Case Reference: 3357015

Appeal Decision
Hearing opened on 23 April 2025
Site visit made on 24 April 2025
by C Carpenter BA MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 23 May 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/W/24/3357015
Land West of Mill Lane, Tye Green, Cressing, Braintree CM77 8HW
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Braintree District Council.
• The application Ref is 23/02534/FUL.
• The development proposed is 78 bungalows consisting of age-restricted (to over-55s) market
bungalows and unrestricted affordable bungalows; with the provision of c. 4 ha of open space,
community building, associated works and change of use from agricultural to domestic garden
(resubmission of 21/00749/FUL).
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 78 bungalows
consisting of bungalows for market sale with an age (over 55’s)/disability restriction
and affordable housing bungalows with no age/disability restriction; with the
provision of public open space, including allotments, community building,
associated works and the change of use of land from agricultural to domestic
garden at Land West of Mill Lane, Tye Green, Cressing, Braintree CM77 8HW in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/02534/FUL, and the plans
submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. The description in the banner heading is taken from the application form. The
parties have agreed a revised description that makes clear the market bungalows
would have both an age and disability restriction and includes reference to the
proposed allotments. These amendments clarify the development proposed and I
am satisfied there would be no procedural unfairness arising from them, so I have
used the revised description in my decision above. However, I have omitted the
unnecessary reference to a preceding withdrawn application.
3. Prior to the hearing, I accepted drawing Ref 36-22 Rev G in place of Rev F. This
omits additional land outside the red line boundary for the proposal, which is no
longer offered to the Parish Council (PC). The update provides clarity and
consistency of information but does not fundamentally change the scheme of
development and no party would be prejudiced by my taking it into account.
4. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updated in
December 2024. The parties had an opportunity before and during the hearing to
provide comments on the implications of the revised Framework for the appeal, and
I have considered these in my decision.
5. The Council has started work on a review of its Local Plan but has yet to consult on
a draft. Given this early stage of preparation, I give references to the emerging
revised Local Plan minimal weight.
Main Issues
6. A legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
(as amended) (s106 agreement) was submitted in draft before the hearing and
executed following discussion at it. The Council has stated the planning obligations
therein would satisfactorily address the concerns in its second reason for refusal. I
shall therefore consider these later in my decision.
7. Consequently, the main issues are those within the first refusal reason, namely:
• whether the site represents an appropriate location for housing having
regard to the spatial strategy for the area; and
• the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the
surrounding area.
8. In addition, I shall consider whether there is a five-year supply of deliverable
housing sites under main issues, as this is a disputed matter.
Reasons
Location
9. The spatial strategy for the area is set out in the North Essex Authorities’ Shared
Strategic Section 1 Local Plan 2021 (S1LP), the Braintree District Section 2 Local
Plan 2022 (S2LP) and the Cressing Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2020 (CPNP).
10. S1LP Policy SP3 sets the strategic context by identifying existing settlements as
the principal focus for additional growth across North Essex. It states development
will be accommodated within or adjoining settlements according to their scale,
sustainability and existing role, but delegates the distribution of housing growth and
identification of a settlement hierarchy to Section 2 Local Plans.
11. S2LP seeks to concentrate development on three towns and the A12/Great Eastern
Mainline corridor but allows for an appropriate amount to be brought forward in
larger villages to support thriving rural communities. The wording of S2LP Policy
LPP1 clearly differentiates between locations within and outside development
boundaries, notwithstanding supporting text that refers to these boundaries
providing a guide. The Policy restricts development outside development
boundaries to uses appropriate to the countryside. S2LP Policy LPP33 adds that
new specialist housing on unallocated sites in the countryside will not be supported.
12. CPNP Policy 7C supports new housing outside settlement boundaries by exception
where this comprises small-scale self-build or custom-build schemes. Where such
schemes are proposed, four additional criteria apply.
13. There is no dispute the appeal site is unallocated and falls outside the development
boundary of Tye Green, so is in the countryside for planning policy purposes. There
is also no suggestion the proposed residential use would be intrinsically appropriate
to a countryside location; or that it would comprise a self-build or custom-build
scheme, even if some of the other criteria in CPNP Policy 7C would be satisfied.
The proposal would therefore conflict with all the Policies referred to above.
14. That said, there are other considerations relevant to this issue. The range of local
services and facilities in Tye Green compares favourably with other Second Tier
Villages in the District. These would be readily accessible to future occupants of the
bungalows by foot or cycle because the site directly adjoins the settlement and its
network of footways and paths. Accessibility could be further improved by cycle
parking and additional dropped kerb/tactile paving crossings on Mill Lane, secured
via condition. These factors mean the housing would help maintain the vitality of
Tye Green as a rural community, through increased use of the local shop for
example, in accordance with Framework paragraph 83.
15. Moderately frequent bus services to Braintree and Witham would be within walking
distance, and a condition to secure an upgrade to the stops nearest the site would
help ensure appropriate facilities for additional users, including those travelling to
secondary school. Additional usage would also help maintain the bus service as a
rural facility. Furthermore, nearby Cressing Station provides direct access to the
Braintree to London branch line, although some would be reluctant to use this after
dark because of the short stretch of narrow, unlit road without footway.
16. Nevertheless, overall, the development would have good access to a range of
services and facilities via a genuine choice of transport modes, which accords with
the Framework’s transport objectives. A condition could require Residential Travel
Information Packs to promote these alternatives to the private car.
17. Taking all this together, I conclude the site does not represent an appropriate
location for housing, having regard to the spatial strategy for the area, contrary to
S1LP Policy S3, S2LP Policies LPP1 and LPP33, and CPNP Policy 7C. However,
the site’s edge of settlement location and relatively good accessibility for a
countryside location, and the scheme’s potential to support the local rural
community, mean only a moderate level of harm arises from this conflict.
Character and appearance
18. The Council clarified at the hearing that, notwithstanding the reference in its first
reason for refusal to a conflict with S2LP Policies LPP47 and LPP52, the harm it
had identified to the character and appearance of the surrounding area was not in
itself considered sufficient to justify the refusal.
