Committee Report

COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 18/03307/REM

Land West Of B4100, Banbury Road, Lighthorne Heath Site Address

Reserved Matters pursuant to Outline Consent 15/00976/OUT relating to Phase 1 for development of 140 dwellings, landscaping, associated infrastructure including roads, electricity substation, Description of sewers, gas governor compound, foul water pumping station, Development attenuation ponds, pedestrian/cycle routes and access point through to ecology reserve. Outline application was EIA development and an Environmental Statement was submitted. Scheme has been the subject of various amendments.

Applicant Bellway Homes (South Midlands) Ltd

Reason for Referral Objection from Lighthorne Heath Parish Council to Committee Objection from Chesterton & Kingston Parish Meeting

Case Officer Tony Horton

Presenting Officer Tony Horton

Ward Member Councillor J Harris

Parish Council/ Lighthorne Heath Parish Council Meeting Chesterton & Kingston Parish Meeting  Lighthorne Conservation Area around 600m to west  Nearest Listed Buildings at Lighthorne (Grade II) around 600m to west  Tree Preservation Order trees adjacent to southern boundary. Description of Site  Lighthorne Quarry a non-statutory Local Wildlife Site (with Constraints protected species) lies to west and north.  Agricultural land (Grade 3b)  Residential properties adjacent to Southern boundary at Commanders Close and Stonebridge Road Summary of APPROVE Recommendation DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

The application site (c.4.8ha) is located to the west of the B4100 Banbury Road, to the immediate north of Lighthorne Heath Village and to the east of Lighthorne village (around 600m away) with the former Lighthorne Quarry (now a non- statutory local wildlife site) lying to the immediate west and north. The land has been in arable agricultural use for a considerable period and has hedgerows to the west, north and east boundaries. The southern boundary largely backs on to the rear gardens of residential properties at Stonebridge Road, although properties at Commanders Close are very near to the boundary and overlook the site. There is a drainage ditch and intermittent tree planting running along parts of the southern boundary. The site is on an elevated plateau sloping west and north towards the old quarry which is on lower land.

BACKGROUND & DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT

The site forms part of a wider allocation (290 ha) of land as ‘Proposal GLH: Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath’ in the Core Strategy which relates to a new settlement of 3,000 dwellings, new village centre and new employment land. The current application is the first parcel of land to come forward and has accordingly been labelled as Phase 1. The site has the benefit of outline planning permission under ref. 15/00976/OUT for residential use. The reserved matters proposals are seeking approval of the details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. The scheme consists of 140 dwellings with associated vehicular access and separate footway/cycleway to B4100, internal highways, Sustainable Urban Drainage System and planting.

The application has been amended during its consideration to take account of concerns and comments raised by neighbours to the site and consultees, including addressing technical highway matters. The amendments include:- - Changes to the site boundary to facilitate gifting land to neighbours at Commanders Close. - Relocation of dwellings to facilitate improved relationship to Commanders Close dwellings. - Relocation of Apartments first away from Stonebridge Road neighbours and second away from western boundary and reduction in height. - Relocation of Affordable Housing units away from Stonebridge Road neighbours at their request. - Additional chimneys, balconies, rationalisation of materials and additional use of stone and other changes to housetypes. - Addressing technical matters raised by the Highway Authority and other consultees.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Development Plan

Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (2011-2031)

Relevant Policies in the Development Plan for this application are: . CS.1 (Sustainable Development) . CS.2 (Climate Change and Sustainable Construction) . 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) . CS.25 (Healthy Communities) . CS.26 (Transport and Communications) . AS.10 (Countryside and Villages) . Proposal Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath (GLH)

Other Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance

. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) . National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)

Other Documents

. Gaydon/Lighthorne Heath SPD (July 2016) . Extending Your Home Planning Advice Note (2008) . Landscape Sensitivity Study 2012 . District Design Guide (April 2001) . Development Requirements SPD (Part Adopted Part Draft) . Lighthorne Heath Parish Plan 2005 . Lighthorne Parish Plan 2014

Proposal GLH in the Draft Core Strategy required the production of a Framework Masterplan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to guide developers and the local planning authority in respect of environmental, social, design and economic objectives relating to the creation of a new community on land at Gaydon/ Lighthorne Heath (GLH). The GLH SPD sets out broad principles to show how the policy requirements of Proposal GLH and the other policy requirements in the Core Strategy should be delivered on the site. The GLH SPD was adopted in July 2016 following public consultation and engagement and has full weight.

Other Legislation

. Human Rights Act 1998 . Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 . Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 . Hedgerow Regulations 1997 . Community and Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 . Localism Act 2011 . Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) . Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 & 2017 . Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 . Environmental Protection Act 1990 . Equality Act 2010 . Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 . Community Care Act 2014 . Housing and Planning Act 2016; . The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017; . Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017. SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY

Outline planning permission was granted for the site, as part of the wider GLH allocation for 2,000 dwellings and a new village centre under 15/00976/OUT on 14.12.17.

Another part of the GLH allocation is the subject of an outline planning application (15/04200/OUT) for 1,000 dwellings (IM Properties) that was resolved to be granted by Planning Committee East on 11.10.16 and is pending the completion of the associated S106 Agreement.

Application 17/01017/S106 related to the treatment of the B4100 Banbury Road and details of this were given approval by Planning Committee East on 23.5.17.

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant’s Supporting Documents

The following documents have been submitted as part of the reserved matters application: . Planning Statement including Design Principles Matrix Compliance Check . Design and Access Statement . Transport Assessment Addendum . Site Access Capacity Assessment and Plan . Drainage Strategy Plans . Updated Flood Risk Assessment . Landscape Strategy and Plans . House Types Plans & Elevations . Electric Vehicle Charging Plan . Statement of Community Involvement . Materials Plan . Housing Tenure Plan . Boundary Treatments Plan . Services and Infrastructure Plans . Vehicle Tracking Plans . Bin Stores & Carrying Distances Plans . Parking Plans . Noise Report & Mitigation Plan . Stage 2 Road Safety Audit & Consultants Response . Road Hierarchy Plan . Adoptions Plan

Applicant’s Comments

The proposed development will initiate the Gaydon Lighthorne Heath New Settlement in accordance with outline consent 15/00976/OUT and commence delivery of the Core Strategy Settlement Allocation. The Reserved Matters provided have sought to evolve the approved outline masterplan that covers the allocated site, taking into account the requirements of the Gaydon Lighthorne Heath SPD, specific design feedback from Lighthorne and Lighthorne Heath Parish Council, as well as responding directly to the feedback of adjoining residents. The application submission was paused to allow for thorough consultation, whilst the application’s consideration has also addressed detailed technical matters, residential amenity concerns, infrastructure provision, house type design enhancements and environmental considerations.

