010-158-233241 Planning Statement Appendix 4 Boatyard DC Report June 2012

7/30/2019 010-158-233241 Planning Statement Appendix 4 Boatyard DC Report June 2012

1/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

1

SEDGEMOOR DISTRICT COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Report of the Group Manager

Submitted on 26 June 2012

All recommendations take account of existing legislation (including the HumanRights Act) Government circulars, the Somerset Structure Plan and all current

planning policy documents.___________________________________________________________________

Case Officer: Shanta Hobbs Tel: Sedgemoor Direct: 0845 408 2545

Burnham & Highbridge 11/11/00131 registered 10/11/2011Expiry Date 08/02/2012

(Outline Planning Permission)

Proposal: Erection of eighty five 2, 3 and 4 bedroom housesand ten 1 bedroom apartments. at Land to the westof, 67, Clyce Road, Highbridge, TA9 3DL for Mr & MrsG Evans (agent: Property Link South Ltd )


2/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

2

APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF A MEMBERS' SITE VISITTO ASSESS THE IMPACT ON THE WIDER HIGHWAY IMPLICATIONS ANDACCESS TO THE SITE AND THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THREE AND FOURSTOREY PROPERTIES ON THE SITE.

MEMBERS PRESENT: CHAIRMAN, COUNCILLORS M CASWELL, P DOWNING,A GLASSFORD, T GRIMES, MRS D HILL, D LOVERIDGE, K RICHARDS AND KSMOUT

UPDATES

None

PREVIOUS REPORT BELOW:

Committee decision required because

The views of the Town Council and Ward Member are contrary to officersrecommendation

Background

The site is located within the built up area of the town, towards the western side ofHighbridge adjacent to the River Brue which forms part of its western and southernboundary. The site comprises 1.2 hectares with a redundant boatyard (including aderelict workshop and commercial building) and a bungalow located towards thesouthern part of the site as well as a house at the eastern end of the site. It ispresently accessed via Clyce Road to the south and from the north via the concreteroad owned by Wessex Water. To the north of the site is the Delta Engineering siteand to the east are houses which form part of the housing estate accessed off SmithWay and the houses fronting onto Clyce Road.

The land to which this application relates has been identified and allocated forresidential development in the former Local Plan and now Core Strategy.

The application is in outline form with only the access and scale of development tobe dealt with at this stage. It is proposed to erect 95 dwellings in the form of eighty

five, 2, 3 and 4 bed homes and 10 one-bed apartments. The existing buildings,including the bungalow and the house at the end of Smith Way would bedemolished. The proposed access to the development would be via Smith Way inplace of the demolished dwelling. It is also proposed to provide a new flood defencewall.

During the processing of the application, further/amended information has beensupplied including Flood Risk Assessment, Reptile Survey, Green Space UseReport, Transport Assessment,

Relevant History

11/02/00115 Refused Change of use of land from boat storage to static caravan


3/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

3

holiday park and alterations to access

11/05/00152 withdrawn residential development

Supporting information supplied by the applicant

Design and Access Statement, Planning Statement, Archaeological Desk BasedAssessment, Ecological Survey, Ground Investigation Report, Viability Statement,Flood Risk Assessment, Reptile Survey and Green Space Use Report, TransportAssessment.

Consultation Responses

Town Council - objection (to amended plans)

Whilst members agree in principle that this site is appropriate for development of

housing and is recognised in the Core Strategy as an agreed site for development,

nevertheless, having considered the amended plans the town Council maintains its

objections to the application on the following valid planning grounds:

Members agreed that the proposed new flood defences included in this application

will have a community benefit for Highbridge as a whole by enabling the

development of other sites (notably the other part of H17 allocation) which will bring

forward other community benefits to support infrastructure delivery (Policy S2).

However they believe it does not meet all the requirements set out in Policy P3 of the

Core Strategy.

Increasing self-containment by reducing the need to travel.

Whilst the site is fairly well placed for public transport there is no employment

opportunities being offered with this development therefore occupiers of the

properties would need to travel out of town for employment opportunities.

Enhancing the service centre role of the town and its relationship to the

wider rural hinterland.

Whilst members accept that 95 new homes may add some demand on shops in thetown centre, it is unlikely to help regenerate services already lost which would in turn

enhance the service centre role.

Provide development opportunities that meets the demand of the local

community including addressing the known areas of deprivation and social

exclusion.

Members cannot see how maisonettes and apartments meet the demand of the local

community. Members welcomed the contribution to RLT2 and RLT3, however, this

and the flood defences was all the development of this site was able to offer,because of financial viability, and whilst members recognised the flood defences


4/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

4

helped significantly with future development of H17 allocation, it did not address the

social exclusion and deprivation in Highbridge.

Consolidate and enhance existing local services, facilities and

infrastructure, including education, open space and other social infrastructure.

Again members understood that the flood defences helped to enhance existing local

services and infrastructure, but maintained their concerns over the lack of facilities

and open space in the town.

Access is a major issue with this application and the Town Council considers the

current access is unacceptable. The application mentions an improved access route

once the other areas in the location are developed but as this information is not

available within this application, it is not relevant. The access road along Smith Way

is most inappropriate; it was noted in the original letter from County Highways and in

talks between the Town Council and planning policy officers at the District Councilwhen the general consensus of opinion was that this access was not suitable,

although the officers did note that future development may provide an alternative

access. Members of the Town Council maintain their request for the District Council

to have a site meeting before submitting the residents of this area to the safety risks

of the traffic generated by this development, and to consider the application on its

merit, not on promises of what may be provided in the future.

The Town Council reiterates previous concerns about the number of parking spaces,

for the 95 dwellings, which are not shown on the plans (only the square footage is

noted), and this in no way indicates whether the development will have adequate

parking.

The Town Council objects to the proposed 10 one bedroom apartments and would

need further assurances about the style of 85 houses and maisonettes and consider

the application is not in line with Policy D5

It does not contribute to the following objectives:

Meeting local housing needs, including mix, type and tenure.

Making provision for identified specialist local needs including older

persons and those with disabilities.

Providing appropriate infrastructure

Compatible with the scale and character of its location

Ward Member, Cllr Leach comments

"I have serious concerns with regards to the access and Highway use. The proposalto demolish an existing Semi-Detached house, and run a road through from Smith


5/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

5

Way is simply unacceptable. The original construction of the Sparks Way/Smith Wayestate was built with the few number of cars travelling along it. Taking into account 1car per household, possibly more, an additional 95 cars travelling along a road whichwas not designed to deal with heavy traffic. With there being many young familieshere, I feel strongly this is simply too much for a small area, and that such traffic

could be dangerous on these roads.

I am not satisfied that the proposed development is within the perimeters of theLocal Development Framework. A large proportion of the proposal is flats andmaisonettes (Which are simply ground floor flats with a front garden) whichgoes against the stated need of Family Housing. Highbridge in particular hasseen a high density of Flats constructed over the last 5 years, and it has beenrecognised that Houses are desperately needed to house the many families onour waiting list. Let me make it clear, Riverside flats are not a welcome addition,and this has been accepted by Sedgemoor District Council.

With the above in mind, it is my opinion that the council should REJECT thisapplication on the above grounds. Local knowledge will tell you that my firstpoint is very much valid, despite anything contrary from the Highwaysdepartment. If the committee are not entirely aware of just how poorly equippedthe access is to deal with this proposal, I would plead a site visit, which I willhappily attend."

Member of Parliament, Tessa Munt MP - comments

"I am writing to you on behalf of local residents who have expressed seriousconcerns about the above planning application.

A significant concern is that access to the proposed site would be completelyinsufficient. The two roads leading to the site, Clyce Road and Smith Way, are bothtoo narrow to provide appropriate access to a development of 95 homes. Parking onthe left side of Clyce Road makes it to all intents and purposes a one-way street, andSmith Way is a slim, slow road only built to provide access to the 48 existing homeson Smith Way and Sparks way, which leads off it. 85 of the proposed residences areintended for families, and therefore would most likely be two-car homes. However,even if each home only possessed one car, all three roads would be jammed by theaddition of 95 vehicles making regular use of them. Although the application

mentions that an improved access route would be provided once other areas of thesite had been developed, the details of this have not been specified, and residentsare still concerned.

A further, related concern is that the application does not specify the number ofparking spaces the site would have. There is, therefore, no way of telling ifappropriate parking has been provided.

I understand that a recent application to develop on the opposite side of the RiverBrue, on higher ground than the site currently proposed for development, wasrejected on the grounds that the flood risks were too high. Residents are naturally

concerned that a site on lower ground must suffer the same or greater risks.


6/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

6

The application does not seem to meet the objectives necessary to be in line withPolicy P3 of the Core Strategy. Specifically, the development would not be self-contained, and would, therefore, increase the need for residents to travel. It wouldnot enhance the service centre role of the town or its relationship to the wider ruralhinterland. It would not provide development opportunities to meet the demands of

the local community and in particular, it would not address the known areas ofdeprivation and social exclusion. Finally, it would not consolidate and enhanceexisting local services, facilities and infrastructure such as education, open spaceand other social infrastructure.

The application also does not seem to meet the objectives necessary to be in linewith Policies D5 and S2 of the Core Strategy, in that it would not meet local housingneeds. In particular, the local area has no need for the ten 1 bedroom apartmentsproposed, as Highbridge already has an excess of maisonettes and small flats.Moreover, the development would not make provision for identified specialist localneeds of older persons and those with disabilities. There is also no provision for

affordable housing, essential for a development of this scale. The developmentwould also not be compatible with the scale and character of its location.

The application does not address issues of flood defence. Finally, the proposeddevelopment makes no contribution to education, sports or community and culturalfacilities, open space, green infrastructure, healthcare, or emergency services.

Ultimately, the proposed development seems to be entirely unsuitable for the localarea."

Further comments received:

I have spoken to a number of local residents since my previous letter. They arevery concerned about many aspects of this application. Their concerns are:

x The proposed access to the site is through Smith Way, a narrow road designedonly for local residents and not suitable to be a through road for the proposednew development. I understand the Town Councils comments on thisapplication describe the access as unacceptable. The local residents I havespoke to fully agree with this description.

x The proposal contains ten one-bedroom apartments. Residents point out thatHighbridge already has a surplus of one-bedroom apartments. This has beenidentified in the Sedgemoor Core Strategy. Policy D5 of the Core Strategyincludes the following statement: In general housing proposals will be supportedwhere they contribute to the following objectives... Meeting local housing needs.The local residents I have spoken to do not understand how any development inHighbridge that includes yet more apartments can possibly be said to meet localhousing needs. I understand that the developer has attempted to reduce thenumber of proposed dwellings that will be called flats or apartments by statingthat some of these properties will be maisonettes. Local residents believe this

is nothing more than an attempt to include flats by giving them another name. Inote that Table 5.2 of the Core Strategy groups flats and maisonettes together as


7/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

7

one type of housing. If maisonettes are deemed to be the same type of housingin the Core Strategy, I do not understand how they can be classed as differenttypes during the assessment of a planning application.

x Policy D5 of the Core Strategy states:

In general housing proposals will be supported where they contribute to the followingobjectives:

x Accord with the Spatial Strategy;x Deliver a minimum of 10,605 new homes between 2006-27;x Consistent with the Councils Housing Trajectory;x Meeting local housing needs, including mix, type and tenure;x Making provision for identified specialist local needs including older persons

and those with disabilities;x Providing appropriate infrastructure (including green infrastructure) when

required;x High quality sustainable design and energy efficiency;x Compatible with the scale, accessibility needs and character of its location.x No adverse impact on the transport network in terms of the nature and volume

of traffic.

Local residents tell me that Policy D5 of the Core Strategy is not met by thisproposal. Specifically, local housing needs are not met (see point 2 above); there isno provision for specialist local needs such as older people or those with disabilities(extraordinarily, paragraph 2.12 of the applicants Planning Statement says theapplication site will be safe to access by able bodied and emergency services -from this it is logical to conclude that the site will not be accessible by disabledpeople); there is no provision for appropriate infrastructure; the development is notcompatible with the character of its location; and the addition of 95 dwellings willsurely have an adverse impact on the transport network in terms of the volume oftraffic.

1. Local residents tell me that the application does not comply with Policy P3 ofthe Core Strategy which states that:

Proposals for development in Burnham-on-Sea & Highbridge will be supported ifthey contribute to meeting all the following objectives:

x Increasing self-containment by reducing the need to travel;x Enhancing the service centre role of the towns and their relationship to

the wider rural hinterland;x Providing development opportunities that meet the needs of the local

community including addressing known areas of deprivation and socialexclusion;

x Promoting regeneration of the built environment and improvements tothe public realm;

x Encouraging investment and complementary developmentopportunities that support and strengthen the areas role as a

significant tourist destination;x Consolidating and enhancing existing local services, facilities and


8/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

8

infrastructure including education, open space and other socialinfrastructure;

x Delivering a strategic flood defence solution that is sensitive to itslocation adjacent to internationally important nature conservation sites;

x Protecting and enhancing the ecological sensitivities of the area

including national and international nature conservation designations.

Local residents tell me that this proposal would not reduce the need to travel (as thedevelopment would be purely housing, residents would need to travel off the site forall their employment, shopping and amenity needs); there would be no enhancementof the towns service centre role; the development would not meet the demands ofthe local community (as Highbridges housing needs would not be met by anydevelopment that includes flats, apartments or maisonettes); and there would be noconsolidation or enhancement of existing local serves, facilities and infrastructure.

x In my letter of 22nd December, I raised a concern that the number of parkingspaces to be provided with this application was not stated, which makes itimpossible to know whether appropriate parking will be provided. It also meansthat the extent of the access problem cannot be fully evaluated as the number ofvehicles using the site is unknown.

x The site is partly in flood risk zone 3 and partly in flood risk zone 2. PlanningPolicy Statement 25 states Only where there are no reasonably available sites inFlood Zones 1 or 2 should decision-makers consider the suitability of sites inFlood Zone 3. Local residents tell me that there are undeveloped flood risk zone2 sites in Highbridge. This being the case, development on this site should not

be considered until those sites have been developed.

x Local residents have told me that this application makes no provision forcommunity benefit, except for improvements to flood defences. The residents tellme that these flood defences are only necessary if this and other proposeddevelopments in the area take place. Therefore there would be no benefitwhatsoever to the existing residents of Highbridge from this development. I amaware that an argument is being made that the flood defences would allow otherdevelopments to take place, which could provide other community benefits. Thisargument can be challenged on two counts. First, all planning applications mustbe judged on their own merits, not on the possible merits of another possible

application yet to be submitted. Secondly, there is no guarantee that any otherapplication will be submitted, and if it is, there is no guarantee of approval.Therefore it is unreasonable to ask the members of the Development ControlCommittee to make a decision on this application based on a possiblesubsequent application that may or may not offer substantial community benefits.

x Local residents have told me that some of the land that is marked as owned bySedgemoor District Council (on the land ownership map attached to theapplication on the Councils website) is actually common land, with a communalright of access to the wharf. If this proposed development goes ahead, this

would prevent members of the public from exercising this right. Surely this pointneeds to be clarified before planning permission is granted, as the permission


9/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

9

may not be implementable if the information I have from local residents is correct.

x I understand that this proposed development would make no contribution toaffordable housing, which is desperately needed in Highbridge. Policy D6 of theCore Strategy states:

The Council will seek to negotiate appropriate affordable housing provision on sitesof 5 dwellings or more on a site by site basis taking into account viabilityconsiderations... As a minimum all qualifying housing proposals should meet therequirements of Target B. Where it is clearly demonstrated that Target B cannot beachieved on viability grounds the Council may exceptionally support a lowerprovision where:

x the scheme would address a housing land supply deficiency as identified inthe Housing Trajectory in accordance with Policy D5: Housing; and/or

x the scheme will deliver other Plan objectives that outweigh the need to

provide affordable housing at the target levels.

Where development proposals do not meet affordable housing targets, the Councilwill require a full development appraisal, including financial viability assessment, todemonstrate an acceptable alternative affordable housing provision. This might, inexceptional circumstances, include a financial contribution towards off-site provision.

The proposed development is clearly over 5 dwellings. Therefore the Councilshould, according to its own policies, be negotiating for affordable housing provisionon site, unless there are clear viability grounds that mean the Councils targetscannot be met. According to Table 5.4 of the Core Strategy, a development of thissize (over 15 dwellings) should have at least 40% of the units being affordable. Inexceptional circumstances, a financial contribution to affordable housing elsewherecan be made. However, I understand that there is no financial contribution proposedfor off-site affordable housing. I note the comments by Stuart Houlet, PlanningPolicy Team Leader, that this development would make other potentialdevelopments in the area more viable, and these developments would provideaffordable housing. However, I refer you back to my comments in point 7 - allapplications must be assessed on their own merits. Affordable housing must beprovided with this application, either on site or a financial contribution towardsanother site.

Environmental Health- no objection

x Recommend condition regarding land contamination

Affordable Housing Policy and Development -awaited

x Comments will be provided orally at Committee

County Highways Authority- no objection

In terms of traffic impact, assessments have now been provided for the appropriate


10/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

10

years of 2013 and 2018 and the use of the geometry accepted for the Brue FarmTransport Assessment. The modelling is therefore now considered to be acceptable.From the details provided it appears that the ASDA roundabout is shown to operatesatisfactorily. It is unlikely that modelling using an alternative geometry woulddemonstrate capacity issues.

The submitted traffic modelling indicates that the Huntspill Road/Tyler Way/ChurchStreet/Market Street, in its current form, would be able to operate just within capacitywithout development. Although it should be noted that the development would takethe roundabout slightly above effective capacity on one approach in each of thepeaks with the AM peak for the Market Street RFC increasing from 84% to 92% andthe PM peak Huntspill Road RFC raising from 84% to 89%.

The Transport Assessment states that this is only a small increase in queuing. Delayis generally a better indicator of the impact on drivers, and the increases are asfollows. The AM peak for Market Street delay would increase by 34 seconds per

vehicles to 1 minute 43 seconds. The average delay on all approaches roundaboutincreases by 5 seconds per vehicle to 26 seconds, in the PM peak the delay onHuntspill Road will increase by 8 seconds per vehicle to 34 seconds. The averagedelay on all approaches increases by 4 seconds per vehicle to 22 seconds pervehicle.

The roundabout is close to capacity without development, which means that the 6-7% increase in peak hour traffic through the roundabout results in an arguablydisproportionate increase in delay per vehicle of around 20%. Although this isconsidered a slight increase in the capacity it is noted that there are proposedmitigation measures for this roundabout associated with the Brue Farm residentialdevelopment. Once these measures are in place it should increase the capacity ofthe Tyler Way roundabout.

In terms of the Travel Plan no amendment was submitted as a consequence I wouldrefer the applicant to the Highway Authoritys previous comments. The Travel Planshould be secured through a S.106 agreement with the Local Planning Authority. Ifthere is to be no such agreement associated with this proposal then the Travel Planwould need to be secured through a grampian condition.

Turning to the technical detail the applicant has submitted an indicative drawing

showing the proposed access layout for the site. This is considered to be acceptablein principle although the applicant should note that the access road would need to beslightly re-aligned as at present it is overlapping the proposed footway. The applicantshould note that full design would be subject to a full technical and safety audit andsubject to a S.278 agreement with the Highway Authority.

Therefore in conclusion the proposal would result in a slight increase in traffic overthe existing roundabout junctions in particular the Tyler Way roundabout. From themodelling provided it is apparent that this proposal would push it over its workingcapacity. However this is only a slight increase during the peak time flow. In additionit should also be noted that mitigation measures are proposed to improve the

capacity of the roundabout. As a consequence this increase can be considered to beacceptable. In terms of the proposed access arrangements these are considered


11/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

11

acceptable in principle although some minor alterations are required.

Therefore on balance I raise no objection to this proposal and if planning permissionwere to be granted I would require conditions to be attached regarding accessarrangements; travel plan; surface water disposal and highway details.

Strategy and Businesssupport

The Boatyard site and its potential for residential development have long beenidentified in local planning policy and it was allocated for residential purposes underPolicy H17 in the Sedgemoor District Local Plan, alongside land to the west ofNewtown Road (focused on the adjacent Delta Engineering site).The Inspector whooversaw the Local Plan Inquiry identified the sites redevelopment as an importantpart of the regeneration strategy for Highbridge and suggested that there were novalid grounds in principle to preclude it from the Local Plan as a housing site.

Policy H17 of the Local Plan recognized that the site formed a large redevelopmentopportunity close to the centre of Highbridge and that the Boatyard element offeredthe opportunity for riverside development.

The Local Plan has now been supeceded by the Councils Core Strategy that was

adopted on the 12th October 2012. Given the strategic nature of the Core Strategy anumber of Local Plan policies are not directly replaced by the new policies of theCore Strategy and a number have been saved. This includes a number of LocalPlan housing and employment allocations, including H17.

The Core Strategy does not include residential allocations for brownfield sites withinexisting urban areas, instead it sets out policy advice to enable the release of siteswhere they meet the requirements of the Core Strategy as a whole. However insaving a number of allocations from the Local Plan this has in effect rolled thoseallocations forward, albeit they would still need to meet the requirements of the CoreStrategy in respect of detailed proposals. Therefore the principle of residentialdevelopment on those saved sites remains and indeed in the case of the Boatyardand Highbridge Market sites these are specifically identified on the spatial diagramfor Burnham & Highbridge that supports Policy P3 of the Core Strategy.

Key Core Strategy Policy Considerations on Principle of Development

Policy S1 (Spatial Strategy for Sedgemoor)

Policy S1 is the key strategic policy of the Core Strategy and the starting point forconsidering development proposals as it determines whether development is in theright place. Under S1 Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge are identified as the mostsustainable location for development after Bridgwater given the range of servicesand facilities. The policy prioritises development opportunities in the identifiedsettlements that contribute to regeneration, viability and vitality and which are closeto existing or proposed public transport routes and normally on brownfield sites. All

development is required to take into account flood risk, nature conservation andsupport the delivery of infrastructure


12/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

12

Table 3.4 of Policy S1 under what this means for Burnham & Highbridge, specificallyrefers to new housing within or adjacent to the existing urban area maximizingbrownfield opportunities and on a well related urban extension on land at Brue Farm,Highbridge that contributes to strategic flood defence, education and town centre

regeneration.

In assessing the principle of development at the Boatyard against this it suggeststhat this accords with the spatial strategy and the criteria of Policy S1 and wouldrepresent development in the right place. The site is in the existing urban area ofBurnham & Highbridge within walking distance of the town centre and strategic buscorridors and Highbridge railway station. It is brownfield and would deliver clearregenerative benefits to the image of the town. In addition the opportunity tocontribute to delivering a long-term flood defence solution that deals not just with theflood risk to the site but the wider town would represent a significant infrastructureimprovement for the area.

Policy P3 (Burnham on-Sea & Highbridge)

Policy P3: Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge provides additional place specificguidance as well as setting out overall objectives for development. The principle ofdevelopment on the boatyard site meets the relevant objectives of this policy in that:

x it will be accessible by a range of sustainable transport modes to services andfacilities including local job opportunities;

x it provides the opportunity to enhance the role of the town;x it promotes regeneration given it would involve the redevelopment of a vacant

and underused brownfield site;x the site is critical in ensuring the delivery of a strategic flood defence solution

for Highbridge; andx by bearing the costs of the flood defence works it will improve the viability of

the other part of the H17 allocation (land west of Newton Road) and facilitatethe delivery of affordable housing and other key infrastructure requirements .

