PLANNING COMMITTEE

AGENDA

Planning Officers will be available in the Guildhall from 12.30pm to respond to questions on the detail of applications from Members.

A Planning pre-meeting will be held at 12.45pm before the Planning Committee.

Date: Thursday, 19th July, 2018

Time: 1.30 pm (subject to site visits in accordance with Agenda Item 5)

Venue: Guildhall PLANNING COMMITTEE

Information for Members of the Public

Access to the Guildhall is via the front entrance in the High Street. The nearest car park is Copenhagen Street (pay and display). If you are a wheelchair user or have restricted mobility, access to the Guildhall can be gained either through the door on the right side of the forecourt as you face the Guildhall, or through the sliding doors at the rear of the Guildhall. There is dedicated disabled parking space at the rear (access via Copenhagen Street). Most meetings are held on the ground floor, which can be reached by using a lift. If you are a wheelchair user or have restricted mobility and you wish to attend a meeting, please telephone or email the officer mentioned below in advance and we will make any necessary arrangements to assist your visit.

Part I of the Agenda includes items for discussion in public. You have the right to inspect copies of Minutes and reports on this part of the Agenda as well as background documents used in the preparation of these reports. Details of the background papers appear at the foot of each report. An explanation to the Planning Committee decisions are given at the end of the of Part 1 of the Agenda. Part II of the Agenda (if applicable) deals with items of 'Exempt Information' for which it is anticipated that the public may be excluded from the meeting and neither reports nor background papers are open to public inspection.

Please note that this is a public meeting and members of the public and press are permitted to report on the proceedings. "Reporting" includes filming, photographing, making an audio recording and providing commentary on proceedings. Any communicative method can be used to report on the proceedings, including the internet, to publish, post or share the proceedings. Accordingly, the attendance of members of the public at this meeting may be recorded and broadcast. By choosing to attend this public meeting you are deemed to have given your consent to being filmed or recorded and for any footage to be broadcast or published.

Please note the Council audio records and live streams many of its meetings. These recordings are published on the relevant meeting pages of the Council’s website. A notice to this effect will be posted in the meeting room. If a member of the public chooses to speak at a meeting of the City Council he/she will be deemed to have given their consent to being recorded and audio being published live to the Council’s website. The Chairman of the meeting, can at their discretion, terminate or suspend recording, if in their opinion, continuing to do so would prejudice the proceedings of the meeting or if they consider that continued recording might infringe the rights of any individual, or breach any statutory provision.

At the start of the meeting under the item 'Public Participation' up to fifteen minutes in total is allowed for members of the public to present a petition, ask a question or comment on any matter on the Agenda. Participants need to indicate that they wish to speak by 4.30 p.m. on the last working day before the meeting by writing, telephoning or E-Mailing the officer mentioned below.

If you have any queries about this Agenda, require any details of background papers, or wish to discuss the arrangements for the taking of photographs, film, video or sound recording please contact Margaret Johnson, Democratic Services Administrator, Democratic Services, Guildhall, Worcester WR1 2EY Telephone: 01905 722085 (direct line). E-Mail Address: [email protected]

This agenda can be made available in large print, braille, on PC disk, tape or in a number of ethnic minority languages. Please contact the above named officer for further information.

Agendas and minutes relating to all City Council Committees, Cabinet and Council Meetings are also available electronically, click on the option “Committee Minutes and Documents”, Website Address: Worcester.gov.uk

2 Planning Committee Thursday, 19 July 2018

Members of the Committee:- Chairman: Councillor Chris Mitchell (C) Vice-Chairman: Councillor Patricia Agar (LCo)

Councillor Alan Amos (C) Councillor Stuart Denlegh-Maxwell (C) Councillor Bill Amos (C) Councillor Jo Hodges (L) Councillor Roger Berry (LCo) Councillor Mike Johnson (C) Councillor Chris Cawthorne (L) Councillor Louis Stephen (G) Councillor Lynn Denham (L)

C = Conservative G = Green L = Labour LCo = Labour and Co-Operative

AGENDA

Part 1 (ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AND DECISION IN PUBLIC)

1. Appointment of Substitutes To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

2. Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations of interest.

3. Minutes of Previous Planning of the meeting held on 28th June 2018 to be Committee approved and signed. Page(s) 1 - 18

4. Minutes of Previous Conservation Minutes of the meeting held on 6th June Advisory Panel 2018 to be received. Page(s) 19 - 24

3 5. Site Visits Such inspections of current application sites as may have been recommended by Officers and as may be approved by the Committee.

Members of the Committee should inform the Development Services Manager of any requests for site visits by 5.00 p.m. on the Tuesday immediately prior to the meeting (17th July 2018) and reasons for the request.

Members of the public should contact the Democratic Services Administrator either by email: [email protected] or telephone: 01905 722085 on the day before Planning Committee so the Administrator can advise of the start time of the meeting.

Site visits will be conducted in accordance with the procedure attached which forms part of the Council’s Good Practice Protocol for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters.

6. Public Participation Up to a total of fifteen minutes can be allowed, each speaker being allocated a maximum of five minutes, for members of the public to present a petition, ask a question or comment on any matter on the Agenda or within the remit of the Committee in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 10.

7. Public Representation Members of the public will be allowed to address the Committee in respect of applications to be considered by the Committee in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 11. Members of the public will address the Committee during the Committee’s consideration of the respective item.

4 8. Worcester City Employment Land That Planning Committee note the Monitor 2017-18 Worcester City Council Employment Land Page(s) 25 - 62 Monitor (April 2017-March 2018). Ward(s): All Wards

Contact Officer: Adrian Becker, Senior Planning Policy Officer Tel: 01905 722545

9. Application P18J0124 - Land off The Deputy Director – Economic Himbleton Road Development and Planning recommends Page(s) 63 - 70 that the Planning Committee grant planning Ward(s): St. Clement permission, subject to the conditions set Plans Schedule out in the plans list. Page(s): 6-9 Contact Officer: Nichola Robinson, Principal Planning Officer Tel: 01905 722567

10. Application P18E0176 - Land at The Deputy Director - Economic the former Park and Ride Site, Development and Planning recommends John Comyn Drive that the Planning Committee be minded to Page(s) 71 - 110 grant planning permission for the Ward(s): Claines development, subject to the conditions set Plans Schedule out in the plans list and the applicant and Page(s): 9-26 all persons with an interest in the land entering into a Unilateral Undertaking or S106 Agreement and subject to the Deputy Director- Governance being satisfied with the nature of such Undertaking to delegate to the Deputy Director of Economic Development and Planning approval to grant the planning permission.

Contact Officer: Alan Coleman, Planning Development and Enforcement Team Leader Tel: 01905 722523

5 11. Application P18D0210 - Land at The Deputy Director – Economic Central Park, Great Western Development and Planning recommends Avenue that the planning committee is minded to Page(s) 111 - 120 grant planning permission subject to the Ward(s): Cathedral conditions set out in the plans list and the Plans Schedule applicant and all parties with an interest in Page(s): 31-42 the land entering into a Unilateral Undertaking and subject to the Deputy Director- Governance being satisfied with the nature of such Undertaking to delegate to the Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning approval to grant the planning permission.

Contact Officer: Nichola Robinson, Principal Planning Officer Tel: 01905 722567

12. Application P17D0380 - The Deputy Director - Economic Warmstry Court, Quay Street Development and Planning recommends Page(s) 121 - 146 that the Planning Committee refuse Ward(s): Cathedral planning permission for the following

6 Plans Schedule reason: Page(s): N/A Policy SWDP 28 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan sets criteria for acceptable development within floodplain area “Yellow zone” to ensure development is acceptable in terms of risk to users and does not increase the risks to others, by way of increasing the flood risk overall.

However the building is limited by wider constraints of being a Historic Asset and its relationship to the surrounding development of Warmstry court and Bridge Street.

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the frequency of likely flooding and the measures required to reduce the impacts are incompatible with residential occupation of the site and the benefits of occupation of the building in conservation terms do not outweigh the risks from flooding for future residents of the building.

The frequency and depth of the flooding in the area is anticipated to increase and the measures proposed would continue to be insufficient in times of flood, and as such it is not considered to be sustainable development and fails to meet the criterial as set out in policy SWDP 28 of the South Worcester Development Plan and would thereby also be contrary to the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote with regard to flood risk. Contact Officer: Alan Coleman, Planning Development and Enforcement Team Leader Tel: 01905 722523

13. Application P18M0021 - Garage The Deputy Director - Economic Court, Turrall Street Development and Planning recommends Page(s) 147 - 164 that the Planning Committee grant planning Ward(s): St. Stephen permission, subject to the conditions set Plans Schedule out in the plans list. Page(s): 1-4

7 Contact Officer: Alan Coleman, Planning Development and Enforcement Team Leader Tel: 01905 722523

14. Application P18C0196 - Land at The Deputy Director - Economic 97 Foley Road Development and Planning recommends Page(s) 165 - 172 that the Planning Committee grant planning Ward(s): Bedwardine permission, subject to the conditions set Plans Schedule out in the plans list. Page(s): 26-29

Contact Officer: Alan Coleman, Planning Development and Enforcement Team Leader Tel: 01905 722523

15. Application P18D0231 - St The Deputy Director - Economic Martins Gate Multi-Storey Car Development and Planning recommends Park that the Planning Committee grant Planning Page(s) 173 - 178 Permission in accordance with Regulation 3 Ward(s): Cathedral of the Town and Country Planning General Plans Schedule Regulations 1992 subject to the conditions Page(s): 44-45 set out in the plans list. Contact Officer: Alan Coleman, Planning Development and Enforcement Team Leader Tel: 01905 722523

16. Application P18K0213 - 'Pavilion The Deputy Director - Economic In The Park', Tybridge Street Development and Planning recommends Page(s) 179 - 188 that the Planning Committee grant planning Ward(s): St. John permission, subject to the conditions set Plans Schedule out in the plans list. Page(s): 42-44 Contact Officer: Alan Coleman, Planning Development and Enforcement Team Leader Tel: 01905 722523

8 17. Application P18D0064 - Land at The Deputy Director – Economic Rose Bank Development and Planning recommends Page(s) 189 - 194 that planning permission is granted subject Ward(s): Cathedral to the conditions set out in the plans list. Plans Schedule Page(s): 4-6 Contact Officer: Paul Collins, Heritage Officer Tel: 01905 722129

18. Application P18D0197 - Land at The Deputy Director - Economic Rose Bank Development and Planning recommends Page(s) 195 - 204 that the Planning Committee grant planning Ward(s): Cathedral permission, subject to the conditions set Plans Schedule out in the plans list. Page(s): 30-31 Contact Officer: Alan Coleman, Planning Development and Enforcement Team Leader Tel: 01905 722523

19. Any Other Business Planning Committee Minutes 22nd March 2018

Verbal update on Minute 152 of the Planning Committee minutes dated 22nd March 2018.

20. Plans List Page(s) 205 - 250

9 PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISIONS

Having heard all submissions and debated the issues, the Planning Committee will then vote on the application. This may be for any one of the following:

1. To approve or refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation; 2. To defer the application for further information or negotiations to address any issues raised during the consideration of the application. In such cases, the application will then be referred back to the Planning Committee at a later date for a decision; 3. To delegate the final decision to Officers if the Planning Committee is satisfied that agreed amendments would satisfy any concerns raised by the Planning Committee. If this is the case you will not be re-consulted on the amendments or notified of changes; 4. Minded to Approve/Refuse – in cases where the Planning Committee is minded to make a decision that is contrary to the Officer’s recommendation the application will be deferred:

Minded to Refuse – if the Planning Committee is minded to refuse an application it will be necessary for the Planning Committee to provide full details of the grounds for their decision to enable Officers to consider those grounds and to provide a professional opinion on the likelihood of being able to successfully defend an appeal against the refusal of the application on the cited grounds. . In such cases, the application will be referred back to the Planning Committee at a later date for a decision;

Minded to Approve– if the Planning Committee is minded to approve an application it will be necessary for the Planning Committee to give full reasons and suggest appropriate conditions and, if necessary, draft Heads of Terms for a Section 106 Agreement. In such cases the application will either be referred back to the Planning Committee at a later date for a decision or delegated to Officers to issue the decision.

PLANNING COMMITTEE SITE VISITS

The following is an extract from the Good Practice Protocol relating to Planning Matters.

The procedure for site visits will be as follows:-

 Members of the Planning Committee together with relevant officers travel to the site by mini-bus.  On arrival at the site, the designated planning officer explains the main planning issues to the Committee.  Inspections will be undertaken in a formal and professional manner. The Committee should stay together as a group.  There will be no inter-action between Members and applicants or objectors at the site visit beyond the common courtesies to be expected when visiting someone else’s property.  Members may ask questions of the officers and draw attention to issues relevant to the site visit.  Members will not debate the merits of the proposal on the site visit or on the way to or from the site visit.  Members who have declared a prejudicial interest or who, for any other reasons, do not intend to participate in the planning decision, will not participate in the site visit.  The Chairman will close the site visit and all Members will leave the site at the same time.  The Chairman may alter or terminate any visit at his/her discretion.

10 Page 1 Agenda Item 3

PLANNING COMMITTEE

28th June 2018

Present: Councillor Mike Johnson in the Chair

Councillors B. Amos, Berry, Cawthorne, Denham, Denlegh-Maxwell, Ditta (in place of Councillor A. Amos), Hodges, Johnson and Stephen

Also in Attendance: Councillor J. Squires

Apologies: Councillor Agar, A. Amos and Mitchell

In the absence of the Chairman and Vice Chairman nominations were sought for Chairman of the meeting.

It was proposed and seconded that Councillor Mike Johnson be appointed. As there were no other nominations it was put to the vote and:

RESOLVED: That Councillor Johnson is appointed Chairman for the meeting.

20 Declarations of Interest

Applications P17J0577 and L17J0086 – Former YMCA Building, Henwick Road (Minute No. 28)

Councillor Cawthorne – procedural advice only has not expressed an opinion. Councillor Cawthorne elected to speak and vote on the item

Application P18B0168 – Acorns Children’s Hospice, 350 Bath Road (Minute No. 33)

Councillor Ditta - was involved with the original opening of the Hospice at this location but has had no dealings since and no involvement in this application. Councillor Ditta elected t speak and vote on the item.

Councillor Denham – knows the objector but has not discussed the application. Councillor Denham elected to speak and vote on the item.

Councillor Stephen – procedural advice only has not expressed an opinion. Councillor Stephen elected to speak and vote on the item.

Application P18A0013 – 104 Lansdowne Road (Minute No. 27)

Councillor Johnson – knows the objector but hasn’t discussed with him. Councillor Johnson elected to speak and vote on the item. Page 2 28th June 2018 2

The following declarations of other disclosable interests was made:

Application P18D0061 – The Mews Property, Rosebank (Minute No. 34)

Councillor Denham – in her position as Chair of the Fort Royal Park Friends association had received a donation from the applicant. Although she has no personal interest in the interests of transparency. Councillor Denham left the room during the consideration and vote of the item.

Councillor Denlegh-Maxwell – is a close friend of the applicant. Councillor Denlegh-Maxwell left the room during the consideration and vote of the item.

21 Minutes of Previous Planning Committee

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 24th May 2018 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

22 Minutes of Previous Conservation Advisory Panel

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel meeting held on 9th May 2018.

23 Site Visits

The Committee visited the following sites which were the subject of applications to be determined:

Applications P17J0577 and L17J0086 – Former YMCA Building, Henwick Road

Application P18A0013 – 104 Lansdowne Road

Application P18B0168 – Acorns Children’s Hospice, 350 Bath Road

Application P18D0061 – The Mews Property, Rosebank

Application P18C0145 – 5 Boughton Avenue

24 Public Participation

None.

25 Public Representation

Those representations made are recorded at the minute to which they relate.

26 Application P18Q0091 - Land East of Nunnery Way

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a petrol station with car wash (Sui Generis); shop (Use Class A1); car parking, access, landscaping and associated works at land east of Nunnery Way. Page 3 28th June 2018 3

The application site comprised part of the site subject to outline planning application P14Q0023 which granted consent for a mixed use development.

Many parts of the consented outline proposal had ben constructed and were now operational, including A4/A5 and employment uses.

The current proposal sought to replace the consented vehicle showroom with a petrol filling station and car wash on this part of the site.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee as it did not fall under the scheme of delegation due to the scale of the development.

Site Visit

The application was not the subject of a site visit.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant planning policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to:

 Confirmation by the applicant that the at grade crossing on Nunnery Way was now operational; and  The amendment of condition 4 to read that the site should only be used as a petrol filling station with associated car awash and retail facilities.

Officer Presentation

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

Public Representations

The following people had registered to address the Committee and spoke in respect of the application:

Mr Andrew Cross (Objector on behalf of local residents) and Mr Robert Barnes (Agent for the Applicant)

Key Points of Debate

 The objector, on behalf of the residents, addressed the Committee by stating that the original planning permission granted did not include a petrol station or A1 retail. There was a concern that there would be a risk of land/water contamination on the site. Page 4 28th June 2018 4

Sustainable development was to be encouraged but most would travel by car to the site. The objector also commented there was a need to reduce the need for petrol/diesel vehicles within the next 20 years and this would reduce the need for petrol/diesel stations. He commented that there were plenty of petrol stations nearby.

 The agent on behalf of the applicant in response stated that the development was extremely well placed and planning permission was already in place for a mixed use development, including a car showroom although marketing had not generated any interest. The proposed would create more jobs and was compatible with the surrounding areas. The support for the proposal had been strong. No objection from highways, environment agency or the police. The agent referred to paragraphs 8.9 and 8.10 of the report referring to the policy comments by officers.

 The agent for the applicant responded to questions from Members in particular to land contamination. When questioned the agent did refer to an appraisal document provided by WSP who were experts in above and below ground storage. They had provided expert advice and there would be conditions and a management plan which would be monitored. The agent was asked if the applicant would consider having indemnity insurance. He confirmed they would if a condition required an informative note to the developer to carry some indemnity insurance. The Principal Planning Officer referred Members to condition 3.

 It was noted that there were 8 pumps which would be visible from the shop. There would be CCTV cameras in 50 areas and 2 vehicle charging points on the plan. In referring to statistics for petrol/diesel the agent stated that the site would fulfil a need for several decades.

 Members asked if the charging points were a condition. The Principal Planning Officer stated that they were not but needed to be approved in accordance with the plans which were a condition.

 The Principal Planning Officer also confirmed that the retail unit would not replace a destination shopping area. The nearest retail unit was 2km away. The site would not impact on the retail function of the City Centre.

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was agreed, subject to an informative note regarding indemnity/liability insurance.

RESOLVED: That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list, and informative note regarding indemnity/liability insurance.

27 Application P18A0013 - 104 Lansdowne Road

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the proposed demolition of an existing dwelling and the construction of 3 dwellings including parking, landscaping, altered vehicular access and alterations to boundary wall at 104 Lansdowne Road. Page 5 28th June 2018 5

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor J. Squires on the grounds of ‘concerns with regard to the height and scale of the proposed dwelling, the impact on privacy and concerns about access to the highway’.

Site Visit

The application had been the subject of a site visit.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant planning policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

There were no late papers circulated.

Officer Presentation

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

Public Representations

The following people had registered to address the Committee and spoke in respect of the application:

Mr John Wickson (Objector) and Mr Dan Stiff (Agent for the Applicant).

A local Ward Member, Councillor J. Squires, also addressed the Committee outlining her concerns related to height and scale of the proposed dwellings, impact on privacy and access to the highway.

Key Points of Debate

 The objector, representing a neighbour who was unable to attend the meeting, addressed the Committee by stating that the density/height and mass was of concern. He stated that if the proposal had been for two storey development then there would be no issues. He urged the Committee to limit the proposal to 2 storeys in height. He did confirm that the applicants had amended the plans but this had still resulted in objections being made.

 The agent for the applicant in response addressed Committee by stating that the property had remained empty and vandalised for some time and that the proposal was a betterment for the site. He acknowledged that the height was the issue for neighbours but if a 2 storey building was proposed he indicated that the site would end up with a development that did not fit. With regard to overlooking/privacy he confirmed there were no windows on the rear or side elevations on the second floor and the site would be screened by a boundary wall. Page 6 28th June 2018 6

 A local Ward Member addressed the Committee who lived not far from the application site, although from her own property the proposal had no impact, she was representing the residents in her ward.

 The local Ward Member stated that the site had become an eyesore for a while and was pleased that a development was being proposed and was an improvement. The main issue for residents was the height and scale. Residents had seen very little from behind the wall for many years but were now concerned that the proposals would impact on them. A 2 storey development would have been more acceptable. Although highways have no objections the local Ward Member felt that at some stage there would be a need for Traffic Regulation Orders to be in place, as highway issues were of a concern to residents.

 Officers responded to questions from Members on the windows in the properties and referred them to paragraph 8.17 of his report for clarification.

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

28 Applications P17J0577 and L17J0086 - Former YMCA Building, Henwick Road

Introduction

The Committee considered applications for the change of use of a hostel to student accommodation; demolitions and erection of new accommodation block; access and car park improvements at the former YMCA building, Henwick Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee in accordance with the scheme of delegation.

Site Visit

The application had been the subject of a site visit.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant planning policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper, which related to a neighbour objection from Becky Fulcher, who had been unable to attend to address Committee. Page 7 28th June 2018 7

Officer Presentation

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the comments of the Conservation Advisory Panel on page 26 of the officer’s report.

Public Representations

There had been no one registered to speak on the application.

Key Points of Debate

 It was commented that the building was surrounded by Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO’s) and that the residents were anxious. It was asked whether the development of the site would result in those HMO’s returning to family homes, if not then the density of the proposal was of concern. The Development Services Manager stated that there was no direct correlation and the application was assessed on its merit and was considered acceptable.

 Members agreed that the building had been a very important part of Worcester’s history and welcomed the development. Members were informed that the Conservation Officer had looked at the schedule of works in detail.to ensure that the fabric and condition of the building was taken into account.

 It was noted that the University was not managing this site and Members agreed they would have had no concerns if they were. The Development Services Manager informed Members that condition 20 of the plans list required a Management Plan that promoted the well running of the establishment in line with national standards such as Universities UK Accommodation Code of Practice.

 In response to a question around growth figures of student s in the City the Development Services Manager stated that he did not have these to hand, however there was regular dialogue with the University which was part of a wider strategy.

 Reference was made to the late paper and the concerns raised by the objector in relation to the astro turf pitch which from the proposed plans would be a car park. The Development Services Manager confirmed that the site was not regularly used and was redundant.

 The Chairman in referring to the proposed car park asked if some of the grass could be changed to grasscrete. A suggestion was also made to move the cycle storage so that cars would be further away. The Development Services Manager agreed to discuss surface treatment and the location of the cycle sheds with the applicants.

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was agreed. Page 8 28th June 2018 8

RESOLVED: That the Committee is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the applicant and all parties with an interest in the land entering into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act in accordance with the agreed Heads of Terms and subject to the Deputy Director – Governance being satisfied with the nature of such an Agreement delegate to the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning to grant the necessary planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list and to grant listed building consent, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

29 Application P18D0093 - Former City and County Suzuki Showroom, Farrier Street

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a five storey office building and new access at the former City and County Suzuki Showroom, Farrier Street.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee as it did not fall under the scheme of delegation due to the scale of the development.

Site Visit

The application had not been the subject of a site visit.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant planning policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to the amendment of paragraph 9.1 of the officer’s report as requested by the applicant, which verified that the proposed offices were to serve and support the business needs, and not specific to any one sector.

Officer Presentation

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

Public Representations

There had been no one registered to speak on the application.

Key Points of Debate

 Members noted that this application had previously been granted approval but the time period had now lapsed. This proposal was exactly the same as that in 2013 apart from the occupation of Farrier House. Page 9 28th June 2018 9

 Members agreed that Sanctuary Housing were a major employer in the City and the proposal would complete the regeneration of the area and enhanced the City.

 It was also agreed that the proposal was in a sustainable location and that Sanctuary Housing had a good Sustainable Travel Plan and should be congratulated on the scheme.

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was unanimously agreed.

RESOLVED: That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

30 Application P18D0155 - 2 Stanley Road

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the change of use from family foster care unit to 14 units of low cost accommodation (9no. studio apartments and 1 no 5 bedroom House in Multiple Occupation) at 2 Stanley Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee as it did not fall under the scheme of delegation due to the scale of development.

Site Visit

The application had not been the subject of a site visit.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant planning policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to the proposed draft Heads of Terms which were yet to be finalised.

Officer Presentation

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

The Principal Planning Officer, referring to the draft Heads of Terms, stated that these were yet to be finalised. It was asked that delegation be given to Officers to finalise the Heads of Terms in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee.

Public Representations

There had been no one registered to speak on the application. Page 10 28th June 2018 10

Key Points of Debate

 Members generally agreed that the proposal was welcomed as there was a need for accommodation of this type. It was noted that there was a management plan in place and that the applicants, the YMCA, were a reputable organisation.

 In referring to paragraph 8.7 of the report and issues raised by the Crime Risk Manager it was asked whether these would be conditioned. The Principal Planning Officer stated that they would be covered in the management plan which had been drawn up in conjunction with the Police.

 It was noted that the accommodation had always been a care provider and this proposal would be a continuation of that. It was asked if the individuals were no longer in training/education or employment would they lose their homes. The Principal Planning Officer stated that that management plan would ensure that they moved on with training/education or employment.

 Some Members were aware that there was widespread concern by residents on various issues and that the site had been under unoccupied at time. The proposal would be a significant change. It was agreed that the management plan was the key to hold the YMCA to account and the residents too.

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was agreed.

RESOLVED: That the Committee is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the applicant and all parties with an interest in the land entering into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act in accordance with the Heads of Terms, to be agreed in consultation with the Chairman of Planning Committee, and subject to the Deputy Director – Governance being satisfied with the nature of such an Agreement delegate to the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning to grant the necessary planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

31 Application P18M0021 - Turrall Street

Introduction

The Committee considered and application for the demolition of existing garages and erection of 2no. three bedroom houses, with amenity and car parking at garage court, Turrall Street.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application was referred to Planning Committee on 24th May 2018 whereby by the Planning Committee deferred the application on the following grounds:

 Loss of boundary walls and to allow the applicants to re-consider the retention of the boundary wall, in whole or part; and Page 11 28th June 2018 11

 The applicant’s comments in respect of the ‘fall back’ position (i.e. the likelihood of the boundary walls being demolished in the event that planning permission is refused).

The original report considered by Planning Committee at their meeting on 24th May 2018 was attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

Site Visit

The application was not the subject of a site visit on this occasion but had been in May 2018.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the issues for consideration as follows:

 Consequence of repair to perimeter wall;  Further assessment of the perimeter brick wall relating to the character of the area;  The cost implications of the boundary treatment delivery; and  The ‘fall back’ position.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper received from Carbon Law Partners, on behalf of Mr Nigel Morton, who had addressed Committee as an objector at the 24th May 2018 meeting. The main objection being to the proposed replacement of the boundary with a security fence and the adverse impact upon the objector’s residential amenity as well as the character of the area.

Officer Presentation

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

In referring to the late paper the Development Services Manager informed Members of the Committee that the objector had suggested a condition requiring the partial retention of the wall together with an appropriate fence 2 metres in height when measured from the objector’s property. However the applicant had not engaged with the objector.

Public Representations

In accordance with the City Council’s Constitution, Part 5, Committee Procedure Rule 11.3.8 as public representations were made at the previous meeting of the committee no one had been permitted to register to speak again on the application

Key Points of Debate

 Some Members felt a degree of sympathy for the objector, Mr Nigel Morton, as the proposal would have an impact and would prefer that the developer come back with a compromise. It was accepted, however, that the wall did not belong to the objector. Page 12 28th June 2018 12

 Other Members who had been on the previous site visit understood the concerns of the objector that the wall should remain, but it was felt that there was an opportunity for the objector to build a wall if he wished. Members were mindful that if the proposal was refused then the applicants could appeal.

 Members agreed that the priority had to be the provision of housing on site and noted that a compromise had not been met.

 The Chairman asked if the applicant, objector and Planning Officer had met to reach a compromise. The Development Services Manager confirmed that they had not met but could do so.

 It was proposed to defer the application to enable a meeting to take place and to refer the application back to Planning Committee for a decision.

The motion was proposed and seconded and on being put to the vote it was unanimously agreed to defer the application for the reasons given.

RESOLVED: That the Committee defer the application to allow a meeting between the Local Planning Authority, applicants and objector (Mr Morton) to seek agreement for retention of the boundary wall in whole or part with 55 New Bank Street.

32 Application P17D0380 - Warmstry Court, Quay Street

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the conversion and change of use of an existing 2 storey storage building into a 2 bedroom residential.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee as it did not fall under the scheme of delegation as it was contrary to the Development Plan.

Site Visit

The application had not been the subject of a site visit.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant planning policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to the following:

 Email correspondence from the applicant (Sanctuary Housing) relating to concerns outlined in the Officer’s report;  Response to those concerns raised and clarification given by the Officer; and Page 13 28th June 2018 13

 Consultee response from the City Council’s Planning Policy Team Leader.

Officer Presentation

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

The Development Services Manager informed Committee Members that he had no objection in principle to the proposal and that the only reason for refusal was based on flooding which was considered an unacceptable risk to future habitants.

Public Representations

There had been no one registered to speak on the application.

Key Points of Debate

 During the ensuing debate some Members had suggested that a site visit may be beneficial to get a clearer understanding of the flooding conditions on site before coming to any decision.

 Other Members felt that although a site visit may be an advantage the recommendation provided had been based on professional advice and did not feel that anything further would be gained from the visit.

 Members did ask about the contents of the Flood Evacuation Management Plan to be provided by the applicants, Sanctuary Housing, and that it would have been useful to have had sight of this.

The recommendation by Officers to refuse the application was proposed and seconded and on being put to the vote the proposal was lost.

A motion was then proposed and seconded that the application be deferred to enable a site visit to be carried out and for the flood levels to be indicated internally and externally on the building. On being put to the vote the motion to defer was agreed.

RESOLVED: That the Committee defer the application to enable a site visit to take place and for 1:100 year plus climate change flood levels internally and externally on building to be indicated.

33 Application P18B0168 - Acorns Childrens Hospice, 350 Bath Road

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the construction of a car park at Acorns Children’s Hospice, 350 Bath Road

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application has been called in by Councillor Stephens on the grounds of significant local objection, impact on neighbouring residents’ amenities, and impact on natural environment. Page 14 28th June 2018 14

Concerns have also been expressed that ‘…many residents believe that this application could be the thin edge of a wedge to create an additional access to the site to then further enable a future development.’

Site Visit

The application had been the subject of a site visit.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant planning policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to a further neighbour objection.

Officer Presentation

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

Public Representations

There had been no one registered to speak on the application.

Key Points of Debate

 Residents had raised concerns that if the proposal was approved it would result in future development on the site. Members asked if there was anything that could be done to reassure the residents. The Development Services Manager informed the Committee that any future development on site would require a separate application.

 Reference was made to the users of the car park and concerns that the car park could become even larger and asked officers in terms of reassuring residents what conditions could be applied. The Development Services Manager stated that condition 2 of the plan list required the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and submitted details, which included use of the car park.

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was agreed.

RESOLVED: That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list. .

34 Application P18D0061 - the Mews Property, Rosebank

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the removal of condition 2 of planning application P17D0279 to allow the use of clear glazing to the windows in the northern elevation to the Mews Property, Rose Bank. Page 15 28th June 2018 15

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee in accordance with the practice of the Local Planning Authority in respect of the determination of applications relating to schemes that had originally been considered and decided by the Planning Committee.

Site Visit

The application had been the subject of a site visit.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant planning policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

Officer Presentation

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

Public Representations

There had been no one registered to speak on the application.

Key Points of Debate

 Members were of the opinion that the condition had originally been imposed for good reasons as set out in the report considered by the Planning Committee in respect of planning application P17D0279.Members noted the case put forward by the applicant for the removal of the condition and considered it carefully. However, having seen the completed unit and boundary fencing in situ on the site visit and the relationship to the neighbouring properties in Edward Close, members were satisfied that the use of obscure glazing remained reasonable, necessary and appropriate for the reasons set out in the Officer’s report.

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was refused as per the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED: That the Committee refuse planning permission for the following reason:

Policy SWDP 21 (iv) of the South Worcestershire Development Plan seeks to protect the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties and requires development to provide an adequate level of privacy, outlook, sunlight and daylight, and should not be unduly overbearing. Page 16 28th June 2018 16

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed removal of condition 2 of planning application P17D0279 to allow non-obscure glazing in the windows on the northern elevation to the Mews Property would compromise the amenities of residents of the host and neighbouring properties to an unacceptable degree by reason of loss of privacy from actual and the perception of overlooking.

The proposal would thereby also be contrary to policy SWDP 21 (iv) of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and those principles of the Framework that seek to ensure a good standard of amenity for occupiers of land and buildings.

35 Application P18C0145 - 5 Boughton Avenue

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the change of use from residential dwelling to House of Multiple Occupation, single storey side extension and associated car parking to frontage at 5 Boughton Avenue.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been called in by Councillor A. Amos ‘in order to fully assess the appropriateness of such a property in the location; and the lack of sufficient parking spaces’.

Site Visit

The application had been the subject of a site visit.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant planning policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to an objection to the application from Ward Member, Councillor A. Amos.

Officer Presentation

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

The Development Services Manager in referring to the site visit had agreed that an additional condition would be added to the plans list, as identified by Members on the site visit, for refuse and cycle storage in the forecourt as there was no access at the rear.

Public Representations

There had been no one registered to speak on the application. Page 17 28th June 2018 17

On being proposed and seconded and out to the vote the proposal was agreed with the additional condition.

RESOLVED: That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list and to an additional condition for provision of cycle/refuse storage in the forecourt rather than the rear of the property.

36 Any Other Business

None.

Duration of the meeting: 1.30p.m. to 5.05p.m.

Chairman at the meeting on 19th July 2018 This page is intentionally left blank Page 19 Agenda Item 4 CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL (Incorporating the Civic Society Development Panel)

______

Minutes of the meeting held on 6th June 2018

Present: Mr C. Potterton in the chair.

The Very Revd. Peter Atkinson, Mr D Davis, Mr G Harvey, Mr M McCurdy, Mr D Saunders and Mrs C Silvester, Mr M Hughes, Dr H Barrett, Mr S Laws, Councillor B Amos, Mr B Edwards, Mr R Lockett

Officers: Mr Andrew Round, Mr J Dinn, Dr P Collins,

Apologies: Ms H Rea, Mrs J Shaduwa Councillor Mrs L Hodgson, Councillor S Cronin and Mr C Guy.

108. INTRODUCTIONS

Councillor Bill Amos, newly appointed Member and Mr Andrew Round, Director of Place was introduced to the Panel.

109. MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting held on 9th May 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

1. Amendments

None

2. Matters Arising

None

110. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT

1. Appeal Decisions and Notifications of Appeal

None

2. Chairman’s Correspondence

None

111. OUTCOME OF APPLICATIONS

Dr Collins reported on the status of applications considered at the meeting on 4th April and 9th May 2018.

______Chairman Mr C. Potterton, BA DipLA CMLI Secretary: Mrs Margaret Johnson, Worcester City Council, The Guildhall, Worcester WR1 2EY Page 20 CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL (Incorporating the Civic Society Development Panel)

______

Commandery Service Station, 20 Bath Road. Proposed above ground diesel tank to supplement existing storage. At the Planning meeting on 24th May 2018 Officers did not object to the proposal. Although the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel had not been produced in time, the Chair submitted the Panel’s objection to the application as a late paper to the Planning Committee. The Panel were therefore surprised that consent was granted and queried the basis on which such a decision was made.

Agreed: That when the Panel has a strong objection to an item it would be helpful to know how the Officers’ decided. In future when planning the agenda a link to the Officer’s Report will be included if available.

P17L0577, L17J0086. YMCA, Henwick Road. This item will be before the Planning Committee this month. Comments will be duly noted from the four times the panel has discussed this proposal.

P18D0111. Hostel House, 5 College Green. Upgrade kitchen service area; creation of external terrace.

A18D0015. 17 Mealcheapen Street. Replacement fascia signage. In line with policy.

112. REPORT ONLY APPLICATIONS

Dr Collins reported on the status of 10 applications and clarified the situation in regard to specific queries from Mr McCurdy regarding: P18C00190, L18D0019, P18C0170 and P18D0164.

113. APPLICATION A18D0016 MILLER & CARTER STEAKHOUSE, UNIT A3-3, CATHEDRAL SQUARE.

This relates to 1 No. suspended sign. Initially 2 signs were suspended without consent, This went to appeal where the Inspector found in our favour.

The sign is now in line with PINS Decision and acceptable.

114. APPLICATION P18A0160 ST GEORGES LANE GROUND AND FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION.

This application was withdrawn. No comments.

115. APPLICATION P18E0176 WORCESTER NORTH PARK & RIDE, JOHN COMYN DRIVE.

______Chairman Mr C. Potterton, BA DipLA CMLI Secretary: Mrs Margaret Johnson, Worcester City Council, The Guildhall, Worcester WR1 2EY Page 21 CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL (Incorporating the Civic Society Development Panel)

______

Change of use from existing Park and Ride site to education use. Erection of new two storey primary school with associated parking, landscape work and fencing.

The panel discussed a number of issues including the loss of the Park and Ride facility as this scheme would remove all possibility of returning to that use in the future. The plans under discussion did not cover the whole (of the P&R) site, however it is possible that the rest of the site may be let to others.

Retention and protection of existing established trees was felt to be of great importance. The Panel had no problem with the design or layout of the building and considered that there was adequate ‘play space’ for the children.

Concerns were raised about the flow of traffic in / out of the site and the level of parking provided. Overall the Panel concluded that as it was originally designed for much higher volumes of traffic it is probable that this would not be an issue.

The panel have no objection in principle, subject to itemised issues and/or conditions.

116. APPLICATION P18L0025 AND L18L0023 THE COURT HOUSE, MIDDLE BATTENHALL FARM, UPPER BATTENHALL.

Single storey side extension The Panel had no objection in principle, but felt the proportion of glazing to wall is too high and that the windows and doors need to be reduced slightly in size and allow a greater depth between the edge of the opening and the outer edge of the wall. It should resemble the existing building proportions more closely.

The panel have no objection in principle, subject to itemised issues and/or conditions.

117. APPLICATION P18B0177 1 BATTENHALL WALK. ERECTION OF SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION.

The panel have no objection.

118. APPLICATION P18L0025 AND A18D0020 23 THE CROSS.

Proposed city centre branch of Kentucky Fried Chicken. It is an unlisted building, and will include a new shop front, which will be retaining original windows. However, the development is contrary to current planning policy and unlikely to gain approval.

The panel objected as this is contrary to planning policy.

______Chairman Mr C. Potterton, BA DipLA CMLI Secretary: Mrs Margaret Johnson, Worcester City Council, The Guildhall, Worcester WR1 2EY Page 22 CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL (Incorporating the Civic Society Development Panel)

______

119. APPLICATION P18D0188 1 HERON ROW, 161 LONDON ROAD.

Two storey side extension to an existing house. It was agreed that this pair of houses was one of the best examples of contemporary design in Worcester and it was therefore unfortunate to lose the symmetry between the two buildings. However, the proposed scheme had worked hard to provide a different balance and that the overall character was retained.

The panel have no objection in principle, subject to itemised issues and/or conditions.

120. APPLICATION P18D0193 MOORS CAR PARK. THE MOORS.

Existing poor quality car park adjacent to The Swan Theatre and the Racecourse. The University have the lease from Monday to Friday and it is open to the public over the weekend. Some existing lights are already in place. This proposal includes 4 new lights with LED sensors and an Automatic Number Plate Recognition system (ANPR). It was noted that the LED lights are more directional, produce less light pollution and are more environmentally friendly.

The panel raised no objection.

121. APPLICATION P18C0175 LAND OFF OAK VIEW WAY, OAK VIEW WAY.

This is a large application which is not within a conservation area but, importantly is in line with the SWDP and Local Plan policies. The University bought the land in 2009 and It was unsuccessfully marketed for three years.

Although currently zoned for university use, this plan is for a residential scheme of 175 dwellings. A change of use application will be made. There was some discussion regarding the overall layout and the Panel concluded that it lacked any sense of place and appeared to be an exercise in achieving a specific number of units. It does not respond to the various opportunities presented by the site.

The panel discussed the need to orient the houses to make use of solar power and the need for an appropriate mix of affordable houses throughout the scheme. There is currently a high degree of public use on and around the site and this must be considered as an important part of any design.

Overall, the panel has no objection to the principle, but would wish to see the scheme footprint re-designed and concluded therefore that the scheme was not acceptable in its current format.

______Chairman Mr C. Potterton, BA DipLA CMLI Secretary: Mrs Margaret Johnson, Worcester City Council, The Guildhall, Worcester WR1 2EY Page 23 CONSERVATION ADVISORY PANEL (Incorporating the Civic Society Development Panel)

______

122. ANY OTHER BUSINESS.

L18D0015 4 Heron Row, London Road

This item was deferred from the previous meeting. Re-building and reinstatement of a brick out building. Unit 4, stable, Coach House. This is located between the greenhouse and the main house. Dr Collins explained that the roof had partially collapsed and had to be taken down for safety reasons. It was being re-built exactly as per the original.

______Chairman at the meeting 6th June 2018

______Chairman Mr C. Potterton, BA DipLA CMLI Secretary: Mrs Margaret Johnson, Worcester City Council, The Guildhall, Worcester WR1 2EY This page is intentionally left blank Page 25 Agenda Item 8

Report to: Planning Committee, 19th July 2018

Report of: Corporate Director - Place

Subject: WORCESTER CITY COUNCIL EMPLOYMENT LAND MONITOR 2017-2018

1. Recommendation

1.1 That Planning Committee note the Worcester City Council Employment Land Monitor (April 2017-March 2018).

2. Background

2.1 Appendix 1 sets out the Worcester City Council Employment Land Monitor (April 2017-March 2018). This is the latest in these annual reports, which monitor completed B use class development and commitments for new employment premises, i.e. offices, factories and warehouses under construction or with planning permission. The monitor also updates the five year employment land supply position for the Worcester City Council area.

2.2 This report is being brought to the committee’s attention as it provides context for the committee’s work and because it is part of the monitoring of the implementation of the South Worcestershire Development Plan. Monitoring information provides context and evidence to inform City Council development management decisions regarding the delivery of new floor space to accommodate new or expanding businesses within the city.

3. Information

3.1 1.5 hectares of employment land on a single site has been developed in 2016/17, this is similar to the 1.61 hectares of employment land developed in 2016/17 but still well below the annual target of 3.3 hectares in the South Worcestershire Development Plan. Over the past five years the average annual rate of development of employment land is 1.33 hectares. There is currently one employment site under construction (at Midland Road) and likely to deliver completed units in the next twelve months. Phase two of the Hornhill Road/Nunnery Way Site could deliver completions in one or two years.

3.2 As shown in Table five of the Employment Land Monitor, there are currently just 10.38 hectares of employment land immediately available within the City which is below the five year target of 16.5 hectares suggested by the SWDP. This is significant decline, 26.82 hectares was assumed to be available in April 2017. This change is a result of new evidence in the past twelve months about the aspirations of land owners for the development of their land and advice from consultants appointed to produce an Economic Development Needs Assessment for South Worcestershire as supporting evidence for the SWDP review. Page 26

3.3 Against the South Worcestershire Development Plan total requirement of 80 hectares of additional employment land within the city there is currently a deficit of 32.15 hectares. This is a slight improvement on the deficit of 33.01 hectares in April 2017. This is a result of re-assessing the site area of the Nunnery Way site allocation. In the wider Worcester Area 116.05 hectares of land is available, allocated, or has been developed for employment uses, this is 3.95 hectares below the target of 120 hectares set in the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

3.4 During 2017/18, no employment land received planning approval for alternative uses this is the second year in succession that no employment land has been lost to alternative uses. This is only the third year since 2006 that no employment land was lost to alternative uses. Over the past five years the average rate of conversion of employment land to alternative use has been 0.87 hectares per year. This is a dramatic decline form the previous five yearly average of 4.35 hectares and is the result of significant losses at Gregory’s Bank, Ronkswood and Grove Farm all being approved in 2012 and therefore no longer being part of the last five year average calculation.

3.5 Two small employment windfall developments lapsed in 2017/18 with no indication that these might be renewed or development is still required. Currently several local businesses (Worcester Bosch, Mazak and Yodel) have expansion plans that require new build employment floorspace on existing employment sites.

3.6 Since the start of the plan period in 2006 16.33 hectares of land has been developed against a plan target for the past twelve years of 40 hectares.

Ward(s): ALL Contact Officer: Adrian Becker – Tel: 01905 722545, Email: [email protected] Background Papers: Appendix One Worcester City Employment Land Monitor 2018.

Page 27 Agenda Item 8 Appendix 1

Employment Land Monitor

2018

Information presented in this report represents data monitored from the period:

1St April 2017 to 31st March 2018

Published July 2018 Page 28

Contents

Page 1. Introduction 3

2. Employment Land Development 4 3. Land Type 6 4. Worcester Employment Land Supply at April 2018 7 5. Provision and Rolling Five-Year Reservoir of 14 Employment Land 6. Conclusion 19 Employment Land Monitor Schedules 2017/18 22 Schedule 1 - Land identified in the Adopted Local Plan 23 for Employment Schedule 2 - Commitments for Employment Uses 24 including Allocated Sites Schedule 3 - Land developed for Industrial/Employment 26 Use 1st April 2006 – 31st March 2018 Schedule 4 - Total land developed for Employment Uses 31 1st April 2006 – 31st March 2018 Schedule 5 - Permissions included in the last monitoring 32 report which had expired by 31st March 2018 Schedule 6 - Employment Land Larger than 0.1 Hectare 33 Lost to Other Uses Since 2006 Schedule 7 – Wider Worcester Area Employment sites 34

Page 1

Page 29

Tables Page

Table 1 Employment Land in Worcester 2006-2018 5

Table 2 Status of Local Plan Employment Sites 9

Approved non B Use Class Development on Table 2a 9 Allocated Employment Land

Worcester Local Plan Employment Land Supply Table 3 11 March 2018

South Worcestershire Development Plan Wider Table 4 13 Worcester Employment Land Supply March 2018

Table 5 Worcester Five Year Reservoir of Employment Land 17

Annual Change in Total Employment Land Supply Table 6 20 Wider Worcester Area

Annual Change Worcester’s Employment Land Table 7 20 Supply

Page 2

Page 30

1. Introduction

1.1 The City Council has a statutory responsibility to make available any information it has collected for monitoring purposes as soon as possible after the information becomes available1. This report provides information on the supply of employment land in Worcester for the period 1st April 2017 – 31st March 2018, forming part of the City Council’s annual monitoring programme.

1.2 This report does not include the site areas of extensions to existing units, as it is the overall area of land to be used/being used for employment purposes that is monitored, and not the floor area of each building.

1.3 The Government sets out its view of how planning should deliver economic growth in the National Planning Policy Framework. This requires the planning system to contribute to the building of a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type and in the right locations is available to allow growth and innovation.

1 Paragraph 7, Part 8, The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning (England) Regulations 2012

Page 3

Page 31

2. Employment land development

2.1 In the year 1st April 2017 to 31st March 2018 1.5 hectares of land on a single site (Hornhill Road formerly Land at Nunnery Way SWDP43/20) was developed for new B use class employment space. See Schedule 3 for details of completed B use class development since 2006.

2.2 Table 1 below shows the amount of employment land that has been developed in Worcester between 2006 and 2018. Since 2006 around 16.33 hectares of employment land has been developed in the city. Schedule 4 details the annual total employment land completions by year over this period and illustrates that 2017/18 saw a marginally above average amount of employment land developed. 2008/09 saw the most employment land being developed with 5.9 ha completed in that monitoring year. The average amount of employment land developed per year in Worcester since 2006 is 1.45 ha. More recently, the average over the last 5 years 2013-2018 is 1.33 ha. The site developed in 2017/18 was at Hornhill Road and provides up to nine additional units ranging in size from 920 sqm to 441 sqm. Development of the remaining land at Great Western Avenue (Midland Road) should be complete in the next 12 months and a second phase of development at Hornhill Road could deliver new commercial floorspace within the next two years. Developments on land South of Warndon Wood and on land at Berkeley Way could be completed within three years. Ignoring long standing commitments, i.e. sites with planning permission for many years that have not come forward and allocated sites that are the subject of enquires for alternative types of development the short term supply of developable employment land within the city is just 10.38 hectares.

Page 4

Page 32

Table 1: Employment Land in Worcester 2006-2018 a Employment Land Built (since 2006) (Schedule 4) 16.33 ha b Employment Land Under Construction on 31st March 2018 3.5 ha c Commitments for Employment Uses Including Allocated Sites 28.02 ha (Schedule 2) d Employment Land Allocated without planning permission (Schedule 1) 0 ha

LAND SUPPLY (b + c + d) 31.52 ha e Loss of Employment Land (2006-2018) (Schedule 6) 33.11 ha

2.3 In the monitoring year April 2017 to March 2018 1.5 hectares of employment land (B1, B2, B8) moved from commitment to completion. This is a small decrease on the rate of development in 2016/17 but above the average rate of development over the past five years. While two significant sites are currently under construction and one of these is likely to deliver completed units in the next year it is unlikely that the city will achieve any sustained growth in employment space in future years. There is 31.52 hectares of supply outstanding (see table 1 above). The total land supply available for new B use class development has decreased by 0.64 hectares since April 2017. This change is a result of sites obtaining planning permission being developed and approvals lapsing and therefore no longer being part of the potential future supply of development. This is a continuation of the trend in recent years when the supply of available

Page 5

Page 33

employment land has declined each year. The improvement in 2015/16 when 2.5 hectares of land was added to the total supply for future employment use has not been sustained in the past two years. In the past five years (during which the South Worcestershire Development Plan has been adopted with new site allocations) the potential future supply of land for employment generating uses has fallen from 46.45 hectares to 31.52 hectares and only 6.65 hectares of land has been developed.

2.4 Worcester failed to meet the Local Plan target between 1996 and 2011 of delivering 75 hectares of additional employment land. While the market ultimately determines what development takes place the size of allocated employment sites and land owners aspirations were also factors that affected the delivery of allocated employment sites during the previous plan period. The current market conditions do not favour commercial developments in general and office and industrial floor space is often unviable at present without an agreed pre let in place.

3. Land Type

Brownfield Land 3.1 Worcester City Council has sought to ensure that brownfield sites are released for development for employment purposes. Five brownfield sites were allocated in the 1996 to 2011 Local Plan but only land at Tolladine Goods Yard and Midland Road was developed. The South Worcestershire Development Plan allocated two brownfield employment sites (The Former Ronkswood Hospital, Newtown Road and The Gas Holder, Medway Road) for residential uses. Half of the site of the former Government Buildings on Whittington Road was also allocated for residential development. Development of the site of the Former Ronkswood Hospital for 181 dwellings and a care home is now complete. One of the remaining brownfield site allocated for employment uses at Great Western Avenue, Midland Road is currently under construction and likely to be built out within the next year.

Page 6

Page 34

Greenfield Development

3.2 The majority of employment development since the 1980s has been located on greenfield land in Warndon. The 1.5 hectares developed in 2017/18 was a greenfield site this is the first greenfield site to be developed for employment uses in over six years. The overall figure for greenfield development since 2006 is 3.94 hectares which represents 24% of the total employment land developed.

4. Worcester Employment Land Supply at April 2018

4.1 The South Worcestershire Development Plan includes within policy SWDP3 a requirement for about 80 hectares of land for employment uses for the Local Plan period 2006-2030 within Worcester. The employment land supply total for 2006-2030 includes completions, commitments (identified through planning permissions), and allocations identified through the Local Plan. The South Worcestershire Development Plan Policy SWDP43 allocates six sites for future employment use.

4.2 The requirement for the plan period equates to an annual average of 3.3 hectares per year. This is a useful target to compare with completions in recent years. The five year supply requirement would be 16.5 hectares.

4.3 The South Worcestershire Development Plan also includes a requirement for about 120 hectares of employment land within the Wider Worcester Area. This is a total requirement which includes the 80 hectares within the City. Policy SWDP44 allocates 41 hectares of land on three sites for future employment use. Phase one of the Worcester Technology Park (27.2 hectares) is in addition to these allocations.

4.4 The National Planning Policy Framework replaced most government planning policies in England in March 2012. The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 22 that ‘planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocations should be regularly reviewed. Where there is no reasonable

Page 7

Page 35

prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities.’ This change in national planning policy is reflected in recent planning approvals for developments on a number of allocated sites. Schedule 6 provides details of consented non B use class development on employment land since 2006.

4.5 The Government published a revised NPPF for consultation in March 2018. If the draft revised text becomes national planning policy then existing paragraph 22 will be deleted. A new section titled Making effective use of land is proposed for inclusion in the revised NPPF. This section requires local planning authorities to regularly review site allocations and remove or allocate the land for an alternative use if it is unlikely to be developed. This section will also require local planning authorities to take a more positive approach to residential re-development proposals on retail and employment land in areas of high housing demand. If the City Council wishes in future to resist the redevelopment of land occupied or allocated for non residential uses the Council will require a strong evidence base that shows allowing such redevelopment will damage local economic growth and productivity.

Page 8

Page 36

Table 2: Status of Local Plan Employment Sites

Local Plan Employment Sites

Site Ha Comments

Site Allocations with permission and/or under construction at 01/04/2018

Approved office park unlikely to be SWDP43/15 Worcester Woods 8.3 developed

Unlikely that the whole 8.5 ha will be SWDP43/18 University Park 8.5 developed for B use class development

SWDP43/20 Land at Nunnery Way 4 Development under construction

Out line approval for 15,050 sqm of SWDP43/16 Whittington Road 4 B1a (offices)

2 units totalling 2,786 sqm for B1a, SWDP43/22 Midland Road 1 B1c or B8 use under construction

SWDP43/23 Land South of 3 units totalling 21,072 sqm for B1a, 5 Warndon Wood B2 or B8 use approved

Table 2a: Approved non B Use Class Development on Allocated Employment Land

Non B Use Class Development on Allocated Employment Land

Ha Lost to Site Alternative Alternative use Uses Land south of Newtown Care Home & Hospital Car Park, 2.7 Road/Nunnery Way complete

Doctors Surgery, Care Home and Grove Farm, Bromyard Road 2.5 Extra Care Apartments, complete

Page 9

Page 37

4.6 At 31st March 2018 there were 29.3 ha of committed allocated employment sites up from 27.16 ha in 2016/17(see Schedule 2) and no uncommitted allocated employment land (see Schedule 1) without planning consent. Thus the amount of employment land available (i.e. employment sites under construction, with planning permission or a local plan allocated employment site) totals 31.52 ha (gross) down from 32.16 ha in 2016/17.

4.7 In 2017/18 no additional sites became available for employment purposes and no employment sites over 0.1 of a hectare were lost to alternative uses.

Employment Land Provision 2006 to 2030

4.8 The provision of employment land within the City of Worcester monitored against the requirements of the adopted South Worcestershire Development Plan is illustrated by Table 3 below. In the past year the deficit against the Local Plan target has decreased by 0.86 ha to 32.15 ha, this is the second successive year of improvement. The deficit in April 2016 was 34.51 ha. The improvement over the past two years is principally the result of one additional windfall site (1.88ha) at Berkeley Way gaining approval in 2016/17 together with some minor gains as a result of the actual area developed on consented sites being slightly larger than previously anticipated.

Page 10

Page 38

Table 3: Worcester Local Plan Employment Land Supply March 2018

Employment Land Supply March 2018 (Worcester City)

SWDP 2006-2030 Requirement 80 ha

Completions 2006-2018 16.33 ha (See Schedules 3 and 4)

Commitments at March 2018 31.52 ha (See Schedule 2)

Residual Balance (16.33 + 31.52 ) - (Completions + Commitments) – Local 80 = Plan Requirement -32.15 ha Local Plan Employment Allocations (excluding commitments) at March 0 ha 2018 (See Schedule 1)

Surplus/Deficit against Local Plan -32.15 ha target

4.9 There is a significant deficit in the supply of employment land within Worcester compared to the target set in the adopted Local Plan. This deficit is the result of a number of changes during the preparation of the South Worcestershire Development Plan including:  The loss of sites, or parts of sites, to non B use class development.  Sites with planning permission for B use class development not being developed.

Page 11

Page 39

 The reduction in site areas as sites progress through the development cycle, i.e. the gross site area is larger than the net developed area monitored at the completion of development.

4.10 The South Worcestershire Development Plan targets for employment land are not limited to B use class development but it is impractical to monitor development other than by use class definitions. The deficit against the South Worcestershire Development Plan requirement of 32.15 ha is a decrease on the deficit recorded in April 2017 of 33.01 ha. The principal reason for this decrease is an increase in the site area developed and under construction at Hornhill Road, Nunnery Way. It is unlikely that any further improvement will occur in future years and it is possible that there will be a dramatic worsening of the shortfall if the aspirations of landowners for alternative residential and retail development on allocated employment land are realised.

Employment Land Provision Wider Worcester Area 2006 to 2030

4.11 As table 4 below illustrates the wider Worcester area does not have an adequate future supply of employment land when monitored against the requirements of the South Worcestershire Development Plan. The surplus of 0.65ha in 2013/14 has been reduced over the past four years to a deficit of -3.95 ha at 31st March 2018. While the current position is only a small deficit (3% of the total requirement) if losses continue at the same rate in future years it will not be possible to demonstrate that the city has an adequate supply of employment land to match the requirements set out in the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

Page 12

Page 40

Table 4 South Worcestershire Development Plan Wider Worcester Employment Land Supply March 2018

Employment Land Supply March 2018 (Wider Worcester Area)

SWDP Requirement 2006-2030 120 ha

Completions 2006-2017 16.33 ha

Commitments at March 2017 58.72 ha2

Residual Balance (16.33 + 58.72) - 120 (Completions + Commitments) - SWDP = requirement -44.95 ha

SWDP Wider Worcester Allocations (excluding commitments see Schedules 1 & 41 ha 7)

Surplus/Deficit against SWDP Wider -3.95 ha Worcester Area target

(120 – 16.33 – 3.95) Total Current Supply = 99.72 ha

2 Worcester City Commitments plus Worcester Technology Park Phase One (27.2 ha net).

Page 13

Page 41

5. Provision and Rolling Five-Year Reservoir of Employment Land

5.1 The National Planning Policy Framework requires local planning authorities to maintain a rolling five year supply of land to match the anticipated need for additional homes. There is no equivalent requirement for local planning authorities to maintain a supply of employment land. Developers however may wish to promote development on land not allocated for development within the local plan and demonstrating an adequate supply of alternative sites is a useful planning tool when assessing applications that are not in accordance with the adopted local plan.

5.2 Set out below therefore is an assessment of whether there is a five year supply of deliverable employment land in the city of Worcester.

Delivering Employment Land

5.3 The South Worcestershire Development Plan proposes a target over the plan period 2006 to 2030 of an additional 80ha of employment land within Worcester City and a target of 120ha in the wider Worcester area. Five years supply of these targets would be 16.5ha and 25ha respectively.

5.4 To assess whether there is an adequate supply of land to match these targets potential sites are assessed to determine if they are available, suitable, sustainable and achievable.

5.5 For sites to be considered available they should be either:

o under construction; or

o have planning permission (i.e. commitments); or

o be an allocated site in the Adopted Local Plan or a Development Plan Document currently without planning permission; or owned by a developer or have known developer interest; or is an allocated site currently advertised for sale.

Page 14

Page 42

5.6 For sites to be considered suitable, sites should be in a suitable location and contribute to the creation of sustainable mixed communities. There is no single agreed definition of the term ‘sustainable community’, but the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) suggests that such a community should be;

“…places where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet the diverse needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment, and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive, well planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services for all”. – Extract from DCLG website – What is a Sustainable Community?

5.7 Sites allocated in existing plans or with planning permission for employment use will generally be suitable but it may be necessary to review sites to see if circumstances have changed to alter their suitability. The South Worcestershire Councils have commissioned an Economic Development Needs Assessment which among other things has assessed the deliverability of the remaining site allocations for employment supporting development. The initial findings suggest that not all the sites allocated in the SWDP for employment use will be built out for this purpose.

5.8 For sites to be considered achievable they should be:-

a) under construction; or b) have no known ownership constraints (for example, owner does not wish to sell site or site has multiple occupation); and c) have no known physical or environmental constraints; and d) have no conditions or Section 106 agreements that prevent the development within the 5 year period.

5.9 For the purposes of establishing whether or not Worcester has a five-year reservoir of employment land (April 2018 to March 2023), all sites with full or outline planning permission, sites under construction and allocated

Page 15

Page 43

sites for employment at 31 March 2018 were assessed for their availability and suitability against the criteria set out above. Table 6 below sets out this assessment and concludes that there is 10.38 hectares of employment land that is available for development within the next five years. The five year supply of land for traditional employment uses within the city is therefore below the 16.5 hectares proposed by the South Worcestershire Development Plan. The target of 25 hectares for the wider Worcester Area is exceeded as the 27.2 hectares approved and under construction at the Worcestershire Technology Park combined with the 10.38 hectares available within the Worcester City area gives a total of 37.58 hectares of available employment land in the wider Worcester area.

Page 16

Table 5: Worcester Five Year Reservoir of Employment Land Site Available Suitable Included within 5 year supply? Revised scheme for two B use class units Sustainable location with wide range Yes Midland Road approved in Nov 17 and under construction. of mixed uses 1 ha Government Allocation for residential 3.5ha and B1 offices Buildings, 4ha in the SWDP. Out line application for B1 Good location with easy access to No Whittington office park approved but the owner is seeking M5 junction 7 Road alternative residential development Planning approval for a wide range of uses

Good primary road access and Page 44 but the owner is not actively promoting Grove Farm, complements residential and development and is seeking alternative No Bromyard Road educational uses proposed at West residential development on part of the Worcester allocation Outline planning approval for B1 office park Worcester and a crèche granted in 2006 An application Woods Business for retail units was refused in 2017 but the Sustainable location with good No Park, Newtown reasons for refusal did not include the loss of access to M5 junctions 6 and 7 Road this site allocation from the allocated use. The site is not being actively marketed Block Q Royal Planning approval for office use was Sustainable location close to the city Worcester, Mill approved in 2006 but this site has never No centre Street been marketed

Page 17

Site Available Suitable Included within 5 year supply? Planning approval for replacement B8 units Units S & R Sustainable location close to the city but not in accordance with other regeneration No Newtown Road centre proposals. Phase one completed and phase two Sustainable location with good Yes Nunnery Way approved/under construction. access to M5 junctions 6 and 7 2.5ha Land at Planning approval for B1 and B8 Sustainable location with very good Yes Berkeley Way headquarters building access to M5 junction 6 1.88ha Land South of Sustainable location with good Yes Planning approval for B1a, B2 and B8 uses Warndon Wood access to M5 junctions 6 and 7 5ha Page 45 Total available employment land 10.38 ha

Page 18

Page 46

6. Conclusion

6.1 In the year 1st April 2017 to 31st March 2018, 1.5 hectares of employment land was developed and 5,103 square meters of additional floor space was completed. In only four other years since 2006 has more land been developed for new employment uses. The rate of development in the past year is above the annual average for the last ten years of 1.45 ha and above the short term average over the past five years of 1.33 ha. The average rates of development do not compare favourably against the Local Plan target of 3.3 hectares per year within the City. During the monitoring year 2017/18, one major application was approved to change the use of employment land to a non B use class use, 2,251 sqm at Farrier House has been converted to student accommodation. A number of other minor office conversions to residential use were also approved totalling 872 sqm. The average yearly loss of employment land over the past five years is 0.87 hectares per year down from 4.35 hectares in 2017. The dramatic decline in the average loss over the past five years is a result of redevelopments at Gregory’s Bank, Newtown Road and Grove Farm all having been approved in 2012 and therefore no longer being included in the five year average calculation.

6.2 Completions, Commitments (land with planning permission) and Site Allocations within the South Worcestershire Development Plan for the Wider Worcester Area (WWA) total 116.05 ha this is an improvement on the position in April 2017 but is below the South Worcestershire Development Plan target for the wider Worcester area of 120 hectares of new commercial development over the plan period 2006 to 2030. The change in employment land supply in the WWA in recent years is shown in table 6 below.

Page 19

Page 47

Table 6 Annual Change in Total Employment Land Supply Wider Worcester Area

Year WWA Total Supply Since 2006 (ha) Surplus/Deficit

April 2018 116.05 -3.95

April 2017 115.19 -4.81

April 2016 113.69 -6.31

April 2015 119.59 -0.41

April 2014 120.65 0.65

6.3 At the end of March 2018 there was 31.52ha of land with outline or full planning permission for additional employment premises within the City of Worcester. This is an improvement on the supply available in 2017 and a third successive year of improvement in the amount of land with a current planning approval for employment use. The change in employment land supply in Worcester in recent years is shown in table 7 below.

Table 7 Annual Change Worcester’s Employment Land Supply

Year Total Supply Since 2006 (ha)

April 2018 31.52

April 2017 27.16

April 2016 22.27

April 2015 17.33

April 2014 20.63

6.4 An assessment of current employment site availability within the City of Worcester (table 5) however shows that just 10.38 hectares of land is available for B use class development within the next five years. This is

Page 20

Page 48

below the 16.5 hectare five year target proposed by the South Worcestershire Development Plan and significantly down from the 26.82 hectares recorded in March 2017. The large difference between theoretical supply of employment land (31.52ha) and the immediately available supply (10.38) suggests that it is not planning processes that are limiting the supply of new commercial floor space. There must be other factors such as land owner’s aspirations, development viability or demand that are inhibiting the build out of development in some cases approved many years ago.

6.5 There is insufficient allocated employment land within the Worcester City Area to match the overall target within the South Worcestershire Development Plan of 80 hectares. If the assessment is expanded to include all the proposed allocations in the Wider Worcester Area then the target in the South Worcestershire Development Plan is 120 hectares. The potential future supply of employment land in the Wider Worcester Area is also insufficient to match this target, the short fall of 3.95 hectares is 3% below the 120 hectare target. If the losses of employment land experienced since the start of the plan period continues in future years it will be very unlikely that the targets set in the South Worcestershire Development Plan for additional B use class development could be achieved.

Page 21

Employment Land Monitor Schedules 2017/18 Page 49

Page 22

SCHEDULE 1: LAND IDENTIFIED IN THE ADOPTED LOCAL PLAN FOR EMPLOYMENT

SITUATION AT 31.03.18

HECTARES SITE LOCATION COMMENTS (AVAILABLE)

Outline Permission (P05Q0141) for B1 office use and Crèche. App P10Q0276 extended the SWDP Worcester Woods 8.30 time limit for implementation to 4-Oct-2019. Approved schemes P11Q0400 for a C2 care 43/15 Newtown Road/ Nunnery Way home and P11Q0430 for a hospital car park are (2.7ha) complete

SWDP Government Buildings 4 Outline Permission (P16G0178) for 15,050 sqm office park approved 43/16 Whittington Road Page 50 SWDP Full and Outline Permission (P11K0588) for a mixed use development approved. Medical University Park 8.50 43/18 Centre, Care Home and C2 extra care housing (2.5ha) complete

SWDP Land at Nunnery Way 2.5 Application P15Q0465 for 14,534 sqm (3.14ha) approved, phase one complete 43/20

SWDP Permission ( P17D0195) for 2,786 sqm (two B use class units) approved and under Midland Road 1 43/22 construction

SWDP Land South of Warndon Wood 5 Permission ( P17P0247) for 21,072 sqm (three B use class units) approved 43/23

Remaining Allocations 29.3

Allocations with commitments 29.3

Page 23

SCHEDULE 2: COMMITMENTS FOR EMPLOYMENT USES INCLUDING ALLOCATED SITES

SITUATION AT 31.03.18

Details of planning Site Floor Application Location Name of firm Local Plan Use Type Status permission area space Number Allocation Class (ha) (sqm) Outline permission for Land south of Newtown Business Park, To be P05Q0141 Road (Adjacent to Royal Trustees of The Yes B1 8.3 N OL including offices and determined Hospital) Spetchley Estate Crèche Block Q, former Royal Block Q; 370sq m office P08D0387 Berkeley Homes No B1 0.02 370 R PP Worcester Porcelain Site space (Res Mat) University Campus, University Park, Grove University of Business Innovation

P11K0588 Yes Mix 8.5 72,270 N OL Page 51 Farm, Bromyard Road Worcester Centre and other B1 uses. Units S & R Newtown RC & PM P15G0064 Replacement Units No B8 0.32 885 N PP Road Industrial Estate Doughty St Modwen B1c/ P15Q0465 Nunnery Way B1/B2/B8 units Yes 2.5 9,431 N UC Developments B2/B8 Trustees of The New Headquarters P15P0013 Land at Berkeley Way No B1/B8 1.88 2,915 N PP Spetchley Estate Building Central Park, Great B1c/ P17D0195 Fortis Living B1/B2/B8 units Yes 1 2,786 N PP Western Avenue B2/B8 St Modwen Outline permission for P16G0178 Whittington Road Yes B1 4 15,050 N OL Developments office park Land East of Parsonage B1a/ P17P0247 Warndon Six Ltd B1a/B2/B8 units Yes 5 21,072 N PP Way B2/B8

Page 24

Details of planning Site Floor Application Location Name of firm Local Plan Use Type Status area space Number permission Allocation Class (ha) (sqm) 31.52 124,779 Total ha sqm 29.3 120,609 Of which Allocation sites ha sqm Key Type: New Build (N), Extension (E), Redevelopment (R), Change of Use (CoU) Status: Planning Permission (PP), Outline Planning Permission (OL), Under Construction (UC) Page 52

Page 25

SCHEDULE 3: LAND DEVELOPED FOR INDUSTRIAL/EMPLOYMENT USE 2006 - 2018

New (N) Year Application Site area Floor space Location Name of firm Activity Use class xtn (E) completed number (ha) (sqm) redv (R)

P01L0475 The Yard, Midland Road J Baig 3 Starter Units B1/B2 0.2 446 R

Unit 8 Berkeley Business British Red Cross P05P0376 Local office of the charity B1 0.26 942 N Park, Wainwright Road Society

P06G0019 Wildwood Way Maximus Offices B1 0.94 3,987 N

Yamazaki Mazak, Expansion of production and P06P0075 Yamazaki Mazak B2 - 3,539 E Badgeworth Drive assembly of machine tools 2006 - 2007 Yamazaki Mazak, Expansion of storage for P06P0176 Yamazaki Mazak B2 - 66 E Page 53 Badgeworth Drive welding gas bottles

P06D0290 32 Sidbury (Upper floor) Allan Morris Offices B1 - 97 E

P06G0670 Block C DEFRA Buildings DEFRA Offices B1 - 300 E

TOTAL 1.805 9,377

P07D0478 14 Carden Street Tile Giant Ltd Trade Warehouse B8 0.02 550 CoU 2007 –2008

TOTAL 0.02 550

Enterprise House, 2008 - 2009 Sanctuary Housing Office Extension B1 - 1,030 E P07D0433 Infirmary Walk

Page 26

New (N) Year Application Site area Floor space Location Name of firm Activity Use class xtn (E) completed number (ha) (sqm) redv (R) Lotus Lightweight New temporary planning Lotus Lightweight P08G0338 Structures Ltd, Williamson consents for storage B8 - 8,485 E Structures Ltd Road structures Venture Business Park P07J0574 Landsdowne Rodway Storage Building B8 0.2 1,914 N Weir Lane Phase 1 of redevelopment Great Western Business St. Modwen of the former goods yard on P07H0326 Mix 4.5 10,159 N Park, Tolladine Road Properties PLC Tolladine road to create a number of B1/B2/B8 units Erect 2 storey showroom Yamazaki Mazak U.K Ltd, Page 54 and office facility with roof P07P0754 Badgeworth Drive Yamazaki Mazak U.K. B1 - 2,791 E top area. 126 new parking

spaces. Bosch Thermotechnology Bosch P08P0065 Extensions to existing offices B1 - 382 E Ltd, Cotswold Way Thermotechnology Phase One of office Former Cosworth Site P06P0481 A & J Mucklow development on former B1 1 2,594 N (Apex) Wainwright Road Cosworth engineering site Sagger, Warmstry, Slip & P07D0276 & Berkeley Homes Ltd Throwing Houses Ex Royal Conversion to offices B1 0.2 3,271 CoU P08D0387 Worcester Porcelain

TOTAL 5.90 30,626

Page 27

New (N) Year Application Site area Floor space Location Name of firm Activity Use class xtn (E) completed number (ha) (sqm) redv (R) Land at Brindley Road / New factory with associated P08P0248 Coombers B2/B8 1.24 4,117 N Cotswold Way, Warndon warehousing 2009-10 TOTAL 1.24 4,117

23-24 Foregate Street Boughton Butler LLP P08A0590 New Office floor space B1 0.02 282 CoU

Griffith House, 30 Loves Extension of first floor 2010-11 P06D0739 UNISON B1 - 30 E Grove offices

0.02 312

Demolition of B1/B8 building

Sanctuary House, Chamber Sanctuary Housing Page 55 P09D0098 on existing Sanctuary B1 0.3 4,316 R Court Group Housing Group site to be replaced with 2 No. B1 units 2011-12 Hampton Court, Rainbow Conversion of detached P08H0261 Design Religion Ltd garage building to an office B1 - 100 E Hill studio 0.3 4,416

Former Transco Offices, P09D0534 LMS Transport New Workshop Building B2 0.1 420 N Tolladine Road Lansdowne Rodway 2012-13 P11C0158 Venture Business Park 14 Starter Units B1/B8 0.2 1,296 N Estates

P11D0329 Building A4 Diglis Basin Postcode Anywhere Office space B1 0.1 733 CoU

Page 28

New (N) Year Application Site area Floor space Location Name of firm Activity Use class xtn (E) completed number (ha) (sqm) redv (R)

P10P0444 BOSCH, Cotswold Way BOSCH Research & Development B1b - 1,550 E

0.4 3,999

P13P0604 Buckholt Drive MSM Forklift Services New Warehouse Building B8 - 192 E 2013-14 - 192

Former Cosworth Site New Warehouse and P13P0590 A & J Mucklow B8/B1 2.7 10,777 N (Apex) Wainwright Road office Building

Unit 9, St Martin’s Page 56 P12D0042 Carillion Richardson Office space B1a 0.03 261 R Quarter 2014-15 Great Western Business Industrial & Warehouse B1c/ P13H0616 St Modwen 0.590 2,323 N Park Units B2/B8 Museum & Art Gallery, Worcester City P14D0369 Office B1a 0.105 1,785 CoU Foregate Street Council

3.42 15,146

Venture Business Park, Crown House B1c/ 2015-16 P15C0005 5 Starter Units 0.12 421 N Weir Lane Developments Ltd B2/B8

0.12 421

Great Western Business Industrial & Warehouse B1c/ 2016-17 P15H0268 St Modwen 1.61 6,236 N Park Units B2/B8

Page 29

New (N) Year Application Site area Floor space Location Name of firm Activity Use class xtn (E) completed number (ha) (sqm) redv (R)

1.61 6,236

Industrial & Warehouse B1c/ 2017-18 P15Q0465 Nunnery Way St Modwen 1.5 5,103 N Units B2/B8

1.5 5,103

Overall Totals 16.33 80,495

Key Type: New (N), Extn (E), Redv (R), Change of Use (CoU), Brownfield (B), Greenfield (G) Page 57

Page 30

Page 58

SCHEDULE 4: TOTAL LAND DEVELOPED FOR EMPLOYMENT USES 2006 – 2018

YEAR TOTAL HECTARES TOTAL ACRES

2006 - 2007 1.80 4.46

2007 - 2008 0.02 0.05

2008 - 2009 5.90 14.58

2009 - 2010 1.24 3.06

2010 - 2011 0.02 0.05

2011 - 2012 0.30 0.74

2012 - 2013 0.40 0.99

2013 - 2014 0 0

2014 - 2015 3.42 8.45

2015 – 2016 0.12 0.30

2016 – 2017 1.61 3.98

2017 – 2018 1.5 3.71

Total 16.33 40.35 Annual average over last 10 1.45 3.58 years 2007-2017 Annual average over last 5 1.33 3.29 years 2012-2017

Page 31

SCHEDULE 5: PERMISSIONS INCLUDED IN THE LAST MONITORING REPORT WHICH HAD LAPSED BY 31ST MARCH 2018

New (N)

Primary Extn (E) Application Site area Floor space Use Location Name of firm Activity Redv (R) Number Hectares Sq. Metres Class Change of Use (CoU)

H&W Chamber of P14N0279 Prescott Drive Office Extension (OL) B1a 0 702 E Commerce

Compco Fire Systems, Page 59 P14C0428 Compco Fire Systems Office B1a 0 417 N Malvern Road

Total expired permissions 0 ha

Page 32

Page 60

SCHEDULE 6: EMPLOYMENT SITES LARGER THAN 0.1 HECTARE LOST TO OTHER USES SINCE 2006

Application Location ha New use Comments

Residential, Retail Under P05D0432 Royal Worcester Porcelain 2.30 & D1 Museum Construction Former Wescol Factory, P06N0408 2.60 Residential Developed Brickfields Road Auction House and P06B0492 Warehousing 0.14 Residential Developed St. Marks Close 24, 26,28 & 30 Diglis P07D0070 0.11 Residential Developed Road 202 Bransford Road P10C0557 (Former Cinderella Works 1.95 Residential Developed Buildings) P11C0419 250 Bransford Road 4.09 Residential Developed

Hereford & Worcester Fire P09J0116 0.17 Education Developed & Rescue, Hylton Road Gregory’s Bank Industrial P12M0021 6.6 Residential Developed Estate Former Ronkswood P12Q0232 7.6 Residential Developed Hospital P11Q0400 Land South of Newtown Residential & Car 2.7 Developed P11Q0430 Road Park

P11K0588 Grove Farm 0.5 Medical Centre Developed

P13K0248 Grove Farm 2.0 Residential Developed

Great Western Business P13H0616 0.49 Fire Station Developed Park Trinity Works, London P14G0153 1.86 Retail Developed Road

Total losses 2006/7 – 2017/18 in ha. (total site area not 33.11 ha floorspace)

Page 33

SCHEDULE 7: South Worcestershire Development Plan Wider Worcester Area Employment Site Allocations and Commitments

Site SWDP Site Location Proposed Uses Area Comments Reference ha

Wider Worcester Area Sites

Applications SWDP45/1 Broomhall Community Employment 20 Approved Applications SWDP45/2 Temple Laugherne Employment 5 Submitted Page 61 Worcester Technology Park SWDP45/5 Technology Park 16 (Phase Two) Development Worcester Technology Park commenced - Technology Park 27.2 (Phase One) Some units complete

TOTAL Wider Worcester Area 68.2

Page 34

This page is intentionally left blank Page 63 Agenda Item 9

Report to: Planning Committee, 19th July 2018

Report of: Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning

Subject: APPLICATION P18J0124: PROPOSED 20 BED STUDENT RESIDENCE (USE CLASS C2), CAR PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AND DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE AT UNIVERSITY OF WORCESTER, LAND OFF HIMBLETON ROAD

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

2. Background

2.1 The application has been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Geraghty on grounds of significant local objection, impact on neighbouring residents’ amenities, car parking, scale/size of the development and the creation of a new access into the university grounds.

2.2 The application was received on 19th March 2018 and an extension to the target date for determination has been negotiated to 20th July 2018.

3. The Site and Surrounding Area

3.1 The application site comprises a vacant plot of land located on Himbleton Road to the West of the City. The site is located in a predominantly residential area and the University of Worcester border the site to the south. Buildings to Himbleton Road are a mixture of single and two storeys in height whilst the university buildings to the south are three storeys in height.

3.2 The site is greenfield in nature, 0.3 hectares in size containing grass to the main part of the site and trees and shrubbery to the site boundaries. The site effectively forms a gap within the streetscene to Himbleton Road. A metal fence runs along the northern boundary of the site. Access to the site can only be gained from the University Campus to the south.

4. The proposal

4.1 The submitted proposal seeks consent for the erection of a 20-bedroom student residence. It is proposed that the accommodation will be managed by the university and occupied by students at the university during term time. The proposal falls under the C2 use class. Page 64

4.2 The proposal comprises a two storey block of student accommodation. The accommodation forms one structure spanning almost the entire width of a large plot, however in terms of appearance it gives the impression of being three separate units which are linked together and of slightly different roof forms and materials, providing relief and variety to the building which allowing the structure to relate to the scale and design of the neighbouring properties.

4.3 The proposed accommodation would be set back within the plot, sitting slightly forward of the adjoining residential properties. The ridge height of the proposed building would be similar to that of the adjoining properties. The proposed palette of materials comprises a mixture of red facing brickwork, feature brickwork, timber cladding and fibre cement tiles.

4.4 The proposed accommodation would be split into one six bedroom ‘cluster’ and four self-contained studio apartments to the ground floor and one ten bedroom ‘cluster’ to the first floor. Each of these clusters share communal facilities including a kitchen and lounge, whilst the studio apartments each contain these facilities. Four of the bedrooms proposed are accessible providing a turning circle and larger en-suite bathroom facilities/ wet rooms to meet an identified need for accommodation for disabled students.

4.5 The submitted proposal makes provision for 8 car parking spaces (one of which is accessible) to the front of the property and 20 secure cycle storage spaces to the rear within a communal area benefiting from natural surveillance.

4.6 The proposed layout shows a direct pedestrian link from the proposed accommodation to the university and the main entrance to the building will be located to the south from the university campus. Access into the building will be controlled through key fob entry. Effectively the proposed accommodation would form a self-contained student accommodation block with direct access for students to the university campus.

4.7 The submitted proposal includes a landscaping scheme and an area of private amenity space to the rear of the building along with two small landscaped areas to the site frontage. It is proposed to insert solar photovoltaic panels on the south- facing roof slopes.

5. Planning Policy

5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) establishes the legislative framework for consideration of this application. Section 70(2) of the Act requires the decision-maker in determining planning applications/appeals to have regard to the Development Plan, insofar as it is material to the application/appeal, and to any other material consideration. Where the Development Plan is material to the development proposal it must therefore be taken into account. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application/appeal to be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The Development Plan for Worcester now comprises:

 The South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) which was adopted February 2016  The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted in December 2012 Page 65

South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP)

5.3 The following policies of the SWDP are considered to be relevant to the application proposals:-

SWDP 1 Overarching Sustainability Principles SWDP 2 Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy SWDP 14 Housing Mix SWDP 21 Design SWDP 27 Renewable and low carbon energy SWDP 29 Sustainable Drainage Systems

Material Considerations

1. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

5.4 The NPPF comprises national planning guidance which is relevant in the determination of this application. The NPPF was published in March 2012 and replaced all former national planning policies, except for Planning Policy Statement 10: Waste. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It sets out the Government's requirements for the planning system only to the extent that is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. All the policies in the NPPF constitute Government's view of what sustainable development in England means in practice. Economic, social and environmental improvement should be sought jointly and simultaneously. The social role is to support strong and vibrant communities by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations and by creating a high quality built environment with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs. The NPPF goes on to outline a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed.

5.5 Paragraph 186 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. LPAs are advised at paragraph 187 of the NPPF to look for solutions rather than problems and decision-takers are asked to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Against the background set by paragraph 187, the NPPF reiterates at paragraph 197 that when assessing and determining development proposals, LPAs should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

2. National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

5.6 On 6th March 2014 the Government also published the NPPG that comprises, amongst other matters: Air Quality, Health and Wellbeing, Noise, and Use of Planning Conditions.

6. Planning History

6.1 The application site has not been the subject of any recent planning applications. Page 66

7. Consultations

7.1 Formal consultation, including display of site notices, has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees and interested third parties have been received in relation to the original and amended proposals and are summarised as follows:

Worcester City Council Refuse Team: No objection

Worcester City Council Landscape Consultant: No objection

Worcester City Council Tree Protection Officer: No objection

Worcester City Council Planning Policy Team: No objection

Worcester City Council Housing Officer: No objection

West Mercia Constabulary: No objection

Worcestershire County Council Highways: No objection subject to condition

Severn Trent Water Ltd: No objection

South Worcestershire Land Drainage Partnership: No objection

Highway Authority: No objection subject to conditions

Worcestershire Regulatory Services: No objection

7.2 At the time of writing this report 21 letters of representation have been received from neighbouring residents in relation to this proposal. Concerns raised include:

-Increase in number of students within area controlled by article 4 direction -Concerns regarding access from Himbleton Road -Design of proposed building -Loss of amenity through overlooking, loss of light, noise disturbance -Overlooking from proposed balcony -Level of car parking provision and impact on highway network. -Noise and disturbance to neighbouring properties -Height of proposed building and position within the streetscene

8. Comments of Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning

8.1 Following a comprehensive site visit and assessment of the submitted plans I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be:

- Principle of the proposed development; - Design and layout of the proposed development; - Impact on the highway network; and - Impact on neighbouring amenity.

These issues will now be considered in turn Page 67

Principle of the proposed development

8.2 The application site is greenfield in nature and effectively forms a gap between dwellings. The site is located in a predominantly residential area and adjoins the existing university campus. I therefore consider that the proposed use is compatible with the existing land uses and furthermore that this is the most logical location for student accommodation provided by the university.

8.3 I note that several objections have been received from local residents regarding the principle of any further student accommodation and these concerns are noted. It is important to note that the submitted proposal is for Class C2 student accommodation provided by the university. It does not form a house in multiple occupation and would not therefore be the subject of the Article 4 Direction which seeks to control the conversion of existing dwellings houses to houses in multiple occupation, nor the Houses in Multiple Occupancy Supplementary Planning Document. I note that the proportion of HMOs in the area is high at 19% of the properties within 100 metres of the application site. That being said, I do not consider that this in itself is reason to resist this application which is not the subject of an objection from the City Council’s planning policy team, would not result in the loss of any family accommodation and would, in my opinion, be well located in relation to the university campus.

8.4 It is important to consider the purpose of the Article 4 Direction and the HMO SPD. Effectively, the purposes of these are twofold: to safeguard existing family dwelling houses from conversion to houses in multiple occupation, and; to ensure that residential areas remain a home to mixed and balanced communities. This proposal would not result in the loss of family accommodation; rather it will provide students with accommodation in purpose built accommodation, thereby meeting need within purpose built accommodation and potentially safeguarding family dwelling houses from conversion to HMOs to meet that need. The HMO SPD also sets out to ensure appropriately balanced and mixed communities and it is for this reason that a concentration of HMOs is resisted. As stated previously, this site does sit within an area which is high in terms of the existing proportion of HMOs, however I do consider that within part of the university campus site and adjoining the university accommodation and campus this is the most appropriate balance. Given this I consider the principle of the student accommodation proposed to be acceptable.

Design and layout of the proposed development

8.5 The proposal comprises a two storey block of student accommodation. The accommodation forms one structure spanning almost the entire width of a large plot, however in terms of appearance it gives the impression of being three separate units which are linked together and of slightly different roof forms and materials, providing relief and variety to the building which allowing the structure to relate to the scale and design of the neighbouring properties.

8.6 I consider that the proposed accommodation would relate well to the site and its surroundings in terms of the scale, massing, building position and layout and palette of materials proposed. I consider that the design and scale of the proposed building has been informed by the scale and form of development in the local area and that the proposal complies with all national and local planning policies in this regard. Page 68

8.7 Concerns expressed by local residents regarding the access from Himbleton Road are noted. Members should note that this would form an access for occupants of the proposed building only, controlled by key fob access. Other students visiting the university would not therefore be able to gain access to the campus through this property and the proposal should therefore not result in increases in pedestrian footfall through the site. I note the suggestions that this access point should be removed leaving solely the access point to the university, however in terms of appearance, legibility and permeability I consider that there are merits to the provision of this site access point on Himbleton Road.

Impact on the highway network

8.8 Following concerns raised by the Highway Authority the parking provision for the proposed development has been amended from four accessible parking spaces to eight parking spaces, including one accessible space (and one of the ‘standard’ spaces being capable of adaptation to an accessible space if required). The Highway Authority had previously expressed concern that by providing only accessible spaces that the limited amount of unrestricted on street parking would be used on a regular basis which would reduce the ability of visitors to the existing community to park and result in displacement on to unsuitable locations.

8.9 Following the receipt of amended plans which increase the overall car parking provision the Highway Authority has confirmed that it has no objection to the proposal, subject to conditions that are set out on the plans list. Following the detailed assessment undertaken by the Highway Authority of the impact of this proposal on the highway network I consider that this proposal makes adequate car parking provision and will not result in harm to the operation of the highway network and as such accords with the expectations of national and local planning policy.

Impact on neighbouring amenity

8.10 Concerns regarding the impact of the proposal in terms of loss of light and overlooking to neighbouring properties are noted. Having assessed the submitted plans I consider that the siting of the proposed building is such that it will not result in loss of light to neighbouring properties. I note the concerns regarding overlooking from the terrace which sits to the rear of bedrooms 3 and 4 and from which, if accessible, opportunities for overlooking of 33 Himbleton Road (and its associated amenity space) would be afforded. I note that the submission states that access to this area would only be presented for maintenance and window cleaning only, as controlled by the University’s management agreement. I consider it necessary to control this element of the proposal, specifically with regards to access to the terrace and as such recommend that a condition be applied which requires the submission and approval of a management agreement which will make provision for the prevention of access to this terrace except for maintenance and cleaning purposes. Subject to this I do not consider that this proposal would result in overlooking of neighbouring properties. On balance therefore I do not consider that the proposal would give rise to harm to the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

8.11 The Worcester City Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule (CIL) came into effect on Monday 4 September 2017. This application proposes the development of new student accommodation. The proposal will therefore be liable for CIL in accordance with paragraph 7.1 of the CIL charging schedule. Page 69

The chargeable rate of CIL is outlined within table 1 of the CIL charging schedule and is noted as being £100 per square metre for student accommodation in Worcester City (the chargeable rate is subject to an annual indexation update). Please note that under certain circumstances student accommodation is subject to exemption from the CIL charge. An application for charitable exemption has been received for this planning application. Any such relief granted would be subject to a disqualifying event not occurring within seven years of completion of development.

9. Conclusion

9.1 I acknowledge all comments received as part of the consultation process and I consider that all material planning issues have been considered. In my opinion, the proposal is acceptable in in accordance with the aims and interests that the South Worcestershire Development Plan Policies 1, 3, 21, 28 and 29 and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seek to protect and promote in this regard.

Ward: St Clement Contact Officer: Nichola Robinson Tel: (01905) 722567 [email protected] Background Papers: Application P18J0124 This page is intentionally left blank Page 71 Agenda Item 10

Report to: Planning Committee, 19th July 2018

Report of: Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning

Subject: PLANNING APPLICATION P18E0176 - ERECTION OF NEW TWO STOREY PRIMARY SCHOOL WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING, LANDSCAPING AND FENCING ON LAND AT THE FORMER WORCESTER NORTH PARK AND RIDE SITE, JOHN COMYN DRIVE

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee be minded to grant planning permission for the development, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list and the applicant and all persons with an interest in the land entering into a Unilateral Undertaking or S106 Agreement and subject to the Deputy Director- Governance being satisfied with the nature of such Undertaking to delegate to the Deputy Director of Economic Development and Planning approval to grant the planning permission.

2. Background

2.1 The application was accepted as complete on 23rd April 2017. An extension of time for the determination of the application has been agreed until 20th July 2018 to allow determination by the Planning Committee.

3. The Site and Surrounding Area

3.1 The application site comprises 3 acres (1.2 hectares) of the former Perdiswell Park and Ride site, which is located on the northern edge of Worcester, approximately 2 .5 kms north of the City Centre and on the eastern side of A38 Droitwich Road. The historic use of the site was as part of the Perdiswell Park and Ride site, which occupied a site of 5 acres in total under a Sui Generis land use. Operation of the park and ride ceased in August 2014 as a result of cost saving measures and the City Council entered into a conditional contract for the sale of the site in March 2018 to the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government to house a new primary school.

3.2 The park and ride site as a whole comprises approximately 430 general use car parking spaces, 16 disabled spaces, a number of motorcycle spaces, a recycling centre and a building including supporting facilities such as toilets, a waiting room and a security office. The park and ride site benefits from a dedicated access and egress point from John Comyn Drive. It also benefits from a bus only egress arrangement directly onto the southbound carriageway of the A38 Droitwich Road, which was controlled by a bus gate during the operation of the site. Page 72

3.3 The site is surrounded by a mixture of uses including, allotments, business units and playing fields with housing, leisure facilities and industrial use beyond. A Muslim cemetery lies to the north of the site with the Perdiswell Hall office park to the east. Across Droitwich Road to the north west are sports facilities, beyond which is housing on Gilmore Crescent. To the west is a large factory and a public house. Checketts Court flats to the south west, at the comer of Droitwich Road and Checketts Lane, are the nearest housing to the site. To the south of the site are the playing fields at the comer of Bilford Road with Droitwich Road and Perdiswell Primary School and its associated playing fields.

3.4 Access to the site is off John Comyn Drive via the A38, which also serves the allotments to the north, the Muslim cemetery, Perdiswell Coach House, Perdiswell Golf Course, the Barbourne Brook, Penstocks and the Old Elizabethans’ Cricket Club, all of which are adjacent to the site.

3.5 The Park and Ride site is not allocated for development in the South Worcestershire Development Plan. However, the area of proposed development is designated as being Green Space and the majority of the site is also within the green infrastructure ‘protect and enhance’ allocation, with the south east corner of the site identified on the proposals map for the SWDP as not been surveyed and included within the urban area for this criteria.

3.6 The application site is not within a conservation area and does not form part of any other designated heritage asset. There are no listed buildings or buildings of local significance within the curtilage of the application site and the nearest noteworthy building of any historical significance is the converted Grade II listed stable block of former Perdiswell Hall and attached walls and outbuilding.

3.7 Whilst the site itself is not an Archaeological Sensitive Area (ASA), nevertheless it is adjacent to an ASA and there are several other archaeological sites in the vicinity. Overall, the vast majority of the site was comprehensively stripped during formation of the car park. However, one significant feature was recovered towards the centre of the site, a ring ditch or ringwork of Bronze Age date (c 3000-3500 years ago). This was probably a ritual or communal site. This seems, within the car park boundary, not to have been associated with any other features. However, the Park and Ride car park layout was altered to reflect this archaeological feature.

4. The Proposal

4.1 The proposal is for the erection of a 420 place 2 form entry primary school with 26 full time nursery places (North Worcester Primary Academy). The nursery includes catering for educational needs for ages 3-4 years, while the primary school will cater for ages 4-11 years.

