Chestfield Parish Council
Office 4, Jagow House, Joseph Wilson Industrial Estate,
Millstrood Road, Whitstable CT5 3PS
Telephone: 01227 773121
Email: clerk@chestfieldparishcouncil.gov.uk
Ruth Wilkes
Development Management Officer
Canterbury City Council
Military Road
Canterbury
CT1 1YW
05 August 2014
Dear Ms Wilkes
This letter has been written as Chestfield Parish Council’s response to the following outline
planning application:
CA//14/01319/OUT
Land at Bodkin Farm, Thanet Way, Chestfield, CT5 3JD
Outline application for a mixed used development comprising up to 290 dwellings
(Use Class C3), primary school (Use Class D1), restaurant (Use Class A3), office
building (Use Class B1), community building (Use Class D1/D2), gym/fitness centre
(Use Class D2), 24 unit care home (use Class C2), convenience shop (Use Class A1),
clubhouse/changing room building (Use Class D2) and 18.81 ha of parks, amenity
greenspace, children's play areas, playing fields, allotments and community
woodland and associated access, infrastructure, landscaping and cycle/footways. All
matters except Access and Scale are reserved)
Chestfield Parish Council undertook a survey with Maydowns Road residents to gauge their
views, in order to inform this representation. Chestfield Parish Council objects to this
planning application on a number of grounds, as set out below.
Loss of the green gap
The submission draft Canterbury District Local Plan (CDLP) clearly has this site designated
by Canterbury City Council as “green gap”. If Canterbury City Council grants this application
it will encourage applications of similar green gap encroachment - a move that Communities
Secretary Eric Pickles MP has voiced concern against in parliamentary comment as recent
as June 2014. This must be resisted. Canterbury City Council must respect their own
designations.
Page 31 Para 1.65 in the CDLP details the Green Infrastructure Strategy: Green
infrastructure…plays an essential role in supporting ecological process and improving the
health and well-being of individuals and societies.
The site was submitted as a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) but
not accepted for inclusion in the CDLP by Canterbury City Council. Appropriate development
sites have been identified and published.
Page 6 para ix in the CDLP states “planning decisions must be taken in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
We do not believe that this application justifies why the Local Plan policy to direct
development to existing urban areas should be set aside in this case.
Coalescence
Canterbury City Council has the site allocated as green gap to prevent the coalescence of
the built up areas. This site protects the coalescence of Chestfield with Swalecliffe.
Strategy
Canterbury City Council’s allocations/strategy is for large sites in urban areas in order to pay
for the infrastructure requirements needed. For example the new garden city at Canterbury
will pay for improvements to the A2 junction, and all the developments of Herne Bay and
along the A28 will contribute to the improvements to the Sturry level crossing.
Chestfield Parish Council consider that if smaller sites are allowed to be brought forward,
this prejudices the whole strategy - due to the reduction in housing numbers needed on the
big sites, and thus reducing the deliverability of the infrastructure provision.
Alternative site assessment
Eton College should be made to do an alternative site assessment as other sites have been
identified for housing, and they should explain why their site is better.
For the distribution of housing in the district, in line with the provisions of the South East Plan and
the initial Core Strategy Options Report, there is a requirement for a greater proportion proposed
for the city of Canterbury.
Sufficiency of Housing Land
Canterbury City Council has deemed that 15,600 new houses are needed on new land to
2031.
An Appeal on a reserve site (owned by Kitewood, and in case no other site came forward) in
the old Local Plan went to Appeal in December 2012 and tested housing need/numbers.
Every local authority needs a five year housing allocation plus 5%.
At this appeal Canterbury City Council demonstrated 6.5 years’ worth of land so there was
no special need to bring that site forward.
Therefore we would contest that a similar argument arises for the proposed Bodkin Farm
development, as this site is not allocated for housing, and we believe, Canterbury does have
5 years plus of its housing numbers required.
The interim household projections for Canterbury are for 840 dwellings per year, some 60
units per year higher than the requirement set out in the draft Local Plan. But the National
Planning Policy Guidance does allow for testing of those figures, and the difference between
the two figures can be explained by different approaches to the counting of students in the
area through the Census. This indicates that the scale of development identified in the draft
Local Plan is of the correct order.
New households projection
We understand that new population projections are out and Canterbury City Council await
the new household projection based on it. We believe the new households projection should
show lower household growth, which weakens the applicant’s comment that the housing
identified in the submission draft Local Plan is below that as previously identified as needed.
We understand that the city council’s Annual Monitoring Report and Housing Information
Audit is currently being worked on and due for publication later this year. Ideally, this
information will be available prior to the development management meeting when this
application is considered, in order to inform the Members’ decision.
Land designation / Agricultural land
Page 20 para 1.51 in the CDLP states that The National Planning Policy Framework says,
“re-use land that has been previously developed (Brownfield land)… and para 1.52 … that
the council will encourage developers to consider whether there is previously developed
land available in suitable locations for new development, rather than locating development
on fresh land.
Clearly the SHLAA application process has dealt with this, and the Bodkin Farm land was
rejected.
We are aware that Eton College were given the land in question, as agricultural land for
agricultural development and research with students, at a reasonable price.
This land is adjacent to an ancient woodland. It is not fallow land. 2.10 of the application
states “the land is pasture land, which is predominantly managed for hay.”
In June 2014, Eric Pickles, the Communities Secretary, says Britain must remain a “green
and pleasant land”, with new housing development instead concentrated on brownfield sites,
“preserving the best of our countryside”. New figures published in June 2014 show that
there’s enough of this land for 200,000 new homes across more than 5000 hectares.
Foul Water Drainage
At Chestfield, during heavy rains, quite a lot of surface water goes in to the foul system
which increases levels and problems. The development will probably need a holding tank,
the costs of which would be down to the developer, and this may make a scheme less
viable.
The application is deficient in that it does not detail an appropriate point of connection to the
foul water network to discharge foul drainage from the development. We understand that a
formal application must be made by the developer to Southern Water and that Southern
Water must confirm in writing that there is capacity in the network for this development to be
accommodated.
We seriously question whether there is capacity as we are aware of a planning application
(CA/05/1653CHE) submitted by Southern Water for a new foul/storm water pumping station
on land at the bottom of Chestfield Road and opposite Maydowns Road. This application
was intended to alleviate existing flooding problems in the area. (It was subsequently
withdrawn, we believe on the grounds of costs of its provision). We therefore believe that
robust alleviation measures will be required to create capacity in the existing system.
Peter Brooks the city council’s drainage engineer in his drainage impact assessment states:
“The successful disposal of the foul flow is critical to any development and I will need to see
and approve Southern Water’s written confirmation that they can accept the new flow from
the development into their public foul sewer system. However, as it is extremely unlikely that
there is sufficient space capacity in Southern Water’s existing local foul sewer system to
safely accommodate the flow from some 300 new houses and from more than 8 hectares of
office, retail and hotel development, I recommend that the applicant gets a full capacity
check from Southern Water and then works out what enhancement to the local infrastructure
will be required to service his project and how this will affect the scheme’s financial viability.
This should be done very early on in the design process as at this scale of development it is
far too important to be left as a condition of any planning approval.”
The developer must get written confirmation from Southern Water around a suitable
connection and capacity measures. We must ensure this is received prior to the application
getting any permission from Canterbury City Council – rather than afterwards as a condition
of a permission – and be satisfied that both the existing village and any development’s foul
water is adequately dealt with.
Flooding
There is a known history of flooding in Chestfield, exacerbated by the London Clay soil.
Page 149 Para 7.22 of the CDLP states that Canterbury City Council’s objective is to
discourage inappropriate development in areas at known risk from flooding. Para 7.33 states
that Chestfield is a known flood risk and Para 7.34 advises the Swalecliffe Brook is at
saturation.
Flooding of the Old Thanet Way occurs at the very entrance to the proposed development –
near to the entrance with Johnson Nurseries. Flooding on the Old Thanet Way also occurs
on the nearby section by McDonalds. It remains our opinion that flooding on the Old Thanet
Way won’t be stopped by the provision of attenuation tanks.
We would like to remind planning officers and members that the area for the proposed
entrance was flooded so badly in the winter of 2013, that it was necessary to totally close
this particular stretch of road. Any future road closure if this development was allowed,
would effectively prevent vehicular access for residents, visitors and emergency vehicles
alike. Flooding would make the entrance and egress very dangerous for residents and
visitors alike.
Only one access means that if there is a major accident emergency vehicles will not be able
to access all parts of the site.
Additionally, there is a barrier at Herne Bay where, if an accident occurs, this may divert all
traffic down Chestfield Road. During such closures this proposed development site would be
landlocked.
Traffic and Speedwatch statistics
Chestfield has a very active team of speedwatch volunteers who undertake weekly checks
at various different sites within the village. Since November 2011 the speedwatch volunteers
have undertaken 88 checks and recorded 1197 vehicles speeding in the village between 36
and 65 mph.
The traffic modelling submitted with the application has suggested more than 1,100 extra
vehicles on Chestfield Road per day purely from this proposed development – a 12%
increase, which coupled with the background growth in traffic predicted, will mean 10,000
vehicles per day using Chestfield Road in 10 years’ time. This is of particular concern to
Chestfield Parish Council. These figures would be further increased by the proposed new
development at the Herne Bay Golf Club.
Hackington parish council
Hackington Parish Council has traffic concerns over number of vehicles and speed of
vehicles through their village. They have speedwatch statistics backing up speeding traffic
through their village. To get to Canterbury vehicles will travel through Hackington, so
measures to control traffic and speeding will be needed outside of the parish and all along
the primary route to the City.
Speed limit reduction from 60mph to 40mph
Para 3.4 in the application proposes a reduction in the speed limit to 40mph from 250m east
of the proposed new roundabout to the Reeves Way roundabout.
Chestfield Parish Council welcomes the proposal to reduce this stretch to 40mph, and would
like to see this implemented immediately if the development goes ahead, particularly in view
of those pedestrians/cyclists wishing to use the (new) school and/or train station.
Helping Maydowns Road vehicles to exit
Maydowns Road residents have highlighted to the parish council the already existing
problem they have, in trying to exit from their road, particularly if they wish to turn right.
Drivers enter Chestfield Road at that point at speed, and often without indicating. Vehicles
trying to exit Maydowns Road are very reliant on other drivers ‘letting them out’.
The parish council facilitated a traffic counting exercise at the end of Chestfield Road by
Maydowns Road on 18 July 2014. This highlighted 319 vehicles exiting from Maydowns
Road between 07.30 and 18.30. (Only exiting vehicles were recorded in the exercise, not
numbers entering the road.)
Therefore, in this response, Chestfield Parish Council would request one of the following in
order to give Maydowns Road vehicles an opportunity to exit:
i)
A fifth leg on the Maydowns / Chestfield Road existing roundabout
There is a precedent with a five legged roundabout just up the road. We would like to
see this be traffic light controlled.
ii)
Traffic lights on the Maydowns / Chestfield Road roundabout
If a fifth legged roundabout was not considered possible we would like to see the
existing roundabout become traffic light controlled, not just to aid Maydowns Road
vehicles, but to act to slow down traffic and because there are pinch points / blocking
(and flooding) that occurs frequently already just under the Swalecliffe Railway
Bridge.
iii)
A new controlled crossing near Maydowns Road
Near to the entrance to Maydowns Road there is an existing island/crossing point
with railings for pedestrians and cyclists to cross the road.
In view of
(a) The speed with which vehicles come off the Old Thanet Way and enter the
village at this point
(b) The observation that cyclists do not use the roundabout (for fear of speed and
volume of traffic presumably) - but prefer instead to use the pavements at this
point to move on in the direction to Sainsburys, Swalecliffe, or Herne Bay
(c) The increase in traffic that this development would add to Chestfield Road (12%)
and
(d) The increase in pedestrians and cyclists from the development also wanting to
cross at this point:
The parish council therefore ask that the Section 106 agreement with the developer
(should the application be granted) include provision that the developer should
install a new controlled crossing at this point. This would aid Maydowns Road
vehicles exiting also.
Servicing and refuse collection vehicles
There is concern that servicing and refuse collection vehicles will not be able to work within
the development – the proposed layout does not provide adequate flow and turn around
places.
Public transport provision
Chestfield Parish Council has seen Stagecoach’s representation that states that they do not
believe the diversion of the No 5 service in to the development to be commercially attractive.
The vast majority of the site is more than the recommended maximum distance of 400m
from a bus stop. Chestfield Parish Council agrees with their comment that the site will be
heavily car reliant and therefore objectionable.
Visual impact
The Master Plan contours appear to show that the playing fields part of the site is sloping. If
that is the case, provision of these would require re-grading and the resultant contouring of
the natural landscape which would be a retrograde step.
Listed building setting
Bodkin Farm farmhouse is an 18th Century Grade II listed building. Policy HE4 states that
development that is likely to have an adverse impact on the setting of listed buildings will not
be permitted. Chestfield Parish Council therefore argue that this is a very traditional
farmhouse and that it would have always been standalone surrounded by farmland. This
development impacts on its setting.
Employment element
Jobs are always needed. And people can live and work in the same area.
How is the applicant going to bring the employment elements forward?
Canterbury has struggled with this and the latest Canterbury District Local Plan shows
historical allocations at the coast for employment land now allocated for housing. There is
therefore a credibility issue with this part of the proposal. There are also its effects on the
development of other sites which need to be delivered. This development would take
employment away from Canterbury where it is more wanted and needed.
Impact on the SSSI site at Swalecliffe
These are sensitive coasts and we should be satisfied about this – new residents if the
development goes ahead will use the coast for leisure and dog walking etc. There should be
consideration for a developer contribution to offset this impact.
Dynamics and demographics and Integration with the rest of Chestfield village
The village currently has 1400 homes.
Whilst the parish council realises that to keep the village alive for the future some
development is potentially needed, but this development is a 21% increase.
The development does of course also create a village within a village, and does not
integrate into the existing village at all.
Affordable housing
90 of the 290 homes would be ‘affordable’.
Of these 70% are usually for rent and 30% for shared ownership.
Chestfield Parish Council would prefer to push for a greater proportion of shared ownership,
to keep the social demographics of the village more comparable to the situation now.
And / or the parish council would also ask for a self-build scheme for a number of the plots.
The South East Local Enterprise Partnership offers grant aid for self-build schemes.
Chestfield Parish Council would also like a local connection criteria for prospective tenants
of the social rented housing, similar to those social homes at Littlebourne Court Meadows
and the rural exception site at Adisham. The parish council would be happy to determine the
details of the criteria with the city council, the developer, and the social registered landlord in
due course.
The parish council would also like to suggest that some of the market value (for sale)
properties should be specifically designed for older people – for example, built around a
green and with very small manageable gardens. The parish council feel it would be good to
encourage some of the ‘asset rich, cash poor’ residents of Chestfield to down-size in view of
the excess winter deaths statistics for Chestfield. But the homes would need to be of high
quality and be attractive enough to achieve this. (During the four winter months of
November, December, January, and February there are more deaths than when compared
to the other eight months in the year. However since 2005 the Chestfield and Swalecliffe
ward has experienced significantly worse numbers than the national average – becoming
the 3rd highest in England. The ward statistics have been broken down into ‘super lower
output areas’ and this shows that the ‘problem’ areas are only in Chestfield. Causes of
mortality are the same as the England average – the top three killers being heart disease,
cancers, lung disease.)
The proposed new school
Chestfield Parish Council is aware that Swalecliffe primary school is at full capacity already,
and therefore the need for a new school is accepted. Two forms would be 60 children per
year. The school does intensify the traffic to and from the scheme. School run traffic and
parking has not been adequately thought out. Not only children from this development would
attend this school. The drop off area and parking provision for the school is not enough.
There is major concern from Maydowns Road residents that school run parking may
overflow in to the top of Maydowns Road, with the proposed footpath linkage from the top
there in to the development site.
Preschool capacity - Additionally, Chestfield Parish Council would point out the known lack
of preschool capacity in the local area. This development would only exacerbate that.
Allotments
The developer must provide a water supply and an adequate number of taps to serve the
allotments. Consideration for the disposal of any rubbish arising is also needed.
Future maintenance of open spaces, verges, roads, allotments, sports pitches,
PROWs and community hub
Chestfield Parish Council need assurances that these have been given enough thought and
that there is one or more bodies willing to take over their future maintenance and
management and upkeep.
The parish council is supportive of a community hub. This could if designed well,
accommodate a hall, lettable rooms, and a separate self-contained pre-school as the other
half of the building – this would bring in income and still allow a dual-use of the premises at
weekends and evenings.
Chestfield Parish Council sought clarification from Eton College for some aspects of the
application, and found the representatives willing to enter into dialogue. Chestfield Parish
Council would like to have first refusal to be the body to take over the running and future
management of the Community Hub facility, and perhaps some of the other elements of the
scheme such as the incubator offices, if a suitable agreement can be reached to do so.
Perhaps also there is a need for the creation of a residents association and committee and
an annual financial levy applied and collected.
In the feedback from the May 2014 exhibitions (Application Appendix 1) under planning
concerns, is that the remaining open space within the application boundary should be
protected from development for a minimum of 30-50 years. Alongside this it states “the
applicant is willing to provide a planning obligation securing the long term protection from
development of the open space”. Chestfield Parish Council would like to see this obligation
implemented.
Public right of way CW68
CW68 is within the site and runs along the back of Maydowns Road (odd numbers).
KCC PROW department has asked that this be upgraded to Public Bridleway to facilitate
walking and cycling and all pedestrian/cycle paths to be a minimum 3m width.
The current design places the existing public footpath CW68 within an enclosed
environment which is contrary to both police advice and Kent design standards. This can
lead to reduced use due to personal security and fear of crime issues. The developer should
look towards a design that reduces the length of ‘enclosure’ to improve the overlooking
required by design standards. The parish council would also like to see the section of CW68
that runs along the back of Maydowns Road (odd numbers) to be strengthened and
reinforced with mature trees and planting to retain the residents’ sense of security given by
the overgrowth currently.
The cycling infrastructure and links to the existing system
The section of path from The Long Reach to Tesco beside the Old Thanet Way has been used
as cycle path for many years. It is designated as shared use and although not wide enough
and not signposted very well it does serve its purpose.
However for the entire length of the Old Thanet Way path, despite the shared use parts at
each end, the section between Chestfield and Greenhill is appalling. It's effectively derelict,
with very little maintenance since the 1980s. It seems the perfect place for a proper wide
shared use path. There have been plans to do exactly this. Spokes have a summary here:
http://www.spokeseastkent.org.uk/future-routes/Old-Thanet-Way/index.
If the development is to be built, the parish council would urge Canterbury City Council to ask
the developers to pay/contribute for the upgrade/installation of a proper shared use path along
the Old Thanet Way between Chestfield and Greenhill that links into the development. Clearly
this would encourage some of the new residents to cycle/walk but also be of benefit to existing
residents.
Regard for the known existing problem of nuisance scramble/motorbikes in the immediate
local area must also be considered and suitable gates/stiles to prevent them access must be
provided - particularly where CH8 meets Molehill Road. This area should also be designed
with gates to prevent flytipping on and at entrance to the proposed bridleway'.
Great crested newts
Eton College commissioned a study in March (when the newts go into water to breed). A
variety of techniques were used over four days in two of the ponds on site but no newts
were found.
Despite this Chestfield Parish Council would point out that there is a third pond on the site –
at the west end which needs surveying. Additionally, it is a requirement to survey any
water/neighbouring ponds within a 500m radius of the site – this will include several ponds in
Maydowns Road residents’ gardens. (A previous application CA/10/01644/FUL
for five new houses at Chestfield Farm had to do this.)
Logistics and security
A key element that appears to have been overlooked is practical logistical planning and
security during the project build. There is no mention in the document of how materials will
be delivered into site, either in terms of delivery routes, or proposed storage methodology.
And no mention of security arrangements, namely how the site will be policed, or for what
periods.
With regards to logistical movement of materials into site, we have concerns about heavy
goods deliveries utilising Chestfield Road to access the site. We would oppose this on
both road safety and environmental grounds, and insist that all deliveries into site are via an
approved route, and with good appropriate signage to ensure this. We would suggest
utilising the Chestfield by-pass, thus meaning that site traffic would approach the site from
the eastern direction of the A299 Thanet Way from Herne Bay. There would be less overall
traffic nuisance by employing this route as this is does not impinge on residential areas, and
also serves to avoid known traffic congestion areas approaching from the western side of
the A299 Thanet Way. (We have provided a sketch CT01; rev 01 direct to the case planning
officer).
There is no specific mention of designated delivery times or controlled logistics processes.
Although ‘Just in Time’ deliveries are widely recognised as the preferred methodology of
material delivery on most new construction projects, we would not want to see deliveries at
times likely to affect those residents in close proximity to the Bodkin Farm site. Should the
application be successful, we would request that the parish council is consulted so as to
agree suitable and acceptable times of delivery.
