Agenda item

Outline planning application for residential development of up to 66 dwellings and associated public open space with all matters reserved except for access.

Public Participation

David Feather (North Bradley Neighbourhood Planning Steering Group) spoke in objection to the application.

Francis Morland spoke in objection to the application.

Alice Lack (applicant) spoke in support of the application.

Millie Dodd spoke in support of the application.

Matthew Bell spoke in support of the application.

Cllr Roger Evans, Chairman of North Bradley Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

 

Jemma Foster, Senior Planning Officer, introduced a report which recommended that outline planning application for residential development of up to 66 dwellings and associated public open space with all matters reserved except for access be approved, subject to conditions and a S106 agreement. The site was to the West of North Bradley, outside the limits of development.

 

Slides of the proposal (published in agenda supplement 3) were shown to the Committee and explained, including the site, nearby Public Rights of Way (PRoW), listed buildings in the vicinity, a previously refused application on that site, a proposed illustrative masterplan, the proposed access, and photos of the site. The site was on grade 4 (poor quality) agricultural land and at low risk of flooding.

 

The officer explained the previously refused application on the site in 2019 in more detail, and gave the reasons for refusal for that application, which were detailed in the report. It was noted that this application was similar to the previous application, but was now for up to 66 dwellings, rather than 85 units. In relation to landscaping (a previous reason for refusal), the new proposal had a wider landscape buffer and a decreased density of housing, which helped it to integrate into its surroundings. Whilst the proposal would cause an irreversible change of rural countryside to built development, the site was measured as having a medium landscape value, which was on a community level and not a regional or national level. It would not impact on the landscape setting gap allocated in the North Bradley Neighbourhood Plan (NP). So, the landscape officer now supported the application.

 

In relation to ecology and archaeology (also reasons for refusal for the previous application), additional survey work had been submitted with this application, which overcame the previous reasons for refusal, and the relevant council officers now supported the application. In addition, Natural England had signed off the Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA).

 

With regards to neighbouring amenity, whilst a reserve matters application would look at the details, based on the information provided, there would be no reasons to refuse on neighbouring amenity.

 

Some of the technical consultee responses such as Highways and Drainage were highlighted, and it was noted that none had objections, although some were subject to conditions and a successful S106 agreement.  

 

The officer stated that the site was outside the limits of development for North Bradley (a large village in planning terms) and as such was contrary to Wiltshire Core Strategy (WCS) Core Policy (CP) 1, 2 and 29. However, as the council could only currently prove a 3.85 year Housing Land Supply (HLS) the limits of development were considered out of date. The North Bradley NP was less than 5 years old, so the application should be decided in accordance with paragraph 14 of the National Planning and Policy Framework (NPPF) which stated that for applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impacts of allowing development that conflicts with a NP, is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The proposal would conflict with the policy 2 of the North Bradley NP. When weighing up their recommendation, the officer had given significant weight to the conflict with the NP and the change in rural character was given limited weight. However, there were benefits to the application; it would provide market housing, when the council could not demonstrate a 4 year HLS (significant weight); provide affordable housing (substantial weight) and give economic benefit (significant weight). In addition, the S106 legal agreement would be given moderate positive weight. So, the adverse impacts of allowing the development did not outweigh the benefits in a similar way to the Semington appeal case.

 

The officer noted that the applicant was willing to amend condition one to 2 years to start development, rather than 3, as this would help with the council’s HLS situation.

 

Attention was drawn to the updated report published in agenda supplement 2, within which Sections 9.1 and 10 of the report were updated in relation to the tilted balance, with the same conclusion being reached.

 

Members of the committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the officer. Details were sought on the access to the site, affordable housing and social housing, the lack of a 4 year HLS, and how the large scale of development issue had been overcome. Other queries were raised on the NP and relevant comparable appeal cases.

 

Members of the public then had the opportunity to present their views to the committee as detailed above. Points raised in objection included that the North Bradley NP was being reviewed with this site up for consideration, and there was a public consultation event taking place on 26 October. It would be better to wait until that process was complete before determining the application. Furthermore, some felt that the application should be refused as it was contrary to paragraph 14 of the NPPF – ‘the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’, as the adverse impacts outweighed the benefits. It was also felt that it was not a good message to go against made NP’s. The site as outside the limits of development and contrary to CP 1, 2 and 29. Comments in support included that the vast majority of the reasons for refusal for the previous application had been overcome, there was a need for housing, particularly affordable housing, and the council did not have a 4 year HLS. There had been 26 local letters of support for the application. Furthermore, there was a housing crisis, with the plight of first time buyers, renters and military veterans struggling to find housing being highlighted.

 

The unitary division member, Cllr Horace Prickett, Southwick division, spoke in objection to the application. Cllr Prickett highlighted the reasons why he had called the application in, which were detailed in the report. He also highlighted that the road the access to the site would be on, was a busy, fast road with accident blackspots at nearby junctions, so having another junction was not safe. He reiterated the reasons for refusal for the previous application on the site. He stressed that the site was outside the limits of development and therefore contrary to policy. Further points raised included that the proposal did not provide for affordable housing or education provision. There were also sites allocated on the other side of the village for housing which were not being used. The timing of the application coming to Committee was questioned, as North Bradley were reviewing their NP and there was a consultation event being held in the village on Saturday 26 October. Cllr Prickett requested that the application at least be deferred until the public consultation on the new North Bradley NP was concluded, or alternatively that it be refused.

 

In response to public statements the officer explained that the new NP held no weight as it was in the very early stages. The benefits of the application and the weights given were used in the majority of appeals where there was not a demonstrable HLS. The 2019 application was refused as it was outside the limits of development, and it had technical objections. The new application before the Committee did not have any technical objections. It was still outside of the limits of development, but the limits of development were considered out of date due to the lack of HLS. The speed limit would be reduced on the road the access would be on and Highways had no objections subject to conditions and S106 contributions.  The application did not affect the landscape setting in the NP. For the other sites in the NP that were highlighted as allocated, H2.1 and H2.2 had outline planning applications in, H2.3 had a full planning application submitted. So, things were moving forward on those sites. As to whether the application could be deferred and why it was coming to Committee now, it was explained that the application was ready for determination which is why it had come to Committee now. If deferred until after the consultation period for the NP was over on 17 November 2024, let alone until the new NP was made, the applicant could appeal on non-determination which would likely result in costs for the council.

 

Cllr Christopher Newbury congratulated the local Member on his helpful contribution. The main issue for him was that this was contrary to the adopted North Bradley NP made in 2021. He stated that he would also like to see further information on relevant appeal decisions. He felt that a short delay in determining the application so that the North Bradley NP review consultation could be completed would not result in costs to the council, and that the council should listen to local communities. Cllr Newbury highlighted that there were around 17,000 houses in Wiltshire with permission that had not yet started to be built and therefore did not count towards the HLS figure, so he did not feel that permission for 66 houses in North Bradley would solve the housing crisis. Cllr Newbury also requested further information regarding para 14 of the NPPF and its usage, and how far previous reasons for refusal could be defended. Cllr Newbury then proposed that the application be deferred until after the North Bradley NP consultation was complete, and to get further information on the usage of the NPPF, appeal decisions, and previous reasons for refusal. This was seconded by the Chairman.

 

Clarity was sought from legal officers in attendance in relation to possible costs and the Semington appeal. Officers stated that for the Semington appeal it was agreed that the appellant would not go after costs as the council withdrew the reasons for refusal. If this application was deferred the applicant would be entitled to apply for costs if they appealed for non-determination, so they may be awarded that.

 

Members debated the proposal to defer, with some Members stating that whilst they had sympathy for the locals, they did not agree with deferring the application. It was noted that NP’s took time, effort and money from communities, however, there were no technical objections to this application, and therefore it was not felt that it would be winnable at appeal. If the council had a HLS things might be different.

 

Others felt that North Bradley reviewing their NP was relevant, and Cllrs should be responsible to their electorate. It was again highlighted that the application was contrary to CP1, 2 and 29 and para 2 of the North Bradley NP. Additionally, comments raised during public participation in relation to the use of para 14 in the NPPF were relevant. 

