SUMMARY 1.1 Maisebrooke Farm Is a Relatively

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 16 June 2015 11 APPLICATION NO DC/15/0401/FUL LOCATION Maisebrooke Farm Bungay Road Shipmeadow Bungay Suffolk NR34 8HJ

EXPIRY DATE 20 May 2015 APPLICATION TYPE Full Application APPLICANT Maisebrooke Farm

PARISH Shipmeadow PROPOSAL Construction and operation of a 3 building heavy horse centre, construction of a cafe and facilities building, erection of a livestock barn, formation of new car park and access arrangements and change of use of associated agricultural land.

DO NOT SCALE SLA100042052 Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

SUMMARY

1.1 Maisebrooke Farm is a relatively recently established agricultural unit on the south side of the B1062 roughly equidistant between Beccles and Bungay. The proposal is to establish a “heavy horse” centre as a tourist attraction as part of the farm. There are issues of

landscape impact (including impact on the Broads) and traffic/access but the application is recommended for approval.

1.2 This application was deferred from the last meeting to enable a member site visit to take place, which occurred on 8 June 2015.

SITE DESCRIPTION

2.1 This site is located on the south side of the B1062, approximately 3.3 kilometres from the western edge of Beccles and 3.6 kilometres from the eastern edge of Bungay. It has an area of just under 5 hectares. It has been developed over the last several years as a poultry farm, and permission has recently been granted for a permanent dwelling. There is one building on the site used for storage and as a farm shop (approved in 2010 and 2011).

2.2 The Broads Authority area starts on the northern side of the B1062 opposite the site.

PROPOSAL

3.1 This proposal is for a "heavy horse centre" to be operated by a different person than the applicant (the horses are currently kept elsewhere). Visitors would be able to view the horses (some of which are rare breeds), assist in activities such as grooming and also take a ride in a horse-drawn carriage. The horses might also travel (by horsebox) to outside events, for example for use as a wedding carriage.

3.2 The application proposes three new buildings. The largest is a U-shaped stable block in the south east corner of the site - some electricity lines cross the site at this point, which is the highest point of the site. This building would measure 30 metres by 45 metres in overall size. Materials are steel cladding.

3.3 The second building is a further livestock building for the farm. This building would measure 12 metres by 18 metres, with concrete block lower walls and timber cladding upper walls. This is shown in approximately in the centre of the site.

3.4 The third building is a cafe/shop building, of similar design to the existing farm shop/storage/butchery building and facing it across the access driveway. This would measure 4.5 metres by 30 metres, with timber cladding walls.

3.5 A car park is also proposed parallel to the front boundary of the site. It is proposed to create a new access towards the centre of the site to allow separate “in” and “out” access points.

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS

4.1 Neighbour consultation/representations: two comments have been received, one in support of the proposal because it will support the rural economy and the second objecting to it on the grounds of access and highway reasons.

4.2 Barsham and Shipmeadow Parish Council Comments: recommend refusal for the following reasons:

4.3 Only the National speed limit of 60 mph on the B1062, which is regularly disregarded.

4.4 There would be difficulty of access to the site on that stretch of road, particularly with the increased traffic levels envisaged with the Heavy Horse Centre.

4.5 Retail shops not associated with agricultural holdings should be in town centres.

4.6 Other Observations: No objection to Heavy Horse Centre. Tourism with associated large car park, cafe, toilets and retail shop will reduce the agricultural area of the holding considerably.

4.7 Mettingham Parish Council Comments: Observations:

4.8 Expansion of this site will result in increased traffic on the B1062 which will directly affect all points of access along this road, which already has insufficient / inadequate speed limit.

4.9 The success of the existing 'Maisebrook' is obviously developing and with this possibility of expansion, it will be necessary to have good entry/exit points.

4.10 Declaration Section 6 on planning application, and plan of existing site showing two entrances, if this is the case only one exit / entrance currently in use. As only one in operation question 6 should have been notated as "yes" to altered vehicle access.

4.11 If successful tourist attraction, with the appeal of the heavy horse site noted, coaches approaching from either side would need a long lead in to avoid crossing into oncoming traffic. A better scaled drawing of the car park and existing entrance together with new exit would have been welcomed. Therefore the access and parking near such a busy road is a major concern, and a full report / evaluation should be obtained from SCC Highways.

4.12 Does the proposed 60 car park allow / include all staff who would be on site, or will it become another verge parking for staff such as like McDonald's roundabout Norwich/ Yarmouth/Beccles approach.

4.13 Height of livestock barn? - Height of Heavy horse building? - incomplete plans. The heavy horse building will be on the highest area of land and would be seen from quite a distance. More immediate neighbours may have more to say on this aspect.

4.14 It is our understanding that previous planning permission for an agricultural dwelling was given to the existing site. As now proposed part tourism, part retail and part agricultural all under 12 acres, this may effect the planning permission now sought and difficult to define what is what for any future development.

Consultees

4.15 Suffolk County - Highways Department were consulted on the 3 March 2015.

4.16 Suffolk County Archaeological Unit: The proposal lies in an area of archaeological importance recorded in the County Historic Environment Record, opposite to a cropmark of a diched enclosure (SWM 009) and close to the cropmark of a ring ditch (SMW 010). As a result there is high potential for encountering heritage assets of archaeological interest at this location, given the presence of known archaeological remains. Any proposed groundworks have the potential to damage any archaeological deposits that exist.

4.17 There are no grounds to consider refusal of permission in order to achieve preservation in situ of any important heritage assets. However, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (Paragraph 141), any permission granted should be the subject of planning conditions to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage asset before it is damaged or destroyed.

4.18 In this case the following conditions would be appropriate:

4.19 1. No development shall take place within the area indicated [the whole site] until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured, in accordance

with a Written Scheme of Investigation for evaluation, and where necessary excavation, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of investigation shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and: a. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording b. The programme for post investigation assessment c. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording d. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation e. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation f. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation. g. The site investigation shall be completed prior to development, or in such other phased arrangement, as agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4.20 2. No buildings shall be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under Condition 1 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition.

4.21 Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Policy CS 17 of Waveney District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2009) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

4.22 Informative: The submitted scheme of archaeological investigation shall be in accordance with a brief procured beforehand by the developer from Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service, Conservation Team. In this case, a trenched archaeological evaluation will be required in order to establish the archaeological potential of the site. Decisions on the need for any further investigation (excavation before any groundworks commence) will be made on the basis of the results of the evaluation. I would be pleased to offer guidance on the archaeological work required and will, on request of the applicant, provide a brief for each stage of the archaeological investigation.

4.23 Broads Authority: Thank you very much for consulting the Broads Authority on the above planning application.

4.24 The Broads Authority would like the following comments taken into consideration in the determination of this planning application.

4.25 Design. Whilst outside the Executive Area the buildings will have a visual impact on the lower ground to the North of the Site, specifically the grazing marshes adjacent to the River Waveney. Although the site is screened to a degree this planting may well need to be reinforced to prevent the development having an adverse visual impact when viewed from the North.

4.26 Agricultural buildings are something that are common within the setting of the countryside, their colour and form can be such as to make them less obtrusive visually, and that could be the case here as has been suggested by the applicant.

4.27 The concern here is that the ancillary activity within the countryside such as car parking and the on site road infrastructure will exacerbate the visual impact of the buildings. This will require careful thought in this location – 60 car parking spaces on a greenfield site will have a significant visual impact as will the roads and pathways.

4.28 The impact on the setting of nearby Barsham church is also something that should be considered by the determining Authority.

4.29 The visual impact of the proposal on the Grazing Marshes within the Broads Executive Area and the impact on Barsham church (although outside the BA area) should carry significant weight for the determining Authority.

