id5144140 pdfMachine by Broadgun Software - a great PDF writer! - a great PDF creator! - http://www.pdfmachine.com http://www.broadgun.com

Supporting Planning Statement

Hethel: Extension to Engineering

Excel lence Centre

Planning Statement in support of p lanning application for a extension to engineerin g Excellence Centre

January 2012 (v3)

Table of Contents

Main Report

1.0 Background 3

2.0 The Site and its Surroundings 5

3.0 Planning Policy 7

4.0 Assessment 10

5.0 Conclusion 16

Appendix

– ONE Copy of 2004 Committee report

– TWO Copy of 2010 permission and Committee report

– THREE Local Validation Checklist requirements

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 2 of 40

1.0 Background and Planning History

1.1 This Planning Statement is provided in support of the full planning application submitted to Norfolk County Council (NCC) for an extension to the existing Engineering Centre to create an Advanced Engineering facility. The proposal is for a two storey extension to the existing building to provide sixteen new ‘ ’ grow on business incubator units, containing both workshop and office accommodation, linked to the existing main building.

1.2 Whilst an initial scheme was devised for eight larger incubator units, following more detailed assessment of demand, it was concluded that a larger number of smaller units would provide the optimum way to meet demand and deliver the successful expansion of the Centre. Therefore this application seeks consent for sixteen incubator units.

1.3 It is anticipated that the project will commence on site in the early part of 2012.

– Source Google Maps

1.4 The area has been the subject of a number of planning permissions south of the existing Lotus complex, either on or adjacent to the application site.

 In June 1987, outline planning permission (ref no 07/1987/2803/O) was granted by South Norfolk District Council (SNDC) for the erection of vehicle workshops, offices, hard standings and recreation area. The applicant for this application was Lotus. At that time sufficiently strong material considerations were advanced to justify the development in this location. – Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 3 of 40

 In June 1991, full planning permission (ref no 07/1990/1791/F) was granted by South Norfolk District Council (SNDC) for the erection of workshops, offices, hard standings, recreation area sports club/swimming pool and parking and treatment plant. The applicant for this application was again Lotus. Again sufficiently strong material considerations were advanced to justify the development in this location.  In October 2004, planning permission (ref no 07/2004/1800/F) was granted by South Norfolk District Council for new single storey building to house new Centre for Engineering Excellence including associated parking, service area & landscaping. The applicants for this application were NCC, SNDC, EEDA & Business Link for NEEP. This was completed in 2006. The Planning Committee report highlighting the justification for this decision is attached as Appendix 1.  In January 2010, planning permission (ref no 07/2009/1530/F) was granted by Norfolk County Council for the extensions and alterations of the Engineering Excellence Centre to provide 11 additional 'incubator' units with mezzaine floors and new conference room facilities with remodelled cafeteria areas (associated outside access and service areas with new landscaping). The applicant for this application was the Director of Environment, Transport & Development at Norfolk County Council. This was completed in 2010. The Planning Committee report highlighting the justification for this decision plus the decision notice showing the conditions imposed by NCC as planning authority is attached as Appendix 2.

1.5 The purpose of this report is to highlight relevant development plan and other planning policies / guidance, the site context, other material considerations and to assess these against the proposals to develop the site.

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 4 of 40

2.0 The Site and its Surroundings

2.1 The site is located in the parish of Bracon Ash, some 600 metres to the south of the main Lotus complex.

Aerial view of site (prior to 2010 extension)

‘ ’ 2.2 The existing Engineering Centre building is a crisp, modern L shaped form, finished in metallic silver cladding panels, glass and natural cedar louvres. A large car park in front of the building has been carefully integrated with a mix of macadam and gravel surfacing and maturing trees. To the rear of the building is a large service yard which is also used for parking by tenants.