It is assumed that there will be a designated materials lay-down area within the site during
construction. This in itself presents a potential security risk, not only to the site but also to
the village in general, in particular adjoining areas such as Maydowns Road. We would
therefore ask as to how the applicant intends to police the site, particularly outside of normal
working hours and at night. Will the applicant be employing the services of a permanent 24/7
security presence, or be reliant solely on ad-hoc security patrols? We do not feel that the
latter option would serve to placate those residents whose houses are nearest to the
proposed development. Current Kent Police statistics show that there is minimal crime
within Chestfield – we therefore feel that the absence of permanent security presence during
the project build would surely exacerbate this situation.
We are also concerned as to the actual working times during the construction works. We
would therefore expect to see a structured day- working pattern, which should be precise in
their timings – timings which the parish council would wish to be consulted upon, and would
like to be made a condition should the application be granted.
Overall, we do not feel that the applicant has duly considered the logistical planning of the
project in its application, nor indeed the effect that such a severe oversight would have on
the residents of Chestfield.
Conclusion
Chestfield Parish Council do not believe that the applicant has demonstrated why this site
should come forward for development above those allocated in the draft Local Plan.
Paragraph 5.2.6 states the Canterbury District Local Plan has anticipated adoption in Spring
2015, and paragraph 5.2.7. states the more advanced the preparation, the greater the
weight that may be given to it.
Previous applications to develop this site have been refused, primarily on the loss of
agricultural land; the classification of the land as Green Gap, and on the grounds of
increased traffic. Chestfield Parish Council trusts that these material considerations, along
with the other major concerns listed above, not least of which is the need for the developer
to have written confirmation from Southern Water around a suitable connection and capacity
measures, prior to any application getting permission, will ensure this application is also now
refused.
Chestfield Parish Council is wholly opposed to this development and would like to
send a speaker to the development management meeting when this application is
heard.
Best wishes
Amanda Sparkes
Clerk to the Council
Cont/…
Summary
Amendments the parish council is seeking, should officers and Members be minded
to grant the application:
1. Foul water drainage – assurances that this can be accommodated and without
affecting existing residents must be established prior to any decision to grant.
2. Traffic calming measures – To build in to the S106 agreement for the developer to
- bring about an immediate reduction in the speed limit as proposed to 40mph;
- provide traffic light control for the Old Thanet way with Chestfield Road
roundabout, and
- provide a new controlled pedestrian crossing near Maydowns Road.
3. Impact on SSSI site at Swalecliffe – that an appropriate developer contribution is
sought.
4. Affordable housing
- That for the 90 affordable homes, that a greater proportion (more than 30%) of
these be for shared ownership
- A self-build scheme to be offered within the development.
-
A local connection criteria for prospective tenants of the social rented housing be
included in the S106 agreement (after discussion and agreement of this criteria
between the city council, parish council, developer and social registered landlord
is reached)
5. Primary school – that a review of the drop off area and parking provision is done.
6. Pre-school capacity – that provision for the local area or suitable contribution is
sought.
7. Community centre/hub - Chestfield Parish Council would like to have first refusal to
be the body to take over the running and future management of the Community Hub
facility, and perhaps some of the other elements of the scheme such as the incubator
offices, if a suitable agreement can be reached to do so.
8. Allotments – provision of a water supply and suitable future maintenance and
management provision put in place
9. Future maintenance of open spaces, verges, footpaths etc – that concern over
the future upkeep is satisfied
10. Public Right of Way CW68 – to change the proposed design/layout on order to
comply with police advice and Kent design standards.
11. Cycle infrastructure – Secure the provision by the developer of a shared use path
between Chestfield and Greenhill. Ensure suitable accesses preclude the entry by
motorbikes.
12. Great Crested Newts – that further studies in all locations within 500m radius of the
site be undertaken and the findings dealt with as appropriate.
13. Logistics – ensure that heavy goods deliveries are via an approved route and avoid
Chestfield Road, and with good appropriate signage to ensure this. And that
consultation with the parish council be undertaken to agree designated delivery times
to protect those residents in close proximity to the site. We would also seek a on
how the applicant intends to police the site, particularly outside of normal working
hours and at night.
14. Working times – impose a condition of allowable actual working times during the
construction works, with precise days and timings – timings which the parish council
would wish to be consulted upon, and would like to be made a condition should the
application be granted.