Planning Appeal - Wednesday 22 April 2026, 9:30am - Cotswold District Council Webcasting

Planning Appeal
Wednesday, 22nd April 2026 at 9:30am 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
  1. Seat 20
  2. Seat 20
  3. Seat 40
  4. Seat 32
  5. Seat 20
  6. Webcast Finished

Seat 20 - 0:00:00
So obviously today on the agenda is the conditions. Does anybody have anything they wish to say
Seat 20 - 0:00:09
before we turn to that?
A couple of things sir, if I may. The first is you'll recall that Ms Cartlidge -Taylor
was charged with contacting her opposite numbers to see what their positions were in relation
matters. In relation to the county, Ms.
Cartlidge -Taylor has managed to speak to the county by telephone and by email
exchange. They were anticipating that the information on the pupillage yield was
going to be provided by this morning. We haven't yet had that information to hand.
Hopefully that will come in the next hour or so. In terms of the SIL
compliance statement to justify the figures she's been told that because the
the county are involved in another inquiry somewhere else in the county, they will be
asking, I feel like I have a parallel brief here, they will be asking if it will be possible
to provide that sole compliance statement to explain the justification for those figures
by Friday morning. From my client's perspective, we have no objection. It is a bit frustrating
that it is not provided in advance of this and frankly thank you to the district council
for making every effort to try and fill the gap,
but that's the position that I have been asked to convey.
As I say, I'm not objecting to it,
nor am I advocating for it.
I just simply act as the messenger in that respect.
And in relation to the district council,
she hasn't been able to get hold of the solicitor,
but has notified them by email
as to whether they wanted to come this morning
and say anything in addition on the 106.
Sorry, I emailed him yesterday and he came back and said that's fine, he wouldn't come
along today. So I don't think there's anything further we can say.
Okay, well, I suppose it is what it is. So yes, well, we'll see the Friday morning.
Thank you for the update. Thank you, sir. And second thing, two documents that we didn't
hand around yesterday, which is entirely my admission. One's the extract from the PPG.
which is from table 2 of the consultation chapter of the PPG and the other of which
there is from paragraph 17 .18 of the statutory codes which deals with the Gateshead case
that you recall Mr Lewis drew attention to yesterday and said there has been a lot of
litigation in this area.
Yes, there has but none of it is really demure from the principles that were set out before.
and then on the same theme we've taken the view sir that it will be useful to
put before you an appeal decision which covers exactly this area which is from a
site in East Bolden in the northeast of England and the reason for doing so is
nothing to do with the the foul water debate but the overlap between
pollution control and also planning control. It's a decision from Mr.
Inspector Graham Wright. I'm not sure. Paragraphs 10 and 12 which we
thought were useful particularly paragraph 10 which is a discussion about
the position of paragraph 201 and the overlap between planning and other
regimes of control. The NW that's referred to in paragraph 10 is Northumbria Water, who
had a several million pound fine which is referred to within that, but nonetheless the
Inspector concluded that that was a matter where other regimes of control should be assumed
to operate properly. And at the start of paragraph 12, the Inspector, considering matters in
the round, gave significant weight to the views of Northumbria Water and in that case
the lead local flood authority. But we thought that was useful, it's just the most recent
example we could find of the application of Paragraph 201.
Okay, thank you. Mr Leafhead, do you have any comments on systems submitted?
I do believe so. Okay, in that case, yes, thank you. I'll accept
them. I've lost track of where we are on ID numbers though.
I think... But it's in the best of the better notes than
I have. Was it 13, would that up to?
I think one on 12. Cheque with Mr. Houghton.
How slightly is the itinerary? 13.
13 is the next.
13 is the next.
Have I gone wrong? Okay.
But...
Ah, did you just hand in the other statutory code section?
Yes.
That's 12.
Yes.
I'd already sort of preemptively given that an ID number I think.
Extract from PPG.
Yeah.
13.
Okay.
And then...
decision report that's fine yeah I think I confuse myself by preemptively giving
an ID to these PPGs because we talked about them okay entirely my fault first
and for not to hand them in yesterday so
I have just emailed a case officer about the emotional case of the corrected version.
Okay, thank you.
So I will just replace rather than add a new doctorate of that. Thank you.
And certainly I have no objection to that.
As you will notice when I have delivered our opening statement there were any number of typos in there.
I am just less assiduous than Melinda Friend in terms of providing a replacement.
I'm not sure I've heard of clothing, particularly a clothing without some typos.
That's probably because you're writing at three in the morning sometimes so I should have some leniency.
You become word blind after a period of time. No matter how many times you read something you just miss the missing knot.
I did have a friend once who was a student of the four of us.
So it was a six discussion, so I had to ask him, is there any further clarity on that?
You started two days before.
Okay, are we ready for conditions?
Yes, sir. Thank you.
Can I just clarify?
Yes, Councillor.
Sorry, I hate to go back, but it is to do with the transport hub situation.
And it is quite clear here what it's to be used for.
I wondered if you had any more from GCC on that or not.
I mean if we thought it needed more clarification that's one point, but if we think it's clear, that's okay.
I mean, obviously we will have to talk to the county.
Are we going to get that on Friday morning?
Yes, exactly. That's exactly what we asked for from the county.
There were three elements that funding was being, clarification was being sought from
because the County Council hasn't provided a still compliance statement as they should have.
One of those was the £50 ,000 issue.
The county would otherwise have come back to us this morning, we were told,
but because the relevant officer is engaged in another inquiry,
they don't have sufficient headspace to deal with the £50 ,000 and tell us what it's for,
beyond the points that have been raised.
I suspect Ms Cartlidge -Taylor will have said that the Town Council has a particular interest in that,
so they will expect the call.
It may be, if I may say so,
sensible to have that call before Friday
so that they can have any input from the town council
in their sole compliance statement,
but that's ultimately a matter for others.
Okay. If you would give us the contact details
for who you are talking to in GCC,
that would be helpful, please. Is that okay?
If Mr Wainfield will pass over the
Aussie Central and Strathcrest Hill.
Okay, that's fine.
And then, if we see that, supposing they wait till Friday morning, what do we do then?
Do we come back to...
So, by then the inquiry will be closed, but I think it's only fair for me to allow you the opportunity to comment on that, if you wish to, at that point.
If it comes to that, then we'll, by email, with all main parties, make sure that everybody's in the loop.
It would be very focused on that issue alone.
Okay, thank you.
There will be a short turnaround I am afraid.
I am not surprised.
Okay, conditions?
Okay, so obviously I'm looking at the draught planning condition schedule that was provided
yesterday.
I'll just go through them one by one.
So obviously one and two are the standard time limits.
The only question that came to mind was how does two interact with any potential delays
in getting the waste water, foul water issues resolved?
That wouldn't stop the submission
of the reserve matters, sir.
So the intention is that whilst the modelling connexion
points are being made to the treatment plant,
law homes will be working up the reserve matters
application in conjunction with the district council
and submitting that so that things are ready to be
occupied, built and then occupied on the back
of the treatment works upgrade or the upgrade
to the treatment works.
So that works in Condition 1, but Condition 2,
is there any risk there?
Because that's after reserve matters approval.
Seat 40 - 0:10:02
So I think we're okay and we're okay
because the recent Anglia Water case
which said reserve matters are very much the specific statutory
definition reserve matters.
So that, because that wouldn't include issues such as the connexion to the foul drain,
and given that 7 and 8 and 9, whether on our case or Mr Lewis's case,
we would be able to do something in advance of occupation,
or if you were to go with Mr Lewis beyond going past foundations,
then we would be able to make a commencement under 3,
even if you couldn't go any further than ground level or you couldn't occupy the dwellings.
So I think we're all right in relation to that.
Okay, thank you.
Seat 32 - 0:10:56
Seat 20 - 0:10:57
Thank you.
Three is standard, four is standard.
I did make a note, what about access, but then I saw later on that's condition 12.
Mr Ponsa drew my attention to the fact this morning that 4 is a very short condition,
but perhaps I ought to say have the word numbers after it rather than this decision relates
to drawings.
Self evidence in terms of how you read it.
I'm okay with it as it is in the kind of common sense approach.
Everyone knows what that means.
So on five, so point four, I don't think that actually says
that the works need to be retained thereafter and and do we need that as
well in the condition? I'll just give you a moment to read point four and see if
I've misinterpreted that or not.
Okay, thank you.
Can I just cheque to see at the end whether the expectation is that the two finalists in the room would put a further version of these conditions to pick up these points and send that through to the case officer afterwards?
Or would it serve your opportunity to pick these points up as we go along?
I think I'd rather do it. I found in the past when I asked for a revision to come in, sometimes things have got lost in translation and it almost creates more problems.
If at any point I decide actually that sometimes it's different if for example there needs to be a whole new condition written for some reason.
But when it's just tweaking I prefer to do it myself.
Yes sir.
So we'll bear that in mind as we go through.
Thank you sir. I was just making sure that the expectation was clearly an out -of -state.
on 6. So can we get up the flood risk assessment? Is that okay? So that is CD...
Just to clarify, this is a condition requested by the Environment Agency.
Okay. So I've lost the CD number, but anyway, wherever you have your flood risk assessment,
And then there's figure 3 .1, which I think shows you the flood zones are basically on
that eastern boundary where the tributary to the river is.
And then if you also look at the proposed landscaping drawing, the initiative landscape
master plan, but really any of the documents which shows what's coming forward.
So I'll just give everyone a moment to have both of those documents.
So, my questions are twofold. Firstly, that area includes landscaping. Will there be land
raising in that area? And secondly, when I read paragraph 4 .2 of the FRA, which is referenced
in the condition it doesn't talk about land raising just talks about development.
So I suppose my overarching question is should we be preventing land raising in that area?
So there's a case called Ex parte Martin Grant Homes, which is within the encyclopaedia,
and we can probably talk about it later, which says that if we grant higher commission, then
it encompasses all things which are necessary to bring forward that commission. That was
a case where I think Martin Grant Homes, now part of Paris, had not set in mind whether
to gravity or a port solution to power horse training.
They raised the land level by about two metres.
Just in the gloveling, said that was lawful
because it was necessary.
They weren't trying to accompany extension.
Not understanding that that was not something
thought about by the third parties.
That's certainly something that at one stage
led to a suggestion that there should have been
model condition at our stage in respect of
requiring details of ground levels
for the site to part of the submission of reserve matters.
That's a more general point, but it would
have application to your concern and such a condition
I think it would be unobjectionable from my perspective.
So what
so how would I interrupt this? So my question is here.
So where says there shall be no build development or land raising?
I suppose what I'm asking is should we be crossing out land raising?
Yes, as in having a condition which requires details of final land consoles submitted at the time of reserve answers.
Mr Leafhead?