4.30 Landscape. The site lies on the southern boundary of the Broads Executive Area on the rising ground that forms the valley side of the River Waveney adjacent to the Bungay Road. The site of the proposed development has a relatively open aspect to its northern frontage with intermittent highway vegetation, filtering views of the current development. The existing buildings are concentrated on the lower parts of the site and they have relatively low ridge heights. The proposed new structures and track arrangements are dispersed throughout the site. The largest of these structures, the heavy horse buildings approx. 45 metres in length and 8 metres high, will be located at the highest part of the site. A further large building 18 metres by 12 metres and approximately 6 metres in height will be located part way up the site. It should be noted that the site arrangement plan does not accurately depict the dimensions shown on the detailed drawings.

4.31 Given the current arrangement and number of the roads, parking and buildings, the combined effects on the setting of the National Park landscape character and visual amenity of users of the Broads area is likely to be significant, Although, not within the Broads area, consideration of the effects on the setting of Barsham church (an issue bought up at the Laurels farm inquiry) should be considered.

4.32 For this application to be acceptable in landscape terms and in order to mitigate the impacts on the local landscape character and visual amenity, the site layout and scale of the development needs to be reconsidered and a comprehensive landscape scheme provided.

4.33 I trust that the above comments are self-explanatory but if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me. I would be grateful to receive a copy of the Decision Notice in due course when the application is determined.

4.34 Suffolk County - Rights of Way: Thank you for your consultation concerning the above application.

4.35 Byway 16 is recorded adjacent to the proposed development site; a digital plot showing the definitive alignment of the route as near as can be ascertained; which is for information only and is not to be scaled from, is attached.

4.36 We have no objection to the proposed works but would draw the applicant's attention to the attached "Public Rights of Way Planning Application Response - Applicant Responsibility".

4.37 Suffolk Preservation Society was consulted on the 3 March 2015.

4.38 WDC - Economic Regeneration were consulted on the 3 March 2015.

4.39 Suffolk Wildlife Trust was consulted on the 3 March 2015.

4.40 Environment Agency – Drainage: Thank you for consulting us on the above application, received on 4 March 2015. We have reviewed the information submitted and wish to raise a holding objection, as we require further information regarding the methods of surface and foul water disposal onsite. Please see our comments below.

4.41 Surface Water Management. The application form submitted states that surface water will be disposed over via soakaway. Our maps show the site is located in a Source Protection

Zone 1. We will only agree to the direct input of non-hazardous pollutants into groundwater if all of the following apply: • it will not result in pollution of groundwater; • there are clear and overriding reasons why the discharge cannot reasonably be made indirect; • there is adequate evidence to show that the increased pollution risk from direct inputs will be mitigated.

4.42 Currently no information has been submitted regarding the soakaways, therefore we are raising a holding objection to this application.

4.43 Overcoming our objection. The applicant can overcome our objection by submitting the following:

Further details of the activities taking place on the land being drained Information to determine the risk to the public water supply Details regarding the depth and construction of the soakaways

4.44 Additional information regarding use of sustainable drainage systems can be found in the technical appendix at the end of this letter.

4.45 We also wish to raise an objection regarding the method of foul water disposal onsite.

4.46 Foul Water Disposal. The application form states that the proposed method of foul drainage onsite is a package treatment plant. Our maps show the site is approximately 100m from the mains sewer. We require further information about the method of foul drainage onsite, therefore we are raising a holding objection. This objection is supported by government guidance on non-mains drainage in Planning Practice Guidance, Water Supply, Waste Water and Water Quality, Reference ID: 34-020-20140306, which stresses that the first presumption must be to provide a system of foul drainage discharging into a public sewer. Only where having taken into account the cost and/or practicability it can be shown to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that connection to a public sewer is not feasible, should non-mains foul sewage disposal solutions be considered.

4.47 Overcoming our Objection. Should the applicant be proposing to connect to an existing package treatment plant onsite, we would be able to remove our objection.

4.48 Should the applicant be proposing to connect to a new package treatment plant, we would maintain our objection and would wish to see the following: Evidence that connecting to the mains sewer had been fully investigated Full justification for not connecting to the mains sewer.

4.49 We trust this advice is useful.

4.50 National Grid: National Grid has identified that it has apparatus in the vicinity of your enquiry which may be affected by the activities specified. 4.51 Can you please inform National Grid, as soon as possible, the decision your authority is likely to make regarding this application. 4.52 If the application is refused for any other reason than the presence of National Grid apparatus, we will not take any further action. 4.53 Please let us know whether National Grid can provide you with technical or other information that may be of assistance to you in the determination of the application.

PUBLICITY 4.54 The application has been the subject of the following press advertisement:

Category Published Expiry Publication Major Application, 06.03.2015 26.03.2015 Beccles and Bungay Public Right of Way Journal Affected,

Major Application, 06.03.2015 26.03.2015 Lowestoft Journal Public Right of Way Affected,

SITE NOTICES

4.55 The following site notices have been displayed:

General Site Notice Reason for site notice: Major Application, In the Vicinity of Public Right of Way, Date posted 17.03.2015 Expiry date 06.04.2015

PLANNING POLICY

5.1 Relevant policies include:

5.2 Waveney Core Strategy policies CS01 which sets the spatial strategy for the District, CS02 which seeks high quality and sustainable design and CS13 which considers tourism.

5.3 Development Management policy DM02 sets design principles and policy DM27 seeks to protect landscape character.

5.4 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is also relevant and is considered below.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 This site is in open countryside, where there is a presumption against new development included in Core Strategy policy CS01. However there are some exceptions, one of which is “developments of an appropriate scale that contribute to the continued viability of the agricultural industry and/or diversify the local rural economy”.

6.2 Policy CS13 deals with tourism. Whilst primarily aimed at new tourist accommodation the policy does say that:

6.3 “New tourist…attractions should be developed in locations that offer good connectivity with other tourist destinations and amenities, particularly by public transport, walking and cycling. New tourism development will normally be located in or close to Lowestoft and the market towns, the larger village coastal resorts of Corton and Kessingland, and other villages where local services, facilities and public transport reduce the need to travel by car. Outside of these locations new-build development will not normally be acceptable. The focus will be on the conversion of existing buildings and development that contributes to farm diversification.

6.4 Policy CS14 “Culture” could also be considered and has similar aspirations for the location of new development:

6.5 “In accordance with the Waveney Cultural Strategy, the District Council and its partners will protect and promote cultural facilities, activity and opportunity for leisure, including art, theatres, museums, libraries, built and natural heritage, sport and leisure, and open spaces to improve the lives of all sectors of the community and encourage visitors. A sequential

approach to the location of new development will be applied with priority given to accessible sites in or close to Lowestoft and the Market Towns.”

6.6 Neither policy includes a definition of what is meant by “close to” the market towns. However as the aim of the policy is to limit new development to locations which can be reached without using private cars, in considering proposals for new build tourist accommodation in the countryside officers have used the 5 kilometre “easy cycling distance” which was included in the former PPS12. Using this measure the site is “close to” both Beccles and Bungay and could therefore be considered to be a relatively sustainable location.

6.7 The site adjoins the boundary of the Broads Authority area and landscape character in a further important issue. Development Management policy DM27 is particularly relevant and states:

6.8 “Proposals for development should be informed by, and be sympathetic to, the distinctive character areas, strategic objectives and considerations identified in the Waveney District Landscape Character Assessment.

6.9 Development proposals should demonstrate that their location, scale, design and materials will protect and where possible, enhance the special qualities and local distinctiveness of the area.

6.10 Proposals that have an adverse effect will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that they cannot be located on alternative sites that would cause less harm and the benefits of the development clearly outweigh any adverse impacts.

6.11 Development affecting the Broads Area and the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and their settings, Rural River Valley and Tributary Valley Farmland areas will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated there is an overriding national need for development and no alternative site can be found”.

6.12 In addition to adjoining the Broads Authority area this site is within the “Mid Waveney Tributary Valley Farmland Landscape Character Area” and so merits special consideration under policy DM27.

6.13 This policy was debated at the public inquiry into the wind turbine proposed on the adjacent land to the north and it was established that the policy is not intended to prevent all development, only that which adversely affects the character of the area.

6.14 The Broads Authority has made comments on the landscape in relation to the Broads (see paragraphs 4.23 – 4.33 above). As the Broads Authority response notes, agricultural buildings are common within the setting of the countryside. The main stables building is proposed in dark green and this colour can be conditioned. In addition a landscaping scheme could be required by condition, and these two factors would serve to make the buildings less obtrusive visually.

6.15 The Broads Authority has also expressed concern about the impact of the car park. This is proposed close to the front boundary, and that boundary could also be reinforced with additional planting – there is a wide verge here which would mean that visibility would not be affected by additional planting.

6.16 The Broads Authority has also referred to the setting of Barsham Church. Barsham Church is a grade 1 listed building which is located approximately 950 metres east of the application site. Its wider setting was an issue raised at the Laurels Farm wind turbine public inquiry, in particular because of the Council’s argument that the turbine would appear in the background of views of the Church from the Angles Way long distance

footpath and the inspector made an extra site visit to assess this point; however he did not consider it to be sufficiently significant to dismiss the appeal.

6.17 In this case the buildings proposed are much lower and it is not considered that their impact on the setting of the Church is sufficient to warrant refusal.

6.18 The applicant has provided further comments on this issue:

6.19 “The site was chosen as that part of the farm is the least used agriculturally. Also it is the only part of the farm with very tall hedging to the East and tall trees along some of the boundary to the South. The land slopes at the top and will have to be dug down to accommodate the buildings which will lower the profile of the buildings further. Let's not forget these buildings are only 18' to the apex anyway, some of the surrounding trees are taller than this. We are already in the process of reinstating hedgerows along the road side on the B1062 and will be reinstating the hedging along the Southern boundary very soon. This will (hopefully) hide the profile of the buildings nicely. We would also take advice on best plants to use if needs be?”

6.20 Tracks: The tracks will hopefully cause no concern to anyone. We are planning to use ground reinforcing matting, so when the grass grows through they will not be visible unless very closely inspected”

6.21 The “White House” to the east of the site is a grade II listed building but this is sufficiently separated from the site that there is no threat to its setting.

6.22 Access is clearly an important issue. As the Parish Council has pointed out, this section of the B1062 has high traffic speeds. The proposal is to create a new exit point in roughly the centre of the site – the application claims that this is an existing access, but there is very little evidence of an access here on the ground. Although formal comments from Suffolk CC highways are awaited, their officers have indicated that they are likely to recommend that the existing access be widened to 6m to serve as both in and out, with no need for a second access.

6.23 Concern has been raised by the Parish Council about the impact of the development on the existing agricultural unit. The applicant has provided further comment on this issue:

6.24 “This is the part that is depressing me the most about this application! We are not up here to make a quick buck. We have chosen to farm and sell direct to the end consumer. This is no easy task!! We don't own a shop in town and we rely heavily on the good will of people who appreciate how we rear our animals for meat, to come all this way and use our shop.

6.25 Currently we are producing our own: Wild Boar, Goat meat, Pork and pure breed chickens. We want to build on this and start producing more chicken meat, quail meat and more free range eggs etc. By giving up a small proportion of the land we can increase our agricultural production to levels that the land can easily support.

6.26 We hold Fair days up here to raise awareness and advertise the fact that we are here. The hope being that each time, we increase our local customer base and get more people coming to the shop on a regular basis. We really struggle with foot fall and anything we can do to increase this has to be considered. Joining forces with another business which compliments our rural ideas and our business has to be considered.

6.27 Jo and I (as I am sure Julia and Neil) spent a long time considering the pros and cons and the impact it would have on our business and we feel it will have a positive benefit for both parties and, in time, the local economy. 6.28 At present we are limited on our overall production by the amount of trade we can do through the shop. If we can increase footfall through the shop the production can and will go up. In other words if we are selling more eggs, chicken, goat, pork and wild boar, we

can start keeping more stock and so on and so on until we reach the potential that the land can support, which is currently not being met!”

6.29 Suffolk Archaeology has commented that the proposal lies in an area of archaeological importance and recommended the inclusion of conditions.

6.30 The Environment Agency has raised a holding objection but the applicant has explained that the soakaway off the Heavy Horse buildings is for rainwater off the roofs and not any foul water. The activities in the new buildings in the car park...i.e. the cafe etc. will go into the current treatment plant at the end of the butchery. Further comments from the Environment Agency are awaited.

6.31 One aspect of the proposal that did raise some concern was the inclusion of a shop and café. A farm shop has been submitted on the site previously, but there is no indication of the type of shop proposed and a general shop would be contrary to policy. However the shop has since been withdrawn from the application.

6.32 The applicant recently held an open day at the farm and asked visitors for comments on the proposed heavy horse centre. 65 responses have been submitted supporting the proposal.

CONCLUSION

7.1 The principle of a tourism use such as this is acceptable on this site. The detailed matters can be resolved by the imposition of conditions. Accordingly the application is recommended for approval.

RECOMMENDATION

That subject to the receipt of final responses from Suffolk Highways and the Environment Agency, permission is granted subject to the following conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun within a period of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: In accordance with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended.

2. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until it has been completed in all respects strictly in accordance with the proposed site plan received 30 th January 2015 and the following plans received 19 th February 2015: • Livestock barn (building B on site plan) • Farm shop (building C on site plan) • Heavy horse building plan view (building D on site plan) • Heavy horse building view (building D on site plan) • Farm shop and livestock barn plan view As amended by the applicant’s e-mail of 7 April 2015 deleting the proposal for a shop, for which permission is hereby granted or which are subsequently submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and in compliance with any conditions imposed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To secure a properly planned development.

3. Details of the colours of all external facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

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

4. No development shall take place within the area indicated [the whole site] until the implementation of a programme of archaeological work has been secured, in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation for evaluation, and where necessary excavation, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme of investigation shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and: a. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording b. The programme for post investigation assessment c. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording d. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation e. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation f. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation. g. The site investigation shall be completed prior to development, or in such other phased arrangement, as agreed and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard archaeological assets within the approved development boundary from impacts relating to any groundworks associated with the development scheme and to ensure the proper and timely investigation, recording, reporting and presentation of archaeological assets affected by this development, in accordance with Policy CS 17 of Waveney District Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2009) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

5. No buildings shall be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition 4 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition.

6. The gradient of the vehicular access shall not be steeper than 1 in 20 for the first five metres measured from the nearside edge of the adjacent metalled carriageway.

Reason: To ensure that vehicles can enter and leave the public highway in a safe manner.

7. The access driveway shall be constructed at a gradient not steeper than 1 in 8.

Reason: To ensure that vehicles can enter and leave the public highway in a safe manner.

8. The vehicular access hereby permitted shall be a minimum width of 6 metres for a distance of 10 metres measured from the nearby edge of the carriageway.

Reason: To ensure vehicles can enter and leave the site in a safe manner.

9. No development shall take place until full details of landscape works to assist in screening the proposed buildings and the car park have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These

details shall include proposed means of enclosure; car parking layouts; planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed number/densities where appropriate; implementation programme.

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

10. The landscaping scheme shall be completed within 6 months from the commencement of the use hereby approved, or such other date as may be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants which die during the first 5 years shall be replaced during the next planting season.

Reason: to ensure the satisfactory external appearance of the building.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION: See application ref: DC/15/0401/FUL at www.waveney.gov.uk/publicaccess CONTACT Richard Amor, Team Leader (North Area), (01502) 523018, [email protected]