COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 18/01472/FUL

Site Address Spernall Park, Burford Lane, Spernall

Description of Construction of car park and access modification. Development

Applicant Heart of Forest Ltd

Reason for Referral Parish Council objection to Committee

Case Officer David Millinship

Presenting Officer Victoria Chadaway

Ward Member Councillor J. Kerridge

Parish Council Spernall Parish Council

. Open Countryside Description of Site . Green Belt Constraints . Special Landscape Area (Arden) . Vale of Evesham Control Zone

Summary of GRANT Recommendation

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS The application site comprises an area of open field located approximately 1.3km from the rural hamlet of Spernall and 2.3km from the Main Rural Centre of Studley (both to the west of the site). The site is set in close proximity to two areas of privately owned woodland named as Spernall Park and Morgrove Coppice. A public right of way (numbered AL112) runs in close proximity to the northern site boundary. The woodland surrounding the site also has several permissive footpaths (under the control of the applicant).

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL The proposal is to construct an off-road car parking area, providing 30 car parking spaces and 4 minibus parking spaces. An existing gated access from the public highway at Burford Lane would be upgraded and utilised to serve the car park. The car park would be hard-surfaced, predominantly using materials to retain some of the green appearance of the field (Grasscrete and grass reinforcing membrane). A height restricting barrier and new gates would be installed at the car park entrance

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 and Sustainable Construction . CS.4 Water Environment and Flood Risk . CS.5 Landscape . CS.6 Natural Environment . CS.7 Green Infrastructure . CS.9 Design and Distinctiveness . CS.10 Green Belt . CS.15 Distribution of Development . CS.26 Transport . AS.10 Countryside and Villages

Other Material Considerations Neighbourhood Development Plan Spernall Parish currently has no plan in preparation.

Central Government guidance . National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) & National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) 2014; . Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; . The Setting of Historic Assets - English Heritage (2011).

Other documents . Lorries in the Vale of Evesham (2001); . Stratford on Avon District Design Guide (April 2001); . Stratford-on-Avon Special Landscape Area Study (June 2012); . Development Requirements - Supplementary Planning Document (consultation draft March 2018). Other Legislation . Human Rights Act 1998; . Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006; . Localism Act 2011; . Housing and Planning Act 2016; . The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017; . Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017.

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY None Relevant

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant’s Supporting Documents

List of documents: - Application Forms; - Car Park Barrier Photo; - Email from Stansgate dated 31st July 2018; - Planning Statement May 2018; - Proposed Parking Meter Photo – 8557-601; - Surface Materials Specification – April 2018; - 8557-100 – Location Plan; - 8557-200 – Existing Block Plan; - 8557-201 Rev.A – Proposed Block Plan; - 8557-600 – Visibility Splay Plan.

Ward Member Councillor J. Kerridge

NO REPRESENTATION (13.06.2018) - I support the principle of a car park for woodland access only at this location and the minimum of infrastructure to support that function. Very pleased that HOEF is opening up woodland for public access so support this as an aim. I am very supportive of this organisations aims.

It is a beautiful location which will be visible from other parts of the countryside and will detract from the beauty of this area of countryside. So, materials and design are important to minimise this negative effect.

If done well the positive aspect of public access will outweigh this harm.

Following the receipt of additional information and justification the following comments were received:

NO REPRESENTATION (20.06.2018) - It would be worth knowing why the entrance a little further along the lane (just past the drive/road to purity brewing) is not proposed. There is already a stone track that leads from here along the wood to the very same field. Would seem that this is the obvious location. There may be landscape impact issues, I don't know. But I would like to know why an obvious existing track is not proposed and a brand new one in a green field is.

Parish Council Spernall Parish Council

NO OBJECTION (07.06.2018) Following receipt of Police’s comments the following comments were received:

OBJECTION (25.06.2018) - The Police objection is noted along with several third party comments. The PC now objects in support of those comments.

Following the receipt of additional information and justification the following comments were received:

OBJECTION (13.08.2018) - As local objections to this scheme are so strong the Parish maintains their objection.

The adjoining Parish of also submitted comments to the initial public consultation, as follows:

SUPPORT (19.06.2018) - The application is necessary and appropriate for this amenity.