4.2 The rationale for the development is to provide the shortfall of school places in north Worcester. Overall in the Worcester planning area there is a surplus of between 5% and 10% in primary places. However, the overall picture does not reflect the position in north Worcester where there is a significant demand for primary places in the area around the proposed site for this school. Northwick Manor Primary introduced a bulge class for the 2017/18 academic year and there are 653 pupils on roll against a Published Admission Number (PAN) of 630. Claines C of E Primary has 208 pupils on roll against a PAN of 202 and Perdiswell Primary School has very limited surplus places in later year groups but the reception classes have been full for the past 2 years. Page 73

Demand for primary places is set to increase further with the Cherry Tree Park housing development in Bevere now close to completion providing 102 new homes and construction now also underway for the neighbouring Cherry Orchard development with a further 128 new houses. As a consequence it is proposed that a new 420 place primary school will cater for the current shortfall of places.

4.3 The school is proposed to be a 'Faith Ethos' community school, welcoming applications from all faiths and no faiths, drawing from the distinct values and vision of the Rivers Trust, being 'love, live and learn’. The school is hoping to take its first 60 reception pupils in September 2019, reaching its full potential of 420 pupils of primary age over seven years.

4.4 The proposed school will be a predominantly two storey building, sloping down to single storey accommodation towards the vehicular entrance area. The entrance would be marked by a canopy wrapping over the main entrance and nursery entrance. Part of the single storey accommodation roof would be used as plant deck behind a parapet, accessible via a companionway ladder in the plant room below.

4.5 The palette of materials is simple with a buff brick plinth grounding the building and standing seam cladding and roofing above. The underside of the canopy would be softened by feature timber cladding or coloured cladding, whilst the window reveals are coloured to add vibrancy to the simple palette.

4.6 At ground floor the accommodation contains nursery, reception and Key Stage 1 (KS1) teaching areas all which require outdoor teaching as part of their curriculum and therefore have direct access to outside from the classroom. Resource areas and group rooms line the central spine of the teaching areas and connect to the hub of the school; an open staircase linking the two floors and connecting to the hall space creating a lively transition space. The main entrance to the school for visitors is adjacent to the hall and studio spaces which may be offered out of hours to community uses. Plant and kitchen spaces have been positioned closest to the vehicular entrance for ease of access.

4.7 At ground floor all classrooms have an external door allowing direct access to outside, encouraging outdoor learning and play wherever possible. The building wraps around the playground space, which will be accessible to parents at the beginning and end of the day. A pupil entrance point is positioned onto this playground with pupil WCs provided in a central location both for easy access from outside and within the school. Cloaks storage space is provided within each classroom.

4.8 At first floor level the accommodation contains the Key Stage 2 (KS2) accommodation similarly with a central spine of group and resource spaces creating an active transition space. The technical practical space forms the hub space at this level being used for a variety of subjects including science, food technology, electronics and media. The staff room is positioned on this floor to maintain staff presence. At the opposite end of the plan the Year 6 resource area terminates the corridor spine with a picture window out on to the play spaces. The year 6 space will have more of a grown up feel aspiring children to move up through the school.

4.9 The School’s external facilities will include:

 Play space incorporating playground and grass areas for nursery, reception, KS1 and KS2 as well as an artificial turf area for a small sports area; Page 74

 Access to the adjacent playing field to the south of the site for sports activities, and;  Habitat and forest school area has been positioned in the corner of the site which is most suitable due the existing vegetation.

4.10 The proposals seek to retain as much of this perimeter screening as possible, thinning out and clearing the majority of vegetation to create additional grass areas for soft play space.

4.11 In terms of the proposed car parking and access arrangements there would be staff parking only on the site and will include a space with electric vehicle charging as well as disabled parking bays. A minibus parking space is also provided within the car park. A total of 38 spaces are proposed. Staff vehicular access gates will be on a timer at the start and end of the day and then during school hours will be via fob access only. No drop-off facilities at the school or on John Comyn Drive are proposed. However, several park and stride sites will be set up in the local vicinity for those who have to travel by car, walking buses will also be operated by the school.

4.12 The main pedestrian entrance to the school will be via the public footpath to the south of the site with a secondary alternative off John Comyn Drive for those walking via the A38. It is also proposed to have two additional access points along the boundary, one on the south boundary for access to the playing fields and one to the west boundary for easier access to the nearby leisure centre.

4.13 In terms of site security, the entire school site will be enclosed by 2.4m high paladin fencing. During the school day the perimeter will be secure with the pedestrian entrances opened at the start and end of the school day. Nursery access will be required during the school day due to half day attendance and will therefore have intercom access to the pedestrian gate to the south boundary. Internal timber fence lines will divide the play areas from the remainder of the site, with reception and nursery plays areas segregated further. Parents will be allowed to come in to the school’s secure area during drop off and collection times only, unless accompanied by a member of staff at other times.

4.14 The application is accompanied by a full set of plans together with a suite of supporting documents that include:

• Planning application forms • Design and Access Statement • Transport Assessment • Travel Plan • Drainage Strategy • Ground Investigation Report  Biodiversity survey and report • Tree Report • Archaeological Assessment • Vent and Extraction Statement • Draft Unilateral Undertaking

5. Planning Policy

5.1 The determination of a planning application is to be made pursuant to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which is to be read in Page 75

conjunction with section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Section 38(6) requires the local planning authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which 'indicate otherwise'. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the local planning authority "shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations."

5.2 The Development Plan for Worcester comprises:

 The South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) which was adopted February 2016  The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted on December 2012.

South Worcestershire Development Plan

5.3 The following policies of the SWDP are considered to be relevant to the proposal:

SWDP 1 Overarching Sustainable Development Principle SWDP 2 Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy SWDP 4 Moving Around South Worcestershire SWDP 5 Green Infrastructure SWDP 6 Historic Environment SWDP 21 Design SWDP 22 Biodiversity and Geodiversity SWDP24 Management of the Historic Environment SWDP 25 Landscape Character SWDP 27 Incorporating Renewable and Low Carbon Energy into New Development SWDP 28 Management of Flood Risk SWDP 30 Water Resources Efficiency and Treatment SWDP 31 Pollution and Land Stability SWDP 33 Waste SWDP 37 Built Community Facilities SWDP 38 Green Space

The Waste Core Strategy for Worcestershire - Adopted Waste Local Plan 2012-2027

5.4 The Waste Local Plan was adopted on 15 November 2012 and is a plan outlining how to manage all the waste produced in Worcestershire up to 2027. The following policies are relevant to this application:

WCS1 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development) WCS17 (Making provision for waste in new development)

Material Considerations

1. National Planning Policy Framework

5.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision takers and is a material planning consideration in determining planning applications. Page 76

5.6 All the policies in the Framework constitute Government's view of what sustainable development in England means in practice. The Government believes that sustainable development can play three critical roles in England: an economic role, contributing to a strong, responsive, competitive economy; a social role, supporting vibrant and healthy communities; and an environmental role, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment. Economic, social and environmental improvement should be sought jointly and simultaneously and it outlines a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed.

5.7 This is reiterated at NPPF 197 whereby in determining proposals, “…Local Planning Authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development”. This lies at the heart of the NPPF and is described as the golden thread running through plan-making and decision-taking.

5.8 The overarching role of the planning system is contained within 12 principles which should underpin both plan making and decision taking:  Planning should be plan-led. They should be up to date and provide a practical framework within which decisions can be made predictably and efficiently.  Should be more than just scrutiny, should be a creative exercise in finding ways that enhance and improve the places in which people live their lives.  Proactively drive sustainable economic development to deliver homes, business, infrastructure and places that the country needs. The housing and other development needs of an area should be objectively identified and met and respond to wider opportunities for growth.  Seek to ensure high quality design and good standard of amenity.  Take account of the roles and character of different areas.  Support and encourage the use of renewable energy and reuse of existing resources.  Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment.  Encourage the effective use of land.  Promote mixed use developments, encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas.  Conserve heritage assets.  Actively manage patterns of growth to make fullest possible use of public transport, walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are or can be made sustainable.  Take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all.

5.9 The NPPF goes on to outline a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed. In terms of the proposed development these are, amongst other matters:

 Chapter 1: Building a Strong, Competitive Economy (paragraphs 18 - 22) – The planning system should do everything it can to support sustainable economic growth and significant weight should be afforded to this. Planning polices should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment. Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of employment sites where there is no reasonable prospect of it being used for that purpose. Proposals for alternative uses should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities; Page 77

 Chapter 4: Promoting Sustainable Transport (paragraphs 29 - 41) - All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:

 the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;  safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and  improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised.

Locate and design developments where practical to:

 accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies;  give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities;  create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate;  establishing home zones;  consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.

 Chapter 7: Requiring Good Design (paragraphs 56 - 68) – Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and is indivisible from good planning. High quality and inclusive design for all development should be sought, including individual buildings and public and private spaces, through good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.

 Chapter 8: Promoting Healthy Communities (paragraphs 69 - 78) – Developments should provide safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder do not undermine quality of life.

In addition, paragraph 70 states: ‘To deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should:

 plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments;  guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services, particularly where this would reduce the community’s ability to meet its day- to-day needs; Page 78

 ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable, and retained for the benefit of the community; and  ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing, economic uses and community facilities and services.’ Furthermore, Paragraph 71 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 advises that:

“The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:

 give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and  work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.”

Chapter 12: Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment (paragraphs 126 - 141) – Weight should be given to conserving heritage assets. Where a proposal will lead to substantial harm or total loss of a heritage asset, planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that public benefits outweigh any harm caused.

5.10 Paragraph 186 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. LPAs are advised at paragraph 187 of the NPPF to look for solutions rather than problems and decision-takers are asked to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Against the background set by paragraph 187, the NPPF reiterates at paragraph 197 that when assessing and determining development proposals, LPAs should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

2. National Planning Practice Guidance

5.11 On 6th March 2014 the Government also published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) that comprises, amongst other matters: Air Quality, Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment, Design, Flood Risk and Coastal Change, Natural Environment, Noise, Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities, Public Rights of Way and Local Green Space Viability, Use of Planning Conditions, and Planning Obligations.

3. Policy Statement – Planning For Schools Development (2011)

5.12 The Government believes that the planning system should operate in a positive manner when dealing with proposals for the creation, expansion and alteration of state-funded schools (which include Academies and free schools, as well as local authority maintained schools (community, foundation and voluntary aided and controlled schools)), and that the following principles should apply with immediate effect:

 There should be a presumption in favour of the development of state-funded schools, as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework. Page 79

 Local authorities should give full and thorough consideration to the importance of enabling the development of state-funded schools in their planning decisions. The Secretary of State will attach significant weight to the need to establish and develop state-funded schools when determining applications and appeals that come before him for decision.

 Local authorities should make full use of their planning powers to support state- funded schools applications. This should include engaging in pre-application discussions with promoters to foster a collaborative approach to applications and, where necessary, the use of planning obligations to help to mitigate adverse impacts and help deliver development that has a positive impact on the community.

 Local authorities should only impose conditions that clearly and demonstrably meet the tests set out in Circular 11/95. Planning conditions should only be those absolutely necessary to making the development acceptable in planning terms.

 Local authorities should ensure that the process for submitting and determining state-funded schools’ applications is as streamlined as possible, and in particular be proportionate in the information sought from applicants. For instance, in the case of free schools, authorities may choose to use the information already contained in the free school provider’s application to the Department for Education to help limit additional information requirements.

 A refusal of any application for a state-funded school, or the imposition of conditions, will have to be clearly justified by the local planning authority. Given the strong policy support for improving state education, the Secretary of State will be minded to consider such a refusal or imposition of conditions to be unreasonable conduct, unless it is supported by clear and cogent evidence.

 Appeals against any refusals of planning permission for state-funded schools should be treated as a priority. Where permission is refused and an appeal made, the Secretary of State will prioritise the resolution of such appeals as a matter of urgency in line with the priority the Government places on state education.

 Where a local planning authority refuses planning permission for a state-funded school, the Secretary of State will consider carefully whether to recover for his own determination appeals against the refusal of planning permission.

This statement applies to both change of use development and operational development necessary to the operational needs of the school.

4. Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (Flood Risk)

5.13 This document provides additional guidance to local planning authorities to ensure the effective implementation of the planning policy set out in the Framework on development in areas at risk of flooding.

5. Historic England Good Practice Advice Notes

5.14 Historic England has also recently published Good Practice Advice notes to supplement historic environment policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the related guidance given in the National Planning Practice Guide (PPG), Page 80

and relate to: The Historic Environment in Local Plans; Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment, and; The Setting of Heritage Assets. As such, they do not constitute statements of Government policy and are not endorsed as such.

6. Ministerial Statements

5.15 Weight has been given by Inspectors to Ministerial statements, including the Planning for Growth statement. The statement, published in March 2011, declared that the government expects “the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development objectives”. Former Decentralisation minister Greg Clark has also said that it would be a “material consideration in local planning decisions with immediate effect”.

5.16 A letter from the Planning Minister, Brandon Lewis MP, dated 27th March 2015 to the Chief Executive of the Planning Inspectorate has also been published regarding landscape impact as a material planning consideration in planning decisions.

7. Case Law

5.17 Consideration of Development Plan policies is not a legalistic forensic exercise. Often policies will pull in different directions. Decision makers need to consider whether the proposal broadly accords with those policies as confirmed in the case of R. on the application of Laura Cummins and London Borough of Camden, SSETR and Barrett Homes Limited [2001] in which Ouseley J. cited R. v Rochdale MBC ex parte Milne [2000]. As Sullivan J. said in the Milne case 48. “It is not at all unusual for development plan policies to pull in different directions. A proposed development may be in accord with development plan policies which, for example, encourage development for employment purposes, and yet be contrary to policies which seek to protect open countryside. In such cases there may be no clear cut answer to the question: “is this proposal in accordance with the plan?” The local authority has to make a judgement bearing in mind such factors as the importance of the policies which are complied with or infringed, and the extent of compliance or breach.”

5.18 Citing City of Edinburgh Council v. Secretary of State for Scotland [1997] Sullivan J. went on to say that “I regard it as untenable to say that if there is a breach of any one policy in a development plan, a proposed development cannot be said to be “in accordance with the plan”. Given the numerous conflicting interests that development plans seek to reconcile: the needs for more housing, more employment, more leisure and recreational facilities, for improved transport facilities, the protection of listed buildings and attractive landscapes et cetera, it would be difficult to find any project of any significance that was wholly in accord with every relevant policy in the development plan. Numerous applications would have to be referred to the Secretary of State as departures from the development plan because one or a few minor policies were infringed, even though the proposal was in accordance with the overall thrust of development plan policies. For the purposes of section 54A it is enough that the proposal accords with the development plan when considered as a whole. It does not have to accord with each and every policy therein.” Page 81

8. Relevant Legislation

5.19 The following legislation is also relevant and has been taken into account when considering this application:-

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Planning Act 2008 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 Localism Act 2011 - Section 143 (amending S70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) regarding local finance considerations. Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 Human Rights Act 1998 Accessibility and Equalities Act 2010 Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 The EU Habitats Directive Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Water Frameworks Regulations 2011 Air Quality (England) 2000 Regulations The Human Rights Act 1998 (Article 8)

9. Other Relevant Guidance as a Material Consideration

BS 42020:2013 Biodiversity – Code of practice for planning and development South Worcestershire Infrastructure Delivery Plan (SWIDP) ADEPT “Making Space for Waste” June 2010 Manual for Streets (MfS) and Manual for Streets (2) Sustainable Design and Construction – Good Practice guidance (August 2012)

6. Planning History

6.1 The planning history of the site relates to its development as a Park and Ride site as follows: P99E0211: Consultation under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 for a park and ride facility comprising highway alterations, car park, shelter and security office, fencing, hard and soft landscaping, together with replacement sports facilities comprising football and cricket pitches, illuminated training area, changing rooms and fencing, land at Perdiswell fronting Droitwich Road. Considered by the Technical Services Committee at the meeting on 10th August 1999 at which it was resolved to raise no planning objection.

P99D0203: Application under Regulation 4 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 for the provision of sports pitches, changing rooms, footpath, fencing and landscape planting, land between Metal Castings and The Haven, Droitwich Road. Granted by the Technical Services Committee at the meeting on 10th August 1999. Page 82

P00E0186: Consultation under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 for revisions to the layout, improvements to facilities and to discharge conditions 5, 6 and 7 of Planning Application 602848 (Planning Application P99E0211) relating to matters of detail. Considered by the Technical Services Committee at the meeting on 25th May 2000 at which it was resolved to raise no planning objection.

7. Consultations

7.1 Formal consultation, including display of site notices, has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees have been received in relation to the amended proposals:-

Worcester City Council Archaeological Officer: no objection.

Worcester City Council Landscape and Biodiversity Adviser: No objection, subject to recommended conditions regarding implementation of the recommendations of the PEA, especially the recommended additional surveys in season, and a fully specified planting plan to address the biodiversity enhancement referred to in the PEA recommendations. Preference is also expressed for provision of a native green roof to enhance biodiversity enhancement.

Worcester City Council Tree Protection Officer: No objection.

Worcester City Council Planning Policy: No objection in principle.

Worcester City Council Economic Development & Regeneration: No objection.

Worcestershire County Council (Highway Authority): No objection, subject to recommended conditions and financial obligations.

Worcestershire County Council (Sustainability and Public Rights of Way teams): No objection.

Worcestershire Wildlife Trust: No objection, subject to conditions for the submission of a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) and a landscape environmental management plan (LEMP). Severn Trent Water Ltd: No objection, subject to recommended conditions.

South Worcestershire Land Drainage Partnership: No objection.

Lead Local Flood Authority: No objection

West Mercia Constabulary Crime Risk Manager: No objection.

Conservation Advisory Panel: No objection.

Neighbours and other third parties: two objections have been received on the following grounds:

 Congestion;  The proposal is designed to offer a range of rigidly planned teaching spaces more suited to the needs of older children rather than infants and their need for a more relaxed and intimate environment; Page 83

 Lack of interaction between the natural landscape of the site and teaching spaces;  Impact and lack of integration with archaeology features of the site

Froude Sports Association (Perrywood Football Club & Old Elizabethans Cricket Club): No objection to use of Neel Park by school as a playing field, subject to separate agreement.

7.2 Any additional responses received will be reported to members in the form of a late paper.

7.3 In assessing the proposal due regard has been given to local residents comments as material planning considerations. Nevertheless, I am also mindful that decisions should not be made solely on the basis of the number of representations, whether they are for or against a proposal. The Localism Act has not changed this, nor has it changed the advice that local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission unless it is founded on valid planning reasons.

8. Comments of Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

8.1 Policy SWDP1 sets out overarching sustainable development principles and these are consistent with the Framework. The various impacts of the development have to be assessed and the benefit and adverse impacts considered in order to establish whether what is proposed is sustainable development. Taking the above matters into account I consider the main issue raised by the proposal is whether the development would be sustainable, having regard to the 3 dimensions of sustainability set out in the Framework: economic, social and environmental. Taking the above matters into account I consider the main issues raised by the proposal are:

 The principle of development, and;

 whether the development would be sustainable, having regard to the 3 dimensions of sustainability set out in the Framework: economic, social and environmental, in particular with regard to:

1. The economic role;

2. The social role: - residential amenity; - impact on sports pitches;

3. The environmental role: - impact on green space; - impact on heritage assets - biodiversity and protested species; - access, car parking and highway safety;

Other matters: - design and appearance - energy conservation - planning obligations

These issues will now each be considered in turn. Page 84

The Principle of Development

8.2 The site is not allocated for development in the South Worcestershire Development Plan. However, it is situated within an area designated as being Green Space wherein policy SWDP 38 applies.

8.3 Both national and local policy requires development proposals to be sympathetic to their landscape setting and encourages the creation and conservation of green open spaces and green corridors within and on the periphery of settlements.

8.4 Policy SWDP 38 - Green Space states:

“A. Green Space, as identified on the Proposals Policies Map, includes a range of private and public open spaces, and associated community facilities

B. Development of Green Spaces will not be permitted unless the following exceptional circumstances are demonstrated:

i. The proposal is for a community / recreational use that does not compromise the essential quality and character of the Green Space; or

ii. An assessment of community and technical need (using recognised national methodology where appropriate) clearly demonstrates that the Green Space is surplus to requirements; or

iii. Alternative / replacement Green Space of at least equivalent value to the community has been secured in a suitable location

C. This policy should be read in conjunction with policies SWDP 5, 22, 29 & 39 as any new Green Infrastructure secured under these policies will be designated and protected as Green Space”

8.5 Policy SWDP 37 identifies educational establishments, such as schools and colleges, as community facilities. As such, I consider the proposal would therefore also satisfy the requirements of policy SWDP 38 B (i).

8.6 In terms of built community facilities, SWDP 37 states:

“The provision of new community facilities or the enhancement of existing facilities will be permitted, particularly where the proposals have resulted from neighbourhood planning, subject to satisfying the sequential test in the Framework where applicable. Applicants will be required to consider whether the combining or rationalisation of existing facilities would be more appropriate than the provision of a new facility.”

8.7 In this case, the sequential test in the Framework is not applicable and, for the reasons set out in paragraph 4.2 of this report, it is considered that the provision of a new school would be more appropriate than combining or rationalisation of existing facilities.

8.8 Furthermore, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at paragraph 72 that:

“The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Page 85

Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:

 give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and  work with schools promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.”

8.9 The case put forward in this application is therefore one of compelling need to meet the needs of Worcester’s growing population. I consider that it is also material that the application site is the only brownfield site in the City capable of delivering a new primary school in the short-term and in line with the NPPF, the development of brownfield sites should be delivered before other sites are considered. For these reasons, I consider that the use of the site for educational purposes is acceptable in principle in land use planning terms, subject to the consideration of all other planning policy and guidance and having regard to all other material planning considerations.

1. The economic role

8.10 In the short term the proposal would see the creation of jobs during the construction phase. In the longer term the benefits associated with the development would relate to the provision of 35 full time jobs and 5 part-time jobs which would be secured by the development. In my opinion, this weighs in favour of granting planning permission.

2. The social role

8.11 The key aim is to cater for the shortfall of school places in north Worcester and to alleviate pressures currently experienced by surrounding schools to accommodate growing demand for spaces. As a consequence, it has important social roles which weigh in favour of granting planning permission. However, one must also consider the impact of the development on nearby residents.

Residential Amenity

8.12 At paragraph 17 (bullet point 4) the Framework states that as one of its core principles planning should “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”. Similarly, Policy SWDP 21 requires that new development does not have a significant adverse effect on neighbouring amenity. The National Planning Practice Guidance note on noise and related policy set out in paragraph 123 of the NPPF is also pertinent:

“123. Planning policies and decisions should aim to:

 avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts4 on health and quality of life as a result of new development

 mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions Page 86

 recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established5

 identify and protect areas of tranquility which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.”

8.13 The DEFRA Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) is referred to in the NPPF and this sets out that government policy is to “avoid significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life” due to noise.

8.14 Due to the distance of the site away from residential properties on the opposite side of the A38 Droitwich Road, the proposed development itself is likely to have only limited impact upon the amenity of nearby residents in terms of noise from external play areas. Nevertheless, a high volume of vehicles will come in close proximity to these properties and adjacent business premises, particularly during the early stages of construction and at school drop-off and collection times, which will have a more discernible impact upon nearby residents in terms of noise and disturbance.

8.15 Noise and disturbance generated by the movement of construction traffic could have a negative impact on both the immediate and the wider area. This weighs against granting planning permission. However, it is important to recognise that disturbance during construction is to be expected and is not normally a material planning consideration as this would not be permanent. Nevertheless, it is possible to reduce the degree of intrusion during this time. For example, a construction environment management plan to outline how operations will be undertaken during the construction phase, the sequence that would be undertaken for construction and the envisaged construction period. General working practices, for example hours of construction, can reasonably be controlled by condition and I would not raise objection in this respect.

8.16 Whilst I accept that there would be some impact upon amenity from noise associated with construction traffic, nevertheless this must be balanced against the duration of the construction period, the nature and frequency of traffic movements and the benefits associated with the scheme. Overall, I recognise the temporary adverse impact on local residents and adjacent business premises during the construction phase, nevertheless it is considered that these can be suitably mitigated and once completed the development will have very limited impact. My view on this matter is reinforced by the lack of objection to this aspect of the proposals by Worcestershire Regulatory Services.

Impact on sports pitches

8.17 Access from the site to Neel Park is proposed to allow use by the school as a playing field. Neel Park has a joint tenure of Perrywood Football Club and Old Elizabethans Cricket Club under the umbrella of The Froude Sports Association. Whilst Perrywood FC had an initial objection to the proposed access gate, nevertheless Old Elizabethans CC did not. However, following a meeting between the applicants and the Froude Sports Association, the provision of an access gate in the perimeter fence has now been agreed by the Froude Sports Association, subject to a separate agreement between the parties. Page 87

8.18 Other requirements include the need for the gate to be of full height and the existing 6 metre mesh netting above the perimeter fence and gate replaced on Health and Safety grounds to reduce the number of cricket balls likely to go over into the school. Conditions for the submission of full details of the perimeter fencing, netting and gates are recommended accordingly.

8.19 The Health in Planning SPD advises at paragraph 2.35:

“Access to high-quality and well-maintained green space promotes physical activity, positive mental wellbeing and healthy childhood development. Children with access to safe green spaces are more likely to be physically active and less likely to be overweight. Outdoor play encourages healthy brain development and promotion of wellbeing through adulthood. Natural play areas can allow for adventurous play helping them to develop useful skills through play. Children who play in green spaces also develop better motor skills than those who do not”

8.20 The use of Neel Park by the school as a playing field would accord with OFSTED requirements for schools to operate within a secure boundary. The proposal would enable the school to use this land in a safe and secure manner for the purposes of sport, which accords with the general thrust of the policies set down in the NPPF.

3. The environmental role

Impact on Green Space

8.21 The site lies within an area designated as being Green Space in the SWDP wherein policy SWDP 38 applies. Both national and local policy requires development proposals to be sympathetic to their landscape setting and encourages the creation and conservation of green open spaces and green corridors within and on the periphery of settlements.

8.22 Policy “SWDP 38: Green Space states:

“A. Green Space, as identified on the Proposals Policies Map, includes a range of private and public open spaces, and associated community facilities

B. Development of Green Spaces will not be permitted unless the following exceptional circumstances are demonstrated:

i. The proposal is for a community/recreational use that does not compromise the essential quality and character of the Green Space; or ii. An assessment of community and technical need (using recognised national methodology where appropriate) clearly demonstrates that the Green Space is surplus to requirements; or iii. Alternative/replacement Green Space of at least equivalent value to the community has been secured in a suitable location

C. This policy should be read in conjunction with policies SWDP 5, 22, 29 & 39 as any new Green Infrastructure secured under these policies will be designated and protected as Green Space

Page 88

8.23 Bringing forward development on the site within Green Space inescapably creates tension with the above policy and it is accepted that there will inevitably be some impact, but that impact is of a kind which would inevitably occur at any site upon which development might occur. In my opinion, it is significant that policy SWDP 38 does not specifically preclude development. In particular, the policy allows for a community/recreational use that does not compromise the essential quality and character of the Green Space. To satisfy this requirement, there needs to be consideration of the works associated on site rather than off-site. As such, the test of acceptability cannot rest solely on either: (i) the visibility of development, or (ii) its effect on openness. It is inevitable that any new development of the site would be visible, because any new development would be visible.

8.24 Although the site is identified as part of the city’s Green Space in the SWDP, relevant policies anticipate the possibility of some development on Green Space and provide that development in such areas may be allowed should other material considerations outweigh its designation. Development within the Green Space is not restricted by policy in principle, but clearly needs to be designed with care and consideration.

8.25 The site is also partially covered by Green Infrastructure Environmental Character Area ‘Protect and Enhance’, indicating that part c of policy SWDP 5 applies. It states:

“Other than specific site allocations in the development plan, development proposals that would have a detrimental impact on important GI attributes within the areas identified as “protect and enhance” or “protect and restore”, as identified on the Environmental Character Areas Map , will not be permitted unless:

i. A robust, independent assessment of community and technical need shows the specific GI typology to be surplus to requirements in that location; and ii. Replacement of, or investment in, GI of at least equal community and technical benefit is secured.”

8.26 The authorised planning use of the application site is a park and ride facility. The site can therefore be considered as being previously developed land. I consider that this is a key consideration when factoring in the policy requirements of SWDP 5 and SWDP 38 above. Owing to this current land use, I do not consider that a robust, independent assessment of community and technical need of Green Infrastructure, as stated under part c of SWDP 5 is required on this occasion. The same land use reasoning can also be applied to part i. of policy SWDP 38.

8.27 Whilst the site is currently compromised to a certain degree by the existing use and buildings on the site, nevertheless in terms of development proposals change in the character and appearance of a site does not necessarily equate to harm. Where negative impacts on the landscape have been identified these need to be balanced against other issues in the proposal. Alongside this, the proposal anticipates a high standard of design and landscaping to mitigate the impact on the area. I am satisfied that the trees and hedgerows to be retained would be suitably protected during the course of construction; and that the future management of the landscaped areas would be assured through the provisions of recommended conditions.

8.28 There is a general presumption within policy that certain criteria should be met for new developments in such areas. These include that buildings should be of a scale, design and density appropriate to the Green Space, and adequate screening and landscaping are incorporated where possible. Page 89

I consider that the proposed scheme accords with such criteria and would provide an acceptable development in Green Space terms.

Impact on heritage assets

8.29 The application site is not within a conservation area and does not form part of any other designated heritage asset. There are no listed buildings or buildings of local significance within the curtilage of the application site and the nearest noteworthy building of any historical significance is the converted Grade II listed stable block of former Perdiswell Hall and attached walls and outbuilding. However, whilst the site itself is not an Archaeological Sensitive Area (ASA), nevertheless it is adjacent to an ASA and there are several other archaeological sites in the vicinity. Overall, the vast majority of the site was comprehensively stripped during formation of the car park. However, one significant feature was recovered towards the centre of the site, a ring ditch or ringwork of Bronze Age date (c 3000-3500 years ago). This was probably a ritual or communal site. This seems, within the car park boundary, not to have been associated with any other features. However, the Park and Ride car park layout was altered to reflect this archaeological feature.

8.30 The proposals should be considered against Policies SWDP 6 and SWDP 24 which are consistent with the NPPF (paragraphs 128, 129 and 131 to 135) in that they seek to protect and enhance designated and non-designated heritage assets and guide against development that would cause substantial harm to the significance of any heritage asset. In accordance with the NPPF at Para 132, great weight must be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and in accordance with s66 of the Planning Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990, special regard is to be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings.

8.31 The submitted Archaeological desk-based assessment includes an assessment of the potential effects of the proposal on archaeology and cultural heritage of the site and the wider surrounding area. Advice has also been sought by the Local Planning Authority to assist in the assessment of the significance of the heritage asset, as advised by Practice Guidance, through consultation with the Council’s Archaeology Officer and the Conservation Advisory Panel. The supporting information submitted with the application describes the scheme's response to context and it is considered that it complies with the terms of the NPPF.

8.32 In terms of the paragraph 134 of the NPPF, I consider that the proposals would have less than substantial harm in respect of the impact on the fabric, character, appearance and setting of the converted Grade II listed stable block of former Perdiswell Hall and attached walls and outbuilding. This limited harm is outweighed by the considerable public benefits of the proposal, namely the provision of education in a purpose built building to satisfy an urgent and demonstrable need to accommodate the demand for additional school places.

8.33 In summarising the likely effects of the proposal on heritage assets and having full regard to the policies in the development plan and national guidance it is assessed that the proposed development would have less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets. The balancing exercise in paragraph 134 of the NPPF is required to be undertaken between the “less than substantial harm” to the designated heritage asset on the one hand, and the public benefits of the proposal on the other. Taking into account the importance and weight to be given to the statutory duty under s.66(1) and s.72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in the overall balance of considerations, Page 90

I am of the opinion that the impact on the designated heritage assets would be insufficient for the application to be refused.

8.34 In terms of the effect on below ground deposits, the scheme should have no direct archaeological implications, as all archaeological remains on the site will have been removed during the construction of the park and ride car park. However, the application site is immediately adjacent to an important Bronze Age site, a ringwork which was the first site of its type to be found in the Midlands. Other associated remains are to be expected in the surrounding areas, though due to the impact of the car park construction these should not be affected.

8.35 The plan of the ringwork was marked out within the car park landscaping and visual interpretation provided in the car park building. The Archaeology Officer has commented that it would be a concern if this interpretation was lost as a result of the remnant of the car park site remaining unused and that there would be benefits in extending this interpretation into the school site. As such, it is recommended that it is referenced in the school development. Whilst I agree that this would have significant educational benefits given the close relationship of the school with the ringwork, nevertheless the car park building is outside the application site boundary. As such, it would not be possible to secure retention of the landscaping and visual interpretation of the ringwork as a condition of the proposed development. However, such measures could be secured as part of any future development proposals on the balance of the former park and ride site.

Biodiversity and protected species

8.36 Relevant legislation includes the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981) (as amended); the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000; the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC, 2006); and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010) and the EU Habitats Directive. Local planning authorities have a legal obligation to consider whether European protected species are likely to be affected by a proposed development.

8.37 The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 requires that “Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.” Further, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitats Regulations 2010), Regulation 9(5) provides that “a competent authority, in exercising any of their functions, must have regard to the requirements of the Habitats Directive so far as they may be affected by the exercise of those functions”. A Local Planning Authority is a competent authority for the purpose of these regulations and is exercising a function in deciding whether or not to grant a planning permission.

8.38 Paragraph 109 of the Framework seeks to ensure that the planning system contributes to and enhances the natural and local environment by, amongst other matters, recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services and minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible. In addition, paragraph 118 of the Framework seeks to ensure that development proposals incorporate measures for biodiversity enhancement. SWDP Policy 22 seeks to protect wider biodiversity and is consistent with the Framework in so far as the planning system is required to perform an environmental role in protecting and enhancing the natural environment. Page 91

8.39 The application is accompanied Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), together with a Great Crested Newt survey. No statutory designated sites would be directly affected by the proposals. The PEA sets out proposals for potential mitigation, further survey work and proposed mitigation in respect of notable and protected species. The relevant extracts from the PEA are attached as Appendix 1.

8.40 The application is also accompanied by a Tree Survey Report and Arboriculture Impact Assessment (TSRAIA) that explores the impact on the individual and groups of trees within the site. A summary of the proposed tree works and impact on the proposed development is attached as Appendix 2.

8.41 Detailed consideration of these aspect of the proposals have been undertaken in consultation with Natural England, the Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Adviser, Tree Protection Officer, County Council Ecologist and Worcestershire Wildlife Trust.

8.42 In summary, with regard to the proposed works to trees it is considered that the proposed development of the site will not have a significant impact upon the visual amenity of the local area as a result of the proposed tree removal necessary to implement it. Additionally the proposed works are unlikely to impact significantly upon the long-term health of retained trees. Whilst some works are to be undertaken within the RPAs of retained trees the nature of those works are such that they can be completed without impacting significantly upon the trees subject to the adoption of appropriate working practices.

8.43 With regard to the impact of the proposals on notable and protected species, whilst the recommendations of the PEA with regard to further surveys and mitigation measures are generally acceptable, nevertheless I have concerns with regard to the potential impact of the proposals on potential bat roosts in the trees that would be affected by the proposals due to the nature and extent of the survey work undertaken to date to inform the PEA.

8.44 Should any of the trees identified to be removed have the potential to support roosting bats there is potential to cause damage to/loss of bat roosts, injury/mortality and/or disturbance, the PEA does not recommend that further surveys are needed to confirm potential roost feature (PRF) status. However, as a material consideration in the planning process, this should be a matter addressed prior to determination.

8.45 Should roosting bats be confirmed, removal of the trees should proceed under licence in consultation with Natural England. The works should be assessed for their likelihood of disturbing bats; if disturbance is likely and at a level to be licensable (this is considered relatively unlikely), activity and emergence survey would be required in order to obtain sufficient information to apply for a licence.

8.46 Due the transient use of tree roosts by bat species there is a risk of conducting survey work too early in the development process, only for it to have to be repeated later nearer to construction, as bats have the potential to occupy a tree or other structure between surveys. Given the constraints on climbing inspections of the trees to be removed and the overall benefits of the project, it is considered to be unreasonable to ask for the application to be held up or refused whilst further surveys are carried out. Page 92

8.47 If planning permission is granted a survey of all those trees to be removed will be required for their potential to support roosting bats. If roosting bats are identified then works would cease whilst Natural England are consulted and the appropriate licensing protocol followed. Survey work would inform the mitigation requirements of any bat licence, which could have the roost potential enhanced by the provision of bat boxes or similar.

8.48 If a bat roost or hibernation site was to be found on the site during the construction phase of the development, a license from Natural England consenting to the works may be required. As such, during the construction phase of the development retained trees will need to be suitably protected from accidental damage and during construction and post construction careful attention will need to be given to lighting levels as these could deter bat foraging or obstruct/disrupt commuting routes.

8.49 Should the application be approved it will be important to secure the bat roost/emergence & re-entry surveys by condition and allow for the mitigation strategy to be adjustable, should anything of note be found. As stated in paragraph 99 of the ODPM Circular 06/2005, the presence or absence of protected species, and the extent to which they could be affected by the proposed development, should be established before planning permission is granted; otherwise all material considerations might not have been considered in making the decision. Planning conditions to secure surveys should only be used in exceptional circumstances. One of them is where adequate information is already available and further surveys would not make a material difference to the decision-maker to determine the planning permission. (para 9.2.4 of BS 42020:2013)

8.50 In a worse case scenario, it is therefore assumed, for the purposes of determining this planning application, that any roosts that might be found would be destroyed and that an EPS license will be required. This means that the application needs to be assed against the 3 derogation tests. The 3 tests are:

1) - Regulation 53(2)(e) states that licences may be granted to "preserve public health, or public safety or other imperative reason of overriding public interest including those of a social or economic nature, and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment" (2) - Regulation 53(9)(a) states that a licence may not be granted unless the licensing authority is satisfied that "there is no satisfactory alternative" (3) - Regulation 53(9)(b) states that a licence cannot be issued unless the licensing authority (DEFRA in England) is satisfied that the action proposed ‘will not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in their natural range.’

8.51 In relation to the first test, I consider that the existence of clear educational planning policy context support for the proposed facility and an urgent and demonstrable need for the scheme that can be delivered in a purpose built building on a brownfield site in the timescales required to satisfy the demand for additional school places in north Worcester. The proposal would therefore lead to significant public benefits in terms of its social role and would be of overriding public interest. It would also lead to economic benefits during the construction of the development and would provide employment opportunities upon completion. Overall the proposal is found to meet the first test.

Page 93

8.52 With regard to the second test the site is considered to be the most suitable for this proposal and there is no readily available satisfactory alternative site in north Worcester to accommodate the proposed development in the timescale required to accommodate the demand for additional school places. As such the proposal would meet the second derogation test.

8.53 Finally, I am satisfied that it would be possible to provide compensatory habitat as there are other trees on and adjacent to the site where compensatory bat boxes could be fixed in order to meet the third derogation test. Given the fact that the proposed development would likely be able to accommodate the necessary compensation measures the third derogation test is met and it is likely that a Natural England protected species licence would be granted.

8.54 In all other respects, whilst the proposals would clearly have an impact on the nature conservation interest of the site, at least in the short term, nevertheless these impacts have been and will continue to be measured. However, it is accepted that any residual ecological impacts can be mitigated and compensated in the medium to long term with implementation of all the measures proposed, together with the submission of Ecological Management Plan. A condition is therefore recommended for the submission of an ecological management plan, including updated ecology surveys where more than 12 months old; species mitigation and the various methods and timings that will be used to protect them during site preparation, construction and upon completion of the development; enhancement measures; measures for the protection of off-site features to cover runoff and site pollution, and; phasing of implementation.

8.55 Subject to these measures, I consider that the proposals would not give rise to unacceptably adverse impacts on the ecological and biodiversity interest of the site and, on balance, I consider that the proposal accords with the objectives of SWDP Policy 22 and guidance set down in the NPPF and relevant legislation.

Access, car parking and highway safety

8.56 In terms of transportation, highways and access, the proposals should be considered against Policy SWDP 4 which seeks to manage travel demand, encourage use of alternative modes of travel to the private car and deliver transport infrastructure to support economic prosperity.

8.57 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 outlines that transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives. In considering developments that generate significant amounts of movements local authorities should seek to ensure they are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. Plans and decisions should take account of whether improvements can be taken within the transport network that cost-effectively limits the significant impact of the development.

8.58 Paragraph 32 of the Framework states that developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Planning decisions should assess whether the opportunities for sustainable modes of transport have been taken up; whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved; and whether improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development Page 94

8.59 Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe”. Paragraph 36 of the NPPF also states that Travel Plans are key tool for promoting sustainable transport. Paragraph 39 adds that parking standards should take into account site accessibility, the type of development, the availability of public transport, local car ownership levels and the need to reduce high emission vehicles.

8.60 The applicants Transport Assessment provides an assessment of the proposed transport and access arrangements that is supplemented by a travel plan which assess the level of transport likely to be generated by the proposals. There would be no general parking provision on the site, and the school would have a Travel Plan to promote sustainable means of transport. In an urban area, I consider that this is an entirely appropriate approach. In addition, the surrounding residential streets are not affected by parking restrictions.

8.61 The key matters in respect of highways in considering the proposal are assessed to be trip generation and distribution, traffic impact owing to the potential for additional traffic resulting from the development to use the local highway network, accessibility and permeability for pedestrians and cyclists, improvements to public transport and Travel Plan. These have been assessed in detail by the Highway Authority, and have commented as follows:

“The Highway Authority raised concerns about the suitability of the walking route to the application site from certain local communities and asked the applicant to reconsider the access strategy and what improvements could be made to ensure that walking was the primary means of access for pupils. This resulted in a meeting between the applicant and Highway Authority to resolve the situation, and subsequently has resulted in a satisfactory solution being agreed.

The applicant has agreed through a unilateral undertaking to make contributions to the Highway Authority, which will see the footpath from Cornmeadow Lane made suitable through hedge cutting, surface improvements and better lighting, this will ensure a direct and suitable walking route is available from Claines and Northwick to the application site. Additionally excess vegetation on John Comyn Drive will be removed to improve the available footway space and additional signage will be installed from Bilford Road to assist in wayfinding. The applicant has also amended their proposal to exclude the emergency pedestrian access onto the A38 which will focus access onto more suitable routes.

It is considered that the existing walking and cycling routes are acceptable with the proposed improvements detailed in the heads of terms below.

A school travel plan has been submitted with the application and has been updated during the determination period. The Travel Plan coordinator has considered the plan and agrees with the measures proposed. The applicant should register for Modeshift Starsfor and upload their proposals so they can be monitored throughout the lifetime of the school.

Vehicle access to the site is via the existing access point on John Comyn Drive. Provision has been made for staff parking in accordance with the adopted Streetscape Design Guide. Given the nature of the application it is essential to protect the A38 from parent drop off, the A38 is considered to be a key corridor into the City for employment and retail access and it should be protected against from street parking. Page 95

There are presently parking restrictions in the locality, but it is necessary to ensure that a comprehensive parking management arrangement is introduced, the Highway Authority has already started the process of introducing a prohibition of waiting and loading orders between Claines Lane and Checketts Lane which will make it an offence to wait, or drop off. Similar restrictions are proposed for John Comyn Drive.

The Highway Authority has commenced this without prejudice to the outcome of this application, but if permission was not to be granted the order would not be progressed any further. It is however necessarily to ensure that school would not open before such orders are implemented and to ensure that the applicant does not incur abortive costs a Grampian styled planning condition has been proposed which prevents commencement of development until the orders are confirmed.

It is considered that there are not any significant additional demands on the highway network as a result of the proposal. The approach of improvements to active travel corridors, the travel plan and the traffic regulation orders will encourage walking rather than driving trips to take place, and for those who choose to park and walk from the park and stride sites that trip is likely to be part of a another journey, perhaps to a place of work, so that trip is already on the network and is considered to be a linked trip and not a new trip. Therefore the highway network will not experience any significant additional demands compared to that experienced today.

The application site also makes provisions oy bicycle parking and scooter parking. Improvements are also to be made to the existing bus stop on the A38 by installing a kassell kerb with further improvements anticipated with the future development of the balance of the former park and ride site.

It is also necessary to ensure that there is provision made for an electric vehicle to charge, and whilst this is absent from the drawing a suitably worded condition can address this matter. The applicant should note that a 22kw charging unit should be provided.”

8.62 A draft Unilateral Undertaking has been agreed with the applicants for site specific mitigation for payment of the following items upon signing of the Undertaking with the Highway Authority:

 Footway Improvements (WR-826 and WR-827 surface treatment, hedge cutting, and vegetation removal at John Comyn Drive) - £44,000  LED Lantern Upgrade on WR-826 - £1,250  Bus Stop Improvement on east side of A38 - £5,000  Pedestrian and Cycle Signage provision - £1,000

8.63 A number of conditions are also recommended regarding:

 provision of access, parking and turning facilities in accordance with the submitted details;  provision of an electric vehicle charging point;  implementation of a prohibition of waiting order and a prohibition of loading order;  implementation of the submitted school travel plan, and;  submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan. Page 96

8.64 Subject to the recommended conditions and the completion of the proposed Unilateral Undertaking prepared by the applicants, the Highway Authority is satisfied that the proposed development would be acceptable from a highways perspective and would not result in residual cumulative impact of development that is severe and thus should not be refused on transport grounds, as set out in Section 4, paragraph 32 of the NPPF. I find no reason to take a contrary position.

Other matters:

Design and appearance

8.65 Policy SWDP 21 seeks to ensure that, amongst other matters, all new development will be of high quality design and integrate effectively with its surroundings with consideration given to siting and layout; relationships to surroundings and other developments; open spaces; mix of uses; sustainability and energy performance; scale, form and massing; links connectivity and access; detailed design and materials; appropriate facilities; landscaping and biodiversity; public realm, and; creating a safe environment.

8.67 These policy requirements are consistent with the aims and objectives of the NPPF which attaches significant weight to the importance of design of the built environment and identifies it as a key aspect of sustainable development. High quality design goes beyond aesthetic considerations including the architecture of individual buildings to encompass the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment. When considering the merits of the submitted proposal it is therefore important to consider how the design and layout of the proposed development will integrate with the setting of the site and its surroundings and how it will function as a sustainable form of development for future residents.

8.68 These issues are covered principally in the Design and Access Statement. This provides a full assessment of the site context and explains and illustrates the proposed development.

8.69 The site in its present condition does not include any features to guide the design. The buildings in the vicinity vary widely in style and materials, and it is not the role of the planning system to impose particular architectural styles. Although the site is located adjacent to a main road frontage, there is nothing to suggest that the site is in a particularly prominent location.

8.70 Overall, the scheme would create a high quality modern building, with strong elevational lines and a deliberately limited palette of materials. In the wider context the articulation, detailing and materials proposed would result in a building which would reflect greater emphasis on function rather than form in terms of its design and appearance. In this respect, it would not cause offence and I would not raise objection on design related grounds.

8.71 The use of high quality materials is an essential component of the scheme and I would recommend that the exact nature of the finishing materials, colour finishes and hard landscaping within the site be subject to a condition requiring submission of details in order to ensure these are appropriate. Page 97

8.72 The proposed layout is also considered to be acceptable with reference to the development plan policies above. The scheme has been well designed to allow ease of access and movement, safety and security. The Crime Risk Manager has no objections to this aspect of the scheme. The layout ensures there is good separation of the vehicular access and parking areas from pedestrians and cyclists which is welcomed. The pedestrian movement to the building entrances would also be overlooked from active rooms within the school.

