Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 May 2013 by Roger Pritchard MA PhD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 13 June 2013 Appeal Ref: APP/Y3940/A/12/2188842 Land at the rear of 69 Woolley Street, Bradford on Avon, BA15 1AQ The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Beswick Homes Ltd against the decision of Wiltshire Council. The application Ref W/11/03178/FUL, dated 25 November 2011, was refused by notice dated 22 August 2012. The development proposed is the demolition of Hill Leigh and the erection of 7 threebedroom dwellings and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of Hill Leigh and the erection of 7 three-bedroom dwellings and associated works on land at the rear of 69 Woolley Street, Bradford on Avon, BA15 1AQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref W/11/03178/FUL, dated 25 November 2011, subject to the conditions listed in the Annex to this decision. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Beswick Homes Ltd against Wiltshire Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Main Issues 3. I consider the main issues to be whether the proposed development would a) Preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area; b) Result in an unacceptable increase in risk to highway users; and c) Have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Reasons The principle of the development 4. The appeal site lies within the defined limits of Bradford on Avon as set out by Policy H1 of the adopted West Wiltshire District Plan, 1 st Alteration (2004). Within those limits, new residential development may be permitted subject to meeting prescribed siting, layout and design criteria, being compatible with the character of the surrounding area and not producing highway problems or inappropriate backland development. 5. The appeal must now be considered in the context of the Government s National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published just over a year ago, and a material consideration in all planning applications and appeals. At the www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate
heart of the NPPF is a presumption, set out in its Paragraph 14, in favour of sustainable development. The Council does not dispute its own officers comments that the proposed development meets that presumption. As well as being within the current development limits of Bradford on Avon, the appeal site would be in a well-established residential area with good access to a full range of services and facilities. 6. An objective of the NPPF is to boost significantly the supply of housing Its Paragraph 49 establishes that where local planning authorities cannot demonstrate through an adopted and up-to-date local plan that they have a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Both the appellants and the Friends of Woolley, who have led local opposition to the proposed development, have referred to the emerging Core Strategy for Wiltshire and its prospective housing allocations over the county as a whole and within the Bradford on Avon area in particular. Nevertheless, I give only limited weight to the Core Strategy which has not yet been subject to examination. 7. The Council makes no reference to housing land supply in its submission nor did its officers advise on this matter in their report to Committee. The Friends of Woolley have suggested that the five year land supply for Wiltshire is healthy but have presented no evidence to substantiate that claim. By contrast, the appellants cite a recent appeal decision in the Swindon area (PINS Ref. APP/Y3940/A/11/ 2166277) where the Secretary of State stated that Wiltshire does not currently have a confirmed five-year housing land supply. 8. I therefore conclude that the policies of the adopted local plan and the NPPF support a presumption in favour of the proposed development unless material considerations indicate otherwise. If such material considerations apply, they are likely to be associated with what I have identified as the Main Issues. Will the proposed development preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area? 9. Irrespective of the publication of the NPPF, Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 continues to put a statutory duty on local planning authorities to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. That duty is reflected directly in Policies C17 and 18 of the adopted District Plan. The latter especially emphasises the importance of protecting open spaces and views into, out of and within Conservation Areas. 10. The greater part of the appeal site lies within the north western sector of the much larger Bradford on Avon Conservation Area. The exception is the proposed access road. This would be provided through the demolition of Hill Leigh, a two-storey dwelling built between the Wars on the north east side of Coronation Avenue, the whole of which is outside the Conservation Area s boundary. 11. Although there has been some objection to the loss of Hill Leigh, this dwelling has no special architectural or historic value and the loss of one residential property to facilitate the construction of seven would be acceptable. Nor would a breach in the frontage of the north side of Coronation Avenue result in material harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Whilst www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2
Coronation Avenue may have a strongly linear form, Woolley as a whole is characterised by development behind main street frontages. Crown Court, a terrace of 19 th century cottages on the south east side of Woolley Street, faces inwards and presents its rear elevations, some of which have seen modern extensions, to the highway. Furthermore, 20 th century developments in Woolley Close and Woolley Orchard, as well as Grange View to the north of the site, all take the form of small developments that project back from the frontage of Woolley Street. I therefore see no objection to the basic layout of the proposed development. 12. The appeal site historically comprised allotments, which still exist to the north west, but was converted to a private garden and orchard sometime in the middle of the last century. It was originally linked to 69 Woolley Street and also contained a small swimming pool, the remnant of which can still be seen. Some local residents have suggested that the proposed development represents development of a residential garden and that the NPPF advises against this. However, whilst there is no suggestion that the appeal site is previously developed land, the Council accepted that the orchard represented a separate planning unit distinct from adjacent residential gardens. I see no reason to dispute this assertion. 13. The adopted Conservation Area Appraisal for Woolley emphasises the separate origins of the settlement, although recognising that development over the past century has now linked it to the rest of Bradford on Avon to the south west. The core of Woolley s Conservation Area is the terraced housing along and immediately behind Woolley Street. The Appraisal also points out that there are remnants of working orchards within the Conservation Area, of which the appeal site is partly an example. The dominant architecture is domestic in scale and simple in form with the character of the Area being determined by the combination of properties rather than any individual building of distinction. This is reflected in the lack of any statutorily listed buildings within this part of the Conservation Area, although there are many buildings that have been identified as of local interest. 14. With very few street trees and no public open space, the green and open elements of the Conservation Area rely on allotments, gardens and other private open spaces. The Appraisal identifies the appeal site as a significant private enclosed space However, both the appellants and the Council s Conservation Officer suggest that its value as a heritage asset, to use the terminology adopted by the former Planning Policy Statement 5, is lessened by the limited visual contribution it makes to the Area. Discounting the footpath along the rear boundaries of the properties in Coronation Avenue, which is not a PRoW, the site is not prominent from any public viewpoint. 15. Local residents have emphasised the importance of views south from the public footpath that runs west from the new housing in Grange View. I made a special point of looking at this viewpoint but, at the end of May, the trees along the north eastern and north western boundaries of the appeal site provided a particularly effective screen. The most substantial of these trees are protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) and the layout of the proposed development would retain them and the vegetation screen of which they are a prominent part. I therefore conclude that the impact of the proposed development when seen from this direction would not be as significant as local residents have claimed. Nor, in reverse, do I see that the proposed www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3
development would significantly intrude on perspectives of the skyline when looking north east from the town. I take this view despite the appeal site being on ground that rises to the north east. The existing development along Coronation Avenue is the dominant feature when looking from this direction and largely screens the site. 16. The Council s Conservation Officer has referred to the appeal site as hidden. I do not consider this description to be exaggerated. Furthermore, the absence of public views into the site would be reflected in the limited visual impact of the proposed development, despite the additional built forms and the bulk and height of the new houses. There would be views of proposed development from the rear of the houses on the west side of Woolley Street, especially Nos 69 79, and more particularly from their back gardens as well as those of Nos 83 85 and 93 105, terraces of properties that extend back from Woolley Street almost at right angles to the street frontage. However, none of these perspectives would be visually conspicuous. Any public views would, for the most part, be restricted to glimpses of roof tops that would be similar to other public views into and within the Conservation Area. 17. With respect to the design and detailing of the proposed houses, although the core of the Conservation Area retains a coherence of style and materials, modern development in Woolley has resulted in a wider range of properties. Some are immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the Conservation Area and already affect its visual impact. Compared to these, development on the appeal site would be significantly less prominent and have much less effect on the Conservation Area s appearance. 18. Although the impact of the proposed development on the appearance of the Conservation Area would be limited, I do not discount the contribution that the open nature of the appeal site ought to make to the Area s character. The Appraisal emphasises the past role of orchards in the Area. The present state of the appeal site is neglected and overgrown. That, of course, cannot be any justification for the development. However, the appellants have incorporated a rejuvenated orchard into their proposal including, through the formation of a Management Company, means to maintain it. 19. The layout of the proposed development is consequently relatively open with much of the north western half of the site being taken up either with screening vegetation or an extension to the existing orchard. This would significantly reduce the impact of additional built forms. Furthermore, I share the view of the Council s Conservation Officer that an opportunity would be created to enhance the Conservation Area by ensuring that the management of the orchard was put on a permanent, firm footing as well as providing a new and attractive public viewpoint into the site along the access road from Coronation Avenue. 20. Local residents, especially the Friends of Woolley, are sceptical that the proposals for the orchard would preserve, let alone enhance, the character of the Conservation Area. I understand that scepticism but it has to be set against the uncertainties that must be associated with the future of what remains a neglected, private orchard. I am aware that the Friends of Woolley have expressed an interest in buying the appeal site, but this is a prospect to which I cannot give substantial weight. On balance, I conclude that the proposed development, taken as a whole, represents a securer means for the site to make a positive contribution to the Conservation Area. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4
21. The Courts have held that the objective of preservation can be achieved by development which leaves the character or appearance of the Conservation Area unharmed. My conclusion is that would be the circumstance here and that the proposed development passes the statutory test and would be compatible with both national policy and Policies C17 and C18 of the adopted District Plan. Risk to highway users 22. The Council s case against the proposed development on highway grounds appears to have two elements the risks created by claimed restricted visibility at the junction between the proposed access road that would serve the proposed development and Coronation Avenue and possible conflicts between vehicles on the access road and pedestrians using the footpath that runs to the rear of the houses on the north side of Coronation Avenue. 23. In respect of the first issue, the link to Coronation Avenue has been designed as a footway crossover serving a shared surface access in to the proposed development. Local residents have suggested that the visibility splays at the junction of the shared surface access and Coronation Avenue would be inadequate. However, the Highway Authority raised no objection to the proposed development, taking the view that traffic volumes and speeds along Coronation Avenue were sufficiently low to accept the proposed arrangements at the junction with the access to the proposed development. Furthermore, from my own observations I see no reason why satisfactory visibility splays, imposed and retained by appropriate planning condition, could not be provided. 24. In respect of conflicts between different modes of transport on the shared surface access to the proposed development, advice in the Manual for Streets (MfS) promotes such arrangements on short stretches of access roads where restricted traffic volumes and low vehicle speeds combine to create an environment where pedestrians can feel more comfortable. The arrangements proposed here are not unusual indeed the width of the proposed shared surface is somewhat greater than I have seen elsewhere when used to access similar small developments. 25. I accept that it may be impossible to eliminate totally the chances of conflict occurring between vehicles and pedestrians but the appellants data on traffic generation, which has been accepted by the Highway Department, reinforces my conclusion that any increase in risk to highway users as a result of the proposed development would be negligible. Moreover, as I note under Other Matters below, the footpath behind Coronation Avenue is likely to be largely used by persons accessing the adjacent allotments. It is reasonable to assume that they will be familiar with the proposed arrangements and will take appropriate care. 26. I therefore conclude that the access arrangements for the proposed development are satisfactory, would not result in unacceptable risks to highway users and would not be contrary to the relevant element of Policy H1 of the adopted Local Plan. The impact on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties 27. The Council s third reason for refusal specifically cites the relationship between the existing 69 Woolley Street and the facing gable elevation of the property on Plot 4 of the proposed development. However, local residents cited the impact www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 5
of the proposed development on other existing residential properties and I made it my business to look at these during my site visit. 28. Nevertheless, I agree with the Council that the most sensitive arrangement in respect of neighbouring residential properties that would result from the proposed development is that between the south eastern elevation of Plot 4 and the facing rear elevation of 69 Woolley Street. Other relationships, for example between the rear of Plots 1 and 2 and the rear of Avondene and Hainault, or between the rear of Plots 3 and 4 and the rear of Sunnymede and Hillverley, are well within the range of separation distances that would normally be considered acceptable in residential areas. Furthermore, the properties along the north side of Coronation Avenue already have a footpath immediately adjacent to their north eastern boundaries. This may not be a PRoW but total privacy is already compromised and I noted that boundary treatments here have created a screen between these properties back gardens and the footpath. 29. There will be an impact on the respective sides of the plots of Hainault and Sunnymede that face the access road into the development. This is not referred to in the reasons for refusal, but the Council point to noise disturbance and light pollution in its Appeal Statement. The impact on the dwellings themselves, which sit in the centre of their plots and would not be especially close to the new access, would be limited. However, I accept that the new access would result in some increase in disturbance to the use of their gardens by those two properties occupants. Nevertheless, for the reasons I have accepted above in respect of the limited traffic volumes generated by the proposed development, I consider that the impact would not result in substantial material harm. 30. The properties along Woolley Street to the north east of No 69 are sufficiently far away from the proposed development to the point where any interference by way of overlooking, overbearing or loss of privacy of these dwellings would negligible. I make an exception in terms of the relationship between Plots 5, 6 and 7 and the garden of 83 Woolley Street. The outlook from that garden would be changed by views of the rear elevations of those properties. However, loss of outlook is not a material planning consideration, as officers pointed out in their report to members. 31. There remains the impact on 69 Woolley Street. The relationship of the gable end of the proposed property on Plot 4 to that property has already produced changes in the layout of the proposed development to mitigate what has been accepted as its most sensitive impact. The appellants submitted an appraisal of the distances and differences in levels between the facing elevation of the property on Plot 4 and the rear of No 69. An average separation distance of around 11 metres would normally be acceptable given no windows on the facing elevation of Plot 4. Issues of overlooking and loss of privacy are therefore not relevant. Moreover, Plot 4 would sit broadly west-north-west of No 69 and any reduction in direct sunlight reaching the latter s garden would be minimal. 32. There would, however, be an element of overbearing in the relationship of Plot 4 and the back garden of No 69. That element would be increased by the differences in levels. The outlook from the rear of No 69 would be changed but the gable end of Plot 4 would only occupy around a third of No 69 s north-west boundary. My conclusion is therefore that the relationship between the two www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 6
properties would not lead, in my view, to sufficient material harm to warrant dismissal of the appeal. In these circumstances, I conclude that the proposed development would not conflict with Policy C38 of the adopted District Plan. Other Matters 33. The appellants have submitted to me a Unilateral Undertaking made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The Undertaking has been duly signed and dated and contains two provisions. The first is that the developer would make a financial contribution to educational provision in the area. Policy S1 of the adopted Local Plan and the Policy for Requesting Section 106 Contributions for Education Infrastructure, prepared by the Council seek reasonable and appropriate financial contributions towards the provisions of additional school places that are needed. The Council has provided evidence of such need at local primary schools and I conclude that its requirements are reasonable and appropriate in this case. 34. The Undertaking also contains provision for the formation of a management company to secure ecological, arboricultural and landscape objectives for the site in the long-term. I have indicated my support for this arrangement above. It is an unusual arrangement, but I consider it both appropriate for this site and an important factor in making the development acceptable. I also agree with the Council s officers that these aims could not be secured through a planning condition. 35. Local residents raised a number of other matters with me that I have considered but concluded should not weigh significantly against the proposed development. 36. The first is the status of the Plan for Woolley prepared by the Friends of Woolley. The Friends were avowedly set up, in their own words, as a response, in part, to development activity that was perceived to be impacting negatively on the area. The Friends have largely co-ordinated opposition to the proposed development. The Plan for Woolley was adopted by the Friends in 2011 and subsequently endorsed by Bradford on Avon Town Council. It is hoped that it will inform work on any future Neighbourhood Plan for the town. Unsurprisingly, it does not envisage residential development on the appeal site. 37. Nevertheless, the Plan for Woolley does not form any part of the adopted Development Plan. Any Neighbourhood Plan for Bradford on Avon would be likely to be the responsibility of the Town Council and could only follow the adoption of the Core Strategy, which has yet to be examined. Whilst I therefore accept the Plan for Woolley as an expression of an element of community opinion, it cannot carry significant weight in my decision. That has been made, as required by Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and reinforced by Paragraph 150 of the NPPF, in conformity with the policies of the adopted Development Plan. 38. The second is the nature conservation value of the site and whether this would be compromised by the proposed development. The orchard within the site appears on Natural England s Nature on the Map as a Traditional Orchard. Traditional Orchards are identified as a Priority Habitat within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan. In this context, the Council s Principal Ecologist has visited the site and considered the various assessments that have been www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 7
undertaken of the habitats on the site. His conclusion confirms that the evidence from surveys suggests that the site s ecological value is low. 39. Contrary to claims by the Friends of Woolley that the site is home to great crested newts or other reptiles, there is no convincing evidence of this. Nor has a badger presence been confirmed. The existing orchard trees do not house significant bryophyte or lichen communities. I accept that the site may serve as a feeding ground for bats but I have insufficient evidence to give this issue significant weight. Moreover, I can give no weight to the Friends comments about the views of the Wiltshire Wildlife Trust. The Trust has submitted no material on the appeal and its initial views on the application predate the work of both the appellants in producing an Ecological Impact Assessment (EIA) or the views of the County Ecologist, which substantially corroborates the former. 40. The proposal to fell six mature or post-mature trees is unlikely to result in significant ecological damage, whilst the planting of twelve new trees offers the opportunity to re-create a sustainable orchard with long-term value. Local residents have suggested that the orchard would prove impossible to manage effectively. However, the provisions of the Unilateral Undertaking are designed to maximise the potential to manage the new orchard effectively. Furthermore, as I have already noted, whilst the Friends of Woolley may have ambitions to purchase the site, the current owner is under no obligation to dispose of it in this manner or, indeed, to manage the existing trees in the way that the Friends desire. I therefore reject the suggestion that the proposed development would compromise the future of the orchard. On the contrary, it seems to me that the proposed arrangements for the site may represent one of the few, realistic ways of maintaining and enhancing the ecological value of the site. 41. The third is that allotment holders have expressed concerns that their access to the allotments to the west of the site would be curtailed as a result of the development. The footpath that runs between the site and the rear of the dwellings on the north side of Coronation Avenue is not a Public Right of Way (PRoW) and I was told that a claim under Section 31 of the Highways Act 1980 to so designate it was unsuccessful. These are not planning matters as the Council s own officers have emphasised. However, the appellants confirmed to me that a formal legal easement to the Woolley Allotments Association exists over the site and that there is no intention to end this arrangement. I therefore see no reason why access for allotment holders should not continue if the proposed development went ahead. 42. Finally, the appellants raised in their grounds of appeal issues associated with the manner in which the decision on the original application was taken, particularly the conduct of the site visit by Members. These are not matters for me and have played no part in my decision. If the appellants wish to pursue these issues further, there are other means available for them to do so. Conditions 43. I have considered the conditions that the Council asked me to impose were I to allow the appeal with respect to the comments made by the appellants and the advice in Circular 11/95, The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. In the light of this, I have simplified and clarified a number of the Council s suggestions. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 8
44. In addition to the statutory condition setting a time limit within which the development must commence, I will follow current practice in listing the drawings associated with the application. Although the appellants have suggested that this is unnecessary, such a condition ensures that the public can have confidence that the development will be carried out as permitted. I shall therefore impose such a condition. 45. Standard conditions requiring the prior approval of materials to be used in the development expressed in some greater detail than normal given the site s location in a Conservation Area slab levels of the dwellings ground floors, arrangements for the obscure glazing of the windows of all WCs and bathrooms and any external lighting are all necessary. Details of surface water discharge from the site, including sustainable drainage arrangements, also need prior approval. Nor should any dwelling be occupied before the proposed arrangements for cycle and bin storage have been put in place. I shall impose conditions in all these respects. 46. Details of the internal road layout, access, turning and parking area also require prior approval and given the likely phasing of the development, no individual dwelling should be occupied until such arrangements appropriate to it are in place. Nor should any dwelling be occupied until the junction of the development with Coronation Avenue has been satisfactorily laid out, including the provision and subsequent retention of appropriate visibility splays. I shall impose conditions in these respects. 47. An appropriate landscaping scheme has already been submitted by the appellants but a condition should be imposed to ensure that it is in place before the dwellings are occupied and subsequently retained. In the case of both arboricultural and nature conservation matters, some updating of the information supplied with the application is required. Revised statements should be approved by the Council and subsequently implemented. Appropriate conditions can assure this and will be imposed. 48. I agree with the appellants that its past history as an allotment and private garden makes it improbable that the site is contaminated. I propose, however, a fail-safe condition be imposed that should any contamination be discovered during development, appropriate arrangements are in place to deal with it. I conclude, however, that in the light of the comments of the County Archaeologist, a condition requiring preliminary archaeological survey is unjustified. 49. Given the proximity of the site to existing dwellings, a Construction Method Statement is necessary to mitigate the effects of development on these. The Statement could also cover associated matters such as the means and timing of the demolition of Hill Leigh and the phasing of the development. I shall therefore impose a condition requiring the prior approval of such a Statement. 50. Finally, I agree with the Council that the withdrawal of many permitted development rights is justified and I shall impose a condition withdrawing these in respect of extensions and outbuildings, new doors and windows and any proposal to convert proposed car ports to habitable accommodation. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 9
Conclusion 51. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Roger Pritchard INSPECTOR www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 10
ANNEX SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS TO BE IMPOSED ON THE PERMISSION 1) The hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans listed below: PROPOSED SITE PLAN, Drawing No. CA/P/003 received on 30.11.2011 PLOTS 1&2 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS, Drawing No. CA/P/004 received on 30.11.2011 PLOTS 3&4 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS, Drawing No. CA/P/005 received on 30.11.2011 PLOTS 5-7 PLANS AND ELEVATIONS, Drawing No. CA/P/006 received on 30.11.2011 PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN Drawing No. CA/P/007 received on 30.11.2011 PROPOSED CONTEXT PLAN Drawing No. CA/P/008 received on 30.11.2011 PROPOSED SITE SECTIONS Drawing No. CA/P/009 received on 30.11.2011 PROPOSED VISIBILITY PLAN Drawing no. CA/P/010 Rev A received on 06.02.2012 MANAGEMENT PLAN Drawing No. CA/P/011 received on 30.11.2011 PROPOSED SITE PLAN Drawing No. CA/P/013 received on 30.11.2011 PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND SERVICES LAYOUT Drawing No. CA/P/014 received on 30.11.2011 PROPOSED COMPOUND STORAGE SITE PARKING AND PHASING OF BUILD PLAN Drawing No. CA/P/015 received on 30.11.2011 PROPOSED ORCHARD OUTLINE PLAN Drawing No. CA/P/021 received on 30.11.2011 HOUSING OVERLAY PLAN Drawing No. CA/OV/500 received on 07.08.2012 SITE STORAGE & MATERIAL CORRIDOR PLAN 1ST BUILD Drawing No. CA/OV/501 received on 06.08.2012 SITE STORAGE & MATERIAL CORRIDOR PLAN 2nd BUILD Drawing No. CA/OV/502 received on 06.08.2012 SITE STORAGE & MATERIAL CORRIDOR PLAN 3rd BUILD Drawing No. CA/OV/503 received on 06.08.2012. 3) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellinghouses hereby permitted, including the walls, roofs, windows and doors, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) No development shall take place until details of the proposed ground floor slab levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5) No development shall take place until details of the obscure glazing to be used for all WC and bathroom windows in the dwellinghouses hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The obscure glazing shall be fitted as approved before any dwellinghouse is first occupied and shall be retained thereafter. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 11
6) No development shall take place until details of any external lighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 7) No development shall take place until details of the implementation, maintenance and management of a sustainable drainage scheme for the discharge of surface water from the site have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. 8) No dwellinghouse hereby approved shall be first occupied until the bin and cycle storage facilities appropriate to that dwellinghouse and set out on the approved Drawings listed in Condition 2) have been made available for use. 9) No development shall take place until details of the internal road layout, access, turning and parking areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and no dwellinghouse hereby approved shall be first occupied until it has been provided with a properly consolidated and surfaced footpath and carriageway linking it to the existing highway. The internal roads, access, turning and parking areas shall be retained thereafter and not used for any purpose other than access and the turning and parking of vehicles. 10) Development shall not begin until details of the junction between the proposed service road and Coronation Avenue have been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Details shall include provision for visibility splays as set out on approved Drawing No. CA/P/010 Rev A. No dwellinghouse hereby approved shall be occupied until that junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details and the approved visibility splays shall thereafter be retained free of obstruction. 11) The landscaping scheme set out on approved Drawing CA/P/007 shall be carried out in the first planting season after the first occupation of any of the dwellinghouses hereby approved or the completion of the development, whichever is sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority gives written approval to any variation. 12) No development shall take place until a revised Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall include details of trees to be retained and the means by which these shall be protected during the period of demolition and construction. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Statement. 13) No development shall take place until details of a Nature Conservation and Management Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Plan shall follow the principles set out in Johns Associates Ecological Appraisal Report of May 2012 and shall include means to protect the nature conservation value of the site during the period of construction and an up-to-date badger survey. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan and its mitigation measures shall be retained thereafter. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 12
14) In the event of unexpected contamination being identified during the period of development, all work shall cease until such time as an investigation has been carried out and a report setting out remedial works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Work shall not recommence until the local planning authority has certified in writing that the approved remediation measures have been successfully carried out. 15) No development shall take place, including any demolition of Hill Leigh, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall provide for: i) the means and timing of the demolition of Hill Leigh ii) iii) iv) the phasing of the development hereby approved in accordance with the stages set out on approved Drawing CA/P/015 the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors the location of a compound for the storage of construction materials v) loading and unloading of plant and materials vi) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development vii) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate viii) measures to mitigate any potential conflict with pedestrians using the footpath to access the allotments ix) wheel washing facilities x) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction xi) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works xii) hours during which demolition and construction work shall be permitted. 16) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order) no development falling within Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A-E of that Order shall be carried out, no windows, doors or other forms of openings, other than those hereby permitted, shall be formed, and the car ports hereby permitted shall not be converted to habitable accommodation. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 13