Third Party Responses Ten third party letters of objection were received to the initial public consultation. Planning objections to the proposal have been summarised as follows:

. The access has poor visibility and Burford Lane is narrow with insufficient passing places. The increased traffic would cause harm to highway safety; . The access is not owned by the applicant and is shared by another gated field entrance, so they would be unable to carry out the proposed works and secure the required visibility splays; . Putting a parking meter at the site would encourage people to park on outside verges to avoid costs, increasing the harm to highway safety; . The site is within Green Belt so should be protected as open rural land; . The car park would increase instances of crime and anti-social behaviour in the area (there have been various local break-ins and concern is raised that the car park would increase this type of crime in the area); . It would pose a security risk to nearby livestock as people do not stay to the paths and leave gates open; . No need for an additional car park since the applicant already has an underused car park at Spernall Lane.

(The full responses are available in the application file)

Consultations Consultation responses have been summarised by the officer as below (The full responses are available in the application file):

Forestry Commission NO OBJECTION (20.06.2018) – Refer the LPA to their standing advice relating to Ancient Woodland.

Warwickshire Police OBJECTION (22.06.2018) – There has been a high number of break-ins in the area, predominantly involving isolated properties accessed through adjacent footpaths or farmland. Having a car park in such an isolated location may help to increase these types of crime. There is also concern that if unrestricted the par park could be used by travellers. Following the submission of additional car park barrier information the following response was received:

NO OBJECTION (07.08.2018) – Concern over the isolated location of the car park remains however, if the height restriction barrier and gates can be secured by condition along with car park opening hours the WPC objection would be removed.

WCC Ecology NO OBJECTION (15.06.2018)

WCC Highways NO OBJECTION (11.06.2018) – Subject to the use of conditions to secure access and visibility improvements.

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.

The applicant, Heart of England Forest (HoEF) is a charitable organisation whose chief vision is to plant, protect, preserve and provide public access to broadleaf forest throughout Warwickshire. The proposal is to provide car parking in order to improve public access to HoEF’s land at Spernall Park. The adopted Core Strategy recognises the general community, health and tourism benefits of providing public access to areas of natural green space and I consider that providing access to woodland positively contributes towards the leisure provision of the district.

Policy AS.10 relates to all development outside of defined settlements. AS.10(t) supports:

…Purpose-built visitor accommodation that is directly associated with and related to the scale and nature of an existing use.

I consider that, whilst the policy does not directly support the creation of car parking areas, I am of the view that the intention is to support development that would provide improvements to existing tourism and leisure uses within the countryside. I consider the proposed car park would enhance the leisure provision of the area through improved access to natural green space. The proposal would also improve links between the more urban areas of Studley and , that are linked to Spernall Park by several public rights of way.

Core Strategy policy CS.7 supports the general principle of the creation of, improvement to and access to Green Infrastructure across the District (including woodland areas). Policy CS.24 supports the development of new small-scale visitor based schemes where they are appropriate to the specific nature of the location. I consider that due to the general benefits that would arise from the development there is no conflict with the aims of the development plan and the proposal is supported in principle. However, the site is located within the Green Belt which should be protected from all forms of inappropriate development. Therefore, for the principle of the development to be fully established it must be held to comply with Green Belt policy.

Green Belt considerations Para. 133 of the NPPF states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

Para.143 of the NPPF goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Core Strategy Policy CS.10d) supports the principle of development within the Green Belt providing it is development as defined in national planning policy. Para. 146 NPPF states that engineering operations are a form of development that may be not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve openness and do not conflict with the aims of including land within it. The proposed car park extension is considered to be an engineering operation so is defined as a form of development that could be not inappropriate in the Green Belt.

The site is level so no alterations to land levels are required. The car park and associated site road would span an area of approximately 1200 sq.m (so not an insignificant site area) extending a depth of nearly 100 metres into the site.

In this case the proposed hard-surfacing materials are mostly natural (being predominantly stone for the site road and Grasscrete for the parking bays). In my view this would allow the retention of an open and mostly natural visual appearance to the site. In addition to this, no means of enclosure are currently proposed around the car park perimeter that would begin to erode the openness of the site, other than a vehicle height restriction barrier and gate at the site entrance where an existing fence and gate are already present.

Planning conditions can be used to restrict permitted development rights to prevent the erection of any additional means of enclosure so that an appropriate form of control over future development (that may harm the openness of the Green Belt) can be achieved. External lighting can also be restricted and given the presumption in favour of protecting the openness of the Green Belt I consider that such as condition is reasonable and necessary in this case.

