, specification, siting,
maintenance of incidental open space and landscaped areas on the
site.
f. Comprehensive detail of the access which shall be laid out in
general accordance with submitted plans. This to include visibility
splays to meet highway authority requirements.
g. A Transport Statement.
Pre-commencement Conditions
10. Access details to be approved by SoADC:
a. Creation of bellmouth junction at site access and clear visibility
splays
b. Creation of internal turning area for construction traffic
c. Creation of spaces for parking/loading/unloading of vehicles
d. Construction Method and Management Statement including dust
suppression measures, construction phasing plan, HGV routing
plans, restrictions on HGV movements
11. External lighting details (including near potential bat/wildlife corridors)
12. Tree/hedge protection measures
13. Submission of an ecological enhancement/ habitat management plan.
14. Archaeology investigation
15. Ground contamination - site characterisation
16. Ground contamination - Remediation Scheme
17. Ground Contamination – Validation
18. Ground Contamination – Unexpected
19. Details of adequate water supply and fire hydrants
Pre-occupancy Conditions
20. Provision of water butts
21. Provision of wheelie bins
Notes:
1. S278 Highway Works
2. Traffic management Act 2004
3. S38 Highway works
4. Avoid mud and material on the highway
5. Prevention of surface water onto highway
6. S106
7. Duty to cooperate
8. Hours of Construction
9. Liaise with National Grid
ROBERT WEEKS
HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING