COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 15/04499/OUT

Land To The North And West of Bishopton Lane, Stratford-upon- Site Address Avon

Outline planning application with means of site access from Bishopton Lane and The Ridgeway (internal access, layout, scale, Description of appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval) for Development the erection of up to 500 dwellings (Use Class C3) safeguarding land for a single form entry Primary School (Use Class D1), public open space and all other necessary ancillary and enabling works.

Applicant Miller Homes Ltd & Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd

Reason for Referral Scale of Development, Objection from Town Council, Objection from to Committee Ward Member

Case Officer David Jeffery

Presenting Officer David Jeffery

Ward Member(s) Councillor Vaudry

Town/Parish Stratford Town Council Council

. Highway Constraints . Flood Risk . Canal embankment Description of Site . Hedgerows and mature trees Constraints . Public Footpaths within the site . Listed buildings . Non-designated heritage assets

Summary of . GRANT SUBJECT TO S106 AGREEMENT Recommendation

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

The proposal before members is to create an urban extension to the north west of Stratford Upon Avon on land to the north and west of Bishopton Lane and south east of the A46 in Bishopton ward. The site comprises approximately 25.3 hectares of agricultural land which would be accessed via a roundabout and a priority junction on Bishopton Lane and from a priority junction on The Ridgeway.

The site would deliver up to 500 dwellings at densities between 25 and 35 dwellings per hectare and would also safeguarded land for a primary school.

8.92 Hectares of public open space would be provided in a mix of uses including informal open space sports pitches and play facilities.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Development Plan

Core Strategy Relevant Policies in the Development Plan for this application are

 CS.1 – Sustainable Development  CS.2 – Climate Change  CS.3 – Renewable Energy  CS.4 – Water Environment and Flood Risk  CS.5 – Landscape  CS.6 – Natural Environment  CS.7 – Green Infrastructure  CS.8 – Historic Environment  CS.9 – Design and Distinctiveness  CS.15 – Distribution of Development  CS.16 – Housing Development  CS.18 – Affordable Housing  CS.19 – Housing Mix and Type  AS.1 – Stratford-Upon-Avon  Proposal SUA.3 – North of Bishopton Lane  CS.25 – Healthy Communities  CS.26 – Transport & Communication  CS.27 – Developer Contributions

Stratford-Upon-Avon Neighbourhood Plan

Stratford Upon Avon Neighbourhood Plan establishes general planning policies for the development and use of land, which includes amongst other things policies relating to the Built Environment and Design including the Historic Environment, Natural Environment and Community, Leisure and Wellbeing.

The Plan has gone through the pre Submission consultation stage (July 2015) and the Town Council continue to work with the District Council to further amend the draft. At the current time however the Neighbourhood Plan has not been formally submitted and is at an early stage of development and has not yet moved beyond an interim draft. Accordingly, I consider that the plan cannot be given significant weight at this stage. Other Material Considerations Central government guidance  NPPF 2012 & PPG 2014  Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Landscape Sensitivity Study 2012

This document forms part of the evidence base which underpinned the preparation of the Core Strategy. Part B of the document covers land parcels/sensitivity assessments for the main towns and villages.

Other documents

 Stratford on Avon District Design Guide – While no longer having the status of a Supplementary Planning Document, it still contains substantial and relevant guidance on design.  ‘Meeting Housing Needs’ – While no longer having the status of a Supplementary Planning Document, it still contains substantial and relevant guidance on the provision of open space.  Stratford Upon Avon Town Design Statement (2002)  Stratford Upon Avon Town Design framework (2007)  Natural England National Character Areas  Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines - Stratford Town’s Urban Edge pilot study 2005  Historic England Good practice Notes 2105: o GPA 1 – The Historic Environment in Local Plans o GPA 2 – Manging Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment o GPA 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets

Other Legislation

 Human Rights Act 1998  Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006  The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981  The EC Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC), as translated into UK Law by The Habitat and Species Regulations 2010  The EC Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC) as translated into UK Law by The Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)  Protection of Badgers Act 1992  Hedgerow Regulations 1997  Community and Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010Localism Act 2011  Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)  Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990  Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2015  Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979  Environmental Protection Act 1990.  Equality Act 2010  Localism Act 2011  Equality Act 2010  Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998  CIL Legislation  Climate Change Act 2008 SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY

Reference Number Proposal Decision and date

92/00799/OUT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Withdrawn 25.02.1993

92/00800/OUT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Refused 04.07.1994

97/01107/OUT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Insufficient Fee

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant’s Supporting Documents Summary provided by applicant

Members will be aware the site has long been considered as a logical location for an extension to Stratford-upon-Avon. This has resulted in the site being extensively considered during the recent Examination into the Core Strategy. The Inspector dealt thoroughly with all the issues in his very recent report (June 2016) at paragraphs 146 to 163, culminating in the following conclusion:

For the above reasons the allocation of this site is sound. Local residents and interest groups have raised a wide range of concerns that have been thoroughly investigated. In the circumstances the fact that the site emerges from such a forensic examination with no substantive weaknesses having been identified indicates that there is robust evidence to support its allocation.

The site is now allocated in the Council’s recently adopted Local Plan as a strategic housing allocation under Policy SUA.4. This application before you is policy compliant delivering the plans proposals which see housing delivery from the site commencing in 2017/2018 being an important component of the Council’s 5 year housing land supply. The Core Strategy Inspector commented at paragraph 401 of his report on the critical importance for the Council in maintaining its 5 year land supply position (5.8 years), saying ‘there is no room for complacency’ and stressing the need to ‘progress expeditiously’ the current planning applications on the allocated sites.

This is a well thought out Masterplan led proposal, which followed pre-application consultation and public engagement. A mix of house types and sizes including 35% affordable housing as part of the 500 dwellings will be delivered on land outside the floodplain. In addition to which 8.9 ha (35%) of the site will be provided as high quality public open space and green infrastructure including children’s play areas, a parkland, a nature conservation area and a community orchard. The proposals also include land being reserved for a future primary school, consistent with the education authority’s requirements. The development is also within walking and cycle distance of Stratford Parkway site and the commercial area of Stratford around Timothy’s Bridge Road, delivering improvements to Bishopton Canal bridge in the form of a traffic light shuttle system which will include a pedestrian phase to improve the safety for pedestrians and cyclists using the bridge. The access proposals are supported in principle by the Planning Inspector and in detail by both Warwickshire County Council and Highways England.

Overall, there are considerable benefits that flow from the proposed development and in line with national and local planning policy the proposals for this site should be approved.

List of documents:  Application Forms and Plans  Planning Statement  Design and Access Statement  Agricultural Circumstances Report  Flood Risk Assessment  Environmental Risk Assessment  Ecological Appraisal  Protected Species Report  Biodiversity Impact Assessment  Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal  Landscape Strategy Plan  Noise Assessment  Air Quality Scoping Note  Energy Statement  Utilities Report  Construction Management and Waste Audit  Pre-Development Tree Survey  Supporting Arboricultural Statement  Archaeology Assessment  Heritage Statement  Transport Assessment  Affordable Housing Statement  Statement of Community Involvement  Sewer Capacity Assessment  Foul Modelling Report

Ward Member Councillor R Vaudry – OBJECT (Case Officer summary)

 Plan has not taken into account noise levels which may be caused by the A46 being upgraded to a dual carriageway  The canal Bridge on Bishopton Lane has significant structural issues and would require replacement due to the volume of traffic caused by the development.  Uncertainty (at the time of writing) as to whether the Core Strategy inspector would include the application site.  On balance the application should be refused.

(The full response is available in the application file) Neighbouring/Other Ward Members

Councillor P Moorse – OBJECT (Case Officer summary)

 Traffic – The addition of a significant amount of traffic from the proposed development would make an existing bad situation worse. Particularly Alcester and Birmingham Road. Congestion at the Canal Bridge is a frequent safety hazard.

 Pollution – The site provides a buffer between the town and the A46. There are significant noise and pollution implications of building next to the A46 which may be converted to a dual carriageway.

 Public Open Space – The land adjacent to the canal is a unique site in Stratford, being a waterside area containing a number of veteran oak trees. It has an important role as an entry point to Stratford for those visiting by canal.

 Affordable Housing – Concern that the developer may wish to consider the contents of the Housing and Planning Bill. Affordable housing requirements should be set according to local policy.

(The full response is available in the application file)

Councillor M Howse – OBJECT (Case Officer summary)

 We now have a 5 year housing land supply and the site may be rejected by the Core Strategy examination inspector  The Canal Bridge is demonstrably unable to support a greater volume of traffic  There is substantial local opposition to such a large development in this area  Education for yet more pupils is inadequate  Plans for the improvement of the A46 have yet to be published

(The full response is available in the application file)

Councillor K Rolfe – OBJECT (Case Officer summary)

 Bishopton Lane is a cut through road from Birmingham Road to the Alcester Road. By having 500 houses using this same road the increase in traffic will become unmanageable.  Access to this proposed development should come off the A46 and not off Bishopton Lane.  Expanding development on the outskirts of Stratford Town just increases traffic in the centre. Without proper infrastructure in place before any development takes place, our roads into the centre will become even more congested.

(The full response is available in the application file)

Councillor J Fradgley – OBJECT (Case Officer summary)

 Access Roads will channel traffic along Bishopton Lane.  The Canal bridge is inadequate for the increase in traffic flows  Development will put unacceptable stress on the town centre and its environs  Large housing developments should not be approved until there is a strategic plan for the town centre.

