COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 14/03065/FUL

Applicant Bloor Homes Limited

Reason for Referral to Committee

Scale of development Objection from Parish Council Objection form Ward Member

Case Officer Tony Horton

Presenting Officer Tony Horton

Ward Member Councillor Riches

Parish Council Long Itchington

Site Address Marton Road Farm, Marton Road, Long Itchington

Description of Proposals

Full planning application for: Residential development of 58 dwellings with associated

infrastructure 20 Affordable Housing Units Vehicular and pedestrian access via A423 Marton Road Areas of Public Open Space Retention of existing pond + SuDS attenuation pond Retention of boundary trees and hedgerows and additional

planting 2 x 1 bed apartments, 27 x 2 bed units (including 4 bungalows

& 4 apartments), 20 x 3 bed houses, 9 x 4 bed houses Predominantly 2 storey with a small number of 2.5 storey (x5)

and bungalow units (x4) Scheme amended to, amongst other things, reduce by 1 unit,

revise layout and house types, change housing mix and address highways issues

Description of Site Constraints

2.31 ha of Greenfield land divided into two fields with central pond.

Part of the northern field is used as a campsite/touring caravan site and is a Certified Site for the Camping and Caravanning Club for 5 caravans all year round.

Seasonal use of part of southern field for car boot sales. Northern edge of village site but beyond any existing built up

area boundary. Mature tree belts and hedges along most boundaries. Conservation Area boundary runs nearby to south of the site. Existing residential dwelling (Elm House) to the south and

beyond this the Grade II listed dwelling The Red House. Marton Road Farm lies to the north west with a ribbon of

terraced houses north of this. Stables/Kennels lie to the north, open countryside to the east

and part west and recreational field with play area/equipment part to the west across Marton Road.

The site is relatively level with a gradual fall from east to west of around 1m over a distance of around 175m.

Public Rights of Way run due north west (SM8) along the NE corner of the site and near to the southern boundary.

Summary of Recommendation

GRANT SUBJECT TO COMPLETION OF A S106 & CONDITIONS

Development Plan

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”.

Relevant Policies in the Development Plan for this application, including for the supply of housing, are:

PR.1, PR.7, PR.8, DEV.1, DEV.3, DEV.4, DEV.8, DEV.10, COM.9, COM.13, IMP.1, IMP.6 – consistent with Framework

DEV.2, DEV.7, DEV.9, EF.4, EF.6, EF.7, EF.9, EF.10, EF.11, EF.13, EF.14, COM.4 COM.5, IMP.4, IMP.5 – some consistency but Framework is less restrictive

STR.1, STR.2, STR.2A, STR.2B, STR.4, DEV.5, DEV.6, COM.1, CTY.1, IMP.2 – inconsistent with Framework / out-of-date

Other Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance

NPPF National Planning Policy Framework 2012 Planning Policy Guidance 2014 Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation English Heritage Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 3.

Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance

Meeting Housing Needs 2008 Car and Cycle Parking Standards 2007

Provision of Open Space 2005 Stratford on Avon District Design Guide 2002 PPG17 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Assessment and Playing Pitch

Strategy (Arup, April 2011) Corporate Strategy 2011-2015 Planning and Community Safety - Design and Crime Reduction 2006:

Planning Advice Note

Other Documents

Draft Core Strategy

This document was submitted to the Secretary of State on 29 September 2014, with the examination in public (EIP) in January 2015. The Inspector’s interim report was published on 19 March 2015.

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.

Following a full Council meeting on 22.06.2015, the Council has resolved to endorse the Cabinet recommendation of 01.06.2015 to adopt the following development management planning policies as set out in emerging Core Strategy (As submitted September 2014 showing subsequent proposed modifications) June 2015 on an interim basis:

CS.1 Sustainable Development; CS.2 to CS.9 inclusive (District Resources policies); CS.10 to CS.14 inclusive (District Designation policies); CS.20 Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Showpeople; CS.21 to 26 inclusive (Economic Development and Infrastructure related

policies); Proposals ALC.3, REDD.1 and REDD.2 (employment land allocations).

I therefore consider that the requirements of Policies:-CS.1 – Sustainable DevelopmentCS.2 – Climate Change and Sustainable ConstructionCS.4 – Water Environment and Flood RiskCS.5 – LandscapeCS.6 - Natural Environment CS.7 - Green InfrastructureCS.8 - Historic EnvironmentCS.9 - Design and Distinctiveness CS.25 – Transport & CommunicationCS.26 – Developer Contributionsare recognised as material planning considerations and given some weight in the determination of the planning application.

The other key relevant policies which remain as having little weight are:-CS.15 – Distribution of DevelopmentCS.16 – Housing DevelopmentCS.17 – Affordable HousingCS.18 – Housing Mix and TypeAS.10 – Countryside and villages

The 2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Review

The SHLAA has only looks at suitability for housing, using obvious site constraints (“potential show-stoppers”). It does not follow that what it shows as a ‘suitable’ site is necessarily an ‘appropriate’ site. The conclusions reached by the SHLAA should be given limited weight and the appropriateness of the site should be assessed against relevant development plan policies and all relevant material considerations. The site is identified for consideration as parcel LITC105b, a broad location for development with a suggested capacity of 55 dwellings (30 dph). The Review states that the land is adjacent to the built up area boundary with direct access to the main road network and sufficiently well located to local services to provide a sustainable location for development with no insurmountable constraints. It may therefore reasonably be concluded that this current planning application is similarly a sustainable location.

Landscape Sensitivity Study (July 2011)

This document forms part of the evidence basis underpinning the preparation of the Core Strategy. Part B of the document covers land parcels/sensitivity assessments for the main towns and villages. The application site was included in the Study as part of land parcel LI03.

Special Landscape Areas Study (2012)

This document forms part of the evidence basis underpinning the preparation of the Core Strategy. The Study highlights that the area north, east and west of Long Itchington, and including the application site, was formally the Leam Valley SLA but concludes that there is little reason for a SLA due to the modest and subtle landscape character and lack of any SLA in the neighbouring Warwick District.

Historic Environment Assessment (2012)

This document forms part of the evidence basis underpinning the preparation of the Core Strategy. The application site is identified as being of medium archaeological sensitivity in its southern part, of low/medium sensitivity along its eastern section and of low sensitivity in the northern portion. Land to the south of the site, forming the Conservation Area is of high sensitivity.

Ecological & Geological Study (2012)

This document forms part of the evidence basis underpinning the preparation of the Core Strategy. The site is identified as being amenity grassland with linear hedges trees and scrub but with no particular ecological/geological designation. The site is classified as being of low settlement distinctiveness but falling within a zone of bat activity.

Long Itchington has a number of Parish documents, which are material considerations and carry some weight in the assessment of this application.

The Parish Plan (2009) identifies key issues for the village and a range of possible actions. In particular, the Parish Plan makes reference to housing need, and identifies the area where the site is as part of the ‘Main Road’ area running through the village. Traffic speed and the volume of HGV’s through the village is seen as a problem along with problems crossing the A423. The Action Plan includes, amongst other things, developing the Green End leisure and recreation

facilities and the replacement of ageing play equipment. At the time of the Plan the village had 3 shops, post office, 8 pubs/restaurants, church, chapel, bus services, community centre, primary school.

A Housing Needs Survey (2007) identified a need for 18 new homes in Long Itchington Parish for people with a local connection. The recently constructed affordable housing development on Stockton Road partly satisfies this need and further planning permissions have been granted in the village which are likely to further address the need.

A Village Design Statement was prepared in 2000. This provides guidance on, inter alia, the characteristics of new buildings; the retention of open spaces and the creation of new; and the protection of existing trees and new tree planting requirements; provision of adequate parking. The VDS also made the point that new developments should be assessed in terms of the impact on the village a whole, not in isolation. The lack of properties for first-time buyers was noted.

Long Itchington Neighbourhood Plan – It is understood that the Neighbourhood Plan remains in draft form. Consequently I therefore hold the view that this can only have very limited weight in the decision making process, since the policies held within the plan have yet to be assessed/confirmed, let alone tested through independent examination.

Water Cycle Studies 2010 & 2012

Long Itchington is served by Itchen Bank waste water treatment works which has an approximate residential housing capacity of 607 dwellings. There are 4 pumping stations in the village, some with capacity issues and needing hydraulic testing for further development. There are areas of surface water flooding in the village.

Other Legislation

Human Rights Act 1998 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (any site in a

rural location) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Community and Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Legislation Localism Act 2011 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

Summary of Relevant History

Reference Number Proposal Decision and date

12/00244/FUL Enlargement of existing pond Granted 23.04.2012

Applicant’s Supporting Documents

Summary provided by applicant:

Consultation The scheme has evolved in response to comments raised by Parish, LPA

and the community.

Initially Bloor Homes consulted on a scheme of approximately 75 homes however following pre-application consultation the site area was considerably reduced and thus so were the proposed number of dwellings.

The scheme has also been amended during the determination period; properties have been set back from the eastern boundary hedgerow, a shared surface loop road has been introduced, elements of natural play are incorporated on-site and the proposed market housing mix includes dormer bungalows.

Key benefits and features The development will provide much needed affordable and market

housing, the mix of which accords with LPA guidance and requirements. The site is well located to facilitate walking and cycling to the village

services. A sensitive and complimentary design approach has been taken to the

development. Off-site contributions will be made to enhance local play facilities. The proposals include improvements to the existing pedestrian facilities,

including the widening of the existing footway along Marton Road and the provision of a new section footway connecting the site to the bus stop on the Green. The applicants are also in discussion with the Parish Council with regard to providing a new pedestrian refuge and pedestrian access to the recreational grounds opposite.

Sustainable Development The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing and

therefore the proposal should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The proposed development is regarded as sustainable development in accordance with the three dimensions of the NPPF: economic, social and environmental, through:

- contributing to the economic growth of the area by creating construction jobs, investing in local infrastructure and services, and generating additional spend within the local economy, village shops and services;

- contributing to the social needs of the village through improving the choice and mix of housing in the village, providing much needed affordable housing for the village and wider area. The provision of new housing will help reinforce social cohesion in the local community by retaining family connections and allowing local residents access to new housing stock. Furthermore, pedestrian links will be enhanced to the centre of the village and recreation ground, improving connectivity for residents; and

- contributing to the environment through providing a development of high quality design that adds to the character of the village and its setting within the wider landscape, with high standards of energy efficiency, with areas of landscaping and open space enhancing biodiversity and the appearance of the development.

Delivery The site does not have any development constraints, as demonstrated by

the accompanying technical reports. Bloor Homes are a national housebuilder without funding or capacity constraints and can deliver homes on the site within the next 5 years.

List of documents submitted:

Planning Statement Design & Access Statement Transport Statement Great Crested Newt Survey Reptile Survey Bat Survey Badger Survey Ecological Appraisal Heritage Assessment Tree Survey & Assessment work Archaeological Assessment Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy Noise Report Landscape & Visual Appraisal Geotechnical report Arboricultural Assessment Soils and Agricultural Land Report Statement of Community Involvement Supplementary Transport Statement Explanatory Flood Risk Note Energy Statement

Ward Member(NB The full responses are available in the application file)

Councillor Riches - Objection - The Core Strategy has passed through EIP and the Inspector indicates that

he is wholly supportive of the Local Service Village (LSV) numbers and suggests that any more than the determined LSV numbers across the district would result in undesirable dispersal. (13.5.15)

Parish Council(NB The full response is available in the application file)

Objection (15.12.14 & 12.5.15) based on:- Not against development in the parish per se but facing numerous

applications that well exceed the SDC allocation of 76-100 dwellings by 2031.

Any housing in excess of the allocation is not needed by the local community and would be hard for the community and infrastructure to absorb in a fair and measured way.

Adverse landscape impact of urban development on green fields (former Special Landscape Area) that cannot be mitigated, an important green corridor.

Adverse visual impact close to listed building and the ancient settlement from this suburban estate contrary to NPPF advice on design.

No regard to local vernacular, too dense in NW corner. Parking issues causing problems for emergency vehicles. Layout allows for future development in adjacent field. Significant impact from additional traffic on roads in the parish and the

very busy A423 with speeding problems. Transport Assessment fails to take account of cumulative impacts fro

dwellings on Stockton Road and at Cemex. Bus service is not a realistic option for commuting to work or other trips.

New residents will not walk to local facilities but will drive and cause parking problems.

Dangerous for children crossing road to playing fields. Flooding issues and back up from ditches. Impacts on wildlife, including bat roosts in nearby trees. Not economically sustainable as no corresponding growth in employment. Not socially sustainable as in excess of local housing needs and difficult for

new population to be absorbed affecting social cohesion, and insufficient village services/facilities.

Not environmentally sustainable as not reflecting village character and too dense and disrupts wildlife.

Not a sustainable development. Welcome the changes to the (first) amended scheme but repeat previous

concerns. Bemoan the lack of 2 bed houses and bungalows (in first amendment). Highlight the Core Strategy Inspectors interim conclusions that Local

Service Villages (LSV) should take c.2000 dwellings (106 for Long Itchington). There are already 10 built and 150 permitted.

Refer to appeal decision to allow 150 dwellings at Stockton Road, Long Itchington (13/03307/OUT) and that Inspector endorsing the settlement as a LSV.

Weight should be given to the emerging Core Strategy as the Inspector only asked for certain matters to be re-visited rather than the whole plan being rejected.

Third Party Responses

As of 11.6.15 - 100 letters of objection received raising the following grounds: Additional traffic generation, from this site and cumulatively from other

new developments and congestion on the local highway network including along Marton Rd, Stockton Road and within village centre and associated highway safety for other road users including cyclists, and pedestrians (including children trying to cross to the playing fields)

Fast moving traffic along Marton Road New residents will need to out-commute to jobs and travel to shops and

other services/facilities Loss of employment generation from Campsite and Car Boot Harm from additional traffic and the development causing noise, light and

air pollution Access is unsafe due to traffic speeds and number of HGV’s along the

A423 Bus services are a long way away and poor Not enough school capacity to cope with additional demand, Primary

school is full in some years and cannot take more pupils Route to school is dangerous for pedestrians du to narrow pavements Insufficient village infrastructure including medical facilities to cope with

additional demand Encroachment into open countryside outside built up area boundary Views from the Public Right of Way SM9/9a and from the village pond and

Tudor House will be harmed Harmful to village setting, character and entrance Loss of Campsite, parking area for beer festival, Annual Show and Car

Boot facilities which bring a lot of people and revenue to the village Will harm local tourism Foul drainage systems will not cope with additional flows and will need to

be pumped away and cannot cope with existing flows leading to backing up problems

Surface water flooding is a local problem with the site regularly flooded with surface water for lengthy periods due to a small watercourse (Debdale Brook?) being obstructed, a shallow fall of a drainage ditch and a high water table/local aquifer and the attenuation pond will not cope with flows and will flood causing problems for the village, the River Itchen and neighbours (evidenced by photos taken 24.12.12)

Village will lose its character of organic growth and become a town New residents with no connection interest or involvement with the existing

community will affect social cohesion Site is detached for the village Loss of green open countryside (Debdale) that is an important vista in the

village and a former Special Landscape Area Loss of agricultural land Impacts on listed building and Conservation Area Loss of natural habitat including trees & hedges and harm to plants and

wildlife, including Great Crested Newts and bats, both protected species Threat to ancient trees Lack of detail regarding future management of site Urbanisation and overdevelopment (20% increase in existing housing

stock of 950 dwellings), houses too tall and density too high Poor designs of houses Lack of bungalows or smaller properties Only 20 affordable units provided Off-site highway works alter the village character The enhanced route to the park is an indirect route and unlikely to be

followed Not economically, socially or environmentally sustainable development Harm outweighs the benefits Contrary to the Policies of the Development Plan Contrary to Core Strategy Premature to the outcome of the Core Strategy There is a 5 Year Housing Land Supply There should be a housing moratorium Long Itchington’s planned allocation of 106 dwellings up to 2031 has

already been met and exceeded including 150 dwellings at Stockton Rd and 10 at Adams Close

The Core Strategy Inspector found that the proposed total of 2,000 dwellings in the Local Service Villages was appropriate

There are less sensitive areas for new development elsewhere in the District and in Warwick District including brownfield sites

The inclusion of the site in the SHLAA Review is dependent on the Council’s eventual distribution of housing strategy

Cumulative impacts of other permitted residential developments No need/requirement for additional housing in the village HS2 should be taken into account Adverse impacts to young people in the community and highway safety

during construction programme Restrictive covenants should be put in place to prevent further

development Loss of Green Belt land [Officer comment – the site is not within the Green

Belt] Amendments do not make the scheme acceptable

4 letters of support/no objection received raising the following matters:- The area will be smartened up. Provides housing for young people to get on the property ladder.

Additional housing provides competition amongst housebuilders and brings prices down.

1 letter of “no representation”

Consultations(NB The full responses are available in the application file)

WCC Highways – Initial response of objection due to the need for a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit, vehicle tracking diagrams for refuse vehicles and adoption plan. Concerns also raised regarding the layout, access drives and parking bays in relation to highway safety. (31.12.14)2nd response to amended proposals raised objection to the southern loop road due to inadequate width for refuse vehicles to negotiate (18.5.15)

Amended plans submitted to deal with Highway objections, Highway Authority has informally signalled acceptance of these and has not raised any previous objections in relation to traffic generation and impacts on the highway network.

WCC Ecology – Identify that the site is not a statutory designated site and comprises two poor semi-improved grassland fields, a pond and hedgerows. Have assessed the submitted appraisal and survey work and initially objected on the basis of the potential negative impacts on biodiversity unless the biodiversity loss could be addressed. Have considered the submitted Biodiversity Impact Assessment (BIA), which calculates a net loss of 2.57 biodiversity units, and recommend offsetting this via creation of semi-improved grassland from a low distinctiveness habitat off-site (maximum cost £85,603) and to be secured either via planning condition or S106.

Find that the Great Crested Newt Survey was correctly undertaken and agree that no great crested newts are present on site but are in the vicinity. Consider that a protected species licence will be required for work to proceed and recommend a mitigation strategy is secured by condition. Find that the Reptile Survey was carried out correctly and note no reptiles were found, although there is suitable habitat on site. Recommend ground clearance works are carried out in accordance with an approved management plan secured by condition. Find that the Bat Survey was carried out correctly. Recommend trees and hedgerows are retained together with new planting to aid connectivity and for a tree protection plan to be secured via condition. Note that the Badger Survey found no evidence of badgers but recommend updated survey prior to commencement. Recommend condition relating to ecology & landscaping management plan. (8.12.14 & 12.6.15)

WCC Archaeology – Highlight that the site lies in an area with archaeological potential. No objection subject to a programme of archaeological work being undertaken prior to the commencement of development secured by planning condition. (14.5.15)

Warwickshire Police – No objections, recommend measures to reduce the risk of crime and anti social behaviour. (9.12.14)

WCC Rights of Way – Identify that public right of way SM8 runs along the north western boundary. No objection but recommend condition to

ensure vegetation is at least 2m from PROW to prevent encroachment. (16.12.14 & 12.5.15)

WCC Lead Local Flood Authority – Initial objection due to lack of details for drainage scheme strategy. Revised to no objection following consideration of revised FRA (1.5.15 & 25.6.15)

South Warwickshire (NHS) Foundation Trust (SWFT) – Consider that the proposals will generate 133 residents from the development that will on average require 322 patient ‘interventions’ with the health service and therefore a sum of £60,317.98 (based on 58 units) is required to be secured towards Healthcare. (15.4.15)

SDC Environmental Health Officer – Has reviewed the submitted noise impact assessment raises no objection but recommends conditions to secure the noise mitigation scheme and relating to contaminated land. (5.1.15) Further comment following amended scheme that as the houses are closer to the road the acoustic properties of materials will need to be greater. (21.4.15)

WCC Infrastructure Delivery Team (Libraries) – Request for a contribution of £1,239 (based on 59 units) towards Libraries provision. (22.12.14)

- WCC Infrastructure Delivery Team (Education) – (12.12.14) Based on initial scheme of 59 units - Request for a contribution for education provision to be secured via S106.

Environment Agency – No objection. Offer standing advice and recommend that the advice of the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) is sought. (31.12.14)

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Principle of Development

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

Housing Land Supply

The Council does not currently have a 5 year housing land supply and therefore, in accordance with para.49 of the NPPF, saved policies in the Local Plan Review that are relevant to the supply of housing cannot be considered up to date. In accordance with para.47 of the NPPF, the Council needs to boost significantly the supply of housing to not only achieve a 5 year housing land supply, but to also maintain this supply thereafter.

The EIP Inspector’s interim report was published on 19 March 2015. The executive summary identifies 4 areas of further work to be carried out by the Council:

To revisit the objective assessment of housing need (OAN) and to increase the housing requirement to provide an improved balance with the projected growth in jobs.

To do further sustainability appraisal (SA) work. To consider an employment land allocation at Atherstone Airfield to

support the delivery of housing via proposal SUA.1 (Canal Quarter), proposal SUA3 having been found to be not justified.

To increase the OAN to provide more headroom in the housing supply trajectory.

The housing policies in the emerging Core Strategy document are subject to significant objections and will now need to be reviewed in light of the 4 areas of work to be completed. For both of these reasons, it is officers’ advice that these draft policies can be given little material weight in decision-making at this time.

The application must be first determined against the Development Plan and a conclusion made as to whether the application accords or does not accord with the Development Plan. The decision-maker should then consider all other relevant material planning considerations, of which the NPPF is the key consideration. The emerging Core Strategy is also a consideration. Irrespective of whether the Council has a 5 year housing land supply or not, para.14 of the NPPF makes clear that there is “a presumption in favour of sustainable development”, the definition of which can be found elsewhere in the NPPF.

The Development Plan

The principle of this proposal does not accord with policies in the Development Plan concerning the principle of development. In particular, under STR.1, new open market housing development is restricted to the main town of Stratford upon Avon and the Main Rural Centres only. In addition, saved policy CTY.1 seeks to control development in the open countryside and states that all forms of development in the countryside, other than those in accordance with provisions elsewhere in the Local Plan, will generally be resisted in order to preserve its character and to ensure that resources are protected. Proposals for forms of development and activity in the countryside that are not covered elsewhere in the Plan will have to be fully justified and show that they would not be contrary to the overall strategy of the Plan and that their impact on the character of the area would not be harmful. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites. The authority cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply and therefore policies STR.1 and CTY.1, which are relevant policies for the supply of housing, cannot be considered up to date.

Loss of Employment

Policy COM.16 of the Local Plan Review promotes the retention of sites for business use by supporting their expansion in appropriate circumstances and not permitting their redevelopment except in cases of ‘bad neighbour’ development. The policy is more restrictive than the NPPF and therefore not entirely consistent with the Framework which at paragraph 22 highlights that the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use should be regularly reviewed and alternative uses of such land should be treated on their merits where there is no reasonable prospect of the employment site being used.

The site is currently partly used as a Campsite and seasonal Car Boot sales also occur. The majority of the site is however grassland for the majority of the year and I do not consider that the loss of the campsite and car boot sales venue will result in any significant loss of employment.

Material considerations

The National Planning Policy Framework

Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It states that: “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 this Framework taken as a whole; or

Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

Paragraph 55 of the NPPF says that housing should be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The NPPF whilst promoting the development of brownfield land does not preclude the residential development of greenfield land in principle.

Emerging Core Strategy

Commentary on the policies of the emerging Draft Core Strategy and the weight they should be afforded is given earlier in this report. Emerging policies in the draft Core strategy follow the approach in paragraph 55 of the NPPF. Policy CS.1 sets out a presumption in favour of sustainable development and amongst other things states that applications that accord with the policies of the Core Strategy will be approved unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The methodology used for identifying local service villages (as defined in the Core Strategy) is the most up to date evidence base for identifying sustainable locations for development and is afforded some weight in decision making. Long Itchington is classified as a Category 1 Local Service Village in the Draft Core Strategy, making it one of the larger LSV’s. The services and facilities are available within the village, which are located within a reasonable walking distance of the site, include:

Village hall General Store/Post Office Local shops Public houses Primary school Church Bus Service

Conclusion on Principle of Development

Having regard to the above I consider Long Itchington is, in principle, a sustainable location for new residential development, in accordance with paragraph 55 of the NPPF and in this instance, the proposed dwellings would be adjoining the settlement’s edge. In the absence of a 5 year housing land supply, the Local Plan policies relating to the supply of housing are out-of-date. Notwithstanding that the principle of development does not accord with the

Development Plan, the other material considerations explored above lead me to conclude that the principle of development is acceptable.

Impact on the landscape and character of the area

The NPPF requires as part of its core principles (paragraph 17 (5)), that, amongst other things, planning should take account of the different roles and character of different areas and recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Saved policy PR.1 of the Local Plan Review is consistent with this as it states that proposals should respect, and where possible, enhance the quality and character of the area. Policy CS.5 of the emerging Core Strategy requires development to minimise and mitigate impacts on the landscape character and quality, including cumulative impacts. Paragraph 109 of the NPPF also states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes.

The site lies in the Dunsmore and Feldon National Landscape character area, and within the Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines the site is situated within the Feldon Lias Valley Farmlands, the latter being characterised by small to medium sized fields, enclosed by thorn hedges within an undulating topography. The District Design Guide Character Area Map puts the site in the Mudstone Vale sub area close to the Lias Uplands sub area.

The Council commissioned a Landscape Sensitivity Study of Local Service Villagesas part of the evidence basis underpinning the preparation of the Core Strategy. Part B of the document covers land parcels/sensitivity assessments for the main towns and villages. The application site was included in the Study as part of land parcel LI03.

Parcel LI03 is described as a zone of gently sloping pastoral fields with outgrown hedges and trees in a generally poor condition. A listed building to the south is noted but screened from the site. The main sensitivities of the land lie in its relationship with the Conservation Area to the south and its rural character and planting. The Study states that there is potential for housing in the southernmost 3 fields provided boundary hedges and trees are retained and enhanced and with a positive frontage to the Marton Road. I also note that the 2012 Special Landscape Area Study rejected the idea of reinstating the former Leam Valley SLA on the grounds that there is little reason for a SLA due to the modest and subtle landscape character and lack of any SLA in the neighbouring Warwick District.

The submitted Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) identifies that the most sensitive views are likely to be from the edge of the village pond by The Green looking north, from the PROW SM9 looking north west and on approach to the site from the north and classifies such views as being medium sensitivity. The site has mature hedgerows and large stature trees to the boundaries which provide a degree of screening and filtering of views of the site. Such planting is to be retained and managed outside of any ownership of any dwelling and the dwellings are a sufficient distance away to not cause harm or lead to calls for removal or felling of this planting.

Taking all matters into account I am in general agreement with the LVA that key visual impacts of the development will be of medium sensitivity and will be mitigated to some extent through the retention of existing planting. Longer distance views of the development will be limited and, whilst acknowledging that the proposals encroach into the countryside, I do not consider that the change to

the character of the area will be so harmful that the proposals should be refused solely on this basis. The harm to the landscape character and visual impacts are however matters to be weighed in the overall balance of the benefits and harm from the development.

Highways Matters

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

Paragraph 34 of the NPPF also states that developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised, albeit, this needs to take into account policies throughout the framework relating to rural areas. Saved policies DEV.4 and COM.9 of the Local Plan Review remain generally consistent with this approach. Policy CS.25 states, amongst other things, that proposals will only be permitted if the necessary mitigation is provided against unacceptable transport impacts that arise directly from the development.

Access

The application is in detailed form with the matter of the access to the site submitted for detailed consideration at this point. The proposed vehicular access is off Marton Road. The Highway Authority has assessed the submission and initially raised an objection due to the lack of a Road Safety Audit. Such an Audit was subsequently submitted and the access arrangements found to be acceptable by the Highway Authority in terms of its design and visibility splay distances of 2.4m x 120 to the right (north) and x 160m to the left (south) metres for the 40mph road taking into account that a traffic speed survey records the 85th percentile speed as being 40.9mph southbound, towards the village and 45.6mph northbound, out of the village. The Highway Authority will have also taken into account the accident record for the last 5 years which shows no accidents in the immediate vicinity of the site access but 8 accidents in the wider study area (6 ‘slight’ 2 ‘serious’ 0 ’fatal’). I therefore conclude that access arrangements are acceptable.

Traffic Generation/Highway Network

The submitted Transport Statement (TS) identifies that existing flows on Marton Road near to the site access are around 800 vehicles per hour (two way) at peak times with around 8.8% being HGV’s in the AM peak and 6.2% being HGVs in the PM peak. Junctions at The Green and Leamington Road both function with limited delays.

The 58 dwellings will generate 371 vehicular trips per day with 33 movements in the AM peak (07:45-08:45) and 35 movements in the PM peak (16:45-17:45), around 1 vehicle every 2 minutes. It is calculated that vehicles leaving the site will either travel south (54%) or north (46%) and modelling indicates that there will be no material impact on the flow of traffic or the operation of junctions within the village. A Supplementary Transport Statement has also been submitted which takes into account the cumulative impact of traffic generated from the current application and in additional development sites in the village at Cemex (85 dwellings) and Stockton Road (150) and concludes that cumulative traffic flows would be suitably accommodated by the highway network.

The Highway Authority raises no concerns regarding intensification of traffic on the local highway network. I therefore consider that the proposals are acceptable in relation to traffic generation and impacts on the highway network.

Accessibility

The site is located on the edge of the village where local services and facilities are provided and accessible on foot including, amongst others, primary school (950m away), public houses (nearest The Duck on the Pond 250m) post office/store (750m) and public open space recreation ground/play area (400m). The nearest doctors is around 5km away and dentist around 4km both in Southam which provides a wider range of services and facilities.

Public transport connections within the village is mainly provided by the 64/64A bus service operating between Leamington > Southam > Long Itchington > Rugby, generally hourly service Mondays to Saturdays with bus stops at The Green (7 minute walk from site).

The applicants have been in discussions with the Highway Authority and Parish Council and propose improved facilities to assist local pedestrian movement including widening of Marton Road eastern footway from 1.6m to 2m for a 205m length; upgrading a central refuge to provide additional length (from 1.2m to 2m) and width (from 1.2m to 1.8m) for safer use crossing Marton Road; provision of new 100m footway (2m wide) along western side of Marton Road to the bus stop at The Green; new pedestrian access to recreation ground off Marton Road with associated central refuge for crossing Marton Road. These highway works will have wider benefits to pedestrians within the village.

I therefore conclude that the site is reasonably accessible to key services and facilities and is sustainable in terms of its location.

Conclusion on highway matters

Taking into account all of the above, I consider that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway safety in relation to access, cycle and pedestrian movements, or traffic generation and provides a reasonably sustainable level of access to local services and facilities, without the need to fully rely on the use of a private car, in accordance with the guidance contained in paragraphs 32 and 34 of the NPPF and saved policy DEV.4 of the Local Plan Review, and Policy CS.25 of the emerging Core Strategy which remain generally consistent with the NPPF.

Layout, scale, appearance

Layout

The layout has been the subject of several amendments following criticisms of the initial scheme from Officers and consultees/3rd parties. The scheme now brings dwellings away from the sensitive boundaries, allowing the hedgerows and trees to be retained without potential threat to their long term health and allows for an informal circular walking route round the southern part of the site. The dwellings in the sensitive north east corner have been reduced in height to bungalows and dwellings fronting Marton Road are set back between 17-20 metres from the footway to allow the hedges and trees to remain dominant along the approach to the village. An existing pond forms the central focus to the development and an area of open space surrounds this together with a larger open area, part acting as

SuDS basin fronts the main road in the north west part of the site. The access road in the southern portion of the site has been designed as a shared surface to provide an appropriate rural character to the layout. Parking provision is predominantly on-plot with garaging and surface spaces, with the exception of small scale rear parking area for 4 vehicles and a parking courtyard (12 vehicles) that will be well overlooked for appropriate surveillance. Details of bin storage and collection points are acceptable.

Scale

The number of units has been reduced from 59 to 58 during amendments to the scheme and the overall net density of development is around 33 dwellings per hectare which is appropriate for the edge of village location. The development is predominantly 2 storey, with the 5 x 2.5 storey units set a good distance away from any boundary to the site. 4 x bungalow units are sited in the more sensitive north east corner to reduce impacts viewed from open countryside.

Appearance

Whilst the units are ‘standard’ house types that Bloor Homes might use elsewhere this does not mean that they are inappropriate for this part of the District. The scheme has been amended to take out a number of house types that were considered by officers to be of poor design and inappropriate for the locality and other house types have had modifications to their detailing to accord with the District Design Guide. Subject to securing appropriate materials that fit in with the village vernacular I consider that the appearance of the dwellings and streetscenes will be appropriate for Long Itchington.

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, whilst now quite old, 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.

The proposal has been amended during the course of the application to address an identified in-balance in the housing mix to now provide additional 1 and 2 bed units and also to provide 4 bungalows. I am now satisfied with the housing mix which results in an overall provision of 3.5% 1 bed, 46.5% 2 bed, 34.5% 3 bed and 15.5% 4 bed units. The scheme will include 20 affordable housing units representing 35% of units on site and a tenure split of 80% rent and 20% intermediate which I consider satisfactory. The affordable units are dispersed between the northern and southern parts of the site to a reasonably satisfactory level.

Residential amenity

The layout demonstrates satisfactory separation distances between proposed properties and those located on neighbouring land are achievable and provides acceptable levels of amenity space for the houses and bungalows. Two of the apartment units are provided with a small external area for storage but no private gardens. I consider that the immediate accessibility to open spaces throughout the scheme, would compensate for this to an acceptable degree.

Provision of Public Open Space

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

The application layout incorporates a central pond with surrounding open space, a large area of open space with SuDS drainage basin and a circular open space route around the boundary of the southern part of the site. This on site provision is more than sufficient to meet to incidental/informal needs of the development but there is no on-site provision of Adult/Youth Active Recreation space or Children’s Play Area. Discussions have taken place with the Parish Council to direct financial contributions from the developers to pay for identified projects relating to the existing recreation ground and play area for the village which lies to the west on the opposite side of Marton Road from the site. A new crossing point on Marton Road has been agreed to be provided by the developers to a new pedestrian access serving the recreation ground and play equipment so that residents of the site will have a safer and more direct access to the facilities. I am therefore satisfied that the combination of on site provision and off-site contributions, secured via S106 Agreement, will appropriately meet the demands for Public Open Space.

Landscaping and Trees

Boundary vegetation is to be retained and is not under threat, and additional planting can be provided, secured via a landscaping condition. I have reached the view that overall, the scheme is acceptable having regard to the provisions of paragraphs 58 and 109 of the NPPF and saved policies PR.1 and DEV.2. Tree and hedgerow protection measures can also be secured by condition.

Drainage and Flood Risk

Paragraphs 100 to 104 of the NPPF seek to ensure that development considers impact of flood risk. Saved policies PR.7 and DEV.7 remain generally consistent with the NPPF. Policy CS.4 of the emerging Core Strategy seeks to maintain the floodplain, manage the risk of flooding in a catchment area and achieve good status for water bodies by, amongst other things, locating development in Flood Zone 1, securing SuDS solutions to surface water drainage, managing runoff from sites and ensuring that foul drainage flows are kept separate to surface water drainage.

The site is located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk of flooding) where residential development is considered acceptable in principle by the NPPF in relation to flood risk. The site is however more than 1 ha in area and therefore a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted.

Local residents have highlighted that the site suffers from surface water ponding/flooding and that the brook that runs to the north west and the ditch alongside Marton Road have backed up and caused significant flood issues for local residents in the past. The Environment Agency surface water mapping appears to back up these claims for the north west part of the site. The layout provides for a SuDS attenuation pond in the north west section of the site to which the surface water drainage of the development will be directed and stored and released at a slow rate into other watercourses. The developer’s drainage

consultant highlights that this approach will reduce peak run-off from the site (by 61%) which will have a betterment value for the locality compared to the existing situation.

Warwickshire County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) are happy with the conceptual drainage strategy involving the use of SuDS but requested further details of the modelling calculations and methodology and clarification of the feasibility of soakaways as an alternative approach. Infiltration tests have been carried out and a revised Flood Risk Assessment produced which highlight that soakaways are not a viable option and therefore SuDS measures will be implemented. The LLFA are now raise no objection subject to a drainage condition to approve final details.

Foul drainage is proposed to be disposed of via the main sewer connecting near to Marton Road Farmhouse and draining off site by gravity flow to the pressurised main. The applicant has had discussions with STW who advise that there is capacity in the system to take additional flows.

The drainage proposals will be the subject of further detailed approval and therefore at this stage I have no reason to believe that the drainage scheme not be in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 93-108 of the NPPF and saved policies PR.7 and DEV.7 of the Local Plan Review, and Policy CS.4 of the emerging Core Strategy which remain broadly consistent with the NPPF.

Impacts on Heritage Assets

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

Paragraphs 128 to 139 of the NPPF seek to protect heritage assets, including sites of archaeological importance. However, paragraphs 133 and 134 state that harm to heritage assets may be acceptable if outweighed by public benefits. Saved policies EF.11, EF.13 and EF.14 of the Local Plan Review are less flexible and more restrictive in their approach than the NPPF, as the key requirement is the protection of heritage assets. They are therefore not considered consistent with the NPPF, and consequently afforded limited weight. Policy CS.8 of the emerging Core Strategy does however allow for the harm to a heritage asset to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal.

The southern boundary of the site runs parallel to the Long Itchington Conservation Area which lies between 17-20 metres away to the south incorporating the dwelling and garden of Elm House. A Grade II listed building The Red House lies beyond this, around 55m further to the south. The Grade II* listed Tudor House is however much further away to the south at around 220m. The site is separated from the conservation by a degree of boundary planting and undeveloped land area and the proposed development will be set over 10m from the site boundary, meaning the nearest new building will be at least 33m from the Conservation Area and 65m from the nearest listed building. Views from the Conservation Area to the site will however be possible.

I consider that the proposals are well laid out and designed and the scheme will retain boundary hedges and trees which provide a significant filtering effect for views from and towards the Conservation Area and listed buildings. I do not consider that there will be any material harm to the setting of the conservation area or to the setting of any listed building from the on-site development.

The proposals include measures to upgrade and improve the pedestrian crossing facilities of Marton Road and to provide new and widened footways within the Conservation Area and in the vicinity of listed buildings. I consider that the new and improved traffic refuges will add a small degree of visual clutter on Marton Road but that this, along with the widened footways, will have negligible impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area or on the setting of any listed buildings. The provision of a new 2m wide footway on the eastern side of Marton Road running alongside the pond and turning the corner along part of Leamington Road will, in my opinion, have a minor adverse impact on the character and appearance of this part of the pond and green, which form part of the Conservation Area when viewed from some vantage points. I do not consider that the new footway will have any material impact on the setting of any listed buildings. I consider that the harm caused by the off-site highway works to heritage assets is less than substantial and should be weighed in the balance when considering the positives and negatives of the overall scheme.

Archaeology

Archaeological assessments have been submitted as part of this application. WCC Archaeological Services have assessed these and recommend further investigative and evaluative work prior to commencement, and this to be secured via planning condition.

For these reasons, I currently consider that the proposed development would be acceptable having 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.

Loss of Agricultural Land

Paragraph 112 of the NPPF identifies that Local Authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality land. The applicants have submitted a Soil Resource and Agricultural Land Classification Survey which finds that the majority of the site (2 ha) is Grade 3a with a small area along the eastern boundary being Grade 3b agricultural land and part of the site including the pond not being in agricultural use. The site therefore mostly comprises the best and most versatile land (BMV).

I am aware of appeal cases in the District including Salford Road Bidford (6.61 ha of Grade 2) and Hampton Lucy (2.02 ha of Grade 2) where the loss of BMV land has not resulted in dismissal of the appeal, and I note that the current proposals are of a lower grade and involve a smaller or equivalent amount of BMV than in those other cases. I must however conclude that the loss of BMV agricultural land is a negative factor to weigh in the balance for the decision taker.

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. Policy CS.6 of the emerging Core Strategy requires mitigation measures, including biodiversity offsetting where appropriate, when negative impacts on biodiversity occur.

The County Council Ecologist raised concerns about potential loss of biodiversity on the site and the applicants Ecological Consultants carried out a Biodiversity Impact Assessment calculation to clarify this matter. There is a relatively small decease in biodiversity but WCC Ecology consider that this can be compensated for via an offsetting process to provide improved ecological habitat off-site. Officers are currently considering whether offsetting can be secured by planning condition or whether this should be via a S106.

The applicants have submitted Surveys in relation to protected species that might be affected and no objection to the proposals has been raised by WCC in relation to great crested newts, reptiles, bats, badger and nesting birds subject to appropriate conditions being secured.

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, Policy CS.6 of the emerging Core Strategy and the provisions of the NERC act.

Community Facilities & Social Cohesion

It is noted that a significant number of representations have been made in relation to the inadequacy of the village’s infrastructure, services and facilities to support the impact of this development, as well as cumulative impact from other committed development within the locality. Whilst, it is considered the proposed development would inevitably have some impact, it must recognised that the settlement is one of the largest and best equipped Local Service Villages, that the developers will pay appropriate contributions towards improvements of key facilities and that the site has accessibility to a wider selection of services and facilities in the nearby towns of Southam (2.8 miles/4.5km) and Leamington (6.5 miles/10.5km). In addition, no objections have been received from the NHS, WCC Education, Highways, WCC Rights of Way, WCC Libraries as the key statutory/technical consultee’s in relation to services, facilities and infrastructure. The March 2015 Inspector’s Appeal Decision relating to 150 dwellings at Stockton Road Long Itchington (13/03307/OUT) addressed the issue of population growth and infrastructure and noted there had been 30 years of population stagnation in the village and whilst the development would bring pressures, the responsible authorities had accepted that there would be no harm if improvements via S106 monies were carried out.

Concerns have also been raised regarding the ability of the new residents to be absorbed into the village without affecting social cohesion. The March 2015 Inspector’s Appeal Decision relating to 150 dwellings at Stockton Road addressed the issue of social cohesion and concluded (para 26) that “…future residents would be just as likely to participate in village life as new residents moving to existing properties elsewhere in the village, if not more so.” The Inspector also however stated (para 37) that the large number of residents from that scheme (a 17% increase in population) would be difficult to absorb in the short term, leading to some harm to social cohesion. The Inspector however only gave “minor weight to any harm to social cohesion from the proposal.”

The 2009 Parish Plan states that the Parish population was 2,400. The 58 dwellings would generate around 133 residents, a 5.5% increase in the parish population, some of whom are likely to have local connections, particularly in the

case of the affordable housing. I do not therefore perceive that such an increase, even when considered cumulatively with other recently permitted housing will lead to such harm to the village cohesion that the proposals should be refused. The matter is however a negative impact of minor weight in considering the overall balance of positives and negatives associated with the case.

Planning Obligations

The below requested contributions are considered by officers to be compliant with the CIL Regulations at the time of writing this report.

Affordable Housing

35% of total housing numbers with tenures of 80% social rented and 20% intermediate units.Education

- Early Years 1 pupil = £11,687- Primary 10 pupils = £116,870- Secondary 7 pupils = £102,263- Sixth Form 1 pupil = £15,749- Total = £246,614

(Based on 59 units rather than currently proposed 58, the final calculation will be refined at the S106 stage)

Highways

Warwickshire County Highways are likely to a request a contribution of £75 per dwelling (up to £4,350) for sustainable welcome packs to help promote safe and sustainable travel in the local area;

Libraries

Warwickshire County Council Library Service has requested a contribution of £1,239 (based on 59 dwellings) towards the improvement of local library facilities. The final calculation will be refined at the S106 stage.

POS/ Maintenance

Off-site Adult/Youth Active Space = £6,650Off-site Children’s Play Area = £16,359

+ Other POS areas to be provided on the site and in the event that the Council or Parish Council is requested to take on maintenance responsibilities for any such area then an appropriate contribution will be sought for the future maintenance of this.

Healthcare

South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust has requested a contribution of £60,317.98 towards healthcare.

[N.B. The Council’s Cabinet on 16.3.15 agreed an interim policy that where South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust have sought a contribution towards healthcare that such a contribution should be secured via a S106 agreement, subject to the Head of Environment and Planning being satisfied that such a contribution would be CIL compliant.]

Biodiversity Offsetting

In the event that Officers consider that the offsetting cannot be secured via planning condition then this will be secured via the S106 (up to £85,603).

Conclusions

Whilst the proposal conflicts with some of the saved policies of the Development Plan, these policies are not wholly consistent with the NPPF. Whilst the principle of the proposal does not accord with the Development Plan as a whole there are other material considerations that have been taken account of.

The ‘golden thread’ running through the NPPF is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It gives three dimensions to sustainable development: social, economic and environmental. These should not be assessed in isolation, because they are mutually dependant. On this basis, I have concluded that the proposal is sustainable development.

Assessing the planning balance, I consider that the key benefits from the scheme would be:

Provision of new homes in a sustainable location, contributing towards meeting the shortfall in the Council’s 5 year housing land supply.

Provision of 35% affordable homes. Creation of short term construction jobs. Longer term support for the local economy from new residents. New homes bonus. Provision of contribution towards improvements to off-site public open

space to serve the needs of the residents and the wider community. Provision of on-site SuDS drainage facility to address existing surface

water drainage issues at the site with associated betterment to the settlement.

Provision of new crossing refuge and upgraded crossing refuge on Marton Road together with new and improved footways to assist pedestrian safety for new residents and the wider community.

With regards to the potential harm arising from the development, I consider that

There would be some moderate harm to the character of the landscape and some moderate harmful visual impacts to the landscape in the immediate area. However, this can be controlled and mitigated to an extent through planning conditions retaining and improving landscaped boundaries.

There would be a loss of around 2 ha of Best and Most Versatile Grade 3a Agricultural land.

Minor harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area from off-site highway works

Minor harm to the social cohesion of the village from the influx of new residents

Technical issues from statutory consultees can be dealt with by planning conditions. Where potential deficiencies in services and facilities have been identified, financial contributions have been sought to remedy these. The development will not place undue pressure on the local infrastructure.

In my opinion, the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the identified harm.

Recommendation

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

It is therefore recommended that subject to the satisfactory completion of a S.106 agreement to provide the following requirements and contributions with delegated authority to the Head of Environment and Planning in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee in respect of any final negotiations:

Affordable Housing Provision (35% by number of units) Education contribution (final contribution to be refined at S106 drafting

stage) Libraries contribution (final contribution to be refined at S106 drafting

stage) Off-site Public Open Space for Active Adult/Youth and Children’s Play Area

(final contribution to be refined at S106 drafting stage) Sustainable Travel Packs (£75 per dwelling) On-site Public Open Space (management/maintenance) Healthcare (if considered CIL compliant) Biodiversity Offsetting (if cannot be secured via planning condition)

the Planning Manager be authorised to grant planning permission, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is delegated to officers:

Permission Definition Conditions

1. Development to be commenced within 3 years.

2. Plans to which decision relates for the avoidance of doubt.

3. Removal of Permitted Development Rights under Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 for buildings, compounds, structures or enclosures which are required temporarily in connection with the development.

Pre-commencement Conditions

4. Levels details

5. Surface water Drainage proposals including SuDS maintenance scheme

6. Foul drainage proposals

7. Construction Method Statement and Management Plan including details of site operatives parking, HGV routing, deliveries, storage areas, buildings, compounds, structures or enclosures which are required temporarily in connection with the construction of the development and mitigation of mud/dust etc.

8. Provision of vehicular access in accordance with Drawing NTP 13040-02 Rev A (or subsequent approved revisions of these works).

9. Materials samples

10.A detailed scheme for the provision, specification, siting, maintenance of incidental open space and landscaped areas on the site.

11.Soft landscaping details including ecological management plan

12.Hard landscaping details including boundary treatments and external lighting details (including near potential bat/wildlife corridors)

13. Tree/hedge protection measures

14.Archaeology investigation

15.Ground contamination - site characterisation

16.Ground contamination - Remediation Scheme

17.Ground Contamination – Validation

18.Ground Contamination – Unexpected

19.Great Crested Newt Mitigation

20.Construction and Environmental Management Plan including safeguards for protected species

21.Biodiversity Offsetting scheme (unless to be secured via S106)

Pre-occupancy Conditions

22. Provision of the off-site highway works to refuge crossings and footways as detailed on Drawing NTP 13040-03 Rev A (or subsequent approved revisions of these works).

23. Provision of water butts

24. Provision of wheelie bins

25. Implementation of Noise Mitigation as set out in the submitted Brookbanks Technical Note: Noise Assessment 8.4.15

Post-occupancy Conditions

26.50% of dwellings meeting ‘Lifetime Homes’ standards.

Notes:1. S278 Highway Works.2. Traffic management Act 20043. S38 Highway works4. Avoid mud and surface water on the highway5. S1066. Duty to cooperate7. Hours of Construction

ROBERT WEEKSHEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING