AGENDA ITEM 6.

1
1
SEDGEMOOR DISTRICT COUNCIL
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Report of the Group Manager
Submitted on 26 June 2012
All recommendations take account of existing legislation (including the Human
Rights Act) Government circulars, the Somerset Structure Plan and all current
planning policy documents.
___________________________________________________________________
Case Officer: Shanta Hobbs Tel: Sedgemoor Direct: 0845 408 2545
Burnham & Highbridge 11/11/00131 registered 10/11/2011
Expiry Date 08/02/2012
(Outline Planning Permission)
Proposal: Erection of eighty five 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses
and ten 1 bedroom apartments. at Land to the west
of, 67, Clyce Road, Highbridge, TA9 3DL for Mr & Mrs
G Evans (agent: Property Link South Ltd )
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
2
APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A MEMBERS' SITE VISIT
TO ASSESS THE IMPACT ON THE WIDER HIGHWAY IMPLICATIONS AND
ACCESS TO THE SITE AND THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THREE AND FOUR
STOREY PROPERTIES ON THE SITE.
MEMBERS PRESENT: CHAIRMAN, COUNCILLORS M CASWELL, P DOWNING,
A GLASSFORD, T GRIMES, MRS D HILL, D LOVERIDGE, K RICHARDS AND K
SMOUT
UPDATES
None
PREVIOUS REPORT BELOW:
Committee decision required because
The views of the Town Council and Ward Member are contrary to officers
recommendation
Background
The site is located within the built up area of the town, towards the western side of
Highbridge adjacent to the River Brue which forms part of its western and southern
boundary. The site comprises 1.2 hectares with a redundant boatyard (including a
derelict workshop and commercial building) and a bungalow located towards the
southern part of the site as well as a house at the eastern end of the site. It is
presently accessed via Clyce Road to the south and from the north via the concrete
road owned by Wessex Water. To the north of the site is the Delta Engineering site
and to the east are houses which form part of the housing estate accessed off Smith
Way and the houses fronting onto Clyce Road.
The land to which this application relates has been identified and allocated for
residential development in the former Local Plan and now Core Strategy.
The application is in outline form with only the access and scale of development to
be dealt with at this stage. It is proposed to erect 95 dwellings in the form of eighty
five, 2, 3 and 4 bed homes and 10 one-bed apartments. The existing buildings,
including the bungalow and the house at the end of Smith Way would be
demolished. The proposed access to the development would be via Smith Way in
place of the demolished dwelling. It is also proposed to provide a new flood defence
wall.
During the processing of the application, further/amended information has been
supplied including Flood Risk Assessment, Reptile Survey, Green Space Use
Report, Transport Assessment,
Relevant History
11/02/00115 Refused Change of use of land from boat storage to static caravan
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
3
holiday park and alterations to access
11/05/00152 withdrawn residential development
Supporting information supplied by the applicant
Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement, Archaeological Desk Based
Assessment, Ecological Survey, Ground Investigation Report, Viability Statement,
Flood Risk Assessment, Reptile Survey and Green Space Use Report, Transport
Assessment.
Consultation Responses
Town Council - objection (to amended plans)
Whilst members agree in principle that this site is appropriate for development of
housing and is recognised in the Core Strategy as an agreed site for development,
nevertheless, having considered the amended plans the town Council maintains its
objections to the application on the following valid planning grounds:
Members agreed that the proposed new flood defences included in this application
will have a community benefit for Highbridge as a whole by enabling the
development of other sites (notably the other part of H17 allocation) which will bring
forward other community benefits to support infrastructure delivery (Policy S2).
However they believe it does not meet all the requirements set out in Policy P3 of the
Core Strategy.
Increasing self-containment by reducing the need to travel.
Whilst the site is fairly well placed for public transport there is no employment
opportunities being offered with this development therefore occupiers of the
properties would need to travel out of town for employment opportunities.
Enhancing the service centre role of the town and its relationship to the
wider rural hinterland.
Whilst members accept that 95 new homes may add some demand on shops in the
town centre, it is unlikely to help regenerate services already lost which would in turn
enhance the service centre role.
Provide development opportunities that meets the demand of the local
community including addressing the known areas of deprivation and social
exclusion.
Members cannot see how maisonettes and apartments meet the demand of the local
community. Members welcomed the contribution to RLT2 and RLT3, however, this
and the flood defences was all the development of this site was able to offer,
because of financial viability, and whilst members recognised the flood defences
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
4
helped significantly with future development of H17 allocation, it did not address the
social exclusion and deprivation in Highbridge.
Consolidate and enhance existing local services, facilities and
infrastructure, including education, open space and other social infrastructure.
Again members understood that the flood defences helped to enhance existing local
services and infrastructure, but maintained their concerns over the lack of facilities
and open space in the town.
Access is a major issue with this application and the Town Council considers the
current access is unacceptable. The application mentions an improved access route
once the other areas in the location are developed but as this information is not
available within this application, it is not relevant. The access road along Smith Way
is most inappropriate; it was noted in the original letter from County Highways and in
talks between the Town Council and planning policy officers at the District Council
when the general consensus of opinion was that this access was not suitable,
although the officers did note that future development may provide an alternative
access. Members of the Town Council maintain their request for the District Council
to have a site meeting before submitting the residents of this area to the safety risks
of the traffic generated by this development, and to consider the application on its
merit, not on promises of what may be provided in the future.
The Town Council reiterates previous concerns about the number of parking spaces,
for the 95 dwellings, which are not shown on the plans (only the square footage is
noted), and this in no way indicates whether the development will have adequate
parking.
The Town Council objects to the proposed 10 one bedroom apartments and would
need further assurances about the style of 85 houses and maisonettes and consider
the application is not in line with Policy D5
It does not contribute to the following objectives:
Meeting local housing needs, including mix, type and tenure.
Making provision for identified specialist local needs including older
persons and those with disabilities.
Providing appropriate infrastructure
Compatible with the scale and character of its location
Ward Member, Cllr Leach comments
"I have serious concerns with regards to the access and Highway use. The proposal
to demolish an existing Semi-Detached house, and run a road through from Smith
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
5
Way is simply unacceptable. The original construction of the Sparks Way/Smith Way
estate was built with the few number of cars travelling along it. Taking into account 1
car per household, possibly more, an additional 95 cars travelling along a road which
was not designed to deal with heavy traffic. With there being many young families
here, I feel strongly this is simply too much for a small area, and that such traffic
could be dangerous on these roads.
I am not satisfied that the proposed development is within the perimeters of the
Local Development Framework. A large proportion of the proposal is flats and
maisonettes (Which are simply ground floor flats with a front garden) which
goes against the stated need of Family Housing. Highbridge in particular has
seen a high density of Flats constructed over the last 5 years, and it has been
recognised that Houses are desperately needed to house the many families on
our waiting list. Let me make it clear, Riverside flats are not a welcome addition,
and this has been accepted by Sedgemoor District Council.
With the above in mind, it is my opinion that the council should REJECT this
application on the above grounds. Local knowledge will tell you that my first
point is very much valid, despite anything contrary from the Highways
department. If the committee are not entirely aware of just how poorly equipped
the access is to deal with this proposal, I would plead a site visit, which I will
happily attend."
Member of Parliament, Tessa Munt MP - comments
"I am writing to you on behalf of local residents who have expressed serious
concerns about the above planning application.
A significant concern is that access to the proposed site would be completely
insufficient. The two roads leading to the site, Clyce Road and Smith Way, are both
too narrow to provide appropriate access to a development of 95 homes. Parking on
the left side of Clyce Road makes it to all intents and purposes a one-way street, and
Smith Way is a slim, slow road only built to provide access to the 48 existing homes
on Smith Way and Sparks way, which leads off it. 85 of the proposed residences are
intended for families, and therefore would most likely be two-car homes. However,
even if each home only possessed one car, all three roads would be jammed by the
addition of 95 vehicles making regular use of them. Although the application
mentions that an improved access route would be provided once other areas of the
site had been developed, the details of this have not been specified, and residents
are still concerned.
A further, related concern is that the application does not specify the number of
parking spaces the site would have. There is, therefore, no way of telling if
appropriate parking has been provided.
I understand that a recent application to develop on the opposite side of the River
Brue, on higher ground than the site currently proposed for development, was
rejected on the grounds that the flood risks were too high. Residents are naturally
concerned that a site on lower ground must suffer the same or greater risks.
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
6
The application does not seem to meet the objectives necessary to be in line with
Policy P3 of the Core Strategy. Specifically, the development would not be self-
contained, and would, therefore, increase the need for residents to travel. It would
not enhance the service centre role of the town or its relationship to the wider rural
hinterland. It would not provide development opportunities to meet the demands of
the local community and in particular, it would not address the known areas of
deprivation and social exclusion. Finally, it would not consolidate and enhance
existing local services, facilities and infrastructure such as education, open space
and other social infrastructure.
The application also does not seem to meet the objectives necessary to be in line
with Policies D5 and S2 of the Core Strategy, in that it would not meet local housing
needs. In particular, the local area has no need for the ten 1 bedroom apartments
proposed, as Highbridge already has an excess of maisonettes and small flats.
Moreover, the development would not make provision for identified specialist local
needs of older persons and those with disabilities. There is also no provision for
affordable housing, essential for a development of this scale. The development
would also not be compatible with the scale and character of its location.
The application does not address issues of flood defence. Finally, the proposed
development makes no contribution to education, sports or community and cultural
facilities, open space, green infrastructure, healthcare, or emergency services.
Ultimately, the proposed development seems to be entirely unsuitable for the local
area."
Further comments received:
I have spoken to a number of local residents since my previous letter. They are
very concerned about many aspects of this application. Their concerns are:
x The proposed access to the site is through Smith Way, a narrow road designed
only for local residents and not suitable to be a through road for the proposed
new development. I understand the Town Councils comments on this
application describe the access as unacceptable. The local residents I have
spoke to fully agree with this description.
x The proposal contains ten one-bedroom apartments. Residents point out that
Highbridge already has a surplus of one-bedroom apartments. This has been
identified in the Sedgemoor Core Strategy. Policy D5 of the Core Strategy
includes the following statement: In general housing proposals will be supported
where they contribute to the following objectives... Meeting local housing needs.
The local residents I have spoken to do not understand how any development in
Highbridge that includes yet more apartments can possibly be said to meet local
housing needs. I understand that the developer has attempted to reduce the
number of proposed dwellings that will be called flats or apartments by stating
that some of these properties will be maisonettes. Local residents believe this
is nothing more than an attempt to include flats by giving them another name. I
note that Table 5.2 of the Core Strategy groups flats and maisonettes together as
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
7
one type of housing. If maisonettes are deemed to be the same type of housing
in the Core Strategy, I do not understand how they can be classed as different
types during the assessment of a planning application.
x Policy D5 of the Core Strategy states:
In general housing proposals will be supported where they contribute to the following
objectives:
x Accord with the Spatial Strategy;
x Deliver a minimum of 10,605 new homes between 2006-27;
x Consistent with the Councils Housing Trajectory;
x Meeting local housing needs, including mix, type and tenure;
x Making provision for identified specialist local needs including older persons
and those with disabilities;
x Providing appropriate infrastructure (including green infrastructure) when
required;
x High quality sustainable design and energy efficiency;
x Compatible with the scale, accessibility needs and character of its location.
x No adverse impact on the transport network in terms of the nature and volume
of traffic.
Local residents tell me that Policy D5 of the Core Strategy is not met by this
proposal. Specifically, local housing needs are not met (see point 2 above); there is
no provision for specialist local needs such as older people or those with disabilities
(extraordinarily, paragraph 2.12 of the applicants Planning Statement says the
application site will be safe to access by able bodied and emergency services -
from this it is logical to conclude that the site will not be accessible by disabled
people); there is no provision for appropriate infrastructure; the development is not
compatible with the character of its location; and the addition of 95 dwellings will
surely have an adverse impact on the transport network in terms of the volume of
traffic.
1. Local residents tell me that the application does not comply with Policy P3 of
the Core Strategy which states that:
Proposals for development in Burnham-on-Sea & Highbridge will be supported if
they contribute to meeting all the following objectives:
x Increasing self-containment by reducing the need to travel;
x Enhancing the service centre role of the towns and their relationship to
the wider rural hinterland;
x Providing development opportunities that meet the needs of the local
community including addressing known areas of deprivation and social
exclusion;
x Promoting regeneration of the built environment and improvements to
the public realm;
x Encouraging investment and complementary development
opportunities that support and strengthen the areas role as a
significant tourist destination;
x Consolidating and enhancing existing local services, facilities and
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
8
infrastructure including education, open space and other social
infrastructure;
x Delivering a strategic flood defence solution that is sensitive to its
location adjacent to internationally important nature conservation sites;
x Protecting and enhancing the ecological sensitivities of the area
including national and international nature conservation designations.
Local residents tell me that this proposal would not reduce the need to travel (as the
development would be purely housing, residents would need to travel off the site for
all their employment, shopping and amenity needs); there would be no enhancement
of the towns service centre role; the development would not meet the demands of
the local community (as Highbridges housing needs would not be met by any
development that includes flats, apartments or maisonettes); and there would be no
consolidation or enhancement of existing local serves, facilities and infrastructure.
x In my letter of 22
nd
December, I raised a concern that the number of parking
spaces to be provided with this application was not stated, which makes it
impossible to know whether appropriate parking will be provided. It also means
that the extent of the access problem cannot be fully evaluated as the number of
vehicles using the site is unknown.
x The site is partly in flood risk zone 3 and partly in flood risk zone 2. Planning
Policy Statement 25 states Only where there are no reasonably available sites in
Flood Zones 1 or 2 should decision-makers consider the suitability of sites in
Flood Zone 3. Local residents tell me that there are undeveloped flood risk zone
2 sites in Highbridge. This being the case, development on this site should not
be considered until those sites have been developed.
x Local residents have told me that this application makes no provision for
community benefit, except for improvements to flood defences. The residents tell
me that these flood defences are only necessary if this and other proposed
developments in the area take place. Therefore there would be no benefit
whatsoever to the existing residents of Highbridge from this development. I am
aware that an argument is being made that the flood defences would allow other
developments to take place, which could provide other community benefits. This
argument can be challenged on two counts. First, all planning applications must
be judged on their own merits, not on the possible merits of another possible
application yet to be submitted. Secondly, there is no guarantee that any other
application will be submitted, and if it is, there is no guarantee of approval.
Therefore it is unreasonable to ask the members of the Development Control
Committee to make a decision on this application based on a possible
subsequent application that may or may not offer substantial community benefits.
x Local residents have told me that some of the land that is marked as owned by
Sedgemoor District Council (on the land ownership map attached to the
application on the Councils website) is actually common land, with a communal
right of access to the wharf. If this proposed development goes ahead, this
would prevent members of the public from exercising this right. Surely this point
needs to be clarified before planning permission is granted, as the permission
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
9
may not be implementable if the information I have from local residents is correct.
x I understand that this proposed development would make no contribution to
affordable housing, which is desperately needed in Highbridge. Policy D6 of the
Core Strategy states:
The Council will seek to negotiate appropriate affordable housing provision on sites
of 5 dwellings or more on a site by site basis taking into account viability
considerations... As a minimum all qualifying housing proposals should meet the
requirements of Target B. Where it is clearly demonstrated that Target B cannot be
achieved on viability grounds the Council may exceptionally support a lower
provision where:
x the scheme would address a housing land supply deficiency as identified in
the Housing Trajectory in accordance with Policy D5: Housing; and/or
x the scheme will deliver other Plan objectives that outweigh the need to
provide affordable housing at the target levels.
Where development proposals do not meet affordable housing targets, the Council
will require a full development appraisal, including financial viability assessment, to
demonstrate an acceptable alternative affordable housing provision. This might, in
exceptional circumstances, include a financial contribution towards off-site provision.
The proposed development is clearly over 5 dwellings. Therefore the Council
should, according to its own policies, be negotiating for affordable housing provision
on site, unless there are clear viability grounds that mean the Councils targets
cannot be met. According to Table 5.4 of the Core Strategy, a development of this
size (over 15 dwellings) should have at least 40% of the units being affordable. In
exceptional circumstances, a financial contribution to affordable housing elsewhere
can be made. However, I understand that there is no financial contribution proposed
for off-site affordable housing. I note the comments by Stuart Houlet, Planning
Policy Team Leader, that this development would make other potential
developments in the area more viable, and these developments would provide
affordable housing. However, I refer you back to my comments in point 7 - all
applications must be assessed on their own merits. Affordable housing must be
provided with this application, either on site or a financial contribution towards
another site.
Environmental Health- no objection
x Recommend condition regarding land contamination
Affordable Housing Policy and Development -awaited
x Comments will be provided orally at Committee
County Highways Authority- no objection
In terms of traffic impact, assessments have now been provided for the appropriate
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
10
years of 2013 and 2018 and the use of the geometry accepted for the Brue Farm
Transport Assessment. The modelling is therefore now considered to be acceptable.
From the details provided it appears that the ASDA roundabout is shown to operate
satisfactorily. It is unlikely that modelling using an alternative geometry would
demonstrate capacity issues.
The submitted traffic modelling indicates that the Huntspill Road/Tyler Way/Church
Street/Market Street, in its current form, would be able to operate just within capacity
without development. Although it should be noted that the development would take
the roundabout slightly above effective capacity on one approach in each of the
peaks with the AM peak for the Market Street RFC increasing from 84% to 92% and
the PM peak Huntspill Road RFC raising from 84% to 89%.
The Transport Assessment states that this is only a small increase in queuing. Delay
is generally a better indicator of the impact on drivers, and the increases are as
follows. The AM peak for Market Street delay would increase by 34 seconds per
vehicles to 1 minute 43 seconds. The average delay on all approaches roundabout
increases by 5 seconds per vehicle to 26 seconds, in the PM peak the delay on
Huntspill Road will increase by 8 seconds per vehicle to 34 seconds. The average
delay on all approaches increases by 4 seconds per vehicle to 22 seconds per
vehicle.
The roundabout is close to capacity without development, which means that the 6-
7% increase in peak hour traffic through the roundabout results in an arguably
disproportionate increase in delay per vehicle of around 20%. Although this is
considered a slight increase in the capacity it is noted that there are proposed
mitigation measures for this roundabout associated with the Brue Farm residential
development. Once these measures are in place it should increase the capacity of
the Tyler Way roundabout.
In terms of the Travel Plan no amendment was submitted as a consequence I would
refer the applicant to the Highway Authoritys previous comments. The Travel Plan
should be secured through a S.106 agreement with the Local Planning Authority. If
there is to be no such agreement associated with this proposal then the Travel Plan
would need to be secured through a grampian condition.
Turning to the technical detail the applicant has submitted an indicative drawing
showing the proposed access layout for the site. This is considered to be acceptable
in principle although the applicant should note that the access road would need to be
slightly re-aligned as at present it is overlapping the proposed footway. The applicant
should note that full design would be subject to a full technical and safety audit and
subject to a S.278 agreement with the Highway Authority.
Therefore in conclusion the proposal would result in a slight increase in traffic over
the existing roundabout junctions in particular the Tyler Way roundabout. From the
modelling provided it is apparent that this proposal would push it over its working
capacity. However this is only a slight increase during the peak time flow. In addition
it should also be noted that mitigation measures are proposed to improve the
capacity of the roundabout. As a consequence this increase can be considered to be
acceptable. In terms of the proposed access arrangements these are considered
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
11
acceptable in principle although some minor alterations are required.
Therefore on balance I raise no objection to this proposal and if planning permission
were to be granted I would require conditions to be attached regarding access
arrangements; travel plan; surface water disposal and highway details.
Strategy and Business support
The Boatyard site and its potential for residential development have long been
identified in local planning policy and it was allocated for residential purposes under
Policy H17 in the Sedgemoor District Local Plan, alongside land to the west of
Newtown Road (focused on the adjacent Delta Engineering site).The Inspector who
oversaw the Local Plan Inquiry identified the sites redevelopment as an important
part of the regeneration strategy for Highbridge and suggested that there were no
valid grounds in principle to preclude it from the Local Plan as a housing site.
Policy H17 of the Local Plan recognized that the site formed a large redevelopment
opportunity close to the centre of Highbridge and that the Boatyard element offered
the opportunity for riverside development.
The Local Plan has now been supeceded by the Councils Core Strategy that was
adopted on the 12
th
October 2012. Given the strategic nature of the Core Strategy a
number of Local Plan policies are not directly replaced by the new policies of the
Core Strategy and a number have been saved. This includes a number of Local
Plan housing and employment allocations, including H17.
The Core Strategy does not include residential allocations for brownfield sites within
existing urban areas, instead it sets out policy advice to enable the release of sites
where they meet the requirements of the Core Strategy as a whole. However in
saving a number of allocations from the Local Plan this has in effect rolled those
allocations forward, albeit they would still need to meet the requirements of the Core
Strategy in respect of detailed proposals. Therefore the principle of residential
development on those saved sites remains and indeed in the case of the Boatyard
and Highbridge Market sites these are specifically identified on the spatial diagram
for Burnham & Highbridge that supports Policy P3 of the Core Strategy.
Key Core Strategy Policy Considerations on Principle of Development
Policy S1 (Spatial Strategy for Sedgemoor)
Policy S1 is the key strategic policy of the Core Strategy and the starting point for
considering development proposals as it determines whether development is in the
right place. Under S1 Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge are identified as the most
sustainable location for development after Bridgwater given the range of services
and facilities. The policy prioritises development opportunities in the identified
settlements that contribute to regeneration, viability and vitality and which are close
to existing or proposed public transport routes and normally on brownfield sites. All
development is required to take into account flood risk, nature conservation and
support the delivery of infrastructure
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
12
Table 3.4 of Policy S1 under what this means for Burnham & Highbridge, specifically
refers to new housing within or adjacent to the existing urban area maximizing
brownfield opportunities and on a well related urban extension on land at Brue Farm,
Highbridge that contributes to strategic flood defence, education and town centre
regeneration.
In assessing the principle of development at the Boatyard against this it suggests
that this accords with the spatial strategy and the criteria of Policy S1 and would
represent development in the right place. The site is in the existing urban area of
Burnham & Highbridge within walking distance of the town centre and strategic bus
corridors and Highbridge railway station. It is brownfield and would deliver clear
regenerative benefits to the image of the town. In addition the opportunity to
contribute to delivering a long-term flood defence solution that deals not just with the
flood risk to the site but the wider town would represent a significant infrastructure
improvement for the area.
Policy P3 (Burnham on-Sea & Highbridge)
Policy P3: Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge provides additional place specific
guidance as well as setting out overall objectives for development. The principle of
development on the boatyard site meets the relevant objectives of this policy in that:
x it will be accessible by a range of sustainable transport modes to services and
facilities including local job opportunities;
x it provides the opportunity to enhance the role of the town;
x it promotes regeneration given it would involve the redevelopment of a vacant
and underused brownfield site;
x the site is critical in ensuring the delivery of a strategic flood defence solution
for Highbridge; and
x by bearing the costs of the flood defence works it will improve the viability of
the other part of the H17 allocation (land west of Newton Road) and facilitate
the delivery of affordable housing and other key infrastructure requirements .
The proposed redevelopment of the Boatyard site would also meet the specific policy
guidance with P3 on housing in that it maximizes brownfield development within the
existing urban area, is identified on the spatial diagram for Burnham & Highbridge
and will meet local housing priorities in that it the suggested housing mix broadly
meets the profile for the District as a whole and (as outlined above) will facilitate the
delivery of affordable housing on the adjacent development.
There is therefore full planning policy support from the Core Strategy in principle for
the development of housing at this location. Indeed the redevelopment of the site is
an essential catalyst for the wider regeneration of Highbridge as it will deliver a long-
term strategic flood defence solution ensuring both existing and new development is
free from flood risk. It has other wider facilitative benefits in that by providing this key
infrastructure it supports the viability of other schemes and planned development in
the area that will enable these to deliver a wider range of place shaping priorities
including education, open space and social infrastructure.
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
13
Somerset Education Services comments
x Development is likely to have a significant impact on education in the local
area and financial contributions to mitigate this should be sought through a
planning obligation.
x Regarding primary school contributions, 17 spaces which equate to a total of
208,369 should be secured.
x In respect of secondary education, it is considered that the local secondary
school would have sufficient capacity.
x 3 pre-school places amounting to a contribution of 36,771 is required
through contributions.
Environment Agency no objection
x On basis of additional information including a revised Flood Risk Assessment
(FRA prepared by EWE Associates and dated January 2012 Rev B), we
now withdraw our previous objection subject to conditions regarding floor and
ground levels; flood defences; operations and maintenance manual; surface
water drainage scheme; land contamination.
x It is critical that the requirements set out in Natural Englands formal response
to this application are addressed prior to determination of this application. We
understand that, to date, no progress has been made on securing an
appropriate Habitat Regulations Assessment. We will not object on this issue
since we are not the competent authority. However, we fully support the
comments and recommendations set out by Natural England.
x The maintenance of the flood defence and surface water drainage
infrastructure needs to be agreed prior to the determination of this application.
This is to ensure that this responsibility (and any necessary commuted sums)
is secured in an appropriately worded Section 106 Agreement. We
understand that the flood defence is to be maintained by a private
management company, but it is not clear who will be responsible for
maintaining surface water drainage infrastructure. You should consult you
Drainage Engineer who can comment on whether your Authority would be
willing to adopt such infrastructure.
x It is important that adequate maintenance access to the river defences is
continued, both for the management company and for our operatives should
this be necessary in the future. It may be prudent to impose a suitably worded
condition to remove permitted development rights for properties along the
River Brue to ensure that access is retained effectively.
County Archaeologist- comments
x This site has potential for the survival of heritage assets relating to Roman
and medieval occupation. On other sites in and around Highbridge Roman
remains including buildings survive on sites which appear to be disturbed by
later development. I recommend that the developer be required to
archaeologically excavate the heritage asset and provide a report on any
discoveries made, as laid out in PPS5 (Policy HE12.3). This should be
secured by the use of model condition 55 attached to any permission granted.
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
14
County Rights of Way Officer comments
x The site is crossed by Public Footpath AX 32/32 and it abuts Public Footpath
AX 32/17.
x If permission was granted, the applicant would need to apply to your Council
to divert this path. A more direct route for this path between Clyce Road and
Smith Way could be achieved via one of the proposed pedestrian/ cycle
access points. If the plans are revised to accommodate the existing route of
AX 32/32 then we would require that it is widened and the surface improved.
x Coastal Access -The provision of a new path around the edge of the
development, inside of the flood defence works as part of the proposal
is greatly welcomed. Natural England and Somerset County Council Rights of
Way Team are in the process of "Walking the Course" in preparation to
establish the Somerset stretch of the England Coast Path. Part of the stretch
covers the estuaries of the River Parrett and River Brue and sections of the
existing public access at this location could be easier to use. Therefore
we are supportive of this proposal in that it will provide a new more desirable
walking/ cycling route adjacent to the estuary.
Sedgemoors Rights of Way Officer no objection
x There is a public right of way across the site. This will require a diversion if
consent is granted.
x Provided it is protected and preserved, I do not object in principle
Avon and Somerset Police- comment
x Design & Access Statements for outline and detailed applications should
demonstrate how crime prevention measures have been considered in the
design of the proposal and how the design reflects the attributes of safe,
sustainable places set out in ' Safer Places, The Planning System and Crime
Prevention'. The only mention of proposed crime prevention measures I can
find in the DAS submitted with this application is a comment to the effect that
'routes will be well overlooked so pedestrians and cyclists will feel safe and
secure'. In my view, this is insufficient to address the above requirement of
PPS1.
Coastal and Land Drainage no objection
x Support the conditions as requested from the Environment Agency, and I
assume that they will be checking and discharging those conditions.
Natural England-comments
x The application site boundary is shown as overlapping the EMS boundary, but
that the proposed new floodwall (the subject of a future separate Environment
Agency planning application) will be constructed inland of the application site
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
15
boundary (and presumably inland of the natural channel boundary). It is stated
that the area of overlap of 25 m2 (reduced to 20 m2 in the new Overwintering
Birds report) is grassland, exposed mud and hard standing. Im not familiar with
the Environment Agencys detailed plans for the proposed new flood defence, but
if the footprint of the bank overlaps with the EMS then an Appropriate
Assessment would be required in relation to the planning application for the flood
defence. I would advise that a precautionary approach is taken to avoiding the
potential loss of any SAC habitat.
x Withdraw objection as the potential direct impact on EMS habitat relates to the
possible construction of a new flood defence, rather than the housing under
consideration.
x Overwintering birds -the survey of the use of the Brue Estuary by overwintering
SPA birds, addresses a concern raised in response to original consultation. Now
happy with the quality of the survey undertaken and accept their analysis.
x Agree that mitigation measures to avoid disturbance of SPA birds arising from
demolition and development of the site will need to be conditioned as part of a
planning permission.
x Mitigating disturbance arising from occupation of the completed development will
need to be achieved through encouraging future residents to use alternative
greenspace, particularly for dog walking, and reducing or avoiding the impact of
artificial lighting and noise on the estuary.
x The overwintering bird survey report mentions that the proposed flood defence
works will involve re-routing the current public footpath along the northern bank of
the Brue via the new flood defence. Natural England would welcome a meeting
with the Environment Agency and other relevant parties to discuss the potential
impact of an increase in disturbance on the edge of the estuary, and the possible
relationship of the proposed realignment of the access route in relation to our
Coastal Access initiative.
x Bats -the clarification of the approach to bat surveys is helpful and addresses the
confusion which arose in interpreting the recommendation for emergence surveys
in the original ecological report. Accepted that the work completed to date relates
to an outline planning application and that further surveys would be undertaken to
support a detailed application.
x Reptile- agree that the further surveys should be undertaken to support a detailed
planning application.
x Breeding bird survey -accept that the habitat potentially available to birds on the
site is limited. Removal of vegetation before construction must take place outside
the bird breeding season and would need to be conditioned if planning
permission is granted.
x Habitat Regulations Assessment -it remains the responsibility of Sedgemoor
District Council as the relevant competent authority to undertake a Test of Likely
Significant Effect in relation to the impact of disturbance on SPA birds. By
producing a comprehensive report on the use of the Brue Estuary by SPA birds,
Michael Woods Associates have provided the Local Planning Authority with the
information it will need to fulfil its obligation under the 2010 Habitats Regulations.
x Protected Species -if there is a need to apply for a wildlife licence in relation to
mitigation measures for bats, then up-to-date survey information will need to be
provided. Sedgemoor District Council will also need to ensure that European
Protected Species populations are maintained at favourable conservation status
in their natural range to meet the requirement of the 2010 Habitats Regulations.
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
16
x Green Space and Biodiversity Enhancements - I noted that the need to provide
green space and biodiversity enhancements within the proposed development
site appeared not to have been considered. A new document has been provided
called Dog walking Apex Park, which summarises information on existing
leisure opportunities in Highbridge and Burnham. I agree that residents of a new
development should be encouraged to make use of outdoor recreational
opportunities away from the edge of the estuary to reduce the level of
disturbance to SPA birds. This should be achieved through additional signage if
necessary. However, the provision of the new document misses my original point,
which is that given the scale of the development we would recommend that green
space and biodiversity enhancements should be incorporated into the site design
to reduce visitor pressure on the adjoining European nature conservation sites
and improve the quality of life experienced by new residents.
Ecologist-comments
x Further information re birds is required and it shouldnt be determined until we
have this information. An update will be provided at Committee in respect of
this matter.
Drainage Board no objection
x Require a surface water drainage condition
Wessex Water-comment
The submitted surface water drainage strategy is acceptable in principle to Wessex
Water. There is sufficient capacity within the local foul sewerage network to serve
the proposed development.
A strategic trunk sewer (900mm diameter) crosses the site. There is to be no
building within 5 metres of this sewer. Housing C type block appears to be within this
easement; which will not be permitted. The exact location of the sewer will need to
be plotted on site drawings and appropriate measures made for its protection.
The site is in close proximity to Highbridge sewage pumping station. Highbridge SPS
is a non-standard pumping station; Wessex Water has received a number of
complaints from neighbouring properties relating to odour nuisance from this site.
We also believe there are a number of different odour sources within the area.
Residential development will be particularly sensitive to odour emissions and
resultant poor air quality. We believe that this may lead to unacceptable conditions
and create a high risk of a statutory nuisance. The guidance provided in PPS23
Planning and Pollution Control requires the local planning authority to consider this
matter and we recommend that you seek the views of the Environmental Health
Officer before any decision is taken. We believe there is a need to undertake an
appropriate assessment to support this planning submission. As far as we are aware
appropriate assessment has not been undertaken.
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
17
Representations
17 letters from local residents; a petition with 13 signatures and a petition with 78
signatures have been received objecting
x Smith Way is not wide enough for an adequate entrance ad children play in the
road as there is nowhere else.
x Overlooking and loss of privacy
x noise and dust
x Insufficient educational provision
x Greater strain on local amenities
x Drainage is an on-going problem
x Lack of public transport
x Increase in congestion
x Unsuitable high density development- over-development
x No contribution towards community benefit
x Adequate provision should be made for marine use
x Devaluation of properties
x Does not meet the objectives of policy P3 of the Core Strategy
x No attempt at providing genuinely affordable housing
x Clyce road must not be used for access to houses or when development takes
place or for parking
x Badgers live in the buildings
x Bats are seen entering the building
x Flood defences at top of Clyce Road needs to be explored further
x Concern about lengthy works and disruption
x Disagree with boundary of land
x Would we still have rear access
x No provision of a play area
1 letter of support
x This brownfield site is ideal for housing and far better than digging up green
fields.
x The mix of development (avoiding flats) is what people of Highbridge have been
asking for
Most Relevant Policies
National Planning Policies
National Planning Policy Framework
Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan Review
STR1 Sustainable Development
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
18
Sedgemoor District Core Strategy (including Saved Policies)
S1 Spatial Strategy for Sedgemoor
S2 Infrastructure Delivery
S3 Sustainable Development Principles
D1 Managing Flood Risk
D2 Promoting High Quality and Inclusive Design
D5 Housing
D6 Affordable Housing
D9 Sustainable Transport and Movement
D10 Managing the Transport Impacts of Development
D14 Natural Environment
D16 Pollution Impacts of Development and Protecting Residential Amenity
D18 Education Provision
P3 Burnham on Sea and Highbridge
Main Issues
Principle of development
This is an outline application with all matters reserved except access and scale. The
site is located within the development boundary and is a site that has been allocated
for residential development for many years. Furthermore, it lies immediately adjacent
to other residential properties. It is considered that the principle of residential
development is acceptable in this location.
Impact on Highway Safety and Access
The proposed access for this development would be via the existing residential area
to the east. The Highway Authority is satisfied that while the development may result
in a slight increase in traffic over the existing roundabout junctions in particular the
Tyler Way roundabout, that this is only a slight increase during the peak time flow.
Further mitigation measures are proposed that would improve the capacity of the
roundabout. This increase is therefore considered to be acceptable. In terms of the
proposed access arrangements these are considered acceptable in principle
although some minor alterations are required.
The access would be achieved by knocking down one of the houses to the east of
the site. Knightstone are happy with this and the occupant is happy to be re-housesd
within the new development. With regard to the construction traffic, this can be
managed through a condition.
Impact on Environment
The application site boundary is shown as overlapping the EMS (European Marine
Site) boundary, but that the proposed new floodwall will be constructed inland of the
application site boundary. Natural England states that if the footprint of the bank
overlaps with the EMS then an Appropriate Assessment would be required and that
a precautionary approach needs to be taken to avoid the potential loss of any SAC
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
19
habitat.
Natural England has stated that they withdraw their objection as they were of the
(mis)-understanding that the potential direct impact on EMS habitat relates to the
construction of the new flood defence, rather than the housing development which
was to be part of another application. However, this application is also for the flood
wall. Further observations of Natural England are awaited in respect of this.
With regard to the ecology surveys Natural England are satisfied with the
overwintering birds survey and agree that mitigation measures to avoid disturbance
of SPA birds arising from demolition and development of the site will need to be
conditioned. It has been accepted that the work regarding bat and reptile surveys
completed to date relates to the outline planning application and that further surveys
would be undertaken to support the Reserved Matters application. The habitat
potentially available to birds on the site is limited, however, removal of vegetation
before construction must take place outside the bird breeding season and would
need to be conditioned if planning permission is granted.
Design and Impact on Character of the Area
No details of the design of the dwellings are provided at this stage, these details will
be fully assessed at Reserved Matters stage. However, the application clearly shows
that the development would comprise of a mix of house types and that there would
be a mix of 2 storey terraces, 2 and 2.5 storey semi-detached and detached houses
and 3 and 4 storey maisonettes. The actual indicative mix set out in the application
details does however broadly meet the mix profile set out under Policy D5 (Housing )
of the Core Strategy which requires a range of house types and sizes. D5 suggests
that evidence form the Strategic Housing market Assessment identifies a lesser
requirement for flats and 1 bedroom properties compared to other house sizes with a
particular onus on family sized housing.
From the indicative profile submitted with the application the majority of units would
be 3 bedroom or more and would represent family housing. Whilst some 1 bedroom
apartments are suggested, this is only a small proportion of the overall mix and
broadly accords with Policy D5. Issues have been raised in respect of the number of
maisonettes that have been proposed and that this represents flatted development,
however there is a difference between these forms of development, with maisonettes
being more appropriate for family housing.
It is considered that in this location, taking into account the riverside frontage that the
site has the potential to accommodate such development with no undue adverse
impact on the character of the area.
Impact on Amenities of Neighbouring Residents
The proposal seeks to provide a mix of residential accommodation which would be
fully compatible with the existing neighbouring residential properties in close
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
20
proximity to the site. At Reserved Matters stage, details regarding the exact siting,
design and layout of the development would be provided. It is considered that the
site has potential to satisfactorily accommodate an appropriate scheme of
development that would have no adverse impact on the amenities of existing
residents in terms of overlooking, loss of light, noise and disturbance and visual
domination. The exact siting, design and elevations of the proposed dwellings will be
dealt with at Reserved Matters stage where full consideration will be given to those
factors, ensuring that there would be no overlooking windows, visual domination etc.
The proposed vehicular access would run between two properties in place of one of
the houses which is to be demolished. This would provide adequate space for
vehicles without causing undue harm in terms of noise and disturbance. There would
be no vehicular access off Clyce Road.
Impact on Flooding
The proposal seeks to provide enhanced flood defences in the form of a flood wall
on the western boundary of the site which is a strategic flood defence solution for
Highbridge providing wider benefit to the town as a whole. The Environment Agency
are satisfied with development provided the maintenance of the flood defence and
surface water drainage infrastructure is agreed prior to the determination of this
application. An update will be provided at Committee.
Contributions in respect of Policies RLT2 and RLT3
Contributions are to be made and will form part of a Section 106 Agreement.
Education Provision
The development is likely to have a significant impact on education in the local area
and financial contributions to mitigate this should be sought through a planning
obligation.
Affordable Housing
The comments of the Affordable Housing Officer are still awaited and the Members
will be orally updated at the meeting.
Summary
The site is an allocated site for residential development and in order to development
the land it will be necessary to form a new access by demolishing a house which
forms part of the existing estate adjacent, resulting in vehicles utilising the roads
through the estate. However, it has been concluded that the highway network is
adequate to cope with this additional traffic. The development will provide additional
flood defence works which will benefit Highbridge as a whole. At the later, detailed
Reserved Matters stage, further information is to be provided where it can be
ensured that the amenity of neighbouring residents will be protected
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
21
Reasons for granting consent
The proposed development site is specifically identified in the adopted Core
Strategy and therefore the principle of development is accepted. The scheme
offers the opportunity to deliver a range of housing, provision of flood
defences, enhancements to the walking and cycling network. The proposed
development accords with advice contained within Policies S1, S2, S3, D1, D2,
D5, D9, D10, D14, D16 and P3 of the Sedgemoor District Core Strategy.
RECOMMENDATION
GRANT PERMISSION subject to further observations of Natural England, Ecologist,
Affordable Housing Officer and S106 Agreement relating to maintenance of flood
defences, surface water drainage, affordable housing, contributions in respect of
Education, Policies RLT2 and RLT3 and provision of a Travel Plan
1 Approval of the details of the access, (other than the main access point into
the site), appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, within the upper and
lower limit for the height, width and length of each building stated in the
application for planning permission (hereinafter called "the reserved matters")
shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before any
development is commenced.
Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to above, relating to the
access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, shall be submitted in
writing to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved.
Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local
planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this
permission.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of
two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved, whichever is the later.
Reasons:
The application was submitted as an outline application in accordance with
the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General
Development Procedure) Order 1995 (As amended by SI 2006/1062). In
accordance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country
Planning Act, 1990 (As amended by Section 51 of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved plans listed in schedule A.
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
22
3 The site of the proposed development is former industrial land and the land
therein and close thereto may be contaminated. Therefore unless otherwise
agreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that required
to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must not
commence until conditions A to C have been complied with. If unexpected
contamination is found after development has begun, development must be
halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the
extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition D
has been complied with in relation to that contamination.
A. Site Characterisation
A detailed site investigation and risk assessment must be completed in
accordance with current UK guidance to assess the nature, extent and scale
of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The
investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons
and a written report of the findings must be produced. The investigations, risk
assessments and written reports must be approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:
(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;
(ii) desk study information, conceptual models, investigation methods,
investigation results and interpretation and any other information required by
the local planning authority to justify and appraise the report findings.
(iii) an assessment of the potential risks to:
human health,
property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets,
woodland and service lines and pipes,
adjoining land,
groundwaters and surface waters,
ecological systems,
archaeological sites and ancient monuments;
(iv) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).
This must be conducted in accordance with current UK guidance including
DEFRA and the Environment Agencys Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11.
B. Submission of Remediation Scheme
In cases where contamination is shown to exist a detailed remediation
scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by
removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property,
the natural and historical environment and surrounding land must be
prepared, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation
objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management
procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as
contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in
relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
23
C. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme
The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its
terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to
carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks
written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation
scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that
demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be
produced, and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
D. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination
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 in accordance with the requirements of
condition A, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must
be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition B, which is
subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation
scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the
approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with
condition C.
E. Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance
If a monitoring and maintenance scheme, to include monitoring the long-term
effectiveness of the proposed remediation, is required as part of the approved
remediation scheme then the monitoring and maintenance scheme will need
to be approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Following completion of the measures identified in that monitoring and
maintenance scheme and when the remediation objectives have been
achieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring and
maintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the Local
Planning Authority for approval.
This must be conducted in accordance with current UK guidance including
DEFRA and the Environment Agencys Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of
the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to
controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the
development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers,
neighbours and other offsite receptors
4 No construction work, other than completely internal fitting out, shall take
place outside the hours of 7am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays, 7am to 1pm on
Saturdays, with the exception of specific works which shall have been agreed
in advance and in writing by the local planning authority and shall include
details of the task, the date and duration of works.
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
24
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of local residents.
5 No work shall commence on the development hereby permitted until details of
the proposed access arrangements shown on Drawing No. Fig 43 have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Such footway shall then be fully constructed in accordance with the approved
plan, to an agreed specification before the development is first brought into
use.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
6 No part of the new development shall be occupied prior to implementation of
those parts identified in the Approved Travel Plan as capable of being
implemented prior to occupation. Those parts of the Approved Travel Plan
that are identified therein as capable of implementation after occupation shall
be implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and shall
continue to be implemented as long as any part of the development is
occupied.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
7 Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so as
to prevent its discharge onto the highway, details of which shall have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
8 The proposed estate roads, footways, footpaths, tactile paving, cycleways,
bus stops/lay bys, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retaining
walls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicle overhang margins,
embankments, visibility splays, accesses, carriageway gradients, drive
gradients, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out in
accordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority in
writing before their construction begins. For this purpose, plans and sections,
indicating as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and
method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
9 The proposed roads, including footpaths and turning spaces where
applicable, shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that each
dwelling before it is occupied shall be served by a properly consolidated and
surfaced footpath and carriageway to at least base course level between the
dwelling and existing highway.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
25
10 The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried
out in accordance with the principles outlined in the approved Flood Risk
Assessment (FRA prepared by EWE Associates Rev B dated 21 January
2012) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:
x Finished floor levels are set no lower than 8.6m above Ordnance Datum
(AOD); and
x Ground levels are set no lower than 8.3m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).
Reason: To protect the development and future occupants from flooding in
accordance with NPPF.
11 No development shall commence until full details of the improvement of flood
defences along the River Brue have been submitted to, and agreed in writing
by, the Local Planning Authority. The improvements shall include raising of
the existing defences to a minimum crest level of 9.1m AOD. The
development shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason: To protect the development and future occupants from flooding in
accordance with NPPF.
12 Prior to the occupation of any dwellings, an Operation and Maintenance
Manual for the flood defences along the River Brue shall be submitted to, and
agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Manual shall include
details of access strips for the maintenance of the flood defences of the River
Brue of no less than 4.0 metres on the seaward side of the defence and an
easement of no less than 6.0 metres on the landward side of the defence. No
structures including fences, property curtilages or steps shall be permitted
within these easements.
Reason To protect the development and future occupants from flooding for
the lifetime of the development in accordance with NPPF.
13 No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme for
the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the
hydrological and hydro-geological context of the development, has been
submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The
scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved
details before the development is completed.
Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect
water quality and to ensure the future maintenance of the surface water
drainage system in accordance with NPPF
14 No development hereby approved shall take place until the applicant, or their
agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme
of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation
which has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local
AGENDA ITEM 6.1
26
planning authority.
Reason: To safeguard national heritage.
15 Removal of vegetation before construction must take place outside the bird
breeding season.
Reason: To safeguard natural habitat.
16 Mitigation measures as detailed in Michael Woods Associates survey
submitted with the application shall be undertaken to avoid the disturbance of
SPA birds arising from demolition and development of the site.
Reason: To safeguard natural habitat and species.
17 Details of the demolition of the house, 28 Smith Way, and making good of
neighbour to be submitted and approved in writing before development
commences. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the
scheme.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.
18 The construction of the development hereby permitted shall not commence
until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority a Construction Management Plan. The plan shall include
construction vehicle movements, construction operating hours, construction
vehicular routes to and from site, construction delivery hours, expected
number of construction vehicles per day, car parking for contractors, specific
measures to be adopted to mitigate construction impacts, and a Green Travel
Plan for contractors/construction staff. The development shall be carried out
strictly in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
19 There shall be no vehicular access off Clyce Road to the development.
Reason: To safeguard local residents from noise and disturbance and in the
interest of highway safety.
Schedule A
site layout option 1
land ownership
flood defence solution
access details
DECISION