Appeal 6003077

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the extension of Brockeridge Business Park to provide for up to 33,329 sqm of B8 employment use classes, together with associated landscaping, drainage, infrastructure and highways at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application (Ref: 21/01498/OUT) and subject to the conditions set out in the schedule at the end of this decision.

The Inquiry sat on consecutive days between 12 and 13 of May 2026. An unaccompanied site visit was carried out on the 11 May 2026 and an accompanied site visit was carried out on the 13 May 2026.

The application was for outline approval with all matters reserved apart from access. This is the basis upon which I have determined this appeal.

The proposal was amended after the application was determined, as reflected in the parameter plan (Ref: 1997 1009 [name]). The appeal process should not normally be used to evolve a scheme. However, as this did not lead to an increase in the overall scope of the development and simply fixed its extent, I am satisfied that it does not fundamentally alter the scheme and that no interested party would be prejudiced. Consequently, the appeal has been determined on the basis of the amended and existing plans.

The application was refused by the Council’s Planning Committee, against Officer advice, for seven reasons. Five arose due to the submission of insufficient information. This was rectified during the appeal process with only the first two reasons remaining in dispute when the Council submitted its Statement of Case. Subsequent to the submission of proofs and rebuttals, the Council indicated that it no longer wished to defend its position and formally withdrew the entirety of its written evidence when the Inquiry opened.

The Inquiry nevertheless heard from the appellant’s witnesses on matters relating to economic benefits, market needs, landscape and planning, as agreed at the [name] that was held on the 20 March 2026. Following my own questions, an opportunity was given to interested parties to ask questions of these witnesses.

[name] made an oral statement in which he also represented the views of Twyning Parish Council. I also have the benefit of written submissions from [name] and the Parish Council as well as from three other objectors, in addition to the representations that were made at the application stage that I have also taken into account.

[name] confirmed that neither he nor Twyning Parish Council disputed any of the technical evidence that the appellant submitted. I also note that there are no alternative technical assessments nor any outstanding objections from consultees on any technical matters.

Completed planning obligations, made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the s106s) were submitted by the appellant after the close of the Inquiry. These were discussed during the course of the Inquiry and subsequently revised and finalised, along with a set of agreed conditions.

Taking into account the additional information that was submitted, I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and whether the site is appropriate for development, having regard to local and national planning policies that seek to manage the location of new development.

The appeal site (the Site) covers an area of approximately 12 ha directly northeast of Brockeridge Business Park (BBP). It is situated in close proximity to Junction 1 of the M50 Motorway. Twyning Village (the Village) is the nearest settlement and is located approximately 600 m to the south east, with access to BBP and the Site situated on one of the main routes into the Village. The nearest large settlement is the market town of Tewksbury which is located approximately 4 km to the south east.

The Site comprises four intensively managed agricultural fields and two agricultural barns associated with [address] which is located on the southern boundary of the Site. It is bounded to the north, west and southeast by mature hedgerows and contains two existing attenuation ponds. The southern and southwestern boundaries comprise a mix of trees and hedgerows abutting the BBP. The M50 Motorway runs along the northern boundary of the Site. Its eastern boundary comprises trees and a farm track that extends north and joins a bridleway (ATW11). The bridleway links the hamlet of [name] to the east and the wider countryside to the north via a footbridge which crosses the M50 Motorway. The bridleway also connects Footpath ATW50, to the northeast of the Site, with [address].

Approximately 1.6 ha of the Site is situated within the existing [address] Rural Business Centre which is designated under Policy EMP2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan 2011-2031 (2022) (the LP). The remainder of the Site, which covers an area of approximately 10.1 ha, is located outside of this designation and is consequently in the open countryside.

The proposal is accompanied by an illustrative masterplan which shows an indicative layout of buildings, parking, service yards, spine road, landscaping and sustainable drainage. This indicates eight, two-storey B8 use buildings of varying sizes, measuring between approximately 1,[address] meters and 5,[address] meters. The units would have varying heights, up to a maximum roof height of 15 m to the ridge from existing ground levels.

The proposed car parking and cycle storage provision would be based on a calculation of approximately one car parking space per 100 m2 of gross floor area and a minimum of one cycle parking space per 500 m2. On this basis, the proposed parking would comprise 341 vehicle parking spaces, based on up to 500 employees working a shift pattern1.

The main access from the public highway for all vehicles, including HGVs, would be from [site address] via a simple priority junction. This would utilise an existing road constructed under previous phases of the BBP development. A number of improvements have been approved that would be in place prior to first occupation of the proposed scheme, as summarised in drawing HTp/1909/10/D2. The scheme would also deliver further improvements to this access in the form of a new cattle grid, improved visibility splays, a landscaped strip, a 2-metre footway and dropped kerbs with tactile paving.

Various offsite works are also proposed. These would comprise a widening of the slip road onto the M50/A38 interchange and the extension of a 2 m footway onto [site address] . The footway would enable access across the cattle grid via a new bridle gate with a surfaced width of 3 m either side of the gate for a length of 5 m. The existing cattle grid would be extended either side of [site address] to a width of approximately 8 m, in line with the proposed road widening.

Additional works are also proposed to improve the footpath linkage between the Site and the Village. This would comprise works to approximately 300 m of Footpath ATW50 beginning at the [name] farm access point and running south to [address] which would link the proposed development to Twyning via Bridleway ATW11. These works would include a drained, permeable surface of hoggin and binding gravel, two additional gates and wayfinding signage. 1 Paragraph 8.69, CD 3.2 2 CD 2.19

The Site is currently a working farm, comprising a number of fields in arable and pastoral use with ponds, vegetation, agricultural barns and metal containers alongside accumulated debris from farmyard and other operations. It is enclosed and bounded by a mix of native hedgerows and fences, including post and rail fencing associated with the M50 corridor, immediately to the north.

The Site is situated in an undesignated landscape. It is not considered to be in a valued landscape in the context of paragraph 187 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework). It sits within the [name] and [name] (the LCT)3. At the local scale, the Site is within the Twyning Hills Landscape Character Area (the LCA).

The LCT and LCA are described as comprising “a series of low, gently undulating hills with occasional steeper slopes. Although only reaching heights in the order of 50 m AOD, the sense of an elevated landform appears more pronounced as a result of the adjacent low lying [name] which surround the Hills. From more elevated and open locations on the Hillock, the [name], Cotswolds and Forest of Dean form a distinctive backdrop to longer distance views across the vale and floodplain farmland”.

It goes on to identify “a distinctive pattern, with open commons, frequently invaded by scrub and regenerating species, contrasting with surrounding semi-improved pastures and scattered arable fields, enclosed by gappy hedgerows and post and wire and post and rail fencing”. A number of key characteristics are identified, the most relevant of which being its low hilly terrain and notable areas of commons on acid sandy soils with distinctive vegetation.

I observed that whilst the Site has a predominantly rural character, it is nevertheless influenced by the close proximity of the motorway. This is not only in relation to associated noise and movement but also the extent of the highly engineered infrastructure associated with the nearby junction which includes a floodlit, highways depot. The wider context of the Site is also influenced by the adjacent development of the BBP, although this is moderated by its small scale and mature planting. Whilst the Site is not tranquil, it is clearly read as a rural land parcel in all other respects.

The appellant accepts that the proposal would have an adverse effect on character and appearance. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) found that there would be an overall moderate adverse effect on landscape character due to the loss of open fields and alteration of the rural characteristics of the existing baseline4. I accept that this is moderated by the wider context of the Site and the similarities with clusters of large farm buildings that can be seen along the M50 corridor, albeit at a smaller scale and not in 24-hour use. I see no reason to come to a different conclusion after having visited the Site and in the absence of any alternative technical assessments to the contrary.

Turning to the visual effects, the appellant submitted further evidence comprising revised visual representations of key viewpoints as well as a more detailed 3 The Gloucestershire Landscape Character Assessment (2006), CD 4.25 4 Paragraph 8.6, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2021), CD 1.10 viewshed analysis5. This visibility mapping shows that the visual effects would be mostly localised as a result of landform and existing tree cover despite the Site being at a higher elevation compared to the Severn and Avon river valleys. Although a total of 13 viewpoints were considered in the LVIA, the Council agreed that only four of these should be considered in more detail through the use of accurate visual representations (AVRs). This was because the other viewpoints would only experience a minor or negligible residual visual effect and did not warrant any further illustration. Bearing in mind the visibility mapping and the absence of evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to disagree with this approach.

The selected viewpoints are from the public bridleway adjacent to the eastern site boundary (Viewpoint 3), the public footpath within [address] to the south (Viewpoint 4), the public bridleway on the bridge over the M50 Motorway to the northeast (Viewpoint 7) and the public footpath to the north of the Site, at the edge of the common land (Viewpoint 8). The main visual impact receptors being users of these Public Rights of Way (PRoW) and the motorway. The appellant suggests that they are consistent with the residual adverse effects identified in the LVIA and concludes the following impacts after 15 years6: Viewpoint 3: Following the implementation of the mitigation planting, which would include the gapping up of the boundary hedgerows and the strengthening of the boundary vegetation, with mixed native hedgerow, scrub and tree planting, there would be a major/moderate residual visual impact from this location. Viewpoint 4: This shows the majority of the development would be beyond [address] and its grounds with only small glimpses through gaps in the existing vegetation. During the summer months this would be further reduced when vegetation is in leaf. Following the implementation of the mitigation planting, including the strengthening of the northern site boundary vegetation, with mixed native hedgerow, scrub and tree planting, there would be a minor residual visual impact from this location. Viewpoint 7: This viewpoint has a similar aspect to the views from the motorway although screening would have a greater effect on views from the motorway than from this elevated location where the proposed development would be more visible. Following the implementation of the mitigation planting, including the proposed vegetation along the northern boundary, with mixed native hedgerow, scrub and tree planting, there would be a moderate residual visual impact from this location. Viewpoint 8: Following the implementation of the mitigation planting, including the proposed vegetation along the northern boundary, with mixed native hedgerow, scrub and tree planting, there would be a moderate residual visual impact from this location. The appellant points out that the land falls away further north of this location and that the combination of the topography and hedgerows would result in a negligible residual visual impact from the main part of the common. 5 [name] to Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2023), CD 2.9 and Appendix LP1: Zone of [name] (2026), CD 11.4 6 [name] to Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (2023), CD 2.9

Although landscaping and layout are reserved matters, the scale of the proposal would be controlled by the parameter plan. I see no reason why the Council would not seek to minimise the residual impacts of the scheme and I am satisfied that this could be accommodated given the indicative landscape masterplan that has been produced7. Although the AVRs for some of the illustrative units were based on lower heights, the appellant’s expert witness confirmed that this would not make any material difference to the perceived effects from key viewpoints nor does it change the conclusions of the LIVA, as shown in the revised illustrative cross sections that were submitted8.

It is clear that there would be harm to landscape character as well as the visual characteristics of the Site. Whilst the appellant inevitably sought to downplay these effects, I find them notable, particularly during the winter months and from the elevated, mounted position of a horse rider. This would be especially so along the eastern boundary of the Site as well as from the motorway bridge where there would be an ongoing urbanisation and permanent loss of rural character.

Given the above, I find that the proposal would conflict with Policy SD6 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] 2011-2031 (2017) (the JCS) that seeks to ensure that landscape character is protected and that detrimental effects are avoided. Additionally, it would conflict with Policies EMP2 and LAN2 of the LP that seek to encourage the small-scale expansion of Rural Business Centres and ensure that development integrates into its landscape setting. It would also conflict with Policy E1 of the Twyning Neighbourhood Plan (2018) (the NP) that seeks, among other things, to ensure that adverse landscape impacts are avoided and that employment development is appropriate in scale to the locality.

Policy SP1 of the JCS sets out the overall strategy concerning the amount of development required whilst Policy SP2 sets out the distribution of that development. These two policies, combined with Policy SD1 on economy, provide the spatial strategy for the development plan.

Policy SP1 states that a minimum of 192 ha of B-class employment land is needed to support approximately 39,500 new jobs across the plan area. It goes on to state that this should be delivered by development within existing urban areas through District Plans, existing commitments, urban extensions to Cheltenham and Gloucester as well as the provision of [name] at Ashchurch. This strategy aims to locate jobs near to the economically active population, increase sustainability and reduce out-commuting thereby reducing carbon emissions from unsustainable car use.

Policy SP2 states that in order to support economic growth, the JCS will make provision for B-class employment land and mirrors Policy SP1 in this respect. It goes on to state that at least 84 ha of B-Class employment land will be delivered on [name] sites, as detailed at Policy SA1, with any further capacity to be identified in District Plans. This capacity is identified in Policy EMP2 of the LP which relates to Rural Business Centres, as defined on the [name]. 7 CD 2.16 8 ID7

Policy EMP2 states that the Borough Council will support proposals for employment development specified in Policy EMP1 which identifies offices, research and development, light industrial, general industrial, storage and distribution development as priorities. It goes on to state that new development proposals at Rural Business Centres, including redevelopment, intensification and extensions, will be supported providing that they are of an appropriate scale and design having regard to the character of existing buildings on a site and the rural landscape of the area. Proposals for the proportionate, small-scale expansion of Rural Business Centres may be considered where they satisfy the criteria of Policy EMP5.

The reasoned justification for Policy EMP2 states that the Borough’s Rural Business Centres are generally located within the countryside or adjacent to rural settlements and are characterised by the fact that they comprise a range of smaller-scale business units. These centres make an important contribution to the economy of Tewkesbury Borough and therefore their retention and growth will be supported. However, their rural location means that generally they will only be suitable for smaller-scale development that must not detract from the rural character of the surrounding area.

I accept the appellant’s contention that whilst the JCS employment land strategy is urban focussed, it is not “hard edged” in a way that means that employment development in other locations would be contrary to the JCS. In other words, it is a permissive policy. Indeed, it encourages further allocation through the District Plans which brings me to Policy EMP2. As only around 14% of the Site is within the BBP Rural Business Centre allocation it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be viewed as being fully compliant with this policy insofar as its locational requirements are concerned.

However, neither the LP nor JCS reflect the requirements of national policy and the needs of a modern economy when it comes to logistics provision. The JCS was adopted in December 2017 and was prepared to reflect the 2012 version of the Framework. The current version places a much greater emphasis on the specific tools, levers and policies which need to be applied to deliver a step-change in economic activity.

More specifically, paragraph 86(c) states that planning policies should pay particular regard to facilitating development to meet the needs of a modern economy, including by identifying suitable locations for uses, including freight and logistics. Paragraph 87(b) indicates that planning policies should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors and should make provision for storage and distribution operations at a variety of scales and in suitably accessible locations that allow for the efficient and reliable handling of goods.

The JCS employment strategy is based on an assumption that there would be minimal growth in warehousing (B8) sector jobs9. As a consequence, it fails to identify any sites or locations that would be suitable for logistics operations. There is also no target for B8 floorspace, just an overall target for general employment land. This strategy also underpins the approach in the LP which also fails to allocate any B8 sites and does not identify any locations at which storage and distribution uses could take place at a variety of scales. 9 Paragraph 4.1.15, CD 4.1

Undisputed evidence suggests that there is a significant unmet need for logistics and employment floorspace in the plan area. This is against a backdrop of a failure to deliver any employment land as part of the [name] set out in Policy SA1 of the JCS. Evidence suggests that the local market suffers from limited supply and that there is a more widespread issue of suppressed demand, particularly for buildings up to around 10,000 m2. Furthermore, consideration of the average annual delivery rate of employment land in the JCS area suggests the shortfall could be as high as 136 ha by the end of the plan period10. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to doubt that there is a significant unmet need as a result of underperformance.

Given the above, I find that whilst the proposal would conflict with Policy EMP2 of the LP, this caries limited weight due to the fact that this policy is out-of-date as a result of changes to the Framework and because it has been overtaken by events on the ground.

A number of additional concerns were raised by interested parties relating to agricultural land, foul drainage, flood risk, highways, ecology, heritage, lighting, air quality and noise. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that conditions can enable development proposals to proceed where it would otherwise have been necessary to refuse planning permission, by mitigating the adverse effects of a development. Most of the issues raised are subject to conditions that were discussed during the course of the Inquiry and I note that no concerns regarding their effectiveness was raised by interested parties.

The loss of highly graded agricultural land is highlighted. The Framework only requires planning decisions to recognise the economic and other benefits that arise from the best and most versatile agricultural land. The Council did not find any land on the Site to be Grade 3b or above11. Whilst agricultural land contributes to the rural economy, its loss only carries limited weight in the planning balance which is especially so given the limited size of the Site.

It is suggested that the sewage system serving Twyning is beyond capacity. However, on the 9 March 2026, [name] (STW) confirmed it had indicative dates regarding planned improvement works which are scheduled to commence in January 2027, with a target completion date by the end of that year12. STW confirmed there is a ‘right to connect’ and that the improvement scheme would take account of the foul water flows from the proposed development. Consequently, there is no outstanding issue regarding foul drainage capacity.

Concerns were raised over potential flooding in the Village as a result of surface water run-off. There was also some discussion during the Inquiry of whether the 10 Paragraphs 5.2-5.5, CD 7.4 11 Paragraph 8.35, CD 3.2 12 Paragraph 3.15, CD 7.9 planned footpath improvements might contribute to flooding given a low laying area of ridge and furrow pasture that it traverses.

I note that the proposal is accompanied by a flood risk assessment that considered the risks of all types of flooding and provides mitigation measures to ensure that the flood risk to the Site is minimised and that off-site flood risk is not increased13. This assessment is not disputed nor is there any technical evidence to the contrary. Consequently, I have no reason to doubt its conclusions.

The mitigation measures include a drainage strategy that would ensure any runoff is restricted to the required rate of discharge with suitable storage volume provision. This ensures there would be no increase in flood risk to neighbouring land. Among other things, this would create a surface water connection to an existing culvert to [name] beneath the M50 Motorway and ensure access roads are drained via highway gullies to a roadside swale with the majority of the highway catchment directed to the proposed attenuation basin.

Turning to the footpath upgrade, the Council indicated that the surface would be permeable and that associated drainage would not increase flood risk to nearby properties in response to one of my questions. As these improvements, as well as the drainage scheme, would either be secured through condition or a s106 I find that there is no substantiated basis to assume that the scheme would lead to increased flooding.

A number of representations were made regarding highway impacts which broadly covered safety concerns relating to increased HGV movements, congestion on the local road network, the car usage of future occupants and the suitability of walking routes into the Village. Paragraph 116 of the Framework states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.

Neither Gloucestershire County Council Highway Authority (the HA) nor National Highways have any outstanding objection to the scheme. The HA originally objected only on the basis that the Site lacks a safe and suitable connection for people who may choose to walk, wheel or cycle between the Site and the Village. Insufficient information on this matter led to the third reason for refusal whilst the sixth reason for refusal related to a failure to demonstrate how vehicle movements would be reduced and sustainable journeys promoted.

These matters have since been resolved through planned improvements to pedestrian access to the Village and the s106 requirement for an agreed Travel Plan. Specifically, a link would be provided from the Site to Bridleway ATW11 and surfacing upgrade works would be carried out to approximately 300 m of Footpath ATW50, between [name] farm access and [address], as already noted. This would provide a safe and accessible pedestrian link from the Site, via Bridleway ATW11, to Twyning. The Travel Plan would also include a comprehensive and managed car sharing scheme, to reduce use of single occupancy private vehicles, as well as routing information for all commercial traffic to ensure that it avoids the Village. 13 CD 2.2

Turning to matters of safety, I note that the proposal has been subject to an independent road safety audit which concluded that the route is acceptably safe to walk or cycle during daylight. This was based on the light traffic movements that were observed, relatively low vehicle speeds, good forward visibility and a good safety record over the last 25 years14. Added to this are the footpath improvements which would provide an alternative pedestrian route to the Village as well as the upgrade to the cattle grid which would ensure a safer egress. I find the extent to which staff might need to access facilities in the Village equivocal given that there are expected to be food trucks on site given the scale of development.

The potential for road safety impacts to arise from increased HGV movement on [site address] would also be limited given that they would only travel on it for around 120 m before moving onto the M50 junction. I do not find that there is any plausible basis to assume that any HGVs would travel in the opposite direction. Even if this were the case, routing would be controlled by the Travel Plan and by

Turning to potential congestion, the undisputed Transport Assessment15, which was based on surveyed traffic movements, showed that there would be around 12 vehicles per hour in the AM peak travelling south on [site address] and just 1 in the PM peak16. Moreover, 2011 census data suggests that around 21% of staff trips may be via [address] with the remaining trips being via the A38/M50 interchange. This would result in up to one vehicle movement every three minutes, with much fewer at other times17.

Given the above, I do not find that the proposal would lead to anything approaching a severe road network impact. Nor do I find that there would be any significant road safety issues.

The potential loss of important habitats and species is highlighted. I note that the proposal is supported by a full suite of ecological surveys undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist in line with best practice guidelines. The Council agrees that they are robust and I have no reason to doubt this after having considered them afresh. The proposal would also deliver around 3.5% [name] (BNG) despite only needing to simply demonstrate a positive gain. I see no reason why conditions would not be capable of mitigating potential impacts.

The effect of the proposal on the setting of listed buildings is raised. I have had special regard to s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) in this respect. I note that the nearest listed building is [name] and that this is located 150 m from the Site. As the building is physically and visually separated from the Site, by virtue of the permitted extent of the BBP, I am satisfied that its setting, as it contributes to its special interest, would be preserved. I also note that a condition is proposed requiring any Reserved Matters within the vicinity of [name] to be 14 Paragraph 3.7, CD 2.17 15 CD 1.12 16 Paragraph 6.14, CD 7.7 17 Paragraph 6.15, CD 7.7 supported by a Heritage Statement. I therefore find that the requirements of the Act would be satisfied.

It is suggested that lighting would adversely affect the surrounding landscape. I note that no concerns regarding lighting were raised by statutory consultees at the application stage and that the landscape evidence found that the Site does not possess any dark skies qualities. Lighting would also be controlled as a reserved matter through a condition that would require approval. This would ensure that the Site is appropriately lit and does not impact the surrounding landscape.

Concerns relating to air pollution from HGVs and noise are also raised. As with lighting, there was no objection regarding air quality impacts from the Council’s Environmental Health Officer. I also note that the Council did not require an Air Quality Assessment as part of the application and I have no substantiated evidence before me to suggest that the development would lead to changes to air quality capable of affecting human health or the environment. I also note that a noise assessment was submitted as part of the application which was found to be satisfactory18. This predicts a low to negligible impact at the nearest noise sensitive receptors when assessed against the relevant [name].

Given the above and considering all other matters raised, I do not find that any warrant refusal of the scheme and they are therefore not determinative in the decision I have reached.

The appellant maintains that paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged because the most important policies for determining the appeal are “out of date”. Although the appellant has identified a number of policies that are “most pertinent”19, there is an important distinction to be made between a policy being relevant (or pertinent) and a policy being “most important” in the context of the Framework.

In this respect the most important policies are the ones that help to answer the question of whether the location is acceptable in terms of the overall spatial strategy as well as the effects of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. In response to one of my questions, the appellant’s planning witness identified SA1, SP1, SP2, SD1 of the JCA and Policies EMP2, EMP4 and EMP5 of the LP as being the most important. Added to this is Policy SD6 of the JCS, LAN2 of the LP and E1 of the NP bearing in mind the conflict I have found.

The Courts20 have established that such a proposition must be tested. Firstly, by identifying the most important policies and asking if each one is out of date and secondly, by then stepping back and asking if the whole basket is out of date. The appellant suggests that the policies that the witness identified are out of date for two main reasons. 18 CD 2.3 19 Paragraph 7.10, CD 11.1 20 [name] v SSHCLG [2021] [name] 15, approving Wavendon Properties Ltd v SSHCLG and Milton Keynes Council [2019] EWHC 1524 (Admin)

Firstly, because the employment strategy in the JCS and the LP does not reflect important principles and policies in the Framework with respect to logistics operations. The appellant notes there has been a failure to carry out mandatory reviews of both plans in order to reflect the changing circumstances affecting the area and relevant changes in national policy, as required by paragraph 34 of the Framework.

Secondly, because there is a significant unmet need for logistics and employment floorspace in the JCS and LP areas. The appellant highlights the fact that there has been a “dire shortfall” in the delivery of employment land and that the approach fails to reflect the significant changes in the logistics sector that resulted from the Covid-19 pandemic and Brexit.

Strategic policy SA1 of the JCS requires new development to be provided within [name] in order to deliver the scale and distribution of development set out in Policies SP1 and SP2. I find these inconsistent with the Framework because they adopt a more restrictive approach to employment land which fails to identify locations for freight and logistics as well as suitable locations for storage and distribution at a variety of scales.

Turning to the LP policies, these are tainted by the restrictive policies of the JCS and are similarly inconsistent. I also find E1 to be inconsistent because it seeks to prohibit large scale development. [name] do not find any inconsistency with SD6 or LAN2, I find the weight of inconsistency and proportional importance of the other policies is such that the basket, as a whole, is out of date and that the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.

Paragraph 11(d)(ii), indicates that permission should be granted unless 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. The appellant has identified a number of benefits that do not carry the same material weight in this balance. I shall consider these and group them accordingly.

The first group relates to benefits that are either to be expected from any development of the Site, simply serve the development itself or are a requirement of policy. As such, they are either an inevitable consequence of development or of negligible wider benefit and only attract limited weight: • Contribution to business rates. Although this would amount to approximately £0.9 - 1.1 million per annum for Tewkesbury Borough Council21 it is no more than required to support local services from which the proposed development would benefit. • Local highway and footpath improvements. This would be no more than is expected to mitigate the impacts of the scheme and ensure a policy compliant choice of alternative transport modes.

The next group is one to which moderate weight can be attached because wider benefits would accrue beyond what would be normally be expected: • Delivery of 3.5% BNG. There is no requirement to deliver 10% BNG because the application was submitted prior to the mandatory requirement. 21 Paragraph 4.3, CD 7.11 As such, all the proposal needs to do, in order to be policy compliant, is to demonstrate a net gain. Consequently, this goes beyond what is strictly required.

The final group to which substantial weight can be attached comprise benefits that would make a significant contribution to the local area: • Meeting the unmet needs of the distribution and logistics sector through the delivery of B8 employment land. The scheme would deliver 11.7 ha (9%) of the projected 136 ha shortfall in employment land delivery for the JCS plan period and make a significant contribution to a chronically underperforming development plan22. • New employment opportunities, including indirect and supply chain employment, through both construction and operational phases. It is estimated that the proposal would lead to the creation of 460-500 FTE direct jobs onsite during the operation phase as well as 480-530 FTE net additional jobs23. • Significant indirect economic benefits to the local economy. This would include £27-30 million of [name] (GVA) per annum, supporting £16-20 million in annual wages and salaries from operational employment. £70 million construction investment would occur during the construction phase supporting 420 person years of construction employment, generating £20 million in wages and £29 million in GVA24.

Turning to the development plan conflicts in respect to Policy SD6 of the JCS, EMP2 and LAN2 of the LP and E1 of the NP, I do not find that the lack of compliance and associated harm outweighs the benefits of this scheme. I therefore find that the adverse impacts of allowing the proposed development, which includes the loss of agricultural land, would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits that would accrue.

I have considered both the wording and grounds for the conditions suggested by the Council in accordance with the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework. Subject to the amendments that were considered in the round table discussions, I am satisfied that all but two meet the necessary requirements. Furthermore, all pre-commencement conditions have been accepted by the appellant in writing via the closing statement and are consequently compliant with the necessary legislation.

Condition [28] seeks to secure a 3.5% BNG. Although discussed, the final version was contradictory in that it sought compliance statements for an on-site gain of 3.5% from each phase or sub-phase when it was acknowledged that this may require a combination of on-site and off-site delivery. The condition was unreasonable as a result. I have changed it to better reflect the s106 provisions and the fact that a different quantum may need to be delivered on site. Condition [30] seeks to update an [name] and [name] (EMES). On further reflection I found it contained unnecessary detail and could be more 22 Paragraph 2.1, CD 7.11 23 Paragraph 2.1, CD 7.11 24 Paragraph 2.1, CD 7.11 succinctly specified in terms of an update to the existing EMES and have accordingly reworded that condition.

Two completed s106 obligations were submitted. They were subject to refinement during the course of the Inquiry and submitted after it closed. The first is dated 26 June 2026 and is between the appellant and (1) [name], [name], [name] and [name], (2) [name], (3) [name] and [name], (4) Lloyds Bank Plc (5) The Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Plc, (6) Barclays Security Trustee Ltd and (7) Gloucestershire County Council (the County Council s106). The second is dated 26 June 2026 and is between the appellant and the same signatories apart from Gloucestershire County Council which is substituted for Tewksbury Borough Council (the Borough Council s106).

Both Council’s provided a justification for the contributions as well as the calculations for the amounts that have been sought. They are satisfied that the obligations are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. For the reasons set out and after careful consideration, I agree with the Councils’ assessments and that they consequently accord with paragraph 58 of the Framework.

The County Council s106 sets out the following financial contributions: • A Travel Plan monitoring fee of £10,000 would be payable prior to commencement of development. • A Travel Plan deposit of £28,567.71 would be payable prior to commencement of development. • A monitoring fee of £580 would be payable within 7 working days of the grant of permission.

More broadly, it secures the following deliverables: • Footpath works pursuant to a s278 agreement comprising approximately 300 m of works to be approved by the Council which would include surface improvements, gates and wayfinding signage to Footpath ATW50 beginning at the [name] farm access and running south to [address]. • Cattle grid works pursuant to a s278 agreement comprising works to widen the junction of [site address] and the slip road between the A38 and the southern carriageway of the M5 and the cattle grid to allow two HGVs to pass and provide a bridle gate on the southern side of the cattle grid for other road users.

The Borough Council s106 sets out the following financial contributions: • A BNG Monitoring Contribution of £7,472 would be payable within 10 working days from the commencement of development. • A monitoring fee of £1,000 would be payable within 20 working days of the grant of planning permission.

More broadly, it secures the following deliverables: • Landscaping works would be provided in accordance with an approved landscaping scheme comprising for green and blue infrastructure. The works would be provided on a 'by phase' basis. On completion and after final approval, the landscaping scheme land may then be transferred to a management company.

For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that subject to the attached schedule of conditions and the obligations in the planning agreements, that this appeal should be allowed.

No development shall take place in relation to any one phase, or sub-phase, as defined by the Phasing Plan required by Condition [6], until details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called the “Reserved Matters") of that phase have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). Reason: To enable the LPA to control the development in detail and to comply with Section 92 (as amended) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

Application for approval of the Reserved Matters for the first phase, as identified by the Phasing Plan required by Condition [6], shall be made to the LPA no later than the expiration of three years from the date of this permission and the last application for reserved matters approval shall be made no later than five years beginning on the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Each phase or sub-phase of the development hereby permitted, as identified by the Phasing Plan required by Condition [6], shall be begun not later than two years from the date of approval of the associated Reserved Matters approval for that phase or any sub-phase. Reason: To ensure that the LPA retains the right to review unimplemented permissions and to comply with Section 92 (as amended) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the details shown on the following submitted plans: • Site Location Plan – 1997 1000 [name] • Development Parameter Plan 1997 1009 F • Proposed Site Access Arrangements drawing No 10 (1 of 2) [name] • Proposed Site Access Arrangements drawing No 10 (2 of 2) [name] • [name] 16.5m [name] drawing No TR01 (1 of 3) [name] • [name] 16.5m [name] drawing No TR01 (2 of 3) [name] • [name] 16.5m [name] drawing No TR01 (3 of 3) [name]: In order to define the permission and to enable the LPA to adequately control the development, to ensure safe and suitable access to the site, to ensure high quality design and to minimise its impact on the amenities of the local area

The development hereby permitted shall provide no more than 33,[address] metres (Gross Internal Area) of B8 employment use class (Warehouse, Storage and Distribution). The units shall have roof heights up to a maximum roof height (to the ridge) of 15 metres, relative to a reference point for each unit which shall be taken to be the highest point of the existing ground level (with reference to topographical information shown on Existing Site Plan 1997 2000) within the area proposed to be covered by each unit or its associated access or service yard. Reserved Matters applications shall include a plan showing full details of the proposed finished floor levels in relation to existing ground levels for each unit. The reference point shall be shown for each unit in the plans required by this condition. This shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA and thereafter the development of that unit shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: The parameters shown on the listed drawings are necessary to ensure the development achieves an acceptable standard of design. To define the scope of the permission, in the interests of visual amenity and to ensure high quality design.

Prior to or concurrently with the submission of the first Reserved Matters application, a Phasing Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. This plan shall show the phases in which development is to be carried out, including details on the number of units to be provided in each phase. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved plans. Each subsequent Reserved Matters application shall resubmit an updated Phasing Plan for approval and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure there is a clear and phased framework for both the development and for the submission of applications for Reserved Matters approvals and so that the development is carried out in a sustainable and coherent manner.

A Site Wide Masterplan Document (SWMD) shall be submitted to the LPA either prior to or alongside the first application for approval of Reserved Matters for its written approval. The SWMD shall provide a comprehensive approach to the development of the site and be in accordance with the approved plans under Condition [4] and delivery of [name] (BNG) under Condition [28], except where other planning conditions specify otherwise, and shall include a set of design principles relating to: a) determining the layout, scale, height, massing, design, appearance, form and general arrangement of buildings, including external architectural features, use of materials, hard and soft landscaping; b) the landscape framework, including the laying out of the green and blue landscape infrastructure, including the access, location and general arrangements of landscape bunds, landscape buffers and drainage features; c) the hierarchy and design of access/service roads; d) the arrangements for car and commercial vehicle parking and service yards; e) the design of the public realm; and f) any interim design solutions required due to the phased nature of the development. The SWMD shall include a two-dimensional layout drawing to scale that shows: • the broad arrangement of development blocks, parking and service yards around access/service roads including indications of active frontages and public realm; • maximum building heights of development blocks; • the location and general extent of public open space, including landscaping, drainage features access and car parking; • existing landscape features to be retained and/or enhanced; • proposed structural planting and landscape bunds; • the location of existing and proposed public rights of way; and • the location of existing dwellings, designated and non-designated heritage assets in the vicinity of the site. Submissions for the approval of each of the reserved matters shall accord with the approved SWMD and should be supported by a statement of compliance. Reason: To provide a detailed framework to achieve a high quality, well-designed development and landscape/ecological mitigation.

The Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase of development under Condition [6] submitted pursuant to Condition [1] shall include a compliance statement detailing how the development complies with the characteristics of good design as outlined in the National Design Guide. Reason: To ensure a high-quality development in accordance with national guidance.

Reserved Matters applications for built development shall accord with the approved Site Wide Masterplan. Applications shall include, where applicable, details of: • Layout and scale; • Existing and proposed ground levels; • Existing and proposed finished floor levels and site contour levels; • Surface water drainage; • Foul water drainage; • Access; • Car parking; • Soft and hard landscaping including planting plans; • Written specifications for planting; • Ecological mitigation measures; • Appearance including elevational treatments and materials; • Boundary treatments; • Waste storage; • External lighting; • Noise conditions and mitigation measures; • Odour emissions and mitigation measures; • [name] charging points; • [name]; • A Public Open Space and landscaping scheme demonstrating compliance with approved ecological enhancements including BNG; and • An energy statement Reason: To provide a satisfactory and well planned development and to define the information required as part of future reserved matters applications.

The development and units hereby approved shall be used for B8 employment use class (Warehouse, Storage and Distribution) and for no other purpose, including any other purpose in ([name]) of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification). This restriction shall apply notwithstanding any provisions in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification. Reason: The application has been assessed on the basis of this use only, and to ensure the scale, character and intensity of the development is appropriate to its location in the interests of highways safety and amenity

The Reserved Matters application(s) for any phase or sub phase relating to development in the vicinity of [name], as shown on Plan 1997 1000 [name], shall be accompanied by a heritage statement to include, but not be limited to, an assessment of the significance of heritage assets and an analysis of the impact of that phase or sub-phase on the setting of such assets and any mitigation that may be required is submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Reason: To enable the impacts on heritage assets to be fully assessed

The Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase of development under Condition [6] submitted pursuant to Condition [1] shall include scaled cross sections of the proposed development relative to adjacent properties and landscaping for all buildings and ground profiling in that phase or sub-phase. All development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and visual amenity

The Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase submitted pursuant to Condition [1] shall include a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatments to be erected at the boundaries of the proposed units. The boundary treatments shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan/details before any unit hereby permitted is first occupied. The approved boundary treatments shall thereafter be retained and maintained as such. Reason: In the interests of the visual amenity of the area and the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase submitted pursuant to Condition [1] shall include precise details and/or samples of all external walling and roofing materials to be used externally, and on all surface materials. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details/samples. Reason: To ensure that the materials and exterior building components harmonise with their surroundings in the interests of visual amenity.

The Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase submitted pursuant to Condition [1] shall include details of the surfacing treatments to be used on all hard surfaced areas and the turning and parking areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to ensure adequate off-street parking and access arrangements are provided.

The Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase sharing a boundary with [address] submitted pursuant to Condition [1] shall include a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of acoustic fence on the boundary between the site and [address]. The acoustic fence shall be completed in accordance with the approved plan/details before the units are occupied and maintained in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and visual amenity.

Concurrent with each Reserved Matters application, an acoustic assessment for the phase or sub-phase to which the application relates shall be submitted to the LPA and approved in writing. This shall assess predicted noise from the building(s), external activities, vehicular movements and the operation of any noise-generating plant, equipment, fans, air conditioning units, ventilation equipment or similar equipment. The assessment shall review the proposed activities and consider noise impacts arising from such activities at all nearby noise sensitive receptors, identifying necessary mitigation and control measures to minimise noise impacts in accordance with BS 4142:2014 (or subsequent version). All agreed mitigation and control measures shall be implemented prior to first use of that phase, retained and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions for the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

Where acoustic fences, bunds or barriers are identified for operational noise control under Condition [17] for any individual phase or sub-phase, details of the height, specification, earthworks and method for construction of bunds, location, phasing and implementation of such acoustic mitigation shall be submitted with the Reserved Matters application covering the part of the phase within which the acoustic fences, bunds or barriers are located, in order to identify where such barriers may provide additional noise control to surrounding noise sensitive receptors during construction phases as well as the protection of operational noise. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and visual amenity.

Each Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase shall be accompanied by a lighting strategy and impact assessment for the phase to which the application relates, as defined by the Phasing Plan required by Condition [6]. The strategy shall provide the following information: • Details of lighting columns; • A drawing(s) showing the location and where appropriate the elevation of the light fixings; • Levels of illumination around the phase in the form of isolux drawings or lighting contour plots; • Any overspill lighting beyond the physical phase boundary; • An assessment of the likely landscape and visual effects; • An assessment of the likely ecological effects including those that affect the commuting routes and foraging areas, including a drawing showing sensitive areas and/or dark corridor safeguarding areas, with such assessment to be reviewed by a suitably experienced ecologist; and • Any mitigation/control measures such as time clocks/light sensors or other control methods proposed for that element. The approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the commencement of first use of that phase and shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions for the lifetime of the development. Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area and ecological and landscape interests

Prior to the commencement of development for each phase or sub-phase, a Phase 1 desktop study shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA in respect of potential ground contamination. Thereafter if further site investigations or remediation works are deemed to be required these shall be undertaken in full and validation reports submitted to the LPA for approval. The development shall take place in full accordance with any recommendations (including agreed timescales) set out within the approved remediation strategies. If during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present within a development parcel, then no further development shall be carried out in the affected area until a remediation strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. Thereafter the approved remediation strategy shall be implemented, and the development completed accordingly. Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. A pre-commencement condition is required as it is important to ensure protection measures are agreed and in place prior to construction works commencing

No development shall take place in any individual phase or sub-phase, as defined by the Phasing Plan required by Condition [6] until a Construction, Highways and Environmental Management Plan (CHEMP) for that phase has been submitted to the LPA and approved in writing. The CHEMP shall review all demolition and construction operations proposed in that phase, taking into account the content of any such documents for other phases of the development, including logistics and phasing details. It shall cover, as a minimum, the following areas of work, identifying appropriate mitigation measures as necessary: A - Highways and Traffic i. Advisory construction traffic routes, including provision for access to the site; ii. Entrance and exit from the site for visitors, contractors and deliveries; iii. Temporary access, roads and areas of hard standing; iv. Arrangements for the delivery of abnormal loads and for large vehicles delivering and exporting materials to and from site and details of manoeuvring arrangements with all construction vehicles loading and unloading within the confines of the site and not on the highway; v. Details of street sweeping, street cleansing and wheel washing facilities; vi. [name]; and vii. Methods of communicating the CHEMP to staff, visitors and neighbouring residents and businesses. B - Site Layout and Storage i. Proposed locations of site compound areas; ii. Haul routes; iii. Siting of temporary containers; iv. Location of directional signage within the site; v. Parking for contractors, site operatives and visitors (including measures taken to ensure satisfactory access and movement for existing occupiers of neighbouring properties during construction); vi. Identification of working space and extent of areas to be temporarily enclosed and secured during each phase of demolition and construction; vii. Storage of soil and materials as well as large, heavy vehicles and machinery on site; and viii. Any required interim measures prior to the formation of bunding, including soil husbandry, specification of profiles and the cultivation, planting and management of screen planting. C - Environmental Controls i. Proposed construction hours, proposed hours of site access and delivery hours of all vehicles to site, phasing of works including start and finish dates; ii. Details of activity on site outside the stated construction hours including worker activity, security on site, movement, setting up or dismantling of equipment, lighting and the installation of services; iii. Environmental mitigation measures, including noise and vibration mitigation measures; iv. Details for the recycling, storage and disposal of waste resulting from the site; v. A soil management plan; vi. Pollution control measures including measures for controlling leaks and spillages, managing silt and pollutants; vii. Details of any construction phase lighting, including temporary security lighting for compounds; viii. [name] protection measures; and ix. Tree and hedgerow protection measures. All identified measures within the CHEMP shall be implemented for that individual phase in accordance with the approved details and shall remain in force for the duration of all demolition/ construction activities in that phase of the development. Reason: To ensure that adequate on-site provision is made for construction traffic, including allowance for the safe circulation, manoeuvring, loading and unloading of vehicles, as well as parking, and to reduce impact on residential amenity and the general amenity of surrounding occupiers, ecology and the landscape.

The Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase as defined by Condition [6] shall include full drainage details relating to foul water drainage. Prior to first occupation of any unit, the foul water disposal scheme required for that phase or sub-phase shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved details. The approved foul water disposal scheme shall be maintained according to approved details for the lifetime of development. Reason: To secure proper drainage and to manage the risk of flooding and pollution

No drainage from the proposed development shall be connected to the motorways drainage system, nor shall any drainage from the site run-off onto the M5 or M50 motorways or adjoining slip roads. Reason: In the interests of the safety of all users of the adjacent motorways and in favour of its efficient operation and in order to ensure that the M50 and M5 motorways and junctions fulfil their purpose as part of the system of routes for through traffic, in accordance with Section 10(2) of the Highways Act 1980.

