Appeal 6000703

The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for change of use of land to form nature park including the erection of up to 70 holiday lodges (Use Class C1) and associated amenity building with associated parking, drainage, landscaping and internal access routes (All matters reserved except for access) at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref. PL/2022/04776 and subject to the schedule of conditions to this Decision.

The application is in outline with all matters reserved except for access. Appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are matters reserved for future consideration. Where details of the reserved matters have been provided on the submitted plans, I have treated these as indicative.

For the Hearing a draft [name] was prepared, the main parties agreed that subject to some alterations, the detail of this was sufficient for consideration and discussion at the event and a timescale was agreed for the submission of a signed and completed [name]. I have since been provided a signed and completed [name], dated 2 March 2026 (‘the UU’). I shall return to this in my Decision.

On the information before me, the Draft Wiltshire Local Plan (2020–2038) has progressed to an advanced stage of preparation. However, as I do not have confirmation that the draft policies have been examined for soundness, it attracts only limited weight in the determination of this appeal.

Although there is no formal decision from the Council, it has offered putative reasons for refusal. Based on these and the submissions before me, the main issues are: i) whether the development is in a suitable location having regard to the development plan; ii) whether the development would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the North Meadow Special Area of Conservation (‘SAC’) and the Cotswold Water Park Site of Special Scientific Interest (‘SSSI’); iii) whether the development would have an adverse effect on great crested newts (‘GCN’) and, iv) whether the proposed secondary access would provide safe and suitable access and egress.

The appeal site (‘the Site’) comprises an irregularly shaped parcel of land of approximately 23 hectares, currently in agricultural use. Enclosed by the Site, but excluded from the red‐line boundary for the purposes of the application, lies [name], a wooded enclave accommodating a paintball centre and a forest school, and also used for falconry activities.

The Site is located on the southern side of [address] East (B4696) and to the north of [site address] , which is identified as a Large Village in the [name], [name] 2015 (‘WCS’). The Site falls within the wider Cotswold Water Park (‘the Water Park’) a regional leisure and tourism destination characterised by a network of restored gravel pits that now support a broad range of recreational activities.

Because the Site lies outside the settlement boundary of [site address] , it is in the countryside for planning purposes. Core Policy 39 of the WCS supports tourist development within [name] and [name] where it is of an appropriate scale and, for larger schemes, subject to sequential assessment and full consideration of transport, landscape and community impacts.

Outside these settlements, Core Policy 39 adopts a two‐limb approach. As a general principle, tourist and visitor facilities should be located in or close to Local Service Centres or Large and [name] and, where practicable, should make use of existing or replacement buildings. In such locations, proposals must safeguard landscape character and environmentally sensitive areas while providing adequate visitor facilities and supporting the viability and enjoyment of the associated attraction. Where new buildings are required, they should be directed towards these settlements rather than more isolated countryside locations.

Alternatively, tourist development away from settlements is supported only in exceptional circumstances, where specific criteria are met, which require that the proposal must be demonstrably linked to a specific countryside attraction; no suitable existing buildings or sites are available; the scale, design and use are compatible with the wider landscape and residential amenity; the site is served by adequate access and infrastructure; and it has reasonable access to local services and employment.

The Site lies outside the settlement boundary of [site address] but is reached from the village by established public rights of way that provide a direct and relatively convenient walking route. Although separated by agricultural land and woodland, the Site forms part of the northern approach to the village and is experienced as closely related to its edge in both visual and functional terms. The proposal also includes measures to improve pedestrian connectivity. Taken together, these factors lead me to find that the Site is ‘close to’ a Large Village for the purposes of the first limb of Core Policy 39.

For completeness, I have also assessed the proposal under the second limb of Core Policy 39.

The proposed nature park, habitat creation and low‐impact recreation would contribute directly to the Water Park’s ecological and visitor functions. This establishes the required demonstrable link to a specific countryside attraction. The proposal would also provide appropriate visitor facilities and strengthen the viability and enjoyment of the Water Park as a recreational attraction.

The submitted Alternative Sites Assessment includes a search area covering Wiltshire and the adjoining part of Cotswold District. The review of land availability, including commercial listings and relevant land availability assessments shows that most potential locations were unsuitable, unavailable or unable to accommodate a development of this nature. A small number of sites were identified as having some potential in principle, but they were less appropriate for tourism use, lacked the qualities needed for a high‐quality lodge scheme, were further from the focus of activity within the Water Park, and were not available to the appellant.

The appellant’s evidence explains that existing tourist accommodation sites within the Water Park do not have capacity to expand without relying on adjacent undeveloped land, and no such land has been shown to be available. The presence of existing facilities does not, in itself, demonstrate that expansion would result in lesser landscape or heritage effects, nor does it negate the need to consider the functional relationship between the development and the Water Park as a whole. On the basis of the submitted evidence, I am satisfied that the requirement in Core Policy 39 to demonstrate the absence of suitable and available alternative sites has been met.

The indicative layout shows lodges arranged in clusters with structural planting, green corridors and a retained open frontage to [address] East. The nature park would maintain openness across much of the Site. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (‘LVIA’) identifies perceptible but moderate and localised effects, particularly from nearby public rights of way, and confirms that these can be mitigated through a landscape‐led approach at reserved matters. Although concerns have been raised regarding landscape character, the Site is visually contained and an appropriate landscape strategy can be secured through structural planting and the nature park.

Subject to detailed design, the scale and form of development would be compatible with the wider landscape character and would safeguard residential amenity. The figure of up to 70 units is an upper parameter, and the LVIA demonstrates that the Site can accommodate development of this scale in principle, with the final layout to be determined at reserved matters.

The Site benefits from direct access to [address] East. Utilities can be provided without undue environmental impact. Along with the walking route to [site address] , it is also possible to walk to the bus stops on [address] or on the B4696 to the east via the shared footway/cycleway on the north side of the B4696. Although limited, the available services are consistent with the rural context and provide links to larger centres offering wider facilities. The proposal would therefore have reasonable access to local services and employment.

Given my findings on some of the other main issues and other matters, as set out below, and subject to the UU, reserved matters and conditions, the proposal would safeguard environmentally sensitive areas.

Taking these matters together, whether assessed under the first limb (as development ‘close to’ a Large Village) or under the second limb (exceptional circumstances), the proposal is in a suitable location having regard to Core Policy 39.

In addition, the proposed nature park, habitat creation and low‐impact tourist accommodation would strengthen the Water Park’s ecological network, broaden opportunities for nature‐based recreation and enhance its visitor offer. This accords with Core Policy 54 of the WCS, which identifies the Water Park as a strategically important leisure and ecological resource and supports development that enhances its recreational, visitor and environmental functions.

The Site is within a 4.2km buffer zone for the [name] (‘the SAC’) an area designated for its internationally important lowland hay meadow habitat and for the population of Snake’s‐head Fritillary, which is of European significance. These meadows are highly vulnerable to trampling, nutrient enrichment, and disturbance, particularly during the flowering season. The SAC is protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (‘the Habitat Regulations’).

Because the SAC is already in a deteriorating condition, Natural England has identified the 4.2 km zone of influence around it. Any development generating overnight stays within this buffer is considered capable of adding to recreational pressure.

As the competent authority, I am required to undertake an Appropriate Assessment (‘AA’) of the scheme’s implications for the SAC. The AA must apply the precautionary principle and may only conclude that the development is acceptable where there is certainty that no adverse effect on site integrity would arise, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects.

The creation of up to 70 holiday lodges has the potential to increase recreational visits to the SAC, particularly for walking and dog‐walking. The risk of increased visitor pressure results in the potential for in‐combination effects with other tourism developments in the Water Park. The North Meadow Interim Recreation [name] (2023–2028) (‘the [name]) identifies the need for both Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (‘SANG’) to divert recreational use away from the SAC, and [name] and Monitoring (‘SAMM’) contributions to manage and monitor visitor impacts at the SAC itself. Without these measures, the development would risk further deterioration of the SAC and could not lawfully be supported under the Habitats Regulations.

The western part of the Site would accommodate a substantial nature park designed to operate as a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), providing habitat creation and low‐impact recreational opportunities, including walking routes. The UU secures its design, delivery and long‐term management, requiring an approved Specification and Management Plan prior to commencement, periodic review, and completion to the Council’s satisfaction. It must remain freely accessible to the public for 80 years and be managed by an identified body. On the evidence before me, the proposed SANG meets the requirements of the [name].

The UU also secures a SAMM contribution, calculated on a per‐unit basis and payable prior to occupation.

As part of undertaking my AA, I have also consulted Natural England who have confirmed that provided the above mitigation measures for SANG provision and SAMM contribution are secured, there would be no impact on the integrity of the relevant designated sites.

The above obligations are necessary to mitigate the recreational impacts of the development on protected habitats and necessary to support the wider strategic mitigation framework for the area. Both sets of obligations are directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. In addition, a [name] and a [name] are payable prior to commencement to enable the Council to oversee compliance with the obligations. These are proportionate to the administrative burden placed on the Council. Accordingly, I am satisfied that all of the obligations meet the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended).

The Site also lies adjacent to a waterbody forming part of the Cotswold Water Park SSSI (‘the SSSI’) which is designated for its nationally important assemblages of wintering and breeding waterbirds, as well as for its rare aquatic plants. These features are sensitive to disturbance, light spill, pollution, and habitat degradation arising from informal access.

The Council’s concerns related to the potential for visitors to access the lake, the risk of disturbance to waterbirds, and the possibility of pollution or hydrological impacts arising from construction of the development.

In response, the appellant made amendments to the original scheme. The SSSI was removed from the red line boundary, and all previously proposed access routes to the lake were removed, save for any access for management purposes. Natural England support this approach.

The appellant is also proposing a suite of mitigation measures to create a physical and ecological buffer between the development site and the SSSI. The fencing and dense scrub planting would prevent informal access, while the lighting exclusion zone would ensure that nocturnal and crepuscular bird species are not disturbed. The drainage strategy and construction controls would prevent pollution pathways and protect water quality.

Section 28G of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 requires the decision‐maker to take reasonable steps to further the conservation and enhancement of the SSSI’s notified features. In my view, the measures proposed by the appellant represent reasonable and proportionate steps to meet that duty.

Therefore, the proposal would not harm the notified features of the SSSI, and the statutory duty under section 28G would be met.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would not result in adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC nor harm the notified features of the SSSI.

The proposal therefore accords with Core Policy 50 of the WCS, which requires development to avoid harm to local wildlife sites and, where impacts are unavoidable, to ensure they are minimised, clearly outweighed by public interest and fully compensated, while supporting the long‐term favourable management of affected sites. It is also consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) which requires that development does not adversely affect the integrity of [name] and avoids harm to SSSIs.

Although the Council’s first putative reason for refusal refers to Policy ENP1 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (‘NP’), this reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the Framework and is therefore not directly relevant to this main issue.

Great crested newts (‘GCN’) are a [name], and their potential presence is a material consideration. I must therefore be satisfied that any risk to the species has been properly understood and that the proposal would not compromise their Favourable Conservation Status.

The appellant’s ecological appraisal confirms that Phase 1 Habitat surveys were undertaken in March 2020 and May 2022. Three waterbodies are relevant: Pond 1, a small pond east of [name]; Pond 2, a smaller pond beyond the Site’s southern boundary; and Pond 3, a large lake also beyond the Site’s southern boundary. GCN were historically recorded in Pond 1, where eggs were found in 2010, and a [name] (‘HSI’) score of 0.74 for this pond indicated good predicted suitability.

In light of the above, the appellant’s ecologist considered it likely that GCN could be present in all three ponds and therefore undertook a full presence/absence survey of all waterbodies in May 2022, using standard methodologies at the optimal time of year and in accordance with the [name] ([name], 2001). No evidence of GCN was recorded in any pond.

Pond 2 was flooded at the time of survey, preventing a full HSI assessment, but the ecological report confirms that it was included within the 2022 survey effort and that no evidence of GCN was found. Although eDNA sampling was not used, the presence/absence methodologies reported for the Site are recognised by Natural England as a robust, higher‐tier approach suitable for determining GCN presence and are those required for [name] licensing. I am advised that the Council raised no concerns about the adequacy of this methodology at the time of submission.

