Case Reference: 3234530

Appeal Decisions
Inquiry Held on 3 to 6 December 2019
Site visit made on 4 December 2019
by R Barrett BSc (Hons) MSc Dip UD Dip Hist Cons MRTPI IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 31 January 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/W/19/3234530 (Appeal A)
land west of Parsonage Road, Takeley CM22 6PU
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Uttlesford District Council.
• The application Ref UTT/19/0393/OP, dated 8 February 2019, was refused by notice
dated 29 July 2019.
• The development proposed is described as ‘development of up to 119 dwellings
(including affordable housing) including vehicular and pedestrian accesses,
infrastructure, open space, footpath links, children’s play area, landscaping, green
infrastructure, surface water management, wastewater pumping station and associated
works and either a community building (use class D1); or a dwelling’.
Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/W/19/3234532 (Appeal B)
land east of Parsonage Road, Takeley CM22 6PU
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Uttlesford District Council.
• The application Ref UTT/19/0394/OP, dated 8 February 2019, was refused by notice
dated 29 July 2019.
• The development proposed is described as ’development of a care home (use class C2)
with up to 66 bed spaces, including vehicular and pedestrian access, parking,
infrastructure, landscaping and associated works’.
Decisions
1. Appeal A is allowed, and planning permission is granted for ‘development of up
to 119 dwellings (including affordable housing and self-build plots) including
vehicular and pedestrian accesses, infrastructure, open space, footpath links,
children’s play area, landscaping, green infrastructure, surface water
management, wastewater pumping station and associated works and either a
community building (use class D1); or a dwelling’, at land west of Parsonage
Road, Takeley CM22 6PU, in accordance with application Ref UTT/19/0393/OP,
dated 8 February 2019, subject to the conditions set out in annex C to these
decisions.
2. Appeal B is allowed, and planning permission is granted for ‘development of a
care home (use class C2) with up to 66 bed spaces, including vehicular and
pedestrian access, parking, infrastructure, landscaping and associated works’,
at land east of Parsonage Road, Takeley CM22 6PU, in accordance with
application Ref UTT/19/0394/OP, dated 8 February 2019, subject to the
conditions set out in annex C to these decisions.
Procedural Matters
Appeal A and B
3. As the appeal sites are located either side of Parsonage Road, very close to one
another, and raise some similar issues and have the same appellant, they were
dealt with in one inquiry. Whilst I have considered each appeal on its
individual merits, in the interests of succinctness, I have dealt with them in one
decision letter.
Appeal A
4. During the course of the appeal the appellant amended the proposal to include
the provision for 12 self-build and custom-build housing plots. The proposed
amendment would not materially alter the nature of the appeal proposal. I
note that third parties and others were consulted on the proposed amended
description of development on 23 October 2019. For both of these reasons,
with regard to the Wheatcroft principles1, consideration of that amended
description of development and related indicative self-build location plan
(P17_2649_36) as part of this appeal would not prejudice the interests of third
parties. I intend to determine the appeal accordingly.
5. The two main parties agreed a revised description of development, which is set
out in my formal decision above. The description of development in the banner
heading reflects that on the application form.
6. The appeal application was submitted in outline with access to be determined
at this stage. All other matters, including layout, appearance, scale and
landscaping are matters reserved for future consideration.
7. The self-build location plan (drawing number P17_2649_36) and parameter
plan (P17_2649_29 Rev E) are for illustrative purposes only. However,
appellant’s suggested condition 4, indicates that development should be carried
out in general accordance with them, accepting that the storey heights
indicated on the parameter plan are for illustrative purposes only. As this is an
outline scheme and scale is a reserved matter, I am dealing with the appeal on
this basis.
8. An indicative masterplan (P17_2649_01_Rev H) and strategic landscape
masterplan (P17_2649_12), it is confirmed are for illustrative purposes only.
However, suggested and agreed condition 23 refers to the provision of the trim
trail and outdoor seating shown on the strategic landscape masterplan and
therefore I have taken this into account in making my decision. A tree survey
plan (711_D1_AIA Rev A) was also submitted with the appeal application. The
top plan relating to the existing trees and planting was the basis of the
Council’s determination; the lower part, relating to the proposed site plan, it
was confirmed is for illustrative purposes only. I am determining the appeal on
that basis.
9. A planning obligation proposed to secure affordable housing, self-build and
custom-build housebuilding plots, open space and play area provision, health
1 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL1982P37]
contributions, mitigation measures to offset likely impacts on the Hatfield
Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and National Nature Reserve
(NNR), skylark mitigation, education contribution, highway improvements and
improvements to the public rights of way (PROW) is before me. I will consider
this later in my decision letter.
Appeal B
10. In relation to appeal B, the description of development in the banner heading is
taken from the appellant’s application form. It differs slightly from that used in
the Council’s decision notice. However, the difference is not material and so I
have used it in my formal decision.
11. The appeal application was submitted in outline with access to be determined
at this stage. All other matters, including layout, appearance, scale and
landscaping are reserved for future consideration.
12. A strategic indicative layout plan and strategic landscape masterplan were
submitted with the appeal application. It is confirmed that these are for
illustrative purposes only. I am determining the appeal on that basis.
13. A planning obligation proposed to secure a financial contribution to health care
provision and a workplace travel plan is before me. I will consider this later in
my decision.
Appeal A and Appeal B
14. Post inquiry, the Inspectors examining the emerging Uttlesford Local Plan (eLP)
issued a letter outlining their findings on that plan to date. That set out their
view that withdrawal of the eLP from examination is likely to be the most
appropriate option. The views of both main parties were provided. My
decisions have been made in light of this matter and the views expressed.
Main Issues
15. In respect of appeal A and B, the effect of the appeal proposals on the
character and appearance of the countryside around the airport, as defined by
the Countryside Protection Zone (CPZ) identified in policy S8 of the Uttlesford
Local Plan (2005) (LP), having particular regard to its open characteristics and
coalescence between Stanstead Airport and existing development.
16. In respect of appeal A only, the effect of the appeal proposal on the special
architectural or historic interest of the Church of the Holy Trinity, a grade I
listed building and designated heritage asset, with particular regard to its
setting.
Reasons
Appeal A and B
Character and appearance of the countryside around the airport as defined by the
CPZ
17. The appeal sites fall within the CPZ as defined in LP policy S8. That is an area
of countryside around Stanstead Airport. Within the CPZ there are strict
controls on new development, with particular regard to new uses or
development that would promote coalescence between the airport and existing
development in the surrounding countryside and adversely affect the open
characteristics of the zone.
18. As the appeal sites are green and generally open fields with some planting,
they contribute to the character and appearance of the countryside around the
airport, and the CPZ as a whole. However, both adjoin development in
Takeley. The A120 carriageway is close by and Parsonage Road divides the
sites. Trees and planting screen views of the A120 and the airport to a great
extent, but their presence is still appreciable through some filtered views of
some airport development and traffic and aircraft noise. In addition, views of
houses and other development on the edge of Takeley can be seen. Whilst the
appeal sites are within the countryside and open, they also have strong
suburban influences and have a less rural character and appearance than other
parts of the countryside around the airport and the CPZ.
19. The appeal proposals would result in development where there is no
development at present and in this regard would reduce openness in the
countryside around the airport. However, the impact of that would be limited
by a number of factors. Firstly, the appeal sites form a small part of the
countryside around the airport and both sites are located on its outer edge.
Secondly, the proposed developments would be well related to the existing
settlement. Thirdly, having regard to the parameter plan (appeal A) and the
indicative layout (appeal B), large areas of open space would be included within
both developments. In addition, there would be potential for the retention of
existing trees and significant planting, the effect of which would be to help
screen development. All these matters, together, would reduce the appeal
proposals impact of openness on the countryside around the airport.
20. In terms of coalescence with the airport, I acknowledge that both appeals
would reduce the open fields between the airport and Takeley, in a location
where the gap between the airport and surrounding development is less than in
other areas of the CPZ. That would result in some harm. However, again that
harm would be limited due to a number of factors. Significant separation
distance between the areas of built development and the airport would remain,
having regard to both the airport buildings and carparking areas. In relation to
appeal A, the large area of open space referred to above, incorporating a
woodland area would sit between the built up area of the site and the A120 and
the airport. In relation to appeal B, a significant area of open countryside
would remain adjacent to the A120. In relation to both appeals, the A120
carriageway would run between the proposed developments and the airport.
That, together with its significant tree planting, and new tree planting, would
further reduce the perception of any coalescence, even if decked parking were
to come forward as part of the airport closest to the appeal sites. The A120
carriageway also has the potential to act as a barrier to any further coalescence
between the airport and Takeley. All in all, whilst some harm to the character
and appearance of the countryside around the airport and the CPZ as a whole
would result, with regard to coalescence with the airport, that harm would
again be limited.
21. With regard to the impact on the rural character of the countryside around the
airport, given the existing character and appearance of the locality, which is
influenced by suburban development already, the appeal proposals would not
appear out of place. In addition, whilst landscape is reserved for future
consideration, in relation to appeal A, there would be the potential to create a
‘naturalistic’ rural landscape within the large area of open space closest to the
airport, incorporating significant tree planting. The rural setting to the A120
would not be materially impacted along with the rural setting of the airport. All
in all, the appeal developments would have a limited impact in this regard.
22. In terms of any change to the rural settlement pattern in the countryside
around the airport, as both appeal developments would adjoin development on
the edge of Takeley, that again would be limited. In addition, in relation to
appeal A, the built development would not extend much beyond existing
development on the east side of Parsonage Road. In relation to appeal B,
although it would extend further north than existing development at Takeley, it
would generally respect the eastern extent of development along Parsonage
Road. With regard to the appeal development’s relationship with existing
development, due to the separation distance, the scale of nearby development,
some of which is above two storeys, and the potential for significant planting,
there is scope in both schemes to provide an acceptable relationship with
existing development. In relation to appeal B, for the same reasons, the
potential exists to provide a development that relates well to the existing
settlement, including the Stanstead Business Centre nearby and the approach
from the north.
23. The appeal proposals would be visible from Harcamlow Way, part of which
crosses the appeal sites. I acknowledge that this is an important right of way
that extends beyond both appeal sites, has some historic association with the
Church of the Holy Trinity and I have no evidence to contradict the proposition
that it is well used. However, given the separation distance between the public
right of way and the proposed built form, existing planting and the potential for
significant proposed planting, I consider that the harm that would arise to
users of the route would again be limited. This would be more so the case
should the landscaping be ‘naturalistic’ in character between the Harcamlow
Way and the proposed built form. I make the above judgement having regard
to the findings of the LVIA that accompanied appeal A.
24. In coming to the above conclusions, I have had regard to the findings of the
Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2018), which found
that part of the appeal A site was not appropriate for development. That
document is a high-level evidence base document for the eLP. Whilst I have
not disagreed with its findings, that part of the appeal A site contributes to the
function of the CPZ, on the basis of the evidence before me, and for the
reasons set out above, I have concluded that its development would not be a
significant intrusion into the CPZ.
25. I have also had regard to the Uttlesford CPZ Study (2016), which assesses the
effectiveness of the CPZ. I note the purposes of the CPZ as set out within that
study. I have assessed the appeal proposals against them. I acknowledge that
study’s conclusions in relation to the parcels of the CPZ in which the appeal
sites are located. However, for all the reasons set out previously, the findings
of that study do not alter my conclusions.
26. I acknowledge the appeal sites’ contribute to the functions of the CPZ. I also
accept that the appeal proposals would result in the permanent loss of
undeveloped land within it. However, for all the reasons outlined above, the
harm to the character and appearance of countryside around the airport and
therefore the CPZ as a whole would be limited. I have considered the
arguments that the grant of these planning permissions would set a precedent
for other similar developments. However, each application and appeal must be
determined on its individual merits and a generalised concern of this nature is
not a reason for withholding permission in either case. As my considerations
are based on the merits of the cases before me, I am not convinced that any
grant of planning permission, individually or cumulatively, would result in
further pressure to release sites or for the A120 to become the new boundary
of the CPZ in the south; the latter being a matter beyond the scope of these
appeals.
27. In coming to my conclusions, I have had regard to the findings of an Inspector
in determining an appeal at Great Canfield. However, the circumstances of
that appeal do not replicate those before me (Ref APP/C1570/W/18/3213251).
A number of other appeal decisions are before me, too numerous to list in full2.
However, on close consideration, they relate to different developments, in
different parts of the CPZ, with different considerations at play. Overall, I am
satisfied that none of those replicate the circumstances of these appeals.
28. Overall, having regard to all considerations, I conclude that both appeal A and
appeal B would individually result in some limited harm to the countryside
around the airport, as defined by the Countryside Protection Zone (CPZ) and
identified in policy S8 of the Local Plan, in relation to its open characteristics
and coalescence between Stanstead Airport and existing development. In this
respect both appeals would fail to accord with Local Plan policy S8. Further, for
all the reasons set out above, I conclude that the cumulative impact of both
appeals would still be limited. However, a similar policy conflict would be a
consequence.
Church of the Holy Trinity
29. It is agreed between the two main parties that the significance of the listed
building lies primarily in its historic and architectural importance as a well
preserved example of a multi-phased medieval church. Those matters
contribute to its designation as a heritage asset of the highest significance.
However, some heritage significance derives from its setting, although
materially less than those matters above.
30. The setting of the Church of the Holy Trinity includes its immediate
surroundings, including its graveyard, from which one can most readily
experience its architectural and historic significance. Its wider setting includes
the surrounding agricultural landscape, which provides its isolated rural setting
and divides it from Takeley and other settlements. That rural and agricultural
setting has little changed in use throughout its history. Whatever the reason
for the location of the church in its now isolated position, the evidence before
me suggests that its isolation has persisted for most of its history and
contributes to its understanding and significance.
31. Primary sources confirm that the public right of way that traverses the appeal
site, now known as part of the Harcamlow Way, has persisted since at least the
19th century, from which longer range intermittent and filtered views of the
Church are afforded. It is possible that this route has earlier origins and
formed part of a processional route to the Church from surrounding parishes.
2 Those most relevant to these appeals APP/C1570/W/15/313741; APP/C1570/W/16/3165516;
APP/C1570/W/16/3144380; APP/C1570/W/18/3219136; APP/C1570/W/19/3235402.
However, I do not have substantive evidence to conclude in those terms. The
appeal site sits within the wider agricultural landscape that surrounds the
Church which contributes to its isolated position and affords views to the
Church and the tower. In this respect it contributes to the Church’s
significance as a heritage asset.
32. Views from surrounding land also contribute to the experience of the listed
church. The footpaths to the north west, in the broad location of a deserted
medieval settlement, provide medium range views that enable some
appreciation of the architectural and artistic value of the listed church. Longer
range views, including those from the appeal site and the Harcamlow Way
enable an appreciation of the Church and its tower at longer range, usually in
silhouette which provide an appreciation of its dominance over the rural
agricultural landscape and its isolation.
Impact of Development
33. The appeal proposal would sit within the wider, mainly agricultural setting of
the Church. Developing the appeal site in the manner proposed would change
its appearance and somewhat erode its rural, agricultural setting. It would
alter some of the views from the Harcamlow Way and Parsonage Road across
the appeal site. Those views would include some of the appeal development
within them. This would represent some harm to the setting of the listed
church and the way in which it is experienced. However, such harm would be
small, limited by a number of factors.
34. Firstly, undeveloped land in an agricultural use would still be positioned around
the Church and critically, between the Church and the proposed development,
such that it would still retain its isolated location. Secondly, as the proposed
development would adjoin Takeley, and would be no closer than existing
development, it would not materially disrupt the relationship of the Church to
that settlement. Thirdly, the historic pedestrian route through the appeal site
would be retained, set within an area of managed open space, which along with
proposed planting would act as a buffer between the pedestrian route and the
proposed housing. New planting and management of existing provides the
opportunity to retain some existing views of the Church and open up new ones.
Whilst views towards the Church across the appeal site from Parsonage Road
would include a greater element of built form and include managed open space,
those views include some development at present. It has been demonstrated
that development of the appeal site is possible with an extensive area of open
space from which open views to the Church would be appreciable. All in all,
taking the contribution of the appeal site to the significance of the listed
building and the matters outlined above, which would together work to limit
the harm to the setting of the listed building, I consider that the harm would be
less than substantial, at the lower end of that spectrum. This generally accords
with the view of the Council, in this regard.
35. I conclude that the appeal development would fail to preserve the setting of
the grade I listed building. It would therefore fail to accord with LP policy
ENV2. That policy aims for development affecting a listed building to be in
keeping with its scale, character and surroundings.
Public Benefits
36. In accordance with paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework
(the Framework), I accord great weight to the conservation of designated
heritage assets. I consider that the harm to the significance of the heritage
asset identified would be less than substantial at the lower end of that
spectrum. Mindful of my statutory duties3, this is a matter to which I attach
considerable importance and weight. In this case, however, public benefits, as
identified in paragraph 196 of the Framework, are before me. I will balance
those against the harm identified later in my decision.
Other Matters
Appeal A
37. Many of the same issues have been raised in relation to both appeals, including
by the Takeley Parish Council and Takeley Park Residents’ Association who
were represented at the inquiry.
38. In relation to the impact of the appeal proposals on highway traffic and safety,
I note that both proposals have been prepared in consultation with the highway
authority. I have a statement of common ground on highways matters agreed
between the appellant and the highway authority, in relation to each appeal,
which confirms that there are no outstanding areas of disagreement. The
proposed access for each appeal development has been agreed with the
highway authority and considering their location, design and the existing traffic
conditions, I have no reason to take a different view on that matter. Highways
England has not raised concern regarding the impact of the proposed
developments on the strategic road network, including junction 8 of the M11.
Measures within the S106 agreement would ensure provision is made for cycle
and pedestrian links to promote sustainable forms of transport. Suitable
planning conditions would secure other off site highway works intended for the
same purpose and to mitigate the traffic impacts. In relation to the care home
appeal, provision for a workplace travel plan to deliver a modal shift away from
the private motorised vehicle would be triggered if staff numbers exceed 50, to
meet the same end.
39. All in all, the Council does not raise concern in this regard. Subject to
appropriate planning conditions and measures set out in the S106 agreements,
I have read or heard nothing to seriously challenge the Council’s position. I
have made the above judgement considering the cumulative impact of the
proposed developments on the Four Ashes junction close to the appeal sites.
40. In relation to noise concerns raised, both appeal applications are accompanied
by a noise impact assessment. Both are considered robust, considering the
proximity of road and airport noise, including contributions of ground noise and
the LAeq assessment matric used. Subject to the location of proposed homes
beyond a buffer zone of open space following the 55dB daytime contour, any
further necessary noise attenuation can be secured through appropriate
planning conditions. Such mitigation could take account of planned and
approved expansion of the airport. The Council does not raise objection on this
basis and I therefore have no reason to take an alternative view. In coming to
this conclusion, I have considered the views of another Inspector in
3 sections 16(2), 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990
determining an appeal at Burton End (Ref APP/C1570/W/18/321136).
However, that does not replicate the circumstances of this appeal.
41. In respect of the care home proposals, the Council takes the same position and
subject to noise sensitive design, which could be controlled through a planning
condition, the appeal development could provide acceptable living conditions
for residents, both within the building and in the outside space. The impact of
any noise from plant associated with the proposed development could again be
controlled through a suitable planning condition.
42. In terms of air quality, the appeal application is accompanied by an air quality
assessment, which considered the impacts during construction and subsequent
occupation. The Council considers no material harm would result in this
regard, subject to a Construction Environment Management Plan to control
dust and ambient PM10 concentrations and thereby protect neighbouring
residents. This could be controlled through an appropriate planning condition.
43. Impacts on neighbouring residents during construction could be controlled
through appropriate planning conditions. I have no compelling evidence before
me to indicate that the principle of the appeal developments would adversely
affect neighbouring residents’ living conditions. Any detailed concerns
regarding the relationship to surrounding development would be considered at
reserved matters stage. There is no substantive evidence before me to
suggest that the appeal sites would not provide developments capable of
providing acceptable living conditions for future occupiers.
44. The appeal sites both fall within an area of grade 2 agricultural land. The
appeal proposals would result in the loss of agricultural land. I note that the
Council does not raise concern in this regard. As Uttlesford is a rural district
and many settlements are surrounded by agricultural land, any expansion
would be likely to involve the loss of agricultural land. On this basis, I take a
similar view to the Council in this regard.
45. The impact on water pressure in the locality would be likely to be addressed
through proposed upgrades to the water supply in the locality. I have no
substantive evidence that the proposed developments would adversely impact
on crime. However, the design and access statements explain measures that
could be taken at reserved matters stage that would ensure that the detailed
design is embedded in principles to minimise opportunities for crime in terms of
the provision of safe overlooked streets and spaces.
46. Matters of airport parking in the vicinity of the appeal sites would be most
appropriately dealt with through the parking enforcement regime and are not a
reason to withhold planning permissions. On site parking for both appeal
schemes would be dealt with at reserved matters stage. At this stage, suffice
to say that I am satisfied that there is sufficient space to accommodate parking
for the amount of development proposed in each case.
47. An environmental statement accompanies the appeal applications. Subject to
on site mitigation and additional measures to address increased recreational
pressure within the S106 agreement, no adverse effect would result on the
Hatfield Forest SSSI and NNR. Any adverse impacts on Flitch Way local wildlife
site through would be addressed byon site mitigation. Suitable planning
conditions could control any adverse impact on ecology on the appeal sites,
including bats in relation to appeal A. Also, in relation to appeal A, the loss of
ground nesting habitats for skylarks would be mitigated through provisions in
the S106 agreement.
48. In relation to appeal A, the increased need for school places would be
addressed through provisions in the S106 agreement, along with provision for
health care in relation to both appeals. Whilst the proposed developments
would increase demand for GP services, the Clinical Commissioning Group has
confirmed that a branch GP surgery incorporated within appeal A development
is not supported, preferring to provide additional capacity at a nearby surgery.
This will be tested later on in my report.
49. Detailed design of the proposed developments would need to accord with
current sustainable design requirements; a matter that would be addressed at
detailed design stage. The principle of development at the appeal sites has
been assessed balancing the imperatives of climate change and providing
homes, both dwellings and care homes in locations that benefit from
sustainable transport and proximity of facilities and services. In particular both
appeal developments would be located within a reasonable walking distance to
the facilities and services in Takeley, with some bus provision along Parsonage
Road. In addition, measures to promote walking and cycling are secured
through provisions in the S106 agreement and planning conditions.
50. I acknowledge that Takeley has taken significant development to date and that
there is only a small number remaining to be delivered through the eLP.
However, as the eLP is still not at an advanced stage of preparation, and the
examining Inspectors’ recent findings cast considerable doubt over its progress
towards adoption, I attach limited weight to this matter. In this regard, I am
aware of the conclusions of my Colleague in determining an appeal at Great
Canfield (Ref APP/C1570/W/18/3213251). However, the examination into the
eLP has progressed since that decision, which is a reason to differentiate
between that appeal and those before me.
51. In relation to both appeals, the initial findings of the Inspectors examining the
emerging Local Plan (eLP) are noted. In light of of, I attach very limited weight
to the direction of travel of those policies.
52. I acknowledge the LP examining Inspector’s comments in 2005, in relation to
the realigned A120 and the vulnerability of land between Takeley Village and
the new road. However, those comments are of some vintage and relate to the
evolution of the LP at that time. However, I have concluded that some limited
harm would arise to the countryside around the airport including the land to
which the Inspector refers and the CPZ as a whole, when the appeals are
considered individually and cumulatively. However, this matter does not alter
my decisions.
Planning Obligations
42. In relation to both appeals, an executed planning obligation is before me.
Whilst the Council has confirmed that it is satisfied with its contents, for its
provisions to be given weight in the determination of this appeal, I am required
to assess whether they are necessary to make the proposed development
acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the proposed development and
fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind.4
4 Regulation 122 Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (as amended) (CIL Regulations)
Appeal A
43. The provisions for 40%on site affordable housing are necessary to meet the
requirements of LP policy H9 and therefore they weigh in favour of the appeal.
44. The provision of open space within the development, including dog walking and
off lead areas, linked to a phasing regime, is necessary to mitigate the
potential impact of increased recreational use of the Hatfield Forest SSSI and
NNR. In addition, the environmental statement concluded that,
notwithstanding the provision ofon site mitigation, off site mitigation, would be
required to mitigate against any potential impacts on the Hatfield Forest SSSI
and NNR. Natural England and the National Trust support that view and have
requested a costed scheme for visitor and botanical monitoring and mitigation
works has been agreed. The contribution sought is the only evidence-based
assessment that is provided. No other assessment is before me. It would be
necessary to meet the aim of LP policy GEN7, which seeks to mitigate against
potential impacts on nature. However, in relation to the proposed Site Access
Management and Monitoring Measures Strategy (SAMMS) contribution, as that
document is still in draft and I have very limited detail on the contribution that
would be sought, it would not pass the necessary tests.
45. Skylark mitigation is required in the form of provision of two skylark territories
on an adjacent site. Full justification is provided within the ecology report
dated December 2018. It would be necessary to meet the aims of LP policy
GEN7 and overall passes the tests referred to.
46. Identified demand for self-build plots has been demonstrated. The provision of
12 plots, being some 10% of the overall number, would help to meet that
demand and the requirements of the Self-build Act and accord with paragraph
64 of the Framework. A mechanism to ensure that such development would
meet the definition of self-build and custom-build housing is necessary and the
provisions do that.
47. A financial contribution to primary and secondary school provision is secured.
A need is demonstrated, and a school and project indicated in each case. This
meets the CIL tests outlined above. However, two suggested cost generator
figures have been provided, the education authority’s figures being higher than
the alternatives provided by the appellant. In the absence of substantive
evidence to justify the education authority’s higher figures, which deviate from
those of the Education and Skills Funding Agency figures, on balance, I support
the lower figure provided by the appellant, which provides more justification as
to the origin.
48. Provisions would secure a contribution towards cycle facilities and public rights
of way in the locality, both of which are necessary to promote more sustainable
forms of travel. They would be close to the appeal site and are justified in
terms of cost.
Appeal A and Appeal B
49. A financial contribution towards healthcare provision is secured by both legal
agreements, to meet the extra demand resulting from the appeal
developments. I am aware of significant local concern in this regard. The
Clinical Commissioning Group has requested additional provision at a primary
healthcare hub at the existing surgery at Great Dunmow. The provision would
be necessary to meet the aims of LP policy GEN6, which seeks infrastructure to
support development. In each case a local deficiency has been identified, even
though current registrations may be greater than existing capacity. Robust
justification for the calculation of the contribution is provided along with an
identified project. I have no compelling evidence to throw doubt on its
delivery, although I accept that the proposal sits under wider primary
healthcare strategic planning. Overall, the weight of evidence before me,
indicates that the provisions pass the necessary tests.
Appeal B
50. A workplace travel plan is necessary to promote sustainable travel. As the
provisions require various trigger points and monitoring, a monitoring fee to
cover the Councils’ costs in this regard is necessary and overall the provisions
pass the relevant tests.
Conclusions
51. It was agreed between the two main parties that as the Council cannot
demonstrate a five-year housing land supply the ‘tilted balance’ set out in
paragraph 11(d)ii of the Framework was engaged.
Appeal A
52. I have identified that there would be some limited harm to the countryside
around the airport and therefore the CPZ as a whole and have identified a
consequential policy conflict with LP policy S8. In addition, I have identified
some small harm to the setting of the Church of the Holy Trinity, at the lower
end of the less than substantial harm spectrum and a policy conflict with LP
policy ENV2. Even though the harm identified would be less than substantial, I
accord considerable weight and importance to it. Government policy sets out
that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and the more
important the asset, the greater the weight should be, and this have been fully
considered in my decision.
53. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 sets out, that
if regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any
determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be
made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise. In this case, I have no reason to determine that regard should not
be had to the development plan. Further, in this respect, I have identified that
a conflict with the development plan as a whole would arise.
54. In assessing whether there are other material considerations which would
outweigh that development plan conflict, I have had regard to the
environmental benefits, which would include a new area of accessible open
space, woodland planting and other planting. In addition, there would be a
number of transport improvements aimed to promote sustainable forms of
travel. Overall, they would provide the opportunity to enhance biodiversity and
options for travel and to them I attach some weight.
55. In terms of social benefits, the appeal proposal would provide additional
housing, 40% of which would be affordable, and would include some self-build
plots, secured as such through a legal agreement. Those dwellings would be
close to facilities and services. The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year
housing land supply; the two main parties agreeing this to be 2.68 years. In
light of the acute need for housing, including affordable housing demonstrated,
and the unmet demand for self-build plots, these are benefits of the proposal,
which together, weigh very heavily in its favour. This would be the case even if
the appeal development did not come forward in the five-year period and
taking into account the recent uplift in housing delivery.
56. There would be some economic benefits from the proposed development
through employment, additional spending power resulting from the
construction phase and from future occupiers of the proposed development. To
these economic benefits, overall, I accord some weight.
57. To all of the benefits of the appeal, I accord more than considerable weight.
They represent public benefits as referred to in paragraph 196 of the
Framework, which in the circumstances of this appeal, would outweigh the
considerable importance and weight that I attach to the heritage harm
identified. Further, together, the benefits of the appeal are very weighty, the
adverse impacts limited. Therefore, the adverse impacts of granting
permission in this case would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits. Overall, therefore, the material considerations in this case indicate a
decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan
and therefore the appeal should be allowed.
Appeal B
58. In respect of this appeal, I have found that some limited harm to the
countryside around the airport and therefore the CPZ as a whole and have
identified a consequential policy conflict with LP policy S8 and the development
plan as a whole.
59. In assessing whether there are other material considerations which would
outweigh that development plan conflict, I have had regard to the
environmental benefits, which would include new planting, which, overall would
provide the opportunity to enhance biodiversity and the provision of transport
improvements to promote more sustainable forms of travel. To them I attach
some weight. In addition, the economic benefits would be similar to appeal A,
again, attracting some weight.
60. In terms of social benefits, the provision of a care home, in light of the acute
need demonstrated, and the beneficial impact that would have in terms of the
release of homes, in light of the Council’s poor five year housing land supply, is
a weighty consideration to which I attach more than considerable weight in
favour of the appeal.
61. In this case too, taking all considerations in to account, the benefits of the
appeal development are very weighty, the adverse impacts limited. Together,
they indicate that the adverse impacts of granting permission in this case
would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Overall,
therefore, the material considerations in this case indicate a decision should be
made other than in accordance with the development plan and therefore the
appeal should be allowed.
62. Even if I were to conclude that policy S8 and ENV2 were up to date and in
accordance with the Framework, that would not change the outcome of either
appeal, even when taken together. Therefore, although there was extensive
debate on both those matters at the inquiry, I have no reason to consider them
any further.
Planning Conditions
63. A list of suggested planning conditions was agreed between the two main
parties at the inquiry. I have agreed with the imposition of most of these
subject to refinement to improve clarity and ensure consistency with national
policy and guidance.5 A list of planning conditions to be imposed is set out in
Annex C.
Appeal A
64. Standard time, plans and reserved matters conditions are necessary to ensure
certainty. A condition ensuring that development is carried out in general
accordance with the parameter plan and self-build location plan is necessary to
confirm the limits of the location of development and, in association with the
legal agreement, the provision of self-build plots. However, a clause to ensure
that the reference to storey height on the parameter plan is for illustrative
purposes only is necessary, to enable proper consideration of scale at a later
stage. In light of this, a condition to restrict the height of buildings is not
necessary, given that scale is a matter for consideration at a later stage.
65. Conditions to ensure that the proposed access is provided prior to occupation,
are necessary to ensure highway safety. A condition requiring accessible
homes is necessary to ensure that the development promotes inclusion and
community cohesion. Conditions to ensure the preservation of archaeology are
required at pre-commencement stage. Measures to minimise off site surface
water runoff during construction and the implementation and maintenance of a
surface water drainage scheme are necessary to ensure that the development
does not increase the risk of flooding in the locality. That relating to the period
during construction works should be dealt with prior to development
commencing to ensure no harm arises.
66. A condition to control berry bearing plant species as part of any landscaping
scheme will help to reduce the risk of bird strike, which is necessary to ensure
the safe operation of the Airport. Conditions requiring ecological mitigation,
enhancement and management, including landscape management, during and
after construction are required to protect the ecology of the site and locality.
The construction environmental management plan is required pre-
commencement, to protect ecology. Conditions to ensure any contamination is
dealt with effectively are necessary pre-commencement, to protect the
environment and human health. To protect the living conditions of future
occupiers of the proposed development the implementation of noise
attenuation is required. The submission of such details at pre-commencement
stage will ensure that those measures are embedded in the design of
development. To ensure highway safety during construction the submission
and implementation of a construction method statement is necessary at pre-
commencement stage. A condition to ensure adequate provision and links to
public rights of way is required, along with a condition to ensure the provision
of the trim trail and outdoor seating, which will ensure an acceptable form of
development. Conditions to secure the necessary highway improvements are
5 Paragraph 55of the Framework and PPG including paragraph 21a-003-20190723
necessary to ensure no adverse impact on highway safety in the locality and to
promote sustainable forms of transport.
Appeal B
67. Standard time, plans and reserved matters conditions are necessary to ensure
certainty. Conditions to ensure that the proposed access is provided prior to
occupation are necessary to ensure highway safety.
68. A condition ensuring that development is carried out in general accordance with
the care home indicative layout is necessary to confirm the limits of the
location of development. Conditions to ensure the preservation of archaeology
along with measures to minimise off site surface water runoff are necessary to
ensure that the development does not increase the risk of flooding in the
locality.
69. A condition to control berry bearing plant species as part of any landscaping
scheme will help to reduce the risk of bird strike, which is necessary to ensure
the safe operation of the nearby Airport. Conditions to ensure any
contamination is dealt with effectively are necessary pre-commencement, to
protect the environment and human health. To protect the living conditions of
future occupiers of the proposed development, the implementation of noise
attenuation is required. The submission of such details at pre-commencement
stage will ensure that those measures are embedded in the design of
development. To protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents, a
condition to control noise from plant or machinery is necessary. A condition
requiring ecological mitigation, enhancement and management, is required to
protect the ecology of the site and locality. To ensure highway safety during
construction the submission and implementation of a construction method
statement is necessary at pre-commencement stage. The submission and
implementation of a work place travel plan is required to promote sustainable
forms of travel. Conditions to secure the necessary highway improvements are
necessary to prevent any adverse impact on highway safety in the locality and
to promote sustainable forms of travel.
Conclusions
70. For the above reasons, and taking all other matters raised into consideration, I
conclude that both appeals should be allowed, subject to the conditions listed
in Annex C to my decisions.
R Barrett
INSPECTOR
Appearances at the inquiry Annex A
For the Council
Estelle Dehon Instructed by Uttlesford District Council
She called:
Mr Tim Murphy IHBC MCIfA (appeal A) Historic Environment Manager Place
Services Essex County Council
Ms Karen Denmark MRTPI (appeal A and Development Management Team Leader
B) Uttlesford District Council
For the appellant
Christopher Young QC Instructed by Endurance Estates Land
Promotion Ltd
He called:
Mrs Gail Stoten BA (Hons) MCIfA FSA Heritage Director Pegasus Planning
(appeal A) Group
Mr Andrew Cook BA (Hons) MLD CMLI Environmental Planning Director
MIEMA CENV (appeal A and B) Pegasus Planning Group
Nigel Newton Taylor BSc (Hons) MRICS Director Healthcare Property Consultants
(appeal B) Ltd
Mr Andrew Moger BA (Hons) MA MRTPI Tetlow King Planning
(appeal A)
Mr James Stacey BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI Director Tetlow King Planning
(appeal A)
Mr Andrew Hodgson BA BTP MRTPI (appeal Planning Director Pegasus Planning
A and B) Group
Other interested persons who spoke at the inquiry
Peter Hewett Takeley Parish Council and local resident
Martin Peachey Takeley Parish Council and local
Documents submitted at inquiry Annex B
IQ1 Errata List in relation to Mr Hodgson’s proof
IQ2 Statement of Mr Hewett (appeal A)
IQ3 Statement of Mr Hewett (appeal B)
IQ4 Statement of Mr Peachey (appeal A and B)
IQ5 Appellant’s opening including Suffolk Coastal judgment
IQ6 Council’s opening
IQ7 Suggested itinerary for inspector’s site visit
IQ8 Gail Stoten Proof (colour copy)
IQ9 Planning Practice Guidance: Self-build and custom-build
housing
IQ10 Extract from Inspector’s report into Uttlesford Local Plan 2005
(pages 29-35)
IQ 11 Figure ground plans (P19-1641_15 and P19-1641_16)
IQ12 Appeal decision letter APP/R0660/A/14/2211721
IQ13 CIL compliance statement v1 (appeal A and appeal B)
IQ14 Addendum to Peter Hewett’s proof addressing healthcare
provision
IQ15 Errata to Andrew Moger’s proof including design and access
statement for self-build and custom-build housing at St
Edmunds Lane Great Dunmow
IQ16 Michael Carr urban design statement
IQ17 Cannon Consulting note addressing highways matters raised at
inquiry including response to Takeley Parish Council comments
5/11/19
IQ17a List of suggested planning conditions v1 (both appeals)
IQ18 Hoare Lea note addressing noise matters raised at inquiry
IQ19 Educational Facilities Management Partnership Ltd statement
on education and healthcare provision
IQ20 Map of GP surgeries in local area
IQ21 Addendum to James Stacey’s proof regarding affordable
housing delivery
IQ22 Paul Newman judgment
IQ23 Para 14 NPPF 2012
IQ24 List of suggested conditions v2 (both appeals)
IQ25 CIL compliance statement v2 (both appeals)
IQ26 List of suggested conditions v3 (both appeals)
IQ27 Legal submission relating to SAMMS contribution (appeal A)
IQ28 Hatfield Forest SSSI and NNR mitigation strategy in draft;
Natural England comments 10/5/19; National Trust comment
19/4/19
IQ29 Plan in relation to S106 agreement (skylark mitigation land and
public open space phasing plan)
Documents submitted in writing after sitting
IQ30 Final list of suggested conditions
IQ31 Final executed legal agreements
IQ32 Council’s closing
IQ33 Appellant’s closing
IQ34 Table of plans under consideration including status
Documents submitted after close of Inquiry
IQ 35 Agreed schedule of plans for determination including status and
appellant’s suggested revised condition 4.
IQ36 Council’s comments on suggested revised condition 4
IQ37 Examining Inspectors’ letter dated 10 January 2020 in relation
to eLP
IQ38 Appellant’s comments on IQ37
IQ39 Council’s comments on IQ37 and IQ38
IQ40 Agreed additional highway conditions and amended schedule of
plans
Annex C
Appeal A
1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following
approved plan: Location Plan (drawing number P17-2649_10 Rev D)
2. In the event that application UTT/19/0394/OP to the east of Parsonage Road
is not approved, then prior to occupation of the development the three
armed access roundabout as shown on submitted drawing W371-PL-SK232-
A, including carriageway at a width of 6m and two cycleway/footways at a
minimum width of 3.5m shall be provided and thereafter maintained.
3. In the event that application UTT/19/0394/OP to the east of Parsonage Road
is approved then prior to occupation of the development the four armed
access roundabout as shown on submitted drawing W371-PL-SK233-A,
including carriageway at a width of 6m and two cycleway/footways at a
minimum of 3.5m shall be provided and thereafter maintained.
4. The location of the built development shall be carried out in general
accordance with the parameter plan (drawing number P17_2649_29 Rev E)
and indicative self-build locations plan (drawing number P17_2649_36); the
reference to the storey height of buildings on the parametre plan is for
illustrative purposes only.
5. Approval of the details of layout, scale, landscaping and appearance
(hereafter called "the Reserved Matters") must be obtained from the Local
Planning Authority in writing before development commences and the
development must be carried out as approved.
6. Application for approval of the Reserved Matters must be made to the Local
Planning Authority not later than the expiration of two years from the date of
this permission.
7. The development hereby permitted shall be begun no later than the
expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the Reserved
Matters to be approved.
8. 5% of the dwellings approved by this permission shall be built to Category 3
(wheelchair user) housing M4(3)(2)(a) wheelchair adaptable. The remaining
dwellings approved by this permission shall be built to Category 2:
Accessible and adaptable dwellings M4(2) of the Building Regulations 2010
Approved Document M, Volume 1 2015 edition.
9. Prior to, or concurrent with, the submission of the first reserved matters
application a written scheme of archaeological investigation, including a
programme of archaeological trial trenching and mitigation strategy, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
trial trenching and any associated works detailed in the approved written
scheme of archaeological investigation shall be carried out in full, with
written notice once the works are completed being submitted to the Local
Planning Authority, prior to any development or preliminary groundworks
commencing.
10.Within three months of notification being provided to the Local Planning
Authority in writing, in accordance with the requirements of condition 9, a
post-excavation assessment, including details of a full site archive and a
publication report, shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved full site archive and publication report shall
thereafter be submitted to Essex County Council within one month of
approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
11.No development shall commence until a scheme to minimise the risk of off
site flooding from surface water run-off and pollution of groundwater during
the period of construction works has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in
full accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained
throughout the duration of construction works on site
12.No development other than preliminary site preparation works shall
commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme has been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The
scheme shall be based on sustainable drainage principles and shall include
but not be limited to the following details:
a) a detailed assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological
context of the site;
b) full details of all surface water drainage features;
c) modelling and capacity calculations that have been used to inform the
design of all surface water drainage features;
d) details of drain down times for the surface water attenuation basin.
The approved surface water drainage scheme shall thereafter be
implemented in full prior to the occupation of the first dwelling, or in
accordance with a timetable for implementation that has previously been
agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
13.No dwelling shall be occupied until a Maintenance Plan of the surface water
drainage system detailed in condition 12 has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The submitted
Maintenance Plan shall include details of the maintenance activities,
frequencies and monitoring for each of the surface water drainage features
and the details of the long-term funding arrangements of these maintenance
activities. The surface water drainage system approved under condition 12
shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the details of the approved
Maintenance Plan following the occupation of the first dwelling.
14.Any detailed landscaping plans and species planting schemes that are
submitted pursuant to this outline permission, or any conditions attached to
reserved matters approvals, shall not include more than 30% of berry
bearing species.
15.Prior to, or concurrent with, the submission of the first of the reserved
matters application full details of a scheme of ecological mitigation and
enhancement shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local
Planning Authority. The scheme of ecological mitigation shall include details
of all external lighting and details of the impact of lighting on sensitive
ecological receptors. The scheme of ecological mitigation and enhancement
shall be carried out and thereafter maintained in accordance with the
approved details prior to the occupation of the first dwelling, or in
accordance with a timetable that is to be agreed in writing with the Local
Planning Authority.
16.No development other than preliminary site preparation works shall
commence until a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) has
been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
The content of the LEMP shall include but not be limited to the following:
a) a woodland block to be provided across the full extent of the triangular
field in the location shown on the parameters plan;
b) the provision of wildflower meadows;
c) retention of existing vegetation as shown on the parameter plan in
accordance with drawing 7117_D1_AIA_Rev A;
d) description and evaluation of features to be managed;
e) ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence
management;
f) aims and objectives of management;
g) appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives;
h) prescriptions for management actions;
i) preparation of a work schedule;
j) details of the body(ies) or organisation(s) responsible for implementation
of the plan and funding mechanism(s) of any such bodies or organisations;
k) ongoing monitoring and remedial measures.
The LEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details
prior to the occupation of the first dwelling, or in accordance with a
timetable that is to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
17.A construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) shall
be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority
prior to the commencement of development (other than works relating to
archaeological fieldwork). The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include but not be
limited to the following: a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging
construction activities. b) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”.
c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working
practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided
as a set of method statements). d) The location and timing of sensitive
works to avoid harm to biodiversity features. e) The times during
construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee
works. f) Responsible persons and lines of communication. g) The role and
responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly
competent person. h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and
warning signs.
The measures detailed in the approved CEMP shall be implemented and
maintained throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the
approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
18.No development approved by this permission shall take place until a Phase 2
investigation report, as recommended by the previously submitted Nott
Group Desk Based Contaminated Land Assessment Report dated 4th
December 2018 (Ref: 72826/R/001), has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Where found to be necessary by the
phase 2 report a remediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with
contamination of the site shall also be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development.
The remediation strategy shall include an options appraisal giving full details
of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken.
The strategy shall include a plan providing details of how the remediation
works shall be judged to be complete and arrangements for contingency
action should contamination be found during construction works. The
development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved
strategy.
19.Prior to the occupation of the first dwelling in any phase or phases a
validation report shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority to demonstrate the effectiveness of any agreed
Remediation Strategy for that phase or phases. Any such validation report
shall include details of how any unexpected contamination discovered during
works have been dealt with in accordance with the relevant legislation.
20.Prior to commencement of the development a scheme for protecting the
proposed dwellings from noise arising from road and air traffic shall be
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority for
approval. This acoustic design advice report should detail the advised
measures for achieving the criteria in Tables 4 and 5 of the Hoare Lea Noise
Impact Assessment report (Ref: REP-1010619-AS-20190208) Revision 4
dated 8th February 2019. None of the dwellings shall be occupied until the
scheme is implemented in accordance with the approved details. The
scheme shall be retained in accordance with those details.
21.No development shall commence, including any ground works or demolition,
until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
The submitted CMS shall include but not be limited to the following:
i. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;
ii. loading and unloading of plant and materials;
iii. wheel and underbody cleaning facilities;
iv. details of the construction access arrangements.
The measures detailed in the approved CMS shall be implemented and
maintained throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the
approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
22.Details of all links and treatment of public rights of way within the site,
including status, surfacing, gates etc shall be submitted for approval as part
of any reserved matters application for land within the site that include
existing public rights of way. The approved treatment works, and any other
works to the public rights of way within the site shall be completed prior to
the occupation of the 50th dwelling and thereafter maintained in accordance
with the approved details.
23.Prior to, or concurrent with, the submission of the first of the reserved
matters application full details of the trim trail and outdoor seating shown in
drawing Strategic Landscape Masterplan (drawing number P17-2649_12) to
include the provision and location of outdoor exercise equipment within the
trim trail and a schedule of maintenance, shall be submitted for approval in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The trim trail and outdoor seating
shall thereafter be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved
details prior to the occupation of the first dwelling.
24.Prior to the occupation of the first unit bus stops shall be provided on the
west and east sides of Parsonage Road in accordance with a scheme to be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
works to provide the bus stops shall include, but not be limited to, raised
kerbs, the provision of bus shelters, pole, flag and timetable information.
25. Prior to the occupation of the first unit a Traffic Regulation Order shall have
been submitted to Essex County Council to relocate the 30mph speed limit.
This submission shall only be made after the necessary speed surveys and
public consultation/advertising have been carried out. Subject to the Traffic
Regulation Order being granted the necessary signing and lining shall be
provided prior to the Order coming into force.
26.Prior to the occupation of the first unit the signalised junction of the
B1256/B183 (known as the Four Ashes) shall be upgraded to include MOVA
(Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation) to provide optimisation of the
signals to increase capacity. The upgrade works shall also include any
necessary signing and lining including that required to provide prioritisation
for cyclists at the junction as appropriate, in a scheme to be agreed with the
local planning authority in negotiation with the Highway Authority.
27.Details of links and treatment of public rights of way within the site,
including position, status, surfacing, gates etc. shall be submitted for
approval as part of any reserved matters application for land including a
public right of way. The provision of pedestrian links through the
development to these public rights of way, including a pedestrian connection
to footpath 36, shall be provided prior to the occupation of the 50th
dwelling, or in accordance with alternative timetable that has been agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority.
28.Prior to occupation of the first unit, a Residential Travel Information Pack
shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved pack shall contain six one day travel vouchers for
use with the relevant local public transport operator, and other measures to
promote sustainable travel by residents, and be provided to each residential
unit prior to first occupation.
Appeal B
1. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved
plan: Location Plan (drawing number P17-2649_11 Rev C)
2. In the event that application UTT/19/0393/OP to the west of Parsonage Road is
not approved then prior to occupation of the development an access with a
carriageway width of 5.5m and two footways at a minimum width of 2m as
shown on submitted drawing W371-PL-SK234 including clear to ground
visibility splays with dimensions of 2.4m by 160m to the north and 2.4m by
150m to the south, as measured from and along the nearside edge of the
carriageway, shall be provided. The vehicular visibility splays shall thereafter
be retained free of any obstruction.
3. In the event that application UTT/19/0393/OP to the west of Parsonage Road is
approved then prior to occupation of the development the four armed access
roundabout as shown on submitted drawing W371-PL-SK233-A, including a
carriageway width of 5.5m and two footways at a minimum of 2m shall be
provided and thereafter maintained.
4. The development shall be carried out in general accordance with the Care
Home Site Layout (drawing number P17-2649_09 Rev G).
5. Approval of the details of layout, scale, landscaping and appearance (hereafter
called "the Reserved Matters") must be obtained from the Local Planning
Authority in writing before development commences and the development must
be carried out as approved.
6. Application for approval of the Reserved Matters must be made to the Local
Planning Authority not later than the expiration of three years from the date of
this permission.
7. The development hereby permitted shall be begun no later than the expiration
of two years from the date of approval of the last of the Reserved Matters to be
approved.
8. Prior to, or concurrent with, the submission of the first reserved matters
application a written scheme of archaeological investigation, including a
programme of archaeological trial trenching and mitigation strategy, shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The trial
trenching and any associated works detailed in the approved written scheme of
archaeological investigation shall be carried out in full, with written notice once
the works are completed being submitted to the Local Planning Authority, prior
to any development or preliminary groundworks commencing.
9. Within three months of notification being provided to the Local Planning
Authority in writing, in accordance with the requirements of condition 8, a post-
excavation assessment, including details of a full site archive and a publication
report, shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The approved full site archive and publication report shall thereafter
be submitted to Essex County Council within one month of approval in writing
by the Local Planning Authority.
10. No development other than preliminary site preparation works shall commence
until a detailed surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be
based on sustainable drainage principles and shall include but not be limited to
the following details:
a) a detailed assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the
site;
b) full details of all surface water drainage features;
c) modelling and capacity calculations that have been used to inform the design of
all surface water drainage features;
d) details of drain down times for the surface water attenuation basin.
The approved surface water drainage scheme shall thereafter be implemented
in full prior to the occupation of the care home, or in accordance with a
timetable for implementation that has previously been agreed in writing with
the Local Planning Authority.
11. The care home shall not be occupied until a Maintenance Plan of the surface
water drainage system detailed in condition 10 has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The submitted
Maintenance Plan shall include details of the maintenance activities,
frequencies and monitoring for each of the surface water drainage features and
the details of the long-term funding arrangements of these maintenance
activities. The surface water drainage system approved under condition 10
shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the details of the approved
Maintenance Plan following the occupation of the care home.
12. Any detailed landscaping plans and species planting schemes that are
submitted pursuant to this outline permission, or any conditions attached to
reserved matters approvals, shall not include more than 30% of berry bearing
species.
13. No development approved by this permission shall take place until a Phase 2
investigation report, as recommended by the previously submitted Nott Group
Desk Based Contaminated Land Assessment Report dated 4th December 2018
(Ref: 72826/R/001), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Where found to be necessary by the phase 2 report a
remediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the
site shall also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority prior to the commencement of development. The remediation
strategy shall include an options appraisal giving full details of the remediation
measures required and how they are to be undertaken. The strategy shall
include a plan providing details of how the remediation works shall be judged
to be complete and arrangements for contingency action should contamination
be found during construction works. The development shall thereafter be
carried out in accordance with the approved strategy.
14. Prior to the first occupation of the care home a validation report shall be
submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to
demonstrate the effectiveness of any agreed Remediation Strategy for that
phase or phases. Any such validation report shall include details of how any
unexpected contamination discovered during works have been dealt with in
accordance with the relevant legislation.
15. Prior to commencement of the development a scheme for protecting the
approved care home from noise arising from road and air traffic shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This
scheme shall detail the proposed measures for achieving the criteria in Tables 4
and 5 of the Hoare Lea Noise Impact Assessment report (Ref: REP-1010619-
AS20190208) Revision 4 dated 8th February 2019. The care home shall not be
occupied until the measures identified in the approved scheme are
implemented in full. The development shall thereafter be maintained in
accordance with the approved scheme.
16. No fixed plant or machinery shall be installed on the site until details of the
level of noise generated by the plant or machinery have been submitted to,
and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. Noise resulting from
the operation of fixed plant or machinery shall not exceed the existing
background noise level inclusive of any penalty for tonal, impulsive or other
distinctive acoustic characteristics when measured or calculated according to
the provisions of BS4142:2014. The plant shall thereafter be installed and
maintained in accordance with the approved details.
17. Prior to, or concurrent with, the submission of the first of the reserved matters
application full details of a scheme of ecological mitigation and enhancement
shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.
The scheme of ecological mitigation shall include details of all external lighting
and details of the impact of lighting on sensitive ecological receptors. The
scheme of ecological mitigation and enhancement shall be carried out and
thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details prior to the
occupation of the care home, or in accordance with a timetable that is to be
agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
18. No development shall commence, including any ground works or demolition,
until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
The submitted CMS shall include but not be limited to the following: i. the
parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors. ii. loading and unloading of
plant and materials. iii. wheel and underbody cleaning facilities. iv. details of
the construction access arrangements.
The measures detailed in the approved CMS shall be implemented and
maintained throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the
approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
19. No more than 50 employees shall be based on the site until such time as a
workplace travel plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the
Local Planning Authority. The measures detailed in the approved travel plan
shall thereafter be fully implemented within one month of agreement in writing
from the Local Planning Authority and continue to be implemented for a
minimum period of five years.
20. Prior to the occupation of the first unit bus stops shall be provided on the west
and east sides of Parsonage Road in accordance with a scheme to be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works to
provide the bus stops shall include, but not be limited to, raised kerbs, the
provision of bus shelters, pole, flag, timetable information and a pedestrian
crossing across Parsonage Road to link the bus stops.
21. Prior to the occupation of the first unit a Traffic Regulation Order shall have
been submitted to Essex County Council to relocate the 30mph speed limit.
This submission shall only be made after the necessary speed surveys and
public consultation/advertising have been carried out. Subject to the Traffic
Regulation Order being granted the necessary signing and lining shall be
provided prior to the Order coming into force.