COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 18/03746/VARY

Redditch Gateway, Land Adjacent To The A4023 Coventry Highway, Site Address East Of Ravensbank And Winyates Green, Redditch Variation of conditions 2 and 8 to amend the parameters of development for the northern development parcel, and Phase 1 Ground Engineering works (and changes to conditions 12, 16, 18, 21, 29, 31, 32, 36 and 37 to allow hedgerow and tree removal prior to the coming into effect of the relevant condition, and conditions 28 and 29 to relate to updated flood risk assessment) in respect of hybrid planning permissions 17/01847/OUT (Stratford reference number), 17/00700/OUT (Redditch reference number), and 17/00701/OUT (Bromsgrove reference number) dated 11 June 2018. Description of Original description of development (for 17/01847/OUT, Development 17/00700/OUT, 17/00701/OUT): 'Hybrid application comprising: Outline planning application (with matters of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and details of internal circulation routes reserved) for the development on a phased basis of 32ha of employment land for business/industrial uses (Use Classes B1, B2, B8). The development shall include: landscaping, parking, associated infrastructure, utilities, drainage (including SUDS) and ground engineering works; And Full planning application for Phase 1 Ground Engineering works, and details of means of access to the site from the A4023' Redditch Gateway Infrastructure Ltd, Gorcott Estate LLP and Homes Applicant England

Reason for Referral Objection from Mappleborough Green Parish Council to Committee

Case Officer Alice Cosnett

Presenting Officer Alice Cosnett

Ward Member(s) Councillor Kerridge – Studley with Mappleborough Green

Town/Parish Mappleborough Green Parish Council Council . Southern development parcel allocated under REDD.1: Winyates Green Triangle, Mappleborough Green . Northern development parcel allocated under REDD.2: Gorcott Description of Site Hill, Mappleborough Green Constraints . Application site falls within the jurisdictions of Stratford on Avon District Council, Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Summary of GRANT Recommendation DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The application site falls within the jurisdictions of Stratford on Avon District Council, Redditch Borough Council and Bromsgrove District Council, the composition of which is as follows:

 20.5 hectares of the site falling within Stratford on Avon District Council  10.28 hectares of the site falling within Bromsgrove District Council  0.74 hectares of the site falling within Redditch Borough Council

Identical hybrid planning applications were submitted to Stratford-on-Avon District Council (17/01847/OUT), Redditch Borough Council (17/00700/OUT) and Bromsgrove District Council (17/00701/OUT) in June 2017. All three applications were granted by the respective Local Planning Authorities on 11 June 2018.

The hybrid applications approved:

 Outline planning application, with matters of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and details of internal circulation routes reserved, for the development on a phased basis of 32 hectares of employment land for business/industrial uses (use classes B1, B2 and B8);  Full planning application for Phase 1 Ground Engineering works (to create the first development plateau) and means of access to the site from the A4023

Identical S73 applications have been submitted to Stratford-on-Avon District Council (18/03746/VARY), Redditch Borough Council (18/01626/S73) and Bromsgrove District Council (18/01596/S73).

The applications seek to amend the approved scheme through changes to conditions attached to the original hybrid consent. Specifically, this application proposes the following changes:

 Variation of condition 2 (approved ‘full’ plans) to reflect an amended Phase 1 Ground Engineering works which would facilitate the first development plateau. The amended plans provide for the earthworks necessary to create the approved access into both the northern and southern development parcels, and to create the first development plateau in accordance with the amended employment zones. The amended condition wording would refer to updated plans;  Variation to condition 8 (approved ‘outline’ plans) to reflect amended parameters for the outline element of the development approved to the northern development parcel. The amended condition wording would refer to the updated Parameters Plan (5372-205 Rev T). The approved parameters for the southern development parcel would remain unchanged;  Variations to conditions 12, 16, 18, 21, 29, 31, 32, 36 and 37 to allow hedgerow and tree removal prior to the coming into effect of the condition; and  Variation to conditions 28 and 29 to refer to the updated Flood Risk Assessment which has been undertaken to take into account the changes proposed to the Parameters Plan and Phase 1 Ground Engineering works to facilitate the first development plateau.

The Planning Statement submitted with the application outlines the reasons for the submission of this application. A corporate occupier (whose identity is confidential for commercial reasons) has a requirement for a large floorplate warehouse building of approximately 31,000sqm Gross Internal Area together with approximately 3,100 GIA of ancillary office accommodation. The floorspace must be delivered within a building with a length to depth ratio within a specified range to ensure the internal accommodation functions in accordance with the occupier’s requirements. The occupier requires level dock servicing on three sides of the building, numbering over 100 level docks in total; this necessitates access to the building on all four sides, with the office accommodation being on the fourth side. The occupier has a minimum yard depth of 40m along the side of the building, and 50m at the end of the building. Associated car parking, lorry parking and site access roads are necessary components of the development.

In order to accommodate a building of the floorspace and aspect ratio required, a larger single development platform is required than can be accommodated within the employment zones approved through the original hybrid consent (Parameters Plan 5372-205 Rev L). In order to achieve the specific requirements of the occupier, the development zones in the northern development parcel need to be amended.

The approved parameters for the southern development parcel would remain unchanged.

Northern development parcel as GRANTED Five employment zones to the following parameters:  Larger pink Employment Zone to northwest of the Blacksoils Brook – area to include car parking and servicing, maximum building height not to exceed above ordnance datum (AOD) 121.0  Smaller pink Employment Zone to the northwest of the Blacksoils Brook – area to include car parking and servicing, maximum building height not to exceed AOD 128.0  Yellow Employment Zone to the southeast of Blacksoils Brook – area to include car parking and servicing, maximum building height not to exceed AOD 124.0  Orange Employment Zone to the southeast of Blacksoils Brook – area to include car parking and servicing, maximum building height not to exceed AOD 122.0-123.0  Grey Employment Zone to the northwest of the Blacksoils Brook – parking only (no buildings)  Green Landscaping Buffer Zone to the southeast of the Blacksoils Brook – no built form  Green perimeter landscaping – to all boundaries of the site, and along the retained Blacksoils Brook

Northern development parcel as AMENDED Four employment zones to the following parameters:  Yellow Employment Zone which would cross the Blacksoils Brook (requiring its diversion) – area to include parking and servicing, maximum building height not to exceed AOD 123.0, maximum plant height not to exceed AOD 125.0  Three grey Employment Zones Infrastructure – area to include car parking for employees and visitors, lorry parking, potential bus stops, internal roads and footpaths, green corridor  Grey Employment Zone Infrastructure – area to include car parking for employees and visitors, lorry parking, potential bus stops, internal roads and footpaths, and the possibility for a decked car park, maximum building height not to exceed AOD 117.5  Green Landscaping Buffer Zone – a small incursion into the approved Landscaping Buffer Zone is proposed, but an additional area of soft landscaping approximately 100m x 80m toward the southeast corner of the site is also proposed. This would provide for the rerouted Blacksoils Brook and footpath.

The approved parameters for the southern development parcel would remain unchanged.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Development Plan

Core Strategy Relevant Policies in the Development Plan for this application are  CS.1 Sustainable Development  CS.2 Climate Change and Sustainable Construction  CS.3 Sustainable Energy  CS.4 Water Environment and Flood Risk  CS.5 Landscape  CS.6 Natural Environment  CS.7 Green Infrastructure  CS.8 Historic Environment  CS.9 Design and Distinctiveness  CS.10 Green Belt  CS.15 Distribution of Development  CS.22 Economic Development  REDD.1 Redditch  REDD.2 Redditch  CS.25 Healthy Communities  CS.26 Transport and Communications  CS.27 Development Contributions

Other Material Considerations Central Government guidance  NPPF 2019 and PPG  Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Other documents  Redditch Borough Local Plan 2011-2030  Bromsgrove District Plan 2011-2030  Adopted Parts of the Development Requirements SPD (Parts A, Good Design, B Character, L Open Space, P Refuse and Recycling, M Landscaping, N Biodiversity) – afforded full weight  Draft Parts of the Development Requirements SPD (Parts O Parking and Travel and R Air Quality) – out for public consultation until 15 March 2019; afforded limited weight  Stratford on Avon District Design Guide (information guidance)  Historic England Good Practice Notes 2105: o GPA 1 – The Historic Environment in Local Plans o GPA 2 – Manging Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment o GPA 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets  Air Quality Action Plan for Alcester Road, Studley  Warwickshire Local Transport Plan (2011-2026)  Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines 1993  Planning and Community Safety – Design and Crime Reduction 2006: Planning Advice Note (informal guidance)  Green Infrastructure Study for Stratford on Avon District Council (2011)  Stratford on Avon Employment Land Assessment 2011  Corporate Strategy 2015-2019  Stratford on Avon Business and Enterprise Strategy 2012-2015  Stratford District Partnership 2026 Vision – Sustainable Community Strategy  Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA3)  National Character Areas 17.07.2012  Guidance on Transport Assessment published jointly by Department for Transport and Department for Communities and Local Government 2007  Extending Your Home advice note  Draft Development Requirements SPD – Draft Parking Standards  Landscape Sensitivity Study (2012)

Other Legislation

 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)  Environmental Protection Act 1990  Human Rights Act 1998  Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006  The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981  EC Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC), as translated into UK law by The Habitat and Species Regulations 2010  EC Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), as translated into UK law by The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)  Protection of Badgers Act 1992  Hedgerow Regulations 1997  Equality Act 2010  Localism Act 2011  Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953  National Heritage Act 1983 (as amended)  Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Legislation  Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (as amended)  Town and County Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017  Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY

Reference Number Proposal Decision and date

17/01847/OUT, Hybrid application comprising: Outline 17/01847/OUT, 17/00700/OUT and planning application (with matters of 17/00700/OUT and 17/00701/OUT appearance, landscaping, layout, scale 17/00701/OUT – all granted (Identical and details of internal circulation 11 June 2018 applications routes reserved) for the development submitted to on a phased basis of 32ha of Stratford-on-Avon employment land for District Council, business/industrial uses (Use Classes Redditch Borough B1, B2, B8). The development shall Council and include: landscaping, parking, Bromsgrove associated infrastructure, utilities, District Council) drainage (including SUDS) and ground engineering works; And Full planning application for Phase 1 Ground Engineering works, and details of means of access to the site from the A4023 PREAPP/00187/15 Redditch Eastern Gateway:- Closed 30.10.2017 (whole site) office/warehouse development SCOPE/00026 Land At Redditch Eastern Gateway Closed 09.03.2016 Development 00/02173/OUT Residential development (outline) Withdrawn 12.03.2002 (southern parcel) 89/00702/FUL A435 and A4023 interchange land to Withdrawn 07.02.1990 (northern parcel) the north west of Adam Lane Mappleborough Green - business and science park within Use Class B1

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant’s Supporting Documents

Listed of submitted documents:  Application form  Covering letter  S73 Planning Statement  Design and Access Statement (Rev A)  Phase 1 Ground Engineering Works Ecology Statement  Environmental Statement Addendum  The following amended plans: o 5372-205T Parameters Plan o 5372-203K Illustrative Masterplan o 5372-066G Plot Area Plan o 5372-210A Site Location Plan Enabling Earthworks Phase 1 o 5372-211B Site Plan Enabling Earthworks Phase 1 o 5372-214E Illustrative Sections (Sheet 2) o RGNP-BWB-DGT-XX-DR-D-600 S1 P3 Illustrative Plateau Levels o RGNP-BWB-DGT-XX-DR-D-636 S1 P1 Phase 1 Enabling Works o RGNP-BWB-DGT-XX-DR-D-630 S1 P2 Illustrative Earthworks o RGNP-BWB-HDG-XX-DR-D-540 S1 P5 Illustrative Drainage Strategy o RNGP-BWB-HGT-XX-DR-D-610 S1 P3 Illustrative Enabling Earthworks Layout North o RNGP-BWB-HGT-XX-DR-D-635 S1 P4 Illustrative Enabling Earthworks Sections North

Ward Member

Councillor J Kerridge (Studley with Mappleborough Green) None received

Nearby Ward Members

Councillor H Wright (Studley with Sambourne) None received Councillor G Atkinson (Tanworth in Arden) No representation (23.01.2019)

Councillor S Thirlwell (Henley in Arden) None received

Councillor M Gittus (Kindwarton) None received

Parish/Town Council

Mappleborough Green Object:  Change in size of the proposed building does not follow the outline permission  Potential increase in HGV volumes will negatively impact on the health and wellbeing of Mappleborough Green and Redditch residents through: o Increased particulate air pollution leading to poorer health o Increased vehicle noise, leading to increased stress o Increased through-night activity will result in residents suffering poor sleep  Developer argues that this site is the only one suitable to their client in the West Midlands Region, and that the development is necessary to meet economic forecasts. PC argue that there are many brownfield sites in Redditch and the PC understands that unemployment is not a major problem (see report from the ONS re-benefit payments). PC worries that this project is more about making money for a few rather than to meet a real need  Original ‘north side’ showed many more parking spaces, 80 as opposed to 450 in revised application. Part of the original reason was to meet employment needs. It seems the developer’s client’s needs outweigh the original needs of the area  Developer argues that the site has walkways, cycle lanes and is on a public bus service route. However the PC understands that the public bus service is already overcapacity and will require additional buses to meet an increased demand  With the proposed increase in HGVs (assuming all of the loading bays will be in use) it is even more important that hauliers follow the proposed routing plan. However, the PC do not believe a voluntary system will work and feel that the only certain way is a ban on HGVs over 7.5 tonnes through Studley and Mappleborough Green. This ban could be temporarily lifted in the event of problems on the M42  Loss of trees, hedgerows and the re-routing of streams will have an effect on rare and protected wildlife that will not really be known until after the changes are made  When comparing drawings 5372-203K with BMT/22116/100-01, drainage features do not correlate  Lighting of 24-hour operations will further pollute the night sky. PC insists that all baffles and shields are fitted as a matter of course, rather than “if needed”. The PC’s preference is that lighting units be fitted no higher than 10m (18.02.2019)

Nearby Parish Councils

Studley Parish Council Object:  Visual impact – development of the exposed hill which is prominent from anywhere in the area. Ruin the current pleasant view of trees and fields to a factory estate/associated infrastructure  Lighting would be visible from all over the District, detracting from what is open countryside  Detrimental visual impact on Gorcott Hall. Proposal will ruin the vista across open countryside  No identified users, no identified employment opportunities and no need for the development in this location. No shortage of employment opportunities in Redditch and the surrounding area. Speculative development that seeks to remove Green Belt, purely as a way of making money  Development isolated from residential areas in Redditch with no viable pedestrian or cycle access routes and there are no public transport links to it  Redditch has ample brownfield sites within its boundaries. Identified several that could easily accommodate the proposed building, which already has the infrastructure available to facilitate their construction  Infrastructure is not in place to support the traffic from proposed development. Existing road junctions are unsuitable for an increase in what could potentially be 2000 vehicle trips in and the same out everyday  No public transport provision  No measures in place to reduce inevitable deterioration in air pollution that will impact on the Air Quality Management Area in Studley  No proposal to alleviate HGV traffic from the A46, M40, M42 and M5 which will use the A435 through Studley as a route of access to the development  PC would like to see additional traffic coming off the M5 at Junction 9 to be redirected on to the A46/M40/M42 and not through Studley with weight restrictions and road realignments to deter HGV traffic  With additional housing being constructed in Alcester, Bidford on Avon, Stratford upon Avon and Long Marston, it is inevitable that there will be a reliance on the A435 to carry the workforce and HGVs to and from these settlements to the development, adding to the density of traffic flowing through Studley and Mappleborough Green  PC seek assurances that plant vehicles accessing the site would not be using the A435 through Mappleborough Green and Studley (06.02.2019)

Tanworth in Arden Parish Council No representation:  Should any further technical consultation responses identify any objections to this application, the PC reserves the right to revisit this application (08.02.2019)

Spernall Parish Council None received

Morton Bagot Parish Council None received

Ullenhall Parish Council None received

Beaudesert Parish Council None received

Henley in Arden Parish Council None received Oldberrow Parish Meeting None received

Sambourne Parish Council None received

Coughton Parish Council No objection but makes the following comments:  No objection in principle provided that due attention is paid to the NPPF and the environmental regulations as laid down in the Wildlife Countryside Act 1981, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (31.01.2019)

Beoley Parish Council Object to the application for the following planning reasons:  Leading to the development of a massive series of empty sheds within the Green Belt  Consistent in opposition to the development (16.02.2019)

Third Party Responses The planning-related comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.

23 letters of objection from local residents received, including a letter from the Winyates Green Residents Association. Planning grounds for objection:  Unacceptable removal of trees and hedgerows  Loss of “greenway” – an ancient route from Holt End, Beoley to Mappleborough Green  Noise disturbance to local residents  Overbearing impact to nearby residential properties  Loss of light to nearby residential properties  Harm to landscape  Detrimental visual impact  Development would appear out of character  Development would be an eyesore  Maximum heights of buildings in the southern development area should be reduced  Development of the southern development area would tower over existing mature vegetation and would be impossible to screen  Insufficient parking – increased on street parking in locality with no measures to prevent this  Number of parking bays excessive  Indicative levels of parking for the northern development area show a decrease from the parking level previously approved – suggests fewer jobs for local people  Signalised junction would cause adverse impact on highway safety  Increased HGV movements to previously approved  Increased traffic through Coughton and Kings Coughton  Risk to listed properties which front onto roads  No reference to the projected increase in commuter traffic  No potential alternative for the current or anticipated increase in the number of HGVs  Without knowing the potential occupier, not able to gain written assurances that they will comply with the HGV Routing Strategy  Adverse impact to safety of pedestrians due to increased traffic on on- street parking  Exacerbate existing problem with traffic along the A435  Insufficient capacity of road network to support development  Query traffic impacts of the development in light of the changes proposed  Adverse impact on health and wellbeing of residents  Light pollution  Adverse impact on air quality  Pollution impacts from additional traffic  Noise impacts from additional traffic  Increase in litter  Adverse impact from dust  Harm to biodiversity/wildlife/protected species  Wildlife mobility to and from the Ipsley Alder Reserve should be considered  Diverting the watercourse would not offer the same ecological benefits as retaining the existing watercourse  Query whether an updated bat survey is required  Query whether there are badger setts  Loss of trees (including veteran trees)  Adverse impact on habitats of veteran trees  Loss of hedgerows  Importance of retention and bolstering of hedgerows  Numerous unused industrial units in Redditch – no requirement for this project to go ahead

Other non-planning related matters were also raised.

1 letter of no representation received from local residents.

CONSULTATIONS The full responses are available in the application file.

Planning Policy Consultations

SDC Planning Policy No response received

Bromsgrove District Council Strategic Planning No response received

Redditch Borough Council Development Plans No response received

Worcestershire County Council Strategic Planning No response received

North Worcestershire Economic Development and Regeneration Support the application. Following comments raised:  Redditch Gateway is one of four ‘Game Changer’ sites within the Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership’s Strategic Economic Plan; the vision being to deliver a high quality business park to attract and safeguard employment within the area  Focus on creating a site that services the needs of the local employment market, allowing companies to expand and grow, as well as attract inward investors to the Borough  Site is also referenced as a key economic growth and regeneration project in the Greater Birmingham and Solihull Strategic Economic Plan  Strong support for proposals from both LEPs as there is a recognition that the site would provide important space for new commercial development, which is in short supply within the area  Proposal will contribute to the key aims and objectives identified in the adopted ‘Economic Priorities for Redditch’  The S73 will ensure that the strategic objectives of the site will be met as the proposal is to meet the requirements of a specific occupier, which means that space will be taken and that the development is not speculative in nature  Given that there is an end user in mind, there is further certainty that the site will be developed and that the outputs (jobs, investment, etc.) will be delivered  Applicants have submitted a narrative explaining why the configuration of the building is required and why the Gateway site is the preferred option – agree with the comments provided  Concur that there is an issue regionally and nationally with available commercial space to meet the needs of businesses  It is apparent that the Redditch Gateway site offers the most realistic opportunity for the occupier to be able to invest and deliver new jobs and growth (28.02.2019)

Highways and Transportation Consultations

Highways England No objection (30.01.2019)

Warwickshire County Council Highways No objection:  The Highway Authority has undertaken a full assessment of the application detailed and compared the variations of conditions to the original planning application  The assessment also includes consideration of the S73 Statement prepared by Savills and the Transport Assessment Addendum prepared by BWB Consulting  Impact of the alterations would be negligible on the safe and efficient operation of the highway network  Highways conditions on the previous application (17/01847OUT) would remain unchanged and there are therefore no grounds to object (13.02.2019)

Worcestershire County Council Highways No objection:  Application does not seek to alter the principle of development or the overall scale of development  Therefore there is no impact on the highway network beyond that already given permission for  The alterations result in future built form consolidated in a more central location  Diversion of public right of way required which will need to be completed to confirmation stage before any development affecting the public rights of way commences  Applicant needs to be aware of its obligations toward the public right of way  Having undertaken a robust assessment, concludes that there would not be a severe impact and therefore no justifiable grounds on which an objection could be maintained (15.02.2019) Warwickshire County Council Rights of Way No response received

Worcestershire County Council Rights of Way Make the following comments:  Development appears to affect Beoley parish footpaths BE-585 and BE- 588  Proposal requires diversion of the public right of way – permission for diversion of the route required before any development affecting the public right of way is commenced  Recommend notes relating to obligations toward the public right of way (30.01.2019)

Heritage Consultations

Historic England Do not wish to offer comments – recommend that views are sought from specialise conservation and archaeological advisors where relevant (22.01.2019)

National Trust No response received

Stratford on Avon District Council Conservation Officer Make the following comments:  The amendments present both positives and negatives in terms of impact on setting of nearby heritage assets  The ‘buffer’ area immediately adjacent to the Grade II* Gorcott Hall has been preserved, albeit with some slight reduction in size, alongside the creation of naturalistic bunds behind which the development would be hidden  As a result of the proposed amendment, the buffer area would be bolstered by the added benefit of the land southwest of the Hall kept free of built form but for decked car park, and the southeast corner of the site retained as open green space. Overall building heights across the northern parcel have been reduced by a notable amount  The positives would be partially offset by the increased visual impact of the extensive roof area of the single larger building – attempts to mitigate through siting the building as far west as possible are noted  The reduced number of employment zones is likely to impact on the amount of soft landscaping able to be achieved across the site, with less opportunity to ‘break up’ the areas of development with planting – visually this would reduce the site’s aesthetic appeal and cause further erosion to the existing rural character  Key to this is the rerouting of the Blacksoils Brook, and reduced soft landscaping around the perimeter of the site (details of which would come through forthcoming reserved matters submissions)  Potential for increased light spills and noise which would be addressed at reserved matters  ES Addendum provides an assessment of harm in the middle of the less than substantial threshold equating to moderate harm – this is unchanged. From the limited additional discussion of the effects of the amendments, it is not clear how this conclusion has been reached  Having considered and balanced the positive and negative impacts identified, the level of harm has not materially altered from the original application which concluded that the harm was ‘just in the upper part of the less than substantial spectrum’, but would be dependent on further mitigation measures that need to be addressed at reserved matters stage  In regards to other identified listed buildings in the vicinity of the site, it is not considered that there would be any change to the assessment of harm of low levels of ‘less than substantial harm’ (25.02.2019)

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Conservation Make the following comments:  No development to the southeast of Gorcott Hall is a benefit  Significantly less development to the southwest is also a benefit, though the height of the two storey car park is unclear  Reduction in the height of Unit A  Benefits balanced against the fact that Unit A has massively increased in size and the greater expanse of roof is likely to increase the visual impact on views from Gorcott Hall  The sheer scale of the building, despite its reduced height, would have an adverse impact on the setting of Gorcott Hall  Support the comments of Worcestershire Archive and Archaeology regarding the Blacksoils Brook and associated hedgerow  The previous retention of the Blacksoils Brook formed an important part of the landscaping, breaking up the site and maintaining some references to the historic landscape character  Reducing the number of buildings reduces the opportunities for soft landscaping to break up the built form  Harm falls somewhere in the middle of the less than substantial spectrum  Harm may be mitigated through reserved matters proposals – imperative that a great deal of thought is given to specific factors at reserved matters such as materials and lighting (28.02.2019)

Worcestershire County Council Archive and Archaeology Service Object. Make the following comments:  Query the need to amend condition 12 (submission and approval of a written scheme of investigation)  The Holloway o It has been confirmed that the “loss of sections of the Holloway” only refers to the addition of a pedestrian access through the Holloway to the adjacent development o There would be no other loss of the Holloway, its hedges or banks/ditches o No concerns with the impact of the development on the Holloway, as sections would not be removed save the small intervention for the pedestrian access  The County Boundary (Blacksoils Brook and associated bank and hedge) o Variation proposes the loss of the features forming the County Boundary o Date of boundary is unknown but potentially has significant antiquity o Request evidence from the applicant that the boundary has been realigned at a later date and is not of medieval or an earlier date o Disagree with para 8.6.2 of the ES which defines the bank as being of low sensitivity, the hedgerow as very low sensitivity, and the impact of loss as moderate adverse and minor adverse – boundary is clearly of significant antiquity, and it is marked here by the brook, a bank and associated hedgerow. The total loss of this section of the boundary constitutes substantial harm to the monument – object to its loss o The hedgerow along the brook is ‘important’ (and so protected) when assessed against the Hedgerows Regulations (1997)  Should the variation be approved, then the recording and interpretation of the bank/boundary would need to be included in the mitigation strategy for the site. This would include assessment of environmental deposits along the line of Blacksoils Brook, should they be present (13.02.2019)

Additional comments: Object. Make the following comments:  The Holloway o Written confirmation that there would be no impact on the Holloway noted  The County Boundary (Blacksoils Brook and associated bank and hedge) o Hedgerow along the Blacksoils Brook is defined as important when assessed against the Hedgerow Regulations (1997) – loss of hedgerow would result in substantial harm to the hedgerow o Significance of the boundary itself is affected by the loss of any physical marker in the landscape – the hedgerow, bank and brook together create that physical marker here o The important point in historic landscape terms is that the County boundary is marked – the loss of any visual boundary impacts on the significance of that boundary substantially o Applicant has provided no evidence indicating that the current boundary does not follow the Medieval parish boundary at this point o The total loss of this section of the boundary constitutes substantial harm to the undesignated heritage asset o The LPA should not view this as a minor adverse impact to an asset of low/very low significance – the applicant has not justified their ascribed value o The bank/boundary is an asset of medium significance and the impact of the total loss can only be defined as major adverse o Should permission be granted, the recording and interpretation of the bank/boundary would need to be included in the mitigation strategy for the site (to include assessment of environmental deposits along the line of Blacksoils Brook, should they be present) (22.02.2019)

Ecology Consultations

Natural England No response received

Warwickshire County Council Ecology Makes the following comments:  Serious concerns with the additional loss of veteran trees although it is noted that their loss is inevitable due to the size of the building and requirements of its use as a lorry distribution centre  Earthworks plan is not the final plan – as currently drawn the c. 8m sheer drop or sloping up to the perimeter of the wood which would impact on the wood and possibly the pond above this drop. These impacts cannot be measured at this time, but will need to be gauged as part of the biodiversity offsetting S106 schedule when the reserved matters are submitted. The S106 schedule would need to pick up impacts of this kind throughout the development’s layout be they of a positive (gain) or a negative (loss) nature  Significant concerns regarding the placement and design of lighting columns in the context of encouraging dark corridors – essential lighting condition is retained (28.02.2019) Worcestershire County Council Ecology Makes the following comments:  Applicant has demonstrated that there are no sites in the West Midlands region that meet the requirements of the intended occupier of the northern part of the Redditch Gateway site  The ‘wholly exceptional’ reason for the loss of veteran trees as provided by the applicant focuses on the intended occupier’s need for a larger building and their critical timeframe  It is for Planning Committee to evaluate the wholly exceptional reasoning given  Query number of trees to be lost in the northern area  The appropriateness of culverting to retain T18 would be fully assessed at reserved matter stage  Lighting details as shown are unacceptable – the lighting on the boundaries of the site needs to be reduced to comply with professional guidelines (Bat Conservation Trust and Institute of Lighting Professionals Guidance Note 08/18)  If approved, recommend attachment of the following additional conditions: o Pre-commencement construction and environmental management plan o Construction and environmental management plan for biodiversity o Condition 36 should be varied to allow for hedgerow and tree removal only if the above CEMPs are conditioned (25.02.2019)

Forestry Commission No response received

Woodland Trust Object to the application for the following planning reasons:  Translocation of veteran trees should be considered as a last resort solution in an attempt to save trees which are otherwise approved to be felled  Translocation should not be considered as a viable alternative to the protection, management and retention of these trees in their original location  In relation to veteran oaks T73 and T74, the proposals to translocate these specimens provide the opportunity for their survival which was not previously an option. However, translocation of veteran trees is a highly risky method that has a very low chance of ensuring the continued survival of such trees – it is a process much more suited to young trees  Revised arboricultural report now states that all four veteran trees are unsuitable for retention on the grounds of health and safety concerns outside of the application process. However, with appropriate management the trees could be allowed to decline in a way which does not compromise the safety of the public but also continue to provide a home for wildlife  Deadwood provided by veteran trees is very important to a range of biodiversity. Whilst deadwood will be translocated to the ecological enhancement area, this does not compare to maintaining the veteran trees in situ  Veteran trees are afforded stronger protection under the revised NPPF – development contravenes the NPPF  If translocation of veteran trees is permitted, recommend that a bond for each individual veteran specimen is secured. The value of the bond should be determined following an I-tree survey. In the event of translocation failing, the bond should be spent on tree planting within or adjacent to the application site. After five years has passed and the applicant has provided an arboricultural survey stating that the translocation has been a success, the bond should be returned (15.02.2019)

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust Object to the application for the following planning reasons:  The loss of two additional veteran trees (to the two approved for removal through the original permission)  If loss of veteran trees is accepted, the following comments on proposed mitigation and compensation for the ecological losses are provided: o Likely that the sum to offset the biodiversity loss for the northern site would need increasing o Query whether the change in levels close to the woodland would leave the woodland perched and disconnected o No ecological link between woodland and site appears on the plans o Lighting plan demonstrates that there would be light spill onto the edge of the adjacent woodland, northeastern hedgerow stated to retain connectivity for bats and a large portion of the realigned brook corridor o Lighting plans should be revisited to retain dark corridors and woodland edge used by bats and other light sensitive species (21.02.2019)

Worcestershire Wildlife Trust Object to the application for the following planning reasons:  Note proposed development leads to the loss of additional veteran trees, substantial diversion of the Blacksoils Brook and loss of ‘important’ stretches of hedgerow  The loss of veteran trees requires the demonstration of ‘wholly exceptional’ reasons – not persuaded that the implicitly very high threshold of ‘wholly exceptional’ has been demonstrated  Accept that there may be no alternative sites available that match the needs of the prospective occupier but do not believe that this pertains to wholly exceptional circumstances  Economic support for the delivery of this site do not necessarily relay on this particular end user – alternatives to the current proposal clearly exist  LPA to weigh this matter carefully in the planning balance  Notwithstanding concerns, if wholly exceptional reasons exist, the submitted veteran tree strategy sets out an appropriate approach to mitigation for the ‘lost’ trees. It would need to be refined on a tree by tree basis, with careful control of the strategy secured by condition  Welcome potential for increases in habitat provision and the possible additional benefits  Uncertainties around provision of connecting habitats and buffering of the northern woodland – this should be clarified on a plan and appropriate buffers and links secured by condition  Concern with changes to conditions for would allow for vegetation clearance in advance of other conditions being discharged – recommend attachment of a new condition requiring a pre-commencement CEMP to cover this matter  Existing landscape condition should be amended to reflect the importance of future management  Concern about the rather narrow corridor along the southern edge of the northern parcel of the site  Do not support the idea of culverting the brook past T18 (or the removal of T18) – alternative solutions to avoid further tree loss of additional culverting should be sought. Detail of brook diversion should be controlled by condition  Concerns regarding the light levels affected the northern woodland, the proposed northern ecological corridor and the diverted brook corridor. Matters of lighting should be covered by condition (26.02.2019)

Drainage and Flood Risk Consultations

Environment Agency No objection subject to conditions:  Although the site is in Flood Zone 1, detailed modelling demonstrates that significant parts of the site presently lie within Flood Zones 3a and 3b – by rerouting and redesigning the channels and removing structures, the vast majority of the site will be in Flood Zone 1 post-development with no increase in flood downstream. Final details of the channels for the diverted watercourses should be submitted and approved in order to demonstrate that they are designed to manage flows effectively  Application is lacking information on biodiversity mitigation proposals – however through conditions, risks can be managed, with no overall serious loss of habitat and species diversity  Water quality of the SSSI will be protected by a Construction Environment Management Plan and post-construction by a Sustainable Drainage Scheme which will protect surface waters from pollution  Groundwater/spring fed marsh will not be affected, as the application area and SSSI are not in hydraulic continuity, therefore there will be no impact from the development in terms of groundwater pollution or levels  Developer may want to explore the possibility of providing some storage on the western edge of the site to reduce the extent of flooding in case of blockage of the existing culverts under the highway  If possible, during detailed design, the piped connection discussed in section 5.11 of the Water Framework Directive Assessment should be designed as an open channel – this would provide greater benefits for connected ecology and reduces the maintenance liability of culverts  Concern relating to ingress of silt into the ditch network  Importance of securing appropriate detail at condition discharge stage (15.02.2019)

Warwickshire County Council Flood Risk Management (LLFA) No objection subject to the following conditions:  Development in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment  Submission and approval of hydraulic modelling of the proposed watercourse diversion  Submission and approval of detailed surface water scheme  Submission and approval of detailed maintenance plan detailing maintenance and management of surface water systems (31.01.2019)

North Worcestershire Water Management (LLFA) Make the following comments:  In principle, a diversion of the main stream is not unacceptable subject to a suitable newly designed channel  Strong reservations about the inclusion of section of culvert to the north eastern part of the site – introduction of new culverted water course would not be in accordance with Section 8.212 of the Bromsgrove Local Plan or Section 17.9 of the Redditch Local Plan  Viable alternatives are available which should be considered  When the design of the Blacksoils diversion has been finalised, modelling will need to be re-run  Details provided on Illustrative Drainage Strategy (RGNP-BWB-HDG-XX- DR-D-540 P5) are broadly welcomed – subject to review at detailed design stage  Encourage use of permeable paving in car parks where vehicle loading is not an issue  Highlights importance of retention of existing diversions  Recommends the following conditions: o Development in accordance with Flood Risk Assessment o Submission and approval of hydraulic modelling of the proposed watercourse diversion o Submission and approval of detailed surface water scheme o Submission and approval of detailed maintenance plan detailing maintenance and management of surface water systems (01.02.2019)

Worcestershire Water Officer No response received

Environmental Health Consultations

SDC Environmental Health No objections (25.01.2019)

SDC Waste and Recycling No comment (11.02.2019)

Worcestershire Regulatory Services – Air Quality and Contamination No additional comments to those made previously for application 17/01847/OUT (11.02.2019)

Other Consultees

BT Openreach Makes the following comments:  Guidance notes provided which state requirements for protecting the network (12.02.2019)

Coal Authority No observations (22.01.2019)

Disability Advisor No response received

SDC Governance and Community Safety No response received

Warwickshire County Council Fire and Rescue No response received

Warwickshire County Council Public Health No response received

Warwickshire Police No further observations to make (01.02.2019)

Worcestershire County Council Landscape Make the following comments:  Much less scope under this amended application for the landscaping to deliverer permeable Green Infrastructure and visual screening benefits as set out in the original masterplan  Committee to include tree management into the CEMP and LEMP is vital and welcomed  The relocation of veteran trees would at least deliver some medium term mitigation for invertebrates, but the landscape value of the veteran trees would be lost  Support the comments submitted from Worcestershire County Council Archive and Archaeology  It is the hedgerow, not the County boundary which is the significant asset (28.02.2019)

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Background

In the determination of a planning application the Council is required to make the determination in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and Section 70(2) TCPA 1990). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a key material planning consideration.

However, the planning application is made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) that relates to determination of applications to develop land without compliance with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted (in this case application 17/01847/OUT), subject to the revised/new conditions meeting the requirements of 'Use of Planning Conditions' of the PPG.

In deciding an application under Section 73, the local planning authority must only question condition(s) subject to which planning permission should be granted, and –

a) if they decide that planning permission should be granted subject to conditions differing from those subject to which the previous permission was granted, or that it should be granted unconditionally, they shall grant planning permission accordingly, and b) if they decide that planning permission should be granted subject to the same conditions as those subject to which the previous permission was granted, they shall refuse the application.

While S73 applications are commonly referred to as applications to "amend" the conditions attached to a planning permission, it should be noted that a decision such as this under S73 leaves the original permission intact and un-amended. The scope of a local planning authority's jurisdiction when considering an application under S73 is, in principle, more limited than when considering an application for full planning permission. Nonetheless, this Local Planning Authority is unrestrained in its consideration of the full planning impacts of the application, bearing in mind that the result of a successful application under S73 is a wholly new planning permission. However, the section does not empower the local planning authority to rewrite the permission altogether.

In particular when deleting/varying any of the conditions, consideration has to be given as to whether any changes go to the heart of the planning permission and fundamentally change the planning permission as originally granted. If it is considered that the changes go to the heart of the planning permission, then a new planning application is required rather than one for the deletion/variation of conditions.

I have given this careful consideration and have concluded that the proposed amendments to the conditions would not go to the heart of the permission.

Principle of Development

The principle of development was fully assessed and considered to be acceptable under application 17/01847/OUT (hereafter referred to as the “original hybrid consent”).

The application site is allocated for development under the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2, as well as Policies BDP3 and BDP5B of the Bromsgrove District Plan, and Policy 23 of the Redditch Borough Local Plan. The principle of the development proposed under the hybrid consent was considered to comply with these policies. I am satisfied that the changes proposed do not alter the principle of development.

The changes proposed under this S73 application include the diversion of the Blacksoils Brook. One of the requirements of Policy REDD.2 is the protection and enhancement of the Blacksoils Brook. This matter is considered in detail through this report, but I do not consider that its diversion renders the principle of development unacceptable.

I will now turn to discuss other material considerations and in doing so will assess the other requirements of Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2 accordingly.

Highways Matters

Policy CS.26 of the Core Strategy states that, amongst other things, proposals will only be permitted if the necessary mitigation is provided against unacceptable transport impacts that arise directly from the development.

Policies REDD.1 and 2 requires the allocated site to have primary access off the A4023 Coventry Highway, as well as pedestrian and cycle links across the A4023 and to adjacent residential areas.

In respect of the Environmental Statement (ES), an ES Addendum has been submitted in the form of a Traffic and Transport Statement of Conformity from the applicant’s Transport Consultant (BWB). This states that for the construction phase, the impacts resulting from construction traffic were calculated for the ES based on the quantum of floorspace proposed for the site. It states that this S73 amendment does not alter the quantum of development and hence the conclusions of the construction phase remain valid.

With regard to the operational phase, the Statement of Conformity states that the quantum of development and the assumptions with regards to the B1, B2 and B8 use classes are not altered for this S73 amendment. Therefore it states that the number of vehicle trips assessed would not change. It therefore concludes that the aspects of the proposed development that will vary as a result of the S73 application will not have an effect on transport, and that the conclusions of the ES Chapter 11 (Traffic and Transport) remain valid.

For this reason, the previous Transport Assessment remains valid and has not been updated. The hybrid consent approved (in full) the principal vehicular access point serving the development, as well as the initial length of carriageway into the northern and southern development parcels. This comprises a new signal controlled crossroads junction on the A4023 Coventry Highway, which remains unchanged in the scheme now submitted.

The internal circulation routes, consistent with the hybrid consent, would be determined at reserved matters stage, although indicative access routes through the site are provided on the submitted Parameters Plan (plan no. 5372-205T).

Both highway authorities have raised no objection subject to the attachment of the highways conditions which were attached to the original hybrid consent (conditions 18-27 of 17/01847/OUT).

Highways England has been consulted on the application and no objection has been raised.

Taking into account all of the above, I consider that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway capacity or safety in relation to the strategic highway network, the local highway network, proposed access arrangements, pedestrian and cycle movements, or traffic generation. This is subject to the attachment of the same planning conditions which were attached to the original hybrid consent, as well as the same financial contribution (£200,000 bond to support the HGV Routing Strategy and Annul HGV Surveys to be secured by way of condition) secured by way of legal agreement.

Locally, concern has been raised regarding the level of parking which is shown on the Illustrative Masterplan. This is provided for indicative purposes only at this stage. The level of parking would be fully considered through any subsequent applications for reserved matters.

The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies REDD.1, REDD.2 and CS.26 of the Core Strategy, as well as paragraph 109 of the NPPF which states that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

Heritage Matters

Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment and the assets therein, including their settings. The policy requires any harm to a heritage asset to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal.

Policy REDD.2 seeks to protect the character and setting of Gorcott Hall.

Listed Buildings

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that, "In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses." An ES Addendum to Chapter 8: Heritage and Archaeology has been submitted which responds to the changes proposed through this S73 amendment.

As considered under the hybrid consent, whilst there are no listed buildings within the site itself, the development has the potential to affect the settings of the following listed buildings:

 Gorcott Hall itself – Grade II* listed  Stable, Granary, Barn and attached Animal House (at Gorcott Hall) – Grade II listed  Right Gate pier and attached Garden Wall approximately 10m southeast of Gorcott Hall – Grade II listed  Left Gate pier and attached Garden Wall approximately 10m southwest of Gorcott Hall – Grade II listed  Right Gate pier and attached Garden Wall approximately 30m southwest of Gorcott Hall – Grade II listed  Left Gate pier and attached Garden Wall approximately 30m southwest of Gorcott Hall – Grade II listed  Lower House, Longhope Close – Grade II listed  School House and Yew Tree and Church Cottages, Mappleborough Green – Grade II  Church of the Holy Ascension – Grade II listed

Historic England and the Conservation Officers for both SDC and BDC were consulted on the original hybrid application and they concluded that the development would cause less than substantial harm (to varying degrees) to heritage assets.

Historic England and the Conservation Officers for both SDC and BDC have been consulted on this S73 amendment.

Historic England have responded advising that it does not wish to make comments, but recommends that specialist conservation and archaeological advisors are engaged where relevant.

Both the SDC and RBC/BDC Conservation Officers identify both positives and negatives in terms of the impact on the setting of nearby heritage assets when compared to the already approved hybrid consent.

In addition to the landscape buffer, further land to the southwest of Gorcott Hall would be kept free of built form (Employment Zone Infrastructure) save for the possibility of a decked car park, and land to the southeast corner of the northern development parcel would be retained as green open space. Overall building heights across the northern parcel would be reduced by a notable amount.

On the basis of the Illustrative Masterplan, which shows a single large building on the northern development parcel, these positives would be partially offset by the increased visual impact of one extensive roof. Additionally, the reduced number of Employment Zones is likely to impact on the amount of soft landscaping which could be achieved across the site. This would provide less opportunity to break up areas of development with planting, which would visually reduce the site’s aesthetic appeal and cause further erosion to the existing rural character. Detailed matters of landscaping would have to be carefully considered at reserved matters stage.

The Conservation Officers consider that the level of harm to listed buildings has not materially altered from the original hybrid application which concluded that the harm was just in the upper part of the ‘less than substantial’ spectrum. I concur with this view.

As per advice from Historic England and the Conservation Officers, where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm must be justified and weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. This is in accordance with Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy, paragraph 196 of the NPPF and Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This will be weighed up in the planning balance discussed within the ‘Conclusion’ section of this report.

I note that third party representations have been received which raise concern on the basis of increased traffic in the area adversely impacting upon listed buildings (for example through Coughton where listed buildings front onto the road). However, as no evidence of this has been forthcoming and as the highway impacts would remain unaltered, I do not consider that there is any basis to which I can confirm that any harm would arise.

Archaeology

The ES Addendum states that very few records of note lie within the study area of a 1km radius from the development site boundary and none lie within the development site itself. It therefore concludes that the site for development represents low archaeological potential.

An updated assessment is made within the ES Addendum (Chapter 8: Heritage and Archaeology) on the effects of the proposed development on potential archaeological deposits both through the construction and operational phases of development.

The ES Chapter 8 to the original hybrid consent identified, with respect to archaeology, there to be moderate to minor adverse long-term effect through the construction phase. This increases to moderate adverse long-term effect in the ES Addendum as a result of the loss of the Blacksoils Brook boundary bank and the adjacent hedgerows. The impact during the operational stage remains the same for the proposed amended scheme, at minor adverse to neutral.

The ES Addendum, consistent with the original ES chapter, confirms that prior to detailed design, the site would be subject to archaeological evaluation. This is likely to consist of geophysical survey and targeted trial trenching. This fieldwork would clarify the sub-surface archaeological interest of the site and if significant remains are identified, a suitable mitigation strategy would be formulated.

Worcestershire County Council Archive and Archaeology Service has been consulted on the application. It notes that the proposed variation to the approved development includes the loss of a section of the physical features which mark the historic County boundary. It states that the date of the boundary is unknown, but that it is potentially of significant antiquity. It states that the significance of the boundary is affected by the loss of any physical marker in the landscape; this is considered to comprise the hedgerow, bank and brook together. It is therefore concluded that the loss of any visual boundary impacts on the significance of the boundary substantially. Objection is therefore raised on the basis of the loss of this section of boundary which constitutes substantial harm to the undesignated heritage asset.

Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy states that for non-designated heritage assets, proposals will be assessed having regard to the scale of any harm or loss, and the significance of the heritage asset. Paragraph 197 of the NPPF states that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

I am mindful that both heritage expects (the applicants and Worcestershire County Council Archive and Archaeology Service) arrive at different conclusions regarding the level of harm that arises as a result of the loss of this section of the historic County boundary; a non-designated heritage asset.

The applicant has provided a response in respect of this matter. It states that any degree of historic significance attributable to the hedgerow or Blacksoils Brook derives from the fact that it lies on the County boundary. It states that the County boundary is not moving as a result of the proposals, and therefore the underlying significance of the County boundary is unaffected by the proposals.

I do not agree with the applicant in that the County boundary is unaffected, by reason of the hedgerow, bank and brook being lost/diverted from its historic route. I am mindful that Medieval parish boundaries are usually marked by a variety of physical features and the loss of these (in this case the hedgerow, bank and brook) would inevitably impact on the appreciation of the County boundary. However, I do agree that the actual location of the historic County boundary would remain unchanged.

Whilst the diversion of the Blacksoils Brook is clearly required to enable the creation of the single larger Employment Zone, in my view, some of the hedgerow could be retained, and new physical features could be put in place to mark the historic, retained route of the County boundary. This could be secured through subsequent reserved matters submissions.

Subject to careful consideration of this at reserved matters stage, I consider that the loss of the Blacksoils Brook, bank and hedgerow would represent less than substantial harm to this undesignated heritage asset.

Having regard to Policy CS.8 and the NPPF, applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets require a balanced judgement to be undertaken, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. This will be weighed up in the planning balance discussed within the ‘Conclusion’ section of this report.

Paragraph 198 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should not permit the loss of the whole or part of a heritage asset without taking all reasonable steps to ensure the new development will proceed after the loss has occurred.

If the loss of this section of the Blacksoils Brook is considered to be acceptable, I consider that it is appropriate to add a condition to ensure that the Blacksoils Brook is not lost/diverted before there is certainty that the development would come forward. In addition, in accordance with paragraph 199 of the NPPF, an additional condition would be added to require the applicant to record and advance understanding of the significance of the non-designated heritage asset in a matter proportionate to their importance and impact, and to make this evidence publicly accessible. Conservation Areas

At its nearest point, the southwestern fringe of the Tanworth in Arden Conservation Area is located approximately 2.7km to the northeast of the site. Given this separation distance, the original hybrid application was not considered to cause any harm to this designated heritage asset. Having regard to the amendment proposed, I remain satisfied that the development would not cause any harm to the Tanworth in Arden Conservation Area.

Conclusion on Impact on Heritage Matters

Overall, some impact on the significance of both designated and non-designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the site has been identified as a result of changes to their settings caused by this proposed development.

I concur with the views of the expert heritage consultees in that the development would cause less than substantial harm, to varying degrees, to the settings of a number of listed buildings. In addition, I consider that less than substantial harm is caused to the historic County boundary through the diversion of the Blacksoils Brook, and loss of the associated hedgerow and bank.

Nevertheless, the harm identified needs to be weighed in the planning balance as per Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy, paragraph 197 of the NPPF and, in the wake of the Barnwell Manor case, considerable weight should be given to the harm identified in the final balancing exercise (see ‘Conclusion’ section of this report).

Ecology and Nature Conservation

Policy CS.6 of the Core Strategy states that development will be expected to contribute towards a resilient ecological network throughout the District, and Policy CS.5(C) requires proposals to lead to the protection, rather than any loss of or damage to the quality of ancient semi-natural woodland and aged/veteran trees. Policy CS.7 promotes the protection, enhancement, restoration and creation of the green infrastructure network in the District.

Policy REDD.1 (southern parcel) seeks the retention of important natural features on the site, retention of mature hedgerow along the western boundary and protection of priority habitats within the site. Policy REDD.2 (northern parcel) seeks the retention of mature hedgerows and trees within the site, protection and enhancement of the Pool and Blacksoils Brook and protection of priority habitats within the site.

An ES Addendum to Chapter 9: Ecology has been submitted which responds to the changes proposed through this S73 amendment.

Where appropriate, updated ecological surveys have been undertaken, and these are described within the ES Addendum.

A number of ecological bodies have been consulted on the application. The primary ecological concerns which have been raised in respect to this S73 application are as follows:  loss of additional veteran oak trees;  potential adverse impact on woodland adjacent to the northern boundary of the site due to the level drop proposed; and  adverse impact to dark corridors caused by proposed lighting Veteran Trees

As a result of concerns raised to the loss of four veteran oak trees (T46, T73, T74 and T92) through the assessment of the original hybrid application, the applicant amended the scheme to retain T46 and T92. The original hybrid application approved the loss of two veteran trees – T73 and T74.

Due to the requirements of the potential occupier, it is no longer possible to retain T46 and T92, and the applicant is therefore proposing to remove all four veteran oak trees.

Policy CS.5 of the Core Strategy expects development proposals to retain and protect the quality of ancient semi-natural woodland and aged/veteran trees across the District.

Paragraph 175 of the NPPF provides principles that local planning authorities should apply in determining planning applications. One such principle is that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists.

This differs from the 2012 NPPF (which the original hybrid application was assessed against) which did not require wholly exceptional reasons or a suitable compensation strategy.

Natural England and Forestry Commission have updated their standing advice to align with the revised NPPF.

The ES Addendum to Chapter 8: Ecology states that the boughs of the veteran trees that are to be lost would be moved into the retained habitat in the Landscaping Buffer Zone in the northeast of the site. They would be replanted upright in the ground to provide habitat for birds, bats and invertebrates. A Veteran Tree Strategy has been submitted with the application to describe how it is envisaged that these four veteran oak trees would be relocated.

In addition to the ES Addendum, further information has been provided by the applicant with respect to the wholly exceptional reasons. These primarily relate to the needs of the potential occupier and lack of available employment sites. Analysis of alternative sites has been carried out across Greater Birmingham and Solihull, Black Country, Stoke and Staffordshire and Warwickshire authorities.

In order to fulfil the needs of the occupier, a site needs to be deliverable and have planning permission for B8 use. The site needs to be of sufficient size and configuration to enable the particular internal operational layout required, which also requires a particular arrangement of servicing and vehicular circulation. The site needs to be in the relevant market area with convenient access to the motorway network. The application site is the only site which meets all the criteria. These are therefore presented as the wholly exceptional reasons why it is necessary to lose an additional two veteran trees to accommodate the proposal. Furthermore, the applicant states that the site has been removed from the Green Belt, allocated for employment development, and identified for public funding to deliver the necessary infrastructure to bring about this much needed economic development.

I am mindful that this District has not experienced the relocation of any veteran trees. The previous hybrid consent approved the removal of two veteran trees with no provision for their relocation. This submission proposes the removal of a further two veteran trees, but all four are now proposed for relocation.

Taking both the need to ensure adequate employment land to meet the needs of businesses, as well as the opportunity presented to relocate the veteran trees, I am of the opinion that these amount to wholly exceptional reasons to justify the loss of these trees. I am mindful that they would not be lost in their entirety, being relocated to the large area of green open space along the eastern part of the northern development parcel, retained to provide a valuable and increasingly rare deadwood habitat. The Veteran Tree Strategy would be a working document, amended to ensure that there is the highest chance of success in relocating these trees. This would be secured by planning condition.

The NPPF also requires there to be a suitable compensation strategy in place. There is a large area of the site (approximately 33,000sqm in the northern development parcel) which would remain undeveloped, retained as green open space. The detail of panting within this area would come through subsequent reserved matters but, given the size of the area, I am satisfied that there is ample opportunity through reserved matters submissions to ensure that a level of new planting is incorporated to constitute a suitable compensation strategy.

Whilst harm inevitably arises a result of the loss of two additional veteran oak trees, in my view, and having regard to the above, the tests of paragraph 175 of the NPPF have been met. This harm will be weighed in the final balancing exercise (see ‘Conclusion’ section of this report).

Impact of proposed levels on woodland

Illustrative levels plans for the northern development parcel have been submitted with the application to indicate how levels may work within the site. Concern has been raised by ecological consultees regarding the impact that the steep level difference along the northern boundary of the site may have on the adjacent woodland. Unless designed carefully, and potentially altered, there is a risk that this level change could leave the southern extent of the woodland perched.

The applicant has confirmed that these are provided for illustrative purposes at this stage, and that the impact of any level differences on the adjacent woodland would be fully considered in drawing up final submissions for levels on this phase (which is secured by condition).

Warwickshire County Council Ecology has confirmed that when the final levels details are known, the impacts can be measured and gauged as part of the biodiversity offsetting which is secured by the legal agreement to the original hybrid consent (and which would also apply to any forthcoming grant of this S73 application).

In light of the requirement to submit detailed levels for each phase (condition 16 of the original consent), along with the biodiversity offsetting provision in the S106 legal agreement, I am satisfied that there is adequate control to ensure that the proposed levels would not have an adverse impact on the adjacent woodland to the north of the site.

Lighting impacts

A number of the ecological consultees have objected to the lighting plan which has been submitted with the application. This is on the basis of the impact of light spill on dark corridors, the adjacent woodland and the diverted brook corridor. It is recommended that the lighting plan is revisited to ensure that dark corridors are retained and to protect the woodland edge, both of which would be used by bats and other light sensitive species.

Condition 39 of the original hybrid consent requires the submission and approval of details of all external lighting for each phase of development. Notwithstanding the detail provided on the submitted lighting plan, I am satisfied that a lighting scheme could be designed so as to have an acceptable impact on ecological features within and adjacent to the site.

Conclusions on Ecology and Nature Conservation

The ecological consultees have raised a number of concerns in respect of this S73 application. On the basis of the above, I am satisfied that wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exist to justify the loss/relocation of four veteran oak trees. I am satisfied that conditions which would be carried forward from the original hybrid consent would secure appropriate levels and lighting to have an acceptable impact on the adjacent woodland and dark corridors.

I am therefore satisfied that the biodiversity impacts of the development are acceptable in accordance with Policy CS.6 and the NERC Act.

Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2 set a number of ecology based requirements which are detailed above. I am satisfied that, as far as possible, these are secured through the development as proposed. I am therefore satisfied that these policies are complied with in this regard.

Impact on Landscape and Character of the Area

Policy CS.5 of the Core Strategy requires development to minimise and mitigate impacts on the landscape character and quality, including cumulative impacts.

Policies REDD.1 seeks the retention of the mature hedgerow along the western boundary whilst Policy REDD.2 seeks the retention of mature hedgerows and trees on the site.

The application site lies within the Arden landscape character area as defined in the Stratford on Avon District Design Guide.

The landscape impacts of the development, both in terms of character and visual impact, or the development proposed under the hybrid consent was considered to be acceptable. Harm was identified due to the loss of mature hedgerows and trees within the site, and this harm was weighed up in the planning balance.

The amendments to the parameters of the northern development parcel would lead to further loss of hedgerows within the site (along the Blacksoils Brook), as well as the loss of a further two veteran trees (two were consented for removal under the original hybrid consent). A larger Landscape Buffer Zone would be created to the easterly part of the northern development parcel. The maximum building heights provided on the amended Parameters Plan are generally lower than those approved (AOD of 128m as approved, with AOD of 123m for buildings and 125m for plant now proposed). The only exception to this is the employment zone located to the southwest corner of the northern development parcel where the approved maximum height above AOD was 121m, whilst as now proposed, this has been increased to a maximum height above AOD of 125m. An ES Addendum to Chapter 10: Landscape and Visual Impact has been submitted which responds to the changes proposed through this S73 amendment. The same viewpoint locations have been used for the assessment which I consider to be appropriate.

It observes that the proposed development would retain the broad-leaved trees and hedgerows around the site’s eastern and western boundaries, whilst retaining approximately 3.0ha of grassland habitat across the site as a whole. The proposed development necessitates the removal of the vegetation associated with the main length of the Blacksoils Brook which would be rerouted.

The ES Addendum states that there is an overall balance in that whilst the Blacksoils Brook is to be rerouted and its associated vegetation removed, there would be a greater area of native woodland planting, increased areas of meadow and a significant increase in tree planting. There would also be fewer buildings on site.

In response to the original hybrid application, the Council’s Landscape Consultant identified the Blacksoils Brook as a historic landscape feature. This is consistent with Policy REDD.2 which identifies the protection and enhancement of the Blacksoils Brook as one of the specific requirements of the policy.

The Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA) submitted with the original hybrid application concluded that the effects of the development on the landscape character would be ‘moderate adverse’ with respect to the northern development parcel and ‘minor adverse’ with respect to the southern development parcel. The LVIA concluded that the development would have adverse effects in terms of visual effects on those located close to it, and in particular the properties on Far Moor Lane in the south. In respect of Gorcott Hall in the north, the scheme would be visible and would result in a moderate adverse effect.

The ES Addendum, when assessing the impact of the proposed amendment, identifies the same level of landscape harm.

On balance, I consider the landscape impacts of the development, both in terms of character and visual impact, to be acceptable in line with Policy CS.5 of the Core Strategy. I identify harm in the loss of mature hedgerows, trees (including four veteran trees), and the diversion of the Blacksoils Brook which forms a historic landscape feature. This harm will be weighed up in the planning balance discussed within the ‘Conclusion’ section of this report.

Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping

Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy states that developments will improve the quality of the public realm and enhance the sense of place. High quality design will be achieved, and innovation will be encouraged where it reflects and complements the immediate local environment and maximises sustainability benefits.

The application has been submitted in hybrid form, with the majority of the site being in outline with all matters reserved. The full element of the scheme proposes detailed consideration for Phase 1 Ground Engineering works and means of access to the site from the A4023.

Consistent with the Parameters Plan submitted with the original hybrid application, the amended Parameters Plan provides details of land use, building heights, indicative internal circulation routes, pedestrian/cycle access points and green infrastructure (to include perimeter planting, landscaping buffer zone adjacent to Gorcott Hall and retained grassland to the southern tip). The applicant is seeking approval as part of the outline process for this plan.

An Illustrative Masterplan (plan no. 5372-203 K) has also been submitted which shows ways in which the site could be developed following the submission of reserved matters submissions. This masterplan is illustrative only, and if permission is granted would not form part of the approved permission.

Detailed matters of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping would need to adhere to the submitted Parameters Plan. I am satisfied that compliance with this plan, which would be secured by way of condition, would adequately safeguard the future development of the site via reserved matters approvals to achieve a high quality scheme, in accordance with Policies CS.5 and CS.9 of the Core Strategy.

Drainage and Flood Risk

Policy CS.4 of the Core Strategy states that all development should take into account the predicted impact of climate change on the District’s water environment. Measures will include sustainable use of water resources, minimising water consumption and minimising flood risk. Policy CS.7 promotes Green Infrastructure requirements to, amongst other things, reduce flood risks and achieve sustainable drainage. Policy CS.9 seeks measures to secure effective water management and flood protection. Policy REDD.1 seeks the de-culverting and enhancement of the existing watercourse feature, and Policy REDD.2 seeks the protection and enhancement of the Pool and Blacksoils Brook.

An ES Addendum to Chapter 7: Hydrology has been submitted which responds to the changes proposed through this S73 amendment. In addition, an updated Flood Risk Assessment, Water Framework Directive Compliance Assessment and Water Management Statement have been submitted with the application.

With regards to drainage and flood risk, the most relevant amendment proposed relates to the diversion of the Blacksoils Brook which is identified as being one of three minor watercourses in the northern development parcel.

The ES Addendum states that the Masterplan makes provision for green space for new watercourse corridors to be created around the proposed development areas which would provide flood risk and biodiversity benefits. This would include the realignment of a reach of the Blacksoils Brook. It continues to state that the diversion of the Blacksoils Brook would allow its current linear, shaded and incised form to be realigned to follow a more preferential, naturalised form, thereby facilitating the improvement of aquatic and riparian habitats. Furthermore, it states that the Blacksoils Brook would be diverted to intercept another minor tributary channel allowing a greater catchment to be applied to the diverted Blacksoils Brook which would help to improve the low flow conditions in the watercourse. The new channels are designed to intercept and accommodate the design flood event (1 in 100-year) for the lifetime of the development (+35% allowance for climate change), therefore mitigating flood risk to the proposed development.

Subject to appropriate conditions, both Warwickshire and Worcestershire LLFA has raised no objection to the proposal. In addition, the EA has raised no objection subject to conditions. This is in respect of flood risk, groundwater and connectivity with the Ipsley Alders Marsh SSSI (located approximately 250m away at the south-western end of the site) and sustainable drainage considerations.

I note that Mappleborough Green Parish Council has raised concern in that the drainage features shown on the Illustrative Masterplan (plan no. 5372-203K) are not consistent with those shown on the Signal Controlled Access Option plan (plan no. BMT/2116/100-01 S2 P9). The location of drainage features on the Masterplan are for indicative purposes only at this stage, whilst the Signal Controlled Access Option plan shows the signalised junction into the site, not the location of drainage features. I therefore do not consider this inconsistency to require the submission of amended plans.

The drainage and water efficiency proposals would be the subject of further approval at reserved matters stage. However, based on the consultation responses from the Environment Agency and the LLFAs (both Warwickshire and Worcestershire), I am satisfied that the final drainage scheme would be in accordance with the Policies of the Core Strategy, specifically Policies CS.4, REDD.1 and REDD.2.

Environmental Health Issues and Residential Amenity

Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy requires occupants of new and neighbouring buildings to be protected from (inter alia) noise, contamination and pollution, loss of daylight and privacy, and adverse surroundings.

The impact of the development on ground conditions and land contamination, air quality, noise and vibration, lighting impact, residential amenity (loss of light, overbearing and overlooking) were all considered in detail in the assessment of the original hybrid application.

Concern has been raised locally in respect of the impact of the development on residential amenity; specifically air quality, dust, noise disruption (in relation to both construction and operation phases of development as well as road traffic noise), loss of light, overbearing and overlooking. I am satisfied that subject to the reattachment of relevant conditions to protect residential amenity and the consideration of the detailed design within any forthcoming reserved matters submissions, the site could be developed without causing significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity in accordance with Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy.

Crime Prevention

Policy CS.9 also seeks to ensure high quality design, an element of which includes measures to help to reduce crime and the fear crime.

Consistent with the original hybrid application, I remain satisfied that issues relating to crime prevention can be adequately addressed at reserved matters stage and the development would accord with Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy.

Loss of Agricultural Land

Policy AS.10 of the Core Strategy seeks to avoid the loss of large areas of higher quality agricultural land. Higher quality land is categorised as Grades 1, 2 and 3a.

In the assessment of the original hybrid application, it was concluded that some harm would arise through the loss of approximately 9.65 hectares of Grade 3a land. This remains the case for this amended application and this harm needs to be weighed in the planning balance.

Socio Economic Impact

Chapter 14 of the original ES considered the likely socio-economic effects arising from the construction and operational phases of the proposed development.

Overall, the ES concluded that the residual social-economic effects of the proposal are negligible, minor beneficial or moderate beneficial.

A Socio Economic Statement of Conformity has been submitted by the applicant which confirms that the changes proposed under this application do not alter the assessment, findings or conclusions presented in the original ES.

I remain of the view that the proposed development would have a positive socio- economic impact on the District and region which lends support to the proposal.

Developer Contributions/Infrastructure Provision

The original hybrid consent was granted subject to a S106 legal agreement which secures the following:  Highways: £200,000 to be paid on first occupation and held for a period of 15 years from its receipt or until 12 months after the last premises is occupied, whichever is the sooner, in the form of a bond and management arrangement to support the HGV Routing Strategy and Annual HGV Surveys to be secured by way of condition;  Ecology: biodiversity offset scheme for each phase of development and biodiversity monitoring contribution.

The legal agreement was worded such that, in the event that a S73 consent is granted, the obligations in the S106 legal agreement (the highways bond and biodiversity offsetting) shall relate to the S73 consent (Section 21 of the legal agreement – Future Permissions of the legal agreement). A supplemental deed/new legal agreement is therefore not required in this case.

Conclusions

I consider that the current application should be determined in accordance with the adopted Development Plan. The site is allocated under REDD.1 (southern development parcel) and REDD.2 (northern development parcel) in the Core Strategy, and the principle of development was accepted through the approval of the original hybrid consent (17/01847/OUT).

Whilst harm was identified in the assessment of the original hybrid consent, in assessing the planning balance against the dimensions of sustainable development and the relevant Core Strategy policies, the significant public benefits of the proposal were considered to outweigh the harm identified.

The application now proposed seeks to amend the approved scheme through changes to conditions attached to the original hybrid consent. Specifically, the changes involve amending the design of the Phase 1 Ground Engineering works to facilitate the first development plateau and amending the proposed parameters of development for the northern development parcel. Other incremental changes to conditions are also proposed. Reassessing the planning balance against the dimensions of sustainable development and the relevant Core Strategy policies, I consider that the harm arising from the development scheme would be:  the less than substantial harm caused to designated heritage assets (the setting of the Grade II* listed Gorcott Hall, its associated Grade II listed buildings/structures and to the Grade II listed Lower House, School House, Yew Tree and Church Cottages);  less than substantial harm to the a non-designated heritage asset (the historic County boundary);  long term change to the wider landscape character and harmful localised visual impacts to include loss of hedgerows and four veteran trees;  environmental effects of noise, disturbance, dust, etc. during construction phases;  loss of Grade 3a and 3b agricultural land; and  biodiversity loss to be mitigated through on-site measures or offsetting.

I consider that the site offers significant benefits:  employment opportunities during the construction phase, estimated to be approximately 59 full-time equivalent jobs  increased demand for local accommodation (comprising of permanent accommodation, short-term rental and local bed and breakfasts) and the associated positive impacts on the local economy  growth of local construction industry through construction phase which is anticipated to extend over a 15 year period  indirect impact on local economy through construction workforce spending  employment opportunities through operational phase, estimated to be approximately 1,745 full-time equivalent jobs, though this could be higher dependent on the mix of uses  bring economically active residents into the area through the creation of new jobs  gross value added to the local economy  increased use of local child care opportunities for those employees living outside the area but using childcare services local to their place of work  development would incorporate the principles of Secured By Design  opportunities to provide apprenticeships and other training initiatives, possibly linked with local education providers

Notwithstanding the harm identified, the proposals would not result in significant environmental impacts on air quality, noise and vibration, risk of contamination, residential amenity, water resources and flood risk that could not be mitigated by the imposition of conditions and/or legal agreement obligations.

The identified harm to both designated and non-designated heritage assets, although capable of some mitigation, has been afforded considerable weight in the balancing exercise. When having regard to the significant public benefits of the proposal, I am satisfied that this harm is outweighed.

Technical issues from statutory consultees can be dealt with by way of planning conditions, and the development would not place unacceptable pressure on the local infrastructure, subject to appropriate mitigation measures being implemented.

It is also highlighted that the final form of the proposals would be the subject of consultation with the local community, stakeholders and key technical consultees at the reserved matters stage to ensure the delivery of high quality and appropriate form of development. Overall, the proposed development generally accords with the Core Strategy and can properly be characterised as sustainable development for the purposes of the NPPF. Furthermore, the development accords with allocations within the Bromsgrove District Plan and Redditch Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

Whilst officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and other material considerations it is for the Committee to weigh and balance these in coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available evidence.

It is recommended that the Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT this S73 planning application, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is delegated to officers:

Full planning permission conditions

Permission definition conditions

1. Commence the ‘full’ element of development within 3 years

2. Approved plans for the ‘full’ element

Biodiversity

3. Scheme for the provision of wildlife tunnel under the A4023 to be submitted and approved

Outline planning permission conditions

Permission definition conditions

4. Details of layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and any means of access that are not hereby approved (the reserved matters)

5. Submission of all reserved matters relating to first phase of development no later than 3 years

6. Submission of all reserved matters for second and subsequent phases within 10 years

7. Outline element commenced within 2 years of final approval of the reserved matters

8. Approved plans for ‘outline’ element

9. Maximum quantum of development to include a minimum 10% offices in the form of standalone buildings or as part of larger industrial or logistics units

10. All details relating to the development to be submitted and approved and approved by each LPA. Details are not approved until LPA(s) has/have approved in writing (the effect of this condition being that the applicant would need to apply for reserved matters to the LPA where the land parcel is located. Where the reserved matters relate to an area straddled by more than one LPA, separate but identical applications would need to be made to each LPA)

11. Submission of phasing plan with each reserved matters submission

Archaeological conditions

12. Programme of archaeological in accordance with WSI

13. Written method statement of archaeological observation

14. Final phase not occupied until provision made for publication and dissemination of archaeological analysis and records and site investigation, and archive deposition of archaeological analysis

General conditions

15. Samples/palette of all external materials for each phase

16. Details of existing ground levels; proposed finished ground levels; building slab levels and building ridge heights

17. Scheme for provision of adequate water supplies to be submitted and approved with each reserved matters

Highways and transport

18. Construction Environmental Management Plan to be submitted and approved, to include hours of demolition/construction (07:00-18:00 hours Monday to Friday; 08:00-13:00 Saturday; no working permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays) (for reasons of Ecology and Drainage also)

19. HGV Routing Strategy to be submitted and approved (to cover HGV movements travelling to and front development)

20. Annual HGV Surveys to be submitted and approved (first submission 12 months from first occupation)

21. Detailed design of the Traffic Signalled Access Junction on the A4023 Coventry Highway to be submitted and approved

22. Detailed design of pedestrian/cycleway connection to Far Moor Lane to be submitted and approved (north)

23. Detailed design of pedestrian/cycleway connection to Far Moor Lane to be submitted and approved (south)

24. Detailed design of A435 slip road mitigation to be submitted and approved

25. Employment Travel Plan to be submitted and approved

26. Details of vehicle and cycle parking (to include those for persons with mobility impairments/disabilities) to be submitted and approved with each reserved matters

27. Details of scheme of electric charging points to be incorporated in design of reserved matters submissions (for reasons of air quality also) Drainage and water

28. In accordance with Flood Risk Assessment submitted

29. Detailed flood mitigation scheme to be submitted and approved

30. Details of surface water drainage works to be submitted and approved (for reason of Ecology also)

31. Scheme to manage and maintain construction materials to prevent them entering or silting up the ditch network to be submitted and approved

Land contamination and emissions conditions

32. The carrying out, submission, and approval of the following related to contaminated land to include i. further site investigation ii. detailed site investigation and risk assessment undertaken iii. where site investigation identified remediation required, detailed remediation scheme to be submitted and approved iv. remediation undertaken

33. Validation report following remediation to be submitted and approved

34. Remediation if contamination found which was not previously identified

35. Details of scheme of low emission boilers to be incorporated in design of reserved matters submissions

Landscape and biodiversity conditions

36. Landscape and ecological management plan to be submitted and approved

37. Scheme for new watercourse channels diverted around the north of the site to be submitted and approved

38. Scheme for provision and management of buffer zone alongside watercourses on site to be submitted and approved

39. Details of all external light fittings and external light columns to be submitted and approved (for reasons of residential amenity also)

Notes:

1. Para 38 NPPF 2. Confirmation of EIA regulations being considered in the assessment of the application 3. The District Council will expect to see full pre-application engagement with local stakeholders and consultees as part of the drawing up of the final reserved matters schemes. The process will be controlled by a Steering Group, and will have particular regard to the relationship between the development site and its residential neighbours particularly where it adjoins the southwest and southern boundaries of the southern development parcel. The District Planning Authority will also expect high quality and an innovative design. The Steering Group will also look at the details to be drawn up for the eventual approval by the relevant Committee in terms of condition 19 (HGV Routing Strategy) and condition 20 (Annual HGV Surveys) 4. The information submitted under condition 20 (Annual HGV Surveys) will be required to have consideration of HGV movements along the A4189 5. Highways works note 6. Diversion and culverting of Ordinary Watercourses will require consent from the relevant LLFA. As this development is cross-boundary, it is recommended that the applicant contacts the relevant Authorities to coordinate the relevant consents prior to construction 7. The applicant is advised to have regard to the contents of the consultation response from Warwickshire Police in preparing the detailed design of the scheme 8. The applicant is advised to have regard to the contents of the Warwickshire County Council’s draft Public Health Evidence for Planning and Developers document and the Building for Life 12 principles in preparing the detailed design of the scheme 9. Warwickshire Fire and Rescue Authority note

Robert Weeks HEAD OF PLANNING AND HOUSING