(The full response is available in the application file)

Parish/Town Council Stratford-Upon-Avon Town Council – OBJECT

The Town Council objects to the scale of this development and the consequences this will have on this edge of town greenfield site and the local highway network. 500 houses would put unacceptable strain on the local roads and junctions. There does not appear to be any improvement proposed for the Ridgeway/ Alcester Road junction where traffic is encouraged to go and the signalisation of the canal bridge will not deter residents but add to congestion.

Bishopton Primary school is within a short walk of the site and has capacity and expansion plans. The proposed school should be a secondary entry not primary. There is serious concern about the exposure of new residents to excessive levels of noise from the A46.

The profile of the land is not conducive to the scale of development proposed which shows dense urban pockets surrounded by open space.

Neighbouring/Other Parish Council

Wilmcote Parish Council – OBJECT

Wilmcote Parish Council considers that the infrastructure is not suitable to support significant extra traffic from the development in view of the difficulties already with the busy congested roads, A46 and A3400, approaching the town centre

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

84 letters of objection from local residents received, including letters B.R.A.G.S. (Bishopton Residents Action Group) who advise that they represent some 220 local residents. Planning grounds for objection:

Highways

 Road Infrastructure is inadequate  Road safety is inadequate and will be worsened – particularly Alcester Road and A46  Bishopton Lane canal bridge is structurally unsafe and should be replaced  Congestion around Bishopton Lane canal bridge is unacceptable as existing and will be worsened if the development is approved  The proposed traffic lights at Bishopton Lane canal bridge will not increase the capacity at the bridge  Parking around Bishopton Lane canal bridge is proposed to be removed this will move parking to other inappropriate locations  Any improvements to Bishopton Lane will encourage its use as a ‘rat run’  Bishopton Lane Roundabout (junction with Timothy’s Bridge Road) is operating at capacity and the proposed mitigation is inadequate.  Bishopton Lane is too narrow  There are already significant developments approved in Shottery, which will affect the roads. This will make it worse.  Transport statement not correct  Transport Statement does not include other approved developments around Stratford  Use of roads off Bishopton Road (Glebe Road, Ridgeway Mount Crescent and Shelbourne Road) by new residents to access town would cause congestion/danger  The proposed roundabout on Bishopton Lane will cause delays  The proposed traffic light scheme will be dangerous because it will allow vehicles to cross the bridge at greater speed.  Access should be via the A46 only  Access should be via a roundabout at the junction with Glebe Road or Partridge Road.  Access for the entire development should be possible from The Ridgeway  Increased congestion on Timothy’s Bridge Road and Bishopton Lane will become a safety issue  Congestion will make the park and ride unusable  Cycle route improvements proposed are inadequate

Environment

 Loss of an attractive area of amenity at the edge of Stratford near to the canal  Buffer between canal and residential development is insufficient  The hedgerow requires protection  Areas of archaeological significance require protection  Unacceptable visual impact  Loss of important views  Loss of amenity for properties on Bishopton Lane  Water will drain off into Shottery Brook

Heritage

 Proposed development would be harmful to the historic character of Stratford  Bishopton Lane follows the route of a medieval trackway and so development must only follow further surveys for archaeological remains.

Design

 The proposed housing density is too high  Open spaces should be devoted to sports facilities rather than play  Positioning of the school is unsafe due to its location at the site access which will be busy at peak hours  Play areas proposed are too small  Proposed open spaces are within areas at risk from flood  A development of 300 – 350 houses could more acceptably be accommodated. Ecology

 Removal of trees and hedgerows would be detrimental to ecology of the area

Pollution

 Noise pollution from traffic will be unacceptable  Noise levels will exceed WHO and British Standard guidelines  Existing noise pollution levels are unacceptable and the proposal will worsen the effect.  Existing noise pollution levels are unacceptable and therefore the site is unsuitable for residential development  Noise pollution from Cophams Hill Farm motocross would make the site unsuitable for development.

Services

 The developer should be prepared to offer more through S106 to improve local infrastructure  Provision needs to be made for hospital and GP services to be improved  Local sewerage systems will not be satisfactory

Housing Need

 The Council has a five year housing land supply.  No local housing need that necessitates approval of this proposal  Housing need can be met elsewhere by other approved developments.  District wide housing needs have been met

Other matters

 Adverse effect on tourism from congestion  The school proposed is only a safeguarded site  Inadequate consultation  Contrary to emerging Neighbourhood plan  Green field sites are contrary to national policy  Brownfield sites should be preferred  Site is outside of the Built Up Area Boundary.  Land should be reserved for secondary rather than primary school purposes  It will compromise existing communities  It will not positively impact the economic environmental and social fabric of the area  Proposal is not sustainable development

Other non-planning related matters were also raised.

Consultations The full responses are available in the application file.

Canal and River Trust – No Objection subject to conditions and/or a S106 Request (24.03.2016)

S106 request for £230,000 to improve accessibility to the canal towpath between Bishopton Canal Bridge and Timothy’s Bridge Road Bridge Conditions are recommended to cover details of lighting, ecological enhancement, boundary treatment and pollution control from water or windborne contaminants

In addition to the above comments the Canal & River Trust note that the application is made in outline with all matter reserved except means of access from Bishopton Lane and the Ridgeway. They note the applicant has proposed that the existing canal bridge (Bridge 63) will be retained and shuttle traffic lights installed.

The Canal & River Trust’s surveys suggest that the bridge is coming towards the end of its expected life span, although it is not a bridge that they are intending to replace or reconstruct in the near future. They advise that they are concerned that any additional works to the parapets or replacement of the existing parapets required as a result of the traffic management scheme arising from the increase of vehicle use of the bridge to and from the proposed development may require significant and intrusive works being undertaken to the underlying bridge structure.

Notwithstanding the above comments the Canal and River Trust have not provided the above referenced survey for consideration of the LPA or the Highway Authority.

Historic England – No Objection (18.01.2016)

Sport England – Objection (01.02.2016)

The application makes no contributions towards on-site or off-site indoor or outdoor sporting provision; these contributions may be required in order to meet the additional demand created by the proposed housing. In the absence of further information Sport England therefore considers that the application fails to make suitable sports provision to address the needs arising from the development.

In light of the above, Sport England is unable to support this application and wishes to object to this application.

Network Rail – No Objection 09.02.2016

SDC Conservation Officer – Advice provided (29.01.2016) (advice summarised by officer)

The principal heritage assets identified are the Stratford-upon-Avon Canal, the associated Bridge 63, (both non-designated) and the two designated grade II listed buildings lying immediately to the north-east of the canal, namely Victoria Spa Lodge and the Pump House. The setting of the Conservation Area is a further consideration.

From various points along Bishopton Lane there are views back towards the heritage assets in which the open rural nature of the north-eastern section of proposed development site plays a defining role in contributing to their setting and the way they are experienced and appreciated. The distinction between the developed area to one side of Bishopton Lane and the undeveloped open countryside to the other is clear and defines the edge of current development.

The other key assessment location is the area around the canal footpath, the canal bridge, and the two grade II listed buildings. While the relationship between the assets and the land is not as direct as between say a farmhouse and its associated land, nevertheless part of the significance of these buildings is their historic setting, separate from the main town, and in a rural setting. Part of this historic setting has been eroded by the spread of the town, but the rest remains important, and arguably more so because it is the last element of the original open setting.

When within the area around the heritage assets, looking along the canal to the north, and also across the site, the impression is of a rural setting, immediately outside the edge of the settlement. The rural component of this current clear and distinct hybrid setting would be largely lost, and the setting therefore fundamentally compromised, seriously detracting from the contribution of the setting to the significance of the heritage assets, particularly in the way they are experienced.

The canal bridge (Bridge 63) has lost much of its original fabric and its existing form is rather utilitarian and lacks many of the features which afford interest to other canal bridges further north along the canal.

The other heritage assets considered include the Stratford-upon-Avon Conservation Area and also the many prominent listed buildings within the Conservation Area. However, the separation distance and the topography of the intervening land means that there is no discernible harm identified.

Overall, based on the outline information currently available, it is considered that the proposed development would cause harm to two designated heritage assets, by virtue of the adverse impact on the setting of those heritage assets and the resulting harm on elements of their significance.

The harm is clear and demonstrable however is considered to be 'less than substantial harm' in NPPF terms. paragraph 134 of the NPPF is therefore triggered.

In terms of where in the broad spectrum of 'less than substantial' this harm lies, in my opinion it is in the lower-middle part of that spectrum. In the necessary planning balance required by paragraph 134 of the NPPF, considerable weight should be given to the heritage harm identified.

Environment Agency – No Objection (01.02.2016)

Natural England – No Objection (02.02.2016)

WCC Highways – No Objection subject to conditions and S106 request (16/06.2016) & (15.07.2016)

The Highway Authority have provided an extensive analysis of the applicants Transport Assessment and, in addition, has corresponded with the applicants agents in this regard. They have concluded that with mitigation the scheme would have an acceptable impact upon the highway network.

Existing Network Operation

The Highway Authority has considered in detail the Highway Network within the vicinity of the development site including the following;

 A46; (responsibility of Highways England – comments below)  A3400 Birmingham Road;  A422 Alcester Road;  Bishopton Lane; and,  The Ridgeway.

Accident data has been reviewed and it is noted that there have been a total of 47 accidents between Jan 2010 and Sept 2015. 4 were recorded as serious and no fatal accidents were recorded. The majority of accidents were recorded on the A46 or the A46/A4300 Bishopton Roundabout Junction. However the Highway Authority is particularly concerned regarding the 18 recorded accidents in the last three years on the Alcester Road Corridor (the A422) of which 3 were serious and 9 involved cyclists. Accordingly, the Road Safety Team have sought £50,000 for the implementation of a Road Safety Scheme between the development site and Arden Street.

Vehicular Impact Assessment - Modelling

The applicants, their agents and Highways England have worked collaboratively with the Highway Authority to develop a robust methodology to assess and understand the impact that the development proposals will have upon the safe and efficient operation of the Highway Network.

The methodology was developed through pre-application discussions and has been rigorously checked by the Highway Authority to ensure that the methodology was robust and represented an accurate portrayal of how the highway network will function in future year scenarios including the development proposals.

Based on the modelling outputs and the analysis of the Highway Authority, the following locations would require mitigation schemes to be implemented:

 A46 / A3400 Bishopton Roundabout Junction; and,  Bishopton Lane Canal Bridge

Access Arrangements

Two access arrangements are proposed onto Bishopton Lane.

The northernmost access would consists of a T junction whilst the central access will be in the form of a roundabout junction. These access arrangements have been designed in accordance with the former WCC Design Guide. The level of visibility is adequate and in accordance with standards.

The Highway Authority requires a reduction in the speed limit along Bishopton Lane from 40mph to 30mph due to increased pedestrian movements along this corridor to create a safe environment for all users.

Both accesses have been supported by a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit which raise no issues which cannot be resolved through the Section 278 process. The Highway Authority is satisfied with the access arrangements in principle.

The Ridgeway:

The proposed access onto The Ridgeway will be in the form of a Priority 'T' Junction. The access arrangement has been designed in accordance with the former WCC Design Guide. The level of visibility is adequate and in accordance with standards however the Highway Authority also requires the extension of the existing 30mph speed limit to be extended across the frontage of the site to the other side of the bridge which takes The Ridgeway over the A46.

The access is supported by a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit which raises no issues which cannot be resolved through the Section 278 process. The Highway Authority is satisfied with the access arrangements in principle.

Other Matters:

The Highway Authority also requests that the speed limit on Bishopton Lane between the A46 / A3400 Bishopton Roundabout Junction and the Timothy's Bridge Road Roundabout Junction is reduced from unrestricted to a 40mph speed limit.

Conclusion

Based on the assessment the Highway Authority is satisfied that the development can be accommodated with suitable mitigation and therefore accords with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework subject to the conditions and planning obligations which the Highway Authority has identified in this response.

Therefore the Highway Authority concludes that there are no justifiable grounds to object to the planning applications and submits a response of no objection subject to the planning obligations detailed above and the following conditions.

Conditions:

 Prior to first occupation, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.  No HGV movements during the construction phase will take place Monday to Friday during the time periods 07:30 - 09:00 and 16:30 - 18:00,  No part of the development shall be commenced until the detailed design of the southern site access arrangement have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.  No dwellings shall be occupied on any part of the site until the approved highway access works have been completed,  Prior to first occupancy details of pedestrian improvements on The Ridgeway shall be submitted for approval.  Prior to occupation of the 101st dwelling design of the access roundabout on Bishopton Lane shall be submitted for approval  Prior to occupation of the 101st dwelling details of pedestrian improvements on Bishopton Lane shall be submitted for approval.  Prior to occupation of the 201st dwelling design of the northern site access shall be submitted for approval  No development shall occur until the design of the off-site highway works at the A46/A3400 Bishopton Roundabout junction have been submitted for approval.  Prior to occupation of the primary school a detailed Travel Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority which demonstrates measures to be implemented to reduce single occupancy car trips to and from the development in favour of more sustainable travel patterns.  Prior to first occupation, detailed plans for the location of bus infrastructure (including the design of any bus shelters) shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval

Highways England – No Objection subject to 2 conditions (05.07.2016) Two conditions are recommended. One to require the updating of the Flood Risk Assessment to further detail the risk of over-topping and any mitigation that may be required and a second to ensure that evidence is provided that the proposed sewer beneath the A46 is adoptable by the utilities provider.

WCC Lead Local Flood Authority – No Objection subject to 1 condition and 8 notes (06.04.2016)

Condition to requiring no development to occur until a SuDS surface water drainage scheme has been submitted approved in writing and implemented.

NHS SWFT – No Objection Subject to S106 request (01.02.2016)

S106 request for £499,448.29 to provide additional facilities to meet patient demand

Clinical Commissioning Group – No Objection subject to S106 request (02.02.2016)

S106 request for £109,868 to provide additional facilities to meet patient demand

SDC CCTV – No Objection subject to S106 request (27.05.2016)

S106 request for £81,536.05 to provide CCTV

SDC Environmental Health – No Objection subject to conditions (29.02.2016)

The Council’s Environmental Health Officer reviewed the submitted information and advised as follows:

Noise:

The report states that acceptable levels of noise at the residential dwellings can be achieved by a combination of garden and building orientation, appropriate fences, windows and building design and an appropriate stand off from the A46 for distance attenuation. I understand that a barrier/bund along the A46 is not an option due to flood plain issues. As the recommended mitigation in the report has been based on a stand-off from the A46 of 35 metres. I recommend that this is included in the condition. This is roughly consistent with the closest existing dwelling on the Ridgeway to the A46, however it should be noted that the A46 is on a lower elevation at this point.

Five conditions are proposed to control the attenuation of noise:

 A scheme to protect residents of the development from excessive traffic noise and noise from nearby motocross activities entering habitable rooms

 The dwellings hereby permitted shall be designed and constructed to ensure that internal road traffic noise levels do not exceed stated levels.

 There shall be a minimum distance of at least 35 metres between any residential dwellings and the A46 in order to help protect internal and external residential amenity.  Best practicable means shall be employed at all times to control noise and dust on the site. Hours of working and deliveries shall be restricted to appropriate times.

 Submission and approval of a scheme providing for the insulation of the proposed school’s teaching and learning spaces against the transmission of externally generated road noise.

Air quality:

I have reviewed the submitted scoping assessment. No further work or condition is necessary.

Contaminated Land:

I have reviewed the submitted Phase 1 contaminated land report. The report shows low to moderate risks to residential end users from some areas of made ground, the nearby historic landfill and backfilled pond and also the previous use as arable land. Although I do not consider at this stage that there are any contaminative uses that without further exploration at this stage would present a barrier to the development; a further report should be submitted (Phase 2 contaminated land) to screen for potential contaminants and to recommend remediation where necessary. I therefore propose the following 6 conditions:

Standard Contaminated Land Conditions for Large scale and/or complex developments including:

 Site Characterisation  Submission of Remediation Scheme  Implementation of Deposited Remediation Scheme  Validation  Reporting of Unexpected Contamination  Monitoring

Severn Trent Water – No Objection subject to condition (05.02.2016)

One condition relating to submission and approval of drainage plans for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage

Stratford Voice – Objection (20.01.2016)

Support the application in principle but have the following concerns:

 Part of the site lays within Flood Zone 3 and has been subject to flooding in the past  Decision makers must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the planned design of the site and the mitigation measures incorporated within the proposal will prevent the new homes being subject to future flooding

WCC S106 Infrastructure – No Objection subject to S.106 requests

£37,500 for Sustainable Travel Packs

£10,944 for delivery of Library services Education and Learning

Primary and pre-school

 Pre-school £233,740  Primary School places up to £1,659,554 (to be reviewed on the 300th dwelling) and Land to be safeguarded for education purposes  Primary Special Educational Needs £39,237

Secondary and Post 16

 Secondary places (11 – 16 years) £1,475,509  Post 16 places £315,880  Secondary age Special Needs £73,744

WCC Archaeology – No Objection Subject to Condition (18.01.2016)

The applicant’s geophysical survey identified a complex of probable enclosures in the southern portion of the site. The archaeological trial trenching targeted these probable archaeological features, and sampled the remainder of the site. This established that a series of enclosures, ditches, pits and possible structures of Roman date survive across the site. These have been interpreted as representing the remains of a Romano-British settlement.

The proposed development of this site is likely to have an impact upon this significant Roman site. This impact could be mitigated by the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, the extent of which will be dependent upon the final development design. This could be secured by appropriately worded conditions attached to any consent granted as follows:

No development shall take place 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 which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Whilst the final archaeological mitigation strategy will be dependent upon the final development layout, it is likely to include the full archaeological excavation of the Roman site in advance of the development.

WCC Ecology – No Objection subject to a conditions and a S106 request (15.04.2016)

S106 request for £9,600 to provide compensatory Skylark habitats over a thirty year period.

Conditions requested relating to:

 Submission, approval and implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan  Submission, approval and implementation of a Landscape Ecology Management Plan  Submission, approval and implementation of a Lighting Strategy for biodiversity

WCC Fire and Rescue – No Objection subject to a condition (20.01.2016)

1 condition relating to the provision of water supplies and fire hydrants. WCC Public Rights of Way – No Objection subject to S106 request (02.02.2016)

S106 request for £18,530 to provide the increased use of local public rights of way within 1.5Km of the development site.

SDC Leisure Services Manager – No Objection (12.01.2016)

I have considered the outline proposal and whilst I am unable to comment on the content of the play area at this preliminary stage, I am happy with the proposal for a LEAP and the quantity of amenity green space area that would be suitable for children’s informal play purposes. in respect of both Indoor sports facilities and sports pitch facilities and I haven’t been able to identify any recent needs assessment document which will provide the required ‘robust evidence base’ to support a developer contribution.

Cotswold AONB – No Objection 04.03.2016

NATS – No Objection (12.01.2016)

Warwickshire Badger Group – No Comment

National Planning Casework Unit – No Objection 19.01.2016

The Coal Authority – No Objection (13.01.2016)

Warwickshire ramblers – No Objection (27.01.2016)

Warwickshire Police – No Objection subject to conditions (01.02.2016)

Conditions as necessary to secure Safe by Design Standards

Consultees providing no comment:

Western Power Buglife National Grid Sustrans Warwickshire Wildlife Trust Stratford-upon-Avon Society West Midlands Bird Club RSPB Fields in Trust National Trust DEFRA Civic Trust

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

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

Housing Land Supply Position The most recent evidence available, dated 16 June 2016 shows that, as of 31 March 2016, the Council can demonstrate an NPPF-compliant 5.82 year supply of housing. Principle of Development

The Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2011-2031 was adopted on 11 July 2016 and provides an up-to-date Development Plan which is fully consistent with the NPPF. So the policies within that document carry full weight for decision making purposes.

The policies relevant to the determination of this proposal are detailed above, however Policy AS.1 – Stratford-Upon-Avon, Proposal SUA.3 – North of Bishopton Lane, Policy CS.15 – Distribution of Development and Policy CS.16 – Housing Development are of particular relevance.

Policy CS.15 – Distribution of Development, sets out the spatial distribution of development within the district. For Stratford it says that the town will be the main focus for housing development and that services and infrastructure will be improved to reflect the scale of development that takes place. The policy points directly to Policy AS.1 – Stratford-upon-Avon as the source for the specific strategy which will be applied although it notes explicitly that development will be permitted to take place on allocated sites.

Policy CS.16 – Housing Development requires delivery of a number of Strategic Allocations in order for the District to meet its housing needs. To deliver the housing requirement, the Core Strategy identifies the strategic allocations for housing and housing-led mixed-use development during the plan period. The detailed provisions for each site allocation are set out in Area Strategies and this includes 500 homes to be developed North of Bishopton Lane (Proposal SUA.3 of Policy AS.1).

Policy AS.1 sets out the area strategy for Stratford-upon-Avon and details the principles which will apply when considering development proposals and other initiatives. Developers are expected to contribute to achieving the principles which are centred around the themes of the Environment, Social wellbeing, Economy and Transport. Important aspects of this policy which are relevant to the proposed development relate to the Environmental, Social, Economic and Transport impacts of the proposal

The policy proceeds to identify a number of Development Proposals within and around Stratford-upon-Avon, which will contribute to the future needs of the District. The sites are allocated for development and identified on the Proposals Map and include SUA.3 – North of Bishopton Lane. The allocation of this site stipulates the type and nature of development which will be considered acceptable and sets out the specific requirements which any development must deliver. This proposal reads:

Proposal SUA.3: North of Bishopton Lane

Where it is to be delivered North of Bishopton Lane between the canal and The Ridgeway

Approx. 25 hectares (gross)

What is to be delivered  Housing – approx. 500 dwellings  Primary school - land and financial contribution  Public open space, including adjacent to canal and alongside A46 Northern Bypass

When it is to be delivered Phases 2 - 3 (2016/17 – 2025/26)

How it is to be delivered Private sector

Specific requirements  appropriate layout and design to mitigate noise impact from A46  surface water attenuation measures  provision of an appropriate form of crossing over the canal to cater for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists  improvements to the canal towpath and access to it  contribution to community facilities (on and/or off-site)

It is necessary therefore to recognise that the development is on a site allocated for the purposes being proposed, and furthermore, that the type and nature of what is being sought permission for would directly deliver what the adopted Core Strategy policy expects.

As such, subject to an assessment of the proposal against the Specific Requirements of SUA.3 and other detailed Core Strategy Policies, I find the Core Strategy provides clear, unambiguous support for delivery of a substantial housing scheme on this site in principle.

I conclude that it is an important element of the Core Strategy and that non- delivery of the site would be harmful to the proper planned delivery of housing within the district and to the delivery of the vision set out within the Core Strategy.

I consider the proposal is in principle consistent with the requirements of the Core Strategy and the NPPF and that subject to the satisfactory assessment of detailed policy criteria within the Core Strategy such as landscape and heritage the proposed development is considered acceptable in principle.

Impact on the Landscape and Character of the Area

Representations have been received that the proposed development will have a detrimental impact on the landscape and character of Stratford. I have given these careful consideration in my assessment.

The NPPF requires as part of its core principles (paragraph 17 (5)), that, amongst other things, planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Policy CS.5 of the Core Strategy requires development to minimise and mitigate impacts on the landscape character and quality, including cumulative impacts. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF also states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

The Site is made up of three fields at the north-western edge of Stratford-upon- Avon forming an approximately rectangular parcel of land. The Stratford-upon- Avon Canal extends alongside the northern Site boundary, passing beneath the A46 and Bishopton Lane immediately to the west and east of the Site respectively. Elsewhere the boundaries of the site are defined to the west by the route of the A46; to the east by the residential area at Bishopton Lane; and to the south by the housing at The Ridgeway. Spa Farm is located to the west of Bishopton Lane, with the house and grounds indented into, but outside of the eastern Site boundary.

The land adjacent to the canal and surrounding Spa Lodge is largely flat however to the south west of the site the land rises noticeably towards The Ridgeway. A towpath follows the northern edge of the canal leading eastwards towards the town centre and north westwards towards Wilmcote. Although not within any conservation area, the Grade II listed Canal Bridge a kilometre north of the Site, and the Grade II listed Lodge Spa and Pumping House make the historical significance of the canal and its environs at this boundary apparent.

Modern estate development at Bishopton Lane marks the existing residential edge of Stratford-upon-Avon to the east of the Site. Development comprises a mix of detached, semi-detached dwellings and some bungalows.

The Ridgeway and recent residential development at Hill View, adjoin the Site to the south. The development at Hill View occupies an elevated position at the edge of the town, with several properties overlooking the southern part of the Site.

The western boundary is clearly defined by the route of the A46. The road is partly contained within a cutting and partly sits atop an embankment as it approaches the bridge over the Canal. Throughout its length along the boundary of the site the A46 is defined by dense tree and shrub planting. A public footpath crosses the site from south east to north west near Spa Lodge and across the A46 and into the agricultural landscape to the west. It then heads north allowing access to the northern bank of the Canal (Wilmcote Flight).

The wider landscape to the west falls within the district’s Green Belt and is characterised by its agricultural uses. The land in this area is undulating and in particular the land to the immediate north rises to a point known as Bishopton Hill approximately 1.5Km from the site. To the north east and slightly further afield, the land also rises at Lower Clopton and the Welcombe Hills Country Park.

Notably the site lies at the junction of two landscape character areas with the site itself falling within one area and the agricultural land to the north falling within another.

The site’s landscape character falls towards the northern extent of National Character Area 106: Severn and Avon Vales. This describes the area as dominated by lower valleys of the rivers Severn and Avon and as a low-lying open agricultural vale landscape made up of distinct and contrasting vales, including Evesham, Berkeley, Gloucester, Leadon, and Avon, with Cotswold outliers like Bredon Hill punctuating the otherwise flat vale landscape. It notes that a small proportion of the National Character Area (NCA) is urban and includes towns such Stratford-upon-Avon.

The land to the north’s landscape character falls towards the south western extent of National Character Area 97: Arden. This describes the area as lying between the River Tame and the River Avon in Warwickshire, the Arden landscape also extends into north Worcestershire to abut the Severn and Avon Vales. It describes the landscape of the lower lying central area is gently rolling with small fragmented semi-natural and ancient woodlands. Mature oaks set in hedgerows, distinctive field boundaries, historic parklands and narrow river corridors are key features, all on the doorstep of a heavily urbanised area.

The Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines - Stratford Town’s Urban Edge pilot study 2005, shows this area as ‘Vale Orchard Belt’ landscape character type. This is an area which extends significantly westwards from the application site and is described as characterised by a relatively recent and in some places rather variable cultural pattern with little or no associated semi-natural habitat. In general terms, therefore, this is a landscape that is understood to be fairly resilient to change as most of the features that contribute to the existing character can be replaced relatively easily. Of greater significance is the open rolling topography of the land which gives rise to a moderate-high visibility score. The guidelines advise that great care is therefore needed in siting of new developments within this landscape. The study shows considerable variation in the condition of this landscape and notes in particular that the shift from mixed farming to arable production has been particularly severe in the Bishopton Area where the cultural pattern has been further fragmented by the landfill site and the construction of the A46 bypass. It notes that the Stratford urban edge is very visible in this area and that there is much potential for landscape enhancement and that every effort should be made to ensure that appropriate enhancement measures are incorporated in all new development proposals.

Within the Landscape Sensitivity Study 2012 (LSS) the application site is identified as falling within two land parcels shown as st28 and st29. St28 is noted as having medium/low sensitivity to housing development whilst st29 is noted as having a medium sensitivity to housing development.

For st28 the LSS finds that the zone is gently sloping land, falling to the north east from a high point where the Ridgeway crosses the A46. The area comprises a large arable field surrounded on two sides by linear urban edges along minor roads and by linear screen planting of trees and shrubs along the A46, which defines the north western edge of the area. Distant open views are afforded to the north east, over Stratford, towards the Welcombe Hills. The sensitivity of this site is related to its openness and visibility from the north east, particularly the western corner. The area has little inherent ecological or cultural value sensitivity and the existing urban edges already create a visual impact, such as the housing on the skyline to the south west. There is opportunity for housing development but this should be mitigated by a woodland on the higher ground in the western corner to mitigate the impact of both the existing and new development.

For st29 the LSS finds that the zone is gently rolling land lying in a shallow vale on the north western edge of Stratford. The area comprises a large arable and a smaller pastoral field with relic ridge and furrow, bounded by a linear urban edge along a minor road to the south east and by screen planting of trees and shrubs along the A46 bypass to the north west. The Stratford-upon-Avon Canal defines the north eastern edge and adds some historical and recreational interest to the area. A PROW crosses the area and links to the wider countryside. Views into the area are otherwise limited to more distant vistas from the Ridgeway to the south and the Welcombe Hills to the north. This area's sensitivity relates mainly to the presence of the canal corridor and the survival of some older permanent pasture, but also in part to the visibility of the site from higher ground to the north east and the south west. There is an opportunity for new housing development provided steps are found to protect the canal environs/historic interest within the area.

The Stratford-Upon-Avon Town Design Statement 2002 (Former SPG) provides useful guidance relating to the character of Stratford and how best development can respond positively to the opportunities and constraints identified. The Bishopton and Alcester Road area is discussed in detail including reference to its historical connections and how these have resulted in the pattern of development which is seen today. Relevant to this proposal the Guidelines recommend:

 The retention of fields and other green spaces within the area,  That development close to Shottery Brook should not discharge into it  Development should be of good design and materials and with good landscaping  Number of dwellings should be determined by the local plan  Any high rise/high density developments should be avoided  The canal bridge in Bishopton Lane must be retained with additional calming measures to ensure that Bishopton Lane does not become a rat run.

My view in respect of the key visual impacts likely to arise through approval of the development, having had regard to the applicants Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA), the Councils evidence base on landscape sensitivity and the comments received from the public and other interested parties is that there may be significant impacts arising from the development proposed. Some of these impacts are those which must inevitably arise from any residential development of a greenfield site of this scale. Others however, arise due to the nature of the existing settlement pattern and the arrangement of topography and landscape features around it. I consider however that these effects may be relatively modest.

The submitted LVIA identifies that although much of the site is low lying there remains some potential for short and middle distance views towards the development although the landscape character of the wider area, which includes woodlands and established hedgerows within a wider agricultural landscape, limits opportunities for expansive longer distance views. The Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines note that the existing boundary of Stratford is somewhat prominent and new landscaping within the site can assist in assimilating the development proposals and the existing townscape into the wider landscape.

I consider that that this development will not unacceptably protrude westwards from Stratford’s existing sub-urban fringe although it will inevitably alter the character of this area of Stratford. I consider that these matters are not inherently unacceptable and that delivery of a high quality scheme in this location with appealing community facilities, particularly open spaces would be harmonious with the existing Townscape. I consider that there will remain extensive tracts of open countryside to the west of Stratford and the A46 and that because these fall within Green Belt areas there will therefore remain an appreciation of Stratford as a market town set within this context.

I consider that at least some proportion of the potential harm which could be caused by this proposed development could be mitigated over time through the retention of the majority of existing planting on site and substantial additional planting in the landscape/open space buffers especially to the north and west of the site.

I am mindful that the application under consideration is in outline and there is therefore considerable scope for the design of dwellings and open spaces in the final development to consider the need for mitigation in detail. This potential mitigation would improve over time as the development matures and settles into the landscape which surrounds. Consequently, I have concluded that there would be only a modest amount of residual harm to the landscape arising from this development after mitigation. There would be changes to the character of the approach to the town with newly developed roofscapes visible from the A46 and other elevated positions to the north and north east of the site. However I do not conclude that this additional element in these, or any longer distance views would amount to impacts that are unacceptable either individually or cumulatively in the context of an allocated site.

Loss of Agricultural Land

Paragraph 112 of the NPPF identifies that Local Authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality land. It is understood that the land is Grade 3b agricultural land. The site therefore does not comprise best and most versatile land (BMV).

In light of this I conclude that the loss of agricultural land which is grade 3b (but not BMV)is a negative factor to which only very limited weigh should be attached in the balance for the decision taker.

Impact on Heritage Assets

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that, "In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses."

The Barnwell case considered by the Court of Appeal determined that when considering the impact on heritage assets with other material considerations in the overall planning balance, interpreting S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 the decision maker should accord ‘special weight’ or ‘considerable importance and weight’ to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings, and to preserving the character and appearance of Conservation Areas.

The principal heritage assets identified by the District’s heritage consultant are the Stratford- upon-Avon Canal, the associated Bridge 63, (both non-designated) and the two designated grade II listed buildings lying immediately to the north- east of the canal, namely Victoria Spa Lodge and Bruce Lodge and the Pump House. The setting of the Conservation Area is a further consideration.

Overall, based on the outline information currently available, it is considered that the proposed development would cause harm to those two designated heritage assets, by virtue of the adverse impact on the setting of those heritage assets and the resulting harm on elements of their significance.

The harm is clear and demonstrable however it is considered to be 'less than substantial harm'. The test within Policy CS.8 – Historic Environment and paragraph 134 of the NPPF is therefore triggered.

Paragraph 134 of the NPPF states that “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.” In terms of where in the broad spectrum of 'less than substantial' this harm lies, I have been advised it is in the lower-middle part of that spectrum. Accordingly, I attach considerable weight to the heritage harm identified. That harm must necessarily be balanced against the public benefits which are delivered by the development including the delivery of housing.

Consequently, I have concluded that there would be harm to the character and significance of heritage assets in this area. I attach considerable importance and weight to these concerns however must necessarily weigh them against the public benefits of the proposal including the delivery of housing (including affordable housing), provision of significant areas of open space in excess of policy requirements and the substantial contribution which would be made towards infrastructure in and around the site including, but not limited to, works which would improve amenity and public access to the site and the wider area. I have thus concluded that, on balance, the benefits of the scheme, which are directly related to delivering the vision detailed within the Core Strategy, outweigh these concerns.

Archaeology

Paragraphs 128 to 139 of the NPPF seek to protect heritage assets, including sites of archaeological importance.

The proposed development of this site is likely to have an impact upon a potentially significant Roman site. This impact could be mitigated by the implementation of a programme of archaeological work, the extent of which will be dependent upon the final development design. The County Archaeologist has advised that this could potentially be secured by appropriately worded conditions attached to any consent.

Whilst the final archaeological mitigation strategy will be dependent upon the final development layout, it is likely to include the full archaeological excavation of the Roman site in advance of the development. On this basis I find no unacceptable conflict with policy on these grounds.

Design, Layout, Scale, and Appearance

Matters relating to Design, Layout, Scale, and Appearance are reserved for later planning submissions. The applicants have, as part of their submission, provided an Illustrative Masterplan/layout but this is indicative only. Design parameters include predominantly two storey buildings but may also include some 2.5 storey and bungalows. Of more significance is the series of Parameter Plans which set out the developable area, areas of public open space and green infrastructure along the boundaries of the site. Such a development framework can be conditioned for the reserved matters layout to comply with.

Additionally, given the guidance within the Core Strategy, the NPPF, NPPG it is considered appropriate to apply conditions which set basic parameters and thresholds for the reserved matters application in relation to housing mix and adaptability at this stage.

Safeguarded Land for School

A significant area of land (approx. 1Ha) within the development is identified to be set aside as safeguarded land for a potential primary school. Although permission is not sought at this stage for the school, and the applicants themselves do not intend to build it, the land has been identified as potentially necessary for these purposes by the Local Education Authority (LEA) for later in the plan period.

The indicative layout shows this land at the access of the development near to the proposed roundabout on Bishopton Lane although this could be subject to change pending the details of any reserved matters applications.

Accordingly, it will be necessary for a legal agreement to safeguard an amount of land for a period to be agreed with the LEA, and to require by condition that any future reserved matters applications will demonstrate an understanding of the location of the safeguarded land. Such reserved matters applications will need to establish how development around the school will not conflict with the land’s potential future use and include an details of how the internal arrangement of buildings and highways will complement the school use in this area.

If the LEA indicate at some point that the land will not be required for educational purposes or the period of safeguarding lapse without development for educational purposes occurring then the site would become available for alternative purposes. Any alternative uses would subject need to be subject to separate consents which would be assessed on their own merits against the development plan at the point of submission.

Housing mix and affordable housing

Paragraph 50 of the NPPF refers to the need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, and to include appropriate provision of affordable housing. Policy CS.18 of the Core Strategy requires affordable housing to be delivered from all new residential developments with a target of 35% of all dwellings.

The scheme is in outline form with details to be secured through reserved matters. The proposal would comprise a mix of dwelling types and sizes, including affordable housing provision at 35% of units on site. I am satisfied that at reserved matters stage it will be possible to ensure that the housing mix and location of affordable housing is acceptable, should outline permission be granted.

The applicants submitted materials relating to affordable housing recognise the need to provide affordable housing at a ratio of 35% however point to the changing legislative environment in which the application is being proposed particularly in relation to what the Government describe as ‘Starter Homes’ and the potential for those to be included in the mix of affordable products.

As such, whilst the overall number of dwellings committed to be affordable is acceptable when assessed against the Core Strategy, the split between Social Rent and Shared Ownership suggests there may be some deviation from the Core Strategy preferred position.

