Case Reference: 3363752

Appeal Decision
Hearing held on 23 and 24 September 2025
Site visit made on 24 September 2025
by Chris Baxter BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 21 October 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/V4250/W/25/3363752
71 Pepper Lane, Standish, Wigan WN6 0PY
• 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 Wigan
Metropolitan Borough Council.
• The application Ref is A/23/96541/MAJOR.
• The development proposed is residential development of 57 dwellings with associated access,
parking, landscaping, infrastructure and associated works following demolition of 71 Pepper Lane.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for residential
development of 57 dwellings with associated access, parking, landscaping,
infrastructure and associated works following demolition of 71 Pepper Lane at 71
Pepper Lane, Standish, Wigan WN6 0PY in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref A/23/96541/MAJOR, and subject to the conditions in the attached
schedule.
Preliminary Matters
2. A signed section 106 legal agreement had been submitted at the hearing although
it had not been dated. I allowed a period up to 1 October 2025 for a dated and
completed agreement to be submitted. I also allowed the same period for the
submission of details relating to the five-year housing land supply figures including
update on discharge of conditions applications and development trajectories. The
legal agreement and the housing supply details were submitted within the
prescribed times.
3. In the interests of clarity, I have framed the main issues in a slightly different
manner as to how they were set out in my Pre-Hearing Note dated 22 August
2025. The main issues remain reflective of the evidence that has been submitted
in writing and what was discussed at the Hearing.
Main Issues
4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the location of
new development; and (ii) infrastructure in the surrounding area, and subsequently
whether the proposed development complies with relevant planning policy.
Reasons
Location of development
5. Policy SP 4 of the Wigan Local Plan Core Strategy (WLPCS) details broad
locations for new development and identifies Standish as safeguarded land for
development. The Policy specifically identifies for Standish, housing development
with approximately 1,000 dwellings on safeguarded land up to 2026.
6. The Council contend that the proposal would not accord with Policy SP 4 as the
cumulative impact of the proposal, alongside other permissions already granted,
would result in around 1,728 dwellings on safeguarded land in Standish. The
appellant’s position is that Policy SP 4 is out of date and of limited weight.
7. It is clear that the 1,000 dwellings stated in Policy SP 4 has already been
exceeded and this is not disputed by the parties. It is also clear to me, given the
specific terminology of the policy stating ‘up to 2026’, that the 1,000 dwellings
relate to housing development to be provided by the end of the year 2025. Policy
SP 4 is silent on the matter of the amount of housing in Standish in 2026 and after.
With the timescales involved, the dwellings subject of this proposal would not be
constructed by the end of 2025 and therefore do not directly relate to the 1,000
figure stated in Policy SP 4.
8. Policy SP 4 does also state that specific proposed developments should take
account of infrastructure capacity serving the area; integrate within the local
community; and address site constraints and provision of physical and green
infrastructure. I will turn to these matters below.
Infrastructure
9. Policy SP 4 of the WLPCS and Policy H1 of the Standish Neighbourhood Plan
(SNP) indicate that safeguarded land should only be released for housing where it
can be demonstrated that a development for proposed housing can be
accommodated across the full range of transport, health, education, open space,
community and utility infrastructure.
10. The Council relies on the Standish Infrastructure Assessment November 2013
(SIA) to inform on decision-making on applications for housing development. The
SIA sets out infrastructure requirements relating to transport, health, education,
open space, community facilities and utilities. I will cover each of these in turn
below and their relevance with regards to the proposed development.
11. A Transport Assessment has been submitted which concluded that the
development would provide safe vehicular access; would be located close to
everyday services to reduce reliance on private vehicles and promote sustainable
modes of travel; and the surrounding highway network would be able to
satisfactorily accommodate the additional traffic resulting from the development
without any adverse highway effects. The Council have not offered any substantial
objections to the effect the proposal would have on transport in the area. The
proposal would not have a harmful effect on highway safety in the area and there
is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that any infrastructure
requirements relating to transport are needed.
