Case Reference: 3242550

Appeal Decision
Hearing Held on 6 August 2020
Site visit made on 18 July 2020
by D M Young JP BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI MIHE
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 4 September 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/W/19/3242550
Land south of Rush Lane, Elsenham CM22 6TF
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Uttlesford
District Council.
• The application Ref UTT/19/0437/OP, dated 18 January 2019, was refused by notice
dated 14 November 2019.
• The development proposed is an outline application for the erection of up to 40
dwellings with all matters reserved except for access.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for the
erection of up to 40 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access at
land south of Rush Lane, Elsenham CM22 6TF in accordance with the terms of
the application, Ref UTT/19/0437/OP, dated 18 January 2019, subject to the
conditions set out in the schedule to this decision.
Procedural Matters
2. Although the application was submitted in outline with only access to be
determined at this stage, it was accompanied by an proposed Masterplan, a
Landscape and Visual Assessment and a raft of supporting technical
documentation in relation to highways, ecology, noise, air quality and surface
water drainage. This material is broadly accepted by technical consultees and
demonstrates that a number of matters are capable of being satisfactorily dealt
with either by condition or planning obligation.
3. With the agreement of both parties, the description of development was
amended during the application process from 44 dwellings to 40. I have
therefore taken the description provided on the Appeal Form rather than the
version provided on the Application Form.
4. There is no dispute between the parties that the Council cannot demonstrate a
five-year housing land supply (5YHLS). In such situations paragraphs 11 and
73 of the “National Planning Policy Framework” (the Framework) state that
those policies which are most important for determining the application are to
be considered out-of-date. Accordingly, permission should be granted unless
any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh
the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a
whole. I have approached my decision on that basis.
5. The Council withdrew the emerging Uttlesford Local Plan (eLP) on the 30 April
2020, it therefore carries no weight my determination of the appeal. Both
main parties agree that the evidence base, in particular the 2016 “Uttlesford
Countryside Protection Zone Study”, (the LUC study) which formed part of the
evidence base for the eLP, is a material consideration in this appeal.
Main Issue
6. This is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the
countryside.
The appeal site
7. The appeal site is a plot of pastureland located on the southern edge of
Elsenham some 2.25 hectares in size. The field is subdivided into two
paddocks by a post and rail fence and is visually contained behind hedgerows
interspersed with a number of mature trees. Save for a small field shelter
located near the access point in the south west corner, there are no large
permanent structures or buildings on the site.
8. The site is bounded to the north by Rush Lane, a residential cul-de-sac and to
the north-west by a Public Footpath (PROW28). The former contains a mix of
terraced and semi-detached properties that front towards the appeal site.
Public Footpath (PROW29) bisects the southern section of the site from the
south west corner to the south east corner connecting Rush lane (via PROW
13-29) and Robin Hood Road.
9. Robin Hood Road is located to the east of the appeal site which again is a
residential cul-de-sac that terminates at the level crossing. The road is narrow
and there are no pedestrian footways. The houses on the eastern side of Robin
Hood Road face towards the appeal site. The majority of the southern site
boundary is flanked by the West Anglian Mainline Railway. To the south-west
of the site is a large detached residence known as Mill House.
10. The site lies just outside the settlement boundary for Elsenham. A parade of
local shops lies along the high street to the north of the site. The primary
school and the village surgery lie a little further afield. The nearest bus stop is
located approximately 800m north of the site on Stansted Road.
11. There are a number of other new developments in the immediate area. To the
north-west is a development under construction of 165 houses to the south of
Stansted Road. On the southern side of the railway line is a development of
five houses at the old Sawmill, Fuller’s End. To the east is the Hall Road site
which has the benefit of an as yet unimplemented planning permission for 130
dwellings.
Background and policy context
12. The appeal site is located outside the settlement boundary and within the
Countryside Protection Zone (CPZ) around Stanstead Airport. It is therefore in
the countryside for planning purposes. Within such areas, Policy S7 of the LP
states that planning permission will only be granted for development that
“needs to be there or is appropriate to a rural area”. It goes on: “Development
will only be permitted if it protects or enhances the particular character of the
part of the countryside within which it is set, or there are special reasons why
the development in the form proposed needs to be there.”
13. Policy S8 takes a similarly restrictive approach towards development in the
CPZ. Only development that is required to be there, or is appropriate to a rural
area, will be permitted. Development will not be permitted if a) new buildings
or uses would promote coalescence between the airport and existing
development in the surrounding countryside, or b) it would adversely affect the
open characteristics of the zone.
14. The Development Plan for the District comprises the “Uttlesford Local Plan”
2005 (the LP). This was adopted seven years before the original Framework at
a time when there was no requirement to boost significantly the supply of
housing, no requirement to identify an Objectively Assessed Need and no
presumption in favour of sustainable development. The LP only covered the
period to 2011 and consequently expired nearly ten years ago. As the
Appellants point out, the LP has now been out of date for longer than it was in
date.
15. As is made clear at the beginning of Section 6 of the LP, one of its key
components was to deliver the housing requirements which were based upon
those in the “Essex and Southend-on-Sea Structure Plan to 2011” and the
“Regional Spatial Strategy for the South East of England”. The LP housing
requirements were derived from household projections which are now about
three decades out of date. The policies in the LP, including settlement
boundaries, allocations, were formulated and predicated upon the constrained
supply set out in the Structure Plan. From the evidence I heard, it seems that
most, if not all, the allocations in the LP have long since been built out.
16. Based on the foregoing, there can be little doubt that the LP is now painfully
out of date in terms of its purpose, its strategy, its content and its housing
delivery policies. It does not meet the requirement for the Council to have an
up-to-date plan and it is clearly not a strong foundation upon which to refuse
planning permission.
17. The appeal site was allocated for housing in the eLP (Policy ELS1) with the
Council finding “Elsenham is a key village with a range of services and facilities.
Development of the site is considered suitable because it would contribute to a
sustainable pattern of development”. The eLP was withdrawn in response to
the Examining Inspectors’ letter dated 10 January 2020. In that letter
“significant concerns” were raised in relation to the soundness of the plan. In
particular, the Inspectors were not satisfied that the proposed Garden
Communities had been adequately justified and reliance on them would likely
result in a worsening affordability problem in the District. The Inspectors were
also critical of the strategy to deliver sufficient housing over the short and
medium term and recommended that the Council would need to allocate more
small and medium sites to bolster its 5YHLS. As previously mentioned, the
appeal site was one of those medium sized sites that was to be allocated for
housing in the eLP.
18. Although the Framework stresses the desirability of local planning authorities
having up to date development plans, paragraph 213 states that policies should
not be considered out of date simply because they were adopted prior to the
publication of the Framework. It is therefore incumbent on me to apply
paragraph 213 which states that due weight should be given to relevant
policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the
Framework. The closer the policies in the plan to those in the Framework, the
greater the weight that may be given.
19. The first point to make in assessing what weight should be given to Policy S7 is
that in seeking to protect all countryside, the policy patently goes some way
beyond the advice in paragraph 170(b) of the Framework, which, inter alia,
seeks recognition of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
Other than ‘valued landscapes’ the Framework does not seek to protect the
countryside outside defined settlements. Instead it advocates a more
cost/benefit approach where the merits of the proposal are weighed in the
balance. The balancing of harm against benefit is a defining characteristic of
the Framework’s overall approach embodied in the presumption in favour of
sustainable development. This more positive approach was acknowledged in
the Council’s 2012 Compatibility Assessment which found S7 to be partially
consistent with the Framework. In light of the above, where Policy S7 is used
to restrict housing, it cannot be seen to be consistent with the language of the
Framework.
20. The Framework does not contain specific policies relating to CPZs. However,
many of the points made above are relevant to Policy S8. Whilst the overall
landscape aims of the policy could be seen as being partially consistent with
advice in paragraph 170(b), the policy is couched in the same protectionist
language as Policy S7 which is at odds with the more positive approach
adopted in the Framework.
21. From the evidence before me, most notably the Council’s Committee Reports
pertaining to the appeal scheme and land west of Hall Road1, it is evident that
the Council has, in some cases, adopted the positive approach advocated by
the Framework rather than the strict application of Policies S7 and S8. As
numerous large developments have been consented or built within the CPZ in
recent years, it is also the case that existing settlement and CPZ boundaries
bear little resemblance to the situation on the ground. This is particularly
apparent in Elsenham.
22. At the Hearing, the Council accepted that its housing land supply situation
would be significantly worse if the Council had applied Policies S7 and S8 in the
same manner as it has done in this case. In other words, applying the
restraints of Policies S7 and S8 will continue to compromise the Council’s ability
to meet its future housing requirements. Overall, these matters lead me to
conclude that settlement/CPZ boundaries in Uttlesford are not inviolable.
23. There is little before me to explain why the Council’s approach to Policies S7
and S8 in this case is so contrasted with other schemes in and around
Elsenham. I appreciate that some of those sites were approved because they
were allocations in the previous 2014 emerging Local Plan. However, that is
little different to the situation here. At the time the Council made its decision,
the site was an allocation in the eLP. I do not find the Council’s explanation
that the application may have been refused due to concerns about the fragility
of the eLP to be particularly persuasive.
1 LPA Ref: UTT/19/0462/FUL
24. Irrespective of how the Council arrived at its decision, its witness accepted that
development of greenfield sites in the Countryside and CPZ will be necessary if
the Council are to meet its housing targets over the next few years before a
new local plan can be prepared and adopted. Whilst I appreciate the Council
has met its housing targets in each of the last 3 years, there is little before me
to demonstrate whether this represents a fundamental shift or an ephemeral
eddy of appeal-based delivery. Given that the Council’s witness accepted it
does not have a credible short or medium-term strategy for addressing its
5YHLS deficit, I suspect the latter.
25. I have carefully considered the appeal decisions brought to my attention by the
main parties. These confirm that between 2015 and 2019 Inspectors have
come to differing views on the issue of consistency and the subsequent weight
to be applied to Policy S7. Most of those decisions preferred by the Council2,
including the Secretary of State’s decision3, were made in the context of the
Council being able to demonstrate a 5YHLS, albeit marginally. There also
appears to me to be a general pattern of less weight being ascribed to Policy
S7 as the Council’s 5YHLS has deteriorated4. Notwithstanding the above, there
was no suggestion at the Hearing that the facts of any one of the previous
cases were so aligned with the facts here that the previous decision indicated
that this appeal should be either allowed or dismissed. I have therefore had
regard to the various decisions insofar as they are relevant to my consideration
of this appeal.
Character and appearance
26. The appeal site was independently assessed as part of the LUC study in 2016.
The overall aim of which was to assess the extent to which land within the CPZ
is meeting its purposes as set out in Policy S8 which would enable the Council
to make informed decisions about its continuing validity through the eLP.
27. The study found that development of the appeal site for housing would result in
a moderate level of harm due to its low rating against purpose 4 (restricting
coalescence). This was partly because of the dispersed nature of the nearest
settlement and the site’s relative distance from the airport. The study
concluded that the CPZ/settlement boundary should be moved to the railway
line which itself could prevent coalescence between the airport and Elsenham.
The appeal site was subsequently recommended for removal from the
countryside and CPZ in the eLP. In my view the LUC study is a significant
material consideration in favour of the appeal scheme.
28. From my own observations I saw that the appeal site contributes to a pleasant,
open, albeit visually contained, rural setting to the south-west of Elsenham.
The site however has few redeeming features and is not designated or part of a
‘valued landscape’ in the terms set out in the Framework. As I saw on my site
visit, the site has a number of urbanising influences such as the railway line
with overhead cables, new development at the former sawmill, new
development to the north-west, and the constant hum of traffic from the M11.
On that basis I would be hard pushed to describe the site as some have as
‘open countryside’.
2 APP/C1570/A/14/2222958, APP/C1570/W/16/3156864 and APP/C1570/W/18/3209655
3 APP/C1570/A/14/2219018
4 APP/C1570/W/19/3226302
29. Those opposing the development did so primarily on the basis that the open
nature of the site contributes positively to the local area and particularly for
users of the footpath. The extent to which the proposed dwellings would be
visible beyond the site and the public footpath would depend on details which
have been reserved for future determination. Nonetheless, I accept that
whatever its final form the development would result in an irreversible loss of
openness and would have a significant visual effect from within the site
boundaries. However, as that would be the case with any greenfield site, it is
not a reason to dismiss the scheme out of hand.
30. The site is currently enclosed behind mature landscaping on its boundaries.
Except for the removal needed to create the site access, the hedges and trees
would be retained and supplemented with new planting. Significantly, the
Council accept that the development would not be readily visible over the wider
area. Where the dwellings might be visible, they are likely to be seen against
the general townscape of Elsenham and would not be unduly intrusive in the
wider landscape.
31. There would of course be a more pronounced visual effect from those
properties on Rush Lane located opposite the site access. Whilst I have some
sympathy with those residents who might experience a change to their outlook,
there is no right to a view. Given the likely distance between the houses on
Rush Lane and those proposed, I do not consider the resulting outlook for
these residents would be unacceptable in normal planning terms. In any
event, the scale and layout of the houses are issues which the Council would
have control over at the reserved matters stage.
32. Bearing in mind the likely layout with houses set back from the south site
boundary as well as the alignment of the railway and existing development
along Robin Hood Road, I do not consider that the development would result in
a significant degree of coalescence between Elsenham and Fuller’s End. The
houses would also relate well to the existing built form and bearing in mind
those consented developments in the immediate area, would read as a logical
extension to the village.
33. I accept that the houses would be visible from PROW29. However, the
Masterplan shows how it might be possible to develop the site and to divert the
footpath through areas of open space rather than along estate roads. Whilst it
would inevitably be a different experience, this has to be offset against the
benefits arising from new public access to areas of open space around the
footpath. These maintained areas would provide a pleasant stopping point
where users could sit and enjoy the view over to Fuller’s End, have a picnic or
simply watch the trains go by. Whilst I understand that some would prefer to
retain the footpath’s open aspect, it has to be recognised that some,
particularly the less mobile and perhaps those with pushchairs and young
children, would benefit significantly from the proposed footpath and
connectivity improvements.
34. Overall, there would be some localised visual effects arising from the loss of
the appeal site’s open and undeveloped character. There would also be some
erosion of the amenity value derived from views across the appeal site from
the public footpath. However, in my view the overall level of harm would be
limited. Nonetheless there would still be conflict with Policies S7 and S8 and
this weighs against the development in the overall planning balance.
Other Matters
35. Local residents have expressed a wide range of concerns including but not
limited to the following: loss of wildlife habitats, drainage, air quality, the effect
on highway safety, congestion and local infrastructure. However, it is evident
from the Committee Report that these matters were carefully considered by the
Council at the application stage. Whilst I understand the concerns of local
residents, there is no compelling evidence before me which would lead me to
conclude differently to the Council on these matters.
Conclusion and Planning Balance
36. I am required to determine this proposal in accordance with the development
plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The starting point is
therefore the development plan.
37. I have found that the development would result in limited harm to the open
characteristics of the CPZ and countryside. There would be no significant
coalescence either between Elsenham and the airport or surrounding
settlements. Overall, there would be limited conflict with the countryside
protection aims of LP Policies S7 and S8.
38. As to whether material considerations indicate that the permission should be
allowed, the Framework is one such consideration. In light of the Council’s
5YHLS position, those policies that are most important for determining the
application are to be considered out-of-date. Along with my findings in relation
to consistency, this strictly limits the weight I attach to the conflict with LP
Policies S7 and S8. It also engages the default position identified in paragraph
11(d) of the Framework.
39. The effect of this is that the planning balance shifts in favour of the grant of
consent. Only if the Council is able to demonstrate harm which “significantly
and demonstrably” outweighs the benefits of the development should consent
be refused. The key issue is therefore whether the development would satisfy
the other relevant requirements of the Framework and thus benefit from the
presumption in favour of sustainable development.
40. The provision of up to 40 dwellings comprising of market and affordable
housing carries substantial weight in a district with an acknowledged acute
shortage of market and affordable housing. This is the weightiest factor in the
overall balance. Beyond the public footpath, there is currently no public access
to the appeal site and therefore the opportunity for the local community to use
the areas of open space created by the development, is also a benefit, albeit
one that is primarily intended to address the needs of the occupants of the
appeal scheme itself. Collectively, the social benefits attract substantial
weight.
41. The purchase of materials and services in connection with the construction of
the dwellings, employment during the construction period, an increase in local
household expenditure are economic benefits that weigh in favour of the
scheme.
42. In environmental terms, there would inevitably be some dis-benefits. In the
sense that the development of open countryside is such a disbenefit, this
cannot carry significant weight because of the Council’s 5YHLS position which
can only realistically be remedied by the release of greenfield sites in the
countryside and/or the CPZ. There would inevitably be landscape harm arising
from a loss of openness across the appeal site. However, given the site’s high
level of visual containment and close relationship to the existing built form of
Elsenham, these are not factors that weigh heavily against the scheme.
43. The environmental benefits include small biodiversity gains. The appeal site is
also located in an accessible and sustainable location on the edge of Elsenham,
a town with a reasonable range of shops and services. The public transport
contribution which aims to increase the frequency of bus services through the
village has the potential to benefit the local community. Taking these benefits
into account, I find the development would result in minor environmental harm.
44. Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the adverse impacts of the proposal
would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the substantial benefits
which would arise from this development. I am thus satisfied that the appeal
scheme would constitute sustainable development. This is a significant
material consideration sufficient to outweigh the limited development plan
conflict.
45. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal should be allowed, subject to the
imposition of a number of conditions, as discussed at the Hearing and set out
in the schedule below.
Planning Obligations
46. The Framework sets out policy tests for planning obligations; 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. The same tests are enshrined in the statutory tests set
out in regulation 122 of the CIL regulations.
47. The education contribution comprises an Early Years and Childcare contribution
of £17,422.00, a local primary school contribution of £15,281.00 and a local
secondary school education contribution of £23,214.00. These contributions
are supported by a response from the Education Authority which identifies a
potential future deficit at local education providers which would serve the
development. I consider the education obligation, which is calculated via a
standard formula, would be fairly and reasonably related to the development
proposed and it would as a result meet the statutory tests.
48. The clauses under Schedule 2/Part 1 reflect these requirements of LP Policy H9
contains to provide 40% affordable housing. I have received further
information from the Council regarding the bus service contribution of
£118,000. Schedule 2/Parts 4 and 5 contain drainage and open space
obligations. In all cases I am satisfied that the obligations meet the statutory
tests.
Conditions
49. The parties have suggested a number of planning conditions which I have
considered against the advice in the “Planning Practice Guidance” (PPG). In
some instances I have amended the conditions in the interests of brevity or to
ensure compliance with the PPG.
50. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 are standard conditions for outline planning permissions.
To ensure a suitable and safe access, I have imposed a condition relating to the
highway works[4]. However, I have simplified the condition given that the
relevant details are already shown on the approved plan. To ensure a
satisfactory level of permeability I have imposed a condition regarding a
pedestrian link to PROW28[5]. Conditions regarding the provision of a
satisfactory drainage system are necessary to ensure drainage of the site in the
interests of flood prevention[6&7]. In the interests of local ecology and to ensure
a net-gain for biodiversity, I have attached various ecology conditions[8-10]. In
some cases, I have simplified the conditions suggested by the Council as some
of the detailed requirements were patently excessive for a development of this
size. Given that the Council would retain overall control for the approval of
these schemes, I am satisfied they would not be prejudiced by these changes.
51. To protect the living conditions of local residents, I have imposed conditions
relating to noise mitigation and restrictions upon construction hours[11&12]. A
land contamination condition is necessary to ensure the land is suitable for its
intended use[13]. Beyond the provision of electric charging points to each
dwelling, the Council was unable to explain what other measures might be
required under the suggested air quality scheme. I have therefore imposed a
more specific condition relating to electric charging points to mitigate the
impact on air quality[14]. To ensure compliance with the Council’s SPD5, I have
imposed a condition relating to accessible homes[15]. Finally, to protect any
archaeological assets that may be present I have imposed an archaeology
condition[16].
52. The suggested condition regarding the diversion of Footpath 29 is unnecessary
as footpath diversions are covered by other legislation namely s257 of the
Town and Country Planning Act. I have amended the requirements of the
suggested drainage condition so as to include details of maintenance and
management arrangements. A separate condition covering these matters is
therefore unnecessary. I am not persuaded that a condition requiring the
applicant to keep a maintenance log work is relevant to planning, necessary or
enforceable, I have omitted it accordingly.
53. The ecological information submitted with the application does not support the
presence of bats. That conclusion has not been challenged by cogent evidence.
Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the suggested lighting condition is
necessary. Finally, I am satisfied that the requirements of the two birdstrike
avoidance conditions, are capable of being dealt with as part of ‘landscaping’ at
the reserved stage and/or through the drainage scheme (condition 6). I have
omitted the suggested conditions accordingly as they are unnecessary.
54. Conditions 6, 7, 9, 10 and 16 are ‘pre-commencement’ form conditions and
require certain actions before the commencement of development. In all cases
the conditions were agreed between the main parties and address matters that
are of an importance or effect and need to be resolved before construction
begins.
D. M. Young
Inspector
5 Full title: Supplementary Planning Document - Accessible Homes and Playspace 2005
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter
called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and
the development shall be carried out as approved.
2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local
Planning Authority not later than three years from the date of this
permission.
3) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved.
4) The access works shown on drawing number DWG-04 Rev B shall be
provided prior to first occupation of any dwelling.
5) Prior to first occupation of any dwelling, a pedestrian connection between
the development and Public Footpath 28 (Elsenham), details of which shall
first have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning
authority, shall be provided and retained thereafter.
6) No works shall takes place until a detailed 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 should include but not be limited to:
• Verification of the suitability of infiltration of surface water for the
development. This should be based on infiltration tests that have been
undertaken in accordance with BRE 365 testing procedure and the
infiltration testing methods found in chapter 25.3 of The CIRIA SuDS
Manual C753;
• Limiting discharge rates to 6.5 l/s for all storm events up to an including
the 1 in 100 year rate plus 40% allowance for climate change;
• Provide sufficient storage to ensure no off-site flooding as a result of the
development during all storm events up to and including the 1 in 100
year plus 40% climate change event;
• Demonstrate that all storage features can half empty within 24 hours for
the 1:100 plus 40% climate change critical storm event;
• Final modelling and calculations for all areas of the drainage system;
• The appropriate level of treatment for all runoff leaving the site, in line
with the Simple Index Approach in chapter 26 of the CIRIA SuDS Manual
C753;
• Detailed engineering drawings of each component of the drainage
scheme;
• A final drainage plan which details exceedance and conveyance routes,
FFL and ground levels, and location and sizing of any drainage features;
• A written report summarising the final strategy and highlighting any
minor changes to the approved strategy, and
• Details of maintenance and management arrangements
The development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved
details.
7) No works shall take place until a scheme to minimise the risk of offsite
flooding caused by surface water run-off and groundwater during
construction works and prevent pollution has been submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The scheme shall
subsequently be implemented as approved.
8) All mitigation and enhancement measures and/or works shall be carried out
in accordance with the details contained in the Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal (Cotswold Wildlife Surveys, September 2019) as already
submitted with the planning application and agreed in principle with the
local planning authority prior to determination.
9) No development shall take place until a Reptile Mitigation Strategy has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The Reptile Mitigation Strategy shall be implemented in accordance with
the approved details and all features shall be retained in that manner
thereafter.
10) No development shall take place until a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The works shall be implemented in accordance with the
approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter.
11) Prior to first occupation of the development a scheme for protecting the
proposed dwellings from rail noise shall be submitted in writing to the local
planning authority for approval. The scheme shall follow the
recommendations identified in the Resound Acoustics Noise & Vibration
Assessment report (Ref: RA00562-Rep 1) dated January 2019. None of the
dwellings shall be occupied until such a scheme has been implemented in
accordance with the approved measures which shall be retained thereafter.
12) Construction work shall only be carried out on site between 8:00am and
6:00pm Monday to Friday, 9:00am to 5:00pm on a Saturday and no work
on a Sunday or Public Holiday. The term "work" will also apply to the
operation of plant, machinery and equipment.
13) The dwellings hereby permitted shall not begin until a scheme to deal with
contamination of land/ground gas/controlled waters has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall
include all of the following measures, unless the local planning authority
dispenses with any such requirement in writing:
• A Phase I site investigation report carried out by a competent person to
include a desk study, site walkover, the production of a site conceptual
model and a human health and environmental risk assessment,
undertaken in accordance with BS 10175: 2011 Investigation of
Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice.
• A Phase II intrusive investigation report detailing all investigative works
and sampling on site, together with the results of the analysis,
undertaken in accordance with BS 10175:2011 Investigation of
Potentially Contaminated Sites – Code of Practice. The report shall
include a detailed quantitative human health and environmental risk
assessment.
• A remediation scheme detailing how the remediation will be undertaken,
what methods will be used and what is to be achieved. A clear end point
of the remediation shall be stated, and how this will be validated. Any
ongoing monitoring shall also be determined.
• If during the works contamination is encountered which has not
previously been identified, then the additional contamination shall be
fully assessed in an appropriate remediation scheme which shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
• A validation report detailing the proposed remediation works and quality
assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in
full accordance with the approved methodology shall be submitted prior
to first occupation of the development. Details of any post-remedial
sampling and analysis to demonstrate that the site has achieved the
required clean-up criteria shall be included, together with the necessary
documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from
the site.
14) Prior to first occupation, each dwelling hereby approved shall be provided
with an electric vehicle charging point. Once provided the charging points
shall be retained thereafter.
15) 5% of the dwellings approved by this permission shall be built to Category
3 (wheelchair user) housing M4 (3)(2)(a) wheelchair adaptable. The
remaining dwellings approved by this permission shall be built to Category
2: Accessible and adaptable dwellings M4 (2) of the Building Regulations
2010 Approved Document M, Volume 2015 edition.
16) No development or preliminary groundworks can commence until a
programme of archaeological trial trenching has been secured and
undertaken in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has
been submitted by the applicant and approved by the planning authority
prior to reserved matters applications being submitted.
• A mitigation strategy detailing the excavation/preservation strategy
shall be submitted to the local planning authority following the
completion of this work.
• No development or preliminary groundworks can commence on those
areas containing archaeological deposits until the satisfactory
completion of fieldwork, as detailed in the mitigation strategy, and
which has been signed off by the local planning authority through its
historic environment advisors.
• The applicant will submit to the local planning authority a post-
excavation assessment (to be submitted within three months of the
completion of fieldwork, unless otherwise agreed in advance with the
Planning Authority). This will result in the completion of post-excavation
analysis, preparation of a full site archive and report ready for
deposition at the local museum, and submission of a publication report.
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANTS
Thea Osmund-Smith LLB Appellants’ Barrister
Frazer Hickling BA (Hons) DipUD MRTPI Appellants’ Planning Consultant
Gary Holliday CMLI BA(Hons) M.Phi Appellants’ Landscape Witness
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
Alison Hutchinson MRTPI Planning Consultant
INTERESTED PERSONS
Dr A Mott Elsenham Parish Council