APPLICATION REFERENCE NO. 09/00835/FUL

Site Address Long Marston Storage Depot, Campden Road, Stratford upon Avon

Hybrid Planning Application (part full, part outline) for mixed use redevelopment comprising:

1) Outline Planning Application with means of access (in part) for the creation of a leisure village, to include an outdoor activity centre (Use Class D2), up to 150 self catering lodges (Use Class C1), up to 150 holiday homes (Use Class C3), a touring caravan site with up to 80 pitches and ancillary facilities building, rail related leisure attraction to include a museum (Use Class D2) and a passenger steam train service with associated ticketing facilities, a central leisure facilities building to include retail, leisure, commercial and community uses (Use Classes A1, A3, A4, D1, D2 and B1(a)), and sports pitches to include changing facilities; the creation of up to 500 dwellings (Use Class C3); the creation of Proposals landscaping, open space and ecological habitats; new accesses for vehicles, pedestrians and cycles, including an extension to the Greenway; new internal highways; car and cycle parking; sustainable drainage measures, including storage ponds for surface water attenuation; provision of utilities infrastructure; and all ancillary enabling works.

2) Full Planning Application for the retention of use of 80,374 sq. metres of existing industrial floor space and associated hardstanding for Class B1(a), B1(c) and B8 uses, together with the retention of an existing trade vehicle auction use (use class sui generis), and the change of use of 2,797 sq. metres of existing rail related floor space and associated hardstanding and rail track to Class B1, B2 and B8 uses; and the installation of a new roundabout access to Campden Road.

30 April 2009 Date Valid Planning Performance Case Officer Jayne Cashmore Expiry Date Agreement expiry date of 31 December 2009 Presenting Committee Date 7 December 2009 Pat Reid Officer Hybrid application – Type of Application part full planning and Applicant St Modwen part outline Parish Quinton Ward Member Brain Councils Marston Sicca Referral to

Planning and Previous No No Regulation Committee

Committee

1 • Hybrid application: part full and part outline to create a mixed use redevelopment of former MoD depot storage site • Proposal would provide employment, leisure and residential elements.

Full application: • Retention of use of 80,374 square metres of existing industrial floorspace and associated hardstanding • The buildings are existing on site. No external alterations of these buildings are proposed • Retention of an existing trade vehicle auction use (use class sui generis) associated with an existing employment use on site • Currently there are 140,247 square metres of employment floorspace on site – 59,873 square metres of existing buildings would therefore be demolished. • Change of use of existing rail related floorspace and associated hardstanding and rail track to Class B1, B2 and B8 uses (2,797 square metres) • New roundabout site access to Campden Road. The existing main access would be closed. The new roundabout would be sited approximately 50m further south (based on centre point from existing access to centre point of roundabout). • Other off site highways works are proposed including a new roundabout at the Clifford Lane-Shipston Road junction.

Outline application: • Creation of a leisure village including outdoor activity centre (use class D2), up to 150 self catering lodges (use class C1), Description of up to 150 holiday homes (use class C3), touring caravan site Proposals with up to 80 pitches and associated ancillary facilities building, rail related leisure attraction to include a museum (use class D2) and passenger steam train service, central leisure facilities building to include retail, leisure, community and commercial uses • The central leisure facilities building is proposed to be 5,900 square metres in total, providing for 1,590 sq m of C3 residential use, 3,477 sq m of A1, A3, A4, D2 and B1(a) uses, 482 sq of D1 community use and 351sq of colonnade/covered walkway space • Up to 500 dwellings • Creation of landscaped areas, open space and ecological habitats • New accesses for vehicles, cycles and pedestrians • Extension to The Greenway through the site • Details relating to the access have been submitted in part. Full details of the main roundabout access have been submitted for approval. The details relating to the secondary accesses onto Station Road have been reserved for future detailed design. Matters relating to Appearance, Landscaping, Scale and Layout have not been submitted and would be sought through Reserved Matters applications.

Other Matters • The application has been submitted with an emerging Masterplan. • The application has been submitted with an Environmental Statement. An Addendum to this ES was received on 4.11.09

2  Scale of development Reason for Referral  Objections from Ward Member and Parish Councils to various to Committee aspects of the proposal  Open Countryside  Gas Consultation Zone  Flood Zone 2 and 3 on part of the site Planning  Rail link to Stratford-on-Avon safeguarded for transport Constraints  Vale of Evesham Control Zone  Adjacent to AONB  Site lies in close proximity to Listed buildings  Site History  The Masterplan: consultation process, status  Policy and Principle of development  Relationship to and impact on tourism facilities in Stratford on Avon  Traffic generation and access considerations including footpaths and rail link  Indicative design, layout, density and mix of dwellings  Landscaping matters and impact on trees  Ecological matters  Archaeological matters Key Issues  Level of sports pitch provision  Environmental health impacts, in particular Air Quality, Noise and Vibration and Contamination  Drainage  Impact of National High Pressure Gas Pipelines on proposal  Energy Conservation  Impact on neighbouring properties  Proposed phasing of the development  Developer Contributions/Infrastructure Provision  Referral to Secretary of State  Conclusions

GRANT, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the Recommendation application not being called in for determination by Secretary of State

3 SUMMARY OF POLICY AND BACKGROUND PAPERS

POLICY

The Development Plan

The Regional Spatial Strategy

RR1 Rural Renaissance RR4 Rural Services CF2 Housing beyond the Major Urban Areas CF3 Levels and Distribution of Housing Development CF5 Delivering affordable housing and mixed communities CF6 Managing Housing Land Provision PA1 Prosperity for All PA6 Portfolio of Employment Land PA9 Regional Logistics Sites PA10 Tourism and Culture PA13 Out of Centre Retail Development PA14 Economic Development and the Rural Economy QE1 Conserving and Enhancing the Landscape QE2 Restoring degraded areas and managing and creating high quality new environments QE3 Creating a high quality built environment for all QE4 Greenery, Urban Greenspace and Public Spaces QE5 Protection and enhancement of the Historic Environment QE6 The Conservation, enhancement and restoration of the Region’s Landscape QE7 Protecting, managing and enhancing the Region’s Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Resources QE8 Forestry and Woodlands QE9 The Water Environment

West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy – Phase 2

Warwickshire Structure Plan

GD7 Previously developed sites I2 Industrial Land Provision T10 Developer Contributions T7 Public transport

Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 STR.1 Settlement Hierarchy STR.2, 2A. 2B New Housing Provision STR.3 New industrial provision STR.4 Previously developed land PR.1 Landscape and Settlement Character PR.5 Resource Protection PR.7 Flood Defence PR.8 Pollution Control PR.9 Hazardous Substances PR.10 Safeguarded Land EF.1 Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty EF.6 Nature Conservation and Geology EF.7 Nature Conservation and Geology EF.10 Trees, woodland and hedgerows

4 EF.11/11A/11B Archaeological Sites EF.14 Listed Buildings DEV.1 Layout and Design DEV.2 Landscaping DEV.3 Amenity Open Space DEV.4 Access DEV.5 Car Parking DEV.6 Services DEV.7 Drainage DEV.8 Energy Conservation DEV.9 Access for People with Disabilities DEV.10 Crime Prevention COM.1 Local Choice COM.2, 3 Local Shops and Services COM.4, 5, 6 Open Space COM.7 Bus Service Support COM.8 Rail Service Support COM.9 Walking and Cycling COM.11A Vale of Evesham Control Zone COM.13 Affordable Housing COM.14 Mix of Dwelling Types COM.15 Accessible Housing COM.16 Existing Business Uses COM.17 Rural Employment COM.21 Visitor Accommodation COM.22 Visitor Attractions CTY.1 Control over development CTY.9 Holiday Accommodation CTY.10 Rural Recreation CTY.18 Engineer Resources Depot, Long Marston IMP.1 Supporting Information IMP.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance IMP.4, 5 Infrastructure Provision IMP.6 Transport Assessments IMP.7 Green Transport Plans

Other Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS: Eco-towns A supplement to PPS1 PPS3 Housing PPG4 Industrial, Commercial Development and Small Firms PPS4 (DRAFT) Planning for Prosperous Economies PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG13 Transport PPG15 Development and the Historic Environment PPG16 Archaeology and Planning PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPS22 Renewable Energy PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control PPG24 Planning and Noise PPS25 Development and Flood Risk

Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions

5 Circular 05/05: Planning Obligations Circular 02/09: The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) () Direction 2009

Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents

Stratford on Avon District Design Guide Provision of Open Space Car and Cycle Parking Standards for Stratford on Avon District Meeting Housing Needs Managing Housing Supply Sustainable Low Carbon Buildings Landscape Guidelines Local Choice – meeting the needs of rural communities Stratford on Avon Urban Design Framework Lorries in the Vale of Evesham

Other Documents

Open Space Audit Manual for Streets Transport and Roads for Developments: The Warwickshire Guide 2001 Design and Crime Reduction Extending Your Home: Planning Advice Note Parish Plans *see section under Parish Council’s representations for details. Corporate Strategy 2009-2012 Sustainable Community Strategy EIA Regulations Habitat Regulations West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy – Phase 2 Panel Report Stratford on Avon District Local Development Framework documents Stratford on Avon Planning Obligations – Guidance Note Planning and Community Safety Open Space Audit Joint Housing Assessment for South Warwickshire Coventry, Solihull & South Warwickshire Sub-Regional Employment Land Study Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment Housing Development sites (annual) Provision of Industrial Land (annual) Statement of Community Involvement Annual Monitoring Report Long Marston Masterplan

Other Legislation

Human Rights Act 1998 Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998

6 REPRESENTATIONS

Given the scale of the proposal and also at the request of Ward Members, the following Parish Council’s and Ward Members were consulted on the application:

Ward Members:

Brain (Ward Member for the application) Barnes (adjacent Ward Member) Saint (adjacent Ward Member) Seccombe (adjacent Ward Member) Beese (adjacent Ward Member) Rolfe (adjacent Ward Member) Haycock (adjacent Ward Member in Wychavon) Jepson (adjacent Ward Member in Cotswolds) Stowe (adjacent Ward Member in Cotswolds) Annett (adjacent Ward Member in Cotswolds)

Parishes:

Quinton (joint Parish Council for the application) Long Marston (joint Parish Council for the application) (nearby Parish Council for the application) Welford on Avon (nearby Parish Council for the application) (nearby Parish Council for the application) Pebworth (nearby Parish Council for the application) Honeybourne (nearby Parish Council for the application) (nearby Parish Council for the application) Mickleton (nearby Parish Council for the application) (nearby Parish Council for the application) (nearby Parish Council for the application) Halford (nearby Parish Council for the application) Loxley (nearby Parish Council for the application) Weston on Avon (nearby Parish Council for the application) (nearby Parish Council for the application) Tredington (nearby Parish Council for the application) Whitchurch (nearby Parish Council for the application) Stratford (nearby Town Council for the application) (nearby Parish Council for the application) (nearby Parish Council for the application)

Parish Councils

Quinton Parish Council

The comments of the Parish Council in respect of the proposal were included within the consultation response from the Parish Council Working Group.

The Parish Council made the following comments following receipt of the Strategic Tree Protection Proposals submitted on 02.06.09:

The Parish Council would ask that a Tree Preservation Order be put on trees that are found to be healthy. Any trees that are removed are to be replaced with native species (16.06.09)

7 Marston Sicca Parish Council/Long Marston Parish Council Have provided the following comments:

• The Parish Council cannot support this application because the creation of 500 dwellings does not comply with CTY.18 because no local need has been proven • There are several areas of this Planning Application that would not be objected to particularly the use for Leisure activities as provided for in CTY 18. However it was felt by many members of our Parish that more could be made of this area as regards access by local residents for walking and other leisure activities • This Council does not object to the employment aspects of the application providing job numbers remain at the same level as present although it was felt that more of the employment could be geared towards the use of the rail links on the site. • We consider that some of the buildings shown as being retained, notably some Nissen Huts, being over 60 years old could not be deemed to be in any way "beneficial" as provided for in CTY 18. • We also have serious concerns regarding the volume of traffic through Long Marston village and surrounding areas. The proposed Holiday Homes, Self Catering Lodges and touring caravans would lead to a substantial increase in traffic and adequate provision must be made to accommodate this on available routes rather than through local communities. • In general it is felt that there is a complete lack of infrastructure for the whole site and that strict conditions must be imposed to control any further development within and around this site (16.06.09)

Adjacent Parish Councils

The development would also impact on the wider locality and the following comments have been received from other nearby Parish Councils

Admington Parish Council

Made the following response: • Agree with the response of the working group of villages as per the letter from Bard. • No objection to the proposed leisure and railway facilities at the site • Object to the large scale residential development as there is no infrastructure in place to support this. At least an extra 1000 cars would be on roads already busy with articulated lorries and cars. It would be a commuter village (18.06.09).

Alderminster Parish Council

Unable to comment as they are concerned that they are not in possession of the full facts of the application. They have not received copies of the plans for the site or the documentation from interested parties. Viewing the plans on line is not an option in this very large application. Therefore the members are unable to make any comment whether in support of the application or not. (19.11.09) [Officer response – hard copy plans were available to view and were held by 2 parish clerks for Long Marston and Quinton, hard copy plans were also available at the Council Offices. Disks with the application plans were also available from the Council]

8 Broadway Parish Council

Made the following comments: • This development will have an adverse impact on local businesses within Broadway, especially Bed & Breakfast properties because of the proposed building of self-catering accommodation and holiday homes within the development. • There will also be an increase in traffic on the surrounding roads. Many of these roads already have weight restrictions and low bridges, therefore construction vehicles travelling from the motorway links at Pershore and Cheltenham will come through Broadway being the shortest route to the site. If the development is built, people living, working and visiting the site will also increase the use of the roads all of which will affect the condition of the road surfaces, surrounding buildings and land (18.06.09).

Chipping Campden Town Council

Object to the proposed Master Plan for . We object to the proposal for 500 houses (in addition to the 300 holiday homes, employment and employment and leisure sections) which we feel are unsustainable and contrary to policy CTV18. There is a serious lack of essential infrastructure and in particular roads, communications and schools and the development will hence have a serious negative impact on the local community. (20.10.09)

Clifford Chambers and Parish Council

Object to the proposal on the following grounds: • Objects to this application with regard to the housing • Not unhappy with a leisure facility in principle - feel some form of leisure development is probably the most appropriate use for the site but this application includes far more than that, therefore the PC must object. • The infrastructure is not adequate to cope with a development of this size and with the increased traffic it would bring. • The application contains insufficient provision for utilities and facilities. The PC would be happy to consider an application for a smaller size, leisure- only facility that retained more open space areas, appropriate to the semi- rural locality (22.06.09)

Made the following response to the amendments received on 21.08.09: • No further comments to add to the above. Original comments still stand (15.9.09)

Ettington Parish Council

• The Council has no objection to the establishment of the proposed leisure village. Concerned about holiday homes evolving into permanent homes. Adequate controls should be in place to ensure the leisure village remains as such. • The Council would welcome the retention and development of employment opportunities in rural areas favourably • Ettington Parish Council objects to the residential element of the planning application. • The proposal for 500 dwellings would, if successful, result in a settlement completely out of character with existing local communities, and outside the recommendations of the District Council Local development Draft Core Strategy. • The Council would like to express its concern over the following:

9 . There is little evidence of infrastructure development which would alleviate the existing traffic movement on the surrounding minor roads . 500 dwellings would increase the traffic on such roads substantially. Public transport links are poor and the consequence of such development would be to increase car usage in the area. . Any increase in traffic coming into Stratford from the south would impact on residents of Ellington and neighbouring villages who have to travel into or through Stratford, and also on local businesses. Traffic congestion is already a problem for people making journeys through Stratford from Ellington, and at times the roads are already operating at capacity. Any substantial development to the south of the town could not be acceptable without the completion of a southern ring road to carry through traffic round the outside of Stratford. . The proposal would create an additional demand for places at Shipston High School. At present, children are able to attend Shipston High School even though the village is technically outside the priority catchment area. Increasing the demand without expanding the school would deny Ettington families the freedom of choice that they currently enjoy. If the development provides funding to expand Shipston High School by the number of places the new housing is likely to generate, then that would be a benefit for the school and for Ettington. • 500 new dwellings on the Long Marston site would alter the character of the area and fail to address the housing needs of the local population. Houses at Long Marston will not meet Ellington's need. • The Council objects to the residential element of the application. • No objection to the proposed Leisure Village subject to adequate controls to prevent leisure properties becoming full time dwellings over time. • In principle, the Council supports the retention of existing businesses in rural areas and welcomes new development which is consistent with local needs. (18.11.09)

Ilmington Parish Council

Object for the following reasons: • Approve the idea of mixed use development and protection of existing jobs but consider the new settlement of 800 homes is inappropriate as it would dwarf the existing local villages and severely impact on local facilities e.g. schools and community services. • The local road network would not sustain a settlement of the size proposed, exacerbated by the ongoing increased development that would inevitably happen. • Believe the site should be developed within local planning policy which could enable more jobs to be created on site. (7.11.09)

Loxley Parish Council

Made the following response: • We would only support if any approval included specific requirements of the developer to contract the construction of the Stratford bypass road to reduce congestion in Stratford town. Further, any approval should only be given on condition that major access roads to Stratford-upon-Avon are developed and extended. (21.11.09)

Luddington Parish Council

Made the following response: • No objection to the leisure village, rail leisure attraction, extension to the Greenway and other environmental improvements across the site. Wish to

10 see robust and enforceable conditions attached to any permission for the holiday homes to prevent permanent occupation • No objection to the employment part of the proposal, provided that the objective is to safeguard the existing business uses and employment, not to increase the same • Object to the residential element of the scheme on the grounds that this causes demonstrable harm to the well being of local communities, the character of the area and the wider strategic aims of the Development Plans for Stratford-on-Avon, Wychavon and Cotswolds Districts • The residential proposal does not meet an identified ‘local need’ and is contrary to Policy CTY.18 • The proposal is not ‘leisure led’ • There is a housing moratorium in place at present and there are no special circumstances to justify relaxation in this case • The site is in a fundamentally unsustainable location and public transport links are virtually non-existent. The effect on traffic for the local roads will be catastrophic • The proposed leisure and community hub will fall far short of meeting the needs of future residents on the site and other essential infrastructure (such as education and health facilities) are lacking (17.06.09)

Mickleton Parish Council

Mickleton village lies only two miles to the south of the site which is the subject of the Planning Application.

Mickleton has as its High Street the B4632 which is the only means of access to this site. The High Street comprises a narrow winding thoroughfare with shops, parked vehicles and many old stone and timber framed dwellings close to the carriageway. It is the main route to the Cotswolds, Evesham and junction 9 of the M5. It is already grossly overloaded with both HGV’s and domestic vehicles and the traffic generated by 800 new homes would make matters intolerable, both from environmental and safety perspectives. The noise, emissions, and increased risk which would result from the exponential increase in traffic along the High Street would, in our opinion, forever alter the character of this Cotswold village. The vast majority of people using the site would, due to factors such as location, lack of public transportation, and the availability of places of work, have to commute by car to towns such as Stratford upon Avon and Evesham in order to carry out day to day functions, such as work, shopping, schools, etc., and would vastly increase the levels of traffic on the 84632 to levels which are unsustainable.

Urge the planning committee members to take notice of our concerns when considering the application at Long Marston, which is entirely the wrong place for a new settlement of 800 houses totally lacking the necessary infrastructure for development of this scale. (13.11.09)

Pebworth Parish Council

Concerned that if officer's recommendation is upheld by the Planning Committee and the hybrid application is granted in any form construction traffic could blight the surrounding rural villages for many years to come. Requests Members to consider applying construction traffic routing orders to any permissions granted to protect the many minor rural roads and villages from all goods and tradesman's vehicles many journeys to and from the site. (18.11.09)

11 Tredington Parish Council

• No objection to the establishment of the proposed leisure village and general improvements to the site environment. • Real concern about the apparent lack of control over exactly what constitutes a 'holiday home' and little evidence that such residences will not, over time, simply evolve into permanent homes. Should this occur then there is the prospect of the application actually relating to a settlement of 650 houses. It is imperative adequate controls are in place to ensure the leisure village remains as such. • The Council regards the retention and development of employment opportunities in rural areas favourably but would require more time and information to evaluate any proposals properly and would reserve judgement until there is resolution of the application element relative to residential development. • Object to the residential element. The proposal for 500 dwellings would, if successful, result in a settlement completely out of character with existing local communities, and outside the recommendations of the District Council Local development Draft Core Strategy. • The Council, likewise, can see no need for such a settlement and foresees major problems which may be identified as follows:- . There is little evidence of infrastructure development which would materially alleviate the existing traffic movement on the surrounding minor roads . 500 dwellings would increase the traffic on such roads substantially. Public transport links are poor and the consequence of such development would be to dramatically increase car usage in the area. . The proposal appears to visualize a large unsustainable housing estate with virtually separate, unintegrated leisure facility. • The proposal for 500 new dwellings on the Long Marston site as little more than a major housing estate which would materially alter the character of the area, lack sustainability and fail to address the housing needs of the local population and is likely to prejudice the strategies outlined in the District Development Plan. As such, the Council objects to the residential element of the application. • Unable to form a view on the employment proposals given this relates directly to the residential proposals to which we object. In principle the Council supports the retention of existing businesses in rural areas and welcomes new development which is consistent with local needs. (18.11.09)

Welford-on-Avon Parish Council

Made the following response to the original proposal: • Object most strongly to the creation of up to 500 dwellings on the grounds that this causes demonstrable harm to the well being of local communities, the character of the area and the wider strategic aims of the Development Plans for Stratford-on-Avon, Wychavon and Cotswolds Districts • The proposal is not in accordance with Policy CTY.18 since the housing development proposed cannot possibly be regarded as being ‘ancillary or directly related’ to either the proposed leisure village or retained employment on the site • We disagree fundamentally that the proposed dwellings are ‘consistent with the needs of the local population’. The proposal does not meet a ‘need identified by a local community’ • Concern over the solution by utilising the Pioneer Report covering a Housing Market Area of 13 wards, which is completely at odds to the District Council’s Local Choice Initiative policy • There is a housing moratorium in place at present and there are no special circumstances to justify relaxation in this case

12 • No objection in principle to the proposed leisure village provided robust and enforceable conditions are attached to any permission for the holiday homes, lodges and caravans to prevent permanent occupation • It is possible to mount an argument that the current temporary permission for the retention of employment uses should not be allowed to continue beyond the current permission. However, they provide employment for some local people and feel it is inappropriate to disrupt employment prospects in the current economic climate. Therefore no objection to this element, subject to vehicle movements not increasing • The lack of other facilities and infrastructure make any residential settlement on this site unsustainable • Concern over implications for increased traffic on local roads • For the avoidance of doubt if the application is to be determined as a single entity then Welford-on-Avon Parish Council wishes to object strongly because of the inclusion of unacceptable housing proposals. (17.6.09)

Made the following response to the amendments received on 02.06.09:

• Supports in principle the protection of ‘strategic’ trees on the assumption that these are either ‘special’ examples worthy of protection in their own right or trees that serve a strategic purpose such a screening, noise abatement or landscape enhancement (10.08.09)

Submitted a further letter following publishing of Officers report for 20 October committee: In light of the Officers’ recommendation to treat this proposal as one application we now wish to object for the following reasons: - • The proposal is not in accordance with established Local Plan Policy CTY.18 • A housing development approaching the size of Welford-on-Avon cannot possibly be regarded as being “ancillary or directly related” to either the proposed leisure village or retained employment on the site. The applicant’s Housing Market Area covers a 5–8 mile radius, from Chipping Campden to Stratford and Evesham, Shipston and Halford, covering 13 wards in three districts, three counties and two regions. This HMA is far too large to represent “local need.” Indeed, the Council’s SPD Local Choice – meeting the needs of rural communities states: - “Ordinarily it is expected that the “local need” to be met by proposed development will relate exclusively to the town or village and surrounding parish where the need arises. However, there may occasionally be special circumstances where a justification for development may legitimately relate to a wider catchment area. This dispensation will only apply in the case of sites in MRCs [Main Rural Centres] on account of the role they play in serving a wider rural hinterland. This is a matter for Parish Plans to address.” • Neither Long Marston, nor Quinton are Main Rural Centres; nearby Parish Plans do not promote housing on LMD and a 13-ward catchment area is far too wide to have legitimacy. • The residential element of the Masterplan is little more than a large housing estate, incapable of achieving a sustainable community. • The large adjacent employment site located within LMD offers only a limited range of employment opportunities to future residents. Only a very small percentage of future residents will work at the employment buildings. Ultimately, this will be a commuter settlement. • With regard to the “affordable” element comprising 175 (35%) of the proposed 500 dwellings, we believe this is already covered adequately by the Local Choice Initiative through Policy COM.1. This policy is designed to ensure that the Local Centre Villages (and eventually all rural settlements) surrounding the Long Marston Site make provision for affordable homes in their own communities in accordance with identified needs.

13 • There is also a housing moratorium in place at the moment and there are no special circumstances to justify a relaxation in this case. On the contrary, the site is fundamentally in an unsustainable location. Its public transport links are virtually non-existent and only minor roads radiate from the site (Class ‘B’ roads and lesser). • The fact that the recent EIP Panel Report asks for 1,900 more houses, that St Modwen’s temporary planning permission runs out on 31st December and that Officers are recommending that a hybrid application is treated as a whole are not sufficient reasons for the Planning Committee to approve a new settlement in a highly unsustainable location and against the wishes of the neighbouring authorities, without first having examined the alternatives. • Application should be refused. (16.11.09)

Given that the site would affect many local parishes, Officers have identified the following relevant Parish Plans and their contents:

Long Marston Parish Plan was adopted in October 2007 by Stratford-on-Avon District Council as a local information source and a material consideration when processing planning applications. Based on consultation with residents, the Plan makes the following specific comments about the site:

 Concern about the possibility of a “village outside the village” and how this might work  Concern about increases in traffic that may arise from a new development at the site. Vehicles visiting the site currently frequently pass through the village despite signage directing them to an alternative route.  The provision of additional jobs for local people should be taken into account in any development of the site. The old Army Camp and adjacent industrial site currently provide one of the few sources of local employment.  In order to prevent the village lengthening to unsustainable dimensions the airfield and army camp should be treated as separate, distinct and largely self-contained entities in any development proposals.  An opportunity for parking provision on the site for visitors to the Greenway would be welcomed as there is limited parking space within the village.

The following general comments on development are also relevant: • Any new development must take into account the availability of local schooling as there is no school in Long Marston and some children have been unable to obtain places at Welford-on-Avon.

• Any new development must take full account of flood risk issues including surface water issues due to the location on flat land with heavy clay soils.

Clifford Chambers Parish Appraisal, adopted by the District Council in 2002, records residents’ concerns at disturbance from aircraft and events at the nearby airfield. Welford-on-Avon Parish Plan 2007 and Quinton Parish Appraisal 2002 do not refer to the site. Dorsington and Weston-on-Avon Parishes do not have an adopted Parish Plan or Appraisal.

14 Ward Members

Councillor Brain :

“Application 09/00835/FUL is in part contrary (Housing) to Policy CTY.18 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan and therefore should be refused in total.

I fully support and endorse the joint notifications you have received from Local Parish Councils and BARD (Better Accessible Responsible Development) and therefore will keep my comments to a minimum, because I've already been involved at parish level in preparing the joint response.

Residential Development - 500 houses:

This proposal should not be supported as no local need has been proven and is therefore contrary to Policy CTY.18. Developers rely mainly on their Pioneer Report, which fails to identify local need specifically.

Leisure - Lakeside Lodges, Holidays Homes & Caravan Park:

In principle I have no objection to this proposal, but the Lodges and Holiday Homes should be fully conditioned so as to not allow permanent residence. This could be conditioned, that one month of the year, say January, the holiday village is closed. Leisure facilities on site (i.e. sports ground etc) should be made available to all surrounding villages and settlements.

Employment:

This again is subject to an assessment of local need under Policy CTY.18, which I believe the developer will be able to demonstrate due to existing employment on site, although the level of employment and businesses should be clearly clarified. The majority of the workforce lives within a 10 mile radius of the site and some outside this radius, making commuting an every day occurrence through rural villages and country lanes. This is a problem already and should be taken into consideration. Levels of employment should not increase.

Transport:

The transport assessment claims there is likely to be a reduction in HGV movements from the site, but with the level of employment remaining the same and with the increase in leisure traffic I can't see how this assessment is reliable, unless the rail link to the south west is properly re-instated and employers on the site have the will to use it. The rail link would need the rail authorities and developers to commit to serious investment, which I don't believe will be available with the current economic climate. The same can be said for the north link along the Greenway to Stratford upon Avon, which I believe would meet strong resistance if there was a plan to re-instate the rail line.

The B4632 which is the main route to the site is in my opinion, inadequate to maintain the levels of extra HGV's and cars to the site by its very nature of narrowness and bends. This road has a well documented history of serious and fatal accidents recorded over recent years and is just not suitable for large volumes of traffic, which it supports already.

Infrastructure:

I have heard very little about Infrastructure to support this proposed development other than piecemeal road improvements, that are far away from

15 meeting the real concerns of the Local Parish Councils and residents. A development of 500 houses alone would be a new commuter settlement 2/3rds the size of Quinton, which has a School, two Shops, Post Office, Public House, Village Hall, Church, Sheltered Housing and a Nursing Home. This is without taking into account emergency services (Police, Fire & Ambulance). The proposed development, therefore would put pressure on all these services unless adequate provision was available on site” (29.06.09)

Adjacent Ward Members

Councillor Barnes:

“As the Ward Member for both District and County not far from the site, most of the traffic goes through my area. In respect of the rail link I fully support this and a possible station to London after the £120 million double tracking which has started with a new station at Honeybourne. The holiday element area is OK with more trees against the industrial units. Although there will be a reduction in scale it needs to be reflected in the 106 Agreement since at present it is up to 682 lorries a day. This figure needs to be below 450 this year and to be agreed to reduce it still more as the rail link is improved to 300 per day equally over the 24hour day within three years time. The B4632 is not good in my time as a ward member.

There has been one person killed ever year for twenty years. The junction on to the A3400 is not good and an island will help, but the width of road on the A3400, 106 yards is not wide enough for two lanes of traffic (what ever the County says) to increase the flow on the next existing island. Because there are so many large lorries using B and C roads there needs to be cameras and weight pads on the other two river bridges. This is a planning gain that is vital for the local area. We have had a meeting with all concerned (police and WCC) and an approved company is available to do this. In respect of 486 houses and 30 per cent affordable, the size of the estate would not be any more than the buildings that are there, so if this was to go through then they should be knocked down and put on the same site. COM.12.

Can we ensure that this number does go against the 9600 houses for the area? If not it should be refused if not we have find somewhere for them to go. Further bus services need to be paid for in the three counties. Some two years ago this site was up for temporary site use for one year and I opposed this and the Committee backed my amendment that this was not long enough and extended it to 2 years with one vote against. There have been long talks with all locals and others, but we do need safeguards and no more houses in the future.

After the last application for a continuation of 2 years, there was a contribution to WCC for £50,000 to improve the road infrastructure until this application was submitted. This was, I believe, handed over to WCC in June 2008, and has still not been spent” (27.08.09)

Addendum to previous comments:

“After the last application to extend to two years there was £50,000 passed over to Warwickshire County Council in maybe June last year that has not been spent on road safety measures. This could be spent on the bridges now” (02.09.09).

Additional response following publishing of report for 20 October committee: I support the recommendation with support from the police and the County there may need to be an extra exit on the new island on the A3400 when the Waitrose and park and ride application comes in. (14.10.09)

16

Comments on addendum to Environmental Statement: ‘As the Ward Member for both the District and County not far from the site, most of the traffic will go through my area, and my first comments were because about 400 houses were leafleted by the District Council, and I then asked if I could make representation. I was the Ward Member 20 years ago when there was about 1500 army or local workers there most lived on site.

In respect of the rail link, I fully support this and the possible station to London, after the £120 million double tracking from Morton-in-Marsh to Worcester which is well under way, the new station at Honeybourne, the third platform for this branch line and the GWR steam railway to make it possible to have all three platforms accessible, there is a planning application in at Wychavon which has their support, I believe, for a foot bridge. Also in the respect of rail, I believe that the line is only free for freight traffic between 2 am and 5 am at night. With this improvement freight will be able to enter 24 hours a day.

The holiday area is OK. Concern has been raised about 12 month lets but that has been addressed. I need more trees against the industrial units and on the entrance but this has been addressed by the latest amendments. Also on the amendment is a crossing from the houses to the community centre. I am all for safety and if possible a 20 mph speed limit on the whole of the site. Nine children hit at 20 mph survive out of ten where nine children out of ten hit at 40mph die.

We now move on to the industrial units. About 4 years ago myself and another noticed that lorries were coming out of the site at about one every 40 seconds and the people on the road or at Clifford were unable to get on or across the road. At the planning meeting 2 years ago when I requested for two years instead of one and the committee went along with me, it was agreed that a 106 Agreement for the reduction of lorries to 682 per day, with no more than 300 between 7 am and 7 pm in the day time. This means that it is only 25 per hour at a maximum and this and the 50 mph limit has made a big difference. Up until 2 years ago one person was killed on my piece of road, but none in the last 2 years with 3 serious accidents only, and the ambulance called once. This figure needs to be below 400 per day as the rail link is improved, and a general decline as years go on.

The major improvements on the B4632 and the new island that may have three or four spurs depending on the Waitrose application. We did ask for a no right turn, but this was rejected. A new entrance to the site will make a great difference as this will help to keep the traffic off the C roads. To counter the rat run by lorries that at present happens I have asked for two pads and one camera on Welford and the historic bridge at Bidford. This has been through the police at Leek Wootton and Sgt. Wilde and tested in London recently. The cost as I write is £50,000 - more than the £40,000 that I asked for because of electricity problems on the flood plane at Bidford, although we have got two new culverts to help with the build up of water at Bidford Bridge. These are all planning gains and are vital for the area. After the last application to extend there was £50, 000 passed over to WCC that has not been spent. This could start the bridge camera programme today. All other work should be done before work on site starts. My great concern is that it now it has to go to GOWM. These major improvements may be overlooked as like an appeal. If they read this these major improvements must be made.

In respect of the bus service that will be needed to Stratford and the Vale there are proper stops and shelters where required on the route in my area but not at Quinton where the old and young have to stand in the wet and cold. Although this is not in my area see if something can be done about it as I have had many

17 phone calls from people in the area. Please put it in the 106 agreement, but this is not in my area.

Housing. Although there is at present a moratorium on building we are able to start on the affordable element. About 160 in total are much needed in this area. The estate will be no bigger than the exceeding buildings. They will have to be removed under COM 12 so as to safeguard that there is no more built later in the future. There is concern that local people don't get there first because there hasn't been any of this type built it the area for over 22 years, except for two that I got as planning gain at Long Marston and the shop with the help of Rebecca Frost, Mr Moore and others. A number of applications have gone in but come to committee for grant and being refused by local people. One went to appeal and lost. All parish councils keep doing surveys but nothing. When this goes through there need to be new surveys in all villages. The children that I tried to help 22 years have had families and they are back in a worse position than their parents. I do have concern at Orbit to administer the allocation. We have had problems in the past.

Further to cross border involvement, Pebworth were informed at an early stage and the 3 counties and 5 districts at Wychavon Joint Planning Committee which has spoken about it for the last 2 years where I usually go with an officer from the district, even I had to show Pat Reid, the director of planning. Also at Weston parish and Luddington we have always had both ward members speaking for 13 years and the battle still goes on as I speak after 3 public inquiries and a high court case. We have a parish meeting at Weston on Avon and after a postal vote using a box in the farm shop there were 19 for, 4 against and one wanted a new bridge over the Avon.

Since the consultation area has been widened I have been out on my cycle and spoken to a lot of people. There is concern but many thought that something has to go there, and if we can make sure that the bed and breakfast trade does not drop, the road and bridges are fit for purpose and that local people can go for local houses. I have always been against the ecotown but I leave the committee to decide. You have all been on a site visit including Stansgate Planning for the opposition’. (16.11.09)

Councillor Pemberton:

I wish to support a number of elements of the application on the following grounds; 1. The employment uses of the site provide employment across a number of rural communities including my ward. Regularising this use will protect existing opportunities and create further, much needed jobs. As such this element is in accordance with policy COM16,COM17 and CTY18 of the district local plan to 2011 as well as central government guidance PPG4 and PPS4 )draft) and finally the Long Marston masterplan 2. Leisure use - the leisure use is in accordance with policy CTY18 and WMRSS policy PA 10 and the masterplan. I would wish to see, however, firm and enforceable conditions to ensure the leisure use cannot become permanent. I would support a condition requiring the leisure village to be closed, including all amenity services and retail infrastructure for a minimum period of 2 months in every 12 month period for instance closing the site November 30lh and re- opening February 1" – The comments of the CPRE are relevant here. I note officers comments, however, a robust condition enshrined within the section 106 agreement seems the only mechanism by which a 'creeping' extension of the residential element of the site on a permanent basis. Overall the leisure element should be beneficial to the tourist pull of the district.

18 3. The housing element is the most contentious part of the proposal and were it to be approved the 35% affordable housing PLUS 10% on site workers provision is welcome although in light of current market conditions a waiting period of not less than 6 months before the on site worker houses were released would seem to be more appropriate and that this time scale should be measured from completion of all elements of the housing component so as to maximise the take up of on site worker participation. The on site housing should also be a mix of house sizes to widen the attractiveness of the provision. In addition any housing permissioned on this site should contribute to the overall housing provision numbers for the district emerging from the spatial strategy rather than being seen as a windfall. (12.11.09)

Councillor Rolfe and Joan McFarlane (Town Councillor):

Concerns for the following reasons: • Believe that residential and visitor traffic will increase in neighbouring Stratford-upon-Avon particularly along the Shipston Road and the Banbury Road, These roads already suffer from congestion during peak times. • Have always been concerned about the amount of HGVs which travel down the Shipston Road and over the Clopton Bridge. We hope that if this application were to be granted, the amount of HGVs will be reduced and the County Council will seriously consider putting a weight restriction on the Clopton Bridge. (11.11.09)

Councillor Saint:

‘Though I support the uses for the rail track that is linked to the Worcester to Oxford railway, my views on other matters are those of great concern. All traffic generated from this site will go either through Stratford-up on-Avon or other local villages that do not have the capacity to cope with increased vehicular movements.

The 500 houses: When occupied, these properties represent a far too dense collection of building for temporary use under Class C3 in the absence of local facilities. They would generate undue pressures on traffic on local roads and through Stratford-up on- Avon, whether for general occupation or use as class C3 development. These pressures would not be mitigated by a new roundabout access to Camp den road, or by improvements at the junction of the B4632 and the A3400 as occupants would need to travel to nearby towns and settlements for their everyday needs due to lack of infrastructure.

