Planning Application To South Staffordshire Council
For the proposed development of 51 No. holiday lodges at Swindon Marina, High Street, Swindon, DY3 4NR
On behalf of Mr C Nedic
PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT
November 2020
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT
For the proposed development of 51 No. holiday lodges at Swindon Marina, High Street, Swindon, DY3 4NR
On behalf of Mr C Nedic
November 2020
Christopher Whitehouse MRICS BSc (Hons) RICS Author Accredited Expert Witness Chartered Planning and Development Surveyor
Report Status Final
Date of Issue November 2020
DISTRIBUTION
Date Issued To:
November 2020 South Staffordshire Council
November 2020 NextPhase Development Ltd
November 2020 Mr C Nedic
This report has been produced by NextPhase Development Ltd within the terms of the contract with the client and taking account of the resources devoted to it by agreement with the clients representatives. We disclaim any responsibility to N.B the client and others in respect of matters outside the scope of the above. We accept no responsibility of whatsoever nature to third parties to who this report, or part thereof, is made known. NextPhase Development Limited Registered in England and Wales No: 7525574.
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
CONTENTS Item Description
1.0 Introduction 2.0 Location & Proposed Development 3.0 Planning Policy 4.0 Planning Considerations
APPENDICES
Item Description
Appendix I EIA Screening Opinion, South Staffordshire Council, dated 20th May 2020
Appendix II Appeal Decision APP/K3415/W/18/3217315, land to the northwest of Broad Lane, Huddlesford, Lichfield
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 This Planning Policy Statement (“Statement”) is written on behalf of Mr C Nedic (“the Applicant”) under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to South Staffordshire Council (“the Council”) for the consideration of the development of 51 No. holiday lodges within the grounds of Swindon Marina, High Street, Swindon, DY3 4NR.
1.2 Objectives The predominant objective of this planning application submission is to bring forward a justification for the delivery of 51 No. high quality and green principled holiday lodges to contribute to South Staffordshire’s tourism economy on a site already focused in delivering an important development for South Staffordshire’s tourism socioeconomy.
1.3 The Proposal The proposal seeks to demonstrate that by way of the holiday lodges implementation, the socioeconomic benefits to the tourism economy by way of their implementation outweigh any harm to this Green Belt designated site in the context of their delivery within the surroundings of a 199 berth marina with accompanying built development lawfully commenced on site under reference 10/00312/FUL.
1.4 In this context any landscape and visual harm to this Green Belt location and/or to the adjacent Canal Conservation Area is limited against the associated baseline and the way it prescribes such harm is significantly and substantially outweighed by the socioeconomic benefits brought by way of the implementation of the holiday lodges on the site.
1.5 As such the objective of the application is to demonstrate to the Local Planning Authority that the proposal is proportionate, reasonable and suitable against the
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
pertinent policies of the Development Plan and the specific material considerations in relation to this case, in so far as meeting the overarching aspirations of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”).
1.6 This planning application is supported by accompanying plans consisting of the following:
• Visual images of the proposal • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (NextPhase) • Ecological Appraisal (Greenscape Environmental) • Transport Statement (RSK) • Flood Risk Assessment (Hafren Water) • Sustainability Statement (NextPhase) • Heritage Statement (NextPhase)
1.7 This statement considers matters in relation to planning policy together with material consideration to demonstrate the development’s suitability in planning terms.
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
2.0 SITE LOCATION & PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
2.1 Site Location The application site consists of an 8.9 hectare (22 acre) plot that forms the Swindon Marina site, a lawful development for 199 leisure canal mooring berths with ancillary visitor centre and ablution blocks together with landscaping, carparking and a public access way, a scheme of which is confirmed as lawful for existing use under the certified Certificate of Lawfulness of existing use or development issued by South Staffordshire Council on 4th February 2020. The site is situated in the village of Swindon, adjacent to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal, Smestow Brook and “The Holloway” which becomes Swindon High Street. The backdrop to the west is formed by Swindon Rough a wooded escarpment. To the north is the village of Swindon and to the south a field tapers off where the canal has a strong bend towards the east.
2.2 Hinksford Mobile Home Park is situated approximately 250m to the south and the eastern boundary is formed by the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal. Beyond that side of the valley leads up to Hinksford Lane, the cricket grounds and the parish council facilities. Reynolds Close overlooks part of the site and to the west the residential cul-de-sac of Brooklands also overlooks part of the site.
2.3 The north side of the site is formed by Swindon High Street and in the south east corner is the former lock keeper’s cottage, a modest dwelling. The high street is at a higher level than most of the site and the bridge over the canal gives good views across it. There are views across the whole of the site from the informal paths within Swindon Rough woodland, parts of Brooklands and from Hinksford Lane, the cricket ground and play areas.
2.4 The point of access to the site has been agreed to the provision of conditional and discharge details to South Staffordshire Council as part of 10/00312/FUL which
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
includes an internal access road which provides access to the western end of the village core extent of the High Street, with the left turning out of the site leading to the more rural road network beyond. The nature of the highway of High Street is a 30mph zone with highways infrastructure to create natural speed reduction including the canal bridge and other speed restrictions.
2.5 Proposed Development The proposal seeks to bring forward a scheme of 51 No. holiday and leisure lodges for the tourism and leisure market as an ancillary and complementary development to the marina.
2.1 Careful consideration of the location of the caravans has been undertaken; the caravans have been located in situ with the established marina and has not amended the layout associated with the extant permission in any physical manner with the predominant delivery of the lodges to the southernmost extent of the site an area left to green space beyond the build-up of carparking, access road and moorings that form the southernmost extent of the marina layout.