12. In terms of health, the SIA provides data on existing health provision in Standish
as well as numbers on potential new patients. This information originates from
before 2013 and there is minimal evidence to suggest that the Council are putting
any reliance on the data in the health section of the SIA. The appellants have
submitted a Health Impact Assessment 2025 (HIA) which provides information on
local health care position and the effect on health care from the proposed
development. The HIA concludes that there is local access to all aspects of health
provision, that the current number of patients enrolled at Standish Health Centre is
significantly below capacity, and that there would be no shortfall of capacity as a
result of new patients from the proposed development. I heard from the Council,
Councillors and Standish Voice at the Hearing about health care in the area,
including numbers on GP’s in local practices, patient numbers and movements,
the dispersal of health care provision in North Wigan, and a private GP practice in
Standish. There has been no substantial evidence presented to suggest that there
is a lack of health care provisions or that the proposal would have an adverse
effect on capacity of health care provision in the area. Nor have I heard any clear
justification for the contribution requested by the NHS Greater Manchester
Integrated Care Board. I am satisfied that the proposed development would not
have an adverse effect on health provision infrastructure in the area.
13. On education, the SIA describes a situation where there is a surplus of places at
both primary and secondary schools in the Standish area. The Councils position
though is that there is now a deficit of primary school places in the area and that
secondary school planning areas for Wigan and Shevington/Standish will be
oversubscribed. Further housing in Standish would lead to displacement of
children who live further away from secondary schools but would historically attend
school in Standish. An Education Impact Assessment 2025 (EIA) has been
submitted by the appellants offering information on the local school provision and
projected need for both primary and secondary school places. The EIA concludes
that local primary schools are forecast to have a significant deficit of places,
although when all schools within a two-mile distance of the appeal site, including
schools in Lancashire, are included then there would be a level of surplus places.
For secondary schools, the EIA concludes that there is unlikely to be a capacity
problem and pupils from the proposed development can be accommodated in local
secondary schools. I heard various evidence presented at the Hearing from the
appellants, the Council and Standish Voice on matters relating to school places
including on birth rates, admission numbers, location of schools and pupils, and
school funding. I acknowledge that there currently appears to be a deficit of school
places however, the location of where pupils live compared to the location of
schools within two-miles of the appeal site appears to offer scope that there may
be availability in the future if pupils attended schools closer to where they live.
There is a lack of clear information with regards to schools in the Lancashire area,
that some do appear to be within two-miles of the appeal site, and how this
contributes to school places. Overall, there is no compelling evidence before me to
suggest that there would be a fundamental lack of primary and secondary schools
places in the surrounding area of the appeal site or that the proposed development
would have an adverse effect on education facilities.
14. The appellants accept that the development would require contributions to open
space and provision in the area, including enhancing matters such as landscaping,
fencing, drainage and tree planting. The Council have identified two locations,
being Langtree Lane Play Area and Forest Drive Play Area, in which contributions
can be made in lieu of on-site provisions, that would provide infrastructure
improvements to support the increase of population resulting from the proposal.
15. In terms of community facilities in Standish, the SIA concludes that quantitatively,
community provision is well provided for with a wide range of services available
including children centres, social clubs, places of worship and libraries. It is
accepted that the information in the SIA is over a decade old, however, no further
compelling evidence has been provided to indicate that the proposed development
would have a detrimental effect on community facilities in the area.
16. Similarly with utility infrastructure in Standish, the SIA does not indicate any
fundamental concerns however, given the amount of development that has been
brought forward since the publication of the SIA, the utility situation has likely
changed. A Flood Risk Assessment, Drainage Strategy and confirmation of full
fibre-optic internet availability has been provided. The Council have not raised any
fundamental concerns with regards to utilities nor has there been any substantive
objections from statutory consultees. The proposed development would not have
an adverse effect on utility infrastructure in the area.
17. From the evidence before me, there is no compelling justification which
demonstrates that the proposed development cannot be accommodated by the
existing infrastructure found in the surrounding area. The only exception is with
regards to open space and play provision, which the appellants accept and are
willing to contribute to the improvements of these matters in the Standish area.
Therefore, the proposal would not be harmful to transport, health, education, open
space, community facilities and utilities in the Standish area.
Policy compliance
18. The overall scale and form of the proposed development is reflective of the
character of the built form in the surrounding area. As detailed above, the proposal
would not have a harmful effect on the capacity of infrastructure serving the area.
