Appeal 6005264

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing buildings and erection of flexible commercial units, [name] B2 (General Industrial), B8 (Storage and Distribution) and Class E(g)(iii) ([name]), with loading areas, car parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/P/00635, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

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

I have taken the site address above from the application form, adding the postcode provided on the appeal form, in the interests of clarity.

A revised site location plan (PL101 [name]) has been provided with the appeal in order to correct a discrepancy, removing a very small area in the southwestern corner from being within the red line boundary. Given the very minor alteration and due to the removal of that part of the site having no effect on the proposed development, I find it would not be prejudicial to accept this revised site location plan with the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The site comprises three existing commercial buildings and associated external areas. A belt of trees run along the western boundary and part of the northern one. The site is located within the [site address] , which is an allocated Strategic Employment Site, on its northern edge. The current built form and layout of the site are entirely congruous with the character and appearance of the wider industrial estate which is formed of a range of commercial buildings of utilitarian character and design. To the south of the site is the wider industrial estate. To the north are areas of open space, garden areas serving properties that front onto [address] and an allotment facility, which together provide for a semi-rural character and appearance.

The proposal involves the removal of the existing buildings and the construction of eight commercial units, accommodated in four separate buildings, amounting to a relatively limited increase in floorspace compared with the existing buildings.

A Landscape and [name] (LVA) was submitted by the appellant. It sets out that the site is within Character Area 11B ‘ [site address] ’, in the Guildford Landscape Character Assessment & Guidance Volume 3: Townscape Assessment. The site displays the characteristics associated with this character area, being a commercial development within an industrial estate. The design guidance for new development for this character area is identified as needing to ensure that the visual impact of new development is assessed from the adjoining highly sensitive character area, that views of the surrounding townscape and rural landscape are considered and that inappropriate development or boundaries with negative impact are resisted. The LVA identifies that the effect of the proposal on the townscape character of the site would be negligible adverse.

The adjacent semi-rural area to the north of the site is identified as being within character area RV5 Slyfield River Valley Floor in the Surrey Landscape Character Assessment: Guildford Borough 2015 and character area H2 [name]

The LVA states that under both of these assessments the urban fringe character of this area is a notable feature along with the presence of the [site address] . It identifies that the effect of the proposal on the landscape character of this semi-rural area would be minor adverse and indirect.

Units 2 to 7 would be adjacent to the southern boundary of the site and would be closely related to other commercial buildings located within the wider industrial estate. The proposed design of the buildings mean that they would appear commensurate with the neighbouring commercial units, and the overall scale, bulk and height would be similar to that of the surrounding built form.

Units 1 and 8 would be more closely related to the northern boundary of the site and would therefore be situated adjacent to the neighbouring semi-rural area. Whilst the footprint of Unit 1 would be considerably smaller than the building that exists on that part of the site currently, it would be taller than the existing building with an increase in ridge height from 9.1m to 16.18m. Unit 8 would also introduce a building with a ridge height of 15.96m on an area which is currently car park adjacent to the existing [name] building which has a lower ridge height.

Whilst many of the commercial buildings in the surrounding area are lower in height than the proposed buildings, I noted that there is variation in building heights across the industrial estate. I observed the neighbouring [name] building, located along the northern edge of the industrial estate, is taller than most other buildings around it. Whilst both Unit 1 and Unit 8 would be taller than this building, they would not be significantly taller.

I am also referred to the new [name] development which is currently under construction to the east, where there will be a range of buildings of differing heights including a silo which would be taller than Units 1 and 8. [name] note that the silo structure will be restricted in width, in my view it will still be read visually as a tall industrial feature within the area.

All of the proposed buildings would have footprints that are commensurate with other buildings within the wider industrial estate. The separation of built form into four buildings would break up the bulk and massing of the development in an appropriate way. Given the variation in the height of buildings, including some that would be similar to those proposed, I do not find that the height of the proposed buildings would be a discordant feature. I find that the design approach taken in this case would respond appropriately to the characteristics of the industrial estate surroundings.

I recognise however that given the proposed siting towards the north of the site, Units 1 and 8 would be more noticeable in views from the adjacent semi-rural area.

The site is set some distance from [address] and when travelling along it views are significantly screened by existing frontage development and mature trees. There are some more open gaps where views of the industrial estate are glimpsed. [name] 1 and 8 would be noticeable in these glimpsed views, they would be well contained within the confines of the industrial estate and the separation from [address] would be maintained. In views from [address] to the north and northeast, where there are breaks in vegetation, I noticed that the wider industrial estate was discernible, although the separation distance was significant. I find that any views of the proposal from [address] would be seen in the context of the existing industrial estate setting.

PRoW FP66 runs from [address] through an area of open space, entering into the industrial estate along the southern boundary of the site. There is a belt of mature trees along the western boundary which screens the largest existing building significantly from views along this PRoW. I acknowledge that this screening would be lessened in the winter months when the trees are not in leaf and the roof of Unit 1 may be more visible given its overall height. Nevertheless, any views of the proposal would be seen in the context of the existing wider industrial estate which is already a noticeable feature of the area.

Views towards the site when heading south along PRoW FP438 located to the east of the allotments are constrained by an existing belt of trees, until you reach the southern end. I acknowledge this screening may reduce in the winter months. Nevertheless, where views are possible, I find that the proposal would be seen in the context of the wider industrial estate and would therefore not be incongruous.

When heading from [address] through the recreation ground, and then along PRoW FP581 there would be direct views of Unit 8 and also views across private land to the west of this route towards Unit 1. There would be similar views from the adjacent allotment facility which is situated to the east of this PRoW. Given the more direct views towards Unit 8 and with no significant screening present, I find that this view would be the most altered as a result of the proposal. My finding in this respect accords with the visual appraisal set out in the LVA which identifies the proposal as having a moderate adverse effect on this view, whereas no change, negligible adverse or minor adverse effects are identified for other views from outside the site.

Nevertheless, there are already views of the [name] building that sits adjacent to the site, through the green mesh fencing that surrounds the allotments and the edge of the industrial estate is already apparent in this view. Unit 8 would appear similar in height to Unit 1 and to the silo currently under construction. [name] accept that the proposal would be clearly noticeable, given the context in which it would be seen, I do not find that it would result in an unacceptable impact.

Interested parties refer to the impact on views from the Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG), named [address] Farm which is currently being provided and would sit to the east of the allotment facility and extending to the north and south of this area. The information provided identifies that a significant area of screening planting will be provided to bolster the western boundary of the SANG and to mitigate for the presence of the industrial estate. This would limit the views of the proposal from the SANG, once established.

The proposal includes a landscaping strategy which has been reviewed by the appellant as part of the appeal submission which would provide additional tree planting along the southern boundary but would also strengthen the soft landscaping along the northern and northeastern boundaries. [name] accept that the scope for substantial landscaping would not be possible, I am satisfied that some additional soft landscaping would be possible along more sensitive boundaries, which whilst it would not wholly screen it, it would help to break up the appearance of the built form and soften the edges of the site.

Therefore, in my view, whilst Units 1 and 8 would be taller than neighbouring buildings and located closer to the boundaries than the existing buildings, the overall design, scale, height and bulk of the proposed development would respond appropriately to the character and appearance of the existing industrial estate in which it would be sited. The transition between the character of the industrial estate and the adjacent semi-rural area would not be significantly altered in my view. I therefore find that the proposed development would appear as a commercial development located on a strategic employment site, where such buildings are anticipated.

For the above reasons, and without any substantive evidence provided to the contrary, my findings are in accordance with the conclusions of the submitted LVA.

I must make my decision on the development plan policies at the time of my decision therefore the guidance in the superseded supplementary planning guidance is not relevant to the appeal scheme before me.

Notwithstanding the Council’s second reason for refusal, the site is not located within the Green Belt and I have not been directed to any Green Belt development plan policies that relate to the site or in respect of the setting of the Green Belt. Moreover, there is nothing in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) relating to such a concept. Therefore, I am not required to assess the effect of the proposed upon the openness of the Green Belt.

I therefore find that the proposal would result in an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. The proposal complies with Policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2015-2034 Adopted 25 April 2019 (LPSS) and Policy D4 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Development Management Policies Adopted on 22 March 2023 (LPDMP). These policies seek, amongst other things, that developments respond to distinctive local character.

Concerns are raised about the fact that not all land under the control of the appellant was identified on the initial site location plan. The revised site boundary provided with the appeal has since included the strip of land along the western boundary and the land where the [name] building is located within a blue line boundary. [name] understand the concerns raised, there is no development or use identified in these blue line areas with the proposed development identified only within the red line boundary.

[name] note the distances between the site and neighbouring dwellings are disputed, I witnessed the relationship between them during my visit, and I am satisfied that the separation distances would be sufficient. I accept that the heights of Unit 1 and Unit 8 mean that the proposed development would be more visible than the current built form on site from neighbouring land. Nevertheless, existing mature trees that run alongside the western and part of the northern site boundary along with trees that run along the boundaries of neighbouring properties would provide significant screening and a landscaping scheme would also provide a softening effect. This would limit the visual impact in views from neighbouring gardens and dwellings to an acceptable degree.

The occupant of [address] advises that the land that adjoins the northern and northeastern boundaries of the site is within their ownership and forms their garden, not a paddock as asserted by the appellant. It is not for me under this appeal to determine what the lawful use of this neighbouring land is.

[name] witnessed a small football goal and a table and chairs on that area of land, it is distinct from the garden area closer to the rear of the respective dwelling, being separated from it by a significant belt of trees. Even if I find that more open area of land that abuts the site boundary is garden land, due to the overall extent of garden space associated with the dwelling and the fact that there are large areas of the garden that are more screened and less affected by the proposal, I do not find that the development would result in an unacceptable effect in terms of being overbearing. Given the use of the proposed development, I do not find that it would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking either.

With regard to concerns about noise and disturbance, despite the identified inaccuracies in the submitted Environmental Noise Impact Assessment (ENIA) and given the established commercial and industrial use of the site and the limited additional floorspace proposed, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm in this respect. Suggested planning conditions would control the level of noise and disturbance, particularly during night time hours, which align with the recommendations of the ENIA.

The ENIA also suggests that mitigation could also include a planning condition to restrict vehicle reversing alarms so that only white noise or broadband alarms are used instead of tonal alarms. However, the Council suggest that such a condition would not be enforceable. I have no evidence before me that such a condition would be reasonable either, given it would mean potentially having to ensure vehicles outside of the control of the future occupants of the site adhere to such a condition. Based on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that such a condition would meet the tests set out in the Framework in this case.

Concerns are raised about the lack of any acoustic fencing proposed along the northern boundaries. However, this is not a mitigation measure suggested by the ENIA, and in light of the other conditions that are suggested which would mitigate effects, I do not find that there is sufficient evidence demonstrating that this would be necessary in this case.

No condition is suggested by the Council in respect of the hours of operation. I am not provided with any information that suggests the existing site is subject to such a restriction. Given the similarities in the use proposed, I do not find that it would be reasonable to impose such a condition. As stated above, other conditions are suggested in respect of limiting noise at the site during night time hours, which I find sufficient in this respect.

An interested party raised concerns about the possibility of mezzanine floors being added in the future, given the height of the proposed buildings. I find that the insertion of a mezzanine would extend the available floorspace which may alter the intensity of the use of such buildings. In the interests of ensuring that any additional floorspace attributed to the site can be assessed, in terms of any effects on neighbouring amenity, I find that a condition could be imposed so that any such scheme would require planning permission.

I note reference to the Framework in this respect which requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users and consideration given to noise and the affects that it can have on health and the quality of life, nevertheless, the appeal site comprises an area of existing commercial development within an existing [name] site where the type of development proposed is expected. Providing sufficient mitigation is secured, I do not find that the proposal would result in significant harm in this respect.

With regard to representations received about highway matters, the site lies within an existing industrial estate, where the movement of vehicles, including commercial vehicles, is to be expected. Neither the Council, National Highways nor the Highway Authority have objected or raised concerns based on the submitted [name] which identifies a very limited increase in the number of expected daily vehicle movements. There is no technical evidence provided to the contrary on this matter.

[name] note the concerns raised about wildlife and biodiversity, the site is already developed, being significantly covered by hardstanding and buildings, within an existing industrial estate. The submitted [name] identifies that the proposal would not result in harm to ecology subject to a precautionary approach being taken along with mitigation and securing an appropriate lighting scheme. There is no substantive evidence to the contrary before me. Whilst some existing trees, identified as being of lower quality, would be removed to facilitate the development, a significant number of trees would be planted as part of the landscaping scheme and the retained trees would be protected during the construction phase. Planning conditions can secure the necessary approaches in this respect.

Interested parties question the need for the development, nevertheless, I am not referred to any substantive evidence which suggests the proposed development would not provide modern commercial units which offer more flexible use options. I am also referred to sections 6 and 7 of Policy E2 of the LPSS, which encourage the provision of small business units and childcare provision as part of employment schemes. Whilst these features do not form part of the proposal, the policy only encourages them and does not strictly require them. The Council has not raised the lack of these features as a particular issue that would raise conflict with the policy overall and I can find no evidence to suggest that I should take a different view.

The nearest listed building is identified as [address], which is around 130 metres away from the site. I also note the interested party comment that states that the boundary of [address] is approximately 70m from the site. Nevertheless, given the separation distance, the presence of intervening vegetation and the fact that the appeal site sits within an existing strategic employment site, I agree with the Council that the site is not within the setting of this listed building.

Whilst interested parties have suggested alternative proposals they consider would be preferable, I must consider the development proposed as it is before me, based on its individual merits. I also note the concerns raised about how the Council assessed and dealt with the application, nevertheless, that is a matter that needs to be resolved outside of the appeal process.

The site is within the zone of influence of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA), a European site designated for its populations of nightjar, Dartford warbler and woodlark. Conservation objectives of the SPA are identified as maintaining or restoring the population of each of the qualifying features, the extent, distribution, structure and function of the habitats of the qualifying features and supporting processes on which the habitats rely.

A Habitat Regulations Assessment - [name] prepared by an ecological consultant was submitted in support of the application. The report concluded that there are no qualifying features located on or directly adjacent to the site and that it is unlikely that the construction or occupation of the site will have any likely significant effect on the qualifying bird species of the SPA. Natural England was consulted on the application and raised no objection to the proposed scheme. Based on the evidence before me I have arrived at the same conclusion and I am satisfied that an Appropriate Assessment is therefore not necessary in this case.

I have considered the conditions suggested in light of the tests set out in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. In the interests of precision and clarity I have undertaken some rationalisation and rewording of the conditions suggested. In addition to the standard time limit, a condition setting out the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. I have removed reference to existing plans as it is not necessary to include them. I have not referred to the landscaping plans (BEA-24-089-01 REV P03; BEA-24-089-02 REV P01; BEA-24- 089-03 REV P01) as landscaping is subject to a separate condition.

Conditions requiring a surface water drainage scheme prior to commencement and verification of its installation are required in the interests of ensuring that flood risk is appropriately managed. Five conditions are necessary to ensure contamination is adequately dealt with to prevent unacceptable levels of water pollution and so that groundwater resources are not harmed.

A condition requiring an [name] and Tree Protection Plan is necessary in the interests of the visual amenity of the area and biodiversity. Conditions requiring more information relating to protected species alongside a Construction Environmental Management Plan are required in the interests of ensuring the protection of such species. A method statement for the control and eradication of an invasive species and a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan are required to ensure the provision of biodiversity enhancements at the site. A condition requiring a Sensitive Lighting Management Plan is necessary to prevent adverse impacts on protected species and to ensure satisfactory visual and residential amenity.

Conditions are imposed in relation to levels, materials and hard and soft landscaping in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. I have altered the wording of the suggested levels condition so that site clearance, site preparation and demolition can go ahead prior to this detail being submitted. I have also altered the landscaping condition to refer to soft landscaping more generally, given some confusion could result from the various landscape plans that were submitted with the application and appeal. A condition is also imposed which sets out the requirements of the planting, seeding and turfing approach to ensure the soft landscaping can be established.

A condition requiring a Demolition and Construction Environmental and Transport Management Plan is imposed along with a condition requiring that the parking and turning areas are laid out prior to use to make sure that the development does not result in unacceptable highway safety impacts. The Environmental Health Officer (EHO) suggested a condition relating to a plan for demolition and construction in order to control the effect on the environment during the works which was not suggested by the Council. Given many of the requirements for details overlapped with a suggested condition requiring a Construction Transport Management Plan in relation to highway matters, I have combined them, to avoid duplication.

Conditions requiring schemes to improve the section of Public Footpath 66 that runs through the site, the provision of informal pedestrian crossing points, electric vehicle charging points, cycle parking facilities, an updated travel plan and a car park management plan are necessary to encourage the use of sustainable forms of travel and to ensure effective parking at the site. I note that the Highway Authority requested that 50% of the parking spaces had electric vehicle charging points, nevertheless, the Council has confirmed that this would go significantly beyond the policy requirement and have advised that 21% would be appropriate, being above the level required by Building Regulations. I can find no reason to disagree with the Council. I have removed the suggested condition that duplicated the requirement for a cycle parking scheme.

A condition is imposed to require details of fixed plant, machinery and equipment prior to installation. A condition is also necessary to ensure that all plant, machinery and equipment installed or operated is at least 5dB below existing background noise levels, when measured at the nearest noise sensitive dwellings. This condition represents the advice in up to date [name]. I have altered the condition so that a scheme is to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority as to the location of where the measurements should be taken and how any further mitigation would be dealt with, due to the inaccuracies set out in the ENIA.

It is also necessary to ensure that external doors, other than personnel doors, remain shut from 10pm until 7am, and that the loading and unloading of goods and the use of forklifts and any other mechanical handling equipment are only undertaken within the buildings during these hours. A condition is also reasonable to require that the development is carried out in accordance with measures set out in the submitted Initial Site Suitability Assessment: Air Quality report. I have also added a condition which requires planning permission to be sought prior to the installation of any mezzanines, other than those already approved as part of the scheme. These conditions are necessary in the interests of protecting neighbouring residential amenity.

A condition requiring that details of the sustainability measures of the building design are submitted is reasonable in the interests of reducing carbon emissions and ensuring energy efficiency measures. Ensuring compliance with the submitted Site Waste Management Plan is necessary so that appropriate waste management methods are implemented. A condition restricting the use of the development in line with that applied for is necessary in the interests of certainty.

I have not imposed a condition requiring signage details as this matter would be covered by the Advertisement Regulations. The Highway Authority requested a condition to require improvements to bus stops, however the Council has set out why it does not consider this reasonable, and I can find no reason to disagree with the Council on this matter. A condition in this regard is therefore not imposed.

I have been provided with a signed s106 agreement that both the Council and appellant are party to. It sets out requirements relating to [name] (BNG) and identifies that a 20% net gain would be delivered. Policy P7 of the LPDMP sets out such a requirement. I therefore find that the s106 is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, is directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to it. I therefore find it is in accordance with Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the requirements of the Framework. [name] is subject to a deemed condition in the event that permission is granted and that a management plan for a period of thirty years is adequately secured by the s106, I have not imposed the suggested condition relating to the submission of a Biodiversity Net Gain Plan and management and maintenance plan.

For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore allowed.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: PL101 [name] - Amended Site Location Plan PL007 REV-G – Proposed Site Plan PL008 REV-C – Proposed Site Sections 40085-[name]-0020 REV-P02 – Proposed Levels Site Plan PL010 REV-B – [name] 1 GA Ground Floor Plan PL011 REV-B – Unit 1 [name] and Office FF Plan PL012 REV-C – [name] 1 Elevations PL013 REV-B - [name] 1 Roof Plan PL020 REV-A – Unit 2, 3 and 4 [name] - Ground Floor Plan PL021 REV-A - Unit 2 [name] - [name] and Office FF Plan PL022 REV-A - Unit 3 [name] - [name] and Office FF Plan PL023 REV-A - Unit 4 [name] - [name] and Office FF Plan PL024 REV-B - [name] 2, 3, and 4 Elevations PL025 REV-A - [name] 2, 3 and 4 GA Roof Plan PL030 REV-B - Unit 5, 6 and 7 [name] - Ground Floor Plan PL031 REV-B - Unit 5 [name] - [name] and Office FF Plan PL032 REV-B - Unit 6 [name] - [name] and Office FF Plan PL033 REV-B - Unit 7 [name] - [name] and Office FF Plan PL034 REV-C – [name] 5, 6, and 7 Elevations PL035 REV-B - [name] 5, 6 and 7 GA Roof Plan PL040 REV-B - Unit 8 [name] - Ground Floor Plan PL041 REV-B - Unit 8 [name] - [name] and Office FF Plan PL042 REV-C – [name] 8 Elevations PL043 REV-B - [name] 1 GA Roof Plan

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

Prior to the first use of the development, a surface water drainage verification report must be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This must demonstrate that the surface water drainage system has been constructed as per the agreed scheme. Details of any management company, the ‘as-built’ drainage layout and the national grid reference of key drainage elements shall be provided.

No development approved by this planning permission shall commence until a remediation strategy to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site in respect of the development hereby permitted, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. This strategy should follow on from the submitted [name] and Geotechnical Site Assessment which forms a preliminary risk assessment and include the following components: (1) A site investigation scheme, based on the submitted preliminary risk assessment to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off-site. (2) The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. (3) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (2) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Prior to first use of the development hereby approved, a verification report demonstrating the completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to, and approved in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met.

If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the site then no further development shall be carried out until a remediation strategy detailing how this contamination will be dealt with has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

No drainage systems for the infiltration of surface water to the ground are permitted other than with the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Any proposals for such systems must be supported by an assessment of the risks to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Piling or other foundation designs using penetrative methods of sufficient depth to penetrate chalk underlying the [name] shall not be carried out other than with the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall take place on site until a finalised [name] (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP), in accordance with BS 5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction, are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development shall commence until tree protection measures, as set out in the AMS and TPP, have been installed. The tree protection measures shall be retained in accordance with the agreed TPP throughout the construction phase and the approved AMS must be adhered to throughout the development.

No development shall take place including site clearance, site preparation and demolition, until a pre works badger survey has been carried out. This shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist, no more than 3 months prior to the commencement of works and the clearance of vegetation to establish the use of the site by badgers. If new badger setts are identified, an updated survey report including an appropriate method of works and details of any licences that are required shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a precautionary working method statement for [name] shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement.

Prior to commencement of the development hereby approved, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the CEMP shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a [name] for the control and eradication of small-leaved contoneaster (contoneaster microphyllus) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Method Statement shall include post-treatment monitoring of the site to ensure a continuous 12 month period of where no small-leaved contoneaster are identified growing on the whole site. In the event that any of these species are identified as growing during the 12 month monitoring period then treatment shall resume and continue until a 12 month period of no growth of small-leaved contoneaster occurs. The agreed [name] shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to commencement above slab level, a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan detailing how the development will deliver biodiversity enhancements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Biodiversity Enhancement Plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and the enhancement measures retained thereafter.

Prior to the installation of external lighting, a Sensitive Lighting Management Plan to cover any external lights within the grounds, attached to the buildings and on the roofs shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

No development (other than site clearance, site preparation and demolition) shall take place until details of existing and proposed finished site levels, finished floor and ridge levels of the buildings to be erected, and finished external surface levels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the commencement of the relevant part, details and samples of the proposed external facing and roofing materials for all buildings, including colour and finish, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and samples.

Prior to first use of the development hereby approved, and notwithstanding the plans listed in Condition 2, full details of both hard and soft landscaping proposals shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved landscaping scheme (with the exception of planting, seeding and turfing) shall be implemented and made available for use prior to the occupation of the development and retained thereafter.

All planting, seeding or turfing approved shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of each building or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of ten years after planting, are removed, die or become seriously damaged or diseased in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, shall be replaced in the next available planting season with others of similar size, species and number, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

No development shall commence until a Demolition and Construction Environmental and Transport Management Plan (DCETMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details set out in the DCETMP shall be implemented and maintained during the construction of the development.

The development hereby approved shall not be first brought into use until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with the approved plans for vehicles to be parked, and for the loading and unloading of vehicles, and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. The parking, loading and unloading, and turning areas shall be retained and maintained for their designated purposes.

The development hereby approved shall not be first brought into use until a scheme to improve the portion of Public Footpath 66 that runs through the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The footpath improvements shall be implemented prior to the first use of the development and retained and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme thereafter.

The development hereby approved shall not be first brought into use until informal crossing points have been provided within the site in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The informal crossing points shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme thereafter.

The development hereby approved shall not be first brought into use until at least 21% of the proposed parking spaces are provided with an [name] charging point to be in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby approved shall not be first brought into use until a scheme for the provision of cycle facilities has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be provided prior to first use of the development and retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until an updated Framework Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented and maintained in accordance with the agreed details.

The development hereby approved shall not be first brought into use until a Car Park Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Car Park Management Plan shall be implemented prior to first use of the development and retained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

Prior to installation, details including acoustic specifications, of all fixed plant, machinery and equipment associated with air moving equipment (including fans, ducting and external openings), compressors, generators or plant or equipment of a like kind, to be installed within the site which have the potential to cause noise disturbance to any noise sensitive receivers, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. They shall be installed in accordance with the approved details only.

All plant, machinery and equipment installed or operated in connection with the carrying out of this permission shall be at least 5dB below existing background noise levels, when measured in accordance with [name] BS4142:2014+A1:2019, at the nearest noise sensitive properties. Prior to first use of the development, a scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to identify the location(s) of the nearest noise sensitive properties, where the measurement(s) will be taken and how further mitigation measures will be implemented if necessary to ensure the noise levels are met. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

All external doors within the approved development, other than personnel doors, shall be kept closed between the hours of 2200 - 0700.

All loading and unloading of goods, as well as forklift use and any other mechanical handling equipment shall only be undertaken internally within the buildings between the hours of 2200 - 0700.

The development hereby approved shall proceed in accordance with the mitigation measures set out within the Initial Site Suitability Assessment: Air Quality report prepared by Quantum Air, dated 14 February 2025. This shall include all measures that are identified as highly recommended and desirable.

No mezzanine floors shall be created other than those approved as part of this scheme.

Prior to first use, a BRE issued construction stage assessment or [name] shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that shows that a BREEAM rating of at least Excellent has been achieved. In the event that such a rating is replaced by a comparable nationally recognised measure of sustainability for building design, the equivalent level of measure shall be applicable to the proposed development. Within 12 months of first use, a certificate or post-construction report demonstrating a BREEAM rating of at least 'Excellent' has been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The development shall proceed in accordance with the approved Site Waste Management Plan, prepared by Envision, dated 11 February 2025.

The development hereby approved shall be used for Use Class B2, B8 and E(g)(iii) and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class E of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987, (or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).