COMMITTEE REPORT

Application 11/01403/FUL Reference

Site Address Moor Hall Farm, Wixford

Full planning permission for the erection of a storage/workshop building; external storage of machinery; Proposals associated engineering and landscaping works; provision of car parking and turning facilities; and temporary storage on area to north of existing building

Case Officer Tony Horton

Presenting Tony Horton Officer

Applicant R S Brookhouse Engineering (Evesham) Ltd

Howse Ward Member(s) James Pemberton Part Bidford on Avon Parish Councils Part Wixford Reason for ƒ Objection from Bidford on Avon Parish Council Referral to ƒ Objection from Wixford Parish Council Committee ƒ Scale of Proposals

Recommendation Grant

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL

ƒ Demolition of existing stables and bungalow (separate planning application for relocation and new provision of these in the locality) ƒ Erection of new ‘L’ shaped workshop building 7.8m high, 31.5m and 15m lengths, 15m width, floor area 1860sq.m. Profiled sheeting walls and roof with Yorkshire boarding to northern gable. ƒ Workshop used for repair and maintenance of pipe laying/bending machinery plant and equipment. ƒ Provision of new storage yard by new workshop with surrounding landscaping. ƒ Allowance of permanent storage within currently unauthorized storage yard adjacent to existing workshop. ƒ Allowance of 3 year temporary storage on land in front of existing workshop. ƒ Provision of associated parking and landscaping. ƒ Removal of ‘tower’ from existing storage building and restoration of part of outbuilding. ƒ Removal of existing unauthorised storage adjacent to Moor Hall. ƒ Existing access arrangements to Wixford Road.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND SURROUNDINGS (INCLUDING RELEVANT PLANNING CONSTRAINTS)

The site lies in open countryside within land that has previously been designated as part of the Arden Special Landscape Area. The site lies approximately 700m south of the edge of the village of Wixford and approximately 170m north of the edge of the village of Broom. The edge of the larger ‘Main Rural Centre’ of Bidford on Avon lies around 1.1km to the south.

The Grade II* listed building Moor Hall lies to the west with two of the associated outbuildings being Grade II listed buildings in their own right. One of the Grade II listed outbuildings lies immediately adjacent to the western boundary. The second Grade II listed outbuilding is set to the south west of this. Intervening, but linked, outbuildings are all considered to be curtilage listed buildings relating to Moor Hall.

To the west and south of the site lies open land and beyond this the River Arrow. The southern part of the site contains the Brookhouse Engineering workshop, storage sheds and associated land. A landscaped bund runs around part of the southern and eastern boundaries of this part of the site. To the east of the bund runs the Heart of England Way public footpath, this stretch of which links Broom and Wixford affording some views of the site. Another public footpath links to this from Broom and lies due south east of the site with clearer views of the site.

In the northern portion of the site lies Moor Hall Farm Stables, an associated groom’s bungalow and a storage building. Land to the rear of this is generally agricultural, although a large mound of deposited material has grown up over recent years. A pond lies to the east of the stables. The owner of Brookhouse Engineering occupies a dwelling further to the east of the stables complex. The house, stables, Engineering works and Moor Hall are all accessed via a driveway linking to the B4085 Bidford to Wixford road lying to the east. The driveway bisects the application site and ends at the access to Moor Hall.

3. HISTORY/BACKGROUND

The planning history relating to the Brookhouse Engineering site which is considered relevant to this case is set out below.

A planning application (S94/0901) for a change of use of a riding school to machinery repair workshop for Brookhouse Engineering was refused 17.2.95. The matter was to taken to appeal (APP/J3720/A/94/251128/P6) and was, following a public inquiry, allowed (25.8.95) for a 5 year period.

Planning application 00/01759/FUL for the renewal of planning permission S94/0901 was granted planning permission in March 2006 for permanent use of the workshop and associated buildings and some land for the storage and repair of pipe laying and pipe bending machinery.

Planning application 05/00922/FUL for a hardstanding area for the external storage of vehicles, machinery and equipment associated with the pipe laying and pipe bending business along with the constructed bunding was refused in March 2006.

Enforcement action was taken in respect of non-compliance with Condition 2 (unauthorised external storage), Condition 7 (non provision of 10 parking spaces), Condition 11 (non availability of turning area) of planning permission 00/01759/FUL through the issuing of an Enforcement Notice in May 2008.

Two Enforcement Notices were also served in July 2009 relating to (1) unauthorised storage on land adjacent and to the south of Moor Hall and (2) unauthorised storage within and around the stables complex. The appeal against Notice (1) was eventually withdrawn and the land cleared. The appeal against Notice (2) was dismissed on 9.6.10 and the unauthorized storage subsequently removed.

A Breach of Condition Notice relating to condition 2 (unauthorized external storage) of planning permission 00/01759/FUL was issued in August 2009 and subsequently heard at Magistrates Court on 6.8.09 whereat Brookhouse Engineering pleaded guilty to the Breach and were subsequently fined.

Around this time Brookhouse Engineering appointed a planning agent to approach the Council with suggestions for sorting out the storage and operational problems of the business by expanding the workshop operations and storage areas, relocating the stables complex and amongst other things aiming to secure improvements to landscaping and the setting of the listed buildings. A series of meetings involving Officers, Bidford and Wixford Parish Councils and Ward Members ensued to try and find an agreed way forward for the business whilst taking account of the constraints of the site.

The discussions initially lead to the submission of planning application 10/01961/FUL which was withdrawn due to flooding issues raised at the time and in the context of negative consultation responses from various sources. A further round of discussions and pre-application consultation took place and the scheme was altered to take account of general comments being raised.

Further Enforcement action has been taken relating to non-compliance with Condition 2 (unauthorised external storage). The matter was deferred from the Magistrates Court to enable the parties to try and resolve matters via the submission of planning applications. The current application seeks to resolve issues at the site relating to storage and operational requirements for the business. The next Magistrates Court appearance is set for 30 November 2011.

