APPLICATION REFERENCE NO. 10/01692/FUL

Site Address Land Off Shipston Road, Stratford-upon-Avon

Proposals Provision of a neighbourhood centre, comprising retail and services within Class A1 and D1; community hall; together with provision for car parking, including park and ride; associated development including recycling facilities, refuse facilities and cycle shelters.

Case Officer Tony Horton Presenting

Officer Richard Gardner

Committee Date 21 October 2010 Type of Application Full planning

Applicant The Bird Group Of Companies and Waitrose

Ward Member(s) Cllr Cronin Cllr I Fradgley Cllr Rolfe

Town Council Stratford-upon-Avon

Referral to Audit and Regulation Committee

No

Previous Committee No

Description of Proposals

� New convenience store (A1 use - Waitrose) 2973 sq.m (gross internal floorspace) with 200 car parking spaces.

� Medical and Health Services building (D1 use) 1232 sq.m. � Crèche (D1 use) 384 sq.m. � Three retail units (A1 use) 2 x 153 sq.m. 1 x 158 sq.m. � Community Hall (D1 use) 138 sq.m. � Additional 127 car parking spaces serving Park and Ride and

neighbourhood centre. � Ancillary developments such as recycling facilities, bus

shelters, cycle parking. � Associated landscaping and planting. � Four arm roundabout junction with A3400 (Shipston Road)

and B4632 (Clifford Lane). � Amended plans have been received increasing tree planting

within car park and revising landscaping, revising crèche outside area and revising materials of retail stores. Design & Access Statement and Visual Appraisal accordingly amended.

Reason for Referral to Committee

� Scale of development � Objection from Town Council

Planning Constraints

� Open countryside location � Part former railway track and sidings. � Possible archaeological site of interest. � Adjacent nature reserve. � Racecourse Meadow SSSI within 2 km away.

Key Issues

� Principle and Retail Impact � Impact on streetscene and character and appearance of

surrounding area � Highway Safety, parking and traffic � Archaeology � Ecology � Impact on neighbours’ amenities � Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour � Planning Obligations � Other Matters

Recommendation � SUPPORT and refer to GOWM then GRANT subject to legal

agreement SUMMARY OF POLICY AND BACKGROUND PAPERS POLICY The Development Plan Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996 - 2011 (Saved Policies) TC2 Hierarchy of Town Centres T7 Public Transport T10 Developer Contributions Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 (Saved Policies) STR.1 Settlement Hierarchy STR.4 Previously Developed Land PR.1 Landscape and Settlement Character EF.7 Nature Conservation & Geology EF.11 Archaeological Sites EF.11A Archaeological Sites EF.11B Archaeological Sites DEV.1 Layout and Design DEV.2 Landscaping DEV.4 Access DEV.5 Car Parking DEV.7 Drainage DEV.8 Energy Conservation DEV.9 Access for People with Disabilities DEV.10 Crime Prevention DEV.11 Public Art COM.3 Local Shops and Services COM.7 Bus Service Support COM.9 Walking and Cycling COM.10 Public Car Parks COM.16 Existing business uses COM.17 Rural Employment COM.19 Retail Development SUA.1 Town Setting SUA.4 Transport CTY.1 Control Over Development IMP.1 Supporting Information IMP.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance

IMP.4 Infrastructure Provision IMP.5 Infrastructure Provision IMP.6 Transport Assessment IMP.7 Green Transport Plan Other Material Considerations Central Government Guidance PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS 5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPS 7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPS 9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG 13 Transport PPG23 Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24 Planning and Noise Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents Transport Methodology for Developer Contributions (2007) Car and Cycle Parking Standards (2007) Sustainable Low-Carbon Buildings (2007) District Design Guide (2001) Stratford-upon-Avon Town Design Statement (2002) Urban Design Framework for Stratford-upon-Avon (2007) Other Documents Planning and Community Safety – Design and Crime Reduction (2006) Other Legislation Human Rights Act 1998 Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 REPRESENTATIONS Town Council Object - The Town Council strongly objects to the amended design of the Waitrose supermarket because of its unacceptable urban look in the countryside on the edge of town. The choice of materials is totally inappropriate and incongruous in this very sensitive and rural site. The materials are not representative of the rural setting. The design of the roof is an alien feature and would not respect the local vernacular of the built form. A more organic and softer approach would be more sympathetic and sensitive and nothing less than an exceptionally high quality design and materials pallet should be promoted. (7.9.10)

Ward Members None received. Third Party Representations It is understood that a Public Exhibition of the current scheme took place on 22 July 2010 – around 184 visitors attended and 130 comments sheets completed – 115 in favour of the scheme (89%), 15 against (11%). Notwithstanding this the following representations have been received in relation to the planning application. 24 letters of objection from local residents received, as well as letters from CPRE, Friends of the Earth and Stratford Society and on behalf of Wm Morrisons; planning grounds for objection:

• This is an application for a third out-of-town shopping centre and other community facilities in a location which the town's plans have not anticipated, on a site separated from the residential areas, old and new, and almost entirely dependent on cars.

• This proposal would not only further drain trade from the suffering town centre and village/farm shops, it would threaten the new shops as well. It would provide far more retail space than the area itself requires, and in a poor location.

• The retail use will compete directly with the existing out-of-town centres and the town centre itself.

• Would lead to the erosion of the open space between its site and the housing to the north and east, with the loss of the "buffer" of green area of which much was made when the Shipston Road/Banbury Road link was made.

• It would also be detrimental to the approach to the town from the south, turning a rural "gateway" to the town into a suburban landscape.

• Unacceptable urban encroachment into the countryside. • Overdevelopment of the town outside its appropriate boundaries. • The proposed designs are not quality architecture, the supermarket and retail units

being standard boxes. • New Budgens and Tesco stores and Shell garage already provides shopping facilities

south of the river. • Construction and customer traffic would add to the town’s traffic problems, harming

the Town’s attractiveness to visitors. • Stratford already has more than adequate existing shopping facilities and Waitrose

products can be purchased via the internet. • Any reduction in traffic currently travelling over the river to shop will be outweighed

by traffic attracted to the new retail facilities and congestion will worsen south of the river with roundabouts being unable to cope.

• If Park and Ride is needed it should be provided without this development. • Will lead to light pollution. • Too remote from the ‘neighbourhood’ community it is supposed to serve. • No evidence that the facilities provided are actually needed by the community. • The retail study information is out of date and inaccurate and its assessment for

impacts on Shipston are not weighted and no mention is made of local suppliers. Also fails to fully consider Stratford town centre impacts.

• Few people will walk, cycle or use public transport to the site. • Contrary to planning policies restricting development in the open countryside. • Will lead do vandalism and anti-social behaviour at the site. • Not a good location for the Park & Ride which will not operate well. • Proposed landscaping will not screen the development. • Buildings are still comparable to two storey dwelling heights. • The ‘upmarket’ appeal of Waitrose will harm specialist shops in the town centre.

• The high prices of Waitrose might not lead to trade being taken from Tesco and Morrisons or a reduction in traffic flow to the north.

• The assertion that there is more spending power in the area for the supermarket does not mean it is warranted.

• The assertion that trade will be taken from Tesco and Morrisons, who should not be protected, does not mean Waitrose should be allowed thereby affecting other retailers.

• Retail study fails to take account of new Tesco or proposed Aldi. • It is unsound to locate community facilities in a location that complicates their

accessibility. • There are poor pedestrian facilities to access the site. • Improvements to the pedestrian access to the site would urbanise the area. • Park & Ride is not needed or feasible. • Will exacerbate drainage problems in the vicinity. • Will lead to further development of surrounding land. • There are retail opportunities already in the town centre for a supermarket to

locate. • Loss of good agricultural land. • Unacceptable design and layout causing urbanisation. • Harmful traffic noise and pollution from late night deliveries. • If the Park & Ride closes then so too should Waitrose. • Health Centre should be within Trinity Mead. • Will increase traffic emissions and worsen global warming/climate change, thereby

proving unsustainable. • The town centre has declined since the last application and the proposals would now

be harmful to the viability of the centre. • This raises serious questions regarding the principles and processes of the

Authority’s planning, which appears to be developer-led rather than plan-led. • The site should be removed from the Draft Core Strategy whilst the planning

process is reviewed. • Fails parts EC10.2 b&c, EC15, EC16 and EC17 of PPS4. • Sites off the Banbury Road either by the Shell garage or to the south east should be

chosen instead. • The Planning Committee may not have "rejected the principle of development in this

location". This is a far cry from supporting it. Development of the site is not sanctioned by the present plan and PPS4 would not support

• Facilities such as retail, medical etc are needed on this side of the river but the proposals do not justify granting permission due to other negative impacts.

• Development is merely a large car park with undistinguished buildings on two sides and a row of trees along the frontage, does not achieve the standards that should be required.

• No policy support for new retail at this location in open countryside or south of Stratford.

• Contrary to Stratford Retail Study which cautions against new foodstore in the town and recommends new foodstores for Alcester, Shipston & Southam instead.

• Town Square is a suitable foodstore site that has not been fully considered. • Would adversely affect sites coming forward for development within the town

centre. • Application is premature pending the examination in public of the Core Strategy.

Other non-planning related matters were also raised.

• This is Green Belt land [Officers note – the land is not designated as Green Belt] • Supermarket could be operated by others rather than Waitrose.

Comment received from Stratford Voice – S106 contribution suggested to improve or replace Lucys Mill Bridge to provide a pedestrian and cycle link to the site. 7 letters stating support received, including from Elizabeth Dixon (Disability Advisor); comments relate to:

• Retail store beneficial to residents south of the river and outlying villages. • Park and Ride facility beneficial to visitors travelling in from Shipston and Banbury

directions. • A welcome counterbalance to the facilities provided north of the river helping spread

out traffic flows. • Improvements are needed to the infrastructure and facilities on the east/south of

the river to keep pace with the growing population there. • Health facility welcomed, there is nowhere south of the river to dispense a

prescription. • Improves shopping choice and range in a pleasant location and environment. • Town centre shopping facilities are prohibitive due to congestion and restrictive and

costly parking. • Will reduce traffic flows over the bridges and through the town.

Comments also received from nearby Parish Councils and nearby Ward Members:- Shipston-on-Stour Town Council – No representations. (7.9.10) Dorsington Parish Council – No representation (6.9.10) Preston-on-Stour Parish Council – No objections but urge that S106 contributions are secured for a cycle route or lane along the A3400. (8.9.10) Councillor Barnes – “No objections this time, looks smaller and no traffic lights.” (20.8.10) Councillor Thomas – “Will be seeing this application as a member of the Town Council.” (23.8.10)

Applicant’s Comments The applicants have submitted the following documents to accompany the application:- Planning Statement • Section 106 Heads of Terms identified. • Relevant Planning Policies and material considerations identified. • Benefits to the local community identified including convenience store and local services

south of the river; shorter trips and broader shopping choice; reduced traffic flows on Clopton Bridge; provision of Park & Ride served by shuttle bus; creation of around 300 jobs; provision of community facilities.

• Where development needs are identified which cannot be met within the town it is to be accepted that such development should be located at the edge of the town in an accessible location to a wide range of transport.

• Significant amendments to scheme from previous proposals which now promote a far less intrusive scheme in scale and appearance, thus addressing the previous reason for refusal.

Design and Access Statement • The Neighbourhood centre will aim to have a low environmental impact, achieving

BREEAM ‘very good’ rating and be economically sustainable.

• Carbon Dioxide emissions will be reduced by 20% below Part L of Building regulations. • Waitrose store will incorporate many energy efficiency designs. • The quality and biodiversity of the site will be improved. • Waste will be minimised and recycling areas made available. • A sustainable materials procurement strategy will be implemented. • Access to the site for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport will be promoted and a

Travel Plan produced. • 327 parking spaces available, part given over to a Park & Ride facility. • Disability parking, cycle parking incorporated. Transport Assessment • A significant proportion of the town is within walking distance of the site and a footpath

links from Bridgetown via Trinity Way. • Excellent cycling facilities with an off road route available from the edge of the town

centre. • The site is accessible to the town centre and is an appropriate location for a sustainable

development. • Nearly 40% of traffic to the town comes from the south and goes across the two Avon

crossings. Both routes are congested and main employment, retail, leisure and health provision is located north of the Avon.

• The development will help redress the current imbalance of provision south of the Avon and help reduce the level of car based trips.

• Traffic from the development can be adequately accommodated on the highway network.

Retail Planning Report and Supplementary Report • Most of the diversion of trade from existing retailers will come from out-of-centre

Morrisons and Tesco which currently take around 75% of convenience shopping in the town. These out-of-centre operators will experience a combined impact of 14.5%.

• If Stratford town centre turnover as a whole is considered, the level of impact forecast is less than 0.5%.

• The impact on town centre convenience stores is 4.8%. • The impact on Shipston town centre is 3.1%, Alcester & Southam impact will be less

than 1%. • The application satisfies each of the five national ‘development control’ tests as set out

in PPS 6 and is ‘in accordance with the development plan’. • Policies EC10, EC15, EC16 and EC17 of PPS4 have been assessed. The development

would have no material impact on the existing or future viability of established centres within the District’s retail hierarchy and would comply with EC16.

• No further developments, publications or change in local circumstances identified, post February 2010, which materially affect submitted reports.

Flood Risk Assessment • Site not within a flood plain and adjacent water bodies (Rush Brook) will not affect site

use. • Surface water drainage utilises SUDS measures in the form of soakaways and

permeable paving. • The site is significantly elevated and not affected by future global warming flood

predictions (20% increases). Ground Conditions Reports • Nominal thickness of topsoil overlying glacial till and Mercia Mudstone. • There are some contamination issues on site relating to former railway use.

• Fieldworks undertaken by 9 boreholes and dynamic penetration probes. • Further site investigation measures identified. Statement of Community Involvement • Public Exhibition 22 July 2010 – around 184 visitors. • 130 comments sheets completed – 115 in favour of the scheme (89%), 15 against

(11%). Ecology Reports • Mostly arable field part hardstanding and disused railway line (Ecosite). • Small area of site has potential for common reptiles and great crested newts. • Nesting birds and bat roosts possible. • Reptile and Botanical Survey undertaken – no reptiles recorded, no rare plant species

recorded. • Great Crested Newt Survey undertaken – none recorded. Air Quality Assessment • Predicted air pollutant concentrations will not be above National Air Quality Objectives

(NAQOs). • No significant changes at sensitive receptors as a result of new traffic flows. Noise Impact Assessment • Measurements made at site boundary to residential properties at Springfield Cottages. • Activities of the service yard will have no significant noise impact on the dwellings. • Noise levels from vehicles using the new access road will be within existing site ambient

levels. Landscape Appraisal • There are urbanising features influencing the study area including, lighting, signage,

telecommunications mast, advertising billboards, residential development north of Trinity Way and traffic on the A3400.

• Combination of intervening vegetation and topography limits visibility of northern part of study area and partially screens site from Shipston Road and Trinity Way. Long distance views from south and south-west not possible.

• Comprehensive landscape structure designed to enhance landscape character and minimise visual intrusion through enhancement of existing linear and wooded landscape features.

• Use of semi-mature and extra-heavy standard tree stock to give instant beneficial effects.

Tree Survey • Proposed development requires removal of very few trees. • New planting would compensate for this. • Existing Oak trees along Shipston Road are attractive roadside features, recommended

crown reduction works. Energy Statement • The Neighbourhood Centre will be designed to achieve a minimum reduction in CO2

emissions of 20% below Part L of the Building Regulations.

• Waitrose state a commitment to both C02 and environmental impact reduction at the proposed new store. A typical Waitrose store has energy efficiency designs relating to lighting, refrigeration and water use.

• Air Source Heat Pumps will be required as part of the fit-out scheme as a minimum, with the addition of solar thermal panels if required. Where ASHP’s do not meet the required 10% CO2 reduction then consideration will be given to using Ground Source Heat Pumps.

Agents comments (13.9.10) :- • A development plan can never identify each and every circumstance where development

is acceptable. We have demonstrated that the form of development cannot be located within the Built Up Area Boundary. If the town wishes to secure this investment and new jobs then as a matter of fact the development will need to be accommodated outside the Built Up Area Boundary.

• Will not lead to 'the erosion of the open space between the site and the housing to the north east.' The open land is controlled by the local authority -indeed even a footpath link through has been resisted. The granting of consent would not 'effectively lead the planning of this part of the town.'

• Revised scheme has been prepared to display a more rural character in the design and in the landscaping.

• The evidence presented in the retail statement demonstrates the neighbourhood centre will not have an adverse effect on the town centre.

• The evidence as to the traffic impact of the development is set out in the Transport Assessment. The County Highway Authority does not disagree with the assumptions made.

• The Planning Committee has not previously rejected the principle of development in this location.

• Local authorities have limited resources to introduce new park and ride facilities. This facility should be welcomed for the wider community benefit.

Methodology Statement for submitted Photomontages The methodology accords with the Landscape Institutes advice note 01/09 ‘Use of photography and photomontage in landscape and visual assessment’, which recommends visual representations should: - Be as geometrically accurate as possible; - Use techniques, with explanation, that best represent the scheme under

consideration and the environment into which it is proposed to be set, in a fair and reasonable manner;

- Be easily understood by the non-technical public. The aim of a photomontage is to illustrate what a development may look like in the future from the photographic viewpoint. Photographs are taken with a camera and lens combination, resulting in the range of a ‘standard’ 50mm focal length lens with a single lens reflex camera or its digital equivalent. All photographs indicate summer views (i.e. vegetation in leaf) and were taken in June 2010. Stage 1 - Visual Eyes Media, specialist Photomontage consultant, produced a three-dimensional model of the proposed development from Autocad plans and elevations based upon detailed surveys of the Site and OS data. The software packages used 3ds Max 2011 which is globally accepted as industry standard for the production of computer models. Stage 2 - Photographic alignment of the computer model to the real world photography was then incorporated using a number of known variables. Stage 3 - A third party plug–in (NatFX by Bionetics) was used to generate botanically correct 3D representations of the specified trees identified in Landscape Strategy Plan

(Drawing No L6 – P Rev H). The tree growth was then simulated using dynamic tree models that ‘grow’ organically within the computer software to simulate the growth at the specified time periods + 5 years and + 10 years growth. Stage 4 - The 3D computer models were positioned within the original photograph. Existing vegetation within the original photography not concealed by the computer models was adjusted to determine its accurate growth (by increasing the height of the existing trees by approximately 1 metre for every 3 years, working off a rule of thumb of an average 1 foot growth per year) at +5 and +10 yrs. The increase in height for existing trees was defined by the relative heights of known fixed elements within the photograph, including perimeter fencing, street lights and signage. Stage 5 - Finally, the position of the proposed development was re-checked for accuracy, using visual methods, line of sight techniques and mathematical calculations. (1.10.10) Report on Archaeological Geophysical Survey Conditions at the site appear to be favourable for the magnetic detection of archaeological features, and only small areas of the site are affected by recent activity or disturbance. Findings, however, are very limited. The survey results are therefore broadly consistent with the limited archaeological expectations for the site, as noted in the Project Brief. A weak linear feature at A could possibly have some archaeological significance, but could equally be a cultivation effect. Further investigation could indicate whether or not it represents a former ditch or enclosure. A few small magnetic anomalies display rounded profiles. Such features may represent silted pits of potential archaeological significance, but in this case they are small and dispersed, and not clearly differentiated form minor (and perhaps mainly natural or recent) background disturbances. The survey has not otherwise detected any groups or clusters of magnetic anomalies which would suggest the presence of a significant archaeological site. CONSULTATIONS Landscape Officer Following receipt of amended drawings increasing tree planting within car park and other changes to landscaping scheme is now satisfied with the proposed landscaping subject to conditions. (28.9.10) Urban Designer The site is surrounded by agricultural land and is predominantly an agricultural field. The northern boundary of the site comprises a now disused railway track. At this point, the approach to the town remains rural in each direction, creating an important gateway to the town. The proposed scheme will be less intrusive than the previous proposals in terms of its scale and appearance. The relocation of the buildings to the lower and flatter northern part of the site reduces its visibility from certain viewpoints. However, the development will have a less positive frontage to the Shipston Road, and the large areas of car parking will become more visible and dominant. As the development will be largely concealed through its siting and a heavily planted frontage to the Shipston Road, the buildings will

need to rely on signage at the Shipston Road frontage. It will be important to ensure this signage and lighting is sensitive to the rural location. If the principle of a large food store is accepted in this location, the Waitrose food store due to the nature of its use will inevitably be a large building on the site, and therefore potentially having the most impact on the existing landscape. However, the building is located to the rear of the site, and is relatively low lying despite its considerable footprint. Subject to the use of high quality materials and an appropriate landscaping strategy to complement the building the design seems broadly acceptable. The architectural language for the site is described as ‘a mix of traditional rural type buildings and contemporary’. Although there is a concern that the buildings could appear as a rather contrived interpretation of barn style buildings, I consider the overall architectural design to be a considerable improvement, being more sensitive to the context than that of the previous application. With regard to the sustainability aspirations of the scheme, there is no real evidence that the scope for the energy conservation measures. It is understood that the landowners will not support the applicants’ previous proposals for a footpath link to link more directly with the residential development at Trinity Mead. Residents from the Shipston Road or the Trinity Mead development are those most likely to access the site on foot. Residents from the Shipston Road will generally have a direct route to the development, although those at Trinity Mead will have a more convoluted route which is unlikely to further encourage pedestrian/cycle access to the site from the eastern direction. The outside play area for the crèche creates an uncomfortable pinch point to the pedestrian crossing leading towards the retail units and this area should be improved to allow space for safer pedestrian movement. Site section A-A should show the enclosure detail to the crèche outdoor play area. This will inevitably need to be of a significant height for a security enclosure and will be highly visible. Should permission be granted, condition should require submission of large-scale details of eaves, verges, heads, cills, external joinery and samples of all proposed roof and walling materials. (17.9.10) Senior Environmental Health Officer Previously commented on application 09/02288/FUL and had no objection subject to conditions controlling hours, intensity and spread of lighting. Submitted Noise Impact Report was accepted. Considered that a Planning Obligation relating to an ‘Air Quality’ contribution may be justified. (24.3.10) WCC – Highways Content that the modeling work carried out is robust and enables WCC as the Highway Authority to make an informed judgment. The modeling work demonstrates that in the future year scenario, including committed development (Long Marston etc) the highway network will continue to operate. Have compared the committed Long Marston three arm roundabout with the proposed four arm roundabout. With any development of this size, a level of impact is likely to occur, the largest impacts are likely to be: Shipston Road/Trinity Way/Seven Meadows Road Roundabout – Average journey times increase from 161.2 seconds (2.7 minutes) without

development, to 275.1 seconds (4.6 minutes) with development on the Trinity Way approach to the roundabout between 1700 and 1800 hrs. The average maximum queues increase from 39 vehicles in the 2015 (Base) reference case to 71 vehicles with development during the last half hour of the PM period. There are also increased queues and delays on the other arms of the roundabout in the AM and PM periods, but these are relatively small and/or not statistically significant. Clifford Lane/Shipston Road Roundabout - Predicted 58% drop in average journey speeds from 36.1 mph without development to 15.0 mph with development on the Clifford Lane approach to the roundabout during the AM peak hour 0800-0900. The average maximum queues increase from 40 vehicles in the 2015 (Base) reference case to 77 vehicles with development between 08:30 and 08:40, although this queue falls away sharply from 08:40 onwards. There is also an increase in queuing (and delays) on this arm in the PM peak between 17:10 and 17:20. Average maximum queues increase from 20 to 40 vehicles. General comments - The modeling results indicate that the main impacts of the proposed development are localised to the site access roundabout and the Shipston Road/Trinity Way/Seven Meadows Road as described above. The impact on the wider network is relatively limited. The proposed development will result in a 3.8% (83 vehicles) increase in traffic on Seven Meadows Road with a 0.2% (8 vehicles) increase on Clopton Bridge during the AM period (0700-0900). The proposed development will result in a 6% (154 vehicles) increase in traffic on Seven Meadows Road with a 0.3% (10 vehicles) increase on Clopton Bridge during the PM period (1600-1800). Therefore, the response of the Highway Authority is one of NO OBJECTION, subject to conditions and notes, and securing of the following via S106:- - Contribution £32, 480 towards town centre traffic mitigation works. - Contribution £10,000 towards public rights of way improvements, primarily to SB29, to link the site to the Kipling Road area. - Contribution £10,000 for commuted sums to cover ongoing maintenance of 5 years of the required bus shelters (£1,000 per year per shelter). - Green Travel Plan for the Waitrose Store. The Following points are suggested and agreed heads of terms for the S106 agreement; (agreed between the Bird Group and WCC) - The Bird Group will undertake to procure a shuttle bus service between the town centre and the site, to a timetable to be agreed, for a minimum of 3 years. - Prior to first occupation of the development, the Bird Group to provide £15k funding to WCC. The funding will be utilised by the County Council to implement any relevant initiatives or further studies recommended by the current WCC Park and Ride Feasibility study. If an appropriate recommendation is made from the feasibility study, The Bird Group will invite WCC’s involvement in the future operation of the shuttle bus service. (6.10.10) WCC Museum (Ecology) All of the ecological surveys were completed to a high standard and the conclusions of the reports are agreed with, that in summary, no great crested newts or reptiles are likely to be using the development site and that the existing Ecosite is not considered to be of SINC value (i.e. district or county value). No objection subject to condition and notes. (1.9.10)

WCC Museum (Archaeology) Verbal response that archaeological work recently carried out has significantly reduced the risk of there being any archaeological deposits at risk from the development but consider that a condition requiring a programme of archaeological work to be carried out should be secured. (7.10.10) Severn Trent Water No objection subject to drainage condition. (7.9.09) Environment Agency No objection. Condition recommended. (14.9.10) Police Architectural Liaison Officer No comments on current proposals but previously commented on application 09/02288/FUL -

• This development will attract a level of criminal activity, the potential problems are; • the remote location will become a target for burglary after hours • The store and the surrounding environs will become a potential gathering point for

local youths with antisocial behaviour issues. • The following recommendations are made to reduce such offences, increase public

and staff safety, and reduce financial loss due to theft and damage. Recommendations;

• The rear of the Waitrose store and adjacent units should be securely fenced. • The front glassed elevations should be protected for the full length by anti ram raid

posts. • Clear well illuminated natural surveillance and unobstructed CCTV view are

essential. • The proposed planting on the site should not screen the site at eye level from the

road. Where existing planting is to be retained which does not provide such visual permeability, other security measures will have to be considered.

• I would prefer to see the number of pedestrian access points reduced. • Recommend subtle speed humps on all the roads and consideration to the car park

being barriered after hours. • Comprehensive CCTV system, which is designed in unison with the site lighting

system to ensure maximum effective cover. Consider linking the CCTV into the Town's central monitored CCTV system, or monitored from an on site security office.

• Cycle shelters must be clear and open. • The as yet to be developed section of the site must be securely fenced to prevent

the unauthorised setting up of traveller encampments or similar. • I am seeking Section 106 funding to extend the Town CCTV system by the

installation of a new CCTV camera by the traffic island. (29.12.10) Natural England Previously commented on application 09/02288/FUL - No concerns raised. (19.3.10) RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 09/02288/FUL - Provision of a neighbourhood centre, comprising retail and services within Class A1 and D1; community hall, with office management suite together with provision for car parking, including park and ride; associated development including recycling facilities, refuse facilities, cycle shelters – Refused 29.4.10 for the following reason:-

“The proposed development is considered to be an unacceptable urbanising intrusion into open rural countryside and of inappropriate design in this location outside of the built up area of the town, causing unacceptable harm to, the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the town, Consequently the proposals are considered to be contrary to Policies PR,1, DEV,1, CTY.1 and SUA,1 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 (Saved Policies).” ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES Principle of Development and Retail Impact The application site is not identified for development in the Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan. Nevertheless, it is necessary to assess whether there are other material considerations applying to this case that would bring sufficient benefits to justify support for the proposals. While the site is shown in the Consultation Core Strategy published by the District Council in February 2010, this document has not been given any status by the Council in the consideration of planning applications. Therefore, in relation to the application, it would be premature for this version of the Core Strategy to be given any weight since it is only through the consultation process that the impact of the proposed form of development on the site can be thoroughly assessed. If it is considered that the proposals are inappropriate it can be assumed that the site would be deleted from subsequent versions of the Core Strategy. It is clear that the location of the application site is somewhat detached from the current urban form of the town. While there would appear to be scope to utilise land between the edge of the Bridgetown estate and Trinity Way or immediately south of Trinity Way, it should be recognised that most of this is designated as Community Woodland and Meadowland or allocated through the District Local plan for housing development. The scope for retail and community facilities to be sited closer to the Bridgetown estate is therefore severely restricted. The application proposes a range of uses. I am satisfied that the community hall, medical centre and park and ride facility are appropriate and will be beneficial to local residents and in the overall function of the town. However, if it is concluded that the retail use is inappropriate on the site, then the other uses may also be considered inappropriate. The exception to this principle might be the park and ride facility for which this site could be the optimum location in any case. For these reasons, it is my view that the application site is acceptable in principle for the range of uses proposed should it be concluded that the development is justified, that the design of the development is appropriate and effective in minimising visual impact and there are no significant constraints relating to the development. I now turn specifically to the retail component of the proposed development. It is national, regional and local policy that major retail development should take place in town centres. The application site is clearly contrary to this principle and will need to be justified against a range of factors. These are set out in ‘saved’ Policy COM.19 from the District Local Plan Review. This policy looks to direct retail proposals of over 1,000 square metres (gross) to Stratford-upon-Avon town centre unless a range of criteria are satisfied. The District Council commissioned consultants to produce a Retail Study to form part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework. This concluded that there is a considerable need for additional convenience goods (food and day-to-day household items) floorspace in the District in the period to 2026. However, the study recommended that this provision should be focused on the three larger rural market towns of Alcester, Shipston

and Southam, rather than Stratford-upon-Avon. Additional convenience floorspace in these towns by way of a larger foodstore would help to ‘claw back’ spending that is currently leaking to stores outside the District. Clearly, the foodstore proposed in this application runs counter to this approach. The applicants’ retail assessment argues that there will be sufficient demand and spending capacity within the District’s population in the future for additional convenience floorspace to be provided in Stratford-upon-Avon without undermining the scope to make additional provision in the rural market towns. The District Council’s retail consultants have recently been asked to carry out a review of the applicants’ retail assessment which was originally submitted in relation to planning application 09/02288/FUL. The same retail assessment has been submitted in relation to the current application and I am satisfied that there have been no significant changes to national guidance, local policy or local circumstances that would require the assessment to be updated. The consultants identified a range of concerns about the methodology used which led to an over-estimate of the need for additional convenience goods floorspace and the impact of the proposed foodstore being underestimated. In particular, the District Council’s consultants thought the proposed store would divert trade from existing larger food stores in Stratford-upon-Avon and affect the prospects of attracting a larger foodstore to Shipston. In response to this, the applicants revised their retail assessment by using more up-to-date data and making adjustments to the methodology used. This resulted in a modest reduction in the levels of expenditure for convenience goods shopping in the Stratford-upon-Avon catchment area. However, they claim that this reduction is not a material difference and that growth in spending will be sufficient to ensure that there would not be a detrimental loss of trade for existing operators. I am inclined to agree with the applicants’ position in the following respects: • The impact of the proposed store on Stratford-upon-Avon town centre would be modest

and not be detrimental to its overall vitality and viability. The existing foodstores in the town centre cater predominantly for top-up shopping and mainly serve people who are already in the town centre for a variety of reasons.

• Out-of-town centre foodstores (i.e. Morrisons and Tesco) are likely to experience a

sizeable impact. The proposed store would clearly create further competition for them but this would not result in the viability of either being threatened. In any case these stores, due to their location, are not afforded protection by national planning policy.

• Alcester and Southam are both some distance from Stratford-upon-Avon. The latter, to

my mind, has no functional relationship to the town and Tesco have now opened a large foodstore in Southam. Waitrose has taken over the main foodstore in Alcester and has been investing in it.

• In relation to Shipston-on-Stour the situation is more uncertain because the application

site has a closer relationship to it and Shipston has a much weaker foodstore offer. The two existing small supermarkets and various specialist food outlets have a well-established role and should not be unduly affected by the foodstore proposed in the application. There has however been interest in providing a larger foodstore in Shipston, although there appears to be no scope to provide one within or adjacent to the town centre. Alternatively, the impact of providing a large foodstore on the edge of Shipston on the town centre of Shipston itself has not yet been fully assessed by the District Council and could be deemed to be harmful and therefore unacceptable. Had there been scope to provide a large foodstore in Shipston town centre, I would be extremely concerned about the effect of the store proposed in the current application

on its delivery. However, given the lack of sites available within Shipston town centre and the uncertain impact of a foodstore being provided on the edge of Shipston, I conclude that the form of development proposed is not prejudicial or harmful to the existing situation in Shipston-on-Stour. The two existing small supermarkets and various specialist food outlets have a well-established role and should not be unduly affected by the foodstore proposed in the application

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 4 on ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’. incorporates and replaces PPS6 ‘Planning and Town Centres’ and provides a revised set of ‘tests’ for assessing out-of-town centre retail proposals. PPS4 has dropped the ‘need’ test in favour of a more wide-ranging ‘impact’ test. In other words, while in this case the evidence of need for additional food retail floorspace to be provided in Stratford-upon-Avon is not critical in itself, it is necessary to assess whether its provision on an edge of town site would be harmful to the function of the town centre. I set out below the applicants’ findings in relation to PPS4 and give my own views in relation to each key test. (a) Limiting Carbon Dioxide emissions and resilience to climate change The applicants’ believe the site is well located to minimise carbon emissions resulting from the need to travel and will reduce the distance travelled for many residents by private car in undertaking food shopping trips. The site is at low risk of flooding and therefore not vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The location of the site on the southern edge of the town means that the foodstore and various services proposed would benefit residents who live south of the river. The river creates a major barrier to movement across the town and the two highway routes across the river, particularly Clopton Bridge, are heavily congested at certain times of the day. This is caused and compounded by the fact that most of the attractors, e.g. retail, education, employment, are north of the river. The Traffic Assessment that accompanies the application indicates that Clopton Bridge in particular would experience a significant reduction in traffic as a result of the proposed development. I also note that a Travel Plan for the site will be secured via S106 Agreement. The Highway Authority has used modelling to assess the AM and PM peak flows that will result from the proposals and find a very minor increase across Clopton Bridge (only 18 extra vehicles over the 4 hour period). It is however possible that traffic across the bridge may reduce outside the peak periods. I therefore think it unlikely that the reduction in car borne journeys across the town will decrease as much as the applicants’ state, however, the development would be beneficial in helping to redress the imbalance of service provision within the town. (b) Accessibility by a choice of means of transport The applicants’ state that the site has good access by public transport with services running past the site at least once an hour and the intention to improve bus stops adjacent to the site. The layout has been designed to allow for buses to enter the site and the applicants remain hopeful that the town shuttle service (222) might be extended into the site. It is understood that WCC are unlikely to permit the extension of the 222 service and the applicant’s are therefore pursuing other options regarding this which are discussed further into the report. The park and ride facility therefore has the potential to improve the quality, quantity and frequency of public transport provision in the area. The applicants’ claim that a significant proportion of the town is within walking distance of the application site and it is within 800 metres walk of the Bridgetown area. An existing public footpath links the site to the residential areas to the north. The applicants see this

as being a possible access route by residents from Bridgetown visiting the site. It is also accessible via various off road cycle routes. While I accept that the site is a reasonably convenient location, to my mind the distances involved would be too great for most residents of the Bridgetown and Trinity Mead estates to be inclined to walk to the various facilities proposed, although the potential to cycle is reasonable. Nevertheless, the proposed development would be closer to these residential areas than similar facilities elsewhere in the town, including the town centre itself. (c) High quality and inclusive design These issues are assessed further into the report. (d) Economic and physical regeneration The applicant’s see the proposals as presenting an opportunity to overcome a shortfall of services and facilities to serve residential areas south of the river with a reduction in traffic in the central parts of the town and on the river bridges. The applicants describe their scheme as a redevelopment of the site. While a small part was used as railway sidings many decades ago, the bulk of the site is greenfield so the applicants’ description is inaccurate. Overall, this factor has only limited relevance to the application. (e) Local employment The applicants anticipate that the foodstore alone will generate approximately 150 positions and further jobs will be created by the other uses proposed (possibly up to 300 in total). This is accepted and will be beneficial. I think it unlikely given the nature and location of the proposed uses that many existing jobs elsewhere in the town would be lost as a result of the development. (f) Sequential assessment PPS4 requires a detailed assessment to be carried out of the scope to provide the proposed scale and nature of the retail floorspace within or on the edge of the town centre. The applicants have carried out such an assessment and concluded that there are no suitable sites that are available. I am inclined to agree with this conclusion. The location of sites covered in the sequential assessment, are all north of the river. As such, a large foodstore on any of these sites would compound the current travel movements within the town and not benefit the communities south of the river. It has been suggested that Town Square is appropriate for a large foodstore. It is my view that this would be contrary to the aspirations of the District Council. While it is important that a foodstore remains within Town Square, any enhancement scheme should increase the comparison goods floorspace and be attractive to visitors to the town as well as to local residents. (g) Impact on public and private investment in town centres The applicants’ contend that the proposed development would not have any material adverse impact on investment in Stratford town centre and there are no planned town centre development opportunities that will be affected by the scheme.

I agree with this position since there are no proposals from the District Local Plan or emerging through the Local Development Framework that incorporate the uses proposed in the application. Furthermore, in relation to the foodstore I have accepted that there is not a more sequentially preferable site that is appropriate and available. In relation to Shipston, there is clearly an emerging aspiration to attract a larger foodstore to the town. However, as already explained, there appears to be no prospect of providing such a store in the town centre. Neither do I believe that the foodstore proposed in this application will be harmful to Shipston town centre or undermine the prospect of businesses investing there. (h) Impact on town centre vitality and viability, consumer choice and retail offer The applicants’ retail assessment found that the forecast level of trade diversion on Stratford town centre caused by the proposed development itself would be low and not be detrimental to the existing range of convenience or comparison retail provision and retail diversity or result in an increase in the level of vacant properties. Neither would there be any adverse impact on the quality and attractiveness of the town centre or harm caused to other centres in the District and their established roles. Having considered the retail assessment submitted by the applicants, and the supplementary statement responding, inter alia, to the concerns previously raised by the District Council’s retail consultants, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause any demonstrable harm to existing town centres in the District. (i) Impact on allocated sites outside town centres I have not identified any allocations from the District Local Plan that would be directly affected. (j) Impact on in-centre trade/turnover and on trade in the wider area Again, the applicants’ retail assessment has forecast a low trade diversion from existing centres as a result of the proposed development and an insignificant impact on trade/turnover of any individual centre within the catchment area. The applicants believe that the foodstore in particular will increase consumer choice and introduce a new operator not currently represented in the town. I have already accepted that the proposed development will not cause demonstrable harm to any town centre in the catchment. Taking into account all of the above I come to the view that the principle of the proposed development on the site should be supported due to the range of benefits that would derive from them. This is on the basis that, while the proposals do not form part of the local development plan at this point in time, the provisions of PPS4 make it clear that schemes of proven benefit should be supported if there are no overriding detrimental impacts. For this reason, although the application site lies outside the Built Up Area Boundary defined for Stratford-upon-Avon, I find that the case in support of the application is sufficiently strong to override the normal constraint on development in open countryside set by ‘saved’ policy CTY.1 from the District Local Plan. Impact on streetscene and character and appearance of surrounding area The site is outside the built up area boundary of the town and is currently open countryside with limited urban influences in surrounding fields. The Shipston Road and nearby traffic island at the junction with Trinity Way and Seven Meadows Road introduce more urban character to the locality but by and large the site is divorced from the town’s developed areas. The development of the site will clearly have an impact on the immediate character

and appearance of the locality and the previous application (09/02288/FUL) was refused on the basis that the scheme would have been an unacceptable urbanising intrusion into open rural countryside and of inappropriate design causing unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and setting of the town. The long distance views of the site are limited, for example by the semi mature nature reserve planting at the Community Woodland and Meadowland to the north which largely screen the site from Trinity Way and will increasingly do so as the tree cover further matures. The hedge to the Shipston Road boundary of the site is well maintained, albeit at a fairly low level and there are significant Oak trees when approaching from the south. The siting of buildings has been amended from the previously refused application to take all development away from the more prominent Shipston Road frontage and to relocate this deeper into the site along the northern and eastern boundaries. The landscaping proposals for the site have been re-thought which results in the Shipston Road frontage having a more ‘natural’ character through the planting of more semi-mature trees (i.e. 20+ years old). Internally the tree planting along the parking bays has been significantly increased and will be between 6-12 years old at time of planting. The design of the buildings has also been amended from the previous planning application to reduce some of their heights, revise the roof style and to introduce a more traditional rural character through revised design and materials. The Health Centre building is around 6.3m high (formerly 10.3m), the Pharmacy with Management Suite has been deleted from the scheme, Crèche around 6.5m high (formerly 8.3m) and Community Hall 6.8m high (formerly 7.0m). The Waitrose store is around 6.0m high and retains a more contemporary style of architecture along with the three retail units near to this which are only 5.0m high. In pushing the buildings to the rear the scheme now brings parking areas potentially to more prominence. The proposed landscaping of the development has been the subject of much consultation with Landscape Officers. It is proposed to retain the hedge to the road frontage and to plant semi-mature trees, such as oak, field maple and ash behind this, within wildflower grassland. Considerable tree planting will also take place throughout the site. In addition to this there will be tree and hedge planting around the northern, western and southern boundaries of the site. There will also be a mounded copse of planting near to Springfield Cottages to the south. I consider that the amendments made to the siting, design and appearance of the buildings together with the landscaping provide an improved streetscene, more in keeping with the edge of town location, compared with the previous scheme. The more contemporary buildings are set deep into the site and are lower lying. The areas of new landscaping and tree planting will provide substantial softening and screening of the development, including car parking areas upon approach from the south, west and north. On balance I consider that the character and appearance of the development, whilst changing the existing situation, will be acceptable for the locality subject to conditions securing the long term retention and management of the landscaping areas. Highway Safety, parking and traffic Traffic Flows - The County Highway Authority has required traffic modelling of the proposals to assess their impacts on the capacity of the town’s highway network. The submitted Transport Assessment and associated documents indicate that there may be a reduction in traffic movements over Clopton Bridge achieved as a result of people on the south side of the river seeking to use the retail and community facilities at the site rather than existing facilities north of the river. The Assessment indicates that traffic flows for the town centre will therefore be improved.

The Highway Authority has studied the Assessment and associated documents and has required additional modeling work on traffic flows to be carried out. The modeling work demonstrates that the town’s wider highway network will not be adversely affected and that in the AM/PM peaks only 18 additional vehicles will cross Clopton Bridge in that 4 hour period. There will however be localised impacts of the development and the two key impacts will be on traffic travelling west on Trinity Way to the existing roundabout and traffic travelling east on Clifford Lane to the Shipston Road junction. The Trinity Way impact will occur in part of the PM peak between 17.00-18.00 where average journey times increase from 2 minutes 41 seconds to 4 minutes 35 seconds, resulting in increased queuing particularly between 17.30-18.00. The Clifford Lane impact will occur in part of the AM peak between 08.00-09.00, with particular impacts between 08.30-08.40 where the average maximum queues increase from 40 vehicles in the 2015 (Base) reference case to 77, although this queue falls away sharply from 08:40 onwards. There is also an increase in queuing on this arm in the PM peak between 17:10 and 17:20 where the average maximum queues increase from 20 to 40 vehicles. The Highway Authority concludes that the proposals are acceptable, raising no objections based on localized traffic flows or congestion for the town. I note that increased queuing will occur to Trinity Way and Clifford Lane but also note that this relates to relatively short periods of the day. I am also aware that the applicant’s transport consultant has provided evidence of modeling that indicates significantly lower levels of queuing traffic. I further note that the previous proposals included a traffic light junction design to which there was significant local objection with objectors calling for a roundabout junction instead. Given the Highway Authority’s findings and taking into account the relatively limited impacts and the historical circumstances of the case I conclude that there are likely to be no unacceptable impacts to local traffic flows or congestion in the town centre. Traffic Roundabout Junction - The junction of the site access with Shipston Road and Clifford Lane was previously proposed as traffic lights and was the subject of a number of objections. The current scheme changes the junction to a four arm traffic roundabout. A planning permission for a ‘leisure village’ at Long Marston has previously been granted subject to this junction being upgraded to a three arm traffic island. There are three key tests relating to the design of the junction. First, is it acceptable in relation to highway safety and traffic flows. Second, is it acceptable to the character and appearance of the locality. Third, does it cause any unacceptable harm to neighbouring properties. I have already addressed the issue of traffic flows in relation to the roundabout above, and find this acceptable. The principle of a three arm traffic island in this location, with its attendant signage and lighting has already been agreed via the Long Marston ‘leisure village’ planning permission. I do not perceive that there will be any significant difference between the impacts on the character and appearance of the locality between a three arm and four arm traffic island. It should also be noted that the junction with Clifford Lane is already urbanised by its engineering, signage and lighting. There is a possibility of the periodical back up of traffic travelling north on Shipston Road and therefore the harm to residential dwellings north of the junction needs to be assessed. I am conscious that Shipston Road is an existing busy traffic route and I do not consider that noise and disturbance from traffic will materially worsen. I also consider that any pollutative emissions impacts from queuing traffic will not materially harm residents given

the existing traffic flows and the fact that the dwellings are set at least 18m back from the likely area of queuing traffic. Parking Levels – The application site layout indicates that 200 parking spaces will be set out to serve the (Waitrose) food store and is likely to serve the 3 retail units adjacent to this. This leaves 127 parking spaces to serve the Health Centre, Crèche, Community Hall and Park and Ride facility. Using District wide rather than Stratford Town parking standards then it is estimated that the number of spaces would accord with the maximum set standards. Given that the site is close to the town it is however reasonable to also take into account the parking standards for Stratford town. Using these standards a residual of around 173 spaces would theoretically be available for a Park & Ride use. I am of the opinion that actual demand for parking spaces will be somewhere in-between the District wide and Town wide maximum standard limits, and that sufficient spaces (recommend minimum of 50) can be set aside for a Park & Ride to operate without causing any unacceptable traffic problems. With regard to cycle parking it is calculated that a minimum of 27 spaces will be required to serve the site. Provision of these will be secured via planning condition. Park & Ride – The site has been suggested as a possible location for a Park & Ride for a number of years. It has the potential to intercept traffic approaching the town from Shipston Road, Clifford Lane and Banbury Road (via Trinity Way). Warwickshire County Council is in the early stages of assessing potential sites for a Park & Ride and this is one of the three areas under consideration. I understand that Warwickshire County Council has no current plans to take on the management of a Park & Ride facility in this location although the site is one of three potential sites that they are currently considering. Officers of WCC have met with the applicants and have agreed to keep open the option of WCC involvement in the operation of a Park & Ride at the site pending the outcome of the current Park & Ride Feasibility Study. I understand that there is little chance at present of the 222 bus service being extended to the site to act as the Park & Ride shuttle bus. I do however understand that the licence for the 222 route is due to be renewed, and there remains the possibly of the route being reviewed following the outcome of the Park and Ride study work. The applicants have agreed to provide a contribution to WCC to facilitate further work and initiatives that may be needed relating to the Park & Ride study. The expectation is that by the time the current Park & Ride Study is completed it will become clearer what is the appropriate level of bus service serving the site and what scale of Park & Ride facility may be needed. In the interim period the applicants have suggested that they will fund the operation of a shuttle service from the site to the town for a period of up to 3 years. I consider that the provision of the Park & Ride facility whilst further work on the Park & Ride strategy is carried out is of benefit to the town. This would be a similar arrangement as informally operated at the Maybird Centre prior to the Bishopton Park & Ride being opened. Safeguarding of adjoining land, on a temporary basis, for possible Park & Ride use has also been offered by the applicants. Subject to a shuttle bus service with appropriate clauses relating to matters such as timetabling, route, signage etc and the ability to monitor, review and revise the service as appropriate, and the safeguarding of land for a possible larger Park & Ride facility being secured via the S106 agreement then I am satisfied that appropriate arrangements can be secured for a suitable Park and Ride service to operate.

Archaeology The County Archaeological Unit has identified the site in 2008 as having the potential to contain archaeological deposits of regional or national significance. They therefore recommended in relation to the previous application that prior to any decision being made on the application that an archaeological evaluation of the site is carried out rather than leaving the matter to be dealt with via planning condition. An archaeological evaluation of the site has taken place and the County Archaeology has made an initial assessment of the detailed report relating to this. It is understood that the County Archaeological Unit is reasonably satisfied with the report but wishes a planning condition to be applied to any permission requiring further archaeological investigation prior to commencement of the development. Ecology Substantial work has been undertaken with regard to protected species and habitat surveys of the site. The County Ecology Unit considers the surveys to be acceptable and raise no objection to the proposals subject to conditions and notes. English Nature has considered the previous proposals in relation to Racecourse Meadow, a SSSI that lies some distance away, and raised no concerns. It is the duty of the Authority to have regard to conserving biodiversity, including in relation to living organisms or types of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. I am satisfied that appropriate regard has been given to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Impact on neighbours’ amenities I have already discussed the issue of possible vehicle noise, disturbance and fumes from the proposed traffic island junction on the two nearest dwellings on Shipston Road (1 and 2 Springfield Cottages). I have further considered the impacts from the use of the car park and from the buildings and delivery areas on the site. The nearest parking area is in excess of 40m from any residential curtilage, the nearest building is over 95m away and the service yard screened by the food store. The proposals include the formation of a landscaped mound along the northern boundary of the nearest dwelling which will provide screening of the view towards the development. I do not therefore consider there will be any unacceptable impacts to neighbouring dwellings in terms of noise, disturbance, fumes, overshadowing, loss of light or overbearing impacts. The issue of external lighting is conditioned for further approval and will be assessed by Environmental Health Officers to ensure no unacceptable impacts occur. Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour The Police Architectural Liaison Officer offered a number of helpful and constructive points in relation to the previous application. The scheme has evolved to reduce the number of potential escape routes from the site and to allow for appropriate levels of surveillance, whilst ensuring suitable planting along Shipston Road. Other measures such as anti-ram raid bollards, secure fencing and speed reduction features will be secured via planning condition. CCTV will be linked to the town system via a new camera at the junction of Shipston Road, Trinity Way and Seven Meadows Road. It is understood that the site will have a management/security office with the likelihood of an internal CCTV system. I am therefore satisfied that the scheme will satisfactorily address maters relating to crime and anti-social behaviour.

Planning Obligations The applicants have submitted suggested Heads of Terms relating to a Section 106 Agreement. Consultation responses have also identified required S106 contributions. Together these include:- • Three year management of the Park & Ride facility with a minimum of 50 parking

spaces being available with an option for the District Council to manage for the same 3 year period with an appropriate contribution if so required. Clause to allow for potential involvement of Warwickshire County Council in the operation of the Park & Ride following the findings of the WCC Park & Ride Feasibility Study.

• An agreed provision of a bus shuttle service for a minimum of 3 years between the site/Park & Ride facility and Stratford-upon-Avon town centre details to be included relating to:- capacity of buses; timetable/frequency of service having regard to the availability of existing services; route of service; signage of facility; recording/monitoring of service use; review of service with appropriate adjustments.

• An appropriate contribution towards Park & Ride initiatives and/or studies (likely to be £15,000).

• An appropriate contribution for upgrade of public footpaths in the vicinity of the site primarily to SB29, to link the site to the Kipling Road area (Likely to be £10,000).

• An appropriate contribution towards the provision of public realm works at the ‘gateway’ entrance to the town from Shipston Road (Likely to be £20,000). Option for applicant to provide own public realm works in lieu of this, subject to separate planning permission being granted and the scheme implemented.

• Provision and fitting out of the Community Hall for community use ready for use prior to first opening of the foodstore.

• Safeguarding an appropriate area of land on a temporary basis until September 2014 as a potential site for the provision of a leisure centre and/or Park & Ride facility.

• Provision of Travel Plan for the foodstore. • An appropriate contribution towards highway and traffic related schemes for the town

(Likely to be £32,480). • An appropriate contribution for provision of one CCTV camera linked to town system

(Likely to be £21,522). • An appropriate contribution towards Air Quality measures for the town (Likely to be

£1,200). • An appropriate contribution towards the maintenance and upkeep of bus shelters for a

5 year period (Likely to be £10,000). Separate to this WCC as Highway Authority will require the applicants to enter in S278 Highway works to secure highway works and matters such as:- • An appropriate contribution for provision, upgrade and improvement of pedestrian and

cycle routes serving the site. Other Matters Air quality – The proposals will generate traffic movements and therefore have the potential to negatively affect overall air quality for the town. An appropriate sum will therefore be sought via S106 Agreement to be used for improving air quality in the town. Ground contamination – The Environment Agency is satisfied with the submitted Ground Conditions reports and raises no objection subject to a planning condition. Drainage – Proposals for soakaways and porous surfaces have been identified. I consider that the proposed drainage of surface water is acceptable and sustainable, subject to final details being approved via condition. It is understood that foul drainage will link to the main sewer and there are no capacity issues identified by Severn Trent.

Flood risk – The site is not prone to flooding and will not be affected by forecast increases in flooding in the future. Leisure centre – The site and adjoining land have previously been informally identified as possible alternative sites for a leisure centre to serve the town. No decision has been made on this matter and therefore it is recommended to safeguard the land on a temporary basis via the S106 Agreement whilst further consideration is given to the matter. Energy – It is understood that air source heat pumps will be installed to secure a renewable energy source, along with other possible measures. I am satisfied that this is appropriate solution and consider that a condition can secure the appropriate level of reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from the site. Conclusions There are a number of clear benefits to be gained from the development proposed in the application: • The provision of a large foodstore and other facilities south of the river will serve local

residents who at present have a dearth of provision and therefore have to travel some distance across the town. While, to my mind, the location of the application site means that a limited number of people will walk or cycle to reach the facilities, nevertheless they would be more convenient for many of the residents of the Bridgetown and Trinity Mead estates than comparable facilities north of the river.

• The introduction of an embryonic park and ride facility will be useful and is consistent

with the aspiration to provide such a facility south of the river. The contribution for the town wide Park & Ride Strategy will also be of clear benefit.

• Potential creation of up to 300 jobs. These benefits need to be weighed against the negative aspects that the proposals may result in: • The change in character and appearance of the site from open countryside to developed

area, albeit partially mitigated by landscaping. • The potential impacts on the retail economy of town centres in the District. • Localised increase in traffic movements and delays. I have dealt with the impact of the proposed foodstore on existing retail provision, particularly in relation to town centres, at some length. My main concern in this respect is the impact on Shipston-on-Stour. However, there is no known opportunity to provide such a food store in Shipston town centre, and I am not yet convinced that a store on the edge of Shipston is appropriate. I am mindful of the change to the character and appearance of the site and its role in providing the setting to the town. I do however consider that submitted changes to the scheme compared with the previous application greatly assist in providing buildings of a more appropriate scale, siting, style and appearance for the locality and recognise the significant areas of landscaping proposed. I note the peak time delays that may be experienced on Trinity Way and Clifford Lane, but consider these to be relatively limited in their length and frequency to not warrant refusal of the proposals.

On balance I consider the benefits of the scheme outweigh the concerns raised regarding harm to the character and appearance of the area and other matters. RECOMMENDATION That, subject to:- 1. The referral of the application to the Government Office for West Midlands and the

application not being called in for determination. 2. The signing of a legal agreement to secure the following:

(i) Three year management of the Park & Ride facility with a minimum of 50 parking spaces being available with an option for the District Council to manage for the same 3 year period with an appropriate contribution if so required. Clause to allow for potential involvement of Warwickshire County Council in the operation of the Park & Ride following the findings of the WCC Park & Ride Feasibility Study.

(ii) An agreed provision of a bus shuttle service for a minimum of 3 years between the site/Park & Ride facility and Stratford-upon-Avon town centre details to be included relating to:- capacity of buses; timetable/frequency of service having regard to the availability of existing services; route of service; signage of facility; recording/monitoring of service use; review of service with appropriate adjustments.

(iii) An appropriate contribution towards Park & Ride initiatives and/or studies (likely to be £15,000).

(iv) An appropriate contribution for upgrade of public footpaths in the vicinity of the site primarily to SB29, to link the site to the Kipling Road area (Likely to be £10,000).

(v) An appropriate contribution towards the provision of public realm works at the ‘gateway’ entrance to the town from Shipston Road (Likely to be £20,000). Option for applicant to provide own public realm works in lieu of this, subject to separate planning permission being granted and the scheme implemented.

(vi) Provision and fitting out of the Community Hall for community use ready for use prior to first opening of the foodstore.

(vii) Safeguarding an appropriate area of land on a temporary basis until September 2014 as a potential site for the provision of a leisure centre and/or Park & Ride facility.

(viii) Provision of Travel Plan for the foodstore. (ix) An appropriate contribution towards highway and traffic related schemes for

the town (Likely to be £32,480). (x) An appropriate contribution for provision of one CCTV camera linked to town

system (Likely to be £21,522). (xi) An appropriate contribution towards Air Quality measures for the town

(Likely to be £1,200). (xii) An appropriate contribution towards the maintenance and upkeep of bus

shelters for a 5 year period (Likely to be £10,000).

The Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT planning permission, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording of which is delegated to officers: 1. Standard 3 year commencement. 2. Contamination scheme for assessment, investigation and verification.

3. Details of any external lighting.

4. Between the hours of 07:00 and 23:00, illuminance (Light Trespass) from the installation should not exceed 5 Lux, as measured in the vertical plane at a height of 1.5 metres above ground on the boundary with any adjacent residential properties or outside any of their windows.

5. The lighting system should not be used outside the hours of 07:00 and 23:00, save

for any safety or security-related schemes. The illuminance from any such schemes should not exceed 1 Lux, measured in the vertical plane outside the windows of any affected residential property.

6. The light sources (lamps) used in the installation should not be visible from outside

the boundary of the site. The Upward Light Ratio of any installed lights should not exceed 2.5%.

7. The proposed traffic signals, highway/footway/cycleway improvements,

pedestrian crossing, accesses to the site for pedestrians and other associated works shall be laid out in general accordance with drawing 9245-42 (or subsequently approved drawings taking account of minor amendments to the highway works which may be required as part of the detailed design process). This shall also include bus shelters to be provided on the A3400 in appropriate locations, advanced warning signage of the new junction and associated speed limit alterations.

8. The internal configuration of the development including car parking shall be laid out in general accordance with plan 10493/3010/A prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted.

9. The vehicular and pedestrian accesses to the site and internal roadway shall not be

constructed in such a manner as to reduce the effective capacity of any drain or ditch within the limits of the public highway.

10. The soft landscaping scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the details of

drawing no. L6-P Rev H within the first planting season following the commencement of the development hereby permitted.

11. The management of the soft landscaping scheme shall be implemented in

accordance with the Maintenance Notes of drawing no. L6-P Rev H. 12. Trees and hedges protection.

13. Hard landscape proposals, including boundary details.

14. Samples of the materials.

15. Large scale drawings of eaves, verges, external joinery, heads and cills

16. Scheme for the provision of energy from on-site renewable sources in the form of Air Source Heal Pumps, or other approved measures sufficient to replace a minimum of 10% of the predicted carbon dioxide emissions.

17. Parking of 327 cars, including a minimum of 50 spaces dedicated to the Park and Ride facility.

18. Cycle stands or stores for a minimum of 27 cycles.

19. Details of CCTV serving the site and its Shipston Road frontage.

20. Details of public transport access and bus stops within and relating to the site.

21. Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water, sewer or soakaway

system, all surface water drainage from parking areas shall be passed through an oil interceptor.

22. Scheme for all foul and surface water drainage works.

23. Prior to the first occupation of any part of the development hereby permitted the two advertising hoardings in the north west corner of site shall be taken down and removed from the site.

24. Full details of crime reduction and security measures to be approved and

implemented.

25. Programme of Archaeological investigation prior to commencement. 26. Travel Plan Statement (excluding the (Waitrose) Food Store and Community Hall). Notes 1. Amended plans 2. Bats. 3. Great crested newts 4. Grass snake. 5. Nesting birds. 6. Badgers. 7. This permission should be read in conjunction with the associated legal agreement. 8. The applicant's attention is drawn to Sections 60, 61 and 72 of the Control of Pollution Act, 1974 which provides control over construction site noise. Locally, the following restriction to working hours and operations is normally recommended and, if necessary, enforced. All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, should be carried out only between the hours of 08:00 and 18:00 on Mondays and Fridays, and between the hours of 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays. For further information on the subject please contact the Council's Environmental Protection Team on 01789 260835. 9. Condition number 7 requires works to be carried out within the limits of the public highway. The applicant must enter into a Highway Works Agreement made under the provisions of Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 for the purposes of completing the works. 10. Highways notification. 11. Reference to S106 Agreement.