Case Reference: 3274502

Appeal Decision
Inquiry Held on 1-3 September 2021
Site visits made on 29 August, 8 September 2021
by Christina Downes BSc DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 4 November 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3274502
Land adjoining A27 Scant Road West, Hambrook, West Sussex
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Chichester District
Council.
• The application Ref CH/20/01826/FUL, dated 17 July 2020, was refused by notice dated
5 March 2021.
• The development proposed is the erection of 118 dwellings (including 35 affordable
dwellings) accessed via Broad Road, and the provision of public open space, landscaping
and associated works.
DECISION
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a mixed use
development comprising 118 dwellings (including 36 affordable dwellings),
public open space, landscaping and associated works and a retail convenience
store with community space above all accessed via Broad Road on land
adjoining A27 Scant Road West, Hambrook, West Sussex in accordance with
the terms of the application, Ref CH/20/01826/FUL, dated 17 July 2020, and
the plans submitted with it. This is subject to the conditions in the Schedule at
the end of this decision.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
2. During the course of the application, the description of development was
changed with the agreement of the Council to more accurately reflect the
development being applied for. The revised description is as set out in
paragraph 1 above.
3. At the start of the inquiry, I raised concerns about whether the virtual inquiry
had been adequately publicised. Following a considerable amount of discussion
and the receipt of further information, it became clear that the Council had sent
a notification letter or email to a wide group of residents and organisations and
that this gave the details required by the Planning Inspectorate. I appreciate
that not everyone received the notification but that is not something that the
Council could have controlled. Furthermore, I saw at my pre-inquiry visit that
site notices had been put up and I was told that the details of the event were
published in the Chichester Express newspaper. There were local people who
spoke at the inquiry and the Parish Council also participated. In the
circumstances I was satisfied that the inquiry could go ahead and that those
who wished to speak or observe the proceedings were able to do so.
4. The Council decided at its Committee meeting of 7 July 2021 that it no longer
wished to contest the appeal. I was told that this was following the receipt of
additional information on the agricultural land classification with the Appellant’s
statement of case, and an opinion as to the chances of success at appeal given
by Counsel. In the circumstances, the Council gave no evidence at the inquiry
and did not cross-examine the Appellant’s witnesses. Local people and the
Parish Council were invited to participate, including asking questions of the
witnesses.
5. During the inquiry the Planning Obligation by Agreement (the S106 Agreement)
was discussed, and I raised a number of concerns, including the failure to
include proper provision for a Management Company. I therefore allowed a
short period of time for the matters to be considered and a fully executed Deed
to be submitted. This is discussed later in the decision.
INSPECTOR’S REASONS
6. In view of the position briefly outlined above, there were no disputed issues
remaining between the Council and Appellant. Nevertheless, the issues of
agricultural land and settlement integration, amongst other things, were raised
by objectors. I consider these matters below. First though I turn to consider
the spatial strategy in the development plan and whether this can be relied
upon as the basis for decision making in this case.
The spatial strategy and the decision-making context
7. The Chichester Local Plan was adopted in 2015 (the LP). Policy 2 seeks to
apportion development in accordance with a settlement hierarchy comprising
the sub-regional centre of Chichester, several settlement hubs and a number of
service villages. Due to the location of the South Downs National Park in the
central part of the district and the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty (AONB) and protected sites in the south, development
opportunities are considerably constrained. Policy 4 sets out housing
requirements, but these are more than 5 years old and are out-of-date.
8. Hambrook and the neighbouring settlement of Nutbourne East are identified as
a service village where small scale housing developments and community
facilities, including village shops, will be permitted to meet local needs. Policy 5
sets out specific community needs for housing during the local plan period. For
the Parish of Chidham and Hambrook the indicative number is 25. Policy LP1 in
the Chidham and Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan (the NP) supports the
development of windfall sites of 10 or fewer units. It also identifies 4 sites for
some 78 dwellings, all of which had planning permission when the plan was
made in 2016 and have now been built.
9. The appeal site lies immediately to the north of Hambrook. For policy purposes
it is outwith the settlement boundary where Policies 2 and 45 in the LP restrict
development to that requiring a countryside location.
10. There is no dispute that the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing
land supply. From its latest assessment in July 2020 there was a deficit of 466
dwellings and a supply of 4.3 years based on the Government’s standard
methodology for the assessment of need. The Chichester Local Plan Review is
currently at an early stage in the adoption process and is not likely to be
submitted for examination until sometime in 2022. There is a draft strategic
allocation for the Parish of at least 500 homes, but this can be given little
weight at the present time. Nevertheless, the housing supply policies in the
development plan do not address current housing needs and so policies 2, 4, 5
and 45 in the LP and policy LP1 in the NP are out-of-date. Policy 1 in the LP
makes provision for such eventuality by reflecting the presumption in favour of
sustainable development contained in paragraph 11 of the National Planning
Policy Framework (the Framework).
11. The Council has sought a pro-active approach in seeking to address its housing
shortfall through the publication of an Interim Position Statement for Housing
(the IPS). I was told that this has been subject to consultation and was
formally adopted for development management purposes in November 2020.
This should be afforded significant weight as a material consideration. The IPS
puts forward 13 criteria for the assessment of housing proposals.
Whether the proposed development would satisfactorily integrate with the
settlement of Hambrook
12. The appeal site is a triangular area of land comprising two large fields on the
southern side of the A27. Its southern boundary adjoins Scant Road West,
which is a residential cul-de-sac that terminates close to the eastern corner of
the site. Broad Road runs along the western boundary where there is a tall field
hedge, which is highest in its northern section. The houses on the western side
of Broad Road stand well back behind a tree and hedge screen and to their
north is open land.
Visual and physical integration
13. There is no permitted public access to the site, but I noted informal pathways
around its perimeter that indicate it is used for dog walking and the like. The
proposal would result in a considerable visual change because the currently
open fields would be replaced with new houses and roadways. However, this
built environment would sit within a landscaped framework and large swathes
of green space would border and subdivide the pockets of housing. This would
be reflective of the existing settlement in that the green setting of trees,
hedgerows and grassed verges is an important part of its character. The
existing built environment comprises a variety of housing types and styles. The
Design and Access Statement explains how the new houses and bungalows
would incorporate features reflective of the existing townscape.
14. Along Scant Lane West the existing mature trees and understorey vegetation
would be retained. This would be reinforced by a belt of open space and
planting within the southern part of the site. There would remain glimpses into
the site through the trees and in winter I would expect greater visibility. There
would also be pedestrian and cycle links close to the existing field gate and at
the eastern end of the site, which would connect to the wider footpath network.
These would provide some permeability along the southern boundary whilst
also respecting the existing green character of this residential road.
15. The main area where physical and visual integration would be most apparent
would be between the main access and the south western corner of the site.
Here the boundary would be opened up to allow views into the site. A cycleway
and footpath would enter at the junction of Scant Lane West and Broad Road to
provide an attractive approach across a wide area of open space and wetland
to the housing development behind. It seems to me that at this point in
particular the new development would be viewed as an extension to the
existing settlement.
Social integration
16. The Parish Council and many local residents do not agree that the settlement
should be classed as a service village and consider that the range of available
facilities is poor. However, the designation arises from background studies that
were subject to public scrutiny before the LP was adopted as the statutory
policy document for the District. In the settlement hierarchy the service
villages are defined as those that either provide a reasonable range of basic
facilities to meet everyday needs, or those that provide fewer of these facilities
but have access to them in nearby settlements. In Hambrook and Nutbourne
East, which is a single service village in the LP, local facilities include the rail
station and bus services as well as the shop/ post office, place of worship and
public house. The combined settlement is 5th out of the 16 service villages and
therefore near the top in terms of the number of facilities it provides.
17. It is the intention that the proposed open spaces, footpaths and cycle ways,
trim trails and community gardens would be attractive amenities for the
enjoyment of the existing community as well as the new residents. From my
site visit it was clear that there are not widespread facilities for recreation
within the settlement as noted in the NP. The S106 Agreement includes a
specific covenant that the spaces are for use by everyone.
18. Some objectors consider that the new residents would be an isolated
community who would not wish to join in with village life. It was also said that
new residents would not be keen for outsiders to use the pathways, trim trails
and community gardens on their development. However, I see no reason why
people would move to a place such as this and yet be unwilling to embrace
village life. It also seems improbable that they would view the surrounding
greenspace as their private preserve and unavailable to anyone else. This of
course works both ways and it is to be expected that existing residents would
recognise the benefits offered by this development and welcome newcomers
into the community.
19. The development proposes a new shop and community facility. There is
currently a small post office and store close to the site on Broad Road, but I
was told that this opens erratically and has a limited retail offer. A potential
operator for the new facility has been identified and I was told that the existing
post office may relocate into the new unit. Policy CPD 2 in the NP supports
small scale retail facilities and one of the community aspirations is for a local
shop. It seems to me that this proposal has the opportunity to be a real bonus
to the village and would further aid the assimilation of the new development.
20. Above the shop would be community space that could be used for small
business or office space. The NP recognises that many people in the village
work from home and this facility would be a considerable benefit to the village.
Of course, no-one can guarantee that these facilities would be successful.
However, in the face of the local support identified in the NP and the various
provisions made in the S106 Agreement, there is no reason why they should
not be. There is a covenant to secure a marketing strategy and also obligations
to ensure delivery in advance of the completion of the housing development.
Integration through accessibility and movement
21. The Framework makes clear that opportunities to maximise sustainable travel
options will vary between urban and rural areas. Whilst it is appreciated that
many journeys would inevitably be made by car, in this case there are
reasonable options available to allow new residents to choose alternative
modes. These would encourage movement to and from the site through the
existing settlement. The railway station is a 10 minute walk from the south-
western edge of the site and would be a little further away from the new
houses at the eastern end of the site. Trains run hourly and in peak periods
connect to London, Brighton, Portsmouth and Southampton. There is a footway
on the eastern side of Broad Road, and this goes past the station to the A259.
The 700 bus runs along the A259 corridor and the nearest bus stops are about
1.4 km from the edge of the site. There is a good service between Portsmouth
and Chichester and beyond.
22. Cycling is a feasible option to reach the settlement hub of Southbourne with its
higher order facilities, for example. It is appreciated that Priors Leaze Lane,
which would be the most direct route, is a narrow country road with poor
visibility in places. However, people do not have to use it as there are
alternative route choices. Southbourne is also accessible by bus or train. The
proposal would include a Travel Plan that would be secured by a planning
condition. This would seek to encourage people to undertake journeys more
sustainably.
Comparative size and local infrastructure
23. There was a great deal of local concern about the ability of local infrastructure,
including schools and health facilities, to accommodate the new population.
Whilst I am sure that there are local issues in this regard, this is a wider
problem prevalent in many parts of southern England. There is little specific
evidence that overall capacity is either not available or could not be made
available. The development would be liable to pay the Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL), which would be a significant sum of money in this
case. This is specifically for the purpose of meeting infrastructure needs that
arise from new development.
24. It is appreciated that there have been a number of new developments over the
last few years in Hambrook and Nutbourne East. It is also acknowledged that
the appeal development would be a not insignificant further addition and would
conflict with policy LP1 in the NP. However, the District is severely constrained
in terms of where new development can be located and it has a considerable
need for new housing within the next 5 years. For the reasons I have given, no
specific harm has been identified that would arise as a result of the scale of
development itself.
25. For all of the above reasons I conclude that the appeal site is within a
sustainable location and that the proposed development would integrate
successfully with the existing settlement.
Whether there would be an unacceptable loss of best and most versatile
(BMV) agricultural land
26. The Framework endorses the economic and other benefits of BMV agricultural
land, which is defined as that being within grades 1, 2 and 3a of the
Agricultural Land Classification. The national mapping suggests that the appeal
site is a mix of grade 2 and grade 3 land. However, this is at a small scale and
Natural England makes clear that it not sufficiently accurate to be used at the
individual site level. The Appellant has therefore undertaken a specialist site
survey. Of the 90% of the application site that is agricultural land, 46% was
found to be grade 2 and 3a and the remainder grade 4 and 5.
27. The appeal development would result in the loss of about 4.5 ha of BMV
agricultural land and a further loss of some 2 ha on the nitrate mitigation site.
Clearly this is not ideal, but it should be placed in context. The situation in the
District is that the existence of the South Downs National Park and Chichester
Harbour AONB means that it is inevitable that BMV agricultural land will be
required to meet the Council’s housing needs. With this comes the added
complication of the proximity of sites of European importance in Chichester
Harbour. In order to avoid significant effects it is necessary to ensure nitrate
neutrality and Natural England has approved the approach of removing land
from agricultural production. This is explained further in the Habitats
Regulation Assessment below.
28. Taking account of the circumstances outlined above, it seems to me that the
proportionate loss of BMV in this case would be justified bearing in mind the
economic and social benefits. In the absence of any evidence that the housing
shortfall could be addressed on poorer quality agricultural land it seems to me
that there is no conflict with policy 48 in the LP in this respect.
The effect on ecology and nature conservation
29. A number of objectors are concerned about the loss of wildlife. It is noted that
the appeal site is not within any of the Strategic Wildlife Corridors identified in
the LP. However, an ecological appraisal and various site surveys have been
undertaken and these identify various mitigation measures both during and
after construction. The boundary hedgerows and trees would generally be
retained, and these provide commuting corridors for bats and other wildlife.
Planning conditions would secure the various enhancement measures and a
lighting strategy, which would minimise light spill to protect bat habitats.