8.73 In addition, the design has been developed having regard to being compatible with potential development proposals on the balance of the site. In this respect the access, layout and scale have been developed in a way that I am satisfied would not prejudice future development. The proposed layout of the site retains adequate spacing and provides sympathetic elevations to built form and boundary treatments that would be complementary to any future development to the north.

8.74 Whilst provision of a sedum ’green roof’ has been encouraged, nevertheless due to practical reasons this has had to be discounted for the following reasons:

- The plant roof area is not appropriate; - The canopy area structure will not take the weight of the green roof build up.

Whilst this is disappointing, nevertheless the practical reasons are understood.

8.75 In my opinion, the proposal would result in an acceptable form of development that responds in a positive manner to particular site constraints and opportunities and would achieve a satisfactory standard of design, layout, scale and appearance. In this regard I am satisfied that the site has the capacity and potential to accommodate the proposed development in an acceptable manner and would be appropriate for this sensitive site and has been developed to a degree where the principles of massing and siting can be shown to be both realistic and well located in terms of the surrounding development and landscape setting. Overall, I consider that the design of the proposed development is acceptable and that the development accords with policy SWDP 21 and the aims and objectives that the NPPF seeks to protect and promote with regard to design.

Energy Conservation

8.76 The EU Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC) sets an overall target for 20% of the energy consumed in the EU to come from renewable sources by 2020. This overall target is divided by country, with the UK's target being 15% by 2020. The Climate Change Act (2008) established a legal requirement for the UK to achieve an 80% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050, with a 34% cut by 2020. The Planning and Energy Act (2008) allows local planning authorities’ policies to impose reasonable requirements for a proportion of energy used in developments to be from renewable and low carbon sources in the locality of the development.

8.77 The Framework recognises the key role planning plays in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy. To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, the Framework states (paragraph 97) that local planning authorities should:

 Identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers. Page 98

8.78 The development of renewable and low carbon energy is a key means of reducing South Worcestershire’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, promoting energy security for the future and reducing vulnerability to rising fuel costs.

8.79 Policy SWDP 27 (Incorporating Renewable and Low Carbon Energy into New Development) seeks to reduce carbon emissions and secure sustainable energy solutions in all new development over 100 sq. metres gross or one or more dwellings. This should be achieved by incorporating energy generation from renewables or low carbon sources equivalent to at least 10% of predicted energy requirements, unless it has been demonstrated that this would make the development unviable. SWDP27 goes onto say that large scale developments (those of 100+ dwellings or non-residential schemes of 10,000+ square metres) should examine the potential for decentralised energy and heat networks but again refers to viability.

8.80 In this case, 200 sq.m. of active photovoltaic panels will be provided as part of the development to achieve 10% of predicted energy requirements and details of how precisely this is to be achieved can be required by condition.

Planning obligations

8.81 Planning obligations mitigate the impact of development to make it acceptable in planning terms. Obligations should meet the tests that they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. These tests are set out as statutory tests in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2012 and as policy tests in the National Planning Policy Framework.

8.82 It is recognised that new development can create the need for new or improved infrastructure and community facilities. In accordance with Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, the applicants are willing to enter into a legally binding agreement to deliver contributions to provide improvements to the infrastructure that the development will impact upon. This legal agreement will be made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

8.83 The scope of contributions will reflect the requirements of adopted local policy. As well as the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, which state that planning obligations must be:

 necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;  directly related to the development; and  fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

8.84 Heads of Terms for an Unilateral Undertaking or S106 Agreement identify those areas of existing infrastructure that the applicant recognises will require improvements to accommodate the new development. The detail of these planning obligations has been discussed with the Highway Authority during the consideration of the application.

8.85 A transport contribution of £51,250 is requested in order to mitigate against the transport impact of the development as follows:

 Footway Improvements (WR-826 and WR-827 surface treatment, hedge cutting, and vegetation removal at John Comyn Drive) - £44,000 Page 99

 LED Lantern Upgrade on WR-826 - £1,250  Bus Stop Improvement on east side of A38 - £5,000  Pedestrian and Cycle Signage provision - £1,000

8.86 However, as the applicant (the ESFA) does not own the land yet, the City Council is still the land owner. The City Council has contracted to sell the land to ESFA subject to them obtaining planning permission. As such, in the event that members are minded to grant planning permission and for the permission to be issued the UU/s106 Agreement would need to be dated first and then the sale would complete. Otherwise, either the City Council needs to be a party to the UU and the City would then be released on completion of the sale or the applicant would have to agree to complete the sale before the planning permission would be issued. Alternatively, the Council (in its capacity as landowner) will need to enter into a S106 with itself (in its capacity as LPA) so that the obligations bind the land on completion of the sale.

8.87 The applicant has confirmed that they wish to pursue the latter alternative option. Human Rights Issues

8.88 As part of the consideration of this application, human rights issues have been considered in so far as they are relevant. It is considered that an appropriate balance between the interests and rights of the applicants (to enjoy their land subject only to reasonable and proportionate controls by a public authority in the public interest) and the interests and rights of those potentially affected by the proposal (to respect for private life and the home and peaceful enjoyment of their properties) has been achieved with conditions controlling the development where necessary.

Public Sector Equality Duty

8.89 In making this decision, the council has had due regard to the requirements of Section 149 of the Public Sector Equality Act 2010, which introduced a public sector equality duty that public bodies must, in the exercise of their functions, have due regard to the need to (a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation; (b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it; and (c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. Protected characteristics are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

8.90 These considerations are relevant to the duties that decision makers have under s149(1) of the Equality Act 2010. In this context religion or belief is a protected characteristic. On the basis that the school is proposed to be a 'Faith Ethos' community school, welcoming applications from all faiths and no faiths, I consider that the proposal would advance equality of opportunity between those who share a protected characteristic and those who do not share it.

8.91 Whilst the classrooms located on the first floor of the proposed building would not be fully accessible to disabled persons, nevertheless I consider that the school would be able to manage the use of teaching spaces to ensure that any disabled pupils or staff members were not disadvantaged. Overall, I consider that the equalities impacts of the proposal would be positive. Page 100

Conclusion

8.92 The NPPF identifies a series of the components that are considered critical to achieving sustainable development. In my opinion, the above assessment of the planning application proposals against the planning policy framework demonstrates that the application responds to, and is in accordance with, the requirements of the adopted planning policy within the development plan and material considerations relevant to the determination of the application.

8.93 Whilst the assessment is not an exhaustive list of all policies that are potentially applicable to this site, it seeks to address how the proposals respond to the key planning criteria in the planning policy framework against which the planning application will be determined.

8.94 Where a development is found to be sustainable development, a presumption in favour applies. In accordance with Policy SWDP 1 the decision taker should grant planning permission for such developments, unless material considerations indicate otherwise or, where specific policies in the Development Plan or material considerations indicate development should be restricted.

8.95 There would be an economic boost to the local economy from students, staff and parents, together with the short term provision of a significant number of construction jobs. The social effect would be wholly beneficial, particularly in relation to the existence of clear educational planning policy context support for the proposed facility and an urgent and demonstrable need for the scheme that can be delivered in a purpose built building on a brownfield site in the timescales required to satisfy the demand for additional school places in north Worcester. The proposal would therefore lead to significant public benefits in terms of its social role and would be of overriding public interest. In terms of the environmental dimension, it is considered that the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed development in an acceptable manner with regard to siting, layout, design and appearance without detriment to the amenities of neighbouring residents and businesses and the interests of highway safety. The proposal would make good use of a disused site, and if it were considered that there was a disbenefit arising from the loss of the unprotected trees, this would be entirely outweighed by proposed mitigation measures to be secured by conditions.

8.96 Having regard to the totality of the policies in the Framework, I consider the proposed development is sustainable when looking at its social, economic and environmental credentials in the round. Overall it is considered that the proposals constitute an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable form of development in accordance with policy SWDP 1 and would broadly accord with the Framework and the Development Plan when read as a whole. Taking the three dimensions of sustainability together, the proposal represents sustainable development and the balance is very clearly in favour of the grant of planning permission. As such it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Ward: Claines Contact Officer: Alan Coleman Tel: 01905 722523 [email protected] Background Papers: - Page 101 Agenda Item 10 North Worcester Park and Ride Site, John Comyn Drive RT-MME-127047-01 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Appendix 1

6. DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS It is understood that proposals involve the construction of a new school at the site. The new development will be predominantly confined to the southern half of the site (red line boundary), with the school building being constructed in the south-east of the site.

6.2 NATURE CONSERVATION SITES The desk study exercise identified one European statutory site within 5 km of the survey area, two UK statutory sites within 2 km, no ancient woodlands and one non-statutory site within 1 km. The site is not located within 10 km of a statutory site designated for bats. The significance of these sites to the proposed development is discussed below.

European Statutory Sites Lyppard Grange Ponds SAC is located 3.2 km south-east of the survey area. Due to the distance between this conservation site and the survey site, as well as the built-up nature of the intervening habitat, it is considered unlikely that this conservation site will be adversely impacted as a result of the proposed works. Therefore, this European site is not a notable consideration in relation to the proposed development.

UK Statutory Sites Northwick Marsh SSSI is the closest UK statutory site located 1.5 km west. The survey area was also found to be within the SSSI impact risk zone for this conservation site. However, the proposed nature and scale of the development does not fall within any of the risk categories associated with this conservation site (please refer to Appendix 1 for more information). The remaining UK statutory site is located in excess of 2.0 km from the survey area. Due to the distance between these conservation sites and the survey area, as well as the built-up nature of the intervening habitat, it is considered unlikely that these conservation sites would be adversely impacted as a result of the proposed works. Therefore, these UK statutory sites are not a notable consideration in relation to the proposed development.

Non-Statutory Sites Worcester and Birmingham Canal LWS is located 640 m east of the survey area. Due to the distance between this conservation site and the survey area, as well as the built-up nature of the intervening habitat, it is considered unlikely that this conservation site would be adversely impacted as a result of the proposed works. Therefore, this non-statutory site is not a notable consideration in relation to the proposed development.

6.3 HABITATS The ecological importance of the habitats present on site is determined by their presence on the list of Habitats of Principal Importance in England and on the Local BAP. It also takes into account the intrinsic value of the habitat. Those habitats which are considered to be of intrinsic importance and have the potential to be impacted by the site proposals are highlighted as notable considerations.

A discussion of the implications of the site proposals with regard to the habitats present on site is provided in the text below. A separate discussion of the value of the habitats on site to protected or notable species is provided in Section 6.4.

Broadleaved plantation woodland Although the woodland on site does not meet the criteria for a Habitat of Principal Importance in England, woodland is covered by the Worcestershire Biodiversity Action Plan. It is understood that the majority of the woodland will be retained. However, it is expected that marginal areas will be removed to facilitate the construction and to create access paths. Any retained areas of the woodland may also be indirectly impacted by the proposed development, such as through root compaction by machinery etc. Therefore, broadleaved plantation woodland is a notable consideration in relation to the proposed development and a recommendation has been provided in Section 7.2.

Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 16 Page 102 North Worcester Park and Ride Site, John Comyn Drive RT-MME-127047-01 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Broadleaved trees The semi-mature scattered trees are of intrinsic value as they cannot easily be replaced in the short to medium term. It is understood that the majority of the trees in the centre and to the east within the redline boundary will be removed to facilitate the proposed development. Any retained trees may be indirectly impacted by the proposed works, such as through root compaction by machinery. Therefore, broadleaved scattered trees are a notable consideration and a recommendation has been provided in Section 7.2.

Species-poor intact hedgerow ‘Hedgerows’ are a Ha bitat of Principal Importance for Nature Conservation in England if they measure over 20 m in length and less than 5 m in width, consist predominantly of at least woody UK native species, and any gaps measure less than 20 m in width. As the examples present on site predominantly contains Leyland cypress, which is non-native, these hedgerows do not meet this criteria.

Scrub ‘Scrub’ is not listed as a Habitat of Principal Importance in England but is listed on the Worcester shire Biodiversity Action Plan. It is anticipated that at least some of the areas of scrub on site will be directly impacted by proposals for the site. As a result scrub is a notable consideration and a recommendation has been made in Section 7.2.

All remaining habitats The remaining habitats are not Habitats of Principal Importance nor are they included on the Local BAP. They are well represented locally, have low species diversity and can easily be replaced post development. Any loss of these habitat would be considered to have minimal impact on the ecology of the local area. Therefore, these habitats are not a notable consideration in relation to the proposed development.

Habitats considered to be of relevance to the proposed development are summarised in Table 6.1.

Habitat of Principal Local BAP Habitat Type Summary of Potential Impacts Importance? Habitat? Broadleaved plantation Habitat loss, fragmentation, root - ü woodland compaction by machinery. Broadleaved scattered - - Habitat loss, root compaction by machinery. trees Scrub - ü Habitat loss Table 6.1: Summary of Potential Impacts on Notable Habitats

6.4 PROTECTED /N OTABLE SPECIES The following paragraphs consider the likely impact of the site proposals on protected or notable species. This is based on those species highlighted in the desk study exercise (Chapter 4) and other species for which potentially suitable habitat occurs within or adjacent to the survey area.

Mammals Bats The desk study provided seven records of at least three species of bat within a 1 km radius of the survey area. The closest records were of common pipistrelle, noctule and soprano pipistrelle all recorded 380 m north-west. The trees on site appeared in good condition with no suitable features, such as rot holes and split limbs, noted to support roosting bats. A number of lifted roof tiles were noted on the kiosk building which could provide suitable features for roosting bats. It is not known if this building will be impacted during the construction phase of the development. Therefore, roosting bats are a notable consideration and a recommendation has been provided in Section 7.3.

The vegetation around the site perimeter offers suitable foraging and commuting habitat for bats. The woodland along northern boundary extends offsite, providing connectivity to other areas of suitable habitat in the surrounding landscape. Additional lighting impacting these areas may result in fragmentation of suitable habitat for bats. Therefore, foraging and commuting bats are a notable consideration in relation to the proposed development and a recommendation has been provided in Section 7.3.

Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 17 Page 103 North Worcester Park and Ride Site, John Comyn Drive RT-MME-127047-01 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Badger The desk study provided five records of badger within a 1 km radius of the survey area. No evidence of badger such as setts, foraging signs or latrines were recorded on site during the field survey. The site provides suitable sett building and foraging habitat for badgers. Badgers are mobile mammals and given the suitability of the site for sett creation, they may colonise the survey area in the interim time period between the survey being carried out and the works commencing. Therefore, badger are a notable consideration to the proposed development and a recommendation has been provided in Section 7.3.

Hedgehog The desk study provided seven records of hedgehog within a 1 km radius of the survey area, the closest of which was recorded 90 m east. The vegetative habitats on site provide suitable habitat for hedgehog. The site is also well connected to suitable habitat in the surrounding landscape. Therefore, it is possible that hedgehog may occasionally forage within and pass through the survey area. Excavations required as part of the proposed works could result in direct harm/injury to hedgehog as they could fall in and become trapped. A precautionary recommendation regarding the protection of hedgehog has been provided in Section 7.3.

Otter The desk study provided two records of otter within a 1 km radius of the survey area, the closet of which was recorded 560 m south-east. There is no suitable habitat for otter on site or within the immediate vicinity. Therefore, otter are not a notable consideration in relation to the proposed development.

Amphibians The desk study provided twenty-two records of three species of amphibian, including great crested newt. The closest record for each species was located 20 m north-east of the survey area. The mosaic of habitats within the survey area provides suitable terrestrial habitat for amphibian species. There are no waterbodies on site to provide suitable breeding habitat for amphibians. However, reference to Ordnance Survey mapped data and aerial imagery indicated that there are two waterbodies within a 500 m radius of the survey area. A confirmed great crested newt population was recorded in the pond 100 m north of the site in 2012. As there are no significant barriers between this pond and the survey area, it is possible that great crested newt may be present on site. Any vegetation removal and site clearance works required as part of the proposed works therefore has the potential to result in direct harm/injury to great crested newts and common amphibians. A recommendation has been provided in Section 7.3.

Reptiles The desk study provided eleven records of slow worm within a 1 km radius of the survey area, the closest of which was recorded 100 m north-east. Whilst the majority of the site is generally sub-optimal for reptiles species (large car parking areas) pockets of suitable habitat including areas of scrub and unmanaged grassland exist in the northern half of the site. The site is also connected to suitable habitat in the surrounding landscape in the form of the allotments (approximately 10 m to the north) and a golf course (approximately 80 m to the north east). Clearance of unmanaged grassland and scrub required as part of the proposed works may result in direct harm/injury to reptiles. A recommendation has been provided in Section 7.3.

Birds The desk study provided records of four species of bird listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). Due to the specific breeding requirements of these species it is considered unlikely that these species would breed within the survey area.

The desk study also provided records of a number of notable bird species within 1 km, as well as various other common bird species and nests being observed on site during the field survey. The building, woodland, hedgerow, scrub and shrub all provide suitable habitat for nesting birds within the survey area. If the proposed works are undertaken in the bird nesting season then there is potential for impact upon nesting birds, and as such a recommendation has been provided in Section 7.3. It is expected that suitable nesting habitat will be removed to facilitate the proposed development. However, due to the presence of alternative nesting habitat in the local vicinity and providing suitable habitat is created post development the works should not adversely impact birds in the long-term. A recommendation regarding general habitat enhancement, which would increase the value of the site for birds, has been provided in Section 7.2.

Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 18 Page 104 North Worcester Park and Ride Site, John Comyn Drive RT-MME-127047-01 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

Invertebrates The desk study provided no records of notable invertebrate species within a 1 km radius of the survey area. Although any invertebrate species present within the site may be temporarily displaced during the construction phase of the proposed development, taking into account the presence of alternative habitat within the local vicinity and providing new habitats are created as part of the development, no long-term impact of terrestrial invertebrates is anticipated. A recommendation regarding general habitat enhancement, which would increase the value of the site for invertebrates, is made in Section 7.2.

Plants The desk study provided records of a number of notable plant species within a 1 km radius of the survey area. These species were not noted on site during the field survey. Although January is not considered to be an optimal time of year for botanical assessment, due to the specific habitat requirements of these species it is considered unlikely that they would be present on site. Therefore, plants are not a notable consideration in relation to the proposed development.

Other Species The following protected species are not considered to be material considerations due to the lack of desk study records and absence of suitable habitats within the development site and its surroundings: dormouse Muscardinus avellanarius , white-clawed crayfish Austropotamobius pallipes , stag beetle Lucanus cervus , water vole Arvicola amphibius , red squirrel Sciurus vulgaris , harvest mouse Micromys minutus , pine marten Martes martes , polecat Mustela putorius and brown hare Lepus europaeus .

Summary Species considered to be of relevance to the proposed development are summarised in Table 6.2.

Species of Principal Species / Species Group Summary of Potential Impacts Importance? Loss of suitable habitat, direct harm or injury, Bats # fragmentation, lighting etc. Badger - Loss of suitable habitat, direct harm or injury. Hedgehog ü Loss of suitable habitat, direct harm or injury. Amphibians including great # Loss of suitable habitat, direct harm or injury. crested newt Reptiles ü Loss of suitable habitat, direct harm or injury. Birds # Loss of suitable habitat, direct harm or injury. #: Dependent on species. Table 6.2: Summary of Potential Impacts on Notable Species

6.5 INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES The desk study provided no records of invasive plant species within a 1 km radius of the survey area. A species of Cotoneaster was noted in multiple locations across the site. Rhododendron was also noted on site, however the due to the condition of the examples they could not be identified to species level. Certain species of cotoneaster and rhododendron are considered invasive under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended), and it is therefore an offence to allow these species to spread to the wild. As a result as a precaution it is recommended that the species present on site should be treated as invasive and a recommendation regarding the removal of these species has been provided in Section 7.4.

Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 19 Page 105 North Worcester Park and Ride Site, John Comyn Drive RT-MME-127047-01 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

All recommendations provided in this section are based on Middlemarch Environmental Ltd’s current understanding of the site proposals, correct at the time the report was compiled. Should the proposals alter, the conclusions and recommendations made in the report should be reviewed to ensure that they remain appropriate.

The ecological mitigation hierarchy should be applied when considering development which may have a significant effect on biodiversity. The ecological mitigation hierarchy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) should follow these principles: · Avoidance – development should be designed to avoid significant harm to valuable wildlife habitats and species. · Mitigation – where significant harm cannot be wholly or partially avoided, it should be minimised by design or through the use of effective mitigation measures. · Compensation – where, despite whatever mitigation would be effective, there would still be significant residual harm, as a last resort, compensation should be used to provide an equivalent value of biodiversity.

7.1 NATURE CONSERVATION SITES There are no recommendations made regarding nature conservation sites.

7.2 HABITATS The following recommendations are made regarding the habitats present on site:

R1 Habitat Loss and Enhancement: In accordance with the provision of Chapter 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment) and Local Planning Policy, biodiversity enhancement measures should be incorporated into the landscaping scheme of any proposed works to maximise the ecological value of the site. This will involve, for example: · Planting of habitats which will be of value to wildlife, such as: § native seed/fruit bearing species to provide foraging habitat for mammals and birds; § nectar-rich species to attract bees, butterflies and moths; § species which attract night flying insects which will be of value to foraging bats, for example: evening primrose Oenothera biennis , goldenrod Solidago virgaurea , honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum and fleabane Pulicaria dysenterica . § Areas of scrub which will also contribute towards local Biodiversity Action Plan targets. · Provision of nesting/roosting habitat, such as installation of nest boxes for species such as house sparrow, dense scrub or native thicket for species such as song thrush, and bat boxes for species such as pipistrelle. · Inclusion of hedgehog passes under any fence lines to allow connectivity between the site and the wider area.

R2 Woodland and Trees: These habitats are of intrinsic value and the development should be designed to allow for the maximum retention of the woodland and trees; if this is not possible then then the minimum amount of these habitats should be removed. Any woodland and trees on site, or overhanging the site, which are to be retained as a part of any proposed works should be protected in accordance with British Standard 5837: 2012 "Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations". Protection should be installed on site prior to the commencement of any works on site. Any trees that are removed should be mitigated within the landscaping design, through the inclusion of appropriate native or wildlife attracting species of adequate size.

7.3 PROTECTED / NOTABLE SPECIES To ensure compliance with wildlife legislation and relevant planning policy, the following recommendations are made:

Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 20 Page 106 North Worcester Park and Ride Site, John Comyn Drive RT-MME-127047-01 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

R3 Foraging/Commuting Bats: Bats are likely to use the vegetative corridors on the site boundaries for foraging and commuting. Therefore, any lighting, either temporary or permanent, along the site boundaries should be kept to a minimum and directed away from these boundary features to maintain ‘dark’ areas and corridors. The lighting strategy for any future development of the site should involve the use of low level and directional lighting, such as bollard lighting, to help to minimise light spill.

R4 Badger: Given the suitable habitat present within the survey area and connectivity to adjacent habitat that is suitable for badgers, it is recommended that a pre-works badger survey is undertaken prior to any development works commencing to ensure that the status of the site with regards to badgers has not changed. Should badger setts be identified a badger activity survey may be required. Badger surveys can be completed at any time of the year. Should a badger sett be identified that will be required to be disturbed or closed, works to the badger sett will require a licence from Natural England. Badger setts can be closed between July and November inclusive.

R5 Terrestrial Mammals including Badger and Hedgehog: Any excavations that need to be left overnight should be covered or fitted with mammal ramps to ensure that any animals that enter can safely escape. Any open pipework with an outside diameter of greater than 120 mm must be covered at the end of each work day to prevent animals entering/becoming trapped.

R6 Great Crested Newt: A great crested newt Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment should be undertaken for all ponds identified within 500 m of the edge of the proposed development. This survey will identify if ponds previously identified as supporting great crested newt populations still exist and if so are capable of supporting breeding populations. Great crested newt Habitat Suitability Index assessments can be carried out at any time of year, although if possible it is preferable to carry out the assessments between March and October. If suitable great crested newt breeding ponds are identified with connecting habitat to the proposed development site it is likely that a full great crested newt survey will be required. Great crested newt surveys require 4-6 visits to each pond between March and June, with 2-3 visits required between mid-April and mid-May.

R7 Nesting Birds: Vegetation and building clearance should be undertaken outside the nesting bird season. The nesting bird season is weather dependent but generally extends between March and September inclusive (peak period March-August). If this is not possible then any vegetation/buildings to be removed or disturbed should be checked by an experienced ecologist for nesting birds immediately prior to works commencing. If birds are found to be nesting any works which may affect them would have to be delayed until the young have fledged and the nest has been abandoned naturally, for example via the implementation of an appropriate buffer zone (species dependent) around the nest in which no disturbance is permitted until the nest is no longer in use

R8 Roosting Bats: If the kiosk building is to be impacted by the proposed development a Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment should be undertaken. Preliminary roost assessments can be completed at any time of year. Dependent upon the results of the preliminary assessment, nocturnal emergence and dawn re-entry surveys could be required. Surveys should be undertaken in line with best practice survey guidelines (Collins, 2016), during the bat activity season. The bat activity season is considered to extend from May to September (inclusive), with the optimum survey period between mid-May and August (inclusive).

The above recommendation is only applicable if land to the north of the red line boundary will be impacted.

R9 Reptiles: A reptile survey should be undertaken of suitable habitats within the proposed development site. Reptile surveys can be completed in suitable weather conditions between April and September (inclusive).

The above recommendation is only applicable if land to the north of the red line boundary will be impacted. .

Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 21 Page 107 North Worcester Park and Ride Site, John Comyn Drive RT-MME-127047-01 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal

7.4 INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES The following recommendation is made regarding invasive plant species:

R10 Cotoneaster and Rhododendron: The works must not cause cotoneaster and rhododendron to spread into the wild. The plants must either remain in situ or be removed with care and disposed of in an appropriate manner.

Middlemarch Environmental Ltd. Page 22 This page is intentionally left blank Page 109 Agenda Item 10 Appendix 2

Appendix 2

Summary of the proposed tree works and development impact

The proposed development has been designed so that, where possible, existing trees are retained. In particular, the retention of trees in the northern section of the site are to be retained. However, to accommodate the proposed development it will be necessary to remove a number of trees within the site.

Overall the proposed development will require the removal of ten trees (3no. Norway Maplea, 6no. Lime and 1no. Goat Willow) and the partial removal of one group of trees of mixed species. One of the trees that has been identified for removal is considered to be of a low retention value in the Arboricultural Survey. However, it is not considered that the removal of this tree should be seen as a constraint to the development of the site as it is not in such a condition that it is likely to make a lasting contribution to the landscape character of the site.

The remainder of the trees that have been identified for removal were considered to be of a moderate, Category B, retention value. Although the removal of these trees will have a localised impact on the landscape character of the site, their loss can be mitigated against by the replacement planting of trees of a similar size and species.

In addition to the proposed tree removal, there are areas on site where it will be necessary to undertake access facilitation pruning works to retained trees present on the site to minimise the potential for branch damage to occur during construction. All of the tree pruning works required are likely to be of a minor extent and of a routine nature. As such, it is not considered that they will have a significant impact upon the long-term health, or visual quality, of the trees. It is recommended that the extent of pruning required is identified in a pre- commencement site meeting.

The proposed development has been designed so that major works are not required within the RPAs of retained trees. However, there is one aspect of the development that will require works to be undertaken within the RPA of a retained tree. The construction of the car parking spaces in the east of the site will encroach upon the RPA of a tree. However, the area of this tree’s RPA that will be affected by works to construct the new parking bay is already hard surfaced. As such, it is likely that root development in the affected areas will have been restricted and on this basis it is considered that the potential for harm to occur to the trees as a result of the works is minimal.

There are no works to be undertaken beneath the canopies of retained trees. As such, impacts related to this aspect of the development are expected to be minimal.

In terms of post development impacts the proposed school been sited so that it is not in such close proximity to retained trees that a significant shading of the building is likely to occur. As such it is not considered that any conflict between retained trees and the proposed school as a result of shading is likely to occur. The proposed development has been designed so that the groups of trees which surround and screen the site along the eastern, southern and western Page 110

boundaries are retained. On this basis I am satisfied that privacy and screening has been well provided for.

There are no areas on site where retained trees will be in such close proximity to the new development that direct damage, through branch whipping or root growth, are likely to occur.

The proposed buildings have been located at sufficient distances from retained and proposed trees such that future pressure for tree removal is unlikely to result.

The nature of the development is such that some seasonal nuisance due to leaf litter is likely to occur. However, the sweeping up of leaves and cleaning of gutters, which may become blocked by falling leaves, is considered to be routine seasonal maintenance and as such no notable conflict with the proposed development is considered to occur. Nonetheless it may prove appropriate in certain areas to use gutter guards, or otherwise enclosed gutters, to minimise the potential for leaf fall to cause blockage and an on-going nuisance.

In summary it is considered that the proposed development of the site will not have a significant impact upon the visual amenity of the local area as a result of the proposed tree removal necessary to implement it. Additionally the proposed works are unlikely to impact significantly upon the long-term health of retained trees. Whilst some works are to be undertaken within the RPAs of retained trees the nature of those works are such that they can be completed without impacting significantly upon the trees subject to the adoption of appropriate working practices. Page 111 Agenda Item 11

Report to: Planning Committee, 19th July 2018

Report of: Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning

Subject: APPLICATION P18D0210: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 1,393 SQ.M TWO STOREY OFFICE BUILDING (CLASS B1(A)) AND A 1,393SQM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (CLASS B1(C)) AND STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION (CLASS B8) BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND ACCESS AT CENTRAL PARK, GREAT WESTERN AVENUE

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that the planning committee is minded to grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the plans list and the applicant and all parties with an interest in the land entering into a Unilateral Undertaking and subject to the Deputy Director- Governance being satisfied with the nature of such Undertaking to delegate to the Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning approval to grant the planning permission.

2. Background

2.1 The application has been referred to the Planning Committee as it does not fall under the scheme of delegation.

2.2 The application was received on 10th May 2018 and the target date for determination is 14th August 2018.

3. The Site and Surrounding Area

3.1 The application site comprises a roughly rectangular site which is 1.09 hectares in size tapering inwards towards the northern edge. The site is accessed off Midland Road which runs roughly north-south to the east of the City Centre, forming a link between Newtown Road and Wylds Lane. Midland Road also serves the Stanley Road School, Perryfields Centre and Lea and Perrins factory.

3.2 The application site itself is bordered to the south by residential development (Sawmill Close) and to the east by a railway track which runs on a north-south axis, beyond which lie further industrial units. To the west the site is bordered by buildings in industrial uses including the Lea and Perrins factory. The site is bordered to the east by a chain link fence. To the western site boundary shared with Lea and Perrins the site is bordered by a screen of vegetation and trees, beyond which there is a significant drop down to the level of the factory. The northern boundary of the site is formed by a fence that separates the site from the Territorial Army premises to the north. Page 112

3.3 Surrounding residential properties at Compton Road, Wylds Lane and Midland Road comprise predominantly high density two storey terraced housing which does not benefit from off-road parking. There are parking restrictions in place along parts of Midland Road and Wylds Lane. The site is bordered to the north by a large building occupied by the Territorial Army beyond which are the existing Fortis head offices.

3.4 The site itself is predominantly flat and has been vacant for a number of years having previously been used as railway sidings. The site benefits from a screen of vegetation to the western and southern boundary and a culverted watercourse runs across the site. A drain runs through the site adjacent to the embankment to the site’s western boundary, along with an ‘exclusion zone’ in which no buildings can be sited. There are no listed buildings, no known archaeological remains or trees subject to Tree Preservation Orders on the site and the site is not located in a conservation area.

4. The proposal

4.1 The submitted proposal comprises a resubmission of planning application P17D0195, which was approved by the Planning Committee in July 2017 and issued on 24th November 2017 following the completion of a Unilateral Undertaking. The proposal seeks consent for the same type and quantum of development and will be the subject of a similar Unilateral Undertaking; however the proposed development has been re-positioned within the site. This is the result of the presence of a culvert within the site in a different position to that that had been modelled requiring the relocation of the proposed office building. The extent of this repositioning (moving the building 10 metres to the south and relocation of the car park) has triggered the requirement for a fresh planning application.

4.2 The submitted proposal seeks consent for the erection of a 1393 m2 office block (B1 use class) that will be occupied by the applicant (Fortis). The proposal also includes the development of 1393 m2 light industrial unit and storage and distribution floor space (B1c and B8). There is no end user identified for this light industrial unit/ storage and distribution floor space at the present time.

4.3 Fortis Living is a not-for-profit housing association providing affordable housing and services for those needing extra support, including supported, sheltered and extra care accommodation. The applicant currently provides services out of two principal office locations: Progress House, off Midland Road (immediately to the north west of the application site) and Festival House, Grovewood Road, Malvern. The Applicant has concluded that it would be advantageous if the business could be located on a single site. As a consequence it is proposed to retain Progress House and develop a sister office in close proximity on the application site. Whilst they are two separate buildings the offices will effectively operate as one and will centralise the applicant’s business operations.

4.4 The light industrial/storage and distribution unit will be provided in a single terrace of three units. The master plan shows the development of three 464 m2 units which could easily be adapted through the provision/ removal of internal walls to meet future occupiers’ requirements.

4.5 The proposed palette of materials to be used in the construction of the office block include PPC Aluminium cladding, PC double glazed windows, PPC aluminium entrance canopy, vertical timber cladding. The main entrance is accentuated through the incorporation of additional glazing and feature signage. Page 113

Floor to ceiling glazing panels are proposed to all elevations. For the light industrial/ storage unit traditional materials for units of this form are proposed incorporating kingspan trapezoid roof/wall, composite metal panels, PPC aluminium door and glazed side screen and metal sectional shutter door with feature metal signage. All openings are positioned within the western elevation.

4.6 A new access road will be constructed to serve the development along the site’s western edge. It is proposed that the two storey office block will be sited to the north of the site and the B1/B8 units to the south of the site with a car parking area separating the two, and a further parking area to the north of the office building. In total 128 car parking spaces are proposed, 70 of which are sited in a car park between the two units with an additional 43 to the front/side of the office block and 15 to the front of the light industrial/ storage block.

4.7 A paved area with seating will be proposed to the north of the office building addressing the main entrance to the building and entrance to the site. New areas of tree planting are proposed on the eastern section of the site in order to help separate the site from the railway track. In addition, the landscaped area to the south of the site will be retained and enhanced as appropriate. There is already significant landscaping on the embankment to the west of the site and this will be retained. Bin and cycle storage are proposed to the north of the proposed office building and to the south of the proposed light industrial/ storage unit.

4.8 Photovoltaic panels will be added to the roof of the proposed buildings to meet the requirements of SWDP 27 (requirement to incorporate measures for the generation of energy from renewable or low carbon sources equivalent to at least 10% of predicted energy requirements). Five electric vehicle charging points will be provided adjacent to the main entrance.

4.9 The key changes between the current application and the existing permission relate to the position of the B1 (office) unit and car parks. This unit has been moved south, further into the site, in light of the position of a culvert discovered post- determination. The design, orientation, scale, massing and material finish of the proposed buildings remains the same and the position of the B1/B8 units remains unchanged.

5. Planning Policy

5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) establishes the legislative framework for consideration of this application. Section 70(2) of the Act requires the decision-maker in determining planning applications/appeals to have regard to the Development Plan, insofar as it is material to the application/appeal, and to any other material consideration. Where the Development Plan is material to the development proposal it must therefore be taken into account. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application/appeal to be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The Development Plan for Worcester now comprises:

 The South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP), which was adopted on 25th February 2016, and;  The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted on 15 December 2012 Page 114

South Worcestershire Development Plan

5.3 The policies of relevance to this development proposal are as follows:

SWDP1: Overarching Sustainable Development Principles SWDP2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy SWDP8: Providing the Right Land and Buildings for Jobs SWDP21: Design SWDP22: Biodiversity and Geodiversity SWDP27: Renewable and low carbon energy SWDP28: Management of Flood Risk SWDP29: Sustainable Drainage Scheme SWDP43: Worcester City Allocations/22- identifies the whole site as a site for employment.

Material Considerations

1. National Planning Policy Framework

5.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) comprises national planning guidance which is relevant in the determination of this application. The Framework was published in March 2012 and replaced all former national planning policies, except for Planning Policy Statement 10: Waste. The Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It sets out the Government's requirements for the planning system only to the extent that is relevant, proportionate and necessary to do so. All the policies in the Framework constitute Government's view of what sustainable development in England means in practice. Economic, social and environmental improvement should be sought jointly and simultaneously.

5.5 The NPPF goes on to outline a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed. In terms of the proposed development these are:

Chapter 1: Building a Strong, Competitive Economy – The planning system should do everything it can to support sustainable economic growth and significant weight should be afforded to this. Planning polices should recognise and seek to address potential barriers to investment. Planning policies should prospect of it being used for that purpose. Proposals for alternative uses should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities;

Chapter 7: Requiring Good Design – Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and is indivisible from good planning. High quality and inclusive design for all development should be sought, including individual buildings and public and private spaces, through good architecture and appropriate landscaping.

5.6 Paragraph 186 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. LPAs are advised at paragraph 187 of the NPPF to look for solutions rather than problems and decision-takers are asked to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Page 115

Against the background set by paragraph 187, the NPPF reiterates at paragraph 197 that when assessing and determining development proposals, LPAs should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

2. National Planning Practice Guidance

5.7 On 6th March 2014 the Government also published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) to compliment the NPPF. Of relevance to the application this consists of, amongst other matters, determining a planning application, Design, Noise, Use of planning conditions, and Planning obligations.

6. Planning History

6.1 The following applications relate directly to the application site.

P17D0195 - The development of a 1,393 sq. m. two storey office building (Class B1(a)) and 1,393 sq. m. of light industrial (Class B1(c)) and storage and distribution (B8) building with associated infrastructure and access. Granted by the Planning Committee in July 2017 and issued on 24th November 2017 following the completion of the Unilateral Undertaking.

P16D0078 - 4no Proposed Industrial Units (B1, B2 & B8). Granted by the Planning Committee at the meeting on 21st April 2016.

P13D0002 - Hybrid application; full planning permission for the erection of 28 affordable dwellings and associated works. Outline planning permission for erection of maintenance depot (matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for future consideration). Refused and subsequent appeal dismissed. The Appeal Inspector upheld that the retention of the site for employment use as in the City of Worcester Local Plan 2004 was sound and that there was insufficient evidence to support it was unviable for a non-conforming use to that proposed in the plan.

P01L0698 - The erection of industrial units, 34no affordable houses, service road and two storey office building. Approved.

7. Consultations

7.1 Formal consultation has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees have been received in relation to the proposals:-

Worcester City Council Archaeological Officer: No objection

Worcester City Council Landscape Consultant: No objection

Worcester City Council Planning Policy Team: No objection

West Mercia Constabulary-:No objection

Worcestershire County Council Highways: No objection subject to conditions and financial contribution

South Worcestershire Land Drainage Partnership: No objection

Worcester Regulatory Services (Air Quality) :No objection subject to condition Page 116

Lead Local Flood Authority: No objection

7.2 One neighbour letter of representation has been received in relation to this proposal. Concerns have been expressed regarding traffic, pollution and the potential for increases in on-street car parking.

7.3 Any additional responses received will be reported to members in the form of a late paper.

8. Comments of Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning

7.1 Following a comprehensive site visit and assessment of the submitted plans I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be:

 Proposed land uses;  Design;  Car parking and access;  Impact of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining land users;  Ecology and landscaping; and  Sustainability of the proposed built form.

These matters will now be considered in turn.

Proposed land uses

7.2 The application site is identified as an “Employment Allocation” in the SWDP (Site SWDP43/22) and is subject to the requirements of Policy SWDP43 – Worcester City. The policy confirms that the site is expected to provide one hectare of employment land towards Worcester City’s overall employment requirement. The policy does not seek to place any form of restriction on the type of employment use that takes place on the site.

7.3 Full planning permission is sought for the redevelopment of the application site for a B1(a) office and a B1(c) light industrial/B8 storage and distribution use. The B1(a) office use would comprise a 1,393 sq. m. office block that will be occupied by the applicant. The floor space will be provided over two floors and would enable the applicant to operate from one site in conjunction with the existing office accommodation neighbouring the site at Progress House. The creation of good quality office accommodation for one of Worcester’s significant employer’s is welcome and is considered to be an appropriate use for this vacant site which accords with the site allocation in the SWDP. The redevelopment of this site in its entirety is also welcomed and I note that the existing permission establishes the principle for the type and quantum of development proposed (P17D0195).

7.4 As with the previous proposal the current application incorporates the development of 1,393 sq. m. of B1(c) light industrial and B8 – storage and distribution floor space. There is no end user identified for this floor space. The commercial floor space will be provided in a single terrace of 3 units. The masterplan shows the development of three 464 sq. m. units. However the submission has made clear that the subdivision of this floor space is flexible dependent on end user requirements which is welcomed. The B1(c) and B8 uses proposed accord with the site allocation in the SWDP and are considered appropriate to the site. Page 117

Design

7.5 The new office building is located towards the northern edge of the site. It is two storeys in height. It has been designed to reflect the scale and mass of the surrounding buildings incorporating a prominent glazed entrance and canopy to the main entrance and floor to ceiling glazing throughout. Views of the application site are relatively limited from the public domain due to the position of surrounding buildings and relationship to the highway. There are, however, views of the site from the users of the railway line and from Great Western Avenue. The design of the proposed office unit is considered to be appropriate and in keeping with the area whilst providing a high quality development.

7.6 The light industrial/distribution building is of similar proportions and is sited to the south of the site. Materials typical to a unit in this use are proposed. I am satisfied that the proposed design is of an appropriate standard and will relate well to the existing Great Western Business Park and surrounding area. The proposed palette of materials is considered appropriate to the setting of the site and would be in keeping with the materials used within the surrounding area. The design of the proposed buildings is consistent with that of the extant permission.

7.7 On balance, it is considered that the submitted proposal responds to the site setting and results in a scheme which is of a high standard of design in accordance with the expectations of SWDP 21 and the aims and objectives that the National Planning Policy seeks to protect and promote with regard to design.

Car parking and access

7.8 A new access road will be constructed to serve the development along the site’s western edge. 128 car parking spaces are proposed to accompany the new office development. These are located in a series of rows towards the central section of the site and to the west of the main office building. This level of car parking is proposed in order to help relieve the car parking problems currently associated with Progress House that result in on-road parking on Great Western Avenue. The level of car parking will help meet both the applicant’s operational needs and improve the ease of use of the local highway network. County Highways have confirmed that they have no objections to the proposal subject to suggested conditions which are set down in the plans list.

Impact of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining land users

7.9 The application site is bordered to the north and west by other commercial uses. To the east is the main Birmingham to Worcester Railway line. I do not consider that the proposed use and activity within the site would have a detrimental impact upon either of these. To the south of the site are residential units which have been accustomed to a long-term vacant site. As such, I consider that there will be an introduction of activity within the site as well as the visible presence of the buildings. However, I consider that the boundary screening on the south boundary and the separation distance between the units and dwellings is sufficient to ensure it would not be above a reasonable level of activity which is generally created by living adjacent to a general industrial use. Furthermore, I consider there are sufficient powers under regulatory services to deal with site specific issues should they arise but consider the general relationship acceptable. Page 118

The application is supported by a noise survey which has been scrutinised by Worcestershire Regulatory Services and no objection has been raised to this.

7.10 Due to the distance between the site and the nearest adjoining buildings, as well as the orientation of the residential and commercial buildings, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to give rise to overlooking or loss of light to adjoining land users. The proposed building relates well to the existing neighbouring buildings and the site in general and, in my opinion, will not result in harm to the amenities of the occupants of adjacent or nearby buildings through loss of light or actual or perceived overlooking.

7.11 A noise impact assessment has been undertaken which concludes that the proposed development will not result in any harm to the amenities of adjoining land users and accords with the requirements of development within the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

Ecology and landscaping

7.12 New areas of tree planting are proposed on the eastern section of the site in order to help separate the site from the railway track. In addition, the landscape area to the south of the site will be retained and enhanced as appropriate. There is already significant landscaping on the embankment to the west of the site and this will be retained.

7.13 The made ground on the site has been shown to contain localised asbestos fibres. In order to mitigate the risk of exposure to future site users the site should be covered by buildings/hardstandings or a minimum 600mm-thickness of clean cover material. The test soils are considered to present a sufficiently low risk to controlled waters and major ecological receptors. This is confirmed by the lack of objection raised by the Council’s land contamination consultant.

7.14 The current application shows the proposed office building in a different location to that approved under the 2017 application as a response to the requirement to pull development away from this culvert. I note that the Lead Local Flood Authority, Severn Trent and South Worcestershire Land Drainage Partnership have no objection to this proposal.

Sustainability of the proposed built form

7.15 SWDP 27 requires all new development to ensure that a minimum of 10% of the proposed energy use of the building comes from a renewable source. As such, the applicant proposes to use photovoltaic panels on both buildings as well as other low carbon technologies to limit energy and water use throughout the life of the development. This is proposed to reduce energy consumption by 16.2% for the B1 office unit and between 10.1 and 11% for each of the three B1/B8 units. As such I consider it complies with the relevant requirements of the policy.

Conclusion

7.16 The above assessment of the planning application demonstrates that the application responds to, and is in accordance with, the requirements of relevant planning policy and material considerations relevant to the determination of the application. Page 119

7.17 I acknowledge all comments received as part of the consultation process and consider all material planning issues have been considered including those of the NPPF including economic, environmental and social, as well as diversity, in the determination of this application.

7.18 In my opinion, the proposal is acceptable in principle and the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed development in an acceptable manner in terms of the siting, size, scale, design and appearance of the development, impact on neighbouring residents amenities and car parking and would accord with the aims and interests that both the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework seek to protect and promote.

Ward: Cathedral Contact Officer: Nichola Robinson Tel: (01905) 722567 [email protected] Background Papers: Application P18D02010 This page is intentionally left blank Page 121 Agenda Item 12

Report to: Planning Committee, 19th July 2018

Report of: Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning

Subject: APPLICATION P18M0021: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGES AND ERECTION OF 2NO. THREE BEDROOM HOUSES, WITH AMENITY AND CAR PARKING AT GARAGE COURT, TURRALL STREET

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee refuse planning permission for the following reason:

Policy SWDP 28 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan sets criteria for acceptable development within floodplain area “Yellow zone” to ensure development is acceptable in terms of risk to users and does not increase the risks to others, by way of increasing the flood risk overall.

However the building is limited by wider constraints of being a Historic Asset and its relationship to the surrounding development of Warmstry court and Bridge Street.

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the frequency of likely flooding and the measures required to reduce the impacts are incompatible with residential occupation of the site and the benefits of occupation of the building in conservation terms do not outweigh the risks from flooding for future residents of the building.

The frequency and depth of the flooding in the area is anticipated to increase and the measures proposed would continue to be insufficient in times of flood, and as such it is not considered to be sustainable development and fails to meet the criterial as set out in policy SWDP 28 of the South Worcester Development Plan and would thereby also be contrary to the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote with regard to flood risk.

2. Background

2.1 At the meeting on 24th May 2018 the application was deferred for a site visit in order for members to assess the implications of localised flooding conditions on site.

3. Comments of Deputy Director of Economic Development and Planning

3.1 I have no further comments to make in addition to my previous report, which is attached as Appendix 1 and which has been updated to incorporate the substitutions and corrections as detailed in my late paper report for clarity. Page 122

A copy of the Flood Evacuation Management Plan submitted as part of the application is attached as Appendix 2.