Reference Proposal Decision and date Number 11/01401/OUT Outline planning application for the Pending (elsewhere on this relocation of the existing bungalow agenda) and stables required in connection with proposed development on existing site by R S Brookhouse Engineering 11/00122/VARY Variation of Condition 2 and Withdrawn 15.6.11 Condition 5 of planning permission 00/01759/FUL to allow additional external storage of plant and machinery in the area shown on Plan PF8578/02 10/01961/FUL Hybrid application seeking: (1) Full Withdrawn 23.12.10 planning permission for the erection of a storage/workshop building; external storage of machinery; associated engineering and landscaping works. (2) Outline planning permission for the relocation of the existing bungalow and stables, with all matters except access reserved 05/00922/FUL Construction of hardstanding area Refused 7.3.06 for external storage of pipelaying and pipebending vehicles, machinery and equipment and ancillary pipelaying and pipebending items. Construction of re-graded landscaped mounding. 00/01759/FUL Extension of planning permission Granted 13.3.06 for S94/0901 - Change of use from riding school to machinery repair workshop. 98/01672/FUL Engineering works to form Refused 7.3.06 hardstanding 94/00901/FUL Change of use from riding school Refused 17.2.95 to machinery repair workshop Appeal Allowed 25.8.95

4. RELEVANT POLICY CONTEXT

The Development Plan

Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)

QE1 – Conserving and Enhancing the Environment QE6 – The conservation, enhancement and restoration of the Region’s landscape

Warwickshire Structure Plan 1996 - 2011 (Saved Policies)

I.2 – Industrial Land Provision

Stratford-on-Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 (saved policies)

STR.1 – Settlement Hierarchy STR.3 – New Industrial Provision STR.4 – Previously Developed Land PR.1 – Landscape and settlement character PR.7 – Flood Defence PR.8 – Pollution Control EF.6 – Nature Conservation & Geology EF.7 – Nature Conservation & Geology EF.9 – Trees, woodland and hedges EF.11 – Archaeological Sites EF.14 – Listed Buildings DEV.1 – Layout and design DEV.2 – Landscaping DEV.4 – Access DEV.5 – Car Parking DEV.7 – Drainage DEV.8 – Energy Conservation DEV.9 – Access for people with disabilities DEV.10 – Crime Prevention COM.16 – Existing business uses COM.17 – Rural Employment CTY.1 – Control over development CTY.3 – Re-use of Rural Buildings IMP.1 – Supporting Information IMP.2 – Supplementary Planning Guidance IMP.4 – Infrastructure Provision

Other Material Considerations

Central Government Guidance

PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development PPS4 – Planning for Sustainable Growth PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment PPS7 – Sustainable development in rural areas PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG13 – Transport PPG24 – Planning and Noise PPS23 – Planning and Pollution Control PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk

National Planning Policy Framework Consultation Draft (July 2011) Planning For Growth Ministerial Statement issued on 23 March 2011

Supplementary Planning Guidance and Supplementary Planning Documents

Stratford on Avon District Design Guide (April 2001) Sustainable Low Carbon Buildings (October 2007) Car and Cycle Parking Standards (April 2007)

Other Documents

B50 Appraisal 2002 B50 Parish Plan 2003 (+ 2006 Update) Wixford Parish Appraisal (2002) Corporate Strategy 2011-2015 Warwickshire Landscapes Guidelines (Arden) (November 1993) Planning and Community Safety – Design and Crime Reduction

Other Legislation

Human Rights Act 1998 Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 NERC Act 2006 Equalities Act 2010

5. APPLICANT’S COMMENTS

RS Brookhouse Engineering (RSBE) is a sustainable business with a trade turnover of £10m in 2010. The Company is a major employer within the local area, employing some 33 staff directly. For a considerable period of time RSBE has endeavoured to source suitable land within the locality – to support the existing business but without success. The facilities (open storage and workshop) detailed in this application are in addition to the existing premises at the Waterloo Industrial Estate which are to be retained.

The provision of open storage facilities to the side and rear of the existing buildings together with the provision of a new workshop building and service yard (north of the track) are considered essential to the on-going well being of RSBE.

This proposal should be considered in the context of the recent Ministerial Statement Planning for Growth 23rd March 2011 the underlying message of which could not be clearer:

“The Government's top priority in reforming the planning system is to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs. Government's clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be 'yes’.”

At a local planning policy level Policy COM16 supports the expansion of existing firms in their established locations, except where the scale and nature of the activity would cause unacceptable environmental impact on the local area. This policy was written at a time when the national and local economy was in an entirely different state of health - the need to support the expansion of existing firms is now even more pressing and is entirely consistent with up to date national planning policy and the recent Ministerial Statement.

The application is accompanied by a Landscape Report which demonstrates that the proposed development can be accommodated on the application site without harming the character or appearance of the surrounding countryside and that it will provide significant enhancements to the approach and setting of the listed buildings at Moor Hall.

The application is also accompanied by a Transport Assessment which demonstrates that the development would not give rise to an increase in traffic movements to and from the site and that the development would not prejudice highway safety or amenity.

It is considered that the proposed development is in accordance with the ‘saved’ policies of the Stratford-on-Avon Local Plan, national planning policy guidance, and the recent Ministerial Statement and that this application strikes an appropriate balance between safeguarding an existing major business, and avoiding unacceptable environmental impact.

Agents (Framptons) letter dated 26.9.11 – Concerns that condition 14 would be an overtly detailed level of control that is not proportionate or appropriate in relation to Circular 11/95 ‘Use of conditions in Planning Permissions’.

The applicants have submitted the following documents to accompany the application:-

Planning Statement Transport Statement Bat Surveys Habitat and Protected Species Survey Great Crested Newt Survey Site Management Plan Heritage Impact Statement Landscape Supporting Statement Tree Cover Arbocultural Recommendations Flood Risk Assessment

6. PARISH COUNCILS

Bidford on Avon – Object for the following reasons:- • This is essentially an agricultural area which would have extensive inappropriate industrial development, particularly when other industrial land is available within the area. • Access road is unsuitable for the size and number of vehicles entering and leaving the site. • Proposed landscaping would take many years to mature to provide effective screening and mitigation. (12.7.11)

Wixford – Object to the application for the following planning reasons:- • Concerns regarding proposed storage of machinery/plant on an area known to flood due to the possible risk of spillage of fluids for machinery/plant harmful to the water and environment: • The lack of a detailed planting schedule and time programme to ensure that machinery/plant is well screened. We would like to see planting carried out before any others works are allowed to commence and all planting cared for to ensure an established natural screen. The planting should include many mature trees and not only "whips". • It should be noted we do support local business and wish to see local business develop. • The screening was an Item Wixford PC made clear to Frampton's would give us cause for concern, as this has not been addressed as suggested we object. • The workshop development needs better screening. We are also concerned that it appears to have a substantial office block at one end. We do not recall any proposal to accommodate office workers (with the associated extra traffic) in the development and think that with some clarification regarding the actual usage if the office block and the provision of better screening we should be able to support that proposal. • We also think that we are doing the residents of Moor Hall no favours by allowing him to continually expand around their boundary, the process appears never ending and we are uncomfortable with the impact of the machinery on the approaches to Moor Hall. (14.7.11)

7. WARD MEMBERS

Councillor James - The planning history of this site has been a long and tortuous one, as an authority we need to bring closure on a number of issues and a resolution on all matters concerned with Moor Hall Farm.

There are three businesses based at Moor Farm (Heavy Plant Engineering, Race Horse Training and a Farm of some 175 acres) this is also supported by five small engineering factories in Bidford on Avon the total business employing some 50 local people. The planning history goes back several years with various ombudsman investigations, legal action and a defiance to comply with conditions both SDC & Planning Inspectorate.

The current planning applications are intertwined this is unfortunate but I don't think can be avoided, as I see it the Proposed Workshop development cannot be undertaken without a suitable site being identified for the replacement of the existing bungalow and stables.

Taking each element in turn - 1) (Comments reported in relation to application 11/01401/OUT elsewhere on the agenda)

2) The workshop storage area and addressing enforcement issues again the application seeks closure on many of the issues pursued by the authority, concerns from both Wixford Parish Council & Bidford Parish Council amongst other relate to Landscape issues and the applicants ability to comply with conditions. Conditions on landscaping can be made quite intense the authority should specify the girth of all trees that are to be planted, whips are not good enough, the applicant should be made fully aware that any breach of condition or non-compliance in the future would lead the council to take legal action in the courts against him personally. Landscaping for the storage area can be conditioned and the existing boundary treatments enhanced to prevent any visual impact on Broom. The lowering of the "Plant Boom Arms" could be conditioned.

The business is already established on site, its a significant local employer of around 50 employees both at Moor Hall & Bidford whilst the plant and equipment is large and industrial in appearance, it is earth moving and pipe-laying equipment used across the world in various terrains, movement is by heavy haulage under escort from the site to the main highway network.

The comments made by CPRE that the business should be moved to the Waterloo Industrial Estate shows no understanding of the requirements of this business and if it was possible the impact it would have on the Industrial Estate currently there are no suitable site available.

In conclusion if you minded to refuse, I would respectfully ask that these applications are determined by committee, prior to that committee meeting a members site visit is convened as I feel it would be in everyone's interests not only to see the site(s) but also the engineering workshops on the Industrial Estate to make a fully informed decision. (16.7.11)

Councillor Howse – No representations. (5.8.11)

8. THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS

Eight letters of objection have been received, including one from CPRE, planning grounds for objection: • Existing eyesore will be made worse • Noise from the premises is already a problem for properties in Broom, and will get worse • Agricultural land should not be changed to industrial use • Encroachment into the countryside unacceptable (Policy CTY.1) • Storage and maintenance of the equipment should take place on an industrial estate, this is not a suitable area for an Industrial Estate • Contrary to Policies PR.1, DEV.1, COM.17 and CTY.3 • Speed and traffic survey findings conflict with a 2010 survey • Scale of proposals excessive • There will not be any increase in employment levels • Landscaping will take many years to mature • Testing of the booms would still leave them visible • Harmful to the enjoyment of the Heart of England Way • Local roads are inappropriate for transportation of such wide loads, leading to highway dangers • Existing bund does not provide enough screening particularly from autumn to late spring • Recent Government announcements on planning policy and business do not back up the proposals • Harmful to the setting of Moor Hall a Grade II* listed building • Requires the relocation of bungalow and stables • The scheme is evolving into an industrial estate. • The factory building has a 70% floor area increase compared to existing stable block which are more appropriate to the locality and which could be re-used • The offices would appear to be a long term strategy to re-locate the entire business from Waterloo Road Industrial Estate • Tree planting should have fully grown evergreen trees in place • The existing workshop and storage areas are poorly organised and managed and associated buildings could be redeveloped and storage rationalised to cater for needs • Flooding has taken place twice in the last 12 years and poses a threat of pollution from the site • The approach to the Grade II* listed Tudor Manor House is grotesque in its ugliness • Effects on Broom Conservation Area.

9. CONSULTATIONS

Senior Environmental Health Officer

No objections raised. Conditions relating to deliveries and noise recommended. (9.9.11)

WCC – Highways

No objection subject to conditions relating to visibility splays, turning area and space for parking/loading/unloading. (29.6.11)

WCC Museum (Ecology)

The Ecology team highlight that the site was considered unsuitable for otter, white-clawed crayfish, dormouse and reptiles, No evidence of barn owl or badger were found. The field to be planted with trees was identified as semi-improved grassland, a decreasing habitat in Warwickshire, and of some import and value, but as much of this field will remain there will be no great loss to the biodiversity of the area due.

Great crested-newts, smooth newts and palmate newts were found to be using the pond through the surveys. The Ecology team consider that the works will have a low to moderate negative impact on the newt population but can be managed through appropriate mitigation and under licence from Natural England.

Common pipistrelle, soprano pipistrelle, brown long-eared bat and Myotis sp. were recorded using the barn, this is thought to be mostly foraging activity. It is though very likely that small numbers of common and soprano pipistrelle bats are rooting within the barn, it is also possible that brown long-eared bat and Myotis sp. are roosting within the building.

The ecology team consider that replacement roost sites must then be incorporated within a replacement building. They recommend that 10 crevices and access points to a roof void are created when the roof is retiled. It is also suggested that bat boxes are installed with in the site during works so that there is no loss of roosting opportunities at any time during works. Since roosts have been identified, a bat licence from Natural England will be required

The Ecology team do not know of any ecological concerns with the development provided the appropriate action is taken to ensure that protected species such as bats, great crested-newts and nesting birds are not affected and that the development works to the pond are excluded. (16.8.11)

Further WCC Ecology comments (28.9.11) - Replacement roost sites must be provided and it has been recommended that these are incorporated into remaining buildings on site. The mitigation report outlines that these will be created in the upper floor of the existing Coach House, in the roof of the existing garage and on nearby trees. No objection raised to this subject to an appropriate condition.

WCC Museum (Archaeology)

The proposed development lies within an area of significant archaeological potential, close to the deserted medieval settlement of Apsley Juxta Wixford and the moated site of Moor Hall Farm. There is therefore a potential for the proposed development to disturb archaeological deposits, including structural remains, associated with the medieval and/or post- medieval occupation of this area. Consider that some archaeological work should be required which should be secured via condition. (3.8.11)

Severn Trent Water

No objection or comment. (6.7.11)

Environment Agency

Point out that the site is within Flood Zone 3 (but outside functional floodplain) rather than Zone 2 as stated in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). Highlight the need for sequential testing of alternative sites. Confirm that sufficient flood compensatory storage has been proposed and that the proposal is a ‘less vulnerable’ use and that proposed mitigation ensures no increased flood risk to third parties. Highlight the issue of flood evacuation and suggest conditions and notes to go on any permission. (15.7.11)

Warwickshire Police

No objection but note that no mention of ‘crime prevention’ measures in the Design & Access Statement. Given the value of the plant and machinery advise the introduction of access control, appropriate lighting and CCTV. (1.7.11)

English Heritage

Revised application adjacent to Grade II* listed farmhouse. Whilst there are clearly improvements in the scheme still concerned that this intensification in the use will have a detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building. The proposed screening will not appear instantly since it is partly proposed as green screening. There will also still be impact in terms of increased vehicular use. Only if the planning authority are completely convinced that the impact on the setting of a significant heritage asset is positive rather than negative should the scheme be permitted. (18.7.11)

10. ASSESSMENT OF THE KEY ISSUES

Members Site Visit

The application was deferred from the Planning Committee West meeting held on 28 September 2011 pending a Member site visit. This was requested in order to allow Members the opportunity to better assess the impacts of the scale and nature of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area and on neighbouring properties. The Member site visit was set for the morning of 14 October 2011 and information relating to this will be provided in the Committee update report.

Principle

Policy STR.1 sets out the hierarchical structure of the District’s settlements, expecting most new development to be directed to the larger settlements. Policy STR.3 relates to new industrial development and provides for this, amongst other means, by allowing small scale rural industrial uses in accordance with Policy COM.17. Policy STR.4 expects development to be utilize brownfield land except where in accordance with other policies of the plan.

Policy COM.16 promotes the retention of sites in business use by supporting the expansion of existing firms in their established locations, except where the scale and nature of the activity would cause unacceptable environmental impact on the local area. Policy COM.17 encourages the provision of new rural employment opportunities by, amongst other things, allowing the expansion of existing groups of rural buildings in accordance with Policy CTY.3. Policy COM.17 also requires consideration of the impact of the development on the character of the area, including the effects of traffic, emissions and drainage together with considerations relating to accessibility and sustainability.

Policy CTY.3 considers the scope for expansion of existing groups of rural buildings for industrial uses where they are readily accessible by means of transport other than the private car from Stratford upon Avon or a Main Rural Centre (in this case the nearest being Bidford on Avon). The policy requires the scale and nature of the activities to be accommodated to be appropriate to the character of the local area and to not cause harm to features of acknowledged importance. The Policy also highlights that the criteria of Policy CTY.2 also apply.

Policy CTY.2 sets out the criteria to be satisfied for development to be acceptable, including:- - scale of proposals to not jeopardize sustainability objectives; - proposals to complement the special qualities and features which help create the distinctiveness of the locality; - proposals to be appropriate to a rural setting in relation to scale, treatment of elevations and curtilages and to be consistent with the rurality of the area; - proposals to respect the special qualities and features of listed buildings and buildings of local historic interest.

Policy DEV.1 of the District Local Plan is clear in that development proposals will be required to have regard to the character and quality of the local area through, inter alia, the layout and design of new buildings and change of use of buildings. With regards to the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area, Policy PR.1 of the District Local Plan adopts the approach that all development should respect and, where possible, enhance the quality and character of the area. Proposals that would damage or destroy features which contribute to the distinctiveness of the local area will not be permitted unless significant public benefit would arise from the scheme. In assessing this it is made clear that thorough consideration will be given to the detailed guidance provided in supplementary planning guidance adopted by the District Council. Furthermore, Policy CTY.1 resists development, other than that in accordance with the provisions of the Plan, which is harmful to the character of the area.

It is therefore a matter of balancing the potential benefits of the proposals to the local economy and creation/retention of local employment together with any environmental benefits that might accrue against the potential negative impacts of the proposals in relation to sustainability and on the character and appearance of the area and the impact on heritage assets and neighbouring properties in the vicinity.

Sustainability

PPS4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Growth’ advises that the Government’s overarching objective is sustainable economic growth. To help achieve this planning objectives should, amongst other things, build prosperous communities, deliver more sustainable patterns of development through reducing the need to travel by car, and raise the quality of life and the environment in rural areas by promoting rural communities whilst continuing to protect the open countryside.

Policy EC6 of PPS4 advises that in rural areas planning authorities should strictly control economic development in open countryside away from existing settlements and to identify local service centres to locate most new development within or on the edge of. Policy EC12 of PPS4 gives weight to the conversion and re-use of existing rural buildings and supports development which enhances the vitality and viability of market towns and rural service centres. Support is however also given to small scale economic development where it provides the most sustainable option in villages or other locations that are remote from service centres even where not readily accessible by public transport.

The application site is within open countryside but not in a wholly isolated location by virtue of the villages of Broom and Wixford being a short distance away and the edge of the main rural centre of Bidford on Avon lying around 1.5 miles away. A regular (roughly hourly) daily bus service (247) runs past the access to the site on a route between Evesham and Redditch which calls at Bidford, Wixford, Studley and Alcester. Public footpaths also link the site from Broom and Wixford although the lack of pavements on the main road between Bidford and Wixford would be likely to discourage walking. On balance I therefore consider that there is reasonable opportunity for the site to be reached by public transport and cycling as an alternative to the car.

I also note the accompanying information with the application which states that there will not be an increase of staff on site as a result of the proposals. This gives some weight to the argument that the proposals will not result in a more unsustainable set of travel patterns than currently exists at the site. I also note that of the 14 staff on site as at June 2010 two walked to the site and one cycled and whilst the remaining 11 arrived by car the average distance travelled was around 7 miles. On balance I therefore conclude that despite its location the proposals will not be unacceptably unsustainable in terms of traffic movements and mode of travel.

Impact on character and appearance of surrounding area

The proposals entail the demolition of the existing stables (7m high), bungalow (6m high) and a stables/storage building (6m high) which equate to a floor area of around 957 sq.m. It is intended to relocate the stables and bungalow off-site and this matter is the subject of a separate planning application. The proposed new workshop building has a floor area of around 1860 sq.m reaching a height of 7.8m. The existing workshop which is to be retained has a floor area of around 1595 sq.m (including lean to stores) and a storage building to be retained has a floor area of around 600 sq.m. There are also around 5 storage containers on site. The combined floor area of existing (to be retained for industrial/ storage use) and proposed buildings is therefore around 4052 sq.m.

