Extra-Ordinary Full Council meeting 17/5/2016 – Minutes


Minutes of an Extra-ordinary meeting of the Council on Tuesday 17th May 2016 at 7.00pm at the Parish Council Office at 2 School Road, Wellesbourne

Present: Chairman: Cllr Mrs Prior  Councillors:Mrs Bartlett, Mrs Bolton, Close, Heaton, Mrs Hurdman, Mrs Michael, Shepherd, Thomas

Clerk: Mrs Scriven          Members of public: 48   Cllr Mrs Parry

  1. Welcome
  1. Apologies for Absence – Cllr Kendall – accepted
  1. Confirmation of the order of the Agenda – Move discussion on planning item 2 before public open session – agreed

(for tidy minutes this has been left in the order they appear on the agenda)

  1. Identification of any items that might be resolved for confidential session – none
  1. Declarations of Interest – none
  1. Open Session for members of the public to raise any matters of relevance to the Parish

Mr Podbury, Kineton Road, raised concern that the plan was not accurate due to the street names being incorrect.

Mr Lavers, Hammond Green, said the word “sustainable” was woolly and asked if there was any clear definition.

Cllr Mrs Bolton said she had asked the MP who said it would have to be tested in court.

Mr Manning, Mountford Close, expressed concern regarding the creeping urbanisation threatening the allotments allowing the Diocese to sell the land.

Miss McDonaugh, Mountford Close, said whilst the applicant outlines walking, cycling and bus routes, there is no mention of additional car traffic especially to the schools. She asked if the schools could accommodate the additional children and where parents would park. She stated the allotment was a peaceful and tranquil place currently.

Mr Underhill, Debden Close, raised concern that developers would remove the school and build a much larger development.

Mr Murphy, Kineton Road, said the plans show garden and garage losses which belong to other owners.

  1. Urgent Planning – Cllr AP
16/00891/FUL Change of use of land to enable the erection of two sub stations, two transformers with new access track off Stratford Road, 2.4m high fencing/gate with ancillary works including cess pit
At Land off Stratford Road For Western Power
Case Officer Charlotte Dicks By

The Council requested that good effective landscaping be introduced to soften the appearance.


16/01266/OUT Outline application (with all matters reserved except for means of access) for residential development of up to 86 dwellings of which 35% would be affordable
At Land west of Wellesbourne Road and south of allotments Kineton Road For Braemar Mid Ltd, Ms J Connor and Ms Male
Case Officer Anthony Young By 26 May 2016

The Council strongly objected to this application (see appendix 1 for comment)


16/01451/TREE G1: 3 Willow trees – repollard back to previous points
At 18 Willow Drive For Peter Griffiths
Case Officer Assistant planner By 27 May 2016

The Council made no objection to this application.


16/01453/TPO T1 Sycamore – Fell
At The Old Dispensary Stratford Road For Mr Shurrocks
Case Officer Assistant planner By 27 May 2016

The Council made strong objection to this application and ask that the arboriculturalist be appointed to carry out a full survey on the health of the tree and the extent of the fungal infection given it has TPO and is a signature tree significant to the streetscene at Stratford Road, where pollarding may be appropriate.                                                                                                 18

*Payment of outstanding invoices as per attached cheque list Prop Cllr RB, 2nd Cllr BH carried


  1. Cllr and Clerk exchange of information

Cllr VB raised concern regarding the lack of maintenance to the Fletcher’s Way road traffic island. Cllr DC said it had been left to protect a newly planted tree – Amenities/Highways agenda item. It was noted there was still rubbish behind the One Stop shop on Newbold Road.

Cllr RB said the Index was to be printed during the next two weeks

Cllr RT asked when the bollards would be installed in Chestnut Square.

  1. Date of next meeting 7th June 2016

There being no further business to discuss, the meeting closed at 8.10pm


Chairman…..Cllr Mrs Prior……….



Completed 26.5.16













































Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council strongly objects to this planning application as it does not meet the requirements of a sustainable development and is detrimental to the village and those who live here.

Objections are as follows:·

  • There has been no consultation or engagement with the local community, which is contrary to NPPF para 66
  • This is an inappropriate development.  The proposed development is situated outside Wellesbourne’s settlement boundary and the site has not been identified as a strategic site and is not included in the Site Allocations Plan within the emerging Core Strategy; so far as the Council are aware, the Inspector has not disagreed with the comment.      ·
  • The Core Strategy is in its final stages and awaiting the Planning Inspector’s final report, which is anticipated next month and it is anticipated that it will be declared sound in July 2016.  Consequently, the only form of developments which will be considered acceptable on unidentified sites are therefore‘windfalls’ and small infill schemes.  ·
  • Wellesbourne is already subject to in excess of 890 new dwellings reflecting completions and planning persmissions from 2011 – 2031 and therefore the existing numbers represent more thank its fair share of housing as a Main Rural Centre. Indeed, Wellesbourne has had 20% of all housing agreed for MRCs in the area.
  • The cumulative effect of a further 86 homes would have a significant impact on the character of the village. Policy CS5 of the emerging Core Strategy states “the cumulative impact of development proposals on the quality of the landscape will be taken into account” when planning applications are presented. ·
  • Stratford upon Avon District Council can demonstrate a five yer housing land supply with a 20% buffer applied. In addition since April 1st 2016 there have been planning permissions approved for over 2700 new dwellings thereby reinforcing the five year housing land supply.
  • NPPF paragraphs 29/30 outline that a development must promote sustainable transport. This is not met. Contrary to the developers’ assertions in their design statement about regular public transport at the junction of the two roads, a bus runs past the junction only twice a day each way. None of these buses are at commuting times. A walk of approximately 700m is required to reach the nearest bus stop for travel to Leamington or Stratford.
  • NPPF Paragraph 32 talks about transport assessments and it is clear that none have been undertaken as currently some services are being withdrawn from the village. The consequence of this development would be increased traffic on an already busy road through the centre of the village, a road that is already subject to increased traffic going to Jaguar Landrover and heavy car transporters.
  • Added to which, the emergence of cars from 85 houses onto the Moreton Morrell Road (Wellesbourne Road in application) cannot be underestimated. This small “B”road carries speeding traffic and there have been a number of accidents along it. ·
  • NPPF paragraph 7 talks about sustainable development and how it supports a social role. None of the proposed housing is suitable for older people and no indication is given of provision for disabled.
  • NPPF paragraph 7 also highlights how sustainable development performs an economic role: whilst the development would provide construction jobs, there is no indication that those jobs would come from the people living in Wellesbourne and there are no sustainable local jobs after building ceases.  This development is not bringing any new employment into the village so the potential occupants will be commuting out of the village.
  • NPPF paragraph 14 states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. As stated earlier, the village has already had over 800 properties agreed or being built and the most recent development demonstrated a poor electricity supply to the village which had to be remedied by bringing new electricity cables from the M40.  Further to this, there is no indication that any assessment of the ability of the infrastructure to sustain further housing of this quantity has been carried out.
  • According to the Water Cycle Study of 2014 produced as part of the Core Strategy evidence,Welllesbourne is on Amber Warning with , at that time, a projected 596 houses. If another 338 were agreed, Wellesbourne would exceed its capacity to provide fresh water and deal with waste water. Given the number of houses approved since the study any additional housing would, in the numbers suggested, exceed Stratford District’s own figures for the ability to provide water. (See page 32 onwards in that report). Page 41 of the report also states there is no headroom available without significant upgrades which it is stated are unlikely to occur before 2019.
  • Flooding has occurred to the properties in the corners of Wellesbourne Road, yet the SUDS are planned for just that area. Indeed, one and a half hectares will be covered in buildings and hardstanding thus sending water further along the Dene and threatening the centre of the village. Wellesbourne has been subjected to regular flood events requiring large scale evacuation.
  • NPPF Paragraph 112 talks about the economic and other benefits of agricultural land; this is good quality agricultural land and should be retained as such to protect reduction in food production.
  • A public footpath across the land is the ancient “Northampton Lane” and is a safe route to walk. A realigned footpath will lead to people not using it and it increases the length significantly. Morton Morrell Road has not footways along it and this footpath is a safe route for students returning to the collage and residents of both Wellesbourne and Morton Morrell.                                                                                   20
  • The land shaded in by the developers for building includes land belonging to property owners along the Kineton Road, not the landowners mentioned in the document produced by the developers.

To end, there is no tangible benefit to the community from this development and the adverse impacts outweigh any benefits. We would ask that SDC turns down this outline planning application