Planning Officers Report & Conclusions for Bostons Development

November 13, 2009 | By | 1 Reply More

reportThe following is PCC officers report regarding the planning application 09/01060/OUT it discusses & raises reasons for and against the proposal but ultimately recommends refusal. It gives a good insight in to the proposal and covers some interesting points.


Site Description
The application site is a`C’ shaped piece of land approximately 3 hectares (7.4acres) in size which wraps around the base of the former Langshill quarry / timber sawmill. Its main features are a water frontage onto Cattewater, to the west and north-west, and the steep quarry face and hill to the east north. The area between the quarry face and the quayside is relatively level, although it does rise towards the north and there are a number of undulations in the south. The sole access to the site is off Baylys Road, to the north.

The site is currently occupied by a Victorian house, a two storey office building used by Geosa, an oceanographic business; five workshop / storage buildings ranging in size from 163-1,008sqm (total circa 4,250sqm) and extensive open areas of storage of boats and assorted paraphernalia associated with its current authorised use as a boatyard. Many of the workshop and storage buildings are of basic construction, including corrugated asbestos, and are generally in a poor state of repair.

The site is situated on a prominentry of coastal land between Cattewater and Hooe Lake, to the South of Oreston Village. It shares the prominentry with 150 modern two/three storey terraced townhouses, known as `The Old Wharf’.
These were built in the 1990s and are accessed only from the Old Wharf Road which sweeps down from Baylys Road in an arch encompassing
virtually the whole landside perimeter of the site. The top of the quarry is a small nature reserve, closed to the public.

The wider area, to the north and east, is established residential in character with local facilities clustered around Plymstock Road and Orchard Crescent in the centre of Oreston. Traffic, visiting the site, and the Old Wharf development, has to pass through narrow roads in this area, some without pavement / pedestrian refuge, to join the main road network A379, Billicombe Road, at Pomphett roundabout 1 km to the north.

Heavy industrial uses, including the Chevron fuel terminal and Origin (formerly IWAS) fertiliser plant, occupy the opposite shore of Cattewater to the north. They provide a gritty industrial panorama, broken only by the Sterling prize shortlisted TR2 propos building.

Proposal Description
Outline planning permission is sought for: the erection of 96 residential units, 1, 795sqm of commercial floor space and a water taxi pontoon with ancillary A3 element.

The residential development would comprise eighty six 3 bed houses (existing dwelling demolished) and ten 2 bed flats/ maisonettes. The commercial uses would be a mix of 450sqm of office space (use class B1 a), 975sqm of Research and Development (use class B1 b) and 370sqm of training and education (use class D1).

All matters – layout, scale, appearance, access and landscaping – are reserved for later consideration; but in line with the requirements of articles 1 & 3 of the Town & Country Planning (General Development procedure) Order 1995, as amended, a package of documents have been submitted (Design & Access Statement; Planning Statement; Commercial report; Transport Assessment; geotechnical & contamination report flood risk assessment; ecological report and statement of community involvement). These provide information on use, amount of development, indicative layout, scale parameters and indicative access points.

The indicative plans submitted with the Design and Access Statement show the existing vehicular access off Baylys Road, to the north, widened and used to provide the sole vehicular access to the site. Traffic would follow a ‘spine’ road around the site, ending in a cul-de-sac in the far south east. Buildings are shown massed either side of this ‘spine’ road. A pedestrian access is shown in the south west corner, linking with The Old Wharf water frontage and through the site to the south into Old Wharf Road. There is also an emergency vehicular access only to the east linking with a cycle track to Radford Lake and another through the nature reserve above the site.

All the proposed commercial units are concentrated mainly on the waterfront (approximately a third of the overall site area) along with a public pontoon.

The remaining two thirds of the site are shown as exclusively residential with a half `crescent’ feature in the south, mirroring the contours of The Old Wharf Road. An area of public open space is indicated on the eastern side of the site close to the proposed water taxi pontoon. The plans show the public pontoon being used as a landing stage for a new water taxi ferry service between Oreston and the Barbican / Queen Anne’s Battery. Parking for this facility is proposed adjacent to the public open space.

