Committee and Date Item

Central Planning Committee

5th April 2012 10

Public

Development Management Report

Responsible Officer: Stuart Thomas email: stuart.thomas@.gov.uk Tel: 01743 252665 Fax: 01743 252619

Summary of Application

Application Number: 11/05790/FUL Parish: Town Council

Proposal: Residential development of 15 dwellings with associated garages following demolition of existing buildings; formation of new vehicular access and estate roads

Site Address: Oak Street Head Shrewsbury Shropshire

Applicant: Shropshire Homes Ltd

Case Officer: Amy Mottram email: [email protected]

Grid Ref: 349147 - 311242

© Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. 100049049. 2011 For reference purposes only. No further copies may be made.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012

Recommendation: Grant Permission subject to the conditions sets out in Appendix 1 and subject to s106 agreement.

Recommended Reason for Approval

The site is situated just outside Shrewsbury Conservation Area, but is largely screened from it and the adjacent cemetery by existing houses and walls. The scale and density of development and the design of the houses is considered to be appropriate to the site and would have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area in accordance with Policies CS2: Shrewsbury Development Strategy, CS6: Sustainable Design and Development Principles, CS9: Infrastructure Contributions, CS11, Type and Affordability of Housing and CS17: Environmental Networks.

REPORT

1.0 THEPROPOSAL 1.1 This application is seeking planning permission for the erection of 15no. dwellings (1no affordable) with associated garages, formation of new access road following the demolition of an existing bungalow and 2 associated garage buildings. The proposal takes access off Oak Street and creates a new junction with Drawwell Street following the removal of the bungalow. The northern section of the suite already benefits from planning permission for 3 detached dwellings (09/01478/OUT). 2 of those plots remain the same as the approved development and do not form part of this application site – one of them has been altered to a semi-detached property.

1.2 The site was previously designated as ‘greenspace’ within the former Borough Local Plan, however the principle of residential development on this site was established by the approval on appeal of residential development and the award of costs against the Council.

2.0 SITE LOCATION/DESCRIPTION 2.1 The site is located at the end of Oak Street Head, served by Drawwell Street and Oak Street, within the Belle Vue district of the town centre. The site is situated adjacent to the Belle Vue conservation area to the east and the town cemetery to the west and was previously denoted as ‘green space’ under the old SABC Local Plan Proposals Map for the urban area of Shrewsbury. The Local Plan has since been superseded by the Shropshire Core Strategy.

2.2 The appearance of the site is one of a flat grassed field, bounded a railway line to the south and a cemetery to the west. The northern section of the site rises up slightly towards a public footpath and residential area and to the east of 4 private residential properties with gardens that back onto the site. The site is privately owned and there is no public access across the site. It has been formerly used as an oil storage and distribution depot and there is a certificate of existing lawful use in place.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 3.0 REASON FOR COMMITTEE DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION 3.1 The scheme doesa not comply with the delegation to officers as set out in Part 8 of the Shropshire Council Constitution – the Town Council has rasied concerns which cannot be overcome be negotiation and the local member Cllr Mansel Williams has requested that the application be determined by Planning Committee members.

4.0 Community Representations

4.1 - Consultee Comments 4.2 SC Archaeology - The Archaeological Evaluation report by Nick Tavener Archaeological Services submitted with the application demonstrates that the area of greatest archaeological significance, as identified in an earlier 1992 archaeological evaluation by the Archaeology Service at Shropshire County Council, is limited in extent and restricted to the central part of the proposed development site. This area contains archaeological features and deposits of Neolithic date, which 1992 evaluation concluded were of national significance, together with features and deposits suggestive of settlement activity in the Roman period. Beyond the central area of the proposed development site, the 2011 evaluation indicates that a limited number of features are present and these appear relate to agricultural activity in the Roman period. The succession of cultivation soils that were also revealed during this evaluation, which extend to a depth of 0.7m in the southern part of the site and seal the earlier archaeological features, suggest that much of the site was under arable cultivation during the later Roman and medieval periods. As a consequence, the 2011 evaluation concluded that the Roman settlement may have been focused on the eastern boundary or to the east of the proposed development site.

4.3 In view of the findings of both the 1992 and 2011 archaeological evaluations I deem the central part of the proposed development site to have high archaeological potential, and other areas to have low to moderate potential.

4.4 I confirm that the Archaeological Evaluation report by Nick Tavener Archaeological Services provides a satisfactory level of information about the archaeological and historic interest of the site in relation to PPS5 Policy HE6.1, and that I approve of the mitigation proposals it contains.

4.5 With regard to policy HE7.2, the proposed 'village green' area of green open space will achieve preservation in situ for the majority of the area of greatest archaeological significance. I would, however, advise that the planting of deeply rooting tree species in this area should be avoided and planting restricted to shallow rooting shrub species.

4.6 Beyond this area, it is expected that the impact of the proposed development on the archaeological and historic interest of the site will be limited by restricting the depth of excavation, in order to ensure that disturbance of archaeological features sealed beneath the former cultivation soils is kept to a minimum. However, in accordance with PSS5 Policies HE7.7 and HE12.3, and to ensure that an adequate archaeological record is made of any features revealed during any groundworks, I recommend that a programme of archaeological work be made a condition of any planning permission for the proposed development.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 4.7 SC Highways - No objection in principle to the development proposals. The visibility for drivers of vehicles exiting from Oak Street Head onto Oak Street is substandard and needs to be re-visited so as to meet the requirements specified in the Manual for Streets namely 2.4 x 43 metres (not the 2.0 x 25 indicated). Also the parking bays provided for Plot 15 are far too close to the junction of Oak Street Head and Oak Street and should be set a minimum of 15 metres from this junction. I would suggest that the layout of Plot 15 be re-visited and revised. Revised comments - The design and layout of the access has been redesigned around the junction adjoining Oak Street Head, the width of Plot 15 has been reduced and the double garage to this plot has been reduced to a single garage with the requisite parking in front. The visibility from Oak Street Head into the site is now 33m and the forward visibility splay around the bend has been altered at chainage 100 to 33m.

4.8 SC Conservation – No objection subject to SC Archaeology being satisfied regarding the impact on archaeological remains. The site is situated just outside Shrewsbury Conservation Area, but is largely screened from it and the adjacent cemetery by existing houses and walls. The scale and density of development and the design of the houses is appropriate to the site and will have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area.

4.9 SC Ecology - I have read the above application and the supporting Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Initial Bat Survey by Star Ecology (2011) and recommend that conditions and informatives are attached regarding bats, birds and badgers.

4.10 There was no evidence of bats being present in the bungalow or sheds on the site according to Star Ecology (2011). Star Ecology recommend that the bungalow be demolished before August 2012 or a repeat bat survey will be required. There was evidence of nesting wild birds in the outbuildings to be demolished according to Star Ecology (2011). There is potential for badgers to forage and commute across the site according to Star Ecology (2011).

4.11 SC Drainage - The proposed surface water drainage is now acceptable. If planning permission will to be granted, a drainage condition should be attached to ensure that the approved drainage scheme is implemented before the site is occupied. The proposed surface water drainage scheme should be installed in accordance with the approved drainage details prior to the first occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved to ensure that the surface water drainage systems are adequate and to minimise flood risk.

4.12 SC Public Protection Contaminated Land - If approval is granted then conditions should be attached relating to a site investigation report and remediation strategy. The attached report is a combined Phase I & II and has identified a number of potential issues (i.e. in-filled sandpit, area of UST’s and a former barn). There are a number of outline recommendations in respect of a remediation strategy and there is nothing in the report that would lead me to believe that the site could not be developed safely having regard to human health and controlled waters.

4.13 However, the area beneath the underground tanks cannot be investigated until they are removed and there is the former sandpit where there is some suggestion that monitoring could be carried out to establish the need for gas protection or not.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 Accordingly, some further investigation is necessary. The report infers that the contents of the tanks are unknown and it would be prudent to remove all product and any residue in tank bottoms which should be disposed of correctly as once removed the risk of pollution is much less, prior to removal of the tanks from the ground.

4.14 - Public Comments 4.15 Site notice erected and neighbour letters sent to those that commented on the earlier applications and those that now adjoin the enlarged site. 16 letters of objection have been received from local residents and the concerns raised are summarised as follows: - Vehicles using the development will have direct access into and out of the estate from Oak Street with no impediment to their speed. - Views will still be possible from the houses into the cemetery. Who will maintain the screen of trees? And ensure they remain? The current sectional drawing is not good enough and the scheme should be refused. - The developer should be given the option of constructing a road from the east end of Meole Rise, a little used cul de sac, swinging north across the mini- playing field and building a bridge across the Cambrian rail line. Part of the site could be used to replace this playing field, and the rest of the existing field might be used for several new houses. The road should not allow vehicular access to Oak Street. - This proposal will add nearly 50% additional houses to the area and probably the same no of cars that already belong to residents in the existing street; it has the potential to double the traffic using Oak St. The existing junction of Drawwell St with Bellevue Rd is substandard and gives rise to many risky manoeuvres by people entering and leaving the street, especially those turning south towards Hereford Rd. - To grant permission would be to disregard the strongly held feelings of residents who stand to be badly affected by the proposed housing development. - Overdevelopment of the site - Significant traffic impact concerns due to on street parking pressures around the area reducing the roads to single width - Loss of open space and amenity – views across the area - The inspector allowed only 3 houses to retain the open character of the site and conservation area - The space is currently an 'oasis' in what is otherwise a continuous urban area all the way to the Town centre and inner ring road. The bungalow to be demolished could also be considered to be quite iconic to the area and I consider it an attractive stylised building of its time and not something that should just be dismissed for demolition off-hand.

5.0 THEMAINISSUES 5.1 Principle of development Archaeology/historical significance Siting, scale and design of structure Impact on cemetery Density Access Affordable housing

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 Visual impact and landscaping Ecology S106 Head of terms

6.0 OFFICER APPRAISAL 6.1 Principle of development 6.1.1 The principle of development has already been established by the approval on appeal, of residential development on the northern section of the site. The scheme proposed is considered to be a relatively low density residential development comprising a mix of 2 and 2½ storey dwellings with associated circulation and amenity space. The key issues are the siting, scale and design of the housing; access and parking and the provision of infrastructure and affordable housing.

6.2 Archaeology/historical significance 6.2.1 The area has undergone significant archaeological investigations to ascertain the extent of archaeological interest in response to an earlier excavation by H R Hannaford in 1992. The council’s historic environment officer is satisfied that the development can proceed provided a condition is attached requiring a programme of archaeological work to be submitted and approved.

6.2.2 As stated above by the Archaeological Officer, the archaeological report submitted demonstrates that the area of greatest archaeological significance is limited in extent and restricted to the central part of the proposed development site. The central area contains archaeological features and deposits of Neolithic date, which earlier 1992 evaluation concluded were of national significance, together with features and deposits suggestive of settlement activity in the Roman period. Beyond the central area of the proposed development site, the submitted 2011 evaluation indicates that a limited number of features are present and these appear relate to agricultural activity in the Roman period. The succession of cultivation soils that were also revealed during this evaluation suggest that much of the site was under arable cultivation during the later Roman and medieval periods. As a consequence, the 2011 evaluation concluded that the Roman settlement may have been focused on the eastern boundary or to the east of the proposed development site.

6.2.3 The Council’s Archaeological Officer is satisfied that the proposed development avoids conflict with the central part of the site with the highest archaeological potential, and focuses development on areas around the edge which are known to have low to moderate potential.

6.3 Siting, scale and design of structure 6.3.1 The bungalow to be demolished is of no significant architectural merit; in fact it appears quite out of keeping with the character of the area and the context of the immediate surroundings. The development itself has been designed in a crescent shape around a ‘village green’ area, which aims to protect the visual amenity of the site for the public and allows the archaeology found in 1992 to remain in situ.

6.3.2 The style and character of the development is similar to another development at Oakley Manor which is close to the area. Features such as bay windows, chimneys, stone heads and cills and dormer windows are common along Oak Street as is the size of the properties - Oak Street consists of a range of 2 and 3 storey properties, some detached, semi-detached and terraced. The properties

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 tend to sit quite close to each other and close to the pavement, with hedging or low walls separating the public and private realm. This style has influenced the character of the development to some extent and the palate of materials is in keeping with the context of the area, consisting predominantly of brick and slate tile roofs and timber framed windows and doors.

6.3.3 Properties adjacent to the access into the site have been designed to provide focal points into the development and side gables face the road as it passes. The layout affords most of the properties to have a south or west facing rear garden and views out over the ‘village green’ providing enhance natural surveillance of the area.

6.4 Impact on cemetery 6.4.1 The applicant has provided sectional drawings that show the height of the existing conifer hedge along the boundary of the site compared to the height of the dwellings that back onto it. The developer had initially confirmed that they were willing to replant sections of the hedge should it die back at any point to aid screening of the development from the cemetery. They are also proposing to erect a 2m high close boarded fence close to base of the hedge to aid acoustic screening of the development from the cemetery. Upon further investigation it was found that the Town Council own and maintain the hedge and it is therefore not possible to enforce a condition to ensure that the hedge is maintained at a minimum height throughout the lifetime of the development. It would obviously be in the interests of the Town Council for the hedge to remain as it provides screening and privacy of the cemetery, however should it need to be removed in the future it is considered that the distance between the rear elevation of the dwellings and the cemetery is sufficient to overcome concerns regarding overlooking and loss of privacy given a distance of over 25m.

6.4.2 The balconies on the rear elevation of plots 6 & 7 (the closest properties) have been removed and replaced with Juliette balconies, in an attempt to address the concerns raised regarding potential noise and disturbance to grieving families within the cemetery. Officers consider these measures to be sufficient to overcome the concerns raised, given that they would have the added benefit of screening from an earth bund that exists adjacent to the boundary on the cemetery side. 6.5 Density 6.5.1 The density of the development is considered to be relatively low, the dwelling are well spaced out, laid out in a crescent around a central village green area. The low density is enhanced by the separation of properties interspersed by detached garages and low railings along the front of each property. Boundary treatment along the frontage of each property close to the ‘village green’ consists of low level metal railings, which allow the development to feel open and enhanced natural surveillance and security. Parking spaces are predominately shown to the side of properties, overcoming the unsightly impact of vehicles parked in front of dwellings. 6.6 Access 6.6.1 Access to the site will be off Oak Street, where it joins Drawwell Street and Oak Street Head. A suitably formed and drained junction is proposed, which has been designed to meet current highway standards and would be adopted by the council. Oak Street Head is currently un surfaced and the existing junction of Drawwell Street and Oak Street is of a poor standard. The improved access arrangements have been made possible by the demolition of an existing bungalow called Azoff and 2 smaller associated buildings.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012

6.6.2 The new access would remove the requirement for traffic under the previously approved scheme to access the site from between 2 of the existing properties that back onto the site. The access road sweeps round and through the development culminating in a turning head at the end. It is acknowledged that there are existing parking and traffic congestion problems along Oak Street Drawwell Street, however this development would not add to this those pressures in terms of additional parking, with additional traffic movements being accommodated within the improved junction arrangements around the entrance of the site as vehicles will be able to see oncoming traffic from the development as they reach the end of Oak Street and turn onto Drawwell Street.

6.7 Affordable Housing 6.7.1 The provision of housing within the urban area of Shrewsbury accords with policy CS3 that identifies Shrewsbury as the primary focus for housing development for Shropshire. Policy CS11 requires all new housing developments to make a contribution to affordable housing calculated at a rate of 13% for the period 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012 under the current Housing SPD. The applicants have signed the Affordable Housing Pro forma and are providing 1 affordable dwelling on site, making a financial contribution of £85,500 for the additional percentage amount required in line with Policy CS11 and the Type and Affordability of Housing SPD for a total of 15 dwellings.

6.7.2 Colleagues in affordable housing have confirmed that this figure is correct and the unit should be made available as social rented accommodation.

6.8 Visual impact and landscaping 6.8.1 The visual impact of the development is considered to be relatively low density and in keeping with the character of the surrounding residential area. Development on this site would allow it to be opened up to the public and therefore enhance the amenity it currently provides. The design of the properties around the entrance to the site provides a focal point and interest, drawing the eye into the development. The development is considered to have a positive impact upon the character of the conservation area.

6.9 Ecology 6.9.1 An ecological assessment has been provided and it has concluded that there was no evidence of bats being present in the bungalow or sheds and that the bungalow should be demolished before August 2012 or a repeat bat survey will be required. There was evidence of nesting wild birds in the outbuildings to be demolished and potential for badgers to forage and commute across the site, accordingly conditions and informatives are attached relating to enhancements. The development will not therefore have an adverse impact on wildlife in the area.

6.10 S106 Heads of terms 6.10.1 A s106 has been drafted to make provision for the financial contribution towards affordable housing shortfall - £85,500. The s106 will also cover the tenure of the affordable unit provided on site and a financial payment made towards to the management and maintenance of the ‘village green’ which the developer intends to be handed over to the Town Council. A figure for this work is to be provided by the Town Council prior to the meeting and members will be updated accordingly.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The site is situated just outside Shrewsbury Conservation Area, but is largely screened from it and the adjacent cemetery by existing houses and walls. The scale and density of development and the design of the houses is appropriate to the site and will have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area.

8. Risk Assessment and Opportunities Appraisal

8.1 Risk Management There are two principal risks associated with this recommendation as follows:  As with any planning decision the applicant has a right of appeal if they disagree with the decision and/or the imposition of conditions. Costs can be awarded irrespective of the mechanism for hearing the appeal - written representations, a hearing or inquiry.  The decision is challenged by way of a Judicial Review by a third party. The courts become involved when there is a misinterpretation or misapplication of policy or some breach of the rules of procedure or the principles of natural justice. However their role is to review the way the authorities reach decisions, rather than to make a decision on the planning issues themselves, although they will interfere where the decision is so unreasonable as to be irrational or perverse. Therefore they are concerned with the legality of the decision, not its planning merits. A challenge by way of Judicial Review must be a) promptly and b) in any event not later than three months after the grounds to make the claim first arose first arose.

Both of these risks need to be balanced against the risk of not proceeding to determine the application. In this scenario there is also a right of appeal against non-determination for application for which costs can also be awarded.

8.2 Human Rights

Article 8 give the right to respect for private and family life and First Protocol Article 1 allows for the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. These have to be balanced against the rights and freedoms of others and the orderly development of the County in the interests of the Community.

First Protocol Article 1 requires that the desires of landowners must be balanced against the impact on residents.

This legislation has been taken into account in arriving at the above recommendation.

8.3 Equalities

The concern of planning law is to regulate the use of land in the interests of the public at large, rather than those of any particular group. Equality will be one of a number of ‘relevant considerations’ that need to be weighed in planning committee members’ minds under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1970.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012 9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There are likely financial implications of the decision and/or imposition of conditions is challenged by a planning appeal or judicial review. The costs of defending any decision will be met by the authority and will vary dependant on the scale and nature of the proposal. The financial implications of any decision are not a material planning consideration and should not be "weighed" in planning committee members' mind when reaching a decision.

10. BACKGROUND

Relevant Planning Policies

Central Government Guidance: PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment Shropshire Council Core Strategy: CS1: Strategic Approach CS2: Shrewsbury Development Strategy CS6: Sustainable Design and Development Principles CS11: Type and Affordability of Housing CS17: Environmental Networks

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY: SA/09/0048/O Outline application for the erection of five dwellings WDN 17th February 2009 09/01478/OUT – Outline application for the erection of three dwellings to include layout and means of access. Refused. Allowed on Appeal. 11/03249/REM - Reserved Matters application pursuant to Outline planning permission ref 09/01478/OUT for the erection of three dwellings to include appearance, landscaping and scale. Approved.