Due to sites specific location in relation to the surrounding area, the development
would integrate with the local community and the development would be
deliverable with no specific site constraints being identified. In this respect, the
proposed development accords with the first section of Policy SP 4 of the WLPCS.
As previously detailed, over 1,000 dwellings, through various housing
developments, have been provided for on the safeguarded land in Standish, and
therefore the proposal would not accord with part 6 of Policy SP 4.
19. Policy H1 of the SNP states that safeguarded land in Standish should only be
released for housing where three criteria can be demonstrated. These are:
i) 1,148 homes already permitted as at 31 July 2017, should be built out and
occupied;
ii) All necessary infrastructure works required through legal agreements for the
level of housing should be completed and implemented; and
iii) It should be demonstrably evidenced that further housing development can
be accommodated across transport, health, education, open space,
community and utility infrastructure, without detriment to the character and
well-being of Standish.
20. The main parties agree that criteria one has been met. As detailed above, I have
found that the proposed development can be accommodated across transport,
health, education, open space, community and utility infrastructure, without
detriment to the character and well-being of Standish, and therefore criteria three
is met.
21. In terms of criteria two, the Council provide in their statement of case a list of 19
infrastructure schemes within Standish. Only three of these schemes have not
commenced construction work, with 11 being completed and the five schemes that
have commenced are programmed to be completed within 2026 or earlier. The
Council confirm that all legal agreement monies for the schemes have been
collected, stating further that there is a surplus of £720,000 in the levy ‘pot’ which
can go towards any identified contingency schemes. The majority of identified
infrastructure schemes will be completed within the next 12 months, with the
remaining schemes having the required funding in place, and it is also noted that
the appellants have no control over the programming periods of these
infrastructure schemes. Nevertheless, given the specific wording, criteria two of
Policy H1 cannot be met.
22. A number of policies within the WLPCS, SNP, Places for Everyone Joint
Development Plan (PfE) and the Saved Wigan Replacement Unitary Development
Plan (UDP) have been brought to my attention as being relevant in the
determination of this appeal. The Council consider that significant weight and very
significant weight should be given to these various relevant policies. Other than
Policies SP 4 of the WLPCS and H1 of the SNP, the Council have not expressed
that the proposal does not fundamentally accord with the relevant policies of the
development plans. I have had regard to all these policies in the determination of
this appeal.
Other Matters
23. I have had regard to all evidence that has been submitted including comments
from local residents that were made on the planning application and this appeal,
and also evidence that was presented to me at the Hearing by local Councillors
and Standish Voice. Concerns raised include matters on biodiversity and wildlife,
loss of green space, flooding and drainage, highway issues such as access,
parking and traffic, noise and air pollution, effect on living conditions such as light
effects and privacy, trees, overdevelopment and other developments in the area.
24. Numerous reports and assessments have been submitted, including Flood Risk
Assessment, Drainage Strategy, Sustainability Statement, Transport Assessment,
Bat Survey Report, Biodiversity Net Gain Design Stage Assessment, Great
Crested Newt Impact Assessment, Grassland Survey, Air Quality Assessment,
Noise Impact Assessment and Arboricultural Impact Assessment. The Council
have not raised any fundamental concerns with the content of these documents
and do not consider the matters raised above are sufficient to warrant refusal of
the proposed development.
25. I am satisfied from the detailed information before me, that the proposed
development would not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding environment
in terms of its effect on biodiversity and wildlife, flooding and drainage, noise and
air pollution, and trees. The proposed properties would be sensitively positioned to
ensure that living conditions of occupiers of existing and proposed properties
would not be compromised in terms of light and privacy. Given the design of the
access, the proposed parking provision and the scale of development, the
proposal would not have harmful effects on highway issues including the safety of
highway users. The proposed layout of the development and the scale of
properties would ensure that the proposal would not be overdevelopment of the
site. The construction periods of other developments in the area would not directly
affect the suitability of the proposed development in planning terms.
26. Evidence has been provided from both the Council and the appellant on the
Council’s current position in terms of housing land supply. The Council maintain
that they can demonstrate a 5.97-year supply of deliverable housing land, whilst
the appellants indicate that Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land
supply, detailing a housing land supply figure of 4.5 years.
