Update Report for Planning Committee (West): 18 August 2015

Committee Planning Manager: Liz Nicholson

15/00212/OUT – Former Geodis Site, Waterloo Road, Bidford
Report Updates:
Cllr Pemberton is the ward member for the application site (not Cllr Cargill as set out in the report).
Third Party Representations
Additional objections received on behalf of Warner Budgen's indicating that (summarised by officers) the retail assessment within the officer report is deficient and determination of the application by the planning committee should be deferred for further work to assess the impact on Budgens and the Village Centre. The representations conclude any decision by the Council which fails to have regard to a material consideration would be ‘unsound’ and open to legal challenge (18.08.15)
Additional Response from Council’ s Retail Consultants (PBA)
Following the review of the representations submitted on behalf of Warner Budgens (above), PBA re-affirm their recommendation of no objection (18.08.15). Further clarification will be available for members at planning committee from Cathy Hall on behalf of PBA.
15/01897/OUT – Land at Jacksons Meadow, Bidford on Avon
As at 15:30 on 18.8.15 an additional 147 letters of objection received largely raising matters already summarised in the committee report (pages 37-38) plus the following additional summarised matters:-
-  Inadequate public transport access and service
-  Bidford has been allocated no more than 275 dwellings in the Draft Core Strategy between 2011 - 2031 but has already had over 460 houses granted in the village over the first 4 years of the plan period.
-  Recent damage to the bridge highlights how poor the village infrastructure is and unable to cope with additional demands and traffic.
-  87% of respondents to the Neighbourhood Plan do not want any further development, demonstrating the massive local opposition.
-  The healthcare situation is dangerously stretched and will worsen, putting lives at risk.
-  The Education Authority has underestimated the number of children that will need to be catered for and there is nowhere for them to go.
-  Jacksons Meadow will have worse problems from construction traffic than Milestone Road has had in Stratford
-  Flood Risk Assessment is flawed as fails to consider impacts on surrounding developments and is incomplete and missing vital information and assessments.
-  The surface water drainage measures are overly complex and expensive to maintain/manage.
-  The village has historically already taken a greater increase in houses than other Main Rural Centres and projected development is also higher.
-  Bidford has the lowest ranking of facilities of all the Main Rural Centres.
-  Increased risks of crime.
- Kingfisher spotted by Small Brook will be affected.
Additional comments regarding construction traffic from Agent (17.8.15) –
1. The applicants have spoken to the adjoining landowner to discuss alternative points of construction access to the site. This includes access to the south west and to the north east. However, the landowner is not willing to enter into an agreement. A financial offer was made by the applicant.
2.The applicants are happy to accept a condition which would require a banksman to be stationed on entrance to the site to monitor vehicles going into and out of the site. That person would be stationed there during all working hours.
3.The applicants would accept that any condition dealing with working hours contains a restriction on when delivery vehicles are able to arrive at the site. It is suggested that no deliveries shall take before 9 am or after 4 pm.
4.Finally they would be willing to accept that the site compound be set up in the very southern section of the site therefore furthest away from the houses along Jacksons Meadow.
Consultation response NHS Primary Healthcare (11.8.15) – Have consulted South Warwickshire Clinical Commissioning Group who have liaised with the GP practice and confirm that no Primary Healthcare contribution is required in association with proposed developments in Bidford.
Consultation response WCC Infrastructure - Public Transport (17.8.15) – A request for £7,000 for improvements to bus stops at Salford Road/Victoria Road to assist with connecting occupiers of the development has been received.
Consultation response WCC Infrastructure – Education (17.8.15) – Confirm that an Early Years contribution is not needed and that Secondary School and Sixth Form capacity is available so no contribution is needed. Do however state that the local Primary School is forecast to fill and therefore a financial contribution of £81,809 is needed towards the creation of additional Key Stage 2 class bases at the Bidford Primary School. (NB. Education contribution in Planning Obligations Section revised accordingly)
Amended Recommendation:-
Additional S106 Obligation - £7,000 for upgrade of bus stops at Salford Rd/Victoria Road.
Condition 14 – to include approval of details of provision of a Banksman at the site + approval of hours of delivery (likely to be only between 09.00-16.00 Mondays to Fridays, 09.00-13.00 Saturdays and no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays)
14/00741/FUL – Snitterfield Fruit Farm, Kings Lane, Snitterfield
Third Party Responses
One additional letter of objection received:
·  incursion of the proposal into the Green Belt
·  conditions would be difficult to control
·  proposal would set a precedent for further speculative applications
Amended Recommendation (additional conditions + note)
5. Development shall not be commenced until the open portal framed building and the cold store as shown on amended location plan 018A has been completely demolished and all materials removed from the site.
6. Development not to be occupied until access has been widened to not less than 5 metres for a distance of 7.5 metres
7. Development not to be occupied until detailed plans showing the boundary treatments to be provided to delineate the rear amenity spaces for the holiday lets
8. Development not to be commenced until a scheme for the provision of adequate water supplies and fire hydrants have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA
Note 4. Public footpath SD146 must remain open and available for public use at all times unless closed by a legal order, so it must remain unobstructed by parked vehicles or by materials during construction. If it is necessary to temporarily close public footpath SD146 for any length of time during construction then a traffic regulation order will be required. Warwickshire County Council’s Rights of Way Team should be contacted well in advance to arrange this. Any disturbance or alteration to the surface of public footpath SD146 requires the prior authorization if Warwickshire County Council’s Rights of Way team as does the installation of any new gate or other structure on the public footpath.
15/00672/OUT – 3B High Street, Studley
Councillor Justin Kerridge
I am on holiday when this application is due at Committee.
I was keeping my mind open on this application and intended to make a decision as a sitting member of the committee.
I will now make a decision on the evidence in front of me at this time.
I have read the officer report.
I have read the application (granted) for lawful development change of use of two stories from retail (A1) to domestic (C3). Application 13/01405/ldp
I have read the appeal inspectors report to a previous application at this location that was refused by the council and granted on appeal. Application 12/00236/ful (staff car parking for 6 spaces and access steps)
I object to the application for the following planning reasons:
1. Change of use from business to residential.
No evidence has been produced of marketing this to a similar or alternative business use. Para 22 of the NPPF says, “where there is no reasonable prospect of the site being used for the allocated employment use” application for alternative uses should be treated on their merits. But we have no evidence of this.
The report mentions that no evidence has been provided but that the property is constrained in size for future development of this business and concludes that it is therefore likely to be constrained in size for all other possible businesses. This is very unconvincing. A smaller business could easily be accommodated here, or even several smaller business. So still, para 22 has not been tested.
The report mentions the applicants need for larger premises and constraints on expansion yet fails to mention the recent application to convert 2 floors from retail to a domestic flat. There needs to be an explanation of this as, at face value, it would suggest there are 2 floors available for expansion of the existing business.
The golden thread of the NPPF stresses sustainable development and the economic aspect of that is not the least considerable and should be properly assessed.
2. lack of information on highways matters.
Concerns of residents about the effects of increased traffic on Crendon close from a road safety and “change of feel” point of view and concerns about visitor parking blocking the emergency turning circle at the entrance of this site.
Permission is extant for a staff car park for 6 spaces but it is specifically mentioned by the inspector in the appeal case which granted this permission that this is for staff, who are not likely to be coming and going a lot. This as opposed to residential users who would generate more trips as well as some of those being in the evening and at weekends. The applicant in the appeal case estimated that there could be 12 journeys a day and this was not disputed by the inspector.
Highways suggest that only 15.7 trips will be generated by all 8 flats. I would like officers to make sure of this estimate. The inspector suggested that a house in Crendon close could generate 7 trips a day and it makes sense to me that a flat would generate half that amount ( so 8 flats could generate 28 journeys) whereas the estimate from highways is almost half this. I think an explanation of their estimate is needed.
Note: there are concerns about the boundary treatment between the Crendon close car park and the neighbour, whose garden is at a lower level. The boundary wall or structure should be strong enough to prevent a car ploughing through it into the neighbours’ garden. It should also be of a good visual appearance and not be overbearing. Consultation between officers and the neighbour would be a sensible way forward if this permission goes ahead.
15/01947/FUL – 52 Tiddington Road, Stratford upon Avon
Third Party Responses:
·  One letter of no objection; and
·  One letter of objection with concerns relating to conservation area and back land development.
Consultations in response to revised plans – Environmental Health no representation; and
-WCC Highways – no objection subject to conditions.
Revised plans were received on the 10.8.2015 respectively and were sent out for information.
The revision includes the removal of the detached garage proposed to serve 52 Tiddington Road from the plans. The description of development has therefore been updated to:
‘New dwelling to rear of 52 Tiddington Road plus associated alterations to existing dwelling’.
An updated Ecological Report has also been submitted which provides further details with relating to protect species. WCC Ecology have been re-consulted on this revised report and have confirmed that subject to appropriate conditions the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on protect species.
Amended Recommendation:
In light of the above revisions, the concerns which formed the second reason for refusal have now been satisfied.
In addition the proposed concern regarding the Weeping Willow tree as set out in the officer’s report has now been overcome.
14/01919/FUL – 14 Grouse Close, Stratford-upon-Avon
13.08.15 Councillor Ian Fradgley sends apologies on behalf of the Town Council due to a clash with their meetings and makes the following comments:
The Town Council has always followed the principal of subservience for extensions on all houses in the town except in exceptional circumstances. This principled position is based on the SDC document - Extending Your Own Home – guidance, dated 2008.
The Town Council considers that subservience is an elegant and practical solution to an extension, especially to the side. It obviates awkward and ugly transitions of existing and new ridge levels, wall planes and materials. It also allows the history of a house is easily readable adding to the interest and context of this historic town. The Town Council maintains that this readability is as important to new home to the town as well as older more established properties.
SDC has often maintained that where there is precedent of non-subservience, subservience cannot be applied. However it is often the case that non subservience applies to home extended preExtending Your Own Home or there is a mix of subservience and non-subservience and so the Town Council would question why favour non subservience over subservience, the better solution in most cases.
In this particular case it is being quoted that there are other non-subservient properties in GrouseClose but all but one are prior to Extending Your Home.
The Town Council would always seek to support applications demonstrating subservience. Indeed within the last couple of weeksapplication 15/02412/FUL has been amended to become subservient following the Town Council's comments.
Subservience also adds to the lively articulation of the both the sky line and street scene.
The Town Council wishes to support buildings of quality and interest in the town so that as the town develops it maintains a distinctive local character in its new and older homes. It considers subservience to be an important tool in this aspiration.
The Town Council would wish to work closely with the planning authority to ensure the benefits of subservience is discussed with applicants at an earlier stage in any application so as to avoid unnecessary referral to full committee and would ask this committee to up hold this principal.
We would request that this application be refused until such time as a subservient solution in included.
Cllr Ian Fradgley (Chairman of Stratford Town Council Planning Consultative Committee)

Page 3 of 5