Pond 3 was assessed as having low suitability for GCN due to the likely presence of fish. Subsequent site observations in October 2024 recorded several large carp, consistent with the pond’s turbidity and lack of aquatic vegetation, and the landowner confirmed that the lake is used for recreational angling. These characteristics indicate that Pond 3 is highly unlikely to support GCN.

Although the presence/absence surveys date from 2022, the appellant’s ecologist confirmed at the Hearing that the physical condition of all three ponds has remained unchanged, based on a recent site visit. Together with the observations confirming predatory fish in Pond 3, this reinforces the conclusion that the ponds remain of low suitability. No request for further survey work was made during the appropriate seasonal window. I am therefore satisfied that the 2022 survey data, supported by subsequent site verification, remains a proportionate and reliable basis for assessment.

While the Site contains a mix of terrestrial habitats that could facilitate amphibian movement where populations occur, the most recent survey evidence confirms that no such population is currently present.

The appellant has confirmed that the ten new ponds proposed as part of the scheme will not be stocked with fish and will be designed to maximise biodiversity value. Together with the creation and restoration of Pond 1, the proposal would improve the Site’s overall suitability for amphibians, including GCN, should colonisation occur in future.

The Council suggests that a Rapid Risk Assessment (‘RRA’) or District Level Licence (‘DLL’) may be appropriate. DLL is an optional licensing route relevant only where impacts on GCN are likely. In this case, the 2022 surveys recorded no evidence of GCN in any pond, Pond 3 is unsuitable due to predatory fish, and the proposal would deliver substantial habitat enhancement rather than habitat loss. As there is no credible impact pathway and the scheme results in a net improvement in amphibian habitat, any RRA would inevitably indicate a low level of risk. In these circumstances, neither an RRA nor DLL is necessary or proportionate.

On the basis of the submitted survey evidence, the later site observations, and the clarifications provided at the Hearing, I am satisfied that the potential for impacts on GCN has been properly assessed and addressed, and that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on this [name]. The proposal therefore accords with the aims of Core Policy 50 of the WCS and the Framework, which require development to protect and, where possible, enhance biodiversity, avoid harm to protected species, and ensure that any residual risks are proportionate, evidence‐based and appropriately managed.

The proposal includes a secondary access. This is to be located near the western corner of the Site, adjacent to [address] East. Its purpose is limited to emergency access and pedestrian and cycle permeability. It is not designed or intended to operate as a general vehicular access for day‐to‐day traffic associated with the development.

The appellant’s highway evidence demonstrates that the secondary access has been designed in accordance with recognised guidance, including Manual for Streets. Swept‐path analysis confirms that emergency vehicles can safely enter and exit the access without conflict.

The secondary access would not significantly increase traffic flows on the surrounding network. Its use would be limited, controlled and infrequent, and it would not alter the operational performance of the primary access.

Any minor matters relating to the detailed specification of the secondary access, such as bollard / barrier design, emergency access control measures are matters that can be addressed through an appropriately worded planning condition.

Therefore, the secondary access is safe, suitable and would not result in harm to highway safety. As such, the proposal does not conflict with NP Policy INP2, which says that proposals that lead to an increase in road and pedestrian safety risk will not be supported. I also find no conflict with the similar aims of the Framework.

The submitted heritage assessments confirm that the Site contains no designated heritage assets, though it lies adjacent to the [site address] Conservation Area (‘CA’) and the [address] Scheduled Monument (‘SM’), the latter is within the CA boundary.

Under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I must pay special attention to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. Scheduled monuments are protected under the [name] and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, which seeks to secure their preservation. The Framework also requires me to assess the setting of a heritage asset and a development’s impact on this.

The CA derives its significance from its traditional limestone buildings, organic street pattern and rural landscape setting. The SM is nationally important for its medieval manorial earthworks. The Site’s agricultural character contributes to the rural setting of both.

The indicative layout places built elements well within the Site, with substantial landscape buffers. The lodges would be physically and visually separated from the CA by the on‐site pond and the SSSI water body and landscaping surrounding these, and the nature park would maintain an open edge. The proposal would therefore preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

Geophysical survey and trial trenching demonstrate that the Site’s archaeological potential is low, with any surviving remains likely to be of limited significance due to historic ploughing.

The nature park and lodges would introduce some change to the wider setting of the SM. Historic England considers this to result in less than substantial harm and seeks clarity on footpath alignment, access management and foul sewer routing.

The part of the Site closest to the SM would form part of the nature park, retain an open rural character and introduce landscape enhancement rather than built form. This would not materially add to the limited level of harm identified.

The SM lies outside the Site, is not publicly accessible and is enclosed by mature vegetation. Notwithstanding previous submissions, the appellant confirmed at the Hearing that no access was planned to the SM. These factors limit both the potential for disturbance and the extent to which the wider landscape contributes to its appreciation. The proposal would therefore have only a very limited influence on how the SM is experienced. At the Hearing, the appellant’s representatives also confirmed that foul sewer routing can avoid the SM. This could be secured by a

Accordingly, the harm to the SM is limited and lies at the lower end of the less than substantial range.

The Framework requires such harm to be weighed against public benefits. The scheme would deliver economic benefits through construction, employment and visitor spending; social benefits through nature‐based recreation and active‐travel improvements; and environmental gains through habitat creation, low‐carbon design and sustainable drainage.

Having given considerable importance and weight to the heritage harm, I am satisfied that the limited setting‐based harm to the SM, mitigated through landscape and access‐management measures, is outweighed by the significant public benefits. The proposal is therefore acceptable in heritage terms.

The Site falls within [name] 1, where there is not known to be a heightened risk of flooding from fluvial sources. It is, however, in a general area with a high water table, as evidenced by the lakes of the Water Park, and parts of the site are affected by known ground water flood risk. I also observed areas of significant pooling along the public right of way between the Site and [site address] following sustained rainfall, which I acknowledge contributes to local apprehension. These observations indicate that existing ground conditions may present constraints.

The drainage strategy is indicative at this stage, and further ground investigations will be required to confirm infiltration potential and refine the [name] (‘SuDS’) design. Where existing surface‐water issues are present, it is for the developer to demonstrate that the scheme would not increase flood risk and, where possible, would help address localised flooding. The Flood Risk Assessment shows that a workable SuDS solution can be achieved in principle, with detailed design secured by condition.

Subject to site‐specific testing and a detailed SuDS scheme, I am satisfied that the development would only commence once an acceptable drainage scheme is approved, which would not increase flood risk on or off the Site and has potential to improve existing surface‐water conditions.

Matters have been raised regarding the capacity of local wastewater and water‐supply infrastructure to accommodate the development. In response, and in the absence of detailed drainage information from the appellant, [name] has advised that occupation should be restricted until adequate off‐site capacity is confirmed or any necessary reinforcement works are completed or appropriately phased. To this end, as agreed at the Hearing, the main parties have provided conditions based on the requirements of [name]. Collectively, these conditions ensure that the development proceeds only when such utility infrastructure is in place or properly managed, thereby protecting public health, the environment and service reliability.

The development would not result in the loss or diversion of any public rights of way. The proposed nature park would enhance the local network by providing new permissive routes and improved connectivity, with detailed alignment and management to be addressed at reserved matters stage.

The Transport Assessment demonstrates that the development would generate modest traffic levels that can be safely accommodated on the existing network. [name] note third‐party concerns, no technical evidence has been provided to indicate unacceptable highway impacts. The proposed access arrangements will require engineering works on the public highway and will be subject to a Section 278 Agreement. This matter can be progressed separately if the appeal succeeds.

The Arboricultural Report confirms that most trees and hedgerows can be retained, with any necessary removals addressed through replacement planting at reserved matters stage. Therefore, the scheme can be delivered without unacceptable arboricultural impacts.

Although the application predates mandatory [name], the nature park, new ponds, grassland and scrub would deliver a substantial uplift in biodiversity. Ecological design and long‐term management will be secured through the UU, reserved matters and conditions, ensuring ecological connectivity is maintained and enhanced.

Concerns have been raised about potential amenity impacts arising from events or activities associated with the development. The detailed operation of the development will ultimately be determined by the future operator. However, as the facility will serve multiple accommodation units, it is likely that management arrangements will be implemented to safeguard the amenity of occupiers, providing a degree of self‐regulation that would also benefit the wider area. The outline parameters further demonstrate that built form and activity areas can be sensitively located to minimise any such effects.

Additional concerns regarding potential effects on rural character and tranquillity along nearby public rights of way can be appropriately addressed at the reserved matters stage. This includes detailed considerations such as internal circulation, parking layout, and the design and placement of buildings. The UU and planning conditions would provide further controls over lighting, activity areas and external spaces.

While the scheme proposes some facilities to meet the needs of the development, there is nothing to suggest that these would be of such a scale to compromise the viability of local services and businesses.

Although the proposal would result in the loss of agricultural land, there is no substantive evidence that its loss would have unacceptable wider agricultural implications.

On the evidence before me, none of the issues raised provide a basis for withholding outline planning permission.

The Council initially sought a financial contribution for Air Quality Action Planning projects but subsequently confirmed that this is not necessary. I have no reason to disagree.

In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Conditions requiring the submission of reserved matters and governing the timing of implementation are necessary to comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

For the avoidance of doubt, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, which relate solely to the site location plan and access arrangements.

The proposal has been assessed and supported on the basis that it would provide tourist accommodation. A condition restricting occupation to holiday use is therefore necessary and reasonable to prevent the creation of permanent residential units in a location where such development would conflict with planning policy.

The appellant’s suggested wording, which relied only on recording the names and home addresses of lodge owners, would not prevent long‐term occupation by non‐owners and contained no maximum stay duration. The Council’s alternative, which included a 28‐day limit and exclusion period, would be unduly complex and difficult to monitor. A longer maximum stay was discussed at the Hearing, and the condition I have imposed prevents occupation as a sole or main residence, sets a clear maximum stay of 6 weeks, which provides sufficient flexibility for short‐stay use while avoiding occupation of a residential character, and requires a detailed register of all occupiers, offering a practical and enforceable basis for monitoring.

To protect the living conditions of nearby residents, a condition restricting construction times is necessary.

A condition requiring the reporting and remediation of any unexpected contamination is necessary to safeguard human health and the environment. To minimise impacts on residential amenity, the natural environment and highway safety during construction, a [name] is also required.

To encourage sustainable travel patterns and reduce reliance on private car use, a Travel Plan is necessary.

For the reasons given above, a detailed groundwater flood‐risk assessment and surface‐water drainage strategy are required and necessary. A Construction Phase Surface Water Management Plan is also necessary to prevent increased flood or pollution risk during construction.

A condition controlling external lighting is necessary to avoid adverse effects on bat habitat. A Construction Environmental Management Plan is also required to ensure that habitats and any protected species are safeguarded prior to and during the construction phase.

Although the landscaping and habitats within the nature park would be managed through the UU, there would also be landscaped areas within the wider development. To secure the long‐term and overarching management of habitats and ecological enhancements, a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan is required. Given the scale of the proposal, these detailed requirements are justified to ensure that the ecological benefits relied upon in the submissions are delivered and sustained.

For the reasons already given, I have specified conditions relating to waste-supply and wastewater management. Consultation with the relevant water authority would be a matter for the local planning authority.

In the interests of highway safety, it is necessary to control the use, form and design of the secondary access.

Together, the reserved matters and the planning obligation in the UU would secure the SANG specification, its completion to the Council’s satisfaction, and long‐term monitoring and management. Duplicating these requirements through the suggested conditions, would not meet the tests of necessity or reasonableness.

Where necessary, and in the interests of clarity, precision and flexibility, I have amended the conditions to ensure they operate as intended.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and outline planning permission is granted.

Details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping (hereinafter referred to as the reserved matters) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any part of the development is commenced. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

This permission relates to the following approved drawings: Site Location & Wider Context Plan – [name]. 22026.502 [name]; [name] – [name]. 1056 001 A; and [name] – [name]. 1056 002.

The accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied for holiday purposes only and shall not be occupied as a person’s sole or main place of residence. No individual shall occupy the accommodation for a continuous period exceeding 6 weeks in any single stay. A register of all occupiers shall be kept at the site and made available for inspection by the local planning authority upon request. The register shall include the full names of all occupiers, their main home addresses, and the dates of their arrival and departure.

No construction work shall take place on Sundays or Public Holidays or outside the hours of 0800–1800 Monday to Friday and 0800–1300 on Saturdays.

No development shall commence until a [name] (CMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CMS shall include: a routing plan; a Traffic Management Plan (including signage drawings); the number and size of delivery vehicles; the number of staff vehicle movements; details of any temporary or permanent Traffic Regulation Orders; and a phasing plan. The approved CMS shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

No development shall commence until a Travel Plan, including proposals for ongoing monitoring, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. No part of the development shall be first occupied until the approved Travel Plan has been implemented and it shall thereafter be adhered to.

No development shall commence until a site-specific groundwater flood-risk assessment and a detailed surface-water drainage strategy (including a phasing plan and timetable for implementation) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The assessment and strategy shall be informed by all available local information, including historical flood records, parish-level evidence, flood action group data and borehole records. In areas susceptible to groundwater flooding, infiltration-based SuDS shall not be used unless it has been demonstrated through site-specific evidence that such measures are appropriate. The assessment shall include: soakaway testing in accordance with [name] 365; groundwater-level monitoring accounting for seasonal variation; assessment of interactions between different sources of flooding; assessment of groundwater impacts on the proposed drainage system; assessment of groundwater, groundwater recharge and aquifer interactions; and revisions to attenuation to secure 300mm freeboard for the 1 in 100 year plus climate-change event. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved assessment and strategy, implemented in accordance with the agreed phasing plan and timetable.

No development shall commence until a [name] Plan (CPSWMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CPSWMP shall demonstrate how surface water will be managed throughout the construction phase to prevent increased flood risk or pollution. The development shall proceed only in accordance with the approved CPSWMP.

No development shall commence, including any demolition, ground works or vegetation clearance, until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall set out the measures to protect habitats and species during the construction phase and shall include: identification of ecological protection zones and tree root protection areas; details of physical protection measures; construction‐phase method statements for protected and priority species; any pre‐construction elements of agreed mitigation strategies; timing restrictions and schedules of works; details of when an ecologist or ecological clerk of works will be present; and roles and responsibilities for implementation. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP.

No development shall commence on site until details of the works for the disposal of sewage, including details of flows, routing of pipework and the point of connection to the existing public sewer or details of an on-site package treatment scheme, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the works have been fully implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Unless a scheme for the treatment of sewage on-site has been fully implemented in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, the development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until confirmation has been provided that either:- all sewage works upgrades required to accommodate the additional flows from the development have been completed; or - a development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with the local planning authority to allow development to be occupied. Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until confirmation has been provided that either:- all water network upgrades required to accommodate the additional demand to serve the development have been completed; or – a development and infrastructure phasing plan has been agreed with the local planning authority to allow development to be occupied. Where a development and infrastructure phasing plan is agreed no occupation shall take place other than in accordance with the agreed development and infrastructure phasing plan.

Prior to the first occupation of the development, a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The LEMP shall set out the long‐term management objectives for all landscaped and ecological areas and shall include: plans and descriptions of all habitats and landscape features; details of habitat creation, establishment and long‐term management; measures for the protection and management of retained habitats; ecological enhancement measures; monitoring and review mechanisms; roles and responsibilities; and a timetable for implementation. The development shall thereafter be managed in accordance with the approved LEMP for its lifetime.

The secondary access shown on [name]. 1056 002 shall be used for emergency access only. No development shall commence until details of the surfacing, gates, signage and secure barriers restricting general use have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved measures shall be installed prior to first use of the secondary access.

No external lighting shall be installed within the site until details of all existing and proposed lighting have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall demonstrate that the lighting will avoid adverse effects on bat habitat. The lighting shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

If contamination is found at any time during construction, works shall cease and the local planning authority shall be notified immediately. A remediation strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, followed by a verification report confirming completion of the approved remediation works. [name] [name] [name] [name] Ben Davies FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY Gary Collins Victoria [name] [name] [name] [name] [name]