The reports that accompany the application claim that the Geosa, oceanographic business is the only viable employment use on the site with
the remainder unused / derelict and requiring uneconomic levels of investment to make it attractive to other commercial users. The constrained

vehicular access – particularly for HGVs; changes to shipping /Cattewater dredging practice that make deep water berths more difficult and competition from better located employment sites are cited in support of this view. The Planning Statement goes on to claim that the capital receipt from the sale of the site for residential development is required to pay for the proposed new operational buildings for Geosa; with the alternative being to release the whole site for residential use and for the proposed capital investment to take place in Scotland.  The Statement provides a summary list of the advantages of the proposal; being-

  • Providing an additional section of waterside footpath.
  • Eliminating the need to serve the site via large vehicles.
  • Providing an element of affordable housing.
  • Contributing towards the city’s housing targets.
  • Improving the range of commercial facilities provided in Oreston.
  • Providing a direct water taxi link to Oreston.
  • Securing the attractive redevelopment of a waterside site

Relevant Planning History
08/02268/OUT – Outline application (with all matters reserved for later
consideration) for the erection of 118 residential units, A2 (offices), A3
(restaurants/cafes) and B1 (business) units, water taxi pontoon and new
buildings for existing GEOSA Oceanographic business. REFUSED.

95/0366 – Erection of 51 houses. GRANTED SUBJECT TO S106.

Consultation Responses
Environment Agency – Support subject to conditions.
Highway Authority – Object, recommend refusal.
South West Water – No objections.
Public Protection Service – Support subject to conditions.


One letter of support received from the National Oceanography Centre, summarised as follows:

The proposed Geosa development of workshop facilities will provide the site with a large increase in capability and increase its usability, re-emphasizing Plymouths key position in supporting maritime industries and bringing increased business to the city.

Two letters of objection from The Old Wharf Residents Association, raising the following points:

1. Poor access, caused by narrow, heavily parked roads.
2. The application would cause road safety issues, creating hazardous situations for pedestrians in particular due to a lack of footpaths in the area.
3. Poor access for emergency services.
4. The dotted blue line on the plans shows the position of the industrial security fence incorrectly put up by Mr Boston in 1998 on the wrong side of the grass banks and nature refuge.
5. The boundary of the fence encroaches significantly into the grass bank and nature refuge and over the Old Wharf development boundary.

One letter of objection from the Radford and Hooe Lake Preservation Society raising the following points:

1. Increased levels of traffic in the area will result in further congestion on local roads and add to existing parking problems.
2. Any development at the site should be for fewer, higher value properties, in the form of executive homes with moorings.

Sixty six individual letters of objection received, raising the following points as summarised below:

1. Adequacy of plans/ consultation time – Insufficient information and insufficient time has been provided upon which to base a response,
comment on the proposal. The public consultation carried was a presentation of a`fait accompli’. Local feeling and opinion has been
ignored. It should be noted that these comments refer to the applicants community consultation event and not the planning
application consultation period.

2. Principle/Density – The waterfront should be kept for maritime uses and not given over to residential use. The density of the proposed
development is excessive and exceeds Council guidelines. The number of dwellings has not been significantly reduced from the
previous application and results in over development

3. Development would expose more people to risk in the event that there was an accident at the gas depot, oil terminal or fertiliser plant (Control of Major Accident Hazards [COMAH] sites). Details of compliance with sustainability code are missing.

4. Traffic – (Note that this is the main ground of objection in all LOR’s) The proposal will significantly increase traffic through Oreston Village
and surrounding roads. The roads in Oreston village are of pre-war configuration. They are substandard and do not meet with the current
Highways Act. They are extremely narrow and crowded. There are no pavements in places and lots of parked cars. Oreston already has
congestion and parking difficulties as a result of school facilities and heavy residential parking. There is no mention of how the increased

traffic is to be managed. Such a large development will bring even more congestion onto the busy and narrow roads resulting in more difficult journeys in and out of Oreston than at present, endangering the health and safety of the local residents, particularly children at the local
school and playgroup. There will also be an impact on wider roads Pomphett roundabout, Billacombe Road and out towards Laira Bridge,
more housing will lead to gridlock. Plymstock Road and the Quay have shops and a public house with entrances directly onto narrow sections
of the road with no pavement. The increased traffic movement associated with this application would be a substantial threat to children and residents.

5. Local infrastructure capacity – Question whether the local infrastructure can sustain further development in particular the local sewage system
has frequently overflowed.

6. Impact upon neighbouring residential properties – Concerned about overlooking and overshadowing. The houses should be orientated to
face away from existing properties. The three storey housing will cut the amount of light to neighbouring houses. There are also security
concerns associated with providing a pedestrian access into the site from The Old Wharf; subsidence and disruption caused during

7. Nature Reserve – the site is home to wildlife and must be protected as a nature reserve.

Please note: Whilst many of the letters of objection received raised the above points, many of them also stated support in principle for the redevelopment of the site for mixed use purposes.

Human Rights Act – The development has been assessed against the provisions of the Human Rights Act, and in particular Article 1 of the First
Protocol and Article 8 of the Act itself. This Act gives further effect to the rights included in the European Convention on Human Rights. In arriving at this recommendation, due regard has been given to the applicant’s reasonable development rights and expectations which have been balanced and weighed against the wider community interests, as expressed through third party interests / the Development Plan and Central Government Guidance.

Members will recall a previous application (08/02268/OUT) at the site, presented to the Planning Committee in March of this year (2009) and
summarised above in the planning history section of this report. This was a similar application but with subtle differences. The previous application differed in that it was for 118 dwellings (this application if for 96 dwellings), it contained proposals for a 20 bed hotel (omitted and therefore not part of this application), it included a separate A3 (restaurant/cafe) use (this application has a small ancillary A3 use related to the proposed water taxi kiosk) and it contained proposals for B8 (storage and distribution) use (omitted and therefore not part of this application), although a small element of training and development (D1 use) is proposed as part of this planning application.

Previous Refusal Reasons
The previous application was recommended for refusal and this was supported by the planning committee. The application was refused for the
following reasons:

1. Loss of marine employment
2. Additional traffic movements
3. Sub standard access
4. Loss of landscape features
5. Insufficient information on wildlife site
6. Insufficient information on habitats
7. Lack of enhancement and mitigation details
8. Satisfactory development uncertain
9. Affordable housing required
10. Education contribution required
11. Green space/play space contribution required
12. Absence of details of renewable energy production equipment.

It is considered that the same key issues are relevant in the consideration of this application and these are discussed below:

Loss of marine employment
With the exception of the nature reserves, which have little development potential, the existing use of the site is entirely employment related. The Turnchapel, Hooe & Oreston Sustainable Neighborhood Assessment document shows that there are insufficient employment opportunities within the area (the Job ratio is poor, 0.58 compared to Plymouth and national average) leading to above national, and above Plymouth, average travel to work patterns. Protecting local jobs and encouraging new employment opportunities is seen as a high priority in relation to Policy CS01
(Development of Sustainable Neighbourhoods).

In addition Policy CS05 (Development of Existing Sites) of the Core Strategy is clear about the value marine employment sites and the need to safeguard them it states:-

‘Development of sites with existing employment uses for alternative purposes will be permitted where there are clear environmental ,
regeneration and sustainable community benefits from the proposal. In making this assessment the Council will have regard to the following:
(4) In relation to marine employment sites, that priority will be given to safeguarding the site for marine industrial uses that genuinely require a waterfront location.’

The proposal involves a significant reduction in the amount of space used for employment purposes on the site. Effectively most of the site would be developed for residential purposes. It is claimed that this is necessary to

secure the continuing presence of Geosa on the site, which the agents claim will secure 30 jobs at the site, a significant increase on the number of existing jobs at the site, which is stated in the agents Planning Statement as being 10. Notwithstanding Policy CS05(4)’s emphasis on safeguarding marine employment sites and claims that the securing of Geosa at the site will create further jobs, there are concerns about the limited amount of land that would remain in employment use. The employment area would be tightly defined and would not allow for future expansion, or for the potential expansion needs of businesses which might take up the site in the future. It is considered that a convincing case has not been made that proposals would create a viable marine employment site or that the potential benefits do not outweigh the loss of existing employment land.

The current application does not offer any more employment land than the previous refusal and this reason is therefore still considered relevant.

Additional Traffic Movements
The conclusions of the Traffic Assessment (TA) commissioned by the applicants that the proposed development will not generate any more traffic than the existing authorised uses area not accepted. It is considered by the Councils Highways Officer that there would be a substantial increase in traffic on the local road network to the point where it would be prejudicial to public safety.

Whilst the removal of HGV trips (associated with the existing boatyard use) and the proposed new public pontoon and ferry service are attractive features of the proposal, which bring highway benefits to the area, they do not outweigh the core highway objection to the proposal, in that the significant amount of additional trips generated by the proposed development would give rise to highway safety concerns.

Sub standard access
Policy CS28 (Local Transport Considerations) and Policy CS34 (8) (Planning Application Considerations) make clear that development that does not provide for safe and satisfactory access is unacceptable.

Further to the issue of additional traffic movements, discussed above, access to the site is also a concern. The application proposes that access through the site is served by a 5.5 metre access road with a 2 metre footway on the southern side only. It would be preferable if a footway be provided on both sides of the carriageway so as to create a complete and permeable network along existing pedestrian desire lines avoiding the need for pedestrians to repeatedly cross the road.

Access to the site from the wider road network is served by narrow historic streets that connect the site with the rest of the highway network, namely Baylys Road, Orchard Crescent, Plymstock Road and Oreston Road. All of these roads contain sections that are narrow and lacking in footways, being unsuitable to cater for significant additional traffic. They are also often heavily parked further restricting the ability of these roads to cater for additional traffic.

Any intensification in their use is considered a hazard to existing users of the highway and potential users of the development. The proposed accessarrangement is therefore considered unsuitable and is likely to give rise to issues of personal and highway safety and interfere with the free flow of traffic on the highway.

Loss of Landscape Features
The previous application proposed development encroaching upon land that was previously identified as a nature reserve. This current application has reduced the amount of development in the nature reserve area so that it is now retained. The application also proposes an open playspace area within the site and an area of managed woodland and grassland on the flat area that lies atop of the site. This land is in the applicant’s ownership and would,together with the existing quarry face, provide a dramatic setting to the proposed residential development. The issue of loss of landscape features is therefore no longer considered relevant due to the retention of the nature reserve and new areas of open and managed woodland.

Insufficient Information on Wildlife Site
Insufficient information was provided with the previous application on protected species that maybe using the site. However, the current application has been submitted with sufficient terrestrial ecological survey work and this reason for refusal has now been satisfied and is therefore no longer relevant.

Insufficient Information on Habitats
As above, the previous application contained insufficient information on habitats present at the site and this made it difficult for a sufficient understanding of the impact of development to be gained and how this might potentially be mitigated. The application now contains appropriate information on habitats present at the site and as above this reason has been satisfied and is not longer appropriate.

Whilst information has been forthcoming regarding wildlife and habitats that are present at the site, no details of enhancement or mitigation have been included within the current application. Policy CS19 of the Adopted City of Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) requires developments to `produce a net gain in biodiversity by designing in wildlife, and ensuring any unavoidable impacts are appropriately mitigated for.’ Whilst Lack of Enhancement and Mitigation details the application indicates a willingness to provide a management plan (which is stated will show a biodiversity gain) this has not been included with the application and therefore the application does not contain the required enhancement and mitigation details with regards to net biodiversity gain. The previous refusal reason thus remains relevant, although it is very likely that a net gain in biodiversity could be achieved at the site, and if the relevant information was forthcoming this issue would no longer be a concern.

Satisfactory Development Uncertain
The previous application for 118 residential units proposed residential development in the south east corner of the site. This resulted in a form of development that appeared `cramped’ and it was uncertain if the development as shown could be accommodated satisfactorily. The current application removes housing from this part of the site, allocating it as a wildlife area. Thus this refusal reason is no longer relevant. Affordable Housing and Education/Greenspace contributionsThe provision of 30% (29 of the 96 dwellings) of all dwellings as `affordable’ is
sought, based on a proportional mix of dwelling types and distribution across the site as required by Policy CS15 of the Adopted City of Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007). The applicant has stated a willingness to provide the compulsory level (30%) of affordable housing at the site and has submitted a draft Section 106 Agreement to secure this and the necessary financial contributions required by the Plymouth Development Tariff, in order to mitigate the impact of the development and support the City’s objective of developing in a sustainable way.

The previous reasons for refusal about lack of provision of affordable housing and community benefits have therefore been satisfied and are not relevant to this planning application.Renewable Enerqy Production Equipment As with the previous application, this application fails to include outline details of how onsite renewable energy production equipment to off-set at least 10% of predicted carbon emissions for the periods up to 2010, (raising too 15% for the period 2010-2016) is to be provided . Considerations associated with delivering this requirement could materially alter the scheme and therefore details as to how onsite renewables will be incorporated must be brought forward before the application is determined. In the absence of such information the proposal is contrary to Policy CS20 of  the Adopted City of Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) which seeks to secure sustainable resource use.