30. The development would include a landscaped framework that would include
ecological corridors. I note that following an assessment has been undertaken
using Natural England’s Biodiversity Metric 2.0. In July 2021 Biodiversity Metric
3.0 was introduced but the two metrics are not compatible in terms of
assessment and outputs. For this reason, Natural England advises that Metric
2.0 may continue to be used for ongoing projects in most circumstances and
that is applicable in this case. The results show a net gain of some 70% in
habitat units but a small loss of just over 1% in hedgerow units. I consider this
further in my conclusions.
The Habitats Regulations Assessment
31. The appeal site is within the 5.6km Zone of Influence for the Chichester and
Langstone Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the
Solent Marine Special Area of Conservation (SAC). This zone has been
determined by visitor surveys and is referred to in policy 50 of the LP. The
designations are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations). The qualifying features of the SPA
and Ramsar sites include a variety of breeding and non-breeding waterfowl.
The conservation objectives include maintaining or restoring the population,
distribution and habitats of the qualifying features.
32. The qualifying features of the Solent Maritime Ramsar site include various tidal,
intertidal and shoreline habitats and the vegetation that colonise these places.
The Desmoulin’s whorl snail is a qualifying species of these areas. The
conservation objectives include maintaining or restoring the extent,
distribution, structure and function of the qualifying habitats and species.
33. The proposed development would include 118 new dwellings and it seems likely
that new residents would be attracted to the coastal area for the purposes of
recreation on account of its proximity and attractiveness. Overwintering bird
populations inhabiting the protected sites would be particularly vulnerable to
disturbance resulting from the increase in visitor numbers.
34. The protected marine environments are being subjected to high levels of
nutrients, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen, which encourages algal growth
and damages the sensitive marine ecosystems. These nutrients come mainly
from agricultural uses and wastewater and the process is known as
eutrophication. The wastewater from the appeal development would be
conveyed to the Thornham Wastewater Treatment Works. Nitrate in treated
sewage is the natural product of the breakdown of ammonia contained in
human waste. Some nitrogen will remain in the effluent that discharges into
the receiving waters and this is controlled by the permitting regime. The
additional wastewater arising from the new development has the potential to
contribute to increased levels of eutrophication and damage sensitive marine
environments.
35. For the above reasons, the appeal scheme would result in likely significant
effects on the integrity of the protected sites.
36. The mitigation proposed for recreational disturbance is through the Bird Aware
Solent Strategy, which is delivered by the Solent Recreation Mitigation
Partnership. This is effectively a Strategic Access Management and Monitoring
Scheme to fund a package of wardening, education, green infrastructure
improvements and monitoring. The contribution, which is based on the number
of dwellings, would be secured through the S106 Agreement. The covenant
requires that the development should not be commenced until the contribution
has been paid. Natural England is satisfied that this would provide acceptable
mitigation.
37. Natural England’s Advice Note version 5 entitled Achieving Nutrient Neutrality
for New Development in The Solent Region (June 2020) (NEv5) sets out the
approach to calculating nutrient budgets and demonstrating nutrient neutrality.
A Nitrogen Nutrient Assessment was submitted with the application and Natural
England has reviewed and agreed its calculation of the amount of nitrogen that
would be produced by the proposed development annually. The proposal is to
take 2 ha of land currently used for cereal crops out of agricultural production.
This is on the northern side of Chichester and within the same Solent
catchment as the discharge outfall.
38. Natural England is satisfied with the mitigation, provided that the land is
appropriately secured for the lifetime of the development. The S106 Agreement
requires a nitrate mitigation scheme to be submitted to the Council for
approval. This scheme is required to demonstrate how the level of assessed
nitrate neutrality is to be achieved and details of the future management and
maintenance of the land to ensure the permanent cessation of its agricultural
use. No dwelling is to be occupied until the approved scheme has been
implemented. I note that Natural England suggested that trees are planted on
the land so that it can be easily identified as not being in agricultural use. This
is not the Applicant’s intention but rather that it be maintained as a wildflower
meadow. This seems to me equally acceptable for the purpose of identification.
39. Subject to the above mitigation measures I am satisfied that there would be no
significant impacts on the integrity of the aforementioned European sites either
through recreational disturbance or nutrient deficiency. In this regard there
would be no conflict with policy 49 in the LP and policy EM2 in the NP.
Effect on flooding and drainage
40. The site is in Flood Zone 1 and the submitted Flood Risk Assessment has
concluded that the risk of flooding from any source is very low. The proposal
includes a sustainable drainage strategy, which would be secured by a planning
condition. Local objectors pointed out that there is localised flooding after
periods of heavy rainfall, including across Broad Road at its junction with Scant
Lane West. However, there has been no drainage management of the site and
so it is understandable that water collects in the lower areas and spills onto the
highway. The purpose of the sustainable drainage strategy is to ensure that
runoff rates following development would not exceed existing greenfield rates
with allowance for climate change. The wetland area in the south west corner
and the ditches around and through the site would be sustainably managed. I
heard no evidence to be satisfied that there is a natural spring on the site. It is
to be noted that no objections have been raised by the Council’s drainage
engineer or West Sussex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority.
41. There was a great deal of local concern about foul drainage due to its
implications for the protected sites. The sewerage would be conveyed to
Thornham Waste Water Treatment Works and Southern Water has confirmed
that this has sufficient spare capacity and that there are no objections to the
development connecting to its network. Whilst I appreciate that this is disputed
by many local objectors, the evidence from the statutory undertaker is that
Thornham can adequately accommodate and treat the sewerage arising from
the appeal development.
42. During the inquiry the Parish Council referred to a newsletter from the Council
that referred to constraints on future housing growth arising due to
environmental limitations affecting discharges into Chichester Harbour. Whilst
this is clearly an ongoing issue of concern to many local people, this particular
communication relates to the review of the emerging LP and the large scale
housing growth that it envisages. For the reasons I have given, the proposed
development would provide acceptable mitigation in terms of this issue.
Effect on highway safety
43. The main access would be off Broad Road at a point where the speed limit is 40
mph. Sight lines would be provided in each direction to allow good visibility of
120m in each direction. A condition would require that the splays be kept clear
of obstruction. Visibility to this standard would include an allowance for higher
speeds thus addressing the concern of local residents that drivers exceed the
speed limit at this point. It is to be noted that West Sussex County Council as
local highway authority has raised no objections to the new access, or the
traffic generated by the proposed development. This is a matter of considerable
importance because it is the statutory authority responsible for the safety of
road users on the local highway network.
44. The Parish Council wish to see the existing 30 mph restriction moved north of
the site access. The Appellant has no objection to this and has made provision
for a Traffic Regulation Order in the Travel Plan. However, it is to be noted that
the local highway authority does not favour such a scheme and it should be
made clear that a reduced speed limit would not be necessary in terms of
providing a safe access to the development.
Other matters
45. The appeal site is to the south of the South Downs National Park (SDNP), the
boundary of which is about 900m to the north-east. From the evidence
presented by the Appellant and my site observations I am satisfied that the
appeal site does not fall within the setting of the SDNP. This is due to the
intervening uses and vegetation, which restrict views between the SDNP and
the site. Furthermore, the presence of the A27 corridor is a major physical
barrier between the two. I do not consider that the proposed development with
its green framework would have any adverse impact on the natural beauty of
the landscape within the SDNP. Whilst there would inevitably be some lighting
associated with the proposal this would be unlikely to be apparent. In any
event it would be seen within the context of Hambrook itself and would not
impact on the dark skies or special qualities of the designated area. In terms of
recreational connectivity with the SDNP, the A27 provides a barrier to north-
south movement at this point.
46. The site is relatively close to the Chichester Harbour AONB. I note that the
Chichester Harbour Conservancy have no objections to the proposal, subject to
several conditions that that have been incorporated. The site has no
intervisibility with the AONB and there is considerable development within the
area between it and the site. In such circumstances the natural beauty of the
landscape within the designated area would be protected.
47. There has been some local concern that the proposed development would
result in the coalescence of settlements. However, the site is to the north and
east of the existing village and the development is not within any strategic gap
identified in the development plan. This is not land that is important to the
separation of Hambrook and any settlement to the north or east.
48. It is acknowledged that planning permission was refused by the Secretary of
State for a similar proposal in 2016. However, this was within a very different
planning policy context whereby the LP had only just been adopted and there
was no housing land supply deficit. Furthermore, it is understood that much of
the open space was for the provision of formal recreation rather than the more
naturalistic landscape proposed now.
PLANNING CONDITIONS
49. A list of planning conditions was drawn up by the Council and Appellant and
these were discussed at the inquiry. My consideration has taken account of
paragraph 55 of the Framework and advice in the Planning Practice Guidance.
In particular pre-commencement conditions should be avoided unless there is
clear justification. The Appellant has confirmed acceptance in writing of those
that have been imposed. I have changed the suggested wording in some cases
to reflect the round table discussion at the inquiry and also to ensure that the
conditions are precise, focused and enforceable.
50. The Appellant has agreed to a shorter implementation period and is confident
that development would get underway expediently. This would enable it to
make a meaningful contribution to the 5 year housing land shortfall. It is
necessary to specify the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the
interests of proper planning.
51. The construction period would inevitably cause disruption and inconvenience to
road users and those living nearby. A Construction and Environmental
Management Plan is therefore necessary to mitigate adverse effects as far as
possible. It was agreed that certain of the provisions were unnecessary,
imprecise or unenforceable and the wording has been adjusted accordingly. In
requiring details of foundation design, the Council confirmed that its main
concern was with piling. This could affect the amenity of nearby residents
through noise and vibration, and it would therefore be necessary for any piling
work to be controlled. The proposal would retain many of the trees and
hedgerows around and within the site. They would provide an integral part of
the landscape framework and are important to wildlife. It is therefore
necessary to ensure adequate protection during the course of construction.
52. Part of the site was used as a compound during the construction of the A27 and
the Site Investigation Report identifies areas of made ground and recommends
further investigation. In such circumstances the potential risks would need to
be considered and if necessary remediated. Unexpected contamination that
cropped up during the course of development would also need to be addressed.
The conditions have been reworded to make them more focused and relevant.
53. The Council’s Archaeology Officer indicates that the site may be of
archaeological interest and that trial trenching would be justified. There is no
suggestion that the archaeology would be of other than local importance or
would need to be preserved in situ. In such circumstances a scheme of
investigation, recording and publication would be sufficient.
54. In order for the foul drainage of the site to be adequately managed details of
the intended means of sewerage disposal would be required. A sustainable
drainage strategy has already been submitted and considered acceptable by
the relevant statutory authorities. The requirement is therefore that it should
be satisfactorily implemented and that details should be provided of the
arrangements for its maintenance and management. This is necessary to
ensure that the sustainable drainage system would remain effective and fit for
purpose during the lifetime of the development. The existing watercourses that
cross the site and run along the southern boundary need to be kept clear to
maintain water flow. The Environment Agency require that the necessary
access must be kept available to allow maintenance works to be carried out.
55. A number of documents have been submitted that address the ecology of the
site and various mitigation and enhancement measures. It is necessary to
ensure their implementation in order to protect the ecological interests on the
site. The large areas of landscaped open space would have a variety of
functions. Some details have been provided, but in order to ensure a co-
ordinated approach and an attractive outcome a detailed landscaping scheme is
required.
56. Although some details of external materials have already been submitted it is
necessary to require further information and samples to be submitted for
approval in order to ensure that the development as a whole complements its
surroundings. The Council also wanted details relating to the verges of roofs,
including garages and porches. However, I consider that such detail would be
unnecessary within a vicinity where there is such a variety of built form.
57. Policy 40 in the LP includes a number of criteria to ensure that new
development is designed and constructed sustainably. The submitted Energy
Strategy Statement includes provisions for active electric charging points for
84% of the dwellings and 4 fast charging units to support the retail and
community building. It also advocates solar PV panels on appropriately
orientated dwellings. It is necessary to ensure these measures would be carried
out in the interests of sustainability. For similar reasons the daily water
consumption should not exceed 110 litres per person. This is also a criterion of
policy 40 but is an optional requirement in the Building Regulations.
58. The site adjoins the busy A27 as well as Broad Road and Scant Lane West. The
houses would stand back from the boundaries behind a wide swathe of
landscaped open space. The Noise Assessment suggests that the quietest part
of the site is within the centre, off-set slightly to the south-west. The noise
readings indicate that some mitigation would be necessary on a few dwellings
at the edges of the development in order to achieve an acceptable internal
noise environment. The assessment shows that this could be achieved through
suitable glazing and ventilation. Rear gardens would be located to ensure
satisfactory noise conditions. In order to ensure that the residential noise
environment complies with BS: 8233 2014 a scheme for noise mitigation is
necessary.
59. There are a number of requirements that are necessary in the interests of
highway safety. These concern the construction of the main access and the
provision and maintenance of its visibility splays. As all dwellings would
essentially be served by a cul-de-sac, it is necessary to provide an emergency
access. This would be onto Scant Road West and would serve solely as a
pedestrian link and cycleway when not required for emergencies. There was
some discussion about when the emergency access should be provided. Whilst
it may not be linked up during the construction of the first part of the internal
road system, it would be difficult to specify an exact timeframe until
development is underway. In view of its importance to safety it is reasonable
that the emergency access should be available prior to the occupation of any
dwelling.
60. The garaging and parking spaces need to be provided prior to occupation and
thereafter retained for parking purposes. This is to ensure that the
development would meet its own parking needs and that kerbside parking
would not overspill onto adjoining roads. In order to encourage sustainable
travel choices, provision should be made for secure cycle parking facilities. It is
also necessary to ensure that the Travel Plan Framework, which sets out how
the accessibility credentials of the site would be improved, are actioned
through a Final Travel Plan. The development is served off a single access with
a second access for emergencies. In order that residents remain safe it is
necessary to ensure that fire hydrants would be installed and properly
maintained. The Appellant indicated that external lighting is not being
proposed. However, it may be necessary in public areas, including open spaces
and roadways. In order to protect wildlife, including bats, any lighting would
need to ensure minimum light spill and details would be required accordingly.
61. So that the retail and community use building at the entrance to the
development would reflect the needs of the community, changes that could
normally take place without planning permission would need to be curtailed.
This is not only to restrict changes within the relevant Use Classes but also
changes to other Use Classes under permitted development.
PLANNING OBLIGATION BY AGREEMENT (S106 AGREEMENT)
62. The S106 Agreement was considered in detail at the inquiry. It was engrossed
on 14 September 2021. I have considered the various obligations with regards
to the statutory requirements in Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and the
policy tests in paragraph 56 of the Framework. It should be noted that the
Deed contains a “blue pencil” clause in the event that I do not consider a
particular obligation would be justified in these terms. In reaching my
conclusions I have had regard to the supplementary planning document:
Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing (2016) (the SPD).
63. It is to be noted that the S106 Agreement includes a specific clause that
confirms and agrees that the Deed completed in August 2021 shall cease to
have effect. The First and Second Schedules of the S106 Agreement includes
the main obligations that bind the land. I shall consider each in turn.
Affordable housing
64. Provision is made for 36 affordable dwellings. This would be 30% of the total
with a mix of sizes and tenures. This complies with policy 34 in the LP. The
obligations make provision for the delivery of the affordable housing in 3 stages
linked to the occupation of the open market housing. The final trigger would be
prior to the occupation of the 71st open market unit, so that sufficient value
would remain in the land to be confident that all of the affordable dwellings
would be delivered.
65. There is an acute need for affordable housing in the District and annual needs
are far greater than what is being provided. This means that the situation is
getting worse year on year. The obligations are necessary to meet these needs.
The Deed includes a plan to show the location of the various affordable units
These are within 4 parts of the site which would ensure the delivery of a
sustainable mixed community.
Open space, play area and ecological corridors
66. The proposal would include large areas of open space, which would be an
integral part of the development. Condition 14 requires details of the
landscaping of these areas to be approved by the Council. The obligations
relate to their management and the specifications for the play area. The open
space and ecological corridors would be provided prior to the occupation of the
100th dwelling and the play area would be installed prior to the occupation of
the 75th dwelling. These are reasonable triggers.
67. Once the various works have been completed arrangements are included to
hand over the open spaces to the Management Company with covenants that
they shall be available for use by the general public. The various obligations are
necessary in order to ensure that the development meets the needs of its
residents, provides gains to biodiversity, enhances green infrastructure and
provides integration with the wider community. It would comply with the
relevant LP policies, including policy 54 and provisions in the SPD.
Retail unit and community resource centre
68. The Deed requires a marketing strategy for the retail unit to be submitted prior
to the commencement of development. It also requires a management and
maintenance plan for the community facilities. The building is to be constructed
prior to the occupation of the 75th open market dwelling and this includes the
fitting out of the upper floor. The community area will be offered at a nominal
fee and on a long lease to the Management Company. These obligations are
necessary to ensure, as far as it is possible to do so, that the retail use and
community facility are delivered and retained thereafter as a benefit to the
residents of the site and the wider community. The provision would comply
with policies 3 and 9 in the LP and policies CPD 1 and CPD 2 in the NP.
Nitrate mitigation scheme
69. The Deed makes provision for a scheme to be submitted for the off-site
mitigation land so that the necessary nitrate neutrality would be achieved. The
agricultural use would be required to cease before development is started and
the scheme would be implemented before first occupation of any dwelling. The
justification for the obligations is given in paragraphs 37 and 38 above.
Monitoring fee
70. An obligation requires the payment of a monitoring fee of £5,106 before
development commences. The CIL Regulations were amended in 2019 to allow
such fees to be charged provided they are fairly and reasonably related to the
scale and kind to the development and do not exceed the Council’s estimate of
the cost of monitoring the obligations to the development. The Council has
formally adopted the use of monitoring fees and has worked out a methodology
that takes into account the costs involved in the monitoring process. This is
determined by the size of the development and reflects the Council’s historic
costs over a 3 year period. Based on this information I consider that the
monitoring fee would meet the two requirements in the CIL Regulations
mentioned above.
Management Company
71. The Management Company would be responsible for the management and
maintenance of the open space land, play area, ecological corridors and
community space. There is an obligation that the transfer of the freehold or
leasehold sale of each dwelling shall include a covenant by the purchaser to
pay an annual charge as determined by the Management Company. The
establishment of the Management Company and ensuring that it would be
funded are important provisions. These would provide the necessary
arrangements for the proper maintenance of the open areas and community
facilities to ensure that this would remain a successful development in
perpetuity.
Financial contributions
72. The A27 Improvements Contribution of £212,754 is required by the Highways
Agency to mitigate the impact of development traffic on the adjoining stretch of
the strategic highway network. It would comply with policy 8 in the LP. The
contribution would be fair and reasonable in accordance with the methodology
in the SPD relating to the improvement to various junctions on the Chichester
By-pass. The contribution has been worked out by the number of trips
expected to use the bypass and the cost per trip. It is necessary to mitigate the
wider highway impacts on the A27 as identified in the Transport Assessment.
73. The Recreation Disturbance Mitigation Contribution of £71,517 is necessary to
mitigate the impact from recreational disturbance on the protected sites of
European importance to nature conservation. The contribution is justified for
the reasons explained in paragraphs 33 and 36 above.
74. For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that the planning obligations in the
S106 Agreement are necessary and proportionate and meet the requirements
of Regulation 122 in the CIL Regulations.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND PLANNING BALANCE
Benefits
75. The appeal development would result in a number of benefits. Most importantly
it would deliver 118 homes that would make a significant contribution to the
Council’s housing land supply deficit. Furthermore, there would be 36 new
affordable homes within a District that has an acute affordable housing need
that is getting worse year on year.
76. The provision of the convenience store and flexible community space would be
a considerable benefit to the village and one that is identified as an aspiration
in the NP.
77. There would be employment benefits relating to the construction phase and
also the operative phase of the development. The local economy would also
benefit from increased spend in the nearby towns and settlements.
78. The development would provide areas of open space for informal recreation
and children’s play within an area that has limited facilities in this regard. This
would be available to the existing community to use and enjoy. There would
also be a considerable biodiversity net gain in habitat units.
79. The Appellant has also referred to other matters. These include a good housing
mix, the avoidance of constrained parts of the District, enhanced energy
measures, good arboricultural practice and a managed surface water strategy.
Whilst these are advantages of the scheme they are also matters that would be
expected of any residential development of this nature in order to comply with
development plan policy. Nonetheless, I give the package of benefits referred
to in paragraphs 75-78 substantial weight.
The planning balance
80. This is a case where the presumption in favour of sustainable development in
paragraph 11 of the Framework is engaged and this is given statutory
significance by policy 1 in the LP. The development plan is unable to meet its
current housing needs through its housing strategy and I do not therefore
consider that it is up-to-date. For the reasons given above there would be no
significant adverse effect on the South Downs National Park, the Chichester
AONB or European sites. In such circumstances there are no policies in the
Framework protecting assets of particular importance that provide a clear
reason for refusing the development. The tilted balance in paragraph 11d)i)
would therefore apply in this case.
81. For the reasons given above, I afford the benefits substantial weight in favour
of the development. Furthermore, the IPS has been specifically adopted to
address the Council’s housing land supply situation in a proactive way. I am
satisfied that the proposed development would not conflict with any of its 13
criteria, and this also weighs significantly in favour of the appeal scheme.
82. For the reasons given above the proposal would conflict with policies 2, 4, 5
and 45 in the LP and policy LP1 in the NP. However that conflict is a matter of
limited weight because these policies are out-of-date. There would be some
loss of BMV agricultural land, but I afford this limited weight for the reasons I
have given. The only other harmful impact would be the failure to achieve a
positive biodiversity net gain in terms of hedgerow units. This is
counterbalanced to a degree by the very significant gain in habitat units.
Overall, the adverse impacts would be of limited significance and would not
demonstrably outweigh the substantial benefits of the scheme.
The development plan
83. The appeal proposal would not comply with the development strategy in the
development plan and policy 2 in the LP seems to me to be a key policy in this
respect. Whilst there would be compliance with many other policies in both
the LP and NP, I consider that the proposed development would conflict with
the development plan when taken as a whole.
84. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be
determined in accordance with the development plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the proposal would be in
accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set
out in paragraph 11 of the Framework for all of the reasons I have given. This
is a material consideration of very substantial weight and importance and
leads to my overall conclusion that the appeal proposal should be determined
otherwise than in accordance with the development plan in this case.
85. I have considered all other matters raised in the representations but found
nothing to alter my conclusion that the appeal should succeed.
Christina Downes
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Mr Andrew Parkinson Of Counsel, instructed by Ms N Golding, Principal
Solicitor of Chichester District Council
*Mr A Robbins Senior Planning Officer with Chichester District
Council
*Participated in the discussion about the inquiry notification and the sessions on
planning conditions and the Planning Obligation
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr Sasha White Of Queen’s Counsel
Mr Matthew Fraser Of Counsel, both instructed by Neame Sutton
Limited
They called:
Mrs C Brockhurst FLI Director of Leyton Place Limited
BSc(Hons) DipLA
Ms A Sutton BA(Hons) Director of Neame Sutton Limited
BTP MRTPI
**Mr Clewlow PD2 Solicitors
**Participated in the sessions on planning conditions and the Planning Obligation
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Mrs J Towers Vice Chair of Chidham and Hambrook Parish
Council
Mr B Garrett Parish Councillor
Mr J Keynes Local resident
Mr A Green Local Resident
Mrs S Green Local Resident
DOCUMENTS
INQ 1 Appeal notification documents, submitted by the Council
INQ 2 Notification to the Parish Council, submitted by Mr Garrett
INQ 3 Representations made by Mr Wild
INQ 4A List of plans determined by the Council for the appeal
development, submitted by the Appellant
INQ 4B Council’s agreement that the list in Document 4A is correct
INQ 5 Local Plan Review Newsletter (1 September 2021), submitted
by Mrs Green
INQ 6 Note on biodiversity net gain, submitted by the Appellant
INQ 7 Information regarding the Section 106 monitoring fee,
submitted by the Co8uncil
INQ 8 Clarification on a number of points concerning the Section
106 Agreement, including the long-term maintenance of the
open space, submitted by the Appellant
INQ 9 Consultation undertaken for the Interim Position Statement,
submitted by the Council
INQ 10 Undetermined applications for residential development in the
local area, submitted by the Council
INQ 11 Further information about strategic wildlife corridors and the
proposed development timetable, submitted by the Appellant
INQ 12 Appellant’s written agreement to the proposed pre-
commencement conditions
INQ 13 Explanatory sheet regarding changes to the S106 Agreement
INQ 14 S106 Agreement dated 14 September 2021
SCHEDULE OF PLANNING CONDITIONS
1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration
of two years from the date of this permission.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in
accordance with the plans set out in the list at the end of this decision
3. No development shall commence until a Construction and Environmental
Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved CEMP shall be
implemented and adhered to throughout the construction period. The
CEMP shall include details of the following:
a) the location and specification for vehicular access during construction
b) provision for the parking of vehicles by contractors, site operatives and
visitors
c) provision for the loading and unloading of plant, materials and waste
d) provision for the storage of plant and materials
e) details of the erection and maintenance of security hoardings
f) details of the location of any site huts/cabins/offices
g) provision for wheel washing facilities and any other works required to
mitigate the impact of construction upon the public highway, including the
provision of temporary Traffic Regulation Orders
h) the contact details of the site operator
i) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt
j) measures to protect surrounding properties from construction noise in
accordance with the standards in BS5228: Code of practice for noise and
vibration control on construction and open sites - Noise
k) Provision of any external lighting
l) Provision for the storage of fuel and chemicals
m) provision for the recycling and disposal of waste management
n) hours of construction and deliveries.
4. Details of any foundations to be constructed using piling techniques shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
prior to the commencement of development. The development shall
thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
5. No development shall commence on site until protective fencing has
been erected around all trees and hedgerows not scheduled for removal
in accordance with the Arboricultural Implications Report and Tree
Protection Plans (drawing nos. SJA TPP 20179-041 East and SJA TPP
20179-041 West prepared by SJA Trees dated July 2020). Thereafter the
protective fencing shall be retained for the duration of the construction
works. No unauthorised access or placement of goods, fuels or
chemicals, soil or other materials shall take place inside the fenced
areas. Soil levels within the root protection area of the trees and
hedgerows to be retained shall not be raised or lowered, and there shall
be no burning of materials where it could cause damage to any tree,
tree group or hedgerow to be retained on the site or on land adjoining at
any time.
6. No development shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed
by any contamination, carried out in accordance with British Standard
BS 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of
Practice and the Environment Agency’s Model Procedures for the
Management of Land Contamination (CLR 11) (or equivalent British
Standard and Model Procedures if replaced), shall have been submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
If any contamination is found, a report specifying the measures to be
taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable
for the approved development shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The site shall be remediated in accordance with the approved measures
and timescale and a verification report shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which
has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended and
additional measures for its remediation shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation of
the site shall incorporate the approved additional measures and a
verification report for all the remediation works shall be submitted to the
Local Planning Authority for approval before construction is
recommenced.
7. No development/works shall commence until a written scheme of
archaeological investigation of the site has been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall
include proposals for an initial trial investigation and mitigation of
damage through development to deposits of importance thus identified,
and a schedule for the investigation, the recording of findings and
subsequent publication of results. Thereafter the scheme shall be
undertaken fully in accordance with the approved details and a timetable
to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
8. No development shall commence until details of the proposed means of
foul water sewerage disposal have been submitted to and been approved
in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development
shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.
9. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until the sustainable
drainage system for the site has been completed in accordance with the
submitted details in the Drainage Strategy by Patrick Parsons (July
2020) and the drainage layout (drawing no: A201107/0300 Rev P6).
10. No development shall commence until details of the management and
maintenance of the sustainable drainage system so that it continues to
operate satisfactorily for the lifetime of the development have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details.
11. No development shall commence until details of the arrangements for
the future access and maintenance of any watercourse or culvert
crossing or abutting the site have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The future access and
maintenance shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the
approved details. At no time shall current and future landowners be
restricted or prevented as a result of the development from undertaking
their riparian maintenance responsibilities of any watercourse on or
adjacent to the site.
12. No development shall commence or ground clearance take place until a
timetable for the ecological mitigation and enhancement measures has
been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The ecological mitigation and enhancement measures shall accord with
the details in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (16 July 2020), the
Updated Bat Survey (8 October 2020), the Dormouse Mitigation Strategy
(16 July 2020), the Breeding Bird Survey (16 July 2020) and the Reptile
Mitigation Strategy (16 July 2020), all prepared by EcoSupport, and shall
be carried out in accordance with the agreed timetable.
In particular the measures and enhancements shall include:
a) Wildflower meadow, wooded copse and wetland planting
b) filling gaps in tree lines or hedgerows with native species
c) the provision of 59 bat brick/boxes to be installed into the dwellings and a
further 12 bat boxes to be installed within the retained trees on site
d) the provision of 59 swift bird bricks installed into the dwellings and a
further 8 bird boxes to be installed within the retained trees on site
e) the provision of 2 log piles
f) gaps at the bottom of the fences to allow movement of small mammals
across the site.
g) a 10m wide ecological corridor along the north site boundary and a 5m wide
ecological corridor on the west site boundary
13. Notwithstanding any details submitted with the application, no dwelling
shall be constructed above slab level until a full schedule of all materials
and finishes and samples of such materials and finishes to be used for
external walls, window/door surrounds and roofs of the building(s) have
been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details.
14. Notwithstanding any details submitted with the application no
construction of any dwelling above slab level shall take place until a
detailed scheme of soft landscaping for the site has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme
shall include a planting plan and schedule of plants including species,
sizes, numbers and densities and a timetable for implementation. The
works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and
timetable. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years after
planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or defective,
shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of
species, size and number as originally approved unless otherwise first
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
15. Active electric charging points shall be provided for use of all dwellings
and 4 fast charging units for use in connection with the retail and
community building as specified in the Energy Strategy Statement by
Briary Energy (dated January 2021). No dwelling which is to be provided
with such facility or the community building shall be first occupied until
the electric charging point has been provided and is ready for use.
16. The Solar PV panels to be provided on the dwellings specified in the
Energy Strategy Statement by Briary Energy (dated January 2021) shall
be constructed and inserted so that they are flush fitting with the plane
of the roof prior to first occupation of the dwelling.
17. A scheme of noise mitigation in accordance with the recommendations in
sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Patrick Parsons Noise Assessment (dated
December 2020) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be carried out
before the first occupation of each dwelling.
18. No dwelling shall be first occupied until such time as the main vehicular
and pedestrian/cycle access serving the development from Broad Road
has been constructed and visibility splays provided of 2.4m by 120m in
accordance with the details shown on drawing number A20107-201
Revision P4. Once provided the visibility splays shall be kept free of all
obstructions over a height of 0.6m above adjoining carriageway level.
19. No dwelling shall be first occupied until the emergency vehicular access
onto Scant Road West has been constructed in accordance with drawing
number A20107-101 Revision P4. The access shall thereafter be used by
emergency vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists only.
20. No dwelling shall be first occupied until the car parking and/or garaging
provision and the road access to it for that dwelling have been provided.
The car parking provision shall be retained for that purpose thereafter.
21. No dwelling shall be first occupied until covered and secure cycle parking
facilities for that dwelling has been provided in accordance with details
that have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The cycle parking spaces shall be retained for that
purpose thereafter.
22. A Final Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority within 6 months of the first occupation of the
development hereby permitted. The Final Travel Plan shall be based on
the principles set out in the Travel Plan Framework (February 2021) and
shall include modal targets to achieve its objectives and a timetable for
their achievement. The Final Travel Plan shall thereafter be implemented
in accordance with the approved details.
23. Before first occupation of any dwelling, details showing the location,
installation and ongoing maintenance of fire hydrants shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved
fire hydrants shall be installed before first occupation of any of the
dwellings that they will serve and shall thereafter be retained for their
intended purpose.
24. Before first occupation of any dwelling details of the external lighting of
public areas, including roadways and amenity space, shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The lighting
details shall seek to minimise potential impacts on bats using trees and
hedgerows by avoiding unnecessary artificial light spill through the use
of directional lighting sources and shielding.
25. The dwellings hereby permitted shall be designed to ensure the
consumption of wholesome water by the occupiers shall not exceed 110
litres per person per day. The fixtures, fittings and appliances shall
thereafter be retained to comply with this requirement.
26. The ground floor of the retail and community use building hereby
permitted shall only be used as a convenience food store with a post
office counter if required and for no other purpose, including within Class
E or F2 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)
Order 1987 (as amended) (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in
any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or
without modification).
27. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order
revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the
ground floor of the retail and community use building shall only be used
as a convenience food store and for no other purpose including within
Part 3 Classes G, H and MA.
28. The first floor of the retail and community use building hereby permitted
shall only be used as a community resource for local community
purposes including use for administrative and business purposes and for
no other purpose including within Use Classes E or F2 of the Schedule to
the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended)
(or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument
revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).
29. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order
revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the
first floor of the retail and community use building shall only be used as
a community resource for local community purposes including use for
administrative and business purposes and for no other purpose including
within Part 3 Classes G, H and MA.
30. Before the retail and community use building is first brought into use the
car parking provision allocated for that purpose and the access to that
provision as shown on drawing no. CB_75_207_001 Rev M shall be
provided and shall thereafter be retained for car parking purposes.
End of conditions 1-30
LIST OF PLANS
Drawing title Plan reference Revision
Site Location Plan CB_75_207_000 -
Planning Layout CB_75_207_001 Rev M
Land Use Plan CB_75_207_002 Rev D
Housing Mix Plan CB_75_207_003 Rev D
Affordable Housing Plan CB_75_207_004 Rev D
Building Heights Plan CB_75_207_005 Rev D
Parking Strategy Plan CB_75_207_006 Rev D
Bin and Cycle Storage CB_75_207_007 Rev D
External Finishes Plan CB_75_207_008 Rev D
External Enclosures Plan CB_75_207_009 Rev D
Hard Surfacing Plan CB_75_207_010 Rev D
House Type Plan CB_75_207_012 Rev D
Landscape Area Plan CB_75_207_901 Rev D
Character Areas Plan CB_75_207_902 Rev D
Broad Road Frontage Street Scenes CB_75_207_BRF_SS_01 Rev A
Northern Edge Street Scenes 1 CB_75_207_NE_SS_01 Rev A
Scant Road West Street Scenes 1 CB_75_207_SRW_SS_01 Rev A
Type 4A Elevations (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_4A_E01 Rev A
Type 4A Floorplans (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_4A_P01 Rev A
Type 4C Elevations (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_4C_E01 Rev A
Type 4C Floorplans (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_4C_P01 Rev A
Type 4D Elevations (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_4D_E01 Rev A
Type 4D Floorplans (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_4D_P01 Rev A
Type 3A Elevations (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_3A_E01 Rev A
Type 3A Floorplans (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_3A_P01 Rev A
Type 3C Elevations (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_3C_E01 Rev A
Type 3C Floorplans (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_3C_P01 Rev A
Type 3E Elevations (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_3E_E01 Rev A
Type 3E Floorplans (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_3E_P01 Rev A
Type 2D Elevations (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_2D_E01 Rev A
Type 2D Floorplans (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_2D_P01 Rev A
Type 1BFA&2BFA Elevations (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_1BFA2BFA_E01 Rev A
Type 1BFA&2BFA Floorplans (Broad Road) CB_75_207_BRF_1BFA2BFA_P01 Rev A
Type 1BCHA Elevations CB_75_207_BRF_1BCHA_E01 Rev A
Type 1BCHA Floorplans CB_75_207_BRF_1BCHA_P01 Rev A
Type 3A Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3A_E01 Rev A
Type 3A Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3A_P01 Rev A
Type 3A Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3A_E02 Rev A
Type 3A Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3A_P02 Rev A
Type 3F Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3A_E01 Rev A
Type 3F Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3A_P01 Rev A
Type 3F Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3A_E02 Rev A
Type 3F Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3A_P02 Rev A
Type 3C Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3C_E01 Rev A
Type 3C Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3C_E02 Rev A
Type 3C Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3C_P01 Rev A
Type 3C Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3C_E03 Rev A
Type 3C Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3C_P02 Rev A
Type 3C Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3C_E04 Rev A
Type 3C Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3C_P03 Rev A
Type 2B Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_2B_E01 Rev A
Type 2B Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_2B_P01 Rev A
Type 2B Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_2B_E02 Rev A
Type 2B Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_2B_P02 Rev A
Type 2B Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_2B_E03 Rev A
Type 4E Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_4E_E01 Rev A
Type 4E Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_4E_P01 Rev A
Type 3D Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3D_E01 Rev A
Type 3D Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3D_P01 Rev A
Type 3D Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3D_E02 Rev A
Type 3D Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_3D_P02 Rev A
Type 2D Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_2D_E01 Rev A
Type 2D Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_2D_P01 Rev A
Type 2D Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_2D_E02 Rev A
Type 2D Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_2D_P02 Rev A
Type 2D Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_2D_E03 Rev A
Type 2D Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_2D_P03 Rev A
Type 1BFA Elevations (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_1BFA_E01 Rev A
Type 1BFA Floorplans (Northern Edge) CB_75_207_NE_1BFA_P01 Rev A
Type 4A Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_4A_E01 Rev A
Type 4A Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_4A_P01 Rev A
Type 4B Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_4B_E01 Rev A
Type 4B Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_4B_P01 Rev A
Type 4C Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_4C_E01 Rev A
Type 4C Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_4C_P01 Rev A
Type 4D Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_4D_E01 Rev A
Type 4D Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_4D_P01 Rev A
Type 3A Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3A_E01 Rev A
Type 3A Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3A_P01 Rev A
Type 3A Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3A_E02 Rev A
Type 3A Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3A_P02 Rev A
Type 3BB Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3BB_E01 Rev A
Type 3BB Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3BB_P01 Rev A
Type 3C Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3C_E01 Rev A
Type 3C Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3C_P01 Rev A
Type 3C Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3C_E02 Rev A
Type 3C Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3C_P02 Rev A
Type 2D Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_2D_E01 Rev A
Type 2D Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_2D_P01 Rev A
Type 2BB Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_2BB_E01 Rev A
Type 2BB Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_2BB_P01 Rev A
Type 2BB Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_2BB_E02 Rev A
Type 2BB Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_2BB_P02 Rev A
Type 1BF&2BF Elevations (Scant Road CB_75_207_SRW_1BF2BF_E01 Rev A
West)
Type 1BF&2BF Floorplans (Scant Road CB_75_207_SRW_1BF2BF_P01 Rev A
West)
Type 1BF&2BF Elevations (Scant Road CB_75_207_SRW_1BF2BF_E02 Rev A
West)
Type 1BF&2BF Floorplans (Scant Road CB_75_207_SRW_1BF2BF_P02 Rev A
West)
Type 1BF&2BF Floorplans (Scant Road CB_75_207_SRW_1BF2BF_P03 Rev A
West)
Type 4E Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_4E_E01 Rev A
Type 4E Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_4E_P01 Rev A
Type 3E Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3E_E01 Rev A
Type 3E Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3E_P01 Rev A
Type 3E Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3E_E02 Rev A
Type 3E Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_3E_P02 Rev A
Type 1BMA Elevations (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_1BMA_E01 Rev A
Type 1BMA Floorplans (Scant Road West) CB_75_207_SRW_1BMA_P01 Rev A
Garage Floorplans & Elevations 1 CB_75_207_GAR_01 Rev A
Garage Floorplans & Elevations 2 CB_75_207_GAR_02 Rev A
Garage Floorplans & Elevations 3 CB_75_207_GAR_03 Rev A
Garage Floorplans & Elevations 4 CB_75_207_GAR_04 Rev A
Bin Store Floorplans & Elevations CB_75_207_BIN_01 Rev A
Cycle Store Floorplans & Elevations CB_75_207_CYC_01 Rev A
Sub Station Floorplans & Elevations CB_75_207_SUB_01 Rev A
Retail & Business Resource Hub Elevations CB_75_207_RBRH_E01A Rev A
Retail & Business Resource Hub Elevations CB_75_207_RBRH_E02A Rev A
Retail & Business Resource Hub Elevations CB_75_207_RBRH_P01A Rev A
Retail & Business Resource Hub Elevations CB_75_207_RBRH_P02A Rev A
Schematic Drainage Layout A20107/0300 Rev P6
Central Public Open Space and LEAP 7151/ASP3/LSP Rev A
Insert
Proposed Access Arrangements and Off- A20107-201 Rev P4
Site Highway Works
Emergency Access General Arrangement A20107-101 Rev P4
Emergency Access Spot Levels & A20107-102 Rev P3
Longitudinal Sections