Update Report for Planning Committee (East) - 31 March 2015

Committee Planning Manager: Liz Nicholson

Examination of the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy Inspector’s Interim Conclusions
The 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.
14/01089/FUL – land off Armscote Road, Ilmington
Environment Agency – object in absence of adequate Flood Risk Assessment. Technical assessment of flood risk and proposed mitigation is inadequate (19.03.15)
County Highway Authority – tracking/swept path information is acceptable (30.03.15)
Environmental Health Officer – no representations (22.07.14)
WCC Archaeology – development could have an impact; detailed comments to follow (16.07.14)
Severn Trent Water – no objections (23.07.14)
Conservation Officer – no objections 912.08.14)
Revised officer recommendation
For the avoidance of doubt, add the words:
“and subject to the resolution of the outstanding flood risk assessment and proposed mitigation, and the receipt of a response of ‘no objection subject to conditions’ from the Environment Agency”
14/02167/FUL – 42 Welsh Road West, Southam
WCC Archaeology
The remains of a windmill, and associated buildings, survive across this site. This brick tower windmill, which dates to c.1800 and remained in use until 1922, originally had four storeys, four patent sails, and three pairs of mill stones. A number of buildings associated with its later use also survive across the site, and it is likely that, in addition to the upstanding remains of the windmill tower itself, further features associated with the mill, such as a conduit through which it was linked with the other structures across the site, survive underground. There is also a potential for archaeological deposits associated with an earlier mill to survive across this site. The proposed development will result in the loss of the upstanding remains of the mill and its associated buildings, and is likely to have a significant negative impact upon any buried features.
Although I do not wish to object to the principle of development, I do consider that some archaeological work should be required if consent is forthcoming. (20.03.2015)
Additional Condition 11 – Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation to be submitted.
14/02357/FUL – 1 Nortons Close, Northend
Statement received from Councillor Jackson:
·  I regret and apologise for not being present to address the Committee in person,
·  I stand fully behind and maintain my objections as set out in the Committee Report,
·  My objections to the former application included: over development of the site; adverse impacts on neighbours’ amenities (viz 2. Nortons Close); access concerns,
·  Despite some reduction in scale (est.less than 5% in overall volume terms?) I find no other material or compelling justification in the Report, for now reversing the reasons for refusing the previous application. In view of this apparent inconsistency:-
·  I strongly recommend that the Committee is fully informed of those reasons by the Presenting Officer giving full details of the refusal notice of 20/01/14.
·  In short, I consider that little has changed, and this proposed development is a contrived, inappropriate infilling of a residential garden that will have adverse overbearing & overlooking impacts on the neighbours’ amenities.
·  Furthermore, I share the Parish Council’s concerns over the dominant and awkward impact on the streetscene, and also on the matter of access,
·  On access the Committee should be made aware of the details of a recent permission granted on 25/03/15 in favour of Meadow Hall Farm, (Grade II) directly opposite the application site.
·  This latest permission would seem to have been granted independently and without any recognition (or knowledge?) of this pending application, Therefore, given the proximity of the two sites, a re-assessment of highway safety and access implications should be undertaken to ensure inter alia compliance with DEV4.
·  Concluding – the cumulative degree of harm associated with this application outweighs any benefits, such that it is NOT a sustainable form of development (as per NPPF) ; it is also in conflict with SDC’s saved policies PR1 and DEV1.
·  Footnote re Conditions in Officer’s Report:
a)  clarification required on what Condition 2 means/includes?
b)  no Condition included for the provision/storage of waste bins (if minded to grant).
Simon Jackson – Cllr & Member for Burton Dassett Ward – 30th March 2015.
11/02380/OUT – Norgren Martonair, Campden Road, Shipston
No updates
13/01346/OUT – land east of High Street, Fenny Compton
No updates
13/00870/FUL – land adjacent to 17 Glebe Close, Stockton
No updates

Page 2 of 3