I am making comments, lest there be an error on the paperwork and these 500 houses are for general occupation and not Class C3 uses. Such housing at this location would not satisfy local needs and would divert resources from other local communities who have identified a need for smaller scale housing dispersed across their various communities.

The Touring caravan site, holiday homes and self catering lodges: The infrastructure in the area will be hard pressed to cope the traffic generated from 300 lodges and holiday homes and 80 caravan pitches (as well as 500 other new homes).

Occupants would need to travel to nearby towns and settlements for their everyday needs due to lack of infrastructure, providing a burden on the local roads.

Areas for Bl, B2 and B8 uses:

19 All present areas that are used on a temporary basis in these use classes have a limit on the vehicular movements that they generate, due to poor local infrastructure. This should continue, as the provision of a new roundabout on Camp den Road will not improve the capacity by any marked degree when the area permitted for these uses is enlarged.

General: I cannot see how the Local Development Framework can justify this mix of development. Some aspects of the proposals could be fine in a different application, but taken together I cannot support these proposals. (13.11.09)

Councillor Mrs I Seccombe:

Having consulted with my Wards where possible, the view would seem to be that the needs of local housing are best met within the confines of the communities I represent, and would not be appropriately delivered in a new Community at Long Marston. Local Housing needs are required to be met especially close in order that families support networks can be met, i.e. they may be carers for parents or children and specifically need close proximity.

It surprises me that the identified 'local housing needs' can be met within a 10 mile radius as suggested by the applicants. This does in fact take into consideration the housing needs of Wychavon DC which I note have already been met within their own quota, and for which reason they also do not support this New Settlement.

My further concerns are around the likely additional traffic impact this New Settlement will have on the area. Specifically I would be anxious that my own Parishes will find a detrimental increase of traffic through the villages of Alderminster and Ettington, and likely further increase in Loxley where it may be used as a 'rat run' for traffic otherwise inconvenienced by the very significant delays that will be created by traffic through Stratford.

There are concerns being expressed by the Parish of Ettington about the number of places that their community will be able to gain at the Shipston High School which is currently a popular option for parents.

I support the elements of the application which support CTY18 of the Local Plan; namely the Leisure facilities: Holiday Homes, Lakeside Lodges, Caravan stands and the development of the rail tourism facility. I also support the Commercial aspects of the application, which will retain welcome jobs in the site.

However, I strongly object to the development of a 500 house New Settlement, which is outside the CTY18 of the Local Plan as it does not identify local needs housing that is not already being met elsewhere.

The requirement of infrastructure to support such a very large New Settlement together with the very significant wider development of leisure activities and commercial interests on this site is negligent for the impact on rural roads and rural communities. Stratford itself is not able to manage the impact of this number of extra vehicle movements that will be generated with the likely pressure of numbers being directed North - North/East to the larger urban populations for work and business and indeed to Motorway access. Stratford's own commercial tourism may well be jeopardised if it is not to be managed properly.

I am concerned that the very weak restrictions on the Holiday Lets/Lakeside

20 Lodges could mean that within a very short space of time these 300 extra units may become permanent residences. I would therefore wish to see stronger restrictions in keeping with the type of units they are to become, and in common with other such housing – i.e. a month free occupancy period. (23.11.09)

Third Party Representations

Neighbour notifications were sent out to 1416 households – all those within the villages of Long Marston, Upper Quinton, Lower Quinton and Clifford Chambers, Milcote and Welford on Avon. Neighbour notifications were also hand delivered to the dwellings accessed off the applicant’s access road which falls within Wychavon District. This incorporated villages in closest proximity to the proposed development and was also selected on the basis of those villages which had been consulted upon in the development of the Masterplan. This enabled those communities who had been involved in the development of the Masterplan (with the applicants) to also have a direct opportunity to comment on the application once submitted. 10 site notices were also erected at various points around the site. Every neighbour and contributor on the original submission was also notified and asked for comments on the amendments submitted on 21 August 2009 and advised of the committee meeting date. Ten further site notices were also erected at the time of the amendments consultation.

98 letters have been received in total, 86 to the original details received by the Council on 27.04.09 and a further 12 to the amended details received by the Council on 21.08.09.

Of the letters received in respect of the original application details, the breakdown of the replies on the individual elements of the proposal are set out below:

Element of proposal commented Number of Number of Number of Objection Support No objection

Housing 62 3 0 Leisure facilities 3 31 5 Employment uses 3 8 1 Rail and museum 1 6 1 Highways/traffic 21 0 0 Lack of suitable local infrastructure 16 0 0 Flooding 1 0 0 Location 1 0 0 Impact on local environment 6 0 0 Pollution 2 0 0 Impact on landscaping and trees 1 0 0 Mixed use (as per CTY.18) 7 8 2

Many of the letters extend to numerous pages, with detailed comments on more than one element of the scheme, elaborating on various points. The details are as follows:

Based on original details submitted at validation of the application:

Object to the proposals on the following grounds:

General

• If a venture of this scale were to go ahead, it would make the lives of villagers in Lower Quinton and surrounding villages insignificant. It would

21 have negative repercussions on the character of Stratford and its proposed ‘world class’ status.

Housing

• No housing shortage in the area and Stratford has exceeded its quota for new housing • Location is not appropriate for new housing development • This is a further attempt to achieve volume housing development on a similar scale to that proposed through the Eco-town proposition, through the ‘back door’, with the leisure element being included by the developers as a smokescreen • The developers would look to further develop the site with additional housing [following the grant of permission] and the prevention of expansion, once begun, would be extremely difficult • Potential traffic congestion on local roads • ‘Low cost’ housing should be placed around the district in existing villages to maintain the viability of these communities • Would create a commuter town, which will lead to increased traffic and would swamp local facilities • The housing element of the proposal runs counter to CTY.18 as 500 houses vastly exceeds local need and can be in no way considered as ancillary to the use of the site. The number of new dwellings is not in- keeping with the Local Plan. • The housing will not ‘naturally attach’ to the community of Lower Quinton • 500 dwellings will be nearly as large as Quinton and larger than most other local villages and there is no appropriate infrastructure • Settlements thrive because they are located on a route which goes somewhere or people have a reason to visit. These factors do not seem to be well supported in this proposal and is likely to create a bland, introverted ‘ghetto’, lacking in identity and being poorly integrated into its surroundings • The proposal is completely unsustainable • The allowing of this proposal would set a precedent, which could lead to ribbon development all the way to Stratford • In terms of assessing local need, simply casting your net over a large enough area to prove your case is not the same as meeting a local need • The ‘settlement’ will be out of proportion to the existing villages in the vicinity of the site • The proposed dwellings are not identified for significant housing development in either the Local Plan Review or the emerging Core Strategy and so conflicts with the District Council’s current housing moratorium defined by Policy STR.2 • The proposal does not comply with Policy CS.5 of the emerging Core Strategy • The Housing Market Area appears arbitrary. The applicant’s justification for affordable housing is not based on actual housing needs surveys. The applicant is therefore including a significant number of dwellings that have been identified elsewhere in the District through individual housing needs surveys under the Local Choice Initiative. The applicant has not demonstrated the 500 dwellings are ancillary or directly related to other proposals on site. The application therefore conflicts with Policy CTY.18 • The proposal would create an overcrowded, isolated housing estate. Such estates create social problems and are set to be the slums of tomorrow • Any new dwellings should be within established communities, where they are required and where there is an established social network and established facilities

22 Leisure

• The scale of the leisure activities would appear to curtail the rail activities on the site and do not allow for their future expansion • The holiday accommodation will wreck other local holiday businesses • There are too many self-catering lodges and holiday homes proposed. • Too many units would affect the ecological balance of the area • The creation of a leisure village appears to be more appropriate to a holiday resort • Since the District Council is currently analysing their core strategy which includes analysing Greenfield sites for housing, it seems entirely inappropriate to consider allowing a holiday village on this site. It is a prime brownfield site which should only be considered for helping meet the district’s housing requirements

Employment Uses

• The retention of the existing industrial floorspace will not add value or offer significant employment to local people • Much of the current industry is storage, which offers no benefit to local people. This remote site is not a suitable location for a storage depot, due to the large number of HGV movements • The provision of further commercial premises in addition to what is already there, would prove to be a great detraction • It would be preferable, for reasons of appearance and traffic, to remove the existing employment facilities from this site, especially considering current employment on site is relatively low skilled and storage based

Infrastructure/Community Facilities

• There are no community facilities on site, including shops. Residents will flock to Quinton to shop • There are no provisions for primary or junior schools. There are insufficient secondary school places in Stratford • The existing infrastructure in the surrounding area is wholly inadequate to serve an overly ambitious proposal the scale of which is outlined in this application • No provision for pedestrian access to cross a busy main road and no footpaths have been provided where they intend to relocate the main roundabout access point • The hospital in is already at capacity and this would put further pressure on services

Highways/Transport

• The site is only accessible via one B-road with a high accident rate. This route will not be able to withstand increased traffic due to construction, new residents, holiday makers and caravans • The current level of traffic is unacceptable for the location and road conditions and therefore the basis for the travel survey with the application is flawed • Stratford is too far for most people to cycle, so using the Greenway would not reduce road traffic • The surrounding countryside would be adversely affected by increased traffic on local road network • There is no mention of traffic calming for Long Marston and Welford-on- Avon. This ‘C’ road is increasingly being used by heavy goods vehicles as an alternative route to Birmingham

23 • Even now, queues from the B4632 and onto the A3400 can take 20 minutes • The lack of new roads is an unacceptable omission. I consider a new dual carriageway between Clifford Chambers and a junction with the A46 crossing the Avon river is essential to cater for increased traffic • Traffic increases will create road safety issues and will cause disruption to residents of local villages comparable to levels of the Eco-town proposal • The development will inevitably result in significant increase in traffic flow. Should be refused until suitable infrastructure is in place • The B4632 Campden Road has a poor safety and maintenance record. The additional traffic will make the situation even worse. Planning should be rejected until road improvement measures in the local area are committed to • The existing local road system is already near breaking point with current volumes of traffic and as such, is not adequate to support the proposal • The proposal would add to commuter traffic, since most residents would travel substantial distances to find employment and the current public transport system is not suitable for the majority of commuters due to infrequency, times and routes of travel

Rail

• There is no mention of reinstating the railway line between Stratford station and Long Marston to connect with the freight line to Honeybourne • Object to the current proposals as they fail to facilitate the restoration of the railway line to Stratford and is therefore not in accordance with Policy CTY.18

Jobs

• Additional housing in this remote location would lead to more long distance commuting. Development in this area conflicts with regional development plans for jobs and housing

Flooding

• Roads at Clifford Chambers, Welford-on-Avon and close to the Long Marston site are often blocked due to flooding. Many houses have also been flooded in surrounding villages. More development would increase risk of flooding in this area

Environment and Landscape

• Much of the area affected within the application site is green areas within a brownfield site. Any development should be limited to the brownfield areas and have a smaller total footprint than the existing buildings. • Increased pollution in the area • The proposed layout is somewhat ‘zoned’ into several discrete uses. This sort of layout is typical of urban peripheral or suburban development, which is inappropriate in a rural location • As proposed, the layout of the site, by creating several ‘inward looking’ estates or zones, largely turns its back on the wider [community] context, including nearby villages • Existing villages would lose their identity • The proposal will involve the removal of many mature and beautiful trees which should be retained to screen any development on the site and protect views from Meon Hill

24 • Potential impact on wildlife, especially protected species, such as bats and newts • The site is located close to the Cotswolds AONB and a new village of this size and density would be totally unacceptable, particularly the light pollution that this would create. • The countryside should remain the countryside

Support the proposals on the following grounds:

Housing

• With affordable housing planned, two existing employees have expressed an interest in moving to the new properties • The proposal works well in the context of Stratford as a tourist destination and in respect of the proposed housing. Consider there is a need for housing, especially affordable, for families in the area • The number of dwellings proposed seems appropriate for the space available • Due to the incremental growth of the nearby villages over the past 30 years or so, there are few arguments against the principle of this size of development

Leisure

• Consider that some form of leisure use could be appropriate for the site, the immediate location and the District as a whole • Leisure and commercial proposals would now seem to be the best options for this site • The leisure facilities would add to the local area • Strong support for the proposed rail based visitor attraction, but the operation needs to be linked to other historic rail attractions • New leisure facilities would be welcome, especially those that cater for children. It is important these are available to local residents as well as visitors to the site • Leisure facilities on this site would be a welcome benefit to this tourist area in general and in-keeping with the location which is adjacent to the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty • The extension to the Greenway can only be a positive proposal and good use of the rural location • A holiday park will only help support the tourist industry in and around Stratford • The provision of sports pitches; outdoor activity centre and leisure hub will be a good use of a large open space and provide local amenities for current resident villagers. Given the lack of facilities outside Stratford, this will be good for the area

Employment

• Retention of existing commercial operations on the site • Permanent consent will allow existing commercial operations on site to plan for the future with a level of certainty • It will encourage the employment of local people • The existing buildings provide inexpensive commercial space with a secure and clean environment • The Masterplan will facilitate significant investment from existing employers on the site • The proposed Masterplan will provide a ‘blue chip’ environment for businesses

25

Rail Uses

• The rail proposals form an essential element to fulfil Policy CTY.18 requirements for the provision of an effective public transport service linking the site with Stratford town, including (where possible) the utilisation of the former Stratford-Cheltenham railway line • The railway has a great deal of potential for the future use of the site and regionally, the site could provide a valuable freight hub, thereby removing a significant tonnage of freight from the roads of South Warwickshire • Retention of the rail link is vital as this is a major environmental ‘plus point’, so including some light industrial development utilising this valuable infrastructure is to be applauded. Similarly, the proposed rail leisure facility feature is appropriate

Other general comments on the proposals have been received:

General

• The site is too remote to be considered as ‘eco-friendly’ as people will have to travel for all their needs. Scheme too large to be sustainable. • The developers need to look at other ways to use the site, with perhaps a high quality hotel/conference centre with a golf course with other leisure activities • Agree in principle to a concept for ‘mixed use’ development on the site • Some form of development on this site is inevitable. The quality of any development proposal in terms of its connectivity and addressing the wider context is paramount, whilst also encouraging a cohesive identity of its own. The site as proposed is in danger of remaining a ‘separated self- contained island’, much as it has been for the last 60 years • How about building more schools, as we are short on spaces for existing local children • It would be more appropriate if the number of houses, lodges, holiday homes and caravan plots could be scaled down to one third of that proposed, or less • Whilst it is not felt the application is in-keeping with the nature of the rural area, and there are better locations for the development, there is no doubt we must allow for more houses

Housing

• Concern that the housing will have no supporting services in the way of a school, shops etc, thus increasing traffic movements to and from the site • There must be a guarantee that no more dwellings will be constructed on site, on existing open spaces within the site • Should any residential development be permitted, the opportunity should be taken to make it eco-friendly, including modern energy solutions • Creation of ‘affordable’ homes would need to be subject of a S106 agreement and the dwellings should be owned by the District Council, not a housing association • Concern over the potential occupation of the ‘affordable’ houses – would they be occupied by local people? • Would the dwellings count toward government targets for new housing to be met in the local area? • Concern that so called ‘exclusive developments’ can turn into sprawling estates

26 Leisure Facilities

• No objection to creation of a leisure facility or the extension of the Greenway. • The caravan site will probably put the small site next door to the camp out of business • Should permission be granted for the self-catering holiday lodges, caravans and holiday homes, strict conditions would need to be added to ensure no change of use or permanent occupation

Employment Uses

• No objection to the existing level of business to retain local employment, since there is no alternative use for the large storage buildings • The commercial elements could be better integrated with the residential and leisure proposals and public open spaces, in order to attract the public to the site • It would be wrong to lose existing jobs, but the area designated for employment use is too large and should be contained in a smaller geographical space

Highways/Transport

• Concern that B4632 will not be able to cope with the traffic generated by the proposal • Concern that nearby villages will become ‘rat runs’ for people trying to avoid traffic • Concerns remain relating to the vehicular access to the site • The application will result in more traffic on the road. This can’t be helped – it’s part of the progress of the age we live in and we just have to accept it • Concern over the knock-on effect of inadequate parking within Stratford town to cope with the additional traffic generated • Concern relating to the capacity of the junction between the B4632 and A3400 to safely and efficiently handle the inevitable extra load that the development would produce

Infrastructure

• Local facilities, such as schools, would need to be increased in line with any housing development • The cost of any major infrastructure improvements should be provided for by the developer • Should the proposal be accepted, it should only be allowed provided sufficient S106 monies are secured to improve the infrastructure in the area

Flooding

• The decision not to build within the flood zone is a wise decision. However, building on land adjacent to the flood zone area is not a good idea, either. Additional concrete in this area could cause the flooding to spread further into the site

Environment

• Tail backs and additional traffic would lead to further pollution in the area

27 Based on the amended details submitted on 21.08.09: 12 further letters of objection were received in respect of the amended application details.

Some of the letters had detailed comments on more than one element of the scheme, elaborating on various points. Many reiterated previous comments received. The only new points raised were as follows:

Object to the proposals on the following grounds:

General

• Concern over the size and scale of the whole proposal • Long Marston needs developing but why not just landscape it with woods and lakes?

Highways/Transport

• The increase in employment use will lead to more large vehicles travelling through the local villages

Environment

• Visual harm to the landscape and AONB

Housing

• Concern over density of the proposal, narrow service roads and insufficient parking within the site leading to congestion • Lack of storage facilities associated with the planned affordable homes • Lack of provision of allotments • Concern that without consideration to design for ‘countryside living’, there will be a mini-town housing estate on the doorstep of Lower Quinton

Following the publishing of the Officers report for the deferred 20 October committee, the following have been received:

10 further letters of objection (4 from 2 signatories). The following new points have been raised: • Surprised at recommendation given 10 surrounding Parish Council’s are objecting. Houses are not needed en bloc in this area. • Holiday centre is in very poor area for accessing tourist destinations other than by car. However one letter which objected did state they favoured the leisure development as it was in such close proximity to the AONB • Land is subject to poor drainage and would query what has leached into the ground or been buried from previous occupations. • 500 homes must equate to (a) around 900 children for whom there are no local school places and (b) at least 750 additional cars on the local roads which will be required for commuting to workplaces, shopping, as well as access to medical & educational needs. Local children are already having to travel as far away as Warwick to find state school places so there is a real problem here. Planning approval must surely therefore carry caveats that developers must contribute substantially to create the missing local infrastructure. • Density of development too high • Tensions between the permanent and temporary residents may arise

28 • Comments on detailed design matters which would be appropriate at reserved matters stage • The development would be larger than all the other villages within this part of South Warwickshire and and would increase greatly the traffic through at least 6 or 7 villages • This area is an important component for local tourism and care should be taken to develop the site within the parameters of the established local planning policy • Concern over suitability of the site for housing, due to contamination issues • When it comes to housing, the attitude seems to be ‘pick a number provided it is well below the 6,000 figure [associated with an eco-town]’. Why so arbitrary? • Including the dwellings, holiday lodges, holiday homes, caravan pitches and the workers on site, there is a potential for over 3,000 individuals on site at any one time. Compare that figure to other local villages – numbers on that scale would swamp each and every one of these villages and probably all of them put together

2 further letters of support for the proposal, but only if the railway line from Long Marston to Stratford was restored. Other new reasons for support raised: • Area should be developed to avoid a waste area of decay • Proposals make provisions for this area of South Warwickshire • Ideal opportunity to reconnect the railway – this would reduce the traffic generation worries, encourage employment and make the area more vibrant

3 letters received with comments (one from The King Edward I 6024 Preservation Society Limited). New issues raised: • The Parish does not in fact speak for the majority of the Parish. Many people in the area realise that there was a desperate need for housing in this area, at a rent or price the majority of young couple and families can afford. • Concern that the leisure facilities will not come forward due to financial constraints on individuals during this economic climate – the uses will not be viable. • The continued employment use of the site can only benefit Stratford District, south Warwickshire and the South Midlands in general. The District Council is urged to uphold Policy CTY.18 which requires the utilisation of the existing railway line, to also include ‘heavy rail’.

Copies of 2 letters sent to The Stratford Herald and the Shadow Secretary of State have been received, in respect of serious concerns relating to potential contamination on the site.

Replica letter/Petition

357 copies of a replica letter signed and addressed by different third parties were received on 13 November 2009. The replica letter asks the Council to refuse permission for the development for the following reasons: • A new settlement of 500 permanently occupied homes and 300 holiday homes on the Long Marston Estate is not appropriate for this site; it would encourage commuting, fail to create a proper community, dwarf local villages and overburden local facilities e.g. schools and community services. • The local road network cannot sustain a settlement of the size proposed.

29 • The scale of the leisure village, employment buildings and residential development is greatly disproportionate to local need and therefore contrary to planning policy.

The Parish Councils Working Group

The Parish Council Working Group has no objection to the leisure village, subject to suitable planning conditions relating to the management of the holiday homes to prevent those becoming permanent residencies. It makes no representation regarding the retention of the employment land. However, 500 new dwellings is a major, "stand-alone" part of the proposal and will result in the creation of a new settlement. Such residential development is only acceptable if "consistent with the needs of the local population" and "does not cause prejudice to the strategies of the Development Plan." There is no evidence this part of the proposal achieves this. Hence the residential element of the proposal is contrary to Policy CTY .18 and objection is therefore raised to this element. If the development is taken as a whole (leisure village, employment and housing), its sustainability and local-need credentials are poor.

Members of the Parish Council Working Group: 1. Welford-on-Avon 2. Marston Sicca 3. Mickleton 4. Quinton 5. Pebworth 6. Honeybourne 7. Chipping Campden 8. Dorsington 9. Ilmington 10. Aston Subedge 11. South Littleton 12. Clifford Chambers and Milcote 13. Preston-on-Stour

A further letter was received from the Joint Parish Council Working Group (JPCWP) following the publishing of the 20 October committee report: This letter was sent to all Members of the Planning Committee. Officers comments on the letter have been reported in brackets [ ] • The report treats the application as a single entity and it is on this basis that the JPCWG objects to the proposal. • Highlight the level of objection by statutory consultees and neighbouring authorities. Unprecedented for a planning application to be recommended for approval in the light of such objection. [Officers would note that the consultation responses have been recorded in the Committee Report] • Consider the proposal to be contrary to West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies CF2, CF3, CF6, PA1, PA6, PA7 and PA9, PA14, QE1, Stratford–on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 polices STR1, STR2, STR2A, STR3, STR4, DEV1, DEV4, COM1, COM.11A, COM.17, CTY.2, CTY.3, CTY5, CTY.18 SDC Supplementary Planning Guidance Meeting Housing Needs, Local Choice – Meeting the needs of Rural Communities and Lorries in the Vale of Evesham [Officers would note that these are noted in the Committee Report]

• Raise concern regarding the employment part of the proposals. The site is fundamentally in an unsustainable location. The local area is sparsely populated. Its public transport links are virtually non-existent and only minor roads radiate from the site (Class ‘B’ roads and lesser). The employment

30 element of this proposal is contrary to a whole raft of planning policies. The Council has refused to renew temporary permissions before, on the grounds that: 1. The proposal would continue a large scale employment use of the site that is inherently unsustainable. 2. Insufficient local need. 3. The volume of HGV traffic through this part of the district and through neighbouring districts would have an intrusive and harmful effect on local communities. These objections are still valid for a proposal that is the same size. The most obvious breach of policy relates to the Vale of Evesham Control Zone. We recognise lack of objection from Warwickshire County Council, acting as highway authority. However, their analysis of such a major development runs to one sentence in the committee report. Their analysis is inadequate. Moreover, Gloucestershire and Highway Authorities are not satisfied with the trip generation figures. Disagreement between the highway authorities is concerning. Yet this is not just a question of road capacity. The objection of the JPCWG and others relates to: 1. Urbanisation of rural roads, due both to the volume of lorry traffic and the necessary highway works to road junctions. 2. Harm to the character of the villages of Warwickshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, the Cotswold AONB and Stratford Town. 3. Pollution, noise and vibration experienced by local communities 4. High levels of traffic movements, resulting in unnecessary CO2 emissions. 5. The site cannot become a sustainable location simply through the development of transportation infrastructure.

[Officers note this letter reiterates many of the comments/objections put forward by BARD in relation to the employment part of the proposals which are summarised in the Committee Report].

[Officers note there are inaccuracies in the employment section of the letter. In particular the site does not double the entire strategic employment land requirement for Stratford District – a 5 year rolling supply is required of 17ha throughout the Plan Period – i.e. 68 hectares between 2006-2026. In addition, it is not larger than a Regional Investment site, and it is not the same size as a Regional Logistics Site].

• Takes into account the West Midlands RSS EiP Panel Report (September 2009), which recommends housing figures for all the local authorities in the West Midlands Region. The proposal is a new settlement, larger than many in the local area, such as Ilmington and Long Marston. In July 2008, the applicant published a Housing Assessment, to support its case for 500 houses at LMD. Surprisingly, the Assessment itself only made a case for 300 houses on the site. Perhaps recognising this discrepancy, the applicant’s report was amended nine months later to recommend delivering 500 houses at LMD. The Council should not give credibility to a process blatantly manipulated in this manner. The applicant’s Housing Market Area covers a 5–8 mile radius, from Chipping Campden to Stratford and Evesham, Shipston and Halford, covering 13 wards. These 13 wards are in three districts, three counties and two regions. The residential element of the Masterplan is little more than a large housing estate, incapable of achieving a sustainable community. Few on-site community services and facilities are proposed. As Warwickshire County Council explain, primary and secondary schools in the local area will soon have no spare spaces. Hence the proposal will place a considerable burden on existing and future educational facilities. Ultimately, this will be a commuter settlement, whereby most future residents will frequently travel by car.

31 [Officers note that the housing need identified in the applicant’s HMA was well in excess of both 300 and 500 houses)

• Consider the application to be premature. Consider the ES should have been amended in accordance with the 21 August 2009 Amendments. Comments on detail of conditions. Consider the application should be referred to the Secretary of State pursuant to the direction in Circular 02/2009, either because the scheme itself contains more than 5,000 sq m gross external floorspace or on the basis that the direction requires other floorspace applied for, permitted or built within the five years preceding the application to be taken into account and at the very least there are the two renewal permissions dated 11 January 2008. [Officers do not consider that the proposal needs referring to the SoS in accordance with Circular 02/09. The existing office floorspace would fall away on the grant of this permission and therefore is not counted towards the 5000 square metres. Officers are aware that a Third Party has contacted the Government Office of West Midlands to request that they call in the application – if Members resolve to grant, the SoS may therefore take the final decision].

• The proposal does not have the support of the communities whose needs it purports to meet. During the consultation process, only limited options were proposed by the applicant. The options carried forward by the applicant were not the most popular. Given the options presented to it, the local communities have consistently preferred options that minimise the level of housing. • The site currently has no strategic role in meeting housing need. By virtue of its location, its sustainability flaw is profound and well understood. Therefore, if the Council seriously wishes to consider its potential as a new settlement, it must consider its performance against all the alternatives: o Other new settlement possibilities. o Extensions to Stratford town and the 8 main rural centres. o Infilling. o Redevelopment of other previously-developed land in the district. o Local Choice and Rural Exception Schemes Such an assessment has not been carried out and it ought to be a role for the emerging Core Strategy. To approve this proposal now, in the light of unproven local need and in conflict with a raft of planning policies, is unsound. (16.10.09) [Officers consider that this application has been submitted as a response to Policy CTY.18 and a Masterplanning exercise – it is therefore not considered to be premature]

A further letter was received from the Joint Parish Council Working Group (JPCWP): The letter included a revised and added to list of Members of the Parish Council Working Group as follows: 1. Admington 2. Aston Subedge 3. 4. Broadway 5. Chipping Campden 6. Clifford Chambers and Milcote 7. Dorsington 8. Ettington 9. Honeybourne 10. Ilmington 11. Luddington 12. Marston Sicca 13. Mickleton 14. Pebworth 15. Preston-on-Stour

32 16. Quinton 17. South Littleton 18. Tredington 19. Welford on Avon 20. Weston on Avon 21. Willersey

The letter extended to several pages and the main points are summarised as follows: • The JPCWG has written before to support the leisure village concept and the opportunities for improved recreation. Yet, on balance, we object to the proposal because the combined scale of the employment and residential elements is unacceptable. Letter focused on residential part of proposals. • Letter outlines planning policy and RSS EIP Panel report • Letter refers to the applicants HMA and the housing figures mentioned at different times • This HMA is far too large to represent the local needs. The HMA also based on secondary data, not primary. • No explanation from the applicant as to why this site is the most suitable to meeting Stratford’s needs • Application does not have the support of local communities or Wychavon DC • Of the 28 Stratford-on-Avon parishes within the applicants HMA, 16 have not carried out housing needs surveys (November 2009). Of those that have, the level of identified housing need in each parish ranges from 1 to 26; a total of 74. Some of those parishes have been successful in identifying and pursuing development to meet those needs. For example, 26 affordable homes are currently being built at Shipston. This pattern indicates that any parishes are quite capable of meeting their own housing need in situ. • Substantial 2-way commuting would arise due to limited numbers of workers living on the site • Long Marston Depot has no strategic housing need. Sustainability flaw of the site. Other new settlement possibilities should be considered and are mentioned in the letter. Alternatives to a new settlement at Long Marston Depot have not been addressed by the applicant, Stratford, Wychavon or Cotswold District Councils or Warwickshire County Council. This ought to be a role for the emerging Core Strategy. To approve this proposal now, in the light of unproven local need and in conflict with a raft of planning policies, is unsound. • Made mention of various consultation response that had raised concern/objection to the proposals. • Put forward an alternative reason for refusal stating there is no planning policy to support the creation of a new settlement at Long Marston Depot, in either: The West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy, The WMRS S Phase Two Revision " Preferred Option December 2007,The Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996 2011, The Stratford-on-Avon District Local Development Framework Draft Core Strategy (October 2008).By Document the proposal is contrary to: West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Policies: CF2, CF3, CF6, PA1, PA6, PA7, PA9, PAI4, QEI, Stratford on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 polices: Policies STRI, STR2, STR2A, STR3, DEVI, DEV4, COMI, COM.11A, COM.17, CTY2, CTYJ, CTY5, CTYI8. SDC Supplementary Planning Guidance 1. Meeting Housing Needs 2. Local Choice "Meeting the needs of Rural Communities 3. Lorries in the Vale of Evesham (received 13.11.09)

John Maples, Member of Parliament for Stratford upon Avon

Has been over St Modwen’s plans with them in some detail. Concerned about the possibility of future development of the open spaces on the site. Considers there

33 should be a restrictive covenant on the open space in favour of the houses being built and sold. Would not wish to see this issue re-opened in the future by a further planning application. (21.09.09)

Further letter received dated 17.11.09 • Letter solely related to the proposal to build 500 residential homes on this site as part of its development. • Policy CTY 18 only provides for housing on this site to the extent that it is consistent with the needs of the local population. The applicant seems to have only to have been able to get to 500 houses by using an extremely large housing market area which would of itself include many other opportunities for small local developments. Local housing need is exactly that "local". People in housing need want that need to be met in the towns and villages with which they have family connections and where they actually live or have lived. They do not all want to be put on to one site down at Long Marston, anymore than they would have done with the housing proposals contained in the Eco Town application.

• Fully supports the position of the Joint Parish Council Working Group dated 13 November 2009. • Considers the industrial, commercial and leisure developments on the site seem entirely appropriate, the development of 500 residential homes is neither necessary nor acceptable, nor I believe is it consistent with Planning Policy CTY 18. • Hopes that the final decision on this application will either eliminate or reduce the number very significantly.

BARD

Comments on original plans submitted:

Leisure and Residential BARD endorses the response submitted by the Parish Council Working Group, with regard to the leisure village and residential elements of the proposal.

Employment In terms of the retention of the employment element, the proposal involves reducing the floor area devoted to employment use by 40%. Paragraph 9.6 of the Planning Statement acknowledges that the retained employment buildings are not ancillary to, or directly related to, the other proposed uses.

There is no objection to the rail-based businesses remaining on site. Part of the site could be identified solely for rail-related businesses, and protected as such by planning condition. However, not all existing businesses have rail connections. Many businesses could be accommodated elsewhere in the sub-region. For these businesses, the Long Marston Estate is not a unique resource.

Planning permission was refused in February 2007 by Stratford-on-Avon District Council for two applications (ref 06/01874/VARY and 06/01876/VARY) to extend the temporary planning permissions for employment use of the Long Marston Estate. The Council refused permission due to its unsustainable location; failure to demonstrate significant local need for such employment uses and a third temporary permission for this non-conforming use in order to allow further time for the production of a Masterplan was not justified.

Despite refusal in 2006, the Council renewed planning permission in January 2008 (07/02294/VARY and 07/02296/VARY) thereby allowing the current industrial uses to remain until 31 December 2009. On this occasion the sole reason for

34 giving permission was to allow time for the preparation of a Masterplan that will set out the long term future development of the site, in accordance with local plan Policy CTY18.

The fact that the proposal represents a reduction in employment floorspace fails to appreciate that the existing employment uses are temporary and do not represent a legitimate fall-back position. The Long Marston Estate has been consistently held by the District Council to be an unsustainable location for large- scale development.

Transport Issues 80,000m2 employment floorspace will generate a large amount of car and HGV traffic. The site cannot become a sustainable location simply through the development of transportation infrastructure. For example, a new half hour bus service from Stratford to Moreton-in-Marsh cannot realistically be expected to meet the needs of the future workforce of a major employment site or to compensate for a lack of on-site community facilities. It will always be a commuter settlement.

The Transport Assessment claims there is likely to be a reduction in HGV movements from the site. This claim is based on a reduction in employment floorspace. However, this approach is misleading and unreliable. All existing jobs on the site will be retained. Hence there will be no reduction in HGV movements. Furthermore, residential, retail, leisure and commercial development is proposed in addition to 80,000m2 employment floorspace. The level of car and HGV traffic generated by the proposal as a whole will equal and probably greatly exceed traffic generated by existing employment uses.

HGV traffic generated by existing employment use of the site is particularly harmful to local communities and is contrary to the Vale of Evesham Control Zone policies. The proposal fails to take advantage of the opportunity to create a mix of employment uses suitable to reduce HGV movements. Given the type of employment buildings that will be retained, future Class B8 uses will be just as prevalent as they are now.

The Savills Employment Assessment (October 2008) tests the extent to which existing employment on site meets a local need. A survey undertaken in October 2007 found that of 532 people currently employed, two-thirds live within a 10 mile radius (20 mile diameter). This allegedly proves that the site meets a local need.

The Employment Catchment Area is very wide and hence it is unsurprising that the majority of a workforce should live within a 10 mile radius. The radius includes the market towns of Stratford and Evesham, which have their own employment sites and significant populations. The catchment radius is too wide to represent local needs.

Employment needs are accommodated elsewhere in the Plan, but not at the Long Marston Estate. Employment does prejudice the strategies of the Plan, unless it meets local needs. This is not an identified or allocated employment site. It has no strategic role. The existing employment uses are meant to be temporary, a ‘stop-gap’ measure.

The report recognises that Stratford-on-Avon District enjoys high levels of economic activity, high skills base and high employment. This being the case, it is difficult to understand why notwithstanding this, it is very important to protect these jobs. Presumably the applicant would make an even stronger case to retain

35 the existing jobs in situ if the district experienced low levels of economic activity, low skills base and low employment.

The existing employment buildings are split into 49 units, shared between 30 different companies. The search process for alternative sites is flawed, in that the existing uses and tenants were not disaggregated. There is ample employment land in the sub-region to accommodate the majority of existing businesses. Although rental levels on the Estate are lower than average, this is immaterial, as they can change over time.

The applicant regards the recession as helping to justify the employment element. However, the corollary is that vacant units are now more likely to be available in other parts of the district, in more sustainable locations. Planning policy supports the vitality of all employment land across the district, not just those at Long Marston.

The generation of 350 construction jobs is immaterial, as this argument could justify development anywhere in the UK. Furthermore, it is estimated that leisure uses will generate 114.5 full time jobs. We have seen no evidence to explain this figure, which is difficult to believe, given that all the holiday accommodation on site will be self-catering.

In summary, the employment development is a major, ‘stand-alone’ part of the proposal. Such development is only acceptable if consistent with the needs of the local population and does not cause prejudice to the strategies of the Development Plan. The site is a non-conforming use, in an unsustainable location and poorly related to the strategic road network. The proposal will perpetuate these problems. Most businesses on the site are footloose and could relocate to more sustainable employment sites elsewhere within a 10 mile radius of Long Marston. Therefore the planning application should be refused. (24.6.09)

Comments on amended plans submitted:

Consider the amended plans do nothing to overcome the fundamental objections to the principle of the proposed development on this site and do not address the representations we have previously submitted to the District Council. Contrary to the views expounded in the 'Sustainable Communities Statement' and the supplement to the Design and Access Statement, the site remains unsustainable and unsuitable for the present proposals and no amount of tinkering with the detail of the scheme will overcome that fact. BARD continue to object to the application (21.09.09).

Centro

Consider the development should be supported by appropriate public transport provision for cross-boundary journeys to/from the West Midlands Metropolitan area. Consider that a more comprehensive public transport network is required in the area so as to promote and encourage the use of public transport. A more frequent bus service to connect directly to the railheads at Stratford and Honeybourne, which are both approx 5 miles away from the proposed development, should be provided. Present rail infrastructure that run near to the site do not currently provide the opportunity for train service improvements. It is vital to ensure that there are good, frequent links to rail stations to ease interchange from one mode to another.

It is vital that high quality public transport infrastructure is implemented in conjunction with new developments in order to provide sustainable travel choices from the outset. This will help to ensure that unsustainable travel patterns are not

36 established due to the initial absence of good public transport. Such an approach should address cross boundary services and facilities which are fundamental in connecting the proposed development to the wider West Midlands region. (30.06.09)

CPRE

The principle of the main outline application is welcome; it would be generally in line with the Policy CTY18 in the adopted Local Plan.

The proposal for a small settlement far less than the Eco-Town proposed by St Modwens and the Bird Group is welcomed. A village settlement of no more than 500 dwellings would be similar in size to other villages along the Stratford- Broadway road (B4362), such as Lower Quinton and Micketon. A new village on the same scale would not be out of character with the area and the traffic impact would be relatively small. But the actual need may be for fewer than 500 dwellings and the number should not be approved until local needs have been properly assessed.

Some of the proposed leisure uses (the self-catering lodges, the touring caravan site, and the steam railway related leisure proposals) are also welcomed. All these would be compatible with the area and relate well to the adjacent Cotswold AONB.

The proposal for up to 150 'holiday homes' causes considerable concern, and we believe this element should be omitted. The illustrative plans suggest quite significant dwellings, which would be suitable as permanent houses. We do not believe that over time conditions to prevent permanent occupation would be effective, so that these units would end up as ordinary houses - creating a settlement of 650 rather than 500 dwellings at Long Marston Estate.

The Full Planning Application for retention of 80,000 sq metres of existing industrial buildings does mean removal of the warehousing along the northern side of the site, which is welcome. However, it would retain a very substantial industrial area in a poorly located site for heavy goods vehicle access. (30.06.09)

Elizabeth Dixon (consultee on disability issues)

The following comments were received:

I would ask that if this application is allowed then the applicant provides more facilities and accommodation for the disabled than the minimum requirements. This is an excellent opportunity to set a good example and be ‘inclusive’. (15.06.09)

Orbit Housing Group

The following comments were received:

Orbit Housing would be interested in acquiring the affordable housing on the above site. We are well aware of the significant need for affordable housing in Stratford District – your own strategy calls for 250 affordable homes per year. The current credit crunch has served only to make that situation worse with home repossessions rising and limited mortgage availability (17.06.09)

37 Rail Alliance

I would like to indicate our support for the plans recently submitted by St Modwen regarding the rail uses at Long Marston. We fully concur with their view that the railway on site has a great deal of potential, especially given the dualling work that is being conducted on the Cotswold line; which they have been actively pursuing with Network Rail and have been lobbying hard to ensure that the potential benefits to Stratford on Avon have been safeguarded.

There are a number of businesses on site which will benefit immediately from a permanent grant of planning permission, not least because it will underpin their activities and unlock the possibility of further investment. Regionally it could also provide a valuable freight hub, thereby removing a significant tonnage of freight from the roads of South Warwickshire (03.06.09).

Stratford Rail Transport Group

SRTG object to the current proposals as they fail to facilitate the restoration of the railway line to Stratford-on-Avon and are therefore not in accordance with Local Plan Policy CTY.18 which requires "(b) the provision of an effective public transport service linking the site with Stratford-upon-Avon, including (where possible) the utilisation of the former Stratford-Cheltenham railway line;" We therefore consider that the proposals should be refused on these grounds (26.06.09).

The Rail Transport Group submitted information providing detail on Kilbride Community Rail, a letter from Kilbride Community Rail, a document from Railmagazine May 6-May 19 2009, and a cutting from Herald newspaper July 2008. (05.10.09)

Further representations received following publishing of Officers report for 20 October committee • Sent in a copy of First Great Western’s response that is summarised on page 25 of the Report. The conclusions of this letter were as follows: ‘FGW supports in principle the restoration of the direct rail link between Stratford-upon-Avon and Long Marston. We therefore agree with the principle that the developer should provide funding towards the reinstatement of the line in order that this strategic rail link can be delivered in partnership with the rail industry. To this end, FGW will ensure that our support for the scheme is reflected through the established rail industry mechanisms’. • Sent in various letters from different organisations summarised as follows: • Shakespeare Birthplace Trust – Reinstatement of the railway would be of huge benefit to Stratford and to people who wish to visit the town. (letter to SRTG 11.12.07) • Liz Lynne MEP – Fully support re-opening the railway line from Stratford upon Avon south to Long Marston and Honeybourne for both passenger and freight services. These six miles of missing track would be relatively cheap to reinstate but would create massive opportunities for additional services and extra capacity from Birmingham to Oxford and the south and faster services from Stratford to Long. (letter to SRTG 1.7.09) • John Hobbs, Director of Environmental Services, Worcestershire County Council – Worcestershire County Council supportive of steps to reopen the rail line between Stratford upon Avon and Long Marston. Policy RAIL6 in our Local Transport Plan for 2006 to 2011 confirms this. Could bring widespread network benefits. (letter to RTG 17.08.07)

38 • The SRTG consider that the applicant be required to commission Network Rail to carry out a Network Rail Guide to Railway Investment Projects (GRIP_ Study to stages 103. In the event that a positive Benefit Cost Ration (BCR) of 1.6 or above is established, the application be required to contribute towards the capital costs (but not the full costs) of reinstatement of the railway line between (Honeybourne) – Long Marston – Stratford upon Avon railway station in partnership with the rail industry and local authorities. [Honeybourne in brackets is because this is in Wychavon and most investment is required Long Marston – Stratford section] (9.10.09) • The SRTG have verbally advised that the GRIP study would cost approximately £90,000-£100,000.

Further comments received on 29 October: Made comments on detail in Committee Report which was published for 20 October 2009. Made specific mention of Policy PR.10.6 Safeguarded Land, Stratford-Cheltenham Railway Line. Notes that the policy protects the western, unused half of the Greenway for the restoration of a single track railway between Long Marston and Stratford, and has done so since 1992. Considers the comments in the report from AWM were informal only and should not have been included in the report. Noted that there have been many local authorities around the country that use Circular 05/05 to justify S106 development contributions towards capital investment in rail schemes. (20.10.09)

The following comments have been received on the specific issue of re- opening the rail link between the application site and Stratford town:-

Network Rail

• The aspiration to re-open the railway line between Stratford and Long Marston has been raised by a number of parties in recent years. This is something we are not opposed to and may be something that would be considered in the future, but is currently not in any official plan or project scope • As far as we are aware, there is currently no identified funding stream for the re-opening of this line and therefore does not currently fall into the category for consideration, but has been classified as an aspiration (18.08.09)

First Great Western

• As part of a scheme to improve significant sections of single track on the North Cotswold route between Charlbury and Evesham, Network Rail has included passive provision for the connection of the line at Honeybourne • The rail network has experienced significant growth over the past 10 years and improvement schemes such as this are needed to continue to meet increased demand • The re-instatement of the route between Honeybourne and Stratford is a scheme which fits with the aims of an expanding rail network for both passenger and freight services. This new route would provide significant opportunities for growth and improved performance with considerable potential for scheduled passenger services which would be of benefit to residents as well as tourism and commercial interests in Stratford. • Given this could be possible through the laying of a 6 mile single line track, we consider that the opportunity to secure developer contributions toward this scheme should not be lost (03.09.09)

39 Further email Email reiterating FGW is fully supportive of the requirement to seek funding from the developer for a rail study to be incorporated into relevant business plans and for the requirement that the costs of developing the scheme should also be part of the developers remit. (12.10.09)

DB Schenker

• Remain supportive of the re-opening of the rail route from Stratford through Long Marston and Honeybourne towards Cheltenham Spa • In order to support the Department of Transport’s aim to double rail freight over the next 30 years, it is essential the re-opening of key routes such as this are promoted and implemented • The expansion of rail freight can be of benefit from an environmental point of view and would provide much needed additional capacity for freight traffic • There is much potential in the development of new markets served by the Honeybourne line and would be important to the future of rail freight (27.08.09)

Further letter received: Reiterated that support from DB Schenker continues to the reinstatement of this rail link. Advise that as a condition of development of the site, the applicant should be required to commission Network Rail to carry out a Guide to Railway Investment Projects (GRIP) study to stages 1-3. In the event that a positive Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of 1.6 or above is established, the applicant should also be required to contribute towards the capital costs (but not the full costs) of reinstatement of the railway line, between Stratford-upon-Avon - Long Marston - Honeybourne in partnership with the rail industry and local authorities. (16.10.09)

Warwickshire County Council – response on request for £10,000 towards rail feasibility funding

The County Council’s position in terms of policy is set out in the Warwickshire Local Transport Plan 2006 as follows:- “The possibility of reopening the Stratford-upon-Avon to Honeybourne railway line has been raised in the past by the rail industry as an alternative route between the Midlands and the South West. The County Council has previously expressed concern over the potential environmental and road traffic effects of this proposal within Stratford-upon-Avon, particularly given: • The proximity of the route to a substantial number of residential properties; and • The likely impact on the Evesham Place roundabout and the A4390 Seven Meadows Road. Unless there are local benefits to the scheme, it is unlikely that the County Council would be able to support such a proposal if it were to be promoted in the future by DfT Rail or the rail industry.” The existing evidence available to the Council in respect of the potential re- instatement of the rail line between Stratford and Honeybourne is the Stratford- on-Avon Area Rail Study completed in 1995/96. This indicated that re- instatement of the rail line was technically feasible, but that there was very little passenger demand, other than existing passengers who would be abstracted from other rail services. Since the study, the costs of any reinstatement have no doubt escalated in line with other railway costs and the slight time savings for passengers between Paddington and Stratford via Honeybourne have been eroded following the diversion of the Stratford – Warwick trains to Marylebone rather than Paddington.

40

Would expect that, if a scheme were to come forward, the business case would be based on network-wide benefits and would be led by DfT Rail and/or Network Rail. Cannot envisage the County Council taking a leading role as the scale of the development costs of such a scheme would far exceed the council’s financial resources. Un aware of any interest from the rail industry in the re-opening of the rail line, although this view will be confirmed or otherwise in the Network Rail West Midlands Route Utilisation Strategy which is due to be published in the next twelve months.

The County Council’s Transport Development Fund Budget 2009-2010 from which feasibility studies are usually funded is itself fully committed for the remainder of this year and I am not entirely sure of the amount of the budget for 2010-2011. In view of the above policy background and funding constraints, regret that the County Council is unable to make a financial contribution for the Rail Feasibility Study referred to in your letter. (5.11.09)

Worcestershire County Council – response on request for £10,000 towards rail feasibility funding

Generally supportive of such a study, and stated that Worcestershire County Council had already informally signed up to provide a small amount of funding for a cost-benefit appraisal. Happy to attend a meeting to resolve this matter and ascertain then whether £10,000 would be forthcoming from Worcestershire CC. Considers it appropriate to have a meeting to establish the partners involved, the areas of work that the study will cover and appoint a chair to coordinate approaches for funding contributions so that the authorities involved appear professional and coordinated (5.11.09) [Officer response – this would be carried out should permission be granted – the S106 would provide a 2 year period to secure the monies following the grant of permission].

Advantage West Midlands – response on request for £10,000 towards rail feasibility funding (also stated that this was a response to the Addendum to the ES)

‘The Agency does not believe that this study would represent a constructive use of public funding. When questioned about the much larger proposals for the Middle Quinton Eco-town at the Examination in Public for the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 2 Revision in June this year, Network Rail stated clearly that the reinstatement of a service between Honeybourne and Stratford upon Avon was not a strategic priority and there were no plans to reintroduce this service in the near future’. (20.11.09)

41 Applicant’s Comments

The applicants have submitted the following documents:

• Environmental Statement and Technical Appendices (submitted at validation stage) • Non Technical Summary to Environmental Statement (submitted at validation stage) • Planning Statement (submitted at validation stage) • Design and Access Statement (submitted at validation stage) • Transport Assessment and Travel Plan Framework (submitted at validation stage) • Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (submitted at validation stage) • Archaeological Assessment (submitted at validation stage) • Assessment of Market and Affordable Housing Need (submitted at validation stage) • Sustainability Statement (submitted at validation stage) • Statement of Community Engagement (submitted at validation stage) • Draft Heads of Terms for Section 106 Agreement (submitted at validation stage) • Masterplan Document (submitted at validation stage) • Retained Buildings Photographic Survey (submitted at validation stage) • Strategic Tree Protection Proposals (submitted on 2 June 2009) • Open Space Needs Assessment (submitted on 21 August 2009) • Supplement to Design and Access Statement (submitted on 21 August 2009) • Sustainable Community Statement (submitted on 21 August 2009) • Revised Masterplan drawing (submitted on 21 August 2009) • Addendum to the Environmental Statement (submitted on 4 November 2009 relating to 21 August amendments)

The following are the conclusions of each document submitted:

The Environmental Statement and Non Technical Summary covered the following topics: • The application site and its surroundings – Not elaborated on (factual) • The proposed development – Not elaborated on (factual) • The need for the development and alternatives – Not elaborated on (factual) • Socio-Economic • Landscape and Visual Effects • Ecology • Transport and Access • Air Quality • Noise and Vibration • Water Resources • Ground Conditions • Utilities

A summary of the Socio-Economic chapter is as follows:

• The assessment identifies that the Proposed Development of up to 500 dwellings on the Application Site will have a moderate beneficial effect at the local and District level as it would make a significant contribution towards meeting identified housing needs (both market and affordable) within the HMA for the site.

42 • The contribution of the Proposed Development to local economic development is Moderate Beneficial. The Proposed Development will create new opportunities for local employment in the proposed leisure village and will retain a significant amount of existing employment floorspace that provides jobs for local people and accommodation for existing local companies. • The effects of the Proposed Development on the primary school education provision is considered negligible at the local level as a result of spare capacity in Quinton Primary School to meet the needs of the occupiers of the Proposed Development and a contribution which will be made to provide additional places in the existing school to provide for the needs generated by future residents. Similarly the effects of the Proposed Development on secondary education provision is considered to be negligible at the District level as there is capacity in the existing schools to accommodate some places and a financial contribution will be made to provide sufficient capacity in the existing schools in the District to provide for the additional needs generated by future residents. • The effects of the Proposed Development on health provision is considered negligible at the local and District levels following appropriate financial contributions as mitigation. Existing doctors and dentists surgeries are considered to be able to cater for additional patients arising from the Proposed Development. • Given the provision of churches and religious organisations in the local area and in Stratford-upon-Avon, it is considered the effects of the Proposed Development on places of worship will be negligible. • Overall the effects of the Proposed Development on Public Rights of Way is moderate to minor beneficial. It is proposed to extend the Greenway through the Application Site by providing a formal crossing point over Station Road. National Cycle Route number 5 passes to the north of the Application Site along Station Road. • The effects of the Proposed Development in terms of Outdoor Leisure Activity are likely to be moderate to major beneficial at a local, district, regional level. • The effects of the Proposed Development in terms of provision of holiday accommodation including up to 150 holiday homes and 150 self catering holiday lodges is considered to be minor to moderate beneficial. There are no comparable competitors in terms of self catering lodge complexes within the Stratford-on-Avon District Area. In addition there is an under- provision of tourism accommodation in the self catering accommodation market. • The overall effects of the Proposed Development in terms of provision for touring caravans and camping will be minor to moderate beneficial. A new touring caravan facility at the Application Site is likely to appeal to one of the main caravanning clubs in the UK (either The Caravan and Camping Club or Caravan Club), neither of which currently have a presence in the immediate area.

A summary of the Landscape and Visual Effects chapter is as follows:

• The visual appraisal demonstrated that in general the boundaries of the Application Site are very well defined by the B4632/Campden Road, Station Road, the railway line and existing strong framework of trees and belts of trees along its southern boundary. These boundaries are further contained by trees and hedgerows within the Application Site which screen and curtail the majority of views in to the Application Site from near and middle distance viewpoints. There are no public rights of way across the Application Site and therefore no public views within the Application Site

43 itself. There are however, a very limited number of local views towards the Site from sections of Campden Road/B4632, sections of Station Road and Long Marston Road and short section of Main Road, mainly to the north, west and east of the Application Site. In addition there are some middle and longer distance views from public rights of way to the east, north and south of the Application Site from elevated locations . • Completion of the Proposed Development will result in a number of irreversible landscape changes. The effects of the Proposed Development on completion on the landscape would be Slight adverse within and immediately adjoining the Application Site but the landscape effects on landscape character areas/types in the wider area will be negligible and result in no significant effects, due to the strong framework of trees within and surrounding the Application Site. • The Proposed Development would create a new landscape character type and elements which replaces the employment use across a large part of the Application Site. The development would introduce new areas of open space, landscape features and areas of new planting which would improve local environment, adding interest to the character of the surrounding area and retain in places the existing open use of the land together with mature hedgerows and tree blocks /planting areas within the central parts of the Application Site.

A summary of the Ecology chapter is as follows:

• Whilst much of the Application Site comprises of habitats of little or no ecological value, a number of valuable receptors have been identified on the Site and close to it that have, in accordance with relevant planning policy and legislation, necessarily influenced the design of the Proposed Development. These include: o a population of water voles; a diverse plant community on wasteland associated with railway sidings; other habitats of some local value including woodland, ponds and grassland; notable or protected species including a small population of great crested newts, bat roosts, invertebrates, breeding and wintering birds, and grass snakes. Badgers are also present on the Site. • The Proposed Development has been designed such that valued ecological receptors are retained and wherever possible enhanced. • Central to the mitigation and enhancement strategy is an ecological management plan that will ensure that existing and newly created ecological resources are managed appropriately for biodiversity gain, and to ensure they are safeguarded in the long term from potential adverse effects caused, for instance, by increased disturbance as a result of development.

A summary of the Transport and Access chapter is as follows:

• The highway network capacity assessments are set out in the TA. Assessments have been undertaken comparing the operation of local junctions both with and without development. The results of these assessments has highlighted that the junction of Clifford Lane and Shipston Road is currently operating at over capacity in the AM peak and this situation would worsen after the Proposed Development. To mitigate the identified effect of development traffic on the existing Clifford Lane/Shipston Road junction, it is proposed to replace the existing priority junction with a roundabout. The proposed roundabout would reduce queue lengths and overall delays to levels below what are currently experienced. Effects of the Proposed Development on the highway network after mitigation are considered to be minor adverse.

44 • There will be a negligible effect in terms of unmet demand to travel by non-car modes, following the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures in terms of bus, walking and cycling enhancements. • Surrounding villages will primarily be affected by vehicles travelling to and from Evesham and the west. There is likely to be less than 100 two-way vehicle movements to the west which, when distributed across the various routes possible, will have minimal impacts on the overall traffic flows. The further from the site the vehicles travel the less the impact will be due to the disbursement of the traffic.

A summary of the Air Quality chapter is as follows:

• An air quality assessment was carried out to assess both the construction and operational effects associated with the Proposed Development. The Application Site is not currently in an area which is considered by SDC to require air quality management measures. • The assessment identified that there are sensitive receptors located with 200m of the Proposed Development, and at these locations there is a potential for construction activities to have a transitory impact at these locations. It is considered however that such impact can be readily mitigated. • With the formulation of a best practice mitigation strategy, it is not thought that the construction of the Proposed Development will have a significant adverse effect on nearby receptors, and that any such effect would be transitory in nature. • The completed development is predicted to have a slight adverse effect on air quality at surrounding sensitive receptors at worse. This level of effect is not considered to be significant.

A summary of the Noise and Vibration chapter is as follows:

• Noise and vibration assessments have been made using current British Standards as well as national, regional and local guidelines where appropriate. Separate noise and vibration surveys were carried out at the Long Marston Estate to establish baseline conditions that can be used to make comparison with predicted conditions during the construction and following the completion of the Proposed Development. Based upon traffic data provided by Capita Symonds Ltd, IMMI noise modelling software has been used to predict the noise effect from existing traffic conditions of the major roads surrounding the Long Marston Estate. The data generally shows that the increases in noise levels considered to be moderate adverse are all within the initial assessment year. • Changes to the noise conditions at receptors on the existing road network within the proposed development are anticipated to range between minor beneficial and moderate adverse • The assessment of noise from the proposed roundabout and Campden Road has revealed that the new residential properties forming the front line facing the primary access road and Campden Road would require mitigation measures • The leisure centre will be designed to achieve SDC’s requirement of a Rated Noise Level 10dB below background • The outdoor Leisure Activity Centre development is predicted to have a minor adverse effect upon temporary noise-sensitive receptors • Air traffic from the nearby Long Marston Airfield is expected to have a negligible effect upon the proposed development • Unmitigated noise from track and music events at the nearby Long Marston Airfield are expected to have a temporary moderate effect

45 • Restoration and refurbishment [of rolling stock] will be undertaken within the engine sheds. Noise breakout will be minimal. • Noise from trains is not anticipated to have an impact greater than minor adverse • The assessment based on plant and equipment most likely to be used for construction indicates that the level of vibration from construction works is unlikely to affect the structure of any new buildings and will not affect the occupiers of the proposed development • The level of vibration from the railway is unlikely to affect the structure of any new buildings and will not affect the occupiers of the proposed development

A summary of the Water Resources chapter is as follows:

• The Proposed Development has the potential to affect hydrology either directly on the Application Site or on the wider catchment. Such effects could occur on surface water and groundwater. The establishment of additional areas of hardstanding and storm water drains, as part of the Proposed Development, could increase peak flows into surrounding watercourses while reducing the level of infiltration to groundwater. This in turn can increase downstream flooding, cause erosion both on-site and downstream, and reduce the ability of aquifers to recharge. These effects would have a major adverse effect on the hydrology of the area prior to any mitigation measures • The surface water strategy has been designed to accord with the requirements of PPS25. The Proposed Development will effectively mimic the similar discharge characteristics to those currently existing with a further reduction of 20% from the part of the site to be retained. Run off from the new buildings and paved areas will be routed via a series of swales, attenuation facilities and infiltration devices to ensure that the volume and intensity of run off from the Proposed Development is maintained. Therefore, overall, the residual effects on flooding and surface water drainage will be negligible • The local foul drainage network will be enhanced as necessary to accommodate the increase in demand from the Proposed Development. This will include upgrades to the existing pumping station on site and replacement of the existing private drains on the Application Site. Therefore, the residual effects will be negligible • The local water supply network will be enhanced as necessary in conjunction with Severn Trent Water to accommodate the increase in demand from the Proposed Development. • The drainage strategy which will be put in place for the Proposed Development will create a new hydrological regime with a betterment to the “output” characteristics as that which currently exists. This will be implemented by the introduction of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). The discharge will then be regulated for example by using swales, ponds or beneath ground sub base storage before finally discharging to the local watercourses, or to ground. Run off from highways will be routed through trapped road gullies. These will act as settling tanks for road runoff solids prior to the discharge of the water to the sewerage system. This process will ensure that water quality is protected. The residual effect of the Proposed Development on water supply and quality will therefore be negligible

46 A summary of the Ground Conditions chapter is as follows:

• Prior to disposal of the site, the MOD carried out a series of assessments to determine the current ground conditions. These comprised a Phase One Land Quality Assessment carried out in 1999 followed by a Phase Two Intrusive Investigation Land Quality Assessment Report issued in January 2004. A final completion report was issued in 2006 following completion of remediation works to remove radioactive contamination identified in the previous assessments • The intrusive site investigations were undertaken in 1999 and 2004 and potential sources of contamination were identified • Subsequent to the 1999 and 2004 intrusive investigations an additional remediation strategy was prepared and works carried out on the site between January and May 2006. The works were undertaken to address the radioactive artefacts contamination by removal and disposal off site. This work was implemented by Defence Estates, former owners of the site, who required it to be remediated to a standard which would not require further significant remediation works following a change of land use or redevelopment • Validation tests following this remediation showed that the resultant levels of radioactivity were equal to or lower than the optimum levels recommended by UK regulatory bodies and a Completion Report was issued documenting this remediation in November 2006 • The excavation and removal of local identified contamination ‘hotspots’ is likely to result in the Proposed Development having a direct and beneficial impact by removing potential sources of contamination and possible pathways which have the potential to impact ground conditions in the long term. The completed development is therefore predicted to have a negligible effect on the underlying ground conditions at surrounding sensitive receptors

A summary of the Utilities chapter is as follows:

• The electricity network within the Application Site is privately maintained and is distributed from a Central Networks substation located next to the old parade ground in south-eastern part of the site • The Application Site does not presently benefit from connections to the gas network, however, there are 5 high pressure gas pipe lines located in close proximity • All telephone and broadband internet services present at the Application Site and in the local vicinity are provided by BT via an extensive telecommunications network • The assessment has identified that there is insufficient capacity to accept additional connections to the current local electricity network, particularly as energy for the proposed development would be heavily biased towards electricity owing to the lack of gas infrastructure in the locality. New on and off site infrastructure needed to support the Proposed Development will be provided. These works will be completed prior to occupation or at agreed occupation based trigger levels • There are currently no gas supplies to the Application Site therefore new off site gas mains will need to be constructed • The existing telephone infrastructure will need to be upgraded to supply the Proposed Development • Reinforcements to the respective utility networks ensure that there are no residual effects once the development is complete

47 An Addendum to the Environmental Statement was submitted on 4 November 2009, in response to the amendments submitted on 21.8.09. This was advertised in accordance with Regulation 19 of the EIA Regulations. The Non-Technical Summary of this Addendum is as follows:

Amendments to the Proposed Development The amendments to the Proposed Development are summarised as follows: • A revised Description of Development to include community use (Class D1) in thecentral leisure facilities building, and the retention of an existing trade vehicle auction use (Class Sui Generis) which operates in connection with the existing vehicle logistics business at the Application Site; and, • Amendments to the illustrative masterplan including the retention of more of the existing trees, a revised layout for the central facilities building with improved links to the residential area and, a revised landscaping strategy.

Revisions to the Environmental Statement Each of the technical assessments carried out as part of the original ES have been reviewed in light of the changes to the Proposed Development. The review identified potential additional effects in relation to the following chapters: • Socio-economic and Community; • Landscape and Visual Effects; • Ecology; and, • Transport and Access. No changes are necessary for the remaining chapter of the original ES as the modifications to the Proposed Development do no alter the findings of the existing assessments.

Additional Effects Introduction and Methodology No changes have been made to the EIA methodology or the structure of the ES. SDC confirmed by email on 27th October 2009 that no permitted schemes have arisen in the vicinity of the site which will generate elevated levels of effects since the previous ES was prepared.

Socio-economic and Community The amendments to the Proposed Development will result in additional community floorspace provision and the retention of additional existing jobs. The effects of these changes are limited but overall considered to be minor to moderately beneficial. No mitigation measures are required as a result of the amendments to the Proposed Development.

Landscape and Visual Effects Taking in to account the proposed changes including a minor change to the height of the central leisure facility building to 3 storeys, which is located within the central parts of the site and therefore away from sensitive viewpoints and predominantly screened by existing retained vegetation, it has been determined that the modifications to the Proposed Development would not have an effect on the conclusions of the landscape and visual effects and no further assessments or mitigation are considered to be required.

Ecology With the defined mechanism to deliver appropriate mitigation and enhancement, no significant residual adverse effects as a result of the amendments to the Proposed Development are anticipated.

48 Transport and Access The April 2009 ES found that the walking and cycling enhancements that formed part of the original submission would deliver sustainable transport alternatives to the private car and would accommodate the overall increase in trips made from the Proposed Development. The amendments to the Illustrative Masterplan outlined above would act to further enhance the pedestrian and cycle facilities within the Application Site. The proposed amendments therefore reinforce the findings of the April 2009 ES; namely that there will be no significant adverse effects in relation to walking and cycling as a result of the Proposed Development.

Summary The changes to the Proposed Development have been reviewed and assessed within this ES Addendum. The findings of this review have shown that there are no changes to the overall significance of environmental effects as identified in the ES prepared to accompany the original planning application.

The Leisure Study has been highlighted as a Confidential document. In summary however Officers note the following:

• The leisure study identified the following four uses represent realistic leisure opportunities for the Long Marston site: • Holiday Homes • Activity Centre • Touring Park (Camping and Caravanning) • Self Catering Lodge Development • The report concludes that subject to further space-use analysis these uses could work well alongside each other to provide strong synergy and each would make a valuable contribution to the tourism product mix for Stratford. In addition, with appropriate zoning, screening and access arrangements, the tourism/leisure uses would not preclude appropriate employment and other land uses within the overall Long Marston site.

An Addendum to the Leisure Study was submitted and was identified as a Confidential document. In summary however Officers note the following:

• The proposed development adds to the type, quality and range of tourist facilities on offer in the Stratford-upon-Avon area and in the northern half of the Cotswolds. They have a good fit with the brand image of the Cotswolds and add positively to the cachet of the destination. Additionally, there are potential wider community benefits as part of a membership scheme in respect of any central leisure facility which could be an integral part of the accommodation offer. • Importantly, apart from the initial impact of the touring park, in respect of the uses above there will be very limited displacement as the products proposed are not currently available within the destination. • This development of a mix of tourism accommodation, with appeal to differing market sectors should bring strong positive benefits to the local tourism economy.

The conclusions of the Planning Statement are as follows:

• The Proposed Development comprises a leisure led, mixed use development which will result in the continuation of existing uses in some parts of the site and the introduction of new uses across the balance. • This planning application is submitted following extensive pre-application meetings and discussions as part of a Masterplan process for the redevelopment of the site with Stratford-on-Avon District Officers and others, a public consultation exercise, technical work and in the knowledge

49 that the current temporary planning permissions for employment use on the site expire 31st December 2009. • The application proposals are based around a Masterplan which comprehensively deals with the redevelopment of this major previously developed resource. It provides for a viable combination of uses which will ensure the effective and beneficial reuse of the site, to the positive effect of the local economy. • The proposed leisure uses represent the most appropriate and viable leisure options for the site, and have been planned sensitively in design terms to ensure a comprehensive leisure village with ancillary facilities is provided. The development will not only fill a gap in the market, in terms of the outdoor activity centre and the provision of self catering accommodation, it will generate additional benefits to the local economy, in terms of employment and expenditure. • It is considered that the employment element of the proposed development can be retained in accordance with the provisions of the Local Plan, and in doing so it will meet an identified local need in terms of a local source of employment, by retaining over 500 existing jobs, and by providing a source of available floorspace of a size and type not found elsewhere in the District. Further, it is also considered that the residential component of the development can be delivered in accordance with the Local Plan and the Council’s SPD, and in doing so will meet recognised local needs for market and affordable housing. • The application proposals will generate wide ranging benefits for the local community, Stratford-upon-Avon and the wider area, in the short, medium and long term. • The application proposals are consistent with Policy CTY.18 of the Local Plan, which specifically provides for the redevelopment of the Application Site, and seeks a Leisure Village and associated uses. The potential difference is the proposed level of employment (there are recognised reasons for this) and the residential element (again, there is a case put forward for this, including the delivery of much needed affordable housing). The environmental and technical assessments that have been undertaken have demonstrated that the proposed development will not give rise to any material adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated. • The Planning Application represents the culmination of extensive technical, design and consultative work prior to submission. St Modwen are committed to the redevelopment of the Long Marston Estate and these proposals represent an opportunity to deliver high quality leisure led mixed use development which will meet the needs of Stratford-on-Avon District.

The Project Vision of the Design and Access statement is as follows:

• The regeneration of 190 hectares of brownfield land provides a unique opportunity to create a mixed use development at the Long Marston Estate. The development will create a vibrant new tourist and residential village, a sustainable community of residents and tourists living alongside one another, which will provide support to Stratford-on-Avon tourist industry and the neighbouring Cotswolds. • Our vision is to create a naturalised landscape of sculpted, wooded groves and water bodies, set amongst these will be: • A new residential village, vernacular in character, careful in form; respectful of the mature trees that make the southern edge of the site so green; • A new leisure village containing distinct clusters of holiday homes, self catering lodges and an outdoor activity centre;

50 • Existing important wildlife habitats and species integrated into the development, and where possible, enhanced in line with published biodiversity strategies; • A new wide footpath route and linear park alongside the improved watercourse and linking to the existing ‘Greenway’ route and Stratford in the North • Retention of some of the existing employment floor space, contained and buffered from its immediate neighbours and in longer landscape views by new strong landscape elements and tree planting; and • Retention of the existing rail based storage, maintenance and restoration functions to the north and west of the site and introduction of a new rail based heritage and leisure attraction.

The conclusions of the Supplement to the Design and Access Statement are as follows:

• This document supported and clarified some of the principles of the application • Retention of additional tree groups across the site and alongside the watercourse • Safe crossing routes from the residential area to the leisure/community hub • Enhancement of the landscape strategy to create a more coherent approach between the proposed mix of uses and to create a collection of places that will be attractive to visit, live and work • A main street that is attractive to its users and is safe for pedestrian and cyclists travelling along it • A revised configuration for the leisure/community hub which improves its relationship with its context, particularly the main square • A main square to give a focus to the development with a high quality hard landscape scheme • By considering a range of options on the location of uses the addition of residential to the leisure/community hub has improved the security of the complex at night • The establishment of a variety of routes linking the different uses will improve the integration and community cohesion, particularly in the residential section of the site in the south east.

The conclusions of the Transport Assessment and Travel Plan are as follows:

• The redevelopment proposals are for a mixed use leisure led development which will retain part of the existing employment on the site and provide a residential development. • The site is accessible by a range of travel modes. It can be accessed from the Greenway, a pedestrian and cycle link to Stratford, and is also surrounded by a number of cycle routes. The site is also accessible to local bus services. The site has a rail link to Honeybourne for freight only which will be retained. • Car and cycle parking will be provided in accordance with Stratford Upon Avon District Councils parking standards, as will cycle parking provision. • It is proposed that the Greenway will be extended along Station Road and a crossing provided to enable the Greenway to continue through the site to the residential element. A new footway will be provided for the site to link with the existing footway on Campden Road. This will provide a continuous footway from the site to Upper Quinton and the local primary school. • The site will be accessed via a roundabout onto the Campden Road. A bus only access will also be provided onto Station Road. A third access will be

51 provided to serve the rail based leisure and rail employment element, which will also be onto Station Road. • Discussions with Warwickshire County Council relating to public transport provision has established that the most viable long term service provision would be for a half hourly bus service from Stratford to Moreton-in-Marsh, or , via the site. It is considered that this service could operate between 06:30 and 18:30 Monday to Saturday, providing an enhanced service not only on the site but for residents of Clifford Chambers, Lower Quinton and Chipping Campden. Bus stops will be provided within the redeveloped site. • Trip rates and their distribution for the proposed land uses have been agreed with Warwickshire County Council and also with Worcestershire and Gloucestershire County Council’s. Based on research it has been demonstrated that the holiday homes and self catering lodges will have an occupation level of 39% during a neutral month and the touring caravan site a 25% occupation level. Given this, it is estimated that the proposed redevelopment will result in a new increase of 340 two way vehicle trips in the AM peak and 378 in the PM peak. • The number of vehicle trips associated to the employment element are likely to reduce by 24 in the AM peak and 19 in the PM peak. During a 12 hour day there is likely to be a 21.8% reduction in employment trips, which is also likely to be reflected in the reduction in HGV movement to and from the site. • In October 2007 the site generated 358 two way HGV movements during a 12 hour period. At the Clopton Bridge there are over 20,000 during the same time period, of which 6.4% are HGV’s. Of the HGV’s using the Clopton Bridge only 47 visited the site. This suggests that only 13% of the HGV movements associated with the existing employment at the site cross the Clopton Bridge, which equates to less than 5% of the HGV’s using the Clopton Bridge. Given the likely overall reduction in HGV movement to and from the site there is likely to be a reduction in site HGV’s crossing the bridge. • There will be limited impact on the surrounding highway network which reduces as the vehicles disperse across the network. Of the agreed junctions which have been assessed mitigation measures are proposed at the Clifford Lane/Shipston Road junction. It is proposed that this junction will become a roundabout, resulting in significantly lower queues and delays at the junction. • An existing Travel Plan is already in operation at the site. This plan will be widened to encompass all land use elements of the redevelopment. A Travel Plan framework which sets this out has been submitted as part of the planning application. • The redevelopment proposals will have minimal impact on the local highway network and will provide an enhanced passenger transport service in the area. Therefore, it is considered that there are no reasons for refusal on highways and transport grounds. • A Travel Plan was also submitted.

The conclusions of the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy are as follows:

• This appraisal has been prepared to assess the impact on the development site from any existing potential fluvial flood plains and to establish the principles of the future surface water drainage strategy to serve the site and by introducing sustainable drainage techniques provide betterment to the current site drainage regime.

52 • This site presently has a fully maintained and functional positive gravity surface water drainage system which discharges into a series of drains and watercourses crossing through the site. • All of the site generated positive surface water run off outfalls into either the Gran Brook, Quinton Brook or/and a third unnamed watercourse that runs through the site. • Under the re-development the short section of the Quinton Brook originally culverted will be reopened as part of the mitigation measures proposed for the site. • A strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) was carried out on behalf of the Local Planning Authority which included this site. This SFRA was formally issued during 2008 and approved by the Environment Agency. • Flood mapping data transposed from the SFRA shows partial flooding in a small area within the north of the site identified as Flood Catchment Zones 2 and 3a. This potential flood area contributes 10.5 hectares of the overall 190 hectares, approximately 5.5% of the total site. • Currently a section of one of the existing business premises is shown affected by the Zone 3a flood catchment. Under the development site it is proposed that no activity will be located within either Zones 2 or 3a. In other words all built development will be within Flood Zone 1 i.e. flood risk greater than 1 in 1000 years. • From discussions with the Environment Agency, base surface water discharge parameters have been agreed in principle. • To determine the future discharge rates from the development the existing site was split up into 3 areas. Area ‘X’ consists of the main site and comprises of 142 hectares. Using the IOH 124 report method the Greenfield equivalent run off rate from this part of the site equates to 9.12 litres per second per hectare. The second area denoted as area ‘Y’ consists of the existing main employment land which is to be retained as part of the Proposed Development on the site. Existing positive drainage and discharge rates from this area will remain unchanged. • The final part of the site, area ‘Z’, which currently comprises of the existing accommodation block, has also been assessed using the IOH124 report method and the equivalent Greenfield field run off equates to 16.4 litres per second per hectare This is a significant reduction over the discharge rates from the existing situation. • Storage requirements for the re-developed site equate to approximately 7,200 cubic metres based on a 1 in 100 year storm event plus 30% climate change. Storage has been assessed for the worst case scenario. By introducing a variety of sustainable drainage systems during the detailed design process the volume of attenuation required will reduce. • To provide further betterment to the surface water discharge from the site, the existing flows from the retained employment area will be reduced by 20% to allow for future climate change and reduce the downstream flows in the Quinton Brook. • The proposed development will not increase flood risk either on or off the site and will provide betterment to the downstream sections of the Quinton Brook.

The conclusion of the Archaeology Assessment is as follows:

• A desk-based archaeological assessment has been undertaken for the proposed development of the former Central Engineers Depot, Long Marston, Warwickshire. The local archaeological databases, and other secondary sources, indicate that there are no certain sites within the depot and that there is little potential for significant archaeological features and deposits within the site. An undated cropmark is recorded on the Warwickshire Historic Environment Record (WHER) in the north of the site,

53 but there was no evidence for this on aerial photographs consulted for this assessment or seen during the site visit. • Archaeological fieldwork carried out for pipelines in 1999 and 2002 to the north of the site recorded archaeological remains relating to Roman activity. The assessment also identified limited potential for medieval remains within the western area of the site based upon evidence of a shrunken medieval settlement recorded at Long Marston. Limited potential for ridge and furrow was also identified across the site. Any remains are likely to have been impacted by agricultural activity before the 1940s and the construction of the depot during the Second World War. • Although the site has been assessed to have low archaeological potential, the absence of past finds may be a reflection of the absence of past investigation. The discovery of Roman remains to the north suggest that related sub-surface remains may lie within the site. However, given later impacts on the site, it is most likely that any remains could be dealt with through a planning condition requiring further investigation in advance of construction. This approach has been agreed with the archaeological advisor to Warwickshire County Council. • There are a number of post-war structures relating to the Long Marston Central Engineers Depot surviving across the Site comprising warehouses, Romney huts and accommodation buildings along with a shooting range and kennel. • Nonetheless, the existing buildings on site have limited architectural or historical importance. It may be appropriate to complete a suitable level of building recording in advance of the demolition of any structures. A suitable level of photographic and documentary research and reporting in line with the English Heritage guidance is suggested (Level 2-3). • The assessment did not identify any designated heritage lying close to the site which might be adversely affected indirectly, other than Long Marston Grounds farmhouse to the north-east. This building is surrounded by woodland and, although the development should respect its setting, no significant effect is anticipated.

The conclusion of the Assessment of Market and Affordable Housing Need is as follows:

• Section one of the report defined the housing market for the subject site utilising mover data and travel to work patterns. • The housing market of the defined site HMA was considered in section two in respect of its demographic context, prevailing household incomes, dwelling profile and market prices and rents. • The area has a stock of existing housing which has proportionately more detached accommodation than either of the adjoining districts or the region. The high proportions of larger property types is reflected in higher average prices and rents with individual house types typically having a price premium of between 10% & 20% over and above district wide averages for comparable properties. • The transactional data considered within section two identified that turnover of the smaller property types is lower than that of detached properties, which indicates a degree of market imbalance with comparatively fewer small properties coming available in re-sales. This may in part be due to these smaller properties being in the private rented sector and therefore subject to a reduced re-sale frequency, however, the private rented sector itself is skewed towards larger property types with a lack of smaller entry level value accommodation in the same sector. • Section 3 applied the findings of the various District Housing Needs Assessments and the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for the South Market Area to the site HMA. This determined the scale and type of need

54 which exists for affordable accommodation, and the demand for market housing. • The data suggests that a large number of local households seeking market accommodation are not finding properties suitable for their needs within the annually occurring re-sales or within the private rented sector. This has created the assessed backlog of some 634 households, which will need to be addressed alongside an annual future demand for 145 market dwellings. • The conclusion is drawn that a combination of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom market dwellings which are targeted at emerging households and existing households wishing to move to family accommodation to resolve their unsuitability, is an appropriate response to the identified shortfall and will assist with meeting the current and future demand for market housing across the HMA. • The analysis identified a net shortfall of around 231 affordable properties per annum and a gross shortfall of about 779 market dwellings (a net annual market housing shortfall of approximately 500 dwellings if an assumed supply of 285 dwellings is deducted), although it is possible that this conclusion understates the actual level of demand. A proportion of this gross market need can be resolved by existing re-sales and re-lets within the market, although the scope of the annually occurring sales to resolve this is limited for a range of reasons, not least as a result of the negative impact of the housing market downturn upon existing re-sales and new build market housing provision. In-migrant households will account for a proportion of these homes as well as moves which are not ‘need’ related. The significant factor remains the apparent mismatch between the profile of these re-sales in respect of house type compared to the type of households who are demonstrably in need of market provision. • In respect of affordable need, a net shortfall of 231 properties per annum exists (a gross annual shortfall of 373 dwellings) of which a large proportion is emerging need (70%) comprising households who wish to form but are unable to afford to resolve their housing need in the market. The housing need assessment supports the findings that a range of new provision is appropriate with house types ranging from 1 bedroom accommodation (small component) through to 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes. These will therefore assist in meeting the combination of needs which are evidenced. • Whilst the need assessment within section 3 identifies that an overall net need for new accommodation exists for over 700 properties, it acknowledges that a component of the gross market housing demand will be met by some of the annually occurring re-sales. Furthermore, whilst it would be inappropriate to attempt to resolve the entirety of the assessed housing needs of the HMA on the subject site, the scale of the annual requirement for both market and affordable provision is unlikely to be resolved in its entirety elsewhere in the HMA. On this basis the subject site is well placed to contribute provision to resolve this evidenced shortfall. The lack of new provision (both affordable and market) within the HMA will be placing pressure on households in backlog need to relocate to alternative locations outside of the HMA area in order to resolve their needs. • It will be recognised that the annual nature of the housing need identified in this assessment will, for every year that it is not resolved, be increasing the backlog of need. Delivery of additional provision both market and affordable is therefore important to begin the process of resolving this backlog. • On the basis of the assessment, it is evident that an annual gross need exists for some 373 affordable properties and a minimum future gross demand for 145 market dwellings (with an additional gross backlog market

55 housing demand for 634 market dwellings also to be addressed). On this basis the provision of up to 500 dwellings on the site would contribute to meeting the housing need and demand within the HMA, albeit acknowledging that the subject site cannot resolve the entirety of the affordable housing need and backlog market housing demand. • Analysis of housing preferences of employees on the existing estate site suggest a large proportion (>65%) travel to the site from outside of the HMA. This suggests that demand for accommodation on the site will be supplemented by households who will choose to relocate to improve their travel to work arrangements. Indeed the analysis of employee preferences suggests that some 32 households currently fall into this category. Logically these households can be added to the evidenced shortfall of accommodation within the HMA and suitable provision made for them within the subject site. • On the basis of the overall evidenced housing need / demand the assumed delivery of some 500 new dwellings on the subject site would demonstrably assist in meeting this need, whilst not attempting to resolve all the needs of the HMA. The provision of up to 500 dwellings upon the subject site would therefore be of significant material benefit, particularly in view of the negative impact of the housing market downturn upon the provision of new housing. • In respect of the tenure breakdown within the residential component, due regard must be had to the viability constraints of delivering affordable housing on the basis that this will in part be supported by delivery of a market housing component. In addition, the need to create a sustainable and mixed community avoiding mono-tenure development must also be taken into account. • It is therefore proposed that 35% of provision will be affordable housing delivered in a combination of social rent, let at target rents and intermediate dwellings including shared ownership products. The balance of 65% will be provided as open market dwellings with due emphasis on 2 and 3 bedroom properties to meet backlog and emerging needs of the HMA. This will provide a range of housing products at price points from social rent through to market provision with each component assisting in resolving the assessed needs of the HMA. • This affordable / market housing tenure split closely aligns with the split suggested by the net market and affordable housing shortfalls assessed by this report to exist across the HMA (i.e. the annual net shortfall of 231 affordable dwellings and approximately 500 market dwellings suggests a ratio of 32% affordable housing to 68% market housing). • On the basis of the site delivering 500 homes this would equate to 175 affordable properties, and 325 market properties and assuming an annual delivery of about 85 dwellings over a six year period (about 30 affordable and 55 market) such a provision would assist with addressing the assessed current and backlog shortfall of housing in the HMA and would therefore make a valuable contribution to meeting the affordable housing needs and the market housing demand.

The conclusions of the Sustainability Statement are as follows:

• The Statement places the Masterplan in the context of International, National, Regional and Local Policy and identifies the key documents which have been considered in the preparation of the Masterplan. • The Statement also highlights the SUDS provisions and water conservation measures as detailed in the Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage Strategy. • This document also identifies the Sustainable Design Principles for the 2 Long Marston Estate as they related to Energy and CO Emissions, Waste,

56 Water and Materials. These principles are used to highlight the provisions of the Masterplan and the opportunities for sustainable development to be addressed in detailed design. • 2 Finally the Statement provides a CO assessment and renewable energy strategy for the Long Marston Estate.

The conclusions of the Statement of Community Engagement are as follows:

• St Modwen and their consultant team have worked in partnership with the District Council throughout the public consultation process. The final Masterplan has been informed by the public consultation exercises undertaken as part of Community Engagement Proposals agreed with Stratford on Avon District Council in relation to the four initial Masterplan options and the two preferred Masterplan options. • St Modwen widely advertised the opportunity for community involvement in the preparation of the Masterplan and has employed a variety of methods to engage with, and communicate the initial Masterplan options and the preferred Masterplan options to, the community. The process has been transparent and open, inviting the community and other bodies to become involved in a timely and accessible manner. • A range of views have been gathered from both community consultation exercises and the comments of the community have been incorporated, where appropriate, into the final Masterplan. • St Modwen’s intention throughout this process, in partnership with the District Council, has been to engage the community in a comprehensive and effective community consultation exercise to inform the evolution of the Masterplan proposal.

The Masterplan is elaborated upon in the Key Issues section of this report

The Retained Buildings study identifies each building to be retained both on a map and photographically. Maximum dimensions are recorded of each building.

The conclusions of the Open Space and Recreation Needs Assessment are summarised as follows:

• The proposed development makes provision for 3.02 hectares of outdoor sports; 0.99 hectares of children’s play space; and 38.23 hectares of incidental space. The assessment will be used to inform discussion with SDC and Sport England which will determine the exact nature of the formal facilities. The indicative Masterplan currently shows two full sized pitches and a cricket pitch, although this is indicative at present. • The Assessment was carried out in accordance with the advice in the Companion Guide to PPG17 and it was based on a 20 minutes drive time catchment area following discussions with Sport England. • The quantitative assessment has demonstrated that there are a comparatively high number (in relation to other sports facilities) of football pitches within the catchment area, whereas there are lower numbers of junior rugby pitches, Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs) and golf driving ranges. • The qualitative assessment has indicated that there are comparatively few high quality sports facilities in the catchment area which are available for free public use, and this is particularly evident in the area immediately around the Application Site. The majority (89%) of sites identified as being poor quality are football pitches within public ownership and freely available for general public use. The Assessment has also shown that the majority of the high quality sports facilities in the catchment area are in private ownership and available only to registered members.

57 • There is evidence to suggest that the catchment area is in need of more high quality facilities which are freely available for the use of the general public. Whilst the provision of high quality facilities is potentially incompatible with allowing the general public uncontrolled use of them, it is considered that with an appropriate management regime and set in the context of leisure based development, it would be possible to maintain a high(er) standard of facility whilst allowing a good degree of freedom of use. This management principle is particularly applicable in the context of the proposals for the Long Marston Estate, where a site wide management regime by the Applicant would ensure that the new sports facilities are an integral part of the mixed use development whilst an open access policy is maintained. • Whilst the assessment has demonstrated that there is a need for additional high quality publicly accessible sports facilities in the catchment area, there is a need to consider why it would be appropriate to provide new facilities at the Long Marston Estate. The Assessment identifies a number of reasons why it is appropriate to provide new facilities at the Long Marston Estate: the majority of sports facilities in the catchment area are concentrated around Stratford on Avon town and other main population centres; the sports facilities will be set in the context of a mixed use development which includes residential; employment and other leisure based uses; the facilities will add to the vitality and viability of the village; the facilities on site will reduce the need to travel elsewhere; Mickleton Rangers Football Club would be willing to relocate to a new home match venue • If any additional needs arise or it becomes apparent that sports clubs could make use of new facilities at the Long Marston Estate, then these can be addressed at the detailed design stage as part of a reserved matters submission. • The provision of holiday accommodation at the Long Marston Estate, in a location at the end of the Greenway and within easy reach of Stratford- upon-Avon town centre, will create a leisure destination in a popular tourist area. The nature and range of accommodation provided (self catering lodges, holiday homes and a caravan site) will create a diverse holiday village and demand for ancillary facilities. • The provision of a swimming pool, gym and tennis courts is appropriate as part of a central leisure and community hub which will serve the holiday accommodation, the new residential community, the employment area and neighbouring villages. The provision of leisure facilities for the use of guests is commonplace in a number of hotel and holiday village developments and this adds to the appeal of the accommodation as a holiday destination. The leisure and community hub will become the focal point of the development and will also broaden the leisure offer of the Proposed Development and add to the vitality and viability of the leisure development as a whole. • The Assessment has demonstrated that there is evidence to suggest there is a deficit in existing sports facilities within the catchment area, both quantitatively and qualitatively and that there are benefits of providing new facilities at the Long Marston Estate as part of a comprehensive mixed use development to serve both the prospective residents, as well as existing residents in the local area.

The Conclusions of the Sustainable Community Statement are as follows:

• The Statement provides further details in respect of the proposed residential element of the planning application, and in particular how this links with other the parts of the proposed development and how it would function as a sustainable new community.

58 • The Statement has demonstrated that the Long Marston Estate is a suitable site to accommodate some of the need arising within the HMA and it can assist in contributing to the District’s supply of affordable housing. It is available, suitable and achievable in the context of the advice at paragraph 54 of PPS3 and, by introducing residential uses as part of a mixed use redevelopment scheme, opportunities to live and work on the site are creating, improving sustainability characteristics. In addition, more than 500 people already work on the site, the majority of who live within 10 miles of the site. This has formed the basis of a community which the new residential uses would build upon. • The new village at the Long Marston Estate would sit within the existing settlement hierarchy and function in a similar way to other small villages in the District, such as Long Marston, Clifford Chambers and Preston-on- Stour. Day to day convenience facilities would be provided in the new village and strong links would be formed with higher order settlements, for example Lower Quinton, for the provision of other community facilities such as education and health care. Facilities would be within easy reach by walking, cycling and an improved bus network, reducing reliance on the private car and improving sustainability. • The existing established site wide management regime would be enhanced to include the residential element of the redevelopment proposals. A Community Interest Company could be set up to work in conjunction with the existing management structure. This could also include a Community Worker which could be part funded by the Applicant in the early years. • The proposals will assist in the development of a sustainable new community through the provision of the following: • An improved bus service between Stratford-upon-Avon and Moreton- in-Marsh with routes through the site. • An extension to the existing Greenway through the site, providing a car free pedestrian and cycle link to Stratford-upon-Avon town centre. • The retention of existing, and provision of new, employment opportunities on site. • A pedestrian link to Lower Quinton. A central community and leisure hub which will become the focal point for the new village and include retail and leisure uses and community floorspace. • A Community Interest Company with a Community Worker in the early years. • Site wide Travel Plan • This Statement has demonstrated why the Long Marston Estate is suitable for meeting housing needs identified within the defined HMA and how the residential proposal would function as a sustainable new community as part of a comprehensive mixed use redevelopment of the site.

59 CONSULTATIONS

Advantage West Midlands

Comments on original plans submitted: The Agency commented previously on the Long Marston Estate Masterplan options in October 2007 and broadly supported options that would retain existing jobs on the site and provide for enhanced recreation and leisure opportunities which would compliment South Warwickshire's existing tourism offer and deliver the region's Visitor Economy Strategy.

The Agency is encouraged to note that this Application will secure all 532 jobs currently provided on site and lead to the creation of a further 130 employment opportunities through the development of the leisure village. As the Planning Statement identifies, Long Marston provides an important local employment resource and a unique combination of the type and size of units available that is not provided elsewhere in Stratford District. The redevelopment of the site therefore provides an excellent opportunity to modernise and reconfigure the employment offer at Long Marston to the benefit of existing jobs and businesses and in attracting new employment opportunities. The Agency does not oppose the proposed loss of employment premises provided that the retained employment land is enhanced and improved, site rationalisation is not to the detriment of existing businesses and there is potential for growth of rail-based cluster opportunities on the site if this is considered viable.

The site is currently not constrained by neighbouring uses and existing and/or future businesses must be able to continue to operate unrestricted 24 hours a day, which could potentially lead to conflict with other uses on site, particularly residential and holiday accommodation. The provision of sufficient buffering around the employment zone and issues of access to the employment area will need to be resolved to ensure that the employment uses are not compromised. The provision of a separate access road to the employment land would reduce the potential for conflict substantially.

From a strategic tourism perspective, the Agency is broadly supportive of the proposed tourism and leisure uses of the site. Given appropriate quality development, the proposals should complement existing tourism assets in South Warwickshire and the wider region. In particular, a good quality, purpose- designed touring caravan site and a high quality self-contained holiday village would supplement existing supply. Despite the sizable scale of the self-catering development, given the specific nature of the holiday village market we would not anticipate significant displacement of trade from existing establishments (23.06.09).

CABE

Comments on original plans submitted: Undertook site visit and meeting with the design team. Consider there are some strong concepts within the design approach; however the overall diagram for the site is not clear given the lack of clarity in the proposal’s vision. The current application misses the opportunity to realise the full potential of the site. For the following reasons, we are unable to support this application:

• The site deserves a more imaginative approach to retaining the employment use on the site, including the possibility of integrating the employment use within the overall site, including the residential area. This could bring trade and vibrancy to the local hub/centre

60 • Whilst we understand the rationale for arranging the uses in ‘pockets’, we think the separation of uses as proposed is unsuccessful. The employment site has been ‘ring fenced’. Particular concern that the residential area in the south east corner of the site will be an isolated pocket of housing with little connection to services and facilities. A more ambitious approach is recommended to explore a more integrated and mixed use layout • The proposal must answer the critical question of what sort of place is being proposed. While the character of the site and the existing landscape may lend itself to a pocketed approach, it does not make a place that will be attractive to visit and live and work in. A strategy for the site overall is needed to ensure that the different areas come together as a collection of places rather than an ad hoc arrangement of uses • There is concern that the isolated nature of the residential area is unsustainable. For example we are not convinced that residents will be able to access local schools and leisure facilities easily, on foot or by bicycle (21.07.09)

Comments on amended plans submitted: Unfortunately, we will not be able to comment on this application as it is only for minor variations. Please note that this literally means 'no comment' and should not be interpreted as tacit endorsement of the scheme. Any comments made in earlier letters still stand (08.09.09)

Cotswolds Conservation Board

Comments on original plans submitted: Concerned that trips into the AONB, particularly for leisure purposes will almost exclusively be by car given the limited public transport availability. Considers that the increased use of local rural roads within the AONB will have a detrimental impact on the tranquillity of the AONB contrary to Policy EF.1.

Notes that the applicant considers there will be a slight adverse impact on the AONB. Considers that there is no evidence to say that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the tranquillity of the AONB.

Considers the proposal contrary to Policy EF.1 and should be refused (11.06.09).

Comment on addendum to Environmental Statement: The addendum appears not to have addressed the issues/concerns raised in the response to the original plans. The Board therefore continues to object to this application because a) the applicant accepts that there will be “a detrimental impact” on the landscape and AONB and b) there is no evidence that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the tranquillity of the AONB. (17.11.09)

Cotswold District Council

Comments on original plans submitted: This Authority has concerns about the proposal in terms of its impact on the local road network. Please have regard to any comments received from Gloucestershire County Council prior to the determination of the application (15.05.09).

Comments on amended plans submitted: No further comments (27.8.09)

Comment on addendum to Environmental Statement: No further comments (13.11.09)

61 Council for British Archaeology

Comments on original plans submitted: No comments. (30.07.09)

English Heritage

Comments on original plans submitted: Recommendation: The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice (12.05.09).

Comments on amended plans submitted: Recommendation: The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice (01.09.09).

Comments on Addendum to Environmental Statement Recommendation: The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice (13.11.09)

Environment Agency

Comments on original plans submitted: Initial response sent 1 June outlining concerns regarding insufficient information on drainage and ecology. Meeting held with Capita Symonds to discuss and clarify issues.

The Environment Agency have split their letter into various subheadings; Flood Risk and Surface Water Drainage, Groundwater and Contaminated Land, Biodiversity, Enlargement of Pond 1. Details on each of these matters are elaborated upon in their consultation response.

No objections subject to conditions and notes relating to each of these matters. (23.07.09)

Comments on amended plans submitted: We have no comment to make on the changes to the description of the proposal as we consider that there will be little or no impact on the proposed development to change the comments that we have already made on this application (07.09.09).

E-ON Central Networks

Comments on original plans submitted: No objection. However emphasise that Central Networks has a Network within the proposed site and that there is an electricity substation within close proximity of the development. Provides contact details for various departments. (13.05.09)

Comments on amended plans submitted: No objection. However emphasise that Central Networks has a Network within the proposed site and that there is an electricity substation within close proximity of the development. Provides contact details for various departments. (28.08.09)

62 Comment on addendum to Environmental Statement: No objection. However emphasise that Central Networks has a Network within the proposed site and that there is an electricity substation within close proximity of the development. Provides contact details for various departments. (16.11.09)

Gloucestershire County Council

Comments on original plans submitted: The total number of employees is to remain at 532 although the employment area would be reduced, suggesting a more intensive employment use than currently exists and may not lead to a reduction in car trips. Given that the employment ‘splits’ are not specific, it is not possible to establish with any degree of certainty how robust or appropriate the trip rate is. We are unable to establish from the TA what the additional trips are likely to be through the Cotswold District, however this is not a major issue as long as the level of employment trips remain unchanged or are lower than current levels.

The residential trip rates appear reasonable. However, there are no tourist destinations within Cotswold District listed in the TA and it is expected that Mickleton, Chipping Campden, Moreton-in-Marsh and Stow-on-the-Wold would attract trips from the residential element as well as generating trips to the leisure elements of the proposal.

In lieu of any further analysis, a traffic counter is requested for the B4632 to identify possible increases in southbound traffic generated by the development. Should traffic increase by more than 5%, we would want a contribution toward planned highway improvements on the road between the county boundary and the A44 (17.07.09).

Clarification of position on Trip Rates in the Transport Assessment Unable to agree that the trip rate and distribution was sufficiently accurate or robust, but considered that subject to securing an automatic traffic counter on the B4632 which was the only road we had concerns about and provision to contribute to an identified improvement scheme on a proportional basis, we would not have an objection to the development. (email 05.10.09)

Health and Safety Executive

Comments on original plans submitted: The assessment [based on the details input on the HSE’s planning advice software tool by SDC] indicates that the risk of harm to people at the proposed development is such that HSE’s advice is that there are sufficient reasons, on safety grounds, for advising against the granting of planning permission in this case (10.09.09)

Highways Agency

Comments on original plans submitted: • Confirmation is required that the three proposed bus stops will ensure all the site will be within 400m of a bus stop • Confirmation required on trip rates and traffic generation data in order to confirm whether other trunk road junctions need to be assessed • Traffic from the touring caravan, holiday homes and self-catering lodges has been distributed based on local tourist attractions. Further details are required on the weighting of each of these attractions • Cycle parking should be provided

63 • The traffic flow data indicates that the A46/Billesley Junction will operate significantly over capacity. It is considered increased traffic queues could pose a potential safety risk • The development proposals (including site location and existing conditions) together with a Public Transport Strategy should be incorporated in the Travel Plan as well as the Transport Assessment • Measures targeting the decrease in the number of individuals coming by single occupancy car and increasing use of public transport (in respect of employment and leisure uses) should be within the main body of the report and look to promote and market the Travel Plan • Wish to see a reduction in the number of single occupancy trips over a period of 5 years • Would expect to see a range of enforcement measures put in place in the event that the monitoring strategy reveals the original targets have been missed • In light of the above, it is not possible to fully assess the likely traffic impact of the proposed development on the strategic road network. Further work is also required on the Travel Plan (18.06.09)

Comments on amended plans submitted: Trip rates for various elements of the proposal now acceptable. Concerned that the level of B1(a) on the site be limited as it is generally a higher trip generation than other B class uses which may be permitted to change to B1(a) use without planning consent being sought. Revised Framework Travel Plan is deemed satisfactory. Request that 2 conditions be attached to any permission (1) to limit the B1(a) to no more than 4,999sq m. (2) to ensure that a full travel plan is developed and approved before the site is occupied. (17.09.09)

National Grid

Comments on original plans submitted: Concluded that the risk is Moderate. Advise some notes. (15.05.09)

Comment on addendum to Environmental Statement: Note the presence of high pressure main adjacent to the proposed site. Require the contractor to contact them to discuss all of the proposals so that site meetings with engineers can be arranged, when they can discuss safe working practices and any restrictions and regulation. (12.11.09)

Natural England

Comments on original plans submitted: Since the site has been short listed as a potential Eco-town location, it is considered the current planning application is premature.

However, should the Council choose to proceed to determining this application, Natural England wishes to register an objection on the grounds of insufficient information available in order to properly assess the full environmental effects of the proposal.

Concern centres upon the potential impact of the proposal on the Cotswolds AONB. A comprehensive traffic study is required in order to assess the likely traffic movements generated on the minor road network within the AONB and the consequent impacts upon the special qualities for which the AONB was designated (22.06.09).

64 Comments sent to Case Officer responding to letter from Barton Willmore There is insufficient information for the planning authority to properly assess the full environmental effects of the proposals, notably the impact of traffic generated by the proposals on the adjacent Cotswolds AONB.

No further information has been provided that satisfies us that it has been demonstrated that there will not be a detrimental impact on the special features of the Cotswolds AONB.

Should the committee be minded to approve this proposal, support the recommendations made by Warwickshire Museum Field Services (Ecology) in their letter of 30/09/09 regarding the amended application. (08.09.10)

Network Rail

Comments on original plans submitted: No objection to proposal in principle, subject to conditions to protect Network Rail’s land adjacent to the site (15.06.09)

Comments on amended plans submitted: No further comments to make (14.09.09)

SDC Community Leisure Manger

Comments on original plans submitted: No objection, but SDC do not have any research to suggest if we have too many or not enough sports pitches. (04.08.09)

SDC Conservation

Comments on original and amended plans and addendum to Environmental Statement submitted: Architectural advice on this application will be provided through the Urban Design consultation (11.05.09).

SDC Development and Enabling Officer

Comments on original plans submitted: I have identified four primary issues of concern to the Housing Service in this case. In summary, these are:

(1) The justification for and appropriateness of the proposals overall in strategic housing terms. (2) The appropriateness of the range and mix of dwelling types proposed. (3) The appropriateness of proposals for the provision of affordable housing. (4) The appropriateness of the residential element of the proposed development in terms of its accessibility, versatility and sustainability.

The residential component of the overall application proposals for the site would result in the creation of a new village of up to 500 homes. The resulting village is likely to be comparable or larger, in terms of population, than many villages within the District accorded Local Centre Village status. The site does not presently form any recognised settlement. The status of the site and the nature of the proposals are therefore very significant in strategic housing terms.

65 In this context, I welcome the production of the Masterplan Document: providing, as it does, a comprehensive package of proposals for the re-use of the site as a whole. There are certain issues it does not adequately address, but there may be other means of doing so.

There are considerable uncertainties surrounding the way in which the long-term strategic housing needs of the District will be met. These remain unresolved at the time of writing, but should essentially be determined through the usual statutory development plan processes. It would be wrong for me to speculate on the outcome of those processes. I must therefore be guided in my assessment of the application by the statutory development plan as it currently stands: which makes no express provision for a new settlement.

Thus, given the provisions of Policy CTY.18 in respect of proposals involving residential development, the role of the Pioneer Study is crucial in justifying the case for the proposed new village. The Study has therefore been carefully assessed by the Housing Service. However certain shortcomings have been identified, including the lack of any primary research to inform its conclusions. I therefore conclude that it does not in itself provide a reliable basis upon which to promote the residential element of the application.

I have considered whether there are any balancing considerations that might still justify the residential element of the development proposed. However I have not identified any considerations of over-riding importance. Accordingly I am unable to support this aspect of the application proposals on strategic housing grounds.

Even if a case for residential development had been substantiated in purely quantitative and policy terms, another vital consideration is the likely ability of proposals to generate and sustain a genuine community (as opposed to just a large housing estate in the countryside). The lack of consideration of this issue is a matter of fundamental concern. I therefore consider the residential element of the application is premature in this respect.

I am unable to identify any particular merits of the proposals in strategic housing terms that might contribute to a demonstration of exceptional circumstances, sufficient to justify their exemption from the current housing moratorium.

Subject to the indicative stock mix being revised to omit any one bedroom dwellings, I am satisfied that a suitable stock profile for the market housing element of the proposed new village could be devised.

I welcome the overall proportion of affordable housing proposed (35% of total residential floorspace), and the principle that on-site provisions should be secured by way of provisions within the proposed S.106 Agreement. However there are various other important issues relating to the delivery, profile, funding and specification of the proposed homes that must be addressed at this stage. Because these issues have not been addressed, I regard the application proposals as unsatisfactory.

The Council’s policies require that at least 50% of the proposed homes should meet ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards covering accessibility and flexibility to respond to changing household needs. No specific proposals to this effect have been put forward. Having regard to this Authority’s Disability Equality Duty, I must therefore raise objection to the application on that basis.

Comments on amended plans submitted: Object.

66 The Pioneer Study has previously identified a potential strategic housing role for the proposed new residential village. We must leave you to determine the acceptability of that role in view of the somewhat unclear, but otherwise limited, remit of Policy CTY.18 to allow for new housing in this location. However no comprehensive package of proposals to establish mechanisms to give effect for that role has been put forward. We consider this situation to be unsatisfactory. It may be rectifiable, but probably not within the timeframe available for the determination of the application.

Only limited additional information has been provided about the scope of the proposals to facilitate the development of a genuine new community. On the basis of the information provided so far, we are not convinced that the proposals would be likely to result in the creation of a genuine new community.

No further details of proposals in respect of affordable housing provision have been provided. In particular, important issues relating to delivery, profile, funding and specification have not been addressed. Consequently, we are not satisfied that all relevant requirements of Policy COM.13 and associated SPD are capable of being met.

We are disappointed that no meaningful additional information has been provided addressing the need to secure versatility and flexibility in the proposed new housing stock.

Overall, we are disappointed that the amendments/additional information provided do not substantially address our previous concerns. We have therefore failed to identify any sound basis for changing our original recommendation (08.09.09).

SDC Environmental Health

Comments on original plans submitted: Contaminated Land – request standard condition about cleaning up any unexpected pollution that is found

Air Quality – In broad agreement with the methodology used and conclusions drawn from the survey work carried out, with one notable exception. The air quality assessment in chapter 11 of the Environmental Statement (ES) concludes that if [the proposal] were permitted it would have, at worse, a slightly adverse effect . However, this development would affect Stratford town and within some parts of Stratford, the levels of Nitrogen Dioxide is above National Air Quality Strategy Guideline Levels and as a result, the whole town is shortly to be declared as an ‘Air Quality Management Area’, necessitating the production and implementation of an Action Plan to deal with the situation.

In such a situation, it is not appropriate to consider the impact of any proposed development in isolation, even if it is assessed as ‘slight’ or ‘negligible’. The correct approach is to consider the combined effects of all proposals, but given the un-coordinated nature of discrete development over a wide area, this is not feasible. It is therefore recommended that unless the effect of development can be shown to be beneficial , a S106 contribution should be sought from the sponsors of new schemes. At this time, no objection is raised in principle to the application, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions and the signing of a S106 as outlined.

Noise and Vibration – the only comment relates to the internal noise climate of the residential portion of the development. It is recommended that that any consent be conditioned to require the submission, approval and implementation

67 of a scheme for the ventilation of any residential units within NEC B, as defined in PPG24. Plant noise and noise from other static sources should be controlled to ensure they do not exceed existing background noise levels. Noise from mobile sources or other transient activities should also be controlled to ensure they do not exceed existing background noise levels by more than 5dB. (30.07.09)

Comments on current conditions on employment use of the site Concerned regarding the impact of the employment use on the adjacent proposed dwellings. Recommended alterations to existing conditions placed on employment use on the site. Also recommend an informative to applicant regarding the potential difficulty of meeting the noise conditions and that the applicants may wish to devise a Management Plan to achieve this. (Part verbal and part in email to Officer 05.10.09)

SDC Flood Drainage

Comments on original plans submitted: No objection. The Developer is proposing to significantly reduce the area of hard standing within the site and enlarge existing surface water attenuation, with the addition of new balancing ponds and opening the existing culverted watercourses. This strategy should decrease the impact of sustained intense rainfall for the communities downstream of the site. (24.09.09)

SDC Landscape Officer

Comments on original plans submitted: Key to the success of the entire development is the degree of landscape integration that can be achieved with the existing landscape setting. It is unlikely that significant numbers of receptors will be adversely affected by the proposal in terms of visual impact.

In terms of landscape character and fit with the surrounding landscape, those areas supporting new development would be creating a new landscape character type which is considered to be generic to this form of development throughout the UK and not necessarily sympathetic to the locale.

The loss of trees will require greater scrutiny once detailed plans and reports are received (17.06.09).

Comments on amended plans submitted: Significant improvements have been made in the amendments submitted, particularly regarding the residential area. Slightly alarmed at the scale and form of afforestation elsewhere in the proposal and request that defining of a screening width to the residential/employment buffer. Very likely that remaining concerns are able to be dealt with through conditions and confident that the outcomes would be acceptable. (16.09.09)

SDC Urban Design Officer

Comments on original plans submitted: There are some fundamental concerns regarding the overall Masterplan for the development of this site. The appropriateness of the development proposed must also be assessed in terms of its accessibility, vitality, sustainability and adaptability.

A key area of the development will be the residential village and the principle of residential development on the site needs to be fully considered. The overall sustainability of a new village of this scale needs to be ensured. The fundamental

68 concern with the proposed Masterplan as a whole is that the mix of uses is insufficient in terms of supporting a new settlement. Place-making requires facilities to be integrated alongside residential in order to create a community. Although the Masterplan proposes a small centre (with small retail unit, sports facilities, restaurant/cafe and reception/check in for the holiday park), this is separated by the main link road through the site, and therefore appears divorced from the residential area rather than integrated as part of a village core.

The main link road will become a busy thoroughfare to the site and this small centre could provide some shared facilities between the residential and leisure uses but would not provide an accessible centre to the village. A development of this scale that is not well-linked to an existing centre would need other key facilities to be sustainable. I am unconvinced from the evidence presented that the residential site is suitably well connected and that proposed transport services will be sufficient to link people to jobs, schools, health and other services.

In terms of community activities, there is provision of sports facilities and play areas, but again these are separated from the residential area by the main route through the site. Creating successful residential areas is about more than providing homes that respond to people’s needs. It is about providing a framework within which communities can grow. The proposed residential area appears as a large isolated housing estate rather than a community, and is not well-related to the other uses. With a potential for a community of around 1,160 residents (not including the holiday village population), outside of an established settlement there has been insufficient consideration given to how the proposed settlement would function.

It should be noted that in principle, the design and layout of the built form, parking and open spaces works well and if the principle of residential development is to be accepted on this site, the siting of the village on land currently occupied by the accommodation blocks seems to be generally the most logical area of the site. The residential density is stated as approximated 32 dwellings per hectare, which may be considered a low density in many residential developments.

However, the issue of higher densities needs to be set against the issue of local character, particularly in the smaller rural villages. In my opinion, a lower density is acceptable within this rural location, and it seems appropriate for the density to not be uniform across the residential scheme, in order to create a distinctive character to the development. The concern lies in that although the village has a defined centre (of a higher density and different layout character) this is lacking the varied mix of uses that would be expected in a centre.

Another area of concern relates to the relationship between the proposed residential and the retained employment uses. The transition between the large industrial area and the residential settlement/holiday homes/caravans will need careful consideration, as there will be inevitable conflict between these areas. A small buffer area is provided but the relationship between these areas should be improved. The employment buildings are very large in scale, and the sudden transition from ‘rural edge dwellings’ to large imposing warehouses appears contrived.

Other points to be considered are: • sustainability issues need to be further considered • The maximum heights of buildings require clarification • The holiday homes and self-catering lodges could be designed in a more rationalised cluster

69 • All parking to the key frontages associated with the leisure and community hub need to be avoided (15.06.09)

Comments on amended plans relating to tree details submitted on 2 June 2009 Forestry and Landscape are assessing the tree protection proposals submitted, and therefore will provide the advice regarding important trees to be retained on site. Although it is inevitable that some trees will need to be removed in the process of any redevelopment of the site, every attempt must be taken to retain the key trees and landscape features. A number of these trees contribute significantly to the overall character of the site. The need to protect and enhance the existing trees of importance needs to be balanced against the need for a high quality design and layout. The outcome of any information received from Forestry and Landscape may result in amendments needed to the current proposals. (30.6.09)

Comments on amended plans submitted: There have been some positive improvements to the design and illustrative layout of the Masterplan, predominantly in terms of the residential part of the scheme. The retention of additional trees, a positive amendment in its own right, has also enabled the introduction of a pedestrian link east to west within the residential development, assisting greatly in improved permeability across the site.

The pedestrian links between the retained employment and other uses on the site seem to be the best available option in terms of an improved relationship between uses, given the scale and nature of the retained employment.

The more fundamental issue is whether the proposed mix of uses is appropriate within the context of this site. The overall layout of and uses within the 'hub' have significantly improved this area of the Masterplan. However, I am concerned that despite the improved links, the proposed leisure and community hub remains divorced from the core of the 'village' and that this will not serve to create a sustainable community that creates a 'place' rather than a housing estate. However, the suggested traffic calming techniques themselves do seem appropriate as opposed to formal pedestrian crossings.

There is potential for another approach relating to the dispersal of uses across the site, by having less residential development to the west of the Greenway extension and some of this would be pulled through to the north of the 'hub'. These dwellings would displace some of the self-catering lodges to be relocated further into the site. However, I appreciate that this design approach needs to be balanced against other considerations and therefore may not be viable.

Advice from CABE advocated a more imaginative approach to retaining the employment uses on the site. The full integration of the employment area with other uses has been accepted as not appropriate given the nature of the industrial uses. However, the applicant can explore future integration should the nature of the industrial uses change over time.

The seemingly random arrangement of the holiday homes and self-catering lodges is, in my opinion, still not acceptable in its proposed form, although it is acknowledged this issue could be resolved at reserved matters stage.

I also remain concerned that the proposals for the site do not yet achieve the full potential of the site, and the revisions have yet to explore fully the suggestions raised within the urban design consultation response and the CABE report.

70 In terms of the overall sustainability of the site, and the previously identified isolated nature of the site, the applicant has attempted to incorporate improved links for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.

The applicant has clearly made a considerable effort to work towards amendments which have addressed a number of the concerns raised within my initial consultation response. A decision may be taken that the issues raised can be resolved through conditions at this stage and further detail at reserved matters stage. However in order to provide a more secure basis for a reserved matters application the application could be withdrawn in order for further discussions and amendments to take place prior to outline approval. I leave this decision to the Case Officer (15.09.09).

Severn Trent Water

Comments on original plans submitted: No objection subject to conditions (20.05.09)

Comments on amended plans submitted: No objection, subject to inclusion of appropriate conditions (08.09.09)

Comments on Addendum to ES No objection, subject to inclusion of appropriate conditions (13.11.09)

Sport England

Comments on original plans submitted: Criticism of level of consultation, but just acceptable. Concerned there is to be another commercial leisure centre, however not enough evidence to object to the leisure facilities. In conclusion no objection. Advise contribution to underpin Local Authority facilities. Advise provision of pitches and changing rooms for community use should be secured in S106. (21.09.09)

Sustrans

No comments received.

Warwickshire Police Architectural Liaison Officer

Comments on original plans submitted: No objection (22.05.09)

Comment on addendum to Environmental Statement: No further observations (11.11.09)

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Comments on original plans submitted: The proposed redevelopment predominantly aims to reuse the existing section of hardstanding. However further loss of some of the semi natural habitats will be inevitable and a number of protected and priority species will be affected by the proposals. Furthermore, given that modifications to the watercourses and ditches are essential to compensate for the decrease in permeability of the site, the development is likely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SINC designation.

The Trust is satisfied that the majority of major ecological concerns have been acknowledged and appropriately considered. Details of safeguards for all

71 European and Nationally protected species (i.e. Watervoles, Great Crested Newts and Bats) have been sufficiently noted throughout the development stages, with measures to safeguard and enhance populations of protected species has also been detailed within the plan.

The Trust are therefore broadly satisfied the proposed mitigation strategies would be of adequate standard to ensure the development does not conflict policies EF.6 and EF.7A of the Stratford District Local Plan and relevant wildlife legislation. In turn, it is essential that, should the Local Authority be minded to accept the proposal, these mitigation strategies are secured using planning conditions (23.06.09).

Comments on amended plans submitted: The Trust are satisfied that no significant changes have been made to the original landscaping plans to warrant the revision of the EIA. With the exception of the tree retention proposals within the residential area, it appears no further changes will be required to any of the key ecological features on the site. We therefore have no further comments on the amended plans. (14.09.09)

WCC Archaeology

Comments on original plans submitted: Given the potential for previously unidentified archaeological deposits to survive across the site, and for the proposed development to impact upon these, we would strongly recommend that archaeological field evaluation be undertaken across this site at the earliest opportunity. This will help to define the character, extent, state of preservation and importance of any archaeological remains present across this site. The results of this field evaluation should accompany any reserved matters applications.

No objection, subject to the imposition of a condition for the implementation of a programme of archaeological work (15.07.09)

WCC Countryside Recreation

Comments on original plans submitted: The public access proposals within the site are considered generally acceptable. However there is a need for a more direct link to Quinton and to resolve details of the Greenway link. The proposal to link the existing County Council maintained Stratford - Long Marston Greenway and the proposed Greenway Extension (within the site) is a significant design issue. This link is shown inconsistently in various drawings - either along Station Road itself or alternatively running parallel to the northern side of Station Road immediately within the adjacent field. An entirely traffic free link running in the field north of Station Road would be preferable, if the developer can secure control of the land required. Either proposal would need to be included in a S106 agreement.

There are no longer any public rights of way within the site. There is however an opportunity for developing a much more direct pedestrian connection to Quinton village than the main Campden Road entrance. The possibility of a cycleway conversion order might also be explored, linking to the Sustrans route through Quinton.

The significant increase in the resident population and a transient holiday population will create an additional pressure on the existing public right of way network in the area. A developer contribution is therefore sought, via a S106 agreement, to make physical improvements to the public rights of way network within a five mile radius of the site (30.06.09)

72

Comments on amended plans submitted: No objection to the revised application in respect of public rights of way issues, subject to the observations relating to the original application (18.09.09)

WCC Early Years Team/Education

Comments on original plans submitted:

Early Years Education . Having discussed the matter with colleagues in the Early Years Service I understand that we have insufficient capacity to accommodate the additional twenty-four children (equivalent to twelve full time places) that we anticipate will come from this development and that the rising birth rate will place additional pressure on the service. As a consequence I will need to request a contribution towards Early Years Education.

Primary Education . Whilst there is currently some capacity in Quinton CE Primary School it is anticipated that the school will fill from the bottom up as a consequence of the increasing birth rate and will therefore need to request a contribution for the additional 87 Primary School pupils that we anticipate will come from this development.

Secondary Education . Whilst Shipston High School currently has some capacity its numbers are rising and are forecast to continue to do so, partly because provision has been included for additional housing in the Shipston area. It should also be noted that the affects of rising birth rates will affect the school in future years. I will therefore need to request a contribution for the 62 Secondary Age Pupils that we anticipate will come from this development.

Sixth Form Education . There is currently insufficient capacity for additional Sixth Form pupils and I would anticipate that available suitable accommodation will become an increasing problem as a result of an increasing stay-on rate, additional housing and ultimately the rising birth rates. I will therefore need to request a contribution for the 15 additional Sixth Form pupils that we anticipate will come from this development. (Please note that Sixth Form Education for pupils from this part of the County is currently provided by schools in Stratford and that there is no existing facility for Sixth Form Education at Shipston High School).

Requests formula in S106 since number of units is not known.

For information if all of the 500 units are "relevant" the formula would result in a request for the following contributions: -

Early Years Education £ 144,144 Primary Education £1,045,044 Secondary Education £1,122,200 Sixth Form Education £ 294,435 ------£2,605,823

Requests contribution toward land acquisition cost if additional housing is permitted adjacent to the application site. Site acquisition costs to be proportionate to the area required to support the anticipated number of children from the development site.

73

Contribution toward transporting pupils to Shipston High School (12.08.09).

WCC Ecology

Comments on original plans submitted: No objection, subject to the imposition of conditions and notes on any permission (09.07.09)

Comments on amended plans submitted: Major concerns regarding the amended illustrative Masterplan – in particular the large scale tree planting within areas which would be better managed as species rich grassland e.g. areas around Pond 1. Considers there are too many self catering lodges shown around lake – this would affect ecology. Inconsistency in various documents relating to the provision of 6m buffers adjacent to ditches for the purposes of water voles. Consider 6m buffers on both sides necessary and trees to be kept to a minimum. Trees beside ditches should be kept to a minimum. Proposed balancing ponds appear to have been removed from the revised Masterplan. Additional balancing ponds are required to stop predation on the water voles. Scope for biodiversity enhancements within the site and consideration should be given to the provision of green (sedum roofs). Recommend series of conditions and notes. (30.09.09)

WCC Fire and Rescue Service

Comments on original plans submitted: No objection subject to the imposition of a condition in respect of a scheme for the provision of adequate water supplies and fire hydrants necessary for fire fighting purposes at the site (14.05.09)

Comments on amended plans relating to tree proposals received on 2 June 2009 No objection subject to condition and makes mention of Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 (16.06.09)

WCC Highways

Comments on original plans submitted: Subject to some additional information on the proposed Shipston Road/Clifford Lane Roundabout and the Trinity Way/Shipston Road/Severn Meadows Road Roundabout, no objection in principle, subject to conditions and notes. (28.07.09)

Further comments received Discussions regarding this application between the County Council and the applicant and their consultants have been ongoing since 2006. We have been fully consulted on the developing Master Plan for the site and have fully analysed it through each stage, providing feedback to both the applicant and the Local Planning Authority. Numerous meetings have taken place and the Transport Assessment for the proposals has been through an extensive drafting process. Each section of the TA has been scrutinised and we are confident that the Trip Rates and the resulting junction analysis are sound. The culmination of this long period of consultation was our response of No Objection submitted to the LPA on 28th July 2009. Our No Objection to the scheme is based on a series of highway improvements and substantial Section 106 monies to improve the highway network and improve the safe operation of the network as a whole.

These improvements include: Section 278 Works: New roundabout to form main access on Campden Road

74 New Bus only access from site to Station Road New access to rail leisure area from Station Road to include uncontrolled crossing point to the Green Way. Improvement to form Roundabout on the Campden Road/A3400 Junction. Improvements to lining and signing of Trinity Way Roundabout.

Section 106 Contributions: £40k to add to the £50k secured from the temporary planning permission to carry out Safety scheme along Campden Road and Clifford Chambers up to the A3400. £40k to provide equipment to monitor HGV movements on minor roads to West of Site. £650k towards public transport provision over 5 years. £217k-£650k towards school travel over 5 years (still to be decided, awaiting response from education). £15k to connect public footpaths to the site. £5k towards the provision of an uncontrolled crossing on Milcote Road to provide better access to the Green Way Provision for the Green Way to be extended through the site to connect to Campden Road Green Travel Plan (20.10.09)

West Midlands Regional Assembly

Comments on original plans submitted: The B1, B2 and B8 element of the scheme is an existing employment site making use of existing industrial buildings and providing local employment. As such this proposal will not add any new floorspace and will not contribute to Stratford's reservoir of employment land as required under PA6A. It is however important that the office element of the scheme is controlled so that any office use remains ancillary to the main industrial use of the site. This would ensure consistency with PA13 reflecting the sites out of centre location. Subject to a condition on office development I can see no conflict with the Prosperity for All policies.

Turning to the leisure element of the application, the proposals would appear to be in line with WMRSS policy PA10, in that they would support the development and success of Stratford-upon-Avon and Shakespeare Country as a key regional tourism and cultural asset. This site is also well located in relation to the tourist route between the Cotswolds and Stratford-upon-Avon.

The WMRSS appears supportive of part of the outline application in so far as it seeks to secure the regeneration of a rural area and provides tourist investment. However, the scale of the housing development in this location and at this time would not be in conformity with the existing WMRSS policies CF2 and CF3 and the emerging WMRSS Policy CF2 and CF3. Further, no specific functional relationship between the housing and the other elements of the proposals has been put forward to justify it's scale and nature.

Outline part : - In conclusion, this proposal could prejudice the policies and principles of the WMRSS and therefore in principle it would not seem to be in general conformity with the WMRSS.

Full part : - In conclusion, this proposal generally does not prejudice the policies and principles of the WMRSS and therefore in principle it would seem to be in general conformity with the WMRSS. (10.07.09)

75 Clarification received on the use of the term ‘ancillary’ when referring to B1(a) uses: The acceptability of a proposed condition to limit the B1(a) floorspace to 4,999sq metres is a judgement for Stratford – but they need to take account of the whole of policy PA13B including the following – ‘For the avoidance of doubt the sequential approach as set out in PPS6 should contribute to be applied to all office proposals outside town centres, including those falling below the threshold set in this policy…’ so they would need to be satisfied that there are no sequentially preferable site for the 4,999sq m of offices before agreeing to this condition. (05.08.09)

Comments on amended plans submitted: Having considered the nature of what has been submitted, the WMRA conclude that this does not warrant reconsideration of their earlier response on this application. Accordingly original comments remain unaltered in the context of the amendments. (27.08.09).

Comment on addendum to Environmental Statement: Have considered the nature of what has been submitted and conclude that it does not warrant reconsideration of earlier response. Comments remain unaltered. (6.11.09)

Worcestershire County Council

Comments on original plans submitted:

• Had discussions with applicant prior to application being submitted. Understand the trip generation figures for the site have been agreed by Warwickshire CC and consider them to be unrealistic. Consider the application should be rejected on the grounds of the site suffering from poor accessibility. • Should application be granted, would require revenue support for Worcestershire CC from the developer to support bus service provision to Evesham, Honeybourne, Broadway and Bidford on Avon. Currently a lot of criticism that Worcestershire CC do not provide journeys from the area to Bidford-on-Avon as this is were the local surgery is located. Developer needs to support trips to education providers in this area for future residents. (18.06.09)

Further comments received in relation to financial contribution: • Redevelopment proposals providing a bus service linking the site to Stratford, Chipping Campden, Moreton in Marsh and Whichford does not address Worcs CC concerns regarding trips to Worcestershire destinations – Broadway, Evesham and Tewkesbury/Cheltenham. • Costings for bus service diversion and upgrade have not been calculated as we have not seen revised trip distribution to more accurately reflect trips to Worcestershire destination. • There has been no further consideration of education trips and provision. Without evidence of the expected distribution of students and their ages we cannot provide a cost for student travel. Appears to have been forgotten. (10.07.09)

Further response received Appreciates that Worcestershire CC has already responded, but would like to make some additional comments. Support for the reinstatement of the adjacent railway is extant in our Local Transport Plan (LTP2) under:

76 Policy RAIL6: Work with rail industry partners to identify and implement infrastructure improvements to increase the capacity of the rail network and reliability of services .

4.2.7.7 Infrastructure improvements There are a number of long standing proposals to upgrade rail infrastructure within the Worcestershire area which, if implemented would potentially improve the capacity and reliability of the rail network. The County Council wishes to work with rail industry partners to identify opportunities to progress these works through the franchising, RUS and RPA processes. These include: Stratford upon Avon – Cheltenham line – Reopening of this disused line along it's full length would provide a strategic route bypassing the existing Birmingham – Bristol main line, which has existing capacity problems. This route could potentially be specifically used to divert freight traffic off the main line, permitting it to avoid the Lickey Incline. • Have been in contact with Stratford Rail Group (SRG). Upon my enquiry of where other stakeholders stand on this matter, including AWM, Network Rail and DfT(R), it appears that whilst the idea has support, it lacks the credibility of a business case. • Given that we are now in the process of giving thought to the policies we might want to take forward in the next iteration of LTP, voices support for SRG's suggestion that at the very least, the applicant be asked to undertake the necessary railway business case study as a condition precedent to a contribution to the rail scheme. (15.10.09)

Further emailed response received from Worcestershire County Council, Transport Planning & Review Officer

Position has not changed - do not feel trip rates to key Worcestershire destinations, and locations requiring transport through Worcestershire have not been accurately considered for the nature of the development. Tourist / leisure trips to Broadway, Evesham and Tewkesbury / Cheltenham, and commuter journeys to Evesham and Tewkesbury / Cheltenham are underrepresented in our view.

It is not possible to identify a revenue sum or plan to upgrade Service 554, (the local bus route that passes the site on the Worcestershire border), due to the issue with trip rates. It is also difficult to see how a sustainable service would be provided as the access from the Worcestershire side of the development is not ideal for a sensible diversion to the bus route so as not to adversely affect current passengers.

We are pleased to hear that agreement has been reached with Warwickshire County Council on education trip rates and that this important aspect has now been considered. (19.10.09)

Wychavon District Council

Comments on original plans submitted:

• Leisure Village element of the proposal appears clearly in line with the thrust of Policy CTY.18. However policy would only appear to support residential and employment development on the site if this is of a scale consistent with the needs of the local population. Has doubts whether the provision of 500 dwellings as well as the retention of 80,000 sq metres of industrial floor space represents a scale of development that is consistent with the needs of the local population. Needs for housing provision should

77 be met by provision of new housing within the areas where the need is generated. Inappropriate to use housing needs within areas some distance from the application site to justify a local need. • Proposal will generate significant HGV movements within the Vale of Evesham. Development as a whole will generate significant traffic movements. Consider impact of development in terms of traffic movements within Vale of Evesham as a whole and HGV movements within the area. • Proposed development would put pressure on facilities including villages in Wychavon. Concerned that the development will result in unmet demand and underprovison of facilities and services. • No firm proposals for the provision of improvement public transport links from the application site to Evesham. Without this, concern that the development will result in extra traffic from Long Marston to Evesham to the detriment of the environment as well as prejudicing sustainable development objectives. • Consider that more detailed information on the level and type of community facilities on site should be provided. Would it constitute an isolated residential scheme which is inadequately equipped to serve the needs of its residents? • The West Midlands Regional Assembly (WMRA) should be asked for their comments to see if it is in conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS). Suggested that the application be treated as a departure from the development plan and referred to the Secretary of State should Stratford Council be minded to grant (22.06.09)

Comments on amended plans received 21.8.09 No further comments to make. Original comments still stand. (12.10.09)

78 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Reference Number Proposal Decision and date

07/02296/VARY Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Granted 11.01.2008 Permission Ref;02/01911/FUL to (Committee decision) extend the period of time for the temporary planning permission for a further two years until 31st December 2009. 07/02294/VARY Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Granted 11.01.2008 Permission Ref;02/01923/FUL to (Committee decision) extend the period of time for the temporary planning permission for a further two years until 31st December 2009. 06/01876/VARY Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Refused 28.02.2007 Permission 02/01911/FUL to extend (Committee decision) the period of time for the temporary planning permission for a further two Appeal lodged but then years until 31st December 2009. withdrawn prior to appeal being heard 06/01874/VARY Variation of Condition 1 of Planning Refused 28.02.2007 Permission 02/01923/FUL to extend (Committee decision) the period of time for the temporary planning permission for a further two Appeal lodged but then years until 31st December 2009 withdrawn prior to appeal being heard 06/00279/FUL Placement of one portakabin mobile Granted 03.04.2006 unit (one storey high) next to existing (delegated decision) building no. 32 05/03211/FUL Placement of 3 portakabin mobile Granted 09.12.2005 units (one office unit, one toilet unit, (delegated decision) and a restroom/canteen unit. 05/02439/FUL Renewal of temporary change of use Granted 14.10.2005 for four years Unit no. 711 for vehicle (delegated decision) auction sales facility one day per week from the hours of 11:00-16:00 and Unit no. 713 as offices. These facilities to be used with existing fleet and remarketing business on site 05/00890/FUL Erection and provision of a portable Granted 23.05.2005 office unit for a period of three years (delegated decision) 02/02055/FUL Temporary change of use for 4 years Refused 05.02.2003 for additional day for vehicle auction (delegated decision) facility per week(Wednesday) from 11:00 to 16:00 hours unit No. 711 and unit No.713 as offices . To be used with existing defleet and remarketing business 02/01923/FUL Change of use to offices (B1a) light Refused 18.02.2003 industrial (B1c) and storage and (committee decision) distribution (B8) including open storage APPEAL ALLOWED 02/01911/FUL Change of use to offices (B1a), light Refused 18.02.2003 industrial (B1c) and storage and (committee decision) distribution (B8) including open storage. APPEAL ALLOWED

79 01/00300/FUL Temporary change of use for 4 yrs Granted 04.06.2001 unit 711 for vehicle auction sales (committee decision) facility one day per week from hrs of 11:00 to 16:00. And unit 713 as offices these facilities to be used with existing defleet and remarketing business operating on site 99/02203/FUL Change of use to offices (B1a), light Granted 20.12.2001 industrial (B1c) and storage and (committee decision) distribution (B8), including open storage, for a temporary period of five years. 96/00004/S53S Use of site for purposes for storage Withdrawn by applicant and distribution (Class B8 of Use 27.08.1998 Classes Order)

Other planning site history largely relates to the erection of signage at the site entrance.

80 ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

The third page of the executive summary at the start of this report identifies the key issues in the determination of this application.

The application was due to be determined at committee on 20 October 2009 however was deferred in order to allow for consultation with all adjoining Ward Members. Consultation of all adjoining Ward Members has duly taken place for a 21 day period. Any representations from Ward Members have been reported in this report if received at the time of report writing.

Members Site Visit

A Members Site Visit took place at 3pm on 20.10.2009. The site visit provided an opportunity for Members to familiarise themselves with the nature of the existing site and surrounding area and there was no discussion of the merits of the case.

Councillors Marshall, Lawrence, Brain, Cheney, Close, Cockings, Gardner, Jackson, James, Main, Patrick and Payne were present for the site visit. Mr Andy Murphy, on behalf of BARD (who were consulted on the application) and the objectors was present and Mr Peter Rudd of St Modwens, the applicants was present.

The site visit left the Council Offices and took a route to the site via the Shipston Road and B4632. The off site highway works proposed at the Trinity Way/Shipston Road/Severn Meadows Road roundabout and the junction with Clifford Lane were pointed out. Members were given a tour of the site on a coach. The existing residential blocks were identified and the proposed residential areas highlighted. The coach drove past the existing employment which is proposed to be retained. The proposed caravan site was pointed out, and a landscaping buffer was discussed. The link for the Greenway was shown from both within and outside of the site. The existing employment to be demolished was pointed out. The coach drove round the existing rail related uses on site. The location of holiday homes and touring caravan site and self catering lodges was shown and the nature of these uses clarified. The location of the central facilities hub, the new access, in addition to the existing sports pitches and Meon Hill and the AONB boundary were all mentioned. The nearest residential properties on the north (including the fact that some are listed) south and east of the site were identified. The other various access around the site, and their proposed future uses were also mentioned. The site visit concluded by returning to the Council Offices via Long Marston and Welford on Avon. This route returning to the office could not be used by HGVs which are currently restricted (and would continue to be restricted) under the current HGV routing agreement.

Guidance on processing and determining a hybrid application

The application has been submitted as a hybrid – i.e. part of the proposals have been submitted seeking full planning permission, and the remainder of the proposals have been submitted as an outline application, therefore seeking approval only in principle for various elements of the overall scheme for the site. The outline application has been submitted with details of the main site access to be approved however the other accesses onto Station Road for the proposed bus service and the access in the northwest part of the site for the rail leisure uses are proposed to be reserved for future detailed design. Matters relating to landscape, accesses in part, appearance, layout and scale would all be dealt with at Reserved Matters Stage.

81 In terms of determining this application, Officers would advise that the proposal should be treated as one application, despite being part full and part outline. The application has come forward following a Masterplanning exercise by the applicants and the overall proposal, incorporating both the full and the outline elements, is in response to Policy CTY.18 of the Local Plan Review 1996-2011.

Application references 07/02296/VARY and 07/02294/VARY were granted in order to allow an extension of time for the existing employment uses to remain on site whilst the applicants would undertake a Masterplanning exercise to evolve the future use of the site. This decision did not preclude the existing employment uses staying on the site in the future, but were they to do so, they would need to be justified by Policy CTY.18 and other relevant considerations. Furthermore, Policy CTY.18, which is the policy most pertinent to this site in the Local Plan Review, states that, in addition to other criteria, the redevelopment of the site is considered appropriate ‘provided that the proposed development deals with the site on a comprehensive basis’.

The submission does deal with the site on a comprehensive basis, but only when considering both the full and outline aspects of the proposal together. It would therefore be contrary to Policy CTY.18 to support one element of the proposal and refuse the other, since this outcome would not achieve a comprehensive solution for the site, nor would the nature of the development meet the criteria and mix of uses indicated as appropriate in Policy CTY.18. Officers would therefore advise against any split decision, and would request that Members consider the proposals as a whole.

Site Description

The application site is a former MoD Central Engineers Depot which was closed by the MoD in 1999. The site has been owned by St Modwen’s since 2004. The site extends to 190 hectares.

The site is bounded to the east by the B4632 Campden Road, to the north by Station Road, to the south by a recycling centre, hardstanding and access road and open countryside, and to the west by the Honeybourne Branch Rail Line, and beyond this the Long Marston Road and open countryside. The prominent feature of Meon Hill lies to the south east. The site lies in close proximity to Gloucestershire and Worcestershire and the districts of Cotswolds and Wychavon respectively. None of the application site lies in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). However the AONB lies just beyond the south-eastern corner of the application site.

The site lies approximately 6 miles south of Stratford upon Avon town centre, and between the villages of Long Marston and Lower and Upper Quinton. The Greenway (pedestrian and cycle link to Stratford upon Avon) runs along the route of the former railway to the north of the site.

The site is located within the Vale of Evesham Control Zone and High Pressure gas pipelines surround the site. A small area of the site, on the northern boundary, lies within Floodzones 2 and 3.

There are a number of existing land uses on the site; principally employment, former MoD residential area, woodland, rail related uses and grazing land. I shall describe these in a little more detail below, although Members will have a better knowledge of the site from the Site Visit.

Existing land uses on the site are as follows:

82 • 140,247 square metres of offices (B1a) light industrial (B1c) and storage and distribution (B8) including open storage (first allowed on appeal in 2003 as part of application references 02/01923/FUL and 02/01911/FUL). Most of the buildings are very large and of poor quality. These were formerly buildings used by the MoD. In recent years, St Modwen’s have also applied for permission for various portakabin buildings to be sited on hardstanding, which have been approved, and utilised as offices associated with the existing employment uses on the site. Currently 92,900 square metres of the 140,247 square metres of the buildings are occupied. There is a large amount of hardstanding on the site (178,950 square metres). • Other buildings also exist on site. In the south-eastern corner of the site there are former MoD residential accommodation blocks. These blocks are a mixture of 2 and 3 storeys high with flat roofs, dispersed between mature trees and are proposed to be demolished as part of this application. • The central part of the site is dominated by existing woodland which generally runs in a southwest-northeast direction across the site. The woodland extends to 18 hectares and is proposed to be retained. • The western part of the site is occupied by land used for rail related purposes. There is an internal rail track, which extends to approximately 30 miles in length. The rail track connects the site to the Worcester to London railway line via the Honeybourne branch line which runs south from the site to Honeybourne Station. The internal rail track is currently well used for the storage and maintenance of rolling stock and by some existing occupiers of commercial buildings. • In the north-eastern part of the site, there is an area of land formerly used as sports pitches but now used as grazing land. The land in the western part of the site within the rail tracks is also used as grazing land.

Site History

There is quite a complex and lengthy site history associated with the site, which is pertinent to the determination of this application. Relevant historical applications are shown in the Site History table of this report. I now provide a brief factual account of the planning site history.

In 1999 the Ministry of Defence (MoD) applied for planning permission to use the site as offices (B1a), light industry (B1c) and storage and distribution (B8) for a temporary period until 31 December 2006 (application reference 99/02203/FUL). Permission was granted for this at committee subject to conditions and a S299A Agreement – which restricted floorspace for B8 to 69,750 sq m and the maximum number of trips to and from the site by motor vehicles to an average of 300 in the AM peak hour and 349 in the PM peak hour. The application site at this stage was contained to predominantly just the large employment buildings on the site, and did not incorporate the woodland areas, areas to the west, sports pitches or large parts of the south eastern corner.

In June 2001, application reference 01/00300/FUL was granted for the temporary change of use for 4 yrs of unit 711 for a vehicle auction sales facility on Tuesdays from the hours of 11:00 to 16:00 and unit 713 as offices associated with the Auction. These facilities were to be used with an existing defleet and remarketing business operating on site. In 2005, this consent was slightly relaxed when an application to renew the temporary permission was submitted. The condition on the new permission stated that the auction could be used on any one day of the week but not Sunday.

83 This business and small scale vehicle auction is still operating on site. Permission is sought as part of the full part of the application to retain the existing vehicle auction use.

Two further applications were submitted in June 2002 (02/01911/FUL and 02/01923/FUL). They sought an extension in the floorspace and area of open storage permitted under 99/02203/FUL. These two applications covered the entire site boundary which has been submitted as part of the current application. Both of these applications were refused, but allowed on appeal for a temporary period until 31 December 2007. The restrictions on levels of B8 floorspace were removed by the Inspector. The Inspector maintained the vehicle trip thresholds and maximum peak AM hour and peak PM trips as in the previous Agreement associated with application reference 99/12203/FUL. In allowing a temporary permission, the Inspector did not consider that this would prejudice the Development Plan.

The site was acquired by St Modwens in 2004.

Two further applications (06/01874/VARY and 06/01878/VARY) were registered in December 2006. The applications sought to extend the temporary planning permission for a further 4 years until 31 December 2011. St Modwens then modified the proposal to extend the use of the site to 31 December 2009. Members resolved to refuse the applications for 2 reasons. Firstly, the proposal by virtue of its volume of HGV traffic was considered to have a harmful effect and intrusive impact on local communities, to promote car use and there was a lack of demonstrated need for the employment. Secondly, there was an absence of a completed legal agreement to secure measures such as a lorry routing agreement. St Modwens appealed these decisions, but the appeals were later withdrawn.

In 2007, two further applications were submitted to again extend the temporary permission until 31 December 2009. The resubmissions were justified on the basis of progress in discussions with the Council in relation to the long term use of the site. A programme was submitted to the Council detailing two years preparing a Masterplan and submission of a subsequent application. Committee resolved to grant these applications for the temporary period to enable the Masterplanning to take place and a long term use of the site to be resolved.

A Masterplanning process has been carried out and this planning application before Members is a response to Policy CTY.18 and is the applicants proposed comprehensive redevelopment of the site. From the planning site history, Members will be aware that the existing use of the site should terminate on 31 December this year under the current temporary permission.

The Masterplan: the consultation process and its status

Policy CTY.18 states that ‘Development proposals will need to be supported by a Masterplan for the approval of the District Planning Authority in consultation with the owners of the site, local communities, neighbouring local authorities and other interested parties’. This application has been submitted with an emerging Masterplan. This has not been formally adopted by the Council.

The purpose of the Masterplan is elaborated upon in explanatory text 7.48.7 of Policy CTY.18 stating that it is ‘required to reconcile all the issues raised by the prospective redevelopment of the site’.

84 The consultation process A range of consultation methods were utilised to ensure that the Masterplan was publicised as it developed. These took the form of meetings with Council Officers and elected Members; a mail shot to Long Marston, Lower Quinton and Upper Quinton residents and Ward Members raising awareness of the proposals; advertisements in the local press; posters displayed at the Council Offices reception area and Village Halls; notification on the Council’s website; public exhibitions and workshops/local community forums.

The first public exhibition took place in October 2007 and 4 Masterplan options were presented: 1) Continuation of the Existing Use (154ha Employment, 18ha Residential, 18ha Woodland 2) Leisure, Employment and Residential (81ha Leisure, 73ha Employment, 18ha Residential, 18ha Woodland) 3) Leisure, Employment and Residential (122ha Leisure, 38ha Employment, 12ha Residential, 18ha Woodland) 4) Linked new settlement (110ha Residential, 62ha Open Space, 18ha Woodland)

The applicant’s two preferred Masterplan options which were taken forward to the second public consultation event were options 3) and 4) above. They were developed in more detail and presented as options 5 and 6.

Option 5 constituted 12.35ha/500 units of residential, 37.28ha/80,000sq m of employment and 59.3ha of leisure uses/100 self catering lodges and 200 holiday homes. Option 6 constituted 50 ha/2200 units of residential, 37.28ha/80,000sq m of Employment, and 28.07 ha/100 self catering lodges of Leisure uses.

I do note however that Options 3) and 4) above were not the most popular options identified by the public during the first round of public consultation. In fact, a new linked settlement (Option 4) was the least favourable option arising from the public consultation event. Moreover 30% of respondents considered that any housing should be kept to a minimum, 19% did not support any housing at all and 11% considered housing should meet local needs. In view of the number of houses proposed, it is consistent that the third party representations received in relation to this current planning application show a similar opposition to the scale of housing development on the site.

Whilst the applicants have indicated that they took forward Options 5 and 6 after consultation with the Council, it should be noted that the Council expressed reservation regarding Option 6.

After the second round of public consultation, Option 5 was preferred by a margin of 73% to 4% (23% stated they wished neither option) but was based on a total of only 52 responses. It appears that the majority of people chose Option 5 because it provided fewer houses than Option 6, again a consistent response based on the first round of public consultation.

Status of the Masterplan The emerging Masterplan has not yet been formally put before Members or adopted. However, it is clear that the applicants have gone through a lengthy consultation process. Aspects of the consultation process may be criticised, for example, the options for the site put before the general public on the second round of consultation did not resemble the previous most popular options which they had voted for at the earlier consultation event. In general however, the consultation process can be considered reasonable. Members are advised that the

85 emerging Masterplan is a material planning consideration in the determination of this application however approval of this application would not mean formal adoption of the emerging Masterplan. The approval of the application would in effect indicate support for the Masterplan as it is submitted with the application. It is for Members to decide what weight to give to the emerging Masterplan that has been submitted with the application.

Policy and Principle of development

For clarification purposes, this application is entirely separate to the Eco Town proposal and should be determined in isolation from the Eco Town proposal. Whilst consultees (for example Natural England) have commented or objected to the proposal as prejudicing the option of this site as an Eco Town, I would advise Members that this should not be a consideration in coming to a resolution on the current application.

In view of the scale and nature of the proposal there are many relevant policies at both regional and local level, and also other material considerations at national and local level (set out in policy section at the start of the report). However, I consider the most pertinent policy in relation to this application, certainly to formulate an opinion on the principle of the proposal, is CTY.18 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011. A copy of CTY.18 is at Appendix A to this report.

Policy CTY.18 states that the redevelopment of the site is considered appropriate provided that: (a) the proposed development deals with the site on a comprehensive basis; (b) the proposed development does not provide for needs accommodated elsewhere in the Plan; and (c) the proposed development does not cause prejudice to the strategies of the Development Plan.

The policy goes on to list 9 different factors which must be considered when considering any development proposal on the site and are covered in the key issues in this report. However, first I shall explore (a) to (c) outlined above.

The application has been submitted as a hybrid application accompanied by an emerging Masterplan, covering the whole site identified at Insert Map 5.3 associated with Policy CTY.18 of the adopted Local Plan Review. Clearly the application has been submitted to deal with the site on a comprehensive basis and therefore I consider it meets the test outlined in (a).

Policy CTY.18 states that the site is, subject to full assessment of factors outlined in the policy, considered suitable for a major leisure village. In addition or alternatively, other specific forms of development may be considered. For the avoidance of doubt, residential or employment development may be appropriate provided that its scale is consistent with the needs of the local population or is ancillary or directly related to the eventual form of any other development and use of the site.

In principle , and in the light of (b) and (c) above, I consider the following proposals are acceptable: • up to 150 holiday homes (which would be subject to an appropriate occupancy condition to ensure they are not utilised as main dwellings). These properties would be generally privately owned (although community spaces are managed by private companies), detached properties. There would be on-curtilage private parking, materials used would possibly be timber cladding, oolithic stone and render.

86 • up to 150 self catering lodges (which would be subject to an appropriate occupancy condition to ensure they are not utilised as main dwellings). The self catering lodges would be for short terms rent, managed by a private company. Mostly detached properties, however some terraces and semi-detached properties are likely. Parking would be in communal courts within a short distance to the properties. There would be no definition of boundaries. Open space would be shared. Finishing materials likely to be timber cladding, oolithic stone and render. • leisure/community hub building • up to 80-pitch touring caravan site (which would be subject to an appropriate condition to ensure they are restricted to short term holiday let) • outdoor activity centre • rail based storage and restoration uses • rail heritage building • proposals for extension to The Greenway, green space, water bodies, sport and recreation (the amount of open space provision will be explored below)

The West Midland RSS Conformity Advisor also considers that the WMRSS appears supportive of the leisure element of the application, being in line with WMRSS Policy PA10 since the proposals would support the development and success of Stratford-on-Avon and ‘Shakespeare Country’ as a key regional tourism and cultural asset. This site is also well located in relation to the tourist route between the Cotswolds and Stratford upon Avon. The SDC Community Leisure Manager has no objection to the application but did comment on the level of pitch provision (this is considered in more detail in the key issue on open space provision).

I note the comments of Councillors Brain and Pemberton regarding a possible condition to close the site in one month and two months of the year respectively to prevent the possibility of permanent occupation. I do not consider that such a condition would meet the tests of Circular 11/95 if it required the whole of the site to be closed for a period of time as the condition would be unreasonable. In addition I consider that closing such a large site for a whole month would result in significant security issues. However I do consider that strict occupancy conditions should be used. I have proposed a condition to restrict the caravans to only be occupied as a short term holiday let and not be occupied by the same individual(s) for more than one calendar month in any calendar year. I have proposed a condition to ensure that the self catering holiday lodges would not occupied by the same individual(s) for more than one calendar month in one calendar year and that the holiday homes would not be occupied by the same individuals for a continuous period of more than 3 calendar months and the total period of non-occupation would not be less than 3 calendar months in any calendar year. In order to further control the caravan site, holiday lodges and holiday homes to prevent them from being used as permanent residences, a detailed obligation would be secured in the S106 Agreement. I consider that with these restrictions, the permanent residential occupation of the holiday lodges, holiday homes and caravans could not occur.

I therefore raise no in-principle objection to the above bullet pointed proposals.

The two remaining elements of the proposal are the outline consent sought for up to 500 dwellings, and the full permission sought for the retention of 80,374 sq metres of B1(a), B1(c) and B8 employment uses. Whilst I shall be considering both elements separately for analysis purposes, Members must keep in mind that the proposals have been submitted as an overall comprehensive redevelopment package of the site. I shall turn first to the employment considerations.

87

Employment policy and principle Policy CTY.18 states that ‘employment development may be appropriate provided that its scale is consistent with the needs of the local population or is ancillary or directly related to the eventual form of any other development and use of the site’. In addition, sections (b) and (c) of the Policy are also critical in the assessment of the appropriateness of the retention of employment uses on the site.

The application proposes the retention of 80,374 square metres of B1(a), B1(c) and B8 employment uses with associated hardstanding. Currently there is 140,127 square metres of available employment uses on the site, subject to the temporary planning permission that expires on 31 December 2009. On the current situation (which has only a temporary permission), there would therefore be a reduction of 59,753 square metres of floorspace.

The fact that a temporary permission exists on site, does not mean that a long term use of the site in this manner would necessarily be acceptable. Indeed, the existing use was never intended to be the long term permanent use of the site in the opinion of either the Council or Inspectors in their Appeal decisions. Whilst I am mindful that the site was previously a MOD base which supported substantial levels of employment, this has not become an established lawful use by way of long-use and the current uses on site are only lawful due to the temporary st planning permissions which have been granted but expire on 31 December 2009. I do not agree that the existing use is therefore a fallback position. I note that BARD also hold this opinion.

In assessing the principle of an employment use on the site, it must be considered whether the scale provides for local needs or is ancillary to or directly related to the eventual form of development on the site, and that the employment does not cause prejudice to the strategies of the Development Plan and does not provide for needs accommodated elsewhere in the Plan.

The applicant's planning statement at paragraph 5.6 suggests that the employment element is supported by Policy PA6 of the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and the site should be classed as a 'Good quality employment site' within this policy. The total area of the site covered by the employment uses is around 35ha, this is well in excess of the PA6 definition of a sub-regional employment site, which are described as being ‘high quality attractive sites, generally 10-20 hectares in size in sustainable urban locations...... Land in this category would usually need to be located on or have a direct link to the strategic highway network and be, or proposed to be, well served by public transport'. This site is clearly not in a sustainable urban location nor is it well connected to the strategic highway network.

If one takes into account the area of land dedicated to the rail related storage the scale of the proposal would be almost akin to a regional logistics site as set out in Policy PA9 of the RSS (sites in the order of 50ha or more), yet the site would perform poorly against the locational criteria set out in this policy. Whilst local planning authorities are expected to provide a range of sites this does not mean that each district is expected to provide for the full portfolio of sites set out in PA6. In my view the policies of the RSS would not support an employment development of this scale in this location.

However, the West Midlands Regional Assembly response does not consider the employment uses to be out of conformity with the RSS. They consider that it is an existing employment site, making use of existing industrial buildings and providing local employment and that the floorspace therefore currently is counted

88 towards the Council’s reservoir of employment land. However, I do not agree with this opinion. The current floorspace at the application site is not counted in the employment returns (a yearly assessment of the employment floorspace which has been granted through planning permissions) because it only benefits from a temporary permission. If a permanent use was to be approved, it could potentially count in the employment returns and therefore towards the Council’s reservoir of employment land. This site alone would exceed the strategic employment land requirement for the District as a whole. However, Officers consider that the site should be treated in the same way as Proving Ground, whereby the over-provision would be recognised as a result of site specific circumstances (including the site’s unique history and the other points which are set out in the following paragraphs of this report). It should therefore not be used as an argument for resisting the allocation/release of land elsewhere in the District that is geared to meeting the employment and business needs of various parts of the District in a manner that is consistent with the Development Plan.

Policy CTY.18 requires the employment use to be on a scale consistent with local population needs, or ancillary or directly related to development on the site. I have concluded that the employment use proposed is not ancillary or directly related to the other uses proposed on the site. I shall therefore consider whether the employment use is of a scale consistent with the needs of the local population.

The applicants, as part of the Masterplanning process, commissioned an Employment Assessment, which is included as part of the evidence base supporting the application. Whilst the employment uses are subject to a temporary permission, it has to be acknowledged that they have been in existence for a number of years i.e. since 2001. The employment study has shown that of the 30 different companies present on the site, a number have clear local connections. A good example is Paul Matthews transport which is the main transporter for the Royal Shakespeare Company. The assessment also concludes that there are 532 people employed at the site, over 350 of whom are local people, who live within 10 miles of the site. There are therefore clear local connections in terms of the employers on the site and those who are employed.

The assessment then considers whether alternative accommodation would be available for those companies who would be displaced if the employment use ceased on the site. Officers would not entirely agree with the contents of the Employment Assessment and in particular the assessment of Maudsley Park, . For example this site does provide opportunity for some B8 uses (established through a LDE application), and whilst the units are of poor quality, they are capable of being used. There is no current appeal – the C2 retirement village scheme was dismissed at appeal, however Officers are aware that a new planning application for an alternative use may be forthcoming. The employment use at Maudsley Park cannot easily be discounted at this stage, although I acknowledge that there may be some constraints to existing Long Marston businesses simply relocating there, (for example is the floorspace currently available; are the leases on a long enough term, the future of the site does seem uncertain in the longer term and, in terms of accessibility, this site is poorer than Long Marston.) I note that BARD have suggested that the Employment Assessment unfairly discounts Maudsley Park, Great Alne because it is run down.

The units at Long Marston are large and relatively cheap to rent (probably a reflection of the poor accessibility of the location and the nature of the existing buildings). Not surprisingly the assessment concludes that it would be very difficult for the existing companies to find comparable accommodation in the surrounding area. In my view, this is the most persuasive argument for retaining

89 the current employment uses on the site, in that they clearly support a number of businesses and jobs. The former would have to find alternative premises that are unlikely, by their nature, to be available in the local area, while the loss of the latter would lead to a large number of people (many of whom live within Stratford District) having to find alternative employment; both at a time when the economy is in recession.

Regardless of ongoing strategic concerns about the location, scale and nature of the existing employment uses on the site, and the impact of HGV movements on the local road network, it may have to be accepted that the activities are now well established (and have been for approximately 8 years), albeit through temporary permissions, and offer considerable local economic and employment benefits. Weighing up all the facts, on balance, I consider that the retention of 80,374 square metres of employment use in principle is acceptable. Whilst on face value the site would provide for more than double the 5 year employment reservoir required by PA6 of the RSS, it has unique circumstances which would mean it should be treated in the same was as Gaydon Proving Ground. However in the light of Policy PA13B of the RSS, I consider any B1(a) uses on the site must not be freestanding independent office uses, but should only be ancillary to the B1(c) or B8 uses on the site. This matter can be resolved by condition. Permitted development rights to prevent any B8 or B1(c) use changing to a B1(a) use can also be removed by condition.

A Routing Agreement is currently in place to restrict the routes of the HGVs and this Routing Agreement is to continue. This will be ensured by way of planning condition and also in the S.106 Agreement.

Housing Policy and Principle Policy CTY.18 states that housing development may be appropriate provided that its scale is consistent with the needs of the local population or is ancillary or directly related to the eventual form of any other development and use of the site. In addition, criteria (b) and (c) above are also critical.

The application proposes to erect up to 500 dwellings on the site. This is clearly a significant number of new houses, and as the Parish Council Working Group (PCWG) have identified, larger than many nearby settlements. The following are the sizes of nearby villages (taken from the PCWG response)

• Weston on Avon 45 houses • Dorsington 48 houses • Long Marston 180 houses • Clifford Chambers 205 houses • Pebworth 250 houses • Ilmington 300 houses • Welford on Avon 560 houses • Honeybourne 600 houses • Mickleton 700 houses • Quinton 735 houses

The West Midlands Regional Assembly consider that when assessing the proposal against the current and emerging RSS policies CF2 and CF3, there is no regional policy support for the housing part of the proposals. Policy CF2 seeks to ensure that housing development outside the Main Urban Areas is concentrated in or adjacent to Settlements of Significant Development or is accommodated within and adjacent to other urban areas and market towns or in villages to support local housing requirements, especially affordable housing. The application site does not fall into one of these categories. The proposal for 500 homes would appear at face value not to accord with the above mentioned policies.

90

In simple terms, this scale of housing development would also appear to be at odds with both Policy CTY.18 and the wider strategic policies of the adopted Local Plan. Careful consideration is required to determine whether this scale of housing can be justified in terms of either the needs of the local population, and/or in terms of its relationship with the other uses which are proposed on the site. If such a justification can be established, then the proposal would also need to demonstrate that it would be capable of delivering a sustainable new community, which provides residents with an attractive environment, with ready access to local jobs and services and the means to access ‘higher order services’ (such as hospitals) by sustainable transport.

I note the many responses from third parties and parish council’s which make reference to Policy COM.1 – Meeting Local Needs. However, this application is not proposed as a COM.1 scheme, nor should the provisions of COM.1 be necessarily directly applied to this application. Rather, it is a scheme seeking to respond to primarily Policy CTY.18 and the wording of CTY.18 in terms of the scale being consistent with the needs of the local population is to be assessed on its own basis. To my mind it does not simply follow that the local needs mentioned in Policy CTY.18 directly requires the principles of COM.1 to be applied to this application. In my opinion, it is therefore inappropriate to simply obtain the adopted Housing Needs Surveys of nearby parishes and view this as the local need which could be provided for on the application site. Rather it is for Members to consider whether the 500 houses proposed is in the spirit of Policy CTY.18 and whether there is basis for this number of dwellings taking into account the applicants submitted documents and other material considerations and representations put forward.

The applicant's justification for the proposed residential development relies principally upon the Assessment of Market and Affordable Housing Need (The Pioneer Study) which was undertaken as part of the Masterplanning process. Policy CTY.18 does not define local need in the context of the site, but the Pioneer Study has sought to define a catchment or Housing Market Area (HMA) based on household moves and travel to work data. The catchment area extends to 13 wards (Badsey, Bardon, Bidford and Salford, Bretforton and Offenham, Broadway and Wickhamford, Campden-Vale, Ettington, Honeybourne and Pebworth, Quinton, Shipston on Stour, The Littletons, Tredinton, Welford on Avon) and includes wards within Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, reflecting the location of the site. It specifically excludes the main settlements of Stratford-upon-Avon and Evesham on the basis that needs arising in these locations are best met in these settlements. In terms of assessing the housing needs which exist in the HMA, the study has used established secondary data sources including the Housing Market Assessments which are being used by the Council as part of the evidence base to inform the Core Strategy. As part of pre-application discussions, the Council had suggested that primary research be used to demonstrate a housing need. The applicants drew up a questionnaire however the Housing Services team were not able to support the applicants in this process and the primary research was not carried out.

The Assessment of Market and Affordable Housing Need identified a gross shortfall in its identified HMA of 779 market dwellings. The study acknowledged at paragraph 4.10 that whilst it would be inappropriate to attempt to resolve the entirety of assessed housing needs of the HMA on the application site, the scale of the annual requirement for both market and affordable provision is unlikely to be resolved in its entirety elsewhere in the HMA. The proposed provision of 500 dwellings would therefore contribute to providing for the HMA needs established by the study, rather than for providing for all the needs that exist at present. The applicant’s have put forward justification for the 500 dwellings at the site which is

91 considered to have the potential to accommodate up to 500 homes, whilst maintaining a residential density appropriate to its location and the character of its surroundings. In addition, the applicants advise that the provision of 500 new homes would achieve the critical mass required to create a new community and, together with the proposed community and leisure hub, community worker and Community Interest Company, help to create a sustainable new living and working community. The applicant suggests that the site represents a valuable source of previously developed land in the District, and its mixed use redevelopment has the potential to make a significant contribution towards housing needs. The applicants consider it should therefore be utilised efficiently to make the best use of previously developed land.

On 28 September 2009, the report of the Panel who held the public examination into the Phase 2 Revision of the Regional Spatial Strategy was published. The Panel report is not an end in itself, but will be considered by the Secretary of State who will in turn publish proposed changes to the RSS expected by the end of the year. It is however a relevant material consideration. The Panel are recommending that the housing provision for the Stratford District be increased by 1900 dwellings from 5600 to 7500 dwellings. In addition to this increase the Panel are recommending that a future review of the Regional Strategy and our own Core Strategy should take place to identify a further 2500-3000 dwellings for the period 2021 - 2026.

It should be noted that the Panel Report makes mention of this current application in the context of the District providing for additional housing as follows: ‘In addition, we learned in the context of the discussion of various proposals that have been advanced on the Long Marston depot site as alternatives to the specific Middle Quinton Eco-town proposal, that there are permissive policies in the approved local plan for various rural PDL sites that might facilitate additional development. Thus, the current application for a 500 dwelling leisure-based scheme may not be ruled out under the terms of policies in the most recent local plan. Again, without in any way pre-judging consideration of that application, as there are a number of such sites identified across the District, it would seem that a figure of 7,500 dwellings could be justified as backed by sustainability appraisals already undertaken or by local plan policies previously adopted’.

In addition, in relation to the provision of 35% affordable housing at the site (up to 175 dwellings of the 500 dwellings proposed), the report draws some conclusions. Whilst debating the large provision of affordable housing on the site as part of the EcoTown proposals, the Report noted that the Council and BARD objected to this and considered affordable houses should be provided where the need arises. The Panel Report concluded the following: ‘We can see the strength of this argument, though it would not seem to apply to the very much smaller current proposal for only 500 dwellings in a leisure-based scheme as the number of affordable homes secured would therefore be more commensurate with needs in the immediate locality’.

The Council's Housing Service have reviewed the Pioneer Study, and whilst they have raised issues regarding the definition of the HMA they have not challenged the conclusions regarding the housing needs which exist within the HMA. The study identifies shortfalls both in terms of market and affordable housing and I am not aware of any robust evidence to challenge the fundamental conclusion that there are unmet housing needs within the HMA. The site provides an opportunity to address these housing needs, but the key issue is whether these needs can be addressed in an appropriate and sustainable manner having regard to the location of the site.

92

The amendments submitted on 21 August 2009 provided additional detail which sought to demonstrate that a sustainable community could be established on the site. The Development and Enabling Officer considers that only limited additional information has been provided about the scope of the proposals to facilitate the development of a genuine new community and on the information submitted does not consider that the proposals would be likely to result in the creation of a genuine new community.

The Development and Enabling Officer considers that important issues relating to delivery, profile, funding and specification have not been addressed and is not satisfied that all relevant requirements of Policy COM.13 and the associated SPD are capable of being met. Whilst I note these comments, the current application is outline only and I do not consider that the detail as required in a full application can be expected in an outline application.

I accept that a certain scale of housing is needed to create a community which would be viable and sustainable in the long term. The scale of development on this site is such that not all facilities could be provided on site and as such effective links are needed with the neighbouring village of Quinton for access to local school and health facilities and also to larger settlements such as Stratford- upon-Avon for access to higher order services.

I particularly welcome the proposals to reserve up to 10% of the dwellings proposed for people who work on the site as indicated in the Sustainable Community Statement (SCS). This will provide an additional opportunity for local people to access open market housing and would be secured in the S106 Agreement.

Another welcome feature of the SCS is the proposal for site wide management in particular the creation of a Community Interest Company and a community worker. Again, this would be secured through the S106.

Where the SCS is perhaps a little weak is in putting forward a convincing argument as to why the Long Marston site is a suitable location to meet the housing needs identified, particularly in comparison to other development options which may exist.

Inevitably concerns will persist regarding the sustainability of a large scale residential development in this rural location. The SCS does however show how the residential element will improve the sustainability of the overall emerging Masterplan proposal. People living on the site will have the opportunity to access job opportunities, both within the existing employment area and through the new leisure uses which will be created. The residents will also benefit from the central facilities which will be provided to support the range of uses on the site. The provision of on site facilities is supported by improved walking, cycling and public transport links to other settlements. Overall I consider that the SCS demonstrates that the proposal has the potential to deliver a sustainable new community.

In coming to my conclusions on the principle of 500 houses at the site, I have had regard to the significant number of letters of objection which have been received, which specifically object to the housing element (whilst some of the same letters do not object to the leisure and/or employment parts of the proposal). I have also given full consideration to the responses from the various Parish Councils, the PCWG and BARD, amongst other representations on this matter. Whilst I acknowledge their arguments put forward to suggest that 500 dwellings in this location does not meet a local need, (in the same way as a conventional COM.1 or CTY.5 scheme would provide for affordable houses, or

93 open market for identified local needs within a particular village), I do not consider that the wording of CTY.18 should necessarily be interpreted in the same way as a COM.1 or CTY.5 scheme.

Policy CTY.18 states that the scheme should be consistent with the needs of the local population, however the meaning of ‘local population’ is not defined. It would appear that these representations and the submission of the applicant have sought to justify ‘local population’ in different ways and whilst the applicants’ HMA may be larger in size than agreed by some third parties and consultees, there is no evidence to say their interpretation is any more or any less appropriate than that of Parish Councils and local people. I do not consider that it is appropriate to insist on any housing on the site solely relating to a local need as identified through a housing needs survey or other such survey. In coming to this view, I have had regard to the Inspector’s consideration of Policy CTY.18 at the Local Plan EIP where he altered the Council’s wording from ‘Residential and industrial uses are not considered to be appropriate other than those that meet a proven local need …, to ‘residential or employment development may be appropriate provided that its scale is consistent with the needs of the local population…’. To my mind, the Inspector appeared to relax from the strict stance originally proposed by the Council.

In my opinion, the applicants have defined a HMA and a significant housing need within that area. The conclusions of the housing need within that HMA have not been challenged by the Council’s Housing Service. The applicants have identified a number of people employed on the site who live locally. They also indicate that a proportion of the dwellings on the site would be reserved for people who work on the site (to be secured in a legal agreement) and have already identified that 32 people who currently work on the site would be willing to move to live on the site. I have negotiated that 10% of the open market dwellings would be reserved for those who work on the site (in addition to the 35% affordable dwellings) and therefore these dwellings would certainly directly relate to the rest of the development on the site. (Should the maximum of 500 dwellings be constructed, this would be 50 reserved for on-site workers plus 175 affordable homes). The workers houses would be reserved for a period of 3 months from when they are available for occupation for on-site workers (which may currently live in Stratford District, Cotswolds District or Wychavon District), following which, if there is not take up of the properties, they would revert to traditional open market dwellings. Once the dwellings were available for resale, we would require them to be advertised again as worker dwellings, albeit for a shorter period, than at the first point of sale. Officers consider this is imperative to avoid tokenism.

Concerns exist over whether the housing would act as an isolated housing estate in a rural area, or whether a community could be created. The applicants have agreed to fund a post for a community officer which will help create a community on the site. They have also worked on design features (such as the central facilities hub building which would incorporate a bar, restaurant, café, retail, changing rooms for sports pitches, swimming pool, business/community hall/suite) to create a better integrated community. Despite the strong objections and concerns received, in the light of the information submitted by the applicant, on balance, I do not object to the 500 dwellings proposed for the above reasons.

The West Midlands Regional Assembly has commented on the current housing moratorium as being one obstacle to any housing development on the site that does not meet one of the exceptions in the Managing Housing Supply SPD. Whilst the housing moratorium is still in place at the time of report writing, I consider that it is reasonable to impose a condition on any permission such that no open market dwelling shall be constructed until the moratorium has been lifted. My reasoning for this judgement is as follows. Firstly, I am aware that there is a

94 report going to Cabinet on 30 November 2009 with the recommendation that the housing moratorium should be lifted. Whilst Stratford District currently has an oversupply in the context of the existing adopted Regional Spatial Strategy, the housing figures of the existing RSS will be superseded in the near future by the Phase Two revision of the RSS which will set out housing requirements for the district up to 2026. The Phase Two Panel Report is recommending a significant increase in the housing requirement for Stratford District. This requirement is no longer being expressed as a maxima which should not be exceeded. It is unlikely that the moratorium could be justified in the light of the housing provision which will be identified through the revision to the RSS. Secondly, the policy basis for the moratorium is provided by Policy STR.2 of the Local Plan Review. The scope of this Policy is restricted to controlling the delivery of new housing up to 31 March 2011. In my opinion, it is unlikely that any open market dwellings would be provided on site by this date. Thirdly, the proposal is a mixed use scheme, the dwellings being only one part of that scheme, and only submitted in outline at this stage. I therefore consider that it is likely that by the time the reserved matters come forward, the moratorium may have been lifted. In addition, since it is a mixed use scheme, and not meant to be led by residential uses, a condition would not render the whole scheme unacceptable, but rather delay the dwellings as one part of the overall scheme. I do not consider therefore that refusing the application on the grounds of the housing moratorium is, in this specific case, justifiable.

Being a hybrid application with the employment proposals being the full part and the leisure and housing in outline, there is a risk that, should permission be granted, the full (employment) is implemented, but the outline never comes forward to reserved matters. I am satisfied that a condition can be added and an obligation in respect of the detail of the clause can be inserted in to the legal agreement, which will legally require the outline aspects of the application (housing and leisure) to be carried out. To ensure these leisure and residential uses are developed on the site, conditions would require the submission of the first Reserved Matters application within 3 years and commencement of development within 3 years from approval. Last Reserved Matters would need to be submitted within 8 years from the date of planning permission and implemented within 3 years of that approval. Whilst these are not standard timescales, I consider they are appropriate in this economic climate and the nature of the site.

Relationship to and impact on tourism facilities in Stratford upon Avon

Policy CTY.18 states that assessment must be given to the ‘relationship of any tourist or leisure related attraction to the function of Stratford-upon-Avon and the nature of any impact it would have on the existing tourism facilities in the town and in the neighbouring area’.

I note the response of Broadway Parish Council who have commented that the development would have an adverse impact on local businesses within Broadway, especially Bed & Breakfast properties because of the proposed building of self- catering accommodation within the development. I also note that third party representations have been received which suggest that the holiday accommodation proposed would damage other local holiday businesses. However balanced against this, third party representations have also been received which state that the leisure facilities would be a welcome benefit to the tourist area and would help and support the tourist industry of Stratford upon Avon.

The Council’s Community Leisure Manager has no objection to the proposals. In addition, Advantage West Midlands state that ‘from a strategic tourism perspective, the Agency is broadly supportive of the proposed tourism and leisure

95 uses of the site.... Despite the sizable scale of the self-catering development, given the specific nature of the holiday village market we would not anticipate significant displacement of trade from existing establishments.’

The West Midlands Regional Assembly state that the leisure proposals ‘would appear to be in line with WMRSS policy PA10, in that they would support the development and success of Stratford-upon-Avon and Shakespeare Country as a key regional tourism and cultural asset. This site is also well located in relation to the tourist route between the Cotswolds and Stratford-upon-Avon’.

I also note that the Parish Council Working Group has no objection to the leisure village.

I do not consider that the proposed 150 holiday homes, 150 self catering lodges and 80 pitch caravan site (maximum numbers) would have a significant adverse impact on the tourism facilities within Stratford upon Avon, the World Class Stratford initiative, or surrounding areas to the south, east and west of the site. I acknowledge that the proposed development may mean some trade from bed and breakfasts and self catering accommodation may be displaced from nearby areas, however I also consider that the development would attract additional tourists to the area, which may lead to additional requests for other types of guest/B&B accommodation in the vicinity of the site/local area. The caravan site in my opinion would result in a positive enhancement to the existing caravan sites provision in Stratford on Avon District (many of which are not on a large scale like this proposal). I understand that the closest Caravan Club to Long Marston is at Warwick Racecourse and has 55 pitches for caravans and motor caravans – this is some 15 miles away. By virtue of the Greenway extension and bus service to Stratford, I also consider that the leisure and tourism facilities proposed on site may provide increased tourist footfall within Stratford upon Avon, and other nearby Cotswolds villages and towns. In conclusion, I therefore consider that the tourism and leisure offer proposed through this development would not have a significant harmful impact on the function of Stratford upon Avon, or nearby Cotswolds towns and villages and raise no objection to the proposal on this basis.

Traffic generation and access considerations, including footpaths and rail link

The application site lies approximately 6 miles to the south of Stratford upon Avon and lies within the Vale of Evesham Control Zone. The site is bounded to the east by the B4632 and is in close proximity to the villages of Long Marston, Lower and Upper Quinton, Mickleton, Pebworth, Clifford Chambers, Welford on Avon, Luddington and Weston on Avon, amongst others. Many of these are accessed off smaller rural roads. The Greenway lies to the northwest of the site, and is proposed to be extended as part of this application. The site currently has a link to Honeybourne which is licensed to carry freight. The rail link to the north of the site to Stratford upon Avon was closed in 1976 and follows the line of the Greenway. There are a number of public rights of way within the vicinity of the site, including the Heart of England Way. There are also several cycle routes in the vicinity of the site. A number of existing bus routes operate along the B4632 although they are not particularly frequent.

As required by Policy CTY.18, the findings of a Transport Assessment have been submitted with the application. This provides details of existing trip rates and anticipated traffic impacts from all the proposed uses on the site. Given the proximity of the site to Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, all three County Councils were consulted on the application. In addition, the Highways Agency was consulted on the application.

96 A number of third party representations have been received objecting to, or making comments on the application with regard to impact on nearby roads, and the wider road network. Amongst many reasons, concerns have been raised about the current level of traffic generated by the site being harmful to neighbouring amenity, that there is an inadequate road system to cope with the proposed traffic generated, the addition of commuter traffic to already heavily used roads, the noise, pollution and vibration created to local communities and the fact that infrastructure cannot simply create a sustainable location. I note the objections of the Parish Council Working Group concerning Warwickshire County Council’s assessment of the application, however I would draw Members attention to the additional comments received from Warwickshire County Council received on 20 October 2009 in the consultations section of this report.

Throughout the application, there has been some debate of the trip generation figures outlined in the Transport Assessment. The Highways Agency and Warwickshire County Council accept the trip rates. Worcestershire County Council consider the trip generation figures to be unrealistic and propose that the application be refused on the grounds of the site suffering from poor accessibility. Gloucestershire County Council have stated that given the employment splits in the application (or indeed the existing employment permission) are not specific it is not possible to establish with any degree of certainty how robust/appropriate the trip rate is. Gloucestershire County Council are therefore unable to agree that the trip rate and distribution within the Transport Assessment (TA) as sufficiently accurate or robust, but considered that subject to securing an automatic traffic counter on the B4632 which was the only road they had concerns about and provision to contribute to an identified improvement scheme on a proportional basis, they do not have an objection to the development on highways grounds. The S106 would secure this requirement of Gloucestershire County Council.

I am mindful that only 2 of the 4 authorities have agreed the trip generation figures (Gloucestershire do not object for the above reason), but do not consider that I can support Worcestershire in their objection, given that agreement/acceptance has been reached on the figures by the other authorities.

In view of the proposed traffic generation associated with the various land uses proposed on the site, a new main site entrance is proposed. Whilst this forms part of the outline application, this access has been submitted in detail for approval (whilst the other accesses onto Station Road would form reserved matters). Policy DEV.4 states that new or improved access arrangements to serve developments will be treated as an integral part of the overall layout and their design is required to meet 9 criteria. The existing access onto the B4632 would be closed, and a roundabout installed approximately 50m further south on the B4632. This would provide the main access to the site. Warwickshire County Council Highways have stated that they we would like to see the new access constructed prior to occupation of any residential or holiday/leisure property. An access is also proposed at the north-western corner of the site near the proposed rail museum, and this would be used solely for the rail leisure purposes, and not for the remainder of the development. The County Highways Authority have raised no objection to the proposed new access.

Factor (b) listed in Policy CTY.18 requires the provision of an effective public transport service linking the site with Stratford upon Avon and where possible the utilisation of the former railway line to Stratford. Policy COM.7 seeks to improve and extend bus services to assist local people to gain access to work, shopping, health, leisure and other facilities. The rail consideration is outlined below, however in terms of other forms of public transport to Stratford, St Modwens have proposed a bus route through the site, with a ‘bus only’ access from Station Road. The bus service proposed would be a half hourly service from Stratford to

97 Moreton-in-Marsh, or Whichford, via the site. The service would operate between 06:30 and 18:30 Monday to Saturday. Details of this would be secured through the S106 Agreement and I understand from Warwickshire County Council at the time of report writing, this would operate following the occupation of the first dwelling.

The Highways Agency have no objection to the development subject to conditions. They are however concerned about the level of B1(a) use on the site since this generally produces a higher trip rate of cars than other B class uses. One condition they request is that there should be no more that 4,999sq m of B1(a) office uses on the site. In view of the West Midlands Regional Assembly response, as outlined in the Policy and Principle key issue, I am proposing a condition to ensure there is no B1(a) use on the site. I also consider it appropriate to remove permitted development rights from the B1(c) and B8 employment uses so that they cannot become a B1(a) office use without the need for formal consent.

There are a number of off site mitigation highways works proposed. A new roundabout is proposed at the Clifford Lane, Shipston Road junction. Warwickshire County Council also considered that capacity improvements are necessary at the Trinity Way/Shipston Road/Severn Meadows Road roundabout. Warwickshire County Council consider that a two lane section would need to be provided over a much longer distance than originally proposed on the southern approach to the roundabout with appropriate land markings and signage. This would be secured through a S278 Agreement with Warwickshire County Council Highways Authority. Warwickshire County Council Highways have stated that they we would like to see the offsite highway works be triggered by either the 50 dwellings completion of 50 dwellings or 50 holiday lets which ever is delivered sooner.

I note the significant amount of public objection to the HGV generation at the site which affects immediate and further afield highway networks. The site lies within the Vale of Evesham Control Zone and Policy COM.11A is applicable. This policy will only permit B1, B2 and B8 uses if it can be demonstrated that the use will not generate an increase in HGV movements though any of the settlements located within the zone. I acknowledge the third party representations received objecting to the application on this basis. The County Highways Authority and Highways Agency are not objecting to the proposal in terms of HGV generation as being harmful to the highways network. I also note that there is an existing routing agreement dating back from 2004. This would be carried forward to this proposal as part of the S106 and in the light of consultation responses received, I do not consider that the proposal is contrary to Policy COM.11A.

In terms of HGV movements over the Clopton Bridge, the submitted TA states that ‘in October 2007, the site generated 358 two way HGV movements during a 12 hour period. At the Clopton Bridge there are over 20,000 vehicular movements during the same period, of which 6.4% are HGVs. Of the HGVs using the Clopton Bridge only 47 visited the site. This suggests that only 13% of the HGV movements associated with the existing employment at the site cross the Clopton Bridge, which equates to less than 5% of the HGVs using the Clopton Bridge. Given the likely overall reduction in HGV movements to and from the site there is likely to be reduction in site HGVs crossing the bridge’. Other figures submitted by third parties indicate 20% of HGVs using the bridge relate to the application site.

Whilst the existing employment floorspace is proposed to be reduced, the actual amount that is occupied currently will not radically reduce (from just over 90,000 sq m now occupied, to approximately 80,000sq metres) and therefore I do not

98 consider that there will be a significant reduction in HGV movements to and from the site should permission be granted. Moreover, with the retention of the Auction use (part of the amendments submitted on 21.8.09), any HGVs associated with that use would still access the site. However Warwickshire County Council highways have advised that the traffic generation at existing levels is acceptable. I am aware that the addition of the Central Facilities hub (which includes retail, a pub and other uses) will generate some HGV movements but these would only be associated with the servicing of these uses, and the numbers of movements as a percentage of the total would be minimal. I understand from Warwickshire County Council that the site is operating well under the maximum HGV limit in the peak hour which was set in 2004 and at the time of report writing Warwickshire County Council are considering reducing the maximum level. Members will be advised in the Updates Sheet if there are any changes to the existing maximum level required.

As part of the previous temporary permissions, a Travel Plan was implemented and its primary target was to reduce the car/employee ratio from 80% to 72% over five years. The applicants have currently reached a car/employee ratio of 76%. In accordance with Policy IMP.7 a new Travel Plan is proposed as part of this application, which seeks to maintain the 72% target for employment uses (since the existing employment is proposed to be retained). Given the existing level at 76%, the Travel Plan would provide a target reduction from the existing 76% to 72%. The Travel Plan would also seek to incorporate targets for the other uses proposed on site. Walking and cycling, reduced car use, public transport and the provision of information is all within the Green Travel Plan, which is currently being negotiated by Warwickshire County Council with the applicants.

I do not consider that the proposal would have a harmful impact on nearby cycle routes. I note that Sustrans have not commented on the application.

Warwickshire County Council highways consider that the existing levels of traffic (including HGVs) at the site are not harmful or detrimental to the highways network. When considering the slight reduction in employment floorspace and addition of other uses, subject to appropriate works identified to mitigate the additional traffic flows and contributions to be secured for upgrading public transport services, I do not object to the application on highways grounds.

Impact of traffic generation on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Policy EF.1 states that proposals which would have a detrimental impact upon the AONB will not be permitted whether located within the AONB or outside the designated area. I note the objections of Natural England and the Cotswolds Conservation Board and third parties raising concern about the level of traffic that would be using roads in the AONB and the harm this would have to the area. Natural England consider that the site is in a rural location and would have a high dependence on the motor car. They consider the Travel Plan Framework an unsatisfactory method of gathering appropriate information. They therefore consider it is too late to demonstrate that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the AONB and that a comprehensive traffic study is required to assess likely traffic movements generated on the minor road network in the AONB. I acknowledge that there would be increased traffic generated as a result of the proposed development, and this would include roads in the AONB. On the basis of the Transport Assessment, I do not consider that the increased vehicular movements on roads in the AONB would have a significantly harmful impact upon the rurality and tranquillity of the AONB to justify a refusal of permission.

Impact on nearby public footpaths I do not consider that the proposal would have an adverse impact on any public rights of way that surround the site. In fact, given the proposals to the Greenway

99 I consider that public footpaths would be enhanced. Moreover, I understand that a sum of £15,000 has been agreed between Warwickshire County Council Countryside Recreation and the applicants which would be secured in a legal agreement. This would be spent on making physical improvements to public rights of way within a radius of 3 miles of the site (within Warwickshire). The improvements will include the replacement of stiles with gates, to make the network easier to use and available to a greater range of people, including those with restricted fitness. Other works would include improvements to the surface of the footpath(s), to waymarking and the erection of interpretation panels where appropriate.

Reopening the rail link to Stratford upon Avon Policy CTY.18 (b) seeks to secure, where possible, the reopening and utilisation of the former Stratford-Cheltenham railway line, which was closed in 1976. Policy COM.8 seeks to improve and extend rail services and supports negotiating with developers towards enhanced rail services and facilities to meet demand generated by new development. In addition, Policy PR.10 seeks to facilitate improvements to transport infrastructure and more specifically at point 6 safeguards the former railway line between Stratford Racecourse and Long Marston for the reinstatement of a railway. The Rail Transport Group are strongly in support of reopening the line. I note that during the Masterplanning process, St Modwens received 3 letters/emails of support for the reinstatement of the railway link, including a letter of support from the Stratford on Avon Rail Transport Group, which was endorsed by Peter Luff MP for Mid Worcestershire & Chairman, Trade and Industry Select Committee. In the interests of sustainability for both the transport of freight and passengers, this would be a positive outcome for the local area.

I have sought opinions as to the business case and feasibility of reopening the 6.5miles of railway between the site and Stratford upon Avon from operators and responses were received from First Great Western, Network Rail and DB Schenker. All 3 organisations were supportive of the reopening of the rail line and considered that the application should provide some funding towards its reopening. However Network Rail have advised that there is currently no other identified funding stream for the proposed reopening of the line between Long Marston and Stratford upon Avon. I have also communicated with Advantage West Midlands on this matter. Informally, AWM consider it "highly unlikely" that this rail link would ever be re-opened. AWM confirmed it was not a regional priority for investment. In addition, the Phase 2 RSS Panel Report released on 28 September 2009 states (in relation to the EcoTown) the following: ‘The feasibility of re-opening the route to through rail passenger traffic appears extremely doubtful and Network Rail confirmed that they had no aspiration to achieve such a link’.

I have put the responses of the 3 organisations to the developer and asked them to provide a reply with a contribution offer. St Modwen’s responded as follows: “As you are aware St Modwen have agreed with WCC to provide a financial contribution of £650,000 over 5 years towards the upgrading of the bus services between Stratford and Moreton-in-Marsh. It is our view that this will provide the effective public transport service that Policy CTY.18 seeks.

The policy recognises that there are doubts over the feasibility of utilising the former Stratford-Cheltenham railway line and its reopening would require significant investment, well beyond the means of a development of this scale. The groups you have consulted have understandably confirmed that they would not object to the reopening of the line, however, in Network Rail's case in particular, we have doubts in respect of their commitment to make this happen in the short term. Their response to you confirms it does not figure in the Route

100 Utilisation Study, and we understand that it does not figure in their spending plans for the next 5 year period. The attached response from AWM to the Stratford Rail Transport Group also confirms the lack of rail industry commitment. At the current time there is no business case or feasibility study to demonstrate that the reinstatement of the line is a realistic prospect.

In view of this, we do not consider that a financial contribution towards the reinstatement of the line would be the best use of resources, and that a bus based public transport strategy is a more realistic and deliverable prospect.”

The Rail Transport Group have actively provided the Council with details and supporting statements relating to the reopening of the stretch of railway from the site to Stratford upon Avon and the reopening of other railways around the country, during the application process. Having undertaken some research, Officers are aware of a proposal in Devon whereby a development may be funding the reopening of a 5.5mile stretch of railway. The scheme is for 750 dwellings and includes the re-opening of a (approximate) 5.5 mile long railway line between Tavistock and Bere Alston. The scheme is being dealt with through the LDF process, not via a planning application. The route of the line appears (at this stage) to be in one ownership, the County Council. The scheme relating to the new railway line would include the laying of the new track, the installation of new signalling, the creation of a new platform and repairs to some infrastructure, such as a viaduct. The works have been estimated to cost in the region of £15 - £18 million in order to get the line "up and running". I have been informed that due to the cost of the rail infrastructure works, the 750 dwellings are deemed the level of new development necessary in order to make the project viable. This would therefore be a contribution of approximately £20,000 per dwelling (based on a £15million sum). There are some parallels with the Long Marston application, although the line between Long Marston and Stratford would be slightly longer, but would not require the repair of large structures, such as viaducts (as in the example from Devon). The scale of development at Long Marston is relatively comparable, when considering the employment and leisure uses (which includes 150 holiday homes classified as a C3 use), in addition to the proposed 500 dwellings. However it is impossible to be able to make exact parallels and inevitably, not all the facts of the case are available.

I am mindful of the responses from Network Rail, AWM and the conclusions of the Phase 2 RSS Panel Report. I do not consider that the funding is deemed necessary to the scheme if permission were to be granted and in my opinion, requiring such funding would not meet the tests of Circular 05/05 (Planning Obligations).

Officers have enquired as to whether the applicants would provide a contribution to undertake a feasibility study to ascertain the possibility of opening the railway line to Stratford upon Avon. St Modwens are willing to make a maximum contribution of £10,000 towards funding a rail feasibility study to investigate the potential for re-opening the rail line between the site and Stratford-upon-Avon station on the basis that this is match funded by each of the following stakeholders: Stratford-on-Avon District Council, Warwickshire County Council, Worcestershire County Council, Advantage West Midlands, Network Rail and First Great Western. Officers have sought the views of these stakeholders to ascertain if they would be prepared to match fund the applicants, as a minimum. Currently no positive responses have been received, however Officers are mindful that stakeholders cannot necessarily make this decision quickly given, for example funding and budgets may already have been allocated in this financial year. In view of this, Officers have secured an obligation in the S106 to allow a 2 year period to endeavour to secure the funding for the study.

101

Indicative design and layout of development and density and mix of dwellings

Policy DEV.1 seeks to ensure that development has regard to the character and the quality of the local area through the layout and design of new buildings.

Integration of uses The site proposes a mix of uses incorporating employment, dwellings, leisure uses including a caravan site, holiday homes and self catering holiday lets. With the exception of the main B1(a), B1(c) and B8 employment uses and the B1, B2 and B8 rail related uses, the remainder of the uses have been submitted in outline and hence Officers only have indicative layouts at this stage. Officers raised concerns in respect of the initial plans submitted particularly the connectivity of the different uses and how they would integrate with each other. This concern was also raised by CABE. Amended plans were submitted (21 August 2009) which sought to address those concerns. CABE have not provided any further comments on the amended plans due to lack of resources to respond. As part of the amended details, St Modwen’s have put forward a proposal for the inclusion of some apartments on the top floor of the central amenities hub building in an attempt to create a better mixing of the uses on the site. I agree with the Urban Designer in that this is a token gesture and does not truly create a site with better integrated uses.

Whilst I note the contents of CABE’s response and in particular their consideration that a more ambitious design should be put forward with uses better integrated, I disagree with this to an extent. In view of the nature of the uses, and in particular the employment uses, which operate on a 24 hour basis and may include B8 uses, I do not consider that it would be desirable or appropriate to integrate such uses with the residential area more than is indicated on the submitted plans. CABE have suggested that a more imaginative approach to the employment element should have been used and the application should have included a long term strategy. Whilst this may be desirable, I do not consider them to be necessary to the determination of this application or a fundamental part of Policy CTY.18. In my view the general location of the proposed uses as currently put forward as part of this application appears logical. The majority of the employment use will be retained in the southern and central part of the site, the dwellings are proposed in the general area of the former residential blocks, the holiday homes and self catering lodges are proposed in those areas which currently have employment buildings on them, the sports pitches are proposed on the former cricket ground, and the holiday homes, self catering lodges and caravan site in the remainder of the site which include large open spaces and the water body.

In my opinion it would not be appropriate to have a high level of mixing of uses on the site, given their varying nature. To my mind, critical to the success of the integration of the different uses of the proposed development is the leisure and community hub building and how this would operate. It is this building/facility which has the ability to provide for employees, residents and tourists on the site, and local residents of nearby villages who visit the site for recreational purposes. The design of the central facilities building and its surrounding environment is key to being able to serve these people and integrating the uses.

I note that the amended plans and supplement to the Design and Access Statement have sought to make this central facilities building more accessible in both physical terms and in terms of the internal use of the building. In particular, the central facilities building is now proposed to be accessed off a ‘square’, breaching the ‘perceived’ barrier of the main road though the development by the

102 use of traffic calming measures (such as the indicated narrowing to a single lane, variations in surface treatments, reduction in traffic speeds to 20mph, controlled crossing point and careful use of soft and hard landscaping). In addition, the design of the central facilities building has been altered to create more active frontages and a landscaped garden area. Proposed facilities within the building have also been suggested (bar, restaurant, café, retail, changing rooms for sports pitches, swimming pool and changing area, kitchens, laundry room for housekeeping, business/community hall/suite).

The central facilities building would be of varying 2 and 3 storey heights to add visible interest and would include some apartments above the different retail and community uses. It is clear from the uses proposed, that the building/facility would serve the occupiers of dwellings, employees on the site and tourists utilising the site, as well as passers by or passers through the site on the Greenway. By securing an appropriate mix of uses within the central facilities buildings at reserved matters, officers would be able to secure evening activity in this area. This is considered important in order to create vitality within the site during evenings as well as daytime. I still do have some reservations over the permeability of the road leading through the development. I note the contents of the supplement to the Design and Access Statement which indicates, in peak am and pm hours, there would be up to 120 vehicles (of which 15% would be HGVs) using this internal road that would proceed to the western employment area. I still feel uneasy that the ‘square’ and traffic calming measures would not work effectively in practice to create a pedestrian friendly environment. The simple fact of HGVs passing along this road may in itself be a psychological barrier to creating a pedestrian friendly area. However, despite my concern, I am aware of the fact that this is an outline application and I cannot require full detail at this stage to be submitted. I do note the desire of the applicants to develop a solution to this matter, and do feel that further improvements could be secured through reserved matters applications. I therefore do not object to the application on this basis.

I also have concern about the proximity of the B8 uses to the residential dwellings. At its closest point, there is a distance of approximately 32m between the wall of the employment building and the rear wall of a dwelling. Although a bund and trees are proposed within the land separating the employment and dwellings, I am mindful that vehicles could also be manoeuvring on hardstanding surrounding the employment building causing potential harm to residential amenity. The amenity within the gardens must also be considered. This point has been covered in the landscaping matters key issue below and although I have concern of this indicative detail, I believe a condition can adequately alleviate these concerns.

Indicative Layout The indicative layout of the self catering lodges, caravan site and second homes is not considered appropriate but this matter can be resolved through reserved matters applications. The holiday lets and second homes are proposed to be no more than 2 storeys in height and I consider this to be an appropriate maximum height, which can be conditioned.

The indicative layout of the dwellings has created space for the Greenway extension, reopening a waterbody and a future pedestrian link with green corridor. Neighbourhood Areas for Play (NEAPS), Local Equipped Areas for Play (LEAPS) and Local Areas for Play (LAPS) have been incorporated into the design. The layout of the dwellings would be refined at reserved matters stage.

103 Indicative density Policy STR.2B seeks densities between 30-50 dwellings per hectare. The current scheme is proposed at 35 dwellings per hectare (calculating the dwellings alone and then calculating the dwellings, self catering lodges and holiday lets). PPS3 states that Local Planning Authorities should give regard to the characteristics of the area, including the current and proposed mix of uses, and the desirability to achieve high quality, well-designed properties. There are a variety of dwellings and apartments which would be provided on site, and of varying heights. The heights of the dwellings and density of dwellings are proposed to reduce towards the outer edges of the residential area, and its most dense area will be in the central core of the dwellings where heights will reach a maximum of 3 storeys (12 metres). I have no objection to this and consider that reduced densities and heights of dwellings at the rural edges and in particular adjacent to the B4632 will be advantageous in terms of reducing visual impact. I am also mindful of the fact that in the south-eastern corner of the site, there is a wide highways verge, (which is not within the ownership of the applicant) and houses would therefore not be on this land. Setting back the development away from the B4632 will help to reduce the visual impact. I therefore consider that the proposal is not contrary to PPS3 or STR.2B in terms of indicative densities.

Indicative mix of dwelling sizes Policy COM.14 requires developments to provide a balanced mix of housing stock. Key Principle MHN11 (in Meeting Housing Needs SPD) states that in the case of Market Housing, generally a site should provide 75% two and three bed dwellings (of which a maximum of 25% of overall market stock may be flats) and 25% of all other dwelling sizes. Being a large sized development, the Key Principle goes on to state that there is more opportunity for the inclusion of a wider range of dwelling types and sizes. It is also stated that proposals should consider the contents of Parish Plans and the character of the local area.

In the case of affordable houses, Key Principle MHN14 is appropriate and has the following standards: 2 bed flat – 25% maximum 2 bed houses – 25% minimum 3 bed houses – 32% 4 bed houses – 18%

In terms of the indicative mix of dwellings of this proposal, the applicants have proposed the following mix: 1/2 bed apartments 15% (up to 75 dwellings) 2 bed houses 32% (up to 160 dwellings) 3 bed houses 31% (up to 155 dwellings) 4/5 bed houses 22% (up to 110 dwellings)

When comparing the proposed dwellings and flats to the SPD guidance, it would appear that the number of 2 and 3 bed houses is less than the guidance advises, the percentage of apartments is acceptable however the percentage of 4/5 bed houses may be considered to be high. Mindful that this part of the application is in outline and the breakdown of units has not been given in terms of market housing and affordable housing distinctively, the figures put forward appear to generally reflect the SPD guidance. I propose to make the applicants aware of the mix of sizes of dwelling required by the Council’s policy by way of a note. Since the numbers of dwellings will not be determined until reserved matters, the mix of sizes will be better determined at reserved matters stage.

On a more detailed level, in terms of the mix of sizes and tenures of dwellings within the residential area, the reserved matters applications and S106 would secure a balanced mix as part of each phase. Each phase would bring forward

104 35% affordable housing, where a maximum number of affordable units would be grouped together (likely to be a maximum of 12 units). In addition, each phase would bring forward a minimum of 10% worker dwellings. A variety of mixes of sizes of dwellings and tenures (open market, worker and affordable) would also be brought forward.

Landscaping matters and impact on trees

The application site lies within the ‘Avon Valley’ landscape character area as described in the Warwickshire Landscapes Project document. More specifically, it lies within a detailed character area known as ‘Vale Farmlands’, which is characterised by a broad flat vale, medium to large geometric field patterns, strong nucleated settlement pattern of medium sized villages and straight roads with wide roadside verges typically bounded by a tall hedge and ditch. Whilst these environs do not specifically refer to the application site, the surrounding area certainly resembles these features. The Warwickshire Landscapes Project document identified the site as an ‘enhancement zone’ that would benefit from improvement. The site is located in a sensitive landscape, being in close proximity to the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) of Meon Hill and the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Policy CTY.18 requires development proposals to assess the impact of any buildings, activities and associated features on views across the site, particularly from public vantage points around the periphery of the site, and from Meon Hill. The Policy also requires the potential effect on natural features within and adjacent to the site to be considered and the opportunity to enhance such features to be assessed. The Policy also requires the retention and enhancement of the extensive open landscape areas and woodland plantations within the site as an integral part of any development scheme, and the need for comprehensive structural landscaping around and within the site, to be implemented as an integral component of any development together with the instigation of arrangements for its long-term maintenance. Policies DEV.2 and DEV.3 relating to landscaping and amenity open space are also applicable.

Whilst the application site undoubtedly has a significant amount of vegetation and mature trees on it, its current landscape in parts is distinctly urban and industrial in nature, seemingly out of keeping with the surrounding landscape character. Views of the site are not only afforded from roads passing the site, but also designated long distance footpaths, in particular the Heart of England Way and Monarch’s Way. Whilst Meon Hill is a significant landscape feature, there is no public access on the higher ground, but there are footpaths on the hillside which affords views of the site and surrounding area. Views of the application site would also be afforded from the National Cycle Route which follows the northern boundary road. It is important to note that the views from the road and cycle route would largely be of the holiday homes and self catering lodges only, which are proposed in the northern part of the site.

Views of the site would also be available from the B4632, primarily of the sports pitches and the dwellings. The wide highways verge, and lower densities indicatively proposed on the edge of the site would help to reduce the visual impact of the development from this vantage point.

My landscape officer raised concern regarding the original plans submitted and in particular the tree loss, which was considered contrary to the requirements of Policy EF.10.

As part of the amendments submitted on 21 August 2009, a landscape concept plan relating to the whole site was submitted. In addition, an illustrative

105 landscape site layout was submitted with regard to the south-eastern part of the site, incorporating the proposed dwellings and the central leisure facilities building. Whilst some existing trees on the site would be lost due to the development, the applicants have advised that 90% of the total number of trees currently on the site would be retained. The plans submitted on 21 August 2009 drawings indicate the retention of a significant number of groupings of the Class A and Class B (i.e. best quality) mature trees that exist currently in the south- eastern part of the site. In fact all Class A trees would be retained. In terms of the residential area and area around the main entrance to the site, the applicant advises there are currently 353 Class B trees. Of these Class B trees, 80% would be retained (the 20% being lost to facilitate the new access and some of the residential development). The retention of these trees, along with additional planting, the securing of landscape ribs and a landscape spine through the site, the planting of new woodland amongst the proposed holiday homes and the extension of the Greenway would serve to prevent any significant harmful visual impact of the proposal, from both nearby visual receptors and more distant receptors, in particular views from publicly accessible areas of Meon Hill, nearby footpaths, and vantage points in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

I note that a significant number of tree groupings have been retained and the revised plans show a more coherent landscape scheme. Indeed, whilst the built form of the proposal would be visible in the landscape, it would also result in the removal of almost 60,000 square metres of large employment buildings, which are unattractive and of poor visual quality. These are currently visible from the Heart of England footpath, and I consider that the proposed holiday homes, self catering lodges, dwellings and a caravan site and associated buildings, being smaller in scale and dispersed amongst existing mature trees and new planting would result in an overall visual enhancement.

The whole site landscape strategy is to be secured through an Environmental Management Scheme in the Section 106 agreement, and the applicant, St Modwens, is to retain responsibility for its management, as required by Policy CTY.18. Reserved matters applications would also secure the indicative landscape details put forward. The Environmental Management scheme (including the landscaping and ecological aspects) would be maintained for a period of 10 years from the completion of the whole development.

I share the concern of both my landscape officer and my urban designer regarding the buffer zone indicated between the employment and housing. As an example, the indicative Masterplan received on 21 August 2009 shows a distance of only approximately 32 metres between the employment building wall and rear wall of the nearest residential property. To address this satisfactorily, my landscape officer is of the opinion that at least a 15m wide buffer zone should be planted of a deciduous dominant mix and this would take 5 years to establish into effective screening. I agree that a significant buffer is required. In view of the fact that the employment use proposed is part of the ‘full’ application, and the residential element part of the ‘outline’ application, I consider it would be beneficial and appropriate to require the planting of such a buffer in the first planting season following the grant of planning permission, should the application be approved. This would mean that it is likely that by the time the housing comes forward and certainly by the time it is occupied, the planting would have matured into a useful screen. I therefore consider that an appropriately worded condition could overcome these specific concerns.

The landscape officer has also raised concerns regarding the significant afforestation shown on the indicative Masterplan received on 21 August 2009, however considers this can be resolved through conditions and submission of reserved matters. I concur with this approach.

106

Ecological matters

Part of the application site is an Ecosite, although much of the application site comprises habitats of little or no ecological value. However, there are some aspects of ecological value that have been identified on and in close proximity to the site:

• There is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation SINC (which is at this moment in time a 'deferred SINC' until such times that the SINC partnership is allowed on site to determine the extent of the SINC boundary) which covers the habitats on site that support water voles, for instance, ponds, drainage ditches and probably a buffer, but the exact line of the SINC boundary has not been decided yet. The SINC is designated for the important water vole population (of county value) but the SINC itself will be the habitats that support this protected species, not the actual water vole itself as the animal is covered by separate legislation. • A diverse community of plants on wasteland associated with the railway sidings that supports notable butterflies • Local value habitats including woodland, pond and grassland • Small populations of great crested newts, bat roosts, invertebrates, breeding and wintering birds, grass snakes and badgers.

Three watercourses run through the site, including Gran Brook, Quinton Brook and a further unnamed Brook.

The proposed redevelopment will result in the loss of some semi-natural habitats. However the proposal also provides an opportunity to improve ecology on the site in accordance with PPS9 requirements and Policies EF.6 and EF.7 of the Local Plan. The application proposes improvements to corridors for wildlife movement both on and off the application site, for example through opening an existing culverted watercourse, extending the Greenway, planting new trees and woodland, retaining mature trees on the site and retaining grassland.

Whilst an Ecological Management Plan has been proposed by the applicants, this would only deal with ecology matters in isolation. The County Council Ecological Team endorse the Management Plan approach, but they have requested a site wide Environmental Management Plan which would ensure that ecological matters do not conflict with other matters, such as landscape, drainage or recreational uses. This would be secured within the Section 106 Agreement.

Both Warwickshire County Council Ecology team and Warwickshire Wildlife Trust have no objection to the development subject to conditions, associated notes and the incorporation of a site wide Environmental Management Plan in the S106. Indeed Warwickshire Wildlife Trust state that ‘the end product of such a Management Plan could result in an increase in the overall biodiversity resource of the site, with improved connectivity between the habitats on site and within the wider landscape’. On this basis, subject to appropriate conditions, notes and the Section 106 Environmental Management Plan, I have no objection to the application since I consider the proposal would not have an unacceptable harmful impact on protected species, or species of local importance.

Archaeological Matters

Policy CTY.18 states that all forms of development must assess the impacts of the proposal ‘on natural features within and adjacent to the site and the opportunity to enhance such features’. Policy EF.11 also looks to protect, enhance and preserve sites of archaeological importance. The planning application was

107 submitted with a desk-based study on archaeological matters. This document concluded that there was potential for archaeological deposits dating back to the Romano-British period to have survived across the site. Warwickshire County Council Archaeology also consider that there may be other deposits pre-dating the medieval period which survive across the site, however due to lack of surveys, they may have not yet been identified.

I note there is a listed building sited to the north of Station Road, at Long Marston Grounds. Meon Hill, which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument, lies approximately 1,180m from the south-eastern most corner of the application site and lies within the AONB. However, these buildings and historic features will not be physically affected by the proposal.

I accept that the proposed development would certainly disturb or destroy archaeological features which may be within the site. However Warwickshire County Council Archaeology has no objection to the proposal subject to securing a condition which requires a programme of archaeological work. In addition, they would require an archaeological field evaluation to be undertaken prior to any reserved matters applications coming forward. I propose to add conditions for archaeological recording and to ensure an archaeological field evaluation is undertaken prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application.

I note that the Council for British Archaeology have no comments to make on the proposals.

Level of sports pitch provision

The proposal provides for 3.02 ha of outdoor sports, 0.99ha of children’s play space and 38.23 ha of incidental space. Indicatively the Masterplan shows two football pitches and a cricket pitch to the east of the site close to the residential area and the central facilities hub building.

PPG17 provides guidance on planning for open space, sport and recreation. Paragraph 1 of PPG17 states that ‘Local Authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sports and recreational facilities’. The Council has undertaken such a study of open space provision in Stratford-upon-Avon and the Main Rural Centres, but its scope does not extend to this site. The applicants have therefore undertaken an Open Space and Recreation Needs Assessment, based on a methodology agreed with Sport England. Sport England consider, on balance, that the report produced is satisfactory. Sport England have no objections to the provision of sports pitches and facilities at the Long Marston site.

Policy COM.4 sets minimum standards of open space for Stratford upon Avon, Main Rural Centres and All Other Settlements. Whilst the site falls outside any of these locations, I consider it is reasonable to apply the ‘All Other Settlements’ standard, which is a minimum of 0.8 hectares per 1000 population for children’s play areas per 1000 population. Using the calculations in Appendix 2 of the SPG ‘Provision of Open Space’, I calculate that 0.917ha should be provided. The application makes provision for 0.99ha of play area and includes LAPs, LEAPs and NEAPs. I therefore conclude that acceptable provision has been made.

Sport England have suggested that the affordable home occupiers should be given discount access to the new leisure facilities or a contribution be sought to underpin local authority facilities, which would be secured by S106. Officers have sought clarification on this matter. Officers have established that this Council does not have a Leisure Discount Scheme and therefore a discount access to the new leisure facilities is not appropriate. In view of the contribution request, which

108 would be in the region of £508,135, Officers are mindful that the Council has no Supplementary Planning Document on this subject and therefore there is no adopted policy basis for this request. In view of this Officers cannot support the contribution request. However, Officers consider that it is appropriate that the Community Liaison role outlined in the report, currently agreed to take place for 8 hours per week, is increased to 10 hours per week and includes a role whereby children and youth and any other people on the site are actively encouraged to participate in sport and sporting facilities on the site.

Sport England have raised concern over the creation of a further commercial leisure centre in addition to those that already exist in the District. To my mind, the provision of the sports pitches and other leisure facilities adjacent to the B4632, in an area where there were previously pitches, is a vital part of the overall leisure provision on the site. In addition, the other leisure facilities at the site are also an important part of the leisure offer on the site. Policy CTY.18 suggests that the site is suitable for a Major Leisure Village. I consider it entirely appropriate and pragmatic in this instance to support the level of open space proposed on the site and in particular the sports pitches and facilities.

Environmental Health Impacts, in particular Air Quality, Noise and Vibration and Contamination

Policy PR.8 states that planning permission will not be granted for development which could give rise to air, noise, light or water pollution or soil contamination where the level of discharges or emissions is significant enough to cause harm to other land uses, health or the natural environment. The effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures will be fully taken into account.

There are 3 main areas relating to environmental health impacts which need to be considered; firstly, air quality; secondly, noise and vibration; and thirdly, contamination.

Air Quality The applicants have carried out an air quality assessment to assess both the construction and operational effects associated with the proposed development. The assessment identified that there are sensitive receptors (such as schools, churches, residences) located within 200m of the development and construction activities would have an impact on these, although the impact can be readily mitigated. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has scrutinised the applicant’s report. Whilst there is broad agreement on the methodologies used and conclusions drawn, it is considered that one of the sensitive receptors is Shipston Road, Stratford on Avon. Whilst the Shipston Road has a pollutant concentration well below the national air quality strategy Guideline Levels, elsewhere in the town the pollutant (Nitrogen Dioxide) is above the Guideline Levels, resulting in the whole town to shortly be declared an Air Quality Management Area, necessitating the production and implementation of an Action Plan to deal with the situation.

Whilst the applicants may have considered the Shipston Road within their assessment, it is Officers opinion that the development may have an impact on the whole town of Stratford. The details on air quality within the Environmental Statement submitted state that the completed development is predicted to have a slight adverse effect on air quality at worse. In relation to the request for a contribution to an Air Quality Action Plan, in discussion with the Head of Environmental Services, it is Officers opinion that as the Council has no adopted SPD to provide a formula for calculating contributions, the Council cannot request a financial contribution. I therefore do not raise objection to the proposals as having a harmful impact on air quality.

109

Noise and Vibration Given the mix of uses proposed on site, and nature of the existing employment use, (with its 24 hour operation and traffic generation), there is potential for the development to have a noise impact onsite and off site, both during construction and after construction. However the Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has verbally raised some concerns about the impact of the 24hour operation of the employment uses (potentially and probably B8 uses with associated HGVs) generating harmful noise on the adjacent residential amenity. It is the case that under the proposed scheme, residential amenity would be far closer to the existing employment than it is at present and the potential for harm is therefore much greater. However, the EHO has proposed amendments to the conditions that are currently imposed on the existing employment uses, and I consider that these would satisfactorily address the concerns expressed. A note has also been proposed which suggests the applicants undertake a Noise Management Plan to prevent any harmful noise being generated for example through boundary treatments between the uses, such as buffalo fencing.

Contamination The Environmental Statement submitted with the application states that there are a number of potential contaminant sources on site. In order to ensure that any residual contamination on the site does not pose a risk to surface water features or the population both within and around the site, the Environment Agency and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer have requested conditions which would require identification of all previous uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses, where potentially unacceptable risk is, and resolution and mitigation for this to ensure no people or waters are unacceptably affected. If there is any unexpected pollution found on the site, the conditions would ensure that this is adequately remedied. I therefore have no objection to the proposal on the grounds of contamination subject to these conditions.

I also recommend a condition for a scheme to control/manage the construction phase of the development in terms of air quality, noise and vibration.

Drainage

The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). PPS25 and Policy DEV.7 of the Local Plan Review expect that all development proposals should incorporate sustainable drainage systems which provide for the disposal of surface water, where possible.

Part of the application site lies within Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3 but no development is proposed within these flood zone areas, which I consider to be appropriate and acceptable in the circumstances. I propose the imposition of a condition to ensure that there would be no development in any subsequent reserved matters application in this area of the site.

The applicants have provided a draft Surface Water Masterplan. Whilst the Environment Agency are satisfied with much of the detail subject to conditions, they have stated that they would prefer to have a reduced number of small off line attenuation ponds and swales within the residential area for ease of adoption and maintenance and to enable their design to be made suitable for increased habitat creation. However WCC Ecology have concerns regarding the ponds and swales on the revised Illustrative Masterplan submitted on 21.8.09 which appear to be reduced in size and may potentially harm the ecology on the site. WCC Ecology were however content with the details on the original illustrative Masterplan submitted in respect of the ponds and swales. I accept their concerns and consider these could be overcome by condition.

110

The Council’s Flood Drainage officer is supportive of the proposal and advises that since the developer is proposing to significantly reduce the area of hard standing within the site and enlarge existing surface water attenuation, with the addition of new balancing ponds and opening existing culverted watercourses, the impact of sustained intense rainfall for the communities downstream of the site should decrease.

I therefore have no objections to the proposals on the grounds of drainage, subject to appropriate conditions.

Impact of National High Pressure Gas Pipelines on Proposal

The application site lies in close proximity to a number of national high pressure gas pipelines and part of the site at the south-eastern corner and to the northern boundary lie within two different consultation zones for the high pressure gas pipelines. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have provided a tool by which Local Planning Authorities generate their consultation responses by inputting appropriate data. The exact location of the national high pressure gas pipeline was not available, but utilising the consultation zone data supplied by HSE, together with the Council’s GIS database, I was able to generate a consultation response. The HSE ‘do not advise against’ all forms of the proposal with the exception of the new rail heritage building. This building is indicatively proposed to be sited in the north-western corner of the site and more than 10% of the building would be within both the ‘inner’ and ‘middle’ consultation zones of the HSE. (The HSE identify parameters for ‘inner, middle and outer’ zones from the pipeline. These are figures defined by the HSE). In view of this, and the nature of the building and its use, they would ‘advise against’ its construction in this location as being a potential source of danger and harm to health and safety. However, since this is part of the outline proposals I am satisfied that it can be sited elsewhere on the site where an objection would not be raised by the HSE. I therefore propose a condition to ensure that its siting at reserved matters stage would not be in the current indicative location. The HSE raise no objections to the other forms of development proposed, subject to conditions which would require no more than 10% of the dwellings (dwellings including holiday homes) to be sited in the ‘inner’ and/or ‘middle’ consultation zones. I also note that the National Grid consider the risk posed by the development to be moderate. They have provided notes regarding the high pressure pipelines which would form notes on any permission. I therefore consider the proposal to be acceptable in this regard subject to conditions and notes.

Energy Conservation

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, ‘Sustainable Low Carbon Buildings’, requires all proposals which create floorspace to demonstrate a 10% reduction in carbon emissions from renewable sources. In addition Policy DEV.8 expects the layout and design of new development to minimise the amount of energy resources consumed in its occupation and use by taking into account the scope for: • the orientation of buildings to maximise the potential for natural daylight and passive solar heating, and to minimise the impact of wind on heat loss • incorporating features which utilise sources of renewable energy, • adaptability in the design of buildings so that alternative uses can be found for them as required.

The applicants have indicated that the new dwellings would be built to Code Level 3 under the BREEAM Code for Sustainable Homes which ensures an energy saving

111 of greater than 10% per dwelling. Whilst the applicants have stated this will be achieved through a combination of technologies such as solar thermal, ground source heat pump, biomass and combined heat and power units, it is disappointing that the applicants are only seeking to achieve the minimum requirement of Code Level 3. It would have been advantageous on such a site, and with a scale of development as proposed, to seek to achieve higher levels of sustainability. However since the applicant has stated they will meet the governments minimum level (by 2013, it is due to become Code Level 4), I cannot object to the application on this basis. The detail submitted within reserved matters applications would indicate exactly how the 10% reduction in carbon emissions would be achieved in detailed design terms.

Impact on neighbouring properties

I do not consider that the proposal will give rise to any harmful impact on nearby residential properties, in particular those that lie to the south of the site and fall in Wychavon District. Indeed these dwellings share the access drive within the applicants ownership, but which is not currently nor proposed to be utilised by the employment use of the site. The employment uses in proximity to these dwellings are sought to be retained, no additional impact should arise and maximum noise levels at boundaries of the site would be secured by condition. The design and layout of the proposed holiday homes, self catering lodges and dwellings would be secured through reserved matters applications. To the north of the site and Station Road lies a converted former agricultural holding that has retail uses which are open to the public. I do not consider that the proposal would result in adverse impact to this property, in fact it could lead to increased trade. To the west lies agricultural land and farmsteds, which I do not consider would be adversely affected by the development due to separation distances and lack of new infrastructure to this part of the site. There are also several properties to the eastern side of the site boundary. These are generally in close proximity to the proposed (and existing) sports pitches, although indicatively there are some holiday homes also proposed in the north-eastern part of the site. Adequate separation distances would be achived and I therefore do not object to the proposal as creating harm to these neighbouring residences by virtue of overlooking, overbearing or loss of light.

I am also mindful that the proposal will create impacts to the occupants of nearby villages, in particular Upper and Lower Quinton and Long Marston, for example in terms of additional traffic and access to services. These impacts have been considered in the relevant key issues elsewhere in this report.

Proposed phasing of the development

Drawing numbers 88 Rev B and Figure 6.1 in Chapter 6 of the Environmental Statement provide the phasing plan for the proposed development. Policy CTY.18 requires an assessment of the impact of the removal of all existing buildings and structures on the site to be phased with the redevelopment (if any), apart from those capable of re-use or those earmarked to be retained as part of the overall development.

The phasing plans submitted by the applicant fail to provide detail on the timings of all those buildings proposed to be demolished. The buildings not sought to be used in their existing uses and therefore demolished would no longer benefit from a planning permission on 1 January 2010 and therefore could be demolished once the businesses in these units have relocated elsewhere on site. During the application process, the applicants have stated the demolition of buildings would begin 6-9 months after planning permission is granted and completed within 18 months. I consider it reasonable to allow a period of 18 months following the

112 grant of permission to enable the businesses to relocate into the approved buildings on site and to have the units demolished. Such details can be conditioned.

In terms of the other phasing details on the submitted Figure 6.1, I have no substantial objection to the details as shown – each phase will bring forward a proportion of residential and leisure uses on the site. However, the central facilities hub building, sports pitches and Greenway extension are not shown as being phased but existing which is clearly an error. I consider it appropriate that these should be fully completed and open to the public prior to the occupation of th th th the 50 residential unit or 50 holiday home or 50 holiday lodge in order to provide necessary facilities for the people living and working on site and other nearby communities that wish to use the facilities. I propose a condition for this and this would also be secured in the S106. In addition, I consider the sports pitches and associated sports pavilion should also be provided by the completion of Phase 1 for the same reasons of community use as stated above.

In terms of the Greenway extension, the applicants wished to bring this forward in phases, however I do not consider this would create the necessary links from and to the site in a coordinated way, and may result in portions of the extended Greenway standing isolated from the existing Greenway for many years. It has been resolved that a route would be put in prior to Phase 1 of the outline parts of the permission commencing, which will enable safe connectivity of the site, however this would be of a temporary nature. Then as each phase comes forward, the Greenway will be constructed to required, finished standards. I consider this approach to be acceptable.

Developer Contributions/ Infrastructure Provision

A development of the scale proposed will put significant extra pressure on local physical and social infrastructure and facilities, both on site and off site. In order to provide for this, and in accordance with Policies IMP.4 and IMP.5, the applicants have agreed to both financial contributions and non financial provisions which will be secured through a Section 106 Agreement. Given that part of the application is outline, and we only have indicative/maximum numbers of dwellings, holiday lets and self catering lodges, rather than exact numbers, and also in view of the fact that the breakdown in type of dwelling has not been yet been defined, many of the contributions in the Agreement will be formula based. I have no objection to this, and it is a usual feature within Legal Agreements associated with proposals of this nature. The S106 Agreement would secure the following:

• The provision of 35% affordable dwellings on the site (up to 175 dwellings) to be spread around the site, and a proportion to be brought forward in each phase of development, rather than concentrated in one or two areas • Secure the provision of 10% of the open market dwellings (up to 50 dwellings) on the site for people who work on the site (which on resale would be available for workers) • Financial contribution towards education (early years, primary, secondary and post 16) in the form of a formula, given that the number and breakdown of the dwellings is not yet known. (Based on 500 dwellings, the contribution would be approximately £2,605,823 + indexation). Warwickshire County Council Education Authority have advised the site falls in the catchment area for Shipston on Stour in terms of secondary school education. Contributions would therefore be secured for Shipston High School for secondary education. I am mindful of the potential for children to attend other schools, such as Stratford upon Avon High School,

113 however contributions can only reasonably be sought for the catchment school in which the site falls. For primary schooling, contributions would be secured for Quinton CE Primary School, which is within walking distance of the site. Officers do not support the request for land acquisition costs as it is considered that this would not meet the tests of Circular 05/05 Planning Obligations. • Financial contribution towards library services in the form of a formula. (Based on 500 houses, the contribution would be approximately £80,168 + indexation) • Financial contribution of £15,000 towards improvements of existing public rights of way to the north, west and east of the site. • A community interest company or similar management company to be set up for the purpose of creating a community at the site. • Funding for a minimum of 10 hours per week for someone to work as a Community Liaison Officer from occupation of the first dwelling to last occupation plus a period of 1 year following completion of development in order to engender a greater sense of community in the proposed new development. A specific role of this post will also be to work with children and youth who live on the site and get them involved in sports activities • An extension to the Greenway • Control of the self catering lodges, holiday homes and caravan site to prevent permanent residential occupation (in addition to the conditions outlined below) • Link to existing pedestrian footway along Campden Road to Main Road, Lower Quinton • Travel Plan and Travel Plan Co-ordinator • Junction improvements at Shipston Road, Clifford Lane and Trinity Way, Severn Meadows Road, Shipston Road • Education transport contribution for transporting pupils to and from school • Contribution to local traffic calming measures to the level of £80,000. As part of this, £40,000 would be designated for measuring and recording equipment at the Bridge and Welford on Avon Bridge. • Sum of £5,000 for Pedestrian/cycle crossing of Station Road/Milcote Road/Greenway and improving the link to the existing pedestrian footway along Campden Road to Main Road. • Increased Peak Traffic Contribution financial contribution to be paid to Gloucestershire County Council to secure a traffic counter on the B4632 to identify any increase in southbound traffic on this road generated by the development. If the increase exceeds 5% Gloucestershire County Council would want a contribution equivalent to the percentage increase towards planned highway improvements along this road between the county boundary and the A44. The only scheme identified at the moment is the Collin Lane upgrade at Willersey which has been costed at £150,000. There would be no maximum percentage cap • Site wide management plan, to secure the management of the entire site • Environmental Management Plan combining landscaping and ecological matters • A contribution of £10,000 to undertaking a feasibility report for the reopening of the railway line from the site to Stratford upon Avon. This is dependent on various other stakeholders listed in the report at least match funding the applicants. The whole report is likely to cost in the region of £90,000-£100,000. The S106 would provide for a time period of two years for the relevant stakeholders to provide the money and then a study could be undertaken. • The PCT have been asked to ascertain whether a financial contribution towards health care provision is required. Despite repeated efforts to obtain a response from the PCT, no response has been forthcoming, and it

114 is therefore assumed no contribution to health care provision is required, and the existing medical services in the area are sufficient.

Referral to Secretary of State

Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides for applications to be referred to the Secretary of State (SoS) prior to local planning authorities granting planning permission for certain types of development. Circular 02/2009 gives guidance on this. With reference to Circular 02/2009, Officers consider that subject to a condition for clarification purposes that would restrict the retail, leisure and/or office space in the central facilities building to not exceed 4,999 square metres, the application does not need to be referred to the SoS for determination. Such a condition is proposed. The condition is required for only clarification purposes due to the outline nature of this part of the application, however the applicants have provided a breakdown of the uses in the central facilities hub which provide for retail, leisure and offices as a maximum of 3,477 square metres.

A letter has been received from GOWM which has served an Article 14 Notice on the Council. This states that should Members be minded to grant permission for the proposal, GOWM would need to assess whether they wish to call in the application for the Secretary of State to determine. Both the applicants and the Officers have responded to the Government Office stating that they do not consider that the application needs to be called in. Officers understand that the Government Office are highly unlikely to reach a decision as to whether to call the application in for determination prior to the committee meeting on 7 December 2009, because this may prejudice the decision of Members. They would therefore decide whether a call-in is needed, following the Committee meeting on 7 December, if Members granted permission. If there is any further response from GOWM, this will be reported in the Updates Sheet.

Conclusions

The application has been submitted as a response to a Masterplanning process undertaken by the applicants, in conjunction with third parties and the Council. Whilst there are 3 significant elements which are identifiable: employment, residential and leisure, the application should be assessed as a whole, as a mixed use scheme for the permanent redevelopment of the site. Members may wish to give consideration to this application against the 2009-2011 Corporate Strategy’s Aims, Outcomes and Priorities. The development certainly responds well to many of the Corporate Strategy’s Aims and objectives; the proposal would create more affordable housing (with 35% affordable, plus 10% available for workers); it would encourage healthier lifestyles though the vast leisure offer on site and Greenway extension; local businesses would be able to stay on the site securing jobs for local people; the visitor accommodation options would encourage more tourism across the district; a high quality environment would be achieved across the site; and the removal of hardstanding and planting would reduce the risk of flooding. Extensive consultation has been carried out throughout the Masterplanning and application processes. However, I accept that officers are recommending support for a significant number of dwellings, which is an element of the scheme opposed by the majority of those third parties that have responded.

In principle, I conclude that the proposal does not run contrary to policy CTY.18. Whilst I have concern about the sustainability of the site with reference to the housing and the employment, the applicants have put forward initiatives to improve the general sustainability, which overall I consider to be acceptable. The

115 scale of residential development would go some way to providing for necessary housing within the District, recently indicated to be higher than originally envisaged as part of the Phase 2 RSS Panel Report, and also provides for a significant amount of much-needed affordable housing. Whilst concerns have been highlighted in my report regarding the scale of employment, weighing up all the facts relating to the existing businesses on site, the nature of the site and buildings and workforce, the lack of objection from Warwickshire County Council Highways or the Highways Agency, I consider a pragmatic view should be taken and therefore I do not object to the employment on the site.

The proposal provides for significant changes to the surrounding highways network and I consider that with these improvements, no highways objection can be raised to the proposal. Ecological and archaeological matters can be satisfactorily dealt with by way of conditions. When balanced against other relevant matters, I do not consider the proposal would create harm the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), in visual terms. In terms of traffic generation within the AONB I acknowledge there will be additional traffic utilising the roads in the AONB, however I do not consider sufficient harm would be created to justify a refusal of permission. The design, detailed layout and landscaping of the development would largely be secured at reserved matters stage, and I have confidence that, through the reserved matters, the conditions proposed and the requirements of the proposed legal agreement, a high quality environment would be created across the site. The proposal would not harm the amenity of nearby residential properties and conditions would ensure that the proposal would not allow the construction of buildings within zones which, according to the HSE, could have harmful impact on occupants of those buildings, due to their proximity to gas pipelines. Contributions would ensure that adequate infrastructure would be provided for as a direct result of the development. Open space forms a significant part of the overall leisure offer on the site.

In summary, I acknowledge the strategic concerns, sustainability concerns and objections of local residents and groups to parts of the proposal, but in considering the proposal as a whole along with the supportive consultation responses, I consider that the proposal is in general accordance with the purpose of the Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

[Note: The Secretary of State has advised the Local Planning Authority that “should Members be minded to grant permission for the proposal, GOWM would need to assess whether they wish to call in the application for the Secretary of State to determine”]

Recommendation A That, having fully considered the Environmental Statement submitted with the application and the Addendum to the Environmental Statement, subject to the signing of a legal agreement to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager, and subject to the following conditions (the detailed wording if required to be altered is delegated to Officers), the Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT planning permission:

FULL PART OF HYBRID APPLICATION - PROPOSED CONDITIONS The full permission Site is the area shown edged red on drawing number 1002 Rev A (“the Site”) and thereafter is referred to as the Site

FULL PART OF HYBRID APPLICATION - PROPOSED CONDITIONS PLANNING PERMISSION FOR RETENTION OF EXISTING EMPLOYMENT USES

116

1. The Development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The District Planning Authority does not consider that there are overriding reasons to set a different duration for the permission.

2. Should the first phase of the Development granted outline planning permission under this planning permission (reference 09/00835/FUL) not commence within 3 years of the date of approval of Reserved Matters for that phase then the parts of the Development granted full planning permission shall at that date immediately cease.

Reason: The full permission is part of a global development for the whole Site responding to a Masterplanning exercise and Policy CTY.18.

3. Notwithstanding the details submitted there shall be no B1(a) employment uses on the Site,

Reason: To accord with Policy PA13B of the Regional Spatial Strategy and to prevent harm to the highway network in respect of unacceptable levels of additional traffic generation.

4. Notwithstanding the General Permitted Development Order 1995 Part 3 of Schedule 2 (or any Order that revokes or re-enacts that Order with or without modification) and notwithstanding the 1987 Use Classes Order (as amended by 2006 or any Order that revokes or re-enacts that Order with or without modification), the B1(c) and B8 uses on the Site shall not be changed to a B1(a) use without the prior consent of the District Planning Authority.

Reason: To accord with Policy PA.13B of the RSS and to prevent harmful traffic generation on the local highway network.

5. With the exception of the rail related uses area included within the Site and the boundary of the Site adjacent to the woodland area shown on the Illustrative Masterplan 2 received on 21 August 2009, no equipment or materials or cars shall be stored in the open air within 40 metres of any boundary of the Site.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area and the protection of adjacent land uses.

6. With the exception of those areas as identified in condition 5 where no storage is to take place, no equipment or materials or cars shall be stored or stacked to a height exceeding the eaves height of the nearest building.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

7. No industrial process involving making, altering, repairing, cleaning, adapting or breaking up of any vehicle, plant, equipment or machinery or any other article or material shall take place on any open land within the Site.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

117 8. The development of the Site and the installation of any plant together with any processes or operations conducted thereon, excluding the noise of vehicles arriving at or leaving the Site (but not operating within the Site), shall be such as to ensure that the Noise Rating Level arising from the use of the site shall not exceed the following limits as assessed in accordance with the provisions of BS 4142:1997 (Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas), at any point along the boundaries to the Site.

Mondays-Fridays 08:00 - 19:00 hours 45dBLAeq (1 hour) Saturdays 08:00 – 13:00 hours 45dBLAeq (1 hour) At all other times (including Bank Holidays) 35dBLAeq (5 mins)

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of neighbours and other occupiers of the Site.

9. No industrial or manufacturing process or any other noise-generating process that is audible beyond the boundary of the Site delineated in red on the attached plan shall take place on any part of the Site except within the buildings.

Reason: In the interest of the amenities of neighbours and other occupiers of the Site.

10. This permission authorises the use of Unit 711, or other unit agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority instead of Unit 711, on the Site for Vehicle Auction Sales on only one day of the week between the hours of 11:00 and 16:00 but shall not include sales on Sunday. Sales may only be undertaken to representatives of and dealers in the motor trade and shall not include the general public.

Reason: To limit sales activity to a sustainable level that does not generate significant levels of traffic movements in a rural location.

11. Loading and unloading of vehicles from or onto transporters shall not take place in the open between 18:00 and 08:00 hours.

Reason: To prevent unacceptable noise disturbance in a rural area and to nearby residents.

12. Prior to the commencement of any demolition works on Site, a method statement demonstrating that no debris or other materials shall be allowed to fall onto Network Rail land. The method statement shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority and thereafter complied with in full.

Reason: To ensure that demolition does not impact upon the safe operation on the railway line or the stability of adjacent line.

13. The employment buildings not shown to be retained on drawing No. 85 received by the Local Planning Authority on 27.04.09 shall be demolished and all resultant material removed from Site within 18 months of the date of this permission.

Reason: These buildings will not benefit from planning permission from 01.01.10 and their retention is contrary to the Masterplan for the site.

118

14. Within six months of the date of this permission, a planting plan showing a 15 metre wide buffer zone of deciduous dominant mix to be planted along the entire eastern boundary of the Site between the employment land and the proposed dwellings and caravan site (indicatively shown on the Illustrative Masterplan 2 received by the Local Planning Authority on 21 August 2009) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full in the next available planting season.

Reason: effective screening is required between the employment and housing area and is critical to the success of the integration of both land uses, and it will not be effective until at least 5 years has passed since planting. Planting the screening at the earliest opportunity will enable an integrated development.

15. Any trees or shrubs planted in pursuance of this permission including any planting in replacement for it which is removed, uprooted, severely damaged, destroyed or dies within a period of five years from the date of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of the same size and species and in the same place unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the approved landscaping is properly maintained.

16. A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority within six months of the date of this permission. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To ensure that due regard is paid to the continuing enhancement and maintenance of amenity afforded by landscape features of communal public or nature conservation significance.

17. Within two years of the date of this permission, a 1.8 metre high trespass resistant fence shall be erected parallel to the existing railway fence to the western boundary of the Site and shall thereafter be maintained to prevent trespassers onto the railway line.

Reason: In the interests of promoting public safety.

18. No development shall be commenced in respect of the Phase One works (approved by Outline Planning Permission 09/00835/FUL - condition No.18) associated with the outline part of the permission hereby approved, until the new Site access/roundabout on to the B4632 is constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority and the existing access road on to the B4632 shall be permanently closed to all traffic within one month of the completion of the new access/roundabout.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and ensure an adequate vehicular access to the Site is available at all times.

19. Following the completion of the new site access/roundabout off the B4632 approved under condition 30 of the outline permission, with the exception of the rail related employment uses, the development herby permitted

119 shall only be served by vehicles utilising the new vehicular access and no other access shall be used at any time.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

20. No external lighting shall be installed or erected on the Site without the submission of a lighting scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The lighting shall only be installed or erected in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To protect the residential amenity of the area.

OUTLINE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR PART OF HYBRID APPLICATION - PROPOSED CONDITIONS

The outline permission Site is the area shown edged green on the drawing number 1002 Rev A.

General:

1. Approval of the details of the access, layout, scale, appearance of the buildings and landscaping of the Site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in outline condition 1 above, relating to the layout, scale, appearance of the buildings and landscaping of the Site for each phase of development, shall be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved before any development on that phase begins and the development on that phase shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).

3. Application for approval of the reserved matters in respect of Phase 1 (as defined by the plan to be submitted pursuant to outline condition 20 attached to this permission) works shall be made to the District Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: There are site specific and economic circumstances to justify this time period.

4. Application for approval in respect of the remainder of the development shall be made to the District Planning Authority before the expiration of eight years from the date of this permission and shall begun the expiration of 11 years from the date of the permission or the expiration of three years from the date of approval whichever is the later.

Reason: There are Site specific and economic circumstances to justify this time period.

120

5. The Phase One works (defined by the revised phasing plan submitted and approved as part of outline condition number 19) associated with the development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of six years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of three years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved on that phase, whichever is the later.

Reason: There are Site specific and economic circumstances to justify this time period.

6. The retail, leisure and/or office uses contained in the central facilities building hereby permitted, shall not exceed 4,999 square metres gross external.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

7. The number of dwellings hereby permitted shall not exceed 500 on the Outline site, edged green on drawing no 1002 Rev A and indicatively shown on the Illustrative Masterplan 2 drawing number 115 Rev B and shall not exceed a density of 35 per hectare.

Reason: To accord with Policy CTY.18 of the Local Plan Review.

8. The number of holiday homes hereby permitted shall not exceed 150 on the Outline Site edged green on drawing no 1002 Rev A and indicatively shown on the Illustrative Masterplan 2 drawing number 115 Rev B, and the number of self-catering holiday lodges hereby permitted shall not exceed 150 on the Outline Site edged green on drawing no 1002 Rev A and indicatively shown on the Illustrative Masterplan 2 drawing number 115 Rev B and the number of caravan pitches hereby permitted shall not exceed 80 on the Outline Site edged green on drawing no 1002 Rev A and indicatively shown on the Illustrative Masterplan 2 drawing number 115 Rev B.

Reason: To accord with Policy CTY.18 of the Local Plan Review.

9. The facility block associated with the caravan site shall be no larger than 250 square metres (external measurements). The facility block shall be completed and available for use by users of the caravan Site prior to the first use of the caravan site

Reason: To ensure adequate facilities for users of the caravan site.

10. The central facilities (‘hub’) building shall be limited to 5,900 square metres in floor space and shall be restricted to Use Classes A1, A3, A4, D1, D2 and B1(a) and C3 and shall not be used for any other use notwithstanding the provisions of the 1987 Use Classes Order (as amended by the Use Classes Order 2005) the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 Part 3 of Schedule 2 (or any Order that revokes or modifies these) including any other use within the same use class or which might otherwise be permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or amending that order)

Reason: To ensure the uses within the building are in accordance with the submitted Masterplan.

121 11. The self catering holiday lodges hereby permitted shall not occupied by the same individual(s) for more than one calendar month in one calendar year. The holiday homes hereby permitted shall not be occupied by the same individuals for a continuous period of more than 3 calendar months and the total period of non-occupation shall not be less than 3 calendar months in any calendar year.

Reason: To prevent the permanent residential occupation of the units, which would be contrary to policy.

12. None of the open market dwellings hereby permitted shall be constructed prior to the lifting of the Housing Moratorium

Reason: To accord with Local Plan Policy and Managing Housing Supply SPD.

13. The percentage of affordable dwellings to be constructed on the Site shall be no less than 35% of the total number of dwellings constructed on the Site

Reason: To accord with Local Plan Policy

14. The maximum heights of the dwellings, self catering lodges, holiday homes, caravans, central facilities building, rail heritage building and any other buildings hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the details in Figure 24 titled “Illustrative Building Heights (2)” in the supplement to the Design and Access Statement received by the Local Planning Authority on 21.08.09.

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly integrated with the surroundings.

15. The community hall/floorspace facilities and retail use in the central facilities building shall be fully constructed and open for public use prior to th the occupation of the 50 dwelling unit. Prior to the occupation of the th th th 85th dwelling unit or the 50 holiday home or the 50 holiday lodge of the development hereby permitted, the central facilities building shall be fully constructed and open for public use.

Reason: To ensure adequate services and facilities are available to the community and in the interests of promoting a sustainable community.

16. Any caravan on the Site shall only be occupied as a short term holiday let and shall not be occupied by the same individual(s) for more than one calendar month in any calendar year.

Reason: To prevent permanent residential occupation of the Site.

17. The sport pitches and associated pavilion shall be completed and available th th for public use prior to the occupation the 85 dwelling, 50 holiday home, th or 50 self catering lodge of the development hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure adequate facilities are available to the community.

18. Notwithstanding the phasing plan 88 Rev. B, within 24 months of the date of this permission and prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application, a revised phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The plan shall indicate the

122 provision of the completed central facilities ‘hub’ building, sports pitches th th and Greenway extension prior to the occupation the 85 dwelling, 50 th holiday home, or 50 self catering lodge. The plan shall indicate the provision of the community hall/floorspace and retail parts of the central th facilities building to be provided prior to the occupation of the 50 dwelling. The approved phasing plan shall thereafter be complied with in full.

Reason: The submitted phasing plan was incomplete and certain facilities listed above must be completed and available to the public prior to the completion of Phase 1, in the interest of the connectivity and sustainability of the site. Each phase should ensure the provision of both leisure and residential on the site, rather than just residential as indicated on the application documentation phasing plan.

19. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until full details of soft landscaping works for that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority in respect of that phase. These details must include, where appropriate, planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment), a schedule of plants including species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities and a programme of implementation. Plans must also include accurate plotting of all existing landscape features such as trees, hedges and ponds and any scheme should also include proposals for managing these features.

The works approved as part of this condition shall be completed within the first planting season following the first occupation of any part of the development on that phase or another programme to be agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that a high standard of landscape associated with the development is achieved.

20. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until full details of hard landscape works for that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority in respect of that phase. The details must include existing and proposed finishing levels or contours; the position, design and materials of all site enclosures, car parking layout and other vehicular and pedestrian areas; hard surfacing materials, minor artefacts and structures (e.g. street furniture, play equipment, refuse areas, lighting etc.) and any retained historic features and proposals for restoration.

The works approved as part of this condition shall be completed before the first occupation of any part of the development on that phase.

Reason: To ensure a high standard of landscape within the development.

21. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced and nor shall any equipment, machinery or materials be brought onto the Site in connection with that phase until a scheme for the protection of all existing trees and hedges to be retained within that phase of development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and has been put in place. The scheme must include details of the erection of stout protective fencing and be in accordance with British Standard BS5837:2005, Tree in relation to construction - recommendations. Nothing shall be stored or placed in those areas fenced

123 in accordance with this condition and nor shall the grounds levels be altered or any excavation take place without the prior consent in writing of the District Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be kept in place until all parts of the development for that phase have been completed and all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed.

Reason: To protect trees and other features on Site during construction.

22. Prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application, a scheme for the construction and implementation of the Greenway extension hereby approved shall be submitted to the District Planning Authority and agreed in writing. The approved greenway extension scheme shall be thereafter carried out in full in accordance with the agreed scheme for implementation.

Reason: To ensure a safe route for pedestrians and cyclists and connectivity of the Site.

23. Notwithstanding the afforestation shown on drawing 115 Rev. B received on 21.08.09, the final landscaping scheme for the Site shall be determined through reserved matters applications.

Reason: Objection is raised to the afforestation to the northeast part of the application Site on both ecological and landscaping grounds.

24. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until detailed plans and sections showing existing and proposed site levels for that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and the development thereafter shall only be carried out as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the development is properly integrated with the surroundings.

25. No phase of the development shall take place until full details of all service runs for that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The details shall include: * The location of all existing live services above and below ground * The location of all proposed services (e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc) including routes, supports etc

Reason: To ensure that no trees are damaged as part of the construction process.

26. A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To ensure that due regard is paid to the continuing enhancement and maintenance of amenity afforded by landscape features of communal public or nature conservation significance.

27. If within a period of 5 years from the date of first planting, any tree or shrub, or any replacements, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies or

124 becomes in the opinion of the District Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, replacements of the same species and size as originally planted shall be planted at the same place unless otherwise agreed in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a high standard of landscape design.

28. Notwithstanding the indicative siting of the dwellings and holiday homes as indicated on drawing 115 Rev. B received on 21.08.09, no more than 10% of the total number of dwellings or holiday homes shall be sited within the ‘inner’ and/or ‘middle’ HSE consultation zones relating to high pressure gas pipelines, as indicated on drawing no. 13567/145 appended to this permission.

Reason: The HSE would Advise Against a proposal relating to this number of dwellings being sited within the inner and/or middle control zones.

29. Notwithstanding the siting shown on drawing 115 Rev. B received on 21.08.09, the proposed Rail Heritage Museum shall not be sited within the ‘inner’ and/or ‘middle’ HSE consultation zones relating to high pressure gas pipelines, as indicated on drawing no. 13567/145 appended to this permission.

Reason: The HSE would Advise Against a facility open to the public being sited within the inner and/or middle control zones.

WCC Highways:

30. Access to the Site shall be made from the following access points, to the approval of the Highway Authority: 1. Main Access as shown on submitted plan 473000-033 Rev E. The approved detail shall be implemented in full prior to occupation of the 1st residential unit or the 1st holiday home or self-catering lodge, whichever is the sooner 2. Proposed access for rail leisure as shown on submitted plan 473000 – 032 Rev A. The approved detail shall be implemented in full prior to the first use of the Rail Heritage Museum. 3. Public transport Access to the Site as shown on submitted plan 473000 – 032 Rev A. A bus gate or an appropriate form of control to allow only public transport to use this access shall be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority in consultation with the Highway Authority prior to first occupancy of any self-catering lodge, holiday home or dwelling. The approved th detail shall be implemented in full prior to occupation of the 150 th th residential unit or the 50 holiday home or 50 self catering lodge, whichever is the later.

Reason: To ensure safe access into and out of the Site.

31. The accesses to the Site shall not be constructed in such a manner as to reduce the effective capacity of any drain or ditch within the limits of the public highway.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

32. The layout of the estate roads serving the development including footways, cycleways, verges, footpaths, private drives and means of accessing individual Plots shall not be designed other than in accordance

125 with the principles and Guidance as set out in 'Transport and Roads for Developments: The Warwickshire Guide 2001' or any documents that supersedes this guidance.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

th 33. Prior to the occupation of the 50 dwelling, holiday home or self-catering lodge, the following off-Site work shall have been completed to the satisfaction of the County Highways Authority:

• Construction of a new A3400 Shipston Road/B4632 Clifford Lane roundabout as shown on submitted drawing 437000-008 rev B (or other such drawing submitted during the application process which superseded this revision) or in accordance with an alternative scheme for improvements to the junction which has been submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority in consultation with the Local Highway Authority.

• Mitigation measures at the Trinity Way/Shipston Road/Seven Meadows Road roundabout as shown on submitted drawing No 473000-048 (or other such drawing submitted during the application process which superseded this revision)

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to provide necessary capacity on the wider highway network.

Environment Agency:

34. No phase of the development hereby approved shall commence until full details of the surface water drainage system for that phase has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. The scheme(s) shall include full micro- drainage calculations, defined catchment areas, outfall locations, rates of discharge, full attenuation details. Discharge rates from brownfield land development (employment zone) shall show a minimum reduction in flow of 20% compared to existing to allow for climate change. Development on greenfield Sites shall be restricted to annual greenfield rates of discharge. The approved scheme(s) shall thereafter be carried out in full.

Reasons: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the Site. To reduce the risk of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants. To provide a sustainable development.

35. No phase of the development hereby approved shall commence until the detailed design for all balancing ponds within that phase has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency. The approved scheme(s) shall thereafter be carried out in full.

Reasons: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the Site. To reduce the risk of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants. To provide a sustainable development.

36. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a plan showing all areas to be paved within that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority in

126 consultation with the Environment Agency. The approved scheme(s) shall thereafter be carried out in full.

Reasons: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the Site. To reduce the risk of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants. To provide a sustainable development.

37. No phase of the development hereby approved shall commence until the detailed design of the proposed de-culverting and subsequent watercourse restoration within that phase has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency and Warwickshire County Council Ecology.

Reasons: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the Site. To improve and restore biodiversity as required under the Water Framework Directive and the general principles of PPS1 and PPS9 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1991.

38. No development hereby approved shall take place on the part of the application Site which lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3 within the northern part of the development Site as indicatively shown on Drawing number 115 Rev B.

Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding on the proposed development and future occupants.

39. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Environment Agency, which may be given for those parts of the Site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to 'controlled waters'.

Reason: To ensure the protection of 'controlled waters'.

40. Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the Site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the protection of 'controlled waters'.

41. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the provision and management of a buffer zone alongside all water features shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The scheme shall include a minimum 6 metre un-mown buffer along the watercourses and other buffer zones to be agreed.

Reason: Development that encroaches on to watercourses has a potentially severe impact on their ecological value. This is contrary to government policy in Planning Policy Statement 1 and Planning Policy Statement 9 and to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. Land alongside

127 watercourses is particularly valuable for wildlife and it is essential this is protected. Article 10 of the Habitats Directive also stresses the importance of natural networks of linked corridors to allow movement of species between suitable habitats, and promote the expansion of biodiversity. Such networks may also help wildlife adapt to climate change.

42. No phase of the development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the improvement and extension of the existing sewerage system for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme(s) shall be implemented as approved. No occupation of dwellings approved by this permission shall occur until the scheme for improvement and extension of the existing sewage system has been completed.

Reason: The application states that upgrades are needed to the existing pumping station and relay drains serving the development.

43. An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the Site, whether or not it originates on the Site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include: i) All previous uses ii) Potential contaminants associated with those uses iii) A conceptual model of the Site indicating sources, pathways and receptors iv) Potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination of the Site vi) A survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; vii) An assessment of the potential risks to: * Human health, * Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes, * Adjoining land, * Ground waters and surface waters, * Ecological systems, * Archaeological sites and ancient monuments; viii) An appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR11.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other off site receptors.

44. A detailed remediation scheme to bring the Site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed

128 remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and Site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the Site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offSite receptors.

45. The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the Site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offSite receptors.

46. Reports on monitoring, maintenance and any contingency action carried out in accordance with a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be submitted to the local planning authority as set out in that plan. On completion of the monitoring programme a final report demonstrating that all long- term Site remediation criteria have been met and documenting the decision to cease monitoring shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure the protection of 'controlled waters'

47. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition ??, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

129 Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offSite receptors.

48. Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not commence until conditions 47 to 50 have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the Site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition 4 has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offSite receptors.

Severn Trent Water

49. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall commence until drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage for that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The scheme(s) shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is first brought into use.

Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution.

50. No building shall be erected or trees planted within 3 metres of the public sewer which crosses the Site sewer or within 15 metres of the pumping station.

Reason: To maintain essential access for maintenance, repair, renewal and to protect the structural integrity of the public sewerage system.

Environmental Health

51. Existing background noise levels shall be determined at the nearest noise- sensitive premises in accordance with the provisions of BS 4142:1997 (‘Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas’) Plant noise and any other noise from static sources shall be so controlled as to ensure that it does not cause existing background noise levels to be elevated at any existing noise-sensitive receivers.

Reason: To protect neighbouring properties from disturbance.

52. Noise from mobile sources or from other transient activities excluding the noise of vehicles arriving at or leaving the Site (but not operating within

130 the Site) shall be so controlled as to ensure that the Rating Level as calculated or measured in accordance with BS4142:1997 (‘Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas’) does not exceed existing background noise levels by more than 5dB.

Reason: To protect neighbouring properties from disturbance.

53. Prior to the construction of any residential unit, a scheme for the ventilation of any residential units within NEC B, as defined by PPG24 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full.

Reason: To accord with PPG24.

54. Prior to the implementation of the outline parts of this permission, a scheme to control/manage the impact of the construction phase of the development (including noise, vibration and air quality) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The scheme shall thereafter be carried out in full.

Reason: To prevent harmful impact on local residents and the local area in terms of noise, vibration and air quality.

WCC Ecology:

55. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a detailed schedule of bat mitigation measures (to include further survey at an appropriate time of year, timing of works, replacement roost details and monitoring) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Such approved mitigation measures shall thereafter be implemented in full.

Reason: To ensure that protected species are not harmed by the development.

NB: Any approved mitigation measures can only be carried out under licence from Natural England.

56. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a detailed schedule of great crested newt mitigation measures (to include timing of works, details of exclusion measures, watching brief and monitoring) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Such approved mitigation measures shall thereafter be implemented in full.

Reason: To ensure that protected species are not harmed by the development.

NB: Any approved mitigation measures can only be carried out under licence from Natural England.

57. Prior to the commencement of development a plan is required for the protection and/or mitigation of damage to populations of water vole, a protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1991, and their associated habitat during construction works and once the development is complete. Any change to operational, including management, responsibilities shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local

131 planning authority. The water vole protection plan shall be carried out in accordance with a timetable for implementation as approved.

The scheme shall include annual monitoring of the water vole and mink populations to inform the management regime for the management of the water bodies and the adjacent grassland.

Reason: This condition is necessary to protect the water vole and its habitat within and adjacent to the development Site in order to comply with national planning policy as set out in Planning Policy Statement 9 and Planning Policy Statement 1.

58. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a detailed schedule of water vole mitigation measures (to include timing of works, details of exclusion measures, watching brief and monitoring) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Such approved mitigation measures shall thereafter be implemented in full.

Reason: To ensure that protected species are not harmed by the development.

59. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a detailed schedule of reptile mitigation measures (to include timing of works, details of exclusion measures, watching brief and monitoring) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Such approved mitigation measures shall thereafter be implemented in full.

Reason: To ensure that protected species are not harmed by the development.

60. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a detailed badger survey, including timetabled mitigation measures where appropriate, has been carried out by a suitably qualified badger consultant and has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Any approved mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable.

Reason: To ensure appropriate measures are taken in relation to protected species.

61. Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing 115 Rev. B received on 21.08.09, the siting of the holiday lodges, the tree planting, balancing ponds and grassland features shall be agreed through reserved matters applications.

Reason: To ensure important ecological features on the Site are not harmed by the development.

62. Notwithstanding the ponds and swales shown on the Illustrative Masterplan 2 submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 21.8.09, the ponds and swales submitted on the original illustrative Masterplan submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 27.4.09 shall be constructed on Site.

Reason: To ensure adequate protection of watervoles.

132 WCC Archaeology:

63. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced within the Site until the applicant or agent or their successors in title have secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work for that phase in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that a proper archaeological evaluation can take place.

64. Prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application, an archaeological field evaluation shall be undertaken for that phase of the development. The results of the archaeological field evaluation for that phase of the development shall be submitted with the first reserved matters application.

Reason: To ensure necessary archaeological work is undertaken prior to the submission of reserved matters applications.

Network Rail:

65. No soakaways shall be constructed within 10 metres of Network Rail's ownership boundary.

Reason: In the interests of the long term stability of the railway.

66. Prior to any excavation occurring on the Site within 50m of the boundary of any land owned by Network Rail, details of the excavation (including plans to show location and depth) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall thereafter be carried out in full.

Reason: Network Rail require the protection of rail structures and adjacent land including railway embankments, retaining walls or bridges.

67. No buildings shall be constructed within 2 metres of the western boundary of the Site.

Reason: To allow construction and future maintenance work to be carried out by network rail on their land.

Temporary Structures:

68. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no buildings, compounds, structures or enclosures which are required temporarily in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be placed or erected on the Site or adjacent land until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Any matters covered by this condition shall thereafter only be sited in accordance with these approved details.

Reason: To protect the amenity of residents in the vicinity of the Site.

133 Fire and Rescue:

69. No phase of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision of adequate water supplies and fire hydrants necessary for fire fighting purposes for that phase, has been submitted to and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. That phase of development shall not then be occupied until the scheme has been implemented to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of public safety.

70. All holiday let accommodation shall have residential fire sprinklers installed prior to their first occupation.

Reason: In the interests of public safety.

71. Those areas shown as open space on the Illustrative Masterplan submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 21.08.2009 (including the flood zones) shall not built upon.

Reason: In the interests of minimising flood risk and the amenity of the area.

Notes:

General:

• The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with all drawings and associated documentation submitted to the Local Planning Authority on 27 April, 2 June and 21 August 2009, with the exception of drawing 115 Rev.A (illustrative Masterplan). Only with respect to the ponds and swales, Drawing 115 Revision A shall apply.

• The applicant is advised that in the case of affordable houses, Key Principle MHN14 in the ‘Meeting Housing Needs’ SPD states that the following standards are appropriate:

2 bed flat – 25% maximum 2 bed houses – 25% minimum 3 bed houses – 32% 4 bed houses – 18%

• Key Principle MHN11 states that in the case of Market Housing, generally a site should provide 75% two and three bed dwellings (of which a maximum of 25% of overall market stock may be flats) and 25% of all other dwelling sizes. The applicant is advised that reserved matters details should reflect this.

• The applicants are advised that there is a Routing Agreement attached to this permission which must be adhered to.

SDC Environmental Health

• The applicant is advised that compliance with condition 8 of the FUL element may require boundary treatment to be planted and a Management Plan. The applicants are invited to discuss the contents of the Management Plan with the Council’s Environmental Health Officer.

134

WCC Highways:

• Condition numbers 30 and 33 of the outline element require works to be carried out within the limits of the public highway. The applicants must enter into a Highway Works Agreement made under the provisions of Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 for the purposes of completing the works. Applicants should note that feasibility drawings of works to be carried out within the limits of the public highway which may be approved by the grant of this planning permission should not be construed as drawings approved by the Highway Authority, but they should be considered as drawings indicating the principles of the works on which more detailed drawings shall be based for the purposes of completing an agreement under Section 278. An application to enter into a Section 278 Highway Works Agreement should be made to the Development Group, Warwickshire County Council, Environment and Economy Directorate, Shire Hall, Warwick, CV34 4SX. In accordance with Traffic Management Act 2004 it is necessary for all works in the Highway to be noticed and carried out in accordance with the requirements of the New Roads and Streetworks Act 1991 and all relevant Codes of Practice. Before commencing any Highway works the applicants must familiarise themselves with the notice requirements, failure to do so could lead to prosecution. Application should be made to the Street Works Manager, Budbrooke Depot, Old Budbrooke Road, Warwick, CV35 7DP. For works lasting ten days or less ten days, notice will be required. For works lasting longer than 10 days, three months notice will be required.

• Condition number 32 of the outline element requires the estate roads including footways, cycleways, verges and footpaths are designed and laid out in accordance with the principles set out in 'Transport and Roads for Developments: The Warwickshire Guide 2001' and constructed in accordance with the Highway Authority's standard specification. The applicants are advised that they should enter into a Highway Works Agreement with the Highway Authority made under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 for the adoption of the roads. The approval of plans for the purposes of the planning permission hereby granted does not constitute an approval of the plans under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980. An application to enter into a Section 38 Highway Works Agreement should be made to the Development Group, Warwickshire County Council, Environment and Economy Directorate, Shire Hall, Warwick, CV344SX. In accordance with Traffic Management Act 2004 it is necessary for all works in the Highway to be noticed and carried out in accordance with the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and all relevant Codes of Practice. Before commencing any Highway works the applicant/developer must familiarise themselves with the notice requirements, failure to do so could lead to prosecution. Application should be made to the Street Works Manager, Budbrooke Depot, Old Budbrooke Road, Warwick, CV35 7DP. For works lasting ten days or less, ten days notice will be required. For works lasting longer than 10 days, three months notice will be required.

WCC Ecology:

• The protected species mitigation measures may have implications for the design and/or layout of the development and where necessary such schemes to be submitted at the time of Reserved Matters in order to fully inform the proposals.

135

• The applicant is advised that protected species licences from Natural England are required to undertake the works. Further information about species licensing and legislation can be obtained from the Species Licensing Service on 0117 3728000.

• Work should avoid disturbance to nesting birds. Birds can nest in many places including buildings, trees, shrubs dense ivy, and bramble/rose scrub. Nesting birds are protected under the 1981 Wildlife and Countryside Act. The main nesting season, lasts approximately from March to September, so work should take place outside these dates if at all possible. N.B birds can nest at any time, and the site should ideally be checked for their presence immediately before work starts.

• The applicant is advised that any proposed ponds and swales should not be reduced in size or scale from the original illustrative Masterplan such that ecological harm would occur.

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust:

• At this stage the Warwickshire Wildlife Trust would like to remain in consultation with Waterman EED to ensure that any modifications to the strategy to accommodate for the final SINC boundaries are appropriately addressed. Furthermore, it is worth noting that any operations like to affect populations of a European protected species must be subjected to satisfactorily obtaining a protected species license from Natural England. This may have additional implications to the current mitigation strategies.

• Watervoles, Great Crested Newts and all 17 species of Bat within the UK, are European and Nationally protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (As amended by the Countryside Rights of Way Act 2000) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats and c.) Regulations 1994 (As amended 1997). Taken together, these acts state that it is an offence to deliberately or recklessly capture, injure, kill or disturb a European protected species or cause obstruction, damage or disturbance to a place the species uses for breeding, shelter or protection.

Warwickshire CC Fire & Rescue Service:

• The development contains provisions to assist the Fire and Rescue Service to adequately respond to and carryout its statutory duties detailed within the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. This includes suitable and adequate road links both in and around the development, suitable access for fire fighting vehicles and an adequate water supply system comprising water mains and fire hydrants.

• Housing developments with units of detached or semi-detached houses of not more than two floors should have a water supply capable of delivering a minimum of eight litres per second through any hydrant on the development. Housing developments with units of more than two floors should have a water supply capable of delivering a minimum of 20 litres per second through any hydrant on the development. Hydrants should be spaced at distances of no more than 180 m. This distance ensures that no property is further than 100 m from the nearest hydrant. This recommended distance is, to a degree, flexible and, where possible, hydrants should be sited at road junctions. It is not normal policy to install hydrants at the ends of cul-de-sacs as it is considered that dead ends are not the most strategic position for practical fire fighting purposes. In these

136 circumstances a hydrant should be installed no more than 100 m from the dead end of the cul-de-sac. In a large development where it is not possible to drive a Fire Appliance through an estate and where access to the properties can be gained only by means of a cul-de-sac leading from an outer perimeter ring road, the installation of hydrants at the end of cul-de- sacs is permitted. In these circumstances it is often the case that, even when an Appliance has reached the end of the cul-de-sac, a further distance up to a maximum of 45 m has still to be traversed on foot by means of the pedestrian footways before arriving at the furthermost property.

• In order that an adequate supply of water is available for use by the Fire Authority in case of fire, it is recommended that the water supply infrastructure to any industrial estate is as follows:- 1. Up to one hectare 20 litres per second 2. One to two hectares 35 litres per second 3. Two to three hectares 50 litres per second 4. Over three hectares 75 litres per second Hydrants should be spaced at distances of 180 m, with the mains network on site being normally at least 150 mm diameter. If the development has a floor level which is higher than 18 m, dry rising mains should be provided. Positions for inlets should be selected for easy access from adjacent external hydrants and there should be outlets at each floor level. In rural areas it may not be possible to provide sufficient mains water. To overcome this, static or river supplies would be considered on site at the above flow rates for at least one hour.

Environment Agency:

• The applicant’s attention is drawn to the letter from the Environment rd Agency dated 23 July 2009 and its contents relating to detailed design.

E-On Central Networks:

• Please note that Central Networks has Network within the proposed site. Please contact Central Networks’ CNDS Department at Toll End Road, Tipton, DY4 0HH to obtain copies of their main records. There may be a charge levied for this service.

• For new developments and ground works, please contact Central Networks New Connections Department at Toll End Road, Tipton, DY4 0HH.

• For information regarding the safety of working around Central Networks networks, please contact their Cablesafe Team on 0800 015 0921 or at http://www.eon-uk.com/distribution/cablesafe.aspx

• There is an electricity substation within close proximity of the development. A substation is a potential source of noise, therefore the developer should adopt measures to ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained for future residents.

WCC Archaeology:

• The applicant is advised that given the potential for previously unidentified archaeological deposits to survive across the site, and for the proposed development to impact upon these, we would strongly recommend that Archaeological field evaluation be undertaken across this site at the earliest opportunity. This will help to define the character, extent, state of

137 preservation and importance of any archaeological remains present across this site. This information would inform the development of an appropriate scheme of mitigation reflecting current (and emerging) government guidance. It would be beneficial both for the scheme and for the cultural heritage for this information to be available at a sufficiently early stage to influence and inform the development of the proposed scheme, for example, by identifying archaeologically sensitive areas which could be incorporated into the scheme as open spaces etc. The results of this field evaluation should accompany any reserved matters applications.

Severn Trent Water:

• It is requested that document 473000/21 page 13 is amended to show a water supply peak flow rate for 494 dwellings as 5.93 litres per second, and not 59 litres per second as stated.

• The contractor must ensure the safety of Severn Trent Water’s equipment and will be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage caused. Please note that it will be necessary for the contractor to adjust the finished level of any surface boxes within the proposed construction, leaving clear access to the apparatus within.

Network Rail:

• Prior to any works commencing, the applicant is advised to contact Keith Buckland at Network Rail to ensure Network Rail land will not be adversely affected by the proposed development.

• The design and siting of any new building shall consider the effects of noise and vibration and airborne dust on the operation of the railway.

• Any scaffold which is to be constructed adjacent to the railway must be erected in such a manner that at no time will any poles or cranes over-sail or fall onto the railway. All plant and scaffolding must be positioned, that in the event of failure, it will not fall on to Network Rail land.

• In relation to Outline condition 66, the applicants are advised that Network Rail needs to be consulted on any alterations to ground levels. No excavations should be carried out near railway embankments, retaining walls or bridges.

Recommendation B

B Having fully considered the Environmental Statement submitted with the application and the Addendum to the Environmental Statement, Should the legal agreement securing the matters listed above not be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager by 31.12.2009, the Planning Manager be authorised to REFUSE permission for the following reason:-

1. In the absence of a completed legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the District Planning Authority considers that the proposals would fail to make adequate contributions towards the full range of physical and social infrastructure necessary to serve and support the proposed development, in accordance with policies COM.13, IMP.4, IMP.5 and IMP.7 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996 – 2011.

138 APPENDIX A – COPY OF POLICY CTY.18 Engineer Resources Depot, Long Marston, Local Plan Review 1996-2011

The redevelopment of the former Engineer Resources Depot at Long Marston, as shown on the Proposals Map, is considered appropriate provided that: (a) the proposed development deals with the site on a comprehensive basis; (b) the proposed development does not provide for needs accommodated elsewhere in the Plan; and (c) the proposed development does not cause prejudice to the strategies of the Development Plan. The site is, subject to the assessment of the other matters set out in this policy, considered suitable for a major leisure village. In addition or alternatively, other specific forms of development may be considered, taking into account the criteria outlined above and other relevant issues. For the avoidance of doubt, residential or employment development may be appropriate provided that its scale is consistent with the needs of the local population or is ancillary or directly related to the eventual form of any other development and use of the site. For all forms of development proposed in respect of the site the following factors must be addressed in assessing the impact of a particular proposal: (a) the need for comprehensive structural landscaping around and within the site, to be implemented as an integral component of any development, and arrangements for its long-term maintenance; (b) the provision of an effective public transport service linking the site with Stratford-upon-Avon, including (where possible) the utilisation of the former Stratford-Cheltenham railway line; (c) the findings of a Transport Assessment which will be required to be submitted as part of any comprehensive development proposal; (d) the impact of buildings, activities and associated features on views across the site, particularly from public vantage points around the periphery of the site and from Meon Hill; (e) the extent to which existing properties and land uses would be affected and the need to mitigate satisfactorily any adverse impacts; (f) the relationship of any tourist or leisure related attraction to the function of Stratford-upon-Avon and the nature of any impact it would have on the existing tourism facilities in the town and in the neighbouring area; (g) the potential effect on natural features within and adjacent to the site and the opportunity to enhance such features; (h) the retention and enhancement of the extensive open landscape areas and woodland plantations within the site as an integral part of any development scheme; and (i) the removal of all existing buildings and structures on the site to be phased with the redevelopment (if any), apart from those which are capable of beneficial use within the proposed form of development. Development proposals will need to be supported by a Masterplan for the approval of the District Planning Authority in consultation with the owners of the site, local communities, neighbouring local authorities and other interested parties. [Inset Map 5.3]

139 Explanation (This does not form part of the Policy wording) 7.48.1 The final closure of the Depot by the Ministry of Defence in 1999 has raised the issue of what alternative uses would be appropriate on this extensive tract of land. The site extends to some 190 hectares, containing woodland and fields as well as significant areas of development. It is situated about eight kilometres south-west of Stratford-upon-Avon on the B4632. The prominent feature of Meon Hill lies to the south, marking the fringe of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 7.48.2 The District Council liaised closely with the Ministry of Defence Estates and the County Council over the future use of the site. A wide range of land use proposals have been considered, including various substantial single uses such as a film studio, national sports facility or holiday complex. To date, no leisure or tourist use has been attracted to the site. 7.48.3 The overriding factor in considering the appropriateness and merits of any scheme is the manner in which the Warwickshire Structure Plan (WASP) provides a strategic position on the matter. It is clear in Policy GD.7 of the WASP that the scale of residential or employment development on large ‘brownfield’ sites in rural locations should not be promoted as an alternative to locating development in existing urban areas. It is on that basis that the District Planning Authority maintains that the scale of residential and employment development should be consistent with the needs of the local population or is ancillary or directly related to the eventual form of any other development and use of the site. 7.48.4 Having regard to the strategic planning context an appropriate form of use of the site could lie within the tourism and leisure sectors. However, because of the uncertainty over the nature of any development which might be promoted, the view is taken at this stage that the site should not be allocated but that an ‘enabling’ policy should be incorporated into the Local Plan. 7.48.5 The resulting policy sets out the wide range of factors to be taken into account in considering the merits and impact of a proposal. Of particular significance is the relationship of the site to Stratford-upon-Avon and the importance of establishing effective transport links between the two, including the scope to utilise the line of the former Stratford to Cheltenham railway. The redevelopment of the site presents a significant challenge with regard to issues such as traffic management, layout and design, relationship with nearby settlements and services, provision of public transport to the site, management of the ecological assets of the site and the structural landscaping that will be required to protect the amenity of the local area. A comprehensive assessment of all the above factors will be an essential requirement of any development proposal. This assessment will be essential to identify adequate mitigation measures to enable the objectives of the Local Plan to be met. 7.48.6 In accordance with the guidance set out in PPG13: Transport (2001), a Transport Assessment should be submitted in support of development proposed by this policy. The Transport Assessment should include the accessibility of the site by all modes of transport, the likely modal split of journeys to and from the site, the measures proposed to mitigate transport impacts and the measures proposed to improve access by public transport, walking and cycling. The likely traffic movements generated on the B4632 to the north and south of the site and on the minor road network in the area will be a key consideration in the assessment of any proposal. 7.48.7 A Masterplan will be required to reconcile all the issues raised by the prospective redevelopment of the site. An Environmental Impact Assessment may be required to be submitted with any planning application depending on the scale of the development promoted and its potential impact on features of acknowledged importance. 7.48.8 The ecological value of this site has been recognised by Warwickshire Museum through its designation as an Ecosite, parts of which are considered to be of substantive value in terms of PPG9: Nature Conservation (1994). The impact of

140 development on ecological features and protected or notable species needs to be fully assessed. Opportunities to enhance such features should also be identified. 7.48.9 A Green Transport Plan will also be required, in accordance with Policy IMP.7, to manage the travel needs of those employed at and visiting the site.

141