Appeal 3271310

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused for up to 168 dwellings (Class C3) including 40% affordable homes, public open space including local equipped area for play, sustainable drainage systems, landscaping and all associated infrastructure and development on [site address] , Essex [postcode] .

On 20 July 2021, the day the Inquiry closed, an updated National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published. My decision reflects this, having first sought and considered the further comments of the parties over any implications for their respective cases.

As described above, the application was made in outline with all detailed matters reserved for later consideration apart from access. I have dealt with the appeal on this basis. A series of parameter drawings and an illustrative masterplan supported the original application. These were superseded at appeal by a single parameter plan (drawing no. 477-019 rev C). I accepted this revised plan under the Wheatcroft principles, and the appellants carried out local household consultation over this just prior to the Inquiry.

The appeal was made on 18 March 2021 against non-determination within the statutory period. The Council did issue a notice that same day, which provided six putative reasons for refusal (RfRs) had it been in a position to determine the application.

[name] refer to various policies in the Uttlesford Local Plan 2005 (LP) which is the part of the development plan relevant to this proposal. As subsequently agreed with the appellants in a Planning Statement of [name], conflict with LP policies GEN2 and GEN8 and the [name], cited in RfRs 1 and 5, is no longer relied upon by the Council. These policies cover detailed matters of design and car parking which are not part of this outline application.

The Council later conceded that the proposal could deliver a net gain in biodiversity and so found no conflict with LP Policy GEN7 in relation to nature conservation, as cited in putative RfR 5. The Council’s evidence also clarified that it did not rely on conflict with either LP Policy ENV3, with regard to loss of open space and trees, or ENV8 over landscape elements of importance to nature conservation, as referenced in putative RfRs 1 and 5.

Reference is made within RfR 2 to the loss of agricultural land. However, LP Policy ENV5, which seeks to protect such land, was not cited within the RfR nor was it a ground subsequently relied on by the Council at the Inquiry.

An agreement pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (s106) was completed between the appellants and Uttlesford District and Essex County Councils shortly after the Inquiry. The s106 provides for 40% affordable housing, five self/custom-build plots, public open space, a residential travel plan, off-site landscaping and financial contributions towards education, health, libraries, public transport and off-site highway works. Subject to the completion of the s106, the Council’s case did not rest on conflict with either LP Policy GEN6, over the provision of supporting infrastructure, or H9, concerning affordable housing. Accordingly, putative RfRs 3 and 6 relating to these matters were not pursued at the Inquiry.

The s106 makes a financial contribution towards the delivery of off-site [name] to mitigate any indirect harm from increased recreational pressure to Hatfield Forest Site of Special Scientific Interest and National Nature Reserve, as sought under advice published by Natural England. The Council’s evidence to the Inquiry confirmed that the mitigation proposed would address this particular matter.

The Council’s putative RfR 4 reflected the holding objection then in place from the local highway authority (LHA). This was subsequently rescinded through the LHA agreeing to a range of off-site highway mitigation measures and financial contributions, securable either through conditions or the s106. On this basis, the Council found no outstanding conflict with LP Policy GEN1 in respect of the proposal providing safe and suitable access.

The Council’s case was not one of principle due to the site falling outside the development limits established by the LP. Rather, as covered in putative RfRs 1, 2 and 5, its case related specifically to harm from the loss of open countryside important to the character of the area, and the setting of the Bentfield Green Conservation Area (BGCA) and other heritage assets in the vicinity.

The group Save Stansted Village (SSV), in combination with [site address] Parish Council (SMPC), were awarded Rule 6 party status at the Inquiry and represented the views of many local residents. Along with its own evidence over landscape and heritage effects, the Rule 6 party addressed further issues in relation to highway safety and capacity, foul and surface water drainage and education services.

On the basis of the unresolved elements of the Council’s putative RfRs 1, 2 and 5, the main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding landscape, including the significance of the BGCA and other nearby designated and non-designated heritage assets in respect of their setting.