11. Additional Information

List of Background Papers (This MUST be completed for all reports, but does not include items containing exempt or confidential information)

Cabinet Member (Portfolio Holder): Cllr M. Price Local Member: Cllr Mansel Williams

Appendices APPENDIX 1 - Conditions

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012

APPENDIX 1

Conditions

STANDARD CONDITION(S)

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990 (As amended).

2. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved plans and drawings.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and details.

CONDITION(S) THAT REQUIRE APPROVAL BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT COMMENCES

3. No built development shall commence until details of all external materials, including hard surfacing and hard landscaping have been first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.

Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the development is satisfactory.

4. Before any above ground works commence details of eaves, verges, lintels and cills/sub cills shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority and all windows, doors and external joinery shall be timber with a painted finish. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To maintain the character and appearance of the conservation area.

5. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority for: (i) parking of vehicles of site personnel, operatives and visitors (ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials. (iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development. Each of the facilities shall be maintained throughout the course of construction of the development free from any impediment to its designated use.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

6. Details of the design and construction of any new roads, footways, accesses together with the disposal of surface water shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before the development begins. The agreed details shall be fully implemented before the use hereby approved is commenced or the building(s) occupied.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012

Reason: To ensure an adequate standard of highway and access for the proposed development.

7. At all road junctions within the estate visibility in both directions along the estate road(s) shall be provided as follows. (a) A point 2.40 metres measured along the centre line of the secondary road(s) from the continuation of the nearer edge of the main estate road carriageway. (b) A point 43.0 metres along the nearer edge of the main road carriageway measured from the intersection of the centre line of the secondary road. (c) A straight line joining the above points.

Reason: To provide a satisfactory measure of visibility at the road junction(s) within the development.

8. Details of measures to be taken to prevent mud from vehicles leaving the site during the construction works being deposited on the public highway, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and fully implemented before the development commences. Such measures shall be retained for the duration of the construction period.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

9. No development approved by this permission shall commence until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation (WSI). This written scheme shall be approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works.

Reason: To control the planting plan and species composition of the landscape design for the proposed development and to secure the implementation of a programme of archaeological work.

CONDITION(S) THAT ARE RELEVANT FOR THE LIFETIME OF THE DEVELOPMENT

10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that order with or without modification), the following development shall not be undertaken without express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority:-

- extension to the dwelling - free standing building within the curtilage of the dwelling - addition or alteration to the roof - erection of a porch - hard surfacing - container for the storage of oil - satellite antenna - fences, gates or walls - anywindowsordormerwindows

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development and so safeguard the character and visual amenities of the area, and to ensure that adequate private open space is retained within the curtilage of the building.

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665 Central Planning Committee – 5th April 2012

11. No development approved by this permission shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping and these works shall be carried out as approved. The submitted scheme shall include:

Means of enclosure Minor artefacts and structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting) Planting plans Written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment) Schedules of plants, noting species, planting sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate Implementation timetables

Reason: To ensure the provision of amenity afforded by appropriate landscape design.

12. The garages hereby approved shall not be used for any purpose other than those incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouses, including any business or commercial use.

Reason: To safeguard the residential character of the neighbourhood.

13. The works on the site to which this consent applies shall be undertaken in line with the Recommendations of the Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Initial Bat Survey by Star Ecology (2011).

Reason: To ensure the protection of bats, a European Protected Species

14. A total of 10 artificial nests for small birds, such as Schwegler 1FB bird box, 2H robin box, Schwegler bird houses or sparrow terraces (or direct woodcrete equivalents of the above) shall be erected on the site, in locations to be agreed with the local planning authority, prior to first occupation of the buildings hereby permitted and thereafter retained for the lifetime of the development.

Reason: To ensure the provision of nesting opportunities for wild birds

Contact Stuart Thomas on 01743 252665