Committee and Date Item

Central Planning Committee

12th September 2013 5

Public

Development Management Report

Responsible Officer: Tim Rogers email: tim.rogers@shropshire.gov.uk Tel: 01743 258773 Fax: 01743 252619

Summary of Application

Application Number: 13/00893/FUL Parish: Shrewsbury Town Council

Proposal: Mixed residential development (291 dwellings) with associated drainage and road infrastructure including areas of public open space and play area and demolition of existing farm buildings

Site Address: Sutton Grange Oteley Road Shrewsbury SY2 6QL

Applicant: Taylor Wimpey (North Midlands) Ltd

Case Officer: Richard Fortune email: [email protected]

Grid Ref: 349935 - 310655

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Shropshire Council 100049049. 2011 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made. Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement relating to financial contributions towards infrastructure-transport-community facilities associated with the whole of the Shrewsbury South SUE, securing the provision of affordable housing and Shrewsbury Town Council (or other appropriate arrangements) control of the Rea Brook Valley nature conservation, wildlife corridor and public amenity open space areas within the development; and subject to confirmation of satisfactory bat loft mitigation details, and to the conditions set out in Appendix 1.

REPORT

1.0 THE PROPOSAL

1.1 The proposed development relates to some 16.12 Hectares of land bounded by Oteley Road to the south, existing predominantly residential development to the east and south east, the Rea Brook to the north, beyond which is further residential development, and the Meole Brace golf Course to the west. As submitted the application was for 292 dwellings, but following amendments to address concerns raised by English Heritage about the proposed site layout in the vicinity of the church adjacent to the south east corner of the development, this resulted in the number of units being reduced to 291. The properties would be a mix of one and two bedroomed apartments; two and three bedroomed semi-detached and terraced housing; three and four bedroomed semi-detached and detached dwellings and five bedroomed detached dwellings. Within the total number of houses there would be 38 affordable dwellings, split 71% rented and 29% low cost ownership, providing a mix of one and two bedroomed apartments and two and three bedroomed dwellings. The existing Sutton Grange Farm House would be retained in the proposed development, with the farm buildings and barn conversions immediately adjacent to it and other horticultural related structures on the land removed.

1.2 The net developable area of the 16.12 Hectare site is some 8.57 Hectares, which equates to a density of some 34 dwellings per Hectare and just over half the total site area. The bulk of the area to the north of Sutton Grange Farm House, beyond an existing watercourse feeding into the Rea Brook, is within the flood plain and would form part of the public open space and would be managed as a wet meadow area. A small pond of some 160sqm is proposed in this area, along with wetland scrapes. The public open space would continue eastwards adjacent to the Rea Brook, providing a wildflower meadow and amenity open space. This part of the site would accommodate also a children’s play area (NEAP) and two attenuation pools associated with the site’s proposed surface water drainage arrangements. The public open space would then continue around the eastern end of the proposed housing, forming a buffer on sloping land with existing residential development adjacent to the south eastern site boundary. This area of amenity open space would then continue south westwards in the development as a wedge between proposed dwellings, taking in a sloping area containing two trees and terminating at the established hedgerow running approximately north-south across the site and which would have a public footpath along its western side. The open space area would also include a spur leading to the Greek Orthodox Church which is immediately adjacent to the elevated south east corner of the site.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange 1.3 Vehicular access into the site would be via a new, signalled junction which would form a cross roads with the entrance to the approved Waitrose/ Percy Throwers development on the on the southern side of Oteley Road. This junction would have a centre island to separate traffic entering and leaving the site and to allow for pedestrians crossing. On either side of the junction new tree planting is proposed to maintain the tree-lined character of this section of the road. The five detached two storey dwellings in the vicinity of the junction, comprising three on the western side and two on the eastern side, would be accessed by short shared private drives. One of the dwellings in the three dwelling group would feature a chimney. This entrance area would then lead to the first junction within the development, at which the road would reduce to an approximate 5 metre carriageway width. The main road heading north into the development would take the form of a tree-lined boulevard, with the trees being situated within the front gardens of two storey detached dwellings on either side, each with their own vehicular accesses, and with grass verges separating the footpaths from the highway carriageway. Hedging would be used to enclose the front garden areas. Four of the 14 dwellings in this area would feature chimneys. A shared space access off the western side of the boulevard would lead to a 16 space parking court, with two terraces of four two storey dwellings on each side. The western boundary to the parking court would be a hedgerow along the eastern edge of Sutton Farm Drive. There would be no vehicular access from the proposed development onto this drive, which is a restricted by way and has to remain available for use by Oteley Bungalow.

1.4 The boulevard would terminate in a T-junction which would be designed as a formal arrival space by the use of block paving and hedging, and its enclosure by a symmetrical layout of two and three storey properties. To the south, on each side of the junction, there would be a semi-detached pair of three storey dwellings. On the northern side there would be two, three storey apartment buildings linked by a two storey building containing an apartment and garages, along with an entrance through to a parking court for 21 vehicles at the rear of the apartments. The apartment blocks would each be of a symmetrical appearance, featuring a central gable detail to the stairway/landing/lobby element and reduced depth side wings to break up the expanses of the roofs and to give vertical proportions in sympathy with the scale of the proposed surrounding properties.

1.5 The cul-de-sac road extending westwards from the above ‘arrival space’ would be bordered by a mix of 2 and 2.5 storey semi- detached and detached properties, (one with a chimney feature) with their front elevations staggered in terms of their distances from the back edge of the footpath and giving some enclosure to the public street at the point where it would cross the Sutton Grange restricted by-way at 90°. On the western side of the byway the road then become a shared surface with turning head, and beyond that a private drive. Eleven properties (three with feature chimneys), comprising of three and four bed detached two storey properties would have access onto this section of road, with their layout providing a relatively tight enclosure of this more informal, shared space.

1.6 The site layout proposes that seven properties would have direct access onto the restricted by way leading to Sutton Grange Farmhouse, but vehicles from these properties would have to use the new roads within the development to reach Oteley Road. These properties are a mix of detached and semi-detached properties and there would be sections of new hedge and tree planting along this route to assist its function as one of the two wildlife corridors through the site.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

1.7 The road extending eastwards from the ‘arrival space’ would serve the northern half of the area proposed for residential development and would take the form of a loop road, off of which there would be cul-de-sacs with and without separate footways and narrower shared space areas. The junctions would feature raised table details, demarcation through the use of block work areas and strips to calm traffic flows. Within the area enclosed by the loop road there would be two areas divided by the eastern wildlife corridor hedgerow feature and footpath link. That to the west of this corridor would include six 2 storey dwellings, in the form of a terrace of four with a set-back to the front elevation of the middle units and a semi –detached pair with a dual fronted design, to the sharing a parking court at the southern end. At the northern end, also adjacent to the wildlife corridor and footpath link, a short shared surface road would serve four properties, comprising of two detached 2 storey dwellings and a semi-detached pair of 2.5 storey dwellings. The other 10 properties in the area, consisting of one 2.5 storey semi-detached pair and the remainder detached properties, would front onto the western element of the loop road, with some shrub, tree and hedge planting indicated to their front garden areas.

1.8 To the east of the corridor referred to in 1.7 above the layout would be characterised by the use of predominantly terraces in blocks of threes and fours. Within the centre of this area there would be a shared surface area providing parking for 10 properties, comprising of seven terraced properties fronting onto this space, along with an apartment over garage accommodation and two properties fronting the eastern side of the loop road. A terrace of four units in the south east corner of this area would have eight parking spaces accessed off the back edge of the footpath, with a detached dwelling positioned between them and the wildlife corridor/footpath link. The northern portion of this area would feature two detached 2 storey houses and a pair of 2.5 storey semi-detached houses facing onto the public open space and children’s play area, providing some passive surveillance of the latter.

1.9 The two cul-de-sacs extending westwards from the loop road would enclose, with the Sutton Grange restricted by-way on the western side, two areas where semi- detached and terraced housing would be predominant. There would be six 2.5 storey dwellings among the 2 storey properties in this part of the site which, except where there would be frontage parking between the back edge of the highway and their front elevations, would be sited either to achieve a close enclosure of the public highway, or to front onto shared surface parking areas which orientate the dwellings at 90° to the sections of road onto which access would be gained.

1.10 To the west of the restricted by-way there would be one cluster of terraced, semi- detached and detached dwellings, including four 2.5 storey units at the western edge, grouped around an informal ‘U’ shape of shared surface roads. The second cluster, adjacent to the retained Sutton Farm House, would follow the meandering line of the restricted by way, siting seven detached 2 storey dwellings in an informal manner on relatively large plots in comparison to the rest of the development.

1.11 The more informal arrangement to the site layout is carried forward for the dwellings on the northern rural edge of the development facing the Rea Brook and the public open space to the east. Within the group of 15 properties to the east and north east of the Sutton Grange Farmhouse, all would be two storey and of a subservient scale to the farm house. Four dwellings in this grouping would feature

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange chimneys. I n the north east corner of the area proposed for housing, the layout of the housing adjacent to the shared surface access road would be restricted to the southern side of that road only, and has been amended in the course of the application to achieve a more informal juxtaposition between units in comparison with the regular curving alignment proposed originally. Three of the dwellings in this group would have chimneys. The dwellings at the western end of this group would provide passive surveillance of the children’s play area.

1.12 The area to the east of the loop road the layout would comprise of eight units fronting onto the loop road, with six of these properties set back from the road due to them incorporating integral garages and two having separate, detached garage blocks. There would be two short shared surface cul-de-sacs serving the remainder of the two storey detached dwellings in this area. Running next to the shorter cul- de-sac serving three properties there would be a footpath link into the open space area

1.13 Continuing back along the loop road in westerly direction to the ‘arrival space’, and west of where this road would cross the eastern wildlife corridor and footpath link, to the south there would be two terraces each of three dwellings at 90° to the road, sharing a parking court which would border the footpath link. The remainder of this road frontage would comprise of four detached 2 storey (two with chimneys) set back from the road behind parking areas, and a pair of 2.5 storey semi- detached properties, with parking to their sides, to enable them to be set forward in comparison with the dwellings on their western side and act as a focal point at the junction they would be opposite.

1.14 The remaining element of the proposed development is the spur off the first junction in the development from Oteley Road which would head eastwards and terminate close to the church, which is outside of the application site boundary. The first section of this road as a tight enclosure at the junction achieved by the positioning of two dual aspect dwellings. The street scene would then open out in an easterly direction, featuring three detached 2 storey dwellings on its northern side and five on the southern side, all set back some 5-6 metres from the back edge of the footpath. Three dwellings in this group would feature chimneys. There would then be a shared surface road off the northern side of this road serving a group of six detached, two semi-detached two storey dwellings, and two semi- detached 2.5 storey dwellings, with the latte pair being side onto the curving alignment of the road. To the east of this group and before the wildlife corridor and footpath link would be crossed, there would be a group of nine terraced dwellings, split into blocks of three, positioned around an ‘L’ shaped parking court. On the southern side of this road section there would be a short shared surface private drive serving three detached two storey dwellings, with the northern most dwelling having a tight enclosure to the road. Another shared surface private drive would serve four detached dwellings that would face onto the wildlife corridor and footpath link, with the northern most unit again having a tight enclosure to the road, and also featuring a chimney in this case.

1.15 The effect of the curving alignment to the road at the point where it would be crossed by the wildlife corridor and footpath link would be to give a view at this point down the road in an easterly direction of the front elevation to the listed church. The row of seven detached two storey dwellings on the southern side of the road would be set back some 6 to 7 metres from the back edge of the footpath.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange Two further detached dwellings at the end of this group would be positioned off a section of private drive, which would have a curving alignment to define a green space in front of the church, and give access to an occasional parking area to the south of the church. The proposed development on the northern side of this section of road would comprise of two detached 2 storey dwellings directly fronting the road, with another pair of dwellings at 90° to them sharing an access to the west and a turning head to the east, with a short private drive serving three dwellings. It was originally proposed that the curving private drive off the end of the cul-de-sac would also serve two dwellings on its northern side. However in response to concerns raised about the impact of the proposed development on the setting of the church and views from it in the direction of the Town Centre (north west), and vice versa, one of these dwellings has been deleted to allow for a wider green space and to have a lesser impact upon the church and its setting. 1.16 The details originally submitted for the eastern wildlife corridor sought to provide a footpath with existing and new hedges on both sides throughout its length. The Council’s Ecologist was concerned that the width provided in the scheme for this feature would not be enough to maintain a sufficient width to act as a wildlife corridor. Following discussions this element of the proposed scheme has been amended so that there would be space for the existing hedgerow to be managed in accordance with the landscape strategy, in which the hedgerow would not be maintained for at least two growing seasons, and then be laid in traditional midland style. This has been achieved by a re-alignment of garden boundaries on the eastern side of the existing hedge, moving the footpath westwards and not providing a continuous new hedge on the western side of the footpath. 1.17 A total of 18 different house types would be used in the proposed development. Within the individual house types there would be variations with some units being wholly brick, some featuring part render and some featuring tile hanging. Across the whole development 30 properties would feature chimneys. Ten different brick and six different tiles are proposed would also give variety throughout the scheme, with properties featuring a main brick and a contrasting brick for details such as plinths, quoins and window heads. The properties would feature a mix of monopitch and dual pitched roof door canopies. A number of the detached dwellings would have ‘L’ shaped floor plans and the majority of the detached dwelling designs would also feature short projecting front gables. 1.18 The foul drainage from the proposed development would be disposed of the main sewer. The proposed surface water drainage arrangements would include a combination of underground cellular storage features, oversized pipes, attenuation ponds and soakaways. The existing stream channel in the vicinity of Sutton Grange Farmhouse, which is currently a combination of culverts and open stream channel, would be amended to facilitate the proposed development, but would follow the existing stream course to the north of the farmhouse. The proposed residential development would be outside of the 1 in 100 year flood plain, although the construction of the drive to plots 112, 113 and 140-144 would impact upon about 10 sqm of flood plain storage volume, which would be compensated for. 1.19 The application is accompanied by a Planning, Design and Access Statement; Transport Assessment; Drainage Strategy; Flood Risk Assessment; Affordable Housing Statement (As part of the Planning Statement); Sustainability Statement; Tree Survey; Biodiversity Reports; Landscape Appraisal; Heritage Report; Historic Building Report; Archaeology Report and Statement of Community Involvement.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION

2.1 The site is located on the south eastern edge of Shrewsbury. The northern boundary of the site is defined by the Rea Brook and existing residential development on the northern side of the brook. The site occupies a swath of agricultural land north of Oteley Road in between the Meole Brace golf course, a property known as Oteley Bungalow and field to the west, and the Sutton Farm residential area to the east.

2.2 The site is currently in arable/horticultural use associated with the Sutton Grange Nursery Enterprise. The nursery operates from a site adjacent to a group of farm buildings and a converted barn range centred on Sutton Grange Farmhouse. Access to Sutton Grange Nursery is via the existing road into the site which is a restricted byway. Two footpaths cross the site in a north-south and east-west axis. The site is open, undulating land which slopes down in a northerly direction to the Rea Brook. The part of the site which is adjacent to the Rea Brook is flat flood plain with dense woodland beyond the north eastern boundary. The higher ground towards the southern end of the site backs onto the properties within Hexham Way and Melrose Drive, with the highest land in the south east corner being adjacent to the listed Sutton House and Sutton Church.

3.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION

3.1 This is a complex/major high profile application relating to part of a Sustainable Urban Extension and the Principal Officer, in consultation with the Planning Services Manager and Area Planning Manager consider the application should be determined by the Central Planning Committee.

4.0 COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIONS

- Consultee Comments

4.1 Shrewsbury Town Council – Support: It welcomes future sight of the Management Plan and Ecological Report to supplement the development and protection of both current and future open space along the Rea Brook Valley. It looks forward to future discussions with the developer on the management of play and open space. It would wish to see sprinkler systems fitted as part of a modern forward thinking development. It welcomes the innovative house designs reflecting both the built form and local character of the town but also respecting the topography of the land. It notes the recently published content from English Heritage and it welcomes their on-going discussions with them for the Town Council would wish to see that they are content with the application. Whilst still having concerns about highway safety and congestion, the Town Council welcomes the highway improvements at the site’s junction with Oteley Road.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange 4.2 SC Highways Development Control – No objection: -Access would be via the proposed signalised junction to be constructed as part of planning permission 12/01946/FUL for the Percy Thrower site; would work with the applicant to secure a suitable access from Oteley Road in the unlikely event that this permission is not implemented. -On balance have no objection to the access arrangements for plots 1, 2 and 3, although would have preferred access to them to be from the rear to move it further from the junction, but appreciate the security reasons and the need to promote an active frontage to Oteley Road has resulted in the proposed configuration. -Planning condition required on measures to restrict motor vehicles from development using restricted byway to gain access to Oteley Road. -The restricted byway, named Lower Sutton Lane, to the northwest of the main housing cluster offers the development an excellent opportunity to provide convenient and direct sustainable transport options on foot and by bicycle to Shrewsbury Town Centre; much if not all of this byway is within the application site and recommend a condition that its surface be upgraded. -Note that it has not been possible to provide a formal cycle route along the eastern ‘north-south’ footpath, due to the areas of land required here for the wildlife corridor; some people will inevitably choose to cycle this path and where possible this path should be increased to a maximum width of 2.5m. -Not all refuse vehicle swept paths shown on the plans, as noted by refuse management, however turning heads appear to have been designed to meet guidance and consider they should allow sufficient geometry to allow refuse vehicles to turn. -Recommend conditions requiring full technical details of adoptable highway construction, including lighting and drainage; a match day parking scheme due to the proximity of the site to the Prostar Stadium and to reduce the risk of anti-social and illegitimate parking; residential Travel Plan; construction management plan; upgrading of restricted byway ‘Lower Sutton Lane’ up to the Rea Brook crossing to a standard suitable for commuter and utility trips made by foot and bike; measures to prevent mechanically propelled vehicles from the development travelling to/from Oteley Road over the restricted byway Sutton Grange Drive.

4.3 SC Drainage (18-03-13): The use of SUDs to deal with surface water is appropriate for this site.

The use of soakaways is to be encouraged where they are viable, although it is acknowledged that this is not the case for most of the site. Soakaways should be designed in accordance with BRE 365 to cater for the 1 in 100 year + 30% event.

Full details and calculations of the proposed surface water drainage, attenuation and SUD designs, and flood compensation area should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. Please confirm the boundary between Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 as they relate to the proposed development layout.

Evidence is required to show that approval has been gained from the Environment Agency for the discharge of the final flow from the site into the adjacent watercourse (Main River) or Local Authority (Ordinary Watercourse).

Gully spacing calculations and a contoured plan demonstrating that proposed highway gullies will be able to transfer the 1 in 100 year + 30% climate change storm event into the surface water system efficiently, or a plan indicating where

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange exceedance flows will be stored prior to entering the system should be submitted. Confirmation is required that these exceedance flows will not flood any adjacent property

In general, as part of the development's surface water drainage system, the applicant should demonstrate how measures such as the following have been considered: ' Permeable paving ' Rainwater harvesting system ' Greywater recycling system ' Water Butts

Reason: To ensure that, for the disposal of surface water, the development is undertaken in a sustainable manner. This will also serve to minimise flood risk as a result of the development

SC Drainage (10-07-13) Comment on Revised Plans: 1. A bund should be constructed along the length of the un-named watercourse on the eastern edge of the development where the houses are lower than the top of the watercourse bank.

An easement on the development side of the watercourse should be introduced and a maintenance regime established and implemented to ensure maintenance of the watercourse and prevent and blockages.

Reason: To ensure the development is protected from the likelihood of flooding.

2. There appears to be a number of discrepancies between the micro drainage design dated May 2013 and the drainage layout drawings. The documents should be reviewed and re-submitted accordingly. Many of the Micro drainage print outs show considerable flooding of the network.

SC Drainage (2-08-13): No objection to additional information submitted to address matters raised above: The exceedance flow path passing through gardens and past houses should not be permitted and measures such as additional road gullies/linear drains should be provided to buildings and garage entry points to reduce the risk of exceedance flow passing through the properties. Regarding easement along the stream, a defined buffer zone within the landscaping and the development layout to enable maintenance access to the stream would be acceptable. These matters have now been addressed to the satisfaction of the Council’s Flood and Water Management Team who have confirmed the surface water proposals are now acceptable.

4.4 SCTrees–Comment: As recommended in the submitted Trevor Bridge Associates Tree Survey Report (see 5.4) if approval is to be granted and a layout agreed a final Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan bringing together the elements of the Tree Survey and Root Protection Area drawings (4219.01 & 4219.02) into a simpler document should be required before development commences, as a condition of any approval

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

Reason: To safeguard retained trees and hedgerows on site and prevent damage during building works, and to protect the natural features and amenities of the local area that contribute towards this, and that are important to the appearance of the development.

4.5 SC Affordable Housing (1-05-13) – Comment : The provision of affordable housing is fractionally above the prevailing target rate of 13%, which would be 37.96 units.

Thirty Eight units are proposed comprising:- 3 x 2 bed FOG 12 x 2 bed apartments 7 x 2 bed terrace 11 x 2 bed semi-detached 5 x 3 bed semi-detached

There is no reference in the accompanying documentation to proposed tenure. The SPD at paragraph 4.34 specifically refers and notes that an affordable housing component, a 70%:30% split between rented housing (70%) and low cost home ownership (30%). Therefore this tenure split will be required for this proposal.

We have reviewed the proposed mix in conjunction with our housing need figures for Shrewsbury and thus we require changes to the mix indicated. The emergence of the Welfare Reform Bill necessitates the provision of one bedroomed accommodation, and therefore suggest that such provision is incorporated in the 3 storey block of apartments (Plots 45 ' 57). The need to provide changes to the Plots 45 ' 57 is compounded by the proposed high concentration of affordable accommodation in one location. In view of this, we suggest that one block of 6 apartments revert to open market accommodation (Plots 45 ' 57). The remaining block we suggest, is altered to provide predominately one bedroomed accommodation. The six apartments lost to open market accommodation should preferably be replaced by 2 bed dwelling houses.

SC Affordable Housing (26-07-13) – No Objection: Revised mix for the 38 units of:- 6 x 2 bed houses; 2 x 3 bed houses and 1 x 2 bed flat over garage for affordable rent. 5 x 2 bed houses; 1 x 3 bed house; 4 x 1 bed ground floor flats and 8 x 2 bed first and second floor flats for social rent. 7 x 2 bed houses; 2 x 3 bed houses and 2 x 2 bed flat over garage for low cost home ownership. The above is an acceptable mix which would achieve 71% rented and 29% low cost home ownership.

4.6 SC Rights of Way – Comment (26-03-13): The Definitive lines of Footpaths 77 and 80 Shrewsbury are affected by the application. However the current landowner has submitted an application to divert both routes onto their used lines which are reflected in the layout plans submitted by Taylor Wimpey. The orders will be made in the near future and following a 28 day period of objection, will be confirmed as soon as possible if no objections are received.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange Comment (4-07-13): The applicants and planning officer are fully aware of the public footpaths and restricted byway which run within the site. Footpaths 77/80 have been legally diverted to accord with their used lines on the ground as identified within the site plans. The Planning Officer is in consultation with the Access and Enforcement Team Leader with regard to the restricted byway which will be affected by the application. 4.7 SC Archaeology (18-06-13) - No Objection: In brief, the geophysical survey and archaeological evaluation revealed a low density of features and deposits across the site. Within the field to the west of the church, the evidence comprised a pit containing two dog skeletons and an assemblage medieval pottery from the trenches closest to the church, suggestive of dumping, whilst no finds or features of archaeological significance were found elsewhere on this site. As a consequence, the Cultural Heritage Assessment has concluded that the archaeological potential of the development site is low, although the possibility that isolated archaeological sites/features will be found cannot be entirely ruled out, given the extent of the site. In terms of the farm buildings at Sutton Grange, the majority are of late 18th – 20th century date. However, the barn is the most complex structure, having undergone several phases of alterations and additions, and appears to retain elements of a timber framed core (one bay of which may date to the early 17th century) with brick casing that may have originally have been added in the early 18th century. RECOMMENDATION: In relation to Paragraph 128 of the NPPF, I confirm that the reports listed above provide a satisfactory level of information about the archaeological interest of the proposed development site. Further, I am in agreement with the archaeological mitigation proposals contained in section 8 of the Cultural Heritage Assessment, to comprise a tiered approach to an archaeological watching brief within the vicinity the church and the southern boundary of the PDA, with scope to adequately record any features which are revealed, together with controlled demolition and further recording of the barn at Sutton Grange. In my opinion the latter should allow for recording up to and including ‘Level 4’, as defined in English Heritage’s guidance on Understanding Historic Buildings: A guide to good recording practice’ (2006). In view of the above, and in line with Paragraph 141 of the NPPF, I recommend that a programme of archaeological work, to comprise the above elements, be made a condition of any planning permission for the proposed development. An appropriate condition of any such consent would be: - Suggested Condition: No development approved by this permission shall commence until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI). This written scheme shall be approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works. Reason: The site is known to hold archaeological interest. 4.8 SC Conservation (Historic Environment) (14-06-13) Comment: 1. The design should provide an appropriate setting for the church, with space within it to be viewed and from which the views over Shrewsbury can be appreciated. I consider that the proposals as they stand bring the buildings too close to the church and severely constrict the views of it and of the town. However, I consider this could be significantly improved by the omission of the three houses nearest the church (the pair the north and one to the south) and the redesign of the space and the remaining houses adjacent to it.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

2. There should always be houses fronting onto the open space and the open space should be properly integrated into the design. The proposed open space to the north of the houses next to the church is entirely hemmed in by the backs of houses. This is contrary to all good design principles and will not create a “defensible” space or accord with standards for security by design. It will create an area unattractive to most people except those who wish to have privacy for anti-social activities.

Removing the houses next to the church would also help to link this area into the open space and combined with some redesign of the areas bordering the open space to provide more houses fronting onto and overlooking it and by the creation of routes through it would make a significant difference to the future success of the scheme and to the amenity and security of future residents.

Both of these issues were covered in the original Masterplan which stated in the section on Layout, Structure and Appearance that Sutton Grange should provide an “Informal landscape setting to the existing adjoining housing and Sutton Church” and that the following principles (among others) should be followed in the design of the residential area of the development

In general blocks should be designed as closed perimeter blocks with “back to back “ properties  Arranging buildings so that they enclose and overlook streets and spaces and …have a positive and direct interaction with the public realm  I do not consider that the impact of the development on the setting of the church or on the adjacent very fine brick wall, a non-designated heritage asset, has been adequately covered in the submission or in the heritage statements.

Furthermore, the wall appears to be in very poor condition and will not be in the ownership of the developer. How is it proposed to bring it into a safe condition? I am also concerned at the level of amenity for residents in the houses proposed to be built so close to the wall, which would appear likely to block out a substantial amount of light.

SC Conservation (Historic Environment) (18-17-13) Comment on amended plans: The relationship to the church is not adequately addressed by the proposals and the Heritage assessment does not satisfactorily consider the impact on the setting and significance of the church.

The relationship to the open space is still also totally unacceptable, with extensive areas of gardens and garden fences backing onto it as previously noted. This would seem not only to be a lost opportunity, but contrary to all good design for security principles. I cannot understand why they do not want to make better use of this resource, when would appear that looking out over and attractive open space would add to the attractiveness of the houses.

Both of these are contrary to the original Master Plan.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange 4.9 SC Parks and Recreation: No comments

4.10 SC Learning and Skills: No comments

4.11 SC Ecology (9-05-13) Comment:: An Ecological Assessment has been submitted with the planning application. I assume that the site design was still in progress when the ecological consultants were briefed as the full range of possible positive or negative impacts of the development on the biodiversity of the area could not be assessed. The Ecological Assessment provides a good starting point and recommends the following more detailed surveys: 1. Initial bat roost assessment of trees and agricultural buildings (can be undertaken at any time), 2. Farmland breeding bird survey (to be undertaken between March – June), 3. Barn Owl survey of trees and buildings (before leaves emerge in tree canopies and ideally June For buildings), 4. Habitat Suitability Index assessment for Great Crested Newt (can be undertaken at any time of year, 5. Should a species-rich hedgerow be likely to be directly impacted by proposals a hedgerow survey to ecological criteria of the Hedgerow Regulations1997, 6. Reptile survey if habitat with potential is likely to be lost or disturbed. To date items 1, and 4 have been supplied (see below). The letter dated 21st January 2013 states that potential reptile habitat identified on site will not be impacted by the development. We would require confirmation that this is still the case, and a reptile survey will not be required. Bats The bat survey report (see above) states that 4 or 5 of the 12 buildings inspected and surveyed were confirmed as bat roosts and that an EPS Mitigation licence will be required from Natural England. The Executive Summary states in the 4th paragraph ‘Due to time constraints, only 1 dusk emergence survey has been undertaken for the buildings within the study area. It is recommended that 2 additional surveys are undertaken between mid-May and the end of August. These surveys may identify further bat roosts and will confirm the type and size of roosts present.’ The single dusk emergence survey was carried out on the 24th September, at the very end of the bat survey season. It is essential that the presence of a protected species, and the extent it may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted. We cannot condition protected species surveys as all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. We know bats are roosting on site and we need to be able to condition appropriate mitigation and/or compensation (ODPM Circular 06/2005, paragraphs 98 and 99, Natural England Standing Advice for protected species. February 2011). When making its decision, the LPA will also have to consider the ‘three tests’ under the Conservation of habitats and species regulations 2010. One of these tests is will the ‘favourable conservation status’ of the species concerned be maintained. In order to consider this, for each EPS present, we need to have an estimate of the population size, an assessment of how the species uses the site and the likely impact of the development on each species.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

In view of the above, further bat emergence surveys are required between mid-May and August. The additional surveys should cover the following:

Additional surveys of the buildings in the recommended survey period to Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines.  If all trees with high to medium bat roost potential are to be retained, and the lighting plan can avoid illumination of the trees, then an emergence survey  will not be required for them. If this is not the case then emergence (including dawn) or climbing surveys of these trees will be required. Commuting surveys of hedges or boundary features likely to be affected by the development (only the immediate surroundings of the buildings, i.e. the  western hedge appear to have been covered so far – not the hedge to the east or other boundaries). Bats may be using the hedges embedded in the site as well as the boundary hedges and the surveys will inform the design of the green corridors and any lighting plans. If winter use of the site is simply a matter of the bats (particularly brown long- eared) staying on in the summer roost sites then a hibernation survey would  not be required. If there are other structures present such as cellars that could be accessed by bats then a hibernation survey would be required.

A detailed mitigation scheme for bats (including architects drawings of bat lofts/houses showing dimensions) should be submitted before the planning decision is made. A plan should be submitted showing where this is to be located and in what form. The mitigation would have to be tailored to the various species requirements and roost types on site, and be constructed in advance of the demolition of the existing buildings or felling of trees.

Lighting plan Once the status of the bat roosts and the commuting routes are understood, the lighting plans for the construction and occupation phases of the development will need to be designed to cause minimum disturbance to bats and other nocturnal wildlife. Any bat mitigation features will need to remain sufficiently dark, as will the western commuting route, any trees retained with a known bat roost and any other commuting routes found in subsequent surveys. A detailed lighting plan can be conditioned, to be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of any works on site. However, an indicative lighting plan should be submitted showing treatment of roost locations and commuting routes, and this should be submitted as part of the bat mitigation plan.

Great Crested Newt

The Great Crested Newt Habitat Suitability Index Survey identifies two ponds on the adjacent golf course with excellent habitat suitability for Great Crested Newts. Aerial photos indicate good habitat connections to the proposed development site through hedgerows and ditches. At the closest point (north west corner) the ponds are less than 100m away from the site boundary. For a major development, our trigger for carrying out GCN surveys is if ponds are present within 250m. In the GCN HSI survey summary it states that GCN surveys of the ponds will be required if terrestrial habitat within 250 metres is likely to be impacted by the proposed development. It goes on to say that the ‘current proposals indicate that the parts of the site within 250m of the ponds will be managed as public open space and

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange therefore it is recommended that any works required within this area of the public open space is minimal and would not result in a likely impact to great crested newts, thereby avoiding the need for further survey or mitigation.’

However, the 250m limit (which is a reduced guidance figure - the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines, English Nature 2001 recommend survey of all ponds within 500m) includes one and a half fields, hedges woodland strip, trackway, the bungalow, its garden and an out building. The buildings are due for demolition and the Master Plan indicates SUDS features in this area. Unless these features are to remain completely untouched, which I would suspect is unlikely, then at least a presence/absence survey for GCNs is required before a planning decision is made.

The presence/absence survey for Great Crested Newts is made up of 4 survey visits between mid-March and mid-June with at least 2 visits between mid-April and mid-May. Three survey methods (preferably torch survey, bottle trapping and egg searching) should be used on each survey visit. If Great Crested Newts are discovered on the site then it may be necessary to carry out a population size class estimate which involves an additional 2 visits in the specified time period.

The ecologist should make recommendations as to whether a European Protected Species Licence with respect to Great Crested Newts would be necessary and the need for a mitigation scheme and/or precautionary method statement.

The Great Crested Newt survey should be carried out by an experienced, licensed ecologist in line with the Great Crested Newt Mitigation Guidelines by Natural England (2001) and should be submitted with any necessary mitigation scheme and method statement to the Local Planning Authority in support of the planning application.

Otter and Water Vole

The letter from John Williams indicates that there is a proposal for a drainage outfall to the Rea Brook. If there is to be close working, lighting or noise, and installation of outfalls or drainage or other reasons for bank disturbance, otter and water vole surveys should be carried out and submitted before a decision is made.

Farmland breeding bird survey This will need to be submitted as recommended by the ecological consultant, together with suggested mitigation and enhancement measures.

Barn Owl survey of trees and woodlands This will need to be submitted as recommended by the ecological consultant, together with suggested mitigation and enhancement measures.

Environmental Networks

The Shropshire Core Strategy contains in Policy CS17: Environmental Network provision for mapping and subsequently protecting, maintaining, enhancing and restoring Environmental Networks in the county in line with the recommendations of both The Lawton Review and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange This proposed development site lies within the Environmental Network and as such the proposed scheme must clearly demonstrate how the development will ‘promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats and ecological networks’ as required by paragraph 117 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Green corridors and stepping stones must be fit for purpose, allowing for the movement of both people and wildlife.

This site is bordered by the Rea Brook, a large part of which is designated as a Local Nature Reserve. This valuable ecological and environmental network feature must be protected in the site design and should have an appropriate buffer separating the feature from the proposed development. I welcome the retention of the floodplain within the Rea Brook corridor. However, green space in the development area itself is very limited. I am particularly concerned by the narrow nature of the footpath running roughly north- south through the site, a matter which I have raised repeatedly during per- application discussions. This will be a main pedestrian route through the estate, from the considerable areas of proposed housing and shops to the south, to the accessible countryside of the Rea Brook corridor. It is hard to judge exactly how wide this feature is from the drawings but it looks to be between only 4 to 6m wide, while containing two hedges, a verge in places and a footpath. As well as needing to provide attractive public access for the estate and beyond, it should be of sufficient width to act as a wildlife corridor. Without the bat surveys we do not know if this is currently being used as a bat commuting or foraging route. The hedges should be of mixed native species and should be managed to allow them to flower and fruit. They would clearly require more room than an annually closely cut hedge, being cut back maybe one year in three or more, on rotation. There should be at least 2 metres of grassland either side of the path, the first metre either side being closely mown. The Planning, Design and Access Statement talks of wildflower meadow in places along this route – where would this be located? A more detailed landscape drawing of this feature should be provided. The ‘Green corridor’ indicated in the west side of the estate along the route of Sutton Grange Drive appears to be an urban route (Planning, Design and Access Statement Feb 2013, page 30). The existing old hedges seem to have been removed for much of its length, leaving a number of significant gaps which would stop its use by wildlife including bats. Hedges should be retained and more landscaping provided to achieve a ‘green corridor’. I am also concerned about how close the housing and roadways are to the western boundary. Again we don’t know yet if the hedge and trees form an important commuting route for the bats roosting on site. Lighting could easily stop such activity, and prevent its use by other wildlife.

Sustainable Urban Drainage Any proposed discharges or run off must not pollute or otherwise damage the watercourses. SUDS features should have the capacity to deal with both the quantity and quality of water flowing through them. Opportunities should be taken to maximise the wildlife potential of SUDS features. I haven’t found a reference as to how the open spaces will be managed for the lifetime of the development. Will a management plan be produced, who will be responsible for its implementation and how will it be financed?

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

SC Ecology (29-07-13): Comment: -Additional bat survey work carried out acceptable. -Require a plan showing the location of bat mitigation/enhancement features in the buildings, and the mitigation for one of the species found (Brown Long-eared bat), requires a dark space in which to fly before exiting the roost; and this latter requirement will need a bat loft of sufficient volume to be installed in one of the properties in the north west corner of the site, as close as possible to the existing roost site. -An EPS licence will be needed with respect to Great Crested Newts. -Condition provision of nest boxes for swallow, martin and house sparrow. -Condition lighting plan to prevent light spillage on to the north and western bat commuting routes, the river and eastern edge hedge corridor; some concern about how close houses come to the western site boundary. -A buffer area of at least 10m from the river should be securely fenced off if development is likely to occur nearby for the duration of those works. -Still have some concerns about the details/plant species of the landscaping proposals for the corridors as well as other areas of the site, but that these could be addressed by a condition requiring the submission of a detailed landscape plan for approval, along with a habitat management plan, so that suitable planting can be achieved -The habitat management plan should also address who will be managing the site for the lifetime of the development and how sufficient resources will be provided.

SC Ecology (22-08-13): Comment: -Details of the proposed locations of bat boxes and bat tubes acceptable -Requirement remains for a bat loft a part of the mitigation, which provides room for flight within the roost and provide conditions potentially for a maternity roost of Brown Long-eared bats and other bat species.

4.12 SC Waste Management – Comment ( 4-04-13): The Planning Application states that refuse collection points will be provided within the curtilage of individual properties. To provide a kerbside collection, we will need confirmation that any roadway including primary vehicle routes, secondary vehicle routes, spine streets, shared surface lanes, private drives etc. used by refuse vehicles on this development will be of adequate size and construction to allow access, turning and exit of vehicles up to 32 tonne GVW rigid body refuse collection vehicle including overhang for tailgate and bin lift and minimum single axle loading of 10 tonnes. The width of any turning area will need to be sufficient to take account of the manoeuvring refuse collection vehicle and parked vehicles.

Meanwhile, near the centre of the development there appears to be an archway with dwellings above it. For the area beyond the archway to be serviced, the arch will need to be of sufficient height with a suitable turning area available beyond the archway. Please ask the applicant to provide a plan showing the track of the vehicle within the development, which must not cross any parking places nor involve reversing in or out of the development.

SC Waste Management – Comment (12-07-13): There are further roadways on this development that will require a Vehicle Spread Path Analysis. Please ask the applicant to contact Waste Management

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

4.13 English Heritage (7-05-13) Object: Recommend that the site layout should be revised to provide a better visual setting for the grade II* listed former Church of St John Sutton (now the Orthodox Church), and appropriate car parking for it

This large development will have a major impact on the setting of the former Church of St John Sutton, now the Orthodox Church, which is a grade II* listed historic building. It appears to us that the proposed layout gives too little space and visual emphasis for this outstanding building, in spite of the fact that it will be the most impressive historic landmark in this new development. It also appears to us that views from the vicinity of the church towards the town centre will be seriously impaired.

The development of this land should give an opportunity to enhance and safeguard the future sustainability of this building for its future users and uses. The proposal does improve the access to the church, but does not apparently make appropriate car parking provision for it as a place of public assembly in a residential area. We recommend that this shortcoming should be addressed in the review and modification which we are recommending.

English Heritage (18-07-13) Revised Plans – Objection Withdrawn: The revised layout near the church allows English Heritage to withdraw their earlier formal objection but advise that further consideration should be given to further occasional car parking in the vicinity of the church.

English Heritage (20-08-13) – No objection to the landscape arrangements shown on drawing number 469/CHU-1. (This shows 1.2m high metal gate/estate railings supplemented with hedge planting enclosing part of the proposed green space to the west and south west of the principal elevation to the church and a parking area).

4.14 Environment Agency ( 8-04-13): Standing Objection: Further information required to confirm that there would be no significant impact on flood risk as a result of the proposed development; question why development in the flood plain is required and, if so, detailed flood storage compensation calculations are needed. Also seeking clarification in relation to the former contaminative uses of the site.

Environment Agency (14-06-13) Standing Objection removed:

Further to our previous response, we are now in receipt of the Phase I & Phase II Geo-Environmental Assessment, as referenced within paragraph 4.4 of the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). We have reviewed the Assessment and would like to make the following comments. There appears to be no analysis/tests undertaken within groundwater for pesticides, despite the former use of the site and the mention within the report that pesticides could be a contaminant of concern at this site. Without a plan indicating the position of the farm machinery storage barn, we cannot be sure whether this area has been targeted through the site investigation. The levels of Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) detected in groundwater are quite elevated with currently no satisfactory explanation as to why this may be (other than the

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange contamination within WS1 which is believed to be associated with an Above ground Storage Tank (AST)). A more detailed conceptual model will need to be provided. WS5, containing groundwater with elevated levels of TPH and PAH, is located close to the watercourse to the north yet no risk assessment has been provided addressing the risk posed to the watercourse. We welcome the proposed further investigation surrounding the area occupied by the ASTs following their removal and the area around the greenhouses. Groundwater sampling should also take place at these locations. To date we do not have the position of these tanks or greenhouses sited on any plans – the submission of such a plan would be useful. Informative: Soakaways may not be appropriate in areas of contaminated land where contaminants could leach through to groundwater. This would require further consideration, including the findings of the site investigation. Bearing in mind the above comments in relation to the further information submitted, should your Council be minded to approve the application, we would recommend the following conditions: CONDITION: No development, or phasing as agreed below, shall take place until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site are submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority 1) A site investigation scheme, based on the Phase I & Phase II Geo-Environmental Assessment, by GEG, reference GEG-12-225/PI_PII, dated 23 March 2012, to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 2) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (1) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy, if necessary, of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 3) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. This should include any proposed phasing of demolition or commencement of other works. 4) Prior to occupation of any part of the development (unless in accordance with agreed phasing under part 3 above) a verification (validation) report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy (2 and 3). The report shall include results of any sampling and monitoring. 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 and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority. Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. REASON: To protect ground and surface waters („controlled waters as defined under the Water Resources Act 1991). CONDITION: ‟ If during development, contamination not previously identified, is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority, a Method Statement for remediation. The Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. A verification (validation) report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of any sampling and monitoring. 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 and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To ensure that any unexpected contamination is dealt with and the development complies with approved details in the interests of protection of ground

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange and surface waters („controlled waters as defined under the Water Resources Act 1991). CONDITION: No infiltration of surface‟ water drainage into the ground is 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 controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details. REASON: To protect ground and surface waters („controlled waters as defined under the Water Resources Act 1991). Flood Storage Compensation: ‟ Based on Drawing MID3527/510 (Floodplain Intrusion & Compensation Works) and the information detailed in JMP s letter dated 17 May 2013 (Ref: MID3527/L.002/td) we understand that the impact of the construction of the proposed driveway on the floodplain of the Rea Brook‟ will be minimal given the scale of the works. When highlighting this in our previous response, we were not aware of the relatively small volumes of floodplain storage affected, 10m2. Given the size of the site, we are satisfied that there is sufficient land available to compensate for any loss in the 1 in 100 plus climate change extent (not just the 100 year level). The NPPF Technical Guidance (policy aims) requires developers and local authorities to seek opportunities to...“reduce the overall level of flood risk in the area through the layout and form of the development and the appropriate application of sustainable drainage systems”...“create space for flooding to occur by restoring functional floodplain and flood flow pathways and by identifying, allocating and safeguarding open space for flood storage”. The redevelopment should demonstrate an improvement in the local flood risk regime by reducing flood risk post development, providing wider community benefits rather than just facilitating new development. This could be achieved by increasing flood storage, as well as reducing surface water run- off rates post development with sustainable drainage systems (SUDS). The flood storage area has the potential to be multifunctional and integrate the habitat management areas as discussed further below. We advise that you seek clarity from the applicant, to ensure a willingness to undertake this. Following agreement, we would recommend the following condition: CONDITION: No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a scheme for the provision and implementation of compensatory flood storage works and improvements to the 1 in 100 year plus climate change modelled river level (55.60m AOD as identified in Section 4.1.1 of the FRA) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details. REASON: To alleviate the increased risk of flooding and provide flood risk betterment. Finished Floor Levels: We advise that Finished Floor Levels (FFLs) should be set no lower than 600mm above the 1 in 100 year river flood level plus climate change. We note that the applicant, within the FRA is providing a higher level (600mm above the 1 in a 1000 year level of 55.96m AOD) and therefore a greater degree of flood risk protection. Provided that you are satisfied that the proposed FFL can be achieved we would recommend the following planning condition: CONDITION: Finished floor levels should be set at least 600mm above the 1 in 1000 year modelled Rea Brook flood level of 55.96m AOD as detailed in the FRA, section 8.1, produced by Opus, dated December 2012 (Ref:J-D0962-R01). REASON: To protect the development from flooding. Easement/ Flood Defence Consent: As discussed in our previous response, there should be no built development within 8 metres of top of bank of the Rea Brook (Main River) to ensure that access for future maintenance works is available. On this basis we recommend the following condition:

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange CONDITION: There shall be no new structures (including gates, walls and fences) or raising of ground levels on land below 55.6m AOD, within the 1 in 100 year plus climate change floodplain, or within 8metres of the top of bank of the Rea Brook (Main River) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To prevent any impact on flood flows and flood risk elsewhere. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the Rea Brook, designated a Main River. This would include any new surface water drainage outfall structures. In addition, the LLFA would also need to consent any diversion or culverting of existing ordinary watercourses located within the site boundary (e.g. within the western section of the site). Biodiversity: Based on our previous comments, we advise that you seek clarity on the extent of the buffer zone along the Rea Brook and the commitment to undertake this. A plan in principle showing the extent of this buffer on a map would be useful. We would support proposals for riverside habitat enhancements. Presumably you are having discussions with your own Ecologist to inform this further. Upon confirmation/ commitment to the above, we would recommend the following condition: CONDITION: No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until a Habitat Management Plan, for the management and long term maintenance of the Rea Brook watercourse, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall also detail timing and provision for implementing and updating the plan. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: To conserve and enhance the ecological value of the Rea Brook watercourse and its corridor. Surface Water: As previously stated, your own Flood and Water Management team (Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA)) should lead on surface water drainage matters. However, for a full planning application we would expect to see the locations and volumes of storage provided by attenuation systems in order to ensure that greenfield run-off rates -with a 30% increase in peak rainfall intensity as advised in Table 5 of the NPPF Technical Guidance – are maintained or bettered post development. The information submitted in the four separate Drainage Layout Trunk Sewer drawings does not appear to provide this detail. As previously recommended, we would support proposals to protect and enhance the watercourse in order to meet Water Framework Directive objectives. Above ground SUDS would contribute to meeting this.

4.15 Ramblers Association – Comment: Note that it is proposed to maintain the two footpaths PF77 and PF80, and assume minor line amendments the subject of correspondence with the Outdoor Recreation team in November 2012 have been incorporated; note the major route Restricted Bridleway 75a by Sutton Grange is not being affected by the development.

4.16 West Mercia Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor – Comment: I do not wish to formally object to the proposal at this time. However there are opportunities to design out crime and /or the fear of crime and to promote community safety. Therefore should this proposal gain planning approval, I request

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange that the following planning condition be placed upon the said approval. The applicant should aim to achieve the Secured by Design (SBD) award status for this development. SBD is a nationally recognised award aimed at achieving a minimum set of standards in crime prevention for the built environment, the scheme has a proven track record in crime prevention and reduction. The opportunity for crime to occur can be reduced by up to 75% if Secured By Design is implemented. The principles and standards of the initiative give excellent guidance on crime prevention through the environmental design and also on the physical measures. Details can be at www.securedbydesign.com Finally may I draw your attention to Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which clearly states it shall be the duty of each authority to which this section applies to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions of, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder in its area.

4.17 CPRE – Object: -Responded to SAMDev consultation that landscape of sufficiently high quality to warrant preservation; landscape capacity and capacity study for SABC in July 2007 did not recommend residential development on this land which it classed as high/medium sensitivity. -Too close to important landscape and wildlife Rea Valley. -Note Environment Agency objection. -No details of Habitat Management Plan supplied. -Question if adequate attention has been given to surface water treatment. -Draft Supplementary Planning Document on Sustainable Development requires the main elevation of houses to face south within 30° of due south to benefit from solar warmth, which was pointed out to Taylor Wimpey at the public consultation, but many of the houses face due east or due west. -Positioning of dwellings on plots 268, 269, 270 and 271 would not pay proper respect to the setting of this important building and its use as a place of worship. -Proposal conflicts with policies CS6, CS17 and CS18 and should be refused.

CPRE (29-07-13) - Object to revised plans: -Alternative surface water arrangements without balancing ponds do not in their opinion provide adequate safeguards to protect the Rea Brook from pollution; question the efficacy of cellular stores and building ponds on land designated as a children’s play area is unacceptable. -Details of Habitat Management Plan still required. -Houses still too close to the Greek Orthodox Church. -Welcome some other amendments and adjustments to hedgerow position. -Accept that closer adherence to the provisions of SPD on Sustainable Development mentioned previously may not be possible in a lay-out with a north- south axis. -A reduction in the number of dwellings would free up space for proper surface water drainage, protection of the Rea Brook habitat and a more resident friendly environment, including space for the church.

4.18 Shrewsbury Friends of the Earth – Comment: -Still serious flaws in the proposal. -Impact on Rea Brook and houses close to watercourse. -Would make the valley a narrow green strip lined by housing; with existing housing on the north bank more space should be left on the south side. -Valley is a corridor from the countryside into the urban centre.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange -Only a small number of houses need to be deleted to make a huge difference. -No extra effort being made to make dwellings more energy efficient than the minimum required; missed opportunity with rising energy costs and given that all new dwellings will have to be “zero carbon” after 2016; would be a powerful marketing tool. -More roofs should be orientated towards the south to provide opportunity for solar thermal systems. -If an upgraded cycle path is provided across the Rea Brook into the existing estate to the north there would be a direct route into Belle Vue and the town centre, and a route to Waitrose; accept that such as route could not be used in times of flood to avoid the need for elevation.

4.19 Shropshire Wildlife Trust- Has a number of concerns: -Not clear that all possible impacts upon the Rea Brook Valley Local Nature(LNR) Reserve have been identified and addressed. -No details as to whether the extension to the LNR has been agreed with the appropriate local authority, who must have a legal interest in the land concerned if it is to be included. -Unclear if this LNR area equates to the public open space identified in the master plan. -Over 290 properties will generate additional impact on the LNR and appropriate that sufficient funds are made available to cover the additional management pressure on the existing LNR as well as any newly created area. -Despite landscaped areas/public open space on the north side of the development, which includes some habitat creation, feel there will be a negative impact upon LNRs ability to provide informal enjoyment of nature by the public; development would impinge upon the Rea Brook corridor. -The provision of a well thought through biodiversity management plan (including mitigation/compensation strategy) might address some of the concerns and the Trust lodges an objection until there is further clarity on these aspects. -Further bat survey appears to be required and recommend that all required surveys are provided prior to determination of the application.

4.20 Greek Orthodox Community – No objections to the proposed development as amended: -The development as amended adequately provides for the day-to-day needs of the community and in this regard can be considered to perform a social role as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (para 7). -The community also agrees that while changed, the setting of the church is preserved under the meaning of Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990: the enclosure around the church is entirely appropriate for a medieval church; and the development of houses outside of the enclosure is appropriate development within the setting of a church. -Revised scheme thoughtfully addresses earlier concerns and take into account the needs of the thriving church Community and the historic significance of the church building. -Latest site plan provides a guarantee that land to the west of the church may continue to be used by the Greek Orthodox Community for occasional special and social occasions and adequate space will be available to maintain the character of the church. -The scheme addresses the issues of access and parking, and respects the visual value of the approach to the church and views of the town from the church.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

-Public Comments 4.20 32 Objections to original drawings which are summarised below:- -Not in keeping with area. -No existing development closer than 100m to the Rea brook valley conservation area; development should be contained further up the slope, at least 95m from the brook; plots 140 – 152 should be removed. -Overdevelopment; too many houses for size and shape of site. -Originally told site was for around 250 homes, but developer is trying to cram in almost 300 -Dense development in comparison with existing houses; space so limited for each dwelling it should not be passed -Housing should blend with the landscape and not be a blot on it -Need proliferation of different house designs by different builders to create character and quality, rather than one house builder who tries and fails to replicate diversity -Layout takes little note of history; topography; scheme lacks quality and ambition -Council should insist on exemplary sustainable urban design, asking for a standard well above building regulation requirements and aim for Sustainable Homes level 4 or 5 -Why not insist on an estate which in 100 years time may also be considered a Conservation Area? -Scheme takes scant notice of Core Strategy policy CS2 which seeks to promote, conserve and enhance the Town’s green corridors and spaces, and environmental quality

-Existing landscape assessment carried out prior to the development of the detailed plans -No visual impact assessment has been carried out on the Shrewsbury South Sustainable Urban Extension or Sutton Grange proposals; developer should carry out a visual impact assessment of the proposed development, as required under MD12, with particular reference to impacts upon the well used footpath on the north side of the Rea Brook; and where impacts unacceptable appropriate mitigation should be enforced -Good landscape, visual and ecological grounds to restrict and reduce housing development in this proposal.

-No adequate assessment of impact upon grade 2* listed church and grade 2 listed Sutton House; not assessed by submitted Cultural Heritage Assessment. -How setting of church would be “framed” by development not adequately explored -Grade 2* listed building within its medieval setting is an exceptionally rare occurrence. -Will change setting of early garden wall which will be used as a boundary and no acknowledgement of its listed status. -No attempt to assess the contribution setting makes to the significance of the buildings as required by the NPPF and English Heritage guidance

-Layout blocks existing footpath linking walks of the Rea Brook Valley to Sutton Road

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange -Natural springs below Sutton Road and development will impact heavily upon local flooding issues -Flooding issues not properly addressed; whole area is very boggy and floods regularly -Surface water run off likely to increase the area around Rea Brook liable to flooding Increased flooding risks and higher water table would lead to disruption of the wildlife environment -Their bio-disc drainage system is on land identified as green space in the proposal; alternative would be for Taylor Wimpey to provide them with a mains drainage connection when the development meets that stage.

-Otters have recently come back to the Rea Brook -Should be no disturbance to wildlife -Wildlife will be pushed out; detrimental impact upon wildlife corridor -Detailed design for the key north – south corridor should be presented; a wider corridor that is predominantly green in nature is required to make this an important link between Shrewsbury and the countryside to the south. -Will have detrimental impact on wildlife through light pollution. -Wish to see plans in place to build upon the wildlife corridors in the Master plan to provide wider public space/footpath improvements beyond the bypass to replace land lost to development.

-Loss of good agricultural land. -Not a brown field site, unlike recent/ongoing developments in Shrewsbury. -Space unique and should be preserved for future generations.

-Who will maintain open space and in what style? -Public open space should be incorporated into the Rea Brook valley conservation area; additional impact on nature valley walks of about 1000 people and 30-40 dogs from proposed houses. -Need wider open space in north east corner of the site. -In combination with the existing Sutton estate would squeeze valley unacceptably and could be remedied by deleting plots 112; 113; 140 – 144; 153 – 169; 172 and 173; would also integrate open space below Orthodox Church into Rea Brook valley.

-Increase in traffic; application does not address additional traffic on Oteley Road. -Traffic problems will not be solved by traffic lights at junction with Oteley Road, which will become grid locked. -Priority should be given to footpaths in the scheme over roads, to promote walking and cycling, not driving. -Transport Assessment does not mention schools; all primary schools a mile away and assessment should be broadened to assess how primary age children will travel to school, along with mitigating measures. -Will be a need for parking restrictions on Shrewsbury Town FC match days. -Suggest cycle way link to the existing estate to the north to give a direct route into Belle Vue and then the town centre, accepting that such a route could not be used in times of flood.

-No bungalows for older people, which would give the development a more inclusive feel and reduce environmental impact by being less obtrusive.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange -Need higher insulation standards; more semis and terraces to reduce heat loss and orientate buildings for passive solar gain and allow for the installation of photovoltaic panels. -Sustainability check list only meets minimum energy efficiency standards. -Missed opportunity to make house more energy efficient and zero carbon as will be required after 2016; development not sustainable in terms of energy use. -Mix of house types (>50% 4 – 5 bed) should be changed to reflect consultation preference for starter homes and small family houses. -No need for 4 – 5 bed detached luxury houses. -Houses are for affluent commuters not local families.

-Is there to be any provision for a community centre and health centre? Can local schools cope? -Suggest that some land in Sutton/Oteley area be set aside for community allotment and some reuse of farm buildings for this purpose would be welcomed, if possible.

-Playground sited where there would be no significant green space on either side of the brook

-Who will be responsible for the maintenance of the Sutton Grange Lane private road once development has taken place? Access to their property must be maintained, with vehicular traffic prevented from using it as a through route.

-Plot 26 should be moved further away from their property, with mature trees provided along southern boundaries to plots 26 and 30 to prevent overlooking Street lighting should be switched off at night to preserve dark skies.

-Consultation process was unfair as questions were about style rather than the principle of development.

4.21 2Comments -SUE should provide schools, pre-school nursery, medical centre, community centre, children’s play area similar to the Quarry and recreational grass. -Should eliminate ponds due to maintenance requirement and risk to children. -Need 30mph speed limit from football ground entrance to Weeping Cross roundabout. -Footpaths should be provided on north and south side of Oteley Road from Meole Brace roundabout right to the east side of the Shrewsbury Business Park phase 3 as well as off road cycle path to southern side. -Retain all road side hedges and grass/daffodil verges to retain rural feel. -Install street lights on both sides of road from football stadium to east side of Shrewsbury Business Park. -Install mini roundabouts at all exits from south side developments that join Oteley Road to reduce traffic speed and maintain flows as opposed to traffic lights. -Sutton Road junction with Oteley Road would require an island roundabout. -No development should commence on the north or south sides of Oteley Road until the traffic lighted junction is in place. -There should be no future closure of road due to functions at the football ground and the existing parking permit scheme should be extended. -Seek re-assurance that access to their land will not be affected by the proposed development, which will support if this is the case.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

4.22 4 Objections subsequent to receipt and consultation on amended plans: -Encouraging that developer has made some amendments to footpaths etc, but fundamental objection that the eastern 25% of the proposed development represents a massive visual/physical intrusion on the Rea Brook corridor has not been addressed. -Heritage and benefit of the Rea Brook valley not being protected as development spreads out from the current urban areas. -Revised plans have not addressed the many concerns aired. -Development not changed sufficiently to reduce visual/landscape intrusion on the Rea Brook corridor.

-Concerned about the high levels of hydrocarbons found in the ground water. -Poor mix of housing for all. -High density of housing. -Lack of acceptable visual impact study; which should focus on the footpath on the north side of the Rea Brook; and take into account the impacts of light intrusion. -Development should be reduced to be in keeping with area. -Original objection stands because of the high number of houses being built on agricultural land. -Still unclear who will assume responsibility for the ‘public open spaces’ and this should be established before planning permission is granted. -Wish to see less housing to east of footpath link. -The Rea Brook should be shown on the proposed landscape plan to put the proposed development planting in context. -Suggest a community allotment or orchard should be provided around the retained Sutton Grange building -General housing design should be improved to a higher energy efficiency, incorporating green features from the outset such as water butts and solar panels.. -Houses should be given some individuality to lift them above the ordinary. -Note developer can put together 3D images of the interior of the site but have failed to supply any assessment of the visual impact from the footpaths to the north.

4.23 1 comment received subsequent to receipt of and consultation on amended plans: -Principle of the proposed development cannot be argued against and if it goes ahead should be subject to the following restrictions: -New junction to be used for all construction traffic; controlled by traffic lights synchronised with the football ground lights to aid traffic flows. -Development should be completed within a 2 year timescale. -The current lane access to Sutton Grange/Sutton Nurseries should be closed to motor vehicles and made into a walkway/cycle path; nursery and existing dwellings on and down that lane should then utilise the new route. -The developer should be responsible for ensuring that Oteley Road is kept clear of mud and debris at and around new traffic light junction.

5.0 THE MAIN ISSUES

Principle of development Design, scale, character and impact upon the setting of listed buildings Affordable housing and mix Sustainability Archaeology

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange Residential amenity Open space Flood risk and drainage Highway safety and promoting sustainable transport Ecology Contamination

6.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL

6.1 Principle of development 6.1.1 The application is to be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), at paragraph 14, establishes a clear presumption in favour of sustainable development. It advises that where development accords with an up to date development plan proposals should be approved without delay and, where the development plan is silent, absent or relevant policies are out of date, grant planning permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies set out in the NPPF as a whole, or where specific policies within it indicate development should be resisted.

6.1.2 The Shropshire Local Development Framework Adopted Core Strategy, dated March 2011, is up to date and through policy CS1 identified that Shrewsbury, as a sub-regional centre, will accommodate approximately 25% of Shropshire’s residential development, totalling some 27500 new homes, over the plan period 2006-2026. Policy CS2 sets out a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to planning and development of Shrewsbury and states that there will be two sustainable urban extensions to provide 25% of Shrewsbury’s housing growth and 50% of its employment growth. One of these areas is Shrewsbury South, where approximately 900 dwellings to the north and south of Oteley Road are envisaged, along with green infrastructure improvements (including the Rea Brook valley). This planning application relates to the bulk of the land on the northern side of Oteley Road identified as being within the Shrewsbury South Sustainable Urban Extension, as indicated in the Core Strategy and associated Master Plan.

6.1.3 The allocation of this land for development through the adoption of the Core Strategy and preparation of the Master Plan (adopted by Council on 22nd November 2012) has established that there are no unresolvable technical constraints to the development of the land. It has been established through the work associated with the production of the Core Strategy and the Master Plan that the development of the whole Shrewsbury South SUE will generate related infrastructure requirements which, in cost terms, will exceed the monies which would be generated by the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which in Shropshire is applicable to residential development only. The Master Plan advises that a phasing and delivery strategy/programme will be submitted with the initial planning application(s) to ensure co-ordination of development and infrastructure provision with appropriate agreements. This has resulted in the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding relating to Section 106 Agreement and CIL contributions for the whole Shrewsbury South SUE. The parties involved in the preparation of this agreement with Shropshire Council are the applicants and the representative of the consortium of landowners for the bulk of the land on the southern side of Oteley Road within the Shrewsbury South SUE.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

6.1.4 The package of total costs for the delivery of infrastructure for the whole of the Shrewsbury South SUE has been agreed to be £6.21m (With the overall contribution being £6.886m when Neighbourhood fund at 15% and administration at 5% are added). This figure is made up of:

Contribution to Strategic Road Network £1.46m Contribution to Local Road Network £1.55m Contribution to Shrewsbury Sustainable Transport £1.05m Subsidy to Local Bus Service £1.00m Community Facilities £1.15m

The CIL payments for the delivery of infrastructure for the Shrewsbury South SUE will be payable in respect of the applicant’s proposed development. The CIL payment would be applied towards the items shown on the Council’s regulation 123 list which prioritises the strategic road network and Shrewsbury Sustainable Transport.

6.1.5 The current application proposal would also contribute to infrastructure identified as being necessary for the Shrewsbury South SUE to achieve its objectives, but not funded by CIL. In the list given in paragraph 6.1.4 above these are the Contribution to the Local Road Network (Works to Oteley Road, Meole Island and cycle and pedestrian improvements); Subsidy to Local Bus Service, and Community Facilities (which would include play facilities with land provided as on-site design cost) and towards the Community Centre which would be located off the current application site, but available to the occupants of the dwellings once completed. These are considered to be necessary and to meet the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations. The amount payable by the applicants would be based upon their percentage of the estimated housing yield (26.98%), in accordance with a phasing schedule to be part of the Section 106 Agreement.

6.1.6 Officers confirm that the proposed payments are in accordance with the approach agreed by Cabinet on 24th July 2013 in the report on Place Plans Review with regard to ensuring that adequate funding is secured for infrastructure provision from major housing developments in Shrewsbury, and as agreed to be necessary to address identified impacts of the development as part of the Shrewsbury South Sustainable Urban Extension.

6.1.7 The application proposal would deliver affordable housing on site at the current rate of 13%.

6.1.8 The principle of development accords with the development plan. The acceptability or otherwise of the scheme will therefore turn upon the assessment of the scheme under the main issues set out below.

6.2 Design, scale, character and impact on the setting of listed buildings 6.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) at section 7 places an emphasis on achieving good design in development schemes. It cautions at paragraph 60 that planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange forms or styles. It adds however that it is proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. The themes of the NPPF are reflected in Core Strategy policy CS6 which seeks to ensure that all development is appropriate in scale, density, pattern and design taking into account the local context and character, and those features which contribute to local character. Policy CS17 also sees to protect and enhance the diversity, high quality and local character of Shropshire’s natural, built and historic environment. The Master Plan envisages for the Sutton Grange area that the urban structure would be defined principally by the topography, with curving streets arranged around the contours, and there being a central north-south spine linking branching streets and extending down the valley slopes. The building types envisaged by the Master Plan are a mixture of detached, semi-detached and townhouses/terraces. Key features and public spaces identified are viewing/visual opportunities being maximised across the Rea Brook valley and towards Shrewsbury Town Centre; mature landscape setting of the adjoining Rea Brook valley floor; north –south green corridors linking the valley floor landscape with Oteley Road and green corridors to the south; and informal open landscape setting to the existing adjoining housing and Sutton Church.

6.2.2 The proposed site layout in the current application, in terms of road layout; positioning and extent of areas of public open space; location of green corridors; positioning of key focal point buildings adheres closely to the illustrative Master Plan. The indicative density plan, with denser development within the area between the two green corridors and lower density to the dwellings on the northern and eastern edges of the proposed housing area has also been accommodated in the proposed scheme.

6.2.3 It is considered that the design principles set out in the Master Plan are achieved by the proposed scheme, which would have a distinctive identity whilst also respecting the existing qualities and character of the existing environment and surrounding development. The layout of the development would include different character areas, with a strong sense of place to the central part of the development being created by the straight road, boulevard approach, flanked by trees, sloping gently down to the key focal point three storey buildings. From the formal layout of this focal point the new roads proposed would generally follow the lines of existing contours, with the loop road element giving connection between them, with surface treatments and widths scaling down through traditional estate roads to shared surface roads and private drives, imparting a more informal character to the latter areas. The siting of dwellings at different distances from the highway carriageway edge, to give a sense of enclosure at some points and a more open setting at others, would give interest and variety to the streetscene. There would be good integration of the proposed built development with open space, through the footpath links and access points provided to these areas within the development.

