Appeal 6003946

An application for costs was made by Country Court Care Homes 5 Limited against Central Bedfordshire Council and Bedford Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949

The appeal site is located within two local planning authority areas, Bedford Borough Council (BBC) and Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) (also referred to in my decisions as the Councils). The two appeals relate to the same proposal. It would be impossible to separate the proposal between the two Council areas and so the appeals should either both be allowed or both be dismissed. I have assessed the appeals on that basis in one decision document.

The original application forms submitted to the Councils referred to a 70-bed care home, but the proposal was amended to a 65-bed care home before the Councils issued their decisions. There was public consultation on the amendments, so I am content to take the amended description and plans into account.

The main issues for both appeals are the effect of the proposed development on: (a) the character and appearance of the area; (b) highway safety and accessibility; and (c) parking provision.

The site is situated on the south-west side of [address] with a narrow frontage that widens to the rear. It was previously used as a dog training facility but is now vacant with only remnant structures remaining. The site contains rough grassland, trees, shrubs and small areas of bare ground and hardstanding as well as various disused outbuildings of differing sizes and condition. There is an existing access onto the road and a private right of way along the western side of the site. In policy terms for both Councils, the site is classified as countryside.

Either side of the site access along [address] are residential properties comprising a terrace of railway cottages to the north and a larger detached property known as [address] to the south. These properties are two storey red brick houses with pitched roofs. They have rear gardens that abut the site boundary, including an orchard behind the terrace. On the opposite side of the road is a modern housing estate on the edge of Wixams, an emerging new settlement to the south of Bedford. This estate contains two storey red brick houses with pitched roofs. There is a railway embankment to the west of the site and the orchard with overhead electricity lines and gantries. To the south and east of the site is a belt of trees with fields beyond.

Due to the elongated nature of the site and the presence of properties and planting along this side of [address], there are limited public views of the site. Within the site, these features greatly restrict views north, while the embankment and tree belt screen views to the west, south and east. Thus, there is a strong sense of enclosure within the site and little awareness of the wider countryside. The presence of various dilapidated outbuildings, the railway line, and the rear elevations of the railway cottages and [address] means that the character and appearance of the site is more urban fringe than rural. This urban feel is Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949 reinforced along this section of [address] with the properties and housing estate on both sides of the road.

The proposed development would comprise a three storey L-shaped building that would be surrounded by landscaping to the sides and rear and car parking to the front. Although it would be a larger and taller building than the nearby residential properties, it would have a flat roof to limit the overall height and would be set back into the wider part of the site away from the road. Furthermore, its contemporary appearance, utilising brick pilasters, timber panelling, green walls, and large vertical windows, would break up the overall scale and mass of the building.

These design elements, while not common to the surrounding area, would be contained within an enclosed site with strong boundary planting and limited visual connections. There would be glimpses of the building from the road and the railway embankment, but the building’s urban form and detailing would be appropriate for this edge of settlement location. Even in closer views within the site, it would appear an attractive and distinctive building and would not seem overly large or institutional. The use of acoustic and visual mitigation for the railway line, including winter gardens and screened facades, would not be unduly obvious or detract from the building’s overall appearance.

Unlike appeal decisions1 cited by BBC in its appeal statement, the development would not be reliant on screening or the lack of public views to be acceptable and would instead represent good design. It would make best use of the site’s layout and existing landscaping to reflect and respond well to its surroundings.

Concluding on this main issue, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would accord with Policies HQ1 and EE5 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015- 2035 (CBLP) and Policies 7S, 28S, 29 and 30 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 (BBLP). Amongst other things, these policies require proposals to promote good design and complement local character, with appropriate scale, massing, height, materials and appearance, while avoiding adverse effects on the countryside and landscape character. The development would also adhere to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which seeks to achieve well-designed places.

[address] forms part of the B530 between Bedford and Ampthill and so provides a through-route for local traffic. Past the appeal site, the road is single carriageway and subject to a 40mph speed limit. There are pavements on both sides of the road, and street lighting along the Wixams side. Close to the site access, the road contains a refuge island with dropped kerbs either side and tactile paving to allow people from the housing estate to access the northbound bus stop where there are hourly services to Bedford. Visibility in both directions at the refuge island is reasonable due to the straightness of the road here.

At the time of my late morning site visit, there were regular flows of traffic along the road but also gaps with no vehicles. Traffic speeds did not appear excessive or over 40mph. As such, it was possible to cross the road using the refuge island, where there was sufficient space to wait if needed to complete the crossing. While 1 APP/Z1510/W/21/3277847 and APP/K0235/W/24/3346291 Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949 my site visit was only a snapshot of conditions, I have not been presented with any detailed evidence to indicate that the road experiences high volumes of traffic exceeding the speed limit that would make it difficult to cross.

Future occupants of the proposed development are likely to be older with health issues that may reduce their overall mobility and the frequency of trips beyond the site. Moreover, there are currently few day to day services in the nearest part of Wixams to the site and the proposed development would contain a range of communal, leisure and medical provisions, both of which would limit off-site trips.

Nevertheless, the refuge island is spacious enough for a wheelchair user and any companion, while the dropped kerbs would allow for easy access across. From the evidence before me, it would appear eminently possible for future occupants to cross during gaps in traffic on one side, pause at the island if needed, and complete the crossing safely. While there might be a perception of risk standing close to passing traffic, the island has been recently installed to provide a crossing point on a 40mph road. It allows people to cross in a safe and staggered manner.

A controlled pedestrian priority crossing would require traffic to stop and give way, while a reduction in the speed limit to 30mph would be helpful. However, having regard to the Department for Transport’s guidance on inclusive mobility2 and the site specific evidence before me, it is apparent that the refuge island is sufficient for people to cross safely based on the road conditions and likely numbers of trips generated by occupants of the development. This is regardless of limited recorded accidents or the road safety audit raising no concerns with the site access. Consequently, future occupants could access services and facilities in Wixams by foot, including public transport and open space, without the road being a barrier.

Concluding on this main issue, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect in terms of highway safety and accessibility. Therefore, it would accord with [name] HQ1, T1 and T2 and [name] 2S, 31 and 60. Amongst other things, these policies require proposals that are well connected and provide safe routes to encourage travel by sustainable modes including walking and promote accessibility, health and active living for all age groups. The development would also adhere to Section 9 of the NPPF which promotes sustainable transport and the provision of safe and suitable access for all.

CBLP Policy T3 requires new development to have regard to car parking standards, while BBLP Policy 31(i) requires proposals to give particular attention to parking provision. [name] requires the provision of 33 parking spaces based on one space for every 4 beds (17 spaces) and one space for every two members of staff (16 spaces). [name] requires 53 parking spaces based on one space per full time equivalent (FTE) staff (31 spaces) and one visitor space for every 3 beds (22 spaces).

The proposed development would provide 33 spaces to meet CBC’s standards but would fall 20 spaces short of BBC’s standards. The big difference in the Councils’ parking requirements means that there would be either a significant oversupply or undersupply of parking depending on which of the two standards is used. The Councils do not provide any substantive evidence to either challenge the 2 [name]: A Guide to [name] on Access to Pedestrian and [name] (December 2021) Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949 maximum likely number of staff on site at any one time (31 FTE) or support alleged uncertainties in the number of visits from medical staff or family members. In the case of CBC, the parking standards have presumably factored these variables into the requirement for 33 spaces for this type of development and so there is compliance with CBC’s parking standards. Although most of the site lies within the area covered by CBC, this alone is not sufficient to discount BBC’s standards. However, it remains necessary to consider the parking provision for both appeals against any site specific analysis.

The appellant’s use of TRICS data to calculate trip rates is based on care homes across England and has informed the number of parking spaces required. This is a recognised approach to transport planning, and the Councils present no specific critique of this data. The analysis has been supplemented with parking surveys for existing care homes with similar numbers of beds and parking spaces. The surveys indicate that car parking at these sites operates within capacity. I have not been presented with details of the surveyed care homes, and each case will be unique to its location with differing parking standards. Nonetheless, the analysis demonstrates that care homes of this size with similar parking provision can function without parking stress. It is not unreasonable in the absence of detailed contrary data to reach similar findings here.

Additionally, there are regular bus services that stop near to the site access and the opportunity to walk or cycle from Wixams which would reduce the need to travel by car. It is also only a short walk from the site to residential side streets on the opposite side of [address] where parking is unrestricted. Therefore, even if there was some overspill parking at times, it can occur away from the main road without causing significant risks to highway safety. Finally, swept path analysis indicates that refuse and fire vehicles could enter and exit the site safely.

In conclusion, the proposed development does not reflect BBC’s parking standards but the evidence before me indicates that it would have an acceptable effect in terms of parking provision. Therefore, the development would accord with CBLP Policy T3 and BBLP Policy 31(i). It would also adhere to Section 9 of the NPPF which requires developments to make adequate provision for parking.

The proposed development is not estimated to generate significant trips on the highways network. Therefore, despite the extent of other developments proposed or underway in the surrounding area, including the [name] scheme, the development would not have a major effect on traffic movements or congestion. For similar reasons, it would not be necessary to impose a left turn only exit from the site. There may be some traffic disruption during the construction phase, but this would be temporary and can be managed by condition.

There would be some tree removals around the site access, but this would be necessary to ensure adequate visibility onto the road in both directions. The loss of trees elsewhere would be restricted to lower quality specimens. The site does not appear to have been in agricultural use for many years and so the development would not have a material effect on food production.

The red line site boundary excludes the existing access to the side of the railway cottages to the west and so there should be no change to any current access arrangements for residents of these properties. Land ownership is a civil matter Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949 between the affected parties rather than something that can be addressed through the planning process, but there is little evidence to indicate that private access outside the site boundary would be curtailed.

The rear elevations and gardens of [address] and the railway cottages face towards the site. However, the proposed building would be located towards the back of the site with sufficient distance between any facing windows or private space to avoid adverse overlooking effects. The frequency of vehicle trips to the site and the siting of garden space to the rear would not have a significant effect in terms of noise and disturbance. External lighting can be controlled by condition. Despite the proximity of the railway line and emerging developments, the site is unlikely to add significantly to the levels of noise or light pollution. Thus, the development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and the wellbeing of any domestic animals.

There is noise generated by the railway line and frequent train movements, but the proposed development would incorporate acoustic mitigation measures to avoid adverse effects on future occupants. There is no requirement for the occupants to be local, or for this type of development to have good access to external services and facilities as the residents will spend much of their time on site.

Ecology measures can be secured by condition to ensure that birds, bats and great crested newts can be safeguarded. Some of the existing buildings have the potential for bat roosts, but this can be addressed via mitigation and compensatory measures to ensure that alternative provision can be made to maintain the population locally. There is a need for this type of development (see below), and no satisfactory alternatives have been presented. Thus, there is a reasonable prospect of a protected species licence being granted for this development. There is a small area of Japanese knotweed on the edge of the site, but this can be addressed through relevant control measures to prevent its spread.

A surface water drainage strategy can be implemented to address any runoff from the development and avoid increasing flood risk elsewhere. [name] has raised concerns at the appeal stage regarding discharge to a nearby public surface water sewer, but the appellant has demonstrated that neither infiltration nor discharge to a watercourse is feasible. [name] has also highlighted potential connection and capacity constraints with the public foul drainage network. However, these concerns can be addressed via conditions that require the submission of further details and confirmation of capacity. The main parties are also willing to extend the lifetime of any planning permission to 5 years to allow more time for any necessary infrastructure upgrades to take place.

Reference has been made to a cesspit near to the proposed entrance that serves [address]. If this crosses into the appellant’s land, then this is a civil matter for the relevant parties to address. Nevertheless, it is not apparent that the development would adversely affect the foul drainage from this property.

The appellant has submitted a completed and executed Section 106 agreement (S106) dated 23 March 2026. It is a bilateral agreement with CBC who would act on behalf of both Councils as the enforcing authority. The S106 sets out obligations as three financial contributions as well as a monitoring contribution. Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949

The Forest of [name] would go towards the provision of 30% tree canopy cover through the delivery of community woodlands in [name]. Given the site’s location within the forest boundary, this contribution would accord with CBLP Policy EE9 and BBLP Policy 36S which seek such provision.

The Healthcare Contribution would address healthcare needs arising from the development. The local Integrated Care Board has identified the need to deliver/expand the new [name]. Accordingly, the contribution would comply with CBLP Policy HQ2 and [name] 33 and 86S which seek to avoid adverse effects on existing infrastructure such as health facilities and require the provision of necessary mitigation measures.

The Public Transport Contribution would go towards the provision of a bus shelter, raised kerb and real-time screen at the bus stops on both sides of the B530 at [address] near the site. This would help to improve site accessibility and so would accord with [name] T1, T4 and HQ1 and BBLP Policy 87 which seek improvements to public transport.

Based on the policy requirements, I am satisfied that the above 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 to the development. This includes the monitoring contribution whose sum appears to be fair and reasonable having regard to the scale of the development. The obligations would accord with Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) and NPPF paragraph 58. Therefore, I can take all the obligations into account as part of my decision.

There is general agreement between the main parties that there is an identified need for older persons housing within the two Council areas with a current and ongoing shortfall for care home places. The CBLP does not contain any allocations or policies specific to care homes, while BBLP Policy 60 supports the provision of care homes (Class C2) subject to specific criteria none of which are in dispute apart from criterion (vii) on accessibility which I have found to be met. Therefore, significant weight can be afforded to the delivery of a 65-bed care home to address local needs and provide health and wellbeing support to its residents.

[name] accept they are unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. CBC’s supply stands at 4.85 years and BBC’s comprises 3.35 years. The provision of a care home can assist with releasing existing housing back into the market. The number of homes freed up is likely to only be a percentage of the 65- bed spaces, but noting the lack of housing supply I afford this moderate weight. As for other social aspects, the healthcare contribution is largely to mitigate the effects of the development so carries little weight, but the public transport contribution for bus stop improvements is a moderate benefit for the wider community.

The economic benefits include temporary construction employment and the creation of jobs associated with the care home. Moderate weight can be afforded to these benefits.

In environmental terms, there is no dispute that the site contains previously developed land (PDL) or that there would be a benefit from its re-use. The full extent of PDL is not immediately apparent and the site is not within a settlement, Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949 but nevertheless the benefit carries moderate weight. While the contribution towards the Forest of [name] is a policy requirement, it still represents a moderate environmental benefit. The development would deliver nearly 70% biodiversity net gain in habitat units and over 520% net gain in hedgerow units. Due to the age of the application, it is not subject to the mandatory net gain requirement of 10%, so these gains carry significant weight as benefits.

The lack of a 5 year housing land supply for both Councils triggers NPPF paragraph 11(d). This states that where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out of date, planning permission should be granted unless one of two exceptions applies. The first exception is not applicable here as there are no policies in the NPPF that protect areas or assets of particular importance that provide a strong reason for refusal. The second exception states that any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies.

The site is defined as countryside in both Councils’ development plans. CBLP Policy SP7 recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and only permits particular types of development outside settlement envelopes, including the redevelopment of previously development land where various criteria are met. The proposed development would not cause settlement coalescence and would be accessible to nearby services and facilities by sustainable modes of transport. There would be no detrimental impact on the built and/or natural environment, settlement character, highway network or the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. It has not been argued that the proposal would prejudice the deliverability of allocated sites. Therefore, the proposed development would accord with CBLP Policy SP7.

BBLP Policy 7S permits certain forms of development in the countryside outside settlement policy areas in (i) to (v), none of which apply here. It also supports proposals that are well-related to a settlement if various criteria are met. The proposed development would relate well to Wixams, there is an identified community need for older persons housing, and the scale of the proposal would be appropriate to serve these local needs. It would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area including the adjoining settlement and the wider countryside. It would not adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside or have significant adverse effects on the environment, biodiversity, or designated wildlife site.

BBLP Policy 7S also requires identifiable community support for such proposals, but there are more objections than support locally, and the two parish councils that cover the site have not given explicit support. Therefore, the proposed development would conflict with this policy. However, due to the need for older persons housing, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply, and the compliance with the rest of the policy, I afford only moderate weight to this conflict.

The proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, highway safety and accessibility, and parking provision. It would provide various benefits, some of which I have afforded significant weight Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949 such as care home provision and biodiversity net gain. There would be full compliance with the CBLP and compliance with most of the BBLP. Only the lack of identifiable community support causes conflict with BBLP Policy 7S. Nevertheless, the adverse impacts resulting from this conflict would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of granting permission. The presumption in favour of sustainable development would be met.

Therefore, despite the partial conflict with BBLP Policy 7S, the proposed development would accord with the development plan taken as a whole and there are sufficient material considerations to indicate that planning permission should be granted in this instance.

Conditions 1 and 2 are necessary for clarity and compliance. It is necessary to allow up to five years for implementation to address any potential issues that might arise from securing a suitable foul water drainage system. Condition 3 is needed to ensure that the development is used for the specific purpose applied for given the overall planning balance. I have amended the wording slightly for clarity. Conditions 4 and 5 are necessary in order to place restrictions on the development to address any effects on great crested newts.

Conditions 6 to 15 are pre-commencement conditions as they require details and measures to be assessed and agreed before development works begin on site. Condition 6 is necessary to safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring properties during construction and in the interests of highway and railway safety and operational needs. Given the wording, there is no need for a separate construction condition relating to the adjoining railway.

Condition 7 is necessary to safeguard protected species during construction, Condition 8 is necessary to protect and enhance biodiversity, while Condition 9 is required to provide adequate compensation for great crested newts before works commence. Condition 10 is needed to protect existing trees, Condition 11 is necessary to protect the environment and public health, while Condition 12 is required to protect the living conditions of future occupants of the development where noise and vibration effects can be addressed via the submission of additional details.

Condition 13 is necessary to ensure an acceptable effect on character and appearance and neighbouring living conditions. Conditions 14 and 15 are necessary to ensure that surface and foul water drainage are provided without increasing the risk of flooding or pollution both on and off the site. Condition 15 addresses [name] concerns regarding foul water capacity and the need to agree a scheme before works commence on site.

Condition 16 is necessary in the interests of fire safety, Condition 17 is necessary to ensure adequate waste management, while Conditions 18 and 19 are needed to support sustainability measures. Conditions 20, 21 and 22 are necessary in the interests of character and appearance and safeguarding ecology and living conditions, while also ensuring the railway operates safety in terms of lighting. There is an existing detailed landscaping plan and so no need for the submission and approval of further details. Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949

Condition 23 is necessary to ensure the implementation and operation of the sustainable drainage systems. The reference to watercourses has been omitted as there are none within or adjacent to the site. Condition 24 is necessary to ensure that vibration issues relating to any proposed equipment is adequately addressed. A condition requiring details of noise levels from such equipment is not necessary as these levels can be fixed already based on existing background noise. Condition 25 is necessary to address any odour issues associated with extract equipment. Condition 26 is needed to ensure adequate living conditions for future occupiers.

Conditions 27 and 28 are necessary in the interests of highway safety, while Conditions 29 and 30 are needed to secure adequate car and cycle parking. Condition 31 is necessary in the interests of crime prevention as recommended by [name]. Condition 32 is necessary to ensure that the development meets building regulations for wheelchair user dwellings given that these are optional national requirements but expressly required for this type of development by BBLP Policy 59S.

Condition 33 is necessary to ensure noise levels from any proposed equipment is kept within existing background levels. Condition 34 is needed to manage external boundaries and spaces within the development once completed.

I have not imposed some of the Councils’ suggested conditions where there was effective duplication of requirements. Additionally, it is not necessary to impose a soil management condition which would be more appropriate for a larger site or one within demonstrable geodiversity. There is no reason to require that the existing buildings are demolished and removed before works commence as that is an operational decision for the developer and the proposal would clearly result in all structures going. There is also no need for a condition on surface water drainage from hard landscaping and parking areas, as Condition 14 deals with this matter sufficiently.

For the above reasons, and having had regard to all matters raised, I conclude that both appeals should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than five years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers 001 Rev 3A Series 10, 003 Rev 3C Series 10, 001 Rev 3C Series 20, 002 Rev 3C Series 20, 003 Rev 3C Series 20, 001 Rev 3C Series 21, 002 Rev 3C Series 21, 001 [name] 24, 002 [name] 24, 20072-010 [name], KL-537-001 Rev P3.

The development hereby permitted shall be used as a care home, for no more than 65 beds, and no other purpose (including any other purpose falling within Class C2 of the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended)), or any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

No development hereby permitted shall take place except in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Council’s Organisational Licence (WMLOR152, or a ‘[name]) and with the proposals detailed on plan “ [site address] : Impact plan for great crested newt District Licensing (Version 1)”, dated 8th May 2024.

No development hereby permitted shall take place except in accordance with Part 1 of the [name], as set out in the District Licence (WML-OR152, or a ‘[name]) and in addition in compliance with the following: a) Works which will affect likely newt hibernacula may only be undertaken during the active period for amphibians. b) Capture methods must be used at suitable habitat features prior to the commencement of the development (i.e., hand/destructive/night searches), which may include the use of temporary amphibian fencing, to prevent newts moving onto a development site from adjacent suitable habitat, installed for the period of the development (and removed upon completion of the development). c) Amphibian fencing and pitfall trapping must be undertaken at suitable habitats and features, prior to commencement of the development.

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority which will include information on: a) Construction working hours; b) Measures for vibration and noise mitigation (including a method statement for any piling); c) Measures for air quality and dust suppression; d) The parking of vehicles; e) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in the development; Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949 f) Storage of plant and materials used in the development; g) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding/scaffolding affecting the highway if required; h) Consultation with the [name] at [name]; i) Measures on site to control the deposition of dirt/mud on surrounding roads during the development; j) Footpath/footway/cycleway or road closures needed during the development period; k) Traffic management needed during the development period; and l) Times, routes and means of access and egress for construction traffic and delivery vehicles (including the import of materials and the removal of waste from the site) during the development of the site. The approved Construction Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the development process.

No development shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP shall include the following: a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities; b) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”; c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements), including measures for construction lighting; d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features; e) The times during construction when specialist 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 an ecological clerk of works or similarly competent person; and h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. The CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall commence until a detailed [name] (EES) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall ensure that ecological, habitat and small-scale species enhancement measures would mitigate impacts on protected species and habitats and would deliver a net gain for biodiversity. The EES shall include the following: a) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed works; b) Review of site potential and constraints; c) Detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) to achieve stated objectives; Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949 d) Extent and location/area of proposed works on appropriate scale maps and plans (including elevation plans); e) Type and source of materials to be used where appropriate, e.g. native species of local provenance; f) Timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned to the proposed phasing of development; g) Persons responsible for implementing works; h) Details of after-care and long-term maintenance and management of all ecological enhancement measures; i) Details for monitoring and remedial measures; and j) Details for disposal of any wastes arising from works. The development hereby approved shall not be first brought into use or occupied until the EES has been implemented in accordance with the approved details. All features shall be retained and managed in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

No development shall commence until a certificate from the [name] (as set out in the District Licence WMLOR152, or a ‘[name]), confirming that all necessary measures regarding great crested newt compensation have been appropriately dealt with has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the authority has provided authorisation for the development to proceed under the district newt licence.

No development shall commence until the tree protection details contained in the Updated Arboricultural Assessment (FPCR dated September 2022) have been implemented. The protection details shall be retained throughout the construction of the development.

No development shall commence until a contaminated land assessment and, if necessary, an associated remedial strategy, together with a timetable of works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The assessment shall comprise the following: a) The contaminated land assessment shall include a desk study and site reconnaissance exercise to produce a conceptual model of the site. This shall be used to propose a site investigation strategy, which shall be approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the investigations commencing on the site. b) The site investigation shall include relevant soil, soil gas, surface and groundwater sampling, in accordance with the quality assured sampling and analysis methodology of the [name] as well as other appropriate guidance where necessary. This shall include risk assessment based on the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model or where appropriate other guidance providing adequate justification can be provided for such use. c) The site investigation report shall detail all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of analysis, risk assessment to any receptors and a proposed remedial strategy. The local planning authority shall approve this remedial strategy in writing prior to any redemption Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949 commencing on site. The work shall be of such a nature so as to render harmless the identified contamination, given the proposed end use of the site and surrounding environment including any controlled waters. Any laboratories used for sampling shall be compliant with [name] or an equivalent approved accredited quality control scheme. d) The remediation work as outlined in the approved strategy shall be carried out in full on site under a quality assurance scheme to demonstrate compliance with the proposed methodology and best practice guidance. If during any works, contamination is encountered which has not previously been identified, including new hotspots uncovered by demolition, then the additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to the local planning authority for approval in writing. All works will be made available for witnessing by an appropriate Council Officer. Upon completion of works, this condition shall not be discharged until a validation report has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The validation report shall include details of the proposed remediation works and the quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full accordance with the approved methodology. Details of any post remediation sampling to show the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included in the closure report together with the necessary documentation detailing what refuse materials have been removed from the site. No part of the development shall be occupied until such works have been completed.

No development shall commence until a noise assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority for external noise levels including reflected and re-radiated noise and details of the sound insulation of the building envelope. Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained.

No development shall commence until details of the existing and final ground levels and slab levels of the buildings hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such details shall include: a) A plan showing existing and proposed ground levels, and finished floor levels, all referenced to a fixed datum point like the [name], including adjoining land; b) Sections through both the site and the adjoining land to show the height relationship between the approved care home and the nearby properties on [address]; and c) A plan showing the proposed gradients of all gardens/external amenity areas. Thereafter the site shall only be developed in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949 authority. The scheme shall include provision of attenuation for the 1 in 100 year event (+40% CC) and shall include a 10% allowance for urban creep. The final detailed design shall be based on the [name] (Ref: RSK, 133932-R1(2)-SuDS, February 2024), and [name] technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (March 2018). The discharge rate from the development will be limited to the equivalent 1 in 1 year rate, or an appropriate rate as agreed by the Bedford Group of [name]. The surface water drainage scheme shall be implemented and phased as approved. Any variation to the connections and controls indicated on the approved details which may be necessary at the time of construction would require the resubmission of those details to the local planning authority for approval in writing.

No development shall commence until a detailed foul water drainage scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The final detailed design shall be accompanied by a FDA1 form, any necessary impact assessments (trees, odour, contamination), and shall follow the foul drainage hierarchy. Any proposal to connect to the mains foul drainage network shall be accompanied by written confirmation from [name] that any foul water network upgrades including waste water treatment work upgrades required to reliably accommodate the additional flows from the development have been fully completed or have a timescale for their completion. There shall be no occupation or first use of the development until a copy of written confirmation from [name] that all foul water network upgrades have been fully completed (including waste water treatment work upgrades required to reliably accommodate the additional flows from the development) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the foul drainage has been installed in full accordance with the approved details.

No development above slab level shall take place, and no construction of hard surfacing shall take place, until a scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority for the provision of fire hydrant(s) at the development. Prior to the first use or occupation of the building the fire hydrants serving that development shall be installed as approved. Thereafter the fire hydrants shall be retained as approved.

No development above slab level shall take place until details of bin storage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the building hereby approved shall not be first brought into use or occupied until the bin storage has been provided in full accordance with the approved details.

No development above slab level shall take place until a scheme for the provision of electric vehicle charging points has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include details of the number, location design/appearance, cable routing and charge speed for the charge points to be installed. Thereafter the building hereby approved shall not be first occupied or brought into use until the electric vehicle charging points have been installed and are available for use in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Verification Report shall confirm that the measures set out in the "iTS Consultancy (09/12/2021) Proposed Care Home Development, [name], version v3" document, have been implemented in full.

The landscaping scheme as shown on drawing number KL-537-001 Rev P3 shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the building hereby approved. The trees, hedging, shrubs and grass shall be maintained in accordance with the above landscaping scheme and any which die or are destroyed within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development shall be replaced during the next planting season.

No development above slab level shall be undertaken until details of the materials to be used for the external walls, roofs, rainwater goods, facia boards, architectural detailing, green walls and green and blue roofs, and windows/doors of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied or brought into use until the details of any external lighting to be installed on the site, including the design of the lighting unit, any supporting structure and the extent of the area to be illuminated, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Details should include: a) Lighting contours to demonstrate that the vertical illumination of neighbouring premises is in accordance with the recommendations of the Institution of [name] in the ‘Guidance Note 01/20: Guidance Notes for the Reduction of [name]; b) Measures to minimise use of lighting and prevent glare and sky glow by correctly using, locating, aiming and shielding luminaires; c) Light colour shall be warm in appearance, not exceeding a temperature of 3000 kelvin (K)Approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be permanently retained; d) Measures to protect protected species and habitats; and e) Evidence to demonstrate that the potential for train drivers to be dazzled is eliminated and that the location and colour of lights would not give rise to the potential for confusion with the signalling arrangements on the railway. The external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details and thereafter be retained.

The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until a Maintenance and Management Plan for the entire surface water drainage system, inclusive of any adoption arrangements and/or private ownership or responsibilities, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the approved plan has been correctly and fully installed. Thereafter the entire surface water drainage system and watercourses shall be maintained in full accordance with the approved maintenance and management plan. Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949

Prior to first use of the development, details of anti-vibration measures shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The measures shall ensure that machinery, plant/equipment, extract ventilation system, and ducting are mounted with proprietary anti-vibration isolators and fan motors are vibration isolated from the casing and adequately silenced. The approved details shall be implemented prior to occupation of the development and thereafter be retained.

Prior to first use of the development, details of the installation, operation, and maintenance of the odour abatement equipment and extract system, including the height of the extract duct and vertical discharge outlet, in accordance with the EMAQ+ document “Control of Odour and Noise from [name]” shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the use and thereafter be retained.

Prior to development above slab level, details of the acoustic glazing for the winter gardens and balconies shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall then be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the junction between the proposed access road and the highway as shown on plan ref 20072-010 [name] has been constructed in accordance with the approved details, amended as necessary by the technical and safety audit process, and opened to traffic. The junction shall be maintained thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall not be first brought into use until visibility splays at the junction of the access with the public highway have been provided. The minimum dimensions shall be 2.4m measured along the centre line of the proposed access from its junction with the channel of the public highway, and 120m looking right (southeast) measured from the centre line of the proposed access along the line of the channel of the public highway. Looking left (northwest), visibility to a minimum of 96.4m shall be provided, measured from the centre line of the proposed access along a line to a position no more than 500mm offset from the channel of the public highway. The required splays shall for the lifetime of the development remain free of any obstruction to visibility.

Prior to the first occupation of the development, details of hard surfacing for the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The car parking and turning areas shall be laid out in accordance with the approved materials and made available in accordance with the details shown on drawing number 003 Rev 3C Series 10. The parking and turning areas shall be maintained for these purposes only for the lifetime of the development.

The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until a scheme for the parking of cycles on the site (long and short stay, including the internal dimensions of the cycle parking area, stands/brackets to be used and access thereto), in accordance with the Council’s Parking Standards for New Development SPD (August 2023; or any replacement document) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented before the development is first occupied or brought into use and thereafter retained for this purpose. Appeal Decisions 6003946 and 6003949

Prior to the first occupation of the development, details of security measures in relation to building areas, access controls, and external lighting for the site in accordance with Secured by Design principles shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall then be implemented prior to the first occupation.

No development shall take place above slab level until a scheme demonstrating that the development would meet the requirements of approved [name]; Volume 1 Category 3 requirements (or such replacement document or policy which exists at the time of the development commencing) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

The cumulative noise level of external plant and machinery installed within the development should not exceed 40dBLaeq1hr rating level during the day nor 35dBLaeq15min rating level during the night at the façade of noise sensitive premises.

Unless otherwise approved under this planning permission, notwithstanding the provisions of Part 2 Class A of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected or constructed in whole or in part on the land subject to this development without the grant of further planning permission from the local planning authority.