19. Having regard to the Council’s Landscape Character Assessment1, the appeal site
is at the western edge of the Silver End Farmland Plateau, which is bounded by the
Braintree branch line. The site comprises characteristic farmland marked by
hedgerows, which can be clearly appreciated from the public right of way (PROW
20) that runs to its north. However, the site’s location between the railway line and
built edge of Tye Green, relatively flat topography and densely wooded border limit
its contribution to distant open landscape views and the wider landscape setting of
the settlement. This is confirmed in later analysis2, which notes the site falls into the
lower parts of area B2, where enclosure provided by landform and vegetation and
dominant transmission towers and power lines reduce its overall visual sensitivity.
20. The development would increase the area of built form that lies to the north-west of
Mill Lane. However, much of the northern section of that lane already has a settled
character derived from the regular and relatively tight-knit pattern of development
1 Landscape Character of Braintree District 2006
2 Braintree District Settlement Fringes - Evaluation of Landscape Analysis Study of Braintree and Environs for Braintree District
Council, The Landscape Partnership 2015
that has evolved to both sides of it. In addition, the form, layout, design and
appearance of the bungalows would complement that of the dwellings around it,
notwithstanding the ‘ribbon’ formation to the immediate north. This would accord
with S2LP Policy LPP52, where it requires the scale and layout of buildings and
their overall elevational design to reflect the area’s local distinctiveness.
21. There would be localised visual harm resulting from the introduction of built form on
the site, loss of openness in near views from PROW 20 and unavoidable
interruption to the hedgerow bordering Mill Lane to create access. That said, soft
landscaping secured by condition would provide a degree of mitigation over time.
Retained hedgerows and distance mean there would be little adverse visual impact
on the ‘protected lane’ status of Bulford Mill Lane and southern section of Mill Lane.
22. The considerable area of open space retained between the bungalows and the
railway line would clearly define the new settlement edge and maintain its verdant
setting. There is no suggestion the proposal would result in coalescence with Black
Notley on the other side of the Brain Valley. I therefore find the new development
would continue the gradual expansion of Tye Green without material detriment to
its morphology, the overall settlement pattern or distant landscape views. The
proposal would therefore respect and respond to the local context in general
accordance with S2LP Policy LPP47.
23. Taking all this together, I conclude there would be limited harm to the character and
appearance of the surrounding area. However, the proposal would accord overall
with the provisions of S2LP Policies LPP47 and LPP52 for the reasons given.
Five-year housing land supply
24. The five-year housing land supply (5YHLS) period of 2024-2029 and corresponding
requirement of 4,074 dwellings, including cumulative shortfall and 5 per cent buffer,
are agreed between the parties. Against this, the Council finds a deliverable supply
of 4,167 dwellings or 5.11 years, whilst the appellant finds 3,658 dwellings or 4.49
years. The parties disagree about the deliverability and/or timing of development on
six sites and whether to include a windfall allowance in year 3 of the 5YHLS period.
I shall address each disputed matter in turn, having regard to the Framework’s
definition of ‘deliverable’ and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)3.
13-17 Bank Street
25. This town centre site has detailed planning permission for conversion of vacant
space above commercial premises to six flats. The parties agree the development
has commenced and permission is extant, although there is no active work on site.
An application for six flats with a revised layout has recently been submitted, which
I understand includes an explanation for the delay. Although conditions attached to
the original permission are yet to be discharged, this new application indicates the
developer’s intent to pursue the conversion. Whether or not the new application is
approved, there is no clear evidence the conversion will not be delivered within five
years. I therefore include these six dwellings in the 5YHLS.
Cottons Farm, Sculpins Lane
26. The parties agree detailed planning permission for one dwelling has been
technically implemented and remains extant. On the evidence before me, the site
3 Ref Paragraph: 007 Reference ID: 68-007-20190722
owner has sought to increase the capacity of the wider site through subsequent
applications. Although some have been unsuccessful, prior approval for conversion
of outbuildings was granted some six months ago. This indicates ongoing interest
in developing the wider site. There is no clear evidence the one dwelling in question
will not be delivered within five years as part of this, so I include it in the supply.
Land east of Broad Road, Straits Mill Strategic Growth Location
27. This site has outline planning consent for up to 1,000 units with reserved matters
(RM) for phase 1 infrastructure approved in January 2024. In August 2024, an
Inspector4 found a realistic prospect 40 units would be completed in 2027/28. A
further RM application and a non-material amendment have since been approved
and I understand the developer is discussing a Planning Performance Agreement
(PPA) to manage future RM applications and discharge of conditions. Although
purchase of the site is yet to be completed, there is clear evidence of ongoing
developer activity, and I see no compelling reason why further RM applications
could not be submitted later this year as the Council expects.
28. The developer’s forecast in April 2025 is 254 units delivered between July 2024
and June 2029. The Council has made a more conservative estimate of 40 homes
in year 4 and 100 homes in year 5. On the evidence of progress before me, I agree
there is a realistic prospect of 140 completed dwellings within five years.
Land off Bournebridge Hill, Greenstead Green
29. The parties agree this site with outline consent is deliverable but disagree about the
developer’s predicted timescales. A PPA is in place and on 22 April 2025 the
Council resolved to approve RM and several of the outline planning conditions for
the development of 197 dwellings. This decision came three months earlier than
assumed by the appellant. Given this, I find a realistic prospect of commencement
to the timescale anticipated by the Council and that 50 dwellings could be
completed each year from 2026/27. I therefore include 150 homes in the 5YHLS.
Land north of London Road, Kelvedon
30. This site has outline consent for up to 300 dwellings, a health centre, care home
and other facilities. RM have been approved for construction access roads and a
RM application for 300 homes and the health centre was submitted in March 2025.
Assuming this is approved by late June, the developer expects to start works on
site in autumn 2025. The NHS has confirmed its approval process for the health
centre could complete by end of October 2025. The parties agree a care home
provider is involved, although a RM application for this part of the scheme is
expected separately. Nevertheless, triggers in the s106 agreement relating to the
health centre, care home and other facilities provide an incentive for the developer
to maintain delivery momentum.