6.2.4 The proposed house types would be well proportioned and appropriate for this location. The predominant use of brick and tile, but with some units having rendered elements and tile hanging, would reflect features found in and around Shrewsbury. The inclusion of short projecting front gables to some of the dwellings, the use of dormers on the 2.5 storey units and the provision of chimneys on 30 of the dwellings scattered throughout the development would provide variety to the roofscape.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange 6.2.5 To supplement the landscape appraisal the applicants have provided some photographic montages which demonstrate how the predominantly two storey scale of the development would be compatible with existing surrounding development, particularly in relation to the higher land at the southern end of the site, and how in views towards Shrewsbury the existing skyline views would not be significantly impacted upon. Images have also been prepared showing views of the development from the Rea Brook valley and these demonstrate how, with the retained trees in the development adjacent to the Rea Brook and within the areas of proposed public open space, the development would not appear incongruous in the landscape setting.

6.2.6 The proposed development would retain the existing Sutton Grange farmhouse, but would involve the demolition of existing adjacent buildings. An assessment of these buildings has been submitted which concludes that these buildings, due either to their current condition and/or form, are not of sufficient architectural or historic interest to warrant retention. The site inspection carried out has confirmed the poor state of some of the buildings and the significant alterations which have been made to them over the years. It is considered that the removal of these buildings would be acceptable in this case as part of the proposed development.

6.2.7 The layout and house types have been designed to enclose and overlook streets and spaces, which is a principle set out in the Master Plan. In relation to whole Shrewsbury South SUE, the Master Plan advises that “In general blocks should be designed as closed perimeter blocks with ‘back to back’ properties.” The term ‘in general’ acknowledges that it may not always be possible to achieve this arrangement. It is noted that the Conservation Officer has raised concerns about the number of properties on the eastern side of the development backing onto parts of the area of public open space. However such an arrangement in relation to the wedge of open space described in paragraph 1.2 above containing the two mature trees would have resulted from adhering strictly to the illustrative Master Plan. The matter has been explored with the applicants and it is considered that the topography of the immediate area, coupled with the road alignments required to provide the approach to the church sought by the Master Plan, to secure the wildlife corridor with a minimum of crossing points and to take account of the watercourse, means that it would not be practical to secure properties which all front onto this area of public open space. Four of the properties would be side onto the open space and all would have windows providing surveillance over this area. There would not be a solid enclosure of this space, due to the treatment of the private drive and footpath link between plots173 and 174; the continuation of the green space by plot 268 (which has been widened in comparison with the original layout); and the open aspect proposed for part of the northern boundary to plot 261. The precise boundary treatments to the garden areas adjoining the areas of public open space would be the subject of a planning condition on any approval issued, in the interests of visual amenity. It is considered therefore that the relationship of the siting of dwellings to the public open spaces is acceptable and would not constitute grounds for refusal in this case.

6.2.8 Two listed buildings – Sutton House and Sutton Church, are adjacent to the south east corner of the application site. A third listed building, The Spa, would be some 150 metres from the nearest built development in the proposed scheme. This buffer and the fact that The Spa is enclosed by mature hedging, would ensure the integrity of the setting of that building and it needs no more assessment. There is a

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange requirement under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 for local authorities to have a specific duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses in the carrying out of statutory functions. The former Church of St John and Sutton House lie immediately adjacent to the boundary of the application site. The former is particularly sensitive to change, partly due to its Grade II* status, whereas Sutton House is a residential property which would be more easily integrated into the proposed development. From the west – the direction from which it is approached – the Church is viewed across an arable field with a built development back drop and a high brick wall defining the southern side of the approach. Views from the Church in the context of an arable land in the near distance with some built development in the middle and long distance. The Church has a poorly defined curtilage. Historical records describe a churchyard with railings, and also a farmyard setting. Today the building, which is still used for worship, occupies land which extends into arable fields, with no boundary to the west. To the east and south, brick walls define the Church and separate it from built development.

6.2.9 The Master Plan seeks to achieve an informal, open landscape setting to the existing adjoining housing and Sutton Church, and recognises the need to take into account in the design of schemes the listed buildings and associated area of relative archaeological interest at Sutton House and Sutton Church on the eastern side of the site. The planning application proposals would alter the agricultural setting of the Church. Its new setting would be in the context of built development although, as concluded by the Heritage Impact Assessment, this would not be detrimental. The Church would historically have been situated within a small medieval settlement, and the proposals are an opportunity to better define its curtilage. The scheme has been designed to frame views of the Church from the west and the plans will enclose and define a curtilage in front of the Church with informal, open space which meets the objectives of the approved Master Plan.

6.2.10 The scheme has been amended to ensure that the settings of the listed buildings are preserved. The original proposed layout for this part of the site had the cul-de- sac road aligned so that when travelling in an easterly direction there would be a view of the front elevation of the church and part of that to Sutton House. The cul- de-sac turning head would stop some 44 metres from the front elevation of the church. The intervening space would then be laid out as a private drive, with a semi-circular form surrounding a grassed area immediately to the west of the church and Sutton House. A spur off the private drive would then continue to the south side of the church to a proposed parking area. The original drawings showed four detached dwellings grouped around the outside edge of the semi-circular drive area, with the positioning of plot 269 leaving a gap of about 10 metres as a link through to the main area of public open space from the green adjacent to the listed buildings. This proposed arrangement resulted in objections being received from the Council’s Conservation Officer for the area and from English Heritage, and their comments have been set out in sections 4.8 and 4.13 respectively of this report. There have also been public objections to the layout of this part of the scheme, as set out in the above summary of public consultation responses.

6.2.11 A site meeting was held with English Heritage at which the alignment of the proposed road approach to the area of the listed buildings was acknowledged to allow for a view of the listed buildings at the end of the street, and that the concept

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange of a semi-circular green area would contribute to the open, informal setting sought for these buildings. The relationship of the proposed development to the adjacent, unlisted garden wall was also considered at the meeting. What was of concern was the impact of the siting of the proposed adjacent dwellings on views from the church in a north westerly direction towards the town centre and vice versa, along with potential parking arrangements for the church which, if provided, would also not have to detract from the setting of these listed buildings.

6.2.12 The result of the above meeting has been the submission of amended drawings deleting plot 269 and a change of house type on plot 268, which increases the space in front of the Church to the new houses: That gap would be increased to some 20 metres, compared to the 10 metres originally proposed, and would link through to the main area of open space and over which there are views from the front of the church towards the town centre. There would also be additional space provided for occasional church parking on the grassed area immediately to the south of the church and an area in front of the Church would be enclosed by metal railings and hedge planting to provide ‘private’ space for users of the church. These amendments have resulted in the Church representatives withdrawing their initial objections to the planning application. While the Council’s Conservation Officer still has concerns over the proximity of dwellings to the church, the changes have also been sufficient to enable English Heritage to withdraw their original objection and they are content with the amended proposals.

6.2.13 With regard to the issue of church parking, the amended plans now show space for the parking of two vehicles on the south side of the Church with space for occasional parking for an additional four vehicles on a grassed area. English Heritage have made further comments on these amendments and advise that the plans will help to ensure the future sustainability of the church as a historic building. To complete consideration of church parking it should be noted that planning permission was given on 22nd April 2010 for the change of use of garden land to car parking for use by the residents of Sutton House and the church on the southern side of the garden wall immediately to the south of the church (ref 10/00736/COU). That scheme would have provided some 22 spaces, with parked vehicles concealed from distant views by the wall, but this permission, obtained by another party and not the Church, would appear to have lapsed. The maintenance issue of this wall, which falls outside of the current application site, raised by the Conservation Officer, would not be grounds for withholding planning permission in this case as none of the proposed works would directly abut this wall and space would remain for maintenance purposes.

6.2.14 The amended proposals appropriately preserve the setting of the listed buildings. Taking into account the views of English Heritage and compliance of the site layout and design of the development with the criteria set out in the Master Plan, it is considered that the revised scheme would safeguard the setting of the grade II* listed Sutton Church and grade II listed Sutton House. The proposed development would be appropriate in scale, density, pattern and design, taking into account local context and character, and those features which contribute to local character, as required by Core Strategy policy CS6; and would also satisfy the relevant parts of policy CS17 through not harming the diversity, high quality and diversity of the environment.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange 6.3 Affordable housing and mix 6.3.1 Core Strategy policy CS9 (Infrastructure Contributions) highlights the importance of affordable housing as ‘infrastructure’ and indicates the priority to be attached to contributions towards the provision from all residential development. With regard to provision linked to open market housing development, Core Strategy policy CS11 (Type and Affordability of Housing) sets out an approach that is realistic, with regard to economic viability, but flexible to variations between sites and changes in market conditions over the plan period. In this particular case the applicants are prepared to deliver affordable housing at the 13% prevailing rate applicable at the time the application was submitted (amounting to 38 units). Following discussions to amend the mix of affordable housing to provide some one bedroomed units, as set out in section 4.5 of the report, it is considered that the affordable housing mix, tenure split and positioning within the proposed development is acceptable. The mechanism to secure this delivery of affordable housing and for it to be affordable in perpetuity would be included in a section 106 agreement.

6.3.2 Throughout the whole development there would be 4 one bedroomed properties; 26 two bedroomed properties; 113 three bedroomed properties; 122 four bedroomed properties and 26 five bedroomed properties. The precise dwelling mix is a marketing decision for the applicant, but it is considered that the mix of development proposed here would be in accordance with Core Strategy policy CS11, which seeks to achieve mixed, balanced and inclusive communities.

6.4 Sustainability 6.4.1 Core Strategy policy CS6 seeks to encourage sustainable design and construction principles and the Master Plan for the Shrewsbury South SUE advises that new housing should seek to reduce energy use by improving efficiency and embracing the latest sustainability standards for housing construction. The applicants have submitted a sustainability statement in which they advise that their approach to sustainability in terms of construction would meet many of the criteria previously covered by an Eco Homes ‘excellent’ rating, and that the proposals have scored a ‘green’ rating through the Building for Life assessment carried out. The focus would be on the construction of homes to reduce their energy consumption by improving the quality of building fabric, their insulation and their air tightness. There would also be energy efficient lighting in all houses, A or B energy efficiency ratings for any white goods supplied and water saving features including low-flow taps and showers, and dual flush cisterns.

6.4.2 Energy efficient materials would be used where possible, as well as materials produced through recycling processes. Timber would come from sustainable sources and construction materials from local suppliers to reduce energy use in transportation. They explain also that research has shown that a proposal for 291 homes has the potential to support 1300 jobs over the construction period in terms of direct jobs and those in the supply chain. The Sutton Grange proposals would also contribute around £2,342,000 New Homes Bonus over a six year period, which is a payment designed to ensure that the economic benefits of housing growth are returned to the Councils and communities where that growth takes place. They highlight the provision of affordable housing in the scheme and the protection and enhanced opportunities for biodiversity that the proposals provide as contributing to the schemes sustainability.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange 6.4.3 A number of consultee responses have raised the issue of solar energy generation. The applicants have responded that any private consumer demand for any scale of photovoltaic panels has been undermined by lenders as they are not being valued any higher than identical homes without them. This experience, combined with their wider experience of the overall housing market, has led them to conclude that providing photovoltaic panels would not contribute to the viability of the scheme, and energy efficiency would be delivered through effective insulation. Building fabric and air tightness. Sustainability has many facets and it is considered that the combination of factors outlined would satisfy the economic, social and environmental roles of sustainable development set out in the NPPF and the absence of features such as photovoltaic panels would not justify a refusal of planning permission in this case.

6.4.4 With regard to the orientation of the dwellings on the site, a southerly aspect would be a feature of some 60% of the units, making photovoltaics a future fit option. Layout considerations relating to access, topography, neighbour amenity and street scene mean that it would not be achievable for all dwellings to have south facing roof areas.

6.5 Archaeology 6.5.1 Core Strategy policies CS6 and CS17 seek to protect the historic environment, including areas of archaeological interest. An Archaeological Assessment has been submitted with the application. The Council’s Archaeology Team have confirmed that this investigation is satisfactory and that archaeological interests would be safeguarded by a planning condition requiring, before development commences, the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

6.6 Residential amenity 6.6.1 Core Strategy policy CS6 seeks to safeguard residential amenity. The living conditions of the dwellings on the northern side of the Rea Brook would not be significantly affected by the proposed development, due to the large area of public open space to be provided on the southern side of the Rea Brook and the resulting separation distances between existing and proposed dwellings To the east of the application site the existing dwellings are at a higher level than the proposed development and the area of public open space between the eastern site boundary, some 60 metres wide, would not significantly impact on their amenity.

6.6.2 The properties adjacent to the southern site boundary along Oteley Road have substantial gardens and their juxtaposition with the proposed dwellings would not unduly impact upon their privacy, or that of the as yet un-built dwellings with planning permission adjacent to the southern site boundary. With regard to the listed Sutton House dwelling, the green space which would be provided with the development to protect its setting and that of the adjacent Church, would also ensure sufficient separation distance to ensure no mutual loss of privacy.

6.6.3 On the western side of the application site, accessed off the Sutton Grange restricted byway, is a property known as Oteley Bungalow. This dwelling is set back some 12 metres from the restricted byway and some 11metres south of the application site to the west of the byway. The proposed dwellings directly to the east of it, across the byway, would be some 23 metres away and would have no

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange first floor side gable windows facing towards it. The dwelling to the north would be positioned close to the site boundary, but have an attached single garage on the side closest to the neighbour, with the main body of the proposed two storey detached dwelling being some 2 metres off the boundary at the closest point. There would be no windows in the side gable facing the existing dwelling. It is considered that the siting of this dwelling would not have an overbearing impact upon the neighbouring property and would not unduly harm privacy. None of the other dwellings proposed in the vicinity would have a significant impact upon the amenities of the existing dwelling. 6.6.4 Within the application site, the amenity of the retained Sutton Grange Farmhouse would not be significantly affected by the proposed development. There would be no residential amenity conflicts in terms of unacceptable overbearing or privacy impacts within the proposed development itself. 6.6.5 It is almost inevitable that building works anywhere will cause some disturbance to adjoining residents. This issue has been addressed elsewhere through SC Pollution Control recommending hours of working (07.30 to 18.00 hours Monday to Friday; 08.00 to 13.00 hours Saturdays and not on Sundays or Bank Holidays) to mitigate the temporary impact. This matter could be conditioned on any approval issued. 6.7 Open space 6.7.1 The areas of open space within the application adhere closely to the illustrative Master Plan and would contain elements that could function as an extension to the local nature reserve close to the Rea Brook, and also provide amenity open space. The areas of the application site that would be available for these purposes is well in excess of that which would be generated solely by the requirements of a 291dwelling development (Assessed against the Council’s Open Space Interim Planning Guidance) and reflects its wider role within the Shrewsbury South SUE and the Master Plan objective to provide an environmental network of integrated green spaces to serve the area with links to the wider countryside. Core Strategy policy CS16 seeks to promote opportunities for accessing, understanding and engaging with Shropshire’s landscape and this would be achieved through the connections which would be retained and enhanced to the Rea Brook area in the proposed development.

6.7.2 There have been discussions with Shrewsbury Town Council and it is envisaged that the Town Council will take on the responsibility for these areas of public open space. A habitat management plan is under preparation to ensure the appropriate long term management of these areas for wildlife and community benefit. The requirement for and implementation of a management agreement can be the subject of a condition on any planning permission issued.

6.8 Flood risk and drainage 6.8.1 Core Strategy policy CS18 relates to sustainable water management and seeks to reduce flood risk. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application. This has established that all the proposed dwellings fall within flood zone 1, meaning that they would be outside of the 1 in 100 year flood plain and at little risk of flooding. The Environment Agency has recommended, to safeguard against climate change, that the finished floor level of the dwellings should be set at least 600mm above the 1 in 1000 year event modelled in the Flood Risk Assessment.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

6.8.2 Drive construction works associate with the proposed dwellings on part of the northern edge of the development would slightly encroach into the 1 in 100 year flood plain, but the Environment Agency has acknowledged that, as the flood storage area affected would only be in the order of 10sqm, the impact would be minimal. Details of compensatory works to address this small intrusion would be the subject of a planning condition on any approval issued.

6.8.3 The proposed surface water drainage arrangements, outlined in paragraph 1.18 above, have been refined in terms of the location of the attenuation ponds outside of the flood plain. The Council’s Flood and Water Management Team consider the proposed surface water drainage details to be acceptable. The precise drainage details can be the subject of a condition on a planning permission.

6.9 Highway safety and promoting sustainable transport 6.9.1 The NPPF, at section 4, seeks to promote sustainable transport and the transport objectives of the Master Plan include to design development areas with a clear hierarchy of traffic routes supplemented by a good network of footpath and cycle links, to provide connectivity; to achieve a modal shift from private car use to more sustainable modes of transport and movement; to investigate improvements to the capacities of A5 Bypass Preston Boats and Emstrey island junctions; to improve access to the Meole Brace retail park and to mitigate the impacts of additional traffic on the local road network and existing junctions. This development proposal would, if approved, contribute financially to the highway/transport matters as explained in paragraphs 6.1.4 and 6.1.5 above.

6.9.2 In terms of this specific development proposal it must be established under Core Strategy policy CS6 the proposal would be a safe development with appropriate car parking provision. The layout has been the subject of discussions between the applicants and SC Highways Development Control, which has resulted in revisions to some access positions; to some junction radii; the surface treatment of junctions and to the road hierarchy within the development. Highways Development Control now has no objections to the proposal and are content that the proposals would not be detrimental to highway safety, and would give options for non-car modes of travel. There would be a requirement for a number of planning conditions relating to matters which would include full engineering details of new access roads; residential byway works; foot/cycleways; drainage; lighting; to the submission and approval of a residential travel plan and a construction management plan; a match day parking scheme (due to the proximity of the Prostar Stadium); upgrading of the Lower Sutton Lane restricted byway surface and provision of a motor vehicle restriction feature on the restricted byway Sutton Grange Drive.

6.9.3 The level of car parking provision within the proposed development, which would achieve a minimum of two spaces per dwelling, is considered to be adequate.

6.10 Ecology 6.10.1 Core Strategy policies CS6 and CS17 seek to ensure that developments do not have an adverse impact upon protected species, and accord with the obligations under national legislation. An Ecological Assessment has been submitted with the planning application and has subsequently been supplemented with additional surveys relating to bats, farmland breeding birds, owls, and Great Crested Newts. The Council’s Ecologist requested that additional bat emergence surveys be

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange carried out, as recommended by the applicants consultants; the submission of a detailed mitigation scheme for bats following the results of the additional survey work; a presence/absence survey for Great Crested Newts; otter and water vole, farmland breeding bird and barn owl surveys be carried out. She has evaluated the additional survey work carried out and advises that the additional bat survey work is acceptable. She comments that there is a need for plans showing the location of bat mitigation/enhancement features in the buildings, and that the mitigation for one of the species found (Brown long-eared bat) requires a dark space in which to fly before exiting the roost. The latter requirement will require a bat loft of sufficient volume to be included in one of the properties in the north west corner of the site, as close as possible to the existing roost site. The applicant’s Ecologist has submitted details of the proposed location of bat boxes in trees and woodland at the northern end of the application site, within the area to be managed as a wet meadow where there would not be excessive lighting, and the sheltered character of the habitat provides dark areas in their immediate vicinity. Bat tubes would also be installed on four dwellings immediately to the south of the meadow area. The proposed locations of the bat boxes and bat tubes are acceptable to the Council’s Ecologist, but she considers that there is still a requirement for a bat loft to be provided, which would provide room for flight within the roost and provide conditions potentially for a maternity roost of Brown Long-eared bats and other bat species, to meet the requirement of National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 117 which requires planning policies (CS17 in the case of Shropshire) to promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations. At the time of writing this report details of the proposed bat loft within a detached garage have been submitted for consideration. An update on the acceptability of these details will be provided at the Committee meeting.

6.10.2 A European Protected Species (EPS) Licence will be needed with respect to Great Crested Newts. The EPS tests in respect of Great Crested Newts are considered to be met in that there is an overriding public interest due to the key role of this site, identified through the adoption procedure of the Core Strategy, to enable the Shrewsbury to accommodate the identified need for a significant level of housing growth linked to infrastructure improvements in a sustainable manner. The site location and context, and the connectivity required to the existing built up area with sustainable transport options/links, means that there is no satisfactory alternative to the development of this land for residential purposes. It has been established through the investigations carried out and with the recommended mitigation that the development would not be detrimental to the maintenance of the population of Great Crested Newts at a favourable conservation status within their natural range. These same factors are judged to mean that the EPS tests in relation to the Licence needed with respect to bats are also met in this case.

6.10.3 A lighting plan can be conditioned to ensure that external lighting prevents light spillage on the northern and western bat commuting routes, the river and eastern hedge corridor. The County Ecologist recommends a planning condition requiring the provision of nests boxes for swallow, martin and house sparrow, and that a buffer area of at least 10 metres from the river be securely fenced off if development is likely to occur nearby for the duration of those works.

6.10.4 With regard to the eastern north-south footpath through the site, which is proposed to be adjacent to the existing hedge that would form one of the wildlife corridors

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange that are a key element in the Green Infrastructure sought by the Master Plan to connect the Rea Brook valley with Oteley Road and subsequently the rest of the Shrewsbury South SUE and countryside beyond, the County Ecologist has expressed concern over the ability of the original proposals to function as a wildlife corridor. Following discussions with the applicants revised proposals for this corridor have been submitted, as described in paragraph 1.16 above. The sections of new hedging along the western corridor, along Sutton Grange restricted byway, have also been increased to reduce the gaps here and achieve greater connectivity. The County Ecologist has advised she still has some concerns about the details/plant species of the landscaping proposals for the corridors as well as other areas of the site, but that these could be addressed by a condition (notwithstanding the details submitted so far) requiring the submission of a detailed landscape plan for approval, along with a habitat management plan, so that suitable planting can be achieved. The habitat management plan should also address who will be managing the site for the lifetime of the development and how sufficient resources will be provided.

6.10.5 It is considered therefore that, subject to confirmation that the proposed bat loft details are satisfactory and the conditions set out in paragraphs 6.10.3 and 6.10.4, that the proposed development would not be detrimental to the ecological interests of the locality and would meet the environmental objectives of the Master Plan for this part of the Shrewsbury South SUE.

6.11 Contamination 6.11.1 The Environment Agency has commented that the Geo-Environmental Assessment submitted has raised the possibility of existing structures associated with the farming/horticultural operation and the presence of pesticides, being a source of contamination. The identification and remediation of the risks associated with contamination can be addressed in any planning approval through the conditions recommended by the Environment Agency.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 There is no in principle planning policy objection to the erection of dwellings on this land, which forms part of the Shrewsbury South Sustainable Urban extension. This particular proposal would make a proportionate financial contribution to infrastructure/transport/community facility requirements associated with the whole Shrewsbury South SUE and would deliver an appropriate amount and mix of affordable housing, all secured through a Section 106 Agreement, along with the Shrewsbury Town Council’s Control of the Rea Brook valley nature conservation, public open space and wildlife corridor areas.

7.2 The design principles set out in the Master Plan are achieved by the proposed scheme, which would have a distinctive identity whilst also respecting the qualities and character of the existing environment and surrounding development. The setting of the adjacent listed buildings, Sutton House Farm and Sutton Church, would be preserved by the proposed development. The proposed scheme would satisfy the economic, social and environmental roles of sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. The residential amenities of adjacent properties would not be unduly harmed by the proposed development. Archaeological interests can be safeguarded through planning conditions, as can any potential contamination associated with the farming/horticultural operations on the land. The areas of public open space would be appropriately sited to function

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange as an enlargement of the local nature reserve, to provide amenity open space and to function as wildlife corridors for the development, with connectivity through to existing surrounding development and the wider Shrewsbury South SUE area, as required by the Master Plan.

7.3 The proposed site layout and junction arrangements would not be detrimental to highway safety and the site layout would give options for non-car modes of travel, which would be encouraged through a planning condition requiring the approval of a Residential Travel Plan. The amount of off road parking provision would be adequate. The proposed development would be at little risk from flooding and the surface water drainage arrangements would be acceptable.

7.4 The revisions made to the north-south wild life corridors, in terms of additional planted areas along the restricted byway and reconfiguration of existing and proposed planting along that adjacent to the footpath have made them more suited to this purpose. Subject to the precise landscaping details throughout the development being the subject of a planning condition; conditions requiring the submission and approval of a POS/Landscape Habitat Management Plan; external lighting plan; nest boxes; protective fencing and satisfactory bat mitigation details, it is considered that the proposed development would not harm ecological interests and would meet the environmental objectives of the Master Plan for this part of the Shrewsbury South SUE.

8.0 RISK ASSESSMENT AND OPPORTUNITIES APPRAISAL

8.1 Risk Management

There are two principal risks associated with this recommendation as follows:

As with any planning decision the applicant has a right of appeal if they disagree with the decision and/or the imposition of conditions. Costs can be awarded  irrespective of the mechanism for hearing the appeal, i.e. written representations, hearing or inquiry. The decision may be challenged by way of a Judicial Review by a third party. The courts become involved when there is a misinterpretation or misapplication  of policy or some breach of the rules of procedure or the principles of natural justice. However their role is to review the way the authorities reach decisions, rather than to make a decision on the planning issues themselves, although they will interfere where the decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational or perverse. Therefore they are concerned with the legality of the decision, not its planning merits. A challenge by way of Judicial Review must be made a) promptly and b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose.

Both of these risks need to be balanced against the risk of not proceeding to determine the application. In this scenario there is also a right of appeal against non-determination for application for which costs can also be awarded.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange 8.2 Human Rights Article 8 gives the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community. First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents. This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

8.3 Equalities The concern of planning law is to regulate the use of land in the interests of the public at large, rather than those of any particular group. Equality will be one of a number of ‘relevant considerations’ that need to be weighed in Planning Committee members’ minds under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

9.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are likely financial implications if the decision and / or imposition of conditions is challenged by a planning appeal or judicial review. The costs of defending any decision will be met by the authority and will vary dependent on the scale and nature of the proposal. Local financial considerations are capable of being taken into account when determining this planning application – insofar as they are material to the application. The weight given to this issue is a matter for the decision maker.

