COMMITTEE REPORT
Application Ref. / 15/04342/FULApplicant / Orbit Homes
Reason for Referral to Committee / § Scale of development (> 10 dwellings)
Case Officer / David Jeffery
Presenting Officer / David Jeffery
Site Address / 1, 3,5, and 7 Dog Lane and 1, 3,5, and 7 St Lawrence Close, Napton on-the-Hill
Description of Proposals / Demolition of two blocks of two storey flats amounting to 8 dwellings without parking and redevelopment to provide ten dwellings (net 2 dwellings) with parking.
§ Creation of a small terrace of 4 houses to Dog Lane and a small development of three pairs of semis to St Lawrence Close.
§ Dwellings specified to replace poor quality housing association stock and to more closely match Napton’s housing needs
§ Proposed by RSL and comprising 100% Affordable dwellings
Description of Site Constraints / § The development is proposed across two sites on Dog Lane and St Lawrence Close.
§ Development is constrained by the need to preserve neighbour amenity
§ Design guidelines relating to garden arrangements and overlooking
§ Parking and highway concerns (especially given the nearby primary school)
§ Somewhat designed environment
§ No prominent heritage concerns
Summary of Recommendation / GRANT SUBJECT TO 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 are:-
PR1, DEV1, DEV.4, DEV.10 EF.11, COM.9, COM.13, IMP.1, IMP.6 – consistent with Framework
DEV.2, DEV.7, DEV.9, EF.6, EF.7, EF.9, EF.10, EF13, EF.14, COM.4, COM.5, COM.14, SUA.1, IMP.4, IMP.5 – some consistency but Framework is less restrictive
STR.1, STR2, 2A, 2B, STR.4, DEV.5, DEV.6, COM.1, CTY.1, IMP.2 – inconsistent with Framework/out-of-date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 (The Setting of Heritage Assets).
Supplementary Planning Documents & Guidance
· 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 2015 – 2019
· Planning and Community Safety - Design and Crime Reduction 2006: Planning Advice Note
· Stratford upon Avon Town Design Statement 2002
Other Documents
· Draft Core Strategy 2014
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 which the relevant emerging policies have with the NPPF policies.
The Council has published a Core Strategy Proposed Modifications document setting out the suggested changes to the Core Strategy following publication of the Inspector’s Interim Conclusions in March 2015. These are due to be considered at a reconvened EIP in January 2016.
In June 2015 the Council adopted, on an interim basis, a number of the Core Strategy policies to help inform decisions about planning applications. The policies that have been adopted are those that are not subject to significant representations or unresolved concerns.
The following have therefore been regarded as material considerations carrying some weight in the evaluation of the proposal:
CS.1 – Sustainable Development
CS.2 – Climate Change and Sustainable Construction
CS.4 – Water Environment and Flood Risk
CS.5 – Landscape
CS.6 - Natural Environment
CS.7 - Green Infrastructure
CS.8 - Historic Environment
CS.9 - Design and Distinctiveness
CS.25 – Transport & Communication
CS.26 – Developer Contributions
Other emerging policies within the plan will carry limited weight for decision making purposes may be referenced where they support the aims of the NPPF. In particular CS.10, CS.15, CS.16, CS.17 and CS.18 may provide helpful information.
· The 2012 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) Review
The SHLAA has only looked 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 SHLAA 2012 does not assess appropriateness against the emerging Core Strategy. In Officers’ opinion, 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.
· Landscape Sensitivity Study (July 2011, updated June 2012)
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 is identified as being within land cover parcel (LCP) TR03. The document assesses the site’s sensibility to housing development as being high/medium.
· Napton-on-the-Hill Parish Plan
The Parish Plan has been adopted as a local information source to offer advice to the relevant departments of Stratford-on-Avon District Council and is a material consideration in processing planning applications, in accordance with Policy COM.1 of the Local Plan Review.
· Napton-on-the-Hill Planning and Design Update - May 2011
· Napton-on-the-Hill - Housing Needs Survey - January 2012
Undertaken by Warwickshire Rural Community Council
Local information source to offer advice to the relevant departments of Stratford-on-Avon District Council and is a material consideration in processing planning applications, in accordance with Policy COM.1 of the Local Plan Review.
Approximately 450 Housing Needs Survey forms were distributed and 171 forms were returned.
27 respondents expressed a need for alternative housing. The specific housing needs are for;
Rented from a Housing Association
2 x 2 bedroom houses
3 x 3 bedroom houses
Shared Ownership
2 x 2 bedroom houses
1 x 3 bedroom house
Local Market Ownership
6 x 2 bedroom houses
3 x 2 bedroom bungalow
2 x 2 or 3 bedroom houses or bungalows
1 x 2 or 3 bedroom bungalows
3 x 3 bedroom houses
3 x 4 bedroom houses
Other Legislation
· Human Rights Act 1998
· Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990
· Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006
· The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010
· Localism Act 2011
· Equality Act 2010
· Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998
· Community and Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Legislation
Summary of Relevant History
None
Applicant’s Supporting Documents
Summary of statements provided by applicant:
· There is little affordable housing in the area for young families. The delivery of additional housing in Napton will help meet local needs for affordable family housing, enabling families to stay in the village and for children to continue attending the local primary school.
· Demand for the existing flats is low due to their age and design; the flats require modernisation to bring them up to current quality standards and the refurbishment of the flats is not viable. Redevelopment will provide a much greater quality of accommodation, with the added benefit of delivering and additional two dwellings.
· The final design takes into account the local needs of households in need in the parish.
· Examples are given where Planning Inspectors have given the addition of affordable housing significant and very significant weight.
· The applicant identifies environmental benefits of the development of delivering affordable housing in an area of Napton which is not at risk of flood.
List of documents:
· Design and Access Statement
· Planning Statement
· Statement of Community Involvement
Ward Member(s)
Councillor Williams: No Representation.- 23/12/2015
Parish Council
Napton Parish Council – No objection subject to amendments or further information (as detailed below)
We feel the application is a positive improvement for the existing site and therefore support in principle, but would draw attention to the following:
- tandem parking bays on both Dog Lane and St Lawrence Close builds should be amended to parallel parking bays to reduce car movements, potential erosion of the side verges on the site and in the case of Dog Lane to reduce the amount of traffic reversing into the highway as residents attempt to get the inner car out
- we are concerned about plans for managing surface water, specifically that there will be an increase in water collecting on Dog Lane and associated gullies
- the red brick and red tile combination does not blend with the appearance of the surrounding area
- need to ensure appropriate screening is provided for the large bin stores shown on the plans
- essential that plans for managing both construction and general traffic through the build keep disruption to a minimum particularly around school hours eg no deliveries to take place during school start and finish times
Third Party Responses
3 letters received.
2 letters raise an objection to the application on the following grounds:
- The St Lawrence Close block is proposed to be further back from the highway than the existing block of flats and there are concerns about over shadowing and overbearing
- Concern regarding surface water drainage
- No evidence of energy efficiency measures
- Good scheme in principle – request design alterations.
- Proposed tree in inappropriate locations
- Concerns regarding ‘loss’ of parking
1 letter supported the application on the following grounds:
- The existing flats are damp, mouldy and no tenant wants to stay there
- Young families will be housed.
Consultations
WCC Lead Local Flood Authority – No Comment provided
WCC Highways – No objection subject to 3 conditions (to control creation of access junction and visibility splays, footway crossings to be created, no gates within 7.5 of the public highway) (20/01/16)
Environment Agency – No Comment provided
Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to 1 conditions
Natural England – No comments
WCC Ecology – No Comment provided
WCC Archaeology – No objection subject to 1 conditions (requiring a WSI and programme of archaeological evaluation/mitigation) (22/01/2016)
Conservation Officer – Although there are a few designated heritage assets in the wider setting of these two (fairly close) development sites, none is sufficiently close or visually related such that there would be any meaningful harm to the setting or significance of any heritage assets, either designated on non-designated. (21/01/2016)
WCC Rights of Way – No objection
Environmental Health – No comment provided
WCC Fire & Rescue Services – No comment provided
Warwickshire Police – No objection
South Warwickshire NHS Trust – No comment provided
WCC Library Service – No Objection – no contribution request.
WCC Education – No comment provided
SDC Environmental Health – No Comment provided
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 a key material planning consideration. The emerging Core Strategy is also a material consideration.
Paragraph 14 of the NPPF sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development and for decision taking describes this as:-
• Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
• Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, granting permission unless:-
o 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,
o specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.
Whilst the Council is now in a position to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, it should be recognised that saved Policy STR.2 is out of date due to its reliance on a housing requirement set out in the now revoked Regional Strategy and its provision of a cap on planning permissions, which is not consistent with the Framework. Given that this policy is relevant to the supply of housing and is out of date, the paragraph 14 test is engaged in spite of the presence of a five year housing land supply and, concordantly, planning permission should be granted unless any harm significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits.
Housing Supply
The delivery of housing represents an important aspect of national planning policy and is given particular emphasis in order to ensure the needs of the population are met and in the interests of securing economic growth. The NPPF at paragraph 52 charges Local Planning Authorities ‘To boost significantly the supply of housing’ not only in order to achieve a 5 year housing land supply, but also to maintain a healthy ongoing supply thereafter; authorities are supported in approving sustainable housing development wherever it is proposed even if a five year housing land supply has been achieved.
The Council’s current assessment demonstrates a current level of committed housing land equating to 5.2 years supply.
It is thus no longer the case that the delivery of housing automatically has substantial weight in the planning balance. When an authority cannot demonstrate an adequate supply of housing land, substantial weight should be given to the provision of housing. However, when an adequate supply has been achieved and further approvals are simply maintaining/improving an already adequate supply, weight should be attributed to the provision of housing according to the degree to which the delivery of housing on any given site concords with the Development Plan and the provisions of the NPPF.
In all such cases the appropriate weight to afford the delivery of housing is a matter for the decision maker, however for unallocated or windfall sites (those sites not identified in the Council’s evidence base as necessary to maintain a five year housing land supply) this is likely to be less than substantial.
The delivery of affordable housing, which addresses a discreet identifiable unmet element of the District’s overall housing needs, can only be delivered where opportunity and viability allows and confers a clear public benefit in excess of that which market housing achieves. Accordingly, additional weight in excess of that which would be afforded market housing should be afforded to the delivery of such housing.