The proposals also entail the retention of currently unauthorized storage on the land and the provision of an additional storage yards, one for the business and a smaller area agricultural. The existing authorized storage area amounts to a building of around 600 sq.m floor area and an outside storage area of around 750 sq.m. However, a much larger area is currently being used for unauthorized storage of large plant and machinery. A rough calculation puts this at around 6450 sq.m, the majority of which is to the rear of the existing workshop with a landscaped bund part surrounding but a significant amount of storage is also taking place to the front of the workshop. It is proposed to ‘give up’ an area of unauthorized storage (approx 850 sq.m) lying adjacent to the listed outbuildings of Moor Hall to the west but to permanently retain the unauthorized storage area bounded by the bund (approx 5100 sq.m) and to temporarily retain the unauthorized storage to the front of the workshop (approx 500 sq.m) for a 3 year period. Associated with the new workshop building will be a new storage yard with an area of around 6695 sq.m. The table below attempts to tabulate the existing and proposed business buildings and storage areas.

Existing Proposed (sq.m) Total (sq.m) (sq.m) Workshop 1860 1595 3455 Internal Storage 600 0 600 External Storage 750* - 750* (Authorised) External Storage 6450* (5600* to be retained, 5600* (Unauthorised) 500* of which on temp. basis. Approx 850 not to be retained) External Storage - 6695 (new yard) 6695 Total 2460 1595 4055 Industrial/ Storage within Buildings Total External 6350* 6695 (new yard) 13045* Storage (retained) * = Rough Calculation

I must take account of previous appeal Inspectors decisions at the site. In 1995 the Inspector dealing with the appeal to allow the original equine related building to become an industrial workshop found the building to be relatively unobtrusive in the landscape due to screening. He did however consider that external storage at the site detracted from the appearance of the immediate area and therefore conditioned no external storage. A subsequent planning permission allowed an element of external storage but for the most part required storage to still take place within buildings.

At a more recent 2010 appeal relating to use of the stables and surrounding land for industrial storage the Inspector found that external storage at the general industrial site far exceeded approved areas and that storage by the stables was “…completely out of place in this attractive countryside setting”. The Inspector also considered that it had not been satisfactorily demonstrated that screening could be carried out to mitigate the harm. He therefore found that the unlawful storage “…materially harms the character and appearance of the area…”. The Inspector considered a request to only allow storage within the stables building but raised serious concerns that a condition preventing external storage would be complied with.

It is clear that both of the Inspectors considered external storage at the site was materially harmful to the character and appearance of the area. I must however take into account that the harmful impacts appear to be of a localised nature rather than a wider landscape impact and that landscaping proposals relating to the storage at the stables were not nearly as comprehensive as now proposed.

I must also refer to the 2003 B50 Parish Plan which highlights that the preservation and improvement of the historic and scenic features of the parish is a key issue.

There are three key vistas to consider in relation to the impacts on the wider landscape, these being from Broom village and the Heart of England Way to the south, from approach to the site along the access track to the east and from Wixford village and the Heart of England way to the north.

Whilst an existing planted bund to the south of the existing workshop and unauthorized storage yard does screen the majority of plant and equipment stored in the area there are two key areas relating to this to address. First, some of the plant have tall booms that reach a height of over 9m and which are clearly visible above the bund and planting. Second, the bund and planting fails to screen plant and equipment when viewed from the south west.

In relation to the first point the applicant has suggested a planning condition requiring all booms to be taken off the machinery and stored flat, with an exception to this being allowed for occasional testing of the machinery with boom raised. In relation to the second point a ‘woodland buffer’ around 14m wide is proposed running along the applicants land boundary south of Moor Hall. I am, on balance, reasonably satisfied that these measures will appropriately screen and soften the impact of storage within the bunded yard subject to details of the planting size and specification being agreed together with an appropriate management regime.

The vista from the existing access track is important as the Heart of England Way crosses this and affords public views of the existing buildings. The applicants state that the combination of the downturn in the worldwide economy, with the consequence of large numbers of pipe laying plant and equipment being recalled from normal duties together with the lack of existing storage facilities, has lead to the need to store plant and machinery in front of the workshop. This storage has an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the listed buildings at Moor Hall (which is discussed further in the report). The applicants are seeking permission for the temporary 3 year use of this area for storage and the limited period of likely harm needs to be weighed in the balance of the case.

The vista from Wixford to the north and across the River Arrow from the north west is of importance. The Heart of England Way also runs nearby and would potentially afford some views of the proposed workshop and storage yard, together with an area of hardstanding for agricultural storage (approx 800 sq.m). The design of the workshop building has been altered since the previous application to include an element of Yorkshire Boarding to the northern gable. The landscaping proposals show a wide band of woodland buffer planting (approx. 24m wide) to the west and north of the workshop and yard with the agricultural hardstanding set within a block of woodland planting. It is likely that given chance to mature and with appropriate long term management and maintenance, including replacement planting for failures, that the landscaping would provide considerable screening of the development, particularly in the months when trees are in leaf. However, prior to maturity and during the months that trees are not in leaf there are likely to be significant visual impacts.

In assessing this matter I must take account of the impact of existing buildings on the site which will be demolished together with a large mounded area of graded earth and material deposits that has arisen over time which would need to be appropriately dealt with. I also take account of a number of comments relating to the proposed planting which state that the proposed use of whips rather than larger standard trees is unacceptable. Having assessed the submitted documentation it appears that mention of planting of whips relates to the landscaping of the existing bund rather than to the new woodland buffer zones. There is reference to the use of ‘extra heavy standards’ within the buffer areas but little further information.

I have serious concerns relating to the adequacy of the proposed landscaping to the west and north of the workshop and storage yard. If the scheme is implemented with small standard trees and not appropriately managed and maintained then the screening function may be severely compromised. If however extra heavy standards of woodland trees are planted to the appropriate specifications and with an appropriate long term management and maintenance regime, including replanting as necessary, then on balance I consider that the impacts of the new workshop and storage yard on the wider landscape will be acceptable.

The positive and negative aspects of the proposals in relation to impacts on the character and appearance of the area are therefore finely balanced and will need to be considered as part of the overall consideration of the scheme.

Impact on setting of listed buildings

Moor Hall is a Grade II* listed building, with two of the outbuildings Grade II listed and other buildings likely to be curtilage listed. PPS5 requires Planning Authorities to have regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings. Saved Policy EF14 of the Stratford on Avon District Local Plan Review 1996-2011 resists development on adjoining land which will have an adverse impact on the setting of listed buildings.

The existing level of unauthorised external storage of plant, machinery and associated equipment adjacent to the outbuildings is considered to significantly harm the setting of the listed buildings. Similarly, the approach to Moor Hall via the access track is adversely affected by the storage of unauthorised plant and machinery in front of the existing workshop.

The proposals include plans to clear away all unauthorised storage adjacent to the eastern boundary of the listed outbuildings and to landscape this area with new tree and under-storey planting. This will undoubtedly be of benefit to the setting of the listed building, although the weight to give this benefit is lessened by the fact that it is unauthorised storage and may possibly be able to be removed via Enforcement Action.

The proposed treatment of the access route leading to Moor Hall has two scenarios. The landscape document shows that on the southern side of the access a series of 8 large planters with Mountain Ash will be sited which will have the capacity to be moved by forklift at times of movement of plant and machinery. However, the storage plan identifies land to the front of the workshop as being needed for temporary storage for up to 3 years, thus 4 of the planters would need to be re-sited in front of this.

On the northern side of the access it is proposed to retain an unauthorised area of storage for ‘vintage’ machinery which runs for a length of 24m. A new access to the proposed storage yard then opens up the northern side by a width of 23m. Therefore a length of around 47m of machinery storage and hardstanding/access exists before any proposed landscaping is envisaged. This unlandscaped area is directly opposite the proposed temporary storage area thus creating an unwelcome corridor of large scale machinery and concrete hardstanding, albeit for a limited 3 year period. Beyond this area the new landscaping in front of the new workshop building begins. This appears to constitute a new hedgerow with tree planting. The new workshop is set back from the access by around 9m which compares with a current distance of around 12m that the smaller scale bungalow is sited from the access, albeit with an unlandscaped hardstanding area in front.

I note the concerns raised by English Heritage regarding the impacts on the setting of the Grade II* listed building and associated Grade II and curtilage listed outbuildings. I also take account of the comments of a Planning Inspector appointed to determine the Enforcement appeal relating to the commercial storage use of the stables. The Inspector found that the storage use did not cause any significant harm to the setting of the listed building due to the extensive tree cover between the listed building and the (stables) appeal site.

I consider that there are some beneficial elements of the scheme in relation to the setting of the listed buildings through the removal of unauthorised storage from the western boundary of the application site. There is also a degree of benefit from the new planting along part of the northern boundary of the access and to a lesser degree the use of intermittent planters to the south. Other benefits to weigh in the balance are the restoration of part of a traditional building on the site and the removal of an existing turret structure on one of the storage buildings.

I also however consider that the temporary storage along the front of the workshop will be materially harmful to the approach, and therefore the setting of Moor Hall, a Grade II* listed building of significant local importance. Similarly, I consider that the ‘Vintage’ storage area and very wide access to the new storage yard, which will afford wide views of the plant and machinery within, will be harmful to the approach to the listed buildings.

The positive and negative aspects of the proposals in relation to impacts on the listed buildings are therefore finely balanced and will need to be considered as part of the overall consideration of the scheme.

Impact on neighbours’ amenities

The key property affected by both the existing and proposed buildings and land uses is Moor Hall which is a residential dwelling with associated outbuildings. A number of meetings between the occupier and officers have taken place to discuss issues arising from the Brookhouse Engineering site and to seek opinions on the proposals at pre-application stage.

Key concerns of the neighbouring resident have related to the creeping unauthorized storage taking place and the impact of this on the setting of the property, together with historic difficulties of blocking the access on occasions when large plant and machinery was being delivered or collected. Some limited concern has also been raised regarding noise impacts.

With regard to the setting of the dwelling, this matter, as discussed above within the listed building considerations, is balanced due to their being both positive and negative aspects of the scheme.

With regard to the occasions of the right of access being blocked the applicants have attempted to address this by submitting a drawing illustrating that there will be sufficient space for the loading and unloading of a low loader and the free passage of other vehicles. This drawing does not include the area for proposed planters when temporary storage is taking place but having assessed the width of the access along this point, which ranges between around 10-12m and taking account of the fact that the planters can be moved I am reasonably satisfied that sufficient space exists to allow the free flow of vehicles. I am also heartened to note that the application contains a Site Management Plan which sets out the procedure for a low loader arrival. This includes prior notification to the owners of Moor Hall of impending low loader activity, the presence of two banksmen and the marking of a designated waiting area for such vehicles.

With regard to noise, I am not aware of any formal complaints having been made to Environmental Health in recent years and consider that the operations of the storage yards and new workshop will be far enough from the main dwelling to cause any unacceptable impacts subject to appropriate conditions aimed at limiting noise from the site.

I have not identified any other unacceptably harmful impacts of the proposals on any neighbouring dwelling or land use that would warrant refusal of the proposals.

Impact on highway safety

A Transport Statement has been submitted with the application which has been assessed by the Highway Authority, which raises no objection to the proposals subject to conditions relating to access visibility, vehicle turning and parking/loading areas being satisfied. I am reasonably satisfied that such conditions are appropriate and could be complied with. I therefore cannot see any material reason to refuse the application based on highway safety concerns.

Flooding and drainage matters

A Flood Risk Assessment has been carried out and assessed by the Environment Agency. The site lies within Flood Zone 3 but not within the functional floodplain of the River Arrow (Zone 3b). Flood compensation works are proposed and subject to the imposition of conditions the Environment Agency raise no objection.

I must take account of the need to carry out a sequential test to ascertain whether there is any reasonably available site outside of the Flood Zone 3. I am aware that the applicant owns a significant area of surrounding land but I am also aware of constraints relating to this. For example, land to the east of the existing site contains the archaeological remains of the deserted village of Apsley Juxta whilst land to the south would bring development closer to the settlement of Broom and land to the north east would be on higher ground and an industrial development of this sort would be likely to be more visible and intrusive in the landscape. I am therefore reasonably satisfied that if the principle of the development is accepted in this general location then the application site is an appropriate location having taken account of alternative locations potentially available and assessed the constraints associated with these.

I have taken account of the fact that an industrial (and storage) use is classified as ‘less vulnerable’ within the terms of PPS25 and note that one of the uses this would replace, i.e. residential, is considered to be more at risk i.e. ‘more vulnerable’. I also note that within PPS25 a ‘less vulnerable’ use within Flood Zone 3a is considered to be appropriate development for which an ‘Exception Test’ is not required. I have also taken into consideration the emergency planning and rescue implications of the new development and consider that this matter can be adequately addressed via planning condition.

I therefore conclude that subject to the imposition of the conditions relating to the compensatory flood storage works, provision of a flood evacuation management plan, approval of foul and surface water drainage details and pollution prevention measures to protect ground and surface waters, that the proposals are acceptable in relation to flooding and drainage matters.

Impact on Ecology

Surveys relating to protected species including bats and great crested newts have been undertaken. Bats have been identified as roosting in buildings to be demolished and mitigation measures suggested within a further report suggest using an old Coach House and Garage building together with bat boxes on trees for mitigation. The County Ecology team appear to accept this as appropriate mitigation, subject to a planning condition.

Great Crested Newts have been identified in a nearby pond (Pond 1). The County Ecological Unit has assessed the submissions and considers that subject to an appropriate condition Great Crested Newts are unlikely to be adversely affected.

I have also had regard to the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 in assessing the application proposal, and do not consider that the proposal is likely to have a detrimental impact on any issues of ecological importance.

Support for local business and employment

PPS1 highlights that economic development can deliver social benefits and that local economies are subject to changes which local authorities should be sensitive to. Policy EC10.1 of PPS4 states that planning authorities should adopt a positive and constructive approach to applications for economic development. Recent Ministerial Statements have been highlighted by the applicants and these are to be treated as a material planning consideration in weighing up this case.

The Planning For Growth Ministerial Statement issued on 23 March 2011 highlighted the need for the planning system to help secure a swift return to sustainable economic growth and jobs and stated that the “Government’s clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should whenever possible be ‘yes’, except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy.” Other recent Ministerial Statements echo this theme.

The Council’s Corporate Strategy 2011-2015 has as one of its key aims “A District where business and enterprise can flourish”. The priorities in relation to this include a constructive approach to regulation, supporting the establishment and expansion of businesses where that is consistent with the locality plan and encouraging the development of locality plans building on aspirations within Parish Plans.

More locally the B50 Appraisal (2002), covering Bidford, Barton, Broom & Marlcliff asked residents if they thought there was a need for more industrial development – only 7.8% replied “yes” – or small businesses – of which 31.7% replied “yes”. The 2003 B50 Parish Plan called for more local employment opportunities and more businesses. The Wixford Parish Appraisal (2002) was slightly more positive in response to the type of development needed in the parish with around 13% supporting light industrial and 17% supporting workshops although around 75% wanted no new development. In relation to Moor Hall some comments were made to the effect that the site should not be expanded using agricultural land and that any expansion should not increase noise or traffic levels.

The applicants, RS Brookhouse Engineering, state that they are an existing major local business with a trade turnover of £10m in 2010 and employing 33 staff. Due to the global recession and the return for storage of considerable quantities of heavy plant, the business is currently short of operating space and with no additional premises available nearby, including Bidford on Avon Industrial Estate, to cater for this. The applicant considers the option of a third ‘satellite’ site to be unsustainable and inefficient and that to do nothing is not a viable option if the business is to remain competitive.

The applicant’s case in relation to support for the local business is reasonably strong, although the case for employment generation is weak as no new jobs are envisaged to be created. Nevertheless, the continuation of the business and retention of existing jobs is a material consideration to be given significant weight, particularly in light of recent Ministerial Statements and the direction of travel of the Government on such matters.

Other matters

The Heart of England Way is not considered to be materially affected by the proposals in relation to users ability to navigate the route.

Proposals to secure the reduction in CO2 levels via renewable energy in the form of photovoltaic cells and biomass heating system have been proposed, which appear acceptable.

The County Archaeology unit highlight the historic nature of the area and consider that if permission is granted then archaeological investigations should be carried out, to be secured via planning condition.

Conclusion

The planning and enforcement history of the site highlights the difficulties that have persisted over a prolonged period, particularly in relation to external storage. The existing impacts of the external storage on the character and appearance of the area and on the setting of listed buildings at Moor Hall are considered to be materially harmful. The storage needs of an established local business caused by the current worldwide economic climate also however need to be taken into account. The current application is an attempt to address these issues and follows extensive consultation with Bidford and Wixford Parish Councils and Ward Members, and with the input of a neighbouring occupier.

It is clear that the business has long outgrown the facilities granted via planning permission with its associated restrictions on external storage. The proposals offer a number of positive benefits to the locality primarily through the removal of unauthorised storage and provision of new landscaping, although continued Enforcement action might also secure removal of harmful storage. The proposals also appear to ensure the long term ability of the business to remain in the locality with the associated retention of local employment, although there is no certainty of this being the case.

Weighed against this are the negative impacts on the character and appearance of the locality and the setting of listed buildings caused by the temporary 3 year storage use proposed to the front of the existing workshop combined with storage uses on the other side of the access track. There are also negative impacts on the character and appearance of the locality caused by the new workshop building and associated storage area during the period that the proposed landscaping is initially becoming established, although this can be mitigated to some extent through the provision of large standard trees.

A key matter to decide is whether the resulting scheme will provide a more satisfactory mid to long term outcome in terms of impacts on the character and appearance of the area and the setting of listed buildings that outweighs the shorter term visual harm. In assessing this matter the powers of the Authority to potentially remove unauthorised storage should be borne in mind together with the likely impacts on the ability of the business to continue in this location if such Enforcement action was followed.

The matter is finely balanced and it would be quite legitimate for the Planning Committee to reach conclusions to either grant or refuse the proposals depending on the weight that they give to the material considerations as outlined in the report. After lengthy deliberation I conclude, on balance, that subject to appropriate planning conditions governing matters such as removal of the temporary storage after 3 years, removal of other unauthorised storage, implementation of a high quality landscaping scheme and restrictions on noise/hour operations that the benefits of the proposals marginally outweigh the disbenefits of allowing additional industrial and storage uses in this location.

11. RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission is GRANTED, subject to the following conditions and notes the detailed wording of which is delegated to officers:

1. Notwithstanding the part retrospective nature of this development relating to existing storage areas, the new workshop and new storage area hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2. Use of the new workshop building restricted to the welding, fabrication, supply of pipeline plant and equipment, including storage, servicing, repairs and assembly of pipeline plant and equipment together with ancillary uses associated with such use. 3. Use of the storage areas (with the exception of the agricultural storage area) restricted to the storage of pipeline plant and equipment and associated items relating to the fabrication, servicing, repair and assembly of pipeline plant and equipment 4. Use of the agricultural storage area restricted to the storage of items associated with agricultural use 5. Removal of temporary storage within 3 years or prior to the first use of the new storage yard, whichever is the sooner 6. Removal of all unauthorised storage within 6 months, approval of a landscape/planting scheme (including details of long term management and timetable for planting) on such unauthorised storage areas within 4 months, implementation in accordance with approved timetable 7. Prevention of any external storage of pipeline plant and equipment and associated items relating to the fabrication, servicing, repair and assembly of pipeline plant and equipment except within those areas approved via this permission. 8. Maximum storage height to be 4.5m (with the exception of occasional short term attachment of booms to plant/machinery for testing purposes) 9. Removal of permitted development rights relating to B1/B8 uses 10.Soft landscaping details, including long term management and timetable for implementation, relating to the screening/softening of the existing workshop storage yard (in the locations defined on the plan to be agreed, which corresponds with the details shown on drawing 4747 LM 02 D) to be submitted for approval within 4 months and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved timetable 11. Soft landscaping details, including long term management and timetable for implementation, relating to the screening/softening of the proposed workshop and storage yard to be submitted for approval prior to the commencement of the workshop or new storage yard and thereafter implemented in accordance with the approved timetable 12.Provision of tree planters in accordance with drawing 4747/ASP2 (Additional annotations version relating to storage in front of workshop) within 6 months and during temporary storage period and thereafter in accordance with drawing 4747/ASP6 (Aspect Landscape Planning) to be maintained in such approved positions at all times with the exception of short periods when the planters may be needed to be temporarily relocated to facilitate the loading, unloading or manoeuvring of plant machinery and equipment, such periods kept to a minimum. Any tree which is dead, diseased or dying shall be replaced with a tree of similar species and specification to that originally planted. 13.Hard landscaping details to be approved prior to commencement of any new building or storage area details to include removal/re- grading of existing mounds and full details of how and where excavated material is to be deposited 14.Provision at all times of turning and waiting facilities for low loaders in accordance with David Tucker Associates drawing 12029-05 Rev A. Procedures as contained within the Site Management Plan (DTA 27 May 2011) for notifying owners of Moor Hall and for the loading/unloading of low loaders to be made available for information to all persons involved in the process as a ‘Best Practice Guide’. 15.Details of staff/visitor parking serving existing workshop to be submitted and approved within 4 months and thereafter implemented and retained for such use until such time as any alternative approved parking is provided on site. 16.Details of staff/visitor parking serving the new workshop (and existing workshop as necessary) to be approved prior to first use of new workshop or storage yard and thereafter retained for such use. 17.Materials samples for new workshop to be approved prior to commencement of new workshop 18.The use and development of the site shall be so controlled as to ensure that noise levels arising from that use between 08:00 - 19:00 hours on Mondays to Fridays and 08:00 – 13:00 hours on Saturdays do not exceed a Noise Rating Level of 45 dBLAr, 1 hour, as measured and assessed in accordance with BS4142:1997 (‘Method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas’) at any point along the boundary of the site and, similarly, that the Noise Rating Level does not exceed 30 dBLAr, 5 minutes, at any other time. 19. Deliveries to and from the site and the loading and unloading of plant, equipment, machinery and other items relating to the pipeline related business use of the site shall only take place between 08.00-19.00 hours Monday to Friday and 08.00-13.00 hours on Saturdays and not at all Sundays and Bank Holidays. 20. The new workshop or new storage area hereby permitted shall not be occupied or brought into use until details of external lighting serving the new workshop and storage yard have been approved. 21. Demolition of all buildings identified on ‘Promap’ Demolition Plan submitted with the application in accordance with a timetable to be submitted to and approved in writing prior to commencement of new workshop or storage yard. 22. Restoration of traditional building and removal of ‘tower’ feature on building as shown on drawing 4747/ASP2 Rev D in accordance with a timetable to be submitted to and approved in writing within 4 months 23.The new workshop or new storage areas (relating to the new workshop and the nearby agricultural storage area) hereby permitted shall not commence until a detailed schedule of great crested-newt mitigation measures (to include timing of works, protection measures, enhancement details, monitoring and further survey if deemed necessary) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. Such approved mitigation measures shall thereafter be implemented in full. Development of the site shall exclude any works to the pond not outlined within the mitigation report and the pond shall not be stocked with fish. 24.The demolition of the stables and bungalow shall be timetabled and carried out to wholly accord with a set of mitigation measures for the safeguarding of bats within the site as set out in the Method Statement for Bats produced by Jackie Underhill (September 2011). 25.The new workshop and storage yard shall not be occupied unless visibility splays to the vehicular access to the site at the junction with the C215 with an 'x' distance of 2.4 metres and 'y' distances of 160 metres to the near edge of the public highway carriageway are available. No structure, tree or shrub shall be erected, planted or retained within the splays exceeding, or likely to exceed at maturity, a height of 0.6 metres above the level of the public highway carriageway. 26.The new workshop and storage yard shall not be commenced until a Scheme, including timetabling, for the provision and implementation of compensatory flood storage works has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable, programme and details. 27. The new workshop and storage yard shall not be commenced until a Flood Evacuation Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the District Planning Authority. The Plan should identify a flood level that will initiate evacuation of people and vehicles, and any subsequent closure of the building/car park. This trigger level should be when the access/egress is still 'dry' i.e. flood-free, to avoid any question of what is an acceptable level of flood risk to occupants. 28. The new workshop and storage yard shall not be commenced until full details of foul and surface water drainage, incorporating pollution prevention measures to protect ground and surface water, have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and such approved scheme shall thereafter be implemented and maintained. 29.The design features, systems and equipment detailed in the application documentation and supporting information relating to provision of solar photovoltaic cells and a biomass heating system, shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved plans and particulars prior to the new workshop first being brought into use, or alternatively in accordance with a phasing scheme which has been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall thereafter be retained in place and maintained in working order at all times unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 30. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Notes

1. Great crested-newts and bats 2. Nesting birds. 3. Badgers 4. Otters 5. Bird boxes 6. Flood warning system 7. Flood proofing measures 8. Pollution prevention measures 9. waste management legislation 10. This permission shall relate to the following drawings (or any subsequent approved amended drawings) together with other drawings cited within planning conditions above:- Framptons ‘Promap’ site location plan; Midland Survey Ltd Drawings 12979/1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; Aspect Landscape Planning Drawings 4747/06A, 07A; Sheldon Bosley drawing 2608-2.

ROBERT WEEKS HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT & PLANNING