Appeal 6001500

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a residential development comprising eight units (all matters reserved except layout and access) at [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00078/OUT, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by the appellant. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The address as it appears in the banner heading above is slightly different from the application form. In the interest of accuracy, I have amended it to better reflect the appeal site. It refers to the land to the rear of Nos 18 to [address] rather than just being at No 22.

The planning application subject of this appeal was made in outline form with all matters reserved except for layout and access. Accordingly, the submitted plans can only be taken as indicative at this stage. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy, outlook, noise and disturbance; • the effect of the proposal on highway safety, with particular regard to the proposed access; • whether the proposal would provide adequate parking; and • the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the [name] and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site.

The appeal site is located on the western side of [address], within an established residential area. It comprises garden land to the rear of Nos 18-32 with parts of the site accessible via an overgrown access path between Nos 20 and 22. The site has an irregular square shape and is unmaintained, featuring many mature trees and dense vegetation. It lies at a higher land level compared to the neighbouring properties to the south-west on [address].

The appellant emphasises that the indicative layout shows separation distances in excess of 21 metres between the proposed dwellings and existing dwellings on [address], and that this would be broadly consistent with separation distances between buildings in the locality. The appellant also relies on examples of nearby spacing patterns and considers that direct overlooking would be unlikely, particularly given that landscaping and the detailed design are reserved matters.

I accept that the proposal is in outline form with only layout and access for determination at this stage. Matters of scale, appearance and landscaping are reserved. That is an important consideration. It means that the broad disposition of development and the access arrangement can be assessed now, but the final building form, fenestration, levels treatment, boundary treatment and planting are not yet fixed. On the plans before me, the layout does not indicate a cramped arrangement of dwellings pressed unusually close to existing houses. Nor is there persuasive evidence that the proposal would inevitably result in direct overlooking or a materially overbearing relationship of an unacceptable degree.

Notwithstanding the above, the existing site is presently experienced, in large part, as garden land with substantial vegetation and an undeveloped character. The proposal would introduce a line of new dwellings, access road, parking areas and associated domestic activity into what is currently a verdant and attractive setting characterised by several tall and mature trees and dense shrubs. For current occupiers to the west, on [address], that would erode the present outlook to some degree and alter the sylvan and pleasant sense of openness presently enjoyed. Given the differing site levels, that change would be more noticeable than if the land were flat.

Whilst new boundary treatments can be established and replacement trees can be planted to provide screening, it is likely that the proposed development would be read as an obtrusive and incongruous addition by neighbouring occupiers on [address]. I have considered the view that visibility of new development from surrounding properties would not be harmful. I also recognise the appellant’s point that a degree of mutual overlooking is a feature of many suburban environments. Even so, the fact remains that the proposal would replace a verdant rear garden environment with a sizeable back-land development. In my judgement that would cause some harm to the outlook of nearby occupiers, particularly to the west.

The broad spacing shown on the indicative layout reduces the likelihood of severe or direct overlooking. Nevertheless, because of the relative levels and the introduction of new first-floor accommodation into a previously undeveloped area, some neighbouring occupiers would likely experience at least a greater perception of being overlooked and a loss of privacy, particularly when using their rear gardens and patios.

With regards to the proposed access, the appellant states that the proposal would improve the appearance of the existing lane. Nonetheless, the proposed access would represent a material intensification in activity. Instead of an informal and lightly used side lane, there would be a formed vehicular access serving eight dwellings. The entrance door of No [address] is located in the flank wall facing towards the proposed access, and the separation to that access would be limited. Even allowing for the modest traffic generation of eight dwellings, the occupiers of No 20 would experience more regular vehicle movements, associated headlight glare, manoeuvring noise and general comings and goings in close proximity to their entrance and side boundary.

The appellant states that the impacts would be limited because the development is small, the access would be properly designed, and construction effects could be addressed by condition. I agree in part. The scale of the scheme is modest and having had regard to the submitted noise and vibration assessment1, I do not find that disturbance from the completed development would be severe. Construction impacts would also be temporary and capable of mitigation through a construction management condition. But those points would contain harm rather than eliminate harm altogether. In my view, the occupiers of No 20 would still be subject to some real, day-to-day increase in noise and disturbance compared with the existing situation.

Drawing these matters together, there would be some adverse effect arising from the introduction of the access road close to No [address] and from the change in outlook, together with some loss of privacy and perception of overlooking for occupiers on [address]. However, in light of the separation distances, the potential for boundary treatments and adequate detailed design to mitigate adverse effects, the resultant harm would be limited in scale.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would cause limited harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers. It would conflict with Policy PMD1 of the adopted Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development (the ‘Local Plan’) insofar as it seeks to ensure that developments do not cause unacceptable effects on the amenity of neighbouring occupants.

The proposed access road would measure 4.8 metres along its length. At the junction with [address], it would widen further, to about 6.32 metres, with visibility splays incorporated and an overall width of about 9.5 metres at the widest point where it meets the back of the footway. The scheme would also include a raised table close to the site entrance in order to keep vehicle speeds low. The means of access plan and the indicative layout both show a widened and formalised access arrangement.

The Council’s Highway Officer was consulted several times during the application process. I note that no technical highway objection to the width or operation of the 1 [name] and Vibration Assessment, November 2024 access itself was raised. The submitted swept path drawing (Drawing no. 702-E) demonstrates that a Thurrock refuse vehicle could enter the site, manoeuvre within it and leave in forward gear. That is a material consideration, because refuse vehicles are among the largest vehicles reasonably expected to use the access on a routine basis. I have no cogent technical evidence before me to indicate that the tracking exercise is flawed.

Committee members and interested parties expressed concern about the constrained appearance of the access, pedestrian safety, and disruption from construction and service vehicles. I have taken those matters into account. Whilst the current opening is indeed narrow and informal, the appeal scheme would widen and regularise that access, relocate the electricity pole and carry out alterations to the frontage arrangement at No 22. On the evidence before me, including the technical drawings, the [name] stance, and the absence of any contrary expert evidence from the Council, I find that the proposed access would be safe and suitable, including for emergency vehicles and other larger vehicles. Matters of temporary construction routing and site management can be addressed by condition through a construction environmental management plan.

I have also considered the objections concerning the possibility of conflict with pedestrians and the impact of stationary vehicles on the circulation flow of [address]. However, narrow pedestrian footpaths would be provided along both sides of the access road. What’s more, the traffic generated by such a development would be modest. There is no persuasive technical basis before me for concluding that queues would form on [address] or that the free flow of traffic would be materially harmed.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed access and layout would provide safe and suitable access for all users and would not result in unacceptable harm to highway safety. The proposal would therefore comply with Policies PMD2 and PMD9 of the Local Plan insofar as they seek to ensure developments have appropriately designed layouts, adequate access for all users, and do not prejudice road safety.

The proposal would provide 16 spaces for the new dwellings, 4 visitor spaces, 2 spaces for No [address] and a double garage for No [address]. Although a number of resident permit bays on [address] would be removed to facilitate the altered access and the associated double yellow lines, the on-street parking surveys found that there was no significant parking stress on surrounding roads during the survey period, and that the proposal would provide parking in excess of current standards.

I recognise that some of the proposed parking for the new dwellings would be in tandem form beneath and in front of car ports. However, tandem parking is a common arrangement in residential schemes, particularly where the paired spaces serve a single dwelling. In the absence of any local policy expressly prohibiting such an arrangement and given that the overall level of parking exceeds the standard, I am not persuaded that tandem parking in this case would be so impractical that widespread overspill parking would inevitably result.

Interested parties refer to existing parking pressure in the surrounding streets and the possibility that the area could not accommodate additional cars. Nonetheless, they are not supported by technical evidence showing a severe shortfall or safety concerns. In contrast, the survey evidence records that parking was available on surrounding roads. It recorded that an average of 63 on-street parking bays were available, with a maximum capacity of 79% recorded on a week day where only 9 spaces were left available. During my site visit, I also observed that there were many on-street parking spaces available on [address], [address] and [address]. [name] acknowledge this was just a snapshot in time and that there may be more pressures at other times of the day, it provided some insight into parking conditions in the area.

The evidence therefore doesn’t substantiate adverse levels of parking stress and given that the scheme would over-provide parking, I find that the proposal would not lead to pressure or unacceptable impacts on parking and highway safety on [address] and the surrounding road network.

I therefore conclude that the parking provision would be adequate. The proposal would comply with Policy PMD8 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that proposals for new residential development provide appropriate parking levels in line with the adopted car parking standards.

The appeal site is located within the recognised ‘Zone of Influence’ for one or more of the European designated sites scoped into the [name] and [name] (RAMS). I have a duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to assess any impact the proposed development would have upon the protected sites.

These protected sites are primarily designated for endangered or vulnerable populations of seabirds, which often overwinter or breed at these sites, as well as the wider coastal ecosystems and functions that support these and other populations (for example, plants and invertebrates).

The Thames Estuary and [name] and RAMSAR is predominantly characterised by extensive intertidal mudflats, saltmarsh and complex channel systems such as the [name]. The SPA has a variety of habitat types, which are important feeding and roosting sites for the large populations of bird species here, including those during the spring and autumn migration periods. These species include Avocet, Black-tailed godwit, Dunlin, [name], Hen harrier and Redshank.

The conservation objectives of this site are to ensure that, subject to natural change, the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the [name], by maintaining or restoring: o the extent and distribution of the habitats of the qualifying features o the structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features o the supporting processes on which the habitats of the qualifying features rely o the populations of each of the qualifying features o the distribution of qualifying features within the site.

New residential development at the appeal site has the potential to cause disturbance to the [name] and [name] and RAMSAR site through increased recreational activities and pressure. As a result, it has the potential to individually contribute to a likely significant effect on the SPA and RAMSAR site when taken in-combination with other plans and projects. Therefore, the development must provide appropriate mitigation.

Natural England were consulted with regards to the proposal. They have stated they are content that the proposed RAMS measures are sufficient to avoid an adverse impact to the integrity of the [name] and relevant features. The Essex Coast RAMS was developed to provide a strategic solution to address the issue of increased recreational disturbance (arising from additional housing) to internationally important assemblages of birds and other qualifying features of the [name] on the [name]. The Essex Coast RAMS aims to deliver the mitigation necessary (under the Habitats Regulations) to address the likely significant effects from the “in-combination” impacts of residential development within a defined Zone of Influence, thus protecting the Sites from adverse effect on site integrity.

The Essex Coast RAMS details mitigation measures that would be funded by financial contributions at a specified tariff per dwelling. Since these include a range of habitat-based measures such as education, communication and monitoring, and have been endorsed by Natural England, I am satisfied that the measures would adequately overcome any adverse effects of the proposal on the SPA and RAMSAR site.

The appellants have made a financial contribution to fund the [name]. The Council have confirmed receipt of the payment. Therefore, I am satisfied that the mitigation measures have been secured and would be used for their intended purpose. The contributions would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development, in accordance with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. As such, the contributions toward the mitigation schemes would count as mitigation toward maintaining the integrity of the sites. It follows that I am satisfied that with the mitigation measures secured and in place, the proposal would avoid an adverse effect on the integrity of the [name] and [name] and RAMSAR site.

Given this, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the [name] and [name] and RAMSAR site. It would therefore comply with the Habitat Regulations and with Policy PMD7 of the Local Plan insofar as it seeks to ensure that development proposals protect and enhance designated biodiversity sites.

