COMMITTEE REPORT

Application Ref. 17/01847/OUT

Site Address Redditch Gateway, Land Adjacent To The A4023 Coventry Highway, East Of Ravensbank And Winyates Green, Redditch

Description of Development

Hybrid application comprising: Outline planning application (with matters of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and details of internal circulation routes reserved) for the development on a phased basis of 32ha of employment land for business/industrial uses (Use Classes B1, B2, B8). The development shall include: landscaping, parking, associated infrastructure, utilities, drainage (including SUDS) and ground engineering works; and Full planning application for Phase 1 Ground Engineering works, and details of means of access to the site from the A4023

Applicant Redditch Gateway Infrastructure Ltd

Reason for Referral to Committee Scale of development

Case Officer Alice Cosnett

Presenting Officer Alice Cosnett

Ward Member(s) Studley with Mappleborough Green

Town/Parish Council Mappleborough Green Parish Council

Description of Site Constraints

Southern development parcel allocated under REDD.1: Winyates Green Triangle, Mappleborough Green

Northern development parcel allocated under REDD.2: Gorcott Hill, Mappleborough Green

Application site falls within the jurisdictions of Stratford on Avon District Council, Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council

Summary of Recommendation GRANT SUBJECT TO S106 AGREEMENT

DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSAL

The site extends to approximately 32 hectares and is within two land parcels to the north and south of the A4023 Coventry Highway, a main dual carriageway arterial road linking from the A435 which forms the eastern boundary of both parcels.

The site lies on the edge of the built-up area of Redditch; approximately 2.5 miles from the town centre. The land is presently in agricultural use.

The land within the northern development parcel, to the north of the A4023, increases in level in a north/easterly direction and is formed from a series of fields, currently grazed and defined by semi/mature hedgerows. Trees are generally confined to the hedgerows except for two or three isolated specimens. The Blacksoils Brook bisects the northern parcel along an approximately north-east / south-west alignment. A former chalk pit is evident within one of the fields.

The land within the southern development parcel, to the south of the A4023, is relatively flat and in a broadly triangular shape. As with the north, it is formed by a series of fields defined by hedges.

Land both immediately north and south of the A4023 is set lower than the level of the road. The A435, part of the strategic highway network linking Birmingham and Evesham (via the A46 and crossing the M42), forms the eastern boundary. It changes from a dual carriageway to single carriageway towards the southern boundary of the site as it approaches Mappleborough Green.

A number of public rights of way cross the northern part of the site, and converge near the A4023 and continue south along the western external and southern perimeter of the southern land parcel.

The site is neither within nor adjacent to a conservation area and does not include any statutorily or locally listed buildings. The site is not subject to any Tree Preservation Orders.

The majority of the land to the north of the northern land parcel is formed by agricultural land and mature woodland. The exception to this is Gorcott Hall, a Grade II* listed building and associated grounds, whose boundary with the site is formed by a mature hedge. The northern parcel is bounded to the west by existing employment developments including the Ravensbank Business Park. The southern boundary to the northern development land is formed by the A4023.

The A4023 and A435 also form the respective northern and eastern boundaries to the southern development land parcel. To the west lies existing commercial development (hotel and car showrooms) and established residential development off Far Moor Lane. A pedestrian footpath runs along the western and southern site boundaries, south of which is Longhope Close including Lower House, a Grade II listed building. A screen of mature trees and hedgerows also runs along the eastern boundary. To the southeast of the site and on the other (eastern) side of the A435 are the School and Yew Tree and Church Cottages and the School House (formerly 1 and 2 School Cottages), which are Grade II Listed

A hybrid planning application has been submitted comprising the following:

Outline planning application, with matters of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and details of internal circulation routes reserved, for the

development on a phased basis of 32 hectares of employment land for business/industrial uses (use classes B1, B2 and B8);

Full planning application for Phase 1 Ground Engineering works and means of access to the site from the A4023

Outline

A series of employment zones are proposed, accessed in the northern parcel from a central spine road that would run alongside a retained ecological and landscape corridor including the Blacksoils Brook. In the southern parcel, the development zones would be accessed from a new road that would run parallel to the western boundary. The proposed zones are identified on the Parameters Plan (5372-205G)

Ground engineering works would be required to create the development plateau for each employment zone in the northern area. The precise levels changes would be dependent upon the size of the eventual buildings. The final ground levels are not therefore confirmed at this stage. Notwithstanding this, through the pre-application discussion with the three Authorities there has been a requirement to ensure that the buildings do not exceed a certain height in order to ensure that the setting of Gorcott Hall is protected. The Parameters Plan therefore sets a maximum level above AOD beyond which the building heights would not be able to project.

The Parameters Plan also identifies that the building heights would be restricted to between 9m and 21m above development plateau ground level. The lower buildings would be sited at sensitive locations in relation to existing surrounding development.

The Parameters Plan also identifies zones for landscaping and undeveloped areas. The key areas being perimeter planting around the site, retained grassland to its southernmost tip and ‘Landscaping Buffer Zone’ (as referred to on the Parameters Plan) to its northeast. Boundary hedgerows and trees plus the Blacksoils Brook and associated vegetation would be retained and enhanced through additional tree and hedge planting. Trees and hedges within the proposed development plots would be required to be removed. Compensatory planting would be secured as part of the future detailed landscaping proposals.

Existing public rights of way crossing the site would be diverted and would run through the proposed landscaped areas.

Internal roads do not form part of the application proposals. Detailed designs for these would come forward as part of the subsequent submissions for reserved matters, if this application is approved.

Full Planning Permission

Approval is sought for the access into the site and the initial length of carriageway within the site. Access is proposed from a new signal controlled crossroads junction on the Coventry Highway (BMT/2116/100-01 S2 P9 and BMT/2116/100-02 S2 P3). The new junction would provide for all movements and require modification to the exiting lanes of the A4023 to create relevant lanes to access/egress the site.

The engineering works are required to facilitate the access into both the northern and southern parcels and to undertake the works necessary to create the first development phase. The overall area of works is approximately 2.47ha. Drawing

BWB-HGT-01-DR-D-612 S1 P1 outlines the extent of the area of works required, notably for the development platform and identifies the resulting contour levels. These would result in banking being created around the edges of the development platform. The banking would be composed of soil with no requirement for retaining structures.

Drawing BWB-HGT-01-DR-D-637 S1 P1 provides a north-south and east-west section through the proposed platform showing the existing and proposed profile. It is expected that 6336m3 of soil would be disturbed by the cut and fill. Surplus material from the operation would be used to create the support for the proposed access. There would be no requirement for soil to be disposed of off-site.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Development Plan

Core StrategyRelevant Policies in the Development Plan for this application are

CS.1 Sustainable Development CS.2 Climate Change and Sustainable Construction CS.3 Sustainable Energy 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.10 Green Belt CS.15 Distribution of Development CS.22 Economic Development REDD.1 Redditch REDD.2 Redditch CS.25 Healthy Communities CS.26 Transport and Communications CS.27 Development Contributions

Other Material ConsiderationsCentral Government guidance

NPPF 2012 & PPG 2014 Circular 06/05: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

Other documents Redditch Borough Local Plan 2011-2030 Bromsgrove District Plan 2011-2030 Stratford on Avon District Design Guide (information guidance) Historic England Good Practice Notes 2105:

o GPA 1 – The Historic Environment in Local Planso GPA 2 – Manging Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic

Environmento GPA 3 – The Setting of Heritage Assets

Air Quality Action Plan for Alcester Road, Studley Warwickshire Local Transport Plan (2011-2026) Warwickshire Landscape Guidelines 1993 Planning and Community Safety – Design and Crime Reduction 2006:

Planning Advice Note (informal guidance) Green Infrastructure Study for Stratford on Avon District Council (2011)

Stratford on Avon Employment Land Assessment 2011 Corporate Strategy 2015-2019 Stratford on Avon Business and Enterprise Strategy 2012-2015 Stratford District Partnership 2026 Vision – Sustainable Community

Strategy Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA3) National Character Areas 17.07.2012 Guidance on Transport Assessment published jointly by Department for

Transport and Department for Communities and Local Government 2007

Landscape Sensitivity Study (2012)

This document forms part of the evidence base 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, which is adjacent to Redditch rather than any settlement within Stratford on Avon District, falls outside of any assessment of landscape sensitivity provided within this document.

Other Legislation Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Environmental Protection Act 1990 Human Rights Act 1998 Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 EC Birds Directive (Directive 79/409/EEC), as translated into UK law by

The Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 EC Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC), as translated into UK law by

The Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) Protection of Badgers Act 1992 Hedgerow Regulations 1997 Equality Act 2010 Localism Act 2011 Town & Country Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 National Heritage Act 1983 (as amended) Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Legislation Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

Regulations 2011 (as amended) Town and County Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

Regulations 2017 Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009

SUMMARY OF RELEVANT HISTORY

Reference Number Proposal Decision and date

17/00700/OUT and 17/00701/OUT (Identical applications submitted to Redditch Borough Council and

Hybrid application comprising: Outline planning application (with matters of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and details of internal circulation routes reserved) for the development on a phased basis of 32ha of employment land for

Pending consideration (due to be heard at BDC’s Planning Committee on 4 December 2017 and RBC’s Planning Committee on 13 December 2017)

Bromsgrove District Council)

business/industrial uses (Use Classes B1, B2, B8). The development shall include: landscaping, parking, associated infrastructure, utilities, drainage (including SUDS) and ground engineering works; And Full planning application for Phase 1 Ground Engineering works, and details of means of access to the site from the A4023

PREAPP/00187/15(whole site)

Redditch Eastern Gateway:- office/warehouse development

Closed 30.10.2017

SCOPE/00026 Land At Redditch Eastern Gateway Development

Closed 09.03.2016

00/02173/OUT (southern parcel)

Residential development (outline) Withdrawn 12.03.2002

89/00702/FUL(northern parcel)

A435 AND A4023 INTERCHANGE LAND TO THE NORTH WEST OF ADAM LANE MAPPLEBOROUGH GREEN - BUSINESS AND SCIENCE PARK WITHIN USE CLASS B1

Withdrawn 07.02.1990

REPRESENTATIONS

Applicant’s Supporting Documents

Listed of submitted documents: Application form Environmental Statement, comprising Main Report, appendices and non-

technical summary Planning Statement Design and Access Statement Phase 1 Ground Engineering Works Framework Travel Plan Transport Assessment 5372-200 Site Location Plan 5372-201 Site Plan 5372-202 Local Authority Boundaries 5372-205 C Parameters Plan (superseded) 5372-210 Site Location Plan Enabling Earthworks Phase 1 5372-211 Site Plan Enabling Earthworks Phase 1 5372-066E Plot Area Plan (superseded) $5372-203A Illustrative Master Plan (superseded) $5372-204A Illustrative Sections (section DD superseded) BMT/2116/100-01 S2 P9 Signal Controlled Access Option BMT/2116/100-02 S2 P3 Redditch Access Option BMT/2116/100-03 S2 P3 Sustainable Access Strategy BWB-HGT-01-DR-D-637 S1 P1 Enabling Earthworks Sections (Phase 1) BWB-HGT-01-DR-D-612 S1 P1 Enabling Earthworks Layout (Phase 1)

Amendment submission: Amendment covering letter dated 6 October 2017 Savills Table of Responses Environmental Statement Volume 1 – Addendum Updated Agricultural Land Classification Report

Ipsley Alders Nature Reserve: Hydrology Review 5372-205G Parameters Plan 5372-203C Illustrative Master Plan 5372-209A Existing Site Plan Footpath Overlay 5372-206G EIA Parameter Plan Land Use and Access North Side BMT/2116/100-07 S2 P2 Southern Development Plot Footway Connection BMT/2116/100-06 S2 P2 Northern Development Plot Footway Connection BMT/2116/100-08 S2 P2 A435 Slip Roads Indicative Highway Works

Ward Member

The site lies in the Ward of Studley with Mappleborough Green (Councillor J Kerridge). The following nearby Wards have also been consulted:

Studley with Sambourne (Councillor H Wright) Tanworth in Arden (Councillor G Atkinson) Henley in Arden (Councillor S Thirlwell) Kinwarton (Councillor M Gittus)

Councillor J Kerridge

No representation. Following comments raised:“The principle of this development for employment purposes has already been agreed by Council.SDC Core Strategy 6.14.9 (Redditch) makes it very clear that traffic impacts on Studley and Mappleborough are to be given much weight in this decision.The word "significant" is often used when discussing increases in traffic due to a development. A planning inspector referring to potential development in the A435 Area of Development restraint (along the A435 bordering Mappleborough Green to the south of this proposal) referred to the fact that this word "significant" should be interpreted differently when considering the A435 South of Gorcott Hill. His reasoning was that the level of traffic was already so high that the standard use of the word "significant" (I think it was around 5% in this case) would allow extra traffic that would cause actual harm.I agree with this view.I welcome the HGV routing plan without which I don't believe this application can be approved.Monitoring and enforcement of this should be well secured.If there is a way to persuade workers and other visitors to use a similar route through a travel plan or other mechanism I would welcome it.As much ecological damage and visual harm as possible should be avoided.There is a lot of hedge and wildlife that can be retained and enhanced around the entire perimeter of both parcels of land and this should be a condition or integral to the design.Any public right of way through the site should be attractive and retain and enhance existing wildlife and create new wildlife areas.Public areas of natural beauty should be retained within the site for the benefit of wildlife and employees etc.Access ways and internal layout should consider cyclists and pedestrians in order to promote travel by foot and cycle” (07.08.2017)

Councillor H Wright

“As an adjacent Ward Member I would like to raise an objection and make the following comments

This is an outline planning application for business and industrial use therefore there is no indicator of the visual appearance of the buildings

that will populate the landscape. The relationship between the buildings and the open countryside does seem to have had a limited exploration but this does not guarantee the design quality of the building. I understand that approval for a full application has to be sought, but past experience indicates when this happens, design is driven by cost and not quality. Good design is a requirement of the NPPF. How will this be ensured?

To allow this application to come forward, Green Belt land has been taken from Stratford District for which there will be consequences. For instance, there will be further urbanisation along the route of the A435 resulting from the loss of the visual amenity and open countryside. There has to be an appropriate balance between the built environment and the country side. This proposal disturbs that balance in favour of the built environment, when it should have regard for the landscape and heritage

A claim is made that this land is needed for employment purposes and yet there is little unemployment in Redditch, even less in Studley and the adjacent villages in Warwickshire (as noted in the SDC Core Strategy) and Worcestershire. Official statistics will confirm this. Who are the estimated 1400 jobs that may be created for and how can it be anticipated which roads will be used to travel to work? Again economy of travel and accessibility will play a major part in determining the roads the work force use

Several listed buildings lie in close proximity to the site which are complimented by the open countryside. A built environment will only serve as a distraction from the heritage value of these buildings. To maintain this heritage a response is required that has an understanding of the value of the openness of the site

The visual impact will change and impact on the landscape. Landscaping will no doubt will be part of the overall package, however the outline plan does suggest it would be impossible to screen all the buildings from the onlooker, creating a permanent loss of countryside

The A435 was de-trunked in January 2008, but does remain a locally strategic A class road providing a link between the M42 and the A46/M5. Whilst work is being done to the development site accessibility will impact on the A435

It is noted that it is proposed that Worcester County Council would seek a routing agreement to minimise the number of HGVS routing associated with this development particularly the A435 through Studley and often cutting through Sambourne. HGVs and people travelling to work will also be coming from developments in Alcester. It has long been accepted that HGV companies run to make a profit and will transport goods as cheaply as possible. To do this a shorter route is always more economical. I believe there are powers to ensure an agreement is respected either now or in the future, however enforcement seems to be a long complex process therefore there appears to be is a heavy reliance on encouragement. I do not know of any local enforcement and in order to further my understanding I would be glad to be advised. In addition, satellite navigation systems will direct drivers to the quickest route especially when there are traffic incidents

I have no specific information except a news paper report which suggests an attempt to use an alternative road around Studley such as encouraging the use of the Slough, Bromsgove Road arriving at Spernal which would require major re-working of the Spernal junction. This will only move the problem from one part of the village to another part of the village and could add to the traffic problems in Sambourne, thus recreating the problem that exists on the A43S. It seems inappropriate to solve a problem for Redditch by creating another problem in another part of Studley

It is recorded that I have opposed this development since it was proposed and become part of the Core Strategy I remain convinced that it is generations to come who will experience the loss of amenity, green belt and enhancement of the local environment which the Stratford District Council in the Core Strategy had committed itself to protect” (08.08.2017)

Councillor G Atkinson

No representation (07.08.2017)

Councillor S Thirlwell

No representation. Following comments raised:“No representation as long as the application concurs with SDC core strategy. I would reiterate, however, that all development traffic is monitored to ensure that it does not use any of the country lanes surrounding the Warwickshire villages in that area such as Ullenhall. Such village roads and lanes were not designed for the use of large HGVs” (08.08.2017)

Councillor M Gittus

No objection (09.08.2017)

Parish/Town CouncilThe site lies in the Parish of Mappleborough Green. The following nearby Parish Councils have also been consulted:

Studley Tanworth in Arden Spernall Morton Bagot Ullenhall Beaudesert Henley in Arden Oldberrow Sambourne Coughton Beoley

Mappleborough Green Parish CouncilMake the following comments:

Insufficient time to consider the information submitted with the application Unable to provide consultation response until the end of October 2017 Proposed scale was unknown until the public consultation organised by

Stoford’s Government describes site as ‘regeneration’ despite it being a greenfield

site (23.08.2017)

Amended submission:Object to the application for the following reasons:

Significant impact Change character of area Increased traffic in both passenger and HGVs Removal of land from Green Belt would diminish open countryside and

create an urban landscape Impossible to screen all buildings and associated structures – permanent

loss of countryside

Development would distract from nearby listed buildings Do not accept no significant change in number of trucks travelling through

Mappleborough Green and Studley Traffic fundamental issue for various communities on the A435 corridor Local District and County Councillors do not support application People in Mappleborough Green generally against development Three Councils should commission long-term pollution and traffic volume

measurements along the A435 Question need – empty business units in Redditch. Brownfield sites should

be developed first Low unemployment in Redditch – future employees would travel from

outside the local area – increased pollution Referred to as ‘Regeneration’ but it is a greenfield site Great crested newts, bats and other species reside on the site Site and surroundings subject to flooding, and has a tendency to become

waterlogged – associated impact on Ipsley Marsh SSSI Quote from North Worcestershire Economic Development and

Regeneration, Redditch Eastern Gateway – Economic Impact Study June 2013 (20.10.2017)

Studley Parish CouncilObject to the application for the following reasons:

Adverse impact on visual amenity due to prominent nature of site Lighting visible from all over the district – detracting from open

countryside Detrimental impact on listed Gorcott Hall and its setting No identified users, no identifies employment opportunities and no need

for development – no shortage of employment opportunities in Redditch and surrounding area

Isolated from residential areas in Redditch with no viable pedestrian or cycle access routes and no public transport links

Redditch has ample brownfield sites within its boundaries which have existing infrastructure to facilitate construction

Infrastructure not in place to support traffic from proposed development No public transport provision for the site No measures to reduce inevitable deterioration in air pollution that will

impact on the Air Quality Management Area in Studley No proposal to alleviate HGV traffic along the A435 through Studley -

measures should be put in place to deter HGV traffic along this route. Additional housing development in the area will mean workers travel along this route to the development (16.08.2017)

Tanworth in Arden Parish CouncilNo representation (07.08.2017)

Spernall Parish CouncilNone received

Morton Bagot Parish CouncilNone received

Ullenhall Parish CouncilObject to the application for the following reasons:

Infrastructure is not in place to support development Adverse impact on Ullenhall from excess traffic (04.08.2017)

Beaudesert Parish CouncilNone received

Henley in Arden Parish CouncilNone received

Oldberrow Parish MeetingNone received

Sambourne Parish CouncilObject to the application for the following reasons:

Strong environmental arguments against the development Detrimental visual effect on the area – what was Green Belt would

disappear and Redditch would extend right up to the A435 Increase in traffic, particularly of HGV movements along the A435 –

increased level of congestion, noise and air pollution HGV routing plan is a vain hope – hauliers and carriers would use the most

effective route. All discussions of alternative routing are ill-considered Minimal need – similar industrial units in Redditch lie empty Brownfield sites should be developed first Low level of unemployment in Redditch – future workers will travel from

further afield - unsustainable SDC appears to have ‘handed over’ land to Redditch for development –

when was this decided, by whom and where are the details? Unnecessary Detrimental effect (22.08.2017)

Beoley Parish CouncilMakes the following comments:

The PC is not totally comfortable with the proposal but recognises the need for progress and thus confirm no overall objection to the scheme

Reserve the right to comment on conditions applied to any subsequent approval

Community suffered over the last couple of years as a result of light and noise pollution created by the similar scheme in Ravensbank

Keen to ensure that residents are protected in any future expansions as these issues have caused great distress locally

Would want a restriction on working hours to be considered by LPA Movement of HGVs needs to be planned and monitored, again to protect

community from unnecessary additional haulage traffic through the village (23.11.2017)

Third Party ResponsesThe planning-related comments made by third parties have been summarised by the case officer.

422 letters of objection from local residents received, including letters from the Warwickshire and Worcestershire CPREs. Planning grounds for objection:

Increased traffic during day and night Increased traffic cause accidents at proposed junction Exacerbate existing problem of HGV traffic thorough Studley HGV routing would not work as drivers would look to take shortest route HGV routing would relocate traffic problem Insufficient capacity of road network to support development Far Moor Lane would become a rat-run Road network inadequate

Low employment in the area means future employees will travel from further afield – resultant impact on road network

Adverse impact to safety of pedestrians due to increased traffic Insufficient parking – increased on street parking in locality encouraged by

pedestrian links into/out of development Insufficient turning/loading areas Employees would not use public transport – insufficient service Loss of greenfield land Brownfield sites should be developed over greenfield sites No need for development – vacant industrial units and low unemployment

in area Question how much local employment would be created Employment will not necessarily be for local people No strategy between Councils on how going to attract businesses Lack of strategy between Councils on increasing skilled jobs availability Unsuitable location Overcrowding of the small town Development should be directed to small villages rather than

overdeveloped and polluted centres Development of this kind/scale should be located closer to a motorway Industrial development should not be located so close to a residential area Industrial development should be contained within the northern parcel

only Would fail to create high technology business park envisaged Insufficient emergency service capacity Insufficient infrastructure to support development Loss of residential amenity Noise disruption to local residents (construction, operation and road traffic

noise) day and night – acoustic fencing insufficient Loss of light to nearby residential properties Overbearing impact to nearby residential properties Loss of privacy Adverse impact from dust Adverse impact from smell Adverse impact on health and wellbeing of residents Light pollution Adverse impact on air quality Vibration damage to existing properties Loss of buffer between residential development and the A435 Loss of green belt Green belt to industrial with no consultation with residents Reduced land for recreation Harm to biodiversity/wildlife/protected species Harm to nature reserves Harm to Ipsley Alders SSSI Pollution to watercourses Loss of trees Loss of ancient hedgerows Perimeter hedgerows should be retained Harm to landscape Detrimental visual impact Urbanisation of area Loss of countryside Development would appear out of character Development would appear out of scale with surroundings Increased flooding Inadequate drainage

Groundwater pollution Harm to setting of nearby listed buildings (including Gorcott Hall and

Lower House) Proposed buildings are too high Colour of units inappropriate Increase of carbon footprint Industrial development would not retain graduates or attract them Should not be located on border of District if intended for Stratford

residents Increase in crime and anti-social behaviour Development would not benefit local economy Green spaces should be protected for future generations If approved, wildlife should be conserved as much as possible and green

roofs installed on all buildings Development should be scaled down Removal of weekly waste adding to pollution levels Increase in nursery places from employees Increase in litter Query proposed use of units Impossible to screen development Set a precedent for further similar developments Site should be used to meet shortfall in affordable housing Reports submitted with application are outdated Management issues due to size of site Support activity that preserves or encourages local employment Support activity that encourages economic growth Fails to accord with SDC Core Strategy Viewpoints in Design and Access Statement are misleading Archaeological study should have been carried out Residents were not consulted on reduced office provision Weight limit should be applied to roads certain roads in vicinity

Other non-planning related matters were also raised.

Petition with 35 signatures received. Grounds for objection: Lasting impact Development would inevitably bring:

o more heavy goods traffico more pollutiono more noiseo effect the hydrology of the areao further development of green spaces

Petitions objecting to the application on the same grounds as above received for each of the following roads:

Hollyberry Close – 101 signatures Illshaw Close – 73 signatures Kingham Close – 56 signatures Gateley Close – 21 signatures Flaxley Close – 47 signatures Furze Lane – 5 signatures Jays Close – 18 signatures Prestbury Close – 21 signatures Hindlip Close – 8 signatures Various – 140 signatures

Other non-planning related matters were also raised within the petitions.

24 letters of no representation received from local residents. Following comments raised:

Harm to biodiversity/wildlife/protected species Increased traffic Insufficient parking – increased on street parking in locality encouraged by

pedestrian links into/out of development No need for development – vacant industrial units and low unemployment

in area Question how much local employment would be created Adverse impact to safety of pedestrians due to increased traffic Increased noise day and night Too near to residential properties Adverse impacts from pollution Adverse impact from dust Adverse impact on health and wellbeing of residents Risk of flooding Proposed buildings too high Loss of green area Loss of Green Belt Harm to landscape Urbanisation of area More housing development needed to accommodate future employees Insufficient infrastructure to support development Set a precedent for further similar developments

ConsultationsThe full responses are available in the application file.

Planning Policy Consultations

SDC Planning PolicyMake the following comments:

Site is allocated in the Core Strategy Comfortable with different mix of Class B uses to that specified in

Proposals REDD.1 and REDD.2 based on evidence submitted It is for Redditch BC to advise SDC whether the proposed mix is

acceptable as the allocations are intended to meet the needs of Redditch (03.10.2017)

Bromsgrove District Council Strategic PlanningSupport the application for the following reasons:

Allocated in Bromsgrove District Plan 2011-30 to meet the employment needs of Redditch

Redditch Borough Local Plan refers to Redditch Eastern Gateway as aiming to make a significant contribution to the employment land supply in Redditch, being a highly accessible site with good proximity to the M40/M42 corridor

Notes the Cushman and Wakefield report commissioned by SDC which largely agrees with the applicant that the market for speculative, standalone office development would not be attract to this site

Also notes that application proposes 10% of floorspace as B1(a) use as ancillary to the overall employment development of the site – likely to attract a wider range of occupiers with different floorspace requirements, and consequently provide a wider range of job opportunities

The principle of development and timely delivery of proposed employment units is supported

Crucial site to deliver jobs growth in the context of Redditch Borough’s employment needs

Site is a sustainable, accessible and appropriate location for employment provision in line with strategic allocations in Bromsgrove District Plan, Redditch Local Plan and Stratford on Avon Core Strategy (30.10.2017)

Redditch Borough Council Development PlansSupport the application for the following reasons:

Site is allocated in Redditch’s Plan – Policy 23 Employment Land Provision Allocation aims to provide a significant enhancement to employment land

supply through creation of a high-profile and accessible employment scheme, taking advantage of the demand of the M40/M42 corridor to support existing businesses and provide opportunity to diversify the employment base of Redditch and surrounding areas

Development accords with this policy SDC Policy requires 15% floorspace to be B1(a) – SDC instructed

Cushman and Wakefield to assess validity of conclusions made within Market Assessment – accepted that this issue has been fully considered (27.09.2017)

Worcestershire County Council Strategic PlanningObject to the application for the following reasons:

Minerals and Waste – full justification and detail of any bunds will be required at reserved matters stage and visual impact considered in any LVIA. Full planning application for Phase 1 does not appear to include any details of the amount of material to be deposited or heights of bunds created, nor any justification for requirement. Any bunds proposed should be treated as a proposal for landfilling. Holding objection until such time as sufficient information is provided to enable the landscaping proposals to be assessed in more detail. Levels should be conditioned. Areas for waste collection should be incorporated at reserved matters stage

Minerals – site is not in an area of identified mineral deposits. No formal comments to make

Public Rights of Way – no objection in general however some existing public rights of way do not appear to be shown on submitted plans on their definitive lines, or are missing. Proposals incorporate diversion of PROW – application should be made to LPA. Clarification required on how footpaths around new road junction works are to be incorporated – conflict with landscaping works (pond and retaining wall). If PROW are to be shared with cycles, would normally require a width of 5m provided

Ecology – clarification required prior to determination. Insufficient information to demonstrate no-net-loss of biodiversity. Biodiversity Impact Assessment required to demonstrate that offsetting is practical, deliverable and securable. The ‘Hydrology Review Report’/’Eco-Hydrology Report’ which is referenced has not been submitted – cannot be confident in conclusions drawn. No reference to Worcestershire Green Infrastructure Partnership’s GI Concept Plan. Queries raised regarding author of ES Ecology chapter, reference to ‘over-mature’ trees, diversion of water channels, impacts on downstream SSSI, impacts on Ravensbrook Drive Bridle Track LWS, impacts on county boundary hedgerow, assertion that GCN unlikely to use grassland, creation of mammal pass

Water Environment – essential that mitigation specifications proposed by hydrological expert have been evaluated and are supported by appropriately qualified and experienced ecologist. No evidence to support assertion that SSSI is fed from local spring water. Disconnect between Water Environment and Ecology chapters of ES. Unclear what ‘moderate adverse impact’ on groundwater contamination of SSSI is based on. De-

culverting of Blacksoils Brook is welcomed but opportunity missed in achieving ecological betterment

Draft Mitigation Enhancement Summary – provided in draft format which is inappropriate for a planning application. Queries raised regarding authors, specific mitigation measures, use of vague language, mitigation required for each bat species, implications of hedgerow clearance, 30 year habitat management plan. Lighting should be conditioned. Insufficient information to demonstrate ‘no significant impact’ on Alders Marsh SSSI or ‘no significant impact on retained and newly created habitats’ conclusion

Key recommendations, prior to determination:o Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Plan should be prepared

and submittedo Biodiversity offsetting should be explicito Suitably competent and experienced ecologist engaged which

cohesively takes into account drainage recommendationso ES should be revised to address valuation of habitats (25.08.2017)

Additional comments: Satisfied that final detail of bunds could be considered at reserved matters

stage Generally satisfied with proposals set out in outline element, subject to

clarification on approach to screening of service yards for the Phase 1 part of development (12.09.2017)

Worcestershire County Council Countryside Access

Amended submission:Points of clarification in previous representation remains (see Public Rights of Way section of comments from Worcestershire County Council Strategic Planning above) (26.10.2017)

North Worcestershire Economic Development and RegenerationSupport the application. Following comments raised:

An economic impact assessment, carried out in 2015 by DTZ on behalf of Redditch Borough Council identified the potential of the site to provide:

o Circa 1 million sqft of new commercial spaceo Creation of circa 2,000 jobso £90m additional GVA

Local Enterprise Partnership – site identified within Worcestershire LEP’s Strategic Economic Plan as one of four ‘Game Changer’ sites within Worcestershire – key development opportunity that would help to attract and safeguard investment within the Redditch area. Strong support for proposals from Greater Birmingham and Solihull’s LEPs recognising the site as providing important space for new commercial development which is in short supply in the area

Economic development priorities for Redditch – development would meet employment needs of Redditch, contributing to the key aims and objectives in the adopted ‘Economic Priorities for Redditch’

Planning context – site allocated for employment development within each of the three Authorities’ Local Plans. In broad conformity with the exception of amount of office space required by policies of Stratford’s Core Strategy. Assessed through Market Assessment which SDC instructed Cushman and Wakefield to assess. Concur with conclusions in that it reflects current employment market within the area. Appropriate to take a view that is slightly contrary to Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2 to enable site to come forward at an appropriate pace to meet market demand and ensure that it would not be sterilised and left undeveloped

Site would offer new employment opportunities and would help to facilitate growth of existing companies within Redditch that require expansion space, thus freeing up existing units for reoccupation

Attractive for inward investment, bringing new companies and employment opportunities to Redditch (29.08.2017)

Highways and Transportation Consultations

Highways EnglandNo objection. Following comments raised:

Following a review of the submitted Transport Assessment, the traffic arising from the development would have limited implications for the operation of the Highways England network

Improvements to Junction 3 of the M42 is being Government funded and are currently under development (11.08.2017)

Warwickshire County Council HighwaysMakes the following comments:

Further information required Concerns with the safe operation of the A435/A4023 Coventry Highway

junction due to motorists looking over their shoulders to see on-coming traffic, limiting the field of visibility, vehicle speeds at this location and traffic levels

Consulted with the Road Safety Team regarding this matter – concerned that the increase in traffic from the development proposals would exacerbate this issue further – mitigation required

As a result of the HGV routing strategy, concedes that there are no sustainable grounds to request mitigation at the A435/Henley Road junction (25.08.2017)

Joint consultation response with Worcestershire County Council Highways:No objection subject to conditions and financial obligations:

Applicants, their transport consultants (BWB Consulting Limited), both Highways Authorities and Highways England involved in pre-application discussions

Transport Assessment (TA) is well structured with a clear and logical methodology which is in accordance with national planning policy/guidance

Sustainable Transport –o Walking: pedestrian/cycle access via Far Moor Lane to southern

development parcel and via proposed signal controlled junction to northern development parcel. Secondary means of access via public rights of way. Conditions to improve/extend footway recommended to ensure links are delivered

o Cycling: realistic choice of travel as Redditch is well connected by existing cycle network. Local cycle routes would connect to site. improvements proposed

o Public transport: two new bus stops on A4023 to allow 150 and 62 bus services to stop

Accident data – Warwickshire Road Safety Team raise concerns with following junctions:

o A435 / A4023 Coventry Road Junction: current arrangement requires motorists to look over shoulder when exiting junction obscuring visibility. Heavy traffic flows and speed of road in this location (60mph) means any accidents would be severe. Mitigation to this junction recommended to be secured by condition

o A435 / A4089 Warwick Highway / A4189 Henley Road Roundabout Junction: lozenge shape of island results in HGVs pinching vehicles

against the island when they turn right. However, HGV Routing Strategy would prevent HGVs travelling south on the A435. No justification for mitigation (either by condition or financial obligation) in this location

Trip generation – satisfied that TA provides a robust trip profile for the development – no objection to this element

TEMPro Growth – data assessed for the opening year of 2018 and forecast year of 2030. Based on this assessment, no objection raised to this element

Trip distribution – distribution pattern for HGV trips based on surveyed movements recorded through traffic surveys and taking into consideration HGV Routing Strategy - no objection to this element

Site access arrangements and assessment – signalised crossroad junction modelled in both 2018 and 2030 with the development proposals. Road Safety Audit Stage 1 provided alongside vehicle tracking for access arrangements. Junction would operate with reserve capacity and would not have a severe impact on the safe and efficient operation of highway network. No objection to access arrangements which would be conditioned accordingly and subject to S278 Agreement

Highway network modelling and assessments – studies undertaken were agreed with both Highways Authorities and Highways England. Evidence negligible impact on existing queue lengths, with betterment at junction of A435 / A4089 Warwick Highway / A4189 Henley Road Roundabout Junction. Increases across all six routes – the largest being 56 seconds between the 2018 and 2030 scenarios during the PM peak period at the junction of A435 Southbound / A4023 Coventry Road. Modelling demonstrates development would not impact on operational capacity of M42 Junction 3

o Studley Highway Impact Assessment: Warwickshire Highway Authority undertaken assessment to understand impact of development proposals on Studley. Based on modelling exercise, Warwickshire Highway Authority concludes that development proposals as set out in planning application would not have a detrimental impact on the efficient operation of highway network, and there are no requirements for capacity improvements on Warwickshire’s network in Studley

Framework Travel Plan – support the principle of this. Measures and incentrives to be implemented on first occupation of the development as set out in Section 7 of the TA. Additionally, Highway Authorities require submission of first staff travel surveys within 12 months of first occupation – recommend conditions to this effect

HGV Routing Strategy – potential HGV Routing Strategy submitted. The aim of this is to prevent HGVs routing south down the A435 impacting on Mappleborough Green and Studley, the latter which forms part of an AQMA. Highway Authorities support principle of this. Conditions recommended to require full HGV Routing Strategy and submission of first HGV routing surveys within 12 months of first occupation. In addition, request financial contribution of £200,000.00 to be submitted prior to first occupation and held for 15 years, to allow the mitigation of HGVs on each Highway Authorities’ networks should it be deemed necessary (12.09.2017)

Amended submission:Maintains response dated 12.09.2017 prepared jointly with Worcestershire Highway Authority (18.10.2017)

Worcestershire County Council HighwaysJoint consultation response with Warwickshire County Council Highways – see above

Amended submission:Concur with Warwickshire County Council Highways in that previous representation still valid (27.10.2017)

Updated recommended conditions provided (31.10.2017)

Warwickshire County Council Rights of WayNo objection (24.08.2017)

Amended submission:No objection (19.10.2017)

Heritage Consultations

Historic EnglandMake the following comments:

A number of heritage assets close to the site – the most important being the Grade II* listed Gorcott Hall which has historic fabric from the early 16th century onwards. There are also associated Grade II listed structures

The Built Heritage Assessment provided as part of the application concludes that the development would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the Grade II* listed building – the harm is described as ‘moderate’, which is a reasonable assessment and a conclusion that HE endorse

Involved in discussions at pre-application stage – the scheme was considerably improved at that stage; mainly by moving new buildings further away from Gorcott Hall and ensuring that they are kept as low as possible within the landscape

However, further scope to reduce the impact of the proposals on the setting of the listed buildings which would be desirable in lessening their impact on the significance of these buildings

Harm needs to be balanced against public benefits (16.08.2017)

Amended submission:Do not wish to offer any comments (26.10.2017)

National TrustMakes the following comments:

Previously raised concerns about the potential for the development to affect flood risk and water quality at Coughton Court, which is downstream of the site and vulnerable to flooding

Welcome attention to flood risk and water quality in the application, including the ES, FRA and Water Management Statement

Welcome, in principle, the use of Sustainable Drainage Techniques and the retention of the Blacksoils Brook in a green corridor through the site

Cannot comment on detail of the drainage proposals but note that mitigation is predicted to give rise to a minor beneficial effect

Welcome clarification of the consequences of discharging water along Blacksoils Brook to River Arrow as mentioned in the FRA (25.08.2017)

Stratford on Avon District Council Conservation OfficerMake the following comments:

Extensive pre-application discussions – the application now submitted is broadly in line with the end product of the pre-application discussions

Historic England involved with pre-application discussions and agree entirely with the consultation response received from them – further mitigating measures could further reduce the level of harm, and there may be some cope for this as part of any subsequent reserved matters process

Significant degree of success in achieving, through those discussions, a lower level of harm with regard to the setting of the Grade II* listed Gorcott Hall

Main difference with last provisional plans discussed at pre-application stage is increase in height of units A and AA from 18m to 21m – they have an adverse impact on the setting of Gorcott Hall and increase in height exacerbates this adverse impact – slightly higher from a mid-point within the ‘less than substantial harm’ spectrum

Agree with conclusions within the submitted Heritage Assessment – development will result in less than substantial harm to the significance of Gorcott Hall in the middle of the less than substantial threshold, low level of less than substantial harm to associated buildings and very low levels of less than substantial harm for other listed buildings

Only building considered which is not focused on in the submitted Heritage Statement is the Grade II listed Church of the Holy Ascension – vert low level of less than substantial harm

Very significant public benefits required to outweigh less than substantial harm identified (25.08.2017)

Amended submission:Make the following comments:

Amendments slightly positive in that they would increase the distances from

a) Designated heritage assets (within SDC remit) to the southeast of the southern part of the site

b) Built form within nearest part of development site Assuming that there would not be an associated increase in height of the

realigned built form, removals of substantive built form in the very south fo the site is helpful in terms of ameliorating any adverse impacts on the setting of nearby listed buildings (18.10.2017)

Bromsgrove District Council ConservationMake the following comments:

Gorcott Hall, a Grade II* listed building, comprises a small country house dating back to the 15th century, but with substantial additions and alterations taking place in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries

The Heritage Statement submitted with the application concludes that the harm to the significance of Gorcott Hall is less than substantial, falling within the middle of that assessment, and would therefore be described as moderate

Detailed pre-application discussions took place between Conservation Officers for Bromsgrove, Stratford upon Avon and Historic England

The scheme largely mirror the draft scheme discussed in September 2016 Development to the southwest of Gorcott Hall would be restricted to 9-

12m in height and ground levels would be reduced to sink the units down into the landscape

Combined with the landscape buffer visibility and impact on Gorcott Hall would be reduced

Zone to the north of the brook has been increased to 21m from pre-app discussions at 18m which is disappointing

Agree that harm to significance of Gorcott Hall would be less than substantial, and within that assessment, is at the very least moderate

Imperative that at the reserved matters stage a great deal of thought is given to; materials and especially colour schemes, specifics of ground profiling, soft landscaping, hard landscaping, security, lighting, land management and photomontages from Gorcott Hall (25.08.2017)

Worcestershire County Council ArchaeologyNo objection subject to conditions. Make the following comments:

Broadly concur with approach suggested in section 8 of Cultural Heritage chapter of the ES but recommends that the standard percentage-based sampling approach form the basic requirement for the field evaluation strategy and should include an appropriate programme of geoarchaeological works and environmental/palaeoenvironmental sampling (04.09.2017)

Ecology Consultations

Natural EnglandNo objection subject to appropriate mitigation being secured. Following comments raised:

Without appropriate mitigation, the development would damage or destroy the interest features for which Ipsley Alders Marsh Site of Special Scientific Interest has been notified

Water quality and quantity implications for Ipsley Alders Marsh should be taken into consideration which addressing site design, drainage and attenuation

Construction Environmental Management Plan should be conditioned to avoid damage to SSSI

Surface water drainage scheme should be conditioned Development should comply with CS.7 Impact on public rights of way should be considered Agricultural Land Classification report submitted does not fully follow ALC

Revised Guidelines and conclusion that the land is subgrade 3b and 4 is un-evidenced – new ALC survey should be submitted to include soil survey of the land (22.08.2017)

Amended submission Additional time needed to respond to proposal (06.11.2017)

Warwickshire County Council Ecology

Initial responseObjects to the application unless concern about the nationally important habitat of UK Priority Lowland Meadow is resolved. All other ecological concerns can be resolved through conditions and/or obligations:

Protected specieso Bat surveys do not conform to the Bat Conservation Trust

Guidelines, however indicate that hedgerows and brook are important flight-lines. Essential to ensure unbroken and unlit commuting routes from woodland.

o Badgers on site would have reduced foraging areas – acceptable subject to landscaping planted to maximise foraging potential and connectivity for mammals in road junction layout.

o Barn owl, soldierfly and great crested newt can be resolved through landscaping reserved matters and conditions (constructional environmental management plan and lighting scheme)

Protected habitato Southernmost fields are Lowland Meadow UK Priority Habitat which

is a rare and declining habitat that is of county importance where all remnant pastures need to be secured and enhanced. The retention and enhancement of these fields would reduce the ecological impact of the development

o County important Ravensbrook Drive Bridle Track adjacent to the western boundary of the southern site and onsite Blacksoils Brook (both Local Wildlife Sites) would need to be buffered and secured from impacts from development including light spill

o Veteran trees should be protected unless this cannot be avoided Biodiversity offsetting

o Northern area has potential to provide a net biodiversity gain for habitats but a loss of linear features

o Southern area would result in a significant loss of habitat and potential gain for linear features

o Actual losses/gains unknowno Biodiversity impacts would need to be monitored throughout the

build through biodiversity offsetting schedule within S106 legal agreement (25.08.2017)

List of recommended conditions and obligations provided (13.09.2017)

Amended submission:Objection removed. Following comments raised:

Conditions provided in initial response still applicable Suggested wording for legal agreement to secure biodiversity offsetting

provided (31.10.2017)

Forestry CommissionNo objection (28.07.2017)

Woodland TrustObject to the application for the following reasons:

Loss of two veteran oak trees T73 and T74 and proximity of development to two veteran oaks T46 and T92 whose root protection zones will be impacted

All four veteran oaks are verified on the Ancient Tree Inventory Essential that no trees displaying ancient/veteran characteristics are lost

as part of the development Intensification of recreational activity of humans Fragmentation as a result of separation of adjacent semi-natural habitats Noise and light pollution during both construction and operational phases Lopping/fellings where trees overhang public areas Safety issues threatening longer-term retention of trees Removal of T73 and T74 Documentation incorrectly states that only one veteran oak tree is present

on site (24.08.2017)

Warwickshire Wildlife TrustObject to the application for the following reasons:

Loss of priority habitat: lowland meadow – ecological survey of the grassland was carried out in September which is sub-optimal time of year given that many of the wildflowers have finished flowering and it can be very difficult to identify them. Survey still found relatively high diversity in wildflowers present. Warwickshire is lacking in lowland grassland

Proposed mitigation for protected species: great crested newt and badger – developable area should be reduced to retain pond 3 and its surrounding habitat. Insufficient information to evidence that off-site mitigation can be achieved

Mitigation and compensation for overall loss of biodiversity – Biodiversity Impact Assessment has not been submitted. EIA states that biodiversity offsetting will be required but no detail has been provided

Impact on nearby Ipsley Alders Marsh SSSI – development site linked to SSSI via groundwater rather than by direct flow from onsite watercourses. Any changes to groundwater levels may adversely affect SSSI

Mitigation for the impacts on neighbouring Local Wildlife Site – Ravensbrook Drive Bridle Track is a LWS that runs along the western boundary of the southern site area. Negative impact through adjacent road and diversion of watercourses

Survey effort regarding protected species – bat surveys have not followed best practice guidance. EIA fails to consider the impact of light spill from the site affecting off-site roosts (24.08.2017)

Amended submission:Maintain objection. Following comments raised:

Retention of meadow grassland to south of site addresses one of the reasons for objection

Maintains that insufficient information submitted to evidence that off-site mitigation can be achieved

Insufficient information on proposed biodiversity offsetting (19.10.2017)

Worcestershire Wildlife TrustObject to the application for the following reasons:

Detrimental impact on Ipsley Alders SSSI and nature reserve – direct groundwater links between development site and the SSSI. Concern that some of the assumptions about the effectiveness of drainage and SUDS in the ES are incorrect. Potential impact on the main water source to the SSSI. Actual groundwater strikes as a result of land forming would open a direct pathway for pollution of the SSSI. Further clarification required

Alter hydrology of adjacent Ravensbank Drive Local Wildlife Site – loss of two small watercourses which currently feed the LWS and the impact this would have. Further clarification required

Habitat losses and impacts do not appear to be mitigatable onsite given the indicative layout – insufficient information to evidence that biodiversity offsetting can be done effectively. Value of some habitat features including grassland and over-mature trees have been undervalued in the ES. Further clarification required

Surveys have shortcomings leading to inaccurate results – for example, assessment of species rich grassland, treatment of over-mature trees, bat survey methodology and great crested newt mitigation strategy (24.08.2017)

Amended submission:Maintain objection for the following reasons:

Insufficient detail on biodiversity offsetting Insufficient detail on proposals to mitigate harm to protected species Insufficient detail to determine impacts on Ravensbrook Drive LWS Additional information addresses previous concerns relating to SSSI Pleased to note species rich grassland is being retained Robust Construction Environmental Management Plan required

(31.10.2017)

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) Consultations

SDC Landscape ConsultantMake the following comments:

Discussions took place at pre-application stage at which time a number of concerns were raised

Site allocated in Local Plans – loss of pastoral use of land and change of character from agricultural open countryside to major commercial built form is an inevitable major effect

Key landscape issues:o Visual impact on wider countryside and sensitive receptorso Loss of key landscape features on siteo Provision of adequate and appropriate boundary treatment and

internal open space and planting North site – alignment of Blacksoil Brook retained within landscape

corridor with new tree and shrub planting, broken by two accesses. Preferable if these were reduced to one. Existing pond lost but proposed water features good design solution. Loss of hedgerows in part mitigated through new planting but overall loss contrary to policy and landscape character guidance. Landscape scheme would benefit from woodland extension along northwestern boundary

South side – loss of hedgerows and trees contrary to policy and landscape character guidance. Site would benefit from landscape structure with generous open space areas and bold tree and anative understorey planting to break up mass and scale of built form and hardstanding – important for impact on residential properties and views

Advice given on illustrative masterplan Various views considered and assessed Some concerns raised at pre-application stage have been addressed Concerns relating to loss of hedgerows/trees remain Highlight need to encourage planting of woodland, conserved and restore

tree cover along watercourses, conserve and restore hedgerow structure and enhance tree cover around Redditch (05.10.2017)

Drainage and Flood Risk Consultations

Environment AgencyNo objection subject to conditions. Following comments raised:

Flood risk - Although EA Flood Maps indicate that the site falls in Flood Zone 1, detailed modelling indicates that parts of the site lie within Flood Zones 3a and 3b – through rerouting and redesigning channels and removing structures, vast majority of site would be in Flood Zone 1 post-development with no increase in flood risk downstream

Biodiversity - Biodiversity information lacking – content that this could be secured by condition

Construction Environmental Management Plan - No impact from development in terms of groundwater pollution or levels subject to Construction Environment Management Plan and surface water drainage scheme secured by condition

Groundwater and connectivity with SSSI – unlikely that development would significantly impact groundwater levels within SSSI

Water resource and efficiency – encourage careful consideration of water use and sustainable water consumption during construction (26.09.2017)

Warwickshire County Council Flood Risk Management (LLFA)No objection subject to condition (29.08.2017)

Amended submission:No additional comments (31.10.2017)

North Worcestershire Water Management (LLFA)No objection subject to conditions. Following comments raised:

Flood risko Site specific modelling indicates that the channels on site typically

become overwhelmed readily o Modelling following mitigation indicates that overland flows across

the site would be virtually eliminated, exception being the 1000 year storm would still see some inundation from the Brooksoils Brook channel just upstream from Coventry Highway embankment. At lower return periods almost no overland flow at all, and almost all water held within proposed water course network

o Hydrograph provided within model indicates that overall discharge post development is reduced compared to pre-development rates

Groundwater and hydrologyo Addendum to ES requested to clarify location of trial pits to

establishes extent to which infiltration from site contributes to groundwater

Sustainable drainage schemeo As outline, no specific detail on design and layout of SUDs, however

indicated features considered to be acceptable (26.09.2017)

Worcestershire Water OfficerNo objection subject to condition (16.08.2017)

Environmental Health Consultations

SDC Environmental HealthMakes the following comments:

Contaminated land – site considered to be ‘low risk’ based on assessments carried out to date. Further site investigation recommended, but could be dealt with by conditions

Air quality – conclusions of applicant’s transport consultant’s noted in that traffic generated by development would be dispersed across the network and impacts on air quality in Studley are unlikely to be significant. Recommends that a quantitative air quality assessment be carried out so as to have a robust understanding of the impacts of the development on the Studley AQMA. Concerned with the advisory status of the HGV Routing Strategy and practicalities of implementation. Recommended that a robust HGV Routing Strategy be submitted which includes the construction phase of development

Noise – Worcestershire Regulatory Services will take lead on noise and vibration matters on behalf of three Authority areas affected (05.09.2017)

Makes the following comments: As Studley is an AQMA, appropriate for impact to be robustly assessed

prior to determination Report should include an assessment of impact without the proposed

mitigation as concerned about alternative route in the VRMP – could potentially impact on air quality in Studley if impractical and therefore should be considered prior to determination (28.09.2017)

Amended submission:Following comments raised:

Maintains previous response with regards to air quality (24.10.2017)

Additional comments received:No objection subject to the conditions:

As the Highways Authorities have accepted that HGVs can be managed in a way that does not impact upon Studley and Mappleborough Green, SDC Environmental Health guided by their expertise

No objection therefore raised subject to conditions (23.11.2017)

Worcestershire Regulatory ServicesSubmitted information relating to noise, vibration, lighting and the control of dust emissions appears satisfactory. All recommended mitigation measures should be implemented (25.08.2017)

Worcestershire Regulatory Services – ContaminationMake the following comments:

Contaminated land – assessment, which has been carried out in accordance with current guidance and best practice, considers site to be low risk in terms of risk from contaminated land. Agree with recommendation within submitted report that further investigation is required and this could be secured by condition

Air quality – a number of shortcomings associated with submitted Air Quality Assessment (AQA). However, when considering the nature of the proposed development, its location and current air quality in the local area within Worcestershire, it is unlikely that refining the model further would result in different conclusions. The AQA concludes a “negligible” impact on air quality within Worcestershire which is considered to be reasonable. Conditions recommended (31.08.2017)

Amended submission: Previous recommendations still apply (18.10.2017)

Other Consultees

Coal AuthorityNo observations (08.08.2017)

Disability AdvisorNo representation (05.09.2017)

Amended submission: No objection (16.10.2017)

SDC Governance and Community SafetyNo comments on the basis of the application being for industrial units (30.08.2017)

Warwickshire County Council Fire and RescueNo objection subject to condition (16.08.2017)

Warwickshire County Council Public HealthGuidance notes provided on how good design can promote health and wellbeing (17.08.2017)

Warwickshire PoliceNo objections but provide a number of recommendations relating to the design of boundary treatment, roller shutter doors, ground floor windows and road layout (09.08.2017)

Amended submission: No further observations (16.10.2017)

ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Background

The application site falls within the jurisdictions of Stratford on Avon District Council, Redditch Borough Council and Bromsgrove District Council, the composition of which is as follows:

20.5 hectares of the site falling within Stratford on Avon District Council 10.28 hectares of the site falling within Bromsgrove District Council 0.74 hectares of the site falling within Redditch Borough Council

Identical applications have been submitted to each Local Planning Authority, and each Authority is required to determine the application submitted to them in accordance with both local and national planning policy, and any other relevant material considerations.

The consideration of the impacts of a development proposal are not altered by political boundaries and cannot be considered in isolation. The application needs be considered as a whole, (not just that part of the development within its own administrative boundary) and a decision reached based upon that consideration.

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 application site is allocated for development under Core Strategy Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2.

Policy REDD.1 allocates the southern parcel of the site, to the south of the A4023 and west of the A435, for 12 hectares (gross) of employment development within Use Classes B1, B2 and B8.

The policy outlines the following specific requirements: provide for a minimum of 15% of total floorspace within Class B1(a) office

and B1(b) research and development uses primary vehicle access off A4023 protect important natural features on the site retain mature hedgerow along western boundary protect amenity of adjacent residential properties traffic management and mitigation measures on A435 as appropriate pedestrian and cycle links to adjacent residential areas de-culvert and enhance the existing watercourse feature protect priority habitats within the site

Policy REDD.2 allocates the northern parcel of the site, to the north of the A4023 and west of the A435, for 7 hectares (gross) of employment development within Use Classes B1, B2 and B8.

The policy outlines the following specific requirements:

provide for a minimum of 15% of total floorspace within Class B1(a) office and B1(b) research and development uses

vehicle access off A4023 protect character and setting of Gorcott Hall retain mature hedgerows and trees on site traffic management and mitigation measures on A435 as appropriate pedestrian and cycle links across A4023 to adjacent residential areas protect and enhance the Pool and Blacksoils Brook protect priority habitats within the site

Chapter 6.14: Redditch of the Core Strategy confirms that there is an expectation that Bromsgrove District and Stratford on Avon District would play a role in meeting future housing and employment needs of Redditch due to capacity constraints within the town itself. The policy states that a shortfall of 27.5 hectares of land for employment purposes, to satisfy forecast demand in Redditch, has been identified. This is following a number of studies undertaken to form the evidence base for the respective development plans for the three authorities (Stratford on Avon, Redditch and Bromsgrove).

The policy states that a comprehensive analysis of potential sites in Redditch, Bromsgrove and Stratford on Avon identified the site at Redditch Eastern Gateway (allocations REDD.1 and REDD.2) as offering the most appropriate opportunity in terms of the amount of land required. The location also provides scope to create a high quality business park due to its physical characteristics and road access. Such a development would help diversify the local economy and enhance the town’s image. The policy states that for this reason, a minimum of 15% of the floorspace provided on the Redditch Eastern Gateway should be for B1(a) and (b) uses. Such development would also generate additional employment and GVA benefits in neighbouring parts of Stratford on Avon District.The submitted application is in hybrid form, and comprises the following:

Outline planning application, with matters of appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and details of internal circulation routes reserved, for the development on a phased basis for a total of 32 hectares of employment land for business/industrial uses (use classes B1, B2 and B8);

Full planning application for Phase 1 Ground Engineering works and means of access to the site from the A4023

Both Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2 require the provision of a minimum of 15% of total floorspace being for Use Classes B1(a) office and B1(b) research and development.

The application proposes up to 10% of offices either in the form of standalone buildings or as part of a larger industrial or logistics unit. The applicant states that flexibility of use is required in order for the development to respond to market demand. It states that the application form has been completed to allow for the maximum amount of B2 and B8 uses (i.e. enable up to 90,000 sqm of B2 use or up to 90,000 sqm of B8 use or a mix of the two), with the precise mix determined through subsequent reserved matters submissions.

Extensive pre-application discussions were held on the matter of the amount of office provision proposed, and at Appendix 14.1 of the Environmental Statement, a Market Assessment (produced by Savills) has been submitted. The Market Assessment seeks to review the potential demand for new office floorspace at Redditch Eastern Gateway in light of the policy requirement to provide 15% of floorspace as Use Class B1(a).

Stratford on Avon District Council instructed Cushman and Wakefield (C&W) to undertake an independent assessment of this report. C&W have undertaken a market review for both industrial and office uses and considered this in the context of the specific development proposal.

The conclusions of both reports are as follows:

Savills:

“The adopted policy requirement of 15% office floorspace is unlikely to deliver office floorspace due to the market conditions described. Areas of this important site may therefore not be developed and will not make a meaningful contribution to the employment land supply, precluding the development of B1c/B2/B8 floorspace for which there is a very strong demand and potential to generate high quality and varied employment opportunities.”

Cushman and Wakefield

“It is therefore our opinion that the information provided by Savills in their report is consistent with the market, and that stand-alone offices are very unlikely to be developed on Redditch Eastern Gateway. In our view, reserving land specifically for this use would sterilize the land so reserved, resulting in the creation of fewer jobs.

However, a significant amount of office space will be developed as part of a more B1c, B2 and B8 focussed scheme, with the proportional element of the building built as office increasing compared to historic levels. On this basis, the take up of the site will be quicker, with the consequent earlier creation of jobs”

C&W therefore recommend that the Council does not apply a requirement for an allocation of 15% of the built floor area of the development constructed for office use.

As per the Chapter 6.14: Redditch section of the Core Strategy, the requirement for 15% of the floorspace to be for B1(a) and (b) uses is to ensure that the development would deliver the aspiration of a high quality business park which would help to diversify the local economy and enhance the town’s image. SDC Planning Policy has been consulted on the application and has raised no objection. It confirms that the site is allocated under Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2 and that it is comfortable with the different mix of Class B uses proposed based on the evidence submitted. As the site is allocated for development to meet the employment needs of Redditch, it states that it is for Redditch Borough Council to advise whether it is content with the mix of uses proposed.

Support has been received from both Redditch Borough Council and Bromsgrove District Council’s Planning Policy teams.

In its consultation response, Redditch Borough Council confirms that the site is allocated for employment development in the Redditch Borough Local Plan (Policy 23 Employment Land Provision). It states that the allocation aims to provide significant enhancement to employment land supply through the creation of a high-profile and accessible employment scheme, located where it can take advantage of the M40/M42 corridor to support existing businesses and provide opportunities to diversify the employment base of Redditch and surrounding areas. Unlike SDC’s Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2, RBC’s policy does not specify a quantum of B1(a)/(b) to be provided. In its consultation response however, RBC

acknowledge that the development is not in strict accordance with SDC’s Core Strategy but that the evidence which has been submitted, and subsequent assessment of this evidence by Cushman and Wakefield (instructed by SDC), demonstrates that this issue has been fully considered.

In its consultation response, Bromsgrove District Council confirms that the site is allocated for employment development in the Bromsgrove District Plan (Policies BDP3 and BDP5B). It confirms that it has had regard to the amount of B1(a)/(b) proposed and also the contents of the Cushman and Wakefield report commissioned by SDC. It confirms that it largely agrees with the applicant in that the market for speculative, standalone office development would not be attracted to the site. It goes onto state that the application, which proposes 10% of floorspace as B1(a) ancillary to the overall employment development of the site, would attract a wider range of occupiers with different floorspace requirements, and consequently provide a wider range of job opportunities.

In addition, the site is identified within the Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnerships’ (LEP) Strategic Economic Plan as one of four ‘Game Changer’ sites within Worcestershire, whilst the site is referenced as a key economic growth and regeneration project in the Greater Birmingham and Solihull Strategic Economic Plan.

In light of the above, whilst I acknowledge that the proposal would not provide for 15% of the total floorspace to be within Use Class B1(a) office and B1(b) research and development in line with Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2, I am satisfied that the principle of development remains acceptable. Through consultation with C&W on the basis of the Market Assessment submitted, I am satisfied that there is insufficient demand to support the quantum of office development envisaged at the time of the Core Strategy adoption. I am mindful that both Redditch and Bromsgrove Planning Policy teams are supportive of the scheme and that no objection has been raised by SDC Planning Policy. Furthermore, I have had regard to the economic importance which is placed on the site by Worcestershire LEPs and Greater Birmingham and Solihull Strategic Economic Plan. It is highly likely that enforcing the policy requirement to provide 15% office provision on site could prevent the site coming forward for development.

On the basis of the above considerations, I am satisfied that the proposed level of office development is acceptable.

I will now turn to discuss other material considerations and in doing so will assess the other requirements of Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2 accordingly.

Green Belt

As explained above, the site is allocated for development under Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2 of the Core Strategy. Prior to the adoption of the Core Strategy and associated allocation of this site, the northern development parcel (covered by REDD.2) was designated as Green Belt land.

Policy CS.10 of the Core Strategy removed this section of land (which extended to approximately 9.8 hectares in area) from the Green Belt. The explanatory text to Policy CS.10 outlines the Exceptional Circumstances that were considered to exist to justify this.

Through joint working with RBC and BDC, it was established that land in Stratford on Avon District should be identified for employment uses to meet the needs of

Redditch. The employment Land Review Update for Redditch identified a shortfall of 27.5 hectares of land that could not be accommodated within its boundaries.

A study commissioned by North Worcestershire Economic Development and Regeneration identified land at Winyates Green (southern development parcel), and Gorcott Hill (northern development parcel), as the best option available to meet this shortfall. The southern development parcel is outside the Green Belt but is only 12 hectares in size. Furthermore, a new access of the A4023 Coventry Highway is required to gain access to both sites. The cost of this would not be viable unless both areas are made available for development.

These factors were considered to form exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify the removal of the northern development parcel from the Green Belt under Policy CS.10 of the Core Strategy. As the Core Strategy is fully adopted, I am satisfied that the principle of development in respect of this Green Belt issue is acceptable.

Highways Matters

Policy CS.26 of the Core Strategy states that, amongst other things, proposals will only be permitted if the necessary mitigation is provided against unacceptable transport impacts that arise directly from the development.

Policies REDD.1 and 2 requires the allocated site to have primary access off A4023 as well as pedestrian and cycle links across the A4023 Coventry Highway and to adjacent residential areas.

Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states ‘inter alia’ that decisions should take account of whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up; safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people and whether improvements can be undertaken effectively, limiting the impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.

Paragraph 34 of the NPPF also states that developments that generate significant movements should be located where the need to travel will be minimised, albeit, this needs to take into account policies throughout the framework relating to rural access.

A Transport Assessment (TA) has been submitted with the application.

The site straddles both County Authorities of Warwickshire and Worcestershire and a joint consultation response has been received.

Highways England has been consulted on the application and no objection has been raised as it is concluded that the development would have limited implications for the operation of the Highways England network.

Vehicular Access Arrangements

As part of the current application, approval is sought for the principle vehicular access point serving the development, as well as the initial length of carriageway within the site. This comprises a new signal controlled crossroads junction on the A4023 Coventry Highway.

The internal circulation routes would be determined at reserved matters stage, although indicative access routes through the site are provided on the submitted Parameters Plan (plan no. 5372-205G).

The TA advises that junction modelling has been undertaken utilising the transport modelling tool LINSIG. This tool is used to model signalised junction arrangements and the junction has been modelled in both 2018 and 2030 with the development proposals.

In addition, a Road Safety Audit Stage 1 has been provided alongside vehicle tracking for access arrangements. Based on this assessment and the LINSIG modelling, the Highways Authorities conclude that the junction would operate with reserve capacity and would not have a severe impact upon the safe and efficient operation of the highway network.

In light of this, I am satisfied that the proposed access arrangements are acceptable and would not have an adverse impact on the operation of the highway in accordance with Policy CS.26 of the Core Strategy.

Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) Routing Strategy

Having regard to the location of the application site, I consider that it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of HGV traffic would exit the site and travel north toward the M40/M42 and then onto the M5. This would logically provide the most efficient route to the north, east and southwest of the country, with the least number of junctions causing HGVs to have to slow. I am therefore satisfied that the majority of HGV traffic would not seek to travel south along the A435 through Studley where there are existing issues with the volume of HGV through-traffic, along with the designation of part of this route through Studley as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA).

HGVs are most likely to travel down the A435, through Studley, if travelling in a southerly or western direction. The applicants have submitted a potential HGV Routing Strategy at Appendix H of the TA. The aim of the plan is to prevent HGVs routing south down the A435 impacting on Mappleborough Green and Studley. The TA states that the advisory HGV routes would promote the use of the A435 (north) and the A4023 Coventry Highway to access the wider highway network. These links provide direct access to the M42, M40 and M5.

The Highway Authorities support the principle of this HGV Routing Strategy. A condition is recommended to require a full HGV Routing Strategy to be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPAs (Stratford on Avon, Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council), and for the agreed routing strategy to be implemented prior to first occupation of the development. A condition is also recommended to require the submission of the first HGV routing surveys within 12 months of first occupation of the development.

In addition to these conditions, the Highway Authorities require the provision of a financial contribution of £200,000.00 to be paid prior to first occupation of the development and held for a period of 15 years. This fund would allow for HGV mitigation to be carried out on each of the Highway Authorities’ networks should they be deemed necessary.

Subject to the attachment of these conditions, in conjunction with the financial contribution detailed, I am satisfied that the impact of the development from HGVs on the highway network, and specifically on the A435 through Mappleborough Green and Studley, would be acceptable.

Sustainable Transport

The TA includes a section which reviews the development in terms of accessibility by non-car based modes of transport. Furthermore, the Design and Access Statement addresses sustainable transport solutions.

WalkingTwo points of combined pedestrian and cycle access are proposed off Far Moor Lane to the west, which would allow direct access to the southern parcel of the site. Pedestrian and cycle access to the northern development parcel would be via the new signal controlled junction which is equipped with pedestrian facilities. There is a secondary access arrangement made possible through the public rights of way network which I am satisfied would provide access from the Ravensbank Drive industrial estate. This route requires improvement and the proposed footway to be extended on the northern side of the vehicular access. I am satisfied that this could be secured by way of condition.

The Design and Access Statement confirms that all pedestrian crossing locations would have dropped kerbs and would incorporate contrasting tactile paving to make visually impaired pedestrians aware of the crossing. Street lighting would be incorporated to adoptable standards and accessible DDA compliant parking would be provided adjacent to all building entrances.

In light of this above, I am satisfied that the site is sufficiently accessible for pedestrians.

CyclingI consider access to the site on cycle is a realistic choice of travel as an alternative to the private car as Redditch is well served by an existing cycle network. Local cycle routes connect residential areas to the application site via local cycle route 12 and into the southern parcel of the site from Far Moor Lane. Improvements are proposed in the locality of Far Moor Lane to connect the route and, subject to a condition to provide this, I am satisfied that the site is reasonably accessible by cycle.

Public transportThe access proposals include provision for two new bus stops on the A4023 Coventry Highway to allow the 150 bus service (Birmingham to Worcester via Redditch) to stop. Additionally the 62 bus service exists which provides a circular service via Redditch Bus Station and this stops on Far Moor Lane. I am satisfied that these services would ensure that strategic and local passenger transport is available, which also connects to rail services.

Subject to the attachment of conditions, the Highway Authorities have confirmed that they are content with the accessibility of the development by non-car based modes of transport. This is subject to conditions as detailed above.

Other Highways Matters

As part of the TA, Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data has been submitted. The Highway Authorities have considered this data in conjunction with the Road Safety Teams.

Warwickshire Road Safety Team raised concerns with regard to junctions on the A435 corridor (both of which fall within Warwickshire’s highway network), specifically:

A435 / A4023 Coventry Road Junction; and A435 / A4089 Warwick Highway / A4189 Henley Road Roundabout

Junction

In their consultation response, Warwickshire Highway Authority has provided the following commentary on the concerns raised relating to these junctions:

A435 / A4023 Coventry Road JunctionThe concern relates to the current operation of the A4023 Southbound on – slip onto the A435. The current arrangement requires vehicles to give way; however, the positioning of the junction requires motorists to look over their shoulder, obscuring visibility when exiting the junction. In addition, there is a heavy traffic flow down the A435 Southbound Carriageway, especially during peak travel periods. This appears to lead to motorists utilising smaller gaps when exiting the A4023 Southbound on – slip junction.

It is evident from visiting the site that substantial acceleration is taking place at this location with the white markings being scrubbed away and rubber marks laid down. In addition at the time of visits to the site, there was evidence of accidents with broken light casings, which suggest rear end shunts.

Warwickshire Road Safety Team has raised concern that the additional traffic that would arise as a result of the proposed development would result in an increased risk of accidents at this location, especially with queuing motorists feeling under greater pressure to exit the junction. Due to the 60mph speed limit of the A435 at this location it is considered that accidents would be serious in nature.

In terms of journey times, the TA reports that the largest increase was observed at this junction during the PM peak period, with an increase of 56 seconds between the 2018 and 2030 scenarios. It is reasonable to conclude, as per the Road Safety Team’s concerns, that this additional delay as a direct result of the development would have a detrimental impact on driver behaviour, taking greater risks to exit the junction. This is expected to impact upon the safe operation of the junction.

Mitigation is therefore required at this junction to improve its operation and prevent the additional traffic caused by the development having an adverse impact on the operation of the highway network in this location. Whilst the final detail of this mitigation would be secured by condition, plan no. BMT/2116/100-08 S2 P2 was submitted through the course of the application to provide an indication of what this mitigation is likely to consist of. As indicated, road markings would be modified to enable vehicles to approach this junction at a right angle, to prevent motorists looking over their shoulder, obscuring visibility. Warwickshire Highway Authority has confirmed its agreement to the principle of this mitigation and, subject to a condition to secure its final design, no objection is raised on this basis.

A435 / A4089 Warwick Highway / A4189 Henley Road Roundabout JunctionWarwickshire Road Safety Team has raised concern with the existing layout of this junction. Due to its lozenge shape, at present, HGVs turning right pinch vehicles against the central island. Over running can also be observed on the island. Warwickshire Road Safety Team requested that mitigation take place at this location due to the increased traffic that would arise as a result of the development.

However, based on the accident record in the last five years, only two accidents have occurred at this location with both being attributed to driver error. In

addition, the applicants have committed themselves to a HGV Routing Strategy (discussed in detail above) which would avoid HGVs travelling south via this junction.

Furthermore, in terms of journey times, the modelling undertaken to inform the TA reports that the proposals would actually provide a betterment at this junction.

Having considered this, in conjunction with the HGV Routing Strategy proposed, the Warwickshire Highway Authority has concluded that any request for an improvement at this location would not be reasonable or directly related to the development. I concur with this view and do not consider that mitigation is required at this junction to make the highways impacts acceptable.

Studley Highway Impact Assessment, ParamicsWarwickshire Highway Authority has undertaken an assessment of the highways impacts of the development on Studley. It commissioned Vectos Microsimulation to undertake the modelling.

Based on this modelling exercise, Warwickshire Highway Authority conclude that the development proposals, as set out in the planning application, would not have a detrimental impact upon the efficient operation of the highway network. It is therefore concluded that there are no requirements for capacity improvements on the highway network in Studley.

Conclusion on highways matters

I am satisfied that all appropriate assessments of traffic and highway implications have been carried out and that all necessary documents and information have been submitted to enable such assessment.

Taking into account all of the above, I consider that, subject to appropriate mitigation measures secured by planning condition and a financial contribution secured by legal agreement, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on highway capacity or safety in relation to the strategic highway network, the local highway network, proposed access arrangements, pedestrian and cycle movements, or traffic generation.

The proposal provides a sustainable level of access without the need to fully rely on the use of a private car.

The proposed development is therefore considered to be in accordance with Policies REDD.1, REDD.2 and CS.26 of the Core Strategy, as well as paragraphs 32 and 34 of the NPPF.

Heritage Matters

Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment and the assets therein, including their settings. The policy does however allow for any harm to a heritage asset to be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal.

Policy REDD.2 seeks to protect the character and setting of Gorcott Hall.

Listed Buildings

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that, "In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses."

Chapter 8 of the ES relates to heritage and archaeology and Appendix 8.2 of the ES provides a Built Heritage Statement. The Built Heritage Statement confirms that there are no listed buildings within the site itself, but that the development has the potential to affect eight listed buildings.

The most significant of these is Gorcott Hall, a Grade II* listed building situated approximately 80m to the northeast of the site boundary. The Built Heritage Statement states that the building was originally constricted in the fifteenth century in a simple late medieval plan of a central, open hall flanked by two cross wings. The building has been subsequently altered and extended in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, before undergoing a more extensive period of alteration in the eighteenth century, followed by further alterations in the twentieth century. The central hall has also been rebuilt and is now taller than the original. The building is constructed from hand-made red brick, primarily laid in an English bond and in part incorporating diapering with blue headers. The cross wings are timber-framed with brick infill and tall red-brick stacks form diamond chimney stacks. The roof is tiled.

The building is located within its own private and relatively extensive grounds, which themselves form a non-designated heritage asset, whilst a further five listed (Grade II) buildings are located within its grounds:

Stable, Granary, Barn and attached Animal House Right Gate pier and attached Garden Wall approximately 10m southeast

of Gorcott Hall Left Gate pier and attached Garden Wall approximately 10m southwest of

Gorcott Hall Right Gate pier and attached Garden Wall approximately 30m southwest of

Gorcott Hall Left Gate pier and attached Garden Wall approximately 30m southwest of

Gorcott Hall

Two additional Grade II listed buildings outside the Gorcott Hall estate have been assessed by the applicant. Lower House, Longhope Close which is situated approximately 40m to the southwest of the site boundary and School House and Yew Tree and Church Cottages, Mappleborough Green situated approximately 40m to the southeast of the site boundary. These listed buildings are Grade II listed.

An assessment of the impact of the development proposal is provided on each of these listed buildings within the Built Heritage Statement submitted. The ES also provides an assessment of the effects of the development both at construction and occupation stages.

Gorcott Hall

The applicants conclude that the proposed development would impact on both the visual and functional setting of Gorcott Hall. The site constitutes part of the

building’s historic landholding and provides a degree of rural context which would be eroded by the proposed development. However, the provision of a large, undeveloped area to the northeast corner of the site (identified as a ‘Landscaping Buffer Zone’) on the Parameters Plan would reduce the visual impact on this listed building. In addition, the regrading of land to sink the buildings in closest proximity to Gorcott Hall into the ground and naturalistic bunds would mean that the visual impact on views from Gorcott Hall would undergo relatively minor changes. The report confirms that views to Gorcott Hall from within the site would be altered, whilst additional noise and light spill would be introduced which would, to a degree, erode the rural setting of this listed building.

The report concludes that the proposed development would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of Gorcott Hall.

Stable, Granary, Barn and attached Animal House

The applicants conclude that the proposed development would alter the extended setting of these buildings through the loss of part of the agricultural land historically associated with these agricultural ancillary buildings. However, recent changes of use to form part of a conference venue has resulted in changes to their fabric as well as being no longer read as agricultural buildings with direct ties to surrounding agricultural land. As above, the development would introduce additional noise and lighting.

The report concludes that the proposed development would result in a low level of less than substantial harm to the significance of these buildings.

Gate piers and Garden walls

The applicant considers that whilst the proposed development would lead to the loss of part of the wider agricultural context, this presently makes a limited contribution to the significance of these listed gatepiers and garden walls, which are more strongly related to the principal building and the gardens in which they sit.

The report concludes that the proposed development would result in the lowest level of less than substantial harm.

Gorcott Hall Gardens (non-designated heritage asset)

The applicant considers that whilst the wider agricultural context does help to provide a contrast with the formal gardens, it makes little contribution beyond this.

The report concludes that the proposed development would result in a minor level of harm to the significance of these gardens.

Lower House, Longhope Close

The applicant considers that the proposed development would have no impact on the visual setting of this Grade II listed building, however it would serve to erode the remnant rural setting of Lower House which has already been markedly eroded by the construction of Longhope Close. Due to existing development within the setting of Longhope Close, the proposal is not considered to markedly alter the current setting of the building. Again, the erosion of rural surroundings, noise and light spill would cause some harm.

The report concludes that the proposed development would result in a very low level of less than substantial harm to the significance of Lower House.

School House and Yew Tree and Church Cottages, Mappleborough Green

The applicant considers that as a result of mitigation, namely strengthening of tree planting to the south and east boundaries and the restriction of building heights, any visual impact of the proposed development would be reduced, or completely ameliorated. Again, noise and light spill would impact upon the setting of this listed building.

The report concludes that the proposed development would result in a very low level of less than substantial harm to the significance of this listed building.

Assessment

Extensive discussions took place between the applicants, Historic England and the Conservation Officers for both SDC and BDC at pre-application stage. These discussions related to the impact of the proposal on surrounding listed buildings and they have informed the design of the scheme as submitted. Specifically, provision has been made for an undeveloped area to the northeast corner of the site (identified as a ‘Landscaping Buffer Zone’ on the submitted Parameters Plan) so as to reduce the impact on the setting of Gorcott Hall and its associated listed structures. In addition, re-grading of land is proposed to reduce the perceivable heights of the buildings within closest proximity from these heritage assets.

Historic England and the Conservation Officers for both SDC and BDC have been consulted on the application.

Historic England have had regard to the Built Heritage Assessment and confirms its agreement that the most impacted listed building would be the Grade II* listed Gorcott Hall. It also agrees that the development would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of this heritage asset at the moderate point of the less than substantial harm spectrum.

Both Conservation Officers for SDC and BDC agree with the assessments made within the Built Heritage Assessment regarding the impact of the development on the significance of listed buildings. The only additional building assessed by SDC’s Conservation Officer is the Grade II listed Church of the Holy Ascension. The harm identified was at the very low level of less than substantial harm.

I am in agreement with the conclusions drawn by Historic England and the Conservation Officers for SDC and BDC, and consider that the development would cause less than substantial harm (to various degrees) to heritage assets.

As per advice from Historic England and the Conservation Officers, where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm must be justified and weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. This is in accordance with Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy, paragraph 134 of the NPPF and Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This will be weighed up in the planning balance discussed within the ‘Conclusion’ section of this report.

Archaeology

The ES states that very few records of note lie within the study area of a 1km radius from the development site boundary and none lie within the development

site itself. It therefore concludes that the site for development represents low archaeological potential.

An assessment is made within the ES on the effects of the proposed development on potential archaeological deposits both through the construction and operational phases of development.

With regards to the construction phase of development, accidental harm to the boundary bank along Blacksoils Brook (which has low sensitivity) and retained hedgerows (which have very low sensitivity) could result in a moderate to minor adverse long-term effect given the potential very high to low magnitude. Loss of small sections of the Blacksoils Brook low sensitivity bank to facilitate access and very low sensitivity residential ridge and furrow and hedgerow sections would represent a moderate adverse long-term effect given low to high magnitude. Potential sub-surface archaeological remains are unlikely to be of greater than medium sensitivity, but given a very high impact magnitude from the potential total loss of any such remains during the construction process, a major to moderate long-term effect is assessed. Small sections of the Holloway to the west of the site might be affected by the proposed pedestrian access. This represents a low magnitude of impact to a receptor with low sensitivity and hence a minor adverse effect.

With regards to the operational phase of development, they relate to the setting of the retained boundary bank – with the replacement of open fields with development. This would represent a minor adverse long-term effect, with minor adverse to neutral effect on hedgerows to be retained.

The ES confirms that prior to detailed design, the site would be subject to archaeological evaluation. This is likely to consist of geophysical survey and targeted trial trenching. This fieldwork would clarify the sub-surface archaeological interest of the site and if significant remains are identified, a suitable mitigation strategy would be formulated.

Subject to a suitably worded condition, I am satisfied that any unknown archaeological features that may be present on site would be adequately protected.

Conservation Areas

At its nearest point, the southwestern fringe of the Tanworth in Arden Conservation Area is located approximately 2.7km to the northeast of the site. The ES submitted with the application does not provide an assessment of the impact of the development on this, or any other conservation area within the proximity of the site. Given this separation distance, I consider this to be appropriate and I am satisfied that the proposal would not cause any harm to this designated heritage asset.

Conclusion on Impact on Heritage Matters

The concerns of local people, Ward Member and some Parish Councils in respect of the impact on heritage assets is noted. However, there is no evidence or confirmation from the expert heritage consultees that the issues raised are sufficient to warrant outright refusal of the application on these grounds or on the basis that they cause substantial harm.

Overall, some impact on the significance of heritage assets in the vicinity of the site has been identified as a result of changes to their settings caused by this proposed development.

I concur with the views of the expert heritage consultees in that the development would cause less than substantial harm, to varying degrees, to a number of heritage assets. The scheme submitted responds to concerns raised at pre-application stage and has gone some way to mitigate the impact on these heritage assets. Nevertheless, the harm identified needs to be weighed in the planning balance as per Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy, paragraph 134 of the Framework and, in the wake of the Barnwell Manor case, considerable weight should be given to the harm identified in the final balancing exercise (see ‘Conclusion’ section of this report).

Ecology and Nature Conservation

Policy CS.6 of the Core Strategy states that development will be expected to contribute towards a resilient ecological network throughout the District, and Policy CS.5(C) requires proposals to lead to the protection, rather than any loss of or damage to the quality of ancient semi-natural woodland and aged/veteran trees. Policy CS.7 promotes the protection, enhancement, restoration and creation of the green infrastructure network in the District.

Policy REDD.1 (southern parcel) seeks the retention of important natural features on the site, retention of mature hedgerow along the western boundary and protection of priority habitats within the site. Policy REDD.2 (northern parcel) seeks the retention of mature hedgerows and trees within the site, protection and enhancement of the Pool and Blacksoils Brook and protection of priority habitats within the site.

As part of the submission, a range of ecological surveys and appraisals have been carried out, to include Bat Surveys, Great Crested Newt Surveys, Meadow Survey, Invertebrate Assessment and a Badger Survey.

Natural England has not objected to the application subject to conditions to secure the submission of a Construction Environmental Management Plan and surface water drainage details. These conditions are recommended so as to avoid damage to the nearby Ipsley Alders Marsh SSSI.

Protected Habitat

Warwickshire County Council Ecology identifies the following protected and important habitats on site:

species-rich hedgerows ponds of high nature conservation interest veteran/old trees

In addition, the following protected sites lie within close proximity to the site: Ipsley Alders Marsh SSSI Ravensbrook Drive Bridle Track River Arrow (Blacksoils Brook tributary on site)

The Parameters Plan identifies zones of development across the site. As originally submitted, with the exception of a landscape buffer to its northeast corner and perimeter planting adjacent to the site boundaries, development was proposed for the entirety of the site.

The southern-most fields in the southern area of the site are Lowland Meadow UK Priority Habitat. This is a rare and declining habitat that is of county importance where all remnant pastures need to be secured and enhanced.

On the basis of the southern-most field being proposed for development, Warwickshire Ecology raised objection to the application. Due to its status as Lowland Meadow, its development would have a significantly adverse impact on biodiversity which could not be suitably off-set.

As a result of this, amended plans were submitted through the course of the application to remove the southern-most fields from the developable area of the site. Instead it is now proposed as retained grassland. Warwickshire Ecology has been reconsulted on the amended plans submitted and has confirmed that the commitment to not impact on the Lowland Meadow UK Priority Habitat overcomes their previous objection.

The county important Ravensbrook Drive Bridle Track (adjacent to the western boundary of the southern site) and Blacksoils Brook are both Local Wildlife Sites. Subject to these being buffered and secured from any impacts from the development, to include light spillage, these LWSs would be adequately protected.

On the basis of the amended scheme proposed, Warwickshire Ecology raises no objection subject to conditions and financial contributions as I will now go on to discuss.

Protected Species

Warwickshire Ecology identifies the following protected and important species on site:

great crested newt dormice bats badgers barn owl soldierfly (of national importance)

Concern has been raised by a number of technical consultees on the basis of the quality of the bat surveys submitted. Warwickshire Ecology has confirmed that the bat surveys do not conform to the Bat Conservation Trust Guidelines as they are not spread over the whole season; having only been carried out in August and September in 2013 and 2016. However, objection is not raised to the application on this basis.

The surveys indicate that the hedgerows and brook (in the northern development parcel) are important flight-lines. This is particularly important in the north as Noctule bats are potentially roosting in the adjacent woodland and use the hedgerows to commute and forage to the south. Warwickshire Ecology therefore state that at reserved matters stage, it would be essential to secure unbroken and unlit commuting routes from the woodland to the north of the site to foraging to the south. I am satisfied that this matter could be adequately secured by way of condition.

The Badger Survey submitted evidences that there are badgers on site and the development would therefore reduce foraging areas, potentially causing them to fight for territories. Subject to conditions requiring the provision of planting to maximise foraging potential and a means of connectivity for mammals, for

example a badger tunnel, in the road junction layout scheme, no objection is raised on this basis. The provision of a badger tunnel (or similar solution for the connectivity of mammals) would be a future proofing solution that provides options for any future sett relocations, enabling the clan to traverse the A4023 Coventry Highway and utilise the southern development area.

Warwickshire Ecology has confirmed that ecological issues relating to the barn owl, soldierfly, dormice and great crested newt could be adequately controlled via conditions that mirror any necessary Natural England protected species licence.

Biodiversity Offsetting

Warwickshire Ecology has advised that the northern parcel of the site has the potential to provide a net biodiversity gain for habitats but a loss for linear features. With regards to the southern parcel, the development would result in a loss of habitat but potential gain for linear features. At this stage, the actual losses/gains are unknown. However, subject to the Biodiversity Impacts being monitored through a Biodiversity Offsetting Schedule secured by way of a legal agreement, Warwickshire Ecology has confirmed that sufficient biodiversity offsetting would be achieved.

The Environment Agency has raised concern on the basis of the ecological impacts of the proposed realignment of the small tributaries. I am however satisfied that this matter would be adequately addressed through biodiversity offsetting.

Conclusions on Ecology and Nature Conservation

In light of the above assessment, and as a result of amended plans being submitted through the course of the application, Warwickshire Ecology have raised no objection to the scheme subject to suitable conditions and the provision of biodiversity offsetting secured through a S106 legal agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the biodiversity impacts of the development are acceptable in accordance with Policy CS.6 and the NERC Act.

Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2 set a number of ecology based requirements which are detailed above. I am satisfied that, so far as is possible, these are secured through the development as proposed. I am therefore satisfied that these policies are complied with in this regard.

Impact on Landscape and Character of the Area

Policy CS.5 of the Core Strategy requires development to minimise and mitigate impacts on the landscape character and quality, including cumulative impacts.

Policies REDD.1 seeks the retention of the mature hedgerow along the western boundary whilst Policy REDD.2 seeks the retention of mature hedgerows and trees on the site.

The application site lies within the Arden landscape character area as defined in the Stratford on Avon District Design Guide.

The Parameters Plan identifies employment zones with maximum building heights above AOD defined to ensure that the visual impact of the development would be mitigated in short and longer views.

The full planning permission element of the application seeks consent to undertake the first phase of the ground engineering works. The submitted drawings identify the areas of cut and fill in order to create a level development platform. The edges to the platform would be formed by contoured banks. The proposals (including the creation of the banks for the proposed access) would not require any soils to be removed from the site.

The main development proposals are in outline only. Consequently, matters of detailed design would be subject to the approval of reserved matters and subject to conditions on any approved outline permission. The submitted Illustrative Masterplan identifies a potential layout, though it should be noted that the subsequent detailed proposals may take a different form.

Nevertheless, the Parameters Plan, clearly identifies areas for development and areas that will form new landscaped buffers and ecological opportunities. The zones have been identified to provide for the efficient use of the land whilst seeking to minimise impacts on surrounding land uses and establish the potential height and proximity of building to adjoining development.

The applicants have submitted a Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal (LVIA) at Chapter 10 of the Environmental Statement. The LVIA concludes that the effects of the development on the landscape character would be ‘moderate adverse’ with respect to the northern development parcel and ‘minor adverse’ with respect to the southern development parcel. The LVIA concludes that the development would have adverse effects in terms of visual effects on those located close to it, and in particular the properties on Far Moor Lane in the south. In respect of Gorcott Hall in the north, the scheme would be visible and would result in a moderate adverse effect.

The Council has appointed a Landscape Consultant to review and advise upon the content of the applicant’s LVIA. The Consultant identifies the following key landscape issues:

visual impact on the wider countryside and sensitive receptors (Gorcott Hall, residents and public rights of way);

loss of key landscape features on the site; provision of adequate and appropriate boundary treatment and internal

open space and planting

The Consultant observes that the allocation of the site under REDD.1 and REDD.2 results in the inevitable loss of open fields under pasture; the urbanisation of the on-site landscape and boundary features including Blacksoil Brook; and the removal of some tree and hedgerow cover to provide access off the A4023 Coventry Highway. However, it is noted that REDD.1 and REDD.2 policies and the relevant landscape character guidelines all require protection and enhancement of important on site features; in particular the woodlands, hedgerows, hedgerow oaks, the water features and tree cover.

In relation to the northern development parcel, the Consultant notes that whilst the Blacksoils Brook is to be retained within a landscape corridor, it would be preferable if there was only one point of access, rather than the two proposed, so as to minimise the impact on this historic landscape feature. In addition, it is noted that the development would lead to the loss of historic and some important hedgerows which, whilst mitigated in part through internal planting proposed, is contrary to policy and landscape character guidelines. However, it is also noted that the proposed water features provide a good design solution to the loss of the existing pond, and the presence of soft landscaping to the northern boundary would improve the interface with the open countryside, though it would be

preferable if this were bolstered. This is something which could be secured at reserved matters stage.

In relation to the southern development parcel, the Consultant notes that, as above, the loss of hedgerows and trees is contrary to policy and landscape character guidelines and that the development would benefit from landscape structure and open space areas to mitigate the visual impact of the development on adjacent residents and on views from elevated ground to the east and west.

Having assessed the LVIA in detail, the Consultant does raise some concerns with the proposed scheme in that it fails to strictly accord with the requirements of Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2; specifically the need to protect and enhance the Pond and retain the mature hedgerows/trees in the northern development parcel. The development would however retain the mature hedgerow along the western boundary and protect and enhance the Blacksoils Brook; both requirements under Policies REDD.1 and REDD.2.

The applicant has responded to the concerns relating to the loss of trees within the site in the covering letter to the amendment (dated 6 October 2017). As originally proposed four veteran trees were proposed for removal: T46, T73, T74 and T92 and a number of technical consultees and third parties raised objection to the application on this basis. As a result, the applicant has confirmed that it now intends to retain T46 and T92. It has however advised that it would not be possible to retain T73 and T74 on the basis that their retention would compromise the development potential of the site.

On balance, I consider the landscape impacts of the development, both in terms of character and visual impact, to be acceptable in line with Policy CS.5 of the Core Strategy. I identify harm in the loss of mature hedgerows and trees and this will be weighed up in the planning balance discussed within the ‘Conclusion’ section of this report.

Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping

Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy states that developments will improve the quality of the public realm and enhance the sense of place. High quality design will be achieved, and innovation will be encouraged where it reflects and complements the immediate local environment and maximises sustainability benefits.

The application has been submitted in hybrid form, with the majority of the site being in outline with all matters reserved. The full element of the scheme proposes detailed consideration for Phase 1 Ground Engineering works and means of access to the site from the A4023.

A Parameters Plan has been submitted in respect of land use, building heights, indicative internal circulation routes, pedestrian/cycle access points and green infrastructure (to include perimeter planting, landscaping buffer zone adjacent to Gorcott Hall and retained grassland to the southern tip). The applicant is seeking approval as part of the outline process for this plan.

An Illustrative Masterplan (plan no. $5372-203 C) has also been submitted, based upon the parameters for development as outlined on the Parameters Plan. This shows how the site could possibly be developed following the submission of reserved matters submissions, for buildings, service yards and car parking. Internal circulation routes are also shown. This masterplan is illustrative only, and if permission is granted would not form part of the approved permission.

A Design and Access Statement (DAS) has been submitted with the application. As well as reviewing the context of the application site, this document describes the design process in setting development parameters, specifying the amount of development for which permission is sought, potential building locations, scale, massing and appearance and accessibility by all modes of transport (this latter issue considered in the ‘Highways Matters’ section of this report above).

Should outline permission be granted for the development I would wish to ensure that the details of development as provided on the Parameters Plan be “fixed” by way of an approved plan condition to inform future developments at the reserved matters stage.

Design Principles and Parameters Plan

As described above, the Parameters Plan provides land uses, building heights, indicative internal circulation routes, pedestrian/cycle access points and green infrastructure (to include perimeter planting, landscaping buffer zone adjacent to Gorcott Hall and retained grassland to the southern tip). Assessing each of these in turn:

Land use – the location and maximum extent of land proposed for development is shown. Being proposed for employment use only, the vast majority of the site is shown as employment zones to comprise buildings with associated car parking and servicing areas. An employment zone for parking only lies adjacent to its north boundary, with a landscaping buffer zone to its northeast boundary and retained grassland to its southern tip.

Building heights – the plan prescribes the maximum heights of buildings within the site, also providing a height as measured from AOD to ensure that the heights are complied with if any regarding occurs. The southern development parcel proposes a maximum height of 21m, not to exceed AOD 124.75. The western part of the northern development parcel also proposes a maximum height of 21m, not to exceed AOD 128.0. The middle section of the northern development parcel proposes a maximum height of 15m, not to exceed AOD 124.0, whilst the eastern section of the northern development parcel proposes a maximum height of 9m, not to exceed AOD 122.0 or 123.0 (depending on the specific location). In general the heights do not vary significantly across the site, with the exception of the north-easterly corner where lower heights are proposed to respond to the Grade II* listed Gorcott Hall and its associated Grade II listed structures/buildings.

Access and movement – the plan shows the primary access point off the A4023 Coventry Highway, as well as the initial length of carriageway within the site. Indicative internal circulation routes are shown, as are pedestrian and cycle access points. The access arrangements would allow for sufficient vehicular, pedestrian and cycle routes that link the development to surrounding routes and rights of way.

Green infrastructure – the plan shows the provision of perimeter planting to all boundaries of the site, with a landscaping buffer zone to its northeast and retained grassland to its southern tip. Potential areas for SUDS are also shown on the plan.

Conclusion on Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping

Detailed matters of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping would need to adhere to the submitted Parameters Plan. I am satisfied that compliance with this

plan, which would be secured by way of condition, would adequately safeguard the future development of the site via reserved matters approvals to achieve a high quality scheme, in accordance with Policies CS.5 and CS.9 of the Core Strategy.

Drainage and Flood Risk

Policy CS.4 of the Core Strategy states that all development should take into account the predicted impact of climate change on the District’s water environment. Measures will include sustainable use of water resources, minimising water consumption and minimising flood risk. Policy CS.7 promotes Green Infrastructure requirements to, amongst other things, reduce flood risks and achieve sustainable drainage. Policy CS.9 seeks measures to secure effective water management and flood protection. Policy REDD.1 seeks the de-culverting and enhancement of the existing watercourse feature, and Policy REDD.2 seeks the protection and enhancement of the Pool and Blacksoils Brook.

A number of reports have been submitted within the ES which relate to the issue of drainage and flood risk. These include a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), Hydraulic Model, Water Framework Directive Compliance Assessment, Water Management Statement and Ipsley Alders Nature Reserve: Hydrology Review. In addition, Chapter 7 of the ES relates to hydrology matters.

Two ponds are present in the northern development parcel, one to its centre and one to its northeast. Three minor watercourses are present in the northern development parcel, including the headwaters of Blacksoils Brook. These generally flow from the northeast to the southwest, and are culverted under the Coventry Highway.

A small pond is present to the south of the southern development parcel whilst two minor watercourses are present. These generally flow from the northeast to the southwest through the site, with their direction changing downstream of the site to flow north to meet the Blacksoils Brook.

The site straddles both County Authorities of Warwickshire and Worcestershire and as such I have received consultation responses from both acting as the Lead Local Flood Authority for each County area. Neither LLFA has raised objection subject to appropriate conditions, nor has the Environment Agency (EA).

Flood Risk

The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 (lowest risk of flooding). Table 2 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) classifies buildings used for financial, professional and other services, general industry and storage and distribution as ‘less vulnerable’. Table 3 of the PPG identifies that a ‘less vulnerable’ development within Flood Zone 1 is ‘appropriate’.

The applicant has also provided site specific modelling of the minor watercourses within the site. From this model, a series of site specific inundation maps have been produced showing the extent of the various flood zones across the site at the typical return periods. The model indicates that the channels on site typically become overwhelmed readily, some at even low return periods, resulting in large amounts of shallow sheet flows across the site, particularly across the northern development parcel. The EA confirm that on the basis of this modelling, part of the development site falls within Flood Zone 3.

The hydraulic model has defined the baseline flood risk from the Blacksoils Brook and minor watercourses and has been used to test the outline development layout and flood mitigation measures to offset the impacts of development in the floodplain.

A map of the proposed water course diversions are provided at Annex 5 of the model, and the same return periods have been simulated following these alterations. The model outputs indicate that overland flows across the site would be virtually eliminated. The exception to this is at the 1000 year storm which would still see some inundation from the Blacksoils Brook channel just upstream of the Coventry Highway embankment and where the diverted tributary 3 meets the Blacksoils Brook. At lower return periods there is almost no overland flow at all and almost all water is held within the proposed watercourse network. In addition, there is a predicted betterment downstream of the proposed development within Ravensbank Industrial Estate and nearby residential areas.

The impact of these alterations to the site’s watercourses has also been considered downstream. The virtual elimination of surface water flow across the site naturally reduces the opportunity for losses through infiltration and pooling across the surface. The hydrograph provided within the model indicates that overall discharge post development is reduced compared to pre-development rates.

Subject to appropriate conditions, both Warwickshire and Worcestershire LLFA has raised no objection to the proposal. In addition, the EA has raised no objection subject to conditions.

Groundwater and Connectivity with SSSI

Within the FRA and the hydrology chapter of the ES, reference is made to ground investigation across the site in the context of the Ipsley Alders Marsh SSSI which is located approximately 250m away at the south-western end of the site.

The EA and LLFAs for Worcestershire and Warwickshire have assessed this information.

The EA has confirmed that, due to the distance between the SSSI and the proposed site, in conjunction with the composition of the superficial deposit layers across the majority of the marsh reserve, it is unlikely that the proposed development would significantly impact groundwater levels within the SSSI. No conditions/mitigation is required in respect of this. No objection is raised from either LLFA or Natural England on the basis of this issue.

Sustainable Drainage Scheme

The FRA states that “the development will include attenuated surface water storage designed to accommodate the 1 in 100-year storm with a 40% allowance for climate change. The discharge rate from the development will be limited to the equivalent greenfield QBAR rate, to mitigate downstream impacts”. The LLFAs have confirmed that this is acceptable in terms of restrictions to runoff rates.

At the majority of the application is in outline form, specific details regarding the design and layout of the SUDs scheme have not been provided. The FRA however indicates that it would ensure a minimum of three treatment stages for surface water runoff.

The LLFAs have confirmed that the proposed features, as described within the hydrology chapter of the ES, are acceptable but have requested the attachment of conditions to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the submitted FRA, the provision of infiltration testing to ensure appropriate means of managing surface water run-off and the submission of a scheme detailing the management and maintenance of the ditch network during construction. In addition, the EA has raised no objection on this basis.

Conclusion on Drainage and Flooding

I acknowledge that a number of representations have been received on the grounds that the proposal would potentially exacerbate flooding in the area as well as impact on the Ipsley Alders Marsh SSSI which is located outside the application site. These concerns have been given careful consideration in the assessment of the planning application, but the responses from the statutory undertakers do not support these concerns.

The drainage and water efficiency proposals would be the subject of further approval at reserved matters stage. However, based on the consultation responses from the Environment Agency and the LLFAs (both Warwickshire and Worcestershire), I am satisfied that the final drainage scheme would be in accordance with the Policies of the Core Strategy, specifically Policies CS.4, REDD.1 and REDD.2.

Environmental Health Issues and Residential Amenity

Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy requires occupants of new and neighbouring buildings to be protected from (inter alia) noise, contamination and pollution, loss of daylight and privacy, and adverse surroundings.

Ground conditions and land contamination

Chapter 6 of the ES addresses the effects of ground conditions on the proposal which is supported by a Geo-environmental Assessment Report and Agricultural Land Assessment.

The Geo-environmental Assessment Report considers the potential for effects relating to ground conditions and contamination surface as a result of the proposed development during both the construction and occupational phases of the development.

Both the northern and southern development parcels have been used for agriculture, and the contaminative risk is considered to be low.

Both SDC’s Environmental Health Officer and Worcestershire Regulatory Services have raised no objection on the basis of the contamination information submitted with the application. This is subject to the provision of further investigation which could be secured by condition.

On this basis, I am satisfied that the contamination risks of the development would be acceptable.

Air quality

Whilst the application site itself does not lie within an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), there is one in place in Studley along the Alcester Road A435. This

AQMA was declared on the 23rd February 2006 for exceedances of the nitrogen dioxide annual mean objective.

The Warwickshire Local Transport Plan (2011-2026) seeks to, amongst other things, improve air quality by improving congestion/reduce traffic and encourage people to use more sustainable modes of transport. This Plan identifies the impact of traffic on the A435 corridor as the most significant environmental problem in Western Warwickshire. It states that the A435 between Alcester was de-trunked in January 2008 between Gorcott Hill near the junction with the A4023 and the A46 near Alcester and that in those settlements lying along the section of the A435 to the north of Alcester, (i.e. Coughton, King’s Coughton, Studley and Mappleborough Green), there are serious adverse effects on quality of life due to high traffic volumes containing a large number of HGVs. One of the key objectives of the strategy is to deliver improvements that reduce the environmental impact of traffic within the District and improve local air quality in existing AQMAs.

Chapter 13 of the ES relates to air quality and considers, amongst other things, the impact of the development on the Studley AQMA. It states that the AQMA is located approximately 4km south of the site and it is anticipated that traffic generated by the development would have largely dispersed across the network over this distance. It concludes that the development would not have a significant impact on the Studley AQMA as it is unlikely that the development would significantly affect pollutant concentrations within the AQMA.

The ES goes onto state that operational mitigation measures would be developed, with the aim of reducing traffic to and from the development through encouraging more sustainable transport options. These measures are:

new signal controlled junction onto the Coventry Highway which would include pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities, located at the existing intersection of the existing public rights of way;

new footways and shared footways/cycleways throughout the development that would tie into the existing and new facilities surrounding the site;

improved bus service infrastructure comprising of bus stops and laybys on the Coventry Highway to allow the existing 150 bus service to serve the site;

the introduction of a HGV routing plan to manage the number of HGVs routing through sensitive areas, including the Studley AQMA

The above would be implemented in addition to a Travel Plan. The report concludes that the significance of air quality impacts would be negligible, and therefore there is no need for any specific and detailed air quality mitigation measures.

As discussed in the ‘Highways Matters’ section of this report, the applicants have submitted a potential HGV Routing Strategy at Appendix H of the TA. The aim of the plan is to prevent HGVs routing south down the A435 impacting on Mappleborough Green and the AQMA of Studley. The TA states that the advisory HGV routes would promote the use of the A435 (north) and the A4023 Coventry Highway to access the wider highway network. These links provide direct access to the M42, M40 and M5. The principle of this HGV Routing Strategy is accepted by both Warwickshire and Worcestershire Highway Authorities and I concur that this would be effective in preventing a significant increase in HGV traffic through the Studley AQMA.

A condition requiring the submission and approval of a full HGV Routing Strategy as well as the submission of the first HGV routing surveys within 12 months of occupation has been recommended by both Warwickshire and Worcestershire Highways Authorities. In conjunction with a financial contribution of £200,000.00 which would be paid and held for a period of 15 years to allow for HGV mitigation to be carried out where it is deemed necessary, I am satisfied that the impact on the Studley AQMA would be limited.

Worcestershire Regulatory Services has confirmed that due to the location of the site and the current air quality in the local area (specifically within Worcestershire), the air quality impacts of the development would be acceptable.

SDC’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) initially raised concern on the basis of the air quality impact of the development on the Studley AQMA. It was considered that whilst the HGV Routing Strategy is proposed to minimise additional HGV traffic through Studley, additional information should be submitted prior to determination to ensure a robust understanding of the impacts of this HGV Routing Strategy on the Studley AQMA. However, in the light of the conditions recommended by the Highways Authorities requiring the submission and approval of a detailed HGV Routing Strategy as well as the submission of annual HGV surveys, SDC’s EHO now raises no objection on the basis of the information submitted. It is recommended that the conditions proposed include the requirement to control HGV movements to the development, as well as from the development, and also the requirement for annual reports to be submitted to Environmental Health. This would ensure that HGV movements to/from the development could be considered in the context of air quality improvement in the AQMA.

As I have concluded in the ‘Highways Matters’ section of this report, I am satisfied that the principle of a HGV Routing Strategy, in conjunction with a financial contribution of £200,000.00, would ensure that the impact of the development from HGVs on the highway network, specifically on the A435 through the Studley AQMA would be acceptable. This is further supported by the amended consultation response which I have received from SDC’s EHO. The applicant concludes that, in conjunction with a Travel Plan these measures would lead to a negligible impact on air quality and this is anticipated to result from the limited number of additional HGVs that would pass through the Studley AQMA as a result of the development. The majority would follow alternative routes outlined within the HGV Routing Strategy and managed through the submission of travel surveys and Travel Plan. Subject to conditions, as recommended by the Highway Authorities and SDC’s EHO, I am satisfied that the impact of the development on this AQMA would be acceptable.

Noise and Vibration

A Noise and Vibration assessment forms part of the ES (chapter 12) and refers to the results of noise and vibration assessments carried out on the basis of both the construction and occupation phases of development.

Baseline noise measurements have been taken at four receptor locations that represent the nearest noise sensitive properties to the development site.

The construction noise and vibration activities at the nearest noise sensitive properties vary from a negligible effect to a minor adverse effect during normal daytime operations. Construction works should be undertaken in accordance with ‘best practicable means’ to minimise the construction noise effects.

The vibration arising from the construction works would not be perceptible and no further noise mitigation measures are required to reduce the construction vibration effects.

The change in the daytime road traffic noise levels due to the development is negligible at all receptors with the exception of Gorcott Hall where there is predicted to be a minor adverse effect. The change in night-time level due to the development is less than 1 dB and provides a negligible effect.

The traffic on internal circulation routes within the site is predicted to provide a negligible increase in the ambient noise levels at the nearest receptors. It should be noted that the existing night-time noise level at the nearest receptor indicates that with partially open windows the sleep disturbance criteria is already exceeded and windows would need to be closed to meet the internal target noise level. With open windows the development traffic noise would be below the sleep disturbance criteria within the nearest receptors.

To reduce the noise impact of site activity in the yard areas in the night-time period, a scheme of 3m high noise barriers is proposed around the perimeter of the yards. The barriers provide a small noise reduction such that there are only two receptor sites where the BS4142 assessment exceeds the WRS criteria in the night-time period. However, the highest absolute noise levels at night from site activities, with the scheme of barriers, is well below the threshold for sleep disturbance even with partially open windows. Taking both the BS4142 and sleep disturbance assessments into account the site activity noise level is considered to be a minor adverse effect with the scheme of noise barriers.

No objection has been raised by either SDC’s Environmental Health Officer or Worcestershire Regulatory Services with respect to noise or vibration and on this basis I am satisfied that a significant impact would not arise to neighbouring residential amenity in respect of these issues.

Lighting impact

As the majority of this application is in outline form, specific lighting detail has not been provided. The Design and Access Statement confirms that lighting would be the subject of subsequent reserved matters submissions, the detail of which would be assessed at that stage.

A Construction Environmental Management Plan could be conditioned in order to reduce the impacts of lighting both during the construction phase and operational stage. Subject to this, and in conjunction with appropriate lighting design at reserved matters stage, I am satisfied that an acceptable lighting solution would be secured.

I am satisfied that appropriate conditions could ensure that lighting design would not cause harm to neighbouring residential amenity.

Residential Amenity (Loss of Light, Overbearing, Overlooking)

A number of existing residential properties are located within close proximity to the site, the closest being those on Longhope Close adjacent to the southwestern tip. Properties to the western side of Far Moor Lane line the western side of the site, with a small number of residential properties dispersed along the eastern boundary.

I have had regard to the heights detailed on the submitted Parameters Plan in conjunction with the separation distances which would remain between residential properties and employment zones.

At its closest, the employment zone located within the southern development parcel would be located approximately 23m from the nearest residential property on Longhope Close, beyond an existing soft landscaped boundary to the application site. This soft landscaped boundary is proposed for retention and strengthening and, adjacent to Longhope Close, would extend to a minimum depth of 20m.

Buildings in this zone could be up to a maximum height of 21m, not to exceed AOD 124.75, however, matters of layout and scale which would determine the siting and massing of buildings are reserved. This means that a subsequent application for approval of those details would be required. Accordingly, subsequent consideration of detailed designs, would provide an opportunity for the Local Planning Authority to consider the proximity of proposed development to nearby residential properties. Consequently it would be possible to ensure that separation distances between dwellings and proposed buildings/associated service yards are sufficient to ensure there would be no unduly adverse impact in terms of overbearing, loss of light and loss of privacy. The closest dwelling to the west side of Far Moor Lane is located approximately 40m from the development site. Again, development in the nearest employment zone would be 21m in height, not to exceed AOD 124.75. As above, subsequent applications for reserved matters would enable the Local Planning Authority to control matters of layout (including siting of buildings and servicing areas) in addition to scale and appearance which would enable careful consideration to be given to the impact of the detailed design of the development with regard to neighbouring residential development when those proposals come forward.

Subject to consideration of the detailed design of any forthcoming reserved matters submissions, I am satisfied that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on neighbouring residential amenity.

Conclusion on Environmental Health Issues and Residential Amenity

Concern has been raised locally in respect of the impact of the development on residential amenity; specifically air quality, dust, noise disruption (in relation to both construction and operation phases of development as well as road traffic noise), loss of light, overbearing and overlooking. I am satisfied that subject to consideration of the detailed design within any forthcoming reserved matters submissions, the site could be developed without causing significant harm to neighbouring residential amenity in accordance with Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy.

Crime Prevention

Policy CS.9 also seeks to ensure high quality design, an element of which includes measures to help to reduce crime and the fear crime.

The proposal has been considered by the Warwickshire Police Crime Prevention Design Officer who has raised a number of comments in respect of the detailed design of the development, to include boundary treatments, roller shutter doors, windows and road layout. I am satisfied that at reserved matters stage the crime prevention issues raised could be appropriately incorporated into the detailed design of the scheme and, if Members are minded to approve, I would

recommend the attachment of an advisory note to ensure that these comments are considered in the detailed design of any forthcoming reserved matters submissions.

SDC’s Governance and Community Safety (CCTV) team have been consulted on the application and no conditions or legal obligations are requested.

I consider that issues relating to crime prevention can be adequately addressed at reserved matters stage and the development would accord with Policy CS.9 of the Core Strategy.

Loss of Agricultural Land

Policy AS.10 of the Core Strategy seeks to avoid the loss of large areas of higher quality agricultural land. Higher quality land is categorised as Grades 1, 2 and 3a.

An Agricultural Land Classification (ALC) study has been submitted and this was updated through the course of the application. This evidences that the 32.42% of the application site falls within 3a, whilst 67.58% falls within 3b.

It states that soil wetness is the most significant limitation to the agricultural use of the site, the key effect of which is a reduction in yield of arable crops caused by damage to roots by prolonged periods of saturation. In practical terms, saturated soils also disrupt access with machinery, particularly in autumn and winter. For pasture, soil wetness can restrict the length of the grazing season. Waterlogged soils are vulnerable to structural damage from vehicle traffic, cultivation and livestock, which can be costly and time consuming to remediate. This also further impedes drainage, increasing the risk of additional damage.

The development would involve the loss of 9.65 hectares of Grade 3a land. This land is interspersed between areas of Grade 3b, which the applicant states is likely to result in agricultural management of the land under one system; most likely suited to the lower quality grade.

I acknowledge that some harm would arise through the loss of approximately 9.65 hectares of Grade 3a land and this harm needs to be weighed in the planning balance.

Socio Economic Impact

Chapter 14 of the ES considers the likely socio-economic effects arising from the construction and operational phases of the proposed development.

The ES concludes that the proposed development would provide the following socio-economic benefits:-

employment opportunities during the construction phase, estimated to be approximately 59 full-time equivalent jobs

increased demand for local accommodation (comprising of permanent accommodation, short-term rental and local bed and breakfasts) and the associated positive impacts on the local economy

growth of local construction industry through construction phase which is anticipated to extend over a 15 year period

indirect impact on local economy through construction workforce spending employment opportunities through operational phase, estimated to be

approximately 1,745 full-time equivalent jobs, though this could be higher dependent on the mix of uses

bring economically active residents into the area through the creation of new jobs

gross value added to the local economy increased use of local child care opportunities for those employees living

outside the area but using childcare services local to their place of work development would incorporate the principles of Secured By Design opportunities to provide apprenticeships and other training initiatives,

possibly linked with local education providers

Overall, the ES concludes that the residual social-economic effects of the proposal are negligible, minor beneficial or moderate beneficial.

I concur with the assessment, and am of the view that the proposed development would have a positive socio-economic impact on the District and region which lends support to the proposal.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations

Transitional provisions

The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 came into force on the 16 May 2017. Section 76 of these Regulations outline the revocation and transitional provisions and states:

“Notwithstanding the revocation in paragraph (1), the 2011 Regulations continue to apply where before the commencement of these Regulations-

(a) an applicant, appellant or qualifying body, as the case may be, has submitted an environmental statement or requested a scoping opinion; or

(b) in respect of local development orders, the local planning authority has in connection with that order prepared an environmental statement or a scoping opinion or requested a scoping direction”

The applicant submitted a Scoping Report to SDC in December 2015 and in response the Council issued a Scoping Opinion on the 22 February 2016. In light of the above transitional provisions, I consider that it is appropriate to continue to assess the application against the 2011 (as amended) Regulations.

Alternatives

The EIA Regulations require an ES to outline any alternatives that have been considered to the proposed development, and to provide an explanation for their choice. The applicant in Chapter 4 of the ES has undertaken this exercise in accordance with the regulations and considers alternative locations, a ‘do nothing’ approach, a different design, and different construction and operational practices.

No details of specific alternative sites considered by the applicant have been provided within the ES. However it does state that the application site is identified as the best employment site and that it has the greatest potential to attract significant inward investment, providing a major employment site opportunity which is both highly accessible and in an attractive environment.

The ‘do nothing’ alternative considers the future situation without the proposed development. The ES states that if the scheme does not come forward an opportunity to deliver the employment land needed in the region in a sustainable location would be lost. It states that evidence suggests that some businesses within Redditch are becoming constrained by the lack of new employment floorspace available, and current available sites lack the scale, profile and access

to satisfy this employment need. In the applicant’s view the ‘do nothing’ alternative is not a realistic alternative option.

The ES confirms that the layout of the development has responded to development requirements and an increasing understanding of the site and surroundings. Specifically it states that through design evolution, the site capacity was amended as was the location of development and proposed building heights. In addition, amendments were made to the road junction and provision of an area for car parking in the northern parcel.

The Parameters Plan submitted seeks to respond to key constraints which have evolved in response to baseline assessments undertaken for all disciplines.

Phasing

The Core Strategy anticipates that the development (REDD.1 and REDD.2) would be delivered by 2031, the end of the plan period.

The Planning Statement submitted with the application states that, given the scale of the proposals, development would come forward on a phased basis and would primarily respond to market requirements as opposed to being a speculative development. On this basis, it states that the standard time limits for outline permission (3 year period in which to submit applications for reserved matters to be begun with 2 years of date of approval) is not appropriate.

The applicant instead requests the following timescales: a 10-year period within which to submit reserved matters a 2-year period within which to begin development following approval of

the last such matter to be approved

I am satisfied with the principle of this phasing, which could be secured by way of condition.

Community Engagement

Chapter 5 of the ES outlines the consultation which took place at a pre-application stage to ensure that statutory and non-statutory consultees, as well as the local community, had an influence over the evolution of the design of both the EIA proposals and planning application.

Public events were held at the Blue Inn, Far Moor Lane, Redditch on Friday 21 October 2016 and Saturday 22 October 2016. This involved the following:

1,300 invites sent to addresses within Redditch and Mappleborough Green a week before the events

local MPs, District and County Councillors, Planning Committee Members and key portfolio holders were issued with letters advising them of the events and inviting them to attend

invites were sent to Beoley, Mappleborough Green, Studley and Tanworth in Arden Parish Councils

information regarding the site and proposals were displayed on exhibition boards

members of the project team were in attendance to answer any questions website created to enable those attending the events to send comments

online advertisements were placed in local papers (Bromsgrove and Droitwich

Standard, Redditch and Alcester Standard and Stratford Observer)

press articles generated before events (Redditch Standard, Redditch Advertiser, Insider Media (West Midlands), posting of the news story on Twitter)

one article appeared in the Redditch Standard following the consultation event

Articles in the local press have also been published since the submission of the application.

In addition, during the initial consultation period, all technical consultees for the applications were invited to a consultation event held at Redditch Borough Council Offices to assist in the coordination of their responses in light of the cross-boundary nature of the submission. The case officers for the application, as well as the agent and applicant were in attendance.

I am satisfied that the above events have given appropriate opportunity for third parties, Parish Councils and key stakeholders to engage with the District Council and key parties on matters relating to the proposals. It is envisaged that community engagement and stakeholder meetings could continue throughout the reserved matters, construction and post construction stages of development.

Developer Contributions/Infrastructure Provision

Policy CS.27 states that the Council will introduce a Community Infrastructure Level (CIL) to fund infrastructure and community facilities necessary to accommodate growth and to mitigate cumulative impacts.

As members will be aware, the introduction of the CIL Regulations 2010 requires any planning obligations, including financial contributions, sought from developers to be assessed under Regulation 122 of the Regulations. This Regulation states that planning obligations may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission if they are:

1. necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;2. directly related to the development; and3. fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

The NPPF and PPG re-affirm the statutory tests set out within Regulation 122.

Given that the S106 Agreement associated with this development is likely to take several months to complete, it is currently anticipated that the Council will have a CIL charging schedule in place prior to the issuing of the planning permission for the development.

It should however be noted that in the case of this development site, all developer contributions are excluded from CIL, instead being secured via a S106 Agreement.

Requests for the following contributions/obligations have come forward:

Highways

£200,000.00 to be paid on first occupation and held for a period of 15 years from its receipt in the form of a bond and management arrangement to support the HGV Routing Strategy and Annual HGV Surveys to be secured by way of condition.

Ecology

Biodiversity offset scheme for each phase of development and biodiversity monitoring contribution

Conclusions

I consider that the current application should be determined in accordance with the adopted Development Plan. The site is allocated under REDD.1 (southern development parcel) and REDD.2 (northern development parcel) in the Core Strategy.

The site is allocated for employment use within the adopted Local Plans for SDC, BDC and RBC, on the basis of fulfilling the currently identified shortfall of employment land within Redditch.

The development of this site has been identified as a potential ‘Game Changer’ for Redditch by Worcestershire LEP’s Strategic Economic Plan. The site would offer new employment opportunities and is envisaged to help facilitate growth of existing companies within Redditch that require expansion space, thus freeing up existing units for re-occupation. The site would offer opportunities for inward investment in the form of new companies relocating to Redditch and bringing associated employment opportunities to the area.

The issue relating to the amount of office floorspace to be provided has been discussed in detail above and I am satisfied that the amount proposed is acceptable on the basis of current market conditions.

The planning application has been informed by extensive pre-application discussions with various stakeholders and consultees, and has been designed to ensure that potential impacts have been addressed or can be satisfactorily mitigated through the appropriate conditions imposed on a planning permission. Amended plans have been submitted through the course of the application to respond to the comments and consultation responses received.

Assessing the planning balance against the dimensions to sustainable development and the relevant Core Strategy policies, I consider that the potential harm arising from the development scheme would be the less than substantial harm caused to heritage assets (the setting of the Grade II* listed Gorcott Hall, its associated Grade II listed buildings/structures and to the Grade II listed Lower House, School House, Yew Tree and Church Cottages); long term change to the wider landscape character and harmful localised visual impacts to include loss of hedgerows and two veteran trees; environmental effects of noise, disturbance, dust, etc. during construction phases; loss of Grade 3a and 3b agricultural land; and biodiversity loss to be mitigated through on-site measures or offsetting.

With regards to the harm identified, this could, to some extent, be mitigated by the measures identified above, but I consider that the implementation of a large employment allocation will inevitably have some irreversible impacts on what is currently an undeveloped site.

Notwithstanding the harm identified, the proposals would not result in significant environmental impacts on air quality, noise and vibration, risk of contamination, residential amenity, water resources and flood risk that could not be mitigated by the imposition of conditions and/or legal agreement obligations.

The identified harm to heritage assets, although capable of some mitigation, has been afforded considerable weight in the balancing exercise. When having regard to the significant public benefits of the proposal, I am satisfied that this harm is outweighed.

Technical issues from statutory consultees can be dealt with by way of planning conditions, and the development would not place unacceptable pressure on the local infrastructure, subject to appropriate mitigation measures being implemented.

It is also highlighted that the final form of the proposals would be the subject of consultation with the local community, stakeholders and key technical consultees at the reserved matters stage to ensure the delivery of high quality and appropriate form of development.

Overall, the proposed development generally accords with the Core Strategy and can properly be characterised as sustainable development for the purposes of the NPPF. Furthermore, the development accords with allocations within the Bromsgrove District Plan and Redditch Local Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

Whilst officers have made a recommendation on the basis of the Development Plan and other material considerations it is for the Committee to weigh and balance these in coming to a decision, based on their judgement of the available evidence.

Subject to the satisfactory completion of a S106 agreement and/or a satisfactorily submitted CIL Liability notification form once CIL is adopted, to provide:

£200,000.00 to be paid on first occupation and held for a period of 15 years from its receipt in the form of a bond and management arrangement

biodiversity offset scheme for each phase of development and biodiversity monitoring contribution

the Planning Manager be authorised to GRANT this hybrid planning application, subject to the following conditions and notes, the detailed wording and numbering of which is delegated to officers:

Permission definition conditions

1. Details of layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and any means of access that are not hereby approved (the reserved matters)

2. Application for approval of all reserved matters to be made in accordance with set deadlines

3. Expiration deadlines for implementation of approved reserved matters

4. Approved plans and drawings

5. Minimum 10% offices in the form of standalone buildings or as part of larger industrial or logistics unit

Pre-reserved matters submission conditions

6. Prior to reserved matters submission a Site Wide Phasing Strategy for:-i. development phases of land the subject of separate reserved

matters applicationsii. the type and general alignment/route/linking of carriageways,

footpaths, cyclepaths for each phase and measures to ensure appropriate network connectivity between each phase

iii. the timing of provision of development and infrastructure and utilities (including ‘super-fast’ broadband) for each phase

iv. a site wide strategy for the implementation of SUDs infrastructurev. a site wide strategy for management and maintenance of open

spaces and green infrastructurevi. a site wide strategy for mitigating and adapting to climate change

including measures for:-i. designing buildings to cope with more extreme

temperaturesii. reducing energy demand through efficiencyiii. the provision of energy from renewable or low carbon

sources iv. minimising water consumption and accommodating ‘grey’

water recycling

7. Written scheme of investigation (WSI) to be submitted to and approved

8. Final phase not occupied until site investigation and post investigation assessment completed in accordance with WSI

Pre-commencement/occupation and other conditions

9. Samples/palette of all external materials for each phase

10.Details of existing ground levels; proposed finished ground levels; building slab levels and building ridge heights

11.Scheme for provision of adequate water supplies to be submitted and approved

Highways and transport

12.Construction Environmental Management Plan to be submitted and approved (for reasons of Ecology and Drainage also)

13.Detailed design of the Traffic Signalled Access Junction on the A4023 Coventry Highway to be submitted and approved

14.Detailed design of pedestrian/cycleway connection to Far Moor Lane to be submitted and approved (north)

15.Detailed design of pedestrian/cycleway connection to Far Moor Lane to be submitted and approved (south)

16.Detailed design of A435 slip road mitigation to be submitted and approved

17.HGV Routing Strategy to be submitted and approved (to cover HGV movements travelling to and from the development)

18.Annual HGV Surveys to be submitted and approved (first submission 12 months from first occupation)

19.Employment Travel Plan to be submitted and approved

20.Details of parking for persons with mobility impairments/disabilities

21.Details of secure cycle parking facilities to be incorporated in design of reserved matters submissions (for reasons of air quality also)

22.Details of scheme of electric charging points to be incorporated in design of reserved matters submissions (for reasons of air quality also)

Drainage and water

23. In accordance with Flood Risk Assessment submitted

24.Detailed flood mitigation scheme to be submitted and approved

25.Details of surface water drainage works to be submitted and approved (for reason of Ecology also)

26.Scheme to manage and maintain construction materials to prevent them entering or silting up the ditch network to be submitted and approved

Environmental health

27. The carrying out, submission, and approval of the following related to contaminated land to include

i. further site investigationii. detailed site investigation and risk assessment undertakeniii. where site investigation identified remediation required, detailed

remediation scheme to be submitted and approvediv. remediation undertakenv. validation report demonstrating effectiveness of remediation carried

outvi. any contamination not previously identified to be reporting to LPAs;

investigation and risk assessment undertaken and remediation scheme prepared; validation report submitted and approved

28.Details of scheme of low emission boilers to be incorporated in design of reserved matters submissions

Ecology/protected species/landscape

29. Landscape and ecological management plan to be submitted and approved

30.Scheme for new watercourse channels diverted around the north of the site to be submitted and approved

31.Scheme for provision and management of buffer zone alongside watercourses on site to be submitted and approved

32.Details of all external light fittings and external light columns to be submitted and approved (for reasons of residential amenity also)

33.Scheme for the provision of a wildlife tunnel under the A4023 to be submitted and approved

Notes:

1. Para 186/187 NPPF2. Highways works note3. Diversion and culverting of Ordinary Watercourses will require consent

from the relevant LFA. As this development is cross-boundary, it is recommended that the applicant contacts the relevant Authorities to coordinate the relevant consents prior to construction

4. The applicant is advised to have regard to the contents of the consultation response from Warwickshire Police in preparing the detailed design of the scheme

5. The applicant is advised to have regard to the contents of the Warwickshire County Council’s draft Public Health Evidence for Planning and Developers document and the Building for Life 12 principles in preparing the detailed design of the scheme

Robert WeeksHEAD OF PLANNING AND HOUSING