Notice of Meeting Development Management

Central Bedfordshire Council Priory House Monks Walk Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ

please ask for Martha Clampitt direct line 0300 300 4032 date 29 August 2013

NOTICE OF MEETING

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Date & Time Wednesday, 11 September 2013 10.00 a.m.

Venue at Council Chamber, Priory House, Monks Walk, Shefford

Richard Carr Chief Executive

To: The Chairman and Members of the DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE:

Cllrs K C Matthews (Chairman), A Shadbolt (Vice-Chairman), P N Aldis, A R Bastable, R D Berry, M C Blair, D Bowater, A D Brown, Mrs C F Chapman MBE, Mrs S Clark, I Dalgarno, K Janes, D Jones, Ms C Maudlin, T Nicols, I Shingler, B J Spurr and J N Young

[Named Substitutes:

L Birt, Mrs R J Drinkwater, Mrs R B Gammons, C C Gomm, Mrs D B Gurney, R W Johnstone, J Murray, B Saunders, N Warren and P Williams]

All other Members of the Council - on request

MEMBERS OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND THIS MEETING

N.B. The running order of this agenda can change at the Chairman’s discretion. Items may not, therefore, be considered in the order listed.

AGENDA

1. Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members

2. Chairman's Announcements

If any

3. Minutes

To approve as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 14 August 2013. (previously circulated)

4. Members' Interests

To receive from Members any declarations of interest including membership of Parish/Town Council consulted upon during the application process and the way in which any Member has cast his/her vote.

REPORT

Item Subject Page Nos. 5 Planning Enforcement Cases Where Formal Action Has 7 – 10 Been Taken

To consider the report of the Director of Sustainable Communities providing a monthly update of planning enforcement cases where action has been taken covering the North, South and Minerals and Waste.

Planning and Related Applications

To consider the planning applications contained in the following schedules:

Planning & Related Applications - to consider the planning applications contained in the following schedules:

Item Subject Page Nos. 6 Planning Application No. CB/13/02017/FULL 11 - 34

Address : Unit A & R, Stratton Business Park, London Road, Biggleswade SG18 8QR

Demolition of existing units, erection of retail unit (Class A1) alterations to access and servicing arrangement and associated landscaping works.

Applicant : LXB RP (Biggleswade 3) Ltd

7 Planning Application No. CB/13/02542/FULL 35 - 46

Address : Lombardi’s Pizza, Red Lion, Deadman’s Cross, Shefford, Bedford SG17 5QQ

Change of use of part of the external area to form 2 No. separate car sales yards with an associated office on each site. To reform the access in accordance to new requirements. Associated fencing and resurfacing.

Applicant : Mr Singh

8 Planning Application No. CB/13/01850/FULL 47 - 58

Address : 18 Chapel Road, Flitwick, Bedford MK45 1EA

Erection of detached 2 bed bungalow with ancillary double garage and new crossover for No. 18.

Applicant : Mrs J Stevens

9 Planning Application No. CB/13/02102/FULL 59 - 72

Address : 81 Ampthill Road, Maulden, Bedford MK45 2DH

Minor demolition of existing stairway and access. Alterations and extensions to provide a new single storey (A1 Use) shop.

Applicant : Mr M Khinda 10 Planning Application No. CB/13/01919/FULL 73 - 82

Address : 1A Station Road, Marston Moretaine, Bedford MK43 0PH

Extend existing co-op supermarket into adjacent unit, form new back of house area at the rear, relocate existing entrance to store with a new automatic sliding entrance door, colour variations to the shopfront and new mechanical plant at the rear of the store.

Applicant : The Co-Operative Group

11 Planning Application No. CB/13/02393/FULL 83 - 92

Address : 38 Bedford Road, Sandy, Beds SG19 1EW

Single storey rear extension (modification to previously approved under CB/12/03398).

Applicant : Torst Ventures Ltd

12 Planning Application No. CB/13/02037/VOC 93 - 132

Address : Double Arches Quarry, Eastern Way, Heath & Reach, Leighton Buzzard LU7 9LF

Removal of Condition 11 of planning permission CB/10/03034 – The wind turbine shall not emit greater than expected amplitude modulation the level of broadband noise emitted by a turbine at blade passing frequency.

Applicant : Arnold White Estates

13 Planning Application No. CB/13/02360/FULL 133 - 146

Address : Land adj. to 2 Sandy Lane, Leighton Buzzard, Beds LU7 3BE

Demolition of existing garages & construction of a new 2 bed bungalow, together with a new access and parking for No 2 Sandy Lane. (Re-sub of 12/3697/FULL).

Applicant : Mr & Mrs M Ciancio

14 Site Inspection Appointment(s)

In the event of any decision having been taken during the meeting requiring the inspection of a site or sites, the Committee is invited to appoint Members to conduct the site inspection immediately preceding the next meeting of this Committee to be held on 09 October 2013 having regard to the guidelines contained in the Code of Conduct for Planning Procedures.

In the event of there being no decision to refer any site for inspection the Committee is nevertheless requested to make a contingency appointment in the event of any Member wishing to exercise his or her right to request a site inspection under the provisions of the Members Planning Code of Good Practice.

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Page 7

Meeting: Development Management Committee Date: 11th September 2013 Subject: Planning Enforcement cases where formal action has been taken

Report of: Director of Sustainable Communities

Summary: The report provides a monthly update of planning enforcement cases where formal action has been taken.

Advising Officer: Director of Sustainable Communities Contact Officer: Sue Cawthra Planning Enforcement and Appeals Team Leader (Tel: 0300 300 4369)

Public/Exempt: Public Wards Affected: All Function of: Council

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS Council Priorities:

This is a report for noting ongoing planning enforcement action.

Financial: 1. None Legal: 2. None .

Risk Management: 3. None Staffing (including Trades Unions): 4. Not Applicable. Equalities/Human Rights: 5. None Public Health 6. None Community Safety: 7. Not Applicable. Agenda Item 5 Page 8

Sustainability: 8. Not Applicable.

Procurement: 9. Not applicable.

RECOMMENDATION(S):

The Committee is asked to:

1. To receive the monthly update of Planning Enforcement cases where formal action has been taken at Appendix A

Background

10. This is the update of planning enforcement cases where Enforcement Notices and other formal notices have been served and there is action outstanding. The list does not include closed cases where members have already been notified that the notices have been complied with or withdrawn.

11. The list at Appendix A briefly describes the breach of planning control, dates of action and further action proposed.

12. Members will be automatically notified by e-mail of planning enforcement cases within their Wards. For further details of particular cases in Appendix A please contact Sue Cawthra on 0300 300 4369. For details of Minerals and Waste cases please contact Roy Romans on 0300 300 6039.

Appendices:

Appendix A – Planning Enforcement Formal Action Spreadsheet

Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 11th September 2013) NEW ENFORCEMENT DATE EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE LOCATION BREACH APPEAL COMPLIANCE RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. ISSUED DATE DATE DATE CB/ENC/10/0037 Land at 6 Sutton Road, Enforcement Notice - siting of 31-Aug-12 01-Oct-12 01-Dec-12 Not complied Legal letters sent, further action Potton, SG19 2DS mobile home for independent to be taken. 1 residential accommodation

CB/ENC/10/0140 Land at 6 The Belfry, Luton. Enforcement Notices - 13-Sep-12 11-Oct-12 08-Nov-12 Appeal Await outcome of appeal LU2 7GA change of use of land from submitted 2 amenity land to use as 27/9/12 garden. CB/ENC/10/0172 Land at 10-12 High Street, Enforcement Notice - 19-Jun-13 19-Jul-13 19-Aug-13 Works to commence on Shefford. SG17 5DG construction of an approved brick extension 3 unauthorised wooden 6/9/13. Monitor compliance extention CB/ENC/10/0189 Land adjacent to 17 The 2 Enforcement Notices 10-Aug-11 08-Sep-11 07-Nov-11 Appeal Planning application Causeway, Clophill material change of use of the and dismissed, CB/13/00985/FULL to use 4 Bedfordshire MK45 4RA land to a caravan site and 08-Mar-12 compliance adjoining land granted at construction of hardstanding extended Committee 19/6/13. Monitor compliance

CB/ENC/10/0440 Land at Foxbury Stables, Enforcement notice, change 21-Mar-13 18-Apr-13 18-Jan-14 Appeal Await outcome of appeal Woodside Road, Woodside, of use to mixed use for submitted 5 Luton. LU1 4DQ keeping horses and for 17/4/13 residential purposes.

CB/ENC/10/0659 Land at 106 Bury Road, Enforcement Notice - change 25-Jun-13 25-Jul-13 25-Aug-13 Appeal Await outcome of appeal Shillington, Hitchin SG5 3NZ of use of garage and rear submitted 6 conservatory to a self 11/7/13 contained dwelling unit.

CB/ENC/11/0267 Land at White Gables Farm, 3 Enforcement Notices - 29-Apr-13 29-May-13 29-Jun-13 Appeals Await outcome of appeals - Blunham Road,Charlton, 1. Canopy/ loading bay submitted Inquiry 30/10/13 Moggerhanger MK44 3RA extension & lighting to grain 28/5/13 store building 2. Use of land for storage/parking of haulage 7 vehicles

3. Failure to comply with Agenda Item5 Conditions 10, 12, and 14 to MB/06/01599/FULL (grain store)

CB/ENC/11/0402 Land adjoining Greenacres, 2 Enforcement Notices 15-Oct-12 12-Nov-12 10-Dec-12 Not complied Further action subject to Legal Gypsy Lane, Little Billington, 1 - unauthorised Page 9 8 Leighton Buzzard. LU7 9BP encroachment onto field 2 - unauthorised hard standing, fence and buildings

NOT PROTECTED - general data Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 11th September 2013) NEW ENFORCEMENT DATE EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE LOCATION BREACH APPEAL COMPLIANCE RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. ISSUED DATE DATE DATE CB/ENC/12/0057 Land at The Drovers, Flitwick Enforcement Notice - 30-May-12 30-Jun-12 30-July-12 30- Appeal 24-Nov-12 Planning permission granted Road, Steppingley Terracing of land and Aug-12 dismissed and for regrading land - 9 installation of timber retaining 24/10/12 24-Jan-13 CB/13/01384/FULL. Works walls commenced for compliance. CB/ENC/12/0098 Land at 26-28 Station Road, S215 Notice - Untidy land 15-May-13 15-May-13 12-Jun-13 Not complied Further action 10 Arlesey storage of motor vehicles

CB/ENC/12/0142 62 Bury Hill, Potton, SG19 S215 Notice - Untidy land 26-Jul-13 26-Jul-13 26-Aug-13 Check compliance 11 2RZ

CB/ENC/12/0199 Plots 1 & 2 The Stables, Breach of Condition Notice 15-Oct-12 15-Oct-12 12-Nov-12 Occupied temporarily, await Gypsy Lane, Little Billington, Condition 3 SB/TP/04/1372 outcome of appeal for 12 Leighton Buzzard LU7 9BP named occupants Kingswood Nursery

CB/ENC/12/0330 Land to rear of The Farmers Enforcement Notice - raising 08-Aug-12 10-Sep-12 10-Nov-12 Appeal 19-Sep-13 Appeal dismissed, check Boy PH, 216 Common Road, and leveling of the land by the dismissed compliance 19/9/13 13 Kensworth, Dunstable LU6 importation of waste material 19/7/13 2PJ

CB/ENC/12/0504 Land adj to Mileway House, Enforcement Notice - use of 03-May-13 03-Jun-13 03-Sep-13 Check complaince 3/9/13 Eastern Way, Heath and land for siting of storage 14 Reach containers

CB/ENC/12/0521 Land at Random, Private Enforcement Notice - erection 16-Aug-13 16-Sep-13 16-Nov-13 Check compliance 16/11/13 Road, Barton Le Clay, of a dwelling. 15 Bedford MK45 4LE

CB/ENC/12/0539 Land at 56 Blunham Road, Enforcement Notice - 06-Aug-13 06-Sep-13 06-Oct-13 Check compliance 6/10/13 Moggerhanger, Bedford construction of a porch. 16 MK44 3PD

CB/ENC/12/0633 Land at Plot 2, Greenacres, Enforcement Notice - 17-Jan-13 14-Feb-13 14-Mar-13 Further action to be taken Gypsy Lane, Little Billington, construction of timber building subject to Legal. 17 Leighton Buzzzard. LU7 9BP and the laying of hardstanding. Agenda Item5 CB/ENC/13/0011 8 High Street, Biggleswade, Unauthorised advertisement Prosecution request to legal SG18 0JL in Conservation Area 14/8/13 18

CB/ENC/13/0083 Land Adjacent to Magpie Enforcement Notice - failure 27-Jun-13 27-Jul-13 27-Aug-13 Appeal Await outcome of appeal Page 10 Farm, Hill Lane, Upper to comply with Condtion 5 submitted 19 Cladecote planning permission 26/7/13 MB/08/02009/FULL for gypsy/traveller site

NOT PROTECTED - general data Agenda Item 6 Page 11 43.2m

El Sub Sta

NORMANDY LANE

Stratton Business El Sub Sta Park

PEGASUS DRIVE

Scale: 1:1250 Unit A & R Stratton Business Park, London Road, Biggleswade, SG18 8QR Page 12

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Page 13

Item No. 6

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/02017/FULL LOCATION Unit A & R, Stratton Business Park, London Road, Biggleswade, SG18 8QR PROPOSAL Demolition of existing units, erection of retail unit (Class A1) alterations to access and servicing arrangement and associated landscaping works. PARISH Biggleswade WARD Biggleswade South WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Lawrence & Woodward CASE OFFICER Nikolas Smith DATE REGISTERED 21 June 2013 EXPIRY DATE 20 September 2013 APPLICANT LXB RP (Biggleswade 3) Ltd AGENT WYG Planning & Environment REASON FOR The approval of this application would represent a COMMITTEE TO departure from the Development Plan. DETERMINE RECOMMENDED DECISION That planning permission should be granted subject to conditions and a s106 agreement.

Summary of decision:

The application satisfactorily demonstrates that whilst the development would represent a departure from the development plan, that there would be sufficient justification for this and that the principle of the developm ent would be acceptable. The development would improve the appearance of the site and the wider area, there would be no harm caused to neighbouring land uses and the development would cause no harm to the safe and free flow of traffic. The development wou ld be in accordance with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

Site Location:

The application site lies approximately 1 mile south of Biggl eswade Town Centre, and is situated immediately east of the A6001 (London Road). The A1 London Road junction lies to the south of the site. The proximity to London Road means that the site is very visible.

The site sits to the east of London Road and on t he frontage of Stratton Business Park. It is bounded to the north by Normandy Lane and Pegasus Drive lies to the south where the vacant Plot S has planning permission for two retail warehouse units.

The site (Plot C) currently consists of a total of 1, 260sqm (13,563sqft) of B1 office space and 3,317sqm (35,7034sqft) of B2 industrial, arranged in two buildings. The combined gross floor area (GFA) of the existing buildings is 4,577sqm (49,266sqft).

Agenda Item 6 Page 14

The main vehicular access to each site is gained by way of priority controlled junctions with Normandy Lane and Pegasus Drive to the north and south respectively. The site is accessible by alternative modes other than the private car since they lie within walking distance of bus stops on London Road, Holme Co urt Avenue, Normandy Lane and Pegasus Mews. These bus stops are served by a number of local bus routes including the 185 and E4, providing on average two services an hour between 09:00 and 18:00 Monday to Saturday. These routes provide connections to sur rounding residential and commercial areas, and the town centre.

London Road Retail Park is on the opposite side of London Road. Planning permission has been granted for extensive redevelopment there.

Stratton Business Park is designated as a Key Employme nt Site and is allocated by Saved Mid-Bedfordshire Local Plan Policy EMP04(1) and Policy E1 of the Central Bedfordshire (North) Site Allocations DPD for uses falling within use classes B1 (business), B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage or distribution) . The implications of this allocation on the acceptability of this proposal are described in detail later in this report.

The Application:

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing units and construction of a 2,787sqm (30,000sqft) GFA of non-food A1 use with an associated 883sqm (9,500sqft) external sales area.

The proposed parking for the site consists of 110 car parking spaces including 6 disabled spaces. This equates to 1 space per 34sqm. A total of 26 cycle spaces are proposed.

Customer and staff vehicular access would be from a priority junction from Pegasus Drive. Service and delivery vehicles would use an access from Normandy Lane.

It should be noted in conjunction with the proposals to redevelop the existing Retail Park to the west of London Road it was proposed to widen London Road between Pegasus Drive junction and the Saxon Drive junction and provide an additional lane in both directions. London Road would therefore be upgraded to dual carriageway for the entire sectio n between the A1 Biggleswade south junction and the Saxon Drive junction. Within these improvements it is also proposed to enlarge the roundabout junctions of Pegasus Drive/London Road and Saxon Drive/London Road to provide adequate circulatory carriagewa y space and entry and exit widths on all arms to accommodate the proposed widening of London Road. Although these improvements do not form part of this application, they should be taken into consideration in terms of how the site will be accessed in the future.

The intended retailer for the unit is Homebase who currently occupy a unit on the Retail Park. Originally the applicant had hoped to integrate the Homebase store and car park into the new scheme, leaving them in situ. However, Homebase have conce rns over losing control of their car park, if amalgamated with the rest of the new scheme.

The existing Homebase store is 5,076sqm (54,632sqft) along with an external Agenda Item 6 Page 15

garden centre. The proposed new store will meet their current requirements more suitab ly because it would be smaller. Homebase are more associated with home improvement products rather than the heavier DIY trade element (like B&Q and Wickes). In summary the proposals include the following:

• Construction of 2,787sqm (30,000sqft) Class A1 retail unit. • 110 space car park including 6 disabled spaces. • Comprehensive landscape scheme of the site and with the boundary of London Road.

The approval of the application would represent a departure from the development plan because it would introduce an A1 (retail) use to a site that is allocation for employment uses (B1, B2 and B8).

The application would not be referable to the Secretary of State because of the floor space proposed falling below the threshold.

Relevant Policies:

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

1. Building a strong, competitive economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 7. Requiring good design

Central Bedfordshire (North) Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2011)

E1 Safeguarded Key Employment Sites

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009)

CS1 Development Strategy CS9 Providing Jobs CS10 Location of Employment Sites CS14 High Quality Development DM3 High Quality Development DM9 Providing a Range of Transport

Mid-Bedfordshire Local Plan Saved Policies (2007)

EMP04(1) Stratton Business Park

Biggleswade Town Centre Masterplan (SPD) (2011)

Relevant Planning History:

There is no recent, relevant planning history at this site, but the following relates to history at the retail park, to the West.

CB/11/3734/FULL Demolition of existing retail and commercial units. Construction of new retail units (Use Class A1) and (Use Class A3); Agenda Item 6 Page 16

alterations to Homebase; associated access works, servicing and landscaping; improvements to London Road.

Approved: 25 th July 2012

CB/13/00949/VOC Variation of the following conditions attached to planning permission reference CB/11/03734/FULL dated 25 July 2012 for the demolition of existing retail and commercial units and the construction of new retail unit s (Use Class A1) and (Use Class A3), alterations to Homebase and associated access works, servicing, landscaping and improvements to London Road. Condition 8 (hours of delivery) to remove the requirement for a review of deliveries between 0600 and 0700 after 12 months. Condition 10 (plant and machinery) to clarify whether it should refer only to movable plant and machinery. Condition 26 (drawing numbers) to allow for the following amendments to the approved development: • Amend the footprints of Units A and B • Elevational changes to Unit A • Increase in height of Unit A • Amendments to the servicing arrangements • Amalgamation of Units D and E including the introduction of a full cover mezzanine • Amended servicing arrangements to serve amalgamated Units D and E • Increase in height of Unit D • Elevational changes to amalgamated Units D and E • Removal of some mezzanine floor space within Units J to N • Amendments to the approved landscaping scheme

Approved: 12 th June 2013

Representations:

Town Council Support the application

Neighbours (a site No responses received. notice was displayed in addition to neighbour notification)

Consultee responses:

Landscape Officer The Stratton Business Park / South Biggleswade has huge potential to develop as a commercial gateway / hub especially if innovative designs with a focus on sustainability are included in development - built form and landscape:

The proposed redevelopment of the site needs to consider further sustainable design technologies including Agenda Item 6 Page 17

opportunities for green / brown roofs, if not whole roof then part of, which forms a strategic part of SUDs surface water management train, which also has thermostatic management attributes and offers habitat values.

The proposed public car park area offers opportunities to include swales and filter strips which can capture and attenuate surface water run off, plus offer planting beds for shrubs and tree planting within swales or rain water gardens - planting contributes to shade, attenuating rain water and reducing impact of urban heat island warming.

Conditions would require revised landscaping details and details of renewable energy sources.

Highways No objection.

Recommended conditions will be reported in the late sheet.

Environment Agency No objection subject to conditions and informatives

Public protection (land No objection subject to condition quality)

Highways Agency No objection

IDB No objection subject to condition

Public Protection No comment

Trees and Landscape The available space for structural landscape planting of trees is now restricted largely to a 4 metre strip backed by a 3 metre security wall for the outdoor sales area. Tree planting proposed originally for this area consisted of a selection of species with a relatively large mature size and canopies of reasonable spread. To some extent the 4 metre strip and 3 metre security wall may affect the future development of these trees in that as the canopy develops and matures it will need to be raised above the height of the security wall.

The security wall will now be an obvious feature in the. As a result we need to ensure that this wall design should be as unobtrusive as possible and hopefully blend in to some extent as well as can be expected.

If consent is granted for this scheme then we are going to look for a quality and standard of landscaping that will compliment the landscape masterplan proposed for the development to the west of London Road. As such it will include a similar mix of tree species of the same proposed Agenda Item 6 Page 18

sizes also including an automated irrigation system.

Comprehensive landscaping details are required to include species, sizes and densities of planting, this depending on the final landscaping include protection of new tree planting from damage during grass cutting maintenance.

Proposal will include the removal of a large amount of existing vegetation that is likely to provide cover for nesting birds. This clearance work is to be carried out outside the bird nesting season generally recognised as being the beginning of March to the end of August. Nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Conditions would require details of a revised landscaping scheme and wall details, including details of its foundations so as to minimise the impact of the wall on proposed trees.

Sustainable Transport Summary

In order to satisfy the Sustainable Travel Teams aims and objectives contained within the CBC Travel Plans and Transport Assessment Guidance June 2012 and Walking and Cycling Strategy Documents (CBC Local Transport Plan Appendices E and F) discussion and or/additional information on the following is required:

• A Draft Travel Plan;

• Improvements to the footway/cycleway and crossing provision in the vicinity of the site:

• Improvements to connectivity to parts of the town west of the railway line;

• Improvements to bus stop provision and funding to divert town service 185;

• Impacts on the operation of the highway network at the southern end of London Road and how it might affect safety, congestion and travel patterns in the town.

The Transport Assessment has been updated to respond to the points raised. A Travel Plan would be secured by condition, as would details of a London Road crossing.

Sustainable The above planning application does not provide Growth/Climate Change Agenda Item 6 Page 19

information on how the proposed development will meet 10% of their energy demand from zero or low carbon sources (renewable technologies) as required by the Council’s policy DM1: Renewable energy. I would like to see a planning condition attached, if the planning permission to be granted for the scheme, to ensure that the policy requirement is met. I note that the applicant proposes to use passive techniques such as natural light and ventilation to reduce the energy demand and I agree that energy demand should be reduced as far as possible before implementation of renewable energy technologies. Such approach will reduce size and therefore cost of meeting 10% energy demand from renewable sources. The Council’s policy DM2 is encouraging non-residential buildings to meet or exceed BREEAM Excellent rating. The proposal does not include information on scheme’s rating. The research conducted by Three Dragons consultants on behalf of the Council to support recent Viability Study has highlighted that higher built cost of BREEAM excellent rating buildings can be offset by the higher rental or re-sell values. I would strongly recommend that the applicant considers BREEAM assessment to demonstrate scheme’s environmental credentials. Policy DM 2 also encourages implementation of features which will increase the scheme’s environmental credentials, e.g. green roofs; and requires all schemes to implement SUDS to deal with surface water run-off. The applicant states that the redevelopment of the site will help to create a ‘gateway’ on the major southern route into Biggleswade. It is therefore highly desirable for the proposed development to deliver visible environmental benefits. This could be achieved though incorporation of green roof and SUDS solution which contributes to increasing biodiversity of the site and provides a landscape feature.

A condition would require details of renewable energy measures at the site.

Determining Issues:

The considerations in the determination of this application are:

1. The principle of the development 2. The appearance of the building and the site 3. Traffic and parking 4. The impact on neighbouring living conditions 5. Drainage and sustainability Agenda Item 6 Page 20

6. S106

Considerations:

1. Principle

Stratton Business Park is designated by Saved Mid-Bedfordshire Local Plan Policy EMP04(1) (Stratton Business Park) for B1, B2 and B8 employment uses. That policy protection is reinforced by Policy E1 (Safeguarding Key Employment Sites) of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2011). The demolition of the existing buildings at the site and their replacement with an A1 unit would conflict with this policy allocation.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) enforces the position that proposed development that conflicts with an up to date Local Plan should be refused unless other material planning considerations indicate otherwise.

In order that the development could be found acceptable in principle, it would need to be demonstrated that:

• There was sufficient justification for the loss of the existing floor space at the site and its replacement with buildings in a different use class • There was sufficient justification for the introduction of that different use class to be an A1 (retail) use

The loss of the existing floor space at the site and its replacement with a different use The applicant has set out that the office building at the site is currently vacant and has been for a period of time. European Oat Millers, the cereal production unit is looking for alternative locations independently outside Biggleswade to relocate and expand, as shown by them having only been willing to extend their lease last year until the end of 2013.

An Employment Land Statement has been prepared in support of the application. The study highlights that there is a current significant oversupply for the region of existing industrial buildings, and it is not expected that there will be demand from occupiers for a new development of small units in Biggleswade or indeed in the neighbouring major centres. The statement concludes that the application site is not suitable for small unit development in the current climate. Furthermore there is also other land within Biggleswade and the wider area that is suitable for development and is at a much more advanced stage in terms of promotion and deliverability.

Justification provided for the loss of employment floorspace at the site is quite limited. Whilst one of the units is currently vacant, one is occupied. There is no evidence that the site has been marketed unsuccessfully. Some weight can be afforded to the argument that traditional employment generating uses would no longer be appropriate at this site but that weight would not be sufficient to justify a diversion from the site allocation policy in itself.

However, the appearance of the site is a material planning consideration. The site is prominent and forms part of a ‘gateway’ in to Biggleswade town centre. Agenda Item 6 Page 21

The impact that the development would have on the appearance of the site is described later in the report. The report concludes that the appearance of the site would be significantly enhanced and that the improvement to the townscape does carry weight in an assessment of whether the loss of the existing employment floor space and the introduction of a different use would be acceptable, in the context of the site allocation.

When taking in to account improvements to the appearance of the site and the wider area, the loss of the existing uses and the introduction of a different use at the site would be acceptable. In order for the proposed development to be found acceptable, the introduction of an A1 (retail) use at the site would also need to be considered appropriate.

The introduction of an A1 use at the site

Policy DM7 (Development in Town Centres) sets out that where there is a demonstrable need for new retail development, which cannot be accommodated within a town centre, this should be in a location which is highly accessible by a range of modes of transport and where there is the potential for one journey to serve multiple purposes.

The site is an accessible location and one trip could serve a range of purposes, especially if the consented redevelopment of the existing retail park to the East goes ahead, and given the proximity to the Sainsbury’s supermarket.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that where town centre uses are proposed outside of town centres, a sequential approach should be taken to site selection. The applicant has carried out a sequential test, which seeks to demonstrate that the proposed site is the only one that could reasonably accommodate the development. The test concludes that because of the specific demands on the proposed building (whilst not confirmed, it is anticipated that the building would be used by a DIY retailer), no sites nearer to the town centre would be appropriate.

Additionally, given the close proximity to the existing retail park on the Eastern side of the London Road, the site would be a logical one for the type of building proposed.

Policy DM7 states that any development that is likely to cause harm to the vitality or viability of any town centre will be strongly resisted. The applicant has carried out a Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) that seeks to demonstrate that the impact of the development on Biggleswade (and other neighbouring) town centre would not be a harmful one.

The RIA concludes that it is anticipated that the development alone would have an impact of 1.82% on Biggleswade town centre at 2016. Although the proposed occupier is unconfirmed, and the RIA has been undertaken on the basis that the unit could be occupied by any non-food retailer. It is likely that the unit would be operated by a DIY retailer. As such, this 1.82% impact is likely to come from a wide range of stores.

In terms of DIY spend, the RIA has identified only a small number of shops in Biggleswade town centre that could be affected by the proposed development, Agenda Item 6 Page 22 including JR Goldthorpe & Son, Ivel Building Supplies and Loline Interiors Ltd. However, in reality it is unlikely that a significant level of trade will be diverted from any of these stores, with trade instead being diverted from similar, large out of centre stores such as the B&Q in St Neots, Wickes in Letchworth and the large stores in Stevenage.

The applicant has successfully demonstrated that the owing to the scale and nature of the proposed unit at the site, the impact of it on the vitality and viability of Biggleswade town centre would not be significant.

So as to seek to mitigate the impact that has been identified, the developer would make the following contributions, which would be secured through a s106 agreement:

• Town centre initiatives: £25,000

• Town centre parking: £10,000

The character of the proposed A1 (retail) use

The driver behind the allocation of Stratton and other Key Employment Sites in Central Bedfordshire is the provision of local employment.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) sets out that ‘the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity (Para. 18) and that ‘the planning system [should do] everything it can to support sustainable economic growth’ (Para 19).

These objectives are reflected in the Council’s policies. Core Strategy and Development Management Policy CS1 (Development Strategy) sets out the role of Biggleswade as a Major Service Centre and highlights the importance of Stratton Business Park in providing jobs to help limit out-commuting and Policy CS9 (Providing Jobs) outlines aspirations to provide 17,000 new jobs in Central Bedfordshire by 2026. Policy CS10 (Location of Employment Sites) reinforces the importance of Key Employment Sites, like Stratton.

The reason that Stratton Business Park is safeguarded is to ensure that it can provide jobs. Whilst not a traditional employment generating use class, an A1 use class would result in jobs being created. The applicant estimates that 60 jobs would be provided at the site. It should be noted, though, that were Homebase to occupy this unit, jobs would be transferred from the retail park. It would not be until the existing Homebase Unit was occupied again that new jobs would actually be created. Without knowing the number of jobs that would be lost by the removal of the existing buildings from the site, it is difficult to add significant weight to that, but it is clear that the proposed use would, at least partially, meet some of the objectives of the site allocation policy.

In summary:

• Some justification has been provided for the loss of the existing buildings at the site and the introduction of a different use. • That justification would be reinforced by the significant improvements to the appearance to the site and the area that would be the result of the Agenda Item 6 Page 23

development and are described later in this report. • The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated, by way of a sequential approach, that there are no other sites that could reasonably accommodate the development that are nearer to the town centre. • The applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that the development would not result in unacceptable harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre. • Contributions towards town centre initiatives and town centre parking would seek to mitigate any identified impact. • The proposed use would generate some employment and so would meet some of the objectives of the existing site allocation policy.

The development would be acceptable in principle.

2. Appearance

The site is prominent because of its proximity to the London Road. It does not make a positive contribution towards the appearance of the area because of the design and quality of the buildings at the site, which are typical of their use.

Planning permission has been granted for the redevelopment of the retail park on the West side of the road. Whilst not yet implemented, if it is, the appearance of that site would significantly improve. That scheme would include a comprehensive and high quality landscaping scheme that would do much to create an impressive ‘gateway’ in to the town centre. That landscaping scheme did include works to the East side of the road, along the boundary with this application site but those proposed now must be assessed in isolation so as to cater for the possibility that the redevelopment of the retail park did not come forward, although there is no indication that this will be the case.

The design of the building

The proposed building would be of a appropriate mass and scale and design features like the entrance canopy and slight staggers in the elevations would add visual interest. The use of high quality and varied materials would ensure that the appearance of the building would be positive and that there would be a significant improvement to the townscape, when compared with the very functional looking buildings that are currently at the site.

Proposed landscaping

Landscaping is proposed throughout the site, but importantly along the Western boundary of the site with London Road. The scheme would reflect that which was proposed for this area as part of the consented retail park development proposals. The landscaping would have a significant impact on the appearance of the area in general and would improve the character of the approach to the town centre.

There were initial concerns that the introduction of a wall along the Western boundary of the site (described below) would undermine the appearance of the landscaping scheme and the ability of proposed trees to properly develop. The concerns have been addressed by the relocation of the wall so that it would Agenda Item 6 Page 24

further away (4m) from the footpath so as to allow for sufficient space for landscaping to prosper. A condition would require details of a permanent irrigation system so as to ensure the long term health of planted trees.

The boundary wall

A wall is required by the potential occupier for security purposes along the Western boundary of the site. It would be set back from the back of the footpath by 4m and would be obscured, to an extent by proposed landscaping along the edge of the site. Despite that, the wall would be 3m tall (when seen from outside the site – level changes would mean it would slightly taller from within the site) and so its quality would be critical to the success of the scheme overall. The applicants have taken the importance of this boundary treatment onboard and have sought to design it with this in mind. Despite that, it could still be improved and so a condition would require the submission of revised details so as to ensure that it was of the highest possible quality.

Subject to conditions, the design quality of the development would be high. It would represent a significant improvement when compared with the current appearance of the site. Whether or not the retail park development does come forward, the quality of the townscape and the character of the approach in to the town centre would be very good. This design quality represents a material planning consideration that would mitigate the gaps in the policy justification for the loss of the employment floor space and the introduction of a different use at the site.

3. Traffic and parking

The redevelopment of the retail park to the West included the dualling of this part of London Road. This development, in isolation would not necessitate those works but the scheme could be implemented whether or not those works went ahead.

The Highways Agency has not objected to the application and the submitted Transport Assessment satisfactorily demonstrates that the existing (and proposed) highways network could safely accommodate this development.

110 parking spaces would be provided and they would be accessed from a new roundabout on Pegasus Drive. The Council has maximum parking standards for these types of developments, which would not be exceeded here. The layout of the car park would minimise the risk of traffic backing up on the road in the event that there was too much demand for the spaces available. 6 spaces would be allocated for disabled drivers.

A service yard would be accessed from Normandy Lane and a condition would require the submission of a Management Plan so as to ensure that it operated successfully.

Cycle parking would be provided for staff and visitors. There would be pedestrian/cycle link through the site to London Road. The redevelopment of the retail park would require the introduction of crossings linking the sites on either Agenda Item 6 Page 25

side of London Road. A condition attached to this consent would require the provision of a crossing in the event that the retail park redevelopment did not come forward.

A contribution towards walking and cycling improvements in the area would be secured. The amount of that contribution will be set out in the late sheet.

The impacts of the development on traffic and parking would be acceptable.

4. Neighbours

Unlike the existing retail park, this site does is not near to houses. The nearest buildings to the North, South and East are in commercial use and the proposed use at this site would be compatible with them.

5. Drainage and sustainability

Drainage

The Environment Agency and Internal Drainage Board have recommended conditions and in informatives that would ensure that drainage from the site was properly dealt with.

Sustainability

A condition would require details of how at least 10% of the energy needs of the development would be delivered through zero and low-carbon energy sources.

6. S106

As described elsewhere in this report, contributions would be secured to mitigate the impacts of the development. These would be towards town centre initiatives (£25k), town centre parking (10k) and cycle and walking projects (amount will be set out in the late sheet).

Recommendation:

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the following conditions and a 106 agreement reflecting the terms set out above:

1 The development hereby approved shall be co mmenced within three years of the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which is designed to ensure that a planning permission does not continue in existence indefinitely if the development to which it relates is not carried out.

2 No development shall commence until details of all hard surfacing for Agenda Item 6 Page 26

the car parking areas and service areas have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The hard surfacing shall be implemented solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a that the areas are finished to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policy (2009).

3 Within three months of the implementation of the development hereby permitted, details of pedestrian crossing arrangements on London Road together with a timetable for their completion shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planni ng Authority. The pedestrian crossing arrangements shall be wholly completed in accordance with the approved details in accordance with the approved timetable.

Reason: In the interests of pedestrian and highway safety and in accordance with Policy DM3 of t he Core Strategy and Development Management Policy (2009).

4 i) No development shall commence until a site wide travel plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The travel plan shall include details of:

••• Initiat ives of joint working with local employers and shared travel plan activities across London Road Retail Park and Plot ‘S’; ••• Predicted travel journeys to and from the site and targets to reduce journeys; ••• transport links, to include pedestrian and cycling links and details of public transport to and from the site; ••• A timetable to implement the identified measures to minimise private car use and incentives to encourage walking, cycling and to promote travel choice; ••• The mechanism for monitoring and review annually for a period of five years from the date that the travel plan detailed within this condition has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; ••• Cycle parking; ••• The appointment and role of the travel plan co-ordinator; ••• Promotion of the approved travel plan to all occupiers of the site.

ii) Before the development is brought in to use, the approved travel plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for review and approval so that prevailing conditions at that time can be considered and the plan adjusted as necessary at that time.

The development, hereby approved, shall only be used in accordance Agenda Item 6 Page 27

with the approved travel plan and the timetable agreed within to implement measures to minimise private car use and incentives to encourage walking, cycling and to promote travel choice.

Reason: In the interests of sustainable travel.

5 Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall commence at the site before revised details of landscaping and a landscape management plan to inc lude details of the proposed irrigation system for the site hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented solely in accordance with the approved details in accordance w ith the timetable identified within the landscape management plan and agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area and to mitigate against the removal of TPO trees in accordance with Policies DM3 and DM14 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

6 No development shall commence until details (including samples) of materials for the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing. The develop ment shall be constructed solely in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the area and to ensure a high quality development in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

7 No development shall commence until a scheme for storage and collection of refuse has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and maintained thereafter in accor dance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure no open storage of rubbish on the site and to protect the character and appearance of the surrounding area in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

8 The development hereby approved shall be used for A1 (retail) but shall not Agenda Item 6 Page 28

be used for the sale of food, as a post office, for the sale of tickets, as a travel agency, for hairdressing, for the direction of funerals, for the reception of goods to be wa shed, cleaned or repaired, as an internet café where the primary purpose of the premises is to provide facilities for enabling members of the public to access the internet or as a pharmacy.

Reason: To define this permission and to ensure that the Local Pl anning Authority retain planning control over the retail functions of the site.

9 The development hereby permitted shall not be sub-divided to provide a unit of less than 500 sqm (5,382 sq ft) without the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the vitality and vibrancy of the existing Town Centre, for the avoidance of doubt, and in accordance with the intentions contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

10 No development shall commence at t he site until a Service Yards Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include details of processes designed to deliver the efficient operation of the service yards, a schedule of deliver y vehicles and delivery times, management and operational measures designed to decrease noise levels within the yards and monitoring methods. The service yards shall thereafter be operated as approved.

Reason: To protect living conditions at neighbouring properties.

11 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers [8659 C P22 A, 8659 C P23 A, 8659 C E08 B, 8659 C P25 B, 8659 C P26 B, 8659 C P50 A, Planning a nd Retail Statement, Strutt and Parker note, Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment, Design and Access Statement and Technical Note by Vectos].

