Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s approach to dog-fouling in its public parks may seem rather tame compared with the nearby Surrey Borough of Spelthorne.

Spelthorne has adopted powers in the Anti-Social Behaviour and Policing Act whereby its parks are made the subject of “Public Space Protection Orders” [PSPO]. Under these orders fixed penalty fines can be imposed on dog walkers who fail to clean up and indeed for walking unready with a “poo-bag”.

The order, which makes it an offence to take dogs into certain marked areas with fines of up to £1,000 if it leaves its mess behind, has to be renewed every three years. On Wednesday, January 18 Spelthorne Borough Council’s neighbourhood services and enforcement committee did just that.

Despite the notices, dog fouling continues to be an issue with the council receiving around 80 complaints a year. Leader of the council, Councillor Joanne Sexton also pushed for new signage to include scannable QR codes in the hope of making it quicker and easier to report offences – and therefore reduce the amount of dog poo lying on the ground.

Officers told the meeting that catching the antisocial behaviour in the act is extremely difficult given how brief the indiscretions are but said that by reporting it the council could find patterns of behaviour and look to target problem areas – turning up at 5am if that’s what the data showed.

The zones cover the council’s parks and open spaces with dogs excluded from fenced off areas such as tennis courts. Officers told the meeting: “We would like people to report to us. If we know that a dog goes to the park at 3pm on most days we can put in some patrols to give that person some advice – we won’t go in heavy. Our aim is always not to give people fines but to make them compliant with rules and regulations. If people see dogs running around like crazy and frightening their dog they should report it.”

Spelthorne Borough Council provides about 550 bins as well as dog waste disposal bags in 50 of its parks and open spaces.

Since Spelthorne imposed the order in 2012 it has issued a total of 11 warnings under the PSPO – 2 for dog fouling, 1 for means to collect (not having a bag), 1 dog in tennis courts, 1 professional dog walker with too many dogs, and 6 directions given to keep a badly behaved dog on a lead.

The authority also issued 3 Fixed Penalty Notices for dog fouling offences in the same time frame (all paid).

However, Spelthorne acknowledges that dog fouling (and other dog related issues) are notoriously difficult offences to actually enforce, as unless the dog owner is actually known to the person reporting, or officers happen to be in the right place at the right time, there is often very little to no evidence that allows investigation.

This reality may explain Epsom and Ewell Council’s more realistic approach stated on its website:

“What can we all do about dog fouling? Report it and we’ll remove it. If you notice dog fouling, let us know by filling in our online form ‘Street Cleansing’ at the top of this page or calling 01372 732000.”

Nevertheless, without the authority of a PSPO it still may be an offence under the Anti Social Behaviour and Policing Act to allow a dog to persistently foul a public area, leading to the possibility of a prosecution and fine.

While Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s ePetition platform offers residents a voice in local decision-making, a closer examination of the data reveals a challenging picture. From September 2016 to the present, the Council’s ePetition system has faced difficulties in garnering community support and has seen a high rate of rejections, often on vague grounds.

Debate Requests – An Uphill Battle for Support

a) Petition Requests Submitted for Full Council Debate: 13  

b) Permitted: 4  

c) Successfully Reached Required Number of 1500 for Debate: 1

The stark reality emerges when analyzing the numbers. Despite 13 petition requests for Full Council debate, only four were permitted, with a solitary petition managing to secure the necessary support. The challenges in mobilizing community backing for debates raise questions about the effectiveness of the ePetition platform in truly representing resident concerns.

Rejected Petitions:

1. Continued designation of Hook Road Arena as Green Belt land  

   Reason for Rejection: Relates to the Council’s Planning or Licensing functions, separate statutory processes in place.

2. Railings outside the Metro Bank and Lester Bowden’s  

   Reason for Rejection: Relates to a matter for which this Council is not responsible or cannot influence.

3. Petition to EEBC regarding height and density regulations for Proposed building developments  

   Reason for Rejection: Relates to a matter for which this Council is not responsible or cannot influence.

4. Subject matter not specified in petition submission  

   Reason for Rejection: Does not meet the requirements of the Council’s ePetition Scheme.

5. Objection to the Epsom Hospital Development Scheme  

   Reason for Rejection: Does not meet the requirements of the Council’s ePetition Scheme.

6. Hook Road speed limit & cameras  

   Reason for Rejection: Relates to a matter for which this Council is not responsible or cannot influence.

7. Keep Epsom and Ewell Green Belt  

   Reason for Rejection: Does not meet the requirements of the Council’s ePetition Scheme.

8. Fairview Road temporary homes for the homeless  

   Reason for Rejection: Relates to the Council’s Planning or Licensing functions, separate statutory processes in place.

9. Compulsory Purchase Order for Horton Cemetery  

   Reason for Rejection: Does not meet the requirements of the Council’s ePetition Scheme.

Dismayed at the Council’s refusal, made on the basis it was for the Strategy and Resources Committee not the Council (sic), The Friends of Horton Cemetery set up their own petition on change.org 

The rejection of petitions, often on grounds as vague as not complying with the ePetition Scheme requirements, underscores the challenges residents face in navigating the system. This pattern raises skepticism about the transparency and accessibility of the ePetition platform.

Scrutiny and Accountability

The removal of the Council Officer appearance request from the Petition Scheme in May 2023 marks a significant shift in the dynamics of accountability, leaving residents with fewer avenues to question and scrutinize Council decisions.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s ePetition system, while ostensibly a tool for community engagement, faces challenges in attracting support and exhibits a high rate of rejections. The rejection of petitions on rather vague grounds raises questions about the system’s accessibility and transparency, prompting a critical examination of the Council’s commitment to genuinely amplifying resident voices.

For more information and to explore current and past ePetitions, visit  www.epsom-ewell.gov.uk.

_{Image: The Surgeons Petition or The Barbers Triumphant: Science Museum, London. (CC BY 4.0)}

Epsom and Ewell Times reported in full the speech from a member of the public at the Licensing, Planning and Policy Committee (LPPC) of 22nd November 2023. He addressed Councillors forcefully on a response to the Government’s revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). See report here.

Undeterred the gentleman appeared again at the Thursday 18th January meeting of the LPPC. Cllr. Clive Woodbridge (RA Ewell Village) asked Chair Cllr Steven McCormick (RA Woodcote and Langley Vale) to identify the speaker. As far as we could tell his name is John Seaston or Seaton.

Following the private “members’ briefing” of 10th January about the Local Plan, reported in the Epsom and Ewell Times HERE, there was anticipation that something would be said in public about that meeting on Thursday. Nothing was said.

The only contribution about the Local Plan was the three minutes Mr Season/Seaton was permitted. Again, our transcript of his address is published in full. Epsom and Ewell Times invites corrections and responses to his opinions.

---

“Last year, this Council voted to pause the Local Plan process.  In order to buy time to base its regulation 19 Local Plan on Government’s revised NPPF. The great news is that this pause strategy worked. The critical thing now is to take full advantage of the opportunity that you have created. To do this, you need to be very clear about the changes to NPPF that Government has made.

There are two very important points that you must fully understand. First point: Government has clearly stated that the standard method calculation  just gives an advisory starting point.  When I spoke to you at the start of your last meeting, I emphasized how Government has used its standard method to set a negotiation anchor.  Government has now admitted that its anchor is not credible.   So it has rebranded it as an advisory starting point.  It is critical that all councillors and officers involved in a Local Plan process fully understand that there is nothing binding about the standard method number.

You do not need to meet this target in full. You do not even need to meet half this target.  You do not have to meet any specific proportion of this target.  You just need to meet the actual needs of our borough. 

Second point: Paragraph 145 of the new NPPF states there is no requirement for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed or changed when plans are being prepared or updated.  That was a direct quote from NPPF. 

Could government have been any clearer? In case you missed it, there is no requirement for Green Belt boundaries to be reviewed or changed.  I have highlighted during previous LPPC meetings that this Borough can fully meet its actual housing need over the plan period using only brownfield sites and previously developed land within the Green Belt.

In the Regulation 18 Local Plan, Council used the brownfield sites shortfall versus government’s anchor to declare the exceptional circumstances required to alter Green Belt boundaries. The two changes to NPPF that I have just highlighted together with the quantum of brownfield and previously developed sites available in the Borough make this declaration of exceptional circumstances and resulting changes of Green Belt boundaries unjustifiable.

It would not be consistent with achieving a balanced Local Plan which meets Council’s legal duty to achieve biodiversity net gain and a credible local nature.  Any proposals to change Green Belt boundaries in the regulation 19 Local Plan would expose Council to legal challenge.  And the associated cost and programme overruns as well as angering the residents you are supposed to serve.”

---

Related reports:

Local Plan costs eat into Council reserves

Local Plan to move forward after passionate debate

Local Plan (2022-2040) Un-Pause Recommended

Cllr Persand intervenes ahead of Local Plan debate

and many many more. Search “local plan” in search function above.

_{Image: Clockwise from Chair: Cllrs – Steven McCormick (RA), Peter O’Donovan (RA), public speaker (Seaston / Seaton), Keiran Persand (Con), Julie Morris (LibDem), Clive Woodbridge (RA), Phil Neale (RA), Steve Bridge (RA), Council officers.}

Epsom and Ewell’s Crime and Disorder Committee met Wednesday 17^th January to endorse an updated Community Safety Action Plan for 2024-25.

This followed a period of consultation in which Chris Grayling MP called for more attention to be paid to prevent local parks being used for drug dealing, one resident’s request for slimy leaves being swept up being disregarded as not relevant to the Plan, the Liberal Democrats calling for more action on minor crime such as theft from cars and a citizen asking for the Stones Road tunnel under the railway line to be closed because of drug-dealing.

The plan was adopted unanimously and a summary follows:

In an effort to maintain its reputation as a safe haven amidst changing crime patterns, Epsom and Ewell Borough Council has rolled out a comprehensive Community Safety Action Plan for the upcoming year. The plan addresses emerging challenges, emphasizing the protection of vulnerable individuals and enhancing community engagement.

The borough aims to tackle crime at its roots by prioritizing the most vulnerable and those at risk. The implementation of Community Harm and Risk Reduction Meetings (CHaRMM) is a cornerstone of this strategy. These multi-agency gatherings plan interventions for both victims and perpetrators, with approximately 65 cases managed each year.

Key initiatives include attending monthly CHaRMM meetings, ensuring proper resourcing for Domestic Homicide Reviews, and conducting Antisocial Behaviour Case Reviews. These actions aim to provide a voice for victims, address hidden crimes, and enhance overall community safety.

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council are determined to be on the frontline against serious organized crime. Staff, including the Environmental Enforcement team and Environmental Health Team, will undergo awareness sessions. The council also plans to report intelligence via appropriate channels, using its unique position as landowners, event organizers, and chairing Safety Advisory Groups to contribute to counter-terrorism efforts.

The rollout of ACT Awareness (Action Counter Terrorism) training and the establishment of Serious Organized Crime Joint Action Groups demonstrate the borough’s commitment to staying vigilant and proactive in the fight against criminal networks.

Beyond addressing vulnerable populations, the plan includes joint initiatives such as Joint Action Groups (JAGs), which focus on targeted interventions in specific geographical areas. The move towards a standing JAG arrangement ensures a continuous forum for partner agencies to collectively address area-based issues.

Additionally, a thorough review of town centre data will be conducted, utilizing available tools to identify trends and behaviours that require attention.

To foster a safer community, the borough will continue joint initiatives with other enforcement agencies, including “Meet the Beat” and “Violence Against Women And Girls” day of action. Social media will also play a pivotal role in keeping residents informed and engaged.

The Council pledges to amplify partner messages on social media, ensuring targeted and informative content that showcases the results of their community safety efforts.

The meeting lasted 2 minutes 37 seconds.

Tuesday 16th January Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s Community and Well-Being Committee considered local suicides.

In 2019, the Borough Council launched its Health & Wellbeing Strategy (HWBS), recognizing a concerning suicide rate of 10.4 per 100,000 residents from 2016-2018—higher than the Southeast’s 9.2. A total of 21 lives were tragically lost. To address this, mental and emotional wellbeing became a priority in the borough’s HWBS and subsequent action plan. However, the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the plan’s execution.

Since the HWBS approval in late 2019, the borough has witnessed a spike in suicide rates, reaching 14 per 100,000 residents between 2018-2020—claiming 29 lives, with 19 being male. The Southeast’s rate during this period was 10.1 per 100,000. To counteract this alarming trend, the Council proposes an assertive response in the form of a revised Suicide Prevention Action Plan.

The increase in suicides is reminiscent of a previous increase observed from 2009 to 2013 during a period of significant financial hardship. Recent changes in the standard of proof used by coroners, shifting from ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to ‘on the balance of probability,’ might impact the recorded number of suicides.

In March 2023,  the Council’s Health Liaisons Panel supported the development of a Suicide Prevention Action Plan (SPAP). This plan aligns with Surrey County Council’s Suicide Prevention Strategy 2023-2026, emphasizing six priorities for suicide prevention.

The Council’s SPAP, rooted in Surrey’s broader strategy, aims to:

– Enhance the response to individuals in crisis with suicidal thoughts.

– Foster collaboration with Public Health Surrey County Council, statutory partners, and the community & voluntary sector.

– Collaborate with Public Health Surrey County Council to utilize real-time surveillance data for meaningful and effective SPAPs.

Specifically referencing the Alison Todd Protocol, an assessment tool identifying areas of practice and growth, the SPAP demonstrates the Council’s commitment to suicide prevention. The plan, to be led by the Council’s Community Development Team, spans from January 2024 to January 2025 before undergoing review.

Cllr Kate Chinn (Labour Court ward) was concerned about Council staff who might not assess the risk of suicide correctly and the effect on them if a resident subsequently died. She was assured that training would be given and support for staff provided in that situation.

The committee adopted the plan unanimously.

Image: Licence details rawpixel.com

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council’s financial support for five key local voluntary organisations came up for review 16th January at the meeting of the Environment and Well-Being Committee.

Age Concern Epsom & Ewell:

• Focus: Providing support and services for older people in the community.
• Activities: Offering a range of services such as social activities, information, and advice to enhance the well-being of older individuals.

Citizens Advice Bureau Epsom & Ewell:

• Focus: Providing free, confidential advice and support to the local community.
• Activities: Offering assistance on a wide range of issues, including legal, financial, and personal matters, to help individuals navigate challenges they may face.

Central Surrey Voluntary Action:

• Focus: Supporting and promoting voluntary and community work in the area.
• Activities: Facilitating connections between volunteers and local organizations, offering resources and training, and fostering collaboration within the voluntary sector.

RELATE Mid Surrey:

• Focus: Providing relationship support and counseling services.
• Activities: Offering counseling for individuals, couples, and families to improve and strengthen relationships. Addressing a variety of relationship issues through professional guidance.

The Sunnybank Trust:

• Focus: Supporting individuals with learning disabilities.
• Activities: Offering a range of services and activities to enhance the quality of life for people with learning disabilities. This may include social events, skill-building programs, and support for independent living.

Introducing a report to the Councillors the Community Development Officer said: “I have to say that during the COVID crisis, we would not have been able to cope unless we had the support of our voluntary organizations who stepped up and were absolutely amazing in getting volunteers to come forward and help the Council give the service and help the residents in what was a particularly difficult time. This report, I think, reflects the fact that we appreciate that support and that we wish to continue supporting those organizations in what they do on behalf of our residents.”

The support, approved by the committee, is summarised in the table below.

_{Image Licence details Creator: NCVO London} 

Epsom and Ewell Borough Council‘s debt is about average with all 381 United Kingdom local authorities. UK councils owe a combined £97.8bn to lenders, equivalent to £1,455 per resident, as of September 2023. Epsom and Ewell’s debt per person is £795. From highest debt per person to lowest Epsom and Ewell ranks 195 out of 381.

In the national league table of debt shame other Surrey Boroughs occupy the leading positions: Woking is first with debt of £18,756 per resident followed by Spelthorne in second place at £10,415. Guildford is 5th.

Taking into account all types of local authorities, such as police and crime commissioners and combined authorities, the debt pile rises to £122bn.

The 11 boroughs of Surrey are ranked in the table below. Highest debt per resident to lowest.

Dame Meg Hillier, the chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, said some examples of debt were “staggering”.

But council leaders say years of under-funding mean they have been forced to take out loans and invest in commercial properties just to keep services running.

In recent years, various commentators have warned that the debts held by councils – which must balance their budgets every year – are unsustainable. In 2020, chair of the Public Accounts Committee Dame Meg Hillier said the Government was “blind to the extreme risks” of  council borrowing levels.  

Since then, six more councils have had to issue section 114 notices declaring themselves effectively bankrupt: Croydon, Slough, Thurrock, Birmingham, Woking and Nottingham. 

In the case of Croydon, Slough, Thurrock, Woking and Nottingham – those effective bankruptcies could be directly linked to failed investments and spiralling debts. Thurrock’s  £469m funding black hole, for example, was caused by a series of failed investments in solar farms.

Dame Hillier added: “Small district councils have very little room for manoeuvre when finances are squeezed, relying on charges (such as parking fees) for a lot of their income. Unitary authorities are facing the demographic pressures on social services, social care and special educational needs.

“But beyond these day to day pressures, the PAC warned in 2020 that some councils had not only pursued strategies of commercial investment exposing them to high levels of risk, but normalised behaviour and optimistically believed that there was little downside to commercial activity. Add to this the delay in public sector audits and many councillors and taxpayers were blind to the risk.”

Cllr Julie Morris, (College Ward) Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group on Epsom and Ewell Borough Council said “There is no evidence that central government is likely to assist with the broader financial issues affecting local authorities, so we need to budget carefully and 2025/26 is likely to be crunch time.  We need a complete review of both mandatory services and those which are discretionary.  And central government needs to wake up to what is facing government at local level.”

Cllr Neil Dallen, (RA Town) Chair of Strategy & Resources Committee said: “As a council, Epsom & Ewell’s investments are performing as planned. The debts are considered sustainable, with sums set aside each year to ensure they can be repaid at maturity. Through taking a proactive approach to our finances, we have a strong track record of meeting the considerable financial challenges the past decade has brought for local government through reduced central government funding, and we are looking ahead to 2024/25 and beyond to ensure that we remain a financially sustainable council.”

The other parties have also been invited to comment.

 

In a recent closed-door meeting held at the Town Hall, local councillors in the Borough of Epsom and Ewell,  convened to apparently deliberate on potential areas for housing development, with a particular focus on the contentious issue of Green Belt land. The meeting,  held on January 10, has stirred controversy and prompted reactions from concerned citizens, leading to a series of letters and press releases. Councillors were greeted at the entrance by a small and polite protest group.

Yufan Si, a prominent Green Belt campaigner, has expressed alarm over the secrecy shrouding the meeting. The council’s decision to discuss Green Belt development in a closed setting has raised questions about transparency and adherence to government policies.

Ms Si highlights the Council’s statistics, indicating that 84% of residents opposed development on Green Belt land during a prior consultation. The campaigner argues that the government’s planning policies offer a choice to protect Green Belt areas, questioning the need for a clandestine discussion.

She has raised concerns about the council’s sale of Green Belt land to a local business owner three years before the Local Plan’s development, potentially leading to significant financial gains. The campaigner emphasizes the availability of brownfield sites capable of accommodating over 3,700 new dwellings, surpassing the projected household growth from 2022 to 2040. In her letter Yufan Si has urged councillors to prioritize environmental preservation and fulfill residents’ wishes by excluding Green Belt land from the development plans.

Councillor Julie Morris (LibDem College) has stated that she challenged the decision to keep the meeting private. While acknowledging the legal standing of the private meeting, Councillor Morris called for greater transparency and public engagement. She emphasizes the need for progress reports on the Local Plan to address residents’ concerns and combat misinformation circulating in the public domain.

She said “The ruling Residents Association party would do well to engage directly with the public on this matter, or at the very least, to explain exactly why these meetings are being held, have to be in private, and why there is no public statement after each meeting to keep local residents informed as to how things are moving forward. Our residents deserve no less than this.”

Letters from concerned citizens to Councillors echoed the sentiment against Green Belt development. Stephen Neward, a voluntary warden at the Priest Hill nature reserve, expressed hope that the revised National Planning Policy Framework would prevent the inclusion of Green Belt sites in the Local Plan. Another resident, Lynn Munro, urged councillors to prioritize brownfield sites over Green Belt, emphasizing the irreversible impact on the borough’s open spaces.

Tim Murphy, representing the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Epsom and Ewell Green Belt Group, shared the views of planning consultant Catriona Riddell. Riddell clarified that local authorities, including Epsom and Ewell, are not obligated to alter Green Belt boundaries to meet housing targets, challenging the notion that Green Belt sacrifice is necessary.

As controversy swirls around the closed meeting, residents, campaigners, and opposition councillors continue to press for transparency. The fate of Green Belt land in Epsom and Ewell remains a hot topic.

The meeting was not notified on the Council’s calendar of meetings and therefore the press do not know if it was a formal or informal meeting nor whether any order was made about publicity. No part of the meeting, including any section excluding the public, has been uploaded to the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council YouTube channel.

Cllr Steven McCormick (RA Woodcote and Langley) Chair of the Licensing, Planning and Policy Committee has responded to Epsom and Ewell Times:

“This was not a secret meeting; it just wasn’t a public meeting. I stated publicly at the September LPPC Committee and extraordinary full Council on 24 October 2023 that Member briefings regarding the Local Plan would be taking place during this time period assuming the local plan was unpaused by full council, which it was.

Further clarification was given at the special LPPC meeting held in November when the Local Development Scheme (LDS) was an agenda item.  I have given a statement at every council meeting allowing questions from all members.  All members have been encouraged to attend each LPPC meeting whether they’re a committee member or not.  All members have been fully involved and engaged in the development of our local plan. 

It is normal and expected practice when a Local Plan is being developed for Members to be able to discuss items of detail outside of the public Committee Meetings. The information briefing for councillors held on 10 January 2024 was not a meeting of the Council or a committee and had no decision-making powers, and there was no right for public access under the Local Government Act 1972 or any other legislation. 

There is currently a huge amount of work being done for our Local Plan, including considering the implications of the revised NPPF published in December 2023.   Work will continue over the coming months before the next stage of public consultation (Regulation 19), which is due to commence in January 2025, if supported by LPPC in November 2024 and full council in December 2024.”

Related reports:

Local Plan costs eat into Council reserves

Local Plan to move forward after passionate debate

Local Plan (2022-2040) Un-Pause Recommended

Cllr Persand intervenes ahead of Local Plan debate

and many many more. Search “local plan” in search function above.

At the Epsom and Ewell Planning Committee meeting of 14th December the proposed demolition of 79-81 East Street and the construction of a part 5, part 6 storey building containing 31 residential units faced intense scrutiny and debate.

After a heated discussion, Councillor Neil Dallen (RA Town Ward) proposed to refuse the application, citing concerns about over development, lack of parking provision, and harm to the conservation area. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Jan Mason. However, the committee ultimately voted against his motion (2 For, 6 Against).

Following further consideration, the Acting Chair put forward the Officer’s recommendation for approval, subject to conditions and a legal agreement. The committee resolved (6 For, 2 Against) to grant planning permission with conditions and informatives.

Conditions and Informatives: The approval is subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement, including provisions for 16 affordable rented units, restrictions on parking permits, and a car-club agreement. Conditions include time limits for development commencement, approval of external materials, construction transport management plan, and various pre-occupation and post-development requirements.

The decision reflects the complex considerations surrounding the East Street Development. The approved conditions aim to address concerns raised during the meeting, particularly regarding parking, sustainable transport, and environmental impact. The development now moves forward, albeit with strict guidelines in place.

Properties on Ruxley Lane in Ewell with sizeable gardens will be demolished and replaced by 14 dwellings in two blocks. A tied vote of Councillors, at the Epsom and Ewell Planning Committee meeting of 14th December, on granting permission was resolved by the casting vote in favour of acting Chair Cllr Steven McCormick (RA Woodcote and Langley).

The committee approved the application, contingent upon the execution of a Section 106 Legal Agreement. This agreement includes a viability review mechanism to be activated if the development fails to reach the first-floor slab level on both buildings within 20 months of the decision date.

A critical provision in the decision is the requirement for the Section 106 Agreement to be completed by March 18, 2024. Failure to meet this deadline empowers the Head of Place Development to refuse the application based on non-compliance with Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy 2007.

Several conditions were imposed, including a three-year time limit for the commencement of development to comply with the Town and Country Planning Act. The approved plans, covering aspects such as site location, construction details, and landscaping, must be strictly adhered to throughout the development process.

Pre-commencement conditions were also established, such as the submission and approval of a Construction Transport Management Plan, ensuring responsible construction practices and adherence to highway safety regulations.

Post-demolition and pre-above-ground conditions mandate the submission and approval of details related to external materials, access provisions, tracking details, sustainable drainage schemes, and more. These conditions aim to safeguard visual amenities, highway safety, and sustainable development principles.

Pre-occupation conditions cover various aspects, including access closure and remediation, parking and turning layouts, visibility splays, and the installation of electric vehicle charging points. These conditions align with the National Planning Policy Framework’s sustainable transport objectives and local development policies.

The committee emphasized sustainability measures, requiring the provision of solar panels, drainage verification reports, and adherence to ecological and sustainable design measures.

During and post-development conditions focus on groundwater remediation strategies, tree protection, ecological considerations, and sustainable design measures. The approved development must comply with strict regulations to control significant harm from land contamination and ensure the preservation of biodiversity.

The decision also outlines specific conditions regarding construction hours, limitations on additional windows or openings, and the installation of facilities such as refuse/recycling stores and cycle storage.