There is some potential for vehicles parking on the land to impact on openness but, I accept they would not be permanent visual features. The existing site is car is partially screened by the hedge and trees running along the southern site boundary and land between the site and the highway. Vehicles parking on the site would be partially visible within some public views achieved from Burford Lane, mainly through the vehicular access. However, I am not of the opinion that harm would be caused to openness as a result of the development.

Of the reasons for including land within the Green Belt (listed in NPPF para. 134) the most pertinent to the proposal are:

a) To check unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; and c) To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. I do not consider the proposed car park could be classified as unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area. The NPPF does not detail what encroachment the policy seeks to safeguarding the countryside from but, it has been generally established through case-law that it relates to urban types of land-use. The car park could be considered to be a form of more urban land use but, given the materials proposed and the purpose for the car park I do not consider this is a reasonable conclusion in this case. Hard-surfaced areas for parking associated with forestry areas and small-scale countryside based tourist and leisure uses are not uncommon and as such, having regard to the location, design and purpose of the development I do not consider the proposal would result in any form of urban encroachment.

On balance, taking into account the individual site circumstances, the proposed location and materials it is considered that the openness of the Green Belt would be preserved and there would be no conflict with the purposes of including land within it. As such the proposal is in accordance with Policy CS.10 of the Core Strategy and paras. 134 and 146 of the NPPF.

Impact on the Landscape and Character of the Area Policy CS.9 states that proposals should improve the quality of the public realm and enhance the sense of place whilst reflecting the character and distinctiveness of the area.

Policy CS.5 seeks to ensure that development takes place in a manner that minimises and mitigates its impact on the landscape character and quality of the District.

Policy CS.12 seeks to protect the historic characteristics of the Special Landscape Area of Arden (SLA) from development that may fail to respect the high landscape quality of the area.

The site is located within the Arden Special Landscape Area (SLA) within the ancient Arden sub-area (as specified within the Stratford-on-Avon Special Landscape Area Study - June 2012) the local characteristics of the Ancient Arden area are described below:

It has varied undulating landform with occasional steep scarp slopes. Oaks are the dominant tree species occurring in hedgerows, along roadsides and within relict ancient woodlands. These woodlands often define the skyline. The ancient field pattern tends to be small to medium-sized and irregular. Pasture has traditionally dominated, but there is now increasing arable land. Field ponds are associated with permanent pasture. There is a network of winding lanes often confined by tall hedgebanks. The settlement pattern includes many scattered hamlets and farmsteads, mostly on slopes, but there are also occasional villages or small towns, often on hill tops.

The wider site possesses some of the protected characteristics of the SLA as it is comprised of a small field in an irregular pattern with tree and hedge lined boundaries in relatively close proximity to areas of ancient woodland. Core Strategy policy CS.12 seeks to resist development proposals that would have a harmful effect on the distinctive character and appearance of the SLAs within the District.

The proposal would involve the construction of a car park over an area of previously open field. The car park would be located in close proximity to the eastern field boundary which is lined by mature trees and native hedgerow. The vegetated field boundary would partially obscure some wider views of the site so any adverse visual impact would be limited. No existing trees or hedges are proposed to be removed and I consider the small-scale of the development would not have wider potential to result in harm to the protected characteristics of the SLA in the locality. I consider it reasonable and necessary to use a planning condition to secure that existing trees are retained throughout the construction period (particularly trees located along the southern and eastern boundaries).

The proposed hard-surfacing materials would keep the majority of the site in a semi-natural appearance. The main site road would be crushed stone (a commonly used surfacing material for farm tracks in the wider area) with the car parking bays either Grasscrete or reinforced plastic mesh keeping a greener appearance to the site.

The most prominent feature of the proposal, within public views, would be the proposed vehicle height restrictor and security gate. It would be set back from the public highway and partially screened by trees and hedgerow within the intervening land. The security gates would be constructed using bulky modern materials (mainly due to the intended purpose). The reinforced steel barriers would be colour coated which could be required to be agreed in writing by the LPA at a later date (potentially to be a dark green or black in order to mute the visual appearance). As such, I am satisfied that subject to the required conditions the visual impact of the development would be acceptable.

Overall, I am satisfied that no harm would be caused to the visual amenities of the area subject to the use of the required planning conditions. Therefore the development would comply with the aims of Core Strategy policies AS.10, CS.5, CS.9 and CS.12.

Impacts on Neighbours/Crime and Anti-social Behaviour Policy CS.9 states that occupiers of neighbouring buildings should be protected from unacceptable harm to their residential amenities and that proposals will incorporate effective measures to help reduce crime and the fear of crime.