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

12 No development shall commence at the site before a detailed surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydro geological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include:

1. Details of all elements (i.e. modelling reference labels, designs, diameters, gradients, dimensions, and so on of all pipes, inspection chambers, and flow control device(s)) of the proposed drainage Agenda Item 6 Page 29

systems should be provided as part of the detailed surface water drainage scheme. 2. Overland flood flow routes and subsequent flood risk in the event of surface water system failure. It is essential the flood flow is routed away from vulnerable areas and property, and that the development remains “safe”. 3. Clear details of the ownership and responsibility of maintenance of all drainage including pipe networks, control structures and SuDS elements for the lifetime of the development 4. Details of adoption of any drainage elements of the drainage system including any correspondence or agreements with Anglian Water regarding accepted discharge to their drainage system or watercourse.

Reason: To prevent flooding by ensuring the satisfactory storage and disposal of surface water from the site and to reduce the risk of flooding to the proposed development and future users.

13 No development shall commence at the site before a remediation strategy that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority: 1. A Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) which has identified: - all previous uses - potential contaminants associated with those uses - a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors - potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. 2. A site investigation scheme, based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. 3. The results of the site investigation and the detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. 4. A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action.

Reason: To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraphs 109, 120, 121 and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3:2012).

14 No occupation of any part of the permitted development shall take place until a verification report demonstrating completion of works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. It shall also include any plan (a “long- Agenda Item 6 Page 30

term monitoring and maintenance plan”) for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action, as identified in the verification plan. The long-term monitoring and maintenance plan shall be implemented as approved.

15 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 Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted a remediation strategy to the local planning authority detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority. The remediation strategy shall be implemented as approved.

16 No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approval details.

17 Piling or any other foundation designs and investigation boreholes using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to groundwater. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraphs 109, 120, 121 and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3:2012).

18 No development shall commence at the site before the following has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Agenda Item 6 Page 31

Authority: a) A Phase 1 Desk Study incorporating a site walkover, site history, maps and all further features of industry best practice relating to potential contamination. b) Where shown to be necessary by the Phase 1 Desk Study, a Phase 2 Site Investigation report further documenting the ground conditions of the site with regard to potential contamination, incorporating appropriate soils and gas sampling. c) Where shown to be necessary by the Phase 2 Desk Study, a Phase 3 detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be taken to mitigate any risks to human health, groundwater and the wider environment. Any works which form part of the Phase 3 scheme approved by the local authority shall be completed in full before any permitted building is occupied. The effectiveness of any scheme shall be demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority by means of a validation report (to incorporate photographs, material transport tickets and validation sampling), unless an alternative period is approved in writing by the Authority. Any such validation should include responses to any unexpected contamination discovered during works.

The British Standard for Topsoil, BS 3882:2007, specifies requirements for topsoils that are moved or traded and should be adhered to. Applicants are reminded that, should groundwater or surface water courses be at risk of contamination before, during or after development, the Environment Agency should be approached for approval of measures to protect water resources separately, unless an Agency condition already forms part of this permission.

Reason: To protect human health and the environment

19 No development shall commence at the site before details that demonstrate how at least 10% of the energy demand of the development would be met through zero or low carbon sources (renewable technologies) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the development would meet the objectives of Policy DM1 (Renewable Energy) of the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

20 Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall commence at the site before revised details of the proposed wall on the Western boundary of the site including its design and foundations have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the site and the impacts on existing and proposed trees would be acceptable and in accordance Agenda Item 6 Page 32

with Policy DM3 (High Quality Development) of the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

Notes to Applicant:

1. Site Investigation

Land contamination investigations should be carried out in accordance with BS 5930:1999-2010 'Code of Practice for site investigations' and BS 10175:2011 'Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice' as updated/amended. Site investigation works should be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced professional. Soil and water analysis should be fully MCERTS accredited. Any further site investigation, demolition, remediation or construction works on site must not create new pollutant pathways or pollutant linkages in to the underlying principal aquifer to avoid generating new contaminated land liabilities for the developer. Clean drilling techniques may be required where boreholes, piles etc penetrate through contaminated ground.

2. Waste

The CL:AIRE Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (version 2) provides operators with a framework for determining whether or not excavated material arising from site during remediation and/or land development works are waste or have ceased to be waste. Under the Code of Practice: excavated materials that are recovered via a treatment operation can be re- used on-site providing they are treated to a standard such that they are fit for purpose and unlikely to cause pollution; treated materials can be transferred between sites as part of a hub and cluster project; some naturally occurring clean material can be transferred directly between sites. Contaminated soil that is, or must be disposed of, is waste. Therefore, its handling, transport, treatment and disposal is subject to waste management legislation, which includes: Duty of Care Regulations 1991 Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. Developers should ensure that all contaminated materials are adequately characterised both chemically and physically, including in line with British Standards BS EN 14899:2005 'Characterisation of Waste - Sampling of Waste Materials - Framework for the Preparation and Application of a Sampling Plan' for waste to be removed from site, and that the permitting status of any proposed treatment or disposal activity is clear. If in doubt, the Environment Agency should be contacted for advice at an early stage to avoid any delays. If the total quantity of waste material to be produced at or taken off site is hazardous waste and is 500kg or greater in any 12 month period the developer will need to register with us as a hazardous waste Agenda Item 6 Page 33

producer.

3. Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)

Soakaways and other infiltration SuDS must not be constructed in contaminated ground. The use of infiltration drainage would only be acceptable if a phased site investigation showed the presence of no significant contamination. The use of non infiltration SuDS may be acceptable subject to our agreement. We would need to be consulted on the results of the site investigation and on any protection measures. The maximum acceptable depth for infiltration SuDS is 2.0 m below ground level, with a minimum of 1.2 m clearance between the base of infiltration SuDS and peak seasonal groundwater levels. We consider that deep bore and other deep soakaway systems are not appropriate in areas where groundwater constitutes a significant resource (that is where aquifer yield may support or already supports abstraction). Deep soakaways increase the risk of groundwater pollution. See our Groundwater Protection GP3(2012) documents, particularly G9, for further information.

4. Borehole Drilling and Piