Planning Committee West 7 May 2014

Update Report

Part 1 Applications

13/02806/FUL – Kissing Tree 1) Additional Neighbour Representations House, Kissing Tree Lane, One further letter of support has been received re-affirming the Alveston benefits of the scheme as set out in the officer report.

2) Points of Clarification within the Officer Report

Paragraph 6 on page 29 of the report is amended as follows:

The Conservation Officer considers the new development would detract from the Conservation Area’s essential historic architectural character and would have a detrimental effect on the setting of the church. The cumulative effect would cause substantial harm…

Paragraph 4 on page 30 of the report is amended as follows:

‘ In reaching these conclusions, I have had regard to the requirements of paragraph 133 of the NPPF which states that where a proposed development would lead to substantial harm to a designated heritage asset (unless outweighed by substantial public benefits) planning permission should be refused….

Advice Note at Annex A:

The housing land supply available is now calculated as at 31 March 2014.

3) Recommendation

The recommendation on pages 39-41 is amended as follows (the elements changed are highlighted in bold):

1) In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development would result in significant and demonstrable harm to the landscape character and the visual amenity of the area. The proposed new dwellings would introduce incongruous and urbanising development which is harmful to the countryside. The proposed dwellings would require parking areas, boundary treatments and would attract other domestic paraphernalia which would have a harmful visual impact on the visual amenity and character of the countryside. In addition, the Local Planning Authority has also given consideration to the fact that the site is undeveloped greenfield site located outside the built up area of Alveston and its development would have an unacceptable impact on views in and out of the Conservation Area, Parkland/open fields and the Grade II Listed St James Church from Church Lane, Kissing Tree House and Wellesbourne Road. Furthermore, the

1 development of the site would have a detrimental impact on the village’s strong sense of isolation/hidden nature which would lead to a loss of the sense of tranquillity and expectation when entering the village between undeveloped field and parkland along lanes of rural character through the introduction of significant urbanising residential development outside the built up core of the settlement. The Local Planning Authority does not consider that these detrimental impacts to the landscape character and visual amenity of the area can be satisfactorily mitigated against and consider that the significant and demonstrable harm identified is not outweighed by the benefits of the proposals. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to saved policy PR.1 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, two of the core planning principles of the Framework (Paragraph 17 bullet points 5 and 7) and paragraphs 14, 109 and 113 of the Framework and principles of the NPPF Planning Practise Guidance.

2) In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the development of this site would result in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Alveston Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent St James Church (Grade II listed) by reason of the introduction of a form of development that fails to respond to the special architectural and historic character of the conservation area and through the sense of enclosure and encroachment which would be created by the development as a whole and the nature of urbanisation which would bring the Grade II Listed St James Church within an urban type context, with the Church’s relationship to the rural edge of the village becoming divorced and its elevations dominated by the massing of new development, with all the characteristics of such an environment, which would therefore erode the public’s experience of the listed building. In addition, the Church’s context would be completly transformed and its importance as a landmark building within the wider landscape and its architectural contribution to the rural scene would be significantly compromised to the detriment of its setting. The resulting cumulative impact is considered to result in substantial harm to the designated heritage assets that would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. The development is therefore contrary to saved policies EF.13 and EF.14 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, one of the core planning principles of the Framework (Paragraph 17 bullet point 10), paragraphs 14, 129, 131, 132 and 133 of the Framework and principles of the NPPF Planning Practise Guidance.

3) The proposed design and form of the scheme fails to integrate with the pattern or grain of the surrounding landscape and historic built form, with the concept appearing unrelated to the architectural characteristics found within the locality. In addition, the overall design

2 provides a relatively high density estate type layout, with a predominance of large units sat in close juxtaposition with each other, with each of the units having a different style, each trying to make a strong architectural statement. The visual effect is eclectic and results in development that lacks architectural cohesion overall which fails to ensure the creation of a high quality sense of place that’s responds to local historic character. The resultant harm is considered to be significant and demonstrable and would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal is therefore contrary to the provisions of local plan policies Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, paragraphs 14, 56, 57, 61 and 64 National Planning Policy Framework, principles of the NPPF Planning Practise Guidance and guidance established in the Stratford on Avon District Design Guide which seeks to secure good design

4) In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the existing village infrastructure would be unable to support the cumulative effect of the proposed scale of development without appropriate mitigation. In the absence of a S.106 Agreement (to secure affordable housing, libraries, NHS, Education. Highways and public footpaths contributions), the development would perform poorly in social sustainability terms. The resultant harm is considered to be significant and demonstrable and would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal would be therefore be contrary to the provisions of saved policies COM.9, COM.13, DEV.6, IMP.4 and IMP.5 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011, Meeting Housing needs (2008), the Coventry & Warwickshire Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (November 2013), paragraphs 14, 69 and 70 of the Framework which promote healthy communities together with paragraphs 203 and 204 which has regard to the use of planning obligations and principles of the NPPF Planning Practise Guidance.

5) Reason no.5 - as set out on page 41 of the officer report.

Part 2 Applications

13/03235/FUL Presenting Officer changed to Tony Horton (Page 45) – Broadmere, Broad Lane, Tanworth Parish Council submit their apologies; they will be unable Tanworth in to attend due to the Parish AGM. Arden 1 Additional 3 rd party letter of objection received raising matters already within the committee report.

Deleted text – last line on Page 53 delete the words “”…the proposed new dwelling and the first floor flat above the proposed nursery use.”

3 Additional text – Conclusions section 3rd paragraph, after “… override the very limited harm from the use of the existing…” add “and proposed hardstanding…”

RECOMMENDATION: Amended Condition 3 (Page 56) – after “The use…” insert “by the nursery”. And after “…4 pm” insert “Monday to Friday” (Final wording delegated to officers).

Amended Condition 4 – after “…age group of children…” insert “(i.e. only children from either the Baby Room or the Nursery Room or the Pre-school Room)” (Final wording delegated to officers).

Amended Condition 5 – amend to read “No more than 16 children associated with the nursery use shall use the outdoor play area at any one time.” (Final wording delegated to officers).

Amended Condition 6 – Amend first line to read “All outdoor play periods associated with the nursery use shall be supervised by nursery staff as follows:…” (Final wording delegated to officers).

Amended Condition 7 – amend to read “Maximum number of children to be attending the nursery on site at any one time to be 57.” (Final wording delegated to officers).

Amended Condition 8 – amend to read “Hours of operation of the nursery restricted to 07:30 to 17:30 Monday to Friday and no times on Saturday or Sunday.” (Final wording delegated to officers). New Condition no.9 – “Submission for approval of details of the extent of the outdoor play area associated with the nursery use, and any associated boundary treatment.” (Final wording delegated to officers).

New Condition no.10 – “Provision and retention of vehicular parking spaces to serve nursery”. (Final wording delegated to officers).

-ENDS-

14/00471/FUL Tanworth Parish Council submit their apologies; they will be unable – Newburn, to attend due to the Parish AGM. Bates Lane, Tanworth in 9. CONSULTATIONS Arden WCC Museum (Ecology) Amendment of comments to read: No objection subject to further bat survey and inclusion of informative notes (20.03.14)

WCC Highways Amendment of comments shown: No objection subject to condition relating to visibility splays (13.03.2014)

Severn Trent Water Amendment of date comments received to: 17.03.14

4 11. RECOMMENDATION

Amend condition 7: Visibility splays required through the limits of the site fronting the public highway with an ‘x’ distance of 2 meters and ‘y’ distances of 25 meters to the near edge of the public highway.

Advice Note at Annex A: the housing land supply available is now calculated as at 31 March 2014.

-ENDS-

14/00670/FUL & 14/00756/ADV – SOADC, No updates Elizabeth House, Church St, Stratford upon -ENDS- Avon

14/00228/FUL Presenting Officer changed to Tony Horton (Page 83). – Ivydene, Birmingham Amendment to text – Page 87 2nd paragraph, penultimate line, Road, after “…which I conclude is…” insert “significant”. Mappleborough Green RECOMMENDATION: Amendments to Reason for Refusal (Page 89) – After “…The application property known as Ivydene has already been previously extended by 20% of the…” insert “original”.

After “…The Local Planning Authority therefore considers that the proposed development would constitute inappropriate development…” insert “and would cause a harmful impact upon the openness of the Green Belt and therefore conflict…”

-ENDS-