The scheme presented for approval responds directly to adopted planning policy considerations whilst also addressing specific design matters. The design of the dwellings has sought to address three identifiable themes across the site – Traditional Dwelling design with red brick finish, chimneys and articulated openings – Contemporary Influence along the primary access road where a varied range of material and openings seeks to reflect the envisaged modern architecture of the wider new settlement – and a Parkland Quality to the western boundary where chimneys, wooden finishes and balconies have been used to create a soft design tone adjacent to the new Country Park adjacent.

The layout presented provides affordable housing throughout the scheme, avoiding unacceptable clusters and relocating the apartment building away from existing dwellings and the key frontage. The scheme has positively presented an even density distribution across the site, with the elevational treatment and use of materials used to provide character areas within the layout. Critically this has involved the use of wood and stone within the elevations of properties that form the parkland character area at the direct request of Parish Councillors.

The most recent amendments to the layout have striven to ensure the layout meets adoptable highway standards, addresses conditioned noise mitigation requirements, provides cycle and pedestrian routes through the layout, delivers the access to the Country Park and provides suitable landscaping to peripheral boundaries. As part of the landscaping treatments to be provided a specific landscaping scheme for the southern boundary area will be agreed with neighbouring residents through planning conditions to ensure an appropriate planting arrangement is delivered. In addition, an area of the site will be gifted to two adjoining residents to enlarge their gardens and ensure that they have control over future landscaping between their properties and the development. The Reserved Matter details provided have sought to address both policy and site specific requirements, which with the support of Council Officers has delivered a scheme that will set a high quality standard for the new settlement. [End of Applicant’s Comments]

Ward Member

Councillor Jacqui Harris – No comment at this time (27.2.19).

Adjacent Ward Members

Councillor Chris Kettle – No comments received.

Councillor Chris Mills – No comments received.

Parish Council/Meeting

The site is largely within Lighthorne Heath Parish with a narrow slither falling under Chesterton & Kingston Parish Meeting. It is understood that Lighthorne Heath Parish Council will take on Governance of the entire residential part of the GLH site from Chesterton & Kingston Parish Meeting as of May 2019.

Lighthorne Heath Parish Council

Acknowledge the consideration given by Bellway following Stakeholder Consultations and local residents meetings to amend the scheme in relation to re- siting the apartments, changes to house types and design, and providing landscape buffer for Commanders Close. However, object for the following reasons:- Phasing – Concerned that the application precedes any infrastructure east of B4100 and road improvements. The design does not reflect the Design & Access Statement with regard to a high quality approach and integration with Lighthorne Heath community.

Density – Whilst density meets the requirements of the (GLH) SPD there is no provision for green/amenity space as a result of setting the SUDS within the field boundary. Many gardens are small and offer little or no access to open space which is not in line with the aspirations of the SPD.

Provision of Open Space – Condition 10B of the outline permission requires details of open spaces. This application falls short on provision of open spaces.

Building Height – Contravenes the SPD and should be adhered to.

Affordable Housing – Whilst the distribution meets the requirements of the S106 agreement it is disappointing they are not more widely distributed, mostly being along the edge of existing Lighthorne Heath properties. Locations do not relate to the siting of the new village centre therefore not making easy access to facilities.

Architectural Design – Whilst consideration has been given to requests for more traditional design of housing in the area, overall the design lacks architectural integrity as set out in the SPD for the Park Edge. Would like to see further details of materials and (in line with officer suggestions) more use of stone and chimneys.

Pedestrian Access – Significant concerns about the safe movement of pedestrians and schoolchildren in accessing Lighthorne Heath. The outline permission Condition 10A requires an access road through Phase 1 parcel to the sports pitches and other links. Would like to see provision of a metalled access through the Country Park to the school. Without such provision children would have to walk or cycle alongside the B4100 with 40mph speed limit. Pedestrian safety should coincide with the release of the first dwellings.

B4100 Improvement Works – Concerns about traffic, traffic noise and lack of improvements to the B4100 to support this development which does not accord with the SPD or Condition 10B. Serious concerns regarding increased traffic flow and feel modifications to B4100 should be included with the phase to ensure safety and integration.

Other – Whilst it is not a planning issue, disappointed the site is referred to as Kingston Grange. (17.12.18)

Comments following the submission of Amended proposals

Note the addition of chimneys but fairly dispersed. Note inclusion of stone materials and request Plot 5 is also stone. Request relocation of plots 72-74 so no rear access is required, in the interests of security and noise impacts on local residents. Repeat previous comments. (8.2.19) Chesterton & Kingston Parish Meeting

Object for the following reasons:- 1. No consideration to the treatment of the B4100 with necessary traffic calming, pedestrian needs, lighting. Safety of pedestrians using B4100 to get to Lighthorne Heath is not taken into account. 2. Design of houses is not in line with the Design & Access Statement of being a high quality ‘garden village’ approach. 3. Integration into the existing Lighthorne Heath community is not provided for. (17.12.18)

Adjacent Parish Councils

Lighthorne Parish Council

Phasing – Concerned that the application precedes any infrastructure east of B4100 and road improvements. The design does not reflect the Design & Access Statement with regard to a high quality approach and integration with Lighthorne Heath community.

Traffic – Concerns about road safety during and post construction. The development is going ahead of original phasing in the SPD whereas if it was part of the Village Centre the trigger for work to the B4100 would take place and safe movement of traffic would have been addressed.

Provision of Open Space – Condition 10B of the outline permission requires details of open spaces. This application falls short on provision of open spaces.

Building Height – Contravenes the SPD and should be adhered to.

Environmental Impact Assessment – concerned that this is not deemed to be required. The quarry is a Local Wildlife site and consideration must be given to protect the ecology. Evidence of Great Crested Newts in the area. Request assessment for an EIA is revisited. Pedestrian Access – Significant concerns about the safe movement of pedestrians and schoolchildren in accessing Lighthorne Heath. Would like to see provision of a metalled access through the Country Park to the school. The trigger for the main treatment of B4100 is 400 dwellings so road improvements are not likely for some time. Pedestrian safety should coincide with the release of the first dwellings.

Other – Whilst it is not a planning issue, disappointed the site is referred to as Kingston Grange. (23.12.18)

Comments following the submission of Amended proposals

Maintain objection, would like to see previous submitted issues tackled together with more stone facing to houses along edge of Old Quarry and greater proportion of chimneys - brick not plastic. (4.2.19)

Gaydon Parish Council

No comments received.

Third Party Responses

The comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer. The full responses can be viewed in the application file on the District Council’s Web site.

At the time of Agenda preparation 21 letters of objection from 14 local residents received (including a letter from Lighthorne Heath Children & Family Centre). Planning grounds for objection are as follows:

- Overlooking of existing dwellings from the dwellings and cycle path. - Traffic generation, B4100 upgrade and repair is needed with associated services and crossings at an early stage in a coordinated manner. - Traffic and other residential related noise, lights, fumes, pollution and disturbance harming neighbours. - Highway safety issues. - Location of affordable housing. - Pedestrian & cyclist safety and distances to Lighthorne Heath and school. - Height of apartment exceeds SPD and Building Height Parameter Plan. - Siting of apartments adjacent to site west boundary is harmful to character and visual amenity of the locality [Since relocated away]. - Too high a density. - Lack of open and amenity space within site. - Construction noise and disturbance. - Construction phase should be minimised in length with clear communication channels available between interested parties and environmental protections. - Construction phase needs adequate access arrangements, control of mud, debris and litter and areas for storage, parking etc. - Presence of Great Crested Newts needs mitigating. - Lack of EIA Screening, particularly as wildlife site adjacent. - Lack of stone buildings. - ‘Park Edge’ character has not been realised including lack of chimneys, balconies and post & rail fencing. - Request for gas main to Commanders Close. - Request for culverting of ditch in ‘gifted land’ and appropriate boundary treatment. - Security concerns of existing dwellings from rear access paths. - Need tree roots protection and additional tree planting. - Appreciation of amendments to scheme to relocate apartments away from Stonebridge Road and to provide planting but clarification of boundary treatment needed. - Ash path upgrade should be secured at this stage. - Potential damage to trees and threat from trees to neighbours.

Other, non-material planning related, matters have also been raised.

CONSULTATIONS

Highways England

The principle of the development has been agreed. However request further detail regarding how noise impact of the local strategic network will be assessed and managed in relation to the site. Recommend reserved matters should not be approved until this matter is addressed. (10.12.18)

Comments following the submission of further information

Have reviewed the additional information and it is apparent that the main source of noise impact on residents is from the B4100. The report seeks to demonstrate mitigation for this. No further comments. (13.2.19)

WCC Highways

Request for additional information relating to: the access arrangements; visibility splays; vehicle tracking and road safety. Issues to be addressed including: highway hierarchy design; shared spaces; changes in surface areas and vehicle speeds; adoption; cycle link; standards for private driveways; gradients; and bin collection distances. (4.1.19)

Comments received following the submission of amended information

Request for additional information relating to: the access arrangements; vehicle tracking and road safety. Issues to be addressed including: highway hierarchy design; shared spaces; changes in surface areas and vehicle speeds; adoption; cycle link; standards for private driveways; gradients; and bin collection distances. (8.2.19)

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR)

No comments received.

Aston Martin Lagonda (AML)

No comments received.

WCC Lead Local Flood Authority

The surface water drainage strategy is different from that in the approved outline application however the supporting evidence confirms the viability of the drainage strategy layout for this reserved matters and is deemed acceptable. (11.12.18) Environment Agency

No comments received.

Severn Trent

No comments received.

Natural England

No Objection. (10.12.18)

WCC Ecology

Have considered the Draft Mitigation Strategy for Great Crested Newts and confirm no objection to the reserved matters application. Will await consultation on discharge of planning conditions and obligations. (17.12.18 & 22.1.19)

Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

No comments received.

SDC Landscape Consultant

Generally agrees with case officer comments made to applicants during the course of the application. Raises concerns about the balancing pond in terms of getting access to maintain roadside hedge and proximity to footpath. Suggests changes to some tree species and other planting. (14.12.19)

SDC Street Scene Contract Officer (Waste and Recycling)

Issues with the refuse vehicle tracking. (7.2.9)

SDC Conservation Officer

From a heritage perspective, no substantive issues with the application. Comments on design issues:- - Layout acceptable - Forms of dwellings acceptable and do not conflict with District Design Guidance - Apartments height appears to contradict Design & Access Statement regarding maximum heights of 2 and 2.5 storey. - Materials mix offers variety but goes too far. - Design & Access document’s concept of traditional elevations and materials reflecting neighbouring settlement and character of the area is not convincing in the house designs. - Recommends standard conditions relating to materials and large scale drawings. (5.12.18)

Historic England

On the basis of the information available to date, do not wish to offer any comments. Suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant. It is not necessary to be consulted on this application again, unless there are material changes to the proposals (4.12.18) SDC Environmental Health

No objection (28.11.18)

Comments following submission of further information (noise mitigation)

No objection (28.1.19)

Police Designing Out Crime Officer

No objections. Highlight opportunities to design out crime via Secure By Design measures. (27.11.18)

WCC Rights of Way

There are no recorded public rights of way crossing or immediately abutting the site. Assume new pedestrian/cycle routes will be offered for adoption. If so then have no objection or comments. (17.12.19)

WCC Fire & Rescue

No comments received.

National Grid (Gas Distribution)

No comments received.

Western Power (Electricity)

No comments received.

CPRE

No comments received.

Friends of Rural and Sustainable Environment (FORSE)

No comments received.

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Principle of Development

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.

To assess the acceptability of the principle of development, the outline application explored in detail (through Environmental Impact Assessment documents) the impacts of all key material matters including traffic generation and other highway matters, heritage assets, ecology, landscape character, drainage and flood risk, infrastructure and services, air quality, noise, and agricultural land loss. The Planning Committee East took all material matters into account in concluding that outline permission should be granted. The principle of the residential development of the application site comprising dwellings was therefore established by outline planning permission 15/00976/OUT including the associated Land Use Parameters Plan.

This reserved matters application proposes development which is in accordance with the approved Land Use Parameters Plan secured at outline stage and is considered acceptable in principle, subject to the detailed considerations set out below.

Contribution to the 5 Year Housing land Supply

As at 31st March 2018, the Council can demonstrate the equivalent of 6.26 years’ worth of housing land supply (reduced from 6.67 in 2017). The figure of 6.26 assumes delivery of 200 homes from the GLH development (permitted under 15/00976/OUT for 2,000 homes) with delivery commencing in 2020/21 and being built out for the remainder, and beyond, the plan period. This was on the basis that the site has been allocated for development and has outline consent (or resolution to grant outline consent for the IMP land) and a proportion of housing is considered to be deliverable within the 5 years. Completions in 2020/21 are based on the assumption that reserved matters would be granted Spring 2019 thereby providing adequate lead-in time for completions to commence as expected. Refusal of the reserved matters application would call into question the deliverability of the scheme and could result in the removal of all 140 homes (if not all 200 homes) from this site within the 5 year period. (Subsequent reserved matters applications would deal with the remaining 60 homes within the 5 year period). Unless other parts of GLH come forward and are approved with equivalent or more numbers of dwellings the impact of refusal would be to increase the loss by a further 105 homes (expected in 2023/24) when the calculation is next updated at 31st March 2019 and the 5 year period rolls forward.

Main Access Arrangements

Consideration of the outline planning application involved assessments of GLH generated traffic on the strategic and local highway networks and accepted the principle of allowing the traffic movements generated by 3,000 dwellings and a new village centre associated with the GLH new settlement. Whilst the outline permission secured the positions of access points into the main part of GLH to the east of B4100 and the Access & Movement Parameter Plan showed an access into the western parcel, the position of the western access has been left to the reserved matters phase to fix. The general principle of housing on the western side of the B4100 to be served by a ‘T’ junction access with ghost island has however been accepted.

Pre-application discussions with WCC as Highway Authority led to the agreement that a site access slightly further north than shown on the Access & Movement Parameter Plan would be acceptable, particularly as it takes the access further from the proposed main crossing points of the B4100.

The Highway Authority has considered the details of the access arrangements and asked for further information to satisfy them that the junction capacity and safety is acceptable. A meeting involving the Case Officer, WCC Highways Engineers and the developers team has also taken place to ascertain the information that was needed. Additional information and amendments to the scheme to address concerns have been submitted and were still being assessed by the Highway Authority at the time of agenda preparation. The Highway Authority response is anticipated to be available to be updated to the committee. On the assumption that the Highway Authority has been provided with the required information to fully assess the capacity and safety of the main access junction and which enables them to raise no objection, then I would find the access arrangements acceptable in highway safety terms and in general accordance with the Access and Movement Parameter Plan and with policies CS.9 and CS.26 of the Core Strategy.

Scale, Height & Density

Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy states that densities should be appropriate to the site taking into account the fact that a key principle of good design is the relationship between the height, width and depth of buildings.

Policy CS.15 requires the scale of the development to be appropriate to its immediate surroundings and to the overall size and character of the settlement.

The outline permission included both a Height Parameters Plan and Density Parameters Plan. Condition 4 of the outline permission requires development to be in general accordance with these (and other) parameter plans.

With regard to density, the GLH SPD identifies the site as part of the ‘Park Edge’ Character Area which allows for a density of up to 35 dwellings per hectare (dph). The Density Parameter Plan splits the application site in two with the northern section (which abuts the Old Quarry area) up to 25 dph and the southern section (which abuts Lighthorne Heath Village) up to 30 dph.

The proposed development can be generally split into north and south parcels by the main road running east-west through it (The Avenue). The density of the northern parcel is around 22.5 dph (and is affected by the large SUDS drainage area), whilst the density of the southern parcel is around 35.8 dph. The overall density of the site is around 29.1 dph.

Given that the least dense part of the site relates to the more sensitive edges of the site with the Old Quarry (to become a Managed Ecological Reserve) then I am satisfied that the overall density of the development is in general accordance with the approved Density Parameter Plan and GLH SPD.

With regard to building heights, the GLH SPD advocates that within the Park Edge character area, building heights can be up to 2.5 storeys. The Building Heights Parameters Plan sets the building heights at up to 10m (2 storey) for developments to be in general accordance with.

With the exception of an Apartment block of 6 x 1 bed units the proposals are all 2 storey and below 10m in height. This represents a 96% compliance with the Parameter Plan. The apartment block has been the subject of amendments to first relocate it away from residents at Stonebridge Road (who had requested such) to the western boundary with the Old Quarry. A second amendment has seen the relocation of the apartments away from the more sensitive western edge towards the southern boundary (but set away from existing residents). A third amendment has seen the height of the apartments being reduced by 0.5m to stand at around 10.9m high.

Taking into account the relocation of the apartment block away from existing residents and the more sensitive edge to the Old Quarry and the amendment to reduce the height I am now satisfied that the development as a whole is in general accordance with the approved Building Height Parameter Plan and GLH SPD. The proposed dwellings would vary in size and would create a sufficiently varied mix of forms in relation to streets and spaces to add interest to the overall development. An appropriate relationship would be achieved between the height, width and depth of buildings, resulting in a sensitive and distinctive development. I am therefore satisfied with the overall scale, mass, density and height of the proposals.

Layout

Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that the layout of proposals is easy to navigate with buildings designed and positioned to define and enhance a hierarchy of streets and spaces, taking account of the relationship between building height and street width. It requires public and private spaces to be clearly defined and aims to avoid areas that have little or no public or biodiversity value. Occupants of new and neighbouring buildings will be protected from unacceptable levels of noise, contamination and pollution, loss of daylight and privacy, and adverse surroundings.

The vision relating to Proposal GLH, as contained in the Core Strategy, also states that the new settlement will be a sustainable and vibrant new community that is inclusive and diverse with its own distinctive local identity focused, where appropriate, upon contemporary design and innovation.

The GLH SPD sustainability principle/vision no.3 and 6 seek for the development to deliver high quality and standards of sustainable design and the SPD sets out residential place making principles that are modelled on the ‘Building For Life 12’ Criteria.

The outline planning permission (15/00976/OUT) includes Parameter Plans together with a Design Matrix that sets out the Design Principles for development at GLH.

The scheme has been the subject of pre-application discussions that has had the initial input of an independent team of professional specialists in the areas of Planning, Urban Design, Highways and Landscape forming a Design Review Panel. The comments made via the Design Review process helped shape the scheme as it thereafter became the subject of public consultation and more latterly detailed discussions with Lighthorne Heath and Lighthorne Parishes and local residents. This process, along with responses to consultation comments during the application phase, has led to iterative changes to the layout of the site to further refine and improve the scheme.

Siting and Mix

The GLH SPD guidance on the ‘Park Edge’ character area is for a high proportion of larger detached houses that overlook the open space. The siting of large detached houses is secured along the northern edge of the site overlooking the Old Quarry (to become a Managed Ecological Reserve). There are also predominantly detached houses overlooking the western boundary.

Elsewhere large houses front on to the primary road in the area, the B4100 and key plots are picked out at junctions within the estate whilst terminal views allow for vistas to the Managed Ecological Reserve.

The Council’s preferred market housing mix is set out in Core Strategy Policy CS.19. During the consideration of the outline applications agreement was reached between the Council and land promoters on the appropriate market housing mix for the new settlement. The market housing mix for the site is secured by Condition 10 (Part A) of the outline permission and the scheme accords with this approved mix.

The S106 agreement relating to the approved outline permission secures an overall provision of 35% affordable housing for the GLH site but also allows for a reduced provision of 25% in the early phases of the GLH build out. Any shortfall in the early phases will be made up by additional provision in the subsequent phases.

Bellway have taken advantage of the reduced provision clause and are proposing 25% of affordable housing which equates to 35 units. These are made up of 17 shared ownership, 14 affordable rent and 4 social rent. The bedroom provision split is 6 x 1 bed, 15 x 2 bed, 12 x 3 bed and 2 x 4 bed.

Concerns were raised by residents of Stonebridge Road that there was excessive clustering of affordable housing along the southern boundary of the site. Whilst the clustering was in accordance with levels set in the S106 Agreement and therefore acceptable in planning terms Bellway Homes have decided to relocate some of the affordable units away from this area in an attempt to appease neighbours.

Overall I am satisfied that the siting and mix of dwellings is in accordance with relevant conditions and obligations and acceptable in planning terms to create a cohesive, mixed and balanced community.

Accessibility, Movement & Community Cohesion

The site entrance is taken off the B4100 Banbury Road and forms the primary route through the development (The Avenue). Secondary routes branch off from this and tertiary routes thereafter follow. The understanding of the road hierarchy is formed by the design and dimensions of the routes with The Avenue being the widest highway and having street trees, the secondary roads becoming narrower and leading to smaller scale private drives. This road hierarchy gives the development legibility to movements and understanding of place and is further reinforced by the positioning of key plots at highway junctions.

The layout is designed with large houses fronting the B4100 and perimeter residential block configured housing, which ensures that the majority of dwellings front onto the public street and create active frontages. The proposed layout provides natural surveillance of the streets, cycle link and parking areas and allows the perimeter dwellings to be orientated to be outward looking to the surrounding countryside.

Concerns have been raised regarding the perceived lack of links to the existing Lighthorne Heath village. The land adjacent to the site along the entire southern boundary is either in private control as garden land or forms part of the Lighthorne Heath Primary School land. Securing access directly through the southern boundary therefore requires the agreement of private householders or the school. The footway cycleway running through the site has purposely been routed so that a (secure gated) link from the site to the school grounds and school might be possible. I understand that the Parish Council and officers at WCC are in discussions with the school to see whether such a link might be possible and Bellway have signalled that they can facilitate this. Notwithstanding the issue of the potential school link, I am satisfied that an appropriate pedestrian and cycle link to Lighthorne Heath and its facilities (including school, shop, play facilities and village hall) will be provided from the site along the verge of the B4100 and providing links to Gifford Road. Condition 25A of the outline permission requires this footway cycleway to be completed prior to any occupation of dwellings on the Bellway site as part of the B4100 Interim Works. A longer term link from the site to the village via the Managed Ecological Reserve will also be available from around the point of 1,000 dwellings occupation of the GLH land relating to the outline permission, when the sports facilities on the western side of Lighthorne Heath are programmed to be delivered. I consider that the links will facilitate community cohesion with the existing village in both the short and longer term.

The site is ideally located to take advantage of the facilities of the new village centre that will arise through the development of land on the main part of the GLH allocation on the eastern side of the B4100. The village centre will include a new Primary School (replacing the existing), community hub, shops, supermarket, pub and other commercial premises. New crossing facilities have been agreed between the site and the new village centre that will facilitate safe and convenient crossing for pedestrians and cyclists. The crossing facilities will also allow access to the open space provision and play facilities of the main site. I consider that the relationship between the site and the eastern part of the GLH allocation will allow for appropriate community cohesion in the longer term.

The site is surrounded on two sides by the Old Quarry which is programmed to become a Managed Ecological Reserve (MER) with managed access to this at around 900 dwellings occupation of the GLH land relating to the outline permission. Links from the site to the MER are provided for from the northern and western boundaries.

The Highway Authority has raised concerns regarding elements of the layout including relating to traffic speeds, highway safety from vehicle movements and other technical standards being met. A meeting with the Highway Authority has taken place to resolve these matters. This has resulted in the changes to the scheme to design for vehicle speeds of 20mph within the site. Such design features involve the provision of raised tables and changed surface materials at key junctions; the change from shared surfaces to normal standard roads with build out features; and alterations to parking areas, private drives, turning heads and other elements of the layout. The amended scheme was still being considered by the Highway Authority at time of agenda preparation but its response is anticipated to be available to be updated to the committee.

I consider that the amended scheme provides a well connected movement network, accessible by all users and which helps ensure all areas of the development are easy to navigate and in general conformity with the Access and Movement Parameters Plan approved at the outline stage. On the assumption that the revisions will enable the Highway Authority to raise no objection to the layout, I consider the scheme to be acceptable in relation to highway safety.

Impacts on Neighbours’ Amenity

I am generally satisfied that the living standards and amenity for new residents of the scheme will be acceptable. The only part of the site proposals that have potential impacts on existing neighbours is along the southern boundary where existing dwellings of Lighthorne Heath village are located. There are 5 dwellings on Stonebridge Road that back on to the development 2 dwellings at Commanders Close that effectively front on to the development and a number of other dwellings in the vicinity that are affected to a lesser degree.

The Stonebridge Road houses that back onto the site have relatively long gardens and the existing houses lie between 14 to 23 metres from the site boundary. The initial proposals included an apartment block in the south east corner of the site, to which the local residents objected. Whilst the relationship between the apartments and the Stonebridge Rd dwellings was deemed acceptable to officers, the applicants nevertheless decided to relocate the apartment block to try and appease the neighbours.

The apartment block has been replaced by 2 storey dwellings, which lie between 12 to 16 metres away from the boundary of the site. This means that the closest relationship from new dwellings to existing dwellings on Stonebridge Road is around 28m, but most are between 33-38m away. The Council’s guidance in such matters is currently contained in ‘Extending Your Home’ which requires a minimum of 21m separation distance between windows in such circumstances and 10m from windows to neighbours gardens. These standards are met. I also take account that there is intervening planting and some existing boundary features between the site and neighbours properties and that the new dwellings and the site boundary will have close boarded fencing to the rear and additional tree planting in rear gardens will take place. I therefore conclude that there will be no material harm to residents of Stonebridge Road in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of light, overshadowing or overbearing impacts or other noise and disturbance.

The two most affected Commanders Close dwellings, numbers 3 & 4, were granted planning permission on appeal and constructed circa 2000 to be positioned immediately adjacent to the application site. They have ground and first floor windows to habitable rooms directly overlooking the existing field with extensive views to the distance as the land falls away in height. There are similar views available from their gardens, which are positioned to the sides of the dwellings.

Whilst it may be argued that the positioning of these dwellings was perhaps not good planning in the first instance, it nevertheless does not remove the need to ensure that the proposals maintain these properties with an appropriate level of amenity. Whilst I have a great deal of sympathy for these residents whose outlook will be completely altered, it should however be clearly identified that the loss of a private view across privately owned third party land is not a matter that the planning system can take into account.

A site visit involving the case officer and representatives of Bellway was made to the affected Commanders Close properties and discussions with the owners, the Parish Council and other neighbours took place on site and at the Village Hall. Further communications and discussions have since followed. This has culminated in the applicants revising their proposals to achieve the following:- - Positioning of all new dwellings to achieve the minimum standard required distance of 21m directly between habitable windows. - Positioning all new dwellings to achieve the minimum standard required distance of 10m between habitable windows and existing garden boundaries. - Providing wider gaps between plot dwellings. - Re-orientating dwellings to have angled rather than direct views from windows toward neighbours. - Providing close boarded fencing along rear gardens. - Providing new tree planting in the rear gardens of new properties. I now turn to the assessment of the impacts of the proposals on Commanders Close residents. The appropriate distances between habitable windows that directly face each other and to existing gardens are achieved. The changes to the scheme have cumulatively improved the relationship of the new development to existing residents. I also take into account the existing presence of some trees, the proposed boundary treatment and new planting and conclude that there will be no unacceptable harm to residents of Commanders Close in terms of overlooking, loss of privacy, loss of light, overshadowing or overbearing impacts or other noise and disturbance.

In addition to the above amendments Bellway Homes have advised that they wish to gift land to numbers 3 & 4 Commanders Close and, as a demonstration of their willingness to do this, have amended the application site boundary to exclude this land from their proposals. The land in question lies to the north of Commanders Close properties and would in effect provide them with a new rear garden between their houses and the rear boundaries of the development. The area of land would roughly double the amount of garden land that these properties currently have.

As the gifting of land is a private land deal between Bellway and the residents, it is not a matter that can be directly taken into consideration in assessing the proposals. The planning assessment should be made on the basis of a ‘worst case scenario’ i.e. that the private land deal does not take place. In such a scenario there would be a parcel of land lying between Commanders Close dwellings and the rear fenced gardens of the new development. In order to ensure the appropriate management of this land (if not gifted to the residents) then I recommend a Grampian style planning condition that requires details of the treatment and management of the land to be agreed with the Planning Authority.

The issue of security has been raised by a number of neighbours, concerned that provision of paths to the rear gardens of the new development will facilitate access to their own rear gardens. The current situation is that the neighbours back on to an open field that potentially allows unlawful access to their properties. Details of the boundary treatment have been submitted which show closeboarded fencing along the boundary and landscaping. Bellway have advised that they wish to seek agreement with the adjacent neighbours regarding the details of any new site boundary treatment. I therefore recommend dealing with the final approval of the boundary treatments by planning condition. This will enable discussions between Bellway and the residents to take place and for Officers to ensure that any submitted scheme affords appropriate levels of security, screening and privacy for neighbours.

Parking, EV Charging and Refuse

The proposals secure vehicular parking and cycle parking provision that meets or exceeds the standards of the Draft Development requirements SPD. Each property with an on-plot garage or parking space secures appropriate Electric Vehicle (EV) charging facilities and off-plot parking areas secure an appropriate % of spaces with EV Charging points and/or cabling.

A Refuse Strategy Plan has been provided which demonstrates that suitable storage and collection points have been designed in to the scheme and I consider that this allows acceptable ‘bin carrying’ distances for residents and refuse workers. Amended tracking diagrams have been submitted demonstrating the movements of private vehicles, fire tenders and refuse wagons within the estate layout. Subject to the final consideration of these by the Highway Authority I would raise no concerns.

Appearance

Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that proposals are sensitive to their setting, are of a high quality architectural design and include appropriate landscaping to create places where people want to live, work and visit. Proposals should use a limited palette of materials to give coherence to the overall design. Policy CS.15 requires the design of the development to be well-related to, and can be readily integrated with, the existing form of the settlement.

The GLH SPD identifies the site as part of the ‘Park Edge’ character area and calls for a high proportion of larger detached homes overlooking the Managed Ecological Reserve (MER) and incorporating large windows and balconies at first floor level to take advantage of the views. Boundary fences should be rustic in style in proximity to the open countryside and materials guidance is simply given as brick and timber.

At pre-application stage, the Design Review Panel thought that a transition of house type character might be successfully achieved from traditional/arts & crafts along the northern and western parts of the site in proximity to the MER, to a more contemporary style nearing the B4100 and the new village centre, which will lie opposite the south east part of the site.

At the pre-application public exhibition there were mixed views from those submitting comments forms regarding a scheme with “predominantly contemporary styling” with 65% being opposed and 35% in support. As a result of this, and following several meetings with Parish representatives to discuss the matter, the scheme has evolved instead to be a predominantly traditional / arts & crafts development in the northern, western and southern areas with a pared down contemporary styling in the south east sector of the site and along the frontages with the B4100, reflecting the new village centre opposite.

I consider that this gradual transition from traditional styles addressing the open countryside and addressing the existing Lighthorne Heath Village and a moderately cotemporary style addressing the new, larger scale and more contemporary architecture that will be adopted in the village centre is an appropriate way forward for the development.

With regard to materials, the initial scheme was both lacking in quality and confused with a plethora of different wall and roof materials, textures and colours. The revised materials scheme has been improved by a significant increase (from 3 to 12 dwellings) in the number of dwellings making use of stone and simplified through a reduction in the number of different roof tile colours and elevation treatments. This has included the removal of black timber cladding which was considered uncharacteristic of the area and district. I do however recommend that the final choice of materials is conditioned to allow for samples of the materials to be submitted for approval.

With regard to detailing, I note that the majority of the houses fronting on to the Managed Ecological Reserve to the north and a healthy proportion of houses overlooking to the west contain first floor balconies as suggested by the SPD. I also note that Bellway have amended the scheme to increase the number of chimneys following representations on this matter. Chimneys are now particularly well provided for along the boundaries with the open countryside, along the B4100, on key corner plots and at terminal views. I do however recommend that a planning condition be applied to allow approval of the large scale detailing including porches, balconies, chimneys, eaves and verges.

Overall, I consider that the appearance of the development would be attractive and sensitive to its setting and outlooks and to the character of the existing and future planned surrounding area, all in accordance with policies CS.9 and CS.15 of the Core Strategy.

Landscaping

Policy CS.5 aims to maintain the landscape character and quality of the District by ensuring that development takes place in a manner that minimises and mitigates its impact and, where possible, incorporates measures to enhance the landscape.

Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy seeks to ensure that proposals will, amongst other things, be sensitive to the landscape character and topography of the site and locality, making best use of on-site assets including landscaping features as well as public views and vistas and not harming existing ones.

Policy CS.15 requires that the location and extent of the development does not have an unreasonably harmful impact on the surrounding landscape and setting of the settlement.

The GLH SPD identifies the site as being Landscape Character Zone 3 and notes its separation from the Old Quarry by its boundary hedgerows and trees and its lack of other notable landscape features. There is a Group TPO (G3) in the south east corner of the site with a number of oak, ash and field maple.

The landscaping of the site has been conceived to enhance the setting of the development through a number of elements. The boundary hedgerows of the site are retained, with the exception of any sections that are required to be removed to facilitate access to and from the site. Existing boundary trees are retained and additional tree planting of native species, including Oak, will take place along boundaries of the site.

The primary route (The Avenue) will have street trees on both sides of the highway to reinforce the importance of the route. Draft details of proposed lighting column/lamp positions have been provided and the applicants landscape consultant has taken this into account in positioning the street trees. Final approval of lighting details will however be via discharge of the outline planning condition relating to lighting. Secondary streets will have tree and shrub planting in key areas and to break up parking bays.

The north east part of the site contains a large balancing pond which has appropriate grading of slopes and extensive planting of trees, shrubs and wetland plants. The TPO group in the south east corner has buildings outside of root protection areas and where boundary features or hardstandings are needed near these there will be specialist excavation procedures under appropriate supervision.

The Council’s landscape consultant raised a number of matters from the initial submission which I am satisfied have been appropriately addressed through amendments to the scheme and landscape proposals. I consider that, subject to conditions governing works near TPO trees and the hard landscaping details, the landscaping scheme creates a strong, attractive and seasonally diverse landscaping setting that harmonises with the surroundings. The scheme is therefore in accordance with the provisions of Policy CS.5, CS.9 and CS.15 of the Core Strategy, the GLH SPD and parameters of the outline permission in terms of the impact on existing trees and hedges, the landscape character and visual impact.

Drainage

Core Strategy Policy CS.4 provides the requirements for consideration regarding development and Surface Water Runoff and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. Policy requires all development proposals to provide sustainable measures for dealing with drainage on site to prevent potential for flooding on or in the vicinity of the site or as a result of surface water run-off exacerbating flood issues elsewhere.

The development site is not within any floodplain, falling within Flood Zone 1. The submitted SuDS proposals have been considered by the Lead Local Flood Authority which advises that whilst the scheme differs from the system advocated in the outline Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) the current submitted FRA provides justification for the proposed system.

The SuDS scheme drains water to the lower part of the site in the north east and detains and treats this in a holding pond before allowing a greenfield run off rate to the Managed Ecological Reserve.

With regard to foul drainage the proposals include a pumping station in the North West corner of the site which will pump flows to the public foul sewer on Banbury Road and thereafter to the appropriate STW treatment works. STW has advised the developers that sufficient capacity is available to take flows.

For these reasons, the proposal would not have an adverse impact in respect of public health and amenity within the site or in the locality, in accordance with the provisions of Core Strategy Policy CS.4 subject to the final details being approved in accordance with the requirements of the existing outline drainage conditions.

Heritage Assets

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development that affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority 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. In addition Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that special attention should be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

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. Issues relating to the potential impact on the setting of listed buildings were carefully considered out outline planning stage where it was concluded that the wider proposed GLH development would have less than substantial harm.

No designated heritage assets are directly affected by the proposal on this site. The Lighthorne Conservation Area does however lie around 600m to west and the nearest Listed Buildings (Grade II) to the site are at Lighthorne also around 600m to west.

The Conservation Officer has considered the proposals and states that there are no substantive issues from a heritage perspective. Taking this into account together with the distances between the edge of the site and Lighthorne and the intervening trees and hedges, I conclude that the proposed development will have no harm to listed buildings and the conservation area.

With regard to archaeology the site has been the subject of two sets of trial trenching investigations and associated assessment. The submitted evaluation report records no finds of significance were present on site and no further mitigation measures are needed.

In considering the impacts on heritage assets I give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings, and to preserving the character and appearance of Conservation Areas and conclude that the proposal is acceptable in accordance with the provisions of Core Strategy Policy CS.8.

Ecology

The application site has been the subject of a full Environmental Assessment at the outline planning stage that involved consultation with key ecological parties including Natural England and WCC Ecology. The Environmental Assessment work identified that there were protected species of Great Crested Newts within the Old Quarry area. Representations by local residents have verified the presence of great crested newts in proximity to the site. There are also foraging bat movements and a range of bird species in the area.

The conditions and legal obligations of the outline planning permission require details of mitigation measures for the protection of great crested newts, other protected species and biodiversity interests to be approved prior to works commencing in relation to the site’s development. I also understand that the applicants have been in discussions with Natural England regarding obtaining the necessary Licenses to deal with protected species and as part of this process mitigation/protection measures will also need approval.

Both Natural England and WCC Ecology have raised no objection to the reserved matters proposals. As such, I consider that the proposals would not have an unacceptable impact on any features of acknowledged ecological value, subject to mitigation measures secured at the outline stage being implemented. I therefore consider the proposals to be in accordance with the provisions of Core Strategy Policy CS.6.

In reaching this conclusion I have also given careful consideration to the standing advice put forward by Natural England and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Noise Mitigation

The site is bounded by the B4100 to the east and traffic using this route will produce noise that is required, by outline planning condition, to be appropriately mitigated. The layout allows dwellings to be orientated fronting the road with gardens generally being to the rear and thus screened from most noise. The submitted noise report and mitigation plan identify that these houses will however require specialist glazing and where necessary mechanical ventilation to achieve appropriate internal noise levels. Where screening of rear gardens is not provided by dwellings there is a need for either acoustic walls or fences to be erected with appropriate planting and specialist construction techniques where close to tree roots.

I note that the Environmental Health Officer has reviewed the noise report and mitigation proposals and raises no objection subject to construction in accordance with the submissions. I also note that Highways England has considered the noise submissions and raises no objection. I therefore consider that suitable noise mitigation can be secured for the residents of the scheme in relation to noise from the B4100.

Gas Supply

It is understood that the infrastructure delivery arrangements between Bellway and the promotors (CEG/Bird) will see the delivery of a gas main to serve the Bellway site, rest of the GLH residential allocation and also have the capacity to potentially serve Lighthorne Heath village. I have alerted Lighthorne Heath Parish Council and other interested persons to this potential opportunity to tap into this supply for the village.

Referral to the Secretary of State

I am satisfied that this Reserved Matters application does not have to be referred to the Secretary of State.

Conclusion

The principle of the residential development of the application site was established under outline planning permission 15/00976/OUT.

I consider that the current application should be determined in accordance with the adopted Development Plan, the approved Parameter Plans and Design Matrix of the outline permission, the GLH SPD and other material considerations.

I have given careful consideration to the proposed scheme relating to access, appearance, landscape, scale and siting and have considered impacts on, amongst other things, the character and appearance of the locality, the amenity of neighbours, the local ecology, heritage assets (which I give significant weight to) and community cohesion. I find that the scheme is well designed and thought out and that impacts of the proposals are acceptable or can be appropriately mitigated.

With regard to highway safety I note that a meeting has taken place with the Highway Authority to reach agreement on the design and technical standards of the access and layout and that amended proposals and additional information have been submitted to address these matters. At the time of agenda preparation, the Highway Authority was giving final consideration to these details and it is anticipated that their response will be available as an update to the committee. Subject to the Highway raising no objections, I consider that the scheme will be acceptable in relation to highway safety and will represent sustainable development.

Policy CS.1 states that the Council will take a positive approach to applications that reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF.

On the basis of the above considerations, I conclude that, subject to the Highway Authority raising no objection, the proposal appropriately accords with the policies of the Core Strategy, the approved Parameter Plans and Design Matrix of the outline permission, the GLH SPD and other material matters and therefore this Reserved Matters application should be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

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

It is recommended that subject to:-

1. The final comments of the Highway Authority being received and raising no objection to the proposals; the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions and notes the detailed wording and numbering of which is delegated to officers:

1. Development in accordance with approved drawings, documents and plans.

2. Notwithstanding the details of the submitted scheme, large scale details of porches, balconies, chimneys, eaves and verges.

3. Notwithstanding the details of the submitted scheme, samples of all external wall and roof materials for the dwellings, substation and boundary walls.

4. Notwithstanding the details of the submitted scheme, details and samples of the hardstanding materials and construction.

5. Notwithstanding the details of the submitted scheme, details of the excavation method and construction of any boundary fencing, walls and area of hardstanding within any Root Protection Area of any tree or hedge.

6. Facilitation of ‘superfast’ Broadband connectivity.

7. Details of the treatment and management of the land lying between the site and the existing boundary of numbers 3 and 4 Commanders Close.

8. Notwithstanding the details of the submitted scheme, details of the design, treatment and landscaping of the southern boundary of the site.

9. Conditions as may be deemed appropriate to include following recommendations by WCC as Highway Authority as part of their final consultation response. Notes:

1. All conditions and S.106 requirements secured under outline planning permission 15/00976/OUT must be complied with.

2. In dealing with this application, Stratford on Avon District Council has actively sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

3. Due regard given to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 & 2017.

4. Reference in any condition to ‘construction of dwellings above ground level’ means up to damp course level.

5. In relation to Condition 7 liaison with the owners of 3 & 4 Commanders Close should take place to seek agreement on such details.

6. In relation to condition 8 liaison with neighbours of Stonebridge Road and Commanders Close should take place to seek agreement on these details. Liaison with Lighthorne Heath Primary School, Lighthorne Heath Children & Family Centre, Warwickshire County Council as Education Authority, Warwickshire County Council as Highway Authority and Lighthorne Heath Parish Council should take place to seek agreement on the boundary treatment with land belonging to the School in the interests of facilitating a secure link to the school.

7. Notes as may be deemed appropriate to include following recommendations by WCC as Highway Authority as part of their final consultation response.

Robert Weeks HEAD OF PLANNING AND HOUSING