The proposed redevelopment of the Boatyard site would also meet the specific policyguidance with P3 on housing in that it maximizes brownfield development within theexisting urban area, is identified on the spatial diagram for Burnham & Highbridgeand will meet local housing priorities in that it the suggested housing mix broadly

meets the profile for the District as a whole and (as outlined above) will facilitate thedelivery of affordable housing on the adjacent development.

There is therefore full planning policy support from the Core Strategy in principle forthe development of housing at this location. Indeed the redevelopment of the site isan essential catalyst for the wider regeneration of Highbridge as it will deliver a long-term strategic flood defence solution ensuring both existing and new development isfree from flood risk. It has other wider facilitative benefits in that by providing this keyinfrastructure it supports the viability of other schemes and planned development inthe area that will enable these to deliver a wider range of place shaping prioritiesincluding education, open space and social infrastructure.


13/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

13

Somerset Education Servicescomments

x Development is likely to have a significant impact on education in the localarea and financial contributions to mitigate this should be sought through aplanning obligation.

x Regarding primary school contributions, 17 spaces which equate to a total of208,369 should be secured.

x In respect of secondary education, it is considered that the local secondaryschool would have sufficient capacity.

x 3 pre-school places amounting to a contribution of 36,771 is requiredthrough contributions.

Environment Agency no objection

x On basis of additional information including a revised Flood Risk Assessment(FRA prepared by EWE Associates and dated January 2012 Rev B), we

now withdraw our previous objection subject to conditions regarding floor andground levels; flood defences; operations and maintenance manual; surfacewater drainage scheme; land contamination.

x It is critical that the requirements set out in Natural Englands formal responseto this application are addressed prior to determination of this application. Weunderstand that, to date, no progress has been made on securing anappropriate Habitat Regulations Assessment. We will not object on this issuesince we are not the competent authority. However, we fully support thecomments and recommendations set out by Natural England.

x The maintenance of the flood defence and surface water drainageinfrastructure needs to be agreed prior to the determination of this application.This is to ensure that this responsibility (and any necessary commuted sums)is secured in an appropriately worded Section 106 Agreement. Weunderstand that the flood defence is to be maintained by a privatemanagement company, but it is not clear who will be responsible formaintaining surface water drainage infrastructure. You should consult youDrainage Engineer who can comment on whether your Authority would bewilling to adopt such infrastructure.

x It is important that adequate maintenance access to the river defences iscontinued, both for the management company and for our operatives shouldthis be necessary in the future. It may be prudent to impose a suitably worded

condition to remove permitted development rights for properties along theRiver Brue to ensure that access is retained effectively.

County Archaeologist- comments

x This site has potential for the survival of heritage assets relating to Romanand medieval occupation. On other sites in and around Highbridge Romanremains including buildings survive on sites which appear to be disturbed bylater development. I recommend that the developer be required toarchaeologically excavate the heritage asset and provide a report on any

discoveries made, as laid out in PPS5 (Policy HE12.3). This should besecured by the use of model condition 55 attached to any permission granted.


14/26


15/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

15

boundary (and presumably inland of the natural channel boundary). It is statedthat the area of overlap of 25 m2 (reduced to 20 m2 in the new OverwinteringBirds report) is grassland, exposed mud and hard standing. Im not familiar withthe Environment Agencys detailed plans for the proposed new flood defence, butif the footprint of the bank overlaps with the EMS then an Appropriate

Assessment would be required in relation to the planning application for the flooddefence. I would advise that a precautionary approach is taken to avoiding thepotential loss of any SAC habitat.

x Withdraw objection as the potential direct impact on EMS habitat relates to thepossible construction of a new flood defence, rather than the housing underconsideration.

x Overwintering birds -the survey of the use of the Brue Estuary by overwinteringSPA birds, addresses a concern raised in response to original consultation. Nowhappy with the quality of the survey undertaken and accept their analysis.

x Agree that mitigation measures to avoid disturbance of SPA birds arising fromdemolition and development of the site will need to be conditioned as part of a

planning permission.x Mitigating disturbance arising from occupation of the completed development will

need to be achieved through encouraging future residents to use alternativegreenspace, particularly for dog walking, and reducing or avoiding the impact ofartificial lighting and noise on the estuary.

x The overwintering bird survey report mentions that the proposed flood defenceworks will involve re-routing the current public footpath along the northern bank ofthe Brue via the new flood defence. Natural England would welcome a meetingwith the Environment Agency and other relevant parties to discuss the potentialimpact of an increase in disturbance on the edge of the estuary, and the possiblerelationship of the proposed realignment of the access route in relation to ourCoastal Access initiative.

x Bats -the clarification of the approach to bat surveys is helpful and addresses theconfusion which arose in interpreting the recommendation for emergence surveysin the original ecological report. Accepted that the work completed to date relatesto an outline planning application and that further surveys would be undertaken tosupport a detailed application.

x Reptile- agree that the further surveys should be undertaken to support a detailedplanning application.

x Breeding bird survey -accept that the habitat potentially available to birds on thesite is limited. Removal of vegetation before construction must take place outside

the bird breeding season and would need to be conditioned if planningpermission is granted.x Habitat Regulations Assessment -it remains the responsibility of Sedgemoor

District Council as the relevant competent authority to undertake a Test of LikelySignificant Effect in relation to the impact of disturbance on SPA birds. Byproducing a comprehensive report on the use of the Brue Estuary by SPA birds,Michael Woods Associates have provided the Local Planning Authority with theinformation it will need to fulfil its obligation under the 2010 Habitats Regulations.

x Protected Species -if there is a need to apply for a wildlife licence in relation tomitigation measures for bats, then up-to-date survey information will need to beprovided. Sedgemoor District Council will also need to ensure that European

Protected Species populations are maintained at favourable conservation statusin their natural range to meet the requirement of the 2010 Habitats Regulations.


16/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

16

x Green Space and Biodiversity Enhancements - I noted that the need to providegreen space and biodiversity enhancements within the proposed developmentsite appeared not to have been considered. A new document has been providedcalled Dog walking Apex Park, which summarises information on existingleisure opportunities in Highbridge and Burnham. I agree that residents of a new

development should be encouraged to make use of outdoor recreationalopportunities away from the edge of the estuary to reduce the level ofdisturbance to SPA birds. This should be achieved through additional signage ifnecessary. However, the provision of the new document misses my original point,which is that given the scale of the development we would recommend that greenspace and biodiversity enhancements should be incorporated into the site designto reduce visitor pressure on the adjoining European nature conservation sitesand improve the quality of life experienced by new residents.

Ecologist-comments

x Further information re birds is required and it shouldnt be determined until wehave this information. An update will be provided at Committee in respect ofthis matter.

Drainage Board no objection

x Require a surface water drainage condition

Wessex Water-comment

The submitted surface water drainage strategy is acceptable in principle to WessexWater. There is sufficient capacity within the local foul sewerage network to servethe proposed development.

A strategic trunk sewer (900mm diameter) crosses the site. There is to be nobuilding within 5 metres of this sewer. Housing C type block appears to be within thiseasement; which will not be permitted. The exact location of the sewer will need tobe plotted on site drawings and appropriate measures made for its protection.

The site is in close proximity to Highbridge sewage pumping station. Highbridge SPSis a non-standard pumping station; Wessex Water has received a number of

complaints from neighbouring properties relating to odour nuisance from this site.We also believe there are a number of different odour sources within the area.Residential development will be particularly sensitive to odour emissions andresultant poor air quality. We believe that this may lead to unacceptable conditionsand create a high risk of a statutory nuisance. The guidance provided in PPS23Planning and Pollution Control requires the local planning authority to consider thismatter and we recommend that you seek the views of the Environmental HealthOfficer before any decision is taken. We believe there is a need to undertake anappropriate assessment to support this planning submission. As far as we are awareappropriate assessment has not been undertaken.


17/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

17

Representations

17 letters from local residents; a petition with 13 signatures and a petition with 78signatures have been received objecting

x Smith Way is not wide enough for an adequate entrance ad children play in theroad as there is nowhere else.

x Overlooking and loss of privacyx noise and dustx Insufficient educational provisionx Greater strain on local amenitiesx Drainage is an on-going problemx Lack of public transportx Increase in congestionx Unsuitable high density development- over-developmentx No contribution towards community benefitx Adequate provision should be made for marine usex Devaluation of propertiesx Does not meet the objectives of policy P3 of the Core Strategyx No attempt at providing genuinely affordable housingx Clyce road must not be used for access to houses or when development takes

place or for parkingx Badgers live in the buildingsx Bats are seen entering the buildingx Flood defences at top of Clyce Road needs to be explored furtherx Concern about lengthy works and disruptionx Disagree with boundary of landx Would we still have rear accessx No provision of a play area

1 letter of support

x This brownfield site is ideal for housing and far better than digging up greenfields.

x The mix of development (avoiding flats) is what people of Highbridge have beenasking for

Most Relevant Policies

National Planning Policies

National Planning Policy Framework

Somerset and Exmoor National Park Joint Structure Plan Review

STR1 Sustainable Development


18/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

18

Sedgemoor District Core Strategy (including Saved Policies)

S1 Spatial Strategy for Sedgemoor S2 Infrastructure DeliveryS3 Sustainable Development Principles

D1 Managing Flood RiskD2 Promoting High Quality and Inclusive DesignD5 HousingD6 Affordable HousingD9 Sustainable Transport and MovementD10 Managing the Transport Impacts of DevelopmentD14 Natural EnvironmentD16 Pollution Impacts of Development and Protecting Residential AmenityD18 Education ProvisionP3 Burnham on Sea and Highbridge

Main Issues

Principle of development

This is an outline application with all matters reserved except access and scale. The

site is located within the development boundary and is a site that has been allocated

for residential development for many years. Furthermore, it lies immediately adjacent

to other residential properties. It is considered that the principle of residential

development is acceptable in this location.

Impact on Highway Safety and Access

The proposed access for this development would be via the existing residential areato the east. The Highway Authority is satisfied that while the development may resultin a slight increase in traffic over the existing roundabout junctions in particular theTyler Way roundabout, that this is only a slight increase during the peak time flow.Further mitigation measures are proposed that would improve the capacity of theroundabout. This increase is therefore considered to be acceptable. In terms of theproposed access arrangements these are considered acceptable in principlealthough some minor alterations are required.

The access would be achieved by knocking down one of the houses to the east ofthe site. Knightstone are happy with this and the occupant is happy to be re-housesdwithin the new development. With regard to the construction traffic, this can bemanaged through a condition.

Impact on Environment

The application site boundary is shown as overlapping the EMS (European Marine

Site) boundary, but that the proposed new floodwall will be constructed inland of the

application site boundary. Natural England states that if the footprint of the bank

overlaps with the EMS then an Appropriate Assessment would be required and that

a precautionary approach needs to be taken to avoid the potential loss of any SAC


19/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

19

habitat.

Natural England has stated that they withdraw their objection as they were of the

(mis)-understanding that the potential direct impact on EMS habitat relates to the

construction of the new flood defence, rather than the housing development which

was to be part of another application. However, this application is also for the flood

wall. Further observations of Natural England are awaited in respect of this.

With regard to the ecology surveys Natural England are satisfied with theoverwintering birds survey and agree that mitigation measures to avoid disturbanceof SPA birds arising from demolition and development of the site will need to beconditioned. It has been accepted that the work regarding bat and reptile surveyscompleted to date relates to the outline planning application and that further surveyswould be undertaken to support the Reserved Matters application. The habitatpotentially available to birds on the site is limited, however, removal of vegetation

before construction must take place outside the bird breeding season and wouldneed to be conditioned if planning permission is granted.

Design and Impact on Character of the Area

No details of the design of the dwellings are provided at this stage, these details will

be fully assessed at Reserved Matters stage. However, the application clearly shows

that the development would comprise of a mix of house types and that there would

be a mix of 2 storey terraces, 2 and 2.5 storey semi-detached and detached houses

and 3 and 4 storey maisonettes. The actual indicative mix set out in the application

details does however broadly meet the mix profile set out under Policy D5 (Housing )of the Core Strategy which requires a range of house types and sizes. D5 suggests

that evidence form the Strategic Housing market Assessment identifies a lesser

requirement for flats and 1 bedroom properties compared to other house sizes with a

particular onus on family sized housing.

From the indicative profile submitted with the application the majority of units would

be 3 bedroom or more and would represent family housing. Whilst some 1 bedroom

apartments are suggested, this is only a small proportion of the overall mix and

broadly accords with Policy D5. Issues have been raised in respect of the number of

maisonettes that have been proposed and that this represents flatted development,however there is a difference between these forms of development, with maisonettes

being more appropriate for family housing.

It is considered that in this location, taking into account the riverside frontage that the

site has the potential to accommodate such development with no undue adverse

impact on the character of the area.

Impact on Amenities of Neighbouring Residents

The proposal seeks to provide a mix of residential accommodation which would be

fully compatible with the existing neighbouring residential properties in close


20/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

20

proximity to the site. At Reserved Matters stage, details regarding the exact siting,

design and layout of the development would be provided. It is considered that the

site has potential to satisfactorily accommodate an appropriate scheme of

development that would have no adverse impact on the amenities of existing

residents in terms of overlooking, loss of light, noise and disturbance and visualdomination. The exact siting, design and elevations of the proposed dwellings will be

dealt with at Reserved Matters stage where full consideration will be given to those

factors, ensuring that there would be no overlooking windows, visual domination etc.

The proposed vehicular access would run between two properties in place of one of

the houses which is to be demolished. This would provide adequate space for

vehicles without causing undue harm in terms of noise and disturbance. There would

be no vehicular access off Clyce Road.

Impact on Flooding

The proposal seeks to provide enhanced flood defences in the form of a flood wall

on the western boundary of the site which is a strategic flood defence solution for

Highbridge providing wider benefit to the town as a whole. The Environment Agency

are satisfied with development provided the maintenance of the flood defence and

surface water drainage infrastructure is agreed prior to the determination of this

application. An update will be provided at Committee.

Contributions in respect of Policies RLT2 and RLT3

Contributions are to be made and will form part of a Section 106 Agreement.

Education Provision

The development is likely to have a significant impact on education in the local area

and financial contributions to mitigate this should be sought through a planning

obligation.

Affordable Housing

The comments of the Affordable Housing Officer are still awaited and the Memberswill be orally updated at the meeting.

Summary

The site is an allocated site for residential development and in order to development

the land it will be necessary to form a new access by demolishing a house which

forms part of the existing estate adjacent, resulting in vehicles utilising the roads

through the estate. However, it has been concluded that the highway network is

adequate to cope with this additional traffic. The development will provide additional

flood defence works which will benefit Highbridge as a whole. At the later, detailed

Reserved Matters stage, further information is to be provided where it can be

ensured that the amenity of neighbouring residents will be protected


21/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

21

Reasons for granting consent

The proposed development site is specifically identified in the adopted CoreStrategy and therefore the principle of development is accepted. The schemeoffers the opportunity to deliver a range of housing, provision of flood

defences, enhancements to the walking and cycling network. The proposeddevelopment accords with advice contained within Policies S1, S2, S3, D1, D2,D5, D9, D10, D14, D16 and P3 of the Sedgemoor District Core Strategy.

RECOMMENDATION

GRANT PERMISSION subject to further observations of Natural England, Ecologist,Affordable Housing Officer and S106 Agreement relating to maintenance of flooddefences, surface water drainage, affordable housing, contributions in respect ofEducation, Policies RLT2 and RLT3 and provision of a Travel Plan

1 Approval of the details of the access, (other than the main access point intothe site), appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, within the upper andlower limit for the height, width and length of each building stated in theapplication for planning permission (hereinafter called "the reserved matters")shall be obtained from the local planning authority in writing before anydevelopment is commenced.

Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to above, relating to theaccess, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, shall be submitted inwriting to the local planning authority and shall be carried out as approved.

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the localplanning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of thispermission.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration oftwo years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to beapproved, whichever is the later.

Reasons:

The application was submitted as an outline application in accordance withthe provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (GeneralDevelopment Procedure) Order 1995 (As amended by SI 2006/1062). Inaccordance with the provisions of Section 92 of the Town and CountryPlanning Act, 1990 (As amended by Section 51 of the Planning andCompulsory Purchase Act 2004).

2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance withthe approved plans listed in schedule A.

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


22/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

22

3 The site of the proposed development is former industrial land and the landtherein and close thereto may be contaminated. Therefore unless otherwiseagreed by the Local Planning Authority, development other than that requiredto be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation must notcommence until conditions A to C have been complied with. If unexpected

contamination is found after development has begun, development must behalted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to theextent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition Dhas been complied with in relation to that contamination.A. Site Characterisation

A detailed site investigation and risk assessment must be completed inaccordance with current UK guidance to assess the nature, extent and scaleof any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. Theinvestigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent personsand a written report of the findings must be produced. The investigations, risk

assessments and written reports must be approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority. The report of the findings must include:(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;

(ii) desk study information, conceptual models, investigation methods,investigation results and interpretation and any other information required bythe local planning authority to justify and appraise the report findings.

(iii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

KXPDQKHDOWK

SURSHUW\H[LVWLQJRUSURSRVHG LQFOXGLQJEXLOGLQJV FURSV OLYHVWRFNSHWVwoodland and service lines and pipes,

DGMRLQLQJODQG

JURXQGZDWHUVDQGVXUIDFHZDWHUV

HFRORJLFDOV\VWHPV

archaeological sites and ancient monuments;

(iv) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).This must be conducted in accordance with current UK guidance includingDEFRA and the Environment Agencys Model Procedures for theManagement of Land Contamination, CLR 11.

B. Submission of Remediation Scheme

In cases where contamination is shown to exist a detailed remediationscheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use byremoving unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property,the natural and historical environment and surrounding land must beprepared, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thescheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediationobjectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site managementprocedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify ascontaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 inrelation to the intended use of the land after remediation.