No works shall take place within any phase or sub-phase of the development as defined by Condition [6] adjacent to the boundary with the M50 motorway until a detailed design and construction plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. This shall include a working method statement relating to all associated construction operations within the vicinity of the motorway boundary and details of how the motorway boundary fence will be protected during these works. All works shall be implemented as approved. Reason: In the interests of the safety of all users of the adjacent motorway and in favour of its efficient operation and in order to ensure that the M50 motorway and junctions fulfil their purpose as part of the system of routes for through traffic, in accordance with Section 10(2) of the Highways Act 1980.

The Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase of development under Condition [6] submitted pursuant to Condition [1] shall include a landscaping scheme. The submitted design shall include the proposed new landscaping scheme on scaled drawings accompanied by a written specification clearly providing full details of proposed tree and hedgerow planting to include location, species, sizes, planting specifications, maintenance schedule, provision for guards or other protective measures. Details shall include: • Tree pit design and location, type and materials to be used for hard landscaping including specifications; • Suitable native tree planting compatible with the height of the new buildings; and • Accurate representation of all existing trees and hedgerows with their location, species, size, condition, any proposed tree surgery, trees which are to be removed and how those to be retained are to be protected (a tree protection plan to BS 5837:2012 (or subsequent versions). The landscaping scheme shall be in compliance with the SWMD approved under Condition [7], the BNG plan approved under Condition [28] and ecological enhancements approved under Condition [30]. All planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season following the completion or first occupation/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. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure adequate provision for trees/hedgerows, in the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity.

No development in any phase or sub-phase including demolition, site clearance, materials delivery or erection of site buildings, shall start on the site until measures to protect trees/hedgerows on and adjacent to the land affected by construction of the phase or sub-phase have been installed in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. These measures shall include: a) [name] (RPA): Temporary fencing for the protection of all retained trees/hedgerows on and adjacent to the site whose RPA fall within the site to be erected in accordance with BS 5837:2012 or subsequent versions. Any alternative fencing type or position not strictly in accordance with BS 5837:2012 shall be agreed in writing by the LPA prior to the start of development. b) [name] (CEZ): The area around trees and hedgerows enclosed on site by protective fencing shall be deemed the CEZ. Excavations of any kind, alterations in soil levels, storage of any materials, soil, equipment, fuel, machinery or plant, site compounds, cabins or other temporary buildings, vehicle parking and delivery areas, fires and any other activities liable to be harmful to trees and hedgerows are prohibited within the CEZ, unless agreed in writing with the LPA. The approved tree protection measures shall remain in place until the completion of that phase or sub-phase. Reason: To ensure adequate protection measures for existing trees/hedgerows to be retained, in the interests of visual amenity and the character and appearance of the area.

Where excavations or surface treatments are proposed within the RPA of retained trees and hedgerows, full details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA before any development starts. The RPA is defined in BS 5837:2012 or subsequent versions. Details shall include the proposed locations of excavations and/or surface treatments, proposed methods and specifications of excavations and/or surface treatments and any post excavation remedial works. All excavations or surface treatments shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To prevent damage to or loss of trees

Prior to or concurrent with the submission of the first Reserved Matters application, an assessment, using the statutory biodiversity metric calculation tool, of how the proposal will deliver a minimum 3.5% BNG shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. This shall prioritise on-site delivery and clearly set out how this shall be delivered within each phase of the development. In the event that the minimum amount cannot be delivered on site, the residual amount shall be delivered either through nearby off-site provision or, as a last resort, through the purchase of statutory biodiversity credits, as set out in the relevant planning obligation. All subsequent Reserved Matters applications for any phase or sub-phase shall include a BNG compliance statement to demonstrate how that phase of development complies with the approved quantum of on-site BNG. Reason: To ensure biodiversity enhancements are incorporated into the development.

No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) on any one phase or sub-phase (as defined by the phasing plan required by condition 6) until a Biodiversity Construction Environmental Management Plan (BIOCEMP) for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The BIOCEMP shall include the following: a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities; b) Identification of [name] that shall include appropriate exclusion areas to protect the root protection zones of all retained trees and hedgerows; c) Method statements on practical measures, including physical measures and sensitive working practices, to avoid or reduce impacts on biodiversity to a de minimis level during construction; d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to species and retained habitats; e) The times during construction when ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works; f) Responsible persons and lines of communication; g) The role and responsibilities on site of a suitably qualified and accredited ecological clerk of works or similarly competent person, including reporting mechanisms/structures and frequency of reporting; h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs; and i) Identification of features likely to be subject to Natural England protected species mitigation licences. The approved BIOCEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period for that phase strictly in accordance with the approved details and provide for ongoing monitoring, including compliance checks by a competent person(s) during construction and immediately post-completion of construction works. Reason: In the interests of ecology and biodiversity.

No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until an updated [name] and [name] (EMES) for the whole site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. If required, relevant surveys shall be updated according to best practice and undertaken at an appropriate time of year by a suitably qualified and accredited ecologist. The results of these surveys and the surveys undertaken in 2025 shall inform the recommendations of the revised EMES. Any ecological features to be installed, such as bat and bird boxes, shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details. The EMES should detail whom will be responsible for ensuring the retained and planted habitats are managed appropriately for wildlife. These details shall include but not limited to: a) Description, design or specification of the type of feature(s) or measure(s) to be undertaken; b) Materials and construction to ensure long lifespan of the feature/measure; c) A drawing(s) showing the location and where appropriate the elevation of the features or measures to be installed or undertaken; and d) When the features or measures will be installed within the construction, occupation, or phase of the development. The ecological mitigation and enhancement measures are to be implemented in full in accordance with the approved updated EMES during each phase or sub-phase of development, as defined by the Phasing Plan required by Condition [6]. Reason: To ensure that any working practices or other mitigation measures are informed by up-to-date survey information and avoid harm to protected species and to ensure biodiversity enhancements are incorporated into the development.

No development shall commence until a reptile translocation strategy, which is based on an up-to-date survey, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that any working practices or other mitigation measures are informed by up-to-date survey information and avoid harm to protected species.

No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) on any one phase or sub-phase, as defined by the Phasing Plan required by Condition [6] until a [name] and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The HMMP will be implemented for a minimum period of 30-years. The plan shall be prepared in accordance with the statutory BNG metric and must include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following information: a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed, including locations shown on a site map; b) Establishment details, including preparation of the land; c) Landscape and ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management; d) Aims and objectives of management, including ensuring the delivery of the approve on-site net gain in habitat, hedgerow and watercourse (if applicable) units; e) Appropriate management options for achieving the aims and objectives; f) Prescriptions for all management actions; g) A work schedule matrix (i.e. an annual work plan) capable of being rolled forward over 5- or 10-year periods; h) Details of the body or organisation responsible for the implementation of the plan; i) Ongoing monitoring of delivery of the habitat enhancement and creation details to achieve net gain as well as details of possible remedial measures and adaptive measures might need to be put in place; and j) Timeframe for reviewing and reporting on the plan. Reporting on year 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30, with biodiversity reconciliation calculations at each stage. The HMMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body responsible for its delivery. The HMMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and all habitats shall be retained in that manner thereafter. Notice in writing shall be given to the Council when the habitat creation and enhancement works have commenced and once all habitat creation and enhancements have been completed. Reason: To ensure the on-going monitoring and maintenance of habitats to be retained and provided as part of the development.

The Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase of development under Condition [6] submitted pursuant to Condition [1] shall include details of shower facilities, changing rooms, and secure lockers for each unit hereby permitted. All development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the development is provided with adequate facilities to complement the approved Travel Plan.

The Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase of development under Condition [6] submitted pursuant to Condition [1] shall include an accessible parking strategy and implementation plan which shall be approved in writing by the LPA. The plan shall contain details of the number and location of all accessible parking spaces serving buildings in that phase and shall comply with Manual for [name]. No building in that phase or sub-phase shall be brought into use until at least the approved number of accessible car parking spaces have been provided and thereafter shall be kept available for disabled users. Reason: To provide safe and suitable access for all users.

The Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase of development under Condition [6] submitted pursuant to Condition [1] shall include details of the provision of sheltered, secure and accessible bicycle parking serving the buildings in that phase for the written approval of the LPA. No unit shall be first occupied until the sheltered, secure and accessible bicycle parking for that phase or sub-phase has been provided and thereafter shall be maintained and kept available for that purpose at all times. Reason: To promote sustainable travel and healthy communities.

Prior to or concurrent with the submission of the first Reserved Matters application submitted pursuant to Condition [1], details shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA of the provision of at least six secure motorcycle parking spaces in a location on the site to be agreed. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use until the approved spaces have been provided and thereafter shall be kept available for motorcycle parking as approved. Reason: To provide safe and suitable access for all users.

The Reserved Matters application for each phase or sub-phase of development under Condition [6] submitted pursuant to Condition [1] shall include an electric vehicle infrastructure strategy and implementation plan that shall be approved in writing by the LPA. The plan shall contain details of the number and location of all electric vehicle charging points and shall comply with [name] 62196 Mode 3 or 4 charging and [name] 61851 or subsequent version and the Manual for [name]. Buildings and parking spaces in that phase or sub-phase that are to be provided with charging points shall not be brought into use until associated charging points are installed in strict accordance with approved details and are operational. The charging point installed shall be retained thereafter unless replaced or upgraded to an equal or higher specification. Reason: To promote sustainable travel and healthy communities.

The use hereby approved shall not be first occupied until details of the design, location and details of the highway signage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The signage is required within the site access for pedestrians to choose to walk in the carriageway at their liability. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

No development shall commence until the highway improvement works comprising works as shown on drawing HTp/2432/TR/01/D have been constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details. The highway improvement works shall be secured through a signed Highways Section 278 Agreement. The development and the units hereby approved shall not be occupied until the approved highway measures have been completed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: In the interest of road safety and to ensure adequate access and flow of traffic for the proposed development. The condition wording is considered appropriate as there is clear evidence that the delivery of the development is reliant on the highway works and measures being secured and the development would otherwise be at serious risk.

The development hereby approved shall not be brought into first use until the applicant has submitted an updated employment Travel Plan in writing to the LPA that promotes sustainable forms of travel to the development site and this has been approved in writing by the LPA. The submitted details shall use Modeshift STARS Business to carry out this process and include mechanisms for monitoring and review over the life of the development and timescales for implementation. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented, monitored and reviewed in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To reduce vehicle movements and promote sustainable access.

No unit shall be occupied until details of an updated employment [name] have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA. The details shall be informed by the updated employment Travel Plan and shall include information for new employees containing information about sustainable and alternative travel options to and from work. Reason: In the interests of promoting sustainable travel.

Prior to the commencement of phase or sub phase of development, as defined by Condition [6], a Construction Waste Management Plan (CWMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA for that phase. The objectives of the CWMP shall be to ensure all waste arising from demolition and construction works are managed in a sustainable manner, maximising the opportunities to reduce, reuse and recycle waste materials. The management plan for the relevant phase shall also detail the compliance and assurance requirements to be maintained on the site during all phases of works including site-preparation and remediation. The management plan for the relevant phase shall include as a minimum the following information: - a) Classification of all waste including hazardous waste according to current legislative provisions; b) Performance measurement and target setting against estimated waste forecasts; c) Reporting of project performance on quantities and options utilised; d) Measures to minimise waste generation; e) Opportunities for re-use or recycling; f) Provision for the segregation of waste streams on the Site that are clearly labelled; g) Licensing requirements for disposal sites; h) An appropriate audit trail encompassing waste disposal activities and waste consignment notes; i) Measures to avoid fly tipping by others on lands being used for construction; j) Measures to provide adequate training and awareness through toolbox talks; and k) Returns policies for unwanted materials. The relevant phase shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved CWMP that phase. Reason: To ensure the effective implementation of waste minimisation and resource efficiency during construction phase. A pre-commencement condition is required to ensure that the construction waste management measures are acceptable and measures in place before development begins.

Concurrent with each Reserved Matters application, a scheme for the provision of refuse and recycling facilities, for the part of the site to which that phase applies, shall be submitted to the LPA and approved in writing. This must include details of the appropriate and adequate space and infrastructure to allow for the separate storage of recyclable waste materials. The management of waste during occupation must be aligned with the principles of the waste hierarchy and not prejudice the delivery of local waste management targets. The agreed scheme shall be fully implemented as approved for that phase or sub-phase and shall be retained for the lifetime of the development. Reason: To ensure the effective implementation of waste minimisation and resource efficiency

Concurrently with each Reserved Matters application (except for landscaping alone) an energy statement for each phase shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA in writing. This shall detail the energy demand reduction and energy efficiency measures that would be used within the part of the site to which the Reserved Matters application relates. All measures shall be implemented prior to the occupation of any building in that phase and retained as approved. Reason: In the interests of energy efficiency

The reserved matters application for each phase or sub-phase as defined by Condition [6] shall include full drainage detailed design, maintenance and management strategy and timetable of implementation for the surface water drainage strategy for that phase or sub-phase (e.g. [name] - SUDS). All subsequent Reserved Matters submitted pursuant to Condition [1] shall incorporate the approved surface water drainage strategy and the development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved surface water drainage strategy. The details shall be based on the Flood Risk Assessment and [name] presented in the Flood Risk Assessment/[name] (reference number CTP-20-331 Revision 04 dated June 2022). No development shall commence until the details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA and shall include: a) Details of the SUDS management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development 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; b) Demonstration of the technical feasibility/viability of the drainage system through, the use of SUDS to manage the flood risk to the site and elsewhere and the measures taken to manage the water quality for the lifetime of the development; c) A health and safety risk assessment for the attenuation ponds and incorporate any recommended safety measures; and d) Details of the phasing for its implementation. No building hereby permitted within each phase or sub phase of the development shall be occupied until surface water drainage works and SUDS maintenance plan have been implemented in full in accordance with the approved details for that phase or sub-phase. Reason: To ensure the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage and thereby preventing the risk of flooding. To ensure the continued operation and maintenance of drainage features serving the site and thereby preventing the risk of flooding. It is important that these details are agreed prior to the commencement of development as any works on site could have implications for drainage, flood risk and water quality in the locality.

The development and any of the units hereby approved shall not be occupied until the P4 gated access link to Bridleway ATW11, as shown on [name] 2432.06a, dated 24th March 2026, has been completed and is available for use. Reason: In the interests of highway safety to ensure safe and suitable access for pedestrian users of the development.

The development and any of the units hereby approved shall not be occupied until surfacing upgrade works to approximately 300 metres of Footpath ATW50, between [name] farm access and [address], as shown on [name] 2432.07, dated 19th March 2026, have been completed to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority. Reason: In the interests of highway safety to ensure safe and suitable access for pedestrian users of the development.