2.2 Other than this the secondary location for the lodges is peripheral to the western boundary of the marina area adjacent to the access road that services the perimeter of the marina and adjacent to the permitted ablution blocks that all sit inside of the secure fencing associated with the marina itself. The location of the lodges has taken into consideration the modelled flood zones of the site, for which an updated Flood Risk Assessment has been provided so as to bring forward the lodges in locations outside of the modelled flood zone and have sought to introduce the lodges in locations wherein visual viewpoints of the site are influenced by that of the water, jetties, access road perimeters and built development associated with the marina.
2.3 The lodges have been situated so as to provide perimeter carparking provided directly off the permitted access drives associated with the marina and implement
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
substantial perimeter and island planting to co-align with the landscaping scheme associated with the marina and so as to enhance the naturalistic blending in of the lodges within the locality.
2.4 The lodges themselves provide a relatively modest additional contribution to the built infrastructure associated with the marina, and have been situated so as to be able to be implemented sufficiently within the established topography associated with the lawful marina scheme.
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The extant Development Plan in relation to the site consists of the following documents: • South Staffordshire Local Plan Core Strategy DPD (2012) • South Staffordshire Site Allocations Document (2018) • Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) including Design Guide SPD, Sustainable Development SPD, Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD and Historic Environment Character Assessment (2011 – Appendix VI) • National Planning Policy Framework (2019); and associated Planning Practice Guidance
3.2 Planning History The most pertinent planning history associated with the site is that in relation to extant permission 10/00312/FUL certified as lawful by the Council within
application number 19/00584/LUE dated 4th February 2020.
3.3 EIA Screening An EIA Screening Opinion Request was submitted to South Staffordshire Council in relation to this proposal under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 given that the extant development itself was subject to an EIA. A copy of the screening opinion provided by South Staffordshire
Council on 20th May 2020 is provided within Appendix I and identifies given that the proposal was considered not to have a greater than local impact above the works needed for the marina and the proposed development was not likely to have any impact to a substantial extent, magnitude or complexity that an Environmental Impact Assessment is not required for the proposal.
3.4 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning applications to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. At present a Development Plan that applies to this site consists of the documents identified above, for which the most pertinent policies are considered to be: • Core Strategy Green Belt Policy GB1 • Core Strategy Canal Conservation Area Policy EQ3 • Core Strategy Policy Sustainable Tourism Policy EV2; and • Canals and Canal Site Development Policy EV3
3.5 Other material considerations in this context include the following: • National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) • National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (as updated)
3.6 The site is located adjacent to the Canal Conservation Area which runs along perimeter of both banks of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal and incorporates the former lock keeper’s cottage to the northeast corner of the site. As such the extant marina and the proposed development sit adjacent to the Canal Conservation Area.
3.7 The site is located within the designated Green Belt, with the site abutting the settlement boundary of Swindon to the north of the site wherein it provides direct access to the facilities and services of Swindon via High Street.
3.8 In assessing the Development Plan in relation to the proposal it is considered there are four predominant matters for consideration, consisting of: • Green Belt Policy • Canal Conservation Area • Landscape and Visual Impact • Tourism and Socioeconomic Benefit
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
3.9 Given the identification of these material considerations in relation to the site above together with the established position with regards to the marina it is considered that the assessment of these considerations in relation to policy and imbalance are required to be undertaken to determine the development’s accordance with the Development Plan and whether any lack of accordance is outweighed by sufficient benefit.
3.10 In this regard consideration of these issues is assessed in Chapter 4.
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
4.0 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Green Belt The site is located within the Green Belt and as such is subject to the consideration of Green Belt policies as set by the Framework; further to Core Strategy Policy GB1 which states that “within the South Staffordshire portion of the West Midlands Green Belt as defined on the policies map, development acceptable within terms of the National Planning Policy set out in the NPPF would normally be permitted where the development is either for ….”. Paragraph 143 of the Framework states “ that “inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.” Paragraph 144 states that “When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”.
4.2 Paragraphs 145 and 146 of the Framework list forms of development which are considered to be not inappropriate which include “limited infilling of partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (except temporary buildings) which are not any greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development”. The consideration is relatively consistent with the wording of Policy GB1, albeit that GB1 does not specifically refer to the redevelopment of previously developed land; however given that Policy GB1 has an intention to fall in line with the Framework and that, in its adoption in 2012 the 2019 Framework significantly post-dates GB1, it is considered that the wording as provided in the Framework provides the most up to date approach in considering the development in Green Belt terms.
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
4.3 Whilst it is considered that the proposal meets the definition of redevelopment on previously developed land, given that the site as a whole has an extant permission for a large scale marina development consisting of a significant amount of built development, for which the land associated with the implementation of holiday lodges forms part, it is accepted by way of the introduction of the use of the holiday lodges on land that in part does not provide built development as part of the extant marina, that this will have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development, however minor, by way of its implementation in Paragraph 145 terms.
4.4 It is therefore considered that the introduction of holiday lodges in the context of the Green Belt definition is inappropriate development inline with Paragraph 143 and requires identification of very special circumstances in order to be approved.
4.5 In this regard the main issues therefore are: a) The effects of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and b) Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, will clearly be outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.
4.6 Openness There is no definition within the Framework of “openness” nor criteria against which to assess the impact and the development on it. Timmins¹ established however that the concept of openness is textured and is both a spatial and visual impact. In spatial terms the proposal would introduce holiday lodges within the context of a site dominated by a body of water together with its mooring’s infrastructure and 199 boats. This in combination with the associated access roads, facilities building and ablution block buildings and perimeter carparking provides
¹Timmins v. Gedling BC [2014] EWHC 654 (Admin)
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
a heavily developed site upon which the context of the introduction of the holiday lodges plays a limited role in exceeding beyond the established baseline. It is considered in the context of the site that the spatial impact of the introduction of the holiday lodges would offer some change, but that change is significantly reduced by way of the associated development of the marina set against the contained backdrop associated with the tight and heavily dense tree screening surrounding the boundaries of it.
4.7 With regard the visual aspect, the key viewpoints around the site is a core consideration of the impact of assessment of openness, as noted in Turner². The site is bounded on its eastern elevation by the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal and to its northern boundary by High Street, the central road of Swindon village which sits at a higher level than the application site. The other boundaries are dominated by the heavy green screening associated with the tree cover adjacent to Smestow Brook. As such the predominant degree of visibility of the site within the localised and wider visual environment is limited to viewpoints from the canal and the canal towpath, High Street and some glimpses of the site from higher vantage points within the village to the east, particularly at Hinksford Lane.
4.8 The accompanying Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, which has provided visual illustration of the context of the holiday lodges in situ on the site with the extant marina development demonstrates that whilst there would be some intervisibility, the impact associated with such visibility in a vista dominated by the waterbody, infrastructure, moorings and carparking associated with extant marina development brings forward a visual impact that offers a very minor change beyond that established and permitted with the site.
4.9 Therefore whilst there would be some intervisibility, the difference associated by way of comparison to the extant development associated with the site is minor
² Turner v. SSCLG [2016] EWCA (Civ 466)
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
detrimental and further improved by way of the mitigation associated with additional strategic tree planting associated with the southern aspect of the site.
4.10 It is in quantitative and qualitative terms therefore considered that the proposal, by way of its implementation, would offer some minor harm to the character and appearance of its locality by way of its introduction, however given the substantial built development infrastructure associated with the marina and the tight and dense boundaries of the site created by hard boarders associated with the road of High Street and the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal and the dense tree planting and increasing height of topography of the eastern and southern boundaries, such change by way of increased built development on site would not create an increased impact on the openness of the Green Belt in comparison to the extant site. In these terms therefore it is considered the proposal’s imbalance would have a minor detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt by way of the introduction of the proposed development.
4.11 In this regard therefore the proposal would create no significant reduction in openness by way of its implementation and in the context of Policy GB1 and the Framework would not significantly conflict with it.
4.12 Purposes The fundamental aim of Green Belt policies is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. One of the main purposes of the Green Belt is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The proposal brings holiday lodges into an environment whereupon established large scale built development has lawfully commenced and in the context of the site brings forward significant and substantial development upon which the proposal by way of implementing holiday lodges would in principle offer negligible impact on encroachment with regards to the fundamental purpose of the Green Belt against the established marina development. Further to this then the proposal offers no harm with regard to the
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
remaining purposes of protection of the Green Belt set by Paragraph 143 of the Framework.
4.13 In can be concluded therefore that the proposal by way of its implementation in not introducing encroachment that would amount to harm and therefore does not conflict with GB1 or the Framework in this respect.
4.14 Conservation Area The site is located immediately adjacent to the Canal Conservation Area and as such there is a requirement to consider whether the proposal by way of its implementation would offer any substantial or less than substantial harm to a heritage asset by way of its implementation. Consideration is given to Policy EQ3 together with the pertinent paragraphs of the Framework in this regard.
4.15 This site brings forward holiday and leisure tourism development that seeks to demonstrate its accordance in contributing to canal side leisure tourism development that otherwise accords with EV2 and EV3 of the Core Strategy. The established marina permission forms a basis upon which it is not considered to offer any substantial harm to the Canal Conservation Area by way of its implementation. The proposal, in bringing forward holiday and leisure lodges on land associated with the site that has some limited visual interrelationship with the Canal Conservation Area by way of its implementation is not considered to provide harm to the conservation area by way of its implementation given its limited net landscape and visual impact beyond that already established by way of the marina development. In this regard therefore it is considered that the proposal has a very minor limited impact upon the conservation area, an amount that does not reach the definition of less than substantial harm and as such is not to a level whereby public benefits are required to justify its implementation.
4.16 Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
The planning submission has incorporated a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that has assessed the holiday lodges in situ of the marina development and the visual interrelationship of this with the surrounding area. This includes the introduction of visual illustrations that show the holiday lodges in situ on the site in conjunction with the marina development from key strategic vista viewpoints, including higher vantage viewpoints associated with High Street, the canal towpath and further afield visual vantage points on Hinksford Lane. It is considered that the vista viewpoints incorporated into the scheme are those that are key in assessing how they impact on the site. The proposals concluded that the introduction of the holiday lodges by way of comparison to the marina development offers a minor limited harm in the context of such expansive built development and does not offer landscape harm of significance beyond that associated with the marina development. The position with regard to landscape and visual impact therefore is consistent with the position associated with the assessment of openness, in that the proposal offers at most a limited minor harm with regard to character and appearance of the area by way of its implementation.
4.17 Socioeconomic Consideration The development accords with the aspirations of Staffordshire Tourism, directly seeking to accord with the expectations and aspirations of Tourism Policies EV2 and EV3, having had sight of the Local Tourism Strategy Staffordshire’s Destination Management Partnership Delivery Plan and the West Midlands Visitor Economy Strategy. It is considered that the overarching socioeconomic benefits to the area would be significant. The proposal by way of the implementation of the holiday lodges would result in further Full Time Equivalent temporary jobs in construction and FTE jobs in management, maintenance and servicing beyond those associated with the established marina. It would lead to increased spending in the local economy and have a multiplier effect.
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
4.18 Proportionally the proposals would bring great benefit to the local and wider area of economy and accord in their entirety with the aspirations of Policies EV2 and EV3 with regard their implementation. It is considered that proportionally to the context of the development, the benefits in this regard should be given significant weight. Consideration of weight with regard socioeconomic benefits for such countryside development in part taking reference from appeal APP/K3415/W/18/3217315 in Appendix II which the appeal was allowed for the delivery of 139 holiday and leisure lodges on a site adjacent to a marina in Lichfield.
4.19 Planning Balance Whilst a limited degree of harm could be considered to have been delivered by way of the implementation of the additional lodges to the marina development, such harm is limited and contained in the context of the marina development and offers a limited impact upon the openness of the Green Belt.
4.20 The proposal has demonstrated that it would bring forward significant economic benefits to the area for the benefit of the Midlands tourism economy in direct accordance with the aspirations of Policies EV2 and EV3 of the Core Strategy Local Plan, for which the site as a large scale leisure tourism development, provides a basis upon which the delivery of the holiday lodges would accord.
4.21 It is the applicant’s consideration therefore that there are no adverse effects that will significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against policies in the Framework taken as a whole; given the matters of weight taken above together provide other consideration in the proposal that clearly outweighs the harm identified and amounts to very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.
4.22 It is as such respectfully requested that the application is supported, and planning permission is granted by the Local Planning Authority.
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
APPENDIX I EIA Screening Opinion, South Staffordshire Council, Dated 20th May 2020
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
Date 20/05/2020 Case Officer: L Duffy
Development description: Proposed development of holiday lodges Site address: Swindon Marina, High Street, Swindon
South Staffordshire Council - Screening Opinion under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017.
I have concluded that the proposal does not require an EIA the reasons for this are set out below.
1. Does the development fall within Schedule 1? Yes/No
2. Does the development fall within Schedule 2? Yes/No
3. Does the development fall within a “sensitive area”? Yes/No
4. Does it meet the thresholds/criteria in Schedule 2? Yes
Specify: Tourism and leisure (c) holiday village and hotel complexes outside urban areas and associated developments.
5. Is this schedule 2 development likely to have significant effects on the environment?
No
6. Having regard to Schedule 3 and any other reasons state why an EIA is not required:
The extant permission for the provision of a marina at the site (10/00312/FUL) is subject to an EIA. The screening opinion here relates to the proposed erection of holiday lodges in association with the aforementioned marina. An indicative layout has been submitted that shows the lodges located round the outside of the marina and will have an associated amenity building and access road and parking. Any application will need to be accompanied with supporting reports with respect of impact and mitigation on ecology, highways, conservation and landscape.
The site is an agricultural field of 8.9ha [22 acres] at Swindon, situated adjacent to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal, Smestow Brook, and The Holloway which becomes Swindon High Street. The backdrop to the west is formed by Swindon Rough, a wooded escarpment. To the north is the village of Swindon and to south the field tapers off where the canal has a strong bend towards the
east. Hinksford mobile home park is situated approximately 250 metres to the south. The east boundary is formed by the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal and beyond that the side of the valley leading up to Hinksford Lane and Gardens and the cricket grounds and Parish Council facilities. Reynolds Close overlooks part of the site and on the west side the residential cul de sac Brooklands also overlooks part of the site. The north side of the site is formed by Swindon High Street and in the north-east corner is the former lock keepers cottage, a modest dwelling. The High Street is at a higher level than most of the site and the bridge over the canal gives good views across it. There are views of the whole site from the informal paths within Swindon Rough woodland, parts of Brooklands and from Hinksford Lane and the cricket ground and play areas.
The impact of the marina on the landscape was considered acceptable and the lodges here would be viewed and considered in association with this use.
Any mitigation needed to accommodate the marina would include works to the whole of the site and the erection of the holiday lodges in this regard would be limited in comparison.
In assessing whether significant effects are likely, I have assessed the development using the information provided against the selection criteria in Schedule 3, and I do not consider that the characteristics of the development, location of development or the characteristics of the potential impact will have a greater than local impact above the works needed for the marina.
On the information provided, it is considered that the proposed development is not likely to have impacts of a substantial extent, magnitude or complexity. In addition, construction impacts will be relatively short-term.
Therefore I consider that an Environmental Impact Assessment will not be required.
APPENDIX II Appeal Decision APP/K3415/W/18/3217315, Land to the northwest of Broad Lane, Huddlesford, Lichfield
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
Appeal Decision Hearing Held on 6 August 2019 Site visits made on 5 and 6 August 2019 by Mike Worden BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 20 September 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/K3415/W/18/3217315 Land to the north-west of Broad Lane, Huddlesford, Lichfield. • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Cher Varya Group Limited against the decision of Lichfield District Council. • The application Ref 17/00016/FULM , dated 14 December 2016, was refused by notice dated 13 August 2018. • The development proposed is described as: Construction of 139 two, three and four bedroomed timber clad holiday and leisure lodges, layout and construction of internal site roads and parking areas, creation of play areas and internal footpaths, layout and creation of two balancing ponds, construction of a reception building with meeting space, office, fitness suite, toilets and bike hire and laying out of 2.5ha greenspace for nature conservation and leisure, including nature trail and dog walk, extensive tree planting and creation of species rich flower meadow.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of 118 two, three and four bedroomed timber clad holiday and leisure lodges; layout and construction of internal footpaths; layout and creation of two balancing ponds; construction of a reception building with meeting space, office, fitness suite, toilets and bike hire; and laying out of 2.5ha for nature conservation and leisure, including nature trail and dog walk, extensive tree planting and the creation of species rich flower meadow at land to the north- west of Broad Lane, Huddlesford, Lichfield, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00016/FULM, dated 14 December 2016, subject to the conditions on the attached schedule.
Procedural Matter
2. Before the determination of the planning application, the appellant submitted revised plans to the Council. The revised plans reduced the number of lodges within the proposal from 139 to 118. I have considered the appeal on this basis.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/K3415/
Main Issues
3. The main issues are:
• The effect of the proposal on the safety of pedestrians and horse riders using the local highway and rights of way network
• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area
• Whether the appeal site would be an appropriate and accessible location for the proposal.
Highway safety
4. The proposal is for the construction of a development of 118 lodges within two fields to the north east of Lichfield. The lodges would be two storey and a mix of two, three and four bedroomed properties. The proposal would incorporate landscaping, open space, and ancillary facilities including a reception and fitness suite. The two fields are located either side of an existing private road which links Broad Lane with the Kings Orchard Marina which lies adjacent to the Coventry Canal. Although close to the outer edge of Lichfield, and the A38, the road network around the appeal site comprises minor roads which generally are narrow and are flanked by hedgerows. Broad Lane falls into that category. It is not lit and does not have pavements alongside it.
5. It is agreed between the Council and the appellant that the proposal would not cause harm to highway safety in respect of conflict between vehicles. However, the Council is concerned that the proposal would cause harm to highway safety as a result of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and horse riders. The Council considers that this conflict would arise on the highway itself and along the public right of way which runs along the road between Broad Lane and the Marina.
6. The trip generation figures within the appellant’s transport assessment are not disputed. These indicate that there would be around 97 inbound movements and around 88 outbound movements in a typical 12 hour weekday period. These figures are based on the original proposal and so the scheme the subject of the appeal could be expected to generate fewer movements. Such movements would not generally have the same peak hour focus as journeys to work or school that would be associated with residential properties as they would be more associated with leisure trips. The appellant has also provided survey count data of existing traffic using Broad Lane and other roads in the vicinity. These figures, which include around 240 movements per day in each direction along Broad Lane near to the appeal site, are not disputed. I consider that the additional traffic generated during the day would not be unduly significant.
7. From my site observations, visibility along Broad Lane in the vicinity of the site entrance is not particularly hindered as the road is generally straight, and pedestrians may move to the verge if necessary as they would do on many rural roads. On my site visits I did not observe any horses being ridden on the local highway. However there were horses in some of the nearby fields and the local residents stated that horses were commonly ridden along the local roads.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/K3415/
8. On the basis of the evidence before me, including the resulting additional traffic, I consider that the proposal would not lead to additional harm to the safety of pedestrians or horse riders on the local highway network.
9. The road which runs through the appeal site to the Marina is a public footpath. Whilst local residents have stated that it is used for horseriding as well as walking, the Council confirmed at the hearing that these uses should not be undertaken on a public footpath. Nevertheless, I consider that the main access road to the Marina is straight and visibility is good. Traffic speeds would be expected to be slow, as I observed on my visit and could be managed as part of the proposal. The proposal includes creating additional passing places. Whilst there would be additional vehicular movements along the road as a result of the proposed development, I consider that such movements would not lead to any additional harm to the users of that access road.
10. For the reasons set out above, I consider that the proposal would not cause harm to the safety of pedestrians and horseriders on the local highway and public rights of way network, and would accord with Policy T&M1 of the made Whittington-Fisherwick Neighbourhood Plan 2018 (the Neighbourhood Plan) which seeks to ensure that new development does not cause harm to highway or pedestrian safety.
Character and appearance
11. The appeal site lies in a flat area of land. It is not within any specific landscape designation within the development plan. Although the outer edge of Lichfield is relatively close, the immediate area has a rural feel. It is characterised by large fields separated by substantial hedgerows and groups of trees. The fields of the appeal site are in agricultural use, currently laid to grass. The wider area includes a number of farms. To the south, on the other side of the main west coast railway line, is the village of Whittington and to the north, across the A38 is Fradley Distribution Park. The Coventry Canal runs in a roughly north south direction close to the appeal site. The Kings Orchard Marina lies between the appeal site and the canal. It has a large basin which is used for the storage of canal boats. The Marina also has camping and caravan uses within its site. The appeal site is divided by the hard surfaced access road to the Marina. To the south of the appeal site there are tall high voltage electricity pylons and cables.
12. The proposal would introduce 118 lodges divided between the two fields. The lodges would be two storey and would vary in size. They would be timber clad with sedum roofs. The roof of each lodge would curve upwards from the rear. The lodges would be located in a green setting with the southern field also having an area of open space and a balancing pond. The lodges would be set in different size groups. Some would be detached, others in terraces of two, three or four, and all would face onto an internal access road which would run through either field. Surface biopave parking would be provided. The northern field would house a reception building which would also accommodate a fitness centre and bike hire facilities.
13. It is not disputed that the proposed development would be visible from outside of the site. The appellant considers that the sedum roofed timber clad buildings would be an attractive feature in the landscape. The substantial nature of the hedgerows and trees around the site, together with the proposed planting would mean that the lodges and the reception building in the northern field would be viewed over the tops of the hedges, rather than through them as that
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/K3415/
field is substantially enclosed. The southern field is larger and since it is not all being used for the proposed development, would more heavily rely upon new landscaping to screen views of the lodges.
14. Along the majority of the external boundaries, the backs of the lodges would be relatively close and in some parts would form near continuous banks of built form. There would be some views through gaps between buildings. The two storey height of the lodges and their location across the site would mean that views of them from outside of the site would be mostly in the form of glimpses. In winter months the presence of the lodges would be more visible as the surrounding vegetation would be less dense. The proposed additional planting and the natural surface materials of the buildings would help to reduce visual impact.
15. At the hearing it was agreed that there could be a condition imposed to control development which could have an urbanising effect such as fences, walls, and storage facilities associated with individual lodges. The presence of parked cars would add to this urbanising effect of built form although the proposed parking areas are grouped in clusters within the inner areas of the site.
16. From my observations, I consider that the proposed development would not be unduly visible from the Coventry Canal, including from the raised bridge over the link to the marina. The users of public footpath 15 in the section between the Marina and Broad Lane, would experience a significant change in the character of the area as a result of the proposal, although the scheme would still be contained within a green setting.
17. In the immediate general landscape, the proposal would be experienced as a built form of development quite distinct from the established pattern of development around. Nevertheless the impact on the wider landscape would be somewhat limited.
