|
6.0
|
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
6.1
|
Section 38 (6)
of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires
applications for planning permission be determined in accordance
with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise.
Section 70 (2)
of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that the local
planning authority shall have regard to the provisions of the
Development Plan, so far as material to the application, and to any
other material considerations.
In the case of
this application, the most relevant parts of the Development Plan
are the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035 (SOLP) and
The
Tiddington with Albury Neighbourhood Plan
(TwANP).
|
|
6.2
|
The main issues
that need to be considered in relation to this proposal
are;
- The
principle of the development in terms of housing policy.
- Drainage
and flooding.
- Impact on
the character and appearance of the area.
- Neighbour
impact.
- Impact on
trees.
- Impact on
ecology.
- Access,
parking and Highway Safety.
- Amenity
space.
- Drainage.
- Carbon
reduction.
- Community
Infrastructure Levy.
|
|
6.3
|
The principle of the development in terms of
housing policy.
Policy STRAT1 of the SOLP sets out the overall
strategy for development in the district. The policy includes
specific reference to supporting smaller and other villages by
allowing for limited amounts of housing and employment to help
secure the provision and retention of services.
In addition, Policy STRAT1 seeks to protect and
enhance the countryside and particularly those areas within the two
AONBs and Oxford Green Belt by ensuring that outside of the towns
and villages any change relates to very specific needs such as
those of the agricultural industry or enhancement of the
environment.
|
|
6.4
|
Policy H1 of the SOLP relates to delivering new
homes and states that
the Development Plan contains a range of site types and sizes
that
will be developed with different time scales and that are
dependent
on different infrastructure. The Council has developed a
detailed
development trajectory (shown at Appendix 8 in the SOLP) that will
provide the
annual delivery targets for this plan period.
The Policy goes
on to state at paragraph 3 iv) that residential development that is
not allocated in the plan will only be permitted where it is
infilling or on brownfield sites within Smaller and Other
villages.
|
|
6.5
|
Policy H16 of the SOLP relates to infill
development and states that within ‘Smaller’ and
‘Other’ villages, development will be limited to infill
development and redevelopment of previously developed land or
buildings.
Infill is defined in Policy H16 as the filling
of a small gap in an otherwise continuous built-up frontage or on
other sites within settlements where the site is closely surrounded
by buildings. The scale of infill should be appropriate to its
location.
|
|
6.6
|
Milton Common
is defined in Appendix 7 – Settlement Hierarchy in the SOLP
as an ‘Other Village’ – the lowest level of the
four classifications, which are Towns, Larger Villages, Smaller
Villages and Other Villages.
|
|
6.7
|
There is no
specific policy in relation to housing in ‘Other
Villages’ as there is for ‘Larger’ and
‘Smaller Villages’ – Policy H4 and H8
respectively.
However,
paragraph 4.38 of the SOLP does make reference to ‘Other
Villages’ and states the following;
It is not generally expected that
those settlements classified as “Other Villages” will
provide a significant source of housing supply, However, it is
possible that some development proposals may come forward over the
plan period in these villages, such as single dwellings, infilling
and conversions from other uses. Such proposals will be considered
against the relevant policies in this Local Plan.
|
|
6.8
|
It can be taken
from this that small scale infill development will be permitted in
‘Other Villages’.
|
|
6.8i
|
Policy TwA2 of
the TwANPdefines the village boundary. It states that infill
development within the boundaries and outside of the Green Belt
will be supported provided they accord with other policies within
the plan. The supporting map to the policy shows the application
site outside of the defined settlement boundary for Milton Common.
Residential development on this site would conflict with the
neighbourhood plan.
|
|
6.9
|
The local
highway authority has expressed concern to the development on
sustainability grounds in terms of the accessibility, services
within the settlement and public transport access. Highway matters
are dealt with separately later in in this report, but it is
prudent at this stage, when considering the principle, to consider
their comments.
|
|
6.10
|
The local
highway authority has provided comments on the proposal on the
basis that the location of the site is unsustainable in transport
terms because they consider that the accessibility of the site is
poor with future residents being highly dependent upon carborne
transport due to the lack of any public transport.
By way of
background the local highway authorities’ comments have
regard to the county’s Local Transport and Connectivity Plan
(LTCP), which sets out the County Council’s aims, policies
and objectives for more sustainable travel across the
County. Whilst the LTCP is a material consideration it
does not form part of SODC’s development plan, and planning
applications in South Oxfordshire have to be decided in line with
the SOLP and any relevant neighbourhood plan, unless there is a
very good reason not to do so.
Whilst the
local highway authorities comments are noted, their concerns do not
align with the relevant housing policies set out within the
council’s development plan and having regard to these the
principle of the proposed development is acceptable. Policy
STRAT1 is consistent with the rural housing policy in the NPPF,
which states at Paragraph 79, ‘To promote sustainable
development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will
enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning
policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and
thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where
there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village
may support services in a village nearby.’
I acknowledge
the points being raised by the highway authority; however the
council’s development plan is clear that this is a settlement
where some housing is permissible. It is important to note that
their concerns do no constitute an objection from the highway
authority and that they recognise that the council as the local
planning authority will need to consider their comments as part of
determining the application.
|
|
6.11
|
The matter of
sustainability was key to the consideration of planning application
P18/S2573/FUL for 6 dwellings on the site (see refusal reason 1 in
para 1.8). The appeal inspector in the concluding remarks of their
decision dated the 15th of April 2019 stated the
following;
“The proposal would not harm the character
and appearance of the area.
However, it would conflict with the development
plan in terms of the location of a development of this
scale..”
|
|
6.12
|
The appeal
inspector also had regard to the fact that planning permission had
already been granted for development on this site for four
dwellings commenting as follows;
“Whilst the extant permission could be
implemented, the development now
proposed is larger and would, therefore, lead to
more travel by private car.
The scale of development exceeds that set out in
the development plan as
appropriate
for this location. The previous planning permissions in the area
are important material considerations, but as the extant permission
is less harmful than the appeal scheme in terms of the scale of
development, this fallback position is of limited weight in the
planning balance against the first main
issue.”
|
|
6.13
|
This
application is also for six dwellings on the site and the
previously refused application and the comments made by the appeal
inspector in dismissing the appeal are material planning
considerations in the assessment of this current
proposal.
I give this
significant weight in the planning balance.
|
|
6.14
|
It is necessary
to consider the differences between the refused scheme for six
dwellings and the proposed scheme for six dwellings.
The starting
point for this consideration should begin with the development
plan. In the context of the refused scheme that application was
considered under the policies contained within the South
Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2027 (SOCS) and the save policies
contained within the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011
(SOLP).
|
|
6.15
|
Policy CSR1 of
the SOCS related to housing within settlements and was
permissive providing that it
was infill development and dependant on the size of the village.
The policy put a maximum figure on the number of units and/or the
size of the overall site.
Milton Common
was classified in Appendix 4 of the SOCS as an ‘Other’
village where Policy CSR1 allowed for development on sites of up to
0.1 hectares (the equivalent of 2-3 houses).
This site
comprised 0.58 hectares and proposed 6 dwellings. As such the
proposed development was considered to conflict with Policy CSR1
because it was larger than the Council would normally look to
permit for infill development.
|
|
6.16
|
At the time of
the consideration of the refused scheme for 6 dwellings the
approved scheme for 4 dwellings had not commenced.
|
|
6.17
|
There is a
clear difference between how housing development in ‘Other
Villages’ was considered in the superseded South Oxfordshire
Core Strategy and the current South Oxfordshire Local Plan. The
SOCS restricted development to a site area and the number of units.
The SOLP is not so prescriptive, it states that
“some
development proposals may come forward over the plan period in
these villages, such as single dwellings, infilling and
conversions”
It
is important to emphasise that proposals for single dwellings is
separate to the issue of infilling. Whilst a single infill dwelling
may very well be acceptable in an ‘Other Village’ it
does not mean that only single dwellings will be acceptable in
other villages, in my opinion.