The nearest dwelling to the application site is at Spernall House approximately 400 metres to the west. A number of third party objections have raised concerns that the proposed car park, being in such an isolated location, could be used by individuals’ intent on committing crime in the area. (WPC) initially supported this concern advising there had been a spate of break-ins in the wider area over the last few months. The provision of the car park raised concerns that criminals may be able to use the car park to assist in their criminal activities. Whilst it is possible that car parks (such as the proposed development) can be misused there is no evidence to suggest the presence of car parking areas is linked to instances of crime against local residents. The third party responses do however provide me with evidence that the development could increase the fear of crime if left unrestricted.

The applicant has agreed to install a height restriction barrier and security gate in order to prevent people using the land for the incorrect purposes. The applicant has also explained that they employ warden to monitor the car parks and to open/close them at the required times. In this case the applicant is proposing car park opening hours of:

. 1st October to 31st March 7am to 5pm; and . 1st April to 30st September 7am to 9pm. They have stated that a planning condition securing these exact hours may be difficult to comply with given that their wardens manage several car parks in the area. I consider that a planning condition securing hours of…:

. 1st October to 31st March 6:30am to 5:30pm; and . 1st April to 30st September 6:30am to 9:30pm.

…would be more reasonable and appropriate. It is necessary in my view to ensure that the car park is closed throughout night in order to help to reduce the fear of crime that currently exists in the wider area. I also consider that having some more natural surveillance from genuine users of the car park during the day may help to deter some of the more criminal activities from occurring. In any case, there is no evidence to suggest the proposal would directly result in an increase in crime. WPC have withdrawn their objection subject to the conditions detailed above and as such I conclude the proposal would not conflict with the aims of policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy.

Highways Matters Policy CS.26 states that the scale of traffic generated is appropriate to the function and standards of the roads serving the area. Parking should be sufficient to meet the needs of the scheme without being excessive.

Several third party responses have raised concerns over highway safety. WCC Highways have offered no objection to the scheme providing planning conditions are used to secure access improvements and sufficient visibility splays. Concern has been raised that as the applicant does not control the shared access from the public highway to the site entrance or have control over the verges that they would be unable to comply with WCC Highway’s suggested conditions. WCC Highways confirm that they control the required land, as such; providing they enter into an agreement with the applicant (under the Highways Act requirements) it is reasonable to expect they would be able to undertake the required access improvements.

I acknowledge the lane is narrow but, providing the site access and visibility splays are secured I am satisfied that there would be minimal impact on the safety and operation of the highway in the vicinity of the site.

As such I recognise no conflict with the aims of Core Strategy policy CS.26 and find the development acceptable having regards to transport and highway implications.

Flood Risk and Drainage The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk of flooding) where development is considered acceptable in principle. The applicant has stated that surface materials would be permeable to allow surface water ground filtration. There are no known surface water flood risk areas in the vicinity of the site and no evidence to suggest the development would be unable to utilise the proposed drainage systems in this location. I therefore consider that no further planning control is required.

As such, the proposed development would comply with Policy CS.4 of the Core Strategy. Ecological Impacts The County Council Ecologist has offered no objection to the proposal. An area of existing grass meadow would be lost, but a large area would remain along with open fields extending to the east and south of the site. I therefore consider that the proposals would not have potential to cause harm to protected species and the development would comply with Policy CS.6 of the Core Strategy.

In reaching this conclusion careful consideration has been given to the standing advice put forward by Natural England and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006.

Community Infrastructure Levy It is estimated that this development would not attract a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) payment under the District Council’s current CIL Charging Schedule.

Conclusions I consider that the current application should be determined in accordance with the adopted Development Plan. I can identify no material considerations that warrant an alternative approach.

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

On the basis of the above considerations I have concluded that the proposal is sustainable development. I therefore consider that Planning Permission should be granted.

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.

The Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT outline/full planning permission, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is delegated to officers:

(Headings for standard conditions – full wording for unique conditions)

1. the standard time limit condition for commencement of development; 2. the details and drawings subject to which the planning permission is granted; 3. prior to first use installation of height restriction barrier and security gate; 4. prior to first use implementation of access improvements; 5. prior to first use implementation of visibility splays; 6. development in accordance with the surface materials schedule; 7. no trees or hedgerow to be removed; 8. Removal of means of enclosure PD rights; 9. No external lighting; 10. Car Park opening hours limited.

Notes: 1. NPPF Note.

Robert Weeks HEAD OF PLANNING AND HOUSING