Planning Conditions and Obligations
Planning conditions
27. In the interests of precision and clarity I have undertaken some editing and
rationalisation where necessary of the conditions suggested and agreed between
the appellant and the Council. I have also had regard to the six tests set out in
paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).
28. Conditions relating to timeliness and identification of approved plans are
necessary in the interests of certainty. In the interests of the character and
appearance of the area conditions are necessary in relation to materials,
landscaping and finished floor levels. To prevent undue risk to the local
surrounding environment it is necessary to attach conditions relating to lighting
strategy, landscape scheme including removals and fencing, Reasonable
Avoidance Measures Method Statement, badger survey, invasive species method
statement, Demolition and Construction Environmental Management Plan,
contamination, surface and foul water drainage, provision of renewable energy
sources and crime prevention measures. In the interests of highway and
pedestrian safety, conditions are necessary in relation to the vehicular access and
parking provision. To encourage local training and employment opportunities and
condition is considered reasonable for details of a Construction Training and
Employment Management Plan to be submitted.
29. A condition relating to electric vehicle charging is not considered reasonable or
necessary as this would be covered by Building Regulations. A specific condition
relating to Tree Preservation Order trees on the site was not considered necessary
as the relevant details would be covered by other landscape conditions. A
condition relating to windows was not considered necessary as these details would
be covered by the approved plans condition. The Council had also requested a
condition removing certain permitted development rights from the whole of the site.
It was explained to me at the Hearing that this was due to some of the separation
distances between the proposed properties not meeting standard distances,
although specific plots were not identified. I have not attached such a condition as
there doesn’t appear to be any separation distances that are unsuitable, in
particular with existing neighbouring properties, and I consider it unreasonable for
future occupiers to be denied permitted development rights for their residential
property in this instance.
Planning obligations
30. A completed legal agreement has been submitted which details obligations for
affordable housing and contributions towards biodiversity off-setting, off-site play
and open space, SIA Levy, primary and secondary education, and healthcare. It is
necessary that I consider these obligations against the three tests set out in the
Framework and Regulation 122(2) of the CIL Regulations.
31. Policy JP-H2 of the PfE and Policy H4 of the SNP seek the provision of affordable
housing within new residential schemes, as well as Policy CP6 of the WLPCS
which also details 25% of affordable housing to be provided within developments.
The development would deliver 26% affordable homes, equating to 15 dwellings,
within that seven units would be affordable rented and eight intermediate housing
units. The proposed development would help to contribute towards a mixed and
balanced community and meet an identified affordable housing need. The
affordable housing contribution would comply with Policy JP-H2 of the PfE, Policy
H4 of the SNP and Policy CP6 of the WLPCS.
32. It has been identified that the proposed development would result in biodiversity
losses and to mitigate this, a contribution towards off-site 10% biodiversity net gain
(BNG) is provided. This contribution would go towards BNG enhancements at the
former Victoria Colliery / Fairhurst Lane site in Standish which would enable the
Council to undertake maintenance and management of BNG enhancements for an
approximate 30-year period. The proposal would contribute towards enhancement
of biodiversity in the area and would comply with Policy JP-G8 of the PfE.
33. Policy R1E of the UDP and the Wigan Local Plan Open Space in New Housing
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) require new housing developments to
either contribute to the provision of public open space and play provision within the
proposed site or make an equivalent financial contribution to off-site provision. As
the proposed development would not provide any play provision or significant
public open space areas, the obligations would provide contributions towards the
enhancement of the Langtree Lane and Forest Drive play areas as well as
providing for landscaping, fencing, drainage and tree planting in the surrounding
locality. The proposal would introduce new residents that would increase pressure
on open space and recreational space in the area, and these contributions would
mitigate this and be in accordance with Policy R1E and the SPD.
34. As discussed in detail in the main issues, I have found that the proposed
development would not have any harmful effects on the infrastructure in the
Standish area in terms of primary and secondary education, and healthcare. There
is no substantive evidence which indicates that contributions are required in
relation to these matters either individually or part of a SIA Levy and they are
therefore not necessary.
35. The obligations relating to affordable housing and contributions towards
biodiversity off-setting, off-site play and open space that would be secured through
the submitted legal agreement would meet the statutory tests in Regulation 122(2)
of the CIL Regulations and therefore would be material considerations in this
planning appeal.
36. The obligations for SIA Levy, primary and secondary education, and healthcare
are not necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning
terms and therefore would not meet the statutory tests in Regulation 122(2) of the
CIL Regulations.
37. The submitted legal agreement contains a “blue pencil clause” which states that
planning obligations detailed in the agreement will cease to have effect should I
consider a particular obligation to not be necessary. For clarity, I deem the
obligations in relation to the Standish Infrastructure Assessment Contribution, the
Primary Education Contribution, the Secondary Education Contribution and the
Healthcare Contribution to not be necessary. Therefore, Schedule 6, 7, 8 and 9 of
the legal agreement shall have no effect.
Conclusion
38. Policy SP 4 of the WLPCS states that for Standish, there shall be housing
development with approximately 1,000 dwellings on safeguarded land up to 2026.
There has been over 1,000 dwellings provided on Standish safeguarded land. The
proposed development site is on safeguarded land in Standish and therefore given
the specific wording of this part of the policy, the proposal would fail to strictly
accord with this particular part of Policy SP 4.
39. Policy SP 4, at its front, provides areas of safeguarded land in Standish, that is
identified as a broad location for new development in order to contribute to the
supply of housing land. Development proposals on this safeguarded land should
take account of infrastructure capacity, integration with the local community and
address site constraints and provision of physical and green infrastructure.
40. The proposal would be development on safeguarded land in Standish. I have
found that the development would not harm the capacity of infrastructure serving
the area, it would integrate well with the local community and the development
would be deliverable without compromising the local area and environment
including physical and green infrastructure. In this respect, the proposal would
accord with this part of Policy SP 4.
41. Objective 4 of the SNP is to promote sustainable high-quality housing which meets
the current and future needs of Standish residents. Policy H1 sits within this
objective framework. Criteria i) of Policy H1 has been met as 1,148 of homes
permitted as of 31 July 2017 have been built out and occupied. It has been
demonstrated that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on infrastructure in
the area and would not be to the detriment of the well-being of Standish as a
viable sustainable place to live, work and visit. The proposed development would
be in accordance with criteria i) and iii) of Policy H1 and the overall objective 4 of
the SNP.
42. A schedule of infrastructure projects, that are all funded through legal agreements
of other housing developments, are required for the Standish area. The majority of
these projects are either completed or nearing completion with only several that
have not been commenced. Nevertheless, given the exact wording of criteria ii) of
Policy H1, this criteria cannot be met and the development would not be in
accordance with criteria ii) of Policy H1.
43. Whilst the proposal would not accord with certain sections of Policies SP 4 and
H1, the proposed development would nevertheless not have any harmful effects
on infrastructure in the surrounding area which is the primary focus of Policy H1
and objective 4. There has also been no demonstrable evidence to indicate that
the proposal would be harmful to the supply of housing in the Standish area which
is a primary aim of Policy SP 4.
44. I acknowledge that there is some conflict with total adherence with Policy SP 4 of
the WLPCS and Policy H1 of the SNP. However, the proposed development would
nevertheless deliver on large parts of these policies including their foremost
directions to direct development which can contribute to the supply of housing
towards safeguarded areas in Standish and ensure developments integrate well
with local community and not compromise infrastructure capacity. I therefore find
that the proposal would comply with Policies SP 4 and H1 as taken as a whole. I
have not found that the proposed development would fundamentally conflict with
any other policies of the WLPCS, SNP, PfE and UDP.
45. Accordingly, the proposed development would not conflict with the development
plans as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of
the Framework, which outweighs this finding. As I have found that the proposal
accords with the development plans as a whole, it is not necessary for me to reach
a position on the disputed housing land supply figure.
46. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject
to the appropriate conditions and the relevant terms of the submitted section 106
legal agreement.