Accordingly, officers consider it appropriate to continue negotiation in this regard as part of finalising the S106 to ensure the tenure split for the proposed development is in accordance with recently adopted Core Strategy CS.18

Furthermore it is considered appropriate to include a condition, for the avoidance of doubt, which stipulates that notwithstanding any submitted details development should accord with the Council’s policies on dwelling mix. Neighbour amenity

Policy CS25 seeks to ensure that sufficient amenity space is available for the future occupants of the dwellings. This is supplemented by the Guidance within the ‘Meeting Housing Needs’ Supplementary Planning Document which states that dwellings should have a minimum garden area dependent on the size of the unit.

The submitted Indicative layout demonstrates satisfactory separation distances between proposed properties and those located on neighbouring land are achievable.

These separation distances, when coupled with appropriate new landscaping and retention of existing landscape boundaries, ensures the development will not have a materially adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity by way of loss of light, overshadowing, loss of privacy and without creating an overbearing or dominating impact.

For these reasons, I consider that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity and would ensure the creation of an appropriate quality living environment for future occupiers.

Noise

The NPPF at paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to … noise pollution. Paragraph 123 says that planning decisions should aim to:

 avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development;  mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts on health and quality of life arising from noise from new development, including through the use of conditions;  recognise that development will often create some noise and existing businesses wanting to develop in continuance of their business should not have unreasonable restrictions put on them because of changes in nearby land uses since they were established; and  identify and protect areas of tranquillity which have remained relatively undisturbed by noise and are prized for their recreational and amenity value for this reason.

I note that the District’s EHO has ascertained from the applicants reports that acceptable levels of noise at the residential dwellings can be achieved by a combination of garden and building orientation, appropriate fences, windows and building design and an appropriate stand off from the A46 for distance attenuation.

Accordingly, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions recommended by the EHO I consider that the proposal does not conflict with the above NPPF paragraphs or with Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy.

Provision of Public Open Space

The NPPF, at paragraphs 58 and 73, encourages access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation. Saved policies COM.4 and COM.5 also seek to secure appropriate standards of open space provision and therefore remain broadly consistent with the provisions of the NPPF. Having regard to this, where there is a deficiency in public open space, new development proposals should seek to make new provision available.

The applications Indicative Masterplan incorporates areas of Open Space to the north and centrally within the site including equipped children’s play areas, areas for informal recreation, natural areas and areas for the enjoyment of the canal- side.

The parameters plan shows that the development can accommodate 6.51 Ha of Public Open Space provision and 2.41 Ha of Flood compatible open space. This is substantially in excess of the requirements of CS.25 – Healthy Communities and more than sufficient to include policy compliant quotas of parks gardens and amenity space, natural greenspaces and children and young peoples equipped play facilities and allotments and community gardens.

The masterplan remains indicative and so details relating to the ongoing use and ownership of these facilities cannot be fully known at this stage. I am satisfied that the creation of the open spaces can be controlled by the imposition of suitably worded conditions and triggers within the S106 and that the required creation of a management company through S106 agreement would also secure the ongoing maintenance.

I also consider that should permission be forthcoming it is possible that the Town Council may wish to play an active role in the management of these facilities. Accordingly, I have sought in the recommendation below to allow for an alternative to management of these facilities through a management company where the Town Council wish to undertake such a role at their discretion.

Landscaping and Trees

The application, although in outline form, indicates that boundary vegetation would mainly be retained, and that additional planting can be provided. I have therefore reached the view that the scheme is acceptable having regard to the provisions of paragraphs 58 and 109 of the NPPF. Tree and hedgerow protection measures can be secured by condition.

Highways Matters Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states ‘inter alia’ that decisions should take account of whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people and whether improvements can be undertaken effectively limiting the impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

Paragraph 34 of the NPPF also states that developments that generate significant movements are to be located where the need to travel will be minimised, albeit, this needs to take into account policies throughout the framework relating to rural areas. Policy CS.26 of the Core Strategy requires development to mitigate any unacceptable transport impacts which arise directly from that development by, amongst other things, ensuring that the scale of traffic generated by the proposal is appropriate for the function and standard of the roads serving the area; implementing necessary works to the highway; providing new and improved pedestrian and cycle routes.

Representations have been received on the grounds that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on highways. Access The application is in outline form with only the matter of the access to the site submitted for detailed consideration at this point.

It is proposed to provide vehicular access to the development by means of Bishopton Lane and The Ridgeway.

Two access points are proposed off Bishopton Lane, The first, a priority ‘T’ junction, which will be the most northerly junction, and the second, which will be a centrally located roundabout junction. WCC have confirmed that the roundabout has been designed to meet their specifications and also confirmed that both schemes have been subject to Road Safety Audit Stage 1 assessments. Those assessments identified detailed design matters which may need to be addressed through the S.278 agreement but also confirmed the proposed approach is acceptable in principle.

The third access is via a priority ‘T’ junction on The Ridgeway and has also been subject to Road Safety Audit Stage 1 assessments which identified detailed design matters to be addressed through the S.278 agreement but which confirmed the proposed approach is acceptable in principle.

All of the above junctions have been assessed to confirm that acceptable visibility splays can be achieved. Accordingly, the Highway Authority have found no grounds to object in this regard.

Walking

There are a number of Public Rights of Way which either bisect the site or are within close proximity to the development site.

The Rights of Way Team at Warwickshire County Council has requested a financial obligation to enable the improvement of Public Rights of Way within a 1.5 mile radius of the development site and the Highway Authority supports this request.

Cycling

The National Cycle Route 5 runs to the north of the development alongside the Stratford - on - Avon Canal. The route connects to Reading and Holyhead on a route of which has a mix of off-road and on road provision. Locally a cycle route runs along Bishopton Lane and The Ridgeway which connects to National Cycle Route 5.

Whilst WCC’s Cycling Officer acknowledges that the proposed mitigation of the Canal Bridge on Bishopton Lane provides benefits to cyclists there is still a need to improve the route between the development site and Stratford Town Centre. Therefore the Cycling Officer has requested the provision of £50,000 to enable the development and implementation of a cycle link to town centre and Stratford- upon-Avon High School via Drayton Avenue / Brookside Road / Alcester Road.

The Canal and River Trust have also requested S.106 obligation to improve the canal towpath between the site and Timothy’s Bridge which will improve sustainable access to and from the site and recreation opportunities for both existing and future residents. Public Transport

Bus Services

WCC advise that the existing bus service provision to the development site is acceptable for the current conditions. The most regular service is the 19 service operated jointly by Stagecoach and Diamond Buses which operates on a 30 minute frequency during the day. However the first service to serve the site arrives at the Ridgeway at 09:11, and the final service arrives at 16:57. Therefore this service does not provide a peak service at present that would benefit the development proposals.

However the Ridgeway is served by the 229 which provides a service to Stratford Town Centre during the AM peak period and two services during the PM peak period.

Other services are operating within the vicinity of the development, however these are accessed from the Alcester Road or Birmingham Road Corridors and include the bus service from Stratford Park & Ride which is situated to the north of the development approximately 1.3km away.

The Public Transport team has requested a financial obligation to enable improvement to the operation of the 19 bus service to enable it to operate between 07:00 hours and 19:00 hours on a 20 minute frequency providing significant betterment to the existing service on weekdays and Saturday.

The sum requested is for is £490,000 over a five year period. The Highway Authority supports this request as it ensures access for all residents and enables modal choice in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Public Transport Team is requesting the enhancement of the bus stops on the Ridgeway with the provision of a bus shelter. The sum required is £12,000 with a commuted sum for continuing maintenance of £5,000.

The Public Transport Team also requests the provision of two bus stops within the development site. However, the Highway Authority considers that these can be delivered through the Section 38 Agreements for technical approval. A condition is proposed to be put on the application to agree the location and design of the bus stops prior to commencement of the development.

Traffic Generation The applicants, their agents, the Highway Authority and Highways England have worked collaboratively to develop a robust methodology for assessing the highway impacts of the proposal

The Transport Assessment submitted with the application relies on trip generation figures developed by Warwickshire County Council for the Strategic Transport Assessment which supported the development of the Core Strategy. The trip rates identified have been agreed by the above parties as an accurate reflection of the likely pattern of movements to and from the site should permission be granted. This shows the potential for 1471 daily trips to and from the site rising to 1567 should the school be delivered. It is on this basis that all parties have assessed the development.

The Highway Authority have provided an extensive assessment of the applicants Transport Assessment and a summary of that is provided above. It is clearly apparent that the development would have significant impacts on the highway network and without mitigation this would be unacceptable. In this case however the applicant has prepared details of considerable mitigation which secures reductions in delays in some areas over and above the existing status quo.

The mitigation works required to facilitate access to the site and to preserve the continuing proper function of the road network include:

 Works to the A46 / A3400 Bishopton Roundabout Junction  The implementation of a shuttle signals scheme across Bishopton Lane Bridge which would include a full pedestrian stage to allow pedestrians to cross.

Mitigation Scheme Analysis

A46 / A3400 Bishopton Roundabout Junction:

The applicant’s highway consultant has identified a scheme which focuses on providing betterment to the Bishopton Lane and Birmingham Road South approaches, where the main impact has been identified.

On Bishopton Lane, the highway will be widened on approach to the roundabout to allow a two-lane approach. This will improve the stacking capacity and increase the amount of vehicles exiting this arm compared to the current arrangement.

Whilst the Birmingham Road approach is already two lanes wide, improvements will provide additional stacking capacity by widening and lengthening the flare for the left hand channel. This improvement will improve the approach to the junction for straight on and left turn movements.

In addition signage and road markings will be improved and refreshed on these approaches to resolve existing issues with poor lane discipline by motorists which often creates conflict and capacity constraints.

To demonstrate that the mitigation is sufficient in terms of resolving the existing issues the applicant’s highway consultant has undertaken further modelling utilising Junctions 8 and the SuAWA. The modelling demonstrates that the mitigation scheme for the A46 / A3400 Bishopton Roundabout Junction will provide significant betterment.

The Highway Authority is satisfied that the mitigation scheme proposed by the applicant’s highway consultant resolves their impact on the operation of the highway network at this location, and therefore accords with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

However as the scheme is still in preliminary design at this time the Highway Authority will require the submission of detailed drawings for the scheme prior to the commencement of development of the site. However this can be secured through an appropriate condition.

In conclusion, the Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed mitigation scheme.

It is proposed that the Highway Authority will hold S106 the monies for the improvement scheme for a 10 yr period to enable a scheme by Highways England to come forward for the junction. However if after 10 years the scheme has not been implemented the Highway Authority will require the scheme to be implemented in accordance with the applicants plans by either Highways England or WCC.

Therefore the Highway Authority requires the identified costings of the scheme and justification for these to identify whether the amount is suitable for the S.106 Agreement.

Highway Safety Accident and safety data has been reviewed by the applicant and the highway Authority. Onn the basis of this it is considered necessary to intervene to provide additional road safety measures for pedestrians and cyclists between the site and Arden Street. A S.106 agreement is sought which will deliver such improvements.

Accessibility The site is located on the north western edge of Stratford and is within walking/cycling distance to the services and facilities which the town has to offer.

The application site is located approximately 500m from Bishopton Primary on Drayton Avenue and approximately 700m from the Post Office, The Squirrel Public house and the One Stop convenience store. A further news agents and convenience store lays on the junction of Hathaway Green Lane and Alcester Road approximate 500m away. The railway station and park and ride are around 300m to the north via Bishopton Lane.

There is a strong network of recreational routes, public footpaths and bridleways around this neighbourhood and into Stratford upon Avon providing easy access to both town and the surrounding countryside.

There are a number of existing local bus services that operate nearby and provide access to neighbouring towns. The nearest bus stops are located immediately on Bishopton Lane but are also conveniently located on Alcester Road

In addition a range of contributions and highway improvements have been requested which will improve accessibility to and from the site. The following have been requested by WCC Transport and Highways:

 Enhancement of existing bus services  Provision of new bus stops within the site itself  Pedestrian access to the approved Open Spaces within the site  Upgrade to the Canal Towpath  Improved pedestrian access over the Canal Bridge (by virtue of a pedestrian phase to the signals)  Improved Public Rights of Way within 1.5Km of the site

Bishopton Lane Bridge The Highway Authority and the Canal and River Trust have raised the issue of the maintenance and condition of the current bridge on Bishopton Lane.

The structure of the bridge is owned by the Canal and River Trust whilst the highway surface ownership rests with the Highway Authority. Accordingly, the responsibility for ongoing maintenance of the structure rests with the Canal and River Trust.

A mitigation scheme to control traffic and improve access at the bridge has been proposed by the applicant and this will consist of traffic signals being installed at either end of the Canal Bridge with a feedback loop incorporated to ensure any queueing traffic will not affect the Bishopton Lane/Timothy’s Bridge Road junction roundabout. It will include a pedestrian phase to ensure that access for more vulnerable users across the bridge will be improved. The county Bridges and Structure Team have raised no objection in respect to this.

The Highway Authority has agreed that they support the mitigation scheme put forward by the applicant and that this should be delivered through a S.278 Agreement. The Canal and River Trust has an ongoing obligation as owner to maintain the bridge.

On the basis of the WCC Highways comments, the condition of the bridge is not therefore considered to be an impediment to the proposed development.

The introduction of this development is not considered likely to change the character of traffic passing over the bridge and although there would be a greater number of movements over the bridge such traffic would be controlled by the mitigation scheme proposed. I do not consider that the proposal would exacerbate the deterioration of the bridge or lead to issues of safety.

Policy AS.1 and Proposal SUA.3 provide specific requirements for the proposed development including that the scheme should deliver provision of an appropriate form of crossing over the canal to cater for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. The Stratford-Upon-Avon Town Design Statement 2002 (Former SPG) identifies specifically that it is necessary for the canal bridge to be retained with additional calming measures to ensure that Bishopton Lane does not become a rat run. The above scheme is considered to satisfy the above criteria.

The Highway Authority are satisfied that the signalising of the bridge is a viable scheme and have not objected. Accordingly, the above matters are not considered to amount to a conflict with the NPPF or the adopted Core Strategy. On this basis, I have concluded that the bridge is not an impediment to the proposed development.

Conclusion on highway matters Policy CS.26 carries full weight for decision making purposes. This policy states that development will only be permitted if the necessary mitigation is provided against any unacceptable transport impacts.

The scheme is in outline form with details of layout to be considered at the reserved matters stage. As such, only the proposed means of access fall to be considered at this stage.

The Local Highway Authority raise no objections to the proposal subject to a number of S.106 matters and conditions including those necessary to secure highway-safety related measures and a Construction Management Plan. I concur with this view and, notwithstanding the objections raised, I do not consider that the proposal would result in harm to highway safety in a manner that would warrant the refusal of the submitted application. As such, and subject to pre- commencement planning conditions, I consider that there would be no conflict with adopted Policy CS.26 of the Core Strategy.

Flood Risk and Drainage Paragraphs 100 to 104 of the NPPF seek to ensure that development considers impact of flood risk. Policy CS.4 of the Core Strategy seeks to maintain the floodplain; manage the risk of flooding in a catchment area and achieve good status for water bodies by, amongst others, locating development in Flood Zone 1, securing SUDs solutions to surface water drainage, managing run off from sites and ensuring that foul drainage flows are kept separate to surface water drainage.

The proposed development areas within the site are located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk of flooding) where residential development is considered acceptable in principle by the NPPF in relation to flood risk.

A flood Risk assessment has been submitted and details that surface water will be managed via a number of SUDS attenuation basins within the public spaces which would be constructed and managed for the benefit of biodiversity. The attenuation basins would be scaled and managed to attenuate run-off to greenfield pre-development run-off rates and for storms up to the 1 in 100 year (+30% allowance for climate change) return period event. Each basin will outfall into the closest section of the existing field drainage ditch. The existing field ditches all gather towards the north of the site before passing under the A46 and outfalling into Shottery Brook. The final drainage arrangements are a technical matter that can be dealt with at the reserved matters stage and via planning conditions.

The Environment Agency raises no objections on these grounds whilst Severn Trent raise no objections subject to approval of drainage proposals via a condition. The Lead Local flood Authority also confirm that they do not object subject to the imposition of a condition.

Foul drainage is proposed to be disposed of via the main sewer. This is a technical matter and final drainage proposals will be designed at the reserved matters stage following further discussions between the applicants and STW. Severn Trent Water raises no objections subject to approval of drainage proposals.

As such, I have no reason to believe that the drainage scheme is not in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 93-108 of the NPPF and policy CS.4 of the Core Strategy.

Ecological Impacts Representations have been made in respect of the loss of ecological habitat. One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to conserve and enhance the natural environment, as expanded upon by paragraph 118. Core Strategy Policy CS.6 relates to the retention, protection, management and, where appropriate, creation of wildlife habitats.

The County Council Ecologist raises no objection to the proposals subject to the imposition of a number of conditions and the agreement of a S106 which secures funds to offset the potential loss of Lapwing habitats as described in the above sections. Natural England raised no objections.

The applicant has agreed to these provisions and so for these reasons, I consider that the development would not have a detrimental ecological impact in accordance with paragraph 118 of the NPPF and policy CS.6 of the Core Strategy and the provisions of the NERC act.

Land Contamination The application site is within an area with of low potential risk for land contamination however, should remain subject to the imposition of planning conditions, as recommended by the Council’s Environmental Heath Officer, to ensure the identification of any potential risks and assure appropriate mitigation. Community Facilities & Social Infrastructure A significant number of representations have been made in relation to the inadequacy of the town’s infrastructure, services and facilities to support a development of this kind. Whilst, it is considered the proposed development would inevitably have some considerable impact, it should be recognised that the scale of development can facilitate significant investments. As such, no objections have been received from the NHS the Clinical Commissioning Group, WCC Education, or WCC Libraries, subject to the satisfactory completion of a S106 agreement which secures very substantial investments in local infrastructure.

In the absence of such objection, I consider that infrastructure can be improved to an extent which would be acceptable in planning terms. Moreover, I would consider a refusal on such grounds would conflict with the sites identification in the Core Strategy.

Other matters

Matters relating to parking, crime prevention, refuse and bin storage and details of lighting would be addressed by condition or at reserved matters stage in accordance with the NPPF and Core Strategy Policies. provision of bins and water butts could be secured by condition at this stage.

Conclusions

The ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It describes three mutually dependent dimensions to sustainable development: social, economic and environmental.

Arising from these dimensions the policies in paragraphs 18-219 can be taken as a whole constitute the Government's view of what sustainable development in England is and what that means in practice for the planning system.

The recently adopted Core Strategy is a sound and rigorous interpretation of what sustainable development, in NPPF terms, means for this District. It forms the most relevant element of the Development Plan against which this proposal should be assessed. Therefore, if a development proposal accords with the Core Strategy it can be understood to also accord with the guidance and policies within the NPPF, and should be considered inherently sustainable. Policy CS.1 states that the Council will take a positive approach to applications and that decisions will reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained within the NPPF.

This proposal has unambiguous strategic support through the Core Strategy which considers the site to be a necessary addition to Stratford in order to deliver the district’s overall housing requirement within the plan period.

Whilst the proposed development does raise some concerns relating to impacts on heritage, highways and ecology, the majority of these impacts can be substantially diminished and in some cases improved upon by the mitigation which has been proposed by the applicant. The exception to this is in relation to the harm caused to the significance of heritage assets. That harm whilst being assessed as ‘less than substantial’ cannot be easily mitigated and must be given considerable weight by decision makers

Notwithstanding the above, I have concluded that overall, the scheme would contribute significantly to the provision of housing in the district, would provide substantive improvements to local infrastructure and would create a significant area of public open space for recreation to the benefit of existing and future residents. These are in my view significant public benefits sufficient to overcome the harm to the heritage assets which have been identified and to which I attach considerable weight. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the test within Policy CS.8 – Historic Environment and paragraph 134 of the NPPF can be satisfied.

Further more by virtue of the significant public benefits of this scheme I am satisfied that the development would not conflict with the objectives of Policies AS.1 or SUA.3 which aim to ensure that this development comes forward promptly and that it delivers a key element of the Core Strategy.

The scheme would not run counter to the environmental aspect of sustainable development for the reasons given above. It would generate economic activity during construction and would support facilities within the town. The scheme would furthermore assist towards the government’s objective of boosting the supply of housing and would help towards supporting local facilities and local economic activity. 35% of the units would be affordable housing supporting the social strand of sustainable development.

Assessing the planning balance, I consider that the benefits from the scheme are:

 Delivery of housing  Delivery of affordable housing  Maintaining the districts 5-year housing land  Delivering the strategic objectives of the Core Strategy  Delivery of open space and recreation areas in excess of policy requirements  Modest benefit to biodiversity (following mitigated by on and offsite improvement schemes, S106 and conditions)  Supporting the local economy  Construction Jobs (short term)  Improvements to off site local highway network  Financial contributions and infrastructure improvements including to: o NHS o Clinical Commissioning Group o Canal and River Trust o Local Education o Public Rights of Way o Libraries

With regards to the potential harm arising from the development, I consider that there would be harm arising from:

 Impacts to the significance of designated heritage assets,  Loss of ecological habitats (mitigated by on and offsite improvement schemes, S106 and conditions)  Potential localised highway impacts (mitigated by offsite improvement schemes, S106 and conditions)  Harm arising from constraints at Bishopton Lane Canal Bridge (mitigated by offsite improvement schemes, and conditions)

On the basis of the considerations above, I have concluded that the proposal is sustainable development. I therefore consider that the presumption in favour applies in this case and that Planning Permission should be granted. Referral to Secretary of State

Having regard to the provisions of the National Planning Practice Guidance and the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, taking into account the scale and nature of the proposed development it is not considered necessary to refer the application to the Secretary of State.

CIL Liability

If members do resolve to approve this application it would ordinarily be expected that this would be subject to a S.106 agreement. It is understood however, that a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be introduced in the District within a relatively short time scale. The details of CIL remain subject to a Public Examination however, it is expected that adoption may occur before the satisfactory completion of any S.106 agreement for this application.

Because of these circumstances, officers recommend a resolution, which will allow a Notice of Decision to be issued:

a) Where CIL is not yet adopted, subject to a S106 agreement being signed which covers the full spectrum of issues described in the recommendation; or,

b) In the event that a CIL is adopted, subject to a S106 which shall be limited to those matters which are not covered by the CIL and subject to a satisfactorily completed CIL Liability Notification Form being submitted.

RECOMMENDATION

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

Subject to a satisfactorily submitted CIL Liability Notification Form once CIL is adopted, and/or the satisfactory completion of a S.106 agreement, the detailed wording and final contribution amounts to be delegated to officers, to provide:

Stratford on Avon District Council Appropriate clauses to secure affordable housing

Appropriate clauses to secure Land to be safeguarded for education purposes for a period to be identified through further negotiation with the LPA and LEA.

Ongoing maintenance of areas of public open space and play facilities through either a management company or transfer to Town Council

£81,536.05 to provide CCTV

South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust £499,448.29 to provide additional facilities to meet patient demand

WCC Rights Of Way £18,530 to provide the increased use of local public rights of way within 1.5Km of the development site. NHS South Warwickshire Clinical Commissioning Group £109,868 to provide additional facilities to meet patient demand (subject to further negotiation)

WCC Infrastructure Team (Libraries, Education, Traffic Safety) £37,500 for Sustainable Travel Packs

£10,944 for delivery of Library services

Education and Learning

Primary and pre-school

 Pre-school £233,740  Primary School places up to £1,659,554 (to be reviewed on the 300th dwelling)  Primary Special Educational Needs £39,237

Secondary and Post 16

 Secondary places (11 – 16 years) £1,475,509  Post 16 places £315,880  Secondary age Special Needs £73,744

Total Contribution: £2,138,110 - £3,797,664

WCC Highways £490,000 over a five year period to enable improvement to the operation of the 19 bus service to enable it to operate between 07:00 hours and 19:00 hours on a 20 minute frequency

£17,000 for the enhancement of the bus stops on the Ridgeway with the provision of a bus shelter (including maintenance)

£50,000 for the implementation of a Road Safety Scheme between the development site and Arden Street.

£50,000 for the contribution towards a cycle link to the town centre via Drayton Avenue/Brookside Road/Alcester Road

Monies necessary for the delivery of the mitigation scheme identified in drawing number 20459_08_010_04, provided in Appendix M of the TA to be held by WCC for a 10 yr period to enable a scheme by HE to come forward for the junction.

WCC Ecology £9,600 to provide compensatory Skylark habitats over a thirty year period.

Canal and River Trust A contribution (amount to be defined through further negotiation) to improve accessibility to the canal towpath between Bishopton Canal Bridge and Timothy’s Bridge Road Bridge the Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT outline planning permission, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is delegated to officers:

Conditions Definition

1. Outline permission – time limit

2. Time limit for reserved matters submission

3. Reserved matters implementation – time limit

4. Condition detailing the plans and drawings subject to which the planning permission is granted

5. Housing mix condition

6. Housing accessible standards

7. Condition to ensure reserved matters submissions identify location of potential school and demonstrate that any proposed development will be compatible with neighbouring uses.

8. Submission of a phasing plan

9. No HGV movements during the construction phase will take place Monday to Friday during the time periods 07:30 - 09:00 and 16:30 - 18:00,

10. The dwellings hereby permitted shall be designed and constructed to ensure that internal road traffic noise levels do not exceed stated levels.

11. There shall be a minimum distance of at least 35 metres between any residential dwellings and the A46 in order to help protect internal and external residential amenity.

12. Submission with reserved matters application of a report demonstrating compliance with building for life 12 standards.

Pre Commencement Conditions

13. Scheme of lighting including canal side lighting to include details of illumination levels for amenity and biodiversity

14. Submission of a tree protection scheme in accordance with British Standards

15. Pollution control from wind and water borne contaminants and installation of oil and pollution interceptor traps to prevent pollution to water courses including the canal

16. No part of the development shall be commenced until the detailed design of the southern site access arrangement have first been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

17. No development shall occur until the design of the off-site highway works at the A46/A3400 Bishopton Roundabout junction have been submitted for approval. 18. No development to occur until a scheme to protect residents of the development from excessive traffic noise and noise from nearby motocross activities entering habitable rooms has been submitted and approved

19. condition relating to submission and approval of drainage plans for the disposal of surface water

20. condition relating to submission and approval of drainage plans for the disposal of foul sewage

21. No development shall take place 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 which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

22. Submission, approval and implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan

23. Submission, approval and implementation of a Landscape Ecology Management Plan

Pre Occupancy Conditions

24. Prior to first occupation, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

25. No dwellings shall be occupied on any part of the site until the approved highway access works have been completed,

26. Prior to first occupancy details of pedestrian improvements on The Ridgeway shall be submitted for approval.

27. Prior to occupation of the 101st dwelling design of the access roundabout on Bishopton Lane shall be submitted for approval

28. Prior to occupation of the 101st dwelling details of pedestrian improvements on Bishopton Lane shall be submitted for approval.

29. Prior to occupation of the 201st dwelling design of the northern site access shall be submitted for approval

30. Prior to occupation of the primary school a detailed Travel Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority which demonstrates measures to be implemented to reduce single occupancy car trips to and from the development in favour of more sustainable travel patterns.

31. Prior to first occupation, detailed plans for the location of bus infrastructure (including the design of any bus shelters) shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval

32. Prior to first occupation, submission and approval of an updated Flood Risk Assessment which further details the risk of over-topping and any mitigation that may be required Post Monitoring and Management

33. Contaminated Land Conditions for Large scale and/or complex developments including:

Site Characterisation Submission of Remediation Scheme Implementation of Deposited Remediation Scheme Validation Reporting of Unexpected Contamination Monitoring

34. Condition relating to the provision of water supplies and fire hydrants.

35. Provision of Bins

36. Provision of water butts

Notes:

1. Duty to work positively with applicants 2. Note referring to S.106 Agreement 3. Public Sewer Note 4. Highway Notes – works in the highway 5. Highway Notes – Use of Developments: The Warwickshire Guide 6. Public footpath Note 7. Nesting Birds 8. Notes relating to requirement to proposed sewer beneath the A46 9. Notes regarding secure Safe by Design Standards 10. Notes regarding status of school

Robert Weeks HEAD OF PLANNING AND HOUSING