COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Reference 13/02542/OUT

Site Address Land to the East Of Birmingham Road

Proposals Outline planning permission with means of site access from Birmingham Road to be determined (internal road layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval) for the erection of up to 60 dwellings; public open space, structural landscaping, and all other ancillary and enabling works.

Case Officer Jay Singh

Presenting Officer Jay Singh

Applicant Gallagher Estates

Ward Member(s) Cllr C Thomas Cllr K Lloyd Cllr J Short

Town Council Stratford on Avon Town Council

Reason for Referral to Committee

Scale of Development Objection from Town Council Objection from Ward Members

Recommendation Grant subject to completion of s.106 legal agreement

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of up to 60 dwellings on agricultural land located to the north-eastern edge of Stratford upon Avon. Means of access from Birmingham Road is for determination at this time with the remaining matters relating to internal road layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for subsequent approval. In addition, the scheme would include the provision of public open space, structural landscaping, and associated infrastructure.

The proposed access would be served directly from Birmingham Road via a priority controlled ‘T’ junction with a ghost island turn. The access would include a 6m wide road with a 10m radius and 3m footway/cycleway. The supporting technical drawings indicate a visibility splay of 2.4m x 90m could be achieved. The construction of the access and associated visibility splays would involve the removal of existing trees/hedgeline to the frontage/southern boundary of the site. Following consultation with WCC Highways, the proposal now also includes a pedestrian refuge crossing within the proposed ghost island to integrate pedestrian and cycle linkages to the footway/cycleway to the south of the Birmingham Road and committed footway/cycle way link through the development site to the west of Birmingham Road to the Park and Ride ‘Parkway’ site. Whilst this is an outline application, plans are provided that set out the indicative built form, public open space, landscaping and SUDS. Other supporting information indicates the proposal would comprise a mix of predominantly 2, 3 and 4 bed housing, and affordable housing provision would comprise 35% of the total residential floor space.

The supporting details suggest the scale of the dwellings would be predominantly two-storey (towards the northern part of the site) but with some up to 2.5 storey (closer to the Birmingham Road frontage/southern part of the site). In addition, the scheme would provide a minimum of 2 off road car parking spaces per dwelling. 2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS (INCLUDING

RELEVANT PLANNING CONSTRAINTS) The application site is located to the east of Birmingham Road, on the north- eastern edge of Stratford upon Avon where a full range of facilities are available locally. The site measures 3 hectares in area and comprises agricultural land (currently used a paddock) with a part ridge and furrow profile. The site was identified as a potential Local Wildlife Site in 1994, however due to recent agricultural activity, the botanical value of the site largely comprises species-poor, semi-improved grassland. The site adjoins Birmingham Road to the south with an existing gated access to the street frontage. The site is surrounded by agricultural fields beyond the western, eastern and north-eastern boundaries leading into the open countryside designated as Greenbelt. Beyond the south-eastern corner of the site is a small area of woodland.

Beyond the southern boundary of the site are existing residential and commercial properties fronting on to Birmingham Road. Further south and south-west, beyond the Birmingham Road, forms the largely residential urban edge of Stratford upon Avon which includes existing modern residential development as well as a recently approved proposal for 160 homes accessed from Bishopton Lane (reference 13/01361/REM) that is currently under construction. The boundaries of the site include well-established planting, including young woodland trees up to 7m in height which define the north-western and north-eastern boundaries, with the south-eastern and southern western boundaries also enclosed by vegetation. Towards the north-eastern corner, the site fronts onto Birmingham Road where there is a tree lined hedge comprising class B and C trees of varying quality, condition and size. Along this boundary there is also a single column bus stop. It is noted that there no category A trees or Tree Preservation Orders affecting the site. To the north-eastern boundary and part of the southern boundary there is an existing drainage ditch and a small pond. The topography of the site is generally flat with a gradual fall towards the south-eastern boundary of up to 3m over a distance of 70m. Beyond the northern boundary of the site, the topography rises gradually to the ridgeline at Welcombe Hills within the open countryside. Due to planting along the boundaries of the site, views into the site from the surrounding countryside are largely limited to long distance views from areas of significantly higher topography. However, localised views of the site boundaries themselves are available including from the A46 located to the north, surrounding fields which include public footpaths, and from the street frontage on to Birmingham Road. To the north and north-east of the site are a number of public rights of way which link the edge of Stratford upon Avon with the surrounding countryside, including Welcombe Hills Country Park. 3. HISTORY/BACKGROUND Reference Number

Proposal Decision and date

Within the Site

07/02655/FUL Creation of new vehicular access to field and associated hardstanding.

Approved – 12.11.2007

Nearby Applications

12/02814/FUL Construction of 78 dwellings with infrastructure and open space - Land Between 256 And 346 Birmingham Road

Pending decision (on-going resolution of scheme)

13/01361/REM Reserved matters for 160 dwellings (internal access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale).

Approved - 17.09.2013

11/01490/OUT Outline permission for 160 dwellings – Land at Birmingham Road/Bishopton Lane

28.10.2011

4. RELEVANT POLICY CONTEXT The Development Plan Stratford–on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 PR.1 Landscape and Settlement Character PR.2 Greenbelt EF.6/7 Nature Conservation and Geology EF.9 & EF.10 Trees, woodland and hedgerows EF.11 Archaeological sites EF.14 Listed Buildings DEV.1 Layout and Design DEV.2 Landscaping DEV.3 Amenity Space DEV.4 Access DEV.5 Car Parking DEV.6 Services DEV.7 Drainage DEV.8 Energy Conservation DEV.10 Crime Prevention COM.1 Local Choice COM.3 Local Shops and Services COM.4/5 Open Space COM.9 Walking and Cycling COM.13 Affordable Housing COM.14 Mix of Dwelling Types COM.15 Accessible Housing IMP.1 Supporting Information IMP.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance IMP.4 & 5 Infrastructure Provision IMP.6 Transport Assessments IMP.7 Green Transport Plan SUA.1 Town Setting SUA.3 Environmental Enhancement Other Material Considerations Central Government Guidance National Planning Policy Framework 2012 and Technical Guidance Note Draft National Planning Policy Guidance 2013 Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Ministerial Statement ‘Planning for Growth’ Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents Meeting Housing Needs 2008 Car and Cycle Parking Standards 2007 Sustainable Low Carbon Buildings 2007 Provision of Open Space 2005 Stratford on Avon District Design Guide 2002 Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines 1993

Other Documents High Court judgements on Shottery appeal and Tewkesbury appeal Recent appeal decisions Coventry & Warwickshire Joint Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) (November 2013) National Character Area Profile 406: Severn and Avon Vales (Natural England 2012). Town Council Draft Neighbourhood Plan District Council Historic Environment Assessment of Proposed Strategic Sites PPG17 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Assessment and Playing Pitch Strategy (Arup, April 2011) Corporate Strategy 2011-2015 Landscape Sensitivity Study (July 2011) Historical Environmental Assessment (2008) Water Cycle Studies 2011 and 2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and updates (SHLAA) 2012 Intended Proposed Submission Core Strategy 2013 Other Legislation Human Rights Act 1998 Equality Act 2010 Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Community and Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Legislation Localism Act 2011 5. APPLICANT’S COMMENTS The application is supported by the following documentation:

• Planning Statement; • Design and access statement; • Ecological assessment; • Arboricultural assessment; • Archaeological/heritage assessment • Archaeological geo-physical survey; • Transport statement; • Road Safety Audit; • Energy Statement; • Community Consultation Statement; • Flood risk/drainage assessment; • Noise and Air Quality Assessment; • Public Consultation Report; • Geo-Environmental Study; • Sustainability Statement; • Landscape and Visual Appraisal; • Existing and Proposed Utility Services; and • Agricultural Land Classification Report.

6. TOWN COUNCIL ‘The Town Council objects to this application on the following grounds: Flooding – The site is in close proximity to the Racecourse Brook. A significant amount of the surrounding land, including the application site drains into the brook which floods on a regular basis. The impact of this development on land drainage and flooding in the area would be significant and detrimental to properties down stream and the capacity and capability of the brook and adjoining land to act as flood plain. The Environment Agency has objected to the site just down the road on the Birmingham Road (William Davis site) for similar reasons. Highway safety – The Birmingham Road is not just at capacity, it is over capacity. It is constantly congested which has been made worse by development along its route over the last 5 years. Each application appears to be assessed by the highways authority in isolation rather than holistically. There is also a concern that the necessary visibility splays cannot be provided to the gradient of the Birmingham Road to the north of the site which will make turning right out of the site hazardous.’ (05.11.2013) 7. WARD MEMBERS Cllr Thomas ‘Re-affirm the objections made by the Town Council. In addition, I feel both of these sites (13/02542/OUT and 12/02814/FUL) lead up to the Clopton Hills which are part of the Green Belt and it is the only open countryside left approaching the town from the north. In addition, The Neighbourhood Plan is likely to go for public consultation in January 2014 which proposes brownfield sites for development which are situated along the Canal Road from western road to Timothy Bridge Road. It is also important to recognise although the application sites (13/02542/OUT and 12/02814/FUL) were taken out of the developing Core Strategy because there are more suitable brownfield sites available e.g. Canal Quarter. In relation to traffic impact, the JMP report for the County Council tells us Birmingham Road is at capacity all day. Both these developments (13/02542/OUT and 12/02814/FUL) will exacerbate existing problems.’ (Verbal Response - 27.11.13). Cllr Short Objects to the application on the basis of the following concerns (summarised by officers):

• Traffic and social implications outweigh the need for the development. • Insufficient long term transport management plan for Birmingham Road

taking into account proposed and actual development. • Insufficient financial contributions/measures to mitigate impact from traffic

generation along Birmingham Road from the development. • Adverse impact on flooding where up to £900,000 is required to actually

mitigate existing flooding problems.

• Insufficient primary and secondary school places to accommodate demand from the proposed development e.g. 159 primary children have to go to schools outside the town by public or family transport.

• Lack of indoor community facilities within the area • Lack of open space within the scheme. • More weight should be given to The Neighbourhood Plan which identifies

brownfield sites to increase housing land supply - this approach would avoid pressure to release greenfield sites and provide housing within the town.

• There is a need to protect the quality of life for the Districts residents for the future. (23.12.13)

8. THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS At total of 7 representations have been received at the time of writing this report comprising: 6 letters of objection – raising the following (summarised) issues:

• The town cannot support any further housing and therefore the development on the Birmingham Road is inappropriate.

• Impact/further encroachment on to the Greenbelt. • Increased traffic generation to the Birmingham Road which is already at

overcapacity due to the cumulative impact of existing development and lack of cohesive forward thinking policy.

• Access to the scheme opposite has to enter and exit via Bishopton Lane due to highway safety and traffic generation concerns (access to Birmingham road from this development is for emergency access only).

• Lack of visibility splays – previously 160m. • Speed camera referred to in Transport Statement does not exist. • Excessive vehicle speeds on Birmingham Road. • The application site comprising a field has only recently had a gated access

approved. Historical applications for a new access were refused due to highway safety (including at Worths Way for 80 homes). The proposed ghost island will be dangerous to highway safety also.

• The proposed access was refused 10 years ago due to impact on highway safety – this scheme should be considered consistently.

• Impact on highway and local resident safety. • False Island for development on opposite site of road not allowed – the

decision should be consistent with this application. • Impact on ridge and furrow ancient meadowland. • Lack of infrastructure. • Lack of community facilities. • Lack of an improved footpath to the A46/A3400 island. • Impact on local wildlife and protected species. • Proposal would set a precedent to the development of adjoining fields

bounded by the A46 and the Welcombe Hills. • Impact on the countryside and Green Belt. • Development should be directed to brownfield land first. • Creation of an unsatisfactory living environment for future occupiers from

traffic noise. • Impact on flood risk through increased surface run-off, within the site and

for existing homes e.g. existing problems from the Racecourse Brook. • Impact on tourism – modern development in this location reduces the

appeal of Stratford as a visitor attraction.

• Reference to letter dated 16th January 1995 from John Deegan, the former Director of Planning, Transport & Economic Strategy at Warwickshire County Council - the contents of which are still considered relevant today.

• Highways Agency have not properly considered the application (their comments relate to a different site 12/02814).

One letter of support has been received indicating the proposal would help meet local housing need, especially helping the particular circumstances of the contributor who currently lives with her boyfriend and her parent’s home. Other comments:

• It is noted that water ‘run-off’ into existing houses in front of the proposed development will be mitigated.

• The hedge and new planting will separate the proposed development from the existing houses. However, some of the hedge appears to be diseased, namely oak and ash trees.

• The proposal shows a cul-de-sac which leads to a field understood to be owned by the developer. Suggest proposed access way is linked through the field into development proposed by 12/02814/FUL (William Davis) then access would be onto Birmingham Road via traffic lights in the interests of highway safety.

• SDC, Developer and local residents to consider the provision of new community facilities e.g. football/cricket pitch and safe access to nearby facilities at The Thomas Jolyffe and St Gregorys school in the interests of localism.

• The development of the application site and the wider area needs to be considered holistically.

9. CONSULTATIONS Environment Agency No objection subject to conditions and informative relating to surface water drainage (11.11.2013). Highways Agency No objection (27.11.13) NHS Foundation Trust (South Warwickshire) Contribution of £100,680 (£1678 per dwelling) sought towards existing Acute and Community Facilities (22.10.13). English Heritage No objections received (01.11.13) Natural England No objections (25.10.13). Severn Trent Water No objection subject to a condition to secure drainage details (27.11.2013) WCC Highways Supporting transport and modelling information has been submitted, in relation to sensitive and busy road networks, demonstrating that the impact of the development is minimal with 12 vehicles in the AM peak travelling towards Stratford along the Birmingham Road (approx. 1 vehicle every 4 minutes) and 16

vehicles travelling away from Stratford towards the A46. In the PM peak it shows an additional 11 vehicles travelling to the site from Stratford (approx. 1 vehicle every 5-6 minutes) and 16 vehicles travelling towards the site from the A46. The AM peak hour increase in traffic on the Birmingham Road between Worths Way and Bishopton Lane will increase by 20 vehicles southbound and 30 vehicles northbound and in the PM peak 40 vehicles southbound and 20 vehicles northbound. This is approximately a 1.5% increase in 2021 and takes into account recently approved development at Land West of Shottery and the 160 dwellings to (opposite). WCC are aware of local concern regarding the access to the site and cumulative impact of recent development. In 2007 a field access was given planning permission. WCC raised no objection subject to appropriate visibility splays being secured. This proposal, whilst substantially different in form, has demonstrated satisfactory visibility splays can be achieved (90m in accordance national DMRB standard for 30mph road). Department for Transport Guidance on Transport Assessments indicates the applicant is required to consider background traffic growth during the assessment period, committed development (those sites with extant planning permission) and LDF/Local Plan allocations. As SDC does not have a current up to date Local Plan, the applicant can only be requested to consider general growth and committed developments. They have included this information in their assessment which demonstrates the impact of the development is minimal. Therefore, when considering NPPF para 32 states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual impacts of development are severe, the Highway Authority do not consider this is the case for this application. Following the submission of the application a pedestrian refuge crossing has been incorporated into the ghost island design to improve pedestrian and cycle linkages to the footway/cycleway to the south of the Birmingham Road and committed footway/cycleway link through the development site to the west of Birmingham Road to the Park and Ride / Parkway site. No objection subject to receipt of satisfactory safety audit, the imposition of conditions, informative notes and contributions to secure off-site transport improvements within Stratford on Avon and sustainable travel packs (29.11.2013) Additional WCC Highways consultation response following the receipt of Safety Audit (05.12.2013): No objections to the findings of the safety audit. The audit recommends the inclusion of tactiles on the site access arm for people travelling along the eastern side of Birmingham Road. Such measures would be considered at the detailed design stage. In relation to comments over the JMP Birmingham Road Study: WCC are aware of the study and recommendations within it. It is not an adopted document, therefore, carries little weight in the consideration of this planning application. However, it is noted the study makes a number of recommendations such as implementing kerbside detectors, possibly restricting parking around the Justins Avenue junction and advanced directional signs on the strategic road network on approach to Stratford. Subject to these being included in the list of schemes with the SPD ‘Developer Contributions towards Transport Schemes in Stratford’, the scheme would contribute towards local improvements along the

Birmingham Road, with the current proposal (60 dwellings) generating a requirement of £73,920 towards such schemes. WCC have also identified other improvements that are not recommended within the study that would help mitigate wider growth in accordance with your emerging Local Plan (05.12.13). SDC Environmental Health Officer No objection subject to a desk top contamination report being required by condition and installation of noise mitigation measures (verbal comments 25.11.2013). WCC Ecology No objection subject to the imposition of conditions (protection of ecological species including badgers, reptiles, and ecological enhancement and landscape management plan) and precautionary notes (25.11.2013). WCC Fire and Rescue No objection subject to imposition of a condition to secure fire hydrants/supplies for fire fighting purposes (24.10.2013) WCC Archaeology No objection subject to a written scheme of archaeological investigation secured by planning condition (18.12.2013). Ridge and furrow is evident across this site. I assessed its significance, and the impact that the development will have upon it when considering this application previously. The ridge and furrow is of local significance. The proposed development will have a significant impact upon this ridge and furrow, which will result in a minor adverse impact on the historic environment. I do not consider that this impact would be grounds to object to the development (06.01.2013). WCC Education Request a contribution of £316,763 towards secondary and sixth form school places (07.01.14). WCC Libraries Request a contribution towards Library provision of £10,242 (13.11.2013). WCC Rights of Way Team Request a contribution of £2700 towards improvements of local public rights of way (11.11.13). 10. ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES Principle of Development When determining a planning application the Council is required to make the determination in accordance 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 Development Plan and Housing Supply At the time of writing this report, the formal development plan comprises only the saved policies of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that “due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this framework”. Under National Policy, the provisions of the NPPF have the greatest weight in determining the principle of housing in this planning application, while the Council is deemed to have an unmet housing need (see Annex A). Under paragraph 215 of the NPPF, the saved polices of the District Council's local plan need to be considered, but have little weight when compared to the policy provisions within the NPPF itself, if they are not consistent with the NPPF. Material considerations The National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states ‘inter alia’ that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that planning permission should be granted where development accords with the development plan. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, planning permission should be granted unless:

- any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole; or

- specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.

One of the core principles of the NPPF (Para. 17 bullet point 8) is to encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed, provided that it is not of high environmental value. Paragraph 111 of the NPPF also seeks to encourage the effective use of previously developed land. However, the NPPF is clear in that it does not preclude the use of ‘greenfield’ sites for development. Emerging core strategy The Council on the 5th July 2013 published its revised core strategy proposal, which was approved by a Full Council decision on 22nd July 2013. The draft core strategy sets out the strategic planning policies and strategy for development across the District until 2028. Policy CS16 ‘Distribution of Development’ will be based on a pattern of balanced dispersal, in accordance with the distinctive character and function of the wide range of settlements across the District, as reflected in the following hierarchy:

• Stratford Main Town; • Main rural centres; • A new settlement; • Local Service villages; and • All other settlements.

The policy indicates that the specific strategy for the town is set out in its Area Strategy which directs development to allocated sites identified in the Area Strategy and neighbourhood plan, and through the redevelopment and re-use of suitable land and property within the built up area boundary. The application site does not form one of the identified broad locations for development within the Emerging Core Strategy. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF allows for weight to be given to relevant policies in emerging plans, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise, and only subject to the stage of preparation of the plan, the extent of unresolved objections and the degree of consistency of the relevant emerging policies to the NPPF policies. The Intended Proposed Submission Core Strategy 2013 is at a very early stage of preparation and therefore, in officer opinion, carries limited weight at this time. The 2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) review The SHLAA review identified this site (ref: STR738), which forms part of a larger land parcel, due to its location and characteristics, as being a broad location for potential future development for a suitable mix of dwellings (up to 250 units). The review indicates the field to the south-west corner (which is the current proposal site) could be acceptable subject to screening being implemented in advance. Landscape Sensitivity Study (LSS) 2011 The site was identified within the Landscape Sensitivity Study as part of larger parcel of land, as being of medium landscape sensitivity and providing an opportunity for new housing development but it should be planned as part of an agreed series of development briefs to create a high quality and refined gateway into Stratford on the A3400. The study indicates that development is undesirable on land directly adjacent to the south of the A46 (to the east and west of the roundabout) in order to keep a green buffer between the bypass and the settlement edge. These documents provide the latest evidence base and are therefore afforded some weight by officers in the determination of this application. Town Council Documents The Stratford on Avon Neighbourhood Plan establishes general planning policies for the development and use of land in the neighbourhood, which includes amongst other things, where new homes should be built. The plan is at a very early stage of preparation. However, consultation feedback received so far indicates several key objectives emerging including the need to focus development on brownfield land, need to avoid piecemeal development on the outskirts of the town and promotion of enhancement of the canal as a major feature of the town. Feedback also indicates support for the regeneration of the canal as part of mixed use development to provide housing to meet affordable housing need. As stated above, Paragraph 216 of the NPPF allows for weight to be given to relevant policies in emerging plans, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise, and only subject to the stage of preparation of the plan, the extent of unresolved objections and the degree of consistency of the relevant emerging policies to the NPPF policies.

The emerging Neighbourhood Plan 2013 is at an early stage of preparation and therefore, in officer opinion, carries limited weight at this time. Prematurity The Government’s document ‘The Planning System: General Principles’ remains extant and provides advice on prematurity. Given the size, scale and location of this scheme and the current stage of the core strategy and the neighbourhood plan, as well as recent high court judgements, it is officers’ opinion that no objection can be raised on grounds of prematurity. New Homes Bonus The creation of new homes would in economic terms provide money to support local communities under the Governments ‘New Homes Bonus’ and is a material consideration and one that gives some support to the consideration of the application. Conclusion on the Principle of Development Having regard to the above, it must be recognised that the District’s relevant housing policies are out of date. With the District’s emerging core strategy and neighbourhood plan afforded limited weight at this stage, the Council has a deficiency in its housing land supply that the proposal would help meet both in terms of market and affordable housing provision and this factor is given significant weight by officers in the determination of the application. Whilst the site is greenfield (and not previously developed land), it does not fall within the Greenbelt and lies adjacent to the main town which has been identified as sustainable in terms of accommodating new residential development. The Strategic Housing Land Assessment (SHLAA) and Landscape Sensitivity Study have identified that this site has potential for residential development. For these reasons, I consider that the development is acceptable in principle, subject to assessment of the material considerations set out below and whether any adverse impacts resulting from the scheme would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole or whether any specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. Highways Matters Access and highway safety Paragraph 32 of the NPPF seeks to ensure that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people. Saved policy DEV. 4 of the Local Plan Review remains consistent with this approach. It is recognised that objections have been raised to the scheme on the grounds of traffic generation, highway safety and inappropriate access. However, the application is supported by a transport assessment prepared by David Tucker Associates that concludes the proposed access arrangement has been designed in accordance with WCC Design Guidance ‘Transport and Roads’, there are no inherent safety issues at the location (having regard to relevant accident data) or with the proposed access arrangement. Furthermore, the proposal would not generate such significant levels of traffic to the extent it would have a material impact on the safety or operation of the local road network.

WCC Highways have carefully considered the proposal, the supporting Transport Statement and other relevant information which indicates, whilst there would be an increase in traffic generation, the increase would equate to 1.5% in peak AM traffic (to 2021 and taking into account recently approved schemes). WCC Highways do not disagree with this conclusion. They have also considered the proposed access design, taking into account the previously approved field access into the site (granted 2007), and have concluded it would not have an adverse impact on highway safety subject to appropriate visibility splays, new pedestrian refuge crossing point and other aspects of the access arrangement/highways design being implemented in full. WCC Highways recognise, in the absence of an up to date local plan, that the supporting transport information meets current policy requirements by considering general traffic growth and committed development. The assessment undertaken demonstrates the development would have a minimal impact on the highways infrastructure and WCC Highways do not raise objection to these findings. In relation to representations concerning the JMP Birmingham Road Transport Study and its recommendations, this is not an adopted document, therefore, in officers’ opinion it carries little weight in the consideration of this planning application. However, it is noted that the proposal would make contributions of up to £73,920 towards local transport improvements indicated within the study for the Birmingham Road corridor. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states development should only be refused on transport grounds where the impacts of development are severe. In this instance, the impact on the local highways infrastructure, having regard to the evidence provided, is considered to be minimal, and therefore in officers’ opinion, would not justify refusal of this application in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 32 of the NPPF. Accessibility The site is located on the edge of the urban area of Stratford on Avon where local services are provided and there are public transport connections both locally and towards the wider area. Concern locally has been raised to the sustainability of the site in relation to access to facilities, in particular, resulting in reliance on the private car. However, a full range of accessible local facilities are available within walking distance of the site as detailed in the supporting sustainability statement, and therefore, in officers’ opinion any future occupiers would not be wholly dependent on car borne travel. Parking Provision Paragraph 39 of the NPPF states that if setting local parking standards, authorities should take into account the accessibility of the development, the type, mix and use of the development, availability of public transport; local car ownership levels and the overall need to reduce the use of high emission vehicles. Saved policy DEV.5 of the Local Plan and the car and cycle parking SPD use maximum standards and are not consistent with the framework and are therefore afforded less weight.

Whilst this is an outline application, the indicative layout demonstrates the site has capacity to accommodate parking provision for a minimum of 2 spaces per dwelling, which I consider is acceptable, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 39 of the NPPF. Taking into account all of the above, I consider that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on highway safety in relation to access, traffic generation or parking and provides access to local services, without the need to rely on the use of a private car, in accordance with the guidance contained in paragraphs 32 and 39 of the NPPF and saved policy DEV.4 of the Local Plan Review, which remain generally consistent with the NPPF. Landscape Impact Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment, and paragraph 58 refers to the incorporation of green and other public space as part of developments. Similarly, policy DEV.2 states that the landscaping aspects of a development should form an integral part of the overall design. The site is referred to in the Landscape Sensitivity Assessment 2011 as well as the 2012 SHLAA. These documents state that the sensitivity of this particular area for housing is medium and there is an opportunity for housing development, subject to it coming forward in a planned form and with appropriate screening to ensure a high quality and refined gateway into Stratford on Avon. Whilst it is recognised that the proposed development would extend residential development in a greenfield location further into the countryside, the development would not extend into visually sensitive areas adjacent to the south of the A46 (to the east and west of the roundabout), or land designated as Greenbelt, ensuring the maintenance of a green buffer between the bypass and the settlement edge. It is also noted that, whilst proposal has not come forward as part of a planned/wider strategy for the residential development within the area, the scheme would not prejudice any wider future proposals for the development of the area. Taking into account the above, coupled with the particular characteristics of the site, including its location close to the urban edge of the town opposite a series of modern residential developments, the degree of enclosure/screening by existing planting along its perimeter, the gently sloping topography and any long distance views of the development being seen against the backdrop of existing residential development located to the south and east of the site, would mean in officers opinion, whilst the development would result in a slight extension of the settlement resulting in some limited harm, the wider landscape impact would not be significant. The indicative master plan shows that areas of public open space would be provided within the layout, which can be landscaped according to their particular function. In addition, new structural planting is proposed to supplement the existing planting along the boundaries to help minimise the visual impact of the scheme, and assimilate it into the surrounding area.

I consider that any significant landscape impact can largely be mitigated by the implementation of a long term landscape enhancement strategy, including the incorporation of significant trees in the layout, together with conventional tree planting, which would be the subject of a reserved matters submission relating to landscaping. Overall, whilst the proposal would result in some landscape harm, I do not consider it to be significant. For the above reasons, I consider that the development would not conflict with the aims and objectives of Policies PR.1 and DEV.2 which are generally consistent with paragraphs 109 and 58 of the NPPF in terms of the landscape and visual impact. Layout, Scale and Appearance The NPPF requires as part of its core principles (paragraph 17), the delivery of a wide choice of high quality homes of good design. Paragraphs 56, 57 and 58 of the NPPF attach great importance to the design of the built environment and ensuring the achievement of high quality and inclusive design. Saved policies PR.1 and DEV.1 of the Local Plan Review state that proposals should respect and enhance the quality and character of the area through the layout and design of new buildings and should have regard to the effect of development on the surrounding area in terms of its position, shape, size and height. The requirements of the NPPF are also reflected in saved policies, DEV.3, DEV.6, COM.4/5 and COM.14 of the Local Plan Review. Notwithstanding that this is an outline application, where matters relating to layout, scale and appearance would be considered at the reserved matters stage, the indicative layout provides a form of development that is comparable in terms of density (35 d.p.h.) and scale to existing development located nearby. This includes a potential design approach incorporating perimeter blocks that provide a strong frontage to the public realm (similar to that approved under 11/01490/OUT on the site opposite). The supporting information indicates the buildings would be predominantly 2-storey in scale (with some 2.5 storey) which would be similar in scale to surrounding residential housing. It should also be noted, to address any concerns over the visual impact on the surroundings from the scale/height of development, that details relating to the finished floor levels and building heights can be controlled by the imposition of relevant planning conditions. The indicative information provided suggests the appearance of the development would draw upon a variety of design influences from the local area including then Victorian era, inter-war, early post war and more recent modern residential development. Subject to the appropriate details coming forward at the reserved matters stage, I consider the site has capacity to accommodate a development of high quality appearance that would not harm the appearance of the area. I have taken into account that there are significant areas of new housing directly opposite the site, and therefore, a similar form of modern residential development within the site would harmonise with the surrounding built form. However, the details over the final form of the proposal would be considered at the reserved matters stage.

For these reasons, in officers’ opinion, it has been demonstrated that the site has capacity to accommodate a form of development that would harmonise with the surroundings subject to an appropriate layout, scale and appearance coming forward at the reserved matters stage in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 56, 57 of the NPPF and saved policies PR.1 and DEV.1. In officers’ opinion, these policies have a high degree of consistency with the guidance contained in the NPPF. Further guidance is also provided in the District Design Guide. Landscaping and Trees Paragraphs 58 and 109 of the NPPF seek to ensure development is visually attractive as a result of appropriate landscaping and to protect and enhance valued landscapes. Saved policies PR.1 and DEV.2 reflect these policies and therefore remain generally consistent with the NPPF. The application site is open in nature with the majority of trees and hedgerows primarily located to the perimeters of the site, forming a natural enclosure to the site from the open countryside beyond. To the Birmingham Road frontage (southern boundary), there are several trees/hedges that would need to be removed to provide the proposed access arrangement. The trees are identified in the submitted arboricultural report as being B2, C1 and C2 category trees, which when coupled with their size and condition, are not considered to be of significant amenity value (or worthy of retention or protection by Tree Preservation Order). Although, their removal would have some harmful impact on the Birmingham Road frontage, I consider that the harm could be mitigated by replacement trees being secured, as part of a wider soft landscaping scheme, without having an adverse impact on the overall landscape value of the site. In relation to the remaining trees along the boundaries, whilst this is an outline application, having regard to the indicative layout and areas of structural landscaping shown, I consider that the site has a capacity to accommodate the proposal whilst retaining the remaining trees/hedges within the site subject to appropriate tree protection measures being secured by planning condition. I consider that the scheme is acceptable in this regard, having regard to the provisions of paragraphs 58 and 109 of the NPPF and saved policies PR.1 and DEV.2 which are generally consistent with the NPPF. Housing mix and affordable housing Paragraph 50 of the NPPF refers to the need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities, and to include appropriate provision of affordable housing. Saved policies COM.13 and COM.14 seek to secure affordable housing and a mix of housing types and therefore still have some consistency with the NPPF. Whilst the Council has an adopted SPD Meeting Housing Needs, the most recent evidence base is now the Coventry & Warwickshire SHMA published in November 2013. Notwithstanding that this is an outline application where the final details of housing range and mix would be agreed at the reserved matters stage, the indicative details provided indicate the site has capacity to accommodate an appropriate range and mix of dwelling types to accord with the findings of the recent SHMA (Nov 2013), and therefore, I consider that the proposal acceptable in this regard.

The Council’s current position in securing affordable housing contributions is in a state of transition, given the age of the saved policies and in light of the new evidence coming forwards. The developer in this case is proposing to provide affordable housing as 35% of the total residential floor space. In officers’ opinion, this is a material consideration of significant weight when considering the public benefits of the development. However, it is for the Committee, as decision-taker, to weigh all of the material considerations and draw its own conclusions. Residential amenity The submitted layout, taking into account the relatively flat topography, demonstrates satisfactory separation distances between proposed properties and those already on site and located on neighbouring land. These separation distances, when coupled with appropriate new landscaping and retention of existing landscape boundaries would ensure the site has capacity to accommodate the proposed development without having a materially adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity by way of loss of light, outlook or privacy and without creating an overbearing or dominating impact. The plans also demonstrate that the site can accommodate up to 60 dwellings with appropriate levels of internal and external amenity space. In addition, the application is supported by a Noise Assessment that indicates acceptable levels of external and internal noise levels can be achieved for future residents subject to suitable noise mitigation measures secured by planning condition. For these reasons, I consider that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity and would ensure the creation of a high quality living environment for future occupiers. Access/Refuse provision The indicative layout demonstrates the site has adequate capacity for accessible refuse storage provision. The finer details can be secured by planning condition to ensure satisfactory provision prior to occupation of the dwellings in accordance with the requirements of saved policies DEV.6 and IMP.4 of the Local Plan Review. Provision of Public Open Space The NPPF, at paragraphs 58 and 73, encourages access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation. Saved policies COM.4 and COM.5 also seek to secure appropriate standards of open space provision and therefore remain broadly consistent with the provisions of the NPPF. Having regard to the above, where there is a deficiency in public open space, new development proposals should seek to make new provision available. The PPG17 audit, which is the latest evidence base available to the District, indicates there is currently a deficiency in the main settlement of Stratford on Avon for play facilities for children and young people and open space for outdoor sports. Whilst this is an outline application the proposal has capacity to deliver the following open space provision:

• Incidental/informal POS of 1248m2 to be provided on-site.

• Youth and Adult POS of 572m2 equivalent to be provided off-site (contribution sought for £14300).

• Childrens Play Area of 400m2 for on-site LEAP provision. The final open space provision will be based on a formula, the final total of which will depend on the number of houses proposed at reserved matters stage. I consider this to be an acceptable level of provision to cater for the recreational needs of the existing community and future occupiers of the proposed development subject to the completion of a S.106 agreement in accordance with paragraphs 58, 73 of the NPPF and saved policies COM.4 and COM.5 and the tests set out in paragraph 122 of the CIL regulations. Crime prevention The District Council has adopted guidance on ‘Design and Crime Reduction’ which it is considered to be generally consistent with the provisions of the NPPF (paragraph 69). Four key principles include integration, sense of ownership and responsibility, natural surveillance and movement through the site. Whilst this is an outline application, I consider the site can accommodate each of these principles at the detailed design stage (approval of reserved matters). For these reasons, I consider that the proposal would ensure the creation of a safe and accessible environment in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 58 and 69 of the NPPF, saved policy DEV.10 and adopted ‘Design and Crime Reduction’ guidance. Conclusion to layout, scale and appearance Taking into account all of the above, I consider that the application site has sufficient capacity to accommodate a form of development that would be acceptable in terms of layout, scale and appearance having regard to the provisions of the NPPF and those saved policies which remain consistent with the NPPF. Drainage and Flood risk The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk of flooding) where residential development is considered acceptable in principle by the NPPF. The application is supported by a Flood Risk Assessment which indicates that the Severn Trent Waters sewer capacity assessment confirms that both foul and surface water flows from the proposed development can be accommodated within the existing public sewer network. In addition, the proposed drainage strategy which would involve source and site control SUDS techniques including swales, tanked permeable paving, detention basins as well as over-sized underground storage tanks, would mitigate existing surface water run-off issues/overland flows to existing properties backing on to the site/adjacent to the south-western boundary. This would mean the drainage strategy would not only mitigate the impact of the scheme itself but would also provide immediate flood risk betterment in accordance with the principles of the NPPF. In light of the measures set out in the supporting FRA coupled with Severn Trent and the Environment Agency (EA) raising no objection (subject to finer details being secured by condition) officers raise no objection to the proposal on grounds of drainage/flood risk harm, having regard to the provisions of paragraph 103 of

the NPPF and saved policies PR.7 and DEV.7 of the Local Plan Review, which remain consistent with the NPPF. Archaeology Archaeological assessments have been submitted as part of this application, as it is recognised that the site may contain archaeological interest. These assessments have been considered by WCC Archaeological Services who raise no objection to the scheme. Part of the site is identified as containing evidence of ridge and furrow ploughing. The proposal would lead to the loss of this particular area resulting in some harm to the historic environment, however, given the area is not of national significance, its overall scale, and subject to a written scheme of archaeological investigation being secured by the imposition of planning conditions, the loss of this heritage asset is considered acceptable. However, it is for the Committee, as decision-taker, to weigh all of the material considerations and draw its own conclusions. For these reasons, the proposal has regard to the provisions of the NPPF (Section 12). Saved policy EF.11 of the Local Plan is not considered consistent with the NPPF, as it is a more restrictive policy than the NPPF and therefore afforded limited weight. Ecology One of the core planning principles of the NPPF is to conserve and enhance the natural environment, as expanded upon by paragraph 118. Saved policies EF.6 and EF.7 of the Local Plan Review generally accord with the NPPF as they relate to the retention, protection, management and, where appropriate, creation of wildlife habitats, albeit, the NPPF is less restrictive. The County Council Ecologist considers the site is of low ecological value, albeit, potential does remain on the site. Therefore, although raising no objection, the County Ecologist has requested the imposition of conditions and advisory notes to ensure protection of local ecology/protected species and to secure long term ecological enhancement and landscape management for the site. For these reasons, I consider that the development would have an acceptable ecological impact in accordance with paragraph 118 of the NPPF, saved policies EF.6 and EF.6 of the Local Plan Review and the provisions of the NERC act. Energy Conservation Paragraphs 95 and 98 of the NPPF require schemes to incorporate renewable saving measures. Saved policy DEV.8 and the Council’s Low Carbon Buildings SPD remain generally consistent with the NPPF, as they also seek to improve energy conservation and promote use of renewable technologies. The core strategy, albeit of limited weight, is moving away from a reliance on renewable technology to a fabric first approach i.e. increased insulation and thermal efficiency above that required by Building Control legislation and thereby reducing energy usage in the first instance. This application is supported by an energy statement that sets out measures to ensure the scheme achieves CO2 reduction through, amongst other things, the use of a fabric first approach. The finer details can be secured by planning condition.

Although not strictly in accordance with the Council’s Low Carbon Buildings SPD, this approach does mirror the NPPF and the Council’s emerging policy on energy conservation and is therefore acceptable in the opinion of officers. Land Contamination The application site is within an area at low risk of contamination, and therefore, subject to the imposition of planning conditions to mitigate any potential harm to other land uses, health or the natural environment, the proposed development is not considered to give rise to any land contamination issues in accordance the provisions of saved policy PR.8 and the principles of the NPPF. Loss of Agricultural Land Paragraph 112 of the NPPF identifies that Local Authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality. However, the majority of land in Stratford district is Grade 3a and Grade 3b and it is considered that the loss of this particular piece of land (Graded 3a) would not cause such significant and demonstrable harm as to constitute a reason for refusal of the application. Developer contributions The below requested contributions are considered by officers to be compliant with the CIL Regulations at the time of writing this report. Off-Site Flood Risk Mitigation The applicant, whilst acknowledging the Environment Agency raise no objection to the current proposal, in the interests of wider flood risk betterment has made an offer of up to £25,000 towards the implementation of the wider EA flood risk mitigation strategy within the locality subject to the scheme. Community Facilities (Built Infrastructure) The proposal would generate a requirement of up to £6091.23 towards the refurbishment of the Stratford upon Avon Leisure Centre. The final figure will be based on a formula the final total of which will depend on the number of houses proposed at reserved matters stage. Education Based on current and forecast surplus/deficit capacity of pupil numbers in catchment schools, a contribution of £316,763 is requested by Warwickshire County Council to address the shortfall in secondary and sixth form school places. The final figure will be based on a formula the final total of which will depend on the number of houses proposed at reserved matters stage. Highways Warwickshire County Highways has requested a maximum contribution of £73,920 towards Transport schemes in Stratford on Avon and £50 per dwelling for sustainable welcome packs to help promote sustainable travel in the local area. The final figure will be based on a formula, the final total of which will depend on the number of houses proposed at reserved matters stage.

Libraries Warwickshire County Council Library Service has requested a contribution of £10,242 towards the improvement of local library facilities. The final figure will be based on a formula, the final total of which will depend on the number of houses proposed at reserved matters stage. Rights of Way Warwickshire County Council Rights of Way has requested a contribution of up to £2700 towards improvements to public rights of way within a 1.5mile radius of the site. The contribution would support upgrading/improvements to gates and path surfaces. The final figure will be based on a formula, the final total of which will depend on the number of houses proposed at reserved matters stage. Healthcare South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust has requested a contribution of £100,680 (£1678 per dwelling) towards existing acute and community healthcare facilities. The final figure would be based on a formula the final total of which will depend on the number of houses proposed at reserved matters stage (22.10.13). Negotiations are still on-going with the applicant over the final healthcare contribution. If officers conclude that the healthcare contribution cannot be justified under the CIL Regulations then the relevant contribution cannot be secured in the legal agreement. Other Community Facilities Negotiations are still on-going with the Town Council and Ward Members over potential contributions towards any identified shortfall in any other local community facilities e.g. allotments and community halls. Updates will be circulated to members as late papers to members, however, officers advise any requests must accord with the CIL Regulations otherwise the relevant contribution cannot be secured in the legal agreement. Assessment of sustainable development The ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para.14). The NPPF states that there are three dimensions to sustainable development: social, economic and environmental. These roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependant (paras.7-8). Taking into account the assessments detailed in the report, together with the additional benefits created in terms of the creation of short term construction jobs, and longer term support for the local economy from new residents, I consider the development constitutes a sustainable form of development. Conclusion At the heart of the NPPF there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (Paragraph 14). Having taken into account all the above, I have concluded that this development constitutes a sustainable form of development.

Furthermore, the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, and therefore, its relevant housing policies are considered to be out of date. Where the development plan is out of date, the decision taker should grant planning permission, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or, where specific policies indicate development should be restricted (Paragraph 14). Whilst officers consider that there would be a loss of a heritage asset and some limited harm to the landscape as a result of this development, for all of the reasons set out above, relating to highway matters, design, residential amenity, heritage impact, ecology, archaeology, energy conservation, drainage, flood risk, landscaping, open space provision, crime and local infrastructure, overall officers consider that there are no adverse impacts (that could not be mitigated by condition/legal agreement) that would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits of meeting the housing shortfall, nor does the development conflict with any specific policies in the NPPF. In conclusion, officers consider the development to be acceptable, and therefore, the application is recommended for approval. In dealing with this application, Stratford on Avon District Council has actively sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Amended information has been submitted in order to achieve the sustainable outcomes required under the NPPF in a timely manner. 11. RECOMMENDATION That subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 agreement to provide:

� Affordable Housing Provision (35% by floor area) � Management of on-site POS (Informal and child play area) � Off-site POS (Youth and Adult – up to £14,300) � Education (up to £316,763) � Libraries (£10,242) � Transport Schemes in Stratford (up to £73,920) � Sustainable Travel Packs (£50 per dwelling) � Sustainable Urban Drainage (management/maintenance) � Rights of Way Improvements (up to £2700) � NHS (Acute and Community Healthcare Facilities – Up to £100,680) � Off-Site Flood Risk Mitigation Works (up to £25,000) � Community Facilities (Stratford Leisure Centre – up to £6091.23)

However, should the healthcare contribution be demonstrated to not be CIL compliant or the sum needs to be amended then officers request that the final decision for the healthcare contribution is delegated to officers. the Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT outline planning permission, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording of which is delegated to officers:

1. Development in accordance approved drawings. 2. Details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping (reserved

matters). 3. Approval of reserved matters within 3 years of this permission. 4. Development to begin with 2 years of the approval of the last reserved

matter.

5. Maximum number of dwellings to be erected within the site of 60. 6. No two-storey dwelling shall exceed 9m in height and no 2.5 storey

dwelling shall exceed 11m. 7. Details of existing and proposed site levels. 8. Prior to first occupation of a dwelling on the site, the access shall be laid

out and constructed in general accordance with plan 14332-01A. 9. The development shall not be occupied until visibility splays have been

provided to the vehicular access to the site with an ‘x’ distance of 2.4 metres and ‘y’ distances of 90 metres to the near edge of the public highway carriageway. No structure, tree or shrub shall be erected, planted or retained within the splays exceeding, or likely to exceed at maturity, a height of 0.6 metres above the level of the public highway carriageway.

10. The access to the site for vehicles shall not be used in connection with the development until it has been surfaced with a suitable bound material for its whole length.

11. Details of the method and timetable for blocking up of the existing gated vehicular field access to Birmingham Road.

12. Development carried out in accordance with recommendations of the supporting flood risk assessment.

13. Details of surface water drainage strategy. 14. Details of foul water drainage strategy. 15. Details of fire and rescue equipments/supplies. 16. Details of construction management plan (including details to ensure mud

and debris will not be deposited on the highway from associated construction traffic).

17. Installation of noise mitigation measures to minimise noise levels from highways traffic.

18. Samples of external materials. 19. Details of boundary treatment. 20. Details of Soft and hard landscaping 21. Details of protected species ecological strategy/plan. 22. Details of ecological and landscape management plan. 23. Details of all external lighting and lighting columns. 24. Provision of 3 bins per dwelling or equivalent. 25. Details of energy conservation measures to achieve reduction of 10% CO2 26. Development to achieve Code level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. 27. 50% of the Development to designed and built to achieve Joseph Rowntree

Foundation ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards. 28. Provision of water butts. 29. Submission of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment 30. Details of the Tree/hedgerow Protection Measures. 31. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Town and

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no buildings, compounds, structures or enclosures which are required temporarily in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be placed or erected on the site or adjacent land until details have been submitted to and approved.

32. A detailed scheme for the provision, specification and siting of play equipment in the locations approved as part of the reserved matters approval shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority and shall be installed in accordance with the details approved prior to the occupation of 50% of the dwellings.

33. Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation. 34. Details for the relocation of the bus stop (if required) to facilitate

construction of the proposed access to Birmingham Road and/or associated visibility splays.

Notes

1. Surface Water Drainage Notes 2. Highway notes 3. Ecology (Nesting Birds) notes 4. Police Design Advisor Notes 5. S.106 note 6. Para 187/188 note

ROBERT WEEKS HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING

Appendix 1 - Considerations arising from the deficit in housing land supply When determining a planning application the Council is required to make the determination in accordance 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 is a material consideration in planning decisions (paragraph 196). NPPF paragraph 14 sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is described as the golden thread running through both plan-making and decision taking. For decision taking, this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, permission should be granted unless ‘any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole’ or ‘specific policies in this Framework (such as Green Belt, or AONB) indicate that development should be restricted’. The Framework conveys a strong imperative in favour of housing delivery. To that end, in order ‘to boost significantly the supply of housing’ (paragraph 47), local planning authorities should identify a supply of "specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements with an additional buffer of 5% (moved forward from the later in the plan period)." Like many districts, Stratford-on-Avon is currently in a transitional period as it seeks to replace the Local Plan Review (2006) with an up-to-date Core Strategy. As such, for comparison purposes, previous land supply information has presented the results of two calculations based on housing requirement figures for the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Phase 2 Revision (RSS) and the more recently proposed figure for the Core Strategy. The RSS was formally abolished in May 2013. The Core Strategy figure is based on more up to date evidence of housing need and has greater regard to the approach to housing land supply set out under the NPPF. It is the emerging Core Strategy figure that now most appropriately provides a basis for the calculation. Using this approach, the Council considers that the housing land supply available in the District as at 30 September 2013 equates to 4.4 years. The Council is therefore not able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply as required by the Framework. It follows that the relevant housing supply policies in the development plan are not to be considered up-to-date (paragraph 49 of the Framework) and, in considering applications for housing development, decision makers should be guided by the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 14 of the Framework. Whilst paragraph 14 provides that the Council must consider favourably applications for housing development, Members should equally have regard to the saved policies of Development Plan not related to the housing supply (due weight should to be given to those policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework - paragraph 215); to the content of the Framework as a whole; and to other material considerations. Any assessment of the application needs to be made in relation to the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development, leading to a conclusion about the overall sustainability of the proposal.