Case Reference: 3245077

Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 7 September 2020
Site visit made on 2 September 2020
by Zoe Raygen Dip URP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 7th October 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/B3410/W/20/3245077
Land off Aviation Lane, Burton-upon-Trent
• 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 [APPELLANT] against the decision of East Staffordshire Borough Council.
• The application Ref P/2018/01291, dated 5 October 2018, was refused by notice dated
18 July 2019.
• The development proposed is 128 no. affordable dwellings off Aviation Lane.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for 128 no.
affordable dwellings on land off Aviation Lane, Burton-upon-Trent in
accordance with the terms of the application Ref P/2018/01291, dated
5 October 2018 subject to the conditions set out below.
Procedural Matter
2. The development is described as the erection of 131 No affordable dwellings on
the planning application form. However, during the course of the Council’s
consideration of the planning application the subject of this appeal, the number
of units was reduced. Both parties confirmed at the hearing that the
development proposed is for 128 affordable dwellings and it is on that basis
that the Council determined the planning application. I have proceeded on that
basis.
3. With agreement, after the Hearing, a legal agreement under S106 of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990 was submitted (the S106). This secures
contributions towards education, health services, open space provision, refuse
containers and the monitoring and review of a Travel Plan and the monitoring
of the agreement by the County Council. It also includes for the provision of
100% affordable housing, the provision and management of open space and
the submission and implementation of a Travel Plan. The S106 is a material
consideration to which I return later in the decision.
Main Issues
4. The main issues relate to:
• the weight to be given to the provision of affordable housing at this time;
and
• whether the proposal would provide an appropriate site for development
having regard to local and national planning policies that seek to manage
the location of new development.
Reasons
Affordable housing
5. The annual requirement for new affordable housing contained within the East
Staffordshire Borough Council Local Plan 2015 (Local Plan) is 112 units. This is
based on the findings of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2013,
updated 2014 (SHMA). It is agreed within the Affordable Housing Statement of
Common Ground (AHSOCG) that since the start of the plan period, 638
affordable dwellings have been completed, equating to 80 dwellings per
annum, leaving a shortfall of 258 dwellings.
6. As well as the current shortfall, I understand that there are some 2,166
households on the Council’s Housing Register. While the Council advised that
not all are in priority need, which would relate to those with medical conditions,
or homeless persons, all meet the relevant qualification criteria.
7. The Council states that the number of affordable houses that currently have
permission and are anticipated to come forward (using the permissions as at
March 2020) is around 1,076 units, some 884 of which would come forward
over the next five years on sites that either have planning permission, or from
planning applications that are awaiting determination. The appellant is of the
view that only 625 would be likely to come forward within the next five years.
8. The appellant suggests that the Council should recoup the existing shortfall
over the next five years, in line with the approach set out in the Planning
Practice Guidance (PPG) for overall housing shortfalls.1 That would result in the
need to secure delivery of some 164 dwellings per year over the next five
years. The Council, on the other hand, considers that the total amount of
required affordable housing, constituting some 1,484 dwellings, would be
provided over the whole plan period (2012-2031). In my view, the extent of
the shortfall and the number of households on the Council’s Housing Register
combine to demonstrate a significant pressing need for affordable housing now.
As such, I consider that, the aim should be to meet the shortfall as soon as
possible.
9. Of the seven disputed sites within the five year affordable housing land supply
figures, two do not have planning permission, with planning applications from
2017 still awaiting determination2. Furthermore, on both there is no agreement
to the exact level of affordable housing. Therefore, I am not convinced, in
accordance with the guidance in the PPG and the Framework3, that there is
clear evidence that the 108 dwellings relied on by the Council from these two
sites would be deliverable within five years. There is nothing within the
Framework or the PPG to suggest that this definition should not apply to
affordable housing as well as market housing.