Chris Baxter
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
G Cannock KC Kings Chambers
P Williams Mosaic Town Planning
R Meachin Persimmon Homes
J Powell Alfredson York Associates
C Kirkshaw Persimmon Homes
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
J Jaques Wigan Council
C Thompson Wigan Council
D Kearsley Wigan Council
J Kerry NHS Greater Manchester
INTERESTED PERSONS:
G Foster Standish Voice (Standish Neighbourhood Forum)
Cllr R Whittingham Councillor
Cllr Parkinson Councillor
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING:
1. Notification letters of the appeal hearing
2. Plan showing built development in proximity to Pepper Lane site
3. Copy of Cllr R Whittingham’s statement
4. Wigan Council’s Interim Five-Year Supply Position Statement
5. Copies of Planning Layout plans – drawing nos PH:PL:001 Rev F and Rev G
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE HEARING:
1. Section 106 legal agreement
2. Position statements – discharge of conditions applications / development
trajectory on various sites
Schedule of Conditions
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
the following plans:
- Location Plan (drawing no. LP/CF/A); Planning Layout (drawing no.
PH:PL:001 Rev G); Landscape General Arrangement Plan (drawing no.
UG_707_LAN_GA_DRW_01 P06); Soft Landscaping Plan 1 of 4 (drawing
no. UG_707_LAN_SL_DRW_03 P07); Soft Landscaping Plan 2 of 4 (drawing
no. UG_707_LAN_SL_DRW_04 P07); Soft Landscaping Plan 3 of 4 (drawing
no. UG_707_LAN_SL_DRW_05 P07); Soft Landscaping Plan 4 of 4 (drawing
no. UG_707_LAN_SL_DRW_06 P07); Proposed Site Access Arrangement
(drawing no. 3394-F02 Rev. C); The Barnwood Elevation – Traditional
(drawing no. Bw_MA_Det_R21G – 903); The Burnham Elevation –
Traditional (drawing no. Bu_MA_Det_R21E – 903 Rev B); The Dallington
Elevation – Traditional (drawing no. Dg_MA_Det_R25G T001); The Danbury
Elevation – Traditional (drawing no. Da_MA_End_R21G – 903); The
Deepdale Elevation – Traditional (drawing no. Dp_MA_End_R21E – 903 Rev
B); The Galloway Elevation – Traditional (drawing no. Ga_MA_Det_R25G
T001); The Haldon Elevation – Traditional (drawing no. Ha_MA_Det_R25G
T001); The Heartwood Elevation – Traditional (drawing no.
He_MA_End_R21G – 903); The Kielder Elevation – Traditional (drawing no.
Ki_MA_Det_R25G T001); The Lambridge Elevation – Traditional (drawing
no. Lb_MA_Det_R25G T001); The Sherwood Elevation – Traditional
(drawing no. Sh_MA_Det_R25G T201); The Wareham Mid Elevation –
Traditional (drawing no. Wa_MA_Det_R25G T001); The Wareham End
Elevation – Traditional (drawing no. Wa_MA_Det_R25G T001); The
Wentwood Elevation – Traditional (drawing no. We_MA_End_R21G – 903);
The Winterfold Elevation – Traditional (drawing no. Wi_MA_Det_R25G
T001); The Barnwood (drawing no. Bw_Det_R25 – 901); The Burnham
(drawing no. Bu_Det_R25 - 901); The Dallington (drawing no. Dg_End_R25
– 901); The Danbury (drawing no. Da_End_R25 – 901); The Deepdale
(drawing no. Dp_MA_End_R21E – 901 Rev A); The Galloway (drawing no.
Ga_End_R25 – 901); The Haldon End (drawing no. Hd_End_R25 – 901);
The Haldon Mid (drawing no. Hd_Mid_R25 – 901); The Heartwood (drawing
no. He_End_R25); The Kielder (drawing no. Ki_Det_R25 – 901); The
Lambridge (drawing no. LB_Det_R25 – 901); The Sherwood (drawing no.
Sh_Det_R25 – 901); The Wareham (drawing no. Wa_End_R25 – 901); The
Wareham Mid (drawing no. Wa_Mid_R25 – 901); The Wentwood End
(drawing no. We_End_R25); The Winterfold End (drawing no. Re_End_R25
– 901); Pumping Station (drawing no. PH:PS:001); Construction Details for
Substation (drawing no. GTC-E-SS-0027_R1-2_1_of_1); Boundary
Treatment Plan (drawing no. BT/BH/01 Rev. A); Surface Treatment Plan
(drawing no. PHNW/ST/01 Rev. A); 1.8m Full Screen Wall (drawing no.
PHNW-W-01); 1.8m Timber Screen Fence (drawing no. PHNW-F-01);
Proposed Site Access Arrangement (drawing no. 3394-F02 Rev. C).
Pre-commencement
3) Before the development hereby approved is commenced particulars or
samples of all materials (including their colours and finishes) to be used in
the external elevations and roofs of all buildings shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall
be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
4) Before the development hereby approved is commenced (except for
demolition and clearance works) a lighting strategy shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall
be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
5) Before the development hereby approved is commenced (except for
demolition works) a Reasonable Avoidance Measures Method Statement
(RAMMS) to protect amphibians, bats, birds, hedgehogs, foxes, deer and
other wildlife including using the site, shall be submitted to, and approved in
writing by, the Local Planning Authority. This shall include details setting out
how construction site fencing shall allow larger mammals to escape from the
site if required, and confirmation that any (suspected) fox earths will not be
destroyed at a time of year when foxes will have dependent young (between
1st March and 30th June). The development shall be constructed in
accordance with the approved details.
6) Before the development hereby approved is commenced an updated site
survey for badgers (which shall be carried out immediately prior to any site
clearance works commencing) and if recorded, a mitigation strategy to avoid
harm to them, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local
Planning Authority. The development shall be constructed in accordance
with the approved details.
7) Before the development hereby approved is commenced a Method
Statement to ensure the spread of invasive species (rhododendron,
Himalayan balsam and montbretia) is avoided, shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall
be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
8) Before the development hereby approved is commenced an Operational
Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. This shall identify the order in which operations will be
undertaken, including tree works, erection of protective fencing, site
remediation works, location of site compound and material storage, routes of
existing and proposed services, specific tree protection and special
procedures and materials where development and excavation is within the
sphere of influence of trees. It shall identify all tree work which must meet
current BS3998 and be carried out by an appropriately qualified arboricultural
contractor. It shall include a list of contacts during development. All works
shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Operational Method
Statement.
9) Before the development hereby approved is commenced, including site
clearance, excavation or construction works or the entry of vehicles or plant
into the site, all existing retained trees and hedges on and adjacent to the
site, other than those indicated for removal on the approved plans (as
approved under condition 10 above), have been physically protected from
damage by plant, equipment, vehicles, excavation, deposit of excavated
material and any other cause. This shall be achieved by the erection of
fencing in accordance with BS5837:2005, outside the canopy. The fencing
shall be maintained for the duration of the development operations and no
operations or storage whatsoever shall take place within the fenced
protection areas.
10) Before the development hereby approved is commenced a Demolition and
Construction Environmental Management Plan (DCEMP) shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall
include as a minimum the following:
- Measures to be taken to avoid water pollution;
- Methods to be employed to control and monitor noise, dust (based on a risk
assessment in accordance with the IAQM document “Guidance on the
assessment of dust from demolition and construction – 2014”) and vibration
impacts;
- Schedule of demolition, construction and delivery hours;
- Demolition and construction traffic routes;
- Details of how the wheels of vehicles will be cleaned before leaving the site;
- Management plan to control surface water run-off and measures to mitigate
the risk from contaminated surface water run-off, including specific measures
to be taken to avoid water pollution;
- Location of on-site staff and contractor parking;
- Details of the provision for the storage of building materials, equipment and
plant, and the placement of site cabins, site offices and storage containers;
and
- Waste strategy for managing and disposing of waste generated during
construction.
The approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full for the duration
of the construction works.
11) Before the development hereby approved is commenced, excluding
demolition and site clearance works, details of a sustainable surface water
drainage scheme and a foul water drainage scheme for the development
shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning
Authority. The drainage schemes must include:
(i) An investigation of the hierarchy of drainage options in the National
Planning Practice Guidance (or any subsequent amendment thereof).
This investigation shall include evidence of an assessment of ground
conditions and the potential for infiltration of surface water in accordance
with BRE365;
(ii) A restricted rate of discharge of surface water agreed with the local
planning authority (if it is agreed that infiltration is discounted by the
investigations);
(iii) Levels of the proposed drainage systems including proposed ground and
finished floor levels in AOD;
(iv) Incorporate mitigation measures to manage the risk of sewer surcharge
where applicable; and
(v) Foul and surface water shall drain on separate systems.