 

Other issues raised included the length of deferral, as it was not thought it could be deferred until the NP review process was complete, so if it was to be deferred this should be for a short period. Two months was suggested as a timeframe. The officer had applied the tilted balance in favour of development, which some Members agreed with however others felt that it was not in favour of development. Some felt that this application was significantly better than some others that had won on appeal and it did not have large adverse effects. 

 

Members sought further clarity from the officer on whether her recommendation would have changed if North Bradley had already had their consultation event. The officer advised that the event was on 26 October, however the consultation did not finish until 17 November. However, at that point the emerging NP would still hold no weight so the recommendation would not change.

 

In response to a further question the officer advised that if the Committee deferred the application and the applicant appealed, it would still come back to the Committee, but this would be to ask what the Committee would have done, and that would be used for information as part of the appeal. So, the Committee would not actually get to make a decision. 

 

Following some further debate the motion to defer was put to the vote and it was lost.

 

Following this Cllr Jonathan Seed, seconded by Cllr Adrian Foster, proposed the officer recommendation to approve, subject to conditions and a S106.

 

There was no further discussion, and it was,

 

Resolved:

 

That subject to a suitable S106 agreement being agreed as per the report, to approve the application, subject to the following conditions:

 

Conditions:

 

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the

expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the

expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved

matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

 

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

 

2 No development shall commence on site until details of the following

matters (in respect of which approval is expressly reserved) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

 

(a) The scale of development;

(b) The layout of the development;

(c) The external appearance of the development:

(d) The landscaping of the site

 

The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

REASON: The application was made for outline planning permission and is granted to comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Article 5 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

 

3 With regard to those elements of the application in outline form, an

application for the approval of all of the reserved matters shall be made to

the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the

date of this permission.

 

REASON: To comply with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 

4 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with

the following approved plans and documents:

 

Received on 16th July 2024: Swept path analysis (23203-MA-IM-XX-DR-C- 7050-P01 SPA), Construction Access (23203-MA-IM-XX-DR-C-0101 GA), Swept path analysis (23203-MA-IM-XX-DR-C-7060-P01 SPA)

 

Received on 3rd June 2024: General access arrangement (23203-MA-IM-XXDR-C-0100-P09), Biodiversity Net Gain Briefing Note

 

Received on 23rd November 2023: Location Plan,

 

Arboricultural Impact Assessment dated November 2023

 

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 

5 An acoustic design scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from road traffic noise shall be submitted alongside the reserved matters application. The scheme shall ensure that, upon completion of the development, the following noise criteria shall be met, with windows open, in accordance with the Professional Practice Guidance: Planning and Noise – New Residential Development May 2017:

* bedrooms shall achieve an 8-hour LAeq (23:00 to 07:00) of 30dB(A) and

an LAmax, F of 45 dB

* living rooms and dining rooms shall achieve a 16 – hour LAeq (07:00 to

23:00) of 35dB(A)

* external amenity spaces shall achieve a 16 – hour LAeq (07:00 to 23:00)

of 55dB(A)

For the avoidance of doubt, using closed windows to achieve the internal noise level target shall only be considered once all other good acoustic design acoustic mitigation measures have been utilised.

 

No dwelling hereby approved shall be first occupied until a noise validation report, demonstrating compliance with the noise criteria has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This assessment shall be conducted in accordance with Professional Practice Guidance: Planning and Noise – New Residential Development (May 2017) and the approved noise design scheme. Any additional steps required to achieve compliance shall be taken, as necessary.

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.

 

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner, to ensure the amenity of future occupiers.

 

 

6 The first reserved matters application will include a revised Biodiversity Metric Calculation broadly in accordance with that submitted to the Council (Biodiversity Metric 4.0 - Ecology Solutions, May 2024). but taking account of any revisions to the calculation methodology made by Natural England and recalculated to reflect the details of the reserved matters application(s)

 

REASON: In the interest of Ecology and in accordance with the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy

 

 

7 No demolition, site clearance or development shall commence on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) prepared by an arboricultural consultant providing comprehensive details of construction works in relation to trees has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. All works shall subsequently be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. In particular, the method statement must provide the following:

• A specification for protective fencing to trees during both demolition and construction phases which complies with BS5837:2013 and a plan indicating the alignment of the protective fencing;
• A specification for scaffolding and ground protection within tree protection

zones in accordance with British Standard 5837: 2013;

• A schedule of tree works conforming to British Standard 3998: 2010;
• Details of general arboricultural matters such as the area for storage of

materials, concrete mixing and use of fires;

• Plans and particulars showing the siting of the service and piping

infrastructure;

• A full specification for the construction of any arboriculturally sensitive

structures and sections through them, including the installation of boundary

treatment works, the method of construction of the access driveway

including details of the no-dig specification and extent of the areas of the

driveway to be constructed using a no-dig specification;

• Details of the works requiring arboricultural supervision to be carried out

by the developer’s arboricultural consultant, including details of the

frequency of supervisory visits and procedure for notifying the Local

• Planning Authority of the findings of the supervisory visits; and
• Details of all other activities, which have implications for trees on or

adjacent to the site.

 

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner, to ensure that the trees to be retained on and adjacent to the site will not be damaged during the construction works and to ensure that as far as possible the work is carried out in accordance with current best practice and section 197 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

 

8 No development shall commence on site until the the following information regarding drainage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

 

· if infiltration and / or permeable paving is proposed (in the west of the

site) soakage tests in accordance with BRE 365 to demonstrate that

infiltration is feasible must be supplied as part of a revised drainage

strategy.

· Calculations and drawings for the drainage system design showing

designated holding areas and conveyance routes based on no flooding on site for a 1 in 30 year rainfall event.

· Calculations and drawings for the drainage system design showing designated holding areas and conveyance routes based on no flooding on site for a 1 in 100 year plus climate change rainfall event in respect to a building (including basement) or utility plant susceptible to water within the development.

· Calculations which demonstrate that the required 20% betterment against greenfield rates has been achieved for all storm events between the 1 in 1 year and the 1 in 100year return period storm events.

· The applicant must demonstrate that urban creep been accounted for the hydraulic calculations in line with LASOO guidance.

· A sensitivity analysis on the network considering surcharged outfall conditions

· Calculations which demonstrate that the required 20% betterment against greenfield rates has been achieved for all storm events between the 1 in 1 year and the 1 in 100year return period storm events.

· evidence of permission to cross third party land and permissions from riparian owners to discharge to the watercourse/river in perpetuity.

· demonstrate overland exceedance routes on the drainage plan for flows of the 1 in 100 year plus climate change (40%) rainfall event.

 

The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner in the interest of drainage.

 

9 No development shall commence on site until a construction management plan, which shall include monitoring of, and measures to retain, the existing vegetation across the site, together with details of drainage arrangements during the construction phase, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority.

 

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner in the interest of drainage

 

10 No development shall commence on site until a Energy Strategy(ies), including details of operational energy, embodied carbon, low carbon, renewable energy technologies, climate change adaptation measures and sustainable transport has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

 

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an

acceptable manner and to ensure that the objectives of sustainable development set out in policy CP41 and CP57 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy are achieved.

 

11 No demolition, site clearance or development shall commence on site, including ground works/excavation, site clearance, vegetation clearance and boundary treatment works until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall include a detailed plan showing detail of the avoidance, mitigation and protective measures to be implemented before and during the construction phase, including but not necessarily limited to, the following:

 

a) Phasing plan for bat habitat creation and landscape works in the north and east of the site.

b) Identification of ecological protection areas/buffer zones/bat and dormouse habitat and tree root protection areas and details of physical means of protection, e.g. exclusion fencing and including who will be responsible for its installation.

c) Location of construction compounds.

d) Details on locations of any construction lighting (if required: Note: this must be kept away from boundary features).

e) Working method statements for protected/priority species, including but not necessarily limited to, bats, dormouse, nesting birds, badger and reptiles.

f) Mitigation strategies already agreed with the local planning authority prior

to determination; this should comprise the pre-construction/construction

related elements of strategies only.

g) Work schedules for activities with specific timing requirements in order to

avoid/reduce potential harm to ecological receptors; including details of when a licensed ecologist and/or ecological clerk of works (ECoW) shall be present on site.

h) Key personnel, responsibilities and contact details (including Site Manager and ecologist/ECoW).

i) Timeframe for provision of compliance report to the local planning authority; to be completed by the ecologist/ECoW and to include photographic evidence.

