This meeting was about making decisions on 4 planning applications. These applications were discussed at a meeting, but this article only describes what was included in the meeting agenda, not what was discussed or decided.

Application 23/02336/OUT Land West of Bull Ring Farm Road, Harbury

The application was for outline planning permission for the construction of up to 5 self-build/custom-build dwellings¹ on land to the west of Bull Ring Farm Road in Harbury, with all matters reserved except access and layout. Self-build and custom-build housing is where an individual or group of individuals directly organises the design and construction of their new home. It can be a way for people to get the exact home they want, and it can also be a more affordable way to buy a home.

The application was referred to the Planning Committee because Harbury Parish Council objected to it. Their objections were that the site is outside the village settlement boundary, that the access road is too narrow, that the proposal would have a detrimental impact to nearby listed buildings, and that it would result in the loss of open countryside.

The site is on the northern edge of Harbury, and abuts the Harbury Conservation Area to the south and east. A public footpath runs alongside the western boundary.

The report notes that the proposal would not accord with Core Strategy Policies CS.15, CS.16 or AS.10 or the Harbury and Deppers Bridge Neighbourhood Plan Policies H.01 or H.02, because it is outside of the village settlement boundary. However, the report goes on to say:

“those policies do not make any reference to self-build and custom house building and, as a consequence, are ‘inconsistent’ with the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act.”

The application site was not identified in Stratford-on-Avon Council's Site Allocations Plan, but the report notes that Policy SAP.6 in the plan states that proposals for self and custom build housing will be supported on suitable sites adjacent to the Built-Up Area Boundaries of...Local Service Villages. The report's author concluded that the site is suitable, and that there is a local need for self-build housing because the Development Plan does not provide any specific policy stipulations to address the Council’s legal obligation to maintain a rolling delivery of sites for self-build and custom build housing.

On the matter of the development’s visual impact, the report notes that the applicant reduced the number of houses from 6 to 5 and included a 5m wide tree belt to the north of the site, in response to a previous appeal decision which found a similar proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. It says:

“This feature is considered to screen and soften the development, particularly from views from the north where the landscape is more open and rural.”

The report’s author considered the scale and layout of the development to be acceptable, and that the design of the dwellings could be made acceptable at reserved matters stage.

They also said that the development would preserve the character of the adjacent conservation area.

The report notes that Warwickshire County Council Highways had no objection subject to a number of conditions, and concludes that:

“the application would not cause a ‘severe’ impact to the existing highway network, as stipulated in paragraph 115 of the NPPF.”

On the matter of ecology, the report notes that the Council's Landscape and Forestry Officer raised no objection subject to conditions, and that the Warwickshire County Council Ecology team had raised a holding objection because they wanted to see a Biodiversity Net Gain assessment, but that “a Biodiversity Net Gain assessment is not required” because “the application is for the provision of self-build dwellings, which are exempt from Biodiversity Net Gain”.

The report concludes that the principle of the development is acceptable because, despite the conflict with several local planning policies, the site is suitable for self-build housing and there is a local need for it. It recommends that the application be granted subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and 31 conditions.

Application 24/00748/FUL Fridays Acre, Redlands Row, Little Compton, Moreton-in-Marsh GL56 0SQ

The application was for full planning permission for a link extension to and alterations to an existing domestic outbuilding, the demolition of a single garage and adjacent gates, a new wall and gates, the erection of a new garage/outbuilding with a pergola, and the relocation of an oil tank.

The application was referred to committee because Little Compton Parish Council objected to it. Their objection was based on the loss of trees, overdevelopment, the development's impact on the conservation area, heritage assets and parking provision, and that they believed it to represent a conversion of a barn to a dwelling.

The application site comprises a mid-terraced residential property and its garden.

The report describes the development as including:

“a single storey, flat roofed link extension with roof lantern, which is considered in-keeping with the existing flat roofed rear extension and would be contained within the existing built form away from public views”

“minor alterations to the existing outbuilding” including “the removal and infilling of the west elevation garage door and the infilling of a first floor window with stone.”

“a proposed garage outbuilding sited on garden land to the north west of the existing outbuilding.”

“a new wall and gates… sited on the footprint of the existing single storey garage and adjacent gates which are set to be demolished.”

The report considered that the principle of the development was acceptable.

The report’s author found that the development would not harm the character of the area, saying:

“the proposed development is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the setting or openness of the Cotswolds National Landscape.”

“I am satisfied that the proposed development would accord with the requirements of Policy CS.8 of the Core Strategy.”

“the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and sensitive to the character of the surrounding locality”

On the matter of the development’s impact on neighbours, the report said that:

“it is not considered to have a detrimental impact on overbearing or loss of light for the immediate adjacent neighbours.”

It also noted that Warwickshire County Council Highways raised no objection to the proposal.

The report concluded that the proposal would accord with the relevant local plan policies and that it represents sustainable development. It recommended that planning permission be granted subject to 9 conditions.

Application 24/01968/FUL Land Off, Armscote Road, Ilmington

This application was for full planning permission for the construction of a carport for Plot 2 of a recently constructed development.

Ilmington Parish Council objected to the proposal, because they were concerned that it would increase surface water runoff, noting that:

“There are well-documented issues with flooding on and around the development site.”

The report noted that:

“The site is adjacent to, but not within the Ilmington Conservation Area.”

“The siting of the car port is set well back from the front elevation of the property.”

and considered that:

“no harm will arise to the character, appearance or setting of the wider adjacent Conservation Area.”

The report also considered that the proposal would not harm the amenity of any neighbours.

The report notes that Warwickshire County Council Highways raised no objection to the application, and that the development would provide parking for the dwelling that would accord with the local plan parking standards.

The report notes concerns raised about flood risk, but notes that the development already has planning permission, and that the Environment Agency raised no objection to that permission on the basis of flood risk.

The report concluded that the application conforms to the local plan, and that it represents sustainable development. It recommended that planning permission be granted subject to 3 conditions.

Application 24/02241/FUL Earlswood Leisure Park, Malthouse Lane, Earlswood, Solihull B94 5RZ

This application is unusual, because the applicant is Tanworth-in-Arden Parish Council, who want to install a CCTV camera on a 6m tall pole in the park because of anti-social behaviour and crime in the area.

The application was referred to committee because the Parish Council is the applicant.

The report notes that:

“The Parish Council have expressed an intention to replace and repair some damaged items but are concerned the antisocial and criminal activity may continue and render any rectification superfluous.”

The report considered the proposal to be acceptable in principle.

The site is in the Green Belt, and the report notes that:

“I consider that the proposed siting of the CCTV pole would represent the construction of a new building in open countryside which constitutes inappropriate development within the green belt.”

It concludes, however, that very special circumstances exist to justify this harm because the CCTV camera will enhance public safety and:

“safeguard the availability and positive use of an open space.”

On the matter of the impact on the character of the area, the report notes that:

“Although the proposed CCTV pole is not strictly sympathetic to surrounding character and would become a standout feature within the site, given the CCTV poles functional appearance I do not consider the visual impact to be unacceptable or to cause material harm to the character of the area.”

The report’s author also considered that the CCTV camera would not harm the amenity of any neighbours, and they noted that Warwickshire County Council Highways had no objection to the development.

The report concludes that:

“the current application conforms to the Core Strategy and the Tanworth-in-Arden Neighbourhood Development Plan, and associated guidance and to the aims and requirements of the NPPF.”

and recommends that planning permission be granted subject to 4 conditions.