Yes.
And that would then give you a first answer to the original question.
In response, I don't have objection. If the applicant is happy with that arrangement, that's fine.
It's not unusual to have a land levels condition attached. It's always been because it's a relatively flat site.
It's not one we've ever felt we need to do.
But if it's in relation to this,
then we have no objection to such an approach.
Can I add a point there?
And just simply to say that land raising does cause some problems
for us, not in this instance.
And obviously, I don't think the term would object to that either
for the reasons that you've stated.
But I think it would be useful to have that condition
So that when they do when CDC does have that discussion and under reserve matters. There is a marker there. So, thank you
Can I also add I think I think the issue of the land raising certainly is as was said the land goes from
The west to the east to the natural trail
Although there is logical to have some work done to buffer the residential area from the treatment works, which is in the
south western side it would be illogical to have any other on that site because
of you don't want to deter the nature of the natural land water that's seeping
through to the the east where the attenuation pond would go to and the
water would eventually then go through so I think that's the issue that they're
trying to raise because where it gets closer to the higher flood risk areas
they don't want that to be exacerbated by that movement. I think everyone agrees
that general principle. What I'm concerned about is in a very technical
reading condition it would mean no raising of land anywhere along that kind
of Eastern boundary and it might be just as part of the overall works a little
part does need to come up to make the overall system work so I think a bit of
flexibility needs to be built in.
I mean yes so it could say all land raising other than that agreed in writing
by the local planning authority that would be the other option.
Okay, so I think that I'm going to suggest that it's all land raising is deleted but
then that new condition is added and as Tucker has suggested.
So going back to what you just said, yes I would like a revised schedule to be provided
following closing of the inquiry as agreed between the parties.
Is by the end of the week okay for that?
Yes.
So I'm afraid I've got the name of the church on this,
this is just cower, but we'll also make sure that decision
is printed out next half an hour or so.
Okay.
That can just be electronic, I don't need to have a hard copy,
there's only something to add to the documents.
Thank you sir.
And then I have a second question about this condition.
So, as currently written, the first part of the condition is essentially saying there should be an absence of works.
And then the second part of the condition is these mitigation measures shall be fully implemented.
So I think we understand what was being implemented of the implementation of something not happening.
And then also when I read the FRA, if you go beyond Paragraph 4 .2 into 4 .4 to 4 .6, there
are further comments about what needs to happen with regard to land levels.
So again, sort of a two -part question.
Do we need the second part if the condition remains as just the first part?
And does there need to be anything else added?
Again, I'll give you a moment to read that part of the FRA.
Okay.
So I agree with you, sir, that we can give you the second part of the condition and the
more you reference to Parabones 4 .4 to 4 .6 would I think be addressed by the levels conditions
that we have now proposing to run?
Okay.
The city first.
No.
Okay, thank you.
So seven and eight, obviously we spoke about, and nine we spoke about at late yesterday.
Do they need retention clauses?
I mean, obviously, subject to everything else we discussed yesterday.
or is that not really relevant because it's linked to things which are then under the
control of the statutory undertaker? Yes sir, the retention is probably not necessarily
related to outside of individual householders because that's getting the obligation of
section 94 of the boardroom extract that we referenced yesterday in terms of if it was your householders,
it's difficult to see certain circumstances, so we're going to decide to disconnect and assess this here.
Yeah, okay.
So, condition 10.
I don't think it should be saying the applicant or their agents or successor in title.
It should just be submission rather than specifying who submits.
Strong improvement sir.
So it's okay if we just delete that bit.
That's a standard condition used by County Council archaeology so that's fine if you
want to take it.
need to change their standard conditions. And then and again towards the end it
says submitted by the applicant so again it's just be submitted to and approved
and written by the Liquor Piling Authority for the same reasons. I don't
think there's an issue here but I just thought of it so I thought I'd want to talk it
through because the red line includes all those highways works along London
road. No development shall take place includes all of that but then I'm sort
of assuming all that's going to come later on in the process rather than at the
beginning so there's no issue here with that being prevented from coming forward
because no archaeology has happened on the actual main site.
This requires some works on London Road to create the access itself, so within the red
edge where it does connect up to the highway, then so we're in any way pushing back,
which our written scheme of investigation to also to the latter,
it may just be resolved by geophysical works to demonstrate there's nothing to see,
but if there was something to see, then I guess it seems reasonable.
There's a reason I'm raised there, sorry to cut across you there.
The red line unusually does include London Road.
Normally that would just be the site wouldn't it and maybe the access and not
all of London Road itself so I just thought we maybe need to bear that in
mind in general in case for some reason that causes issues.
It's difficult to see however that if there is a WSI which excludes that, that the authority would then say no we actually want you to undertake works to investigate outside of your control.
I think this is a common sense point really, isn't it?
Yeah, it happens.
My understanding, sorry to jump in, my understanding is that the archaeology is to do with the field itself.
I think it could say no development other than works to the A44 or something, whether that would be a way.
Yes, I think, although I wanted to talk it through, I don't think it's necessary because I think it's such obvious common sense what that really means to everybody and what's in the documents.
It just will overcomplicate things.
If on reflection you took a different view of the words in parentheses which would be excluding the area of the adopting highway
Yeah
So I'll have that
Okay
Condition 11 part 2
Is the any variation to the scheme sentence a tailpiece?
There's sort of a grey area up here.
So in pins we call tell pieces when the condition says you must do something but you can change your mind as long as the council agrees and we say that shouldn't be included as a general rule.
