Update Report for Planning Committee (22.02.2017)

Committee Planning Manager: Karen Tate

16/03137/FUL- Land Adjacent To The Rosebird Centre, Shipston Road, Stratford-upon-Avon
Addition to Summary of Relevant History
Reference number / Proposal / Decision and date
17/00407/FUL / Formation of earth screening bund / Invalid
16/02090/FUL / Erection of extra care accommodation for the elderly, including provision of communal facilities, landscaping, access and car parking (resubmission of application 15/02654/FUL) / Granted 22.02.2017
Additional consultation response from Stratford on Avon Town Council
No representation (15.02.2017)
Additional condition
The building and its curtilage hereby permitted shall only be used for a residential care home under Use Class C2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended), or any Statutory Instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification, and not for any other use falling within Use Class C2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no change of use covered by Part 3 ClassT shall be carried out without planning permission granted by the District Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure an appropriate form of development in accordance with Policy CS.1 of the adopted Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy (2011-2031).
16/03610/FUL- Land at Spernal Lane, Great Alne
Additional verbal comments received from the Highway Authority (22.02.2017)
  • Require £6,000 to secure a Traffic Regulation Order to reduce the speed limit to 30mph outside of the application site
  • Repositioning of the gateway feature to be controlled by condition
  • Final re-wording of the highway conditions to be dealt with through delegation to officers and the Committee Chairman
Amend Recommendation to include an additional ‘subject to’ clause and additional financial contribution
It is therefore recommended that subject to:-
(b) A revised layout planshall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority incorporating an increased size of the turning area infront of plot 7 and widened carriagewayon the approach to plots 3-6 to 5.5m wide on the bend and to be agreed to the planning manager in consultation with the Highway Authority.
  • £6,000 to secure a Traffic Regulation Order to reduce the speed limit to 30mph outside of the application site.
Delete condition 21
Replace condition 22 with an archaeological condition
22. A program of archaeological to be undertaken prior to commencement of development in accordance with the submitted WSI by Warwickshire Archaeology dated June 2016.
Additional condition
23. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, details of a replacement native hedgerow along the eastern boundary abutting Spernal Lane to be submitted and implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwellings.
Vary condition 8 include the following text
Onsite bio-diversity enhancement method statement including long term management and maintenance
Vary condition 17 to include the following text ;
Detailed surface water drainage details including long term management and maintenance of the SUDS
24. Installation of new public footpath link connecting site to Nightingale Close prior to first occupation.
25. Any additional conditions as requested by the Highway Authority
16/03184/FUL -Home Farm, Barton Road, Wellford-on-Avon
WCC Highways objection received (13.02.2017):
  • The applicant’s submitted plans show a 202 metre visibility splay in an easterly direction which is unachievable due to the curvature of Barton Road.
  • A speed survey should be submitted in order to justify reduced visibility splays.
As a result of the above comments an reason for refusal 04 is amended and should be replaced with the below text:
4.The proposed development would result in a detrimental impact on the safety and operation of the public highway due to inadequate visibility from the site access and the isolated location of the site, poorly connected to existing services, which would fail to promote the use of sustainable transport methods without posing significant risks to highway safety. This would result in an unacceptable detriment to the safety and operation of the public highway at Barton Road and would place an unacceptable reliance on the use of private motor vehicles contrary to policies CS.9 and CS.26 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011-2031 (adopted July 2016).
Four third party letters of support were received:
  • R. Eynon (17.02.2017) - Supports the proposal as it would support an elderly man to stay living in his home. Houses are more preferable than the recommencement of the poultry farm. An increase in poultry numbers to an industrial level result in bad neighbor problems and problems posed by HGV movements. Houses would be a vast improvement in a discrete location.
  • E. Denmark (20.02.2017) – Supports the proposal as it would remove an eyesore and prevent the recommencement of the chicken farm which would cause more upset to local residents. The location outside of the village is better than providing more houses within the village and bungalows are much needed within the Stratford area. It is a well-designed scheme that would supply housing that is currently needed.
  • K. Dobson (Dobson Grey) (21.02.2017) –Dobson Grey has represented the site owner who for 28 years has attempted to bring the site back into a viable use. Dobson Grey has marketed the site since 2012 with no interest in the existing use. If the poultry farm use were to recommence it would result in totally unacceptable living conditions for the site owner and his neighbours. It would result in statutory nuisances from noise and odours. The Council should support the owner’s wish to remain living independently within his own home as is stated within the Council’s Charter for Independent Living.
  • A. McMahon (22.02.2017) – Supports the application as it is appropriate to increase housing numbers in Welford particularly bungalows.
It is not considered that any new material planning considerations were raised by the third party responses that have not already been considered as part of the officer assessment.
16/01860/FUL - Land adjacent to the New Inn, Cliffords Chambers
No updates.
16/03652/FUL - Heart of England Farms, Henley Road, Claverdon
The officer recommendation has not been changed, however on review of the Green Belt assessment a different approach to the proposed development has now been taken.