1 Paragraph: 031 Reference ID: 68-031-20190722
2 Nos 44 and 45 on Appendix 1 to the Affordable Housing Statement of Common Ground.
3 Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 68-007-20190722 and Annex 2 Glossary to the Framework
10. One of the seven sites has outline planning permission only4. While the Council
suggest that it is in advanced discussions with a developer, I have seen nothing
conclusive to demonstrate an agreed timescale for the submission of a
reserved matters, with no clear evidence that there is a reasonable prospect of
the associated eight affordable houses coming forward within the next five
years.
11. My concern, given the nature of the development proposed, is whether the
affordable housing needs of the Borough are being met. These are households
in need of a home now. While the Council is of the view that there is not an
overwhelming need for affordable housing which cannot be met within the
settlement boundary, on allocated sites or through current planning
permissions, just by excluding these three sites from its five year housing
supply, the Councils expectation of 884 houses coming forward within five
years is reduced to 768 which would be below the five year requirement of 818
dwellings including the existing shortfall.
12. The Council suggested that the delivery of affordable housing through the local
plan is not the only route to its provision, but it could only point to delivery
through the private rented sector as an alternative. Whether this would be
genuinely affordable in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework
(the Framework) definition is not guaranteed. The Council also stated that
there would be turnover within the existing affordable housing stock, but I
have no figures for this, and there has been no substantiated evidence to
demonstrate that any reliance on turnover has worked to deliver a satisfactory
supply to date.
13. The appellant suggested that the actual number of affordable units provided is
likely to be less than the submitted totals due to the effect of Right to Buy
legislation. However, no figures were presented in support of this argument.
14. There is no dispute that, in general, the delivery of market housing within the
Borough has met the required rate in the Local Plan, following the proposed
trajectory in increased delivery over the plan period. In fact, the Council has
surpassed the expected levels of delivery in the last two years and there is
agreement that the Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply.
However, this has not translated into the expected levels of affordable housing
delivery. It is not clear why affordable housing delivery was not stepped to
match that of overall housing and the Council was unable to advise me on this.
15. Even in the last two years where housing delivery has been high, the annual
requirement for affordable housing has not been met and has only comprised,
at most, some 13% of the overall housing provided. Indeed, over the plan
period to date affordable housing has only been provided at an average of 16%
of overall housing delivery or, on average, 80 dwellings per annum. I note that
over the plan period, the average delivery of affordable housing is at 17% of
total housing delivery. Even if I were to use this figure, for the Council to meet
its annual affordable housing requirement it would need to deliver over 950
units per year, which has not been achieved to date and is not envisaged in the
Council’s trajectory contained in Policy SP3 of the Local Plan, which requires
682 dwellings per annum from 2018/19 onwards.
4 No 37 on Appendix 1 to the Affordable Housing Statement of Common Ground
16. Were this trend to continue, then it is unlikely that the required number of
affordable homes would be provided in the long term. In any case there is a
pressing need now, and the proposed 128 affordable dwellings would go some
way to reducing the existing short fall. I heard from the appellant that funding
would be available from Homes England and the site would be delivered
quickly, which was not disputed by the Council.
17. In addition, the Statement of Common Ground states that there is a worsening
trend in the lower quartile house price to income ratio, as well as the cost of
private renting. Furthermore, the average lower quartile monthly rent in East
Staffordshire in 2018/19 was £495 per month, an increase of some 24% since
2013/14 and the latest average house price in the Branston ward is around
£200,000, an increase of 48% since the start of the Plan period in 2012/13.
These affordability factors have all worsened since the adoption of the local
plan.
18. In coming to a view on this, I am mindful of the importance attached to the
provision of housing and the requirement within paragraph 59 of the
Framework to ensure that the needs of groups with specific housing
requirements are addressed. In view of the significant number of households
on the Council’s Housing Register (which demonstrates a significant pressing
need now) the current shortfall in affordable housing provision and the
worsening affordability factors, I consider that the development proposal would
be a significant benefit in terms of helping to address the shortfall in the supply
of affordable housing in the Borough in the short term that, based on the
evidence before me, there is no certainty will be met from existing or future
planning permissions.
Location
19. Policy SP2 of the Local Plan sets out the settlement hierarchy for the Borough.
This seeks to direct development towards the most sustainable locations in
terms of the level of services and facilities and concentrate development within
the designated settlement boundaries of those locations.
20. As the appeal site is outside of the settlement boundary of Burton upon Trent
then the Council is of the view that there is clear conflict with Policy SP2. While
the wording of the policy may be “open textured” as suggested by the
appellant, I am satisfied, that when read in conjunction with Policy SP4 of the
Local Plan, which states that “the Development Requirement assigned to the
Main Towns and Tier 1 and Tier 2 settlements will be delivered within
settlement boundaries or in accordance with a Made Neighbourhood Plan” then
the thrust of the policy within the Local Plan is to direct development to within
settlement boundaries. As the appeal site is neither a strategic allocation nor
within the settlement boundary then there is conflict with Policies SP2 and SP4
of the Local Plan.
21. The Council confirmed that the purpose of the settlement boundaries, is not
only to direct development to the most accessible locations, but also to protect
the character and appearance of the countryside.
22. In this instance, no harm is alleged by the Council to the character and
appearance of the area. The appeal site forms a large area of undeveloped land
on the edge of Burton-upon-Trent, but is bound by housing on its north, east
and west boundaries and, as a result, does not have a strong relationship with
the open countryside beyond. While its southern boundary is open to fields, the
narrowness of the appeal site together with the containment of the proposed
housing within the existing built form means it would be viewed in the context
of existing development. So, while the appearance of the site would clearly
change, there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the wider
area.
23. Local residents suggest that future occupiers would be isolated due to the
distance to services and facilities. While the appeal site is somewhat removed
from the centre of Burton upon Trent, it is located on a main route into the
centre (B5017) which is well served by bus routes and benefits from a
constant, lit footway. The Branston Neighbourhood Plan as modified in 2020
(the NP) sets out that there are places where the B5017 is considered to be
narrow, cars are parked on the footway and on refuse collection day
pedestrians are hindered by bins left out on the footway. However, the parking
of vehicles and placement of bins on the footway would not occur at all times.
24. I saw that facilities such as a local convenience store and school are within a
convenient walking and cycling distance of the appeal site. I was also advised
that the local bus service is now in operation every half an hour during the day.
I appreciate that there may be no service after 7pm or on a Sunday. However,
I am satisfied that while there may be sites which are in or nearer the centre of
Burton-upon-Trent, there would be no conflict with paragraphs 8b and 103 of
the Framework in that future residents would have nearby accessible services,
with the location of the appeal site offering a genuine choice of transport
modes.
25. Policy SP8 of the Local Plan states that development beyond settlement
boundaries will not be permitted unless it sits within one of nine categories. It
was agreed at the hearing that the only two categories which could be relevant
to this proposal would be whether it was in accordance with a made
Neighbourhood Plan, or whether it was development under the Rural Exception
Sites policy (SP18).
26. The NP does not allocate any sites for development, as when it was made there
were more than sufficient allocated sites to meet the Local Plan requirements.
In as much therefore that the NP does not allocate any sites for development
the proposal would not be in accordance with any allocation within it. This
would be particularly so given that Policy SP4 of the Local Plan states that the
development requirement assigned to main towns will be delivered within
settlement boundaries or in accordance with a made Neighbourhood Plan.
Therefore, purely for the purposes of Policy SP8, which deals with the location
of new development, the development cannot be said to be in accordance with
a made Neighbourhood Plan. Further discussion on individual policies is set out
in paragraphs 37-41 below.
27. Policy SP18 is permissive of small developments of new affordable housing on
suitable sites outside settlement boundaries where there is a need for such that
would be not otherwise be met, subject to certain criteria. With regard to those
criteria, the Council maintained that this is not a small development and that
the need for affordable housing would be otherwise met within settlement
boundaries. The Council also asserted that the policy is aimed at ensuring that
affordable housing need arising in small rural villages is provided. However,
there is nothing in the policy itself, or the reasoned justification, that indicates
that it only applies to small rural villages.
28. I accept that 128 dwellings may not be considered to be a small development
and, with regard to the definition of Rural Exception Sites in the Framework,
that this may not be a “small” site, although there is no definition of small in
either the Local Plan of the Framework in this regard. However, having regard
to the other criteria, the scale of development would, in this case, be
appropriate given the size of Burton upon Trent. As set out above, I have found
that it is not certain that the current and future identified need for affordable
housing could be accommodated in the short term, by existing sites with
planning permission some of which are within settlement boundaries.
29. The last of the pertinent criteria requires that the development comply with
other relevant policies of the plan. In as much as the development and the site
are not small, and I have found conflict with Policies SP2 and SP4 then there is
conflict with Policy SP18. That brings the proposal into conflict with Policy SP8.
Other matters
30. Properties along Aviation Lane mainly present a side elevation to the appeal
site. Those that do have a rear elevation facing the site are set well back from
the boundary. Similarly, properties on Henhurst Hill have long rear gardens
which would abut an area of open space on the proposed layout. Properties to
the east are still under construction, but most on the proposed layout would
have lengthy gardens adjoining the boundary. Therefore, I am satisfied that
intervening distance between the houses would ensure that the proposal would
not cause harm to existing residents’ living conditions with regard to privacy,
outlook and light.
31. The proposed development would be served from one access from Aviation
Lane. At the hearing the appellant confirmed that both Aviation Lane and the
immediate access point to the development are of sufficient width to allow cars
and larger vehicles to pass and would include a footway. I take the point that
cars may be parked on these roads which would narrow the carriageway.
However, much of the neighbouring road network is subject to a one way
system and, in any case, I have seen no substantiated evidence to suggest that
parked cars lead to an unacceptable level of congestion. Moreover, their
presence often helps to slow down traffic. Furthermore, the proposed layout,
although only served by one access, would incorporate a looped or
interconnected street pattern which is considered appropriate for developments
of up to 200 dwellings in accordance with the Staffordshire County Council
Residential Design Guide 2000.
32. The appellant also confirmed that the submitted Transport Assessment 2018
(TA) had regard to all existing and committed development to 2025, as well as
the level of HGV movements on the roads, in reaching its conclusions.
Furthermore, while there have been four personal injury collisions within the
last five years, these appear to have been due to user error rather than any
discernible pattern to the use of the carriageways and junctions in the area.
33. The TA concludes that the development does not have an adverse impact on
the safety of all users of the highway. Staffordshire County Council as Highway
Authority has assessed the TA and raised no objections to the development.
34. I accept that local knowledge is important, and that the NP acknowledges
problems with the B5017 and that development in the locale should be
carefully controlled. However, in the absence of any substantiated evidence to
dispute that provided by the appellant within the TA, I am satisfied that the
proposal would not have an adverse impact on highway safety.
35. The appellant’s ecological report finds that the appeal site is mostly of low
ecological value, but that the hedgerows and boundary vegetation and some
trees have value in supporting some species. The landscape masterplan
(500237/001B) shows that existing hedgerows would be mostly retained in the
proposed layout.
36. Furthermore, a condition could be imposed both to seek an appropriate
landscaping plan and ecological measures to improve the overall biodiversity of
the site. I am satisfied therefore that the proposal would not be materially
harmful to ecology and biodiversity.
37. The proposed layout provides the potential for linkages to both Aviation Lane
and the development to the east under construction. Policy B1 of the NP
requires that all new development, defined as major for planning application
purposes, will be expected to include the provision of new, safe walking, and
where appropriate cycling and mobility vehicle routes, linking into existing
wider routes, creating an attractive pedestrian friendly neighbourhood in
Branston which encourages travel by means other than the car for short
journeys. While there is no guarantee that the pedestrian linkages between
the different residential areas would be established, this would not in itself
prevent occupiers walking to nearby facilities.
38. The design and layout of the proposed housing forms a development pattern
not dissimilar to that in the adjacent housing estates. I am satisfied therefore
that there is no conflict with Policy B2 of the NP regarding high quality design.
39. Policy B5 of the NP requires that overall a green infrastructure approach to
design should be provided. Furthermore, Policy B7 states that new
developments will be required to provide a mix of private space and open
space uses which meets local need, including children’s play areas, sports
pitches, allotments and amenity green space in accordance with the most up to
date guidance adopted by the Council. While there is a deficit in the overall
level of open space that would be delivered on the appeal site when assessed
against the requirements of the Council’s Open Space and Playing Pitches
Supplementary Planning Document 2019 (the SPD), a commuted sum, to be
spent on facilities close by, would mitigate that. This is an approach supported
in the SPD. The proposal would also provide children’s play space and
equipment. The central area of open space breaks up the two areas of
development, with that to the north providing a buffer to the existing housing
on Henhurst Hill.
40. It was agreed at the hearing there is no reason why trees could not be planted
on the areas of green space and this could come forward as part of a
landscaping scheme secured through the imposition of a condition.
41. The proposed parking provision is in accordance with the Council’s Parking
Standards Supplementary Planning Document 2017. However, amendments
made to Policy B11 of the NP in February 2020, after the determination of the
planning application, means that it would not meet the required one off-street
car parking space for each bed space provided. Nevertheless, the Policy goes
on to state that the requirements may be varied where in the opinion of the
Local Planning Authority, the additional parking likely to be generated by the
development can be safely accommodated on-street, without causing
obstruction to driveways or hindering the passage of emergency, refuse
collection and delivery vehicles. The Council raised no objection to this part of
the proposal. Furthermore, I heard from the appellant that the width of the
road would be such that on street parking could be safely accommodated. I
have seen no evidence to suggest any different. Therefore, I find no
fundamental conflict with Policy B11 or any policies within the NP.
42. Concern was raised regarding the potential for the flooding of gardens of
properties on Henhurst Hill given the slope of the land. However, the appellant
confirmed that both the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment
Agency have raised no objections to the development based on the submitted
Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy. I see no reason to disagree.
S106 Agreement
43. All of the dwellings would be provided as affordable homes secured by the
planning obligation. Since the justification for the development on land outside
the settlement boundary, is reliant on the proven need for affordable housing,
the arrangements secured are necessary.
44. The financial contribution of £9,600 towards refuse containers is in accordance
with the £75 costs per unit which is the cost of providing the recycling wheelie
bin and associated set up costs for each household.
45. The provisions for open space and children’s play facility is in line with the
requirements of the SPD. As there would be an increased population due to the
proposal, I am satisfied that the proposed development would generate a
requirement for the suggested level of open space, some of which would be
met on site. The SPD allows for the payment of a contribution where the on-
site provision would fall below the required amount of open space. Therefore,
the financial contribution of £37,302 towards public open space is necessary.
The agreement also includes provision for the maintenance of the on-site
provision.
46. The statement from the education authority shows that existing education
provision for primary, secondary and sixth form provision is at capacity, and
the proposed development would increase demand for places. The S106
includes a sum of £376,534.32 towards primary, £85,570 towards secondary
and £18,560 for sixth form provision at the closest facilities. I am therefore
satisfied that the payment of the required contributions would adequately
mitigate the impact of the proposal on the education infrastructure.
47. The evidence presented by the NHS East Staffordshire CCG demonstrates that
the existing GP practices do not have the capacity to manage increased patient
demand. Occupation of the 128 dwellings proposed would lead to an increase
in demand for local health facilities. From the evidence before me, I am
satisfied that the requested contribution of £55,020 towards a new facility in
the locality of the appeal site is fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind
to the development and necessary to make the development acceptable.
48. The S106 requires the submission of a Travel Plan, the appointment of a Travel
Plan Co-ordinator together with its implementation and the production and
submission of an annual performance report for approval to the County
Council. This is necessary to ensure that the proposal contributes to
sustainable development as required by Policy SP1 of the Local Plan. There is
little detail before me regarding how the monitoring sum requested by the
County Council has been calculated. I was advised by the Council that it is a
standard sum requested for major developments. The PPG5 requires that the
costs are proportionate and reasonable and reflect the actual cost of
monitoring. Bearing in mind that there is an ongoing requirement for annual
monitoring of the Travel Plan after its initial approval I am satisfied that the
sum requested of £11,900 meets the requirements of the PPG.
49. The County Council has also requested the sum of £1,110 towards the cost of
monitoring (including reporting under the CIL regs) the obligations contained in
the Deed. From my understanding of the Deed this would relate to the three
contributions to education for which there are two trigger points for payment.
Based on this, the requested sum seems a reasonable amount and in
accordance with the PPG.
50. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, these obligations, are necessary
and meet the statutory tests contained in Regulation 122 of the CIL, and the
requirements of paragraph 56 of the Framework.
Planning balance and conclusion
51. To develop the appeal site as proposed would be contrary to Policies SP2, SP4
and SP8 of the Local Plan. I am mindful that the Framework recognises that
the planning system should be genuinely plan led. However, I have found in
this instance that the aims of the spatial strategy regarding accessibility and
protection of the countryside contained in the development plan would not be
unacceptably harmed and therefore any harm caused by the conflict with the
development plan as a whole would be very limited.
52. Planning law requires that applications be determined in accordance with the
development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this
case I have found that the delivery of the site for 100% affordable housing
would be a very significant benefit. Indeed, the SOCG sets out agreement that
the weight to be afforded to the provision of affordable housing is at least
significant. On a straightforward development plan balance, I am firmly of the
view that the provision of the affordable housing proposed is a significant
material consideration which, in this instance, outweighs the development plan
conflict.
53. The Council referred me to an appeal decision6 which it considers to be similar
circumstances to the appeal before me now. The Inspector found that, in light
of the Council being able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing, the
material considerations were not sufficient to outweigh the conflict with the
development plan, even though the scheme would amount to sustainable
development for the purposes of the Framework. However, that scheme was
for a market led housing scheme which did not accord with Policies SP2, SP4
and SP8 of the Local Plan. The proposal before me is different in providing
5 036 Reference ID: 23b-036-20190901
6 APP/B3410/W/16/3150471
100% affordable housing as a material consideration which would outweigh the
conflict with the development plan in this instance.
54. We spent some time at the hearing discussing which were the most important
policies for determining the appeal and whether or not they were out of date
for the purposes of paragraph 11d of the Framework. However, given my
findings regarding the development plan balance I have not considered this
matter further.
55. For the reasons given above I conclude that, on balance, the appeal should be
allowed.
Conditions
56. I have had regard to the various planning conditions that have been suggested
by the Council and considered them against the tests in the Framework and the
advice in the PPG and have made such amendments as necessary to comply
with those documents.
In the interests of certainty, it is appropriate that there is a condition requiring
that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and
details of a phasing plan are submitted for approval.
58. Conditions regarding materials, finished floor levels and landscaping (including
landscape management) are necessary to protect the character and
appearance of the area.
59. Details of protection of existing hedgerows and trees on site are required prior
to work commencing on site to ensure that the existing landscaping is
protected from construction damage.
60. A condition requiring details of an open space strategy and its implementation
are necessary to ensure that such facilities are available on site for the future
occupiers in accordance with the Councils SPD.
61. A condition requiring 10% of the dwellings to meet standard M4 (2) of the
Building Regulations is necessary to ensure that a proportion of the proposed
dwellings are accessible and adaptable. Details need to be submitted prior to
work commencing on site to ensure that the required proportion are provided
in a satisfactory manner.
62. Details of the disposal of foul and surface water are required prior to
development taking place to ensure that the proper systems are in place and
that the development does not cause flooding elsewhere.
63. Conditions regarding the implementation of boundary walls and fencing, a
construction management plan and noise and dust mitigation are required to
protect residents’ living conditions.
64. A condition requiring details of ecological enhancement measures is necessary
to ensure that biodiversity on the site is improved.
65. Conditions 14, 15 and 16 are required to protect highway safety. A condition
regarding unexpected contamination and soil imported to the site are
necessary to ensure that satisfactory living conditions are provided for future
occupiers of the development.
66. An Air Quality Impact Assessment, including any mitigation measures is
required to be submitted prior to work commencing on site to ensure that
accurate details are submitted prior to construction works.
67. Details of cycle parking are necessary to encourage travel by an alternative
means than the car.
Zoe Raygen
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
Helen Kent Associate Director LUC on
behalf of East Staffordshire
Borough Council (ESBC)
Naomi Perry Planning Manager, ESBC
Kerry Challoner Principal Planning Officer, ESBC
Michael Petter Housing Officer, ESBC
FOR THE APPELLANT
Thea Osmund Smith of Counsel Instructed by:
Andrew Gore Partner, Marrons Planning
James Stacey Senior Director, Tetlow King
Planning
Annie Gingell Senior Planner, Tetlow King
Planning
Anna-Maria Edwards Head of Business Development,
Midland Heart
Dr Amer Halabi IPRT Planning
INTERESTED PERSONS
Councillor Mike Ackroyd Chair, Branston Parish Council
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING
1 Statement by Councillor Ackroyd
2 Tenure Plan 41262/026G
3 Statement of CIL Compliance
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE HEARING
A Section 106 Agreement
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration
of three years from the date of this permission.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans subject to compliance with other
conditions of this permission: 41262/002A, 41262/006G, 41262/007F,
41262/008H, 41262/009G, 41262/010D, 41262/013E, 41262/014F,
41262/015F, 41262/016E, 41262/018F, 41262/019F, 41262/020H,
41262/021H, 41262/023F, 412/62/024F, 41262/025G, 41262/026G,
41262/027F, 41262/028C, 41262 /029, SK1c, D3665-02, 500237/001B.
Phasing
3) Prior to commencement of development a phasing plan identifying all
phases of development should be submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The development will only be carried
out in accordance with the agreed phasing plan.
Materials
4) No development above damp proof course shall take place until samples
of all materials to be used externally ensuring the product name and
manufacturer is provided (including details of coursing of brickwork and
roof tiles) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority and the development shall only be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
Landscaping and ecology
5) No development shall take place until a scheme of landscaping to include
full details of National Forest Planting has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All planting, seeding
or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be
carried out for each particular phase in the first planting and seeding
season following the first occupation of the building(s) of the same phase
or completion of the same phase, whichever is the sooner; and 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 consent to
any variation
6) No development shall take place until a scheme of tree and hedgerow
protection to include full details of measures for the protection of trees
and hedges to be retained during the course of development has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
7) Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted details of
ecological enhancement measures (including bird nesting and bat
roosting facilities) to be installed on the site shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
ecological enhancement measures shall be installed prior to the 50%
occupation of the development and thereafter made available at all times
for their designated purposes.
8) No development above damp proof course shall take place until a
landscape management plan for all phases of development has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
Boundary walls and fences
9) Prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units hereby granted
permission the fencing and walling shown on plan ref 412/62/024F to
serve the respective dwelling shall be provided.
Levels
10) Before the development hereby permitted is first commenced, details
showing the existing and proposed land levels of the site including site
sections and spot heights and the finished floor levels, ridge and eaves
heights of all buildings hereby permitted with reference to the finished
floor levels, ridge and eaves heights of neighbouring buildings shall have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be undertaken in strict accordance with
the approved details.
Open space
11) No development shall take place until an open space strategy, to include
a timescale for implementation, for the development has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The open
space strategy shall be in line with the requirements of the Councils Open
Spaces SPD and shall include full details of children’s play area
equipment. The children’s play area shall be provided no later than the
occupancy of the 80th dwelling within the development. The development
shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Accessible and adaptable dwellings
12) No development shall take place until a scheme to provide 10% of
dwellings on site to be constructed in accordance with Building
Regulation 2010 Standard M4 (2) standards. Those dwellings shall be
completed to the Building Regulation 2010 Standard M4 (2) prior to their
first occupation.
