|
|
APPLICATION NO. |
|
|
|
SITE |
25 Orchard Way Harwell Didcot, OX11 0LQ |
|
|
PROPOSAL |
Reserved Matters application for the details of appearance, landscaping, scale, and layout following Outline Approval P21/V0679/O(Outline application for access for residential development of up to 5 dwellings).(Amended plans and information received 21 March 2024 as set out in accompanying agent cover letter) |
|
|
AMENDMENTS |
Yes |
|
|
APPLICANT |
Feltham Properties |
|
|
APPLICATION TYPE |
RESERVED MATTERS |
|
|
REGISTERED |
20.10.2023 |
|
|
TARGET DECISION DATE |
10.05.2024 |
|
|
PARISH |
HARWELL |
|
|
WARD MEMBER(S) |
Debra Dewhurst Hayleigh Gascoigne |
|
|
OFFICER |
Sarah Green |
|
1.0 |
INTRODUCTION |
|
1.1 |
This application is referred to planning committee at the request of Councillor Debra Dewhurst.
|
|
1.2 |
The site is located in Harwell as shown on the location plan below. There is an existing single storey dwelling on the site which is accessed off Orchard Way. Along the south side of Orchard Way the properties are single storey, on the opposite side of the road the properties are two storey. Adjacent to the north of the site there are 3 single storey properties and beyond that two storey properties. There are some further single storey dwellings to the north and other two storey dwellings around the rest of Orchard Way. A recent housing development of nine dwellings, Armstrong Close, sits to the north and behind properties along Orchard Way. This consists of two storeys buildings.
|
|
1.3 |
Outline planning permission was granted on 25 June 2021 for up to 5 dwellings on the site. The outline application also approved the access details.
|
|
1.4 |
A reserved matters application was submitted in 2022 but was withdrawn prior to determination.
|
|
2.0 |
PROPOSAL |
|
2.1 |
This application is seeking reserved matters approval for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 5 dwellings on the site, which taken together with the outline permission will form the full planning permission for the site. A one storey dwelling would front Orchard Way at the front of the site, with four two storey dwellings located behind, accessed off a new access road. Plots 2 and 3 would face towards the village recreation ground to the south. Plots 4 and 5 would face such that their rear gardens would be along the west boundary of the site similar to dwellings at Armstrong Close. An extract of the site plan is shown below, with further extracts of the plans attached at Appendix 2. A full set of plans are available on the website, www.whithorsedc.gov.uk
|
|
|
|
|
2.2 |
During the application a set of amended plans and information was submitted which has been subject to public consultation. The amendments included: · Reduction in height of the properties · Alterations to plots 2, 3 and 5 (house type 1) to provide a stronger gable element and partly set back the front façade, reduction from 146m2 to 136m2. · Amended rear first floor openings of plots 2 and 3 from full height to windows. · Reduction in scale of plot 4 (house type 3) from 134m2 to 123m2 · Alteration to siting of plot 2 to ensure it is minimum 10m from its rear boundary · Updated landscaped areas, including new hedge along western boundary in front of fence · Updated tracking for waste vehicles · Updated biodiversity enhancement plan and biodiversity net gain calculations and reports in line with amended plans
|
|
3.0 |
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS |
|
|
|
Full versions of the representations can be found on the planning application pages on the council’s website www.whitehorsedc.gov.uk
|
|
|
3.1 |
Publicity |
|
|
|
This application has been publicised in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act and the Council’s procedures.
|
|
|
3.2 |
Statutory Consultee responses |
|
|
|
Representation |
Comments |
|
|
Harwell Parish Council
|
Object - directly the affect the look and feel of the shared amenity space of the Parish Recreation Ground. It is overdevelopment of the site and waste vehicles will struggle to get in and out of the development. Should this application be approved we ask that the construction management plan stipulates that all construction vehicles park on site for the duration of the build.
Amendment Object - Whilst the parish council acknowledges the reduction in area of the individual houses, this does nothing to reduce the height compared to the surrounding area of bungalows nor does it address the original points raised against this application particularly with respect to the limited width of the access route into and out of the site for larger vehicles e.g. rubbish collection vehicles, fire engines and so on.
The proposed development significantly deviates from the character of its surroundings. The houses along the south side of Orchard Way, including numbers 27, 29, and 31, are all bungalows. Observers from the A417 would immediately notice how the Armstrong Close development by Feltham Properties is oversized and out of place, overshadowing the area. The new proposed development, being of similar height and size, will stand out just as starkly.
Please also confirm that the existing chain link boundary fence to the park which belongs to Harwell Parish Council will remain in place.
|
|
|
Highways Liaison Officer (Oxfordshire County Council) |
No objection – following not showed on plans – electric charging points, secure covered cycle parking, visitor parking – all can be supplied by conditions.
Amendment No objection – subject to previous comments and conditions set out |
|
|
|
|
|
3.3 |
Council - professional officer comments |
|
|
|
Representation |
Comments |
|
|
Ecology Team (South and Vale) |
No objection – submitted BEP is acceptable. A metric assessment has shown that the development will result in a net loss of 0.87 area habitat units. In accordance with condition 3 of the outline permission, works onsite cannot commence unless and until a certificate from an offsetting provider (e.g. The Trust for Oxfordshire's Environment), confirming that at least 0.87 area habitat units will be offset, has been submitted to and approved in writing.
Amendment No objections to the amended scheme. Condition 3 (offsetting) will need to be discharged prior to commencement for a minimum of 0.85 units.
|
|
|
Waste Management Officer (District Council) |
Not satisfied adequate access for collection vehicle. Needs to be re-tracked
Amendment Plans show satisfactory movement of refuse vehicle around site. no further comments |
|
|
|
|
|
3.4 |
Public responses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Representation |
Comments |
|
|
Letter on Behalf of Residents of Orchard Way and Westfield |
No consultation with other residents of Orchard Way and Westfield Houses out of keeping, retirement bungalows are required Issues of loss of privacy, impact on amenity, traffic and car parking, drainage and flood risk, disturbance character of area Disruption and damage on roads Request builders pay for re-surfacing of roads
|
|
|
Neighbour Objections
|
13 comments · Design out of character due to height compared to other properties along recreation ground boundary · Taller than Armstrong Close heights · All other properties back onto recreation ground not front it · Single storey suitable retirement properties more appropriate · Increase in vehicle emissions adjacent to recreation ground from access road. · Existing pavements in state of disrepair. · Road surface in poor condition · Corner access narrow and difficult to manoeuvre · Impact on birds/ red kites · Visitor parking beneath tree · Solar gain from floor to ceiling windows is extreme · Loss of privacy to 1-4 Armstrong Close and No 27 Orchard Way · Loss of privacy to neighbours · Inadequate visitor parking, Orchard Way already congested · No safe pedestrian access to Orchard Way · Unethical previous comments on previous application are not attached or available · Access on blind bend · Waste and fire engines cannot get down · Nearby tree in park has TPO · No mention of applicant paying for verge/kerb road repairs · Works would be inconsiderate and disruptive · Existing development behind 31 and 33 already oversized and out of character and is weak justification for poorly designed development · Establishes a precedent for potential extension or reconstruction of taller buildings along Orchard Way · Dominate view from within recreation ground · Highway officer not consulted · No allowance for parked cars in area · Impact on biodiversity · Harwell doesn’t need 5 new executive homes · Construction vehicles should park on site · Increase in traffic · Issues with flooding · Not enough medical facilities in area · Road in continual use by primary school children · Continual parking challenges during events at recreation ground and town hall · Overlook bungalows · Not enough garden or parking · Not enough time to reply to consultation · Negative impact on neighbouring streets and roads · Detrimental to health and enjoyment of users of the park
Amendment 5 comments · Heights demonstrate far taller than properties on Orchard Way facing recreation ground · Vehicles will have to transverse pavement and driveway of neighbour to access site. doesn’t have safe access · Out of character to have modern housing between old style bungalows · Issues with drains · AONB will be ruined · Harm to wildlife · Original objections remain unchanged · Still dominate and overlook bungalows · Poor access and parking arrangements |
|
4.0 |
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY |
||
|
|
Application Number |
Description of development |
Decision and date
|
|
|
Reserved Matters application for the details of appearance, landscaping, scale and layout following Outline Approval P21/V0679/O.(as amended by plans and biodiversity information received 16 January 2023).
(Outline application for access for residential development of up to 5 dwellings). |
Withdrawn (27/01/2023) |
|
|
|
Outline application for access for residential development of up to 5 dwellings.(Additional highway and ecology information received 13 May 2021) (Additional archaeology information received 28 May 2021) |
Approved (25/06/2021) |
|
|
|
Outline application for residential development of up to 7 dwellings with some matters reserved. |
Withdrawn (18/11/2019) |
|
|
5.0 |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT |
|
5.1 |
This proposal does not fall within one of the identified classes of development in Schedule 2 of the EIA regulations and is not in a sensitive area. A screening opinion under the Regulations is therefore not required.
|
|
6.0 |
POLICY & GUIDANCE |
|
6.1 |
National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance
|
|
6.2 |
Development Plan Policies |
|
|
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 1 (LPP1) Policies: CP35 - Promoting Public Transport, Cycling and Walking CP37 - Design and Local Distinctiveness CP44 - Landscape CP46 - Conservation and Improvement of Biodiversity
A Regulation 10A review (five-year review) for Local Plan Part 1 (LPP1) has been completed. The review shows that five years on, LPP1 (together with LPP2) continues to provide a suitable framework for development in the Vale of White Horse that is in overall conformity with government policy.
Vale of White Horse Local Plan 2031 Part 2 (LPP2) Policies: DP02 - Space Standards DP16 - Access DP23 - Impact of Development on Amenity DP28 - Waste Collection and Recycling
Emerging Joint Local Plan 2041 The Council is preparing a Joint Local Plan covering Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire, which when adopted will replace the existing local plans. Currently at the Regulation 18 stage, the Joint Local Plan Preferred Options January 2024 has limited weight when making planning decisions. The starting point for decision taking will remain the policies in the current adopted plans.
|
|
6.3 |
Neighbourhood Plan |
|
|
There is no neighbourhood plan for Harwell.
|
|
6.4 |
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents |
|
|
South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse Joint Design Guide 2022 |
|
7.0 |
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.1 |
The relevant planning considerations are the following:
· Principle of development · Design and character · Residential amenity · Access and parking · Biodiversity · Waste · Community Infrastructure Levy · Pre-commencement conditions
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.2 |
Principle of development
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.3 |
Design and character Policy CP37 of LPP1 requires development to be of high quality, visually attractive design that responds positively to the site and its surroundings with appropriate scale, height, details and materials.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.4 |
The impact of development on the landscape is assessed against policy CP44. This policy requires key features of the landscape to be protected or enhanced including (but not limited to) trees, hedgerows, landscape settings of settlements, important views and sensitive skylines. Development is also required to incorporate appropriate landscape proposals that reflect the character of the area.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.5 |
The layout sought has a one storey dwelling sited to the front of the site. It is sited slightly further back that the existing dwelling and set back further than the neighbouring dwelling No 27. It would however be read as part of the street scene. It would have a gable fronting the street with hipped gable element to the side. In terms of height, it would be higher than the neighbouring dwellings, its ridge level being at 88.88 OS datum. However the neighbouring dwellings, although also single storey, also vary in terms of their height, as shown in the table below along with the difference in height compared to the proposed Plot 1.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.6 |
Given the variety of heights and that the proposed dwelling would be set back further from the street, thereby lessening its visual impact, it is not considered that the proposed plot 1 would be harmful to the visual amenity or character of the street.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.7 |
The two storey dwellings would be sited behind and arranged such that they will front the recreation ground. The existing chain link fence along on the recreation ground side of the boundary will be retained with a hedge and 1.5m high post and rail fence provided on the application site side, which will provide softening and screening of the internal access road. Plots 4 and 5 have been sited to ensure their rear gardens back onto the west boundary helping to provide a transition between the actual buildings and open countryside beyond, similar to the dwellings at Armstrong Close. A new hedge would also be planted on this boundary to provide a softer edge to the development.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.8 |
In terms of building heights, in response to comments, plots 2, 3 and 5 have been reduced in height from 8.6m to 7.46m and plot 4 from 8.25m to 7.74m. Level information has been provided on the site plan allowing comparison with the height of the neighbouring dwellings. This shows the dwellings would be at least 0.5m lower in height that the dwellings at Armstrong Close.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.9 |
The development at Armstrong Close has altered the character of the area by permitting development in depth behind the main street frontage. Views of the site from the recreation ground and the south would be seen against the context of this development as well as the wider built up area to the north, which includes a mix of two storey as well as single storey dwellings. There would be views of the two storey dwellings from Orchard Way behind the existing street frontage, however they would be seen in a similar context as the Armstrong Close properties. It is considered that the proposal would therefore not appear out of keeping.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.10 |
The houses have been designed to be simple in form with pitched or hipped roofs. Following officer feedback more articulation has been provided to the frontages to give more interest and help break up the mass of the buildings. The proposed materials are to be the same red brick and concrete grey roof tile as the Armstrong Close development. Overall, Officers consider that on balance the design and scale of the proposal would be acceptable and would not harm the character of the area.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.11 |
There is an existing mature Sycamore tree sited in the recreation ground which is close to the boundary of the site. The tree is not subject to a tree preservation order. The impact on the tree was considered as part of the outline application. The indicative layout at that stage included the access road in the same location as now proposed and was supported with an Arboricultural Impact Assessment Report which was considered by the council’s forestry officer. The assessment set out that, where located within the RPA of this tree the access road will be constructed using no dig methodology to protect the roots of the tree. The forestry officer had no objection to this and a tree protection condition was imposed on the outline permission which requires an arboricultural method statement and tree protection plan to be submitted before development commences. Further details with regards to this is therefore not necessary under this reserved matters. Details of the proposed soft landscaping have been submitted with this application which can be implemented using conditions.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.12 |
Overall the proposal is therefore considered to comply with policies CP37 and CP44 of the adopted Local Plan Part 1.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.13 |
Residential amenity The impact of development on neighbouring properties is controlled by policy DP23 of LPP2. This policy requires development proposals to demonstrate that they will not result in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring uses arising through loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight, from dominance or visual intrusion, noise or vibration, dust, heat, odour, gases or other emissions, pollution, contamination or the use of / or storage of hazardous substances and external lighting.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.14 |
The layout has been designed to ensure the neighbours amenity is not harmed. The Joint Design Guide at figure 26 seeks back to back distances between dwellings should be 21m to prevent overlooking and back to boundary should be 10m minimum to ensure private amenity is not harmed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.15 |
No 27 Orchard Way has a rear garden of around 63m. Both plots 2 and 3 are 10m from the boundary with this neighbours rear garden. As such this would meet the advice in the design guide to ensure privacy is maintained. Plot2 which is the closest two storey to No27, is also angled so that it would not look towards the rear area immediately outside the neighbour. Plot 1 would be set off the boundary and the orientation of the ridge and its height would mean it would not be overbearing to this neighbour. The rooflights within the roof slope will serve the ground floor, therefore there would be no overlooking towards the neighbour. Plot 4 has a landing window in the side directly along the boundary with No 27. This is not a habitable room and given it is sited at the far end of the neighbours garden it would be difficult to justify that this would unduly harm their amenity.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.16 |
In terms of the dwellings in Armstrong Close, these are all over 21 m from the proposed dwellings (There is 23m between plot 4 and No 4 Armstrong Close and 40m between plot 3 and Nos 1-3 Armstrong Close) thereby complying with the design guide and would not result in harmful overlooking to these properties.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.17 |
Plot 1 is far enough away from No 23 Orchard Way to not cause any impact on amenity for this dwelling.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.18 |
The proposal would therefore comply with policy DP23 of the adopted Local Plan Part 2.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.19 |
Access and parking Policies CP33, CP35, CP37 & DP16 of LPP1 & LPP2 require development to provide safe and convenient access, sufficient car and cycle parking in line with Oxfordshire County Council standards and adequate provision for loading, unloading, circulation, servicing and vehicle turning.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.20 |
The level of development and access for the site was approved under the outline planning permission and was considered acceptable and not harmful to highway safety of the surrounding roads. Therefore this is not for reconsideration again.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.21 |
Each dwelling would be provided with two parking spaces and a dedicated visitor space would be provided on site. Current parking standards would require up to 2 spaces per dwelling. The same standards also say with regards to visitor parking: “Developers are expected to take an approach that is consistent with national research which suggests, “that no special provision should be made for visitors where at least half of the parking provision associated with the development is unallocated. In other circumstances it may be appropriate to allow for additional demand for visitor parking of 0.2 spaces per dwelling.”
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.22 |
This proposal has no unallocated parking, therefore 0.2 spaces should be sought per dwelling. This equates to 1 space for the development and this has been provided. The proposal therefore complies with the parking standards and there is no justification to require additional parking. There is space within each plot to accommodate cycle parking, which can be secured by condition.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.23 |
The proposal would therefore comply with Policies CP33, CP35 and DP16 of the adopted Local Plans.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.24 |
In response to comments about the condition of Orchard Way, this is a public road under the responsibility and duty of Oxfordshire County Council as highway authority to maintain. Vehicles associated with building operations should not be parked on the public highway so as to cause an obstruction. Any such obstruction is an offence under Section 137 of the Highways Act and powers exist under that Act to deal with such problems. Informatives can be added to any decision to that effect.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.25 |
Biodiversity Policy CP46 of LPP1 states that development that conserves, restores and enhances biodiversity will be permitted whilst net loss of biodiversity will be avoided.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.26 |
Given the layout details were not known at outline stage a condition was added to the outline permission requiring a biodiversity enhancement plan (BEP) and a biodiversity metric to be submitted concurrent with the submission of the reserved matters application. These have been submitted and reviewed by the council’s ecology officer. The submitted BEP is acceptable. The metric assessment has shown that the development will result in a net loss of 0.85 area habitat units which will need to be provided off site. This off-site requirement will need to be provided by an offsetting provider and can be secured by condition. The proposal would comply with policy CP46 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part1.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.27 |
Waste Policy DP28 states that all development proposals will be expected to be consistent with the Council’s Waste Planning Guidance. Development proposals for residential use must ensure sufficient space is provided for the storage of individual or communal recycling and refuse containers, and access is provided that is safe for residents and for refuse and recycling collection vehicles. Development will not be permitted if appropriate recycling and refuse provision cannot feasibly or practicably be provided.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.28 |
Tracking plans showing a waste vehicle can enter and leave the site have been provided. Each dwelling would have sufficient space within its curtilage to store bins. The council’s waste team have no objection. It would comply with policy DP28 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 2.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.29 |
Community Infrastructure Levy The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a levy charged on new development in the Vale. The money raised will be used to fund infrastructure to support growth in the district. Residential development is subject to the levy. A liability notice will be issued with any permission setting out the levy payable. This would be £186,335 for this proposal.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
7.30 |
Pre-commencement conditions In accordance with Section 100ZA (6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) the pre-commencement condition have been agreed with the agent.
Conditions relating to surface water drainage, foul water drainage, tree protection and archaeology were imposed on the outline permission and therefore do not need to be reimposed again.
|
|
8.0 |
Other Relevant Legislation |
|
8.1 |
Human Rights Act 1998 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the processing of the application and the preparation of this report. |
|
8.2 |
Equality Act 2010 In determining this planning application, the Council has regard to its equalities obligations including its obligations under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. |
|
8.3 |
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 In considering this application, due regard has been given to the likely effect of the proposal on the need to reduce crime and disorder in accordance with Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In reaching a recommendation, officers consider that the proposal will/will not undermine crime prevention or the promotion of community safety. |
|
9.0 |
PLANNING BALANCE AND CONCLUSION |
|
9.1 |
Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
|
|
9.2 |
The principle of redeveloping the site for up to 5 dwellings was approved under the outline permission P21/V0679/O. This matter is therefore not for reconsideration as part of this application. The matter of access to the site was also considered under the outline permission. This was considered acceptable and is not for reconsideration under this application. This application is to consider the reserved matters of appearance, scale, layout and landscaping.
|
|
9.3 |
It is considered that the layout, scale and design of the development with a single storey property at the front of the site and two storey properties to the rear is acceptable. Views of the site from the recreation ground would be seen against the context of existing development, which includes a mix of two storey as well as single storey dwellings. Overall the height and scale is on balance considered acceptable and would result in the development not being harmful to the visual amenity or character of the area, or residential amenity. Sufficient parking to meet the parking standards has been provided. Subject to the recommended conditions, the proposal would meet the development plan and therefore it is recommended for approval.
|
|
9.4 |
Abbreviated versions of the recommended conditions are listed below and shown in full in Appendix 1.
|
|
10.0 |
RECOMMENDATION |
|
|
Reserved Matters to be granted, subject to the following conditions:
|
|
|
Standard 1. Commencement - Reserved Matters Approval 2. Approved plans Pre-commencement 3. Biodiversity enhancement to be provided Pre-occupation 4. Bicycle storage to be provided 5. Visitor Car Parking in accordance with plans and retained 6. Dwellings Car Parking in accordance with plans and retained 7. Landscaping in accordance with plans 8. Boundary treatments in accordance with plans. Restriction on external south and west boundaries. Compliance 9. Retention of Garage Accommodation Plot3 10. Materials in accordance with plans
|
_____________________________
Officer Sarah Green
Email: Planning@whitehorsedc.gov.uk
Tel: 01235 422600
Appendix 1
Recommended Conditions (full text):
|
|
Description |
Details |
|
1 |
Commencement- Reserved Matters Approval |
The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.
Reason: By virtue of Section 91 to 95 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
|
|
2 |
Approved plans |
That the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans, except as controlled or modified by conditions of this permission.
1819-DMS-XX-01-M2-A-(20)001H_SITE PLAN 1819-DMS-XX-01-M2-A-(20)002G_BOUNDARY TREATMENT PLAN 1819-DMS-XX-00-M2-A-(20)003A LOCATION PLAN AND BLOCK PLAN 1819-DMS-XX-01-M2-A-(20)005F_SITE DEVELOPMENT AREAS 1819-DMS-H1-ZZ-M2-A-(03)001C_PROPOSED HOUSE TYPE 1 1819-DMS-H2-ZZ-M2-A-(03)002A_PROPOSED HOUSE TYPE 2 1819-DMS-H3-ZZ-M2-A-(03)003C_PROPOSED HOUSE TYPE 3 1819-DMS-G1-00-M2-A-(20)017A_GARAGE PLANS AND ELEVATIONS 1819-DMS-XX-ZZ-M2-A-(20)016G_STREET SCENES 1278-03.1 Rev A Orchard Way Soft Landscape Plan 1278-03.2 Rev A Orchard Way Soft Landscape Plan 1819-DMS-XX-00-A-(20)015F - PROPOSED VEHICLE ACCESS PLANS
Reason: To secure the proper planning of the area in accordance with Development Plan policies.
|
|
3 |
Biodiversity enhancement to be provided
|
No development shall commence unless and until a certificate confirming the agreement of an Offsetting Provider to deliver a Biodiversity Offsetting Scheme totalling a minimum of 0.85 area habitat units has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The written approval of the Council shall not be issued before the certificate has been issued by the Offset Provider. The details of biodiversity enhancements shall be documented by the Offset Provider and issued to the Council for their records.
Thereafter, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (Aluco Ecology Ltd Amended Report March 2024) and all ecological mitigation and enhancement features shall be delivered on site prior to first occupation and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that there is no net loss of biodiversity (Policy CP46 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part1)
|
|
4 |
Bicycle Storage to be provided |
Prior to the first occupation of the new development, provision for storing bicycles for each dwelling on the site shall be made in accordance with the details which shall first have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport (Policies CP33, CP35 and CP37 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1).
|
|
5 |
Visitor Car Parking in accordance with plans and retained |
Prior to the first occupation of the new development, the visitor car parking space shall be constructed, surfaced and marked out as shown approved drawing 1819-DMS-XX-01-M2-A-(20) 001H. Thereafter, the visitor parking space shall be kept permanently free of any obstruction to such use.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety (Policies CP35, CP37 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and Policy DP16 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 2).
|
|
6 |
Dwellings Car Parking in accordance with plans and retained
|
Prior to the occupation of each dwelling, the car parking spaces for that dwelling as shown on approved drawing number 1819-DMS-XX-01-M2-A-(20) 001H shall be constructed, surfaced and marked out. Thereafter, the parking spaces shall be kept permanently free of any obstruction to such use.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety (Policies CP35, CP37f the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and Policy DP16 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 2).
|
|
7 |
Landscaping in accordance with plans
|
All soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the details and programme as shown on approved plans 1278-03.1A and 1278-03.2A. All landscaping works shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the last dwelling on site. Thereafter, the landscaped areas shall be maintained for a period of 5 years. Any trees or shrubs which die or become seriously damaged or diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of similar size and species to those originally planted.
Reason: To ensure the implementation of appropriate landscaping which will improve the environmental quality of the development (Policy CP44 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1).
|
|
8 |
Boundary treatments in accordance with plans
|
All of the sites internal and external boundaries shall be enclosed in accordance with the details shown on approved drawing number 1819-DMS-XX-01-M2-A-(20) 002G. The approved boundary treatments for each dwelling shall be completed prior to the occupation of that dwelling, and all of the approved boundary treatments shall be completed prior to the occupation of the last dwelling on the site.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) the erection or construction of gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure as described in Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Order, other than that shown on the approved plans, shall not be undertaken along the south external boundary with the recreation ground and west external boundary with the countryside without obtaining planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and residential amenity (Policy CP37 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and Policy DP23 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 2).
|
|
9 |
Retention of Garage Accommodation Plot3
|
Notwithstanding the provisions of Class A of Part 1 Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or the equivalent provisions of any order revoking and re-enacting that Order), the garage accommodation forming part of plot 3 shall be retained for parking motor vehicles at all times and shall not be adapted to be used for any other purpose.
Reason: To retain adequate on-site parking provision in the interest of highway safety (Policies CP35 and CP37 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1).
|
|
10 |
Materials in accordance with plans
|
The development shall be built using only the external materials specified on the approved drawings the subject of this planning permission, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity (Policy CP37 of the adopted Local Plan 2031 Part 1). |
Informatives