View of site from Wymondham Road

2.3 The development as a whole has settled well into its rural context and sits very comfortably within the countryside landscape. The gently sweeping two lanes of Wymondham Road provide long open views of the building from both west and east. – Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 5 of 40

View from Wymondham Road (from west) View from Wymondham Road (from east)

2.4 Limited views also exist from the north and south from Hethel Road in Wreningham and Potash Lane (the main access route to the extensive Lotus site). This is now a cul-de-sac offering no access to vehicular traffic from East Carleton.

View from Hethel Road (from south) View from Potash Lane (from north)

2.5 The site does not contain any Listed Building, ancient monument or fall within a Conservation Area. In addition, there is no other conservation, environmental or protection designation of this land.

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 6 of 40

3.0 Planning Policy

3.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 carried forward the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, giving statutory force to a planning led system of development control. Under Section 38 of the 2004 Act, the determination of planning applications must be in accordance with the approved Development Plan for the area, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It is recognised that the provisions of Central Government advice contained in Planning Policy Statements and Guidance represent important policy considerations.

3.2 The development plan for the area is provided at two levels.

 At the regional level, The East of England Plan remains in force providing mainly strategic policy advice. However Government ministers have announced their intention to abolish regional strategies through the Localism Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, and that regard to this should be had as a material consideration in planning decisions.  At a local level, this is effectively provided by two documents firstly by the Greater Norwich Development Partnership Joint Core Strategy ‘ ’ (JCS) adopted in March 2011 and secondly saved policies from the South Norfolk Local Plan (SNLP) adopted in May 2003.

3.3 In addition to development plan policy, Central Government advice is also an important consideration, notably that contained in planning policy guidance, most notably

 – PPS1 Delivering sustainable development  – PPS4 Planning for sustainable economic growth (December 2009)  – PPS5 Planning and the Historic Environment  PPG13 - Transport

3.4 Whilst the intentions of the Government is to abolish regional guidance, it should be noted that the East of England Plan policy E4 (Clusters) states

Policy E4 Clusters - Local Development Documents should support the sustainable and dynamic growth of inter-regional and intra-regional sectors and … business clusters including . • the motor sports cluster with a focal point at Hethel in Norfolk linking to Cranfield;

3.5 The recently adopted JCS provides the vision and overall objectives for development in the Greater Norwich area, which includes South Norfolk District and the parish of Bracon Ash (which includes Hethel) up to 2026. This was prepared in the context of the East Of England Plan. The JCS does not contain detailed development control policies or specific site allocations, and – Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 7 of 40

therefore until such time as South Norfolk Council adopts its Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) and a Development Management DPD, a ‘ ’ number of the existing saved policies contained within the SNLP will remain in place for the purposes of guiding the determination of planning applications.

3.6 In terms of policies, the following JCS policies are considered relevant

– Policy 1 Addressing climate change and protecting environmental assets – Policy 2 Promoting good design – Policy 3 Energy and water – Policy 5 The economy – Policy 9 Strategy for growth in the Norwich Policy Area

3.7 Of particular relevance is policy 9 which states

…… … Policy 9 Employment development at strategic locations will include: .  expansion of activity at Hethel including a technology park of around 20ha managed to focus on advanced engineering and the growth of technology capabilities

3.8 The supporting text for this policy states

In the period to 2026 new employment allocations to deliver jobs growth and an … …… expanded knowledge economy will ..(include) .  Hethel: a technology park, with improved accessibility particularly to Wymondham, to provide around 20ha of development focussed on high-tech engineering. Large-scale general employment development will detract from the unique offer and will not be appropriate.

3.8 In September 2011, South Norfolk DC published its Site Specific Policies and – Allocations Consultation Issues and Options stage. This identifies the site as part of a larger area identified with strong potential, reflecting the policy advice in the East of England plan and JCS.

Extract: SNC Site Allocations DPD I&O Extract: Proposals Map from adopted SNLP consultaion

3.10 It is recognised that preparation of the Site Allocations DPD is a process with various stages including evaluation of comments, possibly further – Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 8 of 40

modifications, submission for examination, examination, report fro the Inspector before final adoption. This process is not anticipated to be completed until early 2013. Therefore the current Local Plan proposal map remains of some relevance and shows the site with a countryside location. However it does not identify the site with any conservation or other environmental protection designation.

‘ ’ 3.11 In terms of policies, the following saved Local Plan policies are considered relevant

 – Policy ENV8 Development in open countryside  – Policy EMP4 Employment development outside development limits and village boundaries of identified towns and villages  – Policy EMP 6 Alterations and extensions to existing business premises  – Policy IMP2 Landscaping  – Policy IMP6 Visual impact of parked cars  – Policy IMP8 Safe and free flow of traffic  – Policy IMP 10 Noise  – Policy TRA19 Parking standards

3.12 The thrust of Central Government advice is to promote sustainable development (as underpinned by PPS1). In relation to the economy, advice is contained in PPS4 (approved in December 2009). This contains various provisions including policies EC2. Whilst the PPS advice seeks to promote sustainable economic development, it clearly and specifically recognises that ‘ development plans should positively plan for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven or high technology industries. The regional level should set criteria for, or identify the general locations of strategic sites, ensuring that major greenfield sites are not – released unnecessarily through competition between local authority areas (policy EC2). In addition, in the case of development proposals not in accordance with an up to date development plan, local planning authorities should weigh market and other economic information alongside environmental and social information; take full account of any longer term benefits, as well as the costs of development, such as job creation or improved productivity including any wider benefits to national, regional or local economies; and consider whether those proposals help to meet the wider objectives of the – development plan (Policy EC11).

3.13 The JCS has been prepared following the publication of PPS4 and has been examined and found to be fully in accordance with this advice. The emerging Site Allocations DPD is also being prepared based on this PPS advice (as well as the East of England Plan and JCS.

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 9 of 40

4.0 Assessment against Planning Considerations

4.0.1 The nature of the proposals, the context of the application site and the planning policy context raises the following key issues.

 Justification for location in the countryside  Impact on character and appearance of the landscape / rural setting  Quality of design  Traffic / transport / highway safety considerations  Parking  Impact on residential amenity  Other Sustainable development considerations

4.1 Justification for location in the countryside

4.1.1 It is recognised that the application is located in a rural location and that the ‘ ’ Proposals Map accompanying the saved Local Plan policies identify the site with a countryside location where new development is normally strictly controlled (as outlined in policy ENV8).

4.1.2 However, in this case there are very strong material considerations which would justify the grant of consent for the proposed commercial development on this site at this stage in advance of the adoption of the emerging Site Allocations DPD.

 – Extant planning permission The site forms part of a much larger area of land which has the benefit of planning permission for a mixed use of workshop, offices and recreation uses (linked to Lotus). It would be open to Lotus to fully implement this consent. Therefore this factor represents a significant consideration and the recognition that the principle of development has been established and can continue to be implemented represents a major justification for development on this site that does not normally exist on other greenfield sites.  – Existing Excellence Centre In 2004, the principle of development was agreed when planning consent was granted for the development of the Engineering Excellence Centre on its current site. At that time, the development of the Centre was justified in its open countryside location due to the existence of an extant planning consent for Lotus and the benefits this siting would derive from its proximity to the Lotus complex. ‘ ’ Therefore the in principle considerations contained in policies ENV 8 and EMP 4 were all satisfactorily addressed and the material considerations and benefits of siting the Centre in this location outweighed the planning policy objection.  – Extension to EEC In 2010, an extension to the site was granted planning permission. At that time it was recognised that as the Centre was established, its expansion should be assessed against policies for – Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 10 of 40

– the extension of an existing successful business on the site policy EMP6 (rather than purely under the context of a new business in the countryside. In a similar manner to the 2010 consent, this application differs from the 2004 consent in planning policy terms as it is an extension to an existing successful business development. Therefore the policy context for considering this is policy EMP6 of the SNLP which outlines criteria for alterations and extensions to existing businesses.  – Regional Development Plan policy The East of England Plan, whilst not a site specific allocative document, makes very specific reference to Hethel and the contribution economic development in this location would make at the northern end of the motor sport cluster in the region (in policy E4). This is clearly identified due to the location and strength of the Lotus brand and the benefits of a close association with Lotus. It is considered that the only realistic location for this regionally important development is south of their existing complex.  – Joint Core Strategy policy The adopted JCS specifically identifies a scale of allocation to deliver the East of England Plan vision (in JCS policy 9). This identifies the need for a technology park of initially around 20ha managed to focus on advanced engineering and the growth of technology capabilities. The existing Excellence Centre occupies a location from which a technology park can be developed and occupies a location in the heart of the area covered by an extant consent.  – PPS4 advice Whilst the advice promotes sustainable economic development, mainly concentrated in brownfield sites and in central locations, crucially it recognises in policy EC2 that there is a need to positively plan for the location, promotion and expansion of clusters or networks of knowledge driven or high technology industries (and the technology park is such a project). Regional Guidance and the JCS reinforce the importance of Hethel and the thrust of this part of PPS4 advice and therefore the principle of expansion is fully established as a result of the wider benefits to be delivered to regional or local economies.  – Siting / Size The proposed development is modest in size (with the extension, parking and service yard, along with the associated landscaping and swale, using only 1.5 ha of land). The site has no strong landscape features but with boundaries marked by the Excellence Centre to the west, Potash Lane to the east and Wymondham Road to the south. Therefore the position of the extension is in a well contained area and would leave little further scope to expand to the south or east. Furthermore the size of development will not prejudice the development of the larger (20ha+) technology park at Hethel, where the logical location is to the north and west of the existing Centre, taking advantage of the existing access and extant planning consent on much of this area.  – Uses The previous planning consents granted in 2004 and 2010 were the subject of rigorous conditions to control many factors of the – Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 11 of 40

development, including the use and range of users that can occupy the units. A similar condition would be appropriate to ensure that the vision for a high quality excellence centre for technologies is maintained to ensure that the synergies that this produces can lead to the continuing success of the business operated by Norfolk County Council. Such a development will produce the high value, knowledge based jobs in the economy promoted by JCS policy 5. As demonstrated elsewhere in the application submission, for the scheme now devised there is significant demand for these units and there is significant concern that if these are not available in the short term, businesses that want to locate in a technology hub may be lost to the County and relocate elsewhere in the region or outside this part of the East of England.

4.1.3 In view of the above, it is considered that sufficiently strong material considerations exist to justify the grant of consent in this location. It represents an extension to an existing successful business in the countryside and established development plan policies (notably policy EMP 6) allow such development on sites where the principle of new business use has previously been established. In addition, Hethel has been identified for significant future development in the form of a technology park and neither the scale nor location of this site would prejudice the development of this concept through the emerging Site Allocations DPD process.

4.1.4 Whilst there is a mismatch between the timetable for this DPD and the need for this expansion / extension, it is apparent from demand information that if the development cannot come forward at an early stage, potential businesses will have to relocate to other technology hubs, outside the county and even outside the region. This would harm the regional / local economies in conflict with the thrust of PPS4 advice in its policy EC11. Therefore any delay in the grant of consent to would be likely to harm job creation in Norfolk in the vital technology sector of the local economy.

4.1.5 Therefore the material considerations outweigh any policy objection to this development.

4.2 Impact on character and appearance of the landscape / rural setting

4.2.1 Whilst the site is located in the countryside, it is located in a landscape with no special protection designation. It has no significant landscape feature as the site is cultivated agricultural land. Furthermore the local landscape context has been significantly changed as a result of the Lotus complex, notably with the provision of high earth embankments that screen the existing test track from the surrounding flat countryside.

4.2.2 Whilst sufficiently strong material considerations have been advance to justify the grant of planning consent for the extension, the design has sought to ensure that the building successfully integrates into the landscape setting and the context of the existing Excellence Centre building. The approach – Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 12 of 40

complements that undertaken for the existing Centre building and its extension to the west. The design has sought to provide a landscaped swale to accommodate surface water and also provide for areas of planting which seeks break up the built form and car parking rather than provide a solid screen, clearly allowing views to the attractive built form. This involves a combination of larger specimen trees and lower /smaller species to be provided.

4.2.3 It is considered that this approach will deliver a high quality of landscape design, consistent with that previously agreed for the Centre and meets the tests of policy IMP2 of the Local Plan.

4.3 Quality of design

4.3.1 The design has been formulated to increase the type and size of units available at the Centre and to provide an additional car parking space to meet established standards.

4.3.2 The design has sought to reflect the key design elements and features of the existing building to provide a high quality of built form that will complement the award winning design of the current Excellence Centre. The design has sought to ensure both hard and soft landscaping is provided to reinforce the comfortable appearance of the Centre in its rural context. The design approach formulated and options considered are all explored in the Design and Access Statement which provides a fully justification for the approach in relation to scale, layout, appearance, etc.

4.3.3 Therefore it is considered that the design addresses the key tests of policies IMP 2 and IMP 6 of the SNLP and also policy 2 of the JCS.

4.4 Traffic / transport / highway safety considerations

4.4.1 It is recognised that the existing Lotus complex and the Excellence Centre are located in a more rural location. However strategic development plan policy has weighed this locational consideration against economic and sustainability factors in determining that Hethel is an appropriate location to deliver high value technological focussed jobs.

4.4.2 To support the application, a Transport Report has been prepared and the Travel Plan updated. The latter shows the commitment of the applicant to seek to encourage more sustainable travel choices and limit car bases movements to and from the site.

4.4.3 These reports show the proposal will not unacceptable impact on the area. Whilst the extension will mean an increase in traffic visiting the site, the current access has good visibility. Initial discussions with the County Highway Authority has shown that the proposal will not have any adverse impact on the free flow of traffic on the B1135 or conflict with policy IMP 8 of the SNLP. – Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 13 of 40

4.4.4 For construction only, an access is shown from Potash Lane. This will limit the need for construction traffic to use the access to the Centre and therefore will limit disturbance for existing tenants. The construction access issue has been discussed with the County Highway Officer who has raised no objection to this temporary construction arrangement.

4.5 Parking

4.5.1 The proposal has been devised based on the experience of existing tenants of the Centre, car park occupancy and the requirements of the County Council car parking standards. The proposal shows 95 new car parking spaces and also provision for motor cycle parking and also cycles.

4.5.2 The proposal shows an extension to the parking areas to the front, created as an extension to the current car park. This car parking area will be set back from both Wymondham Road and Potash Lane and screened in part by the swale and planting which will limit the visual impact of parked cars (meeting the tests of policy IMP6 of the Local Plan).

4.5.3 The parking to be provided will continue to meet the specific needs of the extended Excellence Centre and NCC highway officer advice and therefore the aims of SNLP Local Plan policy TRA 19.

4.6 Impact on residential amenity

4.6.1 The nature of activity on the site and its distance form the nearest dwellings has ensured that activities have not previously led to noise complaint or unacceptable impact on residential amenity. The extension will not alter the type of activities at the Centre nor impact on amenity, especially as the nature of the new users can be controlled by planning condition. This will ensure no conflict with SNLP policy IMP10.

4.8 Other sustainable development considerations

4.8.1 As the floor area of the extension is in excess of 1000 sq m, the design has addressed the requirements of GNDP JCS, notably policies 1 and 3 as outlined in the Design and Access Statement. The scheme proposes drainage and surface water disposal from the site using a SUDS approach including the ’ use of a swale at the front of the site. The scheme proposes the use of PV s on the roof to produce on site electricity (and feedback to the national grid). A new bio-mass boiler is proposed to serve the proposal and the rest of the Centre (to replace the existing oil system). All these elements plus a design which seeks to provide a high level of insulation and thermal mass demonstrates the commitment to deliver a very sustainable scheme that greatly exceeds the 10% strategic policy target.

4.8.2 Whilst there is no evidence to suggest that the site is of any significant – Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 14 of 40

archaeological value, to identify any interest the applicant has commissioned an archaeological investigation. This is to be undertaken in March and the report will be provided to the Planning Authority on completion. The approach taken accords with the thrust of advice contained in PPS5 which seeks to ensure that the value of any heritage assets which may be affected by development are properly evaluated prior to any decision.

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 15 of 40

5.0 Conclusion

5.1 It is considered that sufficiently strong material considerations exist to justify the grant of consent in this location. It represents an extension to an existing successful business in the countryside, in an area with an extent planning permission for commercial use. Furthermore established development plan policies (notably policy EMP 6) allow such development on sites where the principle of new business use has previously been established. In addition, Hethel has been identified for significant future development in the form of a 20ha+ technology park and neither the scale nor location of this proposal would prejudice the development of this concept.

5.2 Whilst there is a mismatch between the timetable for land allocation for a technology park in the DPD process and the need for this expansion / extension, it is apparent from demand information that if the development cannot come forward at an early stage, potential businesses will have to relocate to other technology hubs, outside the county and even outside the region. This would harm the regional / local economies and therefore any delay in the grant of consent to would be likely to harm job creation in Norfolk in the vital technology sector of the local economy.

5.3 Therefore whilst the site is currently in a countryside location, it is considered that sufficiently strong the material considerations outweigh any policy conflict.

5.4 In addition, the proposal represents a well-designed sustainable scheme, sensitive to the site and its surroundings, meeting national and local guidelines. This development will enable the existing Excellence Centre to ‘ ’ expand to meet the demand for additional grow on units and allow engineering innovation to flourish in this excellence hub.

Prepared by: Andy Scales BA(Hons) MRTPI Date: Updated January 2012

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 16 of 40

– APPENDIX 1 Details of 2004 consent

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 17 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 18 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 19 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 20 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 21 of 40

– APPENDIX 2 Details of 2010 Committee report and decision notice

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 22 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 23 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 24 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 25 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 26 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 27 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 28 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 29 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 30 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 31 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 32 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 33 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 34 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 35 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 36 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 37 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 38 of 40

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 39 of 40

APPENDIX 3 - LOCAL VALIDATION CHECKLIST REQUIREMENT

Source: NCC (website) - Local Validation Checklist requirements

Local List Requirement Required for application

AIR QUALITY ASSESSMENT No BIODIVERSITY SURVEY AND REPORT Attached as a separate report DAYLIGHT /SUNLIGHT ASSESSMENT No ECONOMIC STATEMENT Attached within application submission ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT No FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT Attached as a separate report FOUL SEWAGE ASSESSMENT Attached in D&A statement and see application drawings HERITAGE STATEMENT To be forwarded as archaeology report* LANDFILL APPLICATIONS No LAND CONTAMINATION ASSESSMENT No LANDSCAPING DETAILS See application drawings LIGHTING ASSESSMENT See application drawings NOISE ASSESSMENT Attached as a separate acoustic report OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT No PARKING PROVISION ASSESSMENT Addressed in Transport Assessment as a separate statement PHOTOGRAPHS AND PHOTOMONTAGES Attached in supporting statements PITCH ASSESSMENT No – ’ PLANNING OBLIGATIONS DRAFT HoT s No** PLANNING STATEMENT Yes SITE WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Attached in supporting statements STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY Attached in D&A statement INVOLVEMENT TRANSPORT ASSESSMENT Attached in supporting statements TRAVEL PLAN Attached in supporting statements TREE SURVEY Attached in supporting statements UTILITIES ASSESSMENT See application drawings VENTILATION/EXTRACTION STATEMENT Attached in D&A statement

* As scheme does not affect any Listed Building or Conservation Area, this requirement focuses on archaeological interest only. ** No Planning obligation needed

– Hethel Extension to Engineering Excellence Centre – Supporting Planning Statement January 2012 (v3) Page 40 of 40