The below text should be read in place of the ‘Green Belt’ section within Page 79 of the 22.02.2017 West Area Planning Committee Agenda.
Green Belt
The site lies within the West Midlands Green Belt, where strict control is exercised over all forms of development, in accordance with national guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy as set out in the NPPF is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is considered inappropriate as stated in Core Strategy Policy CS.10 and paragraph 89 of the NPPF. However, there are a number of exceptions specifically referred to under Policy CS.10 and paragraph 89 of the NPPF.
The proposed building would be used for the purposes of rearing game birds for off-site shooting. The rearing of game birds for this purpose is not an agricultural operation as interpreted within Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act. 1990. In relation to the proposal Core Strategy Policy CS.10(b) it states that:
“A small-scale extension or alteration of a building or the replacement of an existing building for the same use, as long as the replacement building is not materially larger than the one it replaces.”
Paragraph 89 of the NPPF also states that the following type of development is an exception:
“the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces.”
The proposed building would have an increase in floor space of approximately 18% over and above the two existing buildings. As a result it would be materially larger (and involve the replacement of two buildings) so would fall outside of CS.10 (b) and para.89 NPPF exceptions. It would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is harmful by definition. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
The below text should be read in place of the ‘Conclusions and Planning Balance’ section on Page 81 of the 22.02.2017 West Area Planning Committee Agenda.
Green Belt Balance
As mentioned above, the proposed development has been defined as inappropriate development within the Green Belt and is therefore harmful by definition. Core Strategy Policy CS.10 states that all inappropriate development will be resisted except in cases where very special circumstances are justified in accordance with the provisions of national policy. Para.88 of the NPPF states that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. As such further assessment of the individual and cumulative considerations and benefits of the scheme is required to be undertaken in order to establish whether very special circumstances exist in this case.
The proposed building in this case would be used to provide an area for the rearing of game birds at a lower density than the existing buildings allow. Whilst the floor space would increase by approximately 18% the number of birds that would be reared within the building is expected to be increased by 10%. This increase is unlikely to result in a material increase in traffic generation, noise and odour within the context of the existing on site operations. It is acknowledged that the business has incrementally expanded over the years, but the current application must be assessed on its merits unless evidence exists to prove otherwise. There is no evidence available to me to suggest that the increase in operations that would arise from the proposed building would result in any material harm to highway safety or neighbouring amenities over and above that currently experienced from the existing use.
The existing timber buildings have no internal floor and the applicant states that they are rotten and in need of replacement. That the existing buildings are in a poor state of repair is not disputed in this case. The current condition of the buildings would go some way towards justifying the proposed replacement and it appears that no other suitable buildings are currently located within the site that would provide alternative premises for the game bird rearing operations. The existing buildings house somewhere in the region of 12,000 day old partridges reared to 12 weeks in two batches per year. The loss of these buildings in the event they become unsuitable for the existing use would result in significant harm to the existing business operations at the site.
It is also considered that replacing the buildings gives the opportunity to receive additional benefits to the business through the introduction of a better facility to allow lower density bird rearing and better control over cleanliness and disease. The applicant has not stated there are any other regulatory requirements for the replacement of the buildings, but given the nature of the operations it is reasonable to consider that there may be requirements relating to other regulatory bodies (such as Environmental Protection Legislation or DEFRA guidelines) and it is also reasonable to assume that a lower density of birds reared within a more modern building will offer improvements to the general welfare of the birds. As such, there are clear benefits to the replacement of the existing buildings.
Maintaining support and allowing small-scale expansion of the existing business in this location would accord with Core Strategy Policies AS.10 and CS.22. Whilst this is not primarily an agricultural business, it is accepted that it has a rural character and that the raising of game birds can only take place in a rural area. It is clearly a well-established business which contributes to the rural economy and local employment and I give substantial weight to this consideration.
Further to the above, the building would be seen within wider landscape as one of several large buildings all possessing an agricultural type character and appearance. It would not appear as an unduly incongruous addition to the existing site and therefore would not result in harm to the visual amenities of the locality, the Green Belt or the SLA. The only recognised harm is therefore the inappropriateness of the proposed building being materially larger than those it would replace.
Taking into account the material planning considerations, the expected benefits to the existing business and the identified harm it is my conclusion that the harm by reason of inappropriateness is clearly outweighed by very special circumstances in this case.
Conclusion
I consider that the current application should be determined in accordance with the adopted Development Plan. I can identify no material considerations that warrant an alternative approach.
Policy CS.1 states that the Council will take a positive approach to applications that reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF.
On the basis of the above considerations, and the identified compliance with Core Strategy Policies CS.4, CS.5, CS.9, CS.10, CS.12, CS.22, CS.26 and AS.10, I have concluded that the proposal is sustainable development and that the circumstances of the case as a whole are very special and the development is justified within the Green Belt.
I therefore consider that the presumption in favour of development applies in this case and that Planning Permission should be granted.
16/04078/FUL - 26 Blue Cap Road, Stratford-upon-Avon
No updates