31. Given this and information before me about the developer’s business model, I find
a realistic prospect the developer’s anticipated build-out programme could be
achieved. However, as this extends to June rather than March 2029, I shall deduct
one quarter of anticipated completions for year five and include 280 individual
dwellings only. As regards the 66-bedspace care home, application of a 1.9
household ratio means only 35 units can be counted in the supply. This quantum
4 Ref APP/Z1510/W/23/3331319
has already been factored into the Council’s overall calculations. I therefore include
315 units in total from this site, which is 20 units less than assumed by the Council.
Land at Woodend Farm
32. The parties agree initial completions on this site with outline consent would be
expected in June 2027 but dispute the anticipated annual build-out rate. An email
from the developer dated April 2025 states they expect 100-120 dwellings per
annum given the characteristics of the site and early timing of strategic
infrastructure to support it. I see no compelling reason to apply the appellant’s more
pessimistic assumption, which is based on an average build-out rate for the District
across a variety of site sizes and developer types. Based on its knowledge of the
site and developer in this case, the Council has conservatively estimated 75 units in
year 4 and 115 in year 5. I find this realistic and include 190 units in the supply.
Windfall allowance
33. The Council’s evidence shows a steady windfall supply since adoption of S2LP, at
a rate higher than assumed in its windfall allowance. Further, its analysis of windfall
permissions during the five years from 2019/20 shows about a quarter were
completed within one and three years of permission being granted. The appellant’s
re-interpretation of this data assumes some permissions pre-date the base period
so would be double counted. However, there is no convincing evidence to support
this assumption or the suggestion that other local planning authorities also make it.
The Inspector in the High Garrett appeal5 accepted the distinction between
identified small sites included in the Council’s five-year supply and unidentified sites
that will arise through the submission of planning applications after the base date
for the five-year period. I see no reason to find otherwise in this appeal.
Consequently, I am satisfied the 75-unit windfall allowance in year 3 is appropriate.
Conclusion on 5YHLS
34. Taking all this together, I find 20 fewer deliverable units than the Council, resulting
in a supply of 4,147 dwellings or 5.09 years. I therefore conclude there is currently
a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites in the District. I will return to the
implications of this under planning balance.
Planning obligations
35. I shall consider the planning obligations in the s106 agreement against the statutory
tests for their use6 and paragraph 58 of the Framework.
Specialist housing
36. The PPG recognises the critical need to provide housing for older people given the
ageing population; that offering older people a better choice of accommodation to
suit their changing needs can help them live independently for longer and feel more
connected to their communities; and that this can include age-restricted general
market housing for those aged 55 and over and the active elderly. The Council has
identified a need for older persons’ housing in the District, as well as a need for
more housing suitable for disabled people.
5 Ref APP/Z1510/W/21/3278620
6 In Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 (as amended)
37. The appellant describes the target market for their product as the active elderly
wishing to downsize to modern, low-maintenance, accessible and adaptable homes
within a supportive community. They refer to an informal waiting list from their other
developments of this type in the region. Recent additions to the supply of older
persons’ housing in the District primarily comprise supported living schemes and
care homes, with little age-restricted market housing.
38. These factors persuade me there would be a demand for the proposed dwellings,
and the scheme would broaden the choice of housing for older people in and
around Braintree, as envisaged by the PPG. This is notwithstanding that some in
their late 50’s may prefer non-age restricted housing, such as the general market
bungalows already in Tye Green; that future occupants would need to travel to
neighbouring settlements for healthcare services; or the proximity of pylons. The
development would also help address the identified local need for housing for
disabled people.
39. A planning obligation to restrict occupation of the market bungalows to persons
aged 55+ or those with a disability or their surviving partner/resident dependents is
therefore necessary to secure the market homes as specialist housing in
perpetuity. I am also satisfied it meets the other statutory tests. Furthermore, this is
a benefit that adds significant weight in favour of the proposal.
Affordable housing
40. S2LP Policy LPP31 requires 40 per cent affordable housing on sites, like this one,
that are not in or directly adjacent to a main town. The s106 agreement includes a
planning obligation to secure 40 per cent of the new dwellings as affordable in
perpetuity, through transfer to a Registered Provider of affordable housing (RP).
The appellant has received offers from a small number of RPs and the Council has
tested this and found credible RP interest. Nevertheless, the obligation includes a
cascade mechanism to allow a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision in
case an RP cannot be found to take the units at a viable price. This is a reasonable
fall-back position allowed for in Policy LPP31.
41. I recognise annual affordable housing completions in the District have increased
since S2LP was adopted and are projected to exceed the indicative level of annual
need for the next five years and make up an historic shortfall. However, the level of
affordable housing need underpinning S2LP Policy LPP31 is based on evidence
published in 2015 and 2016, now nearly ten years old. The appellant has presented
credible evidence that affordability ratios in the area have materially worsened
since then and that the number of affordable housing applicants in the District
remains high.
42. I acknowledge these current local affordability pressures will be factored into the
new standard method formula to be used for assessing overall housing need, which
will be a matter for the new Local Plan in due course. Nevertheless, adoption of
that Plan is not imminent, and any additional affordable housing secured through it
would follow later. The provision of 31 affordable bungalows in the appeal scheme
would help address affordable housing needs that exist now, likely in a shorter
timescale. This would benefit younger people struggling to find housing, which
would in turn help create a mix of ages within the development. Moreover, even if
Cressing Parish itself does not have many priority applicants, the new affordable
housing would be available to those in need across the District.
43. For the above reasons, I find this obligation necessary and fairly and reasonably
related to the development in scale and kind. Further, it has significant weight as a
benefit of the proposal.
Local infrastructure provision
44. CPNP Policy 11 requires new development to contribute towards the provision of
relevant infrastructure in the Parish, the list of which at CPNP Table 4 includes
additional amenity green space, allotments and a new community hall. S2LP Policy
LPP50 also requires provision of additional open space.
45. Planning obligations secure the provision and maintenance of a substantial new
area of publicly accessible open space with play area, as well as allotments and a
community building on the site. The open space is to be transferred to a
Management Company, and the allotments and community building would be
offered to the PC for a nominal sum. If the PC decline the offer, there is a cascade
mechanism whereby additional allotments and/or open space would be provided
instead.
46. I note the PC’s preference in this case for a community building that provides
health and medical services. In response, the local NHS Integrated Care Board
(ICB) has advised that, whilst a satellite surgery would not be feasible, a new
community facility could assist with delivery of social prescribing services to support
health and well-being. Allotments and open space would provide further health and
well-being benefits for both future occupants and the wider community. Shared use
of these facilities would also help foster community integration and cohesion, and
the open space would improve public access to the wider countryside and public
footpath network. If the PC decline the facilities, supplementary public open space
would still give rise to appreciable benefits.
47. I therefore find these obligations are necessary to comply with the above Policies
and make the development acceptable in planning terms, as well as satisfying the
other statutory tests. In addition, the direct provision of facilities for which there is
an identified local need, and the resulting health, well-being and community
benefits, add substantial weight in favour of the scheme.
Strategic infrastructure
48. The affordable dwellings would generate additional demand for school places in the
area. Essex County Council (ECC) has compared the expected child yield to the
availability of local provision and identified the need for financial contributions to
mitigate anticipated shortfalls, based on the approach set out in its Guide to
Infrastructure Contributions 2024. This document also provides an agreed basis for
calculating the contribution per dwelling to allow for additional demand on ECC’s
statutory library service.
49. In relation to health infrastructure, the ICB states surgeries within the local Primary
Care Network do not have capacity to accommodate the additional demand from
up to 187 new residents. It requires a financial contribution towards expansion of
surgery capacity, calculated according to an agreed methodology.
50. These financial contributions would increase the capacity of public services in the
area and thereby address S1LP Policy S6 and S2LP Policy LPP78, which require
development to provide infrastructure to serve or otherwise mitigate the needs
arising from it. The evidence provided also satisfies me the obligations are fairly
and reasonably related to it in scale and kind. However, as they would do no more
than mitigate impacts of the scheme, these contributions do not add weight in
favour of it.
Mitigation of effect on protected European sites
51. The appeal site lies within the Zone of Influence of the Essex Estuaries Special
Area of Conservation (SAC) and Blackwater Estuary Special Protection Area
(SPA)/Ramsar site. The SAC and SPA are European sites protected under the
Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations).
Under the Habitats Regulations, an appropriate assessment is required in relation
to the effect of the development on the integrity of the sites. This responsibility falls
to me as competent authority in the context of this appeal.
52. The SAC is a coastal estuarine system with associated mudflats, sandflats,
sandbanks and inter-tidal zones. Its qualifying features include annuals that
colonise mud and sand, cord-grass swards, salt meadows and scrubs. The SPA
supports nationally and internationally important populations of breeding and
migratory bird species, such as the Little Tern, Hen Harrier, Ringed Plover and
Dark-bellied Brent Goose. The sites’ conservation objectives are to ensure their
integrity, including the extent, distribution, structure, function and supporting
processes of the habitats, and population and distribution within the sites of each of
the qualifying features, is maintained or restored.
53. There is a threat to the sites from increased recreational activity, such as walking,
water sports, fishing and bait-digging, which would disturb their qualifying habitats
and species. It is likely the occupants of the proposed dwellings would make use of
the sites for recreational activity, thereby increasing levels of recreational
disturbance. Such an increase, alone or in combination with other plans and
projects, would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the sites.
54. The parties have agreed a financial contribution in accordance with the Essex
Coast Recreational disturbance Avoidance and Mitigation Strategy (RAMS) and
associated Essex Coast RAMS Supplementary Planning Document. The sum
would be put towards a programme of strategic mitigation measures. Natural
England (NE) has been consulted as part of this appropriate assessment and has
confirmed the Essex Coast RAMS measures are sufficient to avoid an adverse
impact on the integrity of the SAC and SPA.
55. The planning obligation to secure this mitigation is therefore necessary to make the
development acceptable in planning terms and accord with S1LP Policy SP2, which
seeks mitigation in accordance with the Essex Coast RAMS. It is directly related to
the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. However, as
required mitigation it adds no positive weight to the proposal.
Other
56. An obligation is necessary to ensure the Council can collect refuse and recycling
from the dwellings using roads that have not been adopted by the Highway
Authority (HA). Another deals with the transfer of an area of land around the
dwelling known as Colwood House to the owner of that property or, if declined,
secures the land as additional open space. The buffer is necessary to achieve an
acceptable relationship between the existing and proposed dwellings and protect
the living conditions of their respective occupiers. I am satisfied both obligations
meet the statutory tests.
57. For the above reasons, I find all the planning obligations accord with the statutory
tests and I have taken them into account in my decision.
Other Matters
58. The Grade II listed buildings known as Bulford Farmhouse and Bulford Barns lie to
the west of the site, on the other side of the railway line and a wooded area. They
date from the early 18th century, with later alterations. The Farmhouse has a timber
frame, weatherboard and plaster exterior and gambrel roof of handmade red tiles.
Bulford Barns has a timber frame, weatherboarding and a butt-purlin roof. The
extent and quality of the buildings’ surviving fabric make them good examples of
the area’s historic farmsteads. Their significance is therefore both historic and
architectural, with further group value derived from their previous functional
relationship, although Bulford Barns has been converted to residential use.
59. The immediate setting of the listed buildings includes the woods and irregular fields
around them, which contribute to their significance as part of their landscape and
functional context. The appeal site is within this context, but the later addition of the
intervening railway line with boundary planting means the site’s contribution to
appreciation of the listed buildings’ significance is very limited. There is also
minimal intervisibility between the appeal site and these heritage assets.
Consequently, the proposed development would preserve the setting of the listed
buildings, with no harm to their significance.
60. Grade II listed Jeffrey’s Farmhouse, on the opposite side of Bulford Mill Lane, was
built between the 14th and 17th centuries, with later extensions and alterations. It
comprises a hall with two cross wings, with surviving historic features such as
chimney stacks, bays and hand-made tiles that contribute to the building’s
significance as an example of vernacular rural architecture. The Farmhouse is set
amongst its gardens and ancillary buildings, including a series of large barns which
historically formed the working farmyard. The wider setting includes irregular
agricultural fields, but this has evolved as the settlement of Tye Green has grown.
The historic and architectural significance of the Farmhouse is best appreciated
from its close, private setting and the immediately adjoining section of Mill Lane.
61. Any historic functional relationship between the Farmhouse and the appeal site is
not clearly legible in the current landscape, which has changed through residential
development along Mill Lane. The contribution of the appeal site to the listed
building’s setting is therefore limited. The Farmhouse is also screened from the
appeal site by the intervening large, converted barn and boundary planting. The
proposed development would not adversely affect the Farmhouse’s close setting or
materially diminish appreciation of its significance. I therefore find its setting would
be preserved, with no harm to the significance of the heritage asset.
62. Just under half the appeal site is Grade 3a best and most versatile (BMV)
agricultural land, and the rest is Grade 3b. As most agricultural land in the District is
BMV, the main parties agree there would be only limited harm from the relatively
modest loss of such land arising from the proposal. On the evidence before me, I
see no reason to disagree. I will consider this harm further under planning balance.
63. In addition to future occupiers’ use of local services and facilities, noted above,
there would be a benefit to the local economy from construction of 78 dwellings, to
which I give moderate weight owing to the scale of the proposed development.
64. Biodiversity enhancements set out in the appellant’s Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal (PEA) and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Feasibility Report would result in
a BNG of more than ten per cent. This would include features such as scrub, a
wildflower meadow, replacement hedgerow, trees, grassland and hedgehog
friendly fences, to encourage reptiles, foraging bats, small mammals, invertebrates
and birds. Given the extent of the site and level of gain proposed, the BNG is a
benefit that adds moderate positive weight to the proposal.
65. Concerns have been raised about the effect of the development on the ecology of
the appeal site. Based on the findings and recommendations of the PEA and
associated surveys, I am satisfied any adverse effects on protected species could
be avoided or adequately mitigated via conditions. I am also satisfied retained trees
could be adequately protected during construction. Past ploughing of the field is
covered by another regulatory regime, outside my jurisdiction.
66. Issues with surface water drainage in the vicinity of the appeal site have been
brought to my attention, with concerns the proposed development would aggravate
these. The proposal includes a surface water management scheme comprising
swales and attenuation basins within the open space to the west of the dwellings.
This is north of the existing property known as Mill House.
67. The appellant’s Flood Risk Assessment 2021 and Addendum 2023 confirm there
would be sufficient attenuation capacity to manage rainfall events up to the 1 in 100
annual probability storm, inclusive of allowances for climate change and ‘creep’
from factors such as residential extensions. There is no alternative technical
evidence to substantiate the suggestion that excess flood water would run into Mill
House. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied the proposed development would
not aggravate existing issues and could potentially ameliorate them, subject to a
condition to secure scheme details, implementation and monitoring as
recommended by the Lead Local Flood Authority.
68. The Council has raised no concern with the living conditions of future occupiers, so
long as it can exercise control over the effect of future proposed extensions on
private external amenity space. A condition to limit permitted development rights
could achieve this and I see no reason to disagree with this approach.
69. The ECC in its capacity as HA has raised no objection to the proposal in relation to
highway safety or the capacity of the local road network. I note residents’ detailed
concerns were brought to the HA’s attention during its discussions with the Council.
National Highways has also raised no objection. There is no technical evidence
before me that would lead me to conclude otherwise on this matter.
70. There would inevitably be some disruption during the construction period. However,
this would be temporary and would be mitigated by a Construction Management
Plan that could be the subject of a condition. There is no pertinent evidence that
local water or electricity supply would be adversely affected or that financial
difficulties would inhibit scheme delivery.
Planning Balance
71. Notwithstanding accordance with S2LP Policies LPP47 and LPP52, the conflict I
have identified with S1LP Policy S3, S2LP Policies LPP1 and LPP33 and CPNP
Policy 7 results in a conflict with the development plan read as a whole.
72. The spatial strategy Policies listed above are most important for determining this
appeal. They are up to date because they set out an overall strategy for the pattern
of development and make sufficient provision for homes in accordance with the
Framework. This is confirmed by the Council’s current ability to demonstrate a
5YHLS and its good recent performance in the Housing Delivery Test. The relevant
S1LP and S2LP Policies are also less than five years old. Consequently,
Framework paragraph 11d) is not engaged.
73. However, the District’s housing requirement of 716 dwellings per annum (dpa) is
set in S1LP, which will become five years old in February 2026. The Council does
not dispute its new local housing need figure, calculated according to the standard
method7, will be substantially higher than 716 dpa; or that it will need to plan for this
higher level of need in the review of its Local Plan. On the Council’s evidence, the
earliest the reviewed Plan could be adopted would be December 2026.
Consequently, according to Framework paragraph 78, the District’s 5YHLS will be
assessed against the higher housing need figure in under one year’s time. Given
limited ‘headroom’ in the current 5YHLS, it is likely the supply could fall below five
years before the new Plan is in place.
74. This important consideration leads me to give considerable weight to the provision
of 78 additional dwellings. When I factor in the significant weight of providing
specialist and affordable housing as benefits of the proposal, I find the overall
positive weight of housing delivery in this case is substantial, notwithstanding the
contribution to housing delivery in the District already made by Cressing Parish. I
have also given substantial weight to the provision of local infrastructure including
the community building, allotments and open space, and moderate weight to BNG
and the economic benefits of the scheme.
75. I have found moderate harm from the conflict with the spatial strategy and limited
harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. There would also
be limited harm from the loss of a modest area of BMV. However, these harms are
more than outweighed by the collective weight of the benefits of the development.
76. I have considered the planning balance in the other appeal decisions brought to my
attention by Cressing Action Group8. I recognise that, even where the Inspectors in
those cases did not find a 5YHLS, the balance of harms and benefits led them to
dismiss the appeals. However, those appeals pre-date the particular combination of
housing supply considerations noted above. Nor do the Inspectors in those cases
identify the same levels of harm or combination of benefits, such as specialist
housing and local infrastructure provision identified in a Neighbourhood Plan, that I
have found in this appeal. Consequently, the circumstances in those cases are not
directly comparable to those before me. I have determined this appeal on its
individual merits.