18. I consider that the nature of the proposed development would for the reasons set out above be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy BE.1 of the Lichfield Local Plan Strategy 2015 (the Local Plan) which seeks to secure high quality development including expecting it to appreciate context; Policy D2 of the Neighbourhood Plan which seeks to ensure the reflection of local character in the design of new development; and Policy D1 of the Neighbourhood Plan which seeks to ensure new development is of good design and amongst other things of scale and density appropriate to its setting.
Location
19. The appeal site is not served by local buses. The nearest railway station is Lichfield Trent Valley which is about 1.5 miles away. It would be possible for the users of the proposal to walk or cycle to the Plough public house at Huddlesford. This journey could be made by foot either along Broad Lane or via the public footpath and canal towpath. Although a number of residents at the hearing stated that there was no link between the footpath and the towpath, on the site visit it was observed that the gate could be opened and the linked path was well trodden. The public right of way could also be taken to walk to Streethay across the A38. At the hearing it was disputed what facilities were available at Roman Heights in Streethay, but my understanding is that whilst planned, local facilities associated with that housing development have not yet been built.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/K3415/
20. The future users of the proposed development would for the most part rely upon a private motor vehicle to access their holiday lodge, to access local services and to access visitor facilities in the local area. The appeal site is well placed to access a number of acknowledged visitor attractions in the local area and in the Midlands. However such journeys would for the most part require reliance upon the car. The appellant considers that without specific measures introduced around 95% of visitors would arrive at the proposed development by car and a similar number would use their car for leisure trips from the site. If, through a condition or obligation, the measures set out in the submitted Travel Plan were implemented, then these figures could reduce, but not significantly.
21. The appeal site is not adjacent to or associated with a major visitor attraction such as the examples of Alton Towers or Drayton Manor mentioned at the hearing by representators. Whilst the canal is close by for walking and cycling, and a meadow area would be provided on site, the majority of holiday visitors would travel by car to undertake leisure activity off site. Indeed in order to realise the economic benefits in the wider area, visitors would have to make leisure trips during their stay, and for the most part these would have to be by car.
22. For these reasons I consider that the location of the proposal is poorly accessed and the proposal would place reliance on the use of motor vehicles. I consider that this would be contrary to the final bullet point of Policy BE1 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that new development should be located in areas which have good safe access to public transport to reduce the need to travel by private car and should optimise choices of sustainable travel. It would also be contrary to Core Policy 5 of the Local Plan which seeks to promote sustainable transport and ensure that new development is well served by an attractive choice of transport modes.
Other considerations
23. The economic benefits of the proposal are not disputed by the Council although some of the local residents consider that they would not be realised. The occupation of 118 units would help to create significant overnight and visitor spend. Whilst the site is not directly connected to a tourist destination, the location of the proposal would provide a suitable geographical base from which to visit tourist destinations in the district and in the wider Midlands area.
24. The proposal would create employment for around 30 full time equivalent (FTE) temporary jobs in construction and around 7 FTE jobs in management, maintenance and servicing. It would lead to increased spending in the local economy and have a multiplier effect. The appellant’s statement of case indicates that this would be around £1.5M -£2.0M per annum, although the Planning and Economic Statement submitted with the application suggests a figure of around £1.8M based on the original 139 units. Nevertheless the figures are not disputed by the Council and the benefits to the local economy of the proposal are set out in the Council’s officer report to Planning Committee. Even though the value of the benefits may be less than originally calculated at the time of submission due to the reduced numbers of lodges, the proposal would bring great benefit to the local and wider area economy, and is a consideration to which I afford significant weight.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/K3415/
Other matters
25. The parties agree that on the basis of the additional submitted ecological assessments, and subject to the imposition of a condition which secures ecological mitigation, the proposal would not cause harm to biodiversity on the site. The planning obligation also seeks to secure a financial contribution, as mitigation, to the improvement of the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation, in accordance with Policy NR7 of the Local Plan.
26. I have no evidence before me that the future occupiers of the proposed development would be subject to harm as a result of noise from the A38, or from the nearby electricity pylons. I have no evidence that harm would be caused by flood risk subject to the imposition of conditions agreed by the parties and I note that the relevant agencies do not object on that basis. I also have no evidence that the HS2 project, the line of which would run nearby, would adversely affect the proposal.
27. At the hearing reference was made to applications elsewhere for change to use of holiday properties to residential and numerous concerns from local residents about this matter have been raised. I do not have specific details of those applications or circumstances before me, but I fully understand the concerns of the residents on this point. The Council and the appellant have agreed that if the appeal were to be allowed, a condition could be imposed to prevent the use of the lodges for residential purposes, and that this could also be the subject of the legal agreement. Without such controls, the proposal would not be acceptable in planning terms.
Planning Balance
28. I have found that the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would be in a location that would cause undue reliance upon the private car contrary to the interests of sustainable transport. I have not found any harm to the safety of pedestrians and horse riders.
29. The proposal would bring great economic benefits to the area which would extend to attractions in the wider area to the benefit of the Midlands economy. I attach significant weight to these benefits.
30. The appellant considers that even with travel plan measures in place, around 85% of journeys would be made by private car, for both journeys to the site and to visitor attractions. Whilst there would be some activities on site and from the site, and the quality of the accommodation would be high which would facilitate visitors to stay on site, I consider that in the main, most visitors would travel out to tourist attractions in the Midlands during their stay and also have to travel to buy food and provisions etc. The vast majority of such journeys would be by private car given the poor access to public transport options.
31. The appellant states that the proposal should be seen as one that relies upon private car use because that is the nature of such holiday villages in rural areas. The attractiveness of the proposal for short and longer stays relies upon its remote countryside location and the concept of the scheme is one of lodges set within an area of countryside. The proposal would enable enjoyment of the countryside by the nature of the scheme and its location. If the proposal was attached to an existing visitor attraction such as the examples given at the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/K3415/
hearing, then journeys reliant upon the car would arguably be less but not necessarily so. However, there is no sequential test required by any policy submitted to me, and moreover the scheme is the one before me, at this location. I have given considerable weight to the specific nature of the proposal and its general need for a countryside location for it to be attractive to overnight visitors and consequently deliver its associated economic benefits to the area.
32. Core Policy 9 of the Local Plan seeks to support the growth of tourism in Lichfield District and amongst other things encourages a variety of additional overnight accommodation to increase overnight visitor capacity and enabling longer tourist stays. The Council’s officer report to Planning Committee highlighted that there is a shortage of overnight accommodation in the area although this point was disputed at the hearing by some of the representators. The Council’s statement of case however does not contradict its officer’s report on this point. The Council’s Rural Development Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) sets out guidance in relation to development in rural areas of the district. It recognises, at paragraph 4.23 that holiday accommodation in rural areas can help drive up overnight tourist spend and can support local businesses. I attach some weight to this consideration.
33. I have found harm, but overall I conclude that this harm is clearly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme to which I have attached significant weight. The proposal would be contrary to some policies of the development plan but accord with others. On balance I consider that the appeal should succeed.
Planning Obligations
34. The appellant has submitted planning obligations in the form of a signed Unilateral Undertaking. This seeks to require a travel plan, require a financial contribution towards travel plan monitoring, restrict occupancy of the lodges and to make a financial contribution towards the Cannock Chase SAC.
35. The SAC contribution is to meet the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and to avoid and mitigate any impact that the proposal may have on the SAC. The Council does not disagree with the principle or level of financial contribution, but it considers that it should be the subject of a separate legal obligation. However, I consider that the Unilateral Undertaking as submitted does adequately separate out the requirements of the different legislations.
36. The parties agree on most other elements of the submitted obligation but there are differences of opinion on some nuances. Nevertheless, overall, I consider that the submitted planning obligations meet the necessary tests, including the requirements of the CIL regulations and the obligations are necessary to mitigate impacts. As such they are justified to make the scheme acceptable in planning terms. They are also directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to it. Accordingly the deed meets the tests set out in paragraph 56 of the Framework and in regulation 122 of the CIL regulations 2010. I have taken the submitted planning obligations into account in reaching my decision.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/K3415/
Planning Conditions
37. The Council and the appellant have agreed a list of suggested conditions, although some minor wording detail amendments were discussed at the hearing. I have considered the suggested conditions in relation to Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework.
38. In addition to the standard condition relating to the time period for the implementation of the permission, there is a need for a condition specifying the permission to which the permission relates, in the interests of certainty.
39. There is a need for a condition requiring a construction management plan in the interests of amenity and the environment. There is also a need for a condition requiring a scheme of archaeological investigation in the interests of heritage given the potential for archaeological interest in the area.
40. Conditions are required in relation to detailed materials, external illumination and landscaping, in the interests of character and appearance. Conditions are also required in relation to details of drainage and surface water schemes in the interests of the environment and a condition to secure compliance with the submitted flood risk assessment in the interests of minimising the risk of flooding. Conditions are also required in order for the local planning authority to approve details of tree protection measures in the interests of the environment and to require the replacement of any landscaping which is planted but fails.
41. Conditions are necessary to require submissions of a Construction Environment Management Plan and a Habitat Management Plan in the interests of the environment and ecology. In the interests of ecology also, a condition is imposed to require adherence to the submitted updated ecological appraisal.
42. A condition is imposed to restrict development within an area to the west of the appeal site in order to enable access to the nearby watercourse for maintenance purposes.
43. Conditions are also imposed to restrict the use of the lodges for holiday purposes, to restrict the use of the reception building to ancillary uses and to restrict the number of days in the year when the lodges can be used by particular person or persons including a requirement for the keeping of registers. These conditions are necessary in the interests of planning to prevent the lodges being used for non-holiday purposes. A condition is also necessary in this particular case to prevent means of enclosure around the individual lodges in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.
Conclusion
44. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
Mike Worden
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/K3415/
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Hugh Lufton Lufton Associates Leigh Ibbotson Cher Varya Dave Haslam Haslam Ecology Michael Bradbury Mike Bradbury Design Tim Willis Shoosmiths
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Michael Brereton Lichfield District Council Hannah Hayes Lichfield District Council
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Councillor David Leytham Local Councillor Juliette Barlow Local resident Philip Sharpe Inland Waterways Association Tom Cope Landowner Andrew Cope Landowner Councillor Harry Warburton Local Councillor
DOCUMENTS 1 Public rights of way plan submitted by appellant 2 Cannock Chase SAC planning guidance
SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS
1 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1806 -P01A Location Plan; 1806-P23 Landscape Masterplan; 1806-P19C Landscape Plan (North); 1806-P20D Landscape Plan (South); 1806-17E Proposed North Site; 1806-P18C Proposed South Site Plan; 1806-P21A Tree Constraints North Site; 1806-P22A Tree Constraints South Site; 1806-P21 Sustainable Design; 1806-P08C 2 bedroomed bungalow Type A; 1806- P14A Reception Building Elevations; 1806-P20C North Site Elevations/Sections; 1806-P21C North Site Elevations/Section; 1806-P22C; 1806-P23C South Site Elevations/Sections; 1806-P24C South Site Elevations/Sections; 1806-P25C South Site Elevations/Sections; 1804-P10 3 bedroom lodge Type C; 1806-P11 4 bedroom lodge Type D; 1806-P09 2 bedroomed lodge Type B; 1806-P03A Proposed North Site; 1806-P01A; 16-03101b Topographic Survey; 02_01A_2016_TS Tree Survey; 02_01B_2016_TS Tree Survey; 02_01C_2016_TS Tree Survey.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/K3415/
3. Notwithstanding any description/details in the application documents, before the development hereby approved is commenced, details of all external materials of any buildings and structures and areas of hardstanding to be used in the construction of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
4. Before the development hereby approved is commenced, full details of the surface and foul water drainage, including surface water drainage strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage strategy shall include the following details and mitigation measures:
i. the ability to accommodate surface water run-off on-site up to the critical 1 in 100 year event plus an appropriate allowance for climate change, based upon submitted drainage calculations; ii. the limitation of surface water run-off to equivalent greenfield rates; iii. the utilisation of holding sustainable drainage techniques with the incorporation of treatment trains to help improve water quality; iv. finished floor levels are set no lower than 150mm above local ground levels; v. the responsibility for the future maintenance of drainage features;
The approved drainage scheme shall be fully implemented before any part of the development is first brought into use/occupied and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme or within any other period as may subsequently be agreed, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority.
5. Before the development hereby approved is commenced, a written scheme of archaeological investigation (‘the Scheme’) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide details of the programme of archaeological works to be carried out within the site, including post-excavation reporting and appropriate publication and interpretation. The programme of works shall thereafter be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
6. Before the development hereby approved, including any site clearance works, are commenced, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Management Plan shall include the following details:
i. Arrangements for the parking of site operatives and visitors; ii. Loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii. Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. Construction hours; v. Pedestrian and cyclist protection; vi. Proposed temporary traffic restrictions; vii. Arrangements for turning vehicles; viii. Noise Control devices (Silencers, smart reversing alarms etc.); ix. Delivery routeing and hours; x. The erection and maintenance of security hoarding;
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/K3415/
xi. Wheel washing facilities and methods of prevention of mud being carried onto the highway, Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; and xii. A scheme for the recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works.
The development and works associated thereto shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the details contained within the approved Construction Management Plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
7. Prior to its installation the details of any external illumination within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme of illumination shall thereafter be provided in accordance with the approved details.
8. Notwithstanding the submitted details, before the development hereby approved is first brought into use, full details of the refuse and recycling compounds shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved refuse and recycling compounds shall be erected and made available for use prior to the first use / occupation of the development and shall thereafter be maintained for the life of the development.
9. Notwithstanding any submitted details or details shown within the approved plans, before the development hereby approved is commenced, a detailed landscape and planting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved landscape and planting scheme shall thereafter be implemented within eight months of the development being first brought into use, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
10. Before the development hereby approved is commenced or any equipment, machinery or materials is brought onto site, full details of protective fencing and/or other protective measures to safeguard existing trees and/or hedgerows on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The agreed tree / hedge protection measures shall thereafter be provided in accordance with the approved details British Standard 5837: 2012 and retained for the duration of construction (including any demolition and / or site clearance works). No fires, excavation, change in levels, storage of materials, vehicles or plant, cement or cement mixing, discharge of liquids, site facilities or passage of vehicles, plant or pedestrians, shall occur within the protected areas. The approved scheme shall be kept in place until all parts of the development have been completed, and all equipment; machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site.
11. Before any construction works hereby approved are commenced, a Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) and Habitat Management Plan (HMP) detailing, in full, measures to protect existing habitat during construction works and the formation of new habitat to secure a habitat compensation value of no less than 20.29 Biodiversity Units, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Within the CEMP/HMP document the following information shall be provided:
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11 Appeal Decision APP/K3415/
i. Current soil conditions of any areas designated for habitat creation and detailing of what conditioning must occur to the soil prior to the commencement of habitat creation works (for example, lowering of soil pH via application of elemental sulphur); ii. Descriptions and mapping of all exclusion zones (both vehicular and for storage of materials) to be enforced during construction to avoid any unnecessary soil compaction on area to be utilised for habitat creation; iii. Details of both species composition and abundance where planting is to occur; iv. Proposed management prescriptions for all habitats for a period of no less than 25years; v. Assurances of achievability; vi. Timetable of delivery for all habitats; and vii. A timetable of future ecological monitoring to ensure that all habitats achieve their proposed management condition as well as description of a feed-back mechanism by which the management prescriptions can be amended should the monitoring deem it necessary. All ecological monitoring and all recommendations for the maintenance/amendment of future management shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
The development shall be undertaken and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved CEMP and HMP.
12. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment dated 13/09/2017 (Version 3.0 RAB: 1726).
13. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in strict accordance with all recommendations and methods of working detailed within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal produced by Haslam Ecology, dated 5 July 2019 Report Reference HE05/08/15.
14. The use of the site shall be limited to holiday lodges only. The site shall not be used to accommodate caravans.
15. The holiday lodges shall be occupied as holiday accommodation only and shall not be occupied either continuously or cumulatively by any particular person or persons for a period exceeding 120 days in any twelve month period, the details of which shall be kept in a log and shall be made available to the Local Planning Authority upon request.
16. Any tree, hedge or shrub planted as part of the approved landscape and planting scheme (or replacement tree/hedge) on the site and which dies or is lost through any cause during a period of 5 years from the date of first planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
17. No development shall take place within the 8m easement / exclusion zone to the west of the site as shown on drawings 1806 P20 rev D and 1806 P19 rev D. This are area shall be maintained free of development for the life of the development.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 12 Appeal Decision APP/K3415/
18. The reception building hereby approved shall only be used ancillary to the holiday and leisure lodges complex development hereby approved; and for no other purpose, including any other purpose in Class D1 of the schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) (or any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).
19 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected around any of the buildings hereby permitted or their curtilages.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 13
(This page is intentionally blank)
www.nextphase.dev
Head Office: 8 Bore Street, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 6LL Tel: 01543 571718 | Email: [email protected]
London Office: 16 Upper Woburn Place, London, WC1H 0BS Tel: 0203 741 8225 | Email: [email protected]
Company No: 7525574. | VAT No: 156185595 | Registered in England and Wales
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement
0680/03 Swindon Marina – Planning Policy Statement