Other Issues
There are a number of other issues that need consideration in the determination of this planning application that did not form part of a previous
refusal reason:

Indicative Layout
The proposal has been submitted in outline with all matters reserved. The layout, height, massing and appearance of the proposed development is therefore indicative only. Access, although also indicative, is almost certain to be off Baylys Road, to the north, and the choice of a route passing through the site to terminate in a cul-de-sac is fairly fixed. Whilst there is no doubt scope for improvement to the layout and design,  especially around the relationship of the residential element to the waterfront and quarry face, the indicative layout does show a hierarchy of buildings, and individual features, such as a square and crescent, which could form the basis of a distinctive indicative layout does show a hierarchy of buildings, and individual features, such as a square and crescent, which could form the basis of a distinctive such as a square and crescent, which could form the basis of a distinctive architecture.

The provision of public access to another section of waterfront and new pedestrian permeability through the site, particularly a more direct route from The Old Wharf to Oreston Neighbourhood Centre, are identifiable design The Old Wharf to Oreston Neighbourhood Centre, are identifiable design strengths of the proposal. The inclusion of public open space and a wildlife area are further benefits that have been designed into the scheme since the previous application was refused and it is considered that there is no reason to doubt, at this outline stage, that the proposal would not result in an attractive environment for future occupiers.

Policy CS34 of the Adopted City of Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) seeks to protect the amenity of the area, including residential amenity in terms of satisfactory daylight, sunlight outlook, privacy and soft landscaping.

Based on the indicative layout, there are significant separation distances between the existing dwellings on The Old Wharf and those proposed within the site. The impact of the proposed development on the residential amenities of nearby property occupiers on The Old Wharf would therefore be minimal and not sustainable as reasons for refusing outline planning permission for this proposal. The proposed indicative layout appears to create a design that provides a satisfactory residential arrangement that would not raise issues of residential amenity conflict between the dwellings proposed.

Letters of Representation
Of the 70 letters of representation received, 69 were objecting to the application, with 1 letter of support received.

The letters of objection received are from nearby residents who have concerns about the proposal. The reasons for objection are summarised
above in the representations section of this report. These issues have already been addressed in the main Analysis section above, therefore there is no need to reconsider them.

The letter of support received is from The National Oceanography Centre, based in Southampton. They are keen to see the development approved as they hope to use the site for further research and development.

Equalities and diversities issues
This development has the potential to affect people of all ages and from all backgrounds as it proposes open market housing that will be made available for sale to the general public. It specifically affects those on lower incomes on the Councils Housing Register as it commits to make available 30% of all dwellings as affordable housing, to be managed by a Housing Association. Older people will also be specifically affected as the development, if accepted, would provide 20% of dwellings to Lifetime Homes standards. The benefits to these groups are considered to be positive.

If the application were to be accepted and recommended for approval, no negative impacts to any equality group would be anticipated. Pedestrian access would be improved through the creation of a new link through the development and the financial mitigation required by the Plymouth Development Tariff would benefit the whole community by providing additional money to be spent locally on sport and recreation, green space, transport, education, health and libraries.

Section 106 Obligations
In accordance with Policy CS15 of the Adopted City of Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) the application is required to provide 30% of dwellings as affordable homes. The applicant has stated his commitment to provide this and submitted a draft Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing, in the event that the application is approved. This commitment therefore addresses previous concerns regarding failure to provide (or commit to provide) the compulsory levels (30%) of affordable housing at the site.

The applicant has also, within the draft Section 106 Agreement submitted with the application, committed to provide the contributions generated by the Plymouth Development Tariff to mitigate the impacts of the proposal. Therefore previous concerns about lack of mitigation are also addressed and overcome within this proposal.

There are two in principle reasons why permission for this development should be refused. Firstly, it would result in significant diminution and loss of waterfront employment land. This type of land is considered to be most suitable for marine industries and related uses – one of the six sectors identified in the Council’s Local Economic Strategy as being important for the city’s future prosperity. Its supply is limited, and it is regularly subject to pressure for change of use to other uses, especially housing. This development proposal does not seek to retain enough of the site as employment land.

Secondly, the road system in the area is cramped and does not have the capacity to cope with the additional traffic generated by this proposal. It is considered that if granted, due to the significant number of dwellings proposed, this application would lead to severe congestion in surrounding streets and added hazard for other road users, particularly pedestrians.  Members are therefore recommended to refuse outline planning permission for this development.

In respect of the application dated 02/09/2009 and the submitted drawings, 1319/P2/02 (Indicative Proposed Site Plan), 1319/S/01 (Site Survey), 1319/P2/03 (Indicative Site Sections), 53196/IBRK/FIGURE5/P1, 53196/IBRK/FIGURE2/P4 and accompanying Ecological Report, Flood Risk Assessment, Geotechnical Site Investigation Report, Commercial Marketing Report, Statement of Community Involvement, Transport
Assessment, Planning Statement and Design and Access Statement , it is recommended to: Refuse


(1) The proposal would result in the loss of most of an existing employment site to non employment uses. The site is considered to be suitable for
continued marine employment use. There are a finite number of marine employment sites in the city and safeguarding them is viewed as a priority in relation to the City’s Economic Strategy. The loss of a substantive part of the site to non employment uses would be contrary to Policy CS05 of the Adopted City of Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) which seeks to safeguard marine employment sites.

(2) The development hereby proposed is likely to result in an increase in the number of vehicular movements taking place at and in the vicinity of the application site. The Local Planning Authority considers that the increase in vehicular movements arising from development would give rise to conditions likely to cause:
(a) Prejudice to public safety and convenience;
(b) Interference with the free flow of traffic on the highway;
(c) Unwarranted hazard to vehicular traffic;
which is contrary to Policy CS28 and CS34 of the adopted City of Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy adopted April 2007.

(3) It is considered that the proposed access arrangement is unsuitable for its intended use and is therefore likely to give rise to issues of personal and highway safety. Vehicular movements arising from the development would give rise to conditions likely to cause:
(a) Prejudice to public safety and convenience;
(b) Interference with the free flow of traffic on the highway;
(c) Unwarranted hazard to vehicular traffic;
which is contrary to Policy CS28 and CS34 of the adopted City of Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy adopted April 2007.

(4) No biodiversity enhancement or mitigation details have been produced to determine if the application would result in a net gain in biodiversity at the site,as required by policy CS19 of the Adopted City of Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2007) and PPS9. The developmentis therefore contrary to Core Strategy Policy CS1 9 and PPS9.


(5) The application fails to include outline details of how on-site renewable energy production equipment to off-set at least 10% of predicted carbon emissions for the periods up to 2010, (raising to 15% for the period 2010-2016 is contrary to Policy CS20 of the Adopted City of Plymouth Local is to be provided at the site . In the absence of such information the application Development Framework Core Strategy (2007), which seeks to secure sustainable resource use.


(1) It is likely that refusal reasons 4 and 5 could be overcome if acceptable sustainable resource use.further information is submitted with regards to biodiversity enhancement and Relevant Policies

The following (a) policies of the Plymouth Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2006-2021) 2007 and supporting Development Plan Documents (the status of these documents is set out within the City of Plymouth Local Development Scheme) and the Regional Spatial Strategy, (b) non-superseded site allocations, annex relating to definition of shopping centre boundaries and frontages and annex relating to greenscape schedule of the City of Plymouth Local Plan First Deposit (1995-2011) 2001, and (c) relevant Planning Guidance (SPG) Notes, Government Policy Statements and Government Circulars, were taken into account in determining this application:

PPG 13 – Transport
PPG20 – Coastal Planning
PPG25 – Flood Risk
PPS3 – Housing
PPG4 – Industrial and Commercial Development
PPS9 – Biodiversity and geological conservation
PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development
CS28 – Local Transport Consideration
CS33 – Community Benefits/Planning Obligation
CS34 – Planning Application Consideration
CS22 – Pollution
CS18 – Plymouth’s Green Space
CS1 9 – Wildlife
CS20 – Resource Use
CS21 – Flood Risk
CS05 – Development of Existing Sites
CS01 – Sustainable Linked Communities
CSO4 – Future Employment Provision
CS15 – Housing Provision
CS16 – Housing Sites

Category: Documents, Planning, Resources

Comments (1)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Mike says:

    Update: In December 2009 Geosa Ltd made an appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment against the City Councils refusal of planning permission.

Leave a Reply