Ward: Cathedral Contact Officer: Sally Watts Tel: (01905 722172) [email protected] Background Papers: Appendix 1- Officer’s report to the Planning Committee at the meeting on 28th June 2018 Page 123 Agenda Item 12 Appendix 1

Report to: Planning Committee, 28th June 2018

Report of: Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

Subject: APPLICATION P17D0380: CONVERSION AND CHANGE OF USE OF AN EXISTING 2 STOREY STORAGE BUILDING INTO A 2 BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT WARMSTRY COURT, QUAY STREET

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee refuse planning permission for the following reason:

Policy SWDP 28 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan sets criteria for acceptable development within floodplain area “Yellow zone” to ensure development is acceptable in terms of risk to users and does not increase the risks to others, by way of increasing the flood risk overall.

However the building is limited by wider constraints of being a Historic Asset and its relationship to the surrounding development of Warmstry court and Bridge Street.

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the frequency of likely flooding and the measures required to reduce the impacts are incompatible with residential occupation of the site and the benefits of occupation of the building in conservation terms do not outweigh the risks from flooding for future residents of the building.

The frequency and depth of the flooding in the area is anticipated to increase and the measures proposed would continue to be insufficient in times of flood, and as such it is not considered to be sustainable development and fails to meet the criterial as set out in policy SWDP 28 of the South Worcester Development Plan and would thereby also be contrary to the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote with regard to flood risk.

2. Background

2.1 The application has been referred to the Planning Committee as it does not fall under the scheme of delegation as it is contrary to the Development Plan.

2.2 The application was validated on the 12th February 2018 and expired on the 14th May 2018. Page 124

3. The Site and Surrounding Area

3.1 The proposals relate to an existing storage building that stands to the rear of dwellings on Bridge Street and Warmstry Court, in what forms an internal courtyard area providing access to the residential units.

3.2 The building is two storey in height of brick construction beneath a pyramid style roof. Adjacent to the building is the barrier which controls access into the internal yard and to the north are the rear gardens of flats within the terraced listed buildings on Bridge Street.

3.3 The building is vacant and internally it does not to appear to have had a meaningful use for some time. Internally, there is a staircase up to the upper floor and there are details in the brickwork which suggests former openings. The existing access is on the west side within the courtyard.

3.4 Due to the unknown provenance of the building the input of the Archaeological Officer has been sought who has advised:

“This modest building has particular heritage interest as a survivor from the townscape before the construction of Bridge Street around 1780. It may represent a warehouse building (or part of one) surviving from a long plot with a house or trading premises on the street frontage and access to the quay on the riverside; if so, all the rest has gone. The blocked openings of rounded form on the S side are particularly unusual, and the interior shows a number of interesting features including the remains of brick vaulting.”

3.5 The site is within the Riverside Conservation Area and the building is locally listed. The adjacent buildings on Bridge Street are Grade II listed and the site is considered to be an archaeologically sensitive area. The whole site is in flood zone 3. The policy area is yellow in terms of flooding policy SWDP 28.

3.6 The site is not subject to any other natural environment policies within the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016.

4. The Proposal

4.1 The proposal is for the change of use of the building to a two bedroom dwellinghouse. The ground floor is proposed to house the kitchen and living room areas and two bathrooms and a shower room would be formed on the first floor.

4.2 There are proposed external changes to facilitate conversion, including the insertion of windows and doors together with internal works to render the building more flood resilient given the nature of its proposed use. These works include measures such as waterproof membranes fixed to external walls, waterproof spray foam, water resistant cabinets, doors and windows, raised sockets and electrical distribution board.

4.3 The application is accompanied by a full set of existing and proposed plans, a Design, Access and Heritage Statement and a Flood Risk Assessment which includes a flood evacuation plan for an alternative site, together with a Sensitive Letting Policy, Emergency Flood Response Plan, Planning Statement, and a supplementary Page 125

statement from the agent regarding flooding and information regarding alternative accommodation provision for future residents in the event of a flood.

4.4 The original proposals included a rear external staircase and a front porch. However, these have been omitted from the scheme following objections from the Planning and Conservation Officer.

5. Planning Policy

5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) establishes the legislative framework for consideration of this application. Section 70(2) of the Act requires the decision-maker in determining planning applications/appeals to have regard to the Development Plan, insofar as it is material to the application/appeal, and to any other material consideration. Where the Development Plan is material to the development proposal it must therefore be taken into account. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application/appeal to be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The Development Plan for Worcester now comprises:

 The South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP), which was adopted in February 2016;  The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted in December 2012,

5.3 The following policies of the SWDP are considered to be relevant to the application proposals:-

SWDP 6 Historic Environment SWDP 21 Design SWDP 24 Management of the Historic Environment SWDP 28 Management of Flood Risk SWDP 29 Sustainable Drainage Systems

Material Considerations

1. National Planning Policy Framework

5.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision takers and is a material planning consideration in determining planning applications. Annex 3 of the NPPF lists the documents revoked and replaced by the NPPF.

5.5 The NPPF outlines a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed. Paragraph 186 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. LPAs are advised at paragraph 187 of the NPPF to look for solutions rather than problems and decision-takers are asked to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Page 126

5.6 The Government believes that sustainable development can play three critical roles in England: an economic role, contributing to a strong, responsive, competitive economy; a social role, supporting vibrant and healthy communities; and an environmental role, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.

2. National Planning Practice Guidance

5.7 On 6th March 2014 the Government also published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) that comprises, amongst other matters: Air Quality, Health and Wellbeing, Noise, and Use of Planning Conditions.

3.Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (Flood Risk)

5.8 This document provides additional guidance to local planning authorities to ensure the effective implementation of the planning policy set out in the Framework on development in areas at risk of flooding. Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (Flood Risk)

6. Planning History

6.1 No previous applications have been submitted in respect of the site.

7. Consultations

7.1 Formal consultation has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees have been received in relation to the proposals:-

Worcester City Council - Archaeological Officer: no objections, subject to conditions.

Environment Agency: The consultation response is considered to be highly relevant to the proposals and a full copy is attached as Appendix 1. In summary, the Environment Agency has commented as follows:

“Whilst we do not raise an objection to the proposed development given our role and remit, we would question whether it represents sustainable development. We recommend you consult with your Emergency Planners and the Emergency Services to determine whether they consider the access to and from the development, in a DFL, to be safe in accordance with the guiding principles of the NPPG.”

West Mercia Constabulary: No objection

Worcester City Council - Planning and Conservation Officer: “The application site is an unlisted building, situated within the Riverside Conservation Area. It is surrounded on the north and west sides by buildings of a similar architectural style and age, and to the east and south by modern three- or four-storey buildings which form the remainder of the current housing complex.

The applicants claim that their proposals will have no detrimental impact to the conservation area as the proposed scheme is predominantly repairing an existing Page 127

structure. This is not the case. They also state in their Design & Access Statement that the proposed building is not of any particular architectural or historical significance. I beg to differ upon the latter point. The application site is of some age, possibly as old as, or older than, the rest of the buildings on site. Whilst it may or may not have historical significance, the reality is that its original purpose is neither understood nor appreciated. It should be, and this needed to have formed part of the Heritage Statement.

The application site has not been well-served. There has been over-zealous pointing of the lime mortar joints with cement mortar, which has obscured the close jointing of the original brickwork, and over-emphasised the mortar lines. Also, the original openings have had their windows/shutters/doors replaced, although the openings do not so far appear to have been changed.

Also in the Design & Access Statement, the applicants state that the development in the main is contained within the original footprint of the existing building, save for a small entrance porch . Unfortunately, this porch also represents a considerable incursion into, and loss of, original fabric. I would like to see this particular aspect of the scheme revisited and a less intrusive solution found.

This has subsequently been addressed and a more sensitive approach has been taken following these comments and the Planning and Conservation Officer is satisfied with the amended plans.”

Worcestershire County Council - Emergency Planner: “I am happy with the evacuation plan and the lettings policy as such, but would still question the need to house people in a known flood area where there are other properties which would need support and attention why add one more?”

Worcester City Council - Cleaner and Greener: no objection

South Worcestershire Land Drainage Partnership: has commented that the amended information provided - FRA 1636L(v3.0) produced by RAB Consultants (20/03/18) and drawing of the front elevation - requires continuation of the 'red box' consultation with the EA and the Council's EPO with respect to the Flood Evacuation Management Plan.

Worcester City Council - Cleaner and Greener: general comment regarding bin provision

Highway Authority: no objection, subject to a condition regarding cycle parking

Worcester City Council- Housing Enabling and Solutions Officer: “I welcome the proposal by Sanctuary Housing to create an additional 2 bedroom property in this popular location of Warmstry Court. The City Council has a corporate commitment to identify and re-use empty properties across Worcester for affordable housing and this application will contribute to achievement of this commitment.

The 2 bedroom property created will have high standards of design and Sanctuary have considered carefully the significant impact of flooding in this vulnerable riverside location, by creating all accommodation on the upper floor and building in a high degree of flood resistance. I understand further modelling has been requested as part of the application and also Sanctuary will use this to increase the flood resistance of the property. Page 128

I note the emergency plan which has been provided as part of the application and note that this property would also be subject to its provisions.

I welcome Sanctuary's acceptance of the need for a sensitive and appropriate lettings (or in the case of shared ownership - sales) policy for this property, which is as a result of the unique nature of the property as it falls within a larger sheltered housing scheme, but is in a sought after part of the City in residential terms.

Worcester City Council aims to improve access and choice to social housing in the City and in terms of rented accommodation; I would suggest that Sanctuary should pay consideration to the following recommendations:

- Sanctuary to let properties via Home Choice Plus housing register

- Sanctuary to enter into a Local Lettings Plan/Nomination Agreement with the Council which would be binding on both parties and would detail the process for allocation and tenancy management.

- Sanctuary to agree to not let the properties to vulnerable tenants or those with specific health and support needs to whom evacuation in time of flooding may prove traumatic/detrimental to health

- Sanctuary to consider applications from general needs couples, singles or families with a maximum of 2 children under 10 (if the property is 2 bed 4 person) or 1 child (if the property is 2 bed 3 person). The rationale for this is, couples with children over 10 are entitled to additional priority on Home Choice Plus under the allocations policy as flats are not considered suitable accommodation - Therefore, there would be a higher degree of turnover at the property with older children and also the location has very little open space for older children to play. I believe this therefore would create more sustainable tenancies.

- Sanctuary could have this property as an annexe of Warmstry Court and extend that scheme's allocations policy to this property. We could restrict the age limit to over 55's both single applicants and couples, as research into older people's housing has shown that some older people would like a 2 bedroom property, as they have family/grandchildren to stay over, and also sometimes a carer. This would ensure that the property would be integrated into the wider development.

- Will the property be fitted with an intercom and emergency button, so that residents can contact Sanctuary as well as screening visitors to the property as front door is on ground floor and living accommodation on upper floor?

- Would Shared Ownership be a viable option for this property and would the property leaseholders be able to secure buildings/contents insurance and also a mortgage due to the nature of the flood risk to the site?

- I would also consider the above sensitivities when drawing up a sales policy for the shared ownership units.

- I am happy to meet with Sanctuary officers to discuss and finalise the local lettings policy for this property and agree an acceptable outcome.

Neighbours and other third party comments: comments have been received as follows: Page 129

27 Warmstry court, Quay Street - submitted photos of the building in times of flood;

28 Warmstry Court Quay Street - concern regarding change of the barrier and disruption to existing residents during conversion, disruption to residents amenity and issues with car parking;

36 Warmstry Court - concern regarding residents of the proposed unit and their amenity and lack of amenity space if used to house a family impact on number and ease of car parking, considers the building of limited heritage value;

48 Nursery Road, Malvern - concerns regarding density in the area and car parking;

Flat 3, 10 Bridge Street - loss of privacy, disruption from construction works, car parking, and concerns regarding noise and light matters;

Helen Rea (a member of CAP although as I understand is not commenting as a CAP member):

“The drawings indicate UPVC door (and windows??). I would like to note my objection to these materials in this location. There was an interesting objection from a neighbour which shows the building flooded at ground floor. Although I understand that these should be dealt with by the relevant authorities, if these flooding issues require the use of inappropriate materials and works for this use classification to work, I would object to the change of use to residential.”

7.2 Members have been given the opportunity to read all representations that have been received in full. Any additional responses received will be reported to members in the form of a late paper.

7.3 In assessing the proposal due regard has been given to local residents comments as material planning considerations. Nevertheless, I am also mindful that decisions should not be made solely on the basis of the number of representations, whether they are for or against a proposal. The Localism Act has not changed this, nor has it changed the advice that local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission unless it is founded on valid planning reasons.

8. Comments of Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

8.1 I consider the main issues raised by the proposals are as follows:

 The principle of the proposed development;  Flood risk;  Design and appearance;  Impact on the Riverside Conservation Area and landscape quality of the area;  Impact on neighbouring residents’ amenities; and  Car parking and highway safety.

These matters will now be considered in turn. Page 130

The principle of the proposed development

8.2 The residential use of the existing building in a highly sustainable location is considered to be positive in terms of planning policy. The utilisation of the heritage asset is positive and the residential use is compatible with the surrounding residential land uses.

8.3 The National Planning Policy Framework 2012 is clear in the responsibility of the Local Planning Authority to ensure development meets the criteria of sustainable development in the form of an exception test which allows discretion to make an ‘exception’ if the development meets the relevant criteria.

8.4 The Environment Agency has considered that the exception test (ET) is relevant in this instance as the development involves a more sensitive user, so conversion from passive storage to active residential use would trigger this assessment.

8.5 In accordance with paragraph 102 of the NPPF, for the ET to be passed:

 it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and

 a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

8.6 In conjunction, policy SWDP 28 is clear in terms of the requirements of development related to their flood zone. Policies SWDP 28 and SWDP 29 of the SWDP and paragraphs 100 and 104 of the NPPF require consideration of flood risk and the developer to show that their development will not have an adverse impact on the wider flood dynamic. Unless the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the criteria is met the development is not considered to be sustainable development.

8.7 Other constraints of the site relate to the historical context of the area, of the building and proximity to surrounding buildings. Policies SWDP 6 and SWDP 24 are relevant in this regard. Part of the assessment relates not only to the building and how it is proposed to be altered to accommodate residential development but how this is impact the neighbouring listed propoerties along Bridge Street and the Riverside conservation Area. Within metres of the site come some of the best views of the historic city and these should be protected and nurtured.

8.8 The design development pattern and the special characteristics of the unusual building will consider its relationships to the neighbouring residents and how it would work, if approved, alongside the existing in relation to the design policies and standard of SWDP 21 and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document: South Worcestershire Design Guide 2018.

8.9 Notwithstanding the above, due consideration must also be given to what, if any, impacts the proposal will have, specifically in relation to the character of the site and, as well as flooding, highway safety and the biodiversity within the site, together with the impact on neighbour amenities. These issues will be considered in detail in later sections of this report. Page 131

Flood Risk

8.10 Policy SWDP 28 states that in order to minimise the impacts of and from all forms of flood risk development proposals must clearly demonstrate that the Sequential Test has been applied. Furthermore where the Sequential Test has been satisfied, development proposals must also satisfy the Exception Test and a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) should be submitted where a proposal includes land with Flood Zone 2 or 3. This is reflected in paragraphs 100 and 104 of the NPPF which require consideration of flood risk and the developer to show that their development will not have an adverse impact on the wider flood dynamic. Paragraph 103 of the NPPF states:

“When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where, informed by a site-specific flood risk assessment following the Sequential Test, and if required the Exception Test, it can be demonstrated that:

 within the site, the most vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk unless there are overriding reasons to prefer a different location, and  development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes where required, and that any residual risk can be safely managed, including by emergency planning; and it gives priority to the use of sustainable drainage systems.”‘

8.11 Whilst applications for minor development and changes of use should not be subject to the Sequential or Exception Tests, nevertheless the Environment Agency has considered that the exception test (ET) is relevant in this instance as the development involves a more sensitive user due to conversion from a passive storage use to an active residential use. The highlighted sections of Paragraph 103 of the NPPF above demonstrate where it is considered by the Environment Agency, the Lead Local Partnership and the Emergency Planners consider to be the most pertinent point in relation to this application. For the Local Planning Authority to be suitably convinced that the site is suitable for residential use and that the risks from flood and flood damage are mitigated and a robust system is in place so as not to generate risk for potential residents. These matters will be explored below:

Flood resilient and resistant

8.12 The information provided by the EA confirms that in a design flood level the proposed dwelling will flood internally to some 0.93 metres.

8.13 Furthermore, the EA has advised that ‘the existing ground floor level (at 14.89m AOD) would flood as early as a 10% (1 in 10 year flood) AEP flood event, and would flood to depths of approximately 0.63m during a 1% (1 in 100 ear flood) AEP flood event.’ The proposal would increase the floor height by 0.20 m which would not be above the levels of a 1% flood- or a one in 100 year flood plus 35% for climate change.

8.14 The EA has considered that a minimum increase of 300mm would be considered acceptable. Page 132

8.15 The building is proposed to be fitted out internally to be flood resilient between 1m and 1.2 metres. The EA makes the point that these are close to the design flood level of 0.93m.

8.16 This demonstrates to me the implication of flooding on the building and for future residents. I continue to have concerns that the benefit of the re-use of the building in a highly sustainable location would provide accommodation which is unsuitable in terms of well-being and a sense of vulnerability of being flooded would prevail.

Safe access and escape routes

8.17 The FRA submitted states that in a 1 to 100 year flood plus climate change event the flood depth would vary through the site, ranging from 1 metre to the south and 0.33 metres to the north. The EA consider it is likely to be between 1.2 metres to 0.53 metres in depth.

8.18 As such, in order to leave the site in a flood event residents or emergency services would need to pass through flood water to a height of 1.2 metres in times of a 1 to 100 year plus climate change event, should they not be suitably evacuated from the proposed dwelling.

8.19 The Emergency Planner has advised that the Flood Evacuation Management Plan is considered to be acceptable, which would ensure that residents are evacuated and are able to remain in alternative accommodation until safe to return.

Residual risk including by emergency services

8.20 There is a possibility of additional risk posed by the affordable nature of the units generated by ownership by the Housing Association. The potentially vulnerable residents may be at additional risk, as recognised by the comments raised by the Land Drainage Partnership.

8.21 There was a concern that this could arise from a lack of understanding and ability to cognitively process the flood warnings or evacuation, ability to leave the dwelling in a safe manner, able to safeguard themselves and their possessions suitably during this process and ability to find suitable alternative accommodation- both as an emergency and during the process following a flood event regarding repair and cleaning up.

8.22 Arguably the vulnerability of the users is less of an issue in that the applicant, Sanctuary, are accepting responsibility for ensuring that there is provision for longer term accommodation as well as emergency accommodation. In addition, they have agreed to a sensitive lettings policy which would restrict tenants unless they can meet the following criteria:

 restricted to lettings only  the property not to be let to vulnerable tenants or those with specific health and support needs to whom evacuation in time of flooding may prove traumatic/detrimental to health  restricted lettings to general needs couples, singles or families with a maximum of 2 children under 10 or 1 child.

8.23 I consider that implementation and adherence to such a policy would limit these concerns. Page 133

8.24 However, the level of control over residents with shared ownership would be lessened to the point of being unacceptable and there would be further implications regarding the ability to secure insurance in relation to the flood risk. As such, I consider that a personal permission to Sanctuary would be required in order to safeguard this provision and to ensure it remains on a lettings basis in perpetuity.

Management of flood risk

8.25 The area to the south of Bridge Street within the Warmstry Court area is defined as ‘yellow zone’. As such, policy SWDP 28 part iii is applicable to the assessment of the proposals. For ease of reading the policy points have been inserted into a table with the accompanying assessment alongside.

8.26 The policy states that ‘redevelopment of existing sites within the floodplain in areas not subject to significant flood flows (as defined by the Environment Agency), shown as “Yellow Zone” on the Policies Map, will be permitted provided:

Policy SWDP 28 Information Compliance with policy SWDP 28? It is for less vulnerable or Residential use would be a This is for a more sensitive water compatible uses (as more sensitive use than use in terms of vulnerability defined in Table 2 ‘Flood Risk commercial storage. of water compatibile uses as Vulnerability Classification’ of defined in Table 2 in the the National Planning Practice NPPG. Guide).

Ground floor levels of all Ground floor levels would not The finished floor level would buildings are set above the 1 be met. not achieve a ground level in 100-year flood level set above the 1 in 100 year including an allowance for In a design flood Level the flood level inc. climate climate change, with an proposed dwelling would change. appropriate freeboard to be flood internally to some agreed with the Local 0.93m.EA The Environment Agency Planning Authority and should consider the building would be flood-free during an be in flood in as early as a (1 extreme flood event. in 10 year flood).

Safe access is available for A suitable evacuation plan There is a robust plan in the lifetime of the has been supplied which is place along side a sensitive development and is considered acceptable by the lettings policy which should supported by flood warnings Emergency Planners. address this issue and suitable evacuation plans being in place. Car parking is designed to No car parking provision on No issue have regard to potential flood site depths and hazards and mitigation measures are put in place (no basement car parking shall be permitted). There is no impairment to the There is no impairment No issue available flood storage generated by the proposed capacity of the floodplain and additional flood storage is created. Unnecessary obstructions to No obstructions would be No issue flood flow are removed, generated by the proposal. Page 134

restoring flood flow pathways.

For these reasons, I consider the proposal would be contrary to policy SWDP 28 part iii.

8.27 On evaluation, I consider that the building is likely to flood at a frequency and to a depth which is in excess of what would be considered acceptable and would cause a interruption from daily life on a frequency which is unnecessary and disproportionate to a sustainable development.

8.28 I have concerns that the measures required to make the building flood resilient would reduce the quality of the internal space and the on-going implications could be significant for occupants of the proposed building.

8.29 These misgivings are reflected in the consultation responses from the Emergency Planner, Environment Agency and the Land Drainage Partnership.

Design and Appearance

8.30 Policy SWDP 21 seeks to ensure that, amongst other matters, all new development will be of high quality design and integrate effectively with its surroundings with consideration given to siting and layout; relationships to surroundings and other developments; open spaces; mix of uses; sustainability and energy performance; scale, form and massing; links connectivity and access; detailed design and materials; appropriate facilities; landscaping and biodiversity; public realm, and; creating a safe environment.

8.31 These policy requirements are consistent with the aims and objectives of the NPPF which attaches significant weight to the importance of design of the built environment and identifies it as a key aspect of sustainable development. High quality design goes beyond aesthetic considerations including the architecture of individual buildings to encompass the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

8.32 It is recognised by the Archaeological Officer that:

“It is a difficult building to find a use for (and has been effectively empty for a long time) and on the face of it the residential use would be an appropriate way of bringing it back into beneficial use. The submitted drawings show that this could be achieved without major intervention into the building fabric.”

8.33 When considering the merits of the submitted proposal it is therefore important to consider how the design and layout of the proposed development will integrate with the setting of the site, and its relationship with the river and its surroundings and how it will function as a sustainable form of development for future residents.

8.34 These issues are covered principally in the Design and Access Statement. This provides a full assessment of the site context and explains and illustrates the proposed development.

8.35 The bespoke design of the scheme has been led by the constraints of the site, its setting, Officer comments and preferences in the design process. For example, the Page 135

scheme originally included a porch and rear external staircase which would have been highly visible from public vantage points. However, these were considered to be incongruous additions to the building which would have a detrimental impact on both the building, conservation area and the setting of the adjacent listed buildings.

8.36 In my opinion, the proposal would result in an acceptable form of development that responds in a positive manner to particular site constraints and opportunities and would achieve a satisfactory standard of design, layout, scale and appearance.

8.37 The use of high quality materials is an essential component of the scheme. In the event that members are minded to grant planning permission contrary to my recommendation, I would recommend that the exact nature of the finishing materials and hard landscaping within the site be the subject to a condition requiring submission of details in order to ensure these are appropriate.

8.38 In this respect, I consider that the design is a positive aspect of the proposal and would be a good example of development in the city, a view supported by the Planning and Conservation Officer. This relates to the approach promoted in SWDP 21 which states, amongst other matters, that ‘New and innovative designs will be encouraged and supported where they enhance the overall quality of the built environment.’

Impact on Heritage Assets

8.39 The proposal is within the Riverside Conservation Area and the impact is considered both in terms of the character of the conservation area and the impact on the adjacent listed buildings as well as the locally listed heritage asset itself. As such, the proposals should be considered against Policies SWDP 6 and SWDP 24 which are consistent with the NPPF (paragraphs 128, 129 and 131 to 135) in that they seek to protect and enhance designated and non-designated heritage assets and guide against development that would cause substantial harm to the significance of any heritage asset. In accordance with the NPPF at Para 132, great weight must be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and in accordance with s66 of the Planning Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990, special regard is to be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings.

8.40 The built form is already established on the site; however it is the conversion and the enabling works which need to be considered.

8.41 I consider that this aspect of the proposals has merit and that the unique nature of the development would add variety and interest to the conservation area when viewed from the public realm. The main positive aspects of the buildings, for example the roof shape and original fabric, will be retained with a more sympathetic approach than historically taken.

8.42 Views of the building are limited from within Warmstry Court but there is overlooking onto the building from the rear aspect of the dwellings along Bridge Street. The insertion of windows and enabling works are not considered to have a detrimental impact on the relationship to the listed buildings which is established.

8.43 In summarising the likely effects of the proposal on heritage assets and having full regard to the policies in the development plan and national guidance it is assessed that the proposed development would have less than substantial harm to the Page 136

significance of the designated and non-designated heritage assets. The balancing exercise in paragraph 134 of the NPPF is required to be undertaken between the “less than substantial harm” to the designated heritage asset on the one hand, and the public benefits of the proposal on the other. In my opinion, this limited harm is outweighed by the considerable public benefits of the proposal. These benefits include conversion of a vacant locally listed building for full and beneficial residential use. Taking into account the importance and weight to be given to the statutory duty under s.66(1) and s.72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in the overall balance of considerations, I am of the opinion that the impact on the ensemble of heritage assets would be insufficient for the application to be refused.

8.44 In terms of the effect on below ground deposits, the development could have a minimal impact on buried archaeological remains. However, in the event that members are minded to grant planning permission contrary to my recommendation, I consider that this aspect can be satisfactorily addressed through appropriate conditions. This approach is supported by the City Council Archaeology Officer who has suggested relevant and appropriate conditions.

Impact on neighbouring residents’ amenities

8.45 At paragraph 17 (bullet point 4) the Framework states that as one of its core principles planning should “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”. Similarly, Policy SWDP 21 requires amongst other matters that new development should provide an adequate level of privacy, outlook, sunlight and daylight, and should not be unduly overbearing. Pertinent advice is also contained in the South Worcestershire Design Guide SPD (SWDG SPD), which was adopted by the City Council on 6th March 2018.

8.46 The site is adjacent to a number of residential properties and in accordance with the expectations of policy SWDP 21, it is necessary to ensure that the scheme would not result in harm to the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents.

8.47 Concerns have been raised with regard to the density of development in the area and concerns that it will increase car parking demand on site. However, the site is clearly set out as a car free development given the highly sustainable location of the proposal. As such, it is not anticipated that there would be any proposals to incorporate car parking provision within the wider Warmstry Court site.

8.48 I consider that the development is located in the site in a position where there would be limited impact on the neighbouring residents. The building already exists and as such there is not change in circumstances in terms of the impact of development/built form.

8.49 The proposal proposed to insert ground floor windows into existing arches and a 2 pane window with French doors with a glass balustrade on the front elevation which faces into the internal courtyard area. This elevation would be the most affected by the proposal. The windows at ground floor would have limited impact due to the distance to neighbour residential units and the large boundary wall to the rear gardens of Bridge Street which shields most views. At first floor the relationship of the building to the orientation and outlook of the windows around the site I do not consider would be unacceptable. Page 137

Whilst there may be a degree of overlooking, nevertheless I do not consider this would be to an unacceptable degree given the city centre location and the dense nature of development in the surrounding area.

Car parking and highway safety

8.50 No provision for car parking is proposed to serve the development in common with surrounding residential properties. Given the sustainable nature of the location and proximity to sustainable modes of travel, I consider this aspect of the proposals is acceptable. My view on this matter is reinforced by the lack of objection from the Highway Authority.

Ward: Cathedral Contact Officer: Sally Watts –Tel: (01905) 722172, Email:[email protected] Background Papers: None Page 138

Appendix 1

From: Cording, Carl] Sent: 19 January 2018 15:04 To: Sally Watts Cc: Bob Hughes; Philip Owens Subject: Warmstry Court- P17D0380

Dear Sally, I apologise for the delay in providing you with our formal response. We wish to make the following comments to assist your determination of this application:

Flood Risk This application is for a change of use from vacant offices to a residential dwelling at Warmstry Court, Worcester. The site is situated in Flood Zone 3a of our flood map for planning (high risk zone), informed by detailed modelling of the River Severn. This proposal would bring an increase in vulnerability to ‘More Vulnerable’ development in an area at high risk of flooding.

Exception Test (ET) Given the application is a change of use of an existing building, the Sequential Test is unlikely to be applicable. However, it is considered that the ET would be required for the proposed use as it involves a ‘More Vulnerable’ development in Flood Zone 3a. The tables in section 25 of the Flood Risk section of the NPPG provide more information in this respect.

As stated at paragraph 102 of the NPPF, for the ET to be passed: - it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and - a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

The NPPF states that both elements of the ET will have to be passed for development to be permitted.

Flood Risk Setting/Design Flood Level The submitted flood risk assessment (FRA) is supported by our historic and modelled flood outlines, which suggest the area flooded in 1998. In addition, topographical survey information has been compared to modelled flood levels, which suggest the existing ground floor level (at 14.89m AOD) would flood as early as a 10% AEP flood event, and would flood to depths of approximately 0.63m during a 1% AEP flood event.

We acknowledge comments in the FRA regarding the potential for the surrounding buildings to act as an informal flood defence but agree that quantifying this effect is problematic and without 2-D modelling the FRA should assume these have no effect. With regards to climate change, the applicant acknowledges our table for nominal allowances (see attached) but opts to produce their own estimate based on an extrapolation exercise which yields a value of 15.90m AOD for what they Page 139

define as the 0.1% AEP flood event.

This value is then used as the flood design event assuming it is a conservative estimate of the 1% AEP plus 35% for climate change. Defining whether this level is acceptable is problematic, as the consultant has offered very little in the methodology used to obtain this level other than the flood level was defined by extrapolation from a graph of return period against modelled flood level (see graph below).

Figure 1 Consultant's extrapolation estimate 0.1% AEP

After an attempt to mirror the consultant’s assessment it appears that this extrapolation is the result of a logarithmic trend line based on levels and return periods forecasted forward to the 1000 year event. We would usually query whether the interpolation exercise would not be more accurate when considering the stage / discharge relationship based on the available data; not just flood levels and return period. Using this approach, extrapolation with a logarithmic trend line for a flow 35% greater than the 100 year (627m3/s to 846m3/s) yields a value of 16.44m AOD.

These results are summarised on table 1 below:

Method 100 year plus 35% Interpolation level and return period 15.90 Interpolation stage / flow relationship 16.44 Nominal allowances 16.12

This shows the consultant’s method yields a result which is considerably lower than extrapolation through the stage / flow relationship but not that dissimilar to the nominal allowance. In addition, there are limitations with extrapolating (rather than interpolating) with the stage / discharge relationship as an increase of 35% in modelled inflows does not necessarily lead to an equal increase in flows across the model as recorded in the node points. For this reason and given the scale of the development we consider it appropriate to estimate the impact of climate change (35%) to be in the order of +600mm.

For clarity, the design flood level (DFL) in assessing the flood risks to and from this development should be: 16.12m AOD (15.52m AOD + 600mm allowance for Page 140

climate change). In such an event the site would flood to considerable depths, ranging from 1m to 1.2m. The supporting FRA should be amended accordingly.

Finished Floor Levels/Internal Flooding Given that this application is for a change of use we understand it may not be suitable to raise Finished Floor Levels (FFL) to this height. The FRA acknowledges this but raises FFL to 15.190m AOD (300mm higher than existing). We would ordinarily expect FFLs to be set 600mm above 16.12m AOD. In a DFL the proposed dwelling would flood internally to some 0.93m.

We note the FRA considers a series of mitigation measures to improve the flood resilience of the building. These are also shown in the proposed plans and include measures such as waterproof membranes fixed to external walls, waterproof spray foam, water resistant cabinets, doors and windows, raised sockets and electric distribution boards. These measures are set between 1m and 1.2m above the proposed FFL (16.19m AOD and 16.39m AOD). These levels are very close to the DFL and opportunities should be explored to raise these further.

Given the first floor accommodation, safe refuge would be available during a design flood event. The first floor level is 18.125m, some 2 metres above the DFL.

Safe Access Paragraph 054 of the NPPG advises on how a development might be made safe from flood risk. Paragraph 039 provides detail on access and egress. Pedestrian access should preferably remain flood free during the design flood event. However, in cases where this may not be achievable, the FRA may demonstrate that access is acceptable based on an appropriate assessment of ‘hazard risk’ including water depth, velocity and distance to higher ground (to the design flood level including climate change). Reference should be made to DEFRA Hazard risk (FD2320) – ‘Danger to People for Combinations of Depth & Velocity’ (see Table 13.1 – DEFRA/EA Flood Risk Assessment Guidance for New Development FD2320 at: http://evidence.environment- agency.gov.uk/FCERM/Libraries/FCERM_Project_Documents/FD2320_3364 _TRP_pdf.sflb.ashx

The FRA confirms under the estimated 1% AEP plus climate change event (15.90m AOD) flood depths will range from 1m to the south and 0.33m to the north to achieve access to and from the building. Using the above recommended DFL however, these would range from 1.2m to 0.53m. Using an estimated velocity of 1m/s this poses a ‘flood hazard of danger for all’ as per table 13.1. The FRA recommends to incorporate an access staircase to the second floor leading to the north side (rear) of the property. This would avoid users having to access or leave the dwelling through the area of greatest depths. This measure is not shown in the current proposed plans and we would recommend it is formalised in the application to minimise risks.

Given our role and responsibilities we would not make comment on the safety of the access or object on this basis. This does not mean we consider that the access is safe, or the proposals acceptable in this regard. We recommend you consult with your Emergency Planners and the Emergency Services to determine whether they consider this to be safe in accordance with the guiding principles of the National Page 141

Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). Furthermore access and egress by vehicular means is also a matter for your Emergency Planners and the Emergency Services.

Flood Evacuation Management Plan The NPPG (paragraph 056) states that one of the considerations for safe occupation is whether adequate flood warning would be available to people using the development. We do not normally comment on or approve the adequacy of flood emergency response and flood evacuation procedures accompanying development proposals, as we do not carry out these roles during a flood. Our involvement with this development during an emergency will be limited to delivering flood warnings to occupants/users if they sign up to the Flood Warnings Service.

The NPPG places responsibilities on LPAs to consult their Emergency Planners with regard to specific emergency planning issues relating to new development. We would advise that you take account of the guidance within NPPG Paragraph: 057 Reference ID: 7-057-20140306.

We would advise that the Flood Evacuation Management Plan should identify a flood level that will initiate evacuation of people and vehicles, and any subsequent closure of the building/car park. This trigger level should be when the access/egress is still ‘dry’ i.e. flood-free, to avoid any question of what is an acceptable level of flood risk to occupants. We note a Flood Evacuation Management Plan has been submitted, however, we would not make comment on the appropriateness or otherwise of it. We recommend you consult with your Emergency Planners and the Emergency Services to determine whether they consider the FEMP secures safe and sustainable development.

Summary Whilst we do not raise an objection to the proposed development given our role and remit, we would question whether it represents sustainable development. We recommend you consult with your Emergency Planners and the Emergency Services to determine whether they consider the access to and from the development, in a DFL, to be safe in accordance with the guiding principles of the NPPG.

I trust that the above is clear and of use but should you have any questions please do not hesitate to get in touch. Best regards,

Carl Cording Planning Specialist

Sustainable Places Shropshire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire. Environment Agency- West Midlands Area

IM Role- Lead Flood Support Officer This page is intentionally left blank Page 143 Agenda Item 12 Appendix 2

Emergency flood response plan for 2 bed flat located in the grounds of Warmstry Court, Worcester.

The following process starts when a flood alert is issued by the local news or radio.

Before flooding, Sanctuary Housing Association will:

1. Contact Flood Line on a daily basis for updates until Flood Alert subsided. 2. Write a letter to residents with relevant contact information and insurance details and to confirm contact/NOK details are up to date. 3. Deploy flooding barriers if required.

During flooding, Sanctuary Housing Association will:

1. Contact residents to ensure they are ok, by phone in the first instance. 2. Be on site within 24 hours of flooding (if conditions allow), to door knock and check residents are ok, pass on relevant information and answer any questions that may arise. 3. Monitor flood levels in case of evacuation being required. 4. Help residents with moving belongings to upper levels where necessary.

In case of evacuation, Sanctuary Housing Association will:

1. Door knock and speak to residents in person advising them to make their way to either: a. Warmstry Court lounge area (if accessible) – This is the adjacent Sanctuary Housing owned property. b. Noele Court lounge area – This is a Sanctuary owned property in Barbourne, Worcester. c. Travelodge breakfast room d. Sanctuary Lecture Theatre in the head office 2. Support residents in evacuating where necessary. 3. Give residents the opportunity to dry off, have a cup of tea etc. before being informed of next steps. 4. Ensure the building is secured whilst tenants are evacuated, liaising with maintenance and emergency services if necessary.

Page 144

5. Discuss accommodation requirements with residents and confirm necessary arrangements. 6. Discuss travel arrangements with residents and arrange taxis where necessary (including back to building to collect possessions). 7. Discuss with residents any medical requirements and ensure medication is available and medical staff contacted where necessary. 8. Carry out daily calls or visits to all residents and hold meetings in the hotel.

After flooding, Sanctuary Housing Association will:

1. Carry out daily calls to residents for one week after floods subside. 2. For any residents unable to move back in to accommodation immediately, daily calls will continue until one week after residents have moved back in to their properties. 3. Ensure maintenance teams are on site as soon as possible. 4. Carry out a residents’ meeting/scheme inspection one month after flooding has subsided to ensure residents are satisfied with follow up and have no outstanding concerns. 5. Ensure help is offered to residents who need support clearing their flat.

Key contacts for area

The key contacts list below will be given to every tenant along with this flood evacuation plan.

Name Job title Location Contact Yvonne Crinean Operations Manager - West Brom/ 01295 816303/ Midlands (SHSL) Bodicote 07789 500290 David Churm Area Housing Manager Telford 01952 621407 / 07442531528 Raj Garcha Housing Officer Worcester/ 07739 255181 Hereford Sam Dennis Commercial Property London 07484 547003 Manager Claire Griffiths Senior PA to Managing Worcester 01905 334167 Director Seyi Popoola- Deputy Manager – SSC Adderbury 01295 814055/ Adkins 01295 816438 Debbie Morris Deputy Manager – SSC Adderbury 01295 816302 Karen Roberts Service Delivery Manager – Hull 01482 383025 CSC Gary Murphy Service Delivery Manager – Hull 01482 481601 CSC Claire Bell Area Services Manager Bodicote 01295 816321/ (Sheltered) 07823 533753

Sanctuary Group is a trading name of Sanctuary Housing Association, an exempt charity

Page 145

Name Job title Location Contact Monica Ahir Local Services Manager West Brom 07554 330297 (Sheltered) Angela Tame Support Co-ordinator Worcester 01905 21226 / 01905 611790 Eddie Ingram Operations Manager West Brom 07435 960258 (Repairs) Ian Chambers Operations Manager (Estate West Brom 07799 971972/ Services) 01905 334759 Paula Leech Group Insurance Advisor Worcester 01905 334256 Tony O’Neill Head of Commercial Assets Glasgow 07887 624 847 Kate Reynolds Group Head of Worcester 01905 335359 Communication & Engagement Sarah Willis Social Media Manager Worcester 01905 335358 Travelodge Worcester 0871 984 6277 Bluestar taxis Worcester 01905 610022

Sanctuary Group is a trading name of Sanctuary Housing Association, an exempt charity

This page is intentionally left blank Page 147 Agenda Item 13

Report to: Planning Committee, 19th July 2018

Report of: Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning

Subject: APPLICATION P18M0021: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGES AND ERECTION OF 2NO. THREE BEDROOM HOUSES, WITH AMENITY AND CAR PARKING AT GARAGE COURT, TURRALL STREET

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

2. Background

2.1 At the meeting on 28th June 2018 the application was deferred to allow discussions between the applicant and neighbouring resident of 55 New Bank Street regarding the potential retention or replacement of the boundary wall on the northern boundary of the site. Copies of my previous reports and all late papers are attached as Appendix 1.

3. Comments of Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

3.1 A meeting was held on 5th July 2018 to discuss the potential retention or replacement of the boundary wall adjacent to the neighbouring property at 55 New Bank Street.

3.2 The outcome of the meeting was that all parties agreed that the existing brick wall would be retained and repaired between the vehicular entrance and the frontage with the dwelling. From this point to the eastern boundary of the site a new replacement brick wall is proposed to the height of the existing.

3.3 The following condition is recommended accordingly:

The brick boundary wall with no 55 New Bank Street shall be constructed and repaired in accordance with the details and specification as shown on drawing number 2017/K848/010(D) and shall be retained as such thereafter.

For the following reason:

To retain the height of the existing boundary treatment of the site with 55 New Bank Street in the interests of the amenity and security of existing and future residents of the site and neighbouring property. Page 148

3.4 At the meeting, it was agreed that the application would be amended to reflect these discussions. The wall as set out in plan 2017/K848/010(D) is to be included into the tender specification for construction of the site as per the application.

3.5 If the tender quotes submitted are able to deliver the boundary wall repairs and erection then this will be undertaken by Fortis. If, however, the cost of delivering the additional boundary treatment leads to the tendered prices being in excess of what Fortis is able to accept, it was agreed by the neighbouring resident of 55 New Bank Street that this would lead to discussions with himself regarding contributions towards meeting these additional costs.

3.6 If this cannot be resolved through this process by the applicant and the neighbouring resident of 55 New Bank Street, it will be necessary for the applicant to apply to vary the condition (as set out above) and the application will be referred to the Planning Committee for consideration.

3.7 As such, the application has been amended to part repair the wall and to part replace the brick wall on the northern boundary with No 55 New Bank Street. The timber fence is proposed to remain as the boundary treatment for the remainder of the site.

3.8 As amended, I consider the development would satisfy the concerns of the neighbouring resident of 55 New Bank Street and, subject to the inclusion of above condition, I continue to recommend the application for approval .

Ward: St Stephen Contact Officer: Sally Watts Tel: 01905 722172 [email protected] Background Papers: - Page 149 Agenda Item 13 Appendix 1

Report to: Planning Committee, 28 th June 2018

Report of: Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning

Subject: APPLICATION P18M0021- DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGES AND ERECTION OF 2NO. THREE BEDROOM HOUSES, WITH AMENITY AND CAR PARKING AT GARAGE COURT, TURRALL STREET

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director of Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

2. Background

2.1 At the meeting on 24 th May 2018 the application was deferred on grounds relating to the loss of the boundary walls and to allow the applicants to re-consider the retention of the boundary wall, in whole or part, and their comments in respect of the ‘fall-back’ position (i.e. the likelihood of the boundary walls being demolished in the event that planning permission is refused). A copy of my original report is attached as Appendix 1 .

3. Comments of Deputy Director of Economic Development & Planning

3.1 The applicant has confirmed its wish for the application to be determined as submitted with the provision of replacement boundary fencing and has confirmed that ‘should the application be refused over the loss of the boundary walls the applicant is likely to pursue an appeal against the decision, considering that removal of the existing walls could be undertaken as permitted development.’.

3.2 The issues for consideration are as follows:

• Consequence of repair to perimeter wall; • Further assessment of the perimeter brick wall relating to the character of the area; • The cost implications of the boundary treatment delivery, and; • The ‘fall back position’

3.3 To refuse the application Planning Committee must be satisfied that the contribution of the perimeter wall has such a benefit to the streetscene and public vantage that its loss is harmful. In considering the aspects above the report seeks to provide a clearer assessment of the material considerations.

Page 150

Implications of repair to perimeter wall

3.4 The applicant has provided further information regarding remedial works it considers would be necessary to repair the boundary walls:

“The existing rear walls of the garages are tied in to the dividing walls between the individual garages which provide bracing of the structure. Removing the garages would undermine this. Breaking out the concrete ground slab of the garages is also likely to disrupt the existing walls. Additionally incorporation of the damp proof course in the walls of the garages will provide a slip plane which will also undermine the stability of a freestanding wall. Therefore if the existing walls could be retained there would need to be work undertaken to provide structural stability. This might include the construction of new piers which would need to be tied in to the existing wall structure and would also require a new foundation. This would be in addition to the remedial repair and rebuilding and work required to address the defects with the mortar and bricks.

Such remedial work would be a poor investment for the Applicant as it would result in walls which would still be of considerable lesser quality than if a new wall were to be constructed, and would leave the applicant with an asset that would attract increased ongoing maintenance cost for the future life of the development, therefore not an acceptable proposition.”

3.5 Currently the wall is deemed as a positive feature of the existing site, especially when taken alongside the poor quality of the garages present. However, with the level of works required to be undertaken as described above, I remain of the opinion that whilst the repair and retention of the existing wall would be aesthetically preferable to the proposed fencing, nevertheless I do not consider the impact of the proposed fencing on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area or the visual amenities of neighbouring residents would be entirely unacceptable and for these reasons I do not consider that there are any compelling reasons in planning terms to warrant refusal on these grounds.

Further assessment of the contribution of the perimeter brick wall to the character of the area

3.6 Within my original report to the Planning Committee I acknowledge at paragraphs 8.12 and 8.18 that the retention of the boundary walls are preferable, providing both a robust boundary treatment and the materials being in keeping with the Victorian character of the area.

3.7 However, the contribution the wall makes to the street scene is limited by the relationship and the position of the site. As members saw during their site visit, the site is tucked away in a corner area away from the highway and public vantage points. The site is for use by residents of the flats and, if approved, by residents of the proposed residential units. The current condition of the wall is also a contributory factor in its contribution to the quality of the streetscene

3.8 Policy SWDP21 part ii. (Relationship to Surroundings and to Other Development) states:

Page 151

“Development proposals must complement the character of the area. In particular, development should respond to surrounding buildings and the distinctive features or qualities that contribute to the visual and heritage interest of the townscape, frontages, streets and landscape quality of the local area.”

3.9 The distinctive features or qualities that this policy seeks to promote all relate to areas which affect public vantages and the public realm - townscape, frontages, streets and landscape quality. The policy is clear that the development proposal must seek to be complementary in areas which affect the public experience.

3.10 As members will recollect from the site visit, the site is located in a corner position where views into the site are limited from New Bank Street and Turrall Street; it is only from within the site and neighbouring properties that the presence and contribution of the boundary walls are appreciated.

3.11 I consider that the impact of the proposed boundary treatment would have no effect on the public realm within the rear garden areas of the new dwellings and limited effect in the car parking areas for users of the flats.

3.12 As such, I consider there would be limited conflict with the aims and interests that policy SWDP21 part ii seeks to protect and promote.

Suitability of the proposed fence

3.13 If it is recognised that there would be limited harm from the loss of the brick wall on the public realm the acceptability of the proposed replacement shiplap fencing needs to be considered.

3.14 In my opinion, this style of fencing is suitable within a residential area and though not preferable to a brick boundary wall is nevertheless also deemed acceptable from a security point of view by the Crime Risk Manager.