The Council acknowledge that they cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing land. The evidence before me is that the level of supply was 1.02 years in September 2025. Consequently, because of the provisions of footnote 7, paragraph 11 d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) is engaged. As such, it is necessary for me to determine whether the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits inherent in providing additional housing to assist the Council in addressing its undersupply.

The proposal would deliver 8 new dwellings within an established residential area. Whilst modest in scale, the provision of additional housing in the context of a considerable shortfall in supply attracts significant weight in favour of the scheme. The development would also make effective use of land within the urban area and would contribute to the effective use of land. This is a benefit to which I attach significant weight.

The appellant states that the redevelopment of the existing access track into a safe and active private residential access road would represent a significant improvement in terms of safety and the quality of the local environment. Although the side track is currently overgrown, it is not too dissimilar to typical access tracks and side lanes. I have limited evidence it is significantly harmful or associated with nuisance or anti-social behaviour. As such, the improvement to this part of the site attracts very limited weight.

The development would also generate some economic activity during the construction phase and from future occupants’ contributions to the local economy. I have attached some modest weight to these benefits.

Furthermore, interested parties raised a number of additional concerns which I have taken into account, including the effect of the proposal on ecology and wildlife, drainage and sewerage capacity, construction disturbance, local infrastructure, character of the area, the loss of garden land and vegetation, land ownership and access rights, effects on property values, and general effects on residents’ quality of life.

In relation to ecology and wildlife, concerns were raised regarding bats, badgers, habitat loss and the effect on biodiversity generally. However, ecological matters were considered by the Council and relevant consultees during the application process, and the proposal was not refused on that basis. The evidence before me indicates that such matters can be appropriately addressed through conditions, including ecological mitigation, updated survey work where necessary, and biodiversity net gain requirements. I have no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that ecological effects would warrant dismissal of the appeal.

Objections have also been made regarding drainage, sewerage capacity and possible surface water run-off, particularly having regard to the site levels and nearby residential properties. [name] recognise local residents’ concerns on these matters, no technical evidence has been provided to demonstrate that foul or surface water drainage could not be satisfactorily addressed through the detailed design of the scheme and the imposition of appropriate planning conditions.

I have also considered concerns regarding noise, dust, disruption and highway inconvenience during construction, as well as the practicalities of construction vehicles and plant accessing the site. However, construction impacts would be temporary in nature and can be mitigated through a construction management plan secured by condition. I therefore attach only limited weight to these matters.

Concerns regarding potential damage to boundary features, including historic walls, are noted. However, such matters can be addressed through construction management and are not determinative in this appeal.

Some interested parties object to the principle of developing what is presently rear garden land, including the removal of trees and vegetation and the consequent change to the established pattern of development. I acknowledge that the proposal would alter the existing character of the site in that respect. However, the appeal site lies within a built-up residential area and is surrounded by existing housing. The Council did not refuse permission on character and appearance grounds, and the proposal before me is for outline permission only, with landscaping and detailed appearance reserved for later consideration. In those circumstances, I do not find that these matters weigh decisively against the proposal.

Additionally, an objection was submitted claiming that the proposal would affect historic views from the rear of dwellings on [address] towards [name]. I acknowledge that views and the existing character would be altered. That being said, the site does not benefit from a statutory heritage designation and, in my view, the impacts of the proposal would not unacceptably harm or erode local character and identity.

Concerns are also raised regarding pressure on local services and infrastructure. However, there is insufficient substantive evidence before me to conclude that a development of 8 dwellings in this location would give rise to unacceptable infrastructure impacts that could not be addressed through the normal development management process.

I have had regard to the concerns expressed about the effect of the proposal on neighbouring property values, insurance, security and general peace of mind. [name] do not doubt the sincerity of those concerns, such matters either fall outside planning control or are not supported by objective evidence such that they could carry significant weight in the determination of this appeal.

Finally, issues have been raised concerning land ownership, adverse possession, rights of way and whether the appellant has the necessary rights to implement the development. These are not determinative matters in this planning appeal. The grant of planning permission does not convey any property rights, nor does it override the need for the appellant to secure any other consents or legal interests that may be required.

The proposal would result in limited harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regards to outlook, privacy, noise and disturbance. This harm would conflict with the Local Plan and the Framework which seek to ensure that developments provide a high standard of amenity.

Set against this harm, the proposal would contribute to the Framework’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing and would make effective use of land within a sustainable location close to public transport links. Paragraph 73 of the Framework also states that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area, are essential for Small and [name] housebuilders to deliver new homes, and are often built out relatively quickly. The proposal would thus adhere to this policy objective.

It would also contribute to the local economy, provide safe and suitable access, adequate parking, and, subject to mitigation, would not adversely affect the integrity of a European designated site.

The limited harm I have identified would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the Framework when read as a whole. The Framework is a material consideration and in the circumstances of this appeal, the other material considerations justify making a decision otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council within their final officer report and the requirements of the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Conditions relating to reserved matters, time limits and approved plans are necessary in the interests of certainty, given that the application is in outline form with only layout and access determined at this stage.

Conditions requiring details of materials, landscaping, drainage, access arrangements, parking, cycle storage, refuse storage and electric vehicle charging are necessary to ensure that the development achieves an acceptable standard of design, provides safe and suitable access, adequate drainage, and secures appropriate living conditions for future occupiers and neighbouring residents.

Conditions 15, 16, 17 and 18 relate to planting and seeding time, tree planting specifications and standards, as well as the submission of a landscape management plan. These are necessary to ensure adequate landscaping, tree planting and protection, and to ensure effective management. I have imposed these conditions in the interests of the local ecology, the appearance of the site and living conditions of future and neighbouring occupiers.

A Construction Method Statement is necessary in order to safeguard the living conditions of nearby occupiers during the construction phase, having regard to noise, dust, traffic and general disturbance.

Conditions relating to ecological mitigation and management are necessary to ensure that protected species and habitats are appropriately safeguarded during construction and occupation. The Council’s suggested condition specifically requiring updated bat and badger surveys has not been imposed, however, the requirement to submit an updated badger survey and ground level bat roost assessment of the trees has been specified in condition 22 which relates to the submission of an Ecological Management Plan.

I have not imposed the suggested conditions restricting permitted development rights, as there is insufficient justification that such restrictions would be necessary to make the development acceptable. However, I have imposed condition 10 which ensures that the garages and carports are used for parking and no other use.

Similarly, I have not imposed a condition requiring a biodiversity net gain plan, as biodiversity net gain is secured through the statutory regime and does not require duplication by condition.

A condition limiting the maximum height of the dwellings has not been imposed, as scale is a reserved matter and will be controlled through the submission and approval of reserved matters.

Finally, a specific condition relating to visibility splays has not been imposed, as such matters are adequately controlled through the conditions requiring details of the access and junction layout.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

Details of the appearance, landscaping, and scale ("the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved.

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 take place not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos L.01 Location Plan, P.01 Indicative Site Layout with Topo [name], P.02 Indicative Site Layout Enlarged [name], P.03 Indicative Site Section A-A [name], P.04 [name] for No.24, P.05 [name] – Houses 1- 5 [name], P.06 [name] – Houses 6-8, 700-[name] of Access Plan, 702-[name], 250145 TPP [name].

No development above ground level shall take place until samples of all external facing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved sample details.

No development shall commence until details of the access road, pedestrian footways and footpath, turning spaces, driveways, relevant traffic signage, designated residential unit parking bays, visitor parking bays and their delineation have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The details to be submitted shall include plans and sections indicating design, layout, levels, gradients, materials and method of construction. The access road, footway and parking areas shall be constructed in accordance with the agreed details and completed prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings hereby approved.

The development hereby permitted shall not take place until details of the junction between the proposed access road and the highway have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; and the development shall not be occupied until that junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. The junction shall be retained thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with drawing no P.02 [name]. Thereafter those spaces shall be retained for the parking of vehicles only.

The development shall not be occupied until details of a scheme of electric vehicle charging points and timetable for implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and retained in full working order thereafter.

The garages and carports hereby permitted and car spaces to be provided shall be kept available at all times for the parking of motor vehicles by the occupants of the dwellings and their visitors and for no other purpose.

No dwelling shall be occupied until space has been laid out within the site for bicycles to be stored and that space shall thereafter be kept available for the storage of bicycles.

No development shall commence until full details of the number, size, location, design and materials of bin and recycling stores for the development, together with details of the means of access to bin and recycling stores for residents and refuse operatives, including collection points if necessary, have been submitted to and agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The development shall make provision for: 1 x 180 litre container for refuse, 1 x 240 litre container for recycling and 1 x 240 litre container for kitchen and garden waste per residential dwelling. The bin and recycling stores as approved shall be provided prior to the first occupation of any of the residential units they serve and shall be retained thereafter.

No development shall commence until a scheme of landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development.

No development shall commence until details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include: - a statement setting out the design objectives and how these will be delivered; - earthworks showing existing and proposed finished levels or contours; - means of enclosure and retaining structures; - boundary treatments; - vehicle parking layouts; - other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; - hard surfacing materials; - minor artefacts and structures e.g. furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, etc.; - proposed and existing functional services above and below ground e.g. drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines etc. indicating alignments, levels, access points, supports as relevant; - renewable energy installations where relevant; - lighting, floodlighting and CCTV; - water features; - an implementation programme, including phasing of work where relevant. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is first occupied in accordance with the agreed implementation programme. The completed scheme shall be managed and/or maintained in accordance with an approved scheme of management.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Before the development is first occupied a landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All landscaping shall be managed in accordance with the approved landscape management plan.

No development shall commence until a full specification of all proposed tree planting has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The specification shall include the quantity, size, species, and positions or density of all trees to be planted, how they will be planted and protected and the proposed time of planting. The tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved specification.

All trees shall be planted in accordance with the details and times stated in the specification required by condition 17 and in accordance with [name] 8545: Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape - Recommendations (or an equivalent [name] if replaced) BS 4428: Code of practice for general landscape operations (excluding hard surfaces) (or an equivalent [name] if replaced).

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a [name] has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide for: i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) loading and unloading of plant and materials; iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; v) wheel washing facilities and sheeting of vehicles transporting loose aggregates or similar materials on or off site; vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; viii) measures for water management including wastewater and surface water discharge; ix) a Noise Impact Assessment including details of the method for the control of noise with reference to BS5228 together with a monitoring regime; x) a Vibration Assessment including measures to reduce vibration and mitigate the impacts on sensitive receptors together with a monitoring regime with reference to BS6472; xi) delivery, demolition and construction working hours. xii) details of security lighting layout and design; xiii) contact details for site managers including information about community liaison including a method for handling and monitoring complaints; and xiv) a precautionary working method statement setting out measures to ensure that any badgers (or other small animals such as hedgehogs) are not indirectly impacted during construction works. The approved [name] shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development.

Demolition or construction works shall take place only between 0800-1800 hours on Monday to Friday, between 0800-1300 hours on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays.

No development shall take place until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall: i) provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters; ii) include a timetable for its implementation; and, iii) provide, a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The sustainable drainage system shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved management and maintenance plan.

No development shall take place until an Ecological Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Ecological Management Plan shall include: - an updated badger survey and ground level bat roost assessment of the trees; - a plan showing wildlife/habitat protection zones (if necessary); - any mitigation and enhancement measures; - details of development and construction methods within wildlife/habitat protection zones or measures to be taken to minimise the impact of any works; - details of phasing of construction. The Ecological Management Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plan. End of Schedule