7 PPG Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 2a-002-20241212
8 Refs APP/Z1510/W/3325050, APP/Z1510/W/24/3338229, APP/Z1510/W/23/3331319, APP/Z1510/W/24/3341618
Conditions
77. I have considered the conditions put forward by the main parties following
discussion at the hearing. I have amended the wording where necessary in the
interests of clarity and simplicity. I have also listed the conditions in the order they
will need to be satisfied to aid comprehension. The appellant has given their written
consent to the pre-commencement conditions.
78. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring
that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is
in the interest of certainty.
79. A condition securing site level details is necessary to mitigate effects on the living
conditions of neighbouring occupiers and on the character and appearance of the
area. A condition relating to management of surface water run-off during
construction is necessary to mitigate flood and groundwater pollution risks while
works take place. A further condition securing the detailed surface water drainage
scheme for the final development is necessary to manage flood risk on the site in
the long term. These are pre-commencement conditions because the relevant
details have implications for the way the development will be constructed.
80. A condition relating to archaeology is necessary to preserve and record any
archaeological heritage on the site. The conditions requiring approval of a
Construction Management Plan and Construction Environmental Management Plan
are necessary to protect living conditions, ensure highway safety and mitigate
impacts on biodiversity during construction. Conditions securing details of footway
transitions and crossing points on Mill Lane are also necessary in the interests of
highway safety. These are all pre-commencement conditions because the
measures need to be agreed before construction works start, so effective mitigation
can be achieved while construction takes place.
81. A condition securing previously agreed tree protection measures is necessary to
mitigate construction impacts on trees and in the interests of the character and
appearance of the area and biodiversity. A condition restricting construction hours
is necessary to protect the living conditions of nearby residents.
82. A condition requiring approval of a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan is
necessary to ensure the proposed level of BNG is achieved, monitored and
maintained. It is a pre-commencement condition because the BNG baseline needs
to be established before works affect the site’s biodiversity status. Conditions to
secure a Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy for species-related enhancements is
necessary to complement the BNG in habitats. Conditions relating to the Lighting
Scheme and Landscape and Ecological Management Plan are necessary to protect
bats and put in place arrangements for long-term ecological management of the
site.
83. Conditions to approve details of materials, means of enclosure, meter cupboards
and landscaping are necessary to integrate the appearance of the development
into the surrounding area. Conditions to remove permitted development rights for
extensions and alterations are necessary for the same reason and to protect the
living conditions of future occupiers of the bungalows as noted above. Conditions
requiring compliance with the Building Regulations optional requirements for
accessible and adaptable and wheelchair user dwellings are necessary to accord
with S2LP Policy LPP35.
84. Conditions securing access to the development, cycle parking, bus stop upgrades
and Residential Travel Information Packs are necessary for highway safety and to
promote alternatives to the private car. The latter could raise awareness of safety
on level crossings and include vouchers for use with relevant local public transport
operators. A condition requiring provision of field gate access to the land to the
north of the site is necessary to allow occasional farm access and management.
Conclusion
85. I have found the proposal conflicts with the development plan, read as a whole.
However, other material considerations, including the Framework, indicate that a
decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the
appeal should be allowed.
C Carpenter
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Ned Helme Counsel
Richard Winsborough Planning Director, [APPELLANT]
Martin Scott Managing Director, [APPELLANT]
Steven Butterworth Senior Director, Lichfields
Michael Lowndes Senior Director, Lichfields
Harry Bennett Associate Director, Lichfields
Bethan Haynes Associate Director, Lichfields
James Harris Associate Director, Lichfields
Nigel Cowlin Director, Nigel Cowlin Ltd
Marie Griffiths Legal Manager
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY (LPA):
Robert Williams Counsel
Chris Tivey Area Manager, Development Management
Neil Jones Principal Planner (s106 and Infrastructure)
Alan Massow Principal Planning Policy Officer
Kathryn Carpenter Senior Planning Policy Officer
Joanna Lilliott Solicitor, Holmes & Hill
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Richard & Penny Pilbrow Local residents and Cressing Action Group
Mike Moser Local resident
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING AND AFTER THE HEARING
DOC1 Council’s final 5-year housing land supply schedule and attachments
dated 22 April 2025
DOC2 Statement of Mr Mike Moser
DOC3 BLP2 Policies Map Inset 20
DOC4 ECC Developers’ Guide to Infrastructure Contributions - Revised 2024
DOC5 Updated list of suggested conditions dated 30 April 2025
DOC6 Executed s106 agreement dated 6 May 2025
Schedule of conditions
Time limits and drawings
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
drawing nos:
BBS- BB- EGL- SU- 01 - Existing Ground Level Survey Sheet 1
BBS- BB- EGL- SU- 02 - Existing Ground Level Survey Sheet 2
BBS- BB- EGL- SU- 03 - Existing Ground Level Survey Sheet 3
BBS- BB- EGL- SU- 04 - Existing Ground Level Survey Sheet 4
BBS- BB- EGL- SU- 05 - Existing Ground Level Survey Sheet 5
BBS- BB- EGL- SU- 06 - Existing Ground Level Survey Sheet 6
BBS- BB- EGL- SU- 07 - Existing Ground Level Survey Sheet 7
BBS- BB- EGL- SU- 08 - Existing Ground Level Survey Sheet 8
BBS- BB- EGL- SU- 09 - Existing Ground Level Survey Sheet 9
BBS- BB- EGL- SU- 10 - Existing Ground Level Survey Sheet 10
BBS- BB- EGL- SU- 11 - Existing Ground Level Survey Sheet 11
BBS- BB- EGL- SU- 12 - Existing Ground Level Survey Sheet 12
36-32 Rev A Location Plan
36-22 Rev G Masterplan
36-11 Rev F House Type Identification Plan
36-12 Rev F Housing Mix and Tenure Plan
36-14 Rev F Parking Plan
36-15 Rev F Refuse Strategy Plan
36-16 Rev G Garden Size Plan
36-17 Rev F Materials Plan
36-18 Rev H Boundary Treatment Plan
36-47 Rev Highways Visibility Plan
36-48 Rev Highways Amendments Plan
36-49 Rev A Tree Protection & Removal Plan
6620.EC.AR/001/Rev 2 Tree Constraints Plan
Y421.PL.SK/201/Rev H Proposed Access
36-COM-01 Rev B Community Building Floor Plan & Elevations
36-2B-03 Rev B 2 Bed Floor Plan & Elevations
36-2B-07 Rev 2 Bed Floor Plan & Elevations
36-3B-02 Rev A 3 Bed M4(3b) Floor Plan & Elevations
36-AZA-02 Rev B Azalea Floor Plans and Elevations
36-AZA-07 Rev Azalea Floor Plans and Elevations
36-AZA-08 Rev Azalea Floor Plans and Elevations
36-BEG-04 Rev B Begonia Floor Plans & Elevations
36-CAM-01 Rev B Camellia Floor Plans & Elevations
36-CAM-02 Rev A Camellia Floor Plans & Elevations
36-GAR-01 Rev B Garage Floor Plans & Elevations
36-GAR-02 Rev Garage Floor Plans & Elevations
36-GAR-03 Rev Garage Floor Plans & Elevations
36-JAS-08 Rev Jasmine Floor Plans & Elevations
36-JAS-10 Rev B Jasmine Floor Plans & Elevations
36-JAS-11 Rev B Jasmine Floor Plans & Elevations
36-JAS-13 Rev B Jasmine Floor Plans & Elevations
36-JAS-14 Rev Jasmine Floor Plans & Elevations
36-JUN-02 Rev C Juniper Floor Plans & Elevations
36-JUN-05 Rev Juniper Floor Plans & Elevations
36-LIL-04 Rev B Lily Floor Plans & Elevations
36-LIL-09 Rev Lily Floor Plans & Elevations
36-LIL-10 Rev Lily Floor Plans & Elevations
36-MAG-02 Rev B Magnolia Floor Plans & Elevations
36-MAG-07 Rev Magnolia Floor Plans & Elevations
36-BLO-01 Rev B Semi-Detached Block Floor Plans & Elevations
36-BLO-02 Rev B Semi-Detached Block Floor Plans & Elevations
36-BLO-08 Rev Semi-Detached Block Floor Plans & Elevations
36-BLO-04 Rev B Terrace Block Floor Plans & Elevations
36-VIB-04 Rev C Viburnum Floor Plans & Elevations
36-WIS-07 Rev B Wisteria Floor Plans & Elevations
36-SS-01 Rev B Street Scene
Pre-commencement
3) Notwithstanding condition 2, no development shall take place until the
following information has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority:
i) a full topographical site survey showing existing levels including the
datum used to calibrate the site levels, levels along all site boundaries,
levels across the site at regular intervals, and levels of adjoining
buildings and their gardens; and
ii) full details of the proposed finished floor levels of all buildings,
proposed garden levels, proposed levels along all site boundaries, and
proposed levels for all hard and soft landscaped surfaces.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
4) No development shall take place until:
i) an archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority;
and
ii) any necessary safeguarding measures to ensure the preservation in
situ of important archaeological remains and/or further archaeological
investigation and recording identified in the WSI have been
undertaken in accordance with a specification and timetable that shall
first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority.
The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved
details within the WSI.
5) No development shall take place until a Construction Management Plan has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
Construction Management Plan shall include the following details:
i) parking provision for operatives and contractors within the site;
ii) safe access into/out of the site;
iii) measures to manage the routing of construction traffic and details of
hours of associated vehicle movements;
iv) storage of plant, materials and top soil;
v) erection and maintenance of security hoardings including decorative
displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;
vi) wheel washing and underbody washing facilities;
vii) measures to control dust, dirt and mud during construction;
viii)a scheme to control noise and vibration during construction, including
details of any piling operations;
ix) a scheme for recycling/disposing of construction waste;
x) an implementation plan including contact details for individuals
responsible for ensuring compliance; and
xi) Site Manager contact details and how these will be made available to
local residents.
The approved Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to
throughout the construction period for the development.
6) No development shall take place until a Construction Environmental
Management Plan: Biodiversity (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall include the
following details:
i) risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities;
ii) identification of ‘biodiversity protection zone’;
iii) practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working
practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction;
iv) use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs;
v) the location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity
features;
vi) the times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be
present on site to oversee works;
vii) responsible persons and lines of communication; and
viii)the role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works
(ECoW) or similarly competent person.
The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the
construction period for the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the local planning authority.
7) No development shall take place until a Habitat Management and Monitoring
Plan (HMMP) to provide a minimum biodiversity net gain of 10.38% in area
habitat units and 15.34% in hedgerow habitat units (together “the Biodiversity
Units”) has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning
authority. The net biodiversity impact of the development shall be measured
in accordance with the Government’s biodiversity metric 4.0 and the HMMP
shall include:
i) proposals for the actions/works necessary to provide the Biodiversity
Units (“the Habitat Creation and Enhancement Works”);
ii) a timetable for completion of the Habitat Creation and Enhancement
Works;
iii) details of the evidence to be provided to the local planning authority to
confirm completion of the Habitat Creation and Enhancement Works
and their “Completion Date”;
iv) details of management and monitoring arrangements for the
Biodiversity Units including 30-year objectives, management
responsibilities, funding arrangements, maintenance schedules,
monitoring reports to be submitted to the local planning authority, and
arrangements for carrying out any rectifying measures identified; and
v) a mechanism to review the HMMP every five years and agree
amendments with the local planning authority.
The development shall be implemented in full accordance with the approved
HMMP and any subsequent agreed amendments. No more than 70 dwellings
shall be occupied until the Habitat Creation and Enhancement Works have
been completed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority. The
Biodiversity Units shall be maintained in accordance with the approved
HMMP for a period of not less than 30 years from the Completion Date.
8) No development shall take place until a scheme to minimise the risk of
groundwater pollution and/or off-site flooding caused by surface water run-off
during construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. Construction shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details.
9) No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage
scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an
assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the
development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The submitted details shall:
i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the
method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged
from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the
receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;
ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and
iii) provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the
development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any
public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to
secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved
details. The sustainable drainage system shall be managed and maintained
thereafter in accordance with the approved management and maintenance
plan.
10) Notwithstanding condition 2, no development shall take place until layout
drawings have been revised, submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority to show the footway transitions extended beyond the raised
table ramp adjacent to plots 13 and 24. The development shall be carried out
in accordance with the approved layout drawings.
11) Notwithstanding condition 2, no development shall take place until the location
and details of the 2no. pairs of dropped kerb/tactile paving crossing points in
Mill Lane as shown in principle on the planning application drawings, and any
consequential works including to the adjacent hedgerow, have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
crossing points shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
During construction
12) Site clearance, groundworks and construction work, including starting of
machinery and delivery of materials, shall take place only between
0800-1800 on Mondays to Fridays and 0800-1300 on Saturdays and not at
any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.
13) Construction shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved
Arboricultural Survey and Implications Assessment and Tree Protection Plan
Ref 6620,EC,AR/AIA,TC/RF,AC/03-06-24/V7 by Geosphere Environmental
Ltd. The local planning authority shall be notified in writing and arrangements
for the pre-commencement site meeting shall be made at least 21 days prior
to commencement of any works on site. Arboricultural monitoring shall
thereafter be undertaken by the Project Arboricultural Consultant (PAC)
every four months. Following each site inspection during the construction
period the PAC shall submit a report to the local planning authority.
Before work above ground commences
14) Notwithstanding condition 2, no development above ground shall take place
until samples of the materials to be used on the external finishes of the
buildings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing
by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in
accordance with the approved details.
15) No development above ground shall take place until a Biodiversity
Enhancement Strategy prepared by a suitably qualified ecologist, in line with
the recommendations of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal
Ref 4032,EC,DS/PEA/KL,RF/01-03-21/V4 by Geosphere Environmental Ltd,
has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy shall include the following:
i) purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed enhancement
measures;
ii) detailed designs or product descriptions to achieve stated objectives;
iii) locations, orientations and heights of proposed enhancement
measures with reference to maps and plans where relevant;
iv) an implementation and maintenance plan, including details of the
timetable for implementation of the enhancement measures, of their
initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant), and of
the persons responsible for implementation and maintenance.
The enhancement measures in the Biodiversity Enhancement Strategy shall
be implemented and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with
the approved implementation and maintenance plan.
16) No development above ground shall take place until a Lighting Scheme
designed to promote personal safety and protect living conditions and the
night-time landscape and biodiversity has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The Lighting Scheme shall include the
following details:
i) phasing, location and design of all lighting to be installed within the
site during periods of construction and occupation;
ii) ownership of lighting once the development is occupied and, where
relevant, details of its maintenance to ensure personal safety;
iii) assessment of the impacts of the Lighting Scheme on biodiversity,
with reference to Guidance Note 08/23 (Institute of Lighting
Professionals), including identification of features and areas on or
immediately adjoining the site that are particularly sensitive for bats
and where lighting could cause disturbance along important foraging
routes; and,
iv) lighting contour plans, isolux drawings and technical specifications to
demonstrate which areas of the development will be lit and to limit
impacts on the territories of bats.
The Lighting Scheme shall be implemented in full prior to first occupation of
the dwellings hereby permitted and shall thereafter be retained and
maintained in accordance with the approved details.
Prior to first occupation
17) Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved a
Landscaping Scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
local planning authority. The Scheme shall include the following:
i) detailed specification including plant/tree types and sizes, plant
numbers and distances, cultivation and other operations associated
with plant and grass establishment;
ii) a strategy for the watering and maintenance of the new planting;
iii) colour and type of material for all hard surface areas and method of
laying where appropriate; and
iv) an implementation programme.
The Landscaping Scheme shall be implemented in full in accordance with the
approved details and shall thereafter be retained and maintained.
Any trees or plants which die, are removed, or become seriously damaged,
or diseased within a period of 5 years from the completion of the
development shall be replaced in the next planting season in accordance
with the details in the approved Landscaping Scheme.
18) Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved a Landscape
and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The LEMP shall include:
i) description and evaluation of features to be managed;
ii) ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence
management;
iii) aims and objectives of management;
iv) appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives;
v) prescriptions for management actions;
vi) a work schedule including an annual work plan capable of being rolled
forward over a five-year period;
vii) the body or organisation responsible for implementation of the plan;
viii)the legal and funding mechanisms by which long-term implementation
of the plan will be secured with the responsible body or organisation;
ix) monitoring arrangements; and
x) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed
and implemented so the development delivers the fully functioning
biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme.
The LEMP shall be implemented in full in accordance with the approved
details.
19) Notwithstanding condition 2, the development hereby permitted shall not be
occupied until details of all gates, fences, walls and other means of
enclosure, including their design and materials, have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The means of enclosure
shall be erected in accordance with the approved details prior to first
occupation and shall thereafter.be retained.
20) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of any
meter cupboards to be installed on the external elevations of the dwellings,
including their location, design, materials and colour, have been submitted to
and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The meter cupboards
shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to first
occupation and shall be retained in that form thereafter.
21) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the Building
Regulations optional requirements for accessible and adaptable dwellings
(Part M(4) Category 2) have been complied with for the dwellings on all plots
other than plots 77 and 78.
22) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the Building
Regulations optional requirements for wheelchair user dwellings (Part M(4)
Category 3b) have been complied with for the dwellings on plots 77 and 78.
23) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until vehicular,
cycle and pedestrian access to the proposal, including a priority junction off
Mill Lane, has been provided in accordance with the approved drawings.
24) Notwithstanding condition 2, the development hereby permitted shall not be
occupied until details of the location, size and design of cycle parking have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The cycle parking shall be provided in accordance with the approved details
prior to first occupation and shall thereafter be retained.
25) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of the
upgrade to two bus stops that best serve the site have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the local planning authority. The upgrade shall be
completed in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of
the development.
26) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until Residential
Travel Information Packs (RTIP) have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The approved RTIP shall be
distributed to the first occupier of each dwelling within 6 weeks of completion
of the relevant dwelling purchase.
27) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a drawing
showing the location and details of field gate access to the land to the north
of the site, for the purpose of occasional farm access and management, has
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
The field gate access shall be provided in accordance with the approved
details prior to first occupation and shall be retained in that form thereafter.
Post-occupation
28) 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), no development permitted
by virtue of Classes A, B, C and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall
be undertaken.
End of schedule