However, it is clear that the
overall emphasis of this paragraph is that in ‘Other
Villages’ the amount of housing is envisaged to be of a small
and limited scale.
|
|
6.17i
|
The
neighbourhood plan carries full weight in decision making and the
application site is outside the settlement boundary in the NP. This
means that for a new development proposal the principle of housing
on this site would be unacceptable and contrary to the
neighbourhood plan.
|
|
6.18
|
Overall, I give
the differences between the previous development plan and the
current development moderate weight in the planning
balance.
|
|
6.19
|
Another
material planning consideration to weigh in the planning balance is
the fact that the development of the approved scheme for four
dwellings on this site has commenced lawfully. It can be built out
at any point without any further need for permission from the
council and would create 4 dwellings within the settlement of
Milton Common.
This is a
fall-back position for the applicant, and I give this significant
weight in the planning balance.
|
|
6.20
|
A comparison
between the approved, refused and proposed schemes can be seen at
paragraph 1.10 of this report. It shows that the refused scheme for
the six units had a larger site area than the approved scheme for
four. It also extended further into the site.
When comparing
the approved and the current scheme it is important to emphasise
that the site area is exactly the same. The difference between the
two is the change in layout to accommodate two additional
dwellings.
The fact that
the proposed site area for six dwellings is smaller than the area
shown for the previous scheme for six but the same as the scheme
for four means that the overall impact of the development is less
in terms of visual amenity and loss of vegetation.
The proposal
also makes a better use of land than the approved
scheme.
I give this
moderate weight in the planning balance.
|
|
6.21
|
The approved
layout of four dwellings provided a housing mix of 2 x 3 beds and 1
x 4 bed and 1 x 5 bedroom dwelling.
The proposed
layout of six dwellings will provide for 1 x 5 bed, 1 x 4 bed, 4 x
3 beds.
|
|
6.22
|
The proposed
development provides for two additional 3 bedroom dwellings over
and above the approved four dwellings on the same site. When
considered against the objectives of Policy H11 of the SOLP which
seeks to secure a mix of dwelling types and sizes to meet the
current and future households. The
current housing mix evidence (the Oxfordshire Strategic Housing
Market Assessment 2014 (SMHA)) found a shortfall in smaller units
and recommended for most units to be 2 and 3
bedrooms.
In this case
the development provides for 50% 3 bedroom dwellings and increases
the number of 3 beds from the approved scheme.
I give this
limited weight in the planning balance.
|
|
6.23
|
Summary -
A scheme for
six dwellings has been refused on this site previously and was also
dismissed at appeal. This carries significant weight and should
influence how this current application is considered.
|
|
6.24
|
The previously
refused scheme was determined under the SOCS and the site size
limitations and number of dwellings set out in Policy CSR1 for an
‘Other Village. Under the new SOLP there is no size or number
of dwelling limit for ‘Other Villages’ however it is
clear that only small scale infill development would be considered
appropriate.
|
|
6.24i
|
The site lies
outside of the defined settlement boundary for Milton Common in the
neighbourhood plan.
|
|
6.25
|
The permission for 4 dwellings has lawfully been
commenced and can be built out. Development on this site will
happen. The proposed development would provide for two additional
dwellings over and above what has been permitted.
|
|
6.26
|
The scheme for 6 units previously refused was
over a larger application site area. The current proposal is
contained within the same area that will be developed for the
erection of 4 dwellings.
|
|
6.27
|
The proposed development provides for two
additional units of three bedroom properties for which there is an
identified need.
|
|
6.28
|
Conclusion –
The starting point for the consideration of this
proposal is heavily weighted towards refusal having regard to the
previously refused scheme for six dwellings and its subsequent
dismissal at appeal.
The appeal inspector had regard to the fact that
development had been permitted on this site for four units. In the
context of the development plan at that point in time the inspector
concluded this was not a sustainable form of development and
dismissed the appeal.
|
|
6.28i
|
In addition, since the previously refused scheme
the neighbourhood plan has progressed which would resist the
development of this site for dwellings.
|
|
6.29
|
Since the appeal, however the approved scheme
for four dwellings on this site has been implemented lawfully but
has not been completed. There has also been a change in the
development plan that has removed the prescriptive upper size limit
of site area and number of dwellings for this classification of
settlement.
|
|
6.30
|
The development site is smaller than the refused
scheme and the new houses will be accommodated within the same area
that has been permitted for four dwellings. Consequently, the
overall visual impact of this development will be less than the
previous scheme for six dwellings across what was a larger
site.
|
|
6.31
|
The development, which will provide a net gain
of two dwellings over and above what has already been permitted,
will create two additional 3 bedroom units addressing an identified
need within the district. All of which will be contained within an
area that has already been allowed for residential development.
This makes a better use of land when compared to the approved and
refused schemes.
|
|
6.32
|
The dismissed appeal carries significant weight
in the planning balance as does the neighbourhood plan however in
my professional judgment the cumulative weighting given to the
change in planning policy between the South Oxfordshire Core
Strategy and the South Oxfordshire Local Plan, the better use of
land, the fact that the development is contained with the same site
areas as the permitted scheme, the reduced visual impact from the
appeal scheme and an increase in the number of three bedroom units
tips the balance in favour of granting planning permission for two
additional dwellings in terms of the acceptability of the principle
of development.
|
|
6.33
|
Drainage and flooding.
Policy EP4 of
the SOLP relates to matters of flooding and aims to reduce the risk
of flooding by;
i)
directing new development to areas
with the lowest probability of flooding;
ii)
ensuring that all new development
addresses the effective management of all sources of flood
risk;
iii)
ensuring that development does not
increase the risk of flooding elsewhere; and
iv)
ensuring wider environmental
benefits of development in relation to flood risk.
Policy INF4 of
the SOLP relates to water resources and requires that all new
development proposals must
demonstrate that there is or will be adequate water supply, surface
water, foul drainage and sewerage treatment capacity to serve the
whole development.
|
|
6.34
|
The second
reason for refusal in 2018 (see para 1.8) for the previous scheme
for six dwellings on the site related to a lack of information on
how a sustainable drainage strategy would be achieved. This
position was also upheld by the appeal inspector.
|
|
6.35
|
This matter has
been the subject of significant discussion between the
applicant’s drainage specialist and the council's drainage
engineers on the current application. It has resulted in additional
information being submitted for consideration.
|
|
6.36
|
At the request
of the council's drainage engineer the applicants have agreed to
restrict the surface water discharge to the Thames Water sewer to
an acceptable level.
In conjunction
with the details that have been submitted and in addition to
planning conditions that require the following;
-
the applicant to provide a full
surface water drainage scheme;
-
a management strategy for surface
water to be submitted before 75% of occupations can take
place;
-
a report showing how the development
has complied with sustainable urban drainage principles
the
council’s drainage engineers confirm that they do not
object.
The imposition
and compliance with the conditions will ensure that the proposal
will accord with the development plan in this regard.
|
|
6.37
|
Impact on the character and appearance of the
area.
Policy DES1 of
the SOLP seeks to ensure that all new development is of a high
quality of design subject to a series of criteria.
Policy DES2 of
the SOLP requires all new development to be designed to reflect the
positive features that make up the character of the local area and
should both physically and visually enhance and complement the
surroundings.
|
|
6.38
|
The layout of
the current scheme differs from the approved scheme for four
dwellings with access directly from the A40 rather than from within
the adjoining hotel site. The built form on the site whilst
increased in terms of the number of units is broken up in a more
appropriate way especially having regard to the amount of building
facing onto the A40.
|
|
6.39
|
Concern has
been expressed by the parish council in relation to the height of
the buildings which are three storeys high. For clarification, the
second floor is contained within the roof space of the dwellings
with rooms lit by traditionally sized dormer windows. Their overall
height is commensurate with the average height of normal two storey
dwellings.
|
|
6.40
|
There is no
uniform standard of design, siting or appearance of dwellings
within the settlement of Milton Common. Whilst the dwellings now
proposed may differ from some of the other nearby properties there
is a mixture and palette of both design and materials in the wider
area such that this development will add to the variety, rather
than detract from the character of the area.
|
|
6.41
|
When this
design and layout of the site is considered against the scheme for
4 dwellings, I am satisfied that the proposed plans achieve the
high quality that the policies require and compliment surrounding
buildings rather than detract from them. The development will, in
my view, comply with policies DES1 and DES2.
|
|
6.42
|
Neighbour impact.
Policy DES6 of
the SOLP relates to residential amenity and requires that
development proposals should demonstrate that they will not result
in significant adverse impacts on the amenity of neighbouring uses,
when considering both individual and cumulative impacts in relation
to loss of privacy, day light and sunlight, dominance or visual
intrusion, noise or vibration, smell dust, heat, odour or other
emissions, pollution and external lighting.
|
|
6.43
|
The most
affected property by this development will be Fairview to the
northwest which will be most impacted by Plots 1 and 6.
|
|
6.44
|
In terms of
distance and orientation, the dwellings on the two plots have been
sited in such a way that neither will cause a materially harmful or
overbearing impact to Fairview in my view.
|
|
6.45
|
The Plot 1 and
Plot 6 dwellings have been orientated such that the first-floor
windows will provide oblique views across parts of the garden area
of Fairview. The juxtaposition of the buildings and limited views
over an established high boundary will not in my view create a
materially harmful level of overlooking.
|
|
6.46
|
Plot 6 includes
first floor windows in the side elevations which serve ensuite
bathrooms and a secondary window for a bedroom. Without obscure
glazing they would provide an unacceptable degree of overlooking of
Plot 1 and Plot 5. A condition is recommended that requires these
windows to be obscure glazed and fixed shut above 1.7 metres from
floor level.
|
|
6.47
|
Overall, I am
satisfied that the development will not be unneighbourly and in
conjunction with the proposed condition will accord with Policy
DES6.
|
|
6.48
|
Impact on trees.
Policy ENV1 of
the SOLP aims to protect South Oxfordshire’s landscape,
countryside and rural areas against harmful development.
Development will only be permitted where it protects and, where
possible enhances, features that contribute to the nature and
quality of South Oxfordshire’s landscapes, in particular
trees (including individual trees, groups of trees and woodlands),
hedgerows and field boundaries.
|
|
6.49
|
The trees
within this site are not protected by a tree preservation order or
within a conservation area.
|
|
6.50
|
The
Council’s Tree Officer has considered the development and has
no objection to the development. This is however subject to three
conditions; the first a general tree protection condition to secure
details of measures to protected retained trees, a hedge protection
condition to secure hedge protection measures and then a
landscaping condition to secure tree and hedge planting to soften
the proposed development and help assimilate it in to its
surroundings. In conjunction with these conditions the proposal
will comply with the development plan.
|
|
6.51
|
Impact on ecology.
Policy ENV2 of
the SOLP relates to biodiversity and designated sites, priority
habitats and species. It states that development likely to result, either directly or
indirectly to the loss, deterioration or harm to legally protected
species will only be permitted will only be permitted if the need
for, and benefits of the development in the proposed location
outweigh the adverse effect on the interests; it can be
demonstrated that it could not reasonably be located
on an
alternative site that would result in less or no harm to the
interests; and measures will be provided (and secured through
planning conditions or legal agreements), that would avoid,
mitigate or as a last resort, compensate for the adverse effects
resulting from development.
Policy ENV3 of
the SOLP relates to biodiversity. The policy concludes by stating
that planning permission will only be granted if impacts on
biodiversity can be avoided, mitigated or, as a last resort,
compensated fully.
|
|
6.52
|
Habitats on the
site comprise amenity grassland, hardstanding, hedge, some larger
ruderals (plants growing on
waste ground or among rubbish) and trees. A mound of earth and wood chip,
taller ruderals are present to the south of the site. These
habitats are not priority habitats and will not be a constraint to
the proposals.
|
|
6.53
|
Great Crested
Newts (GCN) receive special protection under UK law and it is an
offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)
and The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (The
Habitat Regulations) to deliberately or recklessly, destroy or
damage their habitat, or disturb, kill or harm them without first
having obtained the relevant licence for derogation from the
regulations from the Statutory Nature Conservation Organisation
(SNCO) – Natural England.
There are five
ponds within 200m of the site. The ecology report states that small
areas of taller habitat and the site boundaries, represent suitable
terrestrial habitat for great crested newts and surveys carried out
in 2011 concluded that the GCN were present in one of the ponds
although surveys in 2017 found none.
|
|
6.54
|
Because GCN (a
protected and priority species) spend most of their life on land up
to 500m from their breeding ponds there is a risk that the works
might harm GCN. The application site is within the Naturespace GCN
District Licence (GCNDL) Red Zone. It is very likely that GCN will
be affected by the proposals.
|
|
6.55
|
A condition is
proposed that requires a GCN method statement to be submitted and
approved in writing by the council before further development takes
place on site. This condition follows on from discussions
with the council’s ecologist and takes into account the fact
that the permitted scheme has lawfully commenced
|
|
6.56
|
Additional
information has been submitted to support this application. The
Biodiversity Impact calculation has been undertaken using the small
sites matrix. The results show that the development will lead to a
likely net loss of biodiversity of 1.0541 habitat units (-72.40%).
This would conflict with Policy ENV3 which requires a biodiversity
net gain as a minimum.
However, this
can be mitigated by a condition that requires a Biodiversity
Offsetting Scheme, totalling a minimum of 1.0541 habitat units to
be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
|
|
6.57
|
Overall, the
ecological impact of the development can be mitigated by conditions
relating to biodiversity offsetting, a GCN method statement,
landscaping, and ecological enhancements and the development will
accord with Policy ENV2 and ENV3 of the SOLP.
|
|
6.58
|
Access, parking and Highway Safety.
With respect to highway safety
matters the advice from Central Government set out in paragraph 111
of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is as
follows:
“Development
should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there
would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual
cumulative impacts on the road network would be
severe”.
Policy TRANS5
of the SOLP requires that proposals for all types of development
will, where appropriate amongst other things provide for a safe and
convenient access for all users to the highway network and provide
for the parking of vehicles in accordance Oxfordshire County
Council parking standards, unless specific evidence is provided to
justify otherwise.
|
|
6.59
|
The Highway
Authority have not objected to the development. However, they have
raised comments in relation to the sustainability of the site.
Accessibility and sustainability have been addressed earlier in
this report. This section deals with matters that relate solely to
highway safety.
|
|
6.60
|
The Highway
Authority did not object to the previous applications on this site
for residential development.
|
|
6.61
|
The highways
officer has no objection to the scheme in terms of the access onto
the A40, the manoeuvring areas within the site and the amount of
parking provided. These matters are considered acceptable, and the
Highway Officer has suggested conditions should the application be
approved. These conditions relate to the means of access on to the
A40 being laid out to OCC specifications and the provision of
parking and manoeuvring are being retained.
|
|
6.62
|
In conjunction
with these conditions, I am satisfied that the development will not
have an adverse impact on highway safety and it accords with Policy
TRANS5 of the SOLP.
|
|
6.63
|
Amenity space.
Policy DES5 of
the SOLP relates to outdoor amenity space and requires that a
private outdoor garden or amenity area should be provided for all
new dwellings. The amount of land should be provided for amenity
space will be determined by the size of the dwelling.
The JSVDG sets
out the minimum standard based on the number of bedrooms. For 3
bedroom properties and above, at least 100 square metres should be
provided, for 2 bedrooms 50 square metres and for 1 bedroom 40
square metres.
An inability to
provide the minimum amenity space and or parking provision can be
an indicator of an over development of the
site.
|
|
6.64
|
I have
considered the plans and they demonstrate that each dwelling meets
or exceeds the council’s minimum standards. Each dwelling
provides for adequate garden and parking areas.
Although this
is an increase in built form over and above the approved scheme,
each plot provides for an acceptable area that does not in my view
appear cramped or overdeveloped. Further demonstrating that the
scheme makes a better use of land than the scheme for four
units.
|
|
6.65
|
Carbon reduction.
Policy DES10 of the SOLP 2035
requires proposals for new build dwellinghouses to achieve at least
a 9% reduction in carbon emissions compared with 2022 Building
Regulations compliant base case. This reduction is to be secured
through renewable energy and other low carbon technologies and/ or
energy efficiency measures. An energy statement must be submitted
to demonstrate compliance with this policy for all new build
residential developments. The energy statement must include SAP
calculations and include details as to how the policy will be
complied with and monitored.
|
|
6.66
|
The application
includes an energy statement. It demonstrates that the proposed
dwellings would amount to a percentage reduction in line with the
requirements of the policy.
A condition is
proposed that seeks a verification report to be submitted to the
council before the building is occupied.
|
|
6.67
|
CIL.
The development
is CIL liable to the amount of £217, 880.
|
