Agenda item

4/00122/16/MFA - CAR PARK, LOWER KINGS ROAD, BERKHAMSTED, HP4 2AJ

Minutes:

Councillor D Collins and Councillor Ritchie made a statement before the start of the item – “I do not have an interest to declare but I would like to make it clear that I am the ward councillor for this application. I am also a member of Berkhamsted Town Council that supports the principle of a Multi-Storey Car Park in Berkhamsted. I have previously expressed my support to the principle of a Multi-Storey Car Park, however, I retain an open mind to the planning merits of this development and will make my decision based upon the evidence and debate that I hear tonight”

Councillor Bateman also declared that he was a ward councillor in Berkhamsted.

J Doe, Assistant Director for Planning, Development and Regeneration introduced the item and made the following statement:

There is pressure for public parking in Berkhamsted and limited opportunities as to where to site a new facility. Key to this is the Savell Bird Axon report of 2012 which provided background for the Council’s decision to pursue plans to develop the proposal that you now have before you tonight.

As the development control committee, and acting for the Council as Local Planning Authority, the role of the Committee is to determine the proposals as they stand.

There is a high level of objection to the scheme and views of residents and others are summarised in the report and the addendum report. Most of the objections relate to material planning considerations and Officers consider that they are addressed in the report, and indeed officers are on hand tonight to provide further advice and clarity if required.

Issues such as the use of Council funding to build the car park, its business case, whether there should have been further consultation on options, or further design reviews are not relevant to the deliberations of the Committee: as planning authority, you have to determine the proposals that are before you and the judgement is whether they are acceptable in planning terms.

The application is recommended for approval as your Officers consider that the planning balance weighs in favour of the scheme as submitted (subject to conditions).

The car park proposal is situated centrally to Berkhamsted Town Centre and Officers are satisfied that the location is appropriate and beneficial to its intended users.

Specifically, the location supports convenient use of the facilities in the High Street both in terms of the daytime and indeed night time economies of Berkhamsted Town centre.

Berkhamsted is a highly successful town centre in an age when many are suffering with under-occupancy and diversion of trade to out of centre locations and also online shopping. The evidence before you this evening shows that there is parking strain in Berkhamsted Town Centre, and if the town is to continue to thrive into the future it is important that those using it are able to park conveniently.

The Council’s own policy set out in the 2013 Core Strategy clearly sets out a vision for Berkhamsted as a sustainable and vibrant market town, where the town centre is an attractive commercial, cultural and social focal point with a strong district shopping and service centre role.

Furthermore, the National Planning Policy Framework, which has to be taken into account in planning decisions at Para 40 states that local authorities should seek to improve the quality of parking in town centres so that it is convenient, safe and secure (on page 33 of report).

And at the local level, Policy CS8 of the Dacorum Core Strategy supports this national objective, seeks sufficient, safe and convenient car parking to support economic development and supporting shopping areas.

The County Council’s Berkhamsted UTP (p 137-8 of report) refers to a new town centre car park and that there is insufficient provision for those who wish to use the town centre as a result of growth in shopper, residential, business and commuter requirements.

Members are reminded that the Council has tried to secure additional town centre parking through the earlier local Plan through regeneration of land at Water Lane for a range of uses including new shops in addition to car parking. This points to further evidence of need for public parking and as a result it is logical that alternatives were explored.

This aspiration is backed up by the survey work 2014 carried out in support of this application (page 139) points to lack of parking provision.

Fundamentally, this is a town centre location and there is no policy conflict with a proposal to provide additional public car parking.

Overall, Officers conclude that there is sufficient evidence to show that there is a need for this new facility and it cannot be turned away on any notion of it not being needed.

May I reiterate my earlier point here about alternative proposals, and specifically whether alternative design options should have been considered. It is not possible to turn this application away on the basis that there should be a choice over design. As planning authority you must come to a decision on the design of what has been submitted.

The application in front of you has been subject to amendments to take on board queries raised over design. It is acceptable to both Historic England and to the Council’s Conservation Officer.

Background to how the design has evolved is set out on page 21/22 of the report and how planning staff have worked with the applicant to improve the design to what is now before you.

The report (page 138) – explores this issue. This is a major structure both in the middle of the town centre and the Conservation Area. The Development will have some impact and the key judgement for you as a committee is whether the design impact is acceptable and indeed whether the public benefits of improved car parking outweigh design and heritage issues.

The conclusion that your Officers have come to is that the balance weighs in favour of the development. The report provides a close explanation on the impact of the new building on heritage assets and the character of the Conservation Area. I will not rehearse these here, but conclude that the limited impact of the new building, combined with the public benefits provides justification for the building.

Members should be aware that Para 134 of the NPPF advises that where there is less than substantial harm in heritage terms, this should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

Initial concerns of HCC have been overcome.

Solutions:

Extended no waiting restrictions on Lower Kings Road
New mini roundabout to serve the CP site at LKR
Construction management plan puffin crossings at the LKR/High St/KR junction
Changes to the High Street traffic lights

Environmental Health has raised no objections and is satisfied with the proposed mitigation measures. The area is not an AQMA and the view of EH is that it is not currently justified.

These – including lighting, archaeology, noise, trees and landscaping – are covered in the report and I will not add to what has already been set out. Questions on any of these matters are of course invited if necessary.

Planning decisions are about balance.

In this case there are important considerations around the introduction of a major development into Berkhamsted Conservation Area and the associated implications of traffic and air quality matters that would flow from the development.

The Council’s policy is to support the ongoing vibrancy of Berkhamsted as town centre and the evidence points to the need for further car parking.

Officers are satisfied that the specifics of the scheme in terms of design, transport issues and air quality are acceptable can be mitigated by design features and measures proposed in the conditions and proposed s106 agreement.

As such that planning balance weighs in favour of the development.

On this basis Chairman the application is recommended for approval tonight.

F Bogle introduced the item and gave a presentation.

Councillor Ritchie asked what time the pictures shown of the existing car park were taken?

F Bogle said one set were taken in March about 10am and the other set were taken on Monday 26^th September between 9.30-10am.

Councillor Ritchie asked if a space count was done as one of the main objections from residents is that there are always spaces available.

F Bogle said when she had visited the current car park in March, it was fairly full. There were some spaces available on the Monday before the Committee meeting. The Consultants had taken proper space counts documented in supporting information.

Councillor Birnie asked if the lighting would be turned off when the top level was closed at 10pm.

F Bogle said it would.

Councillor Guest asked if the car park would be lower in height than the surrounding buildings.

F Bogle said the car park would be 10.5m in height to the top deck with the lift/stair cores rising to 13.5m but the buildings on the High Street are at a higher ground level, such that some of the High Street buildings would be above the level of the car park.

Councillor Fisher said the ‘green walls’ on the car park were a good idea but asked how it would be maintained to stay green.

F Boyle said a maintenance plan would have to be submitted under one of the conditions for the long term maintenance of the building including the green walls.

Councillor D Collins asked what mitigation proposals will be implemented by Herts Highways prior to the building.

N Gough (Herts Highways) said this would be implemented by the applicant. Herts Highways have worked closely with the applicant to ensure an appropriate and effective plan. The detail is yet to be established.

J Doe said the mitigation measures would be subject to an s.106 agreement. In relation to the occupancy of the current car park, the decision has been made based on the evidence provided in the transport assessment.

Julie Laws and Jackie Jones (residents) spoke in support of the application saying that at the moment, it is increasingly hard to find parking in the town which will only get worse with the town expanding and the workforce increasing. The land is already used for parking and is the only viable area in the town. Adam Beamish (planning consultant) also spoke in support and said there was a need for extra car parking and town centre parking is supported by paragraph 40 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe said there was a need to address concerns about the internal layout.

A Beamish said this was an ongoing project and the precise configuration can be revisited. The external parameters are fixed but the inside can be changed.

Councillor Whitman asked the residents speaking in support if they believed this car park will take traffic off the side streets around Berkhamsted town centre.

J Laws said she hoped so. It was difficult to park in Berkhamsted and there’s a need to take traffic off the side streets.

Elizabeth O’Reilly, Clive Birch and James Hannaway spoke in objection to this car park. Elizabeth O’Reilly - There has been a critical failure to establish a need for a multi-storey car park for the following reasons:
i) it’s a colossal step to jump from the breakdown of discussion around residents parking in 2011 to the rapid council decision to build an 8 level town centre multi-storey car park.
ii) critically, no full parking analysis has been undertaken to ensure that demand is present – this was recommended by the Local Urban Transport Plan. The application shows there is capacity.
iii) there is no evidence from the Berkhamsted Chamber of Commerce that increased short term parking would benefit the local economy.
iv) no provision has been made for significant improvements to the road network which could support additional traffic coming into and parking in the town centre as shown by the slides.
v) improvements recommended to ease congestion should be embedded and assessed for impact on current traffic before any work progresses on the car park.
There has been a significant failure to submit any material consideration as to why the very many relevant Core Strategy and Local Development Plan planning policies be overridden. What is their purpose if they are to be ignored? Two of many examples:
- Policy 8 provides that the development has to improve road safety and air quality – there is no evidence produced.
- Policy 13 – the development fails to contribute to the quality of the public realm and critically fails to enhance the Conservation Area.
Public engagement has been totally ineffectual. Local people had less than a week to respond to the very short public consultation in December 2015. In June 2016, plans for the car park reportedly hung in the balance due to heritage concerns having been raised. Many people were unaware that the proposal was proceeding until last week when an objector’s flier was circulated and a short piece appeared in the local paper.
This application should be refused. If not, decision making should be adjourned to allow full consideration of the 278 page planning officer’s report and the 173 additional objections referenced in the addendum plus additional paperwork that has been filed in the short time since that report.
Clive Birch speaking on behalf of Berkhamsted Parking Forum – I’d like to point out some key facts about the assumptions in this application.
- the traffic assessment is based upon no traffic growth in Berkhamsted during the last five years and no traffic growth for the next ten years. Is this realistic?
- the consultants’ design proposals for bay sizes and column positions may comply with regulations, but do not comply with common sense.
- the same consultants have identified than on average, 20% of spaces in public car parks are empty during weekdays. There is currently no signage to these car parks and the consultants believe that signage will be of little or no benefit. Let me point out that: 20% is 83 spaces, which is more than two levels of the car park and costs at least £900,000. You can buy a lot of signage for £900,000.
- the first planning application was withdrawn as a result of traffic congestion observations provided by the Parking Forum to DBC. DBC and their consultants have largely dismissed the content of our subsequent reports.
- at the moment, Berkhamsted has not so much a parking problem as one of congestion. This needs addressing in advance of providing further car parking.
- the Parking Forum has suggested more cost-effective solutions, which would not require an 8 level car park, and would reduce traffic congestion.
- so, please don’t let politics get in the way of common sense and don’t ignore some good planning policies. Remember, we unlike your consultants live here and understand our town. Please reject this poorly formulated proposal and demand something better that you can be proud of.
James Hannaway – I own the Rex and we have 300 seats in the cinema and the visitors have never had a problem with parking in Berkhamsted. I do not see the need for a multi-story car park.

S Whelan wanted to clarify Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe’s question on the internal layout. If the internal alterations alter the wider footprint then it will need further planning permission.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe referred to the objectors saying that local and national planning policies have been ignored and asked officers to clarify this.

J Doe said planning policies were very wide ranging. During assessments, local and national policy weighed in favour. In terms of conservation and design, it was clear that an inappropriate design would not be accepted in the Conservation area.

Councillor Birnie asked how to reconcile CS11 that stops large areas dominated by car parks.

J Doe said neighbourhood design is balanced against the NPPF. Opportunities to improve parking in Berkhamsted have been limited and most of the car parks are owned by DBC.

Councillor Guest said she was satisfied with the revised comments regarding conservation and heritage and moved the officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Ritchie said as a resident of Berkhamsted, he was astonished by some of the letters of objection regarding the level of consultation. He said this has been talked about for four years. The Conservative Party stood in Berkhamsted in May 2015 with car parking as a main priority which received over 9,000 votes. He said he was amazed how people have said they knew nothing about it.

Councillor Imarni asked the planning officer about the timing of the photographs and Adam Beamish provided clarification.

Councillor D Collins asked for support or evidence for the need for more parking.

Neil Wisher (Transport Consultant) said the original analysis was carried out in a survey over weekdays and a Saturday. They found the hourly turnover for Waitrose, station and DBC car parks and also on street parking. The report gave a good idea of parking needs on a working day. The car park behind Tesco and the Waitrose car park were very popular and the Lower Kings Road car park hit its peak at about 10-11am.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe wanted to clarify that the Conservative Party’s main election pledge was to solve parking in Berkhamsted because over a 1,000 signature petition was heard at Full Council a few months ago. Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe asked if it was well publicised in election literature.

Councillor D Collins said it was prominent in literature but the principle of solving car parking, not the application we have tonight.

Councillor Birnie asked how long the consultation period was.

F Bogle said the initial round of public consultation had a statutory 21 day notice period. The second round was also given 21 days though statutory requirement of 14 days. Representations however were still being received and reported on right up to the start of the Meeting.

Councillor C Wyatt-Lowe said there was a need for the internal layout to be fit for purpose.

It was proposed by Councillor Guest and seconded by Councillor Birnie to grant the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Vote

For: 11 Against: 0 Abstained: 2

Resolved:

1. That the application be REFERRED to the Secretary of State (DCLG).

2. In the event that the Secretary of State does not call in the application that the application is DELEGATED to the Group Manager - Development Management & Planning with a view to approval subject to the completion of a planning obligation under s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the draft list of conditions below.

3. That the following Heads of Terms for the planning obligation be agreed:

-Optimisation of the operation of the traffic light computer control system at the Lower Kings Road / High Street / Kings Road Signalised junction (payment of 50% of costs);

- Introduction of puffin-like pedestrian crossings at the Lower Kings Road / High Street / Kings Road signalised junction;

- Apply to the Highway Authority for a TRO to change the restrictions on Lower Kings Road in line with those proposed as part of the Transport Report dated July 2016 and pay all reasonable costs for the TRO to be promoted by the Highway Authority; and,

- Provision of a mini-roundabout at the site access with Lower Kings Road junction

Subject to the following conditions:

1	The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the materials specified on the approved drawings and documentation submitted on 3rd August 2016.

Sample panels of the following shall be made available on site for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted:

· brickwork panels, demonstrating the colour, texture, face bond, pointing and mortar finish

· louver with the approved finish applied

· steel screening

· glazing details

· roller shutter details and finish

The development shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with all the above details so approved.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in the interests of the visual amenities of the Conservation Area and surrounding Listed Buildings in accordance with the NPPF, Core Strategy Policies CS12, CS13, CS27 and Saved DBLP Policy 120.

The Car Park hereby permitted shall be shut down and not used for parking of any vehicles between the hours of 0100 hours and 0700 hours daily (Mondays to Sundays) and the top deck (floors 6 and 7) shall be shut down and not used for parking of any vehicles after 2200 hours daily (Mondays to Sundays)

Reason: In the interests of safeguarding the Historic Environment and the residential amenity of the occupants of neighbouring properties and the general locality in accordance with Core Strategy policies CS12 and CS13.

Development other than that required to be carried out as part of the approved scheme of remediation must not commence until Conditions (a) to (d) below have been complied with. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until Condition (d) has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

(a) Site Characterisation

An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include:

(i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination;

(ii) an assessment of the potential risks to:

· human health,

· property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes,

· adjoining land,

· groundwaters and surface waters,

· ecological systems,

· archaeological sites and ancient monuments;

(iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s).

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

(b) Submission of Remediation Scheme

A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

Reason:This site is located in a Source Protection Zone 1 which means that groundwater here forms part of the public drinking water supply within 50 days. If pollution reaches the groundwater then this may result in the loss of that abstraction point. As the desk study has revealed the presence of polluting substances from the previous uses of the site a site investigation is required to further characterise and assess the extent of contamination.

This will ensure groundwater is protected in line with your policies CS31 and CS32.

The Thames River Basin Management Plan requires the restoration and enhancement of water bodies to prevent deterioration and promote recovery. Without this condition, the impact of contamination could prevent recovery of the Mid-Chilterns Chalk, a drinking water protected area.

Paragraph 109 of the National Planning Policy Framework, states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of water pollution.

Paragraph 120 states that local policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location, having regard to the effects of pollution on health or the natural environment, taking account of the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution. Paragraph 121 also states that planning policies and decisions should ensure that adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent person, is presented.

5 (a) Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme

The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

(b) Reporting of Unexpected Contamination

In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Condition (a) above, and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Condition (b), which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with Condition (c).

Reason:

This site is located in a Source Protection Zone 1 which means that groundwater here forms part of the public drinking water supply within 50 days. If pollution reaches the groundwater then this may result in the loss of that abstraction point. As the desk study has revealed the presence of polluting substances from the previous uses of the site a site investigation is required to further characterise and assess the extent of contamination.

This will ensure groundwater is protected in line with your policies CS31 and CS32.

No development shall take place until a long-term monitoring and maintenance plan in respect of contamination including a timetable of monitoring and submission of reports to the Local Planning Authority, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reports as specified in the approved plan, including details of any necessary contingency action arising from the monitoring, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any necessary contingency measures shall be carried out in accordance with the details in the approved reports. On completion of the monitoring specified in the plan a final report demonstrating that all long-term remediation works have been carried out and confirming that remedial targets have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect groundwater in line with your policies CS31 and CS32, The Thames River Basin Management Plan, Planning Practice Guidance and National Planning Policy Framework.

No development shall take place until a long term Management Plan for the maintenance of the car park including the maintenance of the green wall sections and cladding shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall be adhered to for the duration of the existence of the car park.

Reason: To ensure the car park is properly maintained in the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS12.

No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include:

· hard surfacing materials;

· means of enclosure;

· soft landscape works which shall include planting plans; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with plant and grass establishment); schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers/densities where appropriate;

· trees to be retained and measures for their protection during construction works;

· proposed finished levels or contours;

The approved landscape works shall be carried out prior to the development hereby permitted being brought into use.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and to safeguard the visual character of the immediate area in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS12.

No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The drainage strategy should demonstrate the surface water run-off generated up to and including the critical storm will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

The scheme shall also include:

1. Detailed drainage plan showing the location, size and engineering details of the proposed SuDS, pipe runs, manholes etc.

2. Detailed surface water run-off and volume calculations for 1:100 year (+20% CC) are required within the surface water drainage assessment, which ensures that the site has the capacity to accommodate all rainfall events up to 1:100 year (+20% CC).

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS31.

No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground at this site is permitted unless prior approval has been given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters through submission and written approval of the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.

Reason: To protect groundwater in line with your policies CS31 and CS32, The Thames River Basin Management Plan, Planning Practice Guidance and National Planning Policy Framework.

Piling or any other foundation designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted unless prior approval has been given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater through submission and written approval of the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect groundwater in line with your policies CS31 and CS32, The Thames River Basin Management Plan, Planning Practice Guidance and National Planning Policy Framework.

The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme for the following components has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority:

· Disposal of foul and surface water

· Roof drainage (to be sealed at ground level)

The scheme shall be implemented as approved.

Reason: To protect groundwater in line with your policies CS31 and CS32, The Thames River Basin Management Plan, Planning Practice Guidance and National Planning Policy Framework.

No demolition/development shall take place/commence until a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:

1. The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording

2. The programme for post investigation assessment

3. Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording

4. Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and records of the site investigation

5. Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of the site investigation

6. Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.

Reason: To ensure that reasonable facilities are made available to provide properly for the likely archaeological implications of the development proposal in accordance with the policies included within National Planning Policy Framework (para. 141 etc.), relevant guidance contained in the National Planning Practice Guidance, and in the Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning Note 2: Managing Significance in Decision-Taking in the Historic Environment (Historic England, 2015).

Demolition/development shall take place in accordance with the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition 14 above.

The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition 12 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.

Construction of the development hereby approved shall not commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in consultation with the highway authority. Thereafter the construction of the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Plan. The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall include details of:

a. Construction vehicle numbers, type, routing;

b. Traffic management requirements;

c. Construction and storage compounds (including areas designated for car parking);

d. Siting and details of wheel washing facilities;

e. Cleaning of site entrances, site tracks and the adjacent public highway;

f. Timing of construction activities to avoid school pick-up/drop-off times;

g. Provision of sufficient on-site parking prior to commencement of construction activities;

h. Post construction restoration/reinstatement of the working areas and temporary access to the public highway; and,

i. Accommodation of the displaced parking as a consequence of the temporary closure of the car park through the duration of construction works.

Reason: In order to protect highway safety and the amenity of other users of the public highway and rights of way.

Prior to first occupation of the development, a Car Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. It shall include the following:

- Details of car parking allocation and distribution;

- Details of operational hours;

- Details of access arrangements;

- Management and enforcement details; and,

- Monitoring required of the Car Parking Management Plan to be submitted to and approved in writing in accordance with a timeframe to be agreed by the local planning authority.

The Car Parking Management Plan shall be fully implemented before the development is first occupied or brought into use, in accordance with a timeframe agreed by the local planning authority, and thereafter retained for this purpose.

Reason: In the interested of highway safety and to ensure sufficient available on-site car parking and the provision of adequate cycle parking that meets the needs of occupiers of the proposed development and in the interested of encouraging the use of sustainable modes of transport in accordance with Policies CS8 and CS12 of the Dacorum Core Strategy (September 2013) and saved Policies 57 and 58 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan 1991-2011.

The development shall be constructed fully in accordance with the construction phase mitigation measures, as detailed within Tables 17 and 18 of the Air Quality Assessment, Issue 6; WYG Environment Planning and Transport Ltd; September 2016.

Reason: To safeguard the local environment in terms of air quality in accordance with Policy CS32 of Dacorum Core Strategy and to accord with section 7, subsection 7.1 of the following document: Air Quality Assessment, Issue 6; WYG Environment Planning and Transport Ltd; September 2016 in accordance with updated Air Quality Assessment version 6 as reported at the meeting.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans/documents:

A082119_SiteApp_001

A082119AR DRG 001 P05

A082119AR DSC 001 P04

A082119 T001

Air Quality Assessment Sept 2016 Issue 6

MSCP Design Statement 16 August 2016

Transport reports and Appendices

Lighting Plans and Docs

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

Article 35 Statement

Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant at the pre-application stage and during the determination process which lead to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2015.

INFORMATIVES

1. Under the terms of the Water Resources Act 1991, and the Thames Region Land Drainage Byelaws 1981, the prior written consent of the Environment Agency is required for any proposed works or structures, in, under, over or within 8 metres of the top of the bank of the River Bulbourne, designated a ‘main river’. This is separate to and in addition to any planning permission granted. An application form is available on the GOV.UK website: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/flood-defence-consent-england-and-wales.

Advice to applicant

Conditions 2 to 8

When dealing with contamination on site we recommend that developers:

· Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination.

· Refer to our Guiding Principles for Land Contamination for the type of information that we require in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, such as human health.

