Case Reference: 3255692

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 7 – 9, 14 and 15 June 2022
Site visit made on 17 June 2022
by Joanna Gilbert MA (Hons) MTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 15th July 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/K1935/W/20/3255692
Land to the west of Lytton Way, Stevenage SG1 1AG.
• 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 Stevenage Borough
Council.
• The application Ref 19/00474/FPM, dated 1 August 2019, was refused by notice dated
6 March 2020.
• The development proposed is demolition of existing office building (B1 use) and
structures, and the construction of seven apartment buildings comprising 576 dwellings
(C3 use) together with internal roads, parking, public open space, landscaping, drainage
and associated infrastructure works.
• This decision supersedes that issued on 20 August 2021. That decision on the appeal
was quashed by order of the High Court.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of
existing office building (B1 use) and structures, and the construction of seven
apartment buildings comprising 576 dwellings (C3 use) together with internal
roads, parking, public open space, landscaping, drainage and associated
infrastructure works at Land to the west of Lytton Way, Stevenage, SG1 1AG in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 19/00474/FPM, dated 1
August 2019, subject to the 17 conditions in the attached schedule.
Procedural Matters
2. The previous appeal decision for this development proposal was quashed by
order of the High Court on 1 December 2021 and so is required to be
redetermined. My attention has been drawn to a legal judgment1 with regard to
consideration being given to a quashed decision as a material consideration.
3. Following the appeal’s submission, the Council revised its requirements for
cycle parking. The provision of revised drawings to address the Council’s
revised standards is dealt with by a condition, which requires the submission of
plans to show compliance with the revised cycle parking standards.
4. Two amended plans 2660-LA-01 Rev E and 2660-LA-02 Rev E were submitted
prior to the Inquiry opening. As they only made very minor changes to the
location of parking bays and sub-stations to correct drafting errors, no
prejudice would be caused to any parties by my consideration of these plans.
1 Davison v Elmbridge Borough Council [2019] EWHC 1409.
5. I have had regard to a signed and executed legal agreement which was
submitted on 6 July 2022.
Main Issue
6. Since the appeal was submitted and the first Inquiry took place, the main
parties have reached common ground regarding infrastructure provision which
formed the third reason for refusal. I have therefore addressed this as part of
other matters within my decision. It is also agreed by the main parties that
there would not be a negative effect on the nearby Old Town High Street
Conservation Area. I have not dealt with this matter further. In contrast to the
previous Inspector, I have not discussed privacy of future residents associated
with distances between windows as it is not disputed by the main parties.
7. Addressing both the first and second reasons for refusal, the main issue in this
appeal is therefore the effect of the proposed development on the character
and appearance of the area.
Reasons
Character and appearance
Policy context
8. Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) deals
with good design. Paragraph 126 of the Framework confirms the fundamental
importance of creating high-quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and
places. Paragraph 130 of the Framework states that decisions should ensure
that developments will function well and add to the overall quality of the area
not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development; are
visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and
effective landscaping; are sympathetic to local character and history, including
the surrounding built environment and landscape setting; establish or maintain
a strong sense of place, optimise the potential of the site; and create places
that are safe, inclusive and accessible. Paragraph 134 of the Framework states
that development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where
it fails to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design.
9. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)2 sets out the importance of well-designed
places and refers to the ten characteristics of good design set out in the
National Design Guide (2021) (NDG), including context, identity, built form,
movement, and nature. The NDG also highlights the Framework’s role in
achieving high quality places and is supported by the National Model Design
Code (NMDC) and its guidance notes.
10. Derived from Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City movement, the New Town
movement led to Stevenage being designated as the United Kingdom’s first
New Town in 1946. Development of the Stevenage New Town took place over
the following decades. Recognising the need for regeneration of the New Town,
the Stevenage Local Plan 2011 – 2031 (Local Plan) was adopted in May 2019.
The Local Plan’s vision includes plans to deliver transformational physical,
social and economic regeneration of the New Town, twinned with housing and
employment growth. It looks to maximise the use of previously developed sites
in the Town Centre, the Old Town and the New Town. It designates Major
2 Paragraph: 26-001-20191001.
Opportunity Areas to deliver high-quality mixed-use schemes with the aim of
delivering a step-change in the perception of the Town Centre. In looking to
provide hundreds of new homes on previously developed sites, it refers to the
need to provide high standards of design and sustainability.
11. The site is presently in employment use. Local Plan Policy EC7 states that
planning permission for the loss of employment land on sites not allocated for
any specific purpose will be granted where there is sufficient suitable
employment land available elsewhere, there are overriding benefits against
other objectives or policies in the Local Plan or it can be demonstrated that a
unit has been unsuccessfully marketed for its existing use, or has remained
vacant, over a considerable period of time. The criteria of Policy EC7 on the
quantum of employment land and vacancy and marketing are met. The main
parties are therefore in agreement that the loss of employment floorspace and
land would be acceptable in this instance.
12. Local Plan Policy SP7 sets out housing numbers and locations, but also supports
applications for housing on unallocated sites where they are in suitable
locations and will not exceed environmental capacity. Although this policy is
within the Council’s decision, Ms Fitzpatrick confirmed in her proof of evidence
that she considered the policy not to have been breached.
13. Local Plan Policy SP8 is a strategic policy which requires new development to
achieve the highest standards of design and sustainability, by preserving and
enhancing Stevenage’s most important areas and characteristics whilst
delivering substantial improvement to the image and quality of the town’s built
fabric; requiring significant developments to be masterplanned to ensure the
delivery of high-quality schemes; setting out detailed design criteria and
requiring applicants to have regard to Supplementary Planning Documents and
other relevant guidance; and implementing the Government's optional
Technical Standards. Both main parties agree that Policy SP8 is consistent with
the Framework.
14. Furthermore, the supporting text to Policy SP8 recognises that new designs
should raise the overall tone of design whilst respecting those parts of the New
Town’s history and general principles that still work. It notes that examples of
historic and modern high-quality design and layout should be preserved whilst
also influencing the future, and highlights the contribution of high-quality
design of transport infrastructure to sustainability and quality of life.
15. Local Plan Policy GD1 on high quality design states that planning permission
will be granted where criteria are met. Only criteria a. and e. are disputed here.
These criteria respectively require that development respects and makes a
positive contribution to its location and surrounds, and does not lead to an
adverse impact on the amenity of future occupiers, neighbouring uses or the
surrounding area. The Council’s position is that criterion e. encompasses
consideration of the impact of the development on the visual amenities
experienced by both those visiting and living in the proposed development, as
well as those experiencing the proposed development from outside. Both main
parties agree that Policy GD1 is consistent with the Framework.
16. The Stevenage Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2009)
(Design Guide) provides standards for the design and layout of development
within Stevenage’s urban area and sets out a number of principles of ‘best
practice’ design. It notes that a feature of the town’s development was the
relatively low density of housing, resulting from the aim to provide an ‘open
town’, following the Garden City movement’s principles. This involved high
levels of open space, an extensive network of green corridors and wide roads.
However, it goes on to note that due to the town’s growth requirements and
the need to provide a substantial number of homes, where appropriate,
densities will need to be raised in order to meet targets for new homes. It is
highlighted that this will need to be carefully balanced with the need to retain
open space as a key original feature of the town.
17. It also recognises at page 28 of the Design Guide that the relationship of taller
buildings to their neighbours is of particular importance and prefers buildings to
‘step up’ or gradually increase from one height to another. It asserts that
Stevenage is dissimilar to traditional towns in the way that, with the exception
of a few developments, building heights do not increase substantially as
development gets closer to the town centre or other nodal activity points. It
continues that this has created a lack of landmark developments and high
density buildings. It advises that buildings of greater heights should be
encouraged at nodal points, and in easily accessible locations and confirms that
in these circumstances a gradual increase in building heights will not be
required.
18. The Stevenage Central Town Centre Framework (June 2015) seeks to address
the town centre’s spatial extent and refers to the need for a gravitational shift
westwards from the current and historic town centre core. It also puts the
railway station at the heart of Stevenage Central and promotes high-density
development around and integral to the railway station, with high-quality public
realm of streets and squares.
Existing site and its context
19. The defined town centre on the adopted Policies Map (2019) skirts the site’s
edge, includes office development at the end of Ditchmore Lane and is bounded
by A1155 Fairlands Way, St Georges Way, and A602 Lytton Way, with the
inclusion of the railway station and the retail park west of the railway station.
20. Situated north-west of and immediately outside Stevenage’s defined town
centre and north of the railway station and the newly relocated bus station, the
site comprises an existing office building, car parking, and surrounding treed
and vegetated banked areas. The height of the banked site and the ground
floor of the existing building aligns more strongly with adjoining roads than
with the lower level pedestrian and cycle routes running along the site’s
eastern boundary. The site adjoins Trinity Road and a roundabout to the north,
Lytton Way to the east, Fairlands Way and a roundabout to the south, and the
railway line and Chequers Bridge Road to the west.
21. Vehicular access to the existing car park is fairly central within the site and is
from Lytton Way. Via the site’s sloping banked edges, routes connect into the
extensive pedestrian and cycle network. Pedestrians and cyclists travelling to
the town centre use the underpass to Gates Way or travel towards the railway
station and cross Lytton Way nearer the town centre.
22. Beyond Trinity Road, flatted 7-storey blocks at Monument Court and a petrol
station lie to the north. To the west and beyond the railway line, the site faces
flatted development at Kilby Road, where the tallest part of the flats reaches 10
storeys adjacent to Fairlands Way. There are also lower residential properties
on Watson Road, Fairview Road and Brick Kiln Road. To the south, a multi-
storey car park of approximately 6 storeys is under construction on the railway
station car park. To the east, the site faces offices, hotel and residential
accommodation on the other side of Lytton Way.
23. The main parties agree that the site is located in the Edge of Town Centre
townscape character area (TCA 3) as defined in the appellant’s Townscape and
Visual Impact Appraisal (July 2020) (TVIA). TCA 3 comprises a mixed use area
of a varied scale, materials, and architecture, which provides a transition
between Stevenage’s Old and New Towns and the residential areas beyond. It
is dominated by the strong road layout, with pedestrian and cycle routes
connected by underpasses under the road network. Tree planting, landscaping
and grassed verges contribute positively to TCA 3’s character. Neighbouring
TCA 1 in the TVIA covers the town centre and is noted to have buildings of 3 to
4 storeys rising to occasional taller buildings of up to 18 storeys.
24. In addition to the existing tall buildings at Monument Court and Kilby Road
outside the town centre and the car park building under construction, there is
an 8 storey building at Kings Road. Numerous tall buildings are located in the
defined town centre. At Silam Road, Harrow Court and Brent Court are 18-
storey point blocks set in the Town Centre Gardens, while there are further
individual blocks ranging from 7 to 16 storeys at Cuttys Lane, the Holiday Inn,
Southgate House, Towers Road, Danestrete, the Council offices and the Ibis
hotel. Tall buildings have planning permission at Matalan on Danestrete.
Although they had not obtained planning permission at the time of the Inquiry,
the Council has also resolved to grant planning permission for a part 9, part 13
storey building at 11 The Forum and for tall buildings at SG1.
25. Although the New Town masterplan for Stevenage allocated this site for
wholesale/industrial purposes, it remained vacant until the 1980s when the
existing building was built. As Mr Coleman3 notes, the building is “very well
detailed and assembled and the atrium entrance is particularly impressive both
spatially and in its rich use of materials.”
26. Possessing a citadel-like quality due to its height, architecture and position on a
banked island site separated from neighbouring sites by roads, the existing
building is undoubtedly striking with extensive use of blue glass across two
wings connected by a glazed atrium. Indeed, interested parties have
commented on its importance individually, and as part of the wider townscape
of central Stevenage, and about any scope for sustainable re-use. Unlike
interested parties, neither main party considers the building to be worthy of
heritage designation, either locally or nationally. Notwithstanding its vacant
and somewhat derelict appearance, the existing building is a fine building of its
time and I concur with the previous Inspector that it is architecturally one of
the more distinguished buildings in Stevenage.
27. However, it is undisputed between the main parties that there is no demand for
the existing building for employment use. This appears to result from the
attenuated layout and associated inefficiency of its office spaces, but also from
its very quality. While the loss of the existing building would be unfortunate, in
the absence of any realistic commercial and practical interest in the existing
building’s re-use, it appears inescapable. Nevertheless, the existing building
contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.
3 Paragraph 2.5.1, Proof of Evidence of Mr Coleman
The proposed buildings
28. The proposed development would comprehensively redevelop the entire site
and would introduce 7 blocks of 576 flats. While one block (Block 7) would be
located towards the railway line, the other 6 blocks would curve from north
(Block 1) to south (Block 6) along the site’s eastern perimeter.
29. All the blocks are essentially similar in floorplan, but some are combined in
pairs to make larger blocks. The tallest wayfinding or identity blocks would be
located at the site’s northern and southern ends, while the pavilion blocks
(Type B Blocks 2 and 5) would be lower and some would adjoin both the
wayfinding blocks and the central gateway blocks (Type A Blocks 1, 3, 4, and
6). The gateway blocks would be taller than the pavilion block elements and
would directly abut the existing vehicular access from Lytton Way and the
arrival square. The design concept sees the taller wayfinding and gateway
blocks as having a more vertical emphasis and being of a lighter colour, while
the pavilion blocks would have a more horizontal emphasis and would be of
darker brick. Separate pavilion blocks 2 and 5 would have a central set-back of
a different brick to denote each block’s central entrance. Sitting at a lower
height than most of the frontage blocks, Block 7 would use the contrasting
form of the Type A blocks but would employ the brick colours from the Type B
blocks. The blocks would range between 6 and 16 storeys in height.
30. The number of tall buildings proposed is a matter of concern for the Council.
Indeed, Mr Colligan confirmed in his evidence that he considered the site to be
suitable for a single tall building, but more would be unlikely. There are existing
tall buildings in central Stevenage as set out above. A number of the taller
buildings are some distance apart and the tallest buildings at Harrow Court and
Brent Court are set in extensive landscaping. However, not all tall buildings are
set in such extensive landscaping and not all lie within the defined town centre,
with Monument Court and Kilby Road being somewhat shorter, out of town
centre examples proximate to the site.
31. Given the Council’s stated aims to regenerate the New Town, the recent
permissions for the nearby multi-storey car park and Matalan, and the planning
applications (with resolution to grant) for other tall buildings, Stevenage is
likely to see the development of a number of taller buildings. The concept of
tall buildings in this location is not harmful per se. This is because the proposed
development is not only close to existing and proposed tall buildings within and
outside the town centre, but also lies on an island site surrounded by roads,
parkways and the railway and is therefore separated from other lower
buildings. In the absence of specific policy preventing the provision of a group
of tall buildings, of greater concern is whether the proposal is of sufficient
design quality and appropriate effect on the character and appearance of the
area to be consistent with relevant local and national policies.
32. Turning to matters of the building form and layout, height, proportions,
materials and architectural detail of the proposed development, I have not
applied the golden ratio or section exercise undertaken by the previous
Inspector as I have based my findings on my judgment of the whole
composition in its context.
33. The proposed development takes similar building forms and repeats them
across the site in a generally outward-facing manner. With the exception of
Block 7 which would sit to the rear of the site facing the arrival square, the
design approach to the eastern perimeter is approximately mirrored on either
side of the central vehicular access to the site.
34. The NMDC guidance notes refer to a choice of symmetry or conscious
asymmetry. Mr Colligan highlighted this axial symmetry as being inappropriate
and problematic, with references to its use in bombastic displays of wealth and
power. In my view, this is disproportionate to the potential effect of the
proposed development’s layout. While I concur with Mr Colligan that Block 7 is
not significant in itself, the use of axial symmetry is a convenient way of
addressing the existing and retained vehicular access and the lengthy
perimeter of a relatively narrow site. Though the retention of the existing
vehicular access has been criticised from a design perspective, this appears
sensible in terms of use of resources.
35. The repetition of forms across the site would provide consistency, with similar
floorplans used in pairs or in T-shapes. Unlike nearby tall buildings, the building
forms employed would be uncomplicated, using a rectangular floorplan and
consistent materials to emphasise their simplicity. While the taller blocks made
up of both a wayfinding/gateway and pavilion component (Blocks 1, 3, 4 and 6)
would undoubtedly be both tall and wide, I find their proportions would not be
unpleasing. The separate pavilion blocks would be more subtly designed and
more successful in their proportions due to their articulation, but this would not
render the taller blocks unsuccessful. The height and respective massing of the
blocks would vary across the site, with the tallest blocks at the north and south
and at the vehicular access. They would be separated from one another by
landscaped areas which would help in breaking them up and in linking them to
their landscaped surroundings, while the palette of different brick colours would
be effective in differentiating the blocks from one another and articulating the
larger blocks along the site’s eastern perimeter.
36. In terms of the differentiation in heights, this would reduce the potentially
fortress-like qualities of a group of taller buildings. However, the form of the
topmost parts of the proposed buildings would be more stepped than swooping.
Notwithstanding this, I consider that their simplicity at height would be likely to
stand the test of time more effectively than some more complex structures
with more detailed roof treatments and see no particular necessity in any
variation in treatments of the tallest Blocks 1 and 6.
37. The architectural detailing and materials have been carefully considered with
the use of a simple range of brick colours across the different blocks, providing
some variety. There would be unity of design approach across the proposed
development, with bronze coloured fenestration and rainwater goods and
contrasting repeated stripes of brick banding at ground floor level across the
buildings. This would create visual interest and some articulation along with the
use of two different types of balcony, with either coloured metal panels or
glazing. The metal panels would be perforated in the shape of a repeated and
stylised Pasque flower. The pavilion blocks 2 and 5 would also have stretcher
courses in a different brick colour on central elements of each block. Windows
would be relatively generous, well-proportioned and consistent across floors,
with some variation for wider windows where balconies would be located in a
staggered pattern on alternate floors.
38. Furthermore, in respect of active frontages, while there would not be as many
flats at ground floor level as on upper floors, there would be activity from
comings and goings to undercroft car parking, cycle parking and the flats
themselves. Given the likely number of residents, there would be likely to be
activity on site on a frequent basis. Additionally, those flats which would be at
ground floor level would overlook the banked landscaping and the pedestrian
and cycle network, thereby providing some surveillance.
39. Taken together, the building form and layout, height, proportions, active
frontages, materials and architectural detail of the proposed development
would be successful within the site. While the proposed development would not
have the flair of the existing building, I cannot emphasise enough the
importance of ensuring that high quality materials can be secured by condition.
Working on the basis that this would be the case, I consider that the proposed
development’s detailing and materials would be high-quality.
The effect on townscape and views
40. The TVIA assessed the proposed development from a number of locations in
and around central Stevenage and has been carried out in accordance with the
relevant guidance. Viewpoints were agreed with Council officers. I have
referred to relevant viewpoints (RV) in this decision.
41. Amongst the parks and green spaces that penetrate the urban area, King
George V Recreation Ground and Millennium Gardens are east of the site and
beyond the High Street and Ditchmore Lane. From RV7 on the recreation
ground, the existing building can be seen along with the tallest part of the Kilby
Road flats and the Platform flats off Gates Way, though they are largely
screened by trees and a supermarket on the edge of the open, grassed
recreation ground. When on the recreation ground, it is also possible to see
Harrow Court and Brent Court and other buildings within the Town Centre to
the south. Millennium Gardens is located on the recreation ground’s north-
western corner and forms a more intimate open space surrounded by hedging
and with ornamental planting. From RV8 within Millennium Gardens, only the
topmost portion of the existing building’s atrium can be glimpsed above other
buildings. From RV9 at the junction of nearby Gates Way, the existing building
is very visible.
42. In contrast to the existing situation, the proposed development would be highly
visible in RV7 and RV8. At RV9, the existing lower-scale built form would be
replaced by views of the gateway blocks and block 7 beyond. While the
proposed buildings would vary in height and distance from these three
viewpoints, the cluster of tall buildings proposed would undoubtedly draw the
eye. This would result from both the overall height of the proposed buildings
and from their grouping as a densely concentrated crescent.
43. While I agree with the previous Inspector that drawing attention is not in itself
harmful, the proposed development’s design quality and articulation would not
be as visible at RV7. While one would still see detailed articulation of the
proposed development and gaps between the buildings at RV8 and RV9, in
more distant views such as RV7 that detailed articulation, different colouring of
buildings, and any changes in light and shadow between buildings would no
longer be seen to an effective extent. Furthermore, a number of the gaps
between blocks would be less noticeable at this distance. This distance and lack
of visible detail would reduce the proposed development to a rather
uncompromising view of a group of large blocks without relief. However, 11
The Forum, if built, would also be highly visible in these views as another large
block. Although the proposed development would be imposing, it would not be
the only imposing building or group of buildings to be seen from the recreation
ground. I therefore find the view across the recreation ground would be only
moderately adversely affected.
44. There is no dispute that Stevenage’s existing architecture varies in quality.
Despite its buildings, one of Stevenage’s key characteristics is of parkways or
green corridors, consisting of main roads, cycling and pedestrian routes lined
by mature trees and grassed verges or banks. These form part of the New
Town’s original grid structure. The verdant qualities of the spaces bounding the
transport routes both soften the effect of different buildings on the wider
townscape and unify spaces. As one travels down parkways, one sees buildings
framed by and emerging from vegetation at different points.
45. In terms of parkway and road viewpoints, the longer views south and west
along Fairlands Way at RV1, RV10 and RV11 would change with the proposed
development in place, as would views closer at hand at RV16 at the pedestrian
overbridge crossing Fairlands Way. Both existing and proposed developments
would be seen from these vantage points moving down Fairlands Way towards
the site. On travelling down Fairlands Way, other taller buildings such as
Harrow Court come into view. Views from RV12 at Town Centre Gardens
adjacent to Fairlands Way would be more limited and would include new
development in the town centre as well as a view of the northern half of the
proposed development. Once in the proximity of the site at RV16 at the
pedestrian overbridge at Lytton Way, the proposed development would be
much more evident than the existing building. When on Lytton Way, both
existing and proposed developments would be seen from the railway bridge to
the town centre (RV15) and from nearby vantage points. As for the view from
parks, there would be a moderate adverse effect in the longer views at RV1,
R10, R11, and R15 as the proposed development would appear more clustered,
homogenous and lacking in articulation.
46. RV18 east along Fairlands Way would also see change with the proposed
development in place and some adverse effect stemming from the clustering of
buildings and likely level of visibility of articulation. This would be despite
existing trees and the Kilby Road flats’ presence. Meanwhile, RV19 at Chequers
Bridge Road would be less affected due to the limited visibility of buildings.
47. As with the effect on the recreation ground, there would be a moderate
adverse effect on parkway and road viewpoints at RV1, RV10, RV11, RV15, and
RV18, while there would be a more limited adverse effect on RV12 and RV19.
48. Moving away from parkways and parks to views within the residential areas,
the northern part of the proposed development would be partially viewed
above trees in RV5 along Letchmore Road, while the proposed development’s
southern extent would be more readily viewed from the southern end of
Letchmore Road at RV6. While the buildings would certainly be evident, I find
that the adverse effect on these viewpoints would be more minor than upon
longer views along the parkways and across the recreation ground as the
proposed development would not be visible to the same extent as from the
parks and parkways.
49. In summary, I consider that the proposed development would have a moderate
adverse effect on townscape and views.
Effect on the legibility of the town centre
50. With regard to the legibility of the town centre, it is acknowledged that the
proposed development is within an accessible location, in easy walking or
cycling distance to public transport, and a range of services and facilities within
the UK’s first pedestrianised shopping centre. As such, despite its location
outside the defined town centre, it is hard to see how it would fail to comply
with the principles for taller buildings set out at page 28 of the Design Guide.
Anyone travelling around Stevenage on a regular basis would become familiar
with the proposed development if built and would be able to orient themselves
in relation to the nearby railway station and the town centre. Even if unfamiliar
with Stevenage, legibility does not appear to be particularly difficult within and
around the town centre, with signage and routes easily directing pedestrians
travelling from the railway station to the town centre and to key services and
facilities within the town.
51. My attention has been drawn to examples of taller buildings such as the station
area at CB1, the Byker Wall, and Parkhill flats outside city centres in
Cambridge, Newcastle upon Tyne and Sheffield respectively. While Stevenage
and the proposed development share only limited similarities with these cities
and their buildings, I agree with the appellant that the presence of a taller
building or group of taller buildings would not automatically cause someone to
think that they were in the town centre when they were in or close to the site,
as it would be clear that the proposed development was residential in nature.
52. With regard to the view from RV21 north-east from the B656 north of Langley,
it is possible to see Stevenage over 2km away. It would be possible to see the
proposed development and the Matalan and SG1 schemes, if built, from this
viewpoint. However, they would make only a small change to the background
view above the treeline. They would not, to my mind, alter the perception that
Stevenage lies to the north-east of the viewpoint, and would not prevent
appropriate wayfinding to Stevenage or its town centre.
53. In summary, the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on
the legibility of the town centre.
Landscaping and parking
54. There is extensive tree planting, grassed banking and other landscaping
surrounding the existing building, much of which would be retained and
supplemented with new trees. The proposed frontage blocks would be
separated by four wedges of open space on the site’s eastern perimeter and
the main vehicular access to the site to the arrival square. These wedges would
contain mixed planting, spaces for seating, and sculptural play features. The
sunken amenity garden adjacent to block 7 would have ramped access and
would provide a more informal open space and children’s play area, while the
more formal and well-proportioned arrival square would accommodate trees
and soft landscaping as well as the access route through to the residential
blocks and car parking areas. Consistent with Local Plan Policy NH7, the
proposed development would provide sufficient amenity space for residents.
55. Concern has been raised by the Council regarding the extent of parking within
the site. Parking would be located either in undercroft areas at the bottom of
blocks or in surface parking courts. Parking would adjoin the open spaces and
landscaping for the site. Despite the extensive and somewhat dominant nature
of the proposed parking, this would not undermine the high quality and
detailing of the proposed landscaping. Even with the level of car parking
proposed within the site, the intensely developed site would have a series of
active and well-connected spaces and would have a sense of openness and
verdancy as a result of the juxtaposition of landscaping, parking and access
routes.
56. It has also been suggested that the proposed development would have a poor
relationship with the parkway landscape. However, not only would the site’s
distinctive banking be enhanced with a mixture of bulbs, meadow and shrubs,
but the landscaped wedges between the blocks would be visible from the
parkway, creating green fingers into the island site over and above the existing
landscaping of the surface car park. While the landscaped wedges would be
relatively narrow, they would be open to the exterior and the interior of the
proposed development, allowing views in and out of the spaces. Although they
would be relatively small spaces, I consider that they would be usable and
would be intimate, rather than oppressively narrow and small.
57. Public access to and permeability of the site would be enhanced by the
proposed development as a new pedestrian and cycle access would be
introduced via Trinity Road. Furthermore, given the landscaping layout and the
accessibility of open spaces, the site would be much more inviting and
accessible to cross than at present. Overall, I find that the landscaping and
parking would not have an adverse effect on the proposed development.
Conclusion on character and appearance
58. In conclusion, the proposed development would have a moderate harmful
effect on the character and appearance of the area, stemming only from the
loss of the existing building and from the proposed development’s appearance
in long views. The proposal would, therefore, be contrary to Local Plan Policies
SP8 and GD1, Chapter 12 of the Framework, and the PPG relating to high
quality design. As its only detrimental effect would be in relation to the loss of
the existing building and effect on longer views, I consider that the proposed
development would comply with Policy SP7 in respect of environmental
capacity.
Other Matters
59. Reference has been made to the number of flatted developments coming
forward. However, it is evident that such developments are generally in
keeping with the Council’s regeneration aspirations for the New Town. Though
mention has been made to increasing density to avoid building on Green Belt
land and to delivery of an arts centre in the existing building, I am required to
deal with the appeal before me. Matters relating to the overall suitability of
housing allocations and land being removed from the Green Belt are best
addressed through a Local Plan examination.
60. While it is possible that the proposed development will house residents who
commute to London or Cambridge, it is neither enforceable nor reasonable for
occupation to be restricted to those working locally. It has been suggested that
affordable housing should be integrated across the site, but affordable housing
is often grouped for ease of management and maintenance.
61. I note comments about the challenges faced in obtaining school places and
appointments at doctors’ surgeries. While it would not be reasonable to expect
the proposed development to address existing gaps in infrastructure, it would
address its own effect on school and NHS infrastructure via planning
obligations. In terms of Police and other emergency services infrastructure and
effects on water pressure, there is no evidence before me to indicate that this
development should contribute towards those services or that it would have a
negative effect on water pressure which requires mitigation.
62. Improvements are proposed to cycling and walking routes through the
proposed development and would be secured by condition and legal
agreement. The matter of sewerage is also addressed by condition. With regard
to parking, the parking levels on site would be adequate given the location and
scope for use of sustainable modes of transport. There is no evidence before
me which indicates that the proposed development would cause congestion, fly
parking, and rat-running on neighbouring roads.
63. Although there may be issues with noise, anti-social behaviour, crime and lack
of community cohesion locally, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed
development would worsen any existing situation. Additionally, noise would be
addressed by means of condition, including disruption from construction. Steps
have been taken to design out crime. In relation to light to Brick Kiln Road,
Monument Court, Townsend Mews and Platform, the technical assessments of
sunlight and daylight indicate no material impact in these respects post-
development. While a number of units would face Brick Kiln Road and Kilby
Road, the distances between existing and proposed development would be
such that there would not be negative effects on privacy. It has not been
demonstrated that light pollution would occur as a result of the proposed
development.
64. While I appreciate concerns about safety of tall buildings, the legal agreement
provides a water scheme with provision and maintenance of fire hydrants and
no cladding is proposed. Although there will be inevitable disruption during
construction works, a condition has been applied to mitigate this and require
the approval of a construction method statement to cover matters such as
dust, noise, and working times. Thermal insulation would be addressed via
Building Regulations. Concerns relating to property values are not planning
matters.
Planning Obligations
65. The relevant parties have entered into a legal agreement under section 106 of
the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which includes obligations which
would come into effect if planning permission were to be granted. It also
releases the parties from the legal agreement for the quashed decision.
66. I have considered the obligations in light of the three statutory tests at
Regulation 122(2) of The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations
2010 (as amended) and paragraph 57 of the Framework. These are that the
obligations are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning
terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in
scale and kind.
67. Affordable housing and associated viability reviews are addressed by the legal
agreement. Some 52 affordable housing units would be provided, with the
scope for additional provision of affordable housing on site or as a payment in
lieu of provision dependent on use of review mechanisms. There is an
affordable housing cap of 105 units. These figures are not disputed and
originate from viability negotiations. These obligations meet the three tests.
68. The legal agreement also deals with open space management and maintenance
and requires an open space specification and management plan to be
submitted to and approved by the Council prior to commencement. Open space
would then need to be laid out in accordance with an agreed timetable, with
the amenity space adjacent to block 7 set out prior to first occupation. This
obligation meets the three tests.
69. The legal agreement sets out an undisputed contribution of £1,670,732
towards the delivery of a new 2 form entry primary school in the town centre.
The additional pupil yield from the proposed development and other nearby
developments cannot be met by local primary schools, which have limited or no
spare capacity. Furthermore, the proposed new school’s location is some 0.8
miles from the site, a reasonable walking distance. The level of contribution is
based on a percentage of the overall cost of delivering a new school (18%)
calculated on the basis of likely child yield from the proposed development
(0.36 form entry), plus a proportion of the land costs for the primary school.
70. While the previous Inspector reduced the primary education contribution to
some 20% of the original figure to reflect the approach taken to the healthcare
contribution, Hertfordshire County Council has provided me with additional
information in support of primary education obligations4.
71. The Council’s CIL was adopted in January 2020 and implemented from April
2020. It envisages at paragraph 5.1 that CIL and planning obligations will work
alongside one another. The Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (March 2021)
recognises the rising demand for primary school places in the town centre and
envisages that new schools will be realised through developer contributions,
including financial contributions towards off-site education provision.
72. The Council’s Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) (December 2021)
confirms that the Council does not expect to fund any infrastructure with
collected CIL receipts in the next calendar year, as the pot of CIL monies is not
yet at a level where it is able to fund projects. Not only are the Council’s CIL
receipts not expected to be large enough to fully fund significant infrastructure
projects, such as a new school, but there are other competing projects for CIL
funding which may be prioritised by the Council. It is possible therefore that
the County Council would not receive any funding from CIL toward the school.
73. In the event that CIL monies were allocated for the school, the IFS confirms
that CIL monies may be used to fund an infrastructure gap if planning
obligations are not able to fund the relevant infrastructure alone. This appears
consistent with the advice in the PPG5 which confirms that authorities can
choose to pool funding from different routes to fund the same infrastructure
provided that authorities set out in their infrastructure funding statements
which infrastructure they expect to fund through CIL.
74. The previous Inspector found it would be necessary to pro rata the monies put
forward as a planning obligation due to the possible proportion of the school’s
4 RD9.1.3 Hertfordshire County Council Appeal Primary Education Contribution Supporting Statement
5 PPG 23b-003-20190901: How do planning obligations relate to other contributions?
costs that would be met from CIL receipts. The evidence before me indicates
that the main funding stream for the new school is planning obligations monies
from the proposed development and from other residential developments
coming forward in the vicinity. It is entirely consistent with the PPG and the
Council’s IFS that funding would be requested from CIL if a funding gap
remained. I therefore find that the primary education contribution would meet
the three tests.
75. The legal agreement contributes £81,538 towards new or improvements to
existing doctors’ surgeries at King Georges Practice Group or the Stanmore
Medical Group. It is clear that there is limited capacity at local practices and
that the agreed contribution is based on likely increase in households moving
into the area. This obligation meets the three tests.
76. A water scheme is included in the legal agreement in accordance with BS 750
(2012), providing for operational fire hydrants prior to occupation. It is
necessary for future residents’ safety and meets the three tests.
77. The legal agreement also deals with travel planning and includes provision of a
Travel Plan for approval by the County Council with consequent updating and
review at specific points; nomination of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator; production
and provision of residential travel packs, including sustainable travel vouchers;
and a payment of £6,000 towards evaluation of the travel planning. Car club
contributions of £22,574.33 towards provision of 2 hybrid car club cars and
associated parking spaces on site and supplying the agreed contract with the
car club operator to the Council are also required, while the legal agreement
stipulates an agreement under section 278 of the Highway Act 1980 to deliver
highways improvements for a cycle ramp and footway connection to Trinity
Road. All of these provisions would encourage use of sustainable transport by
future residents of the site and permeability of the site would be enhanced. I
consider that these obligations meet the three tests.
78. Monitoring of the planning obligations is also necessary to ensure that they are
spent appropriately and delivered. The Council’s approach to monitoring is set
out in the Council’s Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document
(2021). This appears proportionate and reasonable. For the proposed
development, the monitoring fee would be £25,000, the upper limit of
contributions sought by the Council. This meets the three tests.
79. With regard to the requirement at Schedule 9 of the legal agreement for trees
and plants used in the development to be sourced from nurseries in England
and Wales, whilst the aim is laudable, I am unconvinced that this is necessary
in planning terms. As such, this would fail to meet the first of the tests. I
therefore attach no weight to this element of the legal agreement in
determining the appeal.
80. In conclusion, the legal agreement would provide the necessary mitigation
required to address the impact of development. Furthermore, with the
exception of the requirement in Schedule 9 for locally sourced trees and plants,
it would meet the tests set out in Regulation 122(2) of the CIL Regulations and
paragraph 57 of the Framework and would be consistent with Local Plan
Policies SP5 and SP7, which ,amongst other things, expect provision of a range
of infrastructure to be secured when new development comes forward, and
require at least 20% of all new homes to be affordable housing with an
aspiration of up to 40% where viability permits.
Planning Balance
81. Paragraph 74 of the Framework outlines that local planning authorities should
identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to
provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing against their housing
requirement set out in adopted strategic policies or against their local housing
need where the strategic policies are more than five years old. The Local Plan
was adopted in 2019.
82. The latest Housing Delivery Test (HDT) results were published in January 2022.
These results indicate that the 2022 measurement for Stevenage is 79%. This
measurement exceeds the advice at paragraph 11 and footnote 8 of the
Framework that where the HDT indicates that the delivery of housing was
substantially below (less than 75% of) the housing requirement over the
previous three years, the policies most relevant for determining the application
should be regarded as out of date and that permission should be granted
unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework,
taken as a whole.
83. The appellant has projected HDT results for future years. The HDT measures
whether planned requirements or local housing need have been met over the
last 3 years, rather than projecting forward. Given the scope for adjustments to
the HDT and the departure from the HDT’s essentially backward-looking
nature, I give this approach no weight in my decision.
84. The parties remain in dispute about whether a 5 year housing land supply can
be demonstrated. The points of dispute relate to methodology and to the
deliverability of a number of sites within the supply. The updated Statement of
Common Ground on 5 year housing land supply (dated 1 June 2022) confirms
that the main parties agree that a 20% buffer should be applied and that the
base date is 1 April 2022. The appellant considers the deliverable 5 year supply
in Stevenage to be 2,491, which is 2.76 years (Sedgefield) and 3.54 years
(Liverpool). The Council considers its deliverable supply to be 4,126, which is
4.58 years (Sedgefield) and 5.87 years (Liverpool).
85. Nevertheless, the proposed development would deliver 576 residential units. In
doing so it would support the Government’s aim expressed at paragraph 60 of
the Framework to significantly boost the supply of housing. Local Plan Policy
SP7 refers to the need to deliver at least 7,600 homes over the plan period.
Many of those homes are expected to be delivered on large strategic sites,
which are proving complex to deliver and slow to come forward. There has also
been a past history of under-delivery. Therefore, even if I were to endorse the
Council’s best case scenario on their current housing land supply, in light of the
scale of development proposed and of the aforementioned local and national
circumstances, I give the provision of housing substantial weight.
86. The majority of obligations in the legal agreement are intended to mitigate the
effect of the development on local infrastructure. Therefore they are neutral in
weight. The only exceptions to this are the obligation on trees and plants which
does not meet the tests and therefore has no weight, and obligations for
affordable housing and sustainable transport.
87. There are viability review mechanisms which would, if triggered, allow for
affordable housing up to a cap of 105 units. However, I base my consideration
of weight on the known provision of affordable housing, that is 52 affordable
housing units or some 9% of the proposed development. They would be for
affordable rent, the highest priority tenure. I have been referred to other
schemes which have gained planning permission or it has been resolved that
planning permission should be granted. In these schemes, for one reason or
another, affordable housing provision has been lower than the expected policy
figure of 20%. Indeed 52 homes would equate to over 17% of the affordable
housing delivered thus far in the plan period. In these circumstances of poor
delivery of affordable homes and with a sizeable unmet need for such housing,
I give the provision of affordable housing significant weight.
88. Given the site’s sustainable location close to bus and railway stations and the
town centre and the scope to encourage use of sustainable modes of transport
via the improved pedestrian and cycle access to the wider network, the Travel
Plan, provision of sustainable travel vouchers, electric vehicle charging, and car
club vehicles on site, this would limit the need to travel by the private car and
provide a genuine choice of transport modes, consistent with paragraph 105 of
the Framework. Notwithstanding the importance of all these features, some are
required for compliance with local policy and guidance or compliance with
Building Regulations. While the Council asserts that these would be required for
any high-density scheme, I find these features to be of reasonable weight.
89. In addition, the proposal would redevelop a suitable brownfield site. Consistent
with paragraph 120 of the Framework, I afford this substantial weight. The
Local Plan contains no specific carbon reduction requirements. The proposed
development would go beyond mitigation and would provide over 60% carbon
saving against Building Regulations, to which I attach significant weight. There
would be biodiversity net gain of some 22.3% in habitat units and 4,790
hedgerow units when measured against DEFRA Biodiversity Metric 2.0.
Furthermore, bird and bat boxes would be secured via condition. Accordingly,
the proposed development would make a significant contribution to biodiversity
net gain, to which I give significant weight. The economic benefits in terms of
jobs and increased local expenditure can also be afforded significant weight.
90. I find that the benefits together have substantial weight.
91. Turning to adverse impacts, the proposed development would have a negative
effect on the character and appearance of the area and would consequently
conflict with the development plan. The level of harm would be no greater than
moderate in terms of character and appearance and in terms of conflict with
Local Plan Policies SP8 and GD1 for the reasons set out above. The adverse
impacts would be insufficient to outweigh the benefits even if the Council can
demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.
92. In conclusion, the negative effects of the proposed development in terms of
character and appearance and the conflict with the development plan as a
whole are outweighed by other considerations. Therefore, despite the conflicts
with Local Plan Policies SP8 and GD1, there are sufficient material
considerations to indicate that planning permission should be granted in this
instance.
Conditions
93. The schedule of conditions was discussed during the Inquiry and the appellant
gave their agreement to pre-commencement conditions after the Inquiry
closed. The conditions have been amended to reflect changes in plan and
condition numbers, to remove repetition, and to improve clarity. Numbers in
brackets refer to numbers in the schedule of conditions in this decision.
94. It is necessary to specify conditions confirming the time limit for development
(1) and approved plans (2) to ensure certainty. Two pre-commencement
conditions (3 and 4) are necessary as they should be addressed before
construction works begin. The condition for a construction method statement
(3) is necessary to safeguard the living conditions of local residents and to
ensure highway safety. I have not included routing of vehicles as this may not
be within the control of the appellant. The tree protection condition (4) is
necessary to ensure that retained trees are safeguarded during construction.
95. I have imposed a condition (5) for satisfactory storage and disposal of surface
water from the site, thereby reducing flood risk. It is also necessary to require
a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from noise from road, rail and
air transport sources to avoid harm to living conditions (6).
96. Conditions requiring approval of materials (7) and of a ramp for the amenity
garden (10) are in the interests of visual amenity and accessibility respectively.
In order to protect the living conditions of residents and preserve highway
safety, a condition on external lighting has been applied (8). In seeking to
mitigate climate change, a condition is necessary to deliver an energy strategy
and water targets (9). In the interests of the safety of residents, a condition
(11) is necessary to ensure that Secured by Design principles are met on site.
97. To encourage use of sustainable transport and provision of cycle parking
consistent with the Stevenage Parking Provision and Sustainable Transport
Supplementary Planning Document (October 2020), a condition (12) is
necessary. A further condition (13) requires details and provision of boundary
treatments and is necessary both to safeguard residents’ living conditions and
to prevent risk of interference with the safe movement of trains along the East
Coast Main Line.
98. In order to prevent detrimental effects on local sewerage and associated
flooding and pollution, a condition has been imposed to ensure that appropriate
infrastructure is in place (14). Condition (15) addresses bird and bat box
provision in the interests of enhancing biodiversity. I have also attached a
condition on refuse and recycling storage (16) in the interests of future
occupiers’ living conditions. In the event that land contamination is discovered
during development, a condition (17) is necessary to ensure no harm to human
health and that the environment is safeguarded against pollution.
Conclusion
99. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Joanna Gilbert
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
James Neill, Counsel Instructed by Head of Legal
Services, Stevenage Borough
Council
He called:
James Chettleburgh BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI Stevenage Borough Council
Garry Colligan BSc (Hons) BArch RIBA Think Place
MRTPI FRSA
Gemma Fitzpatrick MSc MRTPI Stevenage Borough Council
Sarah Martins MSc Diploma in Law Stevenage Borough Council
Rob Walker Trowers and Hamlin LLP
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Robert Walton QC Instructed by Colin Campbell, Hill
Group UK Ltd
He called:
Colin Campbell BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Head of Planning, Hill Group UK Ltd
Richard Coleman Dip Arch (Cant) ARB Independent Architectural,
RIBA RIAI Townscape and Heritage Consultant
at Citydesigner
Gemma Dudley Partner, Planning Highways &
Environment, HCR Hewitsons
Joanna Ede BA (Hons) MA DipLA CMLI Director of Townscape, Landscape
and VIA Services, Turley
Justin Kelly Dip Arch Tech, BArch, Dip Partner, BPTW
Arch, ARB, RIBA, RIAI, MCIAT, FCIAT
Catherine Ritson BL(Hons) CMLI Director, Allen Pyke Associates
Documents received during the Inquiry
RID01 Appellant’s Opening Statement
RID02 Council’s Opening Statement
RID03 Clips of documents referred to by Mr Colligan in his evidence in chief
RID04 Stevenage Borough Council CIL Charging Schedule (Adopted April
2020)
RID05 Email dated 11 June 2022 from Mrs Wadsworth, a local resident
RID06 Updated Table A
RID07 Updated Table CC10
RID08 Updated Table CC11
RID09 Updated Statement of Common Ground for SG1
RID10 Updated Statement of Common Ground for North Stevenage
RID11 Email from the Council dated 14 June 2022 re housing sites at The
Chace, Dunn Close, Oaks Cross, and Queensway
RID12 Council’s Closing Submissions
RID13 Appellant’s Closing Submissions
Documents received after the Inquiry
RID14 Email from the Appellant dated 15 June 2022 confirming agreement
to pre-commencement conditions
RID15 Email from the Council dated 15 June 2022 regarding sustainable
travel vouchers
RID16 Email from Inspector to main parties dated 28 June 2022 regarding
housing land supply figures
RID17 Email from the Appellant dated 28 June 2022 regarding housing land
supply figures
RID18 Email from the Council dated 30 June 2022 regarding housing land
supply figures
RID19 Email from the Appellant dated 4 July 2022 regarding housing land
supply figures
RID20 Planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 in relation to land to the West of Lytton Way,
Stevenage dated and submitted 6 July 2022
Schedule of 17 conditions
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from
the date of this decision.
2) Other than as required by conditions 4, 12 and 13, the development hereby
permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved
plans:
16-019 D 050 C01, 16-019 D 051 C05, 16-019 D 060 C01, 16-019 D 100
C04, 16-019 D 101 C03, 16-019 D 102 C04, 16-019 D 111 C02, 16-019 D
112 C02, 16-019 D 113 C02, 16-019 D 114 C03, 16-019 D 115 C02, 16-019
D 151 C01, 16-019 D 152 C01, 16-019 D 153 C01, 16-019 D 154 C01, 16-
019 D 200 C04, 16-019 D 201 C03, 16-019 D 202 C03, 16-019 D 203 C03,
16-019 D 204 C02, 16-019 D 251 C01, 16-019 D 252 C01, 16-019 D 253
C02, 16-019 D 254 C01, 16-019 D 300 C04, 16-019 D 301 C02, 16-019 D
302 C02, 16-019 D 311 C02, 16-019 D 312 C03, 16-019 D 314 C02, 16-019
D 351 C01, 16-019 D 352 C01, 16-019 D 353 C01, 16-019 D 354 C01, 16-
019 D 400 C05, 16-019 D 401 C02, 16-019 D 402 C02, 16-019 D 411 C03,
16-019 D 412 C03, 16-019 D 413 C02, 16-019 D 451 C02, 16-019 D 452
C02, 16-019 D 453 C02, 16-019 D 454 C01, 16-019 D 500 C04, 16-019 D
501 C03, 16-019 D 502 C03, 16-019 D 503 C03, 16-019 D 504 C02, 16-019
D 551 P02, 16-019 D 552 C01, 16-019 D 553 C02, 16-019 D 554 C01, 16-
019 D 600 C05, 16-019 D 601 C03, 16-019 D 602 C03, 16-019 D 611 C02,
16-019 D 612 C02, 16-019 D 613 C03, 16-019 D 614 C02, 16-019 D 651
C02, 16-019 D 652 C02, 16-019 D 653 C02, 16-019 D 654 C01, 16-019 D
700 C05, 16-019 D 701 C04, 16-019 D 702 C04, 16-019 D 706 C02, 16-019
D 707 C02, 16-019 D 708 C03, 16-019 D 709 C02, 16-019 D 751 C01, 16-
019 D 752 C01, 16-019 D 753 C01, 16-019 D 754 P01; 2660-LA-01E, 2660-
LA-02E, 2660-DT-01.
3) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a
Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to, and approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CMS shall provide for:
a) a construction phasing programme;
b) the parking and turning areas for vehicles of site operatives and visitors,
and for construction vehicles;
c) loading, unloading and storage of plant and materials;
d) siting of site offices and facilities for site operatives;
e) the erection and maintenance of screening and hoarding, including access
arrangements around the site for pedestrians, cyclists and other road
users;
f) siting and details of wheel washing facilities;
g) measures to control noise, vibration, odour, light, air quality and the
emission of dust during demolition and construction;
h) details of any proposed piling operations, including justification for the
proposed piling strategy, vibration impact assessment and proposed
control and mitigation measures;
i) a Site Waste Management Plan for recycling/disposing of waste resulting
from demolition and construction works, including hours of operation for
collection of waste;
j) delivery, demolition and construction working hours; and
k) details of consultation and complaint management.
The approved CMS shall be adhered to throughout the construction period
for the development.
4) No development, including any site clearance or demolition works, shall
commence until all trees within the development site which are to be
retained as identified in the Tree Protection Plan (Plan 67135-02, Appendix 4
of the Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) dated 31/10/2018 reference
67135 (V2)) have been protected by fencing or other means of enclosure in
accordance with Appendices 4 and 8 of the AIA. Tree protection shall be
retained in place until the conclusion of all site and building operations.
Within the tree protection areas, there shall be no alteration to the ground
level and they shall be kept clear of vehicles, materials, surplus soil,
temporary buildings, plant and machinery.
5) No development apart from demolition and site preparation works shall take
place until the final design of the surface water drainage schemes and their
maintenance regimes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance
with the approved details and be retained thereafter.
6) Prior to commencement of works above slab level, a scheme for protecting
the proposed dwellings from noise from road, rail and air transport sources
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Before any dwelling is occupied, all works intended to protect that
dwelling which form part of the scheme shall be completed and be retained
thereafter.
7) Prior to commencement of works above slab level, samples of the materials
to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings
hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
8) Prior to commencement of works above slab level, details of any external
lighting, including the intensity of illumination and predicted light contours,
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Any external lighting shall accord with the approved details and be
retained thereafter.
9) Prior to commencement of works above slab level, an energy strategy to
achieve 65% carbon reduction against Part L of the Building Regulations
2013 when assessed using SAP10 emission factors shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall
be implemented and retained thereafter in accordance with the approved
details of the energy strategy and in accordance with the water consumption
targets contained within the Whitecode Design Associates Energy Strategy
10293-S-ENER-0001 Revision 5 dated 30 July 2019.
10) Prior to commencement of works above slab level, details of ramped access
into the amenity garden to the south of block 7 shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The ramped access shall
be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first use
of the amenity garden and be retained thereafter.
11) Prior to commencement of works above slab level, a detailed scheme of
Secured by Design Section 2: Physical Security of the Home measures for
the development hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be
carried out in accordance with the approved scheme prior to occupation of
each block and be retained thereafter.
12) Notwithstanding condition 2 and the details of car and cycle parking shown
on the submitted plans, no works above slab level shall take place until
revised plans, including the details of any external cycle stores, showing the
provision of at least 948 cycle parking spaces together with the details of
their type and design have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The cycle parking shall be fully completed for each
block or phase and in accordance with the approved details before first
occupation of that particular block or phase of the development and be
retained thereafter.
13) Notwithstanding condition 2, details of the treatment of all boundaries
including details of any walls, fences, gates or other means of enclosure and
timing of their delivery shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority prior to any landscaping work taking place. The
approved boundary treatments shall be completed in accordance with the
approved details and be retained thereafter. No part of the development
shall be occupied until an Armco or similar barrier has been installed in
positions where vehicles may be in a position to drive or roll onto the
railway.
14) Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling within the development, written
confirmation shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority that either:-
(i) All wastewater network upgrades required to accommodate the
additional flows from the development have been completed; or
(ii) A housing and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with Thames
Water to allow additional properties to be occupied.
Where a housing and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed, no occupation
shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed housing and
infrastructure phasing plan.
15) Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling within the development, details
of a scheme to provide at least 20 bird and 30 bat boxes shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall
include details of the timing of provision. The development shall be carried
out in accordance with the approved scheme and be retained thereafter.
16) Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling within a block, the refuse and
recycling stores for that block as shown on the approved plans shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details and be retained
thereafter.
17) In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the
approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported
in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and
risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a
remediation scheme, including a programme for implementation, must be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. Following
completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a
verification report must be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for
approval.