The approved schemes shall also be in accordance with the Non-Statutory
Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems (March 2015) or any
subsequent replacement national standards.
Prior to occupation of the proposed development, the drainage schemes shall
be completed in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter
for the lifetime of the development.
12) Before the development hereby approved is commenced, with the exception
of demolition and clearance works, details of a finished floor levels for the
approved buildings and levels of external parking and hard and soft
landscaped areas within the development site shall be submitted to, and
approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The proposed level(s)
shall be defined relative to a datum or datum points. The development shall
be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
13) Before the development hereby approved is commenced, details of a
Construction Training and Employment Management Plan (CT&EMP) shall
be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.
The CT&EMP will aim to promote training and employment opportunities for
local people and include:
- Measures to ensure the owner and contractors work directly with local
employment and training agencies;
- Targets for employing local labour;
- Targets for work experience opportunities;
- Measures to provide training opportunities in respect of any new jobs
created; and
- Requirements to submit monitoring information on the plan at regular
intervals to the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed
CT&EMP(s) and any amendments to the CT&EMP(s) shall be agreed in
writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Pre-occupation
14) Before the development hereby approved is occupied, a scheme for the
provision of solar PV panels and air-source heat pumps shall be made
available on the site, in full accordance with a scheme which has been
previously submitted to, and approved in writhing by, the Local Planning
Authority. Once implemented the scheme shall be maintained and retained
thereafter to ensure the provision is fully operational.
15) Before the development hereby approved is occupied, the visibility splays
and the vehicular access as shown on the Proposed Site Access
Arrangement (drawing no. 3394-F02 Rev. C), including tactile paving shall be
completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The vehicular
access shall be retained thereafter and be kept clear of obstructions to
visibility at or above a height of 0.6 metres at all times.
16) Before the development hereby approved is occupied, a sustainable
drainage management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the
development shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The sustainable drainage management and maintenance
plan shall include as a minimum:
(i) Arrangements for adoption by an appropriate public body or statutory
undertaker, or, management and maintenance by a resident’s
management company; and
(ii) Arrangements for inspection and ongoing maintenance of all elements of
the sustainable drainage system to secure the operation of the surface
water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.
The development shall subsequently be completed, maintained and
managed in accordance with the approved plan.
Other
17) No removal of or works to any hedgerows, trees or shrubs shall take place
between 1st March and 31st August inclusive, unless a competent ecologist
has undertaken a careful, detailed check of vegetation for active birds' nests
immediately before the vegetation is cleared and provided written
confirmation that no birds will be harmed and/or that there are appropriate
measures in place to protect nesting bird interest on site and written
confirmation provided that no active bird nests are present which has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
18) During the first available planting season following the completion of the
development hereby approved, the soft landscaping scheme shown on the
approved plans shall be fully implemented. All planting within the approved
scheme shall be maintained for a period of 30 years from the agreed date of
planting. Any trees or plants which die, become diseased, or are removed
during the maintenance period shall be replaced with specimens of an
equivalent species and size.
19) Works to address contamination shall be carried out in complete accordance
with the details below:-
Enabling works and build phase:
- The development shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved
Remediation Strategy (report reference 14-985-R3 revision R1-RevC dated 5
August 2024).
Prior to the occupation of the development:
- Prior to any part of the permitted development being occupied a verification
report demonstrating the completion of works set out in the approved
remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be
submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The
report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in
accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site
remediation criteria have been met.
The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
20) The car parking provision shown on the approved plans Planning Layout
(drawing no. PH:PL:001 Rev G) shall be fully implemented in accordance
with the approved details prior to the occupation of each dwelling it serves.
The car parking shall be retained as such thereafter.
21) Prior to the commencement of laying of any final hard surfaces within the
development, particulars or samples of the materials (including their colours
and finishes) to be used for the hard surfaced areas shall be submitted to,
and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development
shall be constructed only in full accordance with the approved details.
22) Crime prevention measures as set out in the recommendations in section 4
relating to the security of the site of the Crime Impact Statement (Version
V0.3) shall be implemented within the hereby approved development, in
accordance with the stated recommendations, and retained as appropriate
thereafter.