Appeal 6002233

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 8 No. proposed new dwellings at [site address] , Childswickham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/00494/FUL, subject to the standard Biodiversity Gain Plan (BGP) condition set out under paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA 1990), and the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for an award of costs was made by Cape Homes Ltd against Wychavon District Council. This application will be the subject of a separate

The Council refused planning permission based on the proposed site plan 22419- 03 revision [name], revision D has been submitted by the appellant. The only difference between the two revisions relates to the designation of a plot specific affordable unit. This is not a substantial change. [name] do not consider that interested parties are prejudiced by this change, I have taken this most recent version into account in reaching my decision.

The main issues are: • Whether the site is an appropriate location for residential development having regard to the spatial strategy of the development plan and access to goods and services; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; • Whether the proposed development is in an appropriate location having regard to flood risk; and • Whether a financial contribution towards off-site affordable housing would be delivered by an appropriate mechanism.

Policy SWDP1 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (DP) seeks to ensure that new development is channelled to appropriate locations including the need to promote accessibility to everyday facilities. Policy SWDP2 of the DP establishes the Council’s approach to the sustainable distribution of housing across the area. Partly through the use of development boundaries, it seeks to focus housing within the wider Worcester urban area, followed by the key towns and then the remaining smaller towns. Villages located within the rural area are deemed appropriate to meet only locally identified housing needs.

The appeal site is an open field situated on the western side of [site address] . Childswickham is a Category 4 village as set out in Table 2 of Policy SWDP2 and [name]: Hierarchy of Settlements of the SWDP. SWDP2 identifies that infill development within lower category villages will be supported within defined development boundaries subject to meeting detailed plan policies. Being outside a defined development boundary, the proposal would not therefore meet the definition of infill development.

Within this context, Policy SWDP2 identifies that development will be strictly controlled except in accordance with the exceptions that it outlines, or, unless allowed by other policies within the DP. The proposal would not meet any of these exceptions and would therefore be at odds with the spatial strategy. The appeal site is not located within but is adjacent to the village’s defined settlement boundary. For plan purposes, the site falls within the open countryside.

Policy SWDP4 of the DP identifies that new development should be located and designed to reduce the need to travel and encourage the use of sustainable transport alternatives.

Childswickham facilities include a public house/restaurant, a church, playground, and village hall, which are all within walking distance. Bus services through the village provide a service, albeit limited, to Broadway (3km), Evesham (8km), and Cheltenham (27km) with bus stops within a reasonable walking distance of the site.

Access to the village for pedestrians would involve a short walk along a section of unlit road via a public footpath providing a good connection to the goods and services of the settlement.

Given the distances and lack of realistic alternatives, future occupants of the development would be largely reliant on the use of a private car to access many higher order services and facilities in larger settlements such as Evesham and Cheltenham. However, car journeys between the development and Broadway would be short. Consequently, the location of the site would offer limited options to provide access to goods and services by sustainable means of transport.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. However, a likely reliance upon travel by private modes of transportation sits uncomfortably alongside the Government’s objectives of delivering sustainable development in a planned and coordinated manner.

For the above reasons, the proposal would introduce new development on the edge of the village settlement boundary and in a location with only modest sustainable travel options. Accordingly, the proposed development would conflict with [name] SWDP1, SWDP2 and SWDP4 of the DP, whose requirements have been outlined above.

The appeal site is a broadly rectangular parcel of agricultural land, located alongside [site address] . The site is bordered by a hedge, with residential development adjacent to three of its sides. Along its southern boundary, a public right of way (PRoW) links [site address] to [address] alongside [name]. Open fields sit beyond the brook to the south. [site address] forms one of several access roads serving the village. As an undeveloped field on the edge of the village, the appeal site is prominent and contributes to the village setting. In doing so, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The site is located within the Principal Village Farmlands Landscape Type, as identified in Worcestershire County Council’s Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). The Primary Key Characteristic of this [name] is the nucleated pattern of expanded rural villages surrounded by large arable fields. [name] for the [name] include the retention of the pattern of strongly nucleated villages with associated low dispersal of settlement alongside conserving and enhancing hedgerow structure and tree cover along watercourses. Childswickham has a largely nucleated settlement pattern, which is generally contained to the north and east of [site address] .

The LCA identifies nucleated settlements as discrete villages with a low level of dispersal with little development beyond the village boundary. Whilst the development would be beyond the settlement boundary, the appeal site, when arriving from the south, is encountered as part of the village rather than appearing to be on the edge of or outside. The proposal would also be well contained by existing development and the brook, which also provides a natural village edge.

The design and layout of the proposed scheme would reflect the nucleated pattern of development in this area of the village with around a third of the site retained as open space and enhanced with new planting. Except for some removal to facilitate the proposed vehicular access and required visibility splays and pedestrian gates to the PRoW, the hedgerows would be mainly retained. The single storey nature of the development and its proposed low density would also minimise its visual impact from [site address] , allowing the development to assimilate with the existing built form along [site address] and [address] and provide a low-key transition into the open countryside.

Due to the existing land level differences between the appeal site and the PRoW, limited views of and into the site are possible from the PRoW. Whilst development on the land would sit above the height of the existing hedgerows, it is likely that from most of the PRoW, only the roof of the proposed dwellings would be visible. However, from [site address] and entry at this point to the PRoW, the dwellings would be visible and prominent.

The extent of development proposed would result in some encroachment into the countryside and the part urbanisation of an undeveloped plot. However, the development would not dilute the nucleated settlement pattern of Childswickham which would remain surrounded by large arable fields. Overall, there would be minimal adverse effect on the [name].

During construction, a moderate, adverse visual effect would be experienced by users of the PRoW and those living and travelling along [site address] and [address]. This effect would however reduce after construction and again once the new planting becomes established.

Despite finding no harm in relation to the design and layout of the proposed development and given that its visual effect would be localised and generally mitigated by the proposed landscaping, boundary hedge and tree retention, the proposal would result in some harm to the landscape character of the area. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with [name] SWDP21 and SWDP25, which requires development to integrate effectively with its surroundings and the character of the landscape setting.

[name] SWDP28 and 29 require development proposals to adhere to the Council’s Strategic Flood Risk Assessment through a sequential and, where necessary, exception test and minimise flood risk through the management of surface water through a sustainable drainage system.

The Environment Agency (EA) flood map indicates that the site sits predominantly in [name] 1, with part of the southern section being in [name] 2 and 3. The flood map also indicates that [site address] sits within [name] 2 and the PRoW that runs alongside the Brook is within [name] 3. The EA flood map appears to show that [site address] is subject to flooding despite the road levels rising towards [address] away from the brook.

The Council refers to flood-based evidence accumulated following an ‘in excess of 1 in 200-year flood event’ in 2007 along with more recent photographic evidence from residents. This latter evidence was collated by Parish Councils who were asked to document the flood event of 2007, this was then reviewed by an independent drainage consultant. The Council’s Drainage Engineer confirms that it is this data that is used to advise on planning applications, regardless of any other data and this is not available to the public. Further photographic evidence, dated July 2019, is submitted by the Council. This illustrates water overflowing the banks of the brook onto [site address] at the entrance to the PRoW and extending a short distance up [site address] to the appeal site’s current entrance.

A site-specific flood risk assessment (FRA) was submitted with the application, and a further flood risk and drainage appeal statement, submitted by the appellant, is before me. The Council’s officer report acknowledges that the EA flood map (2025) has not been updated with specific site related data and therefore is not as up to date as the data within the submitted FRA. I also note that the EA had no comment to make on the application.

The application FRA identifies that the site is at a low to very low risk of flooding from all water sources and identifies that the adjacent flood node has a datum level of 53.79 [name] (AOD). As such, the FRA recommends a finished floor level for the development of 54.49 AOD. The flood risk and drainage statement submitted with the appeal asserts that the EA flood map is not accurate and that the flood extent, against actual modelled node data and ground levels, indicate that all of the site is within [name] 1 including the proposed access onto [site address] and from here up to [address].

The EA map for surface water indicates that neither the site nor [site address] is at risk. The site-specific modelling shows the northern section of [site address] to be in [name] 1 and whilst limited surface water may flow down [site address] , it would be unlikely to run off onto the development site.

The application FRA and the accompanying appeal FRA identify soakaways, as part of the proposed scheme’s drainage strategy, to be unsuitable due to poor infiltration rates. As such, a 1m deep attenuation basin in the southern section of the site is proposed, which is modelled as being suitable to attenuate the site’s surface water requirements and as such would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

Paragraph 175 of the Framework identifies that sequential tests are required in areas known to be at risk now or in the future from any form of flooding, except in situations where a site specific FRA demonstrates that “no built development within the site boundary, including access or escape routes, land raising or other potentially vulnerable elements, would be located on an area that would be at risk of flooding from any source, now and in the future”. The Planning Practice Guidance (7-[phone]) (PPG) identifies that a sequential test is not required where “the proposed layout, design and mitigation measures would ensure that occupiers and users would remain safe from current and future surface water flood risk elsewhere.”

The 2007 flood event data (which was an extreme event), has not been provided by the Council. There also appears to be no photographical evidence, anecdotal reports, or technical data to categorically confirm that the appeal site, or the section of [site address] that connects the site to [address], flooded during the 2007 event or any other subsequent exceptional event. [name] acknowledge that smaller flood events have occurred since, including that shown in the photographic evidence from 2019, no evidence is before me to illustrate that a safe access and egress cannot be obtained from the proposed access further to the north on [site address] nor that the site would be flooded from either fluvial or pluvial sources. I also note that a flood alleviation scheme undertaken in 2015 on [name] (further upstream) has prevented dwellings within the village from flooding, which is likely to have improved flood resilience when compared to 2007.

Consequently, for the reasons given above and based on the submitted site-specific FRA evidence before me, the proposed development would be in an appropriate location in relation to risk of flooding and a sequential test is not required. The proposal would therefore accord with [name] SWDP28 and 29, the requirements of which have been outlined above.

Development Plan Policy SWDP15 requires that on sites of 5 – 9 dwellings, 20% of units should be affordable and be provided on site. The proposed scheme includes 1, 2-bedroom discount market dwelling and an off-site affordable housing contribution of £38,391 (equivalent to the required 0.6 dwelling) towards the provision of affordable housing within Wychavon District. Despite being a signatory to the submitted Section 106 Agreement, the Council has not provided comment on whether the fourth reason for refusal has been addressed. I am however content that the dated and signed counterpart Section 106 Agreement includes an obligation which would secure the proposed affordable housing.

For the above reasons, the obligation in the submitted Section 106 Agreement is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and reasonable in scale and kind. This accords with the tests that are set out in paragraph 58 of the Framework and Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (as amended).

Therefore, the proposed scheme makes acceptable provision for affordable housing in accordance with DP Policy SWDP15.

The proposed development is subject to the statutory requirement for a 10% increase in biodiversity net gain (BNG). A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal report [name], and [name] (and associated documentation) has been submitted. Overall, the proposal would achieve a 68.62% gain for hedgerow units but result in a 66.78% loss for habitat area units.

It has been demonstrated that the mandatory 10% BNG cannot be delivered wholly on site but can be achieved by way of delivering on and off-site, through the purchase of the relevant number of habitat units from a habitat bank. The Appellant would need to discharge the BGP condition, through which off-site delivery would be evidenced and secured at that point in time. The final landscaping design, along with any off-site units, could be set out in the BGP and a habitat management and monitoring plan.

The completed Section 106 Agreement before me, alongside affordable housing, secures several BNG requirements including a monitoring fee to be paid before the 30-year maintenance period starts to run and the provision and maintenance of the onsite public open space.

The PPG is clear that planning permission cannot be withheld on the grounds that the biodiversity gain objective may not be met. Based on the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the development could achieve the required 10% BNG and that the BGP condition, required by paragraph 13 of Schedule 7A of the TCPA 1990, is capable of being successfully discharged through a combination of on-site and off-site units.

I acknowledge that there were several representations, including those by Childswickham Parish Council in respect of the proposal. In addition to the main issues, these included concerns relating to highway safety and road access, road adoption and increase in the number of vehicles using [site address] ; whether further housing is required and whether it meets the required mix; lack of infrastructure within the village to serve the residents and potential for archaeological remains on the site. These factors are not in dispute between the main parties and were addressed in the [name], with the Council concluding that there would be no material harm in these regards and did not form part of its reasons for refusing the proposal. I have also considered these matters, and am satisfied that, no substantiated evidence has been submitted that would lead me to a different view.

In terms of concerns raised regarding construction disruption, in relation to noise and disturbance, the works would be undertaken over a short period of time and would be temporary in nature. Any construction noise and disturbance would be modest only and could be adequately controlled through a construction management plan condition.

Based on the available information, I am satisfied that the development would not have any unacceptable effect on the safe and efficient operation of the local highway network. There is also no substantive evidence that the proposal would have an adverse impact on local infrastructure, such as foul water management, electricity and gas and other services in the area.

[name] have been referred to previous refusals for development at the appeal site, I have assessed the scheme before me on its merits having regard to the site-specific circumstances and other considerations. Also, and for this reason it is unlikely that my Decision would set a precedent.

Set against the harm identified, the proposal would deliver an additional 8 housing units toward the area’s housing supply.

In economic terms, the appeal scheme would provide construction jobs and some local investment during its build out, as well as longer term expenditure of future occupiers in the local economy and through council tax payments.

Whilst the development would require the removal of some hedgerow on site, additional landscaping would provide biodiversity enhancements and a 10% on and off site BNG can be achieved.

The number of dwellings proposed would ensure an appropriate density, comparable to that of adjacent dwellings. Also, this would allow for a spacious layout, considerate of and sympathetic to its edge of settlement setting.

The Council has a housing land supply position of 1.1 years. Therefore, there is a significant shortfall against the requirement to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing land, as set out at paragraph 78 of the Framework.

In this circumstance, paragraph 11 of the Framework is engaged, whereby planning permission should be granted unless (i) policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a strong reason for refusing the development, or (ii) any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, and having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination. There is nothing to suggest 11(d) (i) is relevant to this case, hence the balance in 11(d) (ii) applies.

The proposed development would be located on the edge of the village’s development boundary. The proposed development would not be isolated but would be in a location with limited opportunities for travel by public transport. Future occupiers would be likely to use a private car to access services located in larger and adjacent settlements. However, paragraph 110 of the Framework acknowledges that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. Also, paragraph 83 of the Framework recognises that where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. The proposal would therefore accord with paragraphs 84 and 110, and I afford only limited weight to the proposal’s conflict with Policies SWDP2 and SWDP4 of the DP.

I have found that the proposed development would harm the landscape character of the area and this also conflicts with the development plan and similar aims of the Framework. However, the proposed scheme has been designed to reflect existing nearby development and any visual impact associated with this would be localised and mitigated by the proposed landscaping and adjacent development. As such, the harm to the character and appearance of the area would be limited. Overall, I attach limited weight to the above harm and development plan conflict.

In addition to those key policies, paragraph 73 of the Framework recognises that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement of an area. The proposal would provide 8 additional dwellings, thus making an important contribution toward the area’s housing requirement. Considering the magnitude of shortfall in the area’s housing supply, the provision of 8 dwellings would make a valuable contribution, and I afford significant weight to this provision. I also afford modest favourable weight to the scheme’s economic and environmental benefits.

Consequently, the adverse impacts of the proposal associated with its location outside the development boundary, landscape setting, and conflict with Policies SWDP2, SWDP4 and SWDP25 of the DP, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies which is a material consideration that weighs heavily in favour of allowing the appeal.

The Framework states that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise, and reasonable in all other aspects. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council against the Framework and where necessary I have amended the wording in the interests of clarity and enforceability.

To ensure certainty and clarity, I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development [1] and approved plans [2]. I have also imposed conditions relating to surface water drainage details [3] to ensure that the site is adequately and appropriately drained, and construction traffic management [4] to ensure that construction of the development has minimal impact on the surrounding occupiers and road users.

Due to the adjacent local wildlife site and the need to secure BNG, it is necessary to impose conditions relating to a construction environmental management plan [5], an ecological mitigation and enhancement scheme [6], and a [name] and Monitoring Plan [7] to protect and enhance biodiversity.

Whilst not being within the suggested conditions offered by the Council, the consultation responses indicated that the site may be of archaeological interest and a condition to secure a written scheme of investigation was sought. I have therefore imposed this condition as it is necessary to record any archaeological interests of the site [8]. In order to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, it is also necessary to restrict construction working times [9].

I have also imposed a condition requiring details of the materials to be used to ensure that the materials used are appropriate for the site and surrounding area [10]. A condition requiring details of any external lighting is necessary to safeguard the appearance and ecology of the site and area [11].

It is reasonable to impose conditions to secure water efficiency measures to promote sustainable forms of development [12] and a proportion of energy sources from renewable and/or low carbon measures [13].

A condition for the provision of the proposed access, parking and turning areas, the provision and retention of required visibility splays and provision and retention of an access that is appropriately surfaced is necessary to ensure that the development does not prejudice highway safety [14]. Conditions requiring the construction of highway improvement works [15] and the provision of a residential travel welcome pack are considered necessary to provide improved pedestrian accessibility and promote sustainable transport [16].

In the interests of ensuring a high-quality development that safeguards the character and appearance of the area, I have imposed suggested conditions requiring details of proposed boundary treatments [17], landscaping [18], and landscape maintenance [19].

To ensure the proposal incorporates satisfactory broadband facilities, I have specified a condition requiring this or alternative solutions to serve the approved dwellings [20].

The Council suggested several conditions that I have not imposed as they are not necessary and do not meet the required tests. The condition requiring a percolation test in relation to surface water drainage options has already been addressed as soakaways have been identified as being unsuitable due to ground conditions and an attenuation basin is therefore proposed. A condition requiring a conservation covenant or Section 106 agreement to provide and control the long-term management, monitoring, and enhancement of biodiversity at the off-site habitat is already addressed and secured within the sealed Section 106 Agreement. Details of cycle storage was also suggested however the dwellings would have sufficient garden space in which to provide secure and covered bicycle storage if required and details are not therefore required. A condition requiring implementation of the HMMP and the BGP would be a duplication of the requirements of the BGP and the condition securing a HMMP.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, but material considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers 22419-01 Location Plan, 22419-03 [name], 22419-04 [name] 1 Floorplan, 22419-05 [name] 1 Elevations, 22419-06 [name] 5 Floorplan, 22419-07 [name] 5 Elevations, 22419-08 [name] 4 and 8 Floorplan, 22419-09 [name] 4 and 8 Elevations, 22419-10 [name] 2 and 6 Plans and Elevations, 22419-11 [name] 3 and 7 Plans and Elevations and 22419-12 [name] and Proposed street scene.

No development shall take place until details of the design, implementation, maintenance, and management of sustainable urban drainage/surface water drainage works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The submitted details shall: a) 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. b) include a timetable for its implementation; and c) 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, and the drainage maintained/managed, in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall take place until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include but not be limited to: a) Measures to ensure that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other detritus on the public highway. b) Details of site operative parking areas, material storage areas, and the location of site operatives’ facilities (offices, toilets etc). c) The hours that delivery vehicles will be permitted to arrive and depart, and arrangements for unloading and manoeuvring. d) Temporary traffic management arrangements. e) Mitigation for impacts on residents, businesses, and public transport services. The measures set out in the approved Plan shall be carried out and complied with in full during the construction of the development hereby approved. Site operatives' parking, material storage, and the positioning of operatives' facilities shall only take place on the site in locations approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a construction environment management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall include the following: a) implementation of strict protection measures for the root protection areas of retained trees and hedgerows, in accordance with BS5837:2012. b) standard best practice construction phase pollution prevention and control measures. c) sensitive working methods and timing to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds. d) sensitive working methods to allow for the escape of trapped animals. The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until an ecological mitigation and enhancement scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be based on the recommendations contained within the [name] report by All Ecology Ltd dated June 2025 and shall include an implementation timetable. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and timetable.

No development shall take place until a [name] and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP), has been prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan, the approved landscape scheme and BNG assessments and calculations, submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. It shall include: a) a non-technical summary. b) the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP. c) the planned habitat creation and enhancement work to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan. d) the management measures to maintain habitat in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan for a period of 30 years from the completion of development; and e) the monitoring methodology and frequency in respect of the created or enhanced habitat to be submitted to the local planning authority. Notice in writing shall be given to the Council when the habitat creation and enhancement work as set out in the HMMP have been completed. The created and enhanced habitat specified in the approved HMMP shall thereafter be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the local planning authority in writing in accordance with the methodology and frequency specified in the approved HMMP. The plan shall also set out where the results of the monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the HMMP are not being met, how contingencies and/or remedial action are identified, agreed, and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme.

No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work, including a [name] of Investigation, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions and: a) The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording. b) The programme for post investigation assessment. c) Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording. d) Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation. e) Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation. f) Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the [name] of Investigation. The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the approved [name] of Investigation approved and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured in writing by the local planning authority.

Demolition, clearance or construction work and deliveries to and from the site in connection with the development hereby approved shall only take place between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00hrs Monday to Friday and 08.00 and 13.00hrs on a Saturday. There shall be no demolition, clearance or construction work or deliveries to and from the site on Sundays, Public or [name].

No development above floor slab level shall take place until details of the wall and roof materials, to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained.

No dwelling above floor slab level shall take place until a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall include the following: a) Identification of the areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places, or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging and commuting; and b) Show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent bats using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority.

No dwelling above floor slab level shall take place until details of water efficiency measures to demonstrate that the daily non-recycled water use per person will not exceed 110 litres per day have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

No dwelling above floor slab level shall take place until details of renewable or low carbon energy generating facilities to be incorporated as part of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall demonstrate that at least 10% of the predicted energy requirements of the development will be met through the use of renewable/low carbon energy generating facilities. The approved facilities shall be provided prior to any part of the development hereby permitted being first occupied or in accordance with a timetable submitted to and approved by the local planning authority as part of the details required by this condition.

No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until: a) the access, parking and turning facilities have been provided as shown on Drawing 22419-03 [name]. The parking area for each dwelling shall provide parking for two cars at a gradient not exceeding 1 in 8. This area shall thereafter be retained for the purpose of parking a vehicle only. b) the visibility splays shown on Drawing C24232-ATP-DR-TP-003 have been provided. The splays shall at all times be maintained free of level obstruction exceeding a height of 0.6m above adjacent carriageway. c) the first 5 metres of the access into the development, measured from the edge of the carriageway, has been surfaced in a bound material, the details of which shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The access road shall be surfaced in accordance with the approved details and thereafter maintained.

No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until the highway improvement works have been constructed and completed to the satisfaction of the local planning authority in consultation with the Highways Authority. The highway improvement works comprise: a) The additional footway south of the access onto [site address] and the additional footway north of the access onto [site address] , in addition to the extension of the existing footway on the southbound side of [site address] as shown on Drawing 22419-03 [name]; and b) The dropped kerb pedestrian crossing, to include tactile paving, as shown on Drawing C24232-ATP-DR-TP-003.

No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until a residential [name] promoting sustainable forms of access to the development has submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority The pack shall be provided to each resident at the point of occupation.

No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until details of boundary treatment including a plan indicating the positions, design, materials, and type to be erected and a timetable for its implementation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Details shall include mammal gates/gaps to ensure permeability for small mammals. The approved boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved details and retained in that form thereafter.

No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until a scheme of landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The landscaping scheme shall include: a) a plan(s) showing details of all existing trees and hedges on the application site. The plan should include, for each tree/hedge, the accurate position, canopy spread and species, together with an indication of any proposals for felling/pruning and any proposed changes in ground level, or other works to be carried out, within the canopy spread. b) a plan(s) showing the layout of proposed tree, hedge and shrub planting and grass areas in relation to Public Rights of Way. c) a schedule of proposed planting - indicating species, sizes at time of planting and numbers/densities of plants. d) a written specification outlining cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment. e) a schedule of maintenance, including watering and the control of competitive weed growth, for a minimum period of five years from first planting. All planting and seeding/turfing shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting and seeding/turfing seasons following the first use of the development, whichever is the sooner. The planting shall be maintained in accordance with the approved schedule of maintenance. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until a schedule of landscape maintenance in perpetuity has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The schedule shall include details of the arrangements for its implementation, long-term design objectives, management responsibilities, and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas (excluding domestic gardens). The approved landscape maintenance schedule shall be fully implemented.

No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until details of superfast broadband facilities shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.