COMMITEE REPORT

Application Reference

13/00082/FUL

Site Address 27 - 29 Stratford Road, Shipston-on-Stour, CV36 4AZ

Proposals

Demolition of two existing buildings for people with learning disabilities and the erection of 10 self contained apartments for people with learning disabilities incorporating communal areas, shared garden, parking area and all ancillary and enabling works including amended single vehicular access onto Stratford Road (Use Class C2).

Case Officer Neil Hempstead

Presenting Officer Neil Hempstead

Applicant Mr Tim Good (Orbit Homes)

Ward Member(s) Cllr. Cheney and Cllr. Kenner

Town Council Shipston-on-Stour

Reason for Referral to Committee

Scale of development

Recommendation GRANT

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL This application is seeking permission to erect a no. 10 bed independent living care home for people with learning disabilities (8 x 1 bedroom properties and 2 x 2 bedroom properties). The building will include no. 10 self contained apartments, a communal lounge area and a communal outside garden. The proposal will create an independent living apartment building that provides modern facilities to meet the needs of people with learning disabilities, within the community. The use of the development will be 100% rented accommodation, managed by Mencap but developed and owned by Orbit Homes. The redevelopment also creates spaces where the residents can interact with each other. The communal accommodation addresses the rehousing of Mencap customers who are likely to have moved from an existing ‘residential home’ environment. This allows the residents to choose the level of independence they want. The existing properties give accommodation for 7 Mencap customers at present which can be increased to 8 in an emergency situation. The new facility will allow 12 customers to live on site, following decanting into suitable accommodation within Shipston, whilst the development is built. 2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS (INCLUDING

RELEVANT PLANNING CONSTRAINTS) The application site is approximately 0.14 hectares in size and is roughly square shaped having a wide road frontage. The site currently consists of two buildings. One of these is a two storey dwelling (27 Shipston Road) built in the early 1950’s consisting of 5 bedrooms which has been adapted and altered over time to accommodate the needs of the Mencap customers. The second is a two bedroom bungalow (29 Shipston Road) also built in the early 1950’s. Both dwellings have been the subject of residential conversion and extensions over the years and they exhibit different design characteristics The immediate surroundings to the site comprise predominantly residential buildings. There is a mixture of dwellings including detached houses to the north (Old Brewery Close), semi detached houses to the west (Donnington Road) and terraced houses to the south (Donnington Road (cul de sac) and a 4 storey office building opposite on Stratford Road. In the wider area the site is located within the built up area boundary of Shipston-on-Stour and is within approximately 400m of Shipston town centre. The site fronts onto the Stratford Road (A3400) which is a public transport route which is well served by a regular bus service. 3. HISTORY/BACKGROUND 27 Stratford Road Reference Number Proposal Decision and date

82/00805/FUL Proposed double garage, kitchen and bedroom extensions.

Granted 18.11.1982

86/00406/FUL Removal of the existing sectional concrete single garage to the north side of the property and erect

Granted 07.08.1986

an attached single storey extension.

29 Stratford Road No relevant planning history 4. RELEVANT POLICY CONTEXT The Development Plan Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) RR1 Rural Renaissance RR3 Market Towns CF2 Housing beyond the Major Urban Areas CF3 Levels and Distribution of Housing Development CF5 Affordable Housing and Mixed Communities CF6 Managing Housing Land Provision QE1 Conserving and enhancing the environment QE3 Creating a high quality built environment for all Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996 - 2011 (Saved Policies) T.7 Public Transport Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 (saved policies) STR.1 Settlement Hierarchy STR.2 New Housing Provision STR.4 Previously Developed Land PR.1 Landscape and Settlement Character PR.7 Flood defence EF.6 & EF.7 Nature Conservation and Geology EF.9 & EF.10 Trees, woodland and hedgerows EF.11 Archaeological sites DEV.1 Layout and Design DEV.2 Landscaping DEV.3 Amenity Space DEV.4 Access DEV.5 Car Parking DEV.6 Services DEV.7 Drainage DEV.8 Energy Conservation DEV.9 Access for people with disabilities DEV.10 Crime Prevention COM.1 Local Choice COM.4 Open Space COM.5 Open Space COM.9 Walking and Cycling COM.14 Mix of dwelling types COM.15 Accessible Housing COM.17 Rural Employment IMP.1 Supporting Information IMP.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance I am satisfied that having regard to Paragraph 215 of the NPPF, the Local Plan Review policies I have listed are generally compliant with the NPPF.

Other Material Considerations Central Government Guidance National Planning Policy Framework 2011 and associated technical guidance notes Circular 02/99: Environmental Impact Assessment Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2008 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Circular 03/1999: Use of non-mains drainage Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 The Planning System: General Principles (ODPM 2005) The plan for growth produced by HM Treasury (March 2011) (Executive Summary) and Letter to Chief Planning Officers RE: the plan for Growth dated 31 March 2011. Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents Meeting Housing Needs 2008 Car and Cycle Parking Standards 2007 Sustainable Low Carbon Buildings 2007 Provision of Open Space 2005 Stratford on Avon District Design Guide 2002 Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines 1993 Cotswold ANOB Management Plan Local Choice – meeting the needs of Rural Communities Other Documents Shipston Town Plan 2008-2013 PPG17 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Assessment and Playing Pitch Strategy (Arup, April 2011) District Council Statement of Community Involvement Extending Your Home: Planning Advice Note Planning and Community Safety - Design and Crime Reduction 2006: Planning Advice Note Corporate Strategy 2011-2015 Sustainable Community Strategy Core Strategy Cabinet Paper 16 January 2012. Water Cycle Study Draft Core Strategy 2012 SDC Housing Strategy 2009-2014: Review 2012 Action Plan. County Council Transport and Roads for Developments: The Warwickshire Guide 2001 Local Transport Plan 3 (2011-2026) Rights of Way and Recreational Highway Strategy 2011-2026