Drainage
13) No development shall take place until a scheme for the disposal of foul
and surface waters, including a detailed surface water drainage scheme
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority and Severn
Trent Water Ltd. The scheme shall demonstrate:
i) The surface water run- off generated by the 100 plus 40% (for
climate change) critical storm is limited so that it will not exceed the
6.5l/s and not increase flooding off site.
ii) Provision of attenuation flood storage on the site to a 100 plus 40%
(for climate change) critical storm.
iii) Detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support
of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any
attenuation system and the outfall arrangements. Calculations
should demonstrate the performance of the designed system for a
range of return periods and storm durations inclusive of the 1 in 1
year, 1 in 2 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus
climate change return periods.
iv) The Simple Index Approach to the managing run off water quality
has been followed as detailed within the CIRIA C753 SuDS manual.
v) Plans illustrating flooded areas and flow paths in the event of
exceedance of the drainage system.
vi) Provision of acceptable management and maintenance plan for
surface water drainage to ensure that surface water drainage
systems shall be maintained and managed for the lifetime of the
development.
The development shall be completed in accordance with the approved
details prior to its first occupation.
Highway Safety
14) No development shall take place until full details of road construction and
street lighting, including longitudinal sections and a detailed surface
water drainage scheme to demonstrate satisfactory means of draining the
roads to an acceptable outfall, has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.
15) Prior to the first occupation of each dwelling hereby granted permission
the access, turning and car parking provision to serve that dwelling shall
be provided in a bound porous material, and thereafter shall be made
available at all times for their designated purposes.
16) The visibility splays shown on drawing ref 41262 /029 shall be provided
and thereafter maintained at all times for the lifetime of the development
to retain visibility over a height of 600mm above the adjacent
carriageway level.
Cycle parking
17) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a scheme of secure
weatherproof cycle storage facilities to serve all of the dwellings within
the development has been provided in accordance with details that have
first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Once provided the approved secure weatherproof cycle storage
facilities shall thereafter be retained as available at all times for their
designated purposes.
Construction management plan
18) No development shall take place until a Construction Management Plan
has been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning
Authority. The submitted Construction Management Plan shall include:
i) A site compound with associated temporary buildings
ii) The routing of all demolition and construction vehicles to and from
the site. The measures shall include the phasing of movements to
avoid traffic congestion.
iii) The removal of demolition materials from the site
iv) The parking of vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors
v) Arrangements for the loading and unloading of plant and materials
vi) Areas of storage for plant and materials used during the construction
of the development
vii) Measures to prevent the deposition of deleterious material on the
public highway during the construction of the development
The approved Construction Management Plan shall be implemented and
adhered to throughout the construction period.
Contamination
19) If during the course of development, contamination not previously
identified is found to be present on the site, then no further development
shall be carried out until a method statement detailing how and when the
contamination is to be dealt with has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The contamination shall then be
dealt with in accordance with the approved details.
20) Any soil to be imported to the site shall first be chemically analysed for
contaminants, with the results submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority prior to the soil being installed.
Air Quality Assessment
21) No development shall take place until an Air Quality Impact Assessment
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority which shall include details of any air quality mitigation
measures required. The development shall only be implemented in
accordance with the approved mitigation measures and maintained as
such for the life of the development.
Noise and dust mitigation
22) No development shall take place until a scheme of noise and dust
mitigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority which shall include details of any emissions of noise,
vibration and dust controls during construction and earth moving works
so as not to impact on nearby receptors. The noise and vibration control
measures shall be devised according to BS 5228-1 & A1:2014 Code of
Practice for noise and vibration control on construction sites or updated
guidance. The scheme of dust control measures shall be devised in
accordance with the ‘Guidance on the assessment of dust from demolition
and construction’ produced by the Institute of Air Quality Management
2014. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the
approved details.
***********END OF CONDITIONS**********