23/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

23

C. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme

The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with itsterms prior to the commencement of development other than that required tocarry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local

Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weekswritten notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediationscheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) thatdemonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must beproduced, and approved in writing by the local planning authority.D. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out theapproved development that was not previously identified it must be reportedin writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and

risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements ofcondition A, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme mustbe prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition B, which issubject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediationscheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to theapproval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance withcondition C.E. Long Term Monitoring and Maintenance

If a monitoring and maintenance scheme, to include monitoring the long-termeffectiveness of the proposed remediation, is required as part of the approvedremediation scheme then the monitoring and maintenance scheme will needto be approved in writing by the local planning authority.Following completion of the measures identified in that monitoring andmaintenance scheme and when the remediation objectives have beenachieved, reports that demonstrate the effectiveness of the monitoring andmaintenance carried out must be produced, and submitted to the LocalPlanning Authority for approval.This must be conducted in accordance with current UK guidance includingDEFRA and the Environment Agencys Model Procedures for the

Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11.

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users ofthe land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those tocontrolled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that thedevelopment can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers,neighbours and other offsite receptors

4 No construction work, other than completely internal fitting out, shall takeplace outside the hours of 7am to 6pm Mondays to Fridays, 7am to 1pm onSaturdays, with the exception of specific works which shall have been agreed

in advance and in writing by the local planning authority and shall includedetails of the task, the date and duration of works.


24/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

24

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of local residents.

5 No work shall commence on the development hereby permitted until details ofthe proposed access arrangements shown on Drawing No. Fig 43 have been

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Such footway shall then be fully constructed in accordance with the approvedplan, to an agreed specification before the development is first brought intouse.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

6 No part of the new development shall be occupied prior to implementation ofthose parts identified in the Approved Travel Plan as capable of beingimplemented prior to occupation. Those parts of the Approved Travel Plan

that are identified therein as capable of implementation after occupation shallbe implemented in accordance with the timetable contained therein and shallcontinue to be implemented as long as any part of the development isoccupied.


7 Provision shall be made within the site for the disposal of surface water so asto prevent its discharge onto the highway, details of which shall have beensubmitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.


8 The proposed estate roads, footways, footpaths, tactile paving, cycleways,bus stops/lay bys, verges, junctions, street lighting, sewers, drains, retainingwalls, service routes, surface water outfall, vehicle overhang margins,embankments, visibility splays, accesses, carriageway gradients, drivegradients, car parking and street furniture shall be constructed and laid out inaccordance with details to be approved by the Local Planning Authority inwriting before their construction begins. For this purpose, plans and sections,indicating as appropriate, the design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and

method of construction shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority.


9 The proposed roads, including footpaths and turning spaces whereapplicable, shall be constructed in such a manner as to ensure that eachdwelling before it is occupied shall be served by a properly consolidated andsurfaced footpath and carriageway to at least base course level between thedwelling and existing highway.



25/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

25

10 The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carriedout in accordance with the principles outlined in the approved Flood RiskAssessment (FRA prepared by EWE Associates Rev B dated 21 January2012) and the following mitigation measures detailed within the FRA:

x Finished floor levels are set no lower than 8.6m above Ordnance Datum(AOD); and

x Ground levels are set no lower than 8.3m above Ordnance Datum (AOD).

Reason: To protect the development and future occupants from flooding inaccordance with NPPF.

11 No development shall commence until full details of the improvement of flooddefences along the River Brue have been submitted to, and agreed in writingby, the Local Planning Authority. The improvements shall include raising of

the existing defences to a minimum crest level of 9.1m AOD. Thedevelopment shall be implemented and maintained in accordance with theapproved details.

Reason: To protect the development and future occupants from flooding inaccordance with NPPF.

12 Prior to the occupation of any dwellings, an Operation and MaintenanceManual for the flood defences along the River Brue shall be submitted to, andagreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The Manual shall includedetails of access strips for the maintenance of the flood defences of the RiverBrue of no less than 4.0 metres on the seaward side of the defence and aneasement of no less than 6.0 metres on the landward side of the defence. Nostructures including fences, property curtilages or steps shall be permittedwithin these easements.

Reason To protect the development and future occupants from flooding forthe lifetime of the development in accordance with NPPF.

13 No development shall commence until a surface water drainage scheme forthe site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the

hydrological and hydro-geological context of the development, has beensubmitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thescheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approveddetails before the development is completed.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protectwater quality and to ensure the future maintenance of the surface waterdrainage system in accordance with NPPF

14 No development hereby approved shall take place until the applicant, or theiragents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme

of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigationwhich has been submitted by the applicant and approved by the local


26/26

AGENDA ITEM 6.1

planning authority.

Reason: To safeguard national heritage.

15 Removal of vegetation before construction must take place outside the bird

breeding season.

Reason: To safeguard natural habitat.

16 Mitigation measures as detailed in Michael Woods Associates surveysubmitted with the application shall be undertaken to avoid the disturbance ofSPA birds arising from demolition and development of the site.

Reason: To safeguard natural habitat and species.

17 Details of the demolition of the house, 28 Smith Way, and making good of

neighbour to be submitted and approved in writing before developmentcommences. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with thescheme.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.

18 The construction of the development hereby permitted shall not commenceuntil there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LocalPlanning Authority a Construction Management Plan. The plan shall includeconstruction vehicle movements, construction operating hours, constructionvehicular routes to and from site, construction delivery hours, expectednumber of construction vehicles per day, car parking for contractors, specificmeasures to be adopted to mitigate construction impacts, and a Green TravelPlan for contractors/construction staff. The development shall be carried outstrictly in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan.


19 There shall be no vehicular access off Clyce Road to the development.

Reason: To safeguard local residents from noise and disturbance and in the

interest of highway safety.

Schedule Asite layout option 1land ownershipflood defence solutionaccess details

DECISION

010-158-233241 Planning Statement Appendix 4 Boatyard DC Report June 2012

Documents

Transcript of 010-158-233241 Planning Statement Appendix 4 Boatyard DC Report June 2012