Other Manual for Streets 2007 Manual for Streets 2 – Wider Application of the Principles 2010 By Design: Better Places to Live 2001 Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention 2004 Other Legislation Human Rights Act 1998 Equality Act 2010 Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Flood and Water Management Act 2010 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Localism Act 2011 CIL Legislation 5. APPLICANT’S COMMENTS The applicant has provided the following statement in respect of the planning application A full planning application has been submitted on behalf of Orbit Homes and Heart of England Mencap in support of a full planning application at 27-29 Stratford Road, Shipston-on-Stour for the demolition of two existing buildings for people with learning disabilities and the erection of 10 self contained apartments (Use Class C2) for people with learning disabilities incorporating communal areas, shared garden, parking area and all ancillary and enabling works including single vehicular access onto Stratford Road. The existing dwellings of 27 and 29 Stratford Road, Shipston-on-Stour are no longer adequate to cater for the continued needs of adults with learning difficulties in the Shipston-on-Stour area. Over the past couple of years the Mencap have investigated ways in which their existing facilities can be improved in terms of the accommodation and the level of care it provides. They concluded that the most feasible and economic solution was to redevelop the site where a purpose built facility could be provided that meets the current requirements of care provision. The proposed redevelopment of 27-29 Stratford Road has been the subject of a series of pre-application discussions and meetings with Planning and Design Officers at Stratford-on-Avon District Council. Warwickshire County Council, as Highways authority have also been approached for their pre-application comment. The proposed indicative layout includes the development of 8no. 1 and 2 no. 2 bedroom flats. The existing site access from Stratford Road will be utilised but altered to allow access both in and out of the development to the right hand side of the plot adjacent to Old Brewery Close. The proposed layout includes the retention of trees and hedgerows where possible and the provision of additional landscaping especially to the south and the west along the rear boundaries with Donnington Road, which will enhance the development. The scale of development has been split across the site using a single storey element for the communal facility and a 1.5 to 2 storey section on the site of Rosedale Cottage for the residential accommodation.

The building will be predominantly brick with careful brick detailing at the eaves and to the gable ends. Large section timber has been chosen for the window detailing and the conservatory to further enhance the barn character of the building. Large windows to the living rooms in the apartments maximise light to the deep plan spaces with higher sill heights given to the bedrooms to allow for privacy whilst ensuring visual ability for wheelchair users. Further details are included in the Design and Access Statement. Access to the site is to be taken from the existing access point serving the site from Stratford Road, with some minor alterations. A total of 4 car parking spaces are provided to the front of the site, including one disabled space, in a landscaped setting, breaking up the space and softening the appearance of the car park. The number of car parking spaces has been agreed in the Highways Authority ‘No Objection’ response. The proposals have had regard to the NPPF, relevant Development Plan policies contained in the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands, the Draft Preferred Options document, the adopted Stratford-on-Avon Local Plan Review (2006), and emerging Core Strategy. 6. TOWN COUNCIL Support the application for the following reasons: 1. The development is sustainable under the National Panning Policy Framework in that it will: a. contribute to the local economy by providing additional employment during construction b. Provide ongoing employment opportunities to local people c. Potentially support local traders and suppliers d. Provide required specialist housing 2. We believe that the proposed development meets the appropriate criteria under policies DEV.l and PR.l with respect to layout, design and respecting the character of the area. 3. We are happy that the proposed landscaping meets criteria under DEV.2. 4. Overall, we are happy that all design, access and landscaping features are appropriate for a development of this type. Additionally we feel that this proposed development will meet the future needs of Shipston on Stour as it continues to grow and develop. We have discussed the proposed development with the Medical Centre who do not object to it (19.02.2013).

7. WARD MEMBERS Councillor Cheney Supports the application: I support this application as, according to the evidence submitted, there is a need for this specific type of accommodation and the use it is intended for. However, I think that due concern should be given to the concerns of the nearby residents regarding possible overlooking of their properties. Therefore I would ask that the case officer does carefully consider the relationship between the existing properties and the new building (10.02.2013).

8. THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS 7 letters of objection received (including 2 copies of the same letter – 6 separate letters received) on the following planning grounds: • Overlooking from proposed windows • Loss of privacy • Loss of light • Overshadowing • Detrimental impact on wildlife • Lack of parking • Out of character with the surrounding area • Increase amount of noise from occupants using the garden and increased

number of staff • Disruption from building works/demolition • Would all occupants satisfy the Mencap Criteria Objections also received on the following non-planning grounds: • Loss of view • Devalue existing properties • 29 Shipston Road bequeathed to Mencap – were any conditions placed on

this that would prevent the demolition of the bungalow? • Sale of the properties could be use to used to purchase a more appropriate

site for the development. Grants included by Orbit would not then have to include demolition costs.

1 letter of support on the following planning grounds: • Satisfied that steps have been taken to mitigate the overlooking and

overshadowing effects. • Trees and boundary treatment should be protected as provide screening

and wildlife habitat. 9. CONSULTATIONS Tim Willis – Warwickshire County Council – Strategic Commissioning (Care and Choice Accommodation) Programme Lead. Fully support the application for a much-needed housing with care scheme suitable for adults with learning disabilities within the Town of Shipston on Stour 01.03.2013). Stratford District Council Development and Enabling Officer Strongly support the application. Fundamental to the scheme is the concept of the provision of self-contained residential accommodation for residents to facilitate independent living in accordance with District and County Council Strategies. It would replace the existing accommodation of the site, which is no longer considered fit for purpose , whilst at the same time slightly increasing the overall number of households for which the scheme can cater. Consider the scheme to be highly accessible and sustainable (13.02.2013)

WCC Highways Initial response: Objection. Proposed parking provision falls below the Local Authorities parking standard for this development. Concerns are that if there are that if there is inadequate parking within the site , this would lead to drivers of cars associated with the site (visitors or staff) parking within the limits of the public highway which would create an obstruction to the free flow of traffic on the public highway to the detriment of highway safety. Further evidence/date needs to be submitted to justify the significant reduced level of car parking spaces (30.01.2013). Further comments made following receipt of further information from applicant:Additional information has been submitted to further explain the operation of the site in terms of staff and to claify the points raised in our initial response dated 30.10.2013. The proposed staff number would be 10 although it is understood that the staff levels on site is staggered depending on the requirments of the residents. Therefore compared to other similar sites,the anticipated maximum staffing levels at ony one time would eb in the region of 4 staff. The Highways Authority are satisfied that the development is unlikely to result in on-street parking of cars by staff and withdraw the initial objkection subject to the imposition of conditions. (15.02.2013) Police Architectural Liaison Officer No objections to the proposal. Ask that consideration is given to window and door details and boundary fencing to ensure that the occupants are not victims of crime or anti-social behaviour (01.02.2013) Severn Trent Water No objection subject to conditions relating to surface and foul water drainage (23.01.2013) Environment Agency No comments to make given the site is over 20m away from the rivers Stour flood plain and is therefore at low risk from flooding (24.01.2013) WCC Ecology No objections subject to imposition of conditions relating to further bat survey of the site; Development shall be timetabled and carried out to wholly accord with the submitted Arboricultural Survey; Development shall a) be timetabled to be carried out to avoid the bird breeding season b) not commence until a qualified ecologist has been appointed by the applicant to inspect the buildings and vegetation to be to be cleared on site for evidence of nesting birds immediately prior to works. Notes recommended in respect of bats; False Virginia creeper; ground clearance; bird and bat boxes and indigenous planting (12.02.2013) WCC Archaeology No representation (24.01.213)

WCC Drainage No objection but advise that tests are undertaken to establish the best drainage system of the site and that regular maintenance is undertaken and that details relating to both are submitted (21.02.2013). 10. ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES Principle of Development The formal development plan comprises the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy 2004, which incorporated the Phase 1 revision (the Black Country Study) in 2008, the saved policies of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review (adopted in 2006) and the saved policies of the Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996-2011. Given the government’s intention to abolish Regional Spatial Strategies, through the Localism Act, the RSS remains a material consideration but only of very limited weight at this time.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Local Planning Authority to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan, unless there are material circumstances which ‘indicate otherwise’. Section 70(2) provides that in determining applications the Local Planning Authority “shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application and to any other material considerations.” Paragraph 215 of the NPPF states that the Council can still give due weight to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework. Local Plan Review The application site lies in the built up area boundary of Shipston-on-Stour which is classified as a Main Rural Centre in the settlement hierarchy of saved adopted policy STR.1. There is no specific policy in the Local Plan Review relating to care provision. However it is normally categorized within Use Class C2 and assessed under the housing policies of the Local Plan and I am satisfied that the use of these premises by Mencap falls with the C2 Use Class. Saved policies STR.1 and STR.4 of the Local Plan Review set out a hierarchy of settlements and list criteria for the purposes of controlling and regulating development. These policies state that new housing development will be permitted on sites allocated for development in the Local Plan and as brownfield windfall development in Stratford and the designated Main Rural Centres. The settlement hierarchy policy has the principle of sustainable development at its heart and is therefore considered to be consistent with the NPPF which outlines a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Policy STR.4 of the Local Plan is also considered to be consistent with the NPPF which encourages the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed. The site is located within the built up area boundary of Shipston-on-Stour where housing development is acceptable in principle in accordance with the provisions of the settlement hierarchy Policy STR.1.

Need for the development/Draft Core Strategy Although carrying limited weight it is also recognised that Policy CS19 is included in the third draft of the Core Strategy which relates to this type of development, and the following section of this report addresses the issue of whether there is an identified need for this specific proposal. The applicants have submitted a ‘Planning Statement’ which includes a Statement of Need from Tim Willis the County Council’s Care and Choice Programme Lead. This concludes that there is a clear and identified need for this type of accommodation in the District. The application is therefore based on this specific need of care units. “Warwickshire County Council provides a strategic and local approach to the care needs of Stratford District. On 22 May 2008, the WCC Cabinet approved the Care and Choice Accommodation Programme (CACAP) strategic framework, which details how WCC aims to modernise and reshape services, for people in need of care by making them more responsive to the needs of these people, their families and carers. The number of Stratford residents with learning difficulties is expected to increase slightly over the next few years.” WCC’s preferred response is through provision of supported independent living accommodation as they are seeking to phase out all residential care homes. This application proposes no. 10 independent apartments within the building with shared facilities and a shared garden in the grounds. The development is not proposed as an ‘Extra Care development’ but rather as an independent living solution that provides care if required. This statement of needs states, amongst others, that: ‘Within Warwickshire, approximately 300 Warwickshire County Council customers with learning difficulties are currently living in residential care, and in order to provide an alternative, the County council has a programme in place to deliver no less than 200 apartments, that are suitable for adults with learning difficulties , including an initial shot term target of 25 apartments per annum between 2011 and 215 in line with the County council’s Transformation agenda, i.e. there is a move away from commissioning additional residential care. In addition several customers currently living within the family home environment e.g. those making the transition from children to adult services, could also benefit from supported living accommodation as an alternative to a residential care placement. This include service users with elderly carers who are finding it increasingly hard to cope and who could therefore share and have their individual needs met with a supported living environment. Looking at the 214 people in the District in receipt of services from WCC, those who would be first approached re: move to extra care would be the 62 currently living in residential care (and bear in mind WCC is seeking to phase out all residential care) and then say 50% of the remaining 152 (approx. 76) who can be assumed to be currently living with their main carer (this could be parents or partner). Finally we would then look at those already living independently (again approximately. 76), who may want to consider extra care as a more appropriate housing with care option, which has not previously been available – for example how many of these are living in hard to let properties, are the victims of abuse, e.g. hate/mate crime etc. It should also be noted that our Needs Analysis work has identified that there are 459 people with Learning disabilities with either Severe or Moderate needs living in the Stratford-on-Avon District, which includes the 214 people currently in receipt of services from WCC. It is not unreasonable

to assume that some of the remaining 245 people may wish to consider extra care as a housing option’. I am therefore satisfied that there is a need for the proposed development. The applicant has stated that although the current facility at Stratford Road provides outstanding care for people with learning difficulties its size and age are now severely restricting the services that can be offered to the local community. This facility is based at two former dwellings which are over 60 years old that have had a number of extensions over this period. A new facility is therefore required that can provide improved care with 10 rooms in a modern, purpose built building. National Planning Policy Framework The NPPF puts an emphasis on the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The definition of sustainable development includes economic, social and environmental considerations. Environmental - The proposed development is located within easy walking distance of the local shops and services available in Shipston-on –Stour which is itself is also well served by local transport networks. I consider the proposals are environmentally sustainable in that respect. Economic - The economic benefits in terms of employment generation are considered to be of substantial weight. I consider the proposals are economically sustainable in this respect. Social – The proposal provides accommodation for persons with learning disabilities and enables integration with town life. The need for the accommodation is proven and I consider that the proposals are socially sustainable in this respect. Conclusion on principle of development The proposals seek to provide accommodation for persons with learning disabilities in a form that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. I am also satisfied that in this particular case there is clear evidence of need for this development. In my opinion, these relevant Local Plan Review policies are in general conformity with the NPPF and taking into account its presumption in favour of sustainable development, I conclude that the economic, social and environmental roles of sustainable development are clearly met. In my opinion, based on the conclusions of the above considerations and having regard to the following issues outlined below, the development is considered to be acceptable in principle. Visual Impact and layout Policy PR.1 and DEV.1 require development to have regard to the character and layout of the area. Layout The proposed building addresses the Stratford Road and is accessed for either the new driveway or a separate footpath. The car parking is set to the front of the

communal facilities to alleviate any disturbance from the cars to the resident’s accommodation. The requirements of the building have been set out from a central entrance core. On entering the building the visitors are welcomed by communal space, controlled by the staff office’ leading out through to a conservatory which in turn gives views through the building into the private rear south west garden. I consider that the proposed garden is an acceptable size to serve the proposed development. Turning left on entering the building leads through to the residential wing of the building. Refuse and recycling will be through the use of 2 Euro bins that will be accommodated within the building envelope, adjacent to the car parking. This will allow refuse vehicles to reverse onto the site for emptying and level access around the site will assist in the manoeuvring of the bins. The layout has been discussed with the Police Architectural Liaison officer with the aim of achieving Secure by Design who has raised no objection in respect of the proposed development. I consider that the layout of the proposed development is acceptable and will not have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding residents as covered later in the committee report. Scale of Development There is a mix of scales of existing residential development around the site with the main three boundaries adjoining the application site being two storey and the existing Victorian warehouse opposite the site being 4 storey in height amongst two storey residential dwellings. The Stratford Road itself, in the immediate vicinity, is flanked by two storey dwellings which changes towards the centre of Shipston from single storey to three storey and from domestic to the Ellen Badger Nursery. The scale of the development has been split across the site from using a single storey element for the communal facility and a 2-2.5 storey section on the site of the existing 2 storey dwelling for the residential accommodation. This was in response to comments received from both the District Planning Authority and neighbouring residential properties during the pre application consultation period that was undertaken. In light of the above I consider that the scale of the development is acceptable. However, I consider that it is appropriate to impose a condition requiring details of the final finished floor levels to be submitted to the District Planning Authority for final approval. Appearance of development The applicant has stated that the mixture of vernacular styles, building types and massing surrounding the site has allowed for a development to be put forward that sits into its context but maximises the developable area of the site. Drawing from the local historical vernacular the and Shipston’s rural context, the proposal suggests as a collection of barn buildings, using materials and a mix of building heights to enhance the proposal. Roof pitches and dropped eaves are proposed to replicate the styling found in the adjoining Old Brewery Close and within Shipston on Stour’s historic landmarks.

The building will be predominantly brick with careful brick detailing to the eaves and gable ends. Large section timber has been chosen for the window detailing and the conservatory to further enhance the barn character of the building. Large windows to the living rooms in the apartments maximise light to the deep plan spaces with higher still heights given to the bedrooms to allow for privacy whilst ensuring visual ability for wheelchair users. In light of the above I consider that subject to the imposition of conditions to control the materials used and the large scale details of windows, verge and eaves etc I consider that the appearance of the development will be acceptable. Overall I am satisfied that the proposal respects and enhances the character of the area having regard to the provisions of Policy DEV.1 and PR.1 and therefore accords with Paragraph 58 of the NPPF. Landscaping The landscaping for the scheme is based predominantly on the existing mature planting. The front garden will retain the existing hedge with the gaps, created from the reorganisation of the pedestrian and vehicle access, in filled with matching species. The existing trees and shrubs to the front of the building will be retained with a grassed area creating a semi private garden space to the front apartments. The side boundaries are proposed to remain, with the with new close boarded timber fencing to a height of 2m provided to replace the existing rear timber fencing. The existing trees and shrubs to the rear and side boundaries will remain. However, applicant has confirmed that the existing rear garden fir trees and hedge are to be removed following consultation with the adjoining neighbours to be replace with two new trees and a shrub border to increase the privacy. Raised beds have been proposed for the growing of vegetables, flowers etc to encourage all residents to get involved. A “Wander loop” (i.e. a pathway) allows the residents access to all areas and of the garden linking to the proposed patio and gazebo area, giving a shaded area for sitting. The hard landscaping to the development proposed will be bound gravel to the parking, with the demarcation of the of the parking bays and the footpath created with differing coloured stone set. Concrete slabs will be used to the rear garden patio and access path around the building defining the different usages of the surfaces. The wander loop is proposed to be surfaced in bound gravel. Subject to the imposition of conditions requiring details of the proposed hard an soft landscaping to be submitted to and approved by the District Planning Authority I consider that the landscaping proposed for the site is acceptable and that the development therefore is in accordance with Policies PR.1 and DEV.2 and paragraph 58 of the NPPF. Impact on Neighbouring Properties Given the comments received from some of the adjoining residents (from properties in Donnington Road and Donnington Road (Cul de Sac) and the fact that the site is bounded by existing residential properties on three sides I have given very careful consideration to the potential impact on adjoining residential properties.

The applicant undertook consultation with the neighbouring residential properties prior to the planning application being submitted in order that any concerns regarding the potential impact of the development could be taken into account. Impact on properties in Donnington Road The nearest affected properties are considered to be the two pairs of semi-detached properties- 32/34 and 36/38 Donnington Road. These are two storey properties the rear elevations of which will face the development. In order to try and address the possible impact of the property on the existing residents of Donnington Road the applicant has designed the layout so that the building is ‘angled away’ from the rear boundary. In addition the rear part of the building has been kept at a maximum height of 9m to reduce the overall scale of the development when viewed from Donnington Road. The nearest affected of these properties is considered to be 32/34 Donnington Road. The District Council’s does not have any adopted standards in terms of separation distances between properties. However, the District Council’s advice note (‘Extending your home) gives advice in respect of separation distances and extensions and this provides useful thresholds that can be used in this instance. In respect of 32 Donnington Road I have taken into account that a first floor extension has been added to the rear of the property. The separation distance at the nearest point is approximately 17m – when measured from the corner of the property directly east to the proposed development or 18m when measured at the angle from the property towards the development. I note that this is below the suggested distance separation of 21m (back to back) as stated in the Extending your home document. However, it is only the extension of 32 Donnington Road that is below this distance separation with the rest of the property in excess of the 21 metres separation distance when measured from the rear elevation to the development. In addition this part of the building is not proposed to be any nearer to 32 Donnington Road than the existing two storey building. Given that the first floor window serves a bedroom I consider that, on balance, the separation distance is acceptable and will not be overbearing. I have also considered the two and a half storey element of the building (front part) where a distance separation of in excess of 27m can be achieved. In light of this I do not consider that this part of the building will be overbearing to the occupiers of 32 Donnington Road. In respect of 34 and 36/38 Donnington Road in light of the distance separation that can be achieved (in excess of 21m for the two storey element and 27m for the 2.5 storey element) I do not consider that the development will be overbearing to these properties. In assessing this I have given careful consideration to the fact that the proposed development will be higher than the existing dwellings and also wider. It should be noted that the rear part of the building nearest to Donnington Road is not proposed to be higher that the existing two storey building on the site with the single storey element slightly higher than the existing bungalow on the site. I have also given close consideration to the issue of overlooking. I acknowledge that there will be more windows overlooking the property than currently exist in respect of the two existing properties. The District Council’s ‘Extending your Home’ advice note states that there should be a minimum separation of 10m from windows looking towards neighbour gardens (near to their house). The development achieves a minimum separation distance of approximately 9.4m to the rear boundary with Donnington Road at the closest point extending to approximately 15.2m to the boundary for the two storey rear element of the

house (the single storey rear element achieves a maximum separation distance of approximately 20.4m to the rear boundary). In light of the separation distance that can be achieved, and taking into account that fact that there will be an increase in the number of windows in the rear elevation – of which 3 will be larger than the other 4 proposed windows to accommodate wheelchair users – I do not consider that there will be a significantly detrimental impact on the amenity of residents of Donnington Road in terms of overlooking. In terms of loss of Daylight and sunlight the proposed development will be located to the east of the properties on Donnington Road. There may be some loss of sunlight in the morning. However, given the proposed separation distances I do not consider that there will be a significantly detrimental impact on the residents of Donnington Road in terms of loss of sunlight and daylight. Impact on properties in Donnington Road (Cul de Sac) I have carefully considered the impact of the proposed development on the residents of Donnington Road Cul de Sac. The nearest affected properties are considered to be 30-20 Donnington Road. Cul de sac. These are two storey properties the rear elevations of which will face the development. The properties tht will be facing directly onto the south gable end of the development will be 20-26 Donnington Road cul de sac These properties will face the gable end elevation of the proposed development. The District Council’s advice note states that there should be a minimum separation distance of 13m for 1.5 - 2 storey extensions and 16m for 2.5 or 3 storey extensions. The proposal will achieve a separation distance of between approximately 16m and 16.4m for the two storey element and approximately 17m for the two and a half storey element of the proposed development. Given this separation distance I do not consider that the proposal will be unacceptably overbearing to the properties in Donnington Road Cul de Sac. In terms of overlooking a full height widow is proposed to ground and first floor level in this gable elevation that will serve corridors. Whilst I consider that the erection of boundary treatment will obscure views at ground floor level there will be the potential for overlooking at first floor level given that is serves a communal corridor. In light of this I consider that it is appropriate to impose a condition requiring this window to be obscure glazed. Subject to the imposition of this condition I do not consider that the proposal would have a detrimental impact in terms of overlooking to the residents of Donnington Road cul de sac. In terms of loss of Daylight and sunlight the proposed development will be located to the north of the properties on Donnington Road cul de sac. There may be some loss of sunlight in the early morning. However, given the proposed separation distances I do not consider that there will be a significantly detrimental impact on the residents of Donnington Road in terms of loss of sunlight and daylight. Impact on properties in Brewery Close Through the consultation process undertaken by the applicant prior to the submission of the planning application the applicant has taken on board the

concerns of residents in Old Brewery Close particularly in respect of possible overbearing issues. The nearest affect property would be 1 Old Brewery Close. In order to reduce the impact on this property the building steps down to a singles storey height with the roof hipped away from the boundary. Given the distance separation between 1 Old Brewery close and the 2 storey element of the propose building (approximately 18.6m from the nearest part of the 2.5 storey roof to the boundary with 1 Old Brewery Close) I do not consider that the proposed development will be overbearing to this property. The nearest building to the boundary of the development is a garage block with no windows in the boundary facing onto the development site. In terms of overlooking the only windows in the side elevation facing onto Brewery Close will be located at ground floor level and I consider that these will be screened by existing/proposed boundary treatment and as such will not result in overlooking of 1 Old Brewery Close. In terms of loss of daylight and sunlight the proposed development will be located to the south of the properties on Old Brewery Close. There may be some loss of sunlight in the late afternoon/ evening to 1 Old Brewery Close in particular. However, given the proposed separation distances I do not consider that there will be a significantly detrimental impact on the residents of Old Brewery Close in terms of loss of sunlight and daylight. I have also carefully considered the impact of the proposal on the residents of Warwick House Old Brewery Close and consider that the points referred to above in relation to 1 Old Brewery Close also relate to this property and that there will not be a detrimental impact on the residents of this property also. In assessing the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining residents I have taken into account fully the levels of the site. The applicant has confirmed that the finished floor level of the proposed building will be very similar to the existing building. The actual proposed finished floor levels can be secured by condition. Overall therefore I consider that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of adjoining residents and that the proposal would accord with policies DEV.1 and PR.8 of the Local Plan Review and the requirement of the NPPF subject to the imposition of conditions. Noise and Disturbance. I acknowledge that objection has been raised in respect of increased noise and disturbance from residents using the communal garden. However, the number of residents is only proposed to increase from 7/8 to 12. I do not consider that this increase in the number of residents will result in a significantly detrimental increase in the amount of noise and disturbance that will be experienced by the adjoining residential properties. In addition to this I am also satisfied that the occupants of the building will not suffer from noise and disturbance from traffic using the A3400. The existing buildings, that are not built to the same high standards as the proposed development, do not suffer undue noise and disturbance from the existing traffic using the A3400. I note that the bin storage area is located in close proximity to the boundary with 1 Old Brewery Close. Two euro bins will be kept here. I do not consider that the

use of this storage area for the bins will be so intensively used that it will result in noise disturbance to the nearest adjoining residential premises. In addition to this given that the bins will be kept in an enclosed storage area I do not consider that the proposal will give rise to issues regarding smells to the adjoining residential properties. I note that the car parking area is to be located adjacent to the boundary with Old Brewery Close. However, given the relatively small number of car parking spaces and traffic movements associated with the use I do not consider that the proposal will have a detrimental impact in terms of noise or fumes from the Car parking area. Overall in relation to noise and disturbance I consider that the proposal would accord with policies DEV.1 and PR.8 of the Local Plan Review and the requirement of the NPPF subject to the imposition of conditions. Drainage The applicant has submitted a drainage strategy with the application Surface water drainage Surface water from the proposed development wil discharge into the surface water sewer located in the Stratford Road. Surface water will be attenuated to ensure that the rate of runoff does not increase as a result of the proposed redevelopment. Proposals are to design the storm water drainage system to accommodate storms up to the 1 in 100 year event and allow for increase in storm intensities up to 30% . If soakaways are proposed they shall be designed not to flood for a 1 in 100 year rainfall event plus an allowance of 30% for climate change. In addition where required further surface water management shall be provided to ensure that protection against flooding is provided for a 1 in 100 year storm event plus an allowance of 30% for climate change, in the form of off line underground surface water attenuation. The applicant has confirmed that a full maintenance scheme will be established for those elements not being offered for adoption. I am satisfied that subject to the imposition of a condition requiring details of surface water drainage system to be submitted to and approved by the District Planning authority that surface water drainage can be satisfactorily assessed. The Environment Agency, Severn Trent and WCC drainage have raised no objection in respect of surface water drainage. Foul water drainage The applicant has confirmed that the proposed development will continue to discharge into the foul water sewer located in Stratford road as per the existing buildings on site. The Environment Agency, Severn Trent and WCC drainage have raised no objection in respect of foul water drainage. The applicant has confirmed that a full maintenance scheme will be established for those elements not being offered for adoption. In light of the comments received from both the Environment Agency, Seven Trent and WCC drainage, I consider that an acceptable drainage strategy for both surface water and foul sewage treatment can be achieved subject to the

conditions requested by Severn Trent and WCC drainage. I am therefore satisfied this accords with paragraph 103 of the NPPF. Ecology Subject to the imposition of the following conditions and notes as requested by Warwickshire County Council Ecology I do not consider that the proposal will have a detrimental impact on issues of local ecological importance. Conditions: Development shall be timetabled and carried out to wholly accord with the submitted Arboricultural Survey; Development shall a) be timetabled to be carried out to avoid the bird breeding season b) not commence until a qualified ecologist has been appointed by the applicant to inspect the buildings and vegetation to be to be cleared on site for evidence of nesting birds immediately prior to works. Notes recommended in respect of bats; False Virginia creeper; ground clearance; bird and bat boxes and indigenous planting. I am satisfied that these are reasonable and will help ensure protected species are not adversely affected by the development having regard to Policy EF.7 and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Archaeology Warwickshire County Council Archaeology department have not raised any objections in respect of issues relating to archaeology and no conditions in respect of this are required. I consider that the development accords with Local Plan policy EF.11 and paragraph 128 of the NPPF. Energy Conservation An energy statement has been submitted which states that renewable technologies will be incorporated into the development as well as other energy saving measures. I am satisfied that the proposed measures shown (solar panels) will achieve the required 10% energy from renewables. This can be secure by the imposition of a condition. In addition the applicant has confirmed that it is the aim of the scheme that the building will be built to Code level 4. The strategy to achieve this will be ‘Passive First’ using a construction that gives a high level of insulation. Overall I am satisfied that subject to the additional information being submitted, the development will be compliant with Policy DEV.8 and the Low Carbon Buildings SPD. Highway Safety Policy DEV.4 requires that new access to development respects and maintains the safety of all other highway users. Policy DEV.5 requires the car parking associated with development to meet the Authority’s maximum parking standards and to avoid increasing highway danger. The County Highway Officer raised an objection initially regarding the parking provision stating that if there is inadequate parking within the site, this would lead to drivers of cars associated with the site (visitors or staff) parking within the

limits of the public highway which would create an obstruction to the free flow of traffic on the public highway to the detriment of highway safety. In light of this further evidence/data was requested to be submitted to justify the significant reduced level of car parking spaces. The applicant has confirmed that the proposed development will provide supported living accommodation to people who require additional support to enable them to live independently. Mencap provides support to people with learning disabilities and as such the residents do not own or drive cars. This is an important factor in assessing the parking requirements of the site. The proposed redevelopment which is an expansion of an existing care facility will have a C2 planning use class. Maximum car parking standards have been produced by Stratford-on-Avon District Council which stipulate that accommodation for people in need of care should be provided with a maximum of:

• 1 car parking space per member of staff plus • 1 car parking space per 4 residents

The proposed redevelopment will provide accommodation for 12 residents in 10 rooms supported with a maximum staff provision at anytime on the site of 4. This therefore equates to a maximum car parking requirement of 7 car parking spaces i.e. 1 x 4 = 4 for staff plus 12/4x1 = 3 for residents. The existing site can provide accommodation for up to 8 residents with a maximum on site staffing provision of 3. Utilising Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s parking standards the existing development could be expected to provide a maximum car parking provision of 5 i.e. 1 x 3 = 3 for staff plus 8/4x1 = 2 for residents. Mencap operate a number of residential care homes and have provided information for 5 similar sites providing supported living and respite care at sites including Studley and Southam. It can be seen that the parking provision for the proposed redevelopment of a supported living home is broadly similar to the Studley and Southam sites. It should also be noted that none of the developments provides 1 space per 1.7 residents (based on the proposed development staff and resident numbers) which would be required to provide the maximum number of car parking spaces in line with Stratford-on-Avon District Council’s parking guidance. The applicant has stated that generally Mencap’s employees are employed from the local area and therefore are more likely to utilise sustainable forms of transport. In this respect It should be noted that the whole of Shipston-on-Stour is located within a 2km walking distance of the site which is recognised as the preferred maximum walking distance for commuting journeys within the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) publication ‘Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot’ (2000). Therefore all of Shipston-on-Stour is also located within a 5km distance of the proposed redevelopment and therefore offers opportunities for cycling to work. I acknowledge that the proposed development provides fewer car parking spaces than the maximum allowable provision within the supplementary guidance. However, the parking provision proposed is broadly in line with similar Mencap operated supported living and respite care homes. The proposed development is also located within walking and cycling distance of all residential dwellings within Shipston-on-Stour and therefore offers adequate opportunities for sustainable journeys to and from the development.

WCC highways have commented on this additional information submitted by the applicant and concluded that, in this particular instance, that a sufficient amount of car parking will be provided on site. However, in order to ensure that sufficient car parking is provided on site I consider that it is appropriate to condition the use to a residential care home within the C2 Use Class only. I also consider that space is available to accommodate an adequate amount of cycle parking on site also. I consider that the provisions of Policies DEV.4 and DEV.5 are complied with and that the proposal will not cause a detriment to highway safety. Housing Mix and Accessibility The District Councils Development and Enabling Officer has confirmed that he is satisfied that the size and mix of unit types is appropriate given the specialised nature of the of the scheme and that the size of the units coupled with the overall scheme design should result in a high standard of accessibility. Other Matters Contributions WCC Education and Libraries confirmed to the application prior to the application being submitted that no contributions would be required in respect of the planning application. No other contributions have been requested during the course of the planning application. Conclusions The proposals seek to provide accommodation for persons with learning disabilities in a form that is environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. In addition, support for the principle of development has been received from Ward Member and the Town Council. I am also satisfied that in this particular case there is clear evidence of need for this development. In my opinion, the development is in general conformity with the NPPF taking into account its presumption in favour of sustainable development because I conclude that the economic, social and environmental roles of sustainable development are clearly met. The housing provisions of the Local Authority are considered to be met having regard to Policies STR.1, STR.2 and STR.4. The provision of these units would provide a much needed facility and has support from the Town Council and Ward Member in line with saved policy COM.1 of the Local Plan Review. I consider the proposed access from Shipston Road to be appropriate in terms of highway safety. There is a need to control the detail of the scheme through the imposition of conditions. I therefore see no reason to object to the proposed development on this ground, having regard to policies DEV.4, DEV.5, COM.7 and COM.9 of the Local Plan Review and the guidance contained in the NPPF. I conclude that the layout and design of the development is acceptable and that the technical standards for the provision of parking provision, open space and other associated matters have been achieved. Appropriate conditions will need to be imposed to control the specific details of the development. I therefore

consider that these elements of the application are acceptable and in accordance with policies PR.1, DEV.1, DEV.2 and COM.14 of the Local Plan Review and the guidance contained in the NPPF. In terms of surface water and foul water drainage the scheme I consider that this can be controlled by the imposition of a condition. No objection has been raised by Severn Trent, Environment Agency and WCC drainage. I therefore raise no objection to this aspect of the proposal, having regards to policies DEV.7 and PR.7 of the Local Plan Review and the requirements of the NPPF and accompanying Technical Guidance Document. The effect of the proposals on the amenities of neighbours has been carefully considered and the layout and design of the scheme should ensure that the amenity of surrounding residents is safeguarded. I therefore consider that the proposals would not have any unacceptable harmful effects and generally accord with Policies DEV.1 and PR.8 of the Local Plan Review. Issues relating to ecology sustainable development can be suitably addressed by the imposition of conditions. I do not consider that there will be a detrimental impact on any issues of archaeological importance. In dealing with this application, Stratford on Avon District Council has actively sought to work with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner, in accordance with paragraphs 186 and 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 11. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Manager be authorised to issue the formal Notice of Decision GRANTING planning permission, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording of which is delegated to officers: 1. 3 year time limit 2. Plans to which decision relates for the avoidance of doubt 3. External materials to be submitted (roof and walls) 4. Large scale details including eaves, verges, windows and doors 5. Notwithstanding the details included in the submitted Arboricultural report

a scheme of Tree and hedgerow protection to be submitted together with a timetable for implementation and details of the trees to be removed.

6. Notwithstanding the details submitted details of 10% energy saving

measures through use of renewables to be submitted 7. Provision of Euro bins 8. Provision of cycle parking 9. Provisions of water butts 10. Shall only be used as independent living accommodation within the C2 use

class and for no other purpose within the C2 use Class. 11. Details of foul water drainage

12. Details of surface water drainage 13. First floor window in south gable elevation serving communal corridor shall

be obscure glazed. 14. Prior to commencement of development further bat survey of the site shall

be undertaken 15. Development shall be either timetables to avoid the bird breeding season

or not commence until a qualified ecologist has been appointed by the applicant to inspect the buildings and vegetation to be cleared on site for evidence of nesting birds immediately prior to works.

16. Final site/finished floor levels to be agreed 17. New Building to achieve a minimum rating of Level 3 of the Code for

Sustainable Homes 18. Notwithstanding details submitted details of soft landscaping 19. Notwithstanding details submitted details of hard landscaping (to include

details of pergola and boundary treatment) 20. Development shall be in accordance with approved plan B120013 SK20 21. Access to the site for vehicles shall not be used unless laid out and

constructed in accordance with the standard specification of the Highway Authority.

22. Development shall not be occupied until all parts of the existing access

within the public highway not included in the permitted means of access has been closed.

23. Development shall not be occupied until the existing footway across the

frontage has been widened to a minimum of 1.8m. 24. Development shall not be occupied until a turning area is provided within

the site. 25. Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Town and

Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no buildings, compounds, structures or enclosures which are required temporarily in connection with the development hereby permitted shall be placed or erected on the site or adjacent land until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority.

26. Any other conditions requested by consultees Notes

1. Highway notes 2. Evidence of bats 3. False Virginia Creeper 4. Ground clearance 5. Suitable bat and bird boxes 6. Indigenous tree and shrub species.

7. Any other notes requested by consultees

ROBERT WEEKS HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT & PLANNING