3.15 Policy SWDP 21 part xiv: Creating a Safe and Secure Environment Opportunities, sets out the requirements for ‘creating a safe and secure environment and providing surveillance should be included, principally through the layout and positioning of buildings, spaces and uses. Where appropriate, development should incorporate measures for crime reduction that are consistent with those recommended by the Secured by Design guides.’

3.16 The proposed fence does meet the Secured by Design standard and, as such, satisfies the requirements of Policy SWDP 21 part xiv.

Cost implication on the wider project

3.17 The applicant has considered the points made by the Planning Committee and has provided some costings to establish what could be feasibly achieved. The proposed development has been reviewed in light of this matter and in response it is stated:

” The Applicant’s development appraisals illustrate that a proposal for partial or full boundary wall replacement would push the development beyond Fortis’ performance requirements for loan repayments and net present value.

Page 152

In other words the additional cost associated with providing partial or full replacement boundary walls would make the proposals financially unviable for the Applicant and the scheme would not be accepted by Fortis’ board. The development would therefore not proceed.

To illustrate the scale of the cost involved, a replacement site boundary wall represents an additional 10% to the cost of the affordable housing development.”

3.18 It is worth considering that the site is already owned by Fortis and, as such, there are no land or acquisition costs within this appraisal. If the site were to change ownership then land or acquisition costs would be an additional value within the appraisal.

3.19 The cost estimates are such that to replace the perimeter wall would result in the scheme not being viable to develop. As such, I consider that this has a significant implication on the consideration of the viability of the deliverability of the scheme, which would meet a core objective of the SWDP to provide affordable homes within Worcester City.

Fall-back position

3.20 As set out in section 8.15 of my original report to the Planning Committee, the fall back position is capable of being considered as a material consideration in the assessment of the application.

3.21 Planning application P18M0020 was submitted at the same time as the current application. The scheme is for the demolition of 6no. garages and erection of a proprietary cycle/scooter shelter to the rear of flats 7-12 Turrall Street, including improvement works to the rear communal amenity space to provide improved surfacing and washing lines to the shared private amenity space. Planning permission was granted under delegated powers on 23rd March 2018.

3.22 The applicant has advised that:

‘Demolition has already been approved for one of the blocks of garages as part of the Applicant’s rolling programme of upgrades to their existing housing stock in the city. This work is scheduled to begin in September….The cost of the cycle shelter is therefore included in the development budget appraisals as this provision is not a normal part of the Applicant’s existing stock upgrade programme.’

3.23 This shows clear intent to begin works on site and to deliver improvements to the site, but do not demonstrate that they would remove the boundary wall at the current time. The applicant has advised that if approved the development proposed within this application would not begin in September 2018 but at a later opportunity.

3.24 As such, I do not consider that there is a reasonable likelihood of fall-back development being implemented if permission is denied and, as such, I attach little weight to this in the overall assessment of the proposals. However, under the provisions of Part 2, Class A of the General Permitted Development Order 2015, (as amended) new fencing up to 2 metres in height could be undertaken as permitted development, unless such permitted development rights were removed as a condition of the proposed development.

Page 153

3.25 In order for any such condition to be valid it must: (a) have a planning purpose, (b) fairly and reasonably relate to the development permitted and (c) not be unreasonable (in the public law ‘irrationality’ sense) (Newbury District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment [1981] AC 578).

3.26 Paragraph 206 of the NPPF states that planning conditions ‘ should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.’ Furthermore, the PPG is clear that any proposed condition that fails to meet any of the six tests should not be used. As such, the Planning Committee would need to demonstrate that the removal of permitted development rights for the erection of new fencing up to 2 metres in height around the boundaries of the site would satisfy these tests.

3.27 Equally, a condition to retain the existing boundary walls as part of the development would also need to satisfy these tests, noting that when considering whether a condition is reasonable conditions which place unjustifiable and disproportionate burdens on an applicant will fail the test of reasonableness and unreasonable conditions cannot be used to make development that is unacceptable in planning terms acceptable.

Justification for refusal of the application

3.28 Alongside the social benefits of the scheme I consider that the proposal would also have a number of economic and environmental benefits as set out in my original report to the Planning Committee on 24th May 2018. They combine to presume in favour of the proposal and I remain of the opinion that, on balance, this aspect of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

3.29 Only if the Council is able to demonstrate harm which “significantly and demonstrably” outweighs the benefits of the development should consent be refused. Thus, harm in or by itself will not be sufficient; harm must be of sufficient gravity to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. To the extent that harm has been identified and set out in the evaluation of the contribution of the perimeter brick wall to the character of the area, I consider it is not sufficiently significant.

3.30 All other material planning considerations relevant to the proposed development have been carefully judged in my previous report to the Planning Committee with the overall conclusion that, on balance there would be no significant and demonstrable adverse harm to residential amenity, layout and design and highway safety. Any harm is not of a degree of significance so as to outweigh the clear benefits in relation to sustainable development, including the provision of two affordable units in a sustainable location.

3.31 Notwithstanding the above advice, it remains the prerogative of the Planning Committee to make a contrary decision. Nevertheless, it is important to note that there may be consequences to the actions that members take should the Local Planning Authority be required to defend a reason for refusal at appeal. Significantly, there must be a sufficiently robust reason for refusal.

Page 154

3.32 Without prejudice to my recommendation, in the event that the Planning Committee resolves to refuse planning permission, I consider that further elaboration of the matters set out below will be required in respect of any reason for refusal that may be advanced by members :

i. What the ‘essential quality and character’ of the site and streetscene is considered to be; ii. which particular harm would be generated by the loss of the existing boundary treatment and replacement with a fence iii. where these visual harm to the streetscene would be altered from; iv. what the significance of these views is considered to be, and; v. what the harm arising from their loss would be.

3.33 Secondly, it must be demonstrated that the City Council has acted reasonably and has not caused wasted and unnecessary expense. In the absence of any evidence to support a reason(s) for refusal I would be concerned that given the very clear position regarding the severity of the harm of the issues that might be considered unacceptable about the scheme, members run a risk for the awarding of partial or even full costs of the applicants’ appeal work.

3.34 For the above reasons and those set out in my report to the Planning Committee at the meeting on 24 th May 2018, I continue to recommend the application for approval. Subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

Ward: St Stephen Contact Officer: Sally Watts Tel: (01905) 722172 [email protected] Background Papers: Planning Committee Report of 24 th May 2018 – Appendix 1

Page 155

Report to: Planning Committee, 24 th May 2018

Report of: Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

SUBJECT: APPLICATION P18M0021: DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGES AND ERECTION OF 2NO. THREE BEDROOM HOUSES, WITH AMENITY AND CAR PARKING AT GARAGE COURT, TURRALL STREET

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

2. Background

2.1 The application has been called in by Councillor Gareth Jones for consideration on the following grounds:

• Significant local objection; • Impact on neighbouring residents amenities, and; • Concern regarding proposed boundary treatment, demolition of boundary walls and erection of fencing.

2.22 The application has been discussed with Councillor Gareth Jones who wishes it to be known that there is support for the principle of the proposal and all details of the application with the exception of the boundary treatment, which proposes replacement of a brick wall with timber fencing. This aligns with the neighbours concerns on the application and will, as such, be reflected in the report.

2.3 The application was validated on the 9 th January 2018. The determination date was the 26 th March 2018. However, the applicant has not agreed to an extension of time for the determination of the application.

3. The Site and Surrounding Area

3.1 The site is to the north of Worcester and comprises a small garage court of 23no. garages and 8no. surface parking spaces at the corner of Turrall Street and New Bank Street. The existing streets primarily consist of Victorian terrace houses fronting the street with shallow front garden spaces, infilled between with more recent housing development. The buildings are generally two storeys with pitched roofs. To the north is a detached Victorian house. To the west of the site is a three storey block of 24no. flats that are also owned by the applicants, Fortis Living. The existing garage court is under utilised with a number of vacant garages; others are privately rented and some occupied by residents of the flats.

Page 156

3.2 The site is generally flat with some difference in levels with neighbouring properties and their garden areas. The site is currently enclosed by a boundary wall that either adjoins or forms part of the structure of the garages and forms a common shared boundary with neighbouring properties.

3.3 The site is not a within a conservation area nor is it a statutory listed building. The site is partially within an archaeologically sensitive area as designated within the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016. The site is not subject to any other natural environment policies within the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016.

4. The Proposal

4.1 The proposal entails the demolition of the existing garages to facilitate the erection of 2no. 3-bedroom semi-detached houses. The layout of the site also makes provision for 13 car parking spaces for the adjacent block of flats. The existing boundary wall would also be removed and replaced by close boarded fencing.

5. Planning Policy

5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) establishes the legislative framework for consideration of this application. Section 70(2) of the Act requires the decision-maker in determining planning applications/appeals to have regard to the Development Plan, insofar as it is material to the application/appeal, and to any other material consideration. Where the Development Plan is material to the development proposal it must therefore be taken into account. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application/appeal to be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The Development Plan for Worcester now comprises:

• The South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) which was adopted February 2016, and; • The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted on December 2012.

South Worcestershire Development Plan

5.3 The following policies of the SWDP are considered to be relevant to the proposal:

SWDP 1 Overarching Sustainable Development Principles SWDP 4 Moving Around South Worcestershire SWDP 21 Design SWDP 27 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy SWDP29 Sustainable Drainage Systems

The Waste Core Strategy for Worcestershire - Adopted Waste Local Plan 2012-2027

Page 157

5.4 The Waste Local Plan was adopted by Worcestershire County Council on 15 November 2012 and is a plan outlining how to manage all the waste produced in Worcestershire up to 2027. The following policies are relevant to this application:

WCS1 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development) WCS3 (Re-use and recycle) WCS17 (Making provision for waste in new development)

Material Considerations

1. National Planning Policy Framework

5.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision takers and is a material planning consideration in determining planning applications.

5.6 The NPPF outlines a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed. Paragraph 186 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. LPAs are advised at paragraph 187 of the NPPF to look for solutions rather than problems and decision-takers are asked to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5.7 The Government believes that sustainable development can play three critical roles in England: an economic role, contributing to a strong, responsive, competitive economy; a social role, supporting vibrant and healthy communities; and an environmental role, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.

2. National Planning Practice Guidance

5.8 On 6th March 2014 the Government also published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) that comprises, amongst other matters: Design, Health and Wellbeing, Noise, and Use of Planning Conditions.

3. Supplementary Planning Documents

5.9 South Worcestershire Design Guide SPD (SWDG SPD), was adopted by the City Council on 6th March 2018. The key aim is to encourage a higher standard of design in all aspects of the built environment across south Worcestershire. The guide does not set prescriptive standards; rather it identifies principles of good design that are considered to be best practice. The SWDG SPD has been prepared to supplement policies in the SWDP, in particular SWDP 21 Design. As such, it is a material consideration for the decision taker in the determination of planning applications and planning appeals.

Page 158

4. The New Homes Bonus

5.10 The ‘New Homes Bonus’ is a Government scheme which is aimed at encouraging local planning authorities to grant planning permissions for the building of new homes in return for additional revenue. The Government provides additional funding for new houses by matching funding the additional council tax raised for new homes with an additional amount for affordable homes for six years. Having regard to Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the New Homes Bonus is statutory and a local finance consideration in the determination of planning applications. As such, it is a material planning consideration.

6. Planning History

6.1 The Site has been subject to the following applications:

73/0009: Erection of 24 self-contained flats and garages on land at 9 Turrall Street. Granted 2 nd February 1973.

P18M0020: Demolition of 6no. garages and erection of a proprietary cycle/ scooter shelter to the rear of flats 7-12 Turrall Street. Granted under delegated powers on 23 rd March 2018.

7. Consultations

7.1 Formal consultation has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees have been received in relation to the proposals:-

West Mercia Constabulary : No objection and comments that with regard to the proposed boundary treatment:

“The applicant is correct in saying the fencing will comply with Secured by design new homes 2016, and is certainly acceptable enough for me not to raise an objection.

I would just add that 1:8 is a standard for SBD accreditation. And offered a 1:8 fence or a 2:5 wall as security.

Every time I would select the wall .”

Highway Authority : No objection, subject to recommended condition.

Worcester City Council – Tree Protection Officer : No objection.

Worcester City Council –Cleaner and Greener : No objection.

Worcester City Council - Archaeology : No objection, subject to recommended condition.

Landscape and Biodiversity Consultant: No objection.

Land Drainage Partnership: No objection, subject to recommended SuDS condition

Page 159

Neighbours and other third party comments : Objections have been raised by neighbouring residents regarding the proposed replacement boundary fence in terms of:

• reduction in security to boundaries, • maintenance issues • impact on the character of the area with the loss of the existing boundary wall. • It would not adhere to standards in the design guide regarding privacy and protection; • negative impact on wildlife related to the foliage on the wall, and; • security during construction.

Objections have also been raised on grounds relating to:

• car parking provision for the flats; • loss of privacy to adjacent homes and gardens from overlooking; • reduction in natural light to adjacent homes and gardens; • noise from the proposed dwellings; • light pollution from the proposed houses and peripheral security lighting.

7.2 Members have been given the opportunity to read all representations that have been received in full. Any additional responses received will be reported to members in the form of a late paper.

8. Comments of Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

8.1 Following a comprehensive site visit in and around the application site, I consider the main issues raised by the application relate to:-

• The principle of residential development on the site; • Layout and design; • Loss of boundary walls; • Impact on amenities of neighbouring residents; and • Parking and highway safety.

These matters will now be considered in turn.

Principle of residential development on the site

8.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) explains that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. This is defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

8.3 Paragraph 6 of the NPPF sets out the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice for the planning system. It is clear from this that sustainability concerns more than just proximity to facilities, it clearly also relates to ensuring the physical and natural environment is conserved and enhanced as well as contributing to building a strong economy through the provision of new housing of the right type in the right location at the right time.

Page 160

8.4 Policy SWDP 1 contained within the South Worcestershire Development Plan echoes the NPPF’s requirements for ‘sustainable development’ and that planning applications that accord with the policies in the Local Plan (or other part of the statutory Development Plan) will be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.5 Worcester City Council has an up-to-date Local Plan which was adopted on 25 th February 2016 and can demonstrate a 7 year housing land supply. The presumption in favour of sustainable development, as advised by the NPPF, will therefore need to be applied in this context.

8.6 The application site comprises a garage court and guidance set down in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out a preference for development on 'brownfield' sites. Specifically the NPPF states (paragraph 111) that: " Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed ." This guidance is a significant material consideration in the determination of any proposals for the redevelopment of this site.

8.7 The application site is located in a predominantly residential area and the erection of a further residential unit is considered to be compatible with the adjoining land uses. The plot is considered to be of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed two new dwellings with the associated amenity space and parking requirements and in principle it is considered to be an efficient use of this land.

8.8 Notwithstanding the above, I consider that it is important to consider whether the development of this site and the proposed changes in this area would have an adverse impact on the overall character of the surrounding area and neighbouring residents' amenities, and whether a site of this size has the capacity to deliver a high quality residential development which meets the needs of future occupants. This will now be considered in detail.

Layout and design

8.9 Policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 requires all development to achieve a high standard of design, having regard to the character of the area and to harmonise with its environment. Given the location of the site the proposed dwellings would not have an active street frontage. However, I am satisfied that the proposed site layout is legible and accords with the expectations of SWDP 21 and guidance set out in the adopted Design Guide.

8.10 I consider that the proposal has considered the constraints and opportunities of the site, including the orientation of the surrounding residential properties, and I am satisfied that the site has the capacity to accommodate the development in an acceptable manner in terms of its layout and design.

8.11 I am satisfied that the proposed design of the development and palette of materials would fit sympathetically within the site and would have a positive impact on the wider surrounding area. I consider that the size and scale of the development would be acceptable in the local context of the site and surrounding development and it would not appear to be incongruous or overbearing within the local context.

Page 161

Loss of boundary walls

8.12 Significant objections have been raised regarding the loss of the existing boundary wall and replacement with close boarded fencing. Preference has been expressed for the existing boundary wall to be repaired and retained as part of the development following demolition of the existing garages on the site.

8.13 As part of the discussions regarding this application, the agent has undertaken an assessment of the boundary wall to consider the implications of its retention:

“The existing brick walls are in a deteriorating state and pose a maintenance issue now and for the future. Defects include:

- Frost damaged bricks. - Mortar failure. - Mortar from previous repairs failing. - Indications of mortar bee/other insects burrowing in mortar. - Bricks damaged by vegetation growing from the neighbouring side. - Invasive plant growth within bedding joints.

You will see from the boundary wall sections that in most instances the level of the neighbouring gardens is the same or lower than the application site. Therefore in these places the proposed 1.8m timber fence will be higher than the existing 1.6m boundary wall.

A section of the southern boundary of the existing wall measures 1.84m high, so in this position the proposed fence will be 4cm lower than the existing wall. The total boundary height along this length will be higher than this when measured from the neighbouring side as the level of the garden is lower than the level of the application site.

In instances where the existing garages form the boundary the proposed boundary fence will be lower than the existing garage roof, however the total boundary height will be in excess of 1.8m high when measured from the neighbouring gardens where the ground level is lower than the application site. From a security perspective the majority of these boundaries will be enclosed by the proposed rear gardens rather than exposed to the publicly accessible garage court as they are at present.”

8.14 Arguments have also been presented that there would also be costs associated with undertaking repairs to the wall, however these have not been quantified either in themselves or in relation to the comparative costs of demolition and the proposed new fencing. As such, even though this is not a material planning consideration I am not in a position to comment further. Notwithstanding the above, this is also not, in itself, determinative of the proposals and the applicants have confirmed that they wish the application to be determined as proposed.

8.15 In assessing this aspect of the proposals it should also be noted that, other than as specified as part of this application, planning permission is not specifically required for the removal of the boundary walls, which could be undertaken as ‘permitted development’ and thus represents a 'fall-back position' in the event that planning permission is refused. As such, it is considered that this is an important material consideration in the assessment of the current application.

Page 162

8.16 The 'fall-back position' is normally regarded as an important element in decision making which must be rationalised, although the weight to be given depends on the real likelihood of any fall-back actually being exercised in the event of refusal. Several cases demonstrate this point. In particular, in the case of Burge v SOS & Chelmsford BC 14/7/1987, the court held that the Inspector should have considered the fall-back situation if this was a real likelihood. In order for this argument to succeed, it has to be shown that there is a reasonable likelihood of the fall-back development being implemented if permission is denied.

8.17 With regard to the concerns expressed regarding the level of security that would be provided by the proposed fencing, 1.8m high fencing is the expected requirement to boundaries in the Secured by Design Homes 2016 design standard. In accordance with the standard, the proposed fencing will be of robust construction employing mechanical fixing of panels/ rails so that panels/slats cannot be easily removed. The proposed residential use will provide active occupation and surveillance of the site which does not currently exist. The West Mercia Divisional Crime Risk Manager has been consulted on the proposals and whilst a preference is expressed for a wall, nevertheless no significant local crime risk has been identified and no objection is raised to this aspect of the proposals. On this basis additional design requirements described in the Secured by Design Homes 2016 design standard are not considered necessary for this site. This view is shared by the Crime Risk Manager who clearly states that whilst the existing brick wall is preferable in terms of security the proposed fence meets the secured by design standards and is acceptable.

8.18 Concerns have also been expressed regarding the visual impact of the proposed fencing on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area and the visual amenities of neighbouring residents. In my opinion, the repair and retention of the existing wall would be aesthetically preferable to the proposed fencing. However, I do not consider the impact of the proposed fencing on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area or the visual amenities of neighbouring residents would be entirely unacceptable and for the above reasons I do not consider that there are any compelling reasons in planning terms to warrant refusal on these grounds.

Impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties

8.19 At paragraph 17 (bullet point 4) the Framework states that as one of its core principles planning should “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”. Similarly, Policy SWDP 21 requires amongst other matters that new development should provide an adequate level of privacy, outlook, sunlight and daylight, and should not be unduly overbearing. Pertinent advice is also contained in the South Worcestershire Design Guide SPD (SWDG SPD), which was adopted by the City Council on 6 th March 2018.

8.20 The site is adjacent to a number of residential properties and in accordance with the expectations of policy SWDP 21, it is necessary to ensure that the scheme would not result in harm to the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents.

8.21 Concerns have been expressed that the height, size scale, mass, bulk and proximity of the development to neighbouring dwellings and the common shared garden boundaries with adjoining properties would result in an unacceptable degree of encroachment by a visually prominent and intrusive form of development, being

Page 163

both uncomfortably oppressive and overbearing. In my opinion, the proposed dwelling would clearly have a visual impact on neighbouring properties. However, the siting of the dwelling would satisfy the distance separation requirements set out in the Design Guide SPD to the extent that it would not block the outlook from any windows of habitable rooms to an unacceptable degree or be close enough to cause unacceptable loss of privacy. I also consider that the scale of the proposed development and roof form would ensure that it would not appear overbearing when seen from the garden areas. In my opinion, the change in view from neighbouring properties arising from the introduction of the proposed dwellings would not amount to an oppressive outlook from the neighbouring houses or gardens when the distance separations and set-in from the site boundaries are taken into account.

8.22 Impacts would also result from vehicle movements and manoeuvring. However, in comparison with the existing authorised use of the site I consider that the number of vehicle movements generated by the proposals would not be so excessive for this to result in levels of noise and disturbance that would harm living conditions to an unacceptable degree.

8.23 In my opinion, the proposal would offer an acceptable level of residential amenity for future occupants in terms of the provision of private amenity space, privacy and car parking. I am also satisfied that there would be no adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents in terms of loss of privacy through actual or the perception of overlooking, noise/disturbance from the intensification in the residential use of the site or unfettered movement of vehicles, or its visual impact.

Parking and highway safety

8.24 The submitted proposal seeks to provide two car parking spaces each for the proposed dwellings, together 13 car parking spaces for the adjacent block of flats. This arrangement is considered acceptable by the Highway Authority and, as such, I I am satisfied that the proposal will not result in any adverse effects on highway or pedestrian safety.

Energy Conservation

8.25 The EU Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC) sets an overall target for 20% of the energy consumed in the EU to come from renewable sources by 2020. This overall target is divided by country, with the UK's target being 15% by 2020. The Climate Change Act (2008) established a legal requirement for the UK to achieve an 80% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050, with a 34% cut by 2020. The Planning and Energy Act (2008) allows local planning authorities’ policies to impose reasonable requirements for a proportion of energy used in developments to be from renewable and low carbon sources in the locality of the development.

8.26 The Framework recognises the key role planning plays in supporting the delivery of renewable and low carbon energy. To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, the Framework states (paragraph 97) that local planning authorities should:

• Identify opportunities where development can draw its energy supply from decentralised, renewable or low carbon energy supply systems and for co-locating potential heat customers and suppliers.

Page 164

8.27 The development of renewable and low carbon energy is a key means of reducing South Worcestershire’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, promoting energy security for the future and reducing vulnerability to rising fuel costs.

8.28 Policy SWDP 27 (Incorporating Renewable and Low Carbon Energy into New Development) seeks to reduce carbon emissions and secure sustainable energy solutions in all new development over 100 sq. metres gross or one or more dwellings. This should be achieved by incorporating energy generation from renewables or low carbon sources equivalent to at least 10% of predicted energy requirements, unless it has been demonstrated that this would make the development unviable.

8.29 In this case, it is considered that renewable energy technology could be incorporated into the development to achieve 10% of predicted energy requirements. In the event that Members were minded to grant planning permission contrary to my recommendation details of how precisely this is to be achieved could be secured by an appropriate condition.

8.30 With regard to recycling, it is important that residents of new developments have access to appropriate household waste and recycling storage facilities so that they can sort recyclables and reduce waste going to landfill. Building for Life 12 (question 12) emphasises the need to plan for this as an integral part of the design of new development. In the event that Members were minded to grant planning permission contrary to my recommendation I am satisfied that adequate provision for these facilities could be accommodated within the scheme.

8.31 There is also requirement to include a condition to deal with the SuDS for the site adequately which can be achieved as a condition to meet the requirements of SWDP 29.

Conclusion

8.32 Whilst I am sympathetic to the neighbours concerns regarding the loss of the existing brick boundary wall and that the proposed replacement is considered to be less than ideal, nevertheless I do not consider this aspect of the proposals would, in itself, result in an unacceptable degree of harm.

8.33 Overall it is considered that the proposals constitute acceptable sustainable development in accordance with policy SWDP 1 and would broadly accord with the Framework and the Development Plan when read as a whole. As such it is recommended that planning permission be granted.

Ward: St Stephens Contact Officer: Sally Watts –Tel: 01905 722172, Email: [email protected] Background Papers: None

Page 165 Agenda Item 14

Report to: Planning Committee, 19th July 2018

Report of: Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

SUBJECT: APPLICATION P18C0196: ERECTION OF A DETACHED DWELLING AT 97 FOLEY ROAD

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

2. Background

2.1 The application has been called in by Councillor Alan Amos ‘on the grounds of the mass and overlooking of the proposal on neighbouring properties; and the appropriateness of such a development on this particular space.’

2.2 The application was validated on the 31st May 2018 and the application is due for a decision by the 26th July 2018.

3. The Site and Surrounding Area

3.1 The application site is situated on the west side of Foley Road. To the south of the site are semi detached two storey Victorian dwellings and opposite to the east are terraced flat roof Victorian dwellings. The property adjacent to the north is a detached two storey dwelling with Christopher Whitehead school beyond.

3.2 The overriding palette of materials is red brick with traditional fenestration detailing commonly found in Victorian dwellings.

3.3 Opposite the site are a row of flat roof Victorian dwellings. They are unusual and are locally listed for being flat roof structures from this time when pitched roofs were normal. The frontages are Victorian in character and have an opening to void ratio and layout which is clearly Victorian in character. This row is an anomaly in the local context and elsewhere, including adjacent to the site, the overriding character is of pitched roof residential development.

3.4 The site is not a within a conservation area nor is it a statutory listed building. The site is not subject to any other natural environment policies within the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016. Page 166

4. The Proposal

4.1 The proposal is for a 3 bedroom detached dwellinghouse . The proposed ground floor has a lounge, hall, WC and kitchen dining/sitting room. The first floor would contain 2 bedrooms and bathroom with a third bedroom with en-suite in the roof area.

4.2 The external appearance utilises traditional design elements, many of which are found locally. These include a monopitch porch with bay window, brickwork detailing and header detailing and 2 small front facing dormer windows.

4.3 The layout of the proposed site incorporates 3 car parking spaces , bin storage and landscaping.

4.4 The application includes a Design and Access Statement, existing and proposed site plan, water statement, proposed floor plans and elevations and supporting information sent by the agent.

5. Planning Policy

5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) establishes the legislative framework for consideration of this application. Section 70(2) of the Act requires the decision-maker in determining planning applications/appeals to have regard to the Development Plan, insofar as it is material to the application/appeal, and to any other material consideration. Where the Development Plan is material to the development proposal it must therefore be taken into account. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application/appeal to be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The Development Plan for Worcester now comprises:

 The South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) which was adopted February 2016, and;  The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted on December 2012.

South Worcestershire Development Plan

5.3 The following policies of the SWDP are considered to be relevant to the proposal:

SWDP 1 Overarching Sustainable Development Principles SWDP 4 Moving Around South Worcestershire SWDP 5 Green Infrastructure SWDP 21 Design SWDP 27 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy SWDP 38 Green Space

The Waste Core Strategy for Worcestershire - Adopted Waste Local Plan 2012-2027

5.4 The Waste Local Plan was adopted by Worcestershire County Council on 15 November 2012 and is a plan outlining how to manage all the waste produced in Worcestershire up to 2027. The following policies are relevant to this application: Page 167

WCS1 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development) WCS3 (Re-use and recycle) WCS17 (Making provision for waste in new development)

Material Considerations

1. National Planning Policy Framework

5.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision takers and is a material planning consideration in determining planning applications.

5.6 The NPPF outlines a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed. Paragraph 186 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. LPAs are advised at paragraph 187 of the NPPF to look for solutions rather than problems and decision-takers are asked to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5.7 The Government believes that sustainable development can play three critical roles in England: an economic role, contributing to a strong, responsive, competitive economy; a social role, supporting vibrant and healthy communities; and an environmental role, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.

2. National Planning Practice Guidance

5.8 On 6th March 2014 the Government also published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) that comprises, amongst other matters: Design, Health and Wellbeing, Noise, and Use of Planning Conditions.

3. Supplementary Planning Documents

5.9 South Worcestershire Design Guide SPD (SWDG SPD), was adopted by the City Council on 6th March 2018. The key aim is to encourage a higher standard of design in all aspects of the built environment across south Worcestershire. The guide does not set prescriptive standards; rather it identifies principles of good design that are considered to be best practice. The SWDG SPD has been prepared to supplement policies in the SWDP, in particular SWDP 21 Design. As such, it is a material consideration for the decision taker in the determination of planning applications and planning appeals.

4. The New Homes Bonus

5.10 The ‘New Homes Bonus’ is a Government scheme which is aimed at encouraging local planning authorities to grant planning permissions for the building of new homes in return for additional revenue. The Government provides additional funding for new houses by matching funding the additional council tax raised for new homes with an additional amount for affordable homes for six years. Page 168

Having regard to Section 70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the New Homes Bonus is statutory and a local finance consideration in the determination of planning applications. As such, it is a material planning consideration.

6. Planning History

6.1 There is no relevant planning history.

7. Consultations

7.1 Formal consultation has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees have been received in relation to the proposals:-

Highway Authority: No objection, subject to recommended condition.

Worcester City Council - Archaeology: No objection, subject to recommended conditions

Worcester City Council - Cleaner and Greener: No objection.

Neighbours and other third party comments: The neighbouring residents of 15, 17 and 19 Vernon Park Road object to the proposals on grounds relating to:

 Loss of privacy and overlooking;  Loss of light and overshadowing from massing and location of the development;  Harm to biodiversity of the surrounding gardens;  Harm to the character of the neighbourhood;  Increase in noise and disturbance.

7.2 Members have been given the opportunity to read all representations that have been received in full. Any additional responses received will be reported to members in the form of a late paper.

7.3 In assessing the proposal due regard has been given to local residents comments as material planning considerations. Nevertheless, I am also mindful that decisions should not be made solely on the basis of the number of representations, whether they are for or against a proposal. The Localism Act has not changed this, nor has it changed the advice that local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission unless it is founded on valid planning reasons.

8. Comments of Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

8.1 Following a comprehensive site visit in and around the application site, I consider the main issues raised by the application relate to:-

 The principle of development;  Design of the proposed dwelling;  Impact on amenities of neighbouring residents;  Parking and highway safety; and  Sustainable measures.

These matters will now be considered in turn. Page 169

Principle of development on the site

8.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) explains that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. This is defined as meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

8.3 Paragraph 6 of the NPPF sets out the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice for the planning system. It is clear from this that sustainability concerns more than just proximity to facilities, it clearly also relates to ensuring the physical and natural environment is conserved and enhanced as well as contributing to building a strong economy through the provision of new housing of the right type in the right location at the right time.

8.4 Policy SWDP 1 contained within the South Worcestershire Development Plan echoes the NPPF’s requirements for ‘sustainable development’ and that planning applications that accord with the policies in the Local Plan (or other part of the statutory Development Plan) will be approved without delay unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

8.5 Worcester City Council has an up-to-date Local Plan which was adopted on 25th February 2016 and can demonstrate a 7 year housing land supply. The presumption in favour of sustainable development, as advised by the NPPF, will therefore need to be applied in this context.

8.6 The application site is located in a predominantly residential area and the erection of a further residential unit is considered to be compatible with the adjoining land uses. The plot is considered to be of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed dwelling with the associated amenity space and parking requirements and in principle it is considered to be an efficient use of this land.

8.7 Notwithstanding the above, I consider that it is important to consider whether the development of this site and the proposed changes in this area would have an adverse impact on the overall character of the surrounding area and neighbouring residents' amenities, and whether a site of this size has the capacity to deliver a high quality residential development which meets the needs of future occupants. This will now be considered in detail.

Design

8.8 Policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 requires all development to achieve a high standard of design, having regard to the character of the area and to harmonise with its environment. Given the location of the site the proposed dwellings would have an active street frontage which faces onto Foley Road in a conventional manner. I am satisfied that the proposed site layout is legible and accords with the expectations of SWDP 21 and guidance set out in the adopted Design Guide.

8.9 The design of the dwelling utilises features which are used in Victorian dwellings with brickwork detailing, the front bay and the adjacent principle entrance. As such, the front elevation is conventional in its appearance and would blend well with the surrounding development. Page 170

I consider the layout, height and massing of the proposal are all in keeping with the surroundings and would not appear discordant or an anomaly within the streetscene.

8.10 The site meets the requirements of the adopted Design Guide in terms of the size and quality of the amenity space being 103 sq.m in area. The outlook and relationship with the surrounding development is considered acceptable and would relate well with the existing street frontage.

8.11 I consider that the proposal has considered the constraints and opportunities of the site, including the orientation and relationship to the surrounding residential properties, and I am satisfied that the site has the capacity to accommodate the development in an acceptable manner in terms of its layout and design.

8.12 I am satisfied that the proposed design of the development and palette of materials would fit sympathetically within the site and would have a positive impact on the wider surrounding area. I consider that the size and scale of the development would be acceptable in the local context of the site and surrounding development and it would not appear to be incongruous or overbearing within the local context.

Impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties

8.13 At paragraph 17 (bullet point 4) the Framework states that as one of its core principles planning should “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”. Similarly, Policy SWDP 21 requires amongst other matters that new development should provide an adequate level of privacy, outlook, sunlight and daylight, and should not be unduly overbearing. Pertinent advice is also contained in the South Worcestershire Design Guide SPD (SWDG SPD), which was adopted by the City Council on 6th March 2018.

8.14 The site is adjacent to a number of residential properties and in accordance with the expectations of policy SWDP 21, it is necessary to ensure that the scheme would not result in harm to the amenities enjoyed by neighbouring residents.

8.15 Concerns have been expressed that the proximity of the proposed dwelling would lead to a loss of privacy and also that there would be overlooking from the 2nd floor windows. These are set within the roof slope and the principle windows face forward across Foley Road in a conventional manner. Given the placement of the rooflights and the front facing dormers I do not consider that it would generate a level of overlooking in excess of what would be commonly found in a suburban setting.

8.16 The plot is adjacent to the garden boundaries with neighbouring properties at 11 – 21 Vernon Park Road and the side elevation of the proposed dwelling itself would extend across the full width of the gardens of 15 and 17 Vernon Park Road. Concerns have been expressed that the height, size scale, mass, bulk and proximity of the development to neighbouring dwellings and the common shared garden boundaries with adjoining properties would result in an unacceptable degree of encroachment by a visually prominent and intrusive form of development, being both uncomfortably oppressive and overbearing. In my opinion, the proposed dwelling would clearly have a visual impact on neighbouring properties. Page 171

However, the siting of the dwelling would satisfy the distance separation requirements set out in the Design Guide SPD to the extent that it would not block the outlook from any windows of habitable rooms to an unacceptable degree or be close enough to cause unacceptable loss of privacy. I also consider that the scale of the proposed development and roof form would ensure that it would not appear overbearing when seen from the garden areas. Whilst a new dwelling would be introduced into an existing open area, this change in view would not amount to an oppressive outlook from the neighbouring houses or gardens when the distance separations and set-in from the site boundaries are taken into account.

8.17 Concerns have also been expressed that domestic activity associated with the proposed dwelling would disturb neighbouring residents enjoyment of their otherwise tranquil rear gardens. The dwelling would be suitable for family occupation and, in my opinion, the degree of activity likely to be generated by occupiers would be unlikely to pose a significant threat to neighbours’ ability to enjoy using either their own houses or gardens.

8.18 In my opinion, the proposal would offer an acceptable level of residential amenity for future occupants in terms of the provision of private amenity space, privacy and car parking. I am also satisfied that there would be no adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents in terms of loss of privacy through actual or the perception of overlooking, noise/disturbance from the intensification in the residential use of the site or unfettered movement of vehicles, or its visual impact.

Parking and highway safety

8.19 The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposal on grounds of highway safety or parking provision, subject to appropriate conditions. As such I consider that adequate parking provision would be made and the access to the proposed dwelling is satisfactory, as such the proposal is policy compliant in this regard. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal will not result in any adverse effects on highway or pedestrian safety.

Sustainable measures

8.20 Policy SWDP 27 (Incorporating Renewable and Low Carbon Energy into New Development) seeks to reduce carbon emissions and secure sustainable energy solutions in all new development over 100 sq. metres gross or one or more dwellings. This should be achieved by incorporating energy generation from renewables or low carbon sources equivalent to at least 10% of predicted energy requirements, unless it has been demonstrated that this would make the development unviable.

8.21 In this case, it is considered that renewable energy technology could be incorporated into the development to achieve 10% of predicted energy requirements. In the event that Members were minded to grant planning permission details of how precisely this is to be achieved could be secured by an appropriate condition.

8.22 The Water Management (Drainage Statement) sets out that a rainwater harvesting system is proposed to be used, with soakaways used for excess. No comment has been supplied by the Land Drainage Engineer as yet, however it would accord with the requirements of policy SWDP 29. Page 172

Conclusion

8.23 I have considered the proposal against the presumption in favour of sustainable development and its economic, social and environmental dimensions identified by Paragraph 7 of the Framework. Whilst I note the concerns expressed by neighbouring residents regarding the impact of the development, nevertheless I consider that the site has the capacity to accommodate the development in an acceptable manner in terms of its siting, size, design, layout and appearance. Overall it is considered that the proposals constitute an acceptable and sustainable form of development in accordance with the relevant policies of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework when read as a whole seeks to protect and promote in relation to residential development proposals. As such, it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Ward: Bedwardine Contact Officer: Sally Watts –Tel: 01905 722172, Email: [email protected] Background Papers: None Page 173 Agenda Item 15

Report to: Planning Committee, 19th July 2018

Report of: Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

SUBJECT: APPLICATIONS PURSUANT TO REGULATION 3 OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING GENERAL REGULATIONS 1992 INSTALLATION OF PHOTO-VOLTAIC ARRAY COMPRISING THE ERECTION OF PORTAL FRAMED ROOFTOP CANOPY STRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THE ARRAY. THE ARRAY IS SITED ON THE UPPERMOST LEVEL OF THE EXISTING CAR PARK TO AVOID OVERSHADOWING AND ITS POSITION IS DICTATED BY THE STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING AT MULTISTOREY CAR PARK, ST MARTINS GATE, CITY WALLS ROAD

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant Planning Permission in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

2. Background

2.1 The application has been referred to Planning Committee in accordance with the scheme of delegation as the landowner is the City Council.

2.2 The application was validated on the 30th May 2018 and is due for decision by the 25th July 2018.

3. The Site and Surrounding Area

3.1 The application site comprises a five storey multi-storey car park building built in the 1980s of period design with large areas of red brick, panelling and concrete render to the upper floors sitting underneath a flat roof. The site occupies a prominent location near on St Martins Gate close to Worcester City Centre and on an important and busy route for vehicular traffic negotiating the central area. The locality is also well used by pedestrians moving between the car park and the City Centre. The multistore car park is situated on St Martins Gate, in an area which has a diverse range of uses, from residential, to car repairs, doctors surgery and school. The car park is 5/6 storeys tall and is a significant presence in this part of the city.

3.2 The car park links to the footbridge which forms a significant route into the city centre. The other pedestrian entrance is on the north west corner on St Martins Gate. Vehicles enter separately from St Martins Gate and exit onto St Martins Gate or Spring Gardens to the rear. Page 174

3.3 The site is not a within a conservation area nor is it a statutory listed building However, it is adjacent to and visible from within the Historic City Conservation Area in particular. The site is an archaeologically sensitive area. The site is not subject to any other natural environment policies within the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016.

4. The Proposal

4.1 The proposal is for the erection of a rooftop canopy to house photo-voltaic panels. The structure would partially cover the access between the car parking spaces and part of the car parking spaces. The canopy is angled to maximise sunlight with the highest point being on the western side angled down on the eastern point.

4.2 The lightweight canopy structure is proposed to be in RAL7038 colour which is a light grey and measures 12 metres in width and 31 metres in length. The frame I will have impact protection on the vertical columns to protect against vehicular impact and the underneath will include lighting.

5. Planning Policy

5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) establishes the legislative framework for consideration of this application subject to Regulations 3 to 11A of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992. Section 70(2) of the Act requires the decision-maker in determining planning applications/appeals to have regard to the Development Plan, insofar as it is material to the application/appeal, and to any other material consideration. Where the Development Plan is material to the development proposal it must therefore be taken into account. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application/appeal to be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The Development Plan for Worcester now comprises:

 The South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) which was adopted February 2016, and;  The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted on December 2012.

South Worcestershire Development Plan

5.3 The following policies of the SWDP are considered to be relevant to the proposal:

SWDP 1 Overarching Sustainable Development Principles SWDP 21 Design SWDP 27 Renewable and Low Carbon Energy

The Waste Core Strategy for Worcestershire - Adopted Waste Local Plan 2012-2027

5.4 The Waste Local Plan was adopted by Worcestershire County Council on 15 November 2012 and is a plan outlining how to manage all the waste produced in Worcestershire up to 2027. The following policies are relevant to this application:

WCS1 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development) Page 175

WCS3 (Re-use and recycle) WCS17 (Making provision for waste in new development)

Material Considerations

1. National Planning Policy Framework

5.5 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision takers and is a material planning consideration in determining planning applications.

5.6 The NPPF outlines a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed. Paragraph 186 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. LPAs are advised at paragraph 187 of the NPPF to look for solutions rather than problems and decision-takers are asked to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5.7 The Government believes that sustainable development can play three critical roles in England: an economic role, contributing to a strong, responsive, competitive economy; a social role, supporting vibrant and healthy communities; and an environmental role, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.

2. National Planning Practice Guidance

5.8 On 6th March 2014 the Government also published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) that comprises, amongst other matters: Design, Health and Wellbeing, Noise, and Use of Planning Conditions.

3. Supplementary Planning Documents

5.9 South Worcestershire Design Guide SPD (SWDG SPD), was adopted by the City Council on 6th March 2018. The key aim is to encourage a higher standard of design in all aspects of the built environment across south Worcestershire. The guide does not set prescriptive standards; rather it identifies principles of good design that are considered to be best practice. The SWDG SPD has been prepared to supplement policies in the SWDP, in particular SWDP 21 Design. As such, it is a material consideration for the decision taker in the determination of planning applications and planning appeals.

6. Planning History

6.1 There is no relevant planning history.

7. Consultations

7.1 Formal consultation has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees have been received in relation to the proposals:- Page 176

Highway Authority: No objection

Worcester City Council- Archaeology Officer: “The application should consider the implications of the proposed structure for the settings of conservation areas, listed buildings and scheduled monuments. Any potential impact would be visual only.”

Worcester City Council- Planning and Conservation Officer: No objection

Worcester City Council- Planning Policy: No objection.

West Mercia Constabulary: No objections, subject to appropriate security during night-time.

Neighbours and other third party comments: an online comment of support has been submitted by the owner/occupier of 5 Cornmill Barns, Spetchley, Worcester. They say ‘An excellent initiative. Hopefully the City Council will consider the feasibility of rolling this out to surface car parks.’

7.2 Members have been given the opportunity to read all representations that have been received in full. Any additional responses received will be reported to members in the form of a late paper.

8. Comments of Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

8.1 Following a comprehensive site visit in and around the application site, I consider the main issues raised by the application relate to:-

 The principle of development;  Impact of proposal on views and character of the city and historic assets; and  Design.

These matters will now be considered in turn.

Principle of residential development on the site

8.2 SWDP27 is clear in it unequivocal support of schemes of this nature; part C states:

Stand Alone Renewable and Low Carbon Energy Schemes

C. With the exception of wind turbines (see D below) proposals for stand-alone renewable and other low carbon energy schemes are welcomed and will be considered favourably having regard to the provisions of other relevant policies in the Plan.

8.3 This is echoed in the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 which seeks to ‘support the transition to a low carbon future in a changing climate, taking full account of flood risk and coastal change, and encourage the reuse of existing resources, including conversion of existing buildings, and encourage the use of renewable resources (for example, by the development of renewable energy) as a core planning principle. Page 177

8.4 Notwithstanding the strong policy support for applications of this nature, consideration must be given to ascertain whether the development of this site and the proposed changes in this area would have an adverse impact on the overall character of the surrounding area, streetscene and views across the city.

Design

8.5 Policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 requires all development to achieve a high standard of design, having regard to the character of the area and to harmonise with its environment. Given the siting of the canopy I consider it will have limited impact. In my opinion, the visual impact of the proposed development would be lessened by the choice of colour of the frame of a light grey which will help it to blend in with the skyline.

8.6 The canopy has been positioned so as to limit views of the frame from public vantage points being sited centrally in the car park that I consider will reduce its visual impact from many of the main vantage points, particularly along City Walls Road, from the pedestrian bridge across City Walls Road from the city centre and from within the top tier of the car park.

8.7 Overall, due to the height and open nature of the frame I consider there would not be a significant negative impact and the design is largely function led with design choices where possible to lessen visual impact.

Impact of proposal on views, the character of the city and historic assets

8.8 The proposed development will visible from many of the high views across the city as St Martins Gate car park forms a significant building in terms of massing and height across the city and acts as a wayfinding building on these panoramic views.

8.9 The site is not listed grade II nor is it situated within a conservation area. However, it is adjacent to and visible from within the Historic City Conservation Area in particular.

8.10 As such, I consider that the proposals should be considered against Policies SWDP 6 and SWDP 24 which are consistent with the NPPF (paragraphs 128, 129 and 131 to 135) in that they seek to protect and enhance designated and non-designated heritage assets and guide against development that would cause substantial harm to the significance of any heritage asset. In accordance with the NPPF at Para 132, great weight must be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and in accordance with s66 of the Planning Listed Building and Conservation Areas Act 1990, special regard is to be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings.

8.11 The Planning and conservation Officer has considered the impact of the proposal on the setting of the Historic City Conservation Area and historic assets, and has concluded as follows:

“Having consulted the accompanying documents and plans, I note that the St Martins Gate multi-storey car park is 5/6 storeys high with approximately 800 parking spaces, and parking being available on all six levels, with an open air top deck. It is the latter where these solar pv arrays would be mounted. Page 178

They are proposed to cover approximately a quarter of the top deck of the car park, covering an area which is central to the level and set back away from both City Walls Road and St Martin’s Gate. The arrays would be closest to Spring Road, which is narrow, and sits close to the side of the multi-storey. For this vantage point the car park’s top deck would be viewed from a near vertical angle, and the solar pv arrays not visible at all. Thus I consider that the proposed solar pv arrays have been sited with care and that they will not impact visually upon the settings of conservation areas, listed buildings and scheduled monuments.”

8.12 In terms of the paragraph 134 of the NPPF, I consider that the proposals would have less than substantial harm in respect of the impact on the setting of the adjacent conservation areas. This limited harm is outweighed by the considerable public benefits of the proposal. These benefits include the development of renewable energy as a core planning principle in the NPPF.

8.13 In summarising the likely effects of the proposal on heritage assets and having full regard to the policies in the development plan and national guidance it is assessed that the proposed development would have less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets. The balancing exercise in paragraph 134 of the NPPF is required to be undertaken between the “less than substantial harm” to the designated heritage asset on the one hand, and the public benefits of the proposal on the other. Taking into account the importance and weight to be given to the statutory duty under s.66(1) and s.72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in the overall balance of considerations, I am of the opinion that the impact on the designated heritage assets would be insufficient for the application to be refused.

Conclusion

8.14 I am wholly supportive of this proposal and the opportunity to utilise the roof space for a source of renewable energy for the building. I consider the visual impact of the proposal is acceptable and would not have a significant impact on the character of the area or the wider views across the city.

8.15 Overall it is considered that the proposals constitute acceptable sustainable development in accordance with the relevant policies the Framework and the Development Plan when read as a whole. As such it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Ward: Cathedral Contact Officer: Sally Watts Tel: 01905 722172, Email: [email protected] Background Papers: None Page 179 Agenda Item 16

Report to: Planning Committee, 19th July 2018

Report of: Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

Subject: APPLICATION P18K0213: SINGLE STOREY SIDE AND FRONT VERANDA EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING BAR/RESTAURANT AND PART CHANGE OF USE OF INDOOR GAMES AREA TO BAR/RESTAURANT. REMOVAL OF GOLF AREA AND RE-INTRODUCTION OF PARKING AREA ON RETAINED HARD SURFACE AT PAVILION IN THE PARK, TYBRIDGE STREET

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

2. Background

2.1 The application has been put before Planning Committee as it is contrary to policy SWDP28 – Management of Flood Risk of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016.

2.2 The application was validated on the 25th April and is due for a decision on the 20th July 2018.

3. The Site and Surrounding Area

3.1 The existing building is partly used as a restaurant with bar and as an amusement arcade. The site has a large enclosed garden with gates directly into Cripplegate Park. The car park relating to the site is adjacent to the City Council’s car parking, both of which are accessed off Tybridge Street.

3.2 The site is surrounding by Cripplegate Park to east, south and west as well as the bowling green on the west which is separately accessed and separated operated. The garden area includes a crazy/mini golf area which was approved in P16K0524 and has been installed. Under this area is permeable paving which is like grasscrete but is currently not used as car parking.

3.3 The building has a number of entrances which have all be utilised in the past- 2 on the northern elevation and 2 on the western elevation. The building has existing permission to remain open until 4am this relates to a former use as a nightclub, and operates currently as a sui generis use.

3.4 The building has an upper floor which is utilised as a staff area, office and cleaning area as well as toilets relating to the restaurant. Page 180

3.5 The site is within the Riverside Conservation Area, the whole site is designated as Green Space in the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 and is in flood zone 2 and flood zone 3.

4. The Proposal

4.1 The submitted proposal seeks permission for covered areas to be accessed from within the building to provide additional floor space. Additionally the internal space will be altered to be wholly used as a restaurant with an ancillary cinema room.

4.2 The extensions are proposed around the north west corner of the building and a secondary extension on the western elevation. The principle and sole entrance is to be located between the proposed extensions on the western elevation.

4.3 The proposal includes landscaping to the external areas including and new pathways and planting areas leading to the principle entrance. The scheme would introduce 34 trees to the landscaped area around the site and includes a stone feature in the south east corner.

4.4 The development has began on site and the applicants are aware that this is at risk of not achieving planning permission on this site. The conditions and trigger points of the conditions reflect this accordingly. The intention of the applicant is to open in early August 2018.

5. Planning Policy

5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) establishes the legislative framework for consideration of this application. Section 70(2) of the Act requires the decision-maker in determining planning applications/appeals to have regard to the Development Plan, insofar as it is material to the application/appeal, and to any other material consideration. Where the Development Plan is material to the development proposal it must therefore be taken into account. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application/appeal to be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The Development Plan for Worcester now comprises:

 The South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP), which was adopted in February 2016;  The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted in December 2012, and;  The saved policies of the County of Hereford and Worcester Minerals Local Plan, which was adopted in April 1997.

5.3 The following policies of the SWDP are considered to be relevant to the application proposals:-

SWDP 5 - Green Infrastructure SWDP 6 - Historic Environment SWDP 21- Design SWDP 22- Biodiversity and Geodiversity SWDP 24- Management of the Historic Environment Page 181

SWDP 25- Landscape Character SWDP 28- Management of Flood Risk SWDP 29 -Sustainable Drainage Systems SWDP 38- Green Space

Material Considerations

1. National Planning Policy Framework

5.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision takers and is a material planning consideration in determining planning applications. Annex 3 of the NPPF lists the documents revoked and replaced by the NPPF.

5.5 The NPPF outlines a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed. Paragraph 186 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. LPAs are advised at paragraph 187 of the NPPF to look for solutions rather than problems and decision-takers are asked to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5.6 The Government believes that sustainable development can play three critical roles in England: an economic role, contributing to a strong, responsive, competitive economy; a social role, supporting vibrant and healthy communities; and an environmental role, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.

2. National Planning Practice Guidance

5.7 On 6th March 2014 the Government also published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) that comprises, amongst other matters: Air Quality, Health and Wellbeing, Noise, and Use of Planning Conditions.

6. Planning History

6.1 The Site has been subject to the following relevant applications:

P16K0524 - Proposed Adventure/Mini Golf Course at the Pavilion in the Park. Granted 03rd March 2017.

P12K0115 - Application for a variation of drainage Condition 15 of planning permission P11K0267. Granted 21st May 2012.

P11K0267 - Variation of planning permission P10K0482 : change of use of existing building from nightclub to offices; raising of ground floor level; alterations and extensions. Granted 11th August 2011.

P10K0482 - Variation of planning permission P09A0297: Change of use of existing building from night club to gym/health club (D2); raising of ground floor level; alterations and extensions. Granted 27th January 2011. Page 182

P09A0297 - Change of use from nightclub to health club/gym (D2) together with alterations and first floor extension to existing building. Granted 18th May 2010.

7. Consultations

7.1 Formal consultation has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees have been received in relation to the proposals:-

Worcester City Council Economic Development and Planning Policy: Objection

An in-principle objection to this proposal from a planning policy perspective with regard to SWDP 28 C.

Worcester City Council Planning and Conservation Officer: “I accept the reasons put forward for the proposed changes to the Pavilion in the Park, and, in broad terms agree with the works included here. Whilst initially the changes look quite dramatic, in effect it is a rebranding with the addition of a veranda. A materials condition should be set to ensure that these additions are done appropriately. “

A further concern was raised regarding the landscaping however this has subsequently been addressed

West Mercia Constabulary- No objection

Worcester City Council Archaeology Officer: No objection.

South Worcestershire Land Drainage Partnership: No objection

Worcestershire County Council- Emergency Planning Officer: No objection

Highway Authority: No objection

Conservation Advisory Panel: No objection

Neighbour and other third party comments: No comments received.

8. Comments of Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

8.1 I consider the main issues raised by the proposals are as follows:

 The principle of the proposed development;  Flooding;  Design and appearance;  Impact on Green Space;  Impact on the Conservation Area and landscape quality of the area;  Biodiversity within the site; and  Highways and footpaths.

These matters will now be considered in turn.

The principle of the proposed development Page 183

8.2 The following policy comment has been received; please note the highlighted sections have been added for ease of reading:

The main South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) policy considerations for this planning application are SWDP 6, SWDP 28 and SWDP 38.

The application site is fully covered by SWDP 38 - Green Space. Under part b, this policy states:

“Development of Green Space will not be permitted unless the following exceptional circumstances are demonstrated:

i. The proposal is for a community / recreational use that does not compromise the essential quality and character of the Green Space; or

ii. An assessment of community and technical need (using recognised national methodology where appropriate) clearly demonstrates that the Green Space is surplus to requirements; or

iii. Alternative / replacement Green Space of at least equivalent value to the community has been secured in a suitable location (85).

The current use of the application site is a restaurant. The site can therefore be considered as being previously developed land. This should be a key consideration when factoring in the policy requirements of SWDP 38. Owing to this current land use, it may be the case that an “assessment of community and technical need” is not required on this occasion. Therefore under these circumstances the scheme should be considered to be policy compliant with regard to SWDP 38.

SWDP 28 - ‘Management of Flood Risk’ requires for sites not allocated in the SWDP to clearly demonstrate that the Sequential Test, as set out in the latest version of the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), has been applied.

If the Sequential Test has been satisfied, development proposals, other than those allocated in this Plan, must also satisfy the Exception Test in all applicable situations as set out in the latest version of the SFRA.

Site specific Flood Risk Assessments (FRAs), informed by the latest version of the SFRA, will be required where:

The development proposal is over 1ha in size.

The development proposal includes land in Flood Zones 2 and 3 (as defined by the latest Environment Agency mapping).

The development proposal (includes Flood Zone 1) affects land where evidence, in particular the SFRA, indicates there are records of historic flooding or other sources of flooding, e.g. due to critical drainage problems, including from ordinary watercourses and / or a need for more detailed analysis. Page 184

SWDP 28 C applies to urban areas (including Worcester) of high flood risk (Flood Zones 3a and 3b) and must be adhered to:

i. Floodplain [“Blue Zone”]

Functional Floodplain – This is identified as the “Blue Zone” on the Policies Map. The Blue Zone is functional floodplain and development will not be permitted here.

ii. Floodplain [“Red Zone”]

New development (including extensions) and redevelopment will not be permitted in areas of existing or previously existing floodplain flow [as defined by the Environment Agency] shown as “Red Zone”, or within eight metres of the top of both banks of other watercourses, as shown on the Policies Map. Where options for managed retreat or land swap exist, developers should explore these with the Local Planning Authority.

The application site is covered in full by both “Blue” and “Red” floodplain zones. There is therefore a policy conflict with SWDP 28 C.

SWDP 6 Historic Environment states under part B i: “Development proposals will be supported where they conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets, including their setting. In particular this applies to:

i. Designated heritage assets; i.e. listed buildings, conservation areas, scheduled monuments, registered parks and gardens and registered battlefields, as well as undesignated heritage assets(25).”

You may be guided further on this matter by archaeological and conservation officers.

To conclude, in consideration of the aforementioned SWDP policies, there is therefore an in principal objection to this proposal from a planning policy perspective with regard to SWDP 28 C.

8.3 Policy SWDP38 states that development should only be undertaken for recreation or community use. The policy states this should be considered in conjunction with the other policies which specifically relate to the assessment of the Green Space and the biodiversity of the site and how this can be assessed to ascertain if there is improvement to the area which is designated as protect and enhance in the SWDP.

8.4 The site is within the Riverside Conservation Area and so policies SWDP 6 and SWDP24 are highly relevant to assess whether the impact is acceptable. Throughout the extended Riverside Conservation Area, the sections of the river have different established character areas. The suitability of the development is considered in terms of the impact of the historic asset of the conservation area to assess whether it is acceptable.

8.5 Notwithstanding the above, due consideration must also be given to what, if any, impacts the proposal will have, specifically in relation to the character of the site Page 185

and, as well as flooding, highway safety and the biodiversity within the site, together with the impact on neighbour amenities. These issues will be considered in detail in later sections of this report.

Flooding

8.6 The proposal has been considered by the Land Drainage Partnership and the Emergency Planner. The site is not subject to the Sequential test or Exception test as the application is minor development and therefore not subject to these tests in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

The Land Drainage Partnership have advised;

The site lies within EA FZ3, reference should be made to LPA Process Note: Development in Flood Zone 3 where the flood zone is generated by a Main River, in this case the River Severn. Applications should be supported by a FRA in accordance with EA FRA Guidance Note 3.

The accompanying FRA is acceptable in principle and I have no objections to the development proposals, nor any requirement for conditions to be applied. I recommend that consultation is made with the Council's Emergency Planning Officer and Emergency Services to determine whether or not a Flood Evacuation Management Plan is also appropriate.

8.7 The Emergency Planners have advised that they are satisfied that the measures put forward in the Flood Risk Assessment in regards to evacuation and protection of the building are acceptable to the building in term of occupancy and functionality.

8.8 The additional areas do not relate to additional floor area in terms of increasing the internal space of the building and thereby reducing the area which area for the flood water to occupy in the event of a flood. The elevated areas which allow the flood water to permeate below. As such there is no objection from the LDP on this matter.

8.9 As part of the change of use to a restaurant of the full building this will be easier to manage and control. The upper floor has a staff area, however could be altered to be staff accommodation, given the flooding issues are the site I consider this would not be appropriate and have included a condition to ensure no managers or staff accommodation is included in the building.

8.10 Whilst I am mindful of the intention of this policy, and would not wish to see any displacement of water in the event of a flood, I consider the design has been considered in relation to the flooding issues within the site and addresses this issue competently. Whilst there is an objection in principle to development on this site, given the limited extent of the additional covered areas and the assessed impact of the proposal, I consider it is acceptable in this circumstance. Page 186

8.11 Policies SWDP 28 and SWDP 29 of the SWDP and paragraphs 100 and 104 of the NPPF require consideration of flood risk and the developer to show that their development will not have an adverse impact on the wider flood dynamic. I am satisfied that the proposed development would meet this requirement and forms an acceptable form of development on this basis.

Design and Appearance

8.12 Policy SWDP 21 seeks to ensure that, amongst other matters, all new development will be of high quality design and integrate effectively with its surroundings with consideration given to siting and layout; relationships to surroundings and other developments; open spaces; mix of uses; sustainability and energy performance; scale, form and massing; links connectivity and access; detailed design and materials; appropriate facilities; landscaping and biodiversity; public realm, and; creating a safe environment.

8.13 These policy requirements are consistent with the aims and objectives of the NPPF which attaches significant weight to the importance of design of the built environment and identifies it as a key aspect of sustainable development. High quality design goes beyond aesthetic considerations including the architecture of individual buildings to encompass the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.

8.14 When considering the merits of the submitted proposal it is therefore important to consider how the design and layout of the proposed development will integrate with the setting of the site, and its relationship with the park and wider conservation area and how it will function as a sustainable form of development.

8.15 These issues are covered principally in the Design and Access Statement. This provides a full assessment of the site context and explains and illustrates the proposed development. The proposal does seek to alter the building to add visual interest of which the extensions form part of, having covered areas to afford views over the landscaped areas. It is proposed to introduce ship lap timber cladding on the northern elevation visible from the car park entrance and the extensions and entrance way seeks to alter the appearance of the building to more of a pavilion appearance.

8.16 The existing building is quite stark when compared to the bowling green building and buildings within the park. Nearby are commercial properties which have a utilitarian commercial appearance however they are not sited within the park, nor have such a direct relationship.

8.17 The scheme has been led by the constraints of the site, its setting, officer comments and preferences in the design process. These include the significant landscaping to the external areas, the relationship to the park and access to the building from the car park and within the park.

8.18 Improvements in the quality of the design are most apparent in the landscaping and external areas which have been designed to be more naturalistic and relate more positively to the park with less hardstanding and a softer approach. Page 187

8.19 In this respect I consider that the design is positive, improving the character and appearance of the building and the landscaping would improve the relationship with the public park- a view supported by the Planning and Conservation Officer.

8.20 The proposal would result in an acceptable form of development that responds in a positive manner to particular site constraints and opportunities and would achieve a satisfactory standard of design, layout, scale and appearance. In this regard I am satisfied that the site has the capacity and potential to accommodate the proposed development in an acceptable manner and would be appropriate for this sensitive site.

Impact on Green Space

8.21 The site lies within an area designated as being Green Space in the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016. Both national and local policy requires development proposals to be sympathetic to their landscape setting and encourages the creation and conservation of green open spaces and green corridors within and on the periphery of settlements.

8.22 In my opinion, it is significant that policy SWDP 38 does not specifically preclude development- especially that on a Brownfield site. Whilst the site is designated as Green Space, the proposals are not entirely inconsistent with the aims and objectives of the designated Green Space policies, noting the following:

 The proposed development will be set within a landscaped context which will benefit from significant enhancement;  The development complements the aims of the aims of the Green Space policy in that it retains its overall landscape contribution and enhances it with new planting and management.  Although the land upon which the proposed development would be sited is not considered ‘surplus to requirements’. Overall there is considered to be an improvement in the quality of the Green Space and the management of the site as well as the initial planting would allow for betterment.

8.23 There is a general presumption within policy that certain criteria should be met for new developments in such areas. These include that buildings should be of a scale, design and density appropriate to the Green Space, and adequate screening and landscaping are incorporated where possible. I consider that the proposed scheme accords with such criteria and would provide an acceptable development in Green Space terms.

Impact on the Conservation Area and landscape quality of the area

8.24 The proposal is within the Riverside Conservation Area and the impact is considered both in terms of the character of the conservation area and the impact on the heritage asset for users of the area. The proposed extension and external changes will be visible from within the park and from the highway along Tybridge Street.

8.25 The Conservation Area Panel viewed early landscaping plans and wished to see more landscaping to buffer the relationship between the site and the park. This was achieved in the amended plans. Both aspects would be improved but the landscape improvements are the most significant benefit to the conservation Area by reinforcing the qualities within the park. Page 188

8.26 Policy SWDP Policy 25 requires that development proposals are appropriate and integrate with the character of the landscape and conserve the important landscape characteristics. Paragraph 17 of the Framework recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside as a core planning principle. Chapter 11 of the NPPF makes reference to the protection and enhancement of valued landscapes, the weight to be given to criteria based policies, such as landscape character designations, and the need to create, protect, enhance and manage green infrastructure.

8.27 In landscape character terms this development relates in a more positive manner to the setting of the building extending the positive contribution of the park into this area. I consider on balance it is acceptable and would not generate harm.

Highways and footpaths

8.28 The proposal allows for the existing car parking within the site to be retained with sufficient distance between the car parking spaces to allow for manoeuvring.. There is no objection from Worcestershire County Council Highways regarding the proposal.

9. Conclusion

9.1 The NPPF identifies a series of the components that are considered critical to achieving sustainable development. In my opinion, the above assessment of the planning application proposals against the planning policy framework demonstrates that the application responds to the requirements of the adopted planning policy within the development plan and addressed material considerations relevant to the determination of the application.

9.2 Whilst the assessment is not an exhaustive list of all policies that are potentially applicable to this site, it seeks to address how the proposals respond to the key planning criteria in the planning policy framework against which the planning application will be determined. Whilst the type of development is unable to meet the requirements of the Flood Risk policy SWDP28 I believe that the site would not have a negative impact in this regard and the level of improvement in the natural environmental qualities of the site from the existing position ought to be given due weighting. Furthermore, the low quality assessment of the site in terms of the impact on the Riverside conservation area and the biodiversity within the existing site can be significantly improved to add benefit beyond the site.

9.3 Having regard to the totality of the policies in the Framework, I consider the proposed development is sustainable when looking at its social, economic and environmental credentials in the round. The adverse impacts of the development do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits- particularly the biodiversity improvements and the improvements to the visual quality of the site. Overall it is considered that the proposals constitute an environmentally, socially and economically sustainable form of development that accords with the Framework and the Development Plan as a whole.

Ward: St Johns Contact Officer: Sally Watts –Tel: 01905722172, Email:[email protected] Background Papers: None Page 189 Agenda Item 17

Report to: Planning Committee , 19th July 2018

Report of: Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning

Subject: APPLICATION P18D0064: INSTALLATION OF NEW VEHICULAR ENTRANCE FEATURE POSTS AND PEDESTRIAN GATES ON LAND AT ROSE BANK, LONDON ROAD

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that planning permission is granted subject to the conditions set down in the plans list.

2. Background

2.1 The application has been called in by Councillor Riaz on the basis of local objection.

2.2 The application was submitted on the 7th February 2018 and the application expired on 21st April 2018.

3. The Site and Surrounding Area

3.1 The site is located to the south of Worcester City centre, off London Road, and the wider development site comprises a parcel of land of approximately 1.34 hectares that is currently being developed for housing. A scheme to develop 35 new dwellings on the site was approved under P15D0146 on 19th November 2015. The approved scheme was varied by a process of plot substitution of different housing types; this was consented 20th July 2017 under P17D0279 and this scheme is currently under construction.

3.2 The surrounding area is generally characterised by Georgian and Victorian residential properties. The south and west of the site generally accommodates larger suburban style properties (some listed) with a much finer/tighter urban grain to the north and east. Interspersed throughout the area are newer forms of residential development from several periods.

3.3 The western part of the wider development site falls within the Sidbury and Park Royal Conservation Area.

3.4 The topography of the site appears to slope on a west to east and south to north axis.

3.5 Vehicular and pedestrian access is currently from Rose Bank which runs north off London Road. Page 190

4. The Proposal

4.1 The application seeks to install a new vehicular gateway and two pedestrian gateways.

4.2 The application maintains the approved mix of tenure and the overall site layout, but proposes to alter the approved access arrangements.

4.3 The application is accompanied by a combined site plan and elevations of the proposed gates, together with a covering letter.

5. Planning Policy

5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) establishes the legislative framework for consideration of this application. Section 70(2) of the Act requires the decision-maker in determining planning applications/appeals to have regard to the Development Plan, insofar as it is material to the application/appeal, and to any other material consideration. Where the Development Plan is material to the development proposal it must therefore be taken into account. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application/appeal to be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The Development Plan for Worcester now comprises:

 The South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) which was adopted February 2016  The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted on December 2012  The saved policies of the County of Hereford and Worcester Minerals Local Plan, which was adopted in April 1997.

South Worcestershire Development Plan

5.3 The following policies of the SWDP are considered to be relevant to the proposal:

SWDP 1 Overarching Sustainable Development Principles SWDP 6 Historic Environment SWDP 21 Design SWDP 22 Biodiversity and Geodiversity SWDP 24 Management of the Historic Environment

Material Considerations

1. National Planning Policy Framework

5.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision takers and is a material planning consideration in determining planning applications. Page 191

5.5 The NPPF outlines a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed. Paragraph 186 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. LPAs are advised at paragraph 187 of the NPPF to look for solutions rather than problems and decision-takers are asked to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5.6 The Government believes that sustainable development can play three critical roles in England: an economic role, contributing to a strong, responsive, competitive economy; a social role, supporting vibrant and healthy communities; and an environmental role, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.

2. National Planning Practice Guidance

5.7 On 6th March 2014 the Government also published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) that comprises, amongst other matters: Design, Health and Wellbeing, Noise, and Use of Planning Conditions.

6. Planning History

6.1 The application of most relevance to the current proposal is application P15D0146 (Demolition of existing structures, with redevelopment of site to provide 35 dwellings with ancillary car parking, communal and garden spaces and new access.), which was presented to Planning Committee on 24th September 2015 and reported back on 19th November 2017 where it was approved as recommended.

6.2 Under P17D0279 the layout of the approved scheme was varied by a process of plot substitution of different housing types. Approved, as recommended, by the Planning Committee at the meeting on 20th July 2017.

6.3 The application site has also been the subject of a number of more recent applications, which include:

 P18D0261 - Variation of condition 2 of application P15D0146. Undecided - relates to Plot 7.

 P18D0064 - Installation of new gateway posts and pedestrian gates. Undecided - subject to a report to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 19th July 2018 with a recommendation for approval.

 P18D0061 - Removal of Condition 2 of Planning Application P17D0279 to allow the use of clear glazing to the windows in the northern elevation to The Mews property. Refused, as recommended, by the Planning Committee at the meeting of the on 28th June 2018. An appeal against this decision has now been lodged (APP/D1835/W/18/3206683)

 D17D0096 - Plot style substitution of the Montgomery and the Mews house. Discharged 6th September 2017.

 D16D0063 - Discharge of conditions - P15D0146. Approved 20th April 2018. Page 192

7. Consultations

7.1 Formal consultation, including display of site notices, has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees have been received in relation to the proposals:-

Worcester City Council – Archaeological Officer: The scheme has no archaeological implications. No objection.

Worcestershire County Council (Highway Authority): No objection. The proposed gates should be made to open inwards only.

West Mercia Constabulary Design Out Crime Officer: From a security perspective, I am not sure what benefits of the gates will be. Clearly anyone either on foot or in a vehicle can access the site at any time. The wider community are being invited to use the open space, so the gates seem to be a costly ineffective security measure. If the intention is to be aesthetically pleasing on the eye, fine, but as a security measure it’s a half-way house that will not deter inappropriate activity. There is a school of thought that suggests gated communities can attract more unwanted attention, with those outside wondering what is on the inside that requires that level of security. However with a lack of that type of community in this policing area I have little or nothing to gauge these proposals against. From a security perspective, I do not like half measures, my view would be either do it right with fob access giving entry only to those that live there or don’t do it.

Cleaner & Greener (Refuse Collection): Stated minimum requirements for vehicle access but otherwise offered no objection.

Fortis Housing: We have looked into the location of the gates, they do not appear to affect our properties as they are placed on the entrances to the central square as opposed to the entrance to the development and therefore exclude our properties. Secondly, after speaking with our solicitor, it appears that that we were exempted from having to pay any service charges relating to the estate as per the agreed transfer documents. Therefore the on-going cost of the gates would not be something we would not be required to contribute towards.

Hereford & Worcester Fire & Rescue Service: With regards to the gating of all or part of the development I have no fire safety legislation that affects the instillation of gates. Fire service access is covered under Part B of The Building Regulations ADB which is enforced by either Local Authority Building Control or an Approved Building Inspector. The fitting of gates an barriers is now fairly common on places such as retail parks Whilst the Fire Service would obviously prefer them not to be there we can generally overcome and access issues should we need to, it should be noted and explained that it may cause a slight delay to our attendance at an incident within the gated area.

Housing Policy: I would have no specific comments to make in terms of the provision of the gates, save for the fact that they will increase the level of security and safety and will also engender a sense of place into the development, specifically in relation to the public open space. Therefore I would support their inclusion.

Neighbours: The application has raised objections from local residents on grounds relating to the following main issues, that the proposed gates are: - Page 193

 contrary to the SWDP, which states that affordable housing dwellings should be indistinguishable from the market homes. If the gates are allowed they are not inclusive of the affordable housing on this development and therefore will visually exclude the affordable housing residents and ostracise them from the house owners behind the gates;  not very inclusive to the whole development as they exclude the Affordable Housing, leaving them on the outside of the development;  liable to fail at some time and also will present a delay to entering traffic. This traffic could include emergency vehicles at some stage. The gates will also present a visual barrier, encouraging visiting traffic to the site to park outside the gates in an already congested area;  likely to deter visitors to the new development from entering it and will mean additional vehicles parking in the already over crowded and narrow roads bordering the development i.e.: Albert Road and Edward Close. If an emergency vehicle needs access to any of these roads they are going to be severely impaired by the additional vehicles. This could be impacted even more if the gates were to fail and the residents of the Rose Bank were not able to get in to the new development, they would park in the bordering streets;  would potentially cause issues with parking and the traffic flow in Albert Road and Edward Close. Despite the recommendation from Highways Department that the gates are to open inwards, the approval of this application would still cause major traffic obstructions and serious delays in what is an already challenging residential area for driving and parking. Whilst vehicles await the opening of the gates (although inwards), delays to the traffic flow will be caused to what is essentially a single traffic road. Also, allowing these gates to proceed will result in visitors to the development being tempted or forced to park outside of the gates resulting in local residents, who already struggle to park their own vehicles, finding parking even more difficult, and;  contrary to the spirit of the original planning consent in 2015, under which the development was to have areas for people to walk their dogs as well as picnic and quiet reflective areas for all to enjoy. However, once gates of this nature are erected the development will become ‘exclusive and off limits’. Should this application be approved, it will therefore be granting approval for the exclusion of the residents from the remaining Rose Bank properties and other surrounding residents.

7.2 In assessing the proposal due regard has been given to local residents comments as material planning considerations. Nevertheless, I am also mindful that decisions should not be made solely on the basis of the number of representations, whether they are for or against a proposal. The Localism Act has not changed this, nor has it changed the advice that local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission unless it is founded on valid planning reasons.

7.3 Any additional responses received will be reported to members in the form of a late paper.

8. Comments of the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning

8.1 Following a comprehensive site visit in and around the application site, and assessment of the submitted plans and documents, I consider the main issues in the determination of this application to be the:-

 The principle of the proposed development Page 194

 The impact of the proposal on historic assets  The impact on the amenity proposal of adjoining land users  The impact of the proposal on highway safety and access

This report will now consider each of these issues in turn.

The principle of the proposed development

8.2 As submitted, permission was sought for the ‘installation of new vehicular gateway and pedestrian gates’. The scheme has now been amended to omit the proposed vehicle access gates in order to alleviate concerns regarding the potential segregation of the affordable housing provision from the open market properties on the development. As amended, I consider the scheme is now acceptable in principle.

The impact of the proposal on historic assets

8.3 As amended, I do not consider that the proposals would have any greater impact upon historic assets within or surrounding the housing being built upon Rose Bank than the development itself will have.

The impact of the proposal on the amenity of adjoining land users

8.4 I acknowledge all comments received as part of the consultation process. Those from neighbours relate to possible traffic and parking issues which could arise from the installation of the proposed vehicular gates. As amended, I consider that these concerns have largely been addressed by their omission.

The impact of the proposal on highway safety and access

8.5 In my opinion, the omission of the proposed vehicle access gates from the scheme address the concerns raised by the Highway Authority, the Fire and Rescue Service and the Crime Risk Manager and the corresponding concerns raised by neighbouring residents regarding this aspect of the proposals.

8.6 As amended, I consider the proposals are also now acceptable in highway safety terms.

Conclusion

8.7 I therefore consider that the aesthetic and visual effect which the previously proposed vehicle gates were purported to provide can be achieved just as effectively by omitting the vehicular gates from the proposal, , and that therefore, as amended, this proposal is now acceptable and recommend that consent be granted.

Ward: Cathedral Contact Officer: Paul Collins – Tel: 01905 722129 Email: [email protected] Background Papers: Application P15D0146 Page 195 Agenda Item 18

Report to: Planning Committee, 19th July 2018

Report of: Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

Subject: APPLICATION P18D0197: VARIATION OF CONDITION 2 OF PLANNING PERMISSION P15D0146 TO ALLOW CHANGES TO THE LAYOUT OF PLOTS 6, 8 AND 9 ON LAND AT ROSE BANK, LONDON ROAD

1. Recommendation

1.1 The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

2. Background

2.1 The application has been referred to the Planning Committee because it relates to a previous application that was determined by the Planning Committee.

2.2 The application was validated on the 22nd May 2018 and expires on the 20th July 2018.

3. The Site and Surrounding Area

3.1 The site is located to the south of Worcester City centre, off London Road, and the wider development site comprises a parcel of land of approximately 1.34 hectares that is currently being developed for housing. A scheme to develop 35 new dwellings on the site was approved under P15D0146 on 19th November 2015. The approved scheme was varied by a process of plot substitution of different housing types; this was consented on 22nd June 2017 under P17D0279 and this scheme is currently under construction.

3.2 The surrounding area is generally characterised by Georgian and Victorian residential properties. The south and west of the site generally accommodates larger suburban style properties (some listed) with a much finer/tighter urban grain to the north and east. Interspersed throughout the area are newer forms of residential development from several periods.

3.3 The western part of the wider development site falls within the Sidbury and Park Royal Conservation Area.

3.4 The topography of the site appears to slope on a west to east and south to north axis.

3.5 Vehicular and pedestrian access is currently from Rose Bank which runs north off London Road. Page 196

3.6 The proposed extensions are located close to the boundary of the Green Space and in an area of importance for badgers. The application does not affect any listed buildings.

4. The Proposal

4.1 The original planning permission (P15D0146) proposed "Demolition of existing structures, with redevelopment of site to provide 35 dwellings with ancillary car parking, communal and garden spaces and new access".

4.2 Work has progressed on site and some of the prospective owners have asked if single storey extensions and a new garage could be incorporated into the initial building works rather than these being added at a later date. Therefore a variation of Condition 2 is requested in order to permit an amended site plan to incorporate these changes.

4.3 The proposed changes are as follows –

 Plot 6 - it is proposed to create a single storey extension across the rear of the property. This would be a full width extension, measuring 9.3m wide, 4m deep and 3.5m high with a flat roof. It would have a roof lantern on top of the roof.

 Plot 8 - it is proposed to create a single storey extension to the rear of the property. This would extend to the same extent as the approved two-storey element, infilling a vacant space on the rear elevation of the property. This will allow for a larger internal kitchen / dining space. The extension would include an additional pair of French doors to the rear. The extension would be 4.5m wide, 2.5m deep, 2.9m to the eaves and 2.9m at its highest point. It would have a flat roof.

 Plot 9 - it is proposed to create a single storey extension to the rear of the property. This would extend to the same extent as the approved two-storey element, infilling a vacant space on the rear elevation of the property. This will allow for a larger internal kitchen / dining space. The extension would include bi- fold doors to the rear to replace the previously approved French doors. The extension would be 4.5m wide, 2.5m deep, 2.9m to the eaves and 2.9m at its highest point. It would have a flat roof.

Plot 9 would also add a gable-fronted double garage with a dual-pitched roof, located to the side of the property and set 7.5m back behind the main frontage. The garage would be 5.5m wide, 6.4m deep, 2.5m high to the eaves and 4.5m high to the ridge. The garden boundary would be altered to allow space for the garage and a 1.5m gap to the side boundary to allow for boundary treatment and a 1m wide access to the rear of the property. The corner of the garage would be right up against the boundary of the Green Space.

5. Planning Policy

5.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (‘the Act’) establishes the legislative framework for consideration of this application. Section 70(2) of the Act requires the decision-maker in determining planning applications/appeals to have regard to the Development Plan, insofar as it is material to the application/appeal, and to any other material consideration. Where the Development Plan is material to the development proposal it must therefore be taken into account. Section 38(6) of the Page 197

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the application/appeal to be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

5.2 The Development Plan for Worcester now comprises:

 The South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) which was adopted February 2016  The Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy, which was adopted on December 2012  The saved policies of the County of Hereford and Worcester Minerals Local Plan, which was adopted in April 1997.

South Worcestershire Development Plan

5.3 The following policies of the SWDP are considered to be relevant to the proposal:

SWDP 1 Overarching Sustainable Development Principles SWDP 6 Historic Environment SWDP 14 Market Housing Mix SWDP 15 Meeting Affordable Housing Needs SWDP 21 Design SWDP 22 Biodiversity and Geodiversity SWDP 24 Management of the Historic Environment

Material Considerations

1. National Planning Policy Framework

5.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published and came into effect on 27 March 2012. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. It constitutes guidance for local planning authorities and decision takers and is a material planning consideration in determining planning applications.

5.5 The NPPF outlines a series of considerations against which delivering sustainable development should be assessed. Paragraph 186 of the NPPF encourages Local Planning Authorities to approach decision taking in a positive way and to foster the delivery of sustainable development. LPAs are advised at paragraph 187 of the NPPF to look for solutions rather than problems and decision-takers are asked to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.

5.6 The Government believes that sustainable development can play three critical roles in England: an economic role, contributing to a strong, responsive, competitive economy; a social role, supporting vibrant and healthy communities; and an environmental role, protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment.

2. National Planning Practice Guidance

5.7 On 6th March 2014 the Government also published National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) that comprises, amongst other matters: Design, Health and Wellbeing, Noise, and Use of Planning Conditions. Page 198

6. Planning History

6.1 The application of most relevance to the current proposal is application P15D0146 (Demolition of existing structures, with redevelopment of site to provide 35 dwellings with ancillary car parking, communal and garden spaces and new access.), which was presented to Planning Committee on 24th September 2015 and reported back on 19th November 2017 where it was approved as recommended.

6.2 Under P17D0279 the layout of the approved scheme was varied by a process of plot substitution of different housing types. Approved, as recommended, by the Planning Committee at the meeting on 20th July 2017.

6.3 The application site has also been the subject of a number of more recent applications, which include:

 P18D0261 - Variation of condition 2 of application P15D0146. Undecided - relates to Plot 7.

 P18D0064 - Installation of new gateway posts and pedestrian gates. Undecided - subject to a report to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 19th July 2018 with a recommendation for approval.

 P18D0061 - Removal of Condition 2 of Planning Application P17D0279 to allow the use of clear glazing to the windows in the northern elevation to The Mews property. Refused, as recommended, by the Planning Committee at the meeting of the on 28th June 2018. An appeal against this decision has now been lodged (APP/D1835/W/18/3206683)

 D17D0096 - Plot style substitution of the Montgomery and the Mews house. Discharged 6th September 2017.

 D16D0063 - Discharge of conditions - P15D0146. Approved 20th April 2018.

7. Consultations

7.1 Formal consultation has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees have been received in relation to the proposals:-

Highway Authority: There is no change to the parking requirement as a result of this proposal. The Highway Authority has undertaken a robust assessment of the planning application. Based on the analysis of the information submitted and consultation responses from third parties the Highway Authority concludes that there would not be a severe impact and therefore there are no justifiable grounds on which an objection could be maintained. The Highway Authority therefore submits a response of no objection.

Worcester City Council – City Archaeological Officer: The scheme has no archaeological implications. Recommendation: No action required

Worcester City Council – Planning and Conservation Officer: No comments received. Page 199

Worcester City Council – Landscape Adviser: I object to the loss of the green open land for the extended garden and double garage to plot 9. Any proposals should be kept to the approved plot. A great deal of open land has been lost in this scheme and all that carefully kept allows for the best possible chance for the badgers to remain with a now small area of foraging and movement opportunities. It has always been the intention that the badgers may use the large open grass courtyard and this short link to it and the grass and shrubs there as foraging as well. The width approved will encourage this.

All the areas outside of private gardens will allow some retention of openness now mostly lost, and the badgers will appreciate this, with no garden extensions for either garages or further private space to be allowed. One plan seen also contains another extra building in this corridor (bin store?) which should be moved elsewhere, and probably included in this application? The other extensions are all within approved plots so I would leave others to comment on those.

Neighbours and other third party comments:

5 St Catherine’s Hill:”As the layout for the Carolian is now reversed from the indicative design listed in the original application I was unaware that a bedroom window would be overlooking my garden. Can the distance between this window and my property be accurately measured. Changes like this and the possible building of a large double garage affect my private amenity space significantly.

I object to the alteration to extend the southern boundary of plot number 9 to build a garage and include an area of grassland within the property's curtilage. The original approved planning application P15D0146 gave a commitment to safeguarding the badgers on site. The area behind my garden wall is used nightly by the Badgers. On the landscape plan it describes this area as a gap for the badgers. All badger corridors were to be a minimum of 3m wide. By extending the curtilage the bin storage area has been moved into this gap blocking badger movement. In addition, as in the landscape report, badgers use mown grass for foraging for worms and areas of long grass promote cover for mice and voles. The range of habitats was extended to provide additional food sources for the badgers. With so little land left for the badgers this informal grassland area cannot be considered "superfluous".”

2 St Catherine’s Hill: “We object to the new planning proposal. This area of Worcester was initially allocated in the South Worcestershire Development Plan for 20 residential dwellings. The current developers were granted planning permission for 35 dwellings, nearly twice the recommended allocation. During the last three years, development has taken place which through amendments regularly submitted, has resulted in not one of the properties being built in compliance with the original planning permission plans P15D0146. The consequence of this is the ongoing extension of the noise, pollution and inconvenience to the neighbouring properties. Three years of constant bleeping and engine noise from industrial machinery has now become a serious health issue for local residents. Rose Bank has experienced rivers of mud, a broken water main and extensive damage to the road surface, as well as the dangers caused by reversing large lorries and building machinery onto London Road which has made the entry and departure to St Catherine’s Hill extremely dangerous. Now the developers want to extend the overall size of the development to include more ground footage and extra building, taking even more land away from the existing wildlife area. This extra footage will result in an already overdeveloped area being further compacted and overcrowded and once again further delays to completion. Page 200

The original development plans had a locked gate allocated to ensure that there would not be a roadway between Wylds Lane and London Road, this has now been conveniently dropped so the original estimation on traffic and inconvenience to local residents has now increased by tenfold and an accident and traffic jam at the base of Rose Bank and London Road is now inevitable.

By submitting numerous planning applications, changing original dimensions, adding footage etc. ( what's next?) the developers have, in our opinion, abused the planning system, disregarded views of the City Planning Councillors, the local Councillors and the local Residents who have lived adjacent to this land for many years. Please reject this application and any further proposals to ensure this development does not expand any further and is completed as soon as possible.”

6 Edward Close: “I currently object to this application because Yet again this is a retrospective application, all properties have been commenced and their footings are in and the walls to the properties well under way - including these requested extensions to properties 6, 8 and 9. The developers must have already taken it that they have permission as they have built in accordance to these new plans, even though they have not been approved - in fact they started the footings prior to this application being made public. This is the fourth time that they have done this on this development and this sort of cavalier behaviour should not be looked on favourably otherwise other developers will follow suit.

The application letter states that these extensions would be permitted under "permitted development" so see no reason why the application should not be passed. However, I understand that there is a length of time of habitation before owners can apply for permitted development. If this planning is approved then the current building will be the "original building" and future owners will therefore be able to develop the property further under "permitted development" - taking yet more of the natural land.

These extensions are all "flat roofed". This is not in keeping with the "Georgian Square" of the development. The Garage: This will also extend the parking/car spaces for the property to 4 and we should not be encouraging car usage in the city centre. I thought with this development we were meant to be encouraging public transport and bicycle usage due to there being bicycle sheds and no garages on the rest of the development (in keeping with a Georgian Square. This garage gives mixed messages to the rest of the development. This development was sold as a "Georgian Square". A garage cannot be part of a "Georgian Square". This addition will dilute the architectural impact of the "square" and look out of place. The access to the garage is proposed to be partially blocked by a "pedestrian gate" - if permission is granted - planning application P18..... The access to the northern parking space/part of garage will be accessed by a narrow access walkway. Again, the developers will be turning more of this land, used by the badgers into a concrete city and taking away their natural foraging areas.”

7.2 In assessing the proposal due regard has been given to local residents comments as material planning considerations. Nevertheless, I am also mindful that decisions should not be made solely on the basis of the number of representations, whether they are for or against a proposal. The Localism Act has not changed this, nor has it changed the advice that local opposition or support for a proposal is not in itself a ground for refusing or granting planning permission unless it is founded on valid planning reasons. Page 201

7.3 Members have been given the opportunity to read all representations that have been received in full. Any additional responses received will be reported to members in the form of a late paper.

8. Comments of Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning

8.1 The relevant issues with regard to this application are in my view as follows:

- the principle of the development; - the character and appearance of the building and the street scene; - the impact of the living conditions at neighbouring properties; - highway/parking considerations; - biodiversity and Green Space; and - impact on heritage assets.

These matters will now be considered in turn.

The principle of the development

8.2 The application relates to the previous planning permission, ref P15D0146, which approved the development of the Rose Bank site for 35 homes. Therefore the principle of residential development is established and construction work is underway.

8.3 The application is to vary a condition, which is worded as follows -

"The development hereby approved shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the submitted plans and submitted information (including all recommendations within submitted reports), except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission".

8.4 The changes to the plans proposed relate to Plots 6, 8 and 9 only and are fairly minor changes to the overall layout.

8.5 I am therefore satisfied that residential use is established and the principle of the development is acceptable.

Impact on the character and appearance of the building and the street scene

8.6 Policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 requires all development to achieve a high standard of design, having regard to the character of the area and to harmonise with its environment.

8.7 The overall scheme was designed as a square, with the most significant features being the frontages facing onto the proposed central grassed square.

8.8 The proposed extensions and garage would be located at the back of the properties and would not be visible from the main square. Therefore the character and appearance of the street scene would be little altered by the addition of the new features. Page 202

The impact of the living conditions at neighbouring properties

8.9 A number of neighbours have objected to the application, with the principal concerns being in relation to overlooking, overbearing impact and the habitat for badgers on the site.

8.10 Having considered the 45 degree and 25 degree rules in relation to each of the extensions, I consider that there would be no impact on sunlight or daylight in relation to neighbouring properties.

8.11 Concerns were expressed about a side facing window on the Carolian property at Plot 9 facing into neighbouring gardens. This window was approved as part of the original planning permission and is around 52m from the rear window of the adjacent property. This is well in excess of the 20m separation required by the South Worcestershire Design Guide SPD. In addition the garage proposed at Plot 9 would block any long distance views from that window.

8.12 Concerns were also expressed about the proposed garage having an overbearing impact on adjacent gardens due to its height. Having addressed this on site, I consider that the garage would be sunk down slightly in relation to neighbouring gardens and would be 12.5m from the boundary of adjacent garden. This exceeds the minimum separation distance of 5m to an adjacent boundary for a single storey extension, as set out in the South Worcestershire Design Guide SPD. I do not consider this a reason to refuse the application.

8.13 The issues related to badgers are addressed later in this report.

8.14 Therefore, I consider the application to be acceptable in relation to neighbouring properties.

Parking and impact on highway safety

8.15 The Highways Authority was consulted but had no objection to the proposals. The only change to parking will be to add a double garage to the two parking spaces already available at Plot 9. None of the extensions would lead to an increase in the occupancy of the dwellings.

Biodiversity and the Green Network

8.16 A number of comments have been received from the Landscape Officer and local residents about the impact the proposed extension and garage on badger populations using the site. When the original application was approved, special provisions were made to ensure that the existing badger populations could move freely from their sett around the surrounding site. The provisions included badger corridors to the northern and southern edges of the site, which were to be left free of development and natural vegetation allowed to regenerate.

8.17 The concerns expressed were in relation to the badger corridor on the southern edge of the site and the potential of the corridor being narrowed due to the erection of the garage and the movement of the garden boundary to the south on Plot 9.

8.18 The Landscape Officer commented as follows - Page 203

"The space here is important both for the badgers but also as incidental open space the approved layout offers, with two seats and a good standard of landscape planting (see the landscape management plan). I do agree that the allocation did mean loss of space, but in considering allocations it's always incumbent on all to sustain effective open space within the design. This site has been excellent in working through a complex proposal to deliver a very good result despite constraints, hence the reluctance to see changes at this point.

- It could work to have an integral garage built onto the house so that the space is hardly changed in width and the planting/seats etc then implemented as per the landscape plan. A standard double door garage ought to result in no more than a metre extra width needed to the property, including a 1m footpath access to the property rear along the inside of the fence. If staggered back there could still be two standard car spaces in front.

- This would then sustain the open space more or less, give the fence and garage wall a hedged outer setting good for wildlife and still leave room for the badgers to move through from the sett area to forage here and in the central courtyard if they feel safe enough".

8.19 These issues were raised with the applicant and amended plans were submitted to reduce the width of the double garage and to place it right up against the side of the house.

8.20 The amended plans would result in the side boundary of Plot 9 being moved around 3m to the south, so it would be 7m from the side of the house rather than 4m on the previously approved plans. This would leave a badger corridor, which is considered by the Landscape Officer to be of sufficient width so as not to impede the movement of badgers.

8.21 The amended plans would require changes to the landscaping plan, including the relocation of the proposed boundary hedge to the southern edge of Plot 9.

8.22 Given the site's location immediately adjacent to the Green Space, I am satisfied that the amended plans form a satisfactory compromise between allowing amendments to the development and preserving the wildlife corridors that exist around the site.

Impact on heritage assets

8.23 The application site is located close to the Sidbury and Fort Royal Conservation Area, but should not have any impact on its setting.

9. Permitted Development Rights

9.1 Prior to the application, the agent sought the Council’s advice as to whether the extensions proposed were permitted development. They were informed that those rights would only be available once the houses were occupied, and that if they wanted to build them ahead of occupation a variation of condition application was required.

9.2 If these extensions were built as approved by this permission they would become part of the original house and further development could potentially be allowed Page 204

through permitted development. In this situation, I consider it appropriate to remove permitted development rights from the 3 plots included in this application so that overdevelopment of the site can be avoided. A condition is proposed to this effect.

10. Conclusion

10.1 I acknowledge all comments received as part of the consultation process and consider all material planning issues have been considered including those of the NPPF including economic, environmental and social, as well as diversity, in the determination of this application.

10.2 For the above reasons I consider the proposal is acceptable and would result in a satisfactory form of development on the site in accordance with the aims of the Development Plan.

Ward: Cathedral Contact Officer: Colin Blundel –Tel: 01905 722231, Email: [email protected] Background Papers: Application P15D0146 Page 205 Agenda Item 20

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) ACT 1985 Background papers to all items included in this agenda may be inspected at the offices of the Development Services Manager, The Guildhall, High Street, Worcester, WR1 2EY.

1) P18M0021 FULL APPLICATION ST STEPHEN WARD

Location Garage Court, Turrall Street, WORCESTER

Description Demolition of existing garages and erection of 2no. three bedroom houses, with amenity space and car parking.

Applicant Mr Platt

Agent Mr Matthew Adams

Constraints Tree Protection Offr Head of Cleaner & Gr

Consultations chris dobbs, landscape adviser Refuse Management Tree Protection Officer Kerry Poole Housing Strategy Officer West Mercia Constabulary Highways Partnership Unit South Worcestershire Land Drai City Archaeological Officer Mandy Neill Mrs B K Maher

Number of Neighbours Consulted 42

General Remark/ The decision to grant planning permission takes into account the provisions of Summary of the Development Plan, in particular policies SWDP 1, 4, 21, 27 and 29 of the Recommendation South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 and aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and it was considered that, on balance, the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the area and highway safety.

Recommendation APPROVAL

Conditions

1 of 46 Page 206

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

1) P18M0021 FULL APPLICATION ST STEPHEN WARD 1 CA03 PLANNING PERMISSION The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

For the following reason:-

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 CA06 CARRIED OUT IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the submitted plans, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission.

For the following reason:

For the avoidance of doubt and to secure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with policies SWDP 1, 4, 21, 27 and 29 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 CF05(A) MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED (B) (AMENDED TRIGGER POINT) Samples of facing, roofing and surfacing materials shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing prior to implementation as part of the development hereby approved. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with such approved details.

For the following reason:-

To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4 CH13 ACCESS, TURNING AND PARKING The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the access, turning area and parking facilities shown on Drawing No. 2017/K848/010/(C) has been provided. These areas shall thereafter be retained and kept available for their respective approved uses at all times.

For the following reason:-

In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway in accordance with policy SWDP 4 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 of 46 Page 207

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

1) P18M0021 FULL APPLICATION ST STEPHEN WARD 5 CM05 DRAINAGE - SURFACE WATER The development hereby approved shall not commence until a scheme for the provision of surface water drainage works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include measures to provide for Sustainable Urban Drainage. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the approved use is first operational.

For the following reason:-

To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal in accordance with policy SWDP 28 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6 CE13 ARCHAEOLOGY - ACCESS (UNENCUMBERED RECORDING) Twenty one days before any development is commenced resulting in any excavation within the site, written notice shall be given to the local planning authority, whereupon the local planning authority shall, within 21 days of receipt of such notice, specify in writing to the developer which persons authorised by the local planning authority shall be allowed access to the site whilst any excavations are in progress for the purpose of archaeological investigation. This access shall allow for a period of one day for unencumbered archaeological recording to take place within the trenches if in the opinion of the City Archaeological Officer features of interest are revealed.

For the following reason:-

To allow the historical and archaeological interest of the site to be recorded in accordance with policies SWDP6 and SWDP 24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

7 CE06 UNCOVERING FEATURES/INTEREST If during the course of the works hereby approved any of the following features of interest are uncovered, the local planning authority shall be notified immediately and no works affecting such features shall take place until they have been inspected by persons authorised by the local planning authority and a scheme for their retention and/or treatment agreed in writing.

Schedule of features of interest:-

Archaeological remains of Roman date

For the following reason:-

To allow the historical and archaeological potential of the site to be realised in accordance with policies SWDP 6 and SWDP 24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 of 46 Page 208

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

1) P18M0021 FULL APPLICATION ST STEPHEN WARD 8 CG12 LANDSCAPE SCHEME (DETAILS) No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping which shall include details of all existing trees and shrubs, new tree and shrub planting- all trees to be at least 14-16cm stock size, seeding, surface treatments, screen walls, boundary fences and boundary treatments

For the following reason:-

To maintain the visual and environmental quality of the site and surrounding area in accordance with policies SWDP 5 and SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

9 CG13 REPLACEMENT All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out by the developer in the first respective planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the landscape planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation, and such new planting shall be similarly maintained for a five year period from its planting.

For the following reason:-

To maintain the visual and environmental quality of the site and surrounding area in accordance with policies SWDP 5 and SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

10 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION The brick boundary wall with no 55 New Bank Street shall be constructed and repaired in accordance with the details and specification as shown on drawing number 2017/K848/010(D) and shall be retained as such thereafter.

For the following reason:

To retain the height of the existing boundary treatment of the site with 55 New Bank Street in the interests of the amenity and security of existing and future residents of the site and neighbouring property. ------

2) P18D0064 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD

Location Land at Rose Bank, Worcester

Description Installation of new gateway posts and pedestrian gates.

4 of 46 Page 209

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

2) P18D0064 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD

Applicant Mr Philip Deeley

Constraints Archaeology

Consultations City Archaeological Officer Planning and Conservation Offi Conservation Area Advisory Com Highways Partnership Unit Cllr Jabba Riaz

Advertised As Works affecting Conservation Areas

Number of Neighbours Consulted 12

General Remark/ The decision to grant planning permission takes into account the provisions of Summary of the Development Plan, in particular policy/policies of the South Recommendation Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 and aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and it was considered that, on balance, the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the area and highway safety.

Recommendation APPROVAL

Conditions

1 CA03 PLANNING PERMISSION The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

For the following reason:-

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 CA06 CARRIED OUT IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the submitted plans, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission.

For the following reason:

For the avoidance of doubt and to secure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5 of 46 Page 210

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

2) P18D0064 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD 3 CF05(A) MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED (B) (AMENDED TRIGGER POINT) Samples of facing materials shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing prior to implementation as part of the development hereby approved. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with such approved details.

For the following reason:-

To ensure that the development is constructed and finished in materials which are in harmony with the materials used on the surrounding development in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. ------

3) P18J0124 FULL APPLICATION ST CLEMENT WARD

Location UNIVERSITY OF WORCESTER, LAND OFF HIMBLETON ROAD, WORCESTER

Description Proposed 20 bed student residence (use class C2), car parking, landscaping and associated development and drainage infrastructure

Applicant Planning Prospects Ltd

Constraints Tree Protection Offr Head of Cleaner & Gr

Consultations Kerry Poole Landscape Officer Refuse Management Tree Protection Officer Planning Policy Team leader Daniel Russell West Mercia Constabulary Highways Partnership Unit South Worcestershire Land Drai Severn Trent Water Lyndon Bracewell Jeremy McCoig-Lees Daniel J Strain Worcester Regulatory Services Jenny Warren Community Infrastructure Levy Cllr Christopher Mitchell Cllr Simon Geraghty

Number of Neighbours Consulted 29

6 of 46 Page 211

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

3) P18J0124 FULL APPLICATION ST CLEMENT WARD

General Remark/ The decision to grant planning permission takes into account the provisions of Summary of the Development Plan, in particular policy SWDP1 of the South Recommendation Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 and aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and it was considered that, on balance, the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the area and highway safety.

Recommendation APPROVAL

Conditions

1 CA03 PLANNING PERMISSION The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

For the following reason:-

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 CA06 CARRIED OUT IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the submitted plans, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission.

For the following reason:

For the avoidance of doubt and to secure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 CE13 ARCHAEOLOGY - ACCESS (UNENCUMBERED RECORDING) Twenty one days before any development is commenced resulting in any excavation within the site, written notice shall be given to the local planning authority, whereupon the local planning authority shall, within 21 days of receipt of such notice, specify in writing to the developer which persons authorised by the local planning authority shall be allowed access to the site whilst any excavations are in progress for the purpose of archaeological investigation. This access shall allow for a period of up to one for unencumbered archaeological recording to take place within the trenches if in the opinion of the City Archaeological Officer features of interest are revealed.

For the following reason:-

To allow the historical and archaeological interest of the site to be recorded in accordance with policies SWDP6 and SWDP 24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

7 of 46 Page 212

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

3) P18J0124 FULL APPLICATION ST CLEMENT WARD 4 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION The development hereby permitted should not commence until drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water flows have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority

For the following reason:-

Insufficient and/or inadequate details were submitted for these matters to be fully and properly considered in respect of the approval hereby granted and policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5 CF01 FULL DETAILS Full details of the following matters including any details shown on the submitted plans shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing before the building is first occupied .

Schedule:-

Management agreement

The development shall not be undertaken other than in full accordance with such approved details.

For the following reason:-

Insufficient and/or inadequate details were submitted for these matters to be fully and properly considered in respect of the approval hereby granted and policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6 CC01(A) REFUSE STORAGE AND LOCATION (AMENDED TRIGGER POINT) Provision shall be made before any unit is occupied for the storage and collection of refuse in accordance with the details hereby approved.

For the following reason:-

To ensure the satisfactory provision of this necessary residential facility in accordance with policy SWDP 21 and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote in this regard.

7 CG16 LANDSCAPE IMPLEMENTATION All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the programme to be agreed with the local planning authority.

For the following reason:-

To maintain the visual and environmental quality of the site and surrounding area in accordance with policies SWDP5 and SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. 8 of 46 Page 213

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

3) P18J0124 FULL APPLICATION ST CLEMENT WARD 8 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the applicant has submitted un writing to and had approval in writing from the Local Planning Authority a residential welcome pack promoting sustainable forms of access to the development.

For the following reason:

To reduce vehicle movements and promote sustainable access

9 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until a vehicle access has been provided to serve access to the parking facilities shown on drawing 17049-GNA-XX-ST-DR-A-0200 Rev D.

For the following reason:

To ensure a safe and suitable access is provided

10 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the car and cycle parking facilities have been provided as shown on drawing 17049-GNA- XX-ST-DR-A-0200 Rev D.

For the following reason:

To ensure conformity with the submitted details ------

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD

Location WORCESTER NORTH PARK AND RIDE, JOHN COMYN DRIVE, WORCESTER

Description Change of use from existing park and ride site to education use. Erection of new two storey primary school with associated parking, landscaping and fencing.

Applicant Education and Skills Funding

Agent Associated Architects LLP

Constraints Archaeology Contaminated Land Green Spaces Green Network Departure Dev Plan Tree Protection Offr Head of Cleaner & Gr Nursery Facilities

Consultations Economic Development & Regener

9 of 46 Page 214

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD Contaminated Land Officer City Archaeological Officer Kerry Poole City Property Section Worcestershire Wildlife Trust chris dobbs, landscape adviser Planning Policy Team leader Refuse Management Tree Protection Officer West Mercia Constabulary Highways Partnership Unit South Worcestershire Land Drai Severn Trent Water County Education Officer -Admi Emily Barker Public Path Orders Officer Conservation Advisory Panel

Advertised As Applications for major development

Advertised As Applications which do not accord with the provisions of the development plan

Number of Neighbours Consulted 114

10 of 46 Page 215

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD

General Remark/ The decision to grant planning permission takes into account the provisions of Summary of the Development Plan, in particular policies SWDP 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 21, 22, 24, Recommendation 25, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, and 38 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and it was considered that, on balance, it is considered that the proposed development is sustainable when looking at its social, economic and environmental credentials in the round. There would be an economic boost to the local economy from students, staff and parents, together with the short term provision of a significant number of construction jobs. The social effect would be wholly beneficial, particularly in relation to the existence of clear educational planning policy context support for the proposed facility and an urgent and demonstrable need for the scheme that can be delivered in a purpose built building on a brownfield site in the timescales required to satisfy the demand for additional school places in north Worcester. The proposal would therefore lead to significant public benefits in terms of its social role and would be of overriding public interest. In terms of the environmental dimension, it is considered that the site has the capacity to accommodate the proposed development in an acceptable manner with regard to siting, layout, design and appearance without detriment to the amenities of neighbouring residents and businesses and the interests of highway safety.

Positive and Proactive Statement

The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by identifying matters of concern within the application (as originally submitted) and negotiating, with the Applicant, acceptable amendments to the proposal to address those concerns. As a result, the Local Planning Authority has been able to grant planning permission for an acceptable proposal, in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.

Recommendation APPROVAL

Conditions

1 CA03 PLANNING PERMISSION The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

For the following reason:-

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

11 of 46 Page 216

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 2 CA06 CARRIED OUT IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved plans and associated documents and the specifications and recommendations contained therein, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission.

For the following reason:

For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the approved plans and details to ensure a to satisfactory standard of design and appearance for the development and the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, in accordance with policies SWDP 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, and 38 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan; the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote; corresponding National Planning Practice Guidance, and to comply with Section 92 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

12 of 46 Page 217

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 3 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION

13 of 46 Page 218

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan should include the following:

- the parking of the vehicles of site operatives and visitors; - loading and unloading of plant and materials; - construction hours (including maintenance of plant and equipment) and delivery times; - the storage of plant and materials used in construction of the development; - details of all temporary contractors buildings (offices, toilets etc), plant, storage of materials and parking for site operatives; - the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; - measures to ensure that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other detritus on the public highway, including wheel washing facilities where appropriate and the arrangements for their use; - measures to control noise, vibration and the emission of dust and dirt; - the recycling/disposing of waste resulting from excavation and construction works; - the operation of plant and machinery (including silencing and sound attenuation) associated with engineering operations. - site security; - the storage of fuel, oil, and chemicals used in the construction phase of the development; - measures to address any minor and major spillages of fuel, oil and chemicals; - measures in relation to the prevention of pollution of waterways, including disposal of surface water run off during the construction phase including any silt/soil contaminated run off; - measures to enable the monitoring, reporting and auditing of compliance and mechanism for corrective action; - a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste from excavation and construction works; - the hours that delivery vehicles will be permitted to arrive and depart, and arrangements for unloading and manoeuvring; - details of any temporary construction accesses and their reinstatement. - a highway condition survey, timescale for re-inspections, and details of any reinstatement.

The approved Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details.

For the following reason:-

In order to ensure that the development of the site is undertaken following best practice and to ensure the protection of the amenities of nearby land users and activities and in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning

14 of 46 Page 219

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD Policy seeks to protect and promote with regard to amenity.

4 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following:

a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities;. b) Identification of "biodiversity protection zones"; c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements); d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features; e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works; f) Responsible persons and lines of communication; g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person/s; h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs; I) updated ecological surveys where more than 24 months old; j) proposals for further species mitigation measures that may be required.

The approved CEMP: Biodiversity shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details.

For the following reason: -

To ensure that the proposed development contributes to the conservation and enhancement of ecology and biodiversity within the site and for the wider area and to accord with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 in accordance with policy SWDP 22 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote with regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

15 of 46 Page 220

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 5 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Prior to the commencement of construction works, an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy based on up-to-date survey information where more than 24 months old (including methodology and programme of implementation) for the enhancement of ecology and biodiversity shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include:

- updated ecological surveys where more than 24 months old; - proposals for further species mitigation measures that may be required; - a review of the site's ecological constraints and potential; - a description of target habitats and range of species appropriate for the site; - description and evaluation of features to be managed; - appropriate strategies for creating/restoring target habitats or introducing target species; - extent and location of proposed works; - details of precautionary and protection measures to ensure protected species and retained habitats are not harmed during and after construction; - method statement for site preparation and establishment of target features; - sources of habitat materials (e.g. plant stock); - timing of the works. - details for monitoring and remedial works - ecological trends and constraints on site that may influence management; - aims and objectives of management; - appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives; - prescriptions of management actions; - preparation of work schedule, including a 5 yearly project register, an annual work plan and the means by which the plan will be rolled forward over a 25 year period; - personnel responsible for implementation of the plan, and; - monitoring and remedial/contingency measures triggered by monitoring.

The Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development. Within three months of the development first being brought into use the site shall be inspected by a qualified ecologist and a statement of conformity shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to confirm whether all of the measures for enhancing ecology and biodiversity have been implemented in accordance with the details approved under this condition.

For the following reason: -

To ensure that the proposed development contributes to the conservation and enhancement of ecology and biodiversity within the site and for the wider area and to accord with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 in accordance with policy SWDP 22 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote with regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

16 of 46 Page 221

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 6 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a landscape and ecological management plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the LEMP shall include the following:

(a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed; (b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management; (c) Aims and objections of management; (d) details for the restoration of habitats affected by the construction process; (e) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives; (f) Prescriptions of management actions (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a five year period); (g) Preparation of a work schedule (h) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures.

The LEMP shall include details of the long-term implementation of the plan and how it will be delivered. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme.

The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

For the following reason: -

To ensure the development contributes to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity within the site and the wider area in accordance with policy SWDP 22 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote with regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

17 of 46 Page 222

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 7 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION None of the trees shown for removal shall be taken down prior to the carrying out of bat roost and emergence & re-entry surveys during the active season (April to September) and such surveys shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning Authority and include whether there have been any changes in presence and/or abundance of roosting bats and identify any likely new ecological impacts that might arise from the any changes.

Where the survey results indicate that changes have occurred or bat roosts are present in any of the trees to be felled, which will result in ecological impacts not previously addressed in the scheme, these will be addressed within the construction environmental management plan (CEMP) and/or the landscape environmental management plan (LEMP) and these will be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to any works commencing on site. Works will then be carried out in accordance with the proposed new approved ecological measures and timetable.

The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

For the following reason: -

To ensure the development contributes to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity within the site and the wider area in accordance with policy SWDP 22 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and to ensure compliance with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

18 of 46 Page 223

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 8 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION No site clearance, preparation works or building operations of any type within any agreed phase or phases of development hereby approved shall commence until a protective fence (of at least 2 metres in height and in all other respects in accordance with BS 5837 (2012)), has been erected around all the existing trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained within the site and around those trees outside the site whose Root Protection Areas (RPA) (as defined in BS 5837 (2012)) fall within the site, at the outer limit (or beyond) of the their RPA or in a position agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such fences shall be erected at a distance of not less than 2 metres beyond the canopy spread of the relevant trees, shrubs and hedgerows, and shall be erected before any materials are brought onto the site or development commences. Provision shall also be made for supervision of tree protection by a suitably qualified arboricultural consultant. Within the protected areas, land levels shall not be changed, no fires shall be lit, no equipment, machinery or vehicles shall be operated, parked or stored, , no rubbish shall be dumped, and no buildings erected inside the fence(s), no materials shall be stored or disposed of, and there shall be no mixing of cement or use of contaminating materials or substances. In the case of upright growing trees, the fences shall be located as required by the above specification or at a radius from the trunk of two thirds of the height of the tree, whichever is the greater. This tree protective fencing should remain in place until all construction and associated ground-works have been completed.

For the following reason:- . To ensure that those trees, shrubs and hedgerows to be retained are not subject to damage either as a result of works carried out on site or during the carrying out of such works in accordance with policies SWDP 22 and SWDP 25 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to promote and protect with regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

19 of 46 Page 224

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 9 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Any works to trees and shrubs during the bird breeding season (1st March to 31st August) are to be subject to prior close inspection, with no works undertaken within 5.0m of any in use nest.

For the following reason:-

To protect retained trees on site in accordance with best arboricultural practice and to protect the habitats of bird species.

10 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Before the commencement of construction works on the development hereby permitted a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include:-

(i) a plan(s) showing details of all existing trees and hedges on the application site. The plan should include, for each tree/hedge, the accurate position, canopy spread and species, together with an indication of any proposals for felling/pruning and any proposed changes in ground level, or other works to be carried out, within the canopy spread. (ii) a plan(s) showing the layout of proposed tree, hedge and shrub planting and grass areas. (iii) a schedule of proposed planting - indicating species, sizes at time of planting and numbers/densities of plants. (iv) a written specification outlining cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment. (v) a schedule of maintenance, including watering and the control of competitive weed growth, for a minimum period of five years from first planting.

The development shall not be undertaken other than in accordance with the approved scheme of landscaping.

For the following reason: -

To ensure the proposed development does not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area in accordance with policies SWDP21 and SWDP25 of South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seek to protect and promote with regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

20 of 46 Page 225

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 11 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out by the developer in the first respective planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development. Any tree, shrub or plant which dies, becomes seriously diseased, damaged or is removed will be replaced with a tree, shrub or plant of the same or greater size and the same species as that originally required to be planted, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation, and such new planting shall be similarly maintained for a five year period from its planting.

For the following reason:-

In the interests of the visual and environmental quality of the site and surrounding area and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site and to provide ecological mitigation and enhancement in accordance with policy SWDP 25 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seek to protect and promote with regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

12 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Prior to the commencement of development hereby approved, a Landscape Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The Landscape Management Plan shall include details of long term design objectives, phasing of implementation for the detailed design, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, including details of the arrangements for its implementation for all landscape areas, and details of the siting of bat and bird boxes and their aftercare management The Landscape Management Plan shall be carried out as approved.

For the following reason:-

In the interests of the visual and environmental quality of the site and surrounding area in and to ensure the satisfactory development of the site and to provide ecological mitigation and enhancement in accordance with policies SWDP 22 and SWDP 25 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seek to promote and protect with regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

21 of 46 Page 226

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 13 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Details of any soil or soil forming materials brought on to the site for use in soft landscaping, filling and level raising shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to implementation as part of the development hereby approved. Where the donor site is unknown or is brownfield the material must be tested for contamination and suitability for use on site. Full donor site details, proposals for contamination testing including testing schedules, sampling frequencies and allowable contaminant concentrations (as determined by appropriate risk assessment) must be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to import on to the site. The approved testing must then be carried out and validatory evidence (such as laboratory certificates) submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any soil or soil forming materials being brought on to site.

For the following reason:-

To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors in accordance with policy SWDP 31 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy seeks to protect and promote.

14 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Construction of the development hereby approved shall not commence until a prohibition of waiting order and a prohibition of loading order has been implemented on the A38 between the junctions of Checketts Lane and Claines Lane, Worcester.

For the following reason:-

To maintain the free flow of traffic of a route of significance.

15 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the access, parking and turning facilities have been provided as shown on drawing AAR-P1-ZZ-SI-A-9002.

For the following reason:-

To ensure conformity with summited details.

22 of 46 Page 227

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 16 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Notwithstanding the details submitted the Development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until 1 electric vehicle charging spaces have been provided in accordance with a specification which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter such spaces and power points shall be kept available and maintained for the use of electric vehicles as approved.

For the following reason:-

To encourage sustainable travel and healthy communities

17 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION The Travel Plan hereby approved, reference 08436-HYD-XX-XX-RP-TP- 6001-P2 shall be implemented and monitored in accordance with the regime contained within the Plan. In the event of failing to meet the targets within the Plan a revised Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to address any shortfalls, and where necessary make provision for and promote improved sustainable forms of access to and from the site. The Plan thereafter shall be implemented and updated in agreement with the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented as amended.

For the following reason:-

To reduce vehicle movements and promote sustainable access.

18 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION During any construction phase, no machinery shall be operated and no process shall be carried out on the site outside the hours of 7.30am to 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

For the following reason:-

To safeguard the amenities of local residents and the occupants of surrounding properties in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote.

23 of 46 Page 228

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 19 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION No construction deliveries shall be made or despatched from the site outside the hours of 7.30am to 6.00pm Mondays to Fridays and 8.00am to 1.00pm on Saturdays. No deliveries shall be made on Sundays or statutory Bank Holidays.

For the following reason:-

To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring residents and and the occupants of surrounding properties in the interests of pedestrian safety in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote.

20 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Prior to the commencement of development a Renewable Energy Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Renewable Energy Plan shall include the following details:

- details on how renewable energy measures are to be incorporated into the proposed development; - details of measures to conserve and recycle water to be incorporated into the proposed development; - details of energy efficiency measures to be incorporated into the proposed development, and; - details of construction materials to be used in the proposed development with the aim of minimising the use of primary non-sustainable materials.

The approved measures shall be implemented and incorporated into the approved development in line with an implementation timetable to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.

For the following reason:-

In the interests of achieving an energy and resource efficient development in accordance with policy SWDP 27 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote.

24 of 46 Page 229

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 21 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Prior to first occupation of the development, details of all external lighting on site shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. Any lighting agreed shall be switched off between 2300 and 0700 hours, other than in times of emergency. Such lighting shall be installed in accordance with such approved details and retained for the lifetime of the development.

For the following reason:-

To prevent unnecessary night-time glare in the interest of amenity and to protect the potential habitat and foraging routes of bats which are protected under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act, 2006, The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010, The Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981(as amended), The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act, 2000, Habitats Directive and in accordance with policies SWDP 21, 22 and 31 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote.

22 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Samples of all external facing, roofing, boundary and internal fencing, gates and surfacing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to implementation as part of the development hereby approved. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with such approved details.

For the following reason:-

To ensure a satisfactory standard of design and appearance for the development and the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote.

23 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Prior to installation full details of all external plant, including air conditioning equipment, ventilation, flues and other extraction systems, aerials and satellite dishes shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval prior to their implementation as part of the development hereby permitted. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in full accordance with such approved details.

For the following reason:-

For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory standard of design and appearance for the development and the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote.

25 of 46 Page 230

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

4) P18E0176 FULL APPLICATION CLAINES WARD 24 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION No food shall be cooked on the premises, other than the warming or heating up of pre-prepared food, until a scheme for the control of odours, smoke and grease has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and any required ducting or other equipment has been satisfactorily installed on the site. Any such ducting and equipment shall be retained for so long as the use remains in existence.

For the following reason:-

To protect the neighbourhood from noise, dust, fumes or odour emissions in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote.

25 CJ18 RESTRICTING PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT (GENERAL) Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 as amended(or any other order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargement of the building (including the erection or enlargement of any other building or enclosure within the curtilage of the school building) shall be carried out.

For the following reason:-

To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain planning control over the development of this site in order to safeguard the amenities of the occupants of the neighbouring properties and the future development of the adjoining site in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote. ------

5) P18C0196 FULL APPLICATION BEDWARDINE WARD

Location 97 FOLEY ROAD, WORCESTER

Description Detached residential dwelling

Applicant Mr Kelvin Sparrey

Agent Mr Paul Farley

Constraints Head of Cleaner & Gr

Consultations Kerry Poole Refuse Management West Mercia Constabulary Highways Partnership Unit South Worcestershire Land Drai

Number of Neighbours Consulted 16

26 of 46 Page 231

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

5) P18C0196 FULL APPLICATION BEDWARDINE WARD

General Remark/ The decision to grant planning permission takes into account the provisions of Summary of the Development Plan, in particular policies SWDP 21, SWDP 27 and SWDP Recommendation 29 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and it was considered that, on balance, the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the area and highway safety.

Recommendation APPROVAL

Conditions

1 CA03 PLANNING PERMISSION The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

For the following reason:-

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 CA06 CARRIED OUT IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the submitted plans, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission.

For the following reason:

For the avoidance of doubt and to secure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 CE13 ARCHAEOLOGY - ACCESS (UNENCUMBERED RECORDING) Twenty one days before any development is commenced resulting in any excavation within the site, written notice shall be given to the local planning authority, whereupon the local planning authority shall, within 21 days of receipt of such notice, specify in writing to the developer which persons authorised by the local planning authority shall be allowed access to the site whilst any excavations are in progress for the purpose of archaeological investigation. This access shall allow for a period of one day for unencumbered archaeological recording to take place within the trenches if in the opinion of the City Archaeological Officer features of interest are revealed.

For the following reason:-

To allow the historical and archaeological interest of the site to be recorded in accordance with policies SWDP 6 and SWDP 24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

27 of 46 Page 232

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

5) P18C0196 FULL APPLICATION BEDWARDINE WARD 4 CE06 UNCOVERING FEATURES/INTEREST If during the course of the works hereby approved any of the following features of interest are uncovered, the local planning authority shall be notified immediately and no works affecting such features shall take place until they have been inspected by persons authorised by the local planning authority and a scheme for their retention and/or treatment agreed in writing. Schedule of features of interest:-

For the following reason:-

To allow the historical and archaeological potential of the site to be realised in accordance with policies SWDP 6 and SWDP 24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

5 CF01 FULL DETAILS Full details of the following matters including any details shown on the submitted plans shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing before the development is commenced.

Schedule:-

Supporting evidence and details of the renewable and/or low- carbon measures proposed to meet the requirements for 10% of proposed energy use to be met through on site measures.

The development shall not be undertaken other than in full accordance with such approved details.

For the following reason:-

Insufficient details were submitted for these matters to be fully and properly considered in respect of the approval hereby granted and policies SWDP 21 and SWDP 27 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

28 of 46 Page 233

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

5) P18C0196 FULL APPLICATION BEDWARDINE WARD 6 CF01 FULL DETAILS Full details of the following matters including any details shown on the submitted plans shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing before the development is commenced.

Schedule:-

- Window and door product information and specification - Materials information for bay windows - Rainwater goods

The development shall not be undertaken other than in full accordance with such approved details.

For the following reason:-

Insufficient details were submitted for these matters to be fully and properly considered in respect of the approval hereby granted and policy SWDP 21of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

7 CF04 MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED (A) Samples of facing, roofing and surfacing materials shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing prior to implementation as part of the development hereby approved. The samples provided shall be of materials which match in size, colour and texture those on the existing building at 9 Melbourne Street. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with such approved details.

For the following reason:-

To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

8 CH13 ACCESS, TURNING AND PARKING Notwithstanding the details submitted, the development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the access and parking facilities for 2 vehicles shown on the approved plan have been provided. These areas shall thereafter be retained and kept available for their respective approved uses at all times.

For the following reason:-

In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway in accordance with policy SWDP 4 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. ------

6) P18D0197 VARY CONDITION CATHEDRAL WARD

29 of 46 Page 234

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

6) P18D0197 VARY CONDITION CATHEDRAL WARD

Location Land at ROSE BANK, London Road, WORCESTER

Description Variation of Condition 2 of planning permission P15D0146 to allow changes to the layout of Plots 6, 8 and 9.

Applicant Mr Philip Deeley

Constraints Archaeology

Consultations City Archaeological Officer Planning and Conservation Offi Conservation Advisory Panel Highways Partnership Unit South Worcestershire Land Drai C Rees chris dobbs, landscape adviser

Advertised As Works affecting Conservation Areas

Number of Neighbours Consulted 23

General Remark/ The decision to grant planning permission takes into account the provisions of Summary of the Development Plan, in particular policies SWDP 6, SWDP 21, SWDP 24 Recommendation and SWDP 38 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 and aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and it was considered that, on balance, the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the area and neighbouring residents, the Green Space and highway safety.

Recommendation APPROVAL

Conditions

1 CA03 PLANNING PERMISSION The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

For the following reason:-

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

30 of 46 Page 235

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

6) P18D0197 VARY CONDITION CATHEDRAL WARD 2 CA06 CARRIED OUT IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the submitted plans, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission.

For the following reason:

For the avoidance of doubt and to secure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 CF05(A) MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED (B) (AMENDED TRIGGER POINT) Samples of facing, roofing and surfacing materials shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing prior to implementation as part of the development hereby approved. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with such approved details.

For the following reason:-

To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the completed development in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. ------

7) P18D0210 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD

Location CENTRAL PARK, GREAT WESTERN AVENUE, WORCESTER

Description The development of a 1,393 sqm two storey office building (B1(a)) and a 1,393sqm light industrial (B1(c)) and storage and distribution (B8) building with associated infrastructure and access

Applicant Mr Richard Grounds

Agent Mr Simon Hawley

Constraints Archaeology Contaminated Land Adj. Railway Land

Consultations Contaminated Land Officer City Archaeological Officer chris dobbs, landscape adviser Network Rail Planning Policy Team leader West Mercia Constabulary Highways Partnership Unit South Worcestershire Land Drai Severn Trent Water Worcestershire Wildlife Trust Worcester Regulatory Services

31 of 46 Page 236

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

7) P18D0210 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD Worcester Regulatory Services Emily Barker

Advertised As Development affecting the character of the area

Number of Neighbours Consulted 29

General Remark/ The decision to grant planning permission takes into account the provisions of Summary of the Development Plan, in particular policy SWDP1 of the South Recommendation Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 and aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and it was considered that, on balance, the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the area and highway safety.

Recommendation APPROVAL

Conditions

1 CA03 PLANNING PERMISSION The development must be begun not later than the expiration of two years from the date of this permission.

For the following reason:-

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 CA06 CARRIED OUT IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the submitted plans, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission.

For the following reason:

For the avoidance of doubt and to secure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

32 of 46 Page 237

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

7) P18D0210 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD 3 CF01 FULL DETAILS Full details of the following matters including any details shown on the submitted plans shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing before the buildings are first occupied.

Schedule:-

Cycle storage Refuse storage Furniture to seating area External plant External lighting Any proposed signage

The works shall not be undertaken other than in full accordance with such approved details.

For the following reason:-

Insufficient details were submitted for these matters to be fully and properly considered in respect of the approval hereby granted and policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION A slow worm survey shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The survey report shall set down appropriate methodology for careful pre-clearance search and any appropriate translocation and/ or retention with habitat enhancement for any slow worms found on the site. Appropriate timeframes for these works will be set down in the report. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations set down in this report.

For the following reason:-

To ensure the preservation and protection of statutorily protected species in accordance with the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote with regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

33 of 46 Page 238

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

7) P18D0210 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD 5 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Any clearance and construction activities shall be carried out under a badger method statement and where required under the supervision of an Ecological Clerk of Works (ECoW). This method statement shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. This will include monitoring the status of the setts and ensuring the embankment is protected throughout the construction period. If at any time during site clearance or construction the mammal burrows are identified as becoming actively used by badgers the method statement shall be evaluated to determine whether any further measures are necessary to safeguard this species with the agreement in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

For the following reason:-

To ensure the preservation and protection of statutorily protected species in accordance with the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote with regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

6 CE13 ARCHAEOLOGY - ACCESS (UNENCUMBERED RECORDING) Twenty one days before any development is commenced resulting in any excavation within the site, written notice shall be given to the local planning authority, whereupon the local planning authority shall, within 21 days of receipt of such notice, specify in writing to the developer which persons authorised by the local planning authority shall be allowed access to the site whilst any excavations are in progress for the purpose of archaeological investigation. This access shall allow for a period of up to one day for unencumbered archaeological recording to take place within the trenches if in the opinion of the City Archaeological Officer features of interest are revealed.

For the following reason:-

To allow the historical and archaeological interest of the site to be recorded in accordance with policies SWDP 6 and SWDP 24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

7 CF05 MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED (B) Samples of facing, roofing and surfacing materials, including car parking and access route materials, shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority in writing prior to commencement of the development hereby approved. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with such approved details.

For the following reason:-

To ensure a satisfactory standard of design and external appearance for the development in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

34 of 46 Page 239

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

7) P18D0210 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD 8 CG12 LANDSCAPE SCHEME (DETAILS) The employment units hereby approved shall not be occupied until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping which shall include details of all existing trees and shrubs, new tree and shrub planting, seeding, surface treatments, screen walls, boundary fences and boundary treatments.

For the following reason:-

To maintain the visual and environmental quality of the site and surrounding area in accordance with policy SWDP 22 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

9 CG13 PLANTING All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out by the developer in the first respective planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of the building, and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the landscape planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation, and such new planting shall be similarly maintained for a five year period from its planting.

For the following reason:-

To maintain the visual and environmental quality of the site and surrounding area in accordance with policy SWDP 22 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

10 CH13 ACCESS, TURNING AND PARKING The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access, turning area and parking facilities and service access and turning area shown on the approved plan have been properly consolidated, surfaced, drained and otherwise constructed in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and these areas shall thereafter be retained and kept available for those uses at all times.

For the following reason:-

In the interests of highway safety and to ensure the safety and free flow of traffic using the adjoining highway in accordance with policy SWDP 22 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

35 of 46 Page 240

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

7) P18D0210 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD 11 CN01 HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION / DELIVERIES During the construction works hereby approved no operations including deliveries to or from the site shall be carried out on the site other than between the hours of 07.30 to 19.30 Mondays to Fridays inclusive and 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays and no operations shall be carried out at all on Sundays or on statutory Bank Holidays.

For the following reason:-

To maintain the residential amenity of the surrounding residential development in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

12 CJ18 RESTRICTING PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT (GENERAL) The development hereby permitted must remain fully within the Use Classes B1, B2 and B8 and shall not be used for any other purpose, or in any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory instrument revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

For the following reason:

To ensure the delivery and retention of employment in a sustainable location as identified in the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

13 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a specification (including methodology and programme of implementation) for the enhancement of biodiversity (as recommended in the submitted Environmental Statement and addendum (in respect of ecology and biodiversity) through the provision of features including bat and bird boxes and holes at ground level in boundary walls and fences for hedgehogs to pass through, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works so approved, shall be carried out in accordance with the approved programme of implementation and be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development. Within three months of the first occupation of first building hereby approved the development shall be inspected by a qualified ecologist and a statement of conformity shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to confirm whether all of the measures for enhancing biodiversity have been implemented in accordance with the details approved under this condition.

For the following reason:

To enhance biodiversity on accordance with Policy SWDP 22 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework..

36 of 46 Page 241

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

7) P18D0210 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD 14 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION

37 of 46 Page 242

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

7) P18D0210 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy based on up-to-date survey information where more than 24 months old (including methodology and programme of implementation) for the enhancement of biodiversity (as recommended in the submitted Environmental Statement and addendum (in respect of ecology and biodiversity) through the provision of features including bat and bird boxes and holes at ground level in boundary walls and fences for hedgehogs to pass through, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall include:

- updated ecological surveys where more than 24 months old; - species mitigation measures; - a review of the site's ecological constraints and potential; - a description of target habitats and range of species appropriate for the site; - description and evaluation of features to be managed; - appropriate strategies for creating/restoring target habitats or introducing target species; - extent and location of proposed works; - details of precautionary and protection measures to ensure protected species and retained habitats are not harmed during and after construction; - method statement for site preparation and establishment of target features; - sources of habitat materials (e.g. plant stock); - timing of the works. - details for monitoring and remedial works - ecological trends and constraints on site that may influence management; - aims and objectives of management; - appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives; - prescriptions of management actions; - preparation of work schedule, including a 5 yearly project register, an annual work plan and the means by which the plan will be rolled forward over a 25 year period; - personnel responsible for implementation of the plan, and; - monitoring and remedial/contingency measures triggered by monitoring. - mechanisms to integrate the Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy with the SUDS scheme and landscape proposals to maximise the potential for improved biodiversity, visual amenity and water quality.

The Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development. Within three months of the first occupation of the 81st dwelling the development shall be inspected by a qualified ecologist and a statement of conformity shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to confirm whether all of the measures for enhancing biodiversity have been implemented in accordance with the details approved under this condition.

For the following reason: -

To ensure that the proposed development contributes to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity within the site and for the wider area and to accord with the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 in accordance with policy SWDP 22

38 of 46 Page 243

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

7) P18D0210 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD of the adopted South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 and the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote with regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural environment.

15 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION If during development, contamination not previously identified in the geo- environmental report submitted in support of the application is found to be present at the site, no further development shall be carried out until such a time as any contamination found during the course of development that was not previously identified is reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment shall then be undertaken and where necessary a remediation scheme shall be prepared, carried out and implemented prior to the first occupation of any building in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

For the following reason:-

To ensure a satisfactory form of development in the interests of the end users of the site In accordance with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework..

16 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access, turning area and parking facilities including cycle parking shown on drawing have been properly consolidated, surfaced, drained, and otherwise constructed in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing to the Local Planning Authority and these areas shall thereafter be retained and kept available for those users at all times.

For the following reason:-

In the interests of Highway safety and to ensure the free flow of traffic using the adjoining Highway in accordance with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework..

17 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Prior to the first use of the buildings hereby approved 5 electric vehicle charging spaces shall be provided in accordance with a specification which shall be submit to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

For the following reason:-

To Encourage Sustainable Travel and Healthy Communities in accordance with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

39 of 46 Page 244

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

7) P18D0210 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD 18 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION The development hereby permitted shall be brought into use in accordance with the submitted travel plan which promotes sustainable forms of access to the site. This plan will be implemented and updated in agreement with Worcestershire County Councils Travel plan co-ordinator.

For the following reason:-

To Encourage Sustainable Travel and Healthy Communities and to reduce vehicle movements and promote sustainable access in accordance with the objectives of the NPPF.

19 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION A Construction Environmental Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of development. This shall include the following:-

a. Measures to ensure that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other detritus on the public highway; b. Details of site operative parking areas, material storage areas and the location of site operatives facilities (offices, toilets etc); c. The hours that delivery vehicles will be permitted to arrive and depart, and arrangements for unloading and manoeuvring. d. Details of any temporary construction accesses and their reinstatement. The measures set out in the approved Plan shall be carried out in full during the construction of the development hereby approved. Site operatives' parking, material storage and the positioning of operatives' facilities shall only take place on the site in locations approved by in writing by the local planning authority.

For the following reason:-

To protect the amenities of nearby properties during the construction of the development and to protect the natural and water environment from pollution in accordance with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

40 of 46 Page 245

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

7) P18D0210 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD 20 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION No works or development shall take place until a full drainage strategy has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include the results of an assessment into the potential of disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and shall provide an appropriate level of runoff treatment. The approved scheme shall be completed prior to the first use of the development hereby approved.

For the following reason:

To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the rise of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution in accordance with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework..

21 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Details shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the first occupation of the development for the installation of Ultra-Low NOx boilers with maximum NOx Emissions less than 40 mg/kWh. The details as approved shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development.

Reason:

In the interests of the living conditions of occupiers of nearby properties and future occupiers of the site in accordance with the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

22 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION Prior to the commencement of development an Employment, Skills and Training strategy shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and agreed in writing. This strategy shall set out measures to provide local employment, apprenticeship and training opportunities during the construction of the development hereby approved. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details.

For the following reason:-

To ensure that the proposed development provides opportunities for local employment and training opportunities in accordance with the expectations of SWDP 1 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

41 of 46 Page 246

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

7) P18D0210 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD 23 NSC NON-STANDARD CONDITION No development shall take place until details for any remedial works and removal of obstructions to flow in the existing culvert through the site have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed works shall be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the development.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring a satisfactory means of surface water disposal. ------

8) P18K0213 FULL APPLICATION ST JOHN WARD

Location PAVILLION IN THE PARK, TYBRIDGE STREET, WORCESTER

Description Single storey side and front veranda extensions to existing bar/restaurant and part change of use of indoor games area to bar/restaurant. Removal of golf area and re-introduction of parking area on retained hard surface.

Applicant Mr G Cooper

Agent MTP Town Planning Ltd

Constraints Riverside Conservation Area Green Spaces Flood Plain Head of Cleaner & Gr

Consultations Severn Trent Water Kerry Poole Environment Agency Planning and Conservation Offi City Property Section Worcestershire Wildlife Trust Landscape Officer Refuse Management Conservation Advisory Panel Planning Policy Team leader Economic Development & Regener West Mercia Constabulary Highways Partnership Unit South Worcestershire Land Drai Emergency Planners (Flooding) Mr N Riding, Emergency Planner R C Heritage James Dinn

Advertised As Development Affecting Conservation Areas

Number of Neighbours Consulted 10 Recommendation APPROVAL

42 of 46 Page 247

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

8) P18K0213 FULL APPLICATION ST JOHN WARD Conditions

1 CA03 PLANNING PERMISSION The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

For the following reason:-

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 CA06 CARRIED OUT IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the submitted plans, supporting documents and the specifications and recommendations therein, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission.

For the following reason:

For the avoidance of doubt and to secure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with policy SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 CG12 LANDSCAPE SCHEME (DETAILS) Prior to opening, a scheme of landscaping including phasing and all existing trees and shrubs, new tree and shrub planting, seeding, surface treatments, screen walls, boundary fences and boundary treatments plus a full specification of planting and trees to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be undertaken other than in accordance with such approached details and be retained as such thereafter.

For the following reason:-

To maintain the visual and environmental quality of the site and surrounding area in accordance with policies SWDP 5 and SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

43 of 46 Page 248

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

8) P18K0213 FULL APPLICATION ST JOHN WARD 4 CG13 REPLACEMENT All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out by the developer in the first respective planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the landscape planting die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation, and such new planting shall be similarly maintained for a five year period from its planting.

For the following reason:-

To maintain the visual and environmental quality of the site and surrounding area in accordance with policies SWDP 5 and SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. ------

9) P18D0231 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD

Location MULTISTOREY CAR PARK, ST MARTINS GATE, WORCESTER

Description Installation of Photo-voltaic array comprising the erection of portal framed rooftop canopy structure to support the array. The array is sited on the uppermost level of the existing car park to avoid overshadowing and its position is dictated by the structural constraints of the existing building.

Applicant Mr Duncan Bicknell

Consultations City Property Section Planning Policy Team leader Economic Development & Regener West Mercia Constabulary Highways Partnership Unit Lyndon Bracewell James Dinn

Advertised As Development by the City of Worcester on its own land

Number of Neighbours Consulted 69

General Remark/ The decision to grant planning permission takes into account the provisions of Summary of the Development Plan, in particular policy SWDP 21 of the South Recommendation Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and it was considered that, on balance, the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the amenities of the area and highway safety.

44 of 46 Page 249

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

9) P18D0231 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD Recommendation APPROVAL

Conditions

1 CA03 PLANNING PERMISSION The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

For the following reason:-

Required to be imposed pursuant to Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 CA06 CARRIED OUT IN COMPLETE ACCORDANCE The development hereby approved shall be carried out in complete accordance with the submitted plans, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission.

For the following reason:

For the avoidance of doubt and to secure a satisfactory form of development in accordance with policies SWDP 21 and 27 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. ------

10 ) P17D0380 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD

Location WARMSTRY COURT, QUAY STREET, WORCESTER

Description Conversion and change of use of an existing 2 storey storage building into a 2 bedroom residential House

Applicant Mr O'Neill

Agent stuart prenty

Constraints Riverside Conservation Area Archaeology Env Assessment

Consultations City Archaeological Officer Planning and Conservation Offi Conservation Area Advisory Com Kerry Poole Refuse Management Planning Policy Officer Housing Strategy Officer West Mercia Constabulary Highways Partnership Unit Bob Hughes Helen Rea

45 of 46 Page 250

CITY OF WORCESTER PLANNING COMMITTEE 19th July 2018

10 ) P17D0380 FULL APPLICATION CATHEDRAL WARD Environment Agency Emergency Planners (Flooding) Charlie Heritage Daniel Russell John Denham

Advertised As Development Affecting Conservation Areas

Number of Neighbours Consulted 93

General Remark/ See agenda report Summary of Recommendation

Recommendation REFUSAL

Reasons for Refusal

1 NRR NON-STANDARD REASON FOR REFUSAL Policy SWDP 28 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan sets criteria for acceptable development within floodplain area "Yellow zone" to ensure development is acceptable in terms of risk to users and does not increase the risks to others, by way of increasing the flood risk overall. However the building is limited by wider constraints of being an Historic Asset and its relationship to the surrounding development of Warmstry court and Bridge Street.

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the frequency of likely flooding and the measures required to reduce the impacts are incompatible with residential occupation of the site and the benefits of occupation of the building in conservation terms do not outweigh the risks from flooding for future residents of the building.

The frequency and depth of the flooding in the area is anticipated to increase and the measures proposed would continue to be insufficient in times of flood, and as such it is not considered to be sustainable development and fails to meet the criterial as set out in policy SWDP 28 of the South Worcester Development Plan and would thereby also be contrary to the aims and interests that the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to protect and promote with regard to flood risk. ------

46 of 46