Update Report for Planning Committee (East): 9th June 2016
Committee Planning Manager: Graeme Law
15/00946/REM - (Land South of Campden Road and West of Oldbutt Road)
Additional third party objections received (summarised by case officer)
Pegasus Group, planning agent of Ainscough Strategic Land, have written to the case officer
and to members of the committee to advise of their concerns relating to the approach to the
access junction and how it will relate to their existing permissions and also with regard to the
details of the officers report.
They emphasise that the determination of this application must not prejudice the delivery of
permissions to the north of Campden Road and highlight the considerable implications of failing
to properly consider the existing permissions access arrangements.
Ainscough do agree however that their concerns can be adequately addressed either through a
bespoke legal agreement between the applicant and Ainscough, or a suitable, tightly worded
condition.
They remain concerned however that the final recommendation within the officers report
requests that authority be delegated to officers to approve the application subject to a number
of conditions, which are provided only in precis. Although the recommendation includes
reference to a condition which would secure the delivery of appropriate junction arrangements
at the appropriate time Ainscough object to the absence of detail in this regard.
Ainscough have provided a condition which they advise would satisfy their concerns in the
absence of a legal agreement. They are satisfied for members to resolve to approve the
application on the basis of their wording being agreed. Officers have considered the proposed
wording however consider that some amendment may be necessary to ensure it is satisfactory
in all regards.
The applicant has been copied into Pegasus Group’s above correspondence and they advise that
they are agreeable to allowing a further extension of time to allow an appropriately worded
condition to be negotiated between the relevant parties if a resolution to grant permission is
reached.
Officers view is that it is necessary to determine the application as expeditiously as possible,
and that because it is agreed between all parties that the junction arrangements can be
appropriately handled by a condition, this approach is therefore to be preferred.
Officers remain satisfied that members may resolve to delegate authority to grant approval
subject to the conditions and notes within the report. However it is recommended, that a
proviso be added, that condition 6 referred to in the officers report, shall be subject to final
negotiations to ensure that the approved developments north of Campden Road are not
prejudiced. Final determination of the application shall occur only following agreement of the
committee chair and that if a Notice of Decision is not issued within 3 months from the date of
this committee then the application shall be referred back to this committee for further
consideration.
Finally, the applicant has advised that, outside of the planning process, the legal agreement
which is expected between the two parties is very close to completion (if it is in place prior to
the committee members will be verbally updated in this regard).
Page 1 of 2
16/00347/REM – 39 London Road, Shipston on Stour
Additional third party representations received (summarised by case officer)
 Loss of trees will be detrimental to the privacy of neighboring property
 Layout of the site leaves no room for landscaping on north/east boundaries of neighbour
 Side facing upper floor window of neighbouring property is a primary source of light
based on the fact it is larger in size than the front facing window serving the same room
 Harmful loss of light will therefore be caused to this window by the development
 The garage of the property was built at the same time as the house (c.1930) with later
first floor extension above built c.1960’s
Officer note
The revised layout plan indicates the removal of the boundary vegetation to the north, which,
on the original plan, was proposed to be retained. The re-positioning of the access drive to
address the previous reason for refusal necessitates the need to remove that extent of
vegetation. It is noted that the site is neither within a conservation area, nor are there any
TPO’s within the site and these trees could be removed at any time. On balance, it is officers’
opinion that the removal of this vegetation would not lead to unacceptable visual harm. In view
of the separation distances involved between the proposed dwellings and the existing dwellings
that flank either side of the development site, it would not give rise to unacceptable levels of
harm to neighbouring amenity either.
16/00639/FUL – 39 London Road, Shipston on Stour
Correction to report (p.41)
Under the heading ‘Impact on neighbouring amenity’, para.2, should read “the new dwellings
would have a gabled roof”
Additional third party representations received (summarised by case officer)
 Loss of trees will be detrimental to the privacy of neighboring property
 Layout of the site leaves no room for landscaping on north/east boundaries of neighbour
 Side facing upper floor window of neighbouring property is a primary source of light
based on the fact it is larger in size than the front facing window serving the same room
 Harmful loss of light will therefore be caused to this window by the development
 The garage of the property was built at the same time as the house (c.1930) with later
first floor extension above built c.1960’s
Officer note
The revised layout plan indicates the removal of the boundary vegetation to the north, which,
on the original plan, was proposed to be retained. The re-positioning of the access drive to
address the previous reason for refusal necessitates the need to remove that extent of
vegetation. It is noted that the site is neither within a conservation area, nor are there any
TPO’s within the site and these trees could be removed at any time. On balance, it is officers’
opinion that the removal of this vegetation would not lead to unacceptable visual harm. In view
of the separation distances involved between the proposed dwellings and the existing dwellings
that flank either side of the development site, it would not give rise to unacceptable levels of
harm to neighbouring amenity either.
Page 2 of 2