10. Background Relevant Planning Policies

Central Government Guidance: National Planning Policy Guidance Technical Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework Shropshire Core Strategy and Saved Policies: CS1 Strategic Approach CS2 Shrewsbury Development Strategy CS6 Sustainable Design and Development Principles CS7 Communications and Transport CS8 Facilities, Services and Infrastructure Provision CS9 Infrastructure Contributions CS10 Managed Release of Housing Land CS11 Type and Affordability of Housing CS16 Tourism, Culture and Leisure CS17 Environmental Networks CS18 Sustainable Water Management Shrewsbury South Sustainable Urban Extension Master Plan October 2012 SPD on the Type and Affordability of Housing September 2012 Open Space Interim Planning Guidance January 2012

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

11. Additional Information

List of Background Papers (This MUST be completed for all reports, but does not include items containing exempt or confidential information) Planning, Design and Access Statement (Incorporating Affordable Housing Statement) Transport Assessment Drainage Strategy Flood Risk Assessment Sustainability Statement Tree Survey Biodiversity Reports Landscape Appraisal Heritage Report Archaeology Report Statement of Community Involvement

Cabinet Member (Portfolio Holder) Cllr M. Price Local Members Cllr Jon Tandy, Cllr Ted Clarke and Cllr Jane Mackenzie Appendices APPENDIX 1 - Conditions

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

APPENDIX 1

Conditions

STANDARD CONDITION(S)

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(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and drawings.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

3. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the phases layout plan, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory development of the site.

4. Prior to the commencement of each phase of the development, full engineering details of the new access road, existing highway works, restricted byway works, structures, foot/cycleway, highway surface water drainage, street lighting and carriageway marking/ signs relevant to each phase, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details , with the estate roads, footways, vehicle manoeuvring and turning areas constructed to at least base course macadam level and made available for use before the dwellings that they would serve are first occupied.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

5. Full Travel Plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Local Planning Authority, based upon the recommendations in the approved Interim Travel Plan within 3 months from the first occupation of the 25th dwelling. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented within three months of its approval by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan measures shall relate to the entirety of the residential development, and reflect the phasing of occupation as appropriate.

Reason: In order to minimise the use of the private car and promote the use of sustainable modes of transport, in accordance with paragraph 36 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period, and shall provide for: The delivery of plant and materials and management of match day parking within the vicinity of the site; the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; loading and unloading of plant and materials; storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; wheel washing facilities; measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.

Reason: To avoid congestion in the surrounding area, to protect the amenities of the area and in the interests of highway safety.

7. Prior to the completion of phase 1 of the development a match day parking scheme relating to traffic associated with the nearby Prostar Stadium for the whole site, in line with the existing scheme that operates in the Sutton Farm area, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to phase 1 of the development being fully occupied and rolled out to phase 2 on the occupation of dwellings in that phase.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to protect the amenities of the residential properties.

8. Prior to the sale or transfer of the 100th dwelling constructed on site the restricted byway 'Lower Sutton Lane' up to the Rea Brook crossing shall be upgraded to a standard suitable for commuter and utility trips made on foot or by bike, in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To provide further options for sustainable travel to Shrewsbury Town Centre from the site.

9. Before the first occupation of dwellings on plots 24 to 29 and plots 39, 40, 74, 75, 76 and 123, details of a feature to prevent mechanically propelled vehicles from travelling between the development site and Oteley Road, and vice versa, along Restricted Byway Sutton Grange Drive, at a point between Oteley Bungalow and plot 26, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and installed in accordance with the approved details. The feature should form a narrowing as a 'Kent Carriage Gap' or similar detail that permits a horse and trap passing through, but not a motor car. The feature shall remain in place for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

10. No development, or phasing as agreed below, shall take place until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site are submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority 1) A site investigation scheme in accordance with the submitted Phase I & Phase II Geo- Environmental Assessment, by GEG, reference GEG-12-225/PI_PII, dated 23 March 2012, including a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 2) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (1) in accordance with and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy, if necessary, of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 3) A validation report/plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. This should include any proposed phasing of demolition or commencement of other works.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange 4) Prior to occupation of any part of the development (unless in accordance with agreed phasing under part 3 above) a verification (validation) report demonstrating the completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy (2 and 3). The report shall include results of any sampling and monitoring. 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 and for the reporting of this to the local planning authority. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To protect ground and surface waters ("controlled waters" as defined under the Water Resources Act 1991).

11. If during development, contamination not previously identified, is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority, a Method Statement for remediation. The Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. A verification (validation) report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of any sampling and monitoring. 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 and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that any unsuspected contamination is dealt with and the development complies with the approved details in the interests of protection of ground and surface waters ("controlled waters" as defined under the Water Resources Act 1991).

12. No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is 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 controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.

Reason: To protect ground and surface waters ("controlled waters" as defined under the Water Resources Act 1991).

13. No work shall commence in the area containing plots 112, 113 and 140 to 152 and their associated access drives until a scheme for the provision and implementation of compensatory flood storage works and improvements to the 1 in 100 year plus climate change modelled river level (55.60m AOD as identified in Section 4.1.1 of the FRA) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved programme and details.

Reason: To alleviate the increased risk of flooding and provide flood risk betterment.

14. Finished floor levels should be set at least 600mm above the 1 in 1000 year modelled Rea Brook flood level of 55.96m AOD as detailed in the FRA, section 8.1, produced by Opus, dated December 2012 (Ref:J-D0962-R01).

Reason: To protect the development from flooding.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange

15. There shall be no new structures (including gates, walls and fences) or raising of ground levels on land below 55.6m AOD, within the 1 in 100 year plus climate change floodplain, or within 8metres of the top of bank of the Rea Brook (Main River) unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent any impact on flood flows and flood risk elsewhere.

16. Work shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the report 'Species Survey Report Document 1.0 Version 1.0, Sutton Grange, Oteley Road, Shrewsbury' (18 June 2013) by Halcrow, unless otherwise covered by separate conditions attached to this decision notice.

Reason: To ensure the protection of biodiversity, including protected species.

17. No development, demolition or site clearance procedures shall commence on phase 2 of the development until a European Protected Species (EPS) Mitigation Licence with respect to bats has been obtained and submitted to the local planning authority for the proposed work prior to the commencement of works on the site. Work shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the granted EPS Mitigation Licence.

Reason: To ensure the protection of bats, which are a European Protected Species.

18. Prior to the erection of any external lighting on the site a lighting plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter retained for the lifetime of the development. The submitted scheme shall be designed to take into account the advice on lighting set out in the Bat Conservation Trust booklet Bats and Lighting in the UK

Reason: To minimise disturbance to bats, a European Protected Species.

19. No development, demolition or site clearance procedures shall commence on phase 2 of the development until a European Protected Species (EPS) Mitigation Licence with respect to Great Crested Newts has been obtained and submitted to the local planning authority for the proposed work prior to the commencement of works on the site. Work shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the granted EPS Mitigation Licence.

Reason: To ensure the protection of Great Crested Newt, a European Protected Species.

20. A total of 6 woodcrete (or similar material) artificial 'sparrow terraces' and 6 artificial swallow nests shall be erected on the site at locations submitted to the planning authority for prior approval, prior to first occupation of the buildings hereby permitted.

Reason: To ensure the provision of nesting opportunities for wild birds.

21. Prior to the commencement of work on site a 10m buffer shall be fenced off parallel to the banks along the length of the water course beside the construction site to protect the Rea Brook during construction works. No access, material storage or ground disturbance should occur within the buffer zone.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange Reason: To ensure the protection of otters (European Protected Species), other wildlife and the river habitat.

22. A Wildlife Protection (mitigation) plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall include: a. An appropriately scaled plan showing 'Wildlife/habitat Protection Zones' where construction activities are restricted and where protective measures will be installed or implemented; b. Details of protective measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid impacts during construction; c. A timetable to show phasing of construction activities to avoid periods of the year when sensitive wildlife could be harmed (such as the bird nesting season); d. Persons responsible for: i) Compliance with legal consents relating to nature conservation; ii) Compliance with planning conditions relating to nature conservation; iii) Installation of physical protection measures during construction; iv) Implementation of sensitive working practices during construction; v) Regular inspection and maintenance of physical protection measures and monitoring of working practices during construction; vi) Provision of training and information about the importance of 'Wildlife protection zones' to all construction personnel on site.

Item ‘a’ above shall be approved by the Local Planning Authority before development and site clearance takes place. Items ‘b’ to ‘d’ will be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences within 10 metres of wildlife protection zones. All construction activities shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and timing of the plan unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To protect features of recognised nature conservation importance.

23. A habitat management plan shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the occupation of the development. The plan shall include: a) Description and evaluation of the features to be managed ; b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that may influence management; c) Aims and objectives of management; d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives; e) Prescriptions for management actions; f) Preparation of a works schedule (including a 5 year project register, an annual work plan and the means by which the plan will be rolled forward annually); g) Personnel responsible for implementation of the plan; h) Monitoring and remedial/contingencies measures triggered by monitoring. The plan shall be carried out as approved, unless otherwise approved in writing by the local planning authority, for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To protect features of recognised nature conservation importance.

24. Notwithstanding the landscaping details submitted with the application, prior to the commencement of each phase of the development a scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to the planning authority for prior approval and these works shall be carried out as approved. The submitted scheme shall include: a) Means of enclosure, including all security and other fencing b) Hard surfacing materials

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange c) Minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting) d) Planting plans, including wildlife habitat and features (e.g. hibernacula) e) Written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant, grass and wildlife habitat establishment) f) Schedules of plants, noting species (including scientific names), planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate Native species used to be of local provenance (Shropshire or surrounding counties) g) Details of trees and hedgerows to be retained and measures to protect these from damage during and after construction works h) Implementation timetables

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity and biodiversity afforded by appropriate landscape design.

25. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed with the local planning authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of 5 years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective shall be replaced with others of species, size and number as originally approved, by the end of the first available planting season.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.

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 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 and habitat management plan shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To protect features of recognised nature conservation importance and in the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

27. Before the dwellings on plots 153; 165; 166; 167; 173; 174; 175; 176; 177; 261; 263; 264; 265 and 268 are first occupied, details of the proposed plot boundary treatments to the adjacent areas of public open space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning authority. The approved boundary treatments shall be installed in accordance with a timetable to be agreed in writing with the local planning authority and shall thereafter be maintained for the lifetime of the development.

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

28. No development approved by this permission shall commence until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI). This written scheme shall be approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works.

Reason: The site is known to hold archaeological interest.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange 29. The protection measures for retained trees and hedges shall be in accordance with the details set out in the Tree Survey Report by tba Landscape Architects (ref DF/4219/Tree Survey Report 'rev A') and associated drawing numbers 4219.01 and 02 prior to the commencement of any demolition, construction or ground clearance in each phase of the development and shall thereafter be retained on site for the duration of the construction works in the vicinity of those trees and hedges.

Reason: To safeguard existing trees and hedgerows on site and prevent damage during building works in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

30. Demolition or construction works shall not take place outside the hours of 07.30 to 18.00 Monday to Friday; 08.00 to 13.00 Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of the residential area and locality.

31. The external facing materials for the buildings shall be as stated in the approved materials chart and shown on drawing number 469 MAT/01A, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason; In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

32. No dwellings shall be occupied until the proposed surface water drainage arrangements have been approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the works for the disposal of foul and surface water drainage have been provided in accordance with the approved plans to serve the plots prior to their occupation.

Reason: To ensure the proper drainage of the site, to minimise the risk of pollution and to avoid flooding.

33. The site of the children's play area within the development shall be completed to the stage fit for the installation of play equipment no later than on completion of phase 1 of the development.

Reason: To ensure the provision of the play area as part of phase 1 of the development. to meet the needs of the occupiers of the completed housing.

Informatives

1. In arriving at this decision the Council has used its best endeavours to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner to secure an appropriate outcome, as required in the National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 187.

2. The land and premises referred to in this planning permission is the subject of an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3. THIS PERMISSION DOES NOT CONVEY A BUILDING REGULATIONS APPROVAL under the Building Regulations 2010. The works may also require Building Regulations approval. If you have not already done so, you should contact the Council's Building Control Section on 01743 252430 or 01743 252440.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773 Central Planning Committee – 12th September 2013 Item 5 Sutton Grange 4. Your attention is specifically drawn to the conditions above that require the Local Planning Authority's approval of materials, details, information, drawings etc. In accordance with Article 21 of the Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010 a fee is required to be paid to the Local Planning Authority for requests to discharge conditions. Requests are to be made on forms available from www.planningportal.gov.uk or from the Local Planning Authority. The fee required is £97 per request, and £28 for existing residential properties.

Failure to discharge pre-start conditions will result in a contravention of the terms of this permission; any commencement may be unlawful and the Local Planning Authority may consequently take enforcement action.

5. You are obliged to contact Shropshire Council's Street Naming and Numbering Team with a view to securing a satisfactory system of naming and numbering for the residential unit(s) hereby approved. At the earliest possible opportunity you are requested to submit two suggested street names and a layout plan, to a scale of 1:500, showing the proposed street names and location of street nameplates when required by Shropshire Council. Only this authority is empowered to give a name and number to streets and properties, and it is in your interest to make an application at the earliest possible opportunity. If you would like any further advice, please contact the Street Naming and Numbering Team at Shirehall, Abbey Foregate, Shrewsbury, SY2 6ND, or email: [email protected]. Further information can be found on the Council's website at: http://www.shropshire.gov.uk/streetnamingandnumbering, including a link to the Council's Street Naming and Numbering Policy document that contains information regarding the necessary procedures to be undertaken and what types of names and numbers are considered acceptable to the authority.

6. The active nests of all wild birds are protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (As amended). An active nest is one being built, containing eggs or chicks, or on which fledged chicks are still dependent. All clearance, conversion and demolition work in association with the approved scheme shall be carried out outside of the bird nesting season which runs from March to September inclusive Note: If it is necessary for work to commence in the nesting season then a pre-commencement inspection of the vegetation and buildings for active bird nests should be carried out. If vegetation or structures cannot be clearly seen to be clear of bird's nests then an experienced ecologist should be called in to carry out the check. Only if there are no active nests present should work be allowed to commence.

Contact Tim Rogers on 01743 258773