· Refer to our website for more information and, in particular, the Planning and Land Contamination resource pages at: https://www.gov.uk/contaminated-land.

· Refer to Groundwater Protection Principles and Practice (GP3). This can be viewed via our webpage at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/groundwater-protection-principles-and-practice-gp3.

The verification report should be undertaken in accordance with in our guidance ‘Verification of Remediation of Land Contamination’. This can be found at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/pdf/SCHO0210BRXF-e-e.pdf.

A piling risk assessment should be submitted with consideration of the following: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0202bisw-e-e.pdf.

ECOLOGY

1. Protected Species - It is an offence to take or disturb the breeding or resting location of protected species, which include: all Bats, Badger, Otter, Hazel dormouse, Water vole, Reptiles (Common lizard, Slow-worm, Grass snake), Great crested newt, wild birds and Roman snail. Precautionary measures should be taken to avoid harm where appropriate. If protected species, or evidence of them, is discovered during the course of any development, works should stop immediately and advice sought as to how to proceed. This may be obtained from Natural England: 0300 060 3900 or an appropriately qualified and experienced Ecologist.

· For birds, the removal of trees & shrubs should be avoided during the breeding season (March to September inclusive). If this is not possible then a search of the area should be made by a suitably experienced Ecologist and if active nests are found, then clearance must be delayed until the last chick has fledged.

· for reptiles and amphibians, caution should be taken when moving debris piles or building materials as any sheltering animals could be impacted on. Clearance of existing vegetation should be undertaken progressively towards boundaries.

· Trenches should have escape rampsto provide an escape opportunity for any animals that may have become trapped.

2. Any External Lighting schemeshould be designed to minimise light spill, in particular directing light away from the boundary vegetation to ensure dark corridors remain for use by wildlife as well as directing lighting away from potential roost / nesting sites.

3. Soft Landscaping- new trees and shrubs should be predominantly native species, particularly those that bear blossom, fruit (berries) and nectar to support local wildlife. Where non-native species are used they should be beneficial to biodiversity, providing a food source or habitat for wildlife.

Finally, The planning system should also deliver overall net gains for biodiversity (enhancements), as laid out in the National Planning Policy Framework and other planning policy documents. Biodiversity enhancements could be incorporated into the development proposal. These could be in form of bat and bird boxes in trees, integrated bat roost units (bricks and tubes) in the building, specific nest boxes for swifts, swallows and martins, refuge habitats (e.g. log piles, hibernacula) for reptiles at the site boundaries, green roofs and walls, etc. These should be considered at an early stage to avoid potential conflict with any external lighting plans. Advice on type and location of habitat structures should be sought from an ecologist.

The Highway Authority recommends inclusion of the following Advisory Notes (AN) to ensure that any works within the highway are carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Highway Act 1980.

AN1) Where works are required within the public highway to create an improved site access and provide mitigation for the impact of the proposed development the Highway Authority require the construction of such works to be undertaken to their satisfaction and specification and by a contractor who is authorised to work in the public highway. This work should be carried out in accordance with HCC’s procedures which are currently set out here:

http://www.hertfordshire.gov.uk/services/transtreets/highways/highwaysinfo/hiservicesforbus/devmanagment/dmhwaysec278/

AN2) Storage of materials: The applicant is advised that the storage of materials associated with the construction of this development should be provided within the site on land which is not public highway, and the use of such areas must not interfere with the public highway. If this is not possible, authorisation should be sought from the Highway Authority before construction works commence. Further information is available via the website http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/transtreets/highways/ or by telephoning 0300 1234047.

AN3) It is an offence under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 for any person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way to wilfully obstruct the free passage along a highway or public right of way. If this development is likely to result in the public highway or public right of way network becoming routinely blocked (fully or partly) the applicant must contact the Highway Authority to obtain their permission and requirements before construction works commence. Further information is available via the website http://www.hertsdirect.org/services/transtreets/highways/ or by telephoning 0300 1234047.

Supporting documents: