Agenda item

The Committee considered a Regulation 3 planning application for Proposed Improvements to Highways Infrastructure in the Churchfields area to the north of Kidderminster Town Centre including the Demolition of the CMS/Vauxhall Building at Churchfields on Land adjacent to St Marys Ringway (A456) and Churchfields/Blackwell Street, Kidderminster, Worcestershire.

 

The report set out the background of the proposal, the proposal itself, the relevant planning policy and details of the site, consultations and representations.

 

The report set out the Planning Development Manager's comments in relation to Traffic and Highways Safety, Design, Historic Environment, Ecology and Biodiversity, Landscape and Visual Impact, Air Quality, the Water Environment, Ground Contamination, Residential Amenity and Noise, and other matters -  Economic Impact and Housing Provision, and Cumulative Effects.

 

The Planning Development Manager concluded that the Churchfields area of Kidderminster was undergoing significant regeneration to form a new urban village and was expected to deliver up to 600 homes together with other mixed uses. Kidderminster Property Investments were currently applying to Wyre Forest District Council for outline planning permission for 270 residential dwellings and 670m2 of mixed use floor space at the Churchfields Business Park site.

 

This proposal for highways infrastructure improvements was required to facilitate that development. The major elements of the proposal include the construction of a new link road between the A456 St. Marys Ringway and Churchfields; a new junction between Clensmore Street and the St. Marys Ringway; and a revised highways layout at Horsefair.

 

The main issues to consider were traffic and highways safety, design, historic environment, ecology and biodiversity, landscape and visual impacts, air quality, water environment, ground contamination, residential amenity and noise, and other matters including economic impact and cumulative effects.

 

In terms of the main issues, the Planning Development Manager considered that the proposal would, overall, be acceptable in terms of traffic and highways safety. In making this judgement, the Planning Development Manager acknowledged the highly constrained nature of the urban environment in this area and other traffic and safety concerns which had prevented the ability of the applicant to propose surface level pedestrian crossings between Churchfields and Kidderminster town centre. Moderate weight had also been accorded to the applicant's proposal to replace approximately 2 parking spaces at Horsefair with cycle spaces and(or) a motorcycle space, together with saving one tree from felling, subject to the County Planning Authority's planning judgement.

 

The proposal was considered to be acceptable in terms of design. The Planning Development Manager considered that the applicant had produced a design which mediates between the competing interests at play in the constrained environment of Horsefair whilst delivering on the scheme's central purpose of providing suitable highways infrastructure for the wider Churchfields area and Churchfields Business Park residential and mixed use scheme. Moderate weight was accorded to the applicant's proposal to retain one tree in accordance with the requirements of Policies SAL.UP7 and KCA.UP2.

 

The proposal was considered to be acceptable in terms of the historic environment, subject to conditions recommended by the County Archaeologist. The Planning Development Manager considered that the applicant's proposal to re-use locally important heritage paving and ironwork at Dudley Street would accord with Policy CP11 and address concerns raised by the public adequately.

 

The proposal was considered to be acceptable in terms of ecology and biodiversity, taking into account the applicant's intention to develop a landscaping plan that integrated with the Churchfields development to the north. As part of a landscaping condition, net gains for biodiversity would need to be delivered in accordance with Paragraph 170(d) of the NPPF. Moderate weight was accorded to the applicant's proposal to retain one tree at Horsefair in view of Policy CP14's requirement to incorporate existing flora and fauna where appropriate and public concerns raised about tree removal.

 

The proposal was considered to be acceptable in terms of landscape and visual impact, subject to a condition requiring a landscaping plan to mitigate for the loss of trees in the area. Again, moderate weight was accorded to the applicant's proposal to retain one tree at Horsefair in view of Policy SAL.UP9's requirement to acknowledge the importance of existing trees and the material consideration of the Churchfields Masterplan SPD which indicated trees should form part of the Horsefair public space.

 

In terms of air quality, the proposal would result in a significantly positive effect in the Horsefair/Coventry Street Air Quality Management Area (AQMA) due to the proposed redistribution of traffic flows. Having taken the comments of Worcestershire Regulatory Services – Air Quality, and Public Health England into account, the Planning Development Manager considered that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of air quality.

 

The proposal was considered to be acceptable in terms of the water environment and ground contamination (subject to conditions that would ensure the site was fit for purpose and safe for controlled waters and human health).

 

In terms of residential amenity and noise, the proposal was considered to be acceptable in terms of the development plan. The Planning Development Manager considered that the proposal would accord with Paragraph 180 of the NPPF which required planning decisions to ensure that the development was appropriate for its location taking into account the likely effects of pollution on health and living conditions. In making this judgement, it was considered that the applicant had reduced to a minimum the negative noise effects of the development. This would, regrettably, result in 8 dwellings experiencing a significant negative noise effect that would remain unmitigated in the event that planning permission was granted. This aspect of the proposal was considered to weigh against planning permission being granted. However, the applicant's approach here would accorded with the NPPF and that this negative aspect must be weighed against the benefits of the proposal.

 

The proposal was considered to be acceptable in terms of the cumulative effects of this development and other planned developments.

 

In view of the above conclusions, the Planning Development Manager considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of the main issues identified. However, it was considered that the multiple moderate weightings accorded to the applicant's proposal to retain one tree at Horsefair add up to the extent that one tree should be retained there in order to accord with the development plan and address the legitimate public concerns about tree removal. This would also allow for the provision of cycle spaces and(or) a motorcycle space at Horsefair, which would accord with Policy KCA.CC2: Sustainable Transport, and the material consideration of the LTP4 document. The Planning Development Manager considered that suitably worded conditions should be imposed to achieve this by requiring the submission and approval of final highways drawings, and to identify the tree to be retained at the Horsefair. Taking into account the above consideration that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of the main issues identified, the Planning Development Manager was mindful that significant weight should be accorded to the benefits of the proposal in terms of its economic impact, and that great weight should be accorded to proposal's purpose of unlocking significant housing development in the Churchfields area.

 

Overall, the benefits of the proposal combined with its acceptability in terms of the main issues identified are considered to significantly outweigh the significant adverse noise effects that would occur at 8 dwellings in the area.

 

Taking in to account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies DS01, DS02, CP01, CP02, CP03, CP07, CP11, CP12, CP13 and CP14 of the Wyre Forest District Core Strategy 2006-2026, Policies SAL.PFSD1, SAL.CC1, SAL.CC2, SAL.CC7, SAL.UP3, SAL.UP5, SAL.UP6, SAL.UP7 and SAL.UP9 of the Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan 2006-2026 and Policies KCA.PFSD1, KCA.CC1, KCA.CC2, KCA.CC3, KCA.UP1, KCA.UP2, KCA.UP3, KCA.UP4, KCA.UP7, KCA.Ch1, KCA.Ch5 and KCA.Ch8 of the Kidderminster Central Area Action Plan 2006-2026, it was considered the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the interests intended to be protected by these policies or highway safety.

 

The representative of the Planning Development Manager introduced the report and commented that members had visited the site and walked through the Horsefair area and along Blackwell street and both subways under the A456. Members noted the iron-kerbed edge to the paving and drainage features outside the peacock Public House on Dudley Street. A petition with 30 signatures had been received calling for more parking at the Horsefair and on Blackwell Street. Third party representation had been received which echoed matters raised by other consultees set out in the report. He introduced Richard Williams and Neil Kirby from Worcestershire Regulatory Services who were available to answer questions.

 

Dawn Anglin, the Chairman of Horsefair and Proud addressed the Committee. She commented that the Horsefair area of Kidderminster had suffered from a lack of investment for a long time. There was a general lack of parking spaces for the local shops in the area. The retention of the car parking spaces at the Horsefair was welcomed but not at the cost of the trees.  36 businesses operated in the Horsefair area of Kidderminster, all of which were independent. It offered a diverse range of businesses, a number of which had been there a long time. It was an historical trading area in arguably the busiest gateway into Kidderminster and had been overlooked for funding. Wyre Forest District Council had looked at providing car parking spaces on Radford Avenue but it was considered that on-street, short-stay parking on Blackwell Street was a priority. 

 

In response to Ms Anglin's presentation, the following queries were raised:

 

·         The great community spirit in the Horsefair was acknowledged however if the additional spaces were to be provided in the Horsefair then something else for example, the removal of trees would be necessary to compensate for the loss of space. Dawn Anglin responded that the proposals to widen the pavement on Blackwell Street outside the florists were unnecessary as the natural footfall was on the other side of the street. Instead parking spaces could be provided in this location. Parking spaces could also be made available at the CMS/Vauxhall Building site

·         The public participant was encouraged to contact Wyre Forest District Council to seek to make the Horsefair a Conservation Area.

 

Mark Mills, County Highways did not address the Committee on behalf of the applicant but was available to answer questions. The following queries were raised with him and Richard Williams and Neil Kirby from Worcestershire Regulatory Services:

 

·         Within the proposed gyratory system, would vehicles exiting Radford Avenue have the option of turning right or left? Mark Mills responded that motorists travelling from the south along Radford Avenue would only be able to turn left down Blackwell Street or travel straight ahead. It was not possible to turn right as the one way gyratory system would be in operation

·         Was it possible for parking to be provided along the new link road on the CMS/Vauxhall site? Mark Mills commented that the County Council did not own this land and the landowner had only dedicated enough land to allow the highway improvements to take place and not sufficient to provide additional car parking provision. Karen Hanchett, the Development Control Manager – Highways added that parking provision on the new link road would not be supported as the road needed to be kept free and that was the basis on which the traffic modelling assessment had been carried out. She could not therefore support any on-street parking in that area. There were other sites in the vicinity that could be made available for parking if agreed by the relevant landowner and the District Council

·         There was a danger that additional parking at the top of Blackwell Street would impact on the traffic management scheme as a result of additional vehicles manoeuvres which would have a negative effect on air quality. Mark Mills indicated that Blackwell Street was very narrow therefore it was proposed to make it one-way and to open up the footway for easier access to the shops. To include on-street parking provision would create a bottle-neck, impeding the flow of traffic and impacting on air quality

·         Would the proposal to make Blackwell Street one-way improve the air quality? Mark Mills commented that at present, the narrowness of the Street resulted in vehicles standing, for example as a result of lorries passing each other. A one-way system would eradicate this problem

·         Although it was acknowledged that the AQMA scheme would improve air quality, was it possible to give an indication of the factor of improvement of air quality and could further reductions be achieved? Neil Kirby, Worcestershire Regulatory Services explained that the improvements would reduce emissions in Blackwell Street by half. However the volume of traffic in the area meant that further reductions to emissions would not be possible without technological improvements

·         What was the anticipated increase in noise levels experienced by the 8 properties and what measures could be put in place if the noise levels were found to be excessive and impacting on the quality of life of the residents? Richard Williams commented that the noise levels had only been assessed from outside the flats. The next step would be to assess the internal impact. However it should be noted that these flats were of fairly new construction and had double-glazing of a reasonably high standard. The impact on Weaver's Cottages had not been assessed as they were unoccupied when initial assessments were undertaken. These properties were Grade II listed and therefore the windows were less likely to be double-glazed and might need a further assessment in the future

·         The properties affected by the increased noise would be monitored to assess the impact before and after the construction work. If evidence was found that noise levels were significantly higher than the British Standard, would residents be compensated for the necessary mitigation work? Richard Williams advised that usually there was an obligation for an assessment to take place and redress if necessary. Mark Mills added that after the completion of the highways scheme, residents would have the opportunity to make a claim for compensation and the applicant (the County Council) would be required to meet the claim. 

 

In the ensuing debate, the following principal points were raised:

 

·         The only option to increase parking in the area would be to open up discussions with the landowner of the CMS/Vauxhall Garage to free up additional land. Karen Hanchett responded that it might be beneficial to open up discussions but this should not impact on the determination of this application. The applicant had attempted to provide the maximum amount of car parking within the limited land area available. Improvements were being made to the footway on Blackwell Street to encourage people to walk to the shops rather than drive to improve the environment and air quality. In relation to Blackwell Street, improvements for pedestrians and cyclists were considered a priority over the provision of additional parking spaces

·         The subway at the end of Blackwell Street was damaged, smelled and covered in graffiti. Section 106 funding should be made available to make improvements to it, for example the installation of cctv. The representative of the Planning Development Manager advised that the applicant was not proposing to improve the lighting in the Blackwell Street subway. Officers had considered that this was not a reason to withhold planning permission however members could add different weight to this concern

·         Would it be beneficial to provide a surface level crossing for pedestrians as an alternative to the subway under the St Marys Ringway? The issue of a surface level crossing had been raised with the applicant but the applicant advised that it was not possible without causing widespread disruption in North Kidderminster and also for road safety reasons

·         The application should not be delayed by any further negotiations about the use of land for car parking. The proposals were the best that could be achieved within the confines of the application site however the subways were a negative aspect that needed to be improved

·         Similar concern was expressed to the objector that the pavement on the wrong side of Blackwell Street was being widened. In response, Mark Mills commented that the application had taken into account in the design of the scheme the footfall on Blackwell Street as a result of proposed housing development in the Churchfields area 

·         The Horsefair area was in need of regeneration and suffered from congestion. It was clear therefore that the road layout was in need of improvement. It was disappointing that there was insufficient space within the application site to improve cycling provision. It was pleasing that a number of locally important details had been retained for example, the locally manufactured paving and edging

·         The suggestion of the introduction of a surface level crossing was inappropriate given the proximity to a number of sets of traffic lights

·         It should be noted that regeneration work had taken place around the Horsefair area in recent years

·         The proposal would maintain the local history and culture of the Horsefair which would remain a prominent part of Kidderminster

·         If the applicant was serious about increasing pedestrian use of the Horsefair area then effort should be made to improve the lighting and general condition of the subway at the end of Blackwell Street so that people felt safe walking through them

·         It was agreed that a condition be added to the permission relating to the lighting and general improvement of the Blackwell Street Subway with the wording to be agreed by the Planning Development Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman

·         It was suggested that Weaver's Cottages be included in the noise assessment so that residents would be given a degree of protection should any increase in noise be detected. Karen Hanchett responded that under the relevant legislation, residents would be able to put in a compensation claim following the opening of the scheme and the applicant would be required to make an assessment and put in the necessary mitigation measures at no cost to the resident.

 

RESOLVEDthat planning permission be granted for Proposed Improvements to Highways Infrastructure in the Churchfields area to the north of Kidderminster Town Centre including the Demolition of the CMS/Vauxhall Building at Churchfields on Land adjacent to St Marys Ringway (A456) and Churchfields/Blackwell Street, Kidderminster, Worcestershire, subject to a further condition relating to the lighting and general improvement of the Blackwell Street and St Mary's Church, Ringway Subways with the wording to be agreed by the Planning Development Manager in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and subject to the following conditions:

 

 

Commencement of development

 

a)   The development must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission;

 

b)  The applicant shall notify the County Planning Authority of the start date of commencement of the development in writing within 5 working days following the commencement of the development;

 

Details

 

c)  The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following submitted drawings, except where otherwise stipulated by conditions attached to this permission:

 

·           Location Plan (Ref no. HGN-01-DR-C-0007), submitted to the County Planning Authority on 03/05/2018

·           General Arrangement (Ref no. HGN-01-DR-C-0034), submitted to the County Planning Authority on 31/07/2018

·           General Arrangement (Ref no. HGN-01-DR-C-0035), submitted to the County Planning Authority on 31/07/2018

·           General Arrangement (Ref no. HGN-01-DR-C-0036), submitted to the County Planning Authority on 31/07/2018

·           General Arrangement (Ref no. HGN-01-DR-C-0037), submitted to the County Planning Authority on 31/07/2018

·           General Arrangement (Ref no. HGN-01-DR-C-0038), submitted to the County Planning Authority on 31/07/2018;

 

Archaeology: Pre-commencement condition

 

d)  No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological work including a Written Scheme of Investigation, has been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority in writing.  The scheme shall include an assessment of significance and research questions; and:

 

                 I.       The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording;

               II.       The programme for post investigation assessment;

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

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

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

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

 

e)  The development shall not be brought into use 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 (d) and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured;

 

Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP): Pre-commencement conditions

 

f)   No development shall take place until a CEMP for protecting European Protected Species has been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority in writing. The CEMP shall include the following details:

 

                 I.   Measures to minimise noise and light disturbance during the construction phase to features identified as having bat roost and nesting bird potential, and potential for commuting and foraging habitat for bats in Appendix B of the document titled "Churchfields, Kidderminster: Ecological Appraisal", dated April 11, 2017; and

               II.   Methodology for checking vegetation for bat roost potential prior to its removal;

 

Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP;

 

g)  No development shall take place until a CEMP for minimising nuisance from noise, vibration and dust emissions during the demolition and construction phase(s) has been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority in writing. The CEMP shall be in accordance with BS 5228-1&2:2009+A1:2014 "Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites", and Worcestershire Regulatory Services "Code of Best Practice for Demolition and Construction Sites", dated July 2011. The CEMP shall also include measures for preventing water pollution and a scheme providing the days and hours of construction operations. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP;

 

Drainage: Pre-commencement condition

 

h)  No development shall take place until a site drainage strategy for the scheme has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The strategy shall include details of surface water drainage measures and shall conform with the non-statutory technical standards for SuDS (Defra 2015), and the principles set out in the document titled "Churchfields Urban Village – Highway Infrastructure Project, Kidderminster", dated April 2018. The plan shall include the details and results of field percolation tests used to determine the suitability of the ground conditions for infiltration drainage. The surface water drainage measures shall provide an appropriate level of runoff treatment. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved strategy prior to the first use of the development and thereafter maintained;

 

Ground Contamination: Pre-commencement conditions

 

i)   No development, or phasing as agreed below, shall take place until the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site are submitted to and approved, in writing, by the County Planning Authority:

 

             I.       A preliminary risk assessment which has identified:

a.      all previous uses;

b.      potential contaminants associated with those uses;

c.      a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors; and

d.      potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site.

 

            II.       A detailed site investigation and risk assessment, based on (I) to provide information for assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. This report must be approved by the County Planning Authority prior to any development taking place.

 

           III.       Where the site investigation results and the risk assessment (II) identify that remediation is required, an options appraisal and detailed remediation strategy is required to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to identified receptors must be prepared.  This report is subject to the approval of the County Planning Authority in advance of undertaking.

 

          IV.       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 County Planning Authority.

 

           V.       A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (III) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. This should include any proposed phasing of demolition or commencement of other works.

 

          VI.       Prior to any part of the development being brought into use (unless in accordance with agreed phasing under part V above) a verification (validation) report demonstrating the effectiveness of the remediation carried out and completion of the works as  set out in the approved remediation strategy (III and V). The report shall include results of any sampling and monitoring and any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action and for the reporting of this to the County Planning Authority. The validation report is subject to the approval of the County Planning Authority prior to the development being brought into use unless otherwise agreed with the County Planning Authority.

 

      Any changes to these components require the express written consent of the County Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved;

 

j)    If during development, contamination not previously identified, is found to be present at the site then no further development (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the County Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the County Planning Authority, a Method Statement for remediation. The Method Statement must detail how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. A verification (validation) report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.  The report shall include results of any sampling and monitoring. It shall also include any plan (a “long-term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action and for the reporting of this to the County Planning Authority;

 

Highways: Pre-commencement conditions

 

k)   Notwithstanding the details submitted, no development shall take place until final drawings of the highway improvement works have been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority in writing. The development shall not be brought into use until the highways improvement works have been constructed in accordance with the approved details;

 

l)   Notwithstanding the details submitted, no development shall take place until final drawings of the bus stop relocation proposals have been submitted to and approved by the County Planning Authority in writing. The development shall not be brought into use until the bus stops have been constructed in accordance with the approved details;

 

Lighting

 

m) No new lighting shall be installed before a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" for the scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The strategy shall:

 

                    I.       Identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places, or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging; and

 

                  II.       Show how and where lighting will be installed so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent bats using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places. Details to achieve this shall include details of the height of all lighting, the intensity of lighting (specified in Lux levels), spread of light, including approximate light spillage levels (in metres), the times when the lighting would be illuminated, and any measures proposed to mitigate impact of the lighting or disturbance through glare.

 

     All lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other lighting be installed without prior consent from the County Planning Authority;

 

Tree and Vegetation Retention

 

n)  The tree identified as Number 25 on the plan titled "Vegetation Removal/Retention Plan" (Ref no. ETS-00-DR-EN-0002), which was submitted to the County Planning Authority on 19th September 2018, shall be retained as part of the development hereby approved and shall be protected by suitable fencing in accordance with BS5837:2012. No materials shall be stored, no rubbish dumped, no fires lit and no buildings erected inside the fencing. In the event of the tree being damaged or removed by the development, it shall be replaced in the next planting season;

 

o)  Vegetation identified for retention in the close vicinity of proposed highways works on the plan titled "Vegetation Removal/Retention Plan" (Ref no. ETS-00-DR-EN-0002), which was submitted to the County Planning Authority on 19th September 2018, shall be protected by suitable fencing in accordance with BS5837:2012. No materials shall be stored, no rubbish dumped, no fires lit and no buildings erected inside the fencing. In the event of vegetation being damaged or removed by the development, it shall be replaced in the next planting season; and

 

Landscape & Ecology

 

p)  Within 9 months of the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Landscape & Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the County Planning Authority. The LEMP shall include the following details:-

 

                    I.       How net gain for biodiversity will be achieved;

                  II.       Details of any measures (including planting) necessary for delivering net gain for biodiversity;

                 III.       How any measures proposed will not be adversely affected by any new lighting required as part of this development;

                IV.       Planting details shall include the locations, seed mixes, species, sizes, spacing, ratios and planting densities with associated establishment and aftercare provision. Approved planting shall be implemented within the first available planting season (the period between 31 October in any one year and 31 March in the following year) on completion of the development. Any new trees or shrubs, which within a period of five years from the completion of the planting die, are removed, or become damaged or diseased, shall be replaced on an annual basis, in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species;

                  V.       Details of other measures proposed for achieving net gain for biodiversity, for example bird or bat boxes, shall include their locations and specifications. These measures should be installed within 6 months of the completion of the development.

 

Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.