[site address] is one of the main urban centres within the otherwise largely rural Uttlesford District. It is set within countryside on the opposite side of the M11 motorway to [name], with the larger Hertfordshire town of [name] lying to its south.

The appeal site comprises some nine hectares of arable farmland, occupying adjacent parts of two fields that are separated by a dense tree belt. The appeal site lies alongside [address], a narrow country road which runs along the outward edge of the built-up part of [site address] to the north-west. Existing housing nearby comprises the twentieth century Hargraves residential estate and the more recent [name] development beyond this. The northward extent of the appeal scheme corresponds roughly to that of the newly built [name] development on the opposite side of [address]. The LP settlement boundary follows [address] up to the allotments north of [address] and returns across the northern edge of the Hargraves estate. The Walpole Meadows development and the appeal site lie outside the settlement boundary as currently defined by the LP.

Vehicular access to the proposed housing would be from an extension to [address]. This serves the Hargraves estate and currently ends at its T-junction with [address]. From this access point, the spine road serving the proposed development would turn to run roughly parallel with [address], with areas of housing to either side as shown in the parameter plan.

The parameter plan indicates housing as either one or two storeys and set within broad landscaped margins. The landscaping shown also includes areas of native woodland, tree belts and new hedgerows. The tree belts and new hedgerows would also extend off-site, in some cases following reinstated field boundaries. A new permissive footpath running alongside fields west of the site is proposed to formalise that currently used by local residents. This would then join an existing permissive path in the countryside further to the north, which itself connects to a bridleway that runs back to [address]. The appeal site falls within a wider area of open farmland beyond the settlement edged by [address] and Bentfield Green. From each end of these roads, footpaths run into the countryside that form a loop around this wider area.

The appeal site is located within the Stort River Valley Landscape Character Area A3 (the LCA), as described in the Uttlesford Landscape Character Assessment (2006). The key characteristics of the LCA include a medium to large scale landscape of gently sloping arable farmland, with a small to medium scale field pattern defined by hedgerows, tree belts, and woodland blocks in places. It refers to the landscape being relatively more peaceful and rural in character to the north of [site address] , compared with its south. Open and continuous views are cited as frequent along slopes of higher ground and, as referred to in the LCA, [site address] is visible across the farmland from the north.

In a local context, the appeal site lies within the valley slope to one side of [name]. This is a watercourse which runs through [site address] and joins the [name] as a tributary further south. In this context the farmland rises gently away from [address] up this valley side to a high point from where wider views of an open arable landscape beyond are evident and the built-up edge of [site address] can be seen when looking back.

The LCA refers to the principal landscape sensitivity being the main Stort River Valley and the views afforded across it. I consider that the valley slope to [name] possesses its own landscape sensitivity as a part of this wider area, particularly in providing the immediate setting to the north west of [site address] . As is common ground between the parties1, the appeal site does not comprise a valued landscape as defined and protected under paragraph 174 a) of the Framework. That said, I consider it to be rather more than just ordinary countryside. It has its own, albeit local value given its role of framing the settlement edge to this side of [site address] , currently well-defined by [address]. The latter comprises a narrow country lane, without footways and street lighting and with natural verges backing up to hedges with occasional mature trees. It is both a scenic and strongly rural thoroughfare and, although housing already runs to one side, offers an experience of nature and the countryside adjacent to the built-up area. As such, this is an area that in my view is particularly sensitive to change.

In respect of the proposal’s effects on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was provided by the appellants, based on the parameter plan. The LVIA and the specialist landscape evidence given on behalf of the parties has been considered in reaching my conclusions.

Although the parameter plan provides wide planted margins to the development, with the housing set back further from the road than at [name], the proposal would nevertheless result in suburban development to both sides of [address]. Its hedged sides would be interrupted by the two pedestrian access points and, more significantly, the wider and more pronounced vehicular access from [address]. These access points would open up the site, revealing the large extent of development proposed within this part of the gently rising valley side. The conclusions of the Council’s and Rule 6 party’s landscape witnesses, over the proposals having a major adverse effect, seem to me reasonably based. Despite the wide margins allowed for planting, this development would cause a major change to, and have a substantially harmful impact upon, the rural landscape beyond [address] that currently provides a backdrop along this edge of [site address] .

I recognise that the recently built [name] development has breached the settlement boundaries defined in the LP and would have encroached into 1 See CD8.7 and CD8.15 what was also once open countryside. However, that site was contained between [address] and the B1383. In that context, the development could have been seen as comprising a relatively organic extension to the existing built-up area. In contrast, the scheme the subject of this appeal would encroach beyond the robust settlement edge provided by [address], into an area less distinguishable from the wider farmed landscape of which it forms an integral part. In this context, the relatively less well-defined character of the appeal site would result in the scheme comprising a particularly stark and damaging incursion of suburban development into a landscape of open, arable countryside.

The proposal depends on a comprehensive landscape mitigation strategy to both define the site and soften the impact of housing in this rural setting. The strategy involves extensive planting, including native woodland copses and lengthy stretches of 10m wide tree belt, together with both new and infill hedgerow. The tree belts and reinstated hedged field boundaries extend well beyond the appeal site and further into the arable landscape. Agricultural intensification will have previously altered this landscape by grubbing up hedgerows to enlarge fields so as to accommodate modern farming practices. As such, there would be some benefits to both biodiversity and historic landscape character in the scheme both restoring some of these old field patterns and adding additional planting. However, these benefits would be heavily outweighed by the far greater degree of harm to landscape character caused by the introduction of a large amount of new housing into the undeveloped valley slope.

The LCA refers to tree belts as existing landscape features. Indeed, they are in this location, both dividing the appeal site and bordering the open edges of the southern field it part occupies. This entire southern field had been the subject of an earlier refusal of a scheme for up to 140 dwellings, which was subsequently the subject of an unsuccessful appeal2. In comparison with that proposal, this similar amount of housing is moved away from the BGCA and further north along [address], straddling the tree belt that bisects the site and entering the relatively more open arable landscape beyond.

The stark incursion of this suburban scale development into the open landscape necessitates the further stretches of tree belt planting proposed, at both ends of the scheme and projecting beyond into farmland. Taking into account those mature sections that already exist, the extent of further tree belt planting required to screen this proposal would amount to these becoming over-dominant, appearing as unduly enclosing features, in sharp and harmful contrast to the generally more open landscape character of this wider area.

A degree of landscaping comprises a part of any well-designed proposal. I also have no reason to suppose, were the appeal to succeed, that the dwellings would be anything other than of intrinsically good quality design. However well designed though, this amount of housing, in this location, would comprise a discordant feature in the landscape, exacerbated by the incongruous amount of further tree belt planting required as screening.

For the above reasons, I lean strongly towards the opposing parties’ assessment of the scheme having an overall major adverse effect on local landscape character, rather than the moderate adverse effect, reducing to a 2 Appeal Ref: APP/C1570/A/13/2201844 Land at Bentfield Green, [site address] , Essex - January 2014 slight adverse effect after 15 years of maturing landscaping, claimed by the appellants on the basis of their LVIA. Despite the comprehensive landscape mitigation strategy, indeed partly because of this, the proposal would be highly intrusive, causing substantial harm to the established landscape character at this sensitive edge of settlement location.

The visual effects are assessed from along [address] and the field boundary footpaths that form a loop beyond the outer edge of the appeal site. As with landscape character, the visual impact of the development would be most pronounced at the settlement edge and along the adjacent stretch of [address], where receptors would experience the closest views.

[address] would be closed as a through route for motorised vehicular traffic as part of the proposal. At the time of my visit, it appeared lightly trafficked but relatively popular with walkers, runners and cyclists. The proposed closures either side of the site entrance would, it seems to me, make this road safer and potentially even more popular with non-motorised users. Its closure is already being pursued through a prospective neighbourhood plan. The northern section of [address] has [address] status and the heritage implications of this are addressed separately.

The appeal site, seen intermittently between hedgerow gaps along the adjacent section of [address], provides kinetic views of open farmland. Such views would be relatively more sustained and appreciated by walkers, runners and cyclists, compared with motorists travelling at greater speeds and focussing on the road ahead. Such visual receptors, who appear to make frequent use of [address], would be relatively more sensitive to the changes brought about by this proposal.

The visual impact would be greatest at the proposed site entrance at the end of [address]. This would create a new vista into housing development, where currently open farmland lies beyond a hedge. To either side of this entrance, the housing would be set back from [address] behind landscaped margins of a minimum 30m width. However, at least until whatever planting agreed had matured, there would remain intermittent views of the housing, including at the proposed pedestrian access points. Even should the matured landscaping completely screen the development in the sections between the entry points, there would remain the closing up of the intermittent views of open countryside. These form a valuable part of the general visual experience provided kinetically to road users travelling along this narrow, rural lane.

Viewpoint P7 of the [name] provided by the appellant, looking south at [address], is a representative example of the proposal’s visual effects along this route. I generally accept the conclusions of the Council’s and Rule 6 party’s landscape witnesses of, respectively, high negative and major adverse visual effects resulting from this scheme. This is rather than the appellants’ assessment of, at most, a slight adverse impact. The loss of these countryside views from [address] would in my estimation give rise to a substantial degree of visual harm.

Further north along [address] there is a bridleway running off in a westerly direction. This continues up the shallow valley side, from where the appeal site features in more distant, panoramic views to the south. There is a middle-distance hedge partially intervening, but views across the farmland to the settlement edge are otherwise quite open, from where the [name] housing is partially hidden within surrounding trees and vegetation. The proposal would extend housing across [address] and further into this panoramic view towards [site address] .

The parameter plan provides for a 10m tree belt along the north boundary of the appeal site. This would continue into the open landscape to connect with an isolated woodland block. On maturity this tree belt could screen the development, restricting open views towards [site address] from along this bridleway. I do not accept the appellants’ conclusions that, once operational for 15 years, the overall visual effects of the proposed housing would not be significant. For walkers and horse riders, relatively sensitive visual receptors, the proposal with its tree belt screening would still have a significant adverse impact by foreshortening views across open farmland.

Beyond the ridge, the bridleway descends the opposite valley slope and a permissive path then turns south. Eventually views would emerge across farmland of the outer edge of the housing proposed, from where the permissive path is extended as part of the proposals. Screening would be provided by another tree belt across the intervening arable field. Beyond that, historic hedges would be reinstated, with copse and other planting along the currently undefined and curved outward edge to the site. Continuing along this currently informal path, existing tree belts then obscure views of the southern part of the site. Where this is visible from gaps to the ends of these, on the approach to Bentfield Green, the southern edge of the housing would then be screened by another tree belt, as along that to the north.

The mitigation of adverse visual impacts on the more distant views of the scheme from the paths that loop the arable landscape to the north and west depend primarily upon further tree belt planting. Whilst these are referenced as features within the LCA, this scheme relies on substantial further sections to screen what would otherwise be a visually prominent incursion of development in the open countryside. In my view, the reliance upon a lattice of thick tree belt planting itself creates an over dominant feature in a generally quite open landscape. Should this eventually block views of the development, there would remain the significant visual harm from this scheme foreshortening the currently more open public views of the countryside edging [site address] .

Leaving the fields and continuing the circuit, public views of the proposal would be screened from Benfield Green by the development along its northern side. The housing would only become evident once reaching [address], where the visual impacts have already been discussed. Taken as a whole, the development of housing on these arable fields would have a substantially adverse impact upon the existing public views towards and across the appeal site from surrounding routes.

Concluding on the visual effects, and the landscape considerations addressed in the preceding section, there would be conflict with LP Policy S7, in respect of the scheme’s appearance not protecting or enhancing the particular character of the part of the countryside where it is proposed.

The Grade II Wealden-style house at 16-18 Bentfield Green (the Wealden house) is a medieval timber-framed building, significant mainly for its architectural and historic interest. Such interest is best appreciated in views from Bentfield Green, where the proposals would have a negligible impact on its setting. However, the property was historically a farmhouse associated with a wider land holding to the rear, falling partly within the appeal site. The appeal scheme would reduce the extent of farmland, impacting on the historic functional relationship of that land with the listed house and which, as part of its setting, comprises an element of its significance. There is thus a degree of harm that conflicts with LP Policy ENV2, which requires that development affecting listed buildings be in keeping with their scale, character and surroundings.

The significance of the BGCA relates to the historic core of buildings facing onto the Green, many either statutorily or locally listed. These form the nucleus of a once isolated village entirely surrounded by countryside. Through growth in more recent years, Bentfield Green now forms a part of the outer edge to [site address] . Nevertheless, the undeveloped farmland to the north helps preserve a historic agrarian setting. As with the Wealden house, the proposal encroaches into this, harming the significance of the BGCA as historically a small, agricultural hamlet. The separation provided by the undeveloped farmland between the proposal and BGCA is, however, such that any harm would be at the lower end of the less than substantial range. Whilst the Council referred to conflict in this regard with LP Policy ENV1, that relates specifically to development within conservation areas. The appeal site lies well beyond the conservation area boundary and so I am of the view that this policy is not engaged in this instance.

From its northern stretch along the side of the appeal site and beyond, [address] has [address] status and is identified as a non-designated heritage asset. [address] is significant as the historic route to Bentfield Green and its cluster of historic buildings, which now comprise the BGCA. The new entrance to the development, and the closures either side, as well as the housing along its undeveloped edge, would alter the historic rural character of [address], as a part of the landscape and visual harm already discussed, with consequential, albeit limited harm to its heritage significance. That harm brings the development scheme into conflict with LP Policy ENV9, which addresses historic landscapes, including protected lanes, and states that development likely to harm these will not be permitted unless its need outweighs the historic significance of the site.

The Rule 6 party and other local residents raised concerns over the effects of the proposal on local highway safety and capacity. Subject to off-site highway mitigation measures and financial contributions, securable either through conditions or the s106, the LHA had removed an earlier holding objection. No substantiated evidence was before me sufficient to demonstrate that there would be any unacceptable impact on highway safety or capacity, or the scheme would cause severe residual cumulative impacts on the surrounding road network.

The s106 secures the financial contribution sought by the local education authority (LEA) to mitigate for the proposal’s impacts on school capacity in the area. The Rule 6 party expressed strong concerns over the potentially adverse effects of the proposal on [name], in respect of its current capacity and particular role in meeting special learning needs. However, the contribution satisfies the LEA, which is responsible for where developer school funding is applied across the local area. I am content, therefore, that the proposal makes adequate provision for any additional demand made on local education services and is acceptable in this regard.

The Rule 6 party also expressed concerns in respect of surface and foul water drainage. These were addressed in rebuttal evidence by the appellants. The Lead Local Flood Authority had raised no objection to the development Flood Risk Assessment and preliminary designs for surface water drainage, subject to appropriate planning conditions. I have no reason to take a different view.

Regarding foul water drainage, under the Water Industry Act 1991, the statutory undertaker responsible, in this case [name], is required to provide network capacity and any necessary upgrades to facilitate the additional flows of the proposed development. There are no planning grounds for the proposal to be resisted due to any inability to adequately address foul water drainage.

It was a matter of agreement between the parties that the Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land at the present time. The Council claims a supply of 3.11 years, with the appellant accepting this, with both agreeing this to be a significant shortfall. In that context, a lack of planned provision to address this in the short term and a reliance on permissions granted to similarly speculative housing schemes, means that the provision of up to 168 dwellings is a significant benefit. The scheme also gains support from the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes. Secured through the s106, the scheme’s 40% affordable housing provision and five self-build plots enhance the benefits of the residential offer. I am satisfied that the scheme is deliverable within five years and that, in all, the housing supply benefits of this proposal attract significant weight.

The economic benefits of this housing scheme, based on the estimated creation of jobs through construction and its supply chain, along with increased household expenditure in the local economy, attract significant weight.

The environmental benefits of the net biodiversity gain provided by the scheme, both on and off site, are given modest weight. The health benefits of access to fully permissive paths and the improved safety and amenity for non-motorised users of [address] through the proposed closures gain similarly modest weight. The enhanced frequency of bus service through the estate is a benefit that may also be given limited weight.

The completed s106 provides for the matters covered in preceding paragraphs. Based on the Council’s CIL Compliance Statement, and the advice from the LHA over its requirements, the obligations meet the tests of the CIL Regulations and are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, are directly related to it and fairly and reasonably related in scale. I am satisfied with the form, drafting and content of the agreement and have therefore attached weight to its provisions as appropriate, including the affordable housing provision and self-build plots.

The indicators of weight I have used in the preceding paragraphs apply also to the following planning balance, running incrementally from negligible, limited, modest, moderate, significant to substantial.

Framework policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance include those relating to designated heritage assets. In coming to an overall view on the scheme, I need to undertake an ‘internal ‘ heritage balance. Paragraph 202 of the Framework requires that any harm to designated assets be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme, with paragraph 203 setting out that any harm to a non-designated asset is also to be taken into account having regard to the scale of such harm and the significance of the asset.

I have found harm to the heritage significance of the grade II listed Wealden-style house and the Conservation Area, albeit at the lower end of less than substantial. The harm in relation to the listed building brings the development into conflict with LP policy ENV2. The harm to the significance of the non-designated asset that is [address] would be limited. Nevertheless, that brings it into conflict with LP policy ENV9.

I am content that the significant public benefits that would arise from the appeal scheme, referred to in paragraphs 47-49, are sufficient to outweigh the designated heritage asset harm that I have identified. In respect of paragraph 11 d) i, the Framework policies that protect designated heritage assets would not provide a clear reason for dismissing the appeal.

In the absence of a five year supply of housing land, the most important policies for determining this appeal (LP policies S7, ENV2 and ENV 9) are out date and the so-called tilted balance as set out in Framework paragraph 11 d) ii is engaged. In other words, permission should be granted unless the presumption in favour of sustainable development can be displaced. That is not to say, however, that any conflict with relevant policies should be disregarded. That will depend on their consistency, or otherwise, with the policies in the Framework.

I have found that the development proposed would have a substantial adverse landscape and visual impact , with corresponding harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site itself and the surrounding countryside. That brings the scheme into conflict with LP policy S7 over its requirements for development to protect or enhance the character of the countryside within which it is to be set. However, the further parts of this policy are out of date in light of the housing land supply situation, and inconsistent with the Framework in seeking to protect the countryside for its own sake and placing a general blanket restraint on building. Overall, I therefore afford only moderate weight to the policy S7 conflict.

Nonetheless, there would remain conflict with paragraph 174 b) of the Framework which requires that decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. There is conflict also with the Framework’s environmental objectives, as an overall part of achieving sustainable development (paragraph 8), in making sufficient provision for conservation and enhancement of landscapes (paragraph 20 d) and achieving well-designed places through ensuring developments are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding landscape setting (paragraph 130).

Regarding the conflict with LP Policy ENV2, the wording of this policy is now out of step with how the Framework applies protection to designated heritage assets, such as listed buildings. This requires an assessment of how any effect on the setting of the [address] might harm its significance. I concur with the main parties who broadly agree that whilst there would be some harm in this regard, it would be less than substantial, and at the lower end of that range.

Notwithstanding that the outcome of that internal heritage balance, a finding of less than substantial harm in relation to the designated heritage assets does not equate to a less than substantial planning objection. I am mindful that section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 provides a legal duty to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the Wealden house in considering this appeal. In this regard, whilst less than substantial, I must give considerable importance and weight to the desirability of preserving this setting when carrying out the balancing exercise.

Policy ENV9 requires the need for the development to be balanced against the historic significance of [address]. It does not use the term non-designated heritage asset and differs with how the Framework now deals with these. In paragraph 203, the Framework requires the proposal’s effect on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset to be taken into account. In weighing the proposal’s direct and indirect effects, the Framework seeks a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. As a non-designated heritage asset, [address] would be at the lowest tier of importance as such, whereby its significance would weigh lightly against the need for the proposed housing. On the basis of this, and the reduced weight given to it through a lack of consistency with the more recent Framework, I find limited harm from the conflict with LP Policy ENV9.

The benefits of the scheme are significant. I am particularly mindful in this regard, of the market, affordable and self-build housing that would be provided at this time of undoubtedly pressing need. However, those benefits do not, even collectively, overcome the very substantial weight I attach to the harms identified as being consequential on the development proposed. In my view, the adverse impacts in this case significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole.

Consequently, I dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.

(GLVIA3) – Landscape Institute/ Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (only for screen use for the purpose of this Inquiry) CD7.3 Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot - Chartered Institute of Highways & Transportation, 2000 CD7.4 Fixing our [name] – [name], February 2017 CD7.5 Planning for the Future - Policy Paper, March 2020 CD7.6 Planning for the Future – Planning White Paper, August 2020 CD7.7 Manual for Streets – Department for Transport, 2007 CD7.8 Manual for Streets 2 – Chartered Institute of Highways & Transportation, 2010 CD7.9 Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of [name] – Institute of Environmental Assessment, 1993 CD7.10 TA79/99 [name] of [name] - Highways Agency, 1999 CD7.[address]? Wakenshaw & Bunn/WYG, 2015 CD7.12 Home to school travel and transport guidance – Department for Education, 2014 CD7.13 TRICS Guidance Note on changes in travel behaviour - TRICS/[name], 2019 CD7.14 [name] 2/04 – Department for Transport, 2004 CD7.15 Technical Guidance Note 06/19 [name] of Development Proposals, Landscape Institute, 2019 CD7.16 National Character Area Profile 86: [name] and [name], Natural England, 2014 CD7.17 Better Planning, [name], [name] - Chartered Institute of Highways & Transportation, 2019 CD7.18 Planning for Walking - Chartered Institute of Highways & Transportation, 2015 CD7.19 The Setting of Heritage Assets – Historic England Advice Note 2 CD7.20 Statements of Heritage Significance – Historic England Advice 12 CD8 [name] CD8.1 [name] of Case CD8.2 Council’s Statement of Case CD8.3 Rule 6 [name] of Case CD8.4 Planning Statement of [name] (Appellants & UDC) CD8.5 Planning Statement of [name] (Appellants & Rule 6 Party) CD8.6 [name] of [name] (Appellants & UDC) CD8.7 [name] of [name] (Appellants & UDC) CD8.8 Heritage Statement of [name] (Appellants & UDC) CD8.9 Suggested Planning Conditions CD8.10 Appeal Form CD8.11 Appeal Start Date Letter CD8.12 [name] (where not duplicated elsewhere) CD8.13 S106 Agreement CD8.14 Heritage Statement of [name] (Appellants & Rule 6 Party) CD8.15 [name] of [name] (Appellants & Rule 6 Party) CD8.16 Addendum Planning Statement of [name] (Appellants & UDC) CD9 [name] the Appeal CD9.1 [name], [name], [name], 17 May 2021 CD9.2 [name], Essex County Council – Libraries, 17 May 2021 CD9.3 [name], [name], 17 April 2021 CD9.4 [name], [name], 20 April 2021 CD9.5 [name], [name], 25 April 2021 CD9.6 [name], [name], 28 April 2021 CD9.7 [name], [name], 5 May 2021 CD9.8 [name], [name], 25th June 2021 CD9.9 [name], 1st July 2021 CD9.10 [name] CD9.11 [name] CD9.12 [name] CD9.13 [name] CD9.14 [name] CD9.15 [name] CD9.16 [name] CD9.17 [name] CD9.18 [name] CD9.19 [name] CD9.20 [name] CD9.21 [name] CD9.22 [name] CD9.23 [name] CD9.24 [name] CD9.25 [name] CD9.26 [name] CD9.27 [name] CD9.28 [name] CD9.29 [name] CD9.30 [name] CD9.31 [name] CD9.32 [name] CD9.33 [name] CD9.34 [name] CD9.35 [name] CD9.36 [name] CD9.37 [name] CD9.38 [name] CD9.39 [name] CD10 Additional Appeal Plans & Documents CD10.1 Parameter Plan – [name]. 477-019 CD10.2 Note to Accompany Revised Parameter Plan CD10.3 [name] CD10.4 [name] to consultation on new Parameter Plan CD10.5 [name] – V3D V3D 210601, June 2020 CD11 [name] CD11.1 [name] [2021] [name] 15 CD11.2 [name] (North) Limited [2019] EWHC 2143 (Admin) CD11.3 Gladman v [name] [2016] [name] 1146 CD11.4 Summary of [name] CD12 [name] CD12.1 [name] on behalf of the Council CD12.2 [name] on behalf of the Rule 6 Party CD12.3 [name] on behalf of the Appellants CD13 [name] CD13.1 Statement by [name] – 20th June 2021 CD13.2 Statement by [name] – 30th June 2021 CD13.3 Statement by [name] – 9th July 2021 CD13.4 Statement by [name] – 11th July 2021 CD13.5 Statement by [name] – 12th July 2021 CD13.6 Statement by [name] – 12th July 2021 CD13.7 Statement by [name] – 12th July 2021 CD13.8 Statement by [name] – 13th July 2021 CD13.9 Statement by [name] – 13th July 2021 CD13.10 Statement by [name] – 13th July 2021 CD14 Council Proofs of Evidence CD14.1 [name] – Planning Proof of Evidence CD14.2 [name] – Appendices CD14.3 [name] – [name] of Evidence CD14.4 [name] – Appendices CD14.5 [name] – Heritage Proof of Evidence CD14.6 [name] – Appendices CD15 Rule 6 [name] of Evidence CD15.1 [name] – [name] of Evidence CD15.2 [name] – Appendix 1 CD15.3 [name] – Appendices 2 - 8 CD15.4 [name] & [name] – [name] of Evidence & Appendices CD15.5 [name] – Surface & [name] of Evidence & Appendices CD15.6 [name] – Highways & Access CD15.7 [name] – [name] of Evidence CD15.8 [name] – Highways & [name] of Evidence CD16 [name] of Evidence CD16.1 [name] – Planning Proof of Evidence CD16.2 [name] – Appendices CD16.3 [name] – [name] of Evidence CD16.4 [name] – Appendices CD16.5 [name] – Heritage Proof of Evidence CD16.6 [name] – Appendices CD16.7 [name] – [name] of Evidence CD16.8 [name] – Appendices CD16.9 [name] – [name] of Evidence CD16.10 [name] – Appendices CD16.11 [name] – [name] of Evidence & Appendices CD16.12 [name] – [name] of Evidence CD17 [name] / Miscellaneous CD17.1 [name] into the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1 CD17.2 [name] into the Eastleigh Local Plan CD17.3 Minutes of Highways Sub-Committee 2nd June 2021, [site address] Parish Council