 

The development hereby approved shall then be carried out in strict accordance with the approved CEMP.

 

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner, to ensure that adequate protection and mitigation for ecological receptors prior to and during construction, and that works are undertaken in line with current best practice and industry standards and are supervised by a suitably licensed and competent professional ecological consultant where applicable

 

12 No demolition, site clearance or development shall commence on site until a scheme and timetable for the provision and creation of the SuDs located in the western part of the site/within the public open space area has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The SuDs shall be designed as a permanent waterbody with a diverse marginal structure using trees, shrubs and grasses to provide suitable aquatic habitat for foraging bats.

The scheme shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the timetable detailed in the approved scheme

 

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner, to ensure that there is mitigation and enhancement of biodiversity.

 

13 No demolition, site clearance or development shall commence on site until a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The LEMP shall be based on the approved Ecological Parameters Plan included with the document titled ‘Response to Consultation Comments’ (Ecology Solutions Ltd; received 3rd June, 2024) the approved Biodiversity Metric 4.0 (Ecology Solutions, May 2024) submitted with the application. The LEMP will include details of translocating species-rich Hedgerow 1 and the majority of Hedgerow 4 along the Southwick Road to landscaped areas within the site. The LEMP will include the long-term objectives and targets, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for each ecological feature within the development, together with a mechanism for monitoring success of the management prescriptions, incorporating review and necessary adaptive management in order to attain targets.

 

The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which long-term implementation of the plan will be secured. The LEMP shall be implemented in full and for the lifetime of the development in accordance with the approved details.

 

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner, to ensure that the long-term management of landscape and ecological features retained and created by the development, for the benefit of visual amenity and biodiversity for the lifetime of the scheme

 

14 No development shall commence on site (including any works of demolition), until a Construction Management Statement, together with a site plan, which shall include the following:

1. the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

2. loading and unloading of plant and materials;

3. storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

4. the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate;

5. wheel washing facilities;

6. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;

7. a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; and

8. measures for the protection of the natural environment.

9. hours of construction, including deliveries;

10. pre-condition photo survey

 

has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved construction method statement.

 

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner and to minimise detrimental effects to the neighbouring amenities, the amenities of the area in general, detriment to the natural environment through the risks of pollution and dangers to highway safety, during the construction phase.

 

15 No development shall commence on site (including any works of demolition), until a Construction Method Statement, which shall include the following:

1. Routing plan

2. Traffic Management Plan (including signage drawing(s))

3. Number (daily/weekly) and size of delivery vehicles.

4. Number of staff vehicle movements.

5. Details of temporary/permanent Traffic Regulation Orders

6. Phases plan

 

has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the approved construction method statement.

 

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner and to minimise detrimental effects to the neighbouring amenities, the amenities of the area in general, detriment to the natural environment through the risks of pollution and dangers to highway safety, during the construction phase.

 

16 No development shall commence on site until a plan (details) for the selection, siting, positioning and installation of integral roosting/nesting features (ratio of 1 feature: 1 building) for bats and birds has been submitted to and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

 

The plan should show the green infrastructure that the development is to provide, illustrating how birds and bats using the boxes have access to the relevant habitat/food resource in nearby suitable habitat. The installation plan should be prepared in accordance with the requirements of BS 42021.

 

The integral nesting feature should identify, as a minimum:

a) the bird/bat species likely to benefit from the proposed integral nest

feature;

b) the type of integral nest feature to be installed;

c) the specific buildings on the development into which features are to be

installed, shown on appropriate scale drawings;

d) the location on each building where features are to be installed, shown on

all appropriate building plans and elevations.

 

The integral nest box plan should be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall remain for the lifetime of the development.

 

REASON: The application contained insufficient information to enable this matter to be considered prior to granting planning permission and the matter is required to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority before development commences in order that the development is undertaken in an acceptable manner and to ensure the protection, mitigation and enhancement of biodiversity.

 

17 No external lighting shall be installed on site until plans showing the type of light appliance, the height and position of fitting, illumination levels and light spillage in accordance with the appropriate Environmental Zone standards set out by the Institute of Lighting Engineers in their publication GN01:2021, ‘The Reduction of Obtrusive Light’ Guidance Note (ILP, 2021), have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

The approved lighting shall be installed and shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.

 

REASON: In the interests of the amenities of the area, to minimise unnecessary light spillage above and outside the development site and to core bat habitat meets the requirements of the Trowbridge Bat Mitigation Strategy.

 

18 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Ecological Parameters Plan included with the document titled ‘Response to Consultation Comments’ (Ecology Solutions Ltd; received 3rd June, 2024). This document will form the basis for the site layout and will not be altered at Reserved Matters without detailed justification based on additional habitat and wildlife species surveys, including but not necessarily limited to bats and dormouse.

 

REASON: To protect the ecology on the site

 

19 No part of the development hereby approved shall be occupied, until the visibility splays shown on the approved plan 23203-MA-IM-DR-C-0100-P09 have been provided with no obstruction to visibility at or above a height of 600mm above the nearside carriageway level. The visibility splays shall always be maintained free of obstruction thereafter.

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety

 

20 No development hereby approved shall commence on site until the construction access arrangement has been laid out in accordance with drawing number 23203-MA-IM-XX-DR-C-0101-P01.

 

Reason: In the interests of highway safety

 

21 No part of the development hereby approved shall be first occupied until the access, road markings, improvements to the access with Church Lane and footpaths have been laid out and completed in accordance with drawing number 23203-MA-IM-XX-DR-C-0100-P09.

 

REASON: In the interest of highway safety

 

22 Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved, a scheme of off-site highway works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in general accordance with plan 23203-MA-IM-DRC-0100-P09, subject to the submission and approval of detailed design, technical approval and the submission of safety audits. The scheme shall include those works as shown on the plan. No part of the development shall be first occupied until the offsite works have been laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the development.

 

23 Prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved a full travel plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The full travel plan when approved shall be implemented including the appointment of a travel plan co-ordinator for the lifetime of the development

 

Reason: In the interests of promoting sustainable patterns of travel to and from the development.

 

 

Informatives: (4)

1 This permission shall be read in conjunction with an Agreement made under

Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 and dated the

[INSERT].

 

2 The applicant is advised that the development hereby approved may

represent chargeable development under the Community Infrastructure Levy

Regulations 2010 (as amended) and Wiltshire Council's CIL Charging

Schedule. If the development is determined to be liable for CIL, a Liability

Notice will be issued notifying you of the amount of CIL payment due. If an

Additional Information Form has not already been submitted, please submit

it now so that we can determine the CIL liability. In addition, you may be able

to claim exemption or relief, in which case, please submit the relevant form

so that we can determine your eligibility. The CIL Commencement Notice

and Assumption of Liability must be submitted to Wiltshire Council prior to commencement of development. Should development commence prior to the CIL Liability Notice being issued by the local planning authority, any CIL exemption or relief will not apply and full payment will be required in full and with immediate effect. Should you require further information or to download the CIL forms please refer to the Council's Website

https://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/dmcommunityinfrastructurelevy.

 

3 Wiltshire Council is the land drainage authority under the Land Drainage Act 1991. Land drainage consent is required if a development proposes to discharge flow into an ordinary watercourse or carry out work within 8m of an ordinary watercourse. [An ordinary  watercourse is a watercourse that does not form part of a main river. The term watercourse includes all rivers and streams and all ditches, drains, cuts, culverts, dikes, sluices, sewers (other than public sewers within the meaning of the Water Industry Act 1991) and passages, through which water flows].

 

4 It is important for the applicant to note that the submitted illustrative masterplan would need to include connected street patterns through the use of cycle and pedestrian footpaths rather then several dead end cul-de-sacs when the detailed design is developed for the reserved matters application

 

Note: Cllr Christopher Newbury and Cllr Howard Greenman requested that their votes be recorded:

 

Cllr Newbury – voted against the motion to approve

Cllr Greenman - voted against the motion to approve