But actually there are sometimes grey areas and I think this is one of them when it's not quite, it's only sort of halfway there.
I think the reason for the prohibition on tailbeats is because the mid -cabities case
where that was potentially allowing an authority to decide to allow more retail space in a
new cooperative superstore, whereas the measures that have been discussed there, remediation
and contamination, would be encompassed by the overall commission in an event.
So it's difficult to see that that would give rise to something which hasn't been assessed at this stage forward to plan the mission required,
which is the reason why you don't include tail pieces.
So if I may, I agree with you, this is very much on the other side of the line.
Okay, that's fine. Let's keep it in then.
So there's another tell piece at the end of 13.
I was struggling to understand why the council ever want to allow growth within the visibility
display.
So is this one that should be deleted?
This is again is a condition that's come from the highway authority. They sometimes add things and I think we probably normally would delete that. I think it's just one that's been missed. I don't have a problem with it being deleted in this instance.
The power source has powers to delete anyway.
Okay, so I think we should delete that one.
15
what's the necessity for this?
so it's both likely to be happening given the natural drainage
and what would actually be the harm?
If I can say that, I think it's to do with the fact that on the groundwater system impact
statement for Morton in Marsh from Thames Water, submitted in my evidence, well referenced
in my evidence, I didn't include the full report, but it is a problem in Morton that
many of the existing drains, where we add on to them, that they have sewer spills in them as well.
And so I think this is to try and protect so that Thames or whoever takes over the water
sort of drainage on the highways doesn't get that contamination. Thames
describing their ground water system impact statement, which is dated 2021 but updated 2025,
they state the position of surveying all the drains and things. So there is a reference to it.
But that's what it is.
To clarify again, this came from the highway authority. My understanding looking at it now,
It seems to be talking about discharge of effluent.
The reason given is highway safety,
but I don't think the reason is actually highway safety.
It seems to be more of a contamination issue, which
is a policy EN15 matter.
So if their concern is about oil or pollution getting
into their combined sewer highway drain, which then goes
into a water course, I think that's probably more
applicable in this instance.
Yeah, I mean, the sort of moments away from the highway
in many respects.
So yes, I think that's right.
But obviously, they do want to protect.
If anything is near the highway, they
do want to protect to make sure that whatever the situation is
that isn't exacerbated.
Any comments on the appellant?
We have a few requests.
We would be happy with the agreement that JET would
I suppose some issues as well is the enforceability of it how we would prove
I think the discharge from the site is going into that drain would always be kind of an issue for us as well.
But I'm wondering what exactly it's being directed to.
If it's surface water getting onto the highway, it's condition six.
If it's what should be foul water going to the sewer or foul water drain, it should be condition seven eight nine.
If it's not that, I would, looking at what then follows on its subsequent conditions,
whether they're actually concerned about construction measures before those other elements are brought into play,
in which case this would all narrow and be something in a construction environmental management plan.
Because otherwise, where's the material coming from that wouldn't be proposed by 6 or 9?
Can I just ask whether there's a concern that, as you were saying,
the whole development is within the red line and therefore is including works
that would be outside of the actual residents development but actually on
the highway and therefore any work that could spill anything across the road
could produce a safety issue with vehicles etc and perhaps that could be
the reasoning
14 .5 might be the best way forward rather than essentially looking to duplicate
thousands of surface water drains.
Yes, I think that might be the way forward. That makes sense to me. Yeah.
Okay, so on the basis that we agreed we don't want this to happen, but it could be covered
through other conditions, I think then that's the sensible way forward.
17 can we also get up the section 106 for the county please
I then go to Schedule 2, clause 1 .3.
And I suppose also the definition of travel plan.
I suppose my point is, is it a duplication of that?
And also they have different triggers.
So the condition is before occupation, whereas the 106 is before commencement.
And a second comment, I didn't pick this up yesterday, but is commencement too early a trigger and should the 106 be changed?
It feels too early to me.
But I don't see a mark in the room what they think.
I mean, I wouldn't have an issue really going before occupation, that would make sense.
I mean is there a need for a condition if it's covered in the section 106 anyway
It's just an extra burden on this council in the County Council have a monitoring fee for travel plans
And they deal with the whole matter so I mean whether we need the condition at all is a if it's covered by the section
106 I
Happy to leave it to that
I'm not seeing any changes in section 6.
Well, does it, what I've asked you in section 106 obligation is that it means that it's
in place for the first documents and it could pick up a notion of what questions are in
place before some of the offsite high -world works take place. So you've got establishing a pattern of travel and also the fact that it's within the 106 allows the
Essentially there's a mechanism for the IBSOL out as well that speaks to the result within the 106 so there's a disagreement.
that the issue might be that the condition is essentially making sure that at a later
stage before the first people move in rather than necessarily the one else going to the
site.
Yeah, I would try to jump in and kind of agree with that because the purpose of the travel
plan is the travel plan should be made when people move in they have a set of documents
and the travel plan would be included generally within that. So it would normally be available
before people move in so it's therefore when they do move in setting out where
the bus services and railways are things like that.
And the reality is probably the same document
is just under 106 and also condition 17,
my concern for condition 17 is available
at the last sentence.
Again, that is a matter for the travel plan people
of the County Council, we consult them and they come back.
But I know what you mean in terms of the clarity
of what mode shift mean.
Yeah, that's.
Yes.
If it's to be agreed, then they can agree
to get whatever it is to be appropriate.
Yeah.
Rather than fixing the yardstick now,
so that in 10 years time, when somebody looks and says,
have you achieved motive starts,
and they don't know what motive starts on.
No, I agree.
My view is I'd rather see the condition deleted,
because I think this is a very technical matter
that the travel plan officers at the County Council
normally deal with, and therefore I think it's appropriate
to start with through the Section 106,
because they have the expertise
in dealing with these matters.
Okay, so where have we got to? So we delete, achieve, mode shift, stars accreditation.
I think that's agreed because it might be needed, but that's for the Council to deal
with at the time. You're saying we do need both, Mr Tucker?
I'm saying you definitely shouldn't be amending the 106.
Okay, yeah.
Because that's far more resilient.
Yeah.
And there's no real downside to 17 being there. Michael, the Secretary of State, tells us
that if things can be in condition, they should be in condition. So you can't do that.
you could arguably say stick with 17,
even though it's got the bare bones there only,
and go back and remove from the 106.
In fact, the 106 is more agile.
It's doing the travel plan for all nature,
it's doing the reviews, it's doing the updates.
In reality, I think this is probably an instance
where both is probably the best way forward,
even though the else is not the test.
Okay.
I agree, but just simplify 17 as much as possible,
so it just says submission of a travel plan.
Yeah, that covers that then.
Okay.
Thank you.
18.
Firstly, is this a duplication of 22 part 4?
I'll give you a moment to go forward and read that.
So the original condition recommended by the tree officer had a lot of things about construction
and no fires and things within the construction.
That's kind of a hangover from that.
So that's because it was a second paragraph that has been taken out, but that related
to like no fire has been lit in a construction exclusion zone.
So the last bit has kind of been retained as part of that, but that could leave.
I think it's just useful, this one, because it does relate specifically to the BS where
the other one doesn't.
So I think we need something that referred to the BS standard if you were just going
to refer to it in Condition 22.
The CEMP is more about the ecology rather than the arborecultural aspect of it.
So it's kind of aimed at protecting ecology and hedgerows and things rather than actually hedgerows and trees for their own sake.
So there is one's an arborecultural one and one's more an ecology kind of one really.
presumably that could be resolved by 22 .4 having protection of before hedgerows and trees
and a cross -reference to the BS within 22 .4.
I don't have any principle about anything the BS and the tree hedgerow protection under the BS is required in either condition whichever way you're going forward.
So we could add the BS references to 22 .4.
And then this service runs.
I was trying to work out, is that final design service runs?
Or is that, because the first part of the condition is about construction, and this
read like it was the final design, because it's, I don't know, water pipes or whatever.
What he did was put some service trucks in the construction zone.
He was intending to avoid that in the construction exclusion zone.
Because they could impact on roofs.
So that was the reason why.
I normally refer to the truth.
But again.
And what is the construction exclusion zone?
Where does that come from?
That would be in the BS.
just come to me, to me, the way to do that.
That's a type of thing you have to do.
This is just trees, roots, and then just all kind of time.
Is it superfluous?
Because I don't think it's kind of necessary.
It's just a kind of add -on.
I don't think that can go as long as we like it,
saying it's important to understand it.
That's it.
So we can delete that last bit because you think it's covered by the British Standard anyway.
Okay. So 19, there's another tailpiece. Again, the question is whether it's a necessary one
or not.
Is that the unless otherwise agreed?
Yeah.
Yeah, I didn't include that originally.
The applicants requested that.
I prefer not to see it.
I mentioned to Mr. Wakefield this morning,
if we were going to amend it, if it's a non -material,
like a minor, say 79%, we could deal with it
through a non -material amendment application.
If it was more major, like, go to, say, 60%,
then we would need a Section 73 application anyway.
So for accountability and transparency,
that's kind of how they will be dealt with.
They can be dealt with either way through that.
It's not something I could think we could just deal with simply by sending an email saying that change is acceptable
What are your thoughts on this to a club
or it was described in a report or document G ecosystems are
Okay, thank you.
My only thoughts, sir, was that condition 12 requires a phasing plan.
Okay.
I'm not sure whether 19 is intended to cover the mix of the entire size of the mixture in each phase.
And it might be that if 19 is had effect, it might have effect as potentially part of 12.
So I read the phasing plan as purely being ready to access, because it's not mentioned
again at all in any other conditions.
So I didn't think it was going to, and it's not particularly big development, so I didn't
think there'd be any meaningful phasing of the RESI, unless I misunderstood that.
Well, it says shall include, so it potentially could include the resolution of the R &D came
But at the moment it's inclusive, not exclusive.
Well it says 12 that need to be changed to be the phasing plan shall only relate to.
Well if that's the intention then yes it should be.
I think that would be helpful otherwise we'd probably have to reword most conditions to account for phasing.
Yes, yes.
Skylarks, so I've jumped into 23 now.
Can we get up the ecological impact assessment please?
So again I haven't noted what the CD number is.
So, the date is September 2025.
Yes, sir.
So based on keyword searching Skylarks, at 4 .51 and 4 .52, it essentially says there are
no Skylarks and it's not particularly likely to have any.
So I suppose my first question is necessity.
And my second point is, originally the previous draught of the 106 had this instead and now
it's been moved to a condition.
Now was it originally in the 106 because this is all going to be somewhere else off site
on another field somewhere?
So I'm just thinking through, is this appropriately grampian enough?
Let me just read it thinking that through.
