Case Reference: 3279463

Appeal Decision
Inquiry held on 7-10 December and 14 December 2021
Site visit made on 7 December 2021
by Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge MRTPI IHBC
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 31st January 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/W/21/3279463
Burston Nurseries Ltd, North Orbital Road, Chiswell Green, St. Albans
AL2 2DS
• 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 St
Albans City Council.
• The application Ref 5/20/3022, dated 11 December 2020, was refused by notice dated
26 May 2021.
• The development proposed was originally described as “demolition of all existing
buildings, structures and hardstanding and redevelopment of the site to provide a new
retirement community comprising assisted living bungalows and apartments, with
community facilities together with associated access, bridleway extension, landscaping,
amenity space, car parking and associated and ancillary works”.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of
all existing buildings, structures and hardstanding and redevelopment of the
site to provide a new retirement community comprising 80 assisted living
apartments with community facilities and 44 bungalows together with
associated access, bridleway extension, landscaping, amenity space, car
parking and associated and ancillary works at Burston Nurseries Ltd, North
Orbital Road, Chiswell Green, St. Albans AL2 2DS in accordance with the terms
of the application, Ref 5/20/3022, dated 11 December 2020, subject to the
28 conditions set out in the attached schedule.
Procedural Matters
2. The original description of development is shown in the banner heading above.
The description was amended slightly during the application process to specify
the number of assisted living apartments and bungalows and clarify that the
community facilities formed part of the apartments. The amended description is
used in my formal decision.
3. The application was refused for three reasons and five main issues were
identified at the pre-inquiry case management conference. The Council
indicated at the conference that the third reason for refusal could be resolved
through the submission of a Section 106 (S106) agreement and later confirmed
that affordable housing provision was not required due to the nature of the
development. A completed and executed S106 was submitted after the Inquiry
closed and is assessed below.
Main Issues
4. The appeal site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. It is common
ground between the appellant and the Council that the proposed development
would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to
the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the development plan.
Therefore, the main issues are as follows:
a) the effect of the proposed development on the openness and purposes
of the Green Belt;
b) the effect of the proposed development on the character and
appearance of the area;
c) the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the
Grade II* listed Burston Manor and the Grade II listed outbuilding;
d) whether the proposed development would make adequate provision for
community and infrastructure needs; and
e) whether harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm,
would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount
to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed
development.
Background
Site overview and planning history
5. The appeal site is located within the eastern part of the wider Burston Garden
Centre site and incorporates the access junction from the A405 North Orbital
Road and the proposed route of a new bridleway through to Lye Lane. The
main part of the site was formerly used for commercial rose production but is
currently redundant apart from some overspill open-air storage for the garden
centre. There are a number of sheds, polytunnels, glasshouses, and planting
beds associated with the former use. The remainder of the site comprises open
grassland to the east and north-east.
6. To the north of the site is the Grade II* listed building of Burston Manor and
the Grade II listed outbuilding. Further to the north is the A405 dual
carriageway and Chiswell Green. There is a close boarded fence along the
eastern site boundary adjacent to a public bridleway. The woodland and village
of How Wood lie to the east of the bridleway (hereafter the former is referred
to as How Wood and the latter as How Wood Village). To the south of the site is
the woodland of Birch Wood while a variety of structures and hardstanding
associated with the rest of the garden centre lie to the west.
7. The site was subject to a previous proposal for a retirement community with
assisted living housing, communal facilities, and a 64-bed care home. An
appeal1 against the Council’s refusal of planning permission for that proposal
was dismissed on 9 January 2020. The main issues were very similar to the
current appeal. The previous Inspector concluded that harm to the Green Belt,
the above listed buildings, and the character and appearance of the area, was
not outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special
circumstances.
1 APP/B1930/W/19/3235642
8. Before and during the Inquiry, the appellant set out various changes in
circumstances that they argue are relevant to the consideration of this appeal.
These include changes to the nature and design of the proposed development,
the withdrawal of the emerging St Albans City and District Local Plan (ELP) in
late 2020, changes to the NPPF in July 2021, appeal decisions2 from June 2021
for up to 100 dwellings at Roundhouse Farm in Colney Heath, a resolution by
the Council in autumn 2021 to grant permission for up to 150 dwellings at land
to the rear of Harpenden Road in St Albans3 (subject to a completed legal
agreement), and changes to the district’s housing need position.
9. Consistency in decision-making is an important principle. The main parties
agree that the previous appeal decision is a material consideration but disagree
on the extent to which the current appeal is the same as before. It is necessary
for me to consider any changes in circumstances including those outlined above
and, where applicable, explain my reasons for coming to a different conclusion
to the previous Inspector.
The appeal proposal
10. The proposed development has a number of comparable elements to the
previous appeal. It would be for a retirement community within Class C2 of the
Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended). All of the existing structures and
hardsurfacing would be removed. Access would be provided via the existing
service track from the A405 which would be widened and tree-lined. A new
signalised junction would be installed on the A405 for the development and the
existing garden centre.
11. The care home, which was intended for the northernmost part of the site, has
been removed from the proposed development. The distribution and layout of
the bungalows would be different from the previous appeal, with greater
landscaping along the northern boundary with Burston Manor House and the
eastern boundary with the public bridleway. The assisted living apartments
with care and community facilities would be located within the same building
and location as the previous appeal with three 3-storey blocks connected by
single storey corridors. The number of proposed apartments is unchanged from
before at 80, while there would be one less bungalow (44). The total amount of
floor area would be around 20% lower than proposed previously.
12. The landscaping strategy would be similar to the previous appeal, albeit with a
greater amount of open space throughout the development. There would be
planting of trees and hedges and the creation of various communal gardens.
The close boarded fence along the bridleway would be removed and replaced
with a post and rail fence. The architectural design and materials would be
similar to before, with clay tile pitched roofs and red brick walls alongside the
use of tile hanging, stone walling, dark facing brick, and weatherboarding.
The policy context
13. The development plan for the purposes of this appeal is the St Albans Local
Plan Review 1994 (LP). The draft ELP had been submitted for examination at
the time of the previous appeal. It sought to allocate broad locations for
development, including for C2 units, and included a review of the Green Belt as
2 APP/B1930/W/20/3265925 and APP/C1950/W/20/3265926 (the site straddles the boundary between St Albans
City and District Council and Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council)
3 Application Ref 5/2021/0423/LSM
part of the identification of such locations. The appeal site was not proposed for
allocation. However, the examining Inspectors identified several concerns in
April and September 2020 and the ELP was withdrawn from examination in late
2020. Work has begun on a new version of the ELP with initial public
consultation expected during 2022. The parties agree that no weight can be
attributed to the ELP in decision-making and I have no reason to disagree.
14. The site is located within the St Stephen Parish Neighbourhood Plan (NP) area.
The NP pre-submission version dated October 2020 included a draft allocation
for this site for around 200 units of specialist housing and supported a
retirement village (C2) with the parish. The NP submission version dated
February 2021 removed all site allocations, although support for a retirement
village remains in the document. The parties agree that the proposed
development would not conflict with the draft NP. Given the NP is still at a
relatively early stage of production, it can only be afforded limited weight.
15. The NPPF was updated on 20 July 2021. Relevant paragraphs relating to the
Green Belt and heritage assets have not changed since the previous decision,
but there have been changes to section 12 on achieving well-designed places.
This includes paragraph 134 which advocates that significant weight should be
given to development that reflects design policies and guidance.
Reasons
Main Issue (a): Green Belt openness and purposes
Openness
16. NPPF paragraph 137 explains that the Government attaches great importance
to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban
sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of
Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. NPPF paragraph 147
states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green
Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. NPPF
paragraph 148 advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to
the Green Belt and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the
potential harm to Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other
harm arising from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
17. NPPF paragraph 149 says that the construction of new buildings in the Green
Belt is inappropriate unless exceptions exist. LP Policy 1 only permits
development in the Green Belt if certain exceptions apply or in very special
circumstances. The exceptions are more restrictive than those set out in NPPF
paragraph 149 but for the purposes of this appeal the policy is broadly
consistent with the NPPF. The parties agree that the proposal would not accord
with any of the NPPF or LP exceptions and so would be inappropriate
development. However, it remains necessary to consider the effect on Green
Belt openness and purposes.
18. Openness is capable of having both spatial and visual elements. Spatially, the
development would result in more built form across the entirety of the site
compared with the existing situation. The height, footprint and volume of new
buildings would greatly exceed the sheds, polytunnels and glasshouses. The
amount of built form proposed would be less than in the previous appeal,
especially with the removal of the care home. Nevertheless, there would be a
significant loss of openness in spatial terms particularly for the undeveloped
parts of the site.
19. Visually, the site is well-contained by woodland and the surrounding built form
of the garden centre and How Wood Village. Views of the site from the
bridleway and the footpaths through How Wood are constrained by the close-
boarded fence. It is difficult to see any existing structures from the bridleway
and How Wood due to the solid barrier of the fence. For the same reason, it is
also hard to appreciate the site’s open grassland apart from on slightly higher
ground on the bridleway at the northern corner of the site.
20. The development would result in a greater appreciation of built form along the
bridleway. From the higher ground to the north, it would be possible to see
bungalow roofs over the fence. However, these buildings would not be as
obvious as the taller and bulkier care home from the previous appeal. The
buildings would also be largely screened by planting in due course. Further
south on the bridleway and from within How Wood, the barrier of the fence
would be removed and replaced with views of bungalows behind a landscaped
buffer. Such views would gradually diminish as planting matures, but there
would remain a visual effect on the openness of the Green Belt from along the
bridleway and from How Wood.
21. It would also be possible to see the bungalows and apartment blocks next to
the proposed bridleway through to Lye Lane, while the development as a whole
would be visible to residents, staff and visitors across the site. There is no
existing public access to the site, but the amount of built form would still have
an effect on openness in visual terms as the site would be less open than now.
22. The development would not impact on the openness of the Green Belt beyond
the site itself due to the level of containment. Moreover, due to the removal of
the care home and the greater use of planting and landscape buffers, the
impact would be less than the previous appeal. Nevertheless, the development
would result in harm to the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt that
would be permanent with a greater degree of activity generated than existing.
While the harm to openness would not be as significant as for the previous
appeal, it would still be sizeable due to the extent of built form across the site.
Purposes
23. NPPF paragraph 138 sets out five Green Belt purposes: (a) to check the
unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; (b) to prevent neighbouring towns
from merging into one another; (c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside
from encroachment; (d) to preserve the setting and special character of
historic towns; and (e) to assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the
recycling of derelict and other urban land. The parties agree that purpose (d) is
not relevant to this appeal.
24. The site lies within a wider Green Belt parcel that covers the land between
Chiswell Green and Bricket Wood. The Council’s Green Belt Review 2013 states
that the parcel’s principal function is its significant contribution towards
maintaining the existing settlement pattern and gaps between Chiswell Green,
How Wood and Bricket Wood. The review also says the parcel makes a partial
contribution towards preventing neighbouring towns from merging.
25. The site is close to the urban edge of How Wood Village but is not contiguous
with any existing residential development due to the woodland buffers. It is
possible to see rear elevations of some housing through the woodland in
winter, but the site feels separate to the existing settlement. Chiswell Green to
the north is separated from the site by Burston Manor and the A405. The site
lies within a gap between How Wood Village and Chiswell Green.
26. The site’s visual containment makes it difficult to appreciate the gap between
the two settlements from the site. I concur with the previous Inspector that the
increased amount of built form across the site would not result in the direct
coalescence of How Wood Village and Chiswell Green. This is due to the
continuation of existing buffers such as the woodland and road. However,
development within the gap would diminish the separation of the two
settlements. Thus, there would be an element of sprawl and merger and
conflict with purposes (a) and (b).
27. Insofar as the site is partly undeveloped and partly horticultural, it can be
argued that the site occupies a countryside location. The development would
therefore result in encroachment on the countryside. The degree of
encroachment would be limited by the site’s contained nature but there would
still be conflict with purpose (c). Despite the proximity of built development,
the site and land itself is not urban. Therefore, purpose (e) is not a relevant
factor in this appeal.
Green Belt conclusion
28. The site has some parallels with the Roundhouse Farm and Harpenden Road
sites with regard to its visual containment and its location next to existing
built-up areas. However, the sites are not identical and I do not have all the
information considered by the decision-makers in either case. Therefore, I have
reached my own views based on the evidence before me.
29. In addition to its inappropriateness, the development would result in a sizeable
degree of harm to the openness of the Green Belt and would conflict with three
Green Belt purposes. In accordance with the NPPF, such harm to the Green
Belt should be afforded substantial weight. This weighting will form part of the
planning balance in due course along with my conclusion on compliance with
NPPF paragraphs 147 and 148 and LP Policy 1.
Main Issue (b): Character and appearance
30. LP Policy 69 requires all development to have an adequately high standard of
design taking into account, amongst other things, context. The policy defines
context as the scale and character of the surroundings in terms of height, size,
scale, density or plot to floorspace ratio. LP Policy 70 states that the design of
new housing should have regard to its setting and the character of its
surroundings and meet 12 listed objectives. The parties agree that the
proposed development would not conflict with any of the objectives and that it
is only the first part of the first sentence of Policy 70 that is disputed.
31. The site’s existing structures are generally lightweight and modest in scale.
They are also utilitarian and, in the case of the glasshouses, polytunnels and
planting beds, are disused and dilapidated. The grassland in the eastern part of
the site is rough and unkempt. While the site can be regarded as part of a
countryside gap due to its open and horticultural nature, I agree with the
parties that it is of poor quality and low landscape value.
32. In wider character and appearance terms, the site relates closely to the
adjoining garden centre with its collection of large glasshouses and commercial
buildings. Residential properties in How Wood Village are only a short distance
away through woodland and the noise of major roads like the A405 and M25
are clearly audible. Therefore, I also agree with the parties that the site’s
immediate context is urban fringe, settled landscape, and major infrastructure,
and that it has a very contained character.
33. The dispute between the parties relates to the overall effect on character and
appearance rather than detailed design. In respect of the latter, the quality of
architectural treatment and materials would be good and reflect the local
vernacular. The deletion of the care home from the previous appeal and the
greater use of planting buffers along the site’s northern and eastern boundaries
would result in attractive landscaping and generous amounts of green space.
The Council did not dispute the proposal’s compliance with the National Design
Guide and NPPF paragraph 134(a) which promotes good design that reflects
local and national policies and guidance. There has also been detailed
stakeholder consultation as advocated by NPPF paragraph 132.
34. The bulk and footprint of the care home has been removed from the current
proposal, which would reduce the visual impact from the bridleway and any
glimpsed views from How Wood Village through the woodland. However, the
large interconnected 3-storey blocks containing the assisted living apartments
and communal facilities would remain unchanged. The bungalows would be of a
similar scale to the previous appeal. The development would contrast markedly
with the garden centre buildings, while the height and scale of the apartments
blocks would be greater than the prevailing form of development in How Wood
Village. As a consequence, the character and appearance of the site would
change considerably to a more built-up and urban form with the loss of a
countryside gap. How Wood would be enclosed by residential development on
all sides while Birch Wood would become enclosed on three sides.
35. Nevertheless, the greater use of landscaping, particularly along the boundaries,
and a less regimented layout of bungalows would lessen the overall impact in
both landscape and visual aspects. Views from the bridleway would not be as
dominated by large building footprints and would be softened by vegetation
screening in due course. Any views from How Wood Village and through the
woodland would also be less affected. The proposed bridleway through the site
has no existing visual baseline in terms of public access. Future users would
experience the large apartment blocks close to the bridleway, but this would be
a new effect and one that would be mitigated as planting matures.
36. In conclusion, the proposed development would alter and urbanise the site and
result in the loss of an open countryside gap. However, this would be offset to
some extent by the high quality design and layout as well as changes since the
previous appeal to reduce the scale and footprint of buildings and incorporate
greater areas of landscaping. Any landscape and visual effects would be
broadly contained to the site itself rather than any wider impacts. With regards
to the NPPF, the development would align with paragraphs 132 and 134, as
well as paragraph 130(c) which requires development that is sympathetic to
local character and history including the surrounding built environment and
landscape setting. Therefore, the development would have no more than a
moderate harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. As such,
there would be some moderate conflict with LP Policies 69 and 70 insofar as
the development would fail to fully respond to its context and surroundings.
Main Issue (c): Listed buildings
37. LP Policy 86 sets out that for any planning application which affects a listed
building or its setting, the Council will have special regard to the desirability of
preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic
interest which it possesses. This reflects the statutory duty in Section 66(1) of
the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA Act).
38. NPPF paragraph 199 places great weight on the conservation of heritage assets
(and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be)
irrespective of the degree of harm. NPPF paragraph 200 states that any harm
to the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and
convincing justification.
39. Burston Manor dates back to the 12th century with alterations and extensions
from the 15th and 17th centuries and further changes from the 19th century
onwards. It was a manor house and today is a residential property. The house
is 2-storey and timber framed, with brick and painted external walls and a plain
clay tile roof. There is a historic moat on the south side of the property. The
red brick outbuilding originates from the late 17th century with early 19th
century alterations. It was built as a granary and dovecote and has a plain tile
pyramid roof. It remains an ancillary building to Burston Manor.
40. The parties agree the listed buildings have aesthetic, historical and evidential
value. This begins with their role as part of a manorial estate which by the 19th
century had become a farm complex and by the 20th century a private dwelling.
They contain a range of architectural details and historic materials and are
attractive buildings that complement each other. These values inform the listed
buildings’ significance and special interest.
41. The setting of the listed buildings also contributes to their significance and
special interest. As historic map evidence in the appellant’s Built Heritage
Statement shows, the setting has changed dramatically over the past 200
years. In the 19th century there were agricultural fields and woodland around
Burston Manor, including How Wood and Birch Wood. The 20th century
witnessed extensive suburban and infrastructure development on all sides of
the listed buildings. There are a number of adverse components of the
buildings’ setting including the noise of major roads and the proximity of built
form and activity related to the garden centre. Individually and cumulatively,
these detract from the significance and special interest of the listed buildings.
42. Based on the map evidence, the site has formed part of the wider surroundings
of the listed buildings since at least the 19th century as agricultural land
previously associated with Burston Manor. The main part of the site was
divided into two fields by a footpath between Burston Manor and How Wood.
This division disappeared by the 1960s as the garden centre began to emerge.
By the mid to late 20th century, there was an established area of tree planting
to the south of the listed buildings and adjacent to the site.
43. The listed buildings today are set within a private garden, enclosed by mature
boundary planting on all sides. There is no tenable evidence that this planting
would not remain in future. The planting limits views of the listed buildings
from beyond the garden including from the garden centre and the bridleway.
There is some intervisibility between the site and the listed buildings,
particularly through the vegetation boundary in winter months. Looking south
from the upper floors of the rear elevation of Burston Manor, and from within
the garden, it is possible to see some existing site structures as well as the
wider garden centre. Glimpses of How Wood and Birch Wood are also possible.
44. The condition and appearance of the site detracts from the setting of the listed
buildings where existing structures can be seen, due to their utilitarian and
dilapidated form. The need for extensive restoration combined with difficult
road access means the site is unlikely to return to any wider agricultural use
such as arable or livestock management. At the same time, the grassland in
the eastern part of the site and the backdrop of woodland provides a remnant
of the historic rural setting of the listed buildings. It is likely that views of the
site and woodland from the listed buildings have been limited for around 100
years based on the existence of planting. Nevertheless, the openness and
greenery of the site and woodland to the east and south-east of the listed
buildings makes a minor positive contribution in evidential and historical terms
to the setting of these heritage assets and thus informs their significance.
45. The development would result in an urbanised built form across the site that
would enclose the listed buildings. The unsightly existing structures would be
removed but it would be possible to see the roofs of the nearest bungalows
from the house and garden and the woodland backdrop would be partially
obscured. Compared to the previous appeal, there would be more of a
landscape buffer along the shared boundaries while the bulkier form of the care
home would be removed. Once planting matures, the bungalows would be
largely obscured even in winter months. Nevertheless, the open and green
setting provided by the site and woodland would be diminished and the
remnant historic rural setting would be lost.
46. Based on the revised form and layout of the proposed development including
its landscaping, and the minor contribution the site makes to setting, I
conclude that there would be a low to moderate level of less than substantial
harm to the significance of the listed buildings. NPPF paragraph 202 requires
less than substantial harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the
proposal. This will be carried out in the planning balance below along with my
conclusions on compliance with the NPPF, the LBCA Act and LP Policy 86.
Main Issue (d): Community and infrastructure needs
47. The planning obligations contained with the S106 need to comply with the tests
set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations
2010 and NPPF paragraph 57. The obligations must be necessary to make the
development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development,
and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
48. The Bridleway and Access Improvement Scheme is necessary to provide a new
bridleway linking How Wood and Lye Lane that would assist pedestrians,
cyclists and horse riders and avoid the need to use the A405. The Communal
Facilities Scheme is necessary to ensure the provision of such facilities that
would form an important part of the development. The Clinical Commissioning
Group Contribution is necessary to fund additional GP services locally,
recognising the increased health needs of the proposed occupants.
49. The Occupation Restriction would require that the proposed units are only
occupied by residents who have a defined care need (and by a spouse, partner,
full-time carer, or sibling). This is necessary to ensure the development
operates as C2 use and prevents the need for an affordable housing obligation.
The Eligible Purchasers obligation would require 20% of the care units to be
marketed at first sale to local residents within the district or their direct
relatives. It is necessary to prioritise such people given that the development is
intended to address local need, although it would not prevent more than 20%
of the units being purchased by local people.
50. The Highways Contribution is necessary to secure contributions towards local
road improvements set out in the South Central Hertfordshire Growth and
Transport Plan mindful that the development would generate additional
movements. The Travel Plan obligation and the Travel Plan Evaluation and
Support Contribution are necessary to encourage sustainable modes of
transport. The Library Contribution is necessary to address additional demand
on local services as a result of the development.
51. The Fire Hydrant Provision is necessary to ensure that the development is
provided with sufficient firefighting capabilities. This provision could be secured
via a condition which is normally preferrable to an obligation wherever possible.
However, I have not been given any specific wording for a condition, while the
wording in the obligation is more detailed than any condition is likely to be.
Moreover, the use of an obligation is the preferred approach of Hertfordshire
County Council as the Fire and Rescue Service. Therefore, I am content with
the use of an obligation in this instance.
52. I am satisfied that all of the S106 obligations are material planning
considerations and that they are necessary to make the development
acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly
and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. They would
accord with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations
2010 (as amended) and NPPF paragraph 57. Therefore, I can take all of the
obligations into account as part of my decision.
53. In conclusion, the development would make adequate provision for community
and infrastructure needs arising from the development. Therefore, it would
accord with LP Policy 143B which expects proposals to include provision for the
infrastructure consequences through on-site or off-site facilities as necessary.
Main Issue (e): Other considerations
54. The range of other considerations presented at this appeal are very similar to
those assessed in the previous decision. As with the previous appeal, the
weight to be attributed to most of these considerations is disputed.
General and specialist elderly housing needs
55. The previous Inspector gave substantial weight to the very significant benefit
and contribution that the previous appeal would have made in addressing
general and specialist elderly (C2) housing needs. She noted the parties’
agreed position on housing land supply was 2.2 years but that they were
unable to agree on the precise extent of need for older people’s housing. Even
using the Council’s figures, she considered there was an immediate unmet and
growing need which would not be met by the ELP in the short term.
56. The housing land supply position at this appeal is generally accepted to stand
at 2.4 years. This is a slight increase in supply from the previous appeal, but it
does not represent a material improvement over the past 2 years. It is still
considerably short of the required 5 year supply.
57. The parties agree there remains an immediate and growing need for extra care
accommodation within the district. The extent of the need and shortfall in extra
care units currently and in the future remains disputed. The parties’ figures are
helpfully summarised in the additional statement of common ground on need
and is replicated below (the figures shown are numbers of units).
Appellant Council 2019 Appellant Council 2021
2019 inquiry inquiry 2021 inquiry inquiry
2020 need 567 315 567 368
2020 shortfall 447 154 447 248
Future need 787 (to 437 (to 815 (to 538 (to
2035) 2035) 2040) 2036)
Future shortfall 667 276 695 418
58. The dispute focuses on prevalence rates with regard to housing demand for
extra care per 1,000 people aged 75+, particularly in terms of private tenure.
The Council relies on the South West Hertfordshire Local Housing Needs
Assessment September 2020 (LHN) which applies an average prevalence rate
based on 4 different sources. The appellant utilises a higher rate to reflect local
demographic trends and the policy aspirations of Government as set out in the
recent Adult Social Care Reform White Paper published in December 2021.
59. The Council’s figures on need and shortfall for now (2020) and the future
(2036) have increased since the previous Inquiry due to higher prevalence
rates in the LHN compared to the data it relied on before. The appellant’s
figures on need and shortfall for 2020 remain unchanged from the previous
Inquiry. For a broadly equivalent date to the Council (2035), the appellant
confirmed that its future figures on need and shortfall have fallen by around 70
units since the previous Inquiry due to changing population projections.
60. While the appellant’s future figures have fallen somewhat, the Council’s figures
have increased by nearly 100 units for the 2020 shortfall and over 100 units in
terms of the 2036 need and shortfall compared to the previous Inquiry. The
situation has not materially improved in the past 2 years whichever approach is
preferred with regard to prevalence rates.
61. It is evident that St Albans has higher owner occupation levels amongst older
people than the national average. It is reasonable to assume that owner
occupiers are more likely to be attracted to private tenure options should they
require extra care. The current provision of market extra care housing in St
Albans is around 4 units per 1,000 people aged 75+, which is noticeably lower
than the prevalence rate used in the LHN at 13 units per 1,000 people and
significantly lower than the rate used by the appellant of 30 units per 1,000.
62. The Government’s policy aspirations in the White Paper seek provision of a
greater range of specialist housing for older people in both the private and
social sectors, with the aim of increasing choice and allowing people to live
independently while having better access to care and support. While the White
Paper has yet to translate into specific actions and initiatives, it clearly
recognises the growing issues and the need for them to be addressed.
63. As noted above, the ELP was withdrawn from examination in late 2020 and
public consultation on a revised version is due to take place in 2022. The Local
Development Scheme (LDS) published in January 2021 anticipates an initial
consultation in early 2022, pre-submission consultation in late 2022,
examination in summer/autumn 2023, and adoption by the end of 2023. At the
Inquiry it was noted that the initial consultation has been postponed until June
2022, which the Council did not dispute.
64. At this stage, it is difficult to be certain about the progress and adoption of the
ELP. Unlike at the previous appeal where it had reached examination, the ELP
is currently at a very early stage of preparation. Even based on the current LDS
timetable, the adoption of the ELP is still around 2 years away. The delay to the
ELP may not directly worsen the general or specialist elderly housing supply
position, but there is little evidence before me to indicate when the Council will
be able to demonstrate sufficient supply of either in the short to medium term.
Due to the continuing inadequate housing land supply position with the district,
and the ability of this proposal to deliver over 120 units, more weight should be
given to addressing general housing needs than previously.
65. With regard to specialist elderly housing needs, even if I were to rely on the
Council’s figures for extra care units, the need for and shortfall of such housing
remains high. It has not improved in any meaningful way since the previous
appeal and the delay to the ELP gives no certainty of resolution any time soon.
Even if this development were to be implemented, the current and future need
and shortfall figures would remain significant. Combined with the local tenure
and Government policy issues outlined above, these factors indicate that more
weight should be attached to addressing specialist elderly housing needs than
previously.
66. Taking all of the above into account, I afford the benefits relating to general
and specialist housing needs very substantial weight in favour of the
development.
Alternative sites
67. At the previous appeal, the parties disagreed on the existence of alternative
sites for this type of development based on issues relating to availability and
disaggregation. On the former, the Council now accepts due to updated
evidence that there are no suitable or available alternative sites within the
district that are large enough to deliver a retirement village. I have no reason
to disagree with this evidence.
68. The Council continues to argue that C2 accommodation for the elderly can be
disaggregated across smaller sites within urban and non-Green Belt locations,
as demonstrated by the recent approval at appeal of 63-bed care home at
Chelford House in Harpenden. I accept that C2 accommodation for the elderly
can vary significantly in size and nature. However, smaller sites are less likely
to provide the range of integrated facilities alongside a large number of
bungalows and apartments designed for independent living with on-site care
and support. This is partly due to space but also site viability. The Council could
not point towards any other known planning proposal within the district for a
comparable scale and range of C2 accommodation for the elderly. I am not
persuaded from the evidence before me that the absence of other proposals is
due to the Covid pandemic. It is more likely due to the viability and site
availability issues highlighted by the appellant and not disputed by the Council,
where specialist housing developers have difficulties in competing for sites with
general housing developers.
69. Uncertainties regarding the availability of sites meant the previous Inspector
had to moderate the weight she could attach to the lack of alternative sites.
However, based on the updated evidence on availability and the impracticalities
of delivering this form of development on smaller sites, more weight can now
be given to the lack of alternative sites. This consideration overlaps with the
previous one, but nevertheless should be afforded very substantial weight in
favour of the development.
Health and well-being
70. The previous Inspector gave substantial weight to health and well-being
benefits and the parties both maintain this same weighting. A number of
documents have been provided with this appeal setting out the various benefits
of specialist extra care accommodation. This includes supporting the physical
and mental health of residents, providing independence for longer, and
reducing financial and resource burdens on the health system. All of these
benefits can be achieved with this development and so I concur that substantial
weight can be given to this consideration.
The release of under-occupied housing
71. It is accepted that the provision of specialist accommodation for the elderly can
free up other parts of the housing market including family-sized dwellings. This
benefits other people on the property ladder. The previous Inspector
acknowledged this benefit as part of her finding of substantial weight in favour
of addressing general and specialist housing needs.
72. There is little evidence before me that this scenario has changed in any way
since the previous appeal. The S106 would require 20% of units to be
marketed to local people or immediate family members on first sale, but even
without this provision it is probable that many of the proposed units will be
occupied by existing local residents given the local support and interest in this
development. Therefore, I see no reason to alter the substantial weight
afforded by the previous Inspector.
Employment
73. The previous appeal would have involved the creation of around 90 full time
equivalent jobs along with construction employment. The appellant’s Planning
Needs Assessment for this proposal estimates 65-85 people would be employed
in the retirement village. The lower numbers appear to reflect the removal of
the care home. The previous Inspector noted that the high levels of
employment and low unemployment for the district moderated the benefits and
I am not aware that this situation has changed materially. The development
would also generate income for local businesses that would support the
residents and facilities but no greater than the previous appeal. Therefore,
some weight can be given to this consideration in favour of the development.
Highway and access improvements
74. From the evidence before me, I am content that the development would not
have unacceptable effect on traffic congestion or pollution. The installation of a
traffic light controlled junction onto the A405 would improve highway safety for
existing and future users of the road, garden centre, and the development,
including pedestrians and for other non-motorised transport modes. It is a
scheme that received planning permission in 2015 although that lapsed.
Therefore, I concur with the previous Inspector and the parties that some
weight can be afforded to this consideration in favour of the development.
Biodiversity
75. Supporting documents demonstrate a net biodiversity gain of over 137% for
habitats and over 7600% for hedgerows. This assessment was not carried out
for the previous appeal and the previous Inspector did not address this matter.
Nevertheless, there would be more landscaping within the proposed
development than the previous appeal. Therefore, this consideration can be
afforded moderate weight in favour of the development.
Site availability and achievability
76. The parties do not dispute the deliverability of the development and the
appellant refers to this being possible in the short-term based on purchase
options and agree terms with the future operation. This supports the weight
that I have given to the housing and employments benefits outlined above.
Design
77. NPPF paragraph 134(a) is a new insertion to the NPPF since the previous
appeal. Given that it is agreed that the design would reflect government
guidance, some weight can be afforded to this consideration.
Local support
78. Finally, there is significant local support for this development despite its
location within the Green Belt, with only a few objections at application stage.
Interested parties in their representations and at the Inquiry itself have set out
why they consider the development should be granted permission.
Notwithstanding its emerging status, there is also support for a retirement
village in the draft NP. While planning is not a popularity contest, the unusually
high level of support merits some weight in favour of the development.
Main Issue (e): Planning balance and very special circumstances
79. Starting with the heritage balance set out in NPPF paragraph 202, it is
necessary to weigh the low to moderate less than substantial harm to the
significance of the listed buildings against the public benefits of the proposal.
Most of the other considerations set out above are public benefits. The
development would address general and specialist housing needs, which I have
given very substantial weight due to the specific circumstances including the
lack of alternative sites. The health and well-being benefits and the release of
under-occupied housing have been afforded substantial weight.
80. There are other public benefits including those relating to employment and
highways, but the above public benefits alone are more than sufficient to
outweigh the low to moderate harm to the significance of the listed buildings. I
have given considerable importance and weight to the harm as set out in case
law4 and great weight to the conservation of the listed buildings as required by
the NPPF. Nevertheless, greater weight can be afforded to the public benefits in
this instance and so there is clear and convincing justification for the harm to
the listed buildings. Thus, the development would have an acceptable effect on
the significance of the listed buildings and would accord with LP Policy 86, NPPF
paragraphs 199, 200 and 202, and Section 66(1) of the LBCA Act.
81. Turning to the overall planning balance in line with NPPF paragraph 148, the
development would cause harm to the Green Belt due to its inappropriateness,
loss of openness and conflict with the Green Belt purposes. Although the harm
to openness would be reduced from the previous appeal, the NPPF requires
substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The development
would also result in no more than moderate harm to the character and
appearance of the area and low to moderate harm to the listed buildings. As
with the heritage balance, I have given considerable importance and weight to
the harm to the listed buildings and great weight to their conservation.
82. The other considerations include those that have been afforded very substantial
or substantial weight, along with moderate or some weight to a range of other
considerations. When taken together, I find that the other considerations in this
case clearly outweigh the harm I have identified to the Green Belt, character
and appearance, and listed buildings. Looking at the case as a whole, very
special circumstances exist to justify the development in the Green Belt as
required by NPPF paragraphs 147 and 148 and LP Policy 1.
83. Having regard to NPPF paragraph 11(d), due to the absence of a 5 year
housing land supply, the application of NPPF policies that protect areas or
assets of particular importance such as Green Belt and listed buildings do not
provide a clear reason for refusing the development. Any adverse impact of
granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the
benefits when assessed against the NPPF taken as a whole. Therefore, despite
some moderate conflict with LP Policies 69 and 70, the development would
accord with the NPPF and the development plan taken as a whole. This points
towards the grant of planning permission.
Conditions
84. Conditions 1 (time limit for commencement) and 2 (approved plans) are
necessary for clarity and compliance. Conditions 3 to 5 need to be pre-
commencement conditions as they relate to measures that should be
addressed before works begin on site. Condition 3 is necessary to ensure that
the construction phase of the development is carried out appropriately.
Condition 4 is necessary to deal with the archaeological potential of the site.
Condition 5 is necessary to cover any contaminated land issues.
85. Conditions 6, 7, 8 and 9 are necessary to ensure that the development has a
satisfactory appearance. Condition 9 is also necessary having regard to
drainage, access, and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Condition
4 Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v East Northants DC, English Heritage, National Trust and SSCLG [2014] EWCA
Civ 137
10 is required to secure access improvements into the site and address surface
water drainage to and from the highway. Condition 11 is necessary to ensure
the development has an acceptable effect on rights of way.
86. Conditions 12 and 13 are necessary to address surface water drainage within
the site including the appropriate management of any approved system.
Although the disposal of wastewater may be an issue for building control,
Thames Water has been unable to determine the infrastructure needs of this
proposal from the information provided. Therefore, Condition 14 is necessary to
ensure that sufficient capacity is available.
87. Conditions 15 and 16 are necessary to achieve the provision of adequate refuse
facilities and cycle parking respectively. Condition 17 is necessary to deal with
the management of any publicly accessible parts of the development. Condition
18 is necessary to enable the charging of electric vehicles in the interest of
sustainability. Conditions 19 and 20 are necessary to secure the benefit of
biodiversity net gain and positive ecological management across the site.
88. Conditions 21, 22, 23 and 24 are necessary protect the living conditions of
future occupiers. Condition 21 deals with detailed design matters in terms of
internal noise levels while Condition 22 addresses the testing of such levels.
Condition 23 deals with odour from the commercial kitchens while Condition 24
limits the hours of vehicular activity associated with the communal facilities.
89. Condition 25 is necessary to ensure that if any piling works are required that
they do not have harmful effects on the living conditions of the occupiers of
neighbouring properties. It is necessary to remove permitted development
rights for the construction of fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure
in Condition 26 in order to control the overall appearance of the development
and its effect on the surrounding area. Condition 27 is necessary to retain
adequate parking facilities on site. Condition 28 is necessary to ensure that the
development remains within the specified specialist housing use that forms a
key part of the overall justification for this development.
Conclusion
90. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I
conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT
Reuben Taylor QC, instructed by David Phillips of DPV Consult Limited.
He called:
Nigel Appleton MA (Cantab)
Executive Chairman, Contact Consulting (Oxford) Ltd
Richard Garside BSc (Hons) MRICS
Director and Head of Development Consultancy, Newsteer
Kevin Murphy B.Arch MUBC RIBA IHBC
Consultant, KM Heritage
Andrew Smith BSc (Hons) MSc CMLI
Fabrik Limited
David Phillips BA (Hons) MSc MRPTI
Director, DPV Consult Limited
John Kerr
[APPELLANT]
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
Guy Williams of Counsel, instructed by David Edwards, Solicitor at St Albans City
and District Council.
He called:
Shaun Greaves BA (Hons) DipURP MRTPI
GC Planning Partnership
Sarah Smith
St Albans City and District Council
INTERESTED PARTIES
Dianah Ellis Bricket Wood Residents’ Association
Cllr Richard Curthoys Ward Councillor, St Albans City and District Council
Cllr Sue Featherstone Ward Councillor, St Albans City and District Council
Cllr David Yates Parish Councillor, St Stephen Parish Council
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY
ID01 Briefing note on the Adult Social Care Reform White Paper
ID02 Appellant’s opening statement
ID03 Council’s opening statement
ID04 Statement by Cllr David Yates, including copy of the Inspectors’ letter dated
14 April 2020 on the St Albans City and District Local Plan examination
ID05 Statement by Cllr Sue Featherstone
ID06 Statement by Dianah Ellis
ID07 Landscape Masterplan drawing from the previous appeal (0653-00-SL-PL-L-
G7-010 REV G)
ID08 St Albans City and District Local Development Scheme 2020-2023
ID09 Updated draft Section 106 agreement
ID10 Council’s closing submissions including six legal judgments:
(a) Catesby Estates Ltd v Steer [2018] EWCA Civ 1697
(b) City & Country Bramshill Ltd v SSHCLG [2021] EWCA Civ 320
(c) Redhill Aerodrome Ltd v SSCLG [2014] EWCA Civ 1386
(d) Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes Ltd & SSCLG and Richborough
Estates Partnership LLP & SSCLG v Cheshire East BC [2017] UKSC 37
(e) St Modwen Developments Ltd v SSCLG [2017] EWCA Civ 1643
(f) Trusthouse Forte Hotels Ltd v SSE [1987] 53 P&CR 293
ID11 Appellant’s closing submission including one legal judgment:
(a) R (Smech Properties Limited) v Runnymede BC [2015] EWHC 823
(Admin)
DOCUMENTS SUBMTTED AFTER THE INQUIRY
1. Email from Council dated 16 December 2021 containing the agreed unsigned
final version of the S106 agreement
2. Completed and executed S106 dated 28 January 2022
3. Certificate of authority to third parties containing authorised signatories of
Barclays Security Trustee Limited (as the mortgagee to the S106)
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS (28)
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans:
Plan Name Drawing Number
Site Location Plan 0653-00-SL-PL-A-G7-010 B
Existing Site Plan 0653-00-SL-PL-A-G7-011 B
Proposed Block Plan 0653-00-SL-PL-A-G7-012 B
Proposed Site Plan 00-SL-PL-A-G7-013 B
Landscape Masterplan 00-SL-PL-L-G7-014 C
Contextual Site Sections 00-SL-SE-A-G7-015 B
Proposed Site Sections 00-SL-SE-A-G7-016 B
Proposed Arrival 00-SL-PL-A-G7-017 B
Cycle & Refuse Store - Plans and 00-SL-PL-A-G7-018 B
Elevations
Assisted Living - Ground Floor Plan 0653-01-00-PL-A--110 B
Assisted Living - First Floor Plan 0653-01-01-PL-A- 111 B
Assisted Living - Second Floor Plan 0653-01-02-PL-A--112 B
Assisted Living - Roof Plan 0653-01-03-PL-A -113 B
Assisted Living - Elevations Sheet 1 0653-01-99-EL-A--114 B
Assisted Living - Elevations Sheet 2 0653-01-99-EL-A--115 B
Bungalows Type A - Plans and 0653-03-00-PL-A--310 B
Elevations
Bungalows Type B - Plans and 0653-03-00-PL-A--311 B
Elevations
Bungalows Type C - Plans and 0653-03-00-PL-A--312 B
Elevations
Bungalows Type D - Plans and 0653-03-00-PL-A--313 B
Elevations
Bungalows Type E - Plans and 0653-03-00-EL-A- 314 B
Elevations
Bungalows Type F - Plans 0653-03-00-PL-A--315 B
Bungalows Type F - Elevations 0653-03-00-PL-A- 316 B
Topographical Survey Sheet 1 186/3493/1 Rev A
Topographical Survey Sheet 2 186/3493/2 Rev A
Indicative Site Access Vertical 3019.09
215m Forward Visibility Envelopes and 3019.14
Longitudinal Sections, 8 January 2019
Permitted Signalised Junction and 3019.15
Proposed Site Access Arrangement
with 215m Forward Visibility Envelope
and Speed Mitigation Measures, 8
January 2019
Proposals for 60mph Speed Limit on 3019.16
A405 North Orbital Road, 11 January
2019
Isopachytes Existing Ground Level to 3019.17
Proposed Finished Ground Levels
Longitudinal Sections 3019.18
Storm Water Drainage Strategy IR20077 001 Rev. D
Horizontal Illuminance Plan 1178-DFL-LSD-003-A Rev B
Tree Protection Plan AR/3741 TPP 201130
3) No development shall commence, including demolition, until a
Construction Management Plan (or Construction Method Statement) has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. Thereafter the development shall only be carried out in
accordance with the approved plan. The Construction Management
Plan/Statement shall include details of:
(a) Access arrangements to the site;
(b) Traffic management requirements;
(c) Construction and storage of compounds (including areas designated
for car parking, loading/unloading and turning areas);
(d) Siting and details of wheel washing facilities;
(e) Cleaning of site entrances, site tracks and the adjacent public
highway;
(f) Provision of sufficient on-site parking prior to commencement of
construction activities;
(g) Post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas and
temporary access to the public highway; and
(h) Where works cannot be contained wholly within the site, a plan
should be submitted showing the site layout on the highway including
extent of hoarding, pedestrian routes and remaining road width for
vehicle movements.
4) (A) No development shall commence until a written scheme of
archaeological work (WSI) has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. This scheme may include on-site work,
and off-site work such as the analysis, publication, and archiving of the
results, together with a timetable for completion of each element. All
works shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the
approved scheme. This must be carried out by a professional
archaeological/building recording consultant or organisation in
accordance with the agreed WSI.
(B) Following the completion of the fieldwork, formal provision for the
post investigation assessment shall be put in place. This assessment will
be in accordance with the programme set out in the approved WSI.
Provision will be demonstrated and confirmed in writing with the local
planning authority for the analysis and publication of the site archive, if
appropriate. This will include all necessary works up to and including an
appropriate publication and will include an agreed timetable and location
for that publication. Should these provisions not be required, formal
agreement will be sought and shall be agreed in writing with the local
planning authority.
5) (A) No development shall commence until an assessment of the risks
posed by any contamination within the site, including a desktop study
and an intrusive site investigation as necessary, has been carried out,
and the results have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The assessment shall include a survey of the
extent, scale and nature of contamination and an assessment of the
potential risks to human health, property (existing or proposed) including
buildings, service lines and pipes, adjoining land, ground waters, surface
waters, chalk groundwater table and ecological systems.
(B) In the event that the assessment indicates that remediation is
necessary, development shall not commence until a remediation
statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The remediation statement shall include details of all
works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and criteria, a
timetable for the carrying out of any necessary remediation works, and
details of the verification or validation of those works. No part of the
development hereby permitted shall be occupied until any necessary
remediation scheme has been carried out and completed in accordance
with the details thereby approved, and until any necessary verification or
validation report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority.
(C) If any contamination is found during the course of construction of the
approved development that was not previously identified, no further
development shall take place until a scheme for the investigation and
remediation of that contamination has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. Any remediation works thereby
approved shall be carried out and completed, and any necessary
verification or validation report shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority, before any part of the
development is first occupied.
6) No above ground works, other than demolition and site clearance, shall
take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of
the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
and retained thereafter.
7) No above ground works, other than demolition and site clearance, shall
take place until details of all materials to be used for hard surfaced areas
within the site including roads, driveways and car parking area have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details
and retained thereafter.
8) The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until details of a
scheme of hard and soft landscaping, which shall include the submission
of a planting schedule prescribing details of the size and species of
proposed planting, have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented
in full in the first planting season following the completion of the
development or otherwise in accordance with a timetable which shall
have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning
authority. If within a period of 5 years from the date of initial planting,
any trees or shrubs planted in accordance with the approved landscaping
works are removed, die, become diseased or seriously damaged then
replacement trees or shrubs shall be planted in the next planting season
with others of similar size and species, unless the local planning authority
gives its written approval to any variation.
9) With the exception of demolition and site clearance works, no
development shall begin until details of the existing and finished site
levels 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.
10) Prior to the occupation of any of the development hereby permitted the
vehicular access at North Orbital Road (A405) shall be upgraded in
accordance with drawing numbers 3019.09, 3019.14, 3019.15, 3019.16,
3019.17 and 3019.18 , and arrangements shall be made for surface
water drainage to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it
does not discharge from or onto the highway carriageway
11) Notwithstanding the details indicated on the submitted drawings no
works impacting on Rights of Way shall commence on site until a Rights
of Way Improvement Plan for the off-site and on-site Rights of Way
improvement works has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. Prior to the first occupation of the
development hereby permitted, the off-site and on-site Rights of Way
improvement plan works (including any associated highway works)
referred to in this condition shall be completed to the written satisfaction
of the local planning authority.
12) With the exception of demolition and site clearance works, development
shall not begin until a detailed sustainable surface water drainage scheme
for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The detailed drainage scheme shall be based on the
principles recommended within the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage
Strategy and Storm Water Drainage Strategy Layout drawing referenced
in Condition 2.
13) With the exception of demolition and site clearance works, development
shall not begin until details of the implementation, maintenance and
management of the sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall
be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance
with the approved details. Those details shall include a timetable for its
implementation, and a management and maintenance plan for the
lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for
adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other
arrangements to secure the operation of the sustainable drainage system
throughout its lifetime.
14) No development shall be occupied until written confirmation has been
provided by the local planning authority that either:
(a) Wastewater capacity exists off site to serve the development; or
(b) A development and infrastructure phasing plan has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation
with Thames Water. Where a development and infrastructure phasing
plan is agreed, no occupation shall take place other than in accordance
with the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan; and
(c) All wastewater network upgrades required to accommodate the
additional flows from the development have been completed.
15) Prior to the first occupation of the development, details of facilities for the
storage of refuse, including screening, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details
shall be implemented before the development is first occupied and
thereafter retained for this purpose.
16) Prior to the first occupation of the development, a scheme for the parking
of cycles including details of the design, level and siting of the proposed
parking shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before
the development is first occupied and thereafter retained for this
purpose.
17) Prior to the first occupation of the development, a public access strategy
that identifies external amenity areas of the development that are
accessible to the public shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The public access strategy will be maintained
for the lifetime of the development.
18) Prior to the first occupation of the development, a scheme for Electric
vehicle charging points (EVCP) that provides for 20% of the proposed car
parking spaces to have active charging points shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The EVCP shall
thereafter be constructed and marked out and the charging points
installed prior to any of the units being brought into use and thereafter
retained permanently to serve the vehicles of occupiers.
19) No development shall take place above slab level until a biodiversity plan
and programme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The biodiversity works shall be completed in full
accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.
20) No development above slab level shall take place until a landscape and
ecological management plan, has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The content of the plan shall
include the following:
(a) Details of any vegetation/trees to be cleared; associated ecological
risks involved and suitable risk avoidance, such as timing of works;
(b) How any invasive species found will be managed;
(c) Maintenance regimes;
(d) Any new habitat created on the site;
(e) Management responsibilities and timetable;
(f) Treatment of site boundaries and/or buffers around water bodies; and
(g) Details of silt mitigation/management measures in preventing silt and
debris entering existing watercourses.
The plan shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and
timetable.
21) Prior to first occupation of the development, full details demonstrating
that the internal noise levels for all habitable rooms within the units
comply with the internal noise level criteria set out in the table below
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The internal noise level criteria are to apply to all external
noise sources including, but not limited to, traffic, industry and
construction. The development shall thereafter be fully implemented in
accordance with the agreed details prior to the first occupation and such
agreed details shall thereafter be permanently retained.
Activity Location 0700 to 2300 2300 to 0700
Resting Living room 35 dB Laeq, 16 hour
Dining Dining room/area 40 dB Laeq, 16 hour
Sleeping
(daytime 30 dB Laeq, 8
resting) Bedroom 35 dB Laeq, 16 hour hour
The LAmax,f for night-time noise in bedrooms should be below 45dBA.
22) Prior to the first occupation of the development, an acoustic report
detailing the testing of noise levels in living rooms and bedrooms of all
the units shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Such a report shall demonstrate compliance with the
internal noise level criteria contained within the table of the previous
condition and be undertaken in accordance with standards set out within
BS8233: 2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for
buildings (or in an equivalent British Standard if replaced). If the noise
levels have not been achieved, the report shall detail what additional
measures will be undertaken to ensure that they are achieved. These
additional measures shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the
building in accordance with the details so approved and retained
thereafter.
23) The commercial kitchens of the approved buildings shall be fitted in
accordance with a scheme detailing the equipment for the purpose of
extraction, filtration and abatement of fumes and odours which has first
been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
This shall include noise and vibration mitigation systems. The approved
extraction/filtration/abatement equipment shall be installed before the
kitchens hereby permitted are first used and shall be maintained
including deep cleaning and operated thereafter in accordance with
manufacturer specification to ensure their continued satisfactory
operation.
24) No vehicular movements nor any loading or unloading of vehicles
associated with the permitted communal elements of the development
(the restaurant, café/bar, library, gym, treatment/therapy room and
cinema) will be permitted outside the following times, before 0630 or
after 2000 Monday to Saturday, and before 0900 or after 1800 on
Sundays or Bank Holidays.
25) If piling is to be the method of foundation construction, with the
exception of demolition and site clearance works, no development shall
take place until a method statement detailing the type of piling and noise
emissions has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. All piling works shall be carried out in accordance with
the agreed details.
26) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and
re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates,
walls or other means of enclosure shall be constructed without the prior
permission of the local planning authority.
27) The Car Parking shown on the approved drawings shall be retained as car
parking and used for no other purpose.
28) The development hereby permitted shall be used only as assisted living
apartments with community facilities and as assisted living bungalows
and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class C2 of
Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987
(as amended), or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any
statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without
modification).