The implication of 23 is that it will be as part of the strategy and time -skip that it
to be in the middle of the day.
So one might imagine that skylarks are in a location
which wouldn't be affected,
and that words would take place one or two metres away
from where it possibly might be,
rather than in an entire conclusion
in relation to land that's used by skylarks.
Okay, and I think I know I've raised the point
that there doesn't seem to be too much
in the ecological impact system about skylarks,
but at the same time, if all parties are agreed,
is necessary I'm not going to reopen it.
To be honest, the surveys themselves have been carried out
on your homes at the moment as we speak and the mitigation
has I believe been agreed that it kills the ecologist
for land directly to the east if necessary.
The moment of surveys that have been carried out
suggests that's not necessary but we understand
the council's decision.
It was something the ecologist has,
council's ecologist has looked at and raised as an issue
and for reasons he identified in his responses,
he thought there was Skylark's presence from his information.
So that's why it's been pursued.
So we're happy to do it by the condition.
I think there's flexibility there
in terms of if further investigation
and nothing's found, then we can agree to that.
So yes, the strategy could be there isn't one, essentially,
couldn't it, in reality?
Okay, thank you.
25, last sentence.
Is that necessary?
Wouldn't that require planning commission in any event?
Yes, I mean at the moment without that it just says all external lighting in accordance
with the strategy, it doesn't explicitly prevent others, so it's whether that first bit is
explicit enough to prevent other lighting that falls outside that strategy.
But I'm open, I'm not going to pursue either.
It could be that we keep it for belts and braces.
That it's kept for belts and braces.
I think there is some sense in the issue about not disturbing the internal wireline.
Yeah.
We need to be with that because of dark skies, etc.
Thank you.
If there is any need for safety, we just have very low level lighting.
That could be a good sign of the technology today.
Okay, thank you.
28 news.
So.
Is it worth clarifying? Because the applicant's gone through a new licence process with this
council, the three conditions, 27, 28 and 29, come directly from the certificate that
Nature Space has issued and we have to use them word for word for what they've said.
Otherwise they have to issue a new licence certificate. So that's the reason the wording
is that it is cut and pasted from their licence certificate which I think is in the applicant's
documents and can be forwarded to you if necessary.
My question is where does the bit at the top of the second page of this condition where
it says and the authority has provided authorisation for the development to proceed under the licence,
Is that a duplication of another regime is my question.
If we're opening up a whole great question, new licencing issue,
then I just don't think we should really go there
because I think it can create huge amounts of problems.
The issue is the licence certificate issued by Natuspace is the body responsible for dealing
with new licencing specifically says these conditions as they are set out have to be
a new licence certificate.
So I think very technically and legally this is wrong.
Having said that, I don't think this is the time for this fight, if that makes sense.
So I think keep it.
And it may be.
It may be something.
At high levels.
It may be something you may wish to raise in an appeal decision and then I can pass it on to them to use as a guide that maybe that's something that could be looked at when they do future wording and conditions maybe but don't want to put extra work on you, but okay
I did have another question here, so let me just read it again to see if I've got this
I thought the wording, the last sentence was weird wording as well and it might be because
this is from them well I'm sure it is from them yes says the delivery part of
certificate must be submitted to this planning authority so I guess this should
be the starters for approval prior to the commencement or the development but
it doesn't say and approved this is submitted but then earlier on there is
in the sentence above.
Like I do confess your responsibility sir to ensure that the conditions of customers to a value promotion are wintery
I think you were to allow the appeal. What we can certainly do, sir, is that if there
is then a requirement for a further licence to take account of what you have assessed,
then so be it. But I suspect that the best course of action may be to create that. And
to add light to the licencing body and point out that some thought needs to be given to
really be more in line with the appropriate conditions.
Yeah, I mean, because it does say approved by the way, it doesn't say approved in writing,
which is always a problem anyway, I think. You can do it over the phone. But I think
the...
So just one, I can't say on a proper basis a licence could be somehow avoided simply
because the wording of the condition has been properly approved by the body that has the
authorization to use it to deliver the condition.
I think the court is very much involved in that.
I think it is essentially nature space, the council has appointed nature space to deal with the district licence for Great Crest Cuny,
the applicant doesn't then have to go to Natural England.
But it's part when they issue their district licencing body, they issue the certificate and they say their certificate is only applicable or only applies
if those conditions are attached to planning permission.
That's what they say.
So the issue therefore is they will sort of say
their certificate isn't valid if you're going down
a different route with different wording.
Personally, I don't think putting approved in writing
is going to make any difference.
And I don't think that goes to the crux of the conditions.
So I think there's flexibility there.
I think it's a case of if you start
talking about the various mechanisms and measures
they're talking about, what needs to be done,
I think you can't change those, I don't believe,
without nullifying the certificate they've issued.
But I can't see an issue necessarily with why putting
approved in writing or something minor
like that would actually cause them a problem.
But I'm not an expert on the new licencing process.
That's the problem.
No, from my perspective, if there is a properly authorised
body that's responsible for issuing licences
under a district licencing approach,
they would have to be further to the decision maker in terms of planning consent, whether it's the authority or whether it's the inspector, as to what the appropriate conditions were.
And by the substance, it would change, which is what counts. It's difficult to see how that licence is going to proprationally say that that's invalidated, be sure to get a licence.
And that would probably be some more forceful advice that the Michaelis might receive if those circumstances weren't there to ask for.
Yeah, I fully understand. I think the issue then comes into the certificate rather than the planning permission, if you see what I mean.
It's then the applicant would potentially have to go back to the major space and get another certificate issued.
I was thinking it out, is that my problem?
Which is, that's what I kind of mean. It's more for the applicant and the licencing process to secure through that rather than through the planning permission.
Which is precisely why I expressed my devotion to that.
I think you exercise your power and your duty
in accordance with the principles,
rather than being deciding that you might be high bound
towards those words.
What might be helpful would be that your decision
in indicating that you address your rights,
whether it's substance, whether there is any difference,
is that substantive view.
Would that be the stick that we would
weigh back to the licencing body and say,
the inspector has endorsed in such a thing as international provisions.
If that requires recidification, better that than any decision
where the inspector is essentially ignoring national policy in terms of the text of the provisions that will be forever.
Okay, thank you.
This is like therapy, I say, sorry.
So 27 and 29 read together.
Sorry, we're still on nukes.
So 27 says the development must be in accordance with an organisational licence.
And then 29 says a district licence. So they must be different things.
I'm trying to understand what they are.
My understanding is the council would have an organisational licence to deal with, be
it to engage with Nature Space to deal with district licencing of newt. So that's what
the organisational licence would be for this council, which would relate to everything,
whereas the other bit is to do with this particular planning application and the licence certificate
they've issued in relation to it.
So, yeah.
So the organisation licence is for the whole district?
My understanding is that's the licence we have for engaging with NatureSpace to deal with the district licencing process.
But then 27 also references a specific licence in the second part.
Yeah, I mean the difficulty then is if the nature space decides to issue a new certificate
then we potentially have to look at doing a non -material amendment or section 73 to
amend the wording of that condition because it's obviously quite specific to a certain
plan. So that needs to be taken into account as well.
And then on what's rated 29.
So 29 is talking about at all particular things about this development, isn't it?
Okay.
Okay, maybe...
I think that these have to all kind of be read in context with the certificate and seeing
what they're actually saying because there's quite a lot of legalese and various things
within that document.
So I advise at the moment probably have a read through that and relate these in that
context because obviously there's quite a lot in that certificate anyway.
It might be that although 28 needs changing, 27 and 29 can just stay.
I'm not sure I get any thoughts, Mr Tacko.
Mr Bonzer, as usual, puts his finger on the on the point which is, in the context of this
appeal, what's required is no government takes place until there is a scheme and in this
a scheme with the certificate to ensure that nothing happens that could adversely affect
mute and that that is a condition which is discharged by the issue of the licence. That's
the reality of the petition. What we're really doing is negating about work that the people
have suggested ought to be imposed in relation to the establishment of promotion.
question.
What I'm just trying to cheque so that we can get to the previous question about whether
the organisational licence has the same reference as the district licence that we've been granted,
which is probably something that really ought to be discharged by no development should
take place until the scheme to demonstrate that there is no adverse effect on use by
virtually issue of a lot of that programme licence,
and of course the council organisational licence.
But what might be sensible might be for
either council or ourselves to revert back to,
if you may have forgotten the name of the organisation,
AG Space, and to explain that we have this debate,
and that this is the approach that we're proposing,
and then perhaps we're meant to fight again
by the end of the week, if they have a lot of response from nature space.
Because it may be that their response will be, is this or your licence is not effective,
in which case that should be a matter of need to consider, or is this in substance,
but the inspector can tweak the words from our perspective, or it may be, that seems entirely sensible,
and the Ponsa plan wins. But we can put those at the server and then we can give you a response.
From my perspective, I'm nervous that we're really trying to reinvent a wheel that's been
having to do with us or anybody else.
Yes, and quite technical and we could easily get it wrong.
Yeah, personally I think the starting point would be look at the certificate because it
does specifically say these conditions have to be attached to a planning permission.
Then that's a matter for you, whether you, how much weight you want to give that or how
you deal with it, that's fine, that's a matter for you.
The moment the way the certificate is worded is in that way.
So it's then a case of whether the applicant would then have to go back and get another certificate
if the conditions they requested aren't attached to this decision.
Or we end up with then conditions that get nullified by another certificate, which isn't in anybody's interest.
Okay. So perhaps then I'll ask you both sides to go back and talk to Nature Space
and see where we get to by Friday, please.
Thank you, sir.
Okay, so last condition, condition 30.
The trigger halfway through. Prior to the commencement or development, other than the undertaking of the aforementioned highways works,
I just wondered whether this should be a submission that's part of the reserve matter submissions
instead. And is there a reason for it being later? And if there is, that's fine. I just
want to understand what it is.
Are you okay with that?
So there's an informative and it's in capitals.
We'd just like to draw people's attention to it because it's not a condition.
But as I'm sure you know, pins don't do informatives.
If this is really important to the council, then it needs to be in some other way.
We've attached it just to draw everybody's attention to it and show we're not missing it.
Clearly, it's a statutory duty regardless of whether you attach an informative or not anyway.
Clearly the applicant is now aware of it because it's in this list.
But yeah, so it's more for advisory information to help people who may not be aware of their requirements.
But clearly if you can't attach informatives then so be it.
But again, maybe it's something that needs to just put at the end of your decision or whatever if that was the case.
Just to remind people that's...
Is it not in 106? Sorry, I didn't cheque that.
There's a monitoring fee, but nothing further because it's tied to the HMNP condition.
Okay, well if it's covered by the legislation anyway then so be it.
Any other comments on conditions?
The ironic it does say subject to the condition and yet it's not condition.
So is it being informative?
Yes.
Is it a consequence of the regulations so it's a statutory position?
Yes, I mean essentially the developer has to do this even but it doesn't have to be in a
condition. As a general, the planning spectrum would never add informatives on
anything so that's just a general approach.
Okay, anything else? Okay then, well I believe, well that brings us to the end
the evidence unless there are going to be any short closing submissions.
Just very briefly, we will also have the imparting of our ex parte, imparting of our homes case
sent over to the Alyssa Call on the first day of the inquiry conference. So that will be at 15.
Okay, thank you.
I'd just say that we did have a discussion about precedents. I'm surprised that there were somewhat 22 precedents laid
only the day before yesterday on the site for the appeal case when it's up to you sir
to make an individual decision.
Okay, thank you. I think there's a distinction there between essentially case law and decisions
that have been made in the past as opposed to actual precedence for decisions to be made.
But yes, don't worry, this comes up in various ways in virtually all appeals so it's something
I'm used to dealing with. Thank you.
So will there be any final comments from the Council?
Not from the District.
Okay, thank you. So then it's Mr Tucker, the final word from you.
Thank you, sir. This is one page of squirrels, I'm afraid I'll have to tax.
I don't want to, but I'm having your figures.
is leaving in the 2020s.
Obviously, don't add to anything that the topics
we've addressed in opening rely on, though still,
in relation to downstream effects as a result
of more surface water runoff.
fully understand and appreciate the concerns of the residents of Leamington.
In this case, on the evidence, we are using tried and tested means to prevent the spread
and in fact there will be betterment, albeit at a comparatively trivial level, by virtue
of fixing the Q bar rate to current day.
Okay.
On foul water, draw attention to the approach of Pariocets 10 and 12 of the Bolden decision,
which is in the primary development of 14.
Okay.
But it might some degree be a common sense to be applied.
The site is next to an existing sewage treatment works.
So connecting to it, as Mr. Lewis said, will be very straightforward.
The issue is therefore the capacity of the sewage treatment works to accommodate future
power, water and the site.
and there to be no objection to this scheme from the EA or TEX water or any other internal
or statutory fossil term.
The dispute appears to be about the wording of the condition,
not about whether permission should be granted,
permission should rather be terminated in life.
And the reasons for Mr Lewis's scepticism
is literally that, his scepticism.
The fundamental point that's been raised is that it's about to disassign paragraph
of MPPF and planning orthodoxy for the last 30 years and if his scepticism was right,
creating a moratorium on development.
Whereas, divisions 7, 8 and 9 provide a sensible means
to ensure that the site is served.
And whilst Mr Lewis did not make them at this point,
The question which arises from this concern is whether or not there is evidence to question
the liberability of the scheme within the five years.
That's where it's really going to stand.
And of all the evidence, my clients can and will build these homes within the next five years.
And they have a commercial incentive to engage with Thames Water, to ensure that they engage with them,
so that the law can discharge issues 7, 8 and 9 to enable them to sell those homes.
This is not an inquiry, it's a debate, it's a waterproof screw.
It's about the acceptability of the use of land.
Thank you very much.
Do we have a copy of the site visit route?
I think I've got it in my room downstairs, but I've just realised I'm not entirely sure
I do.
Sorry, can I just ask, was that the closing statement?
Yes.
because we would like to make a closing statement if we can.
I wouldn't normally afford that opportunity to interested parties.
You can if you wish make a statement.
I will then give Mr Tucker the chance to respond to that if he wishes to.
Yeah, that would be fine, if you allow.
Yes, it's unusual for non -Rule 6 parties to give a closing statement,
but I don't want the council to go away and say there was some point that she wants to draw attention to that we've not
That she's not said
Obviously, this is not the opportunity to provide new evidence. It's to stress what's already been said and so I
Would obviously want the right of reply if necessary
Yes, so say nothing new and
It's repetition of what you've already made doesn't I mean I've already heard them
Please do say something.
With that in mind.
Just very quickly really, I think one of the most important issues that you've referred to is the one that was discussed during the inquiry evidence.
And it was in respect of the issues relating to Thames Water that has profound consequences for the town of Moreton Marsh.
We continue to agree development on the basis of vital infrastructure that it will be delivered
by the company already failing to meet its licence conditions.
I guess without strong planning conditions we are really almost burying our heads in
the sand.
The next thing to say is that for our benefit really is we need to take a hard look at interpreting
the MPPF 26 transport impacts in respect of TR 6 and we need to understand more
to test and understand what we might consider in future in respect of setting
planning conditions for highways and what we accept are you know as
reasonable future scenarios and then the as mentioned previously the town council
I have already said about robust planning commissions and we specify again that this
is outside of law but it is really a master plan for Moreton in Marsh to meet government
planning policy requirements and to ensure that Moreton in Marsh as a place in its setting
for the Council of Natural Landscape is preserved would be well worth exploring as part of local
and the view with which the Secretary of State or the Inspector may wish to accord.
Thank you, that's all we want to say.
Okay, thank you.
Anything to respond to that, Mr Tuckoff?
Just one sentence, sir.
Strong planning conditions in relation to foul water drainage has been requested.
Conditions 7, 8 and 9 prevent occupation.
That's pretty much as strong as it gets for a house builder.
Nothing more to add, sir.
Okay, thank you very much.
Okay, in that case, thank you very much to everybody for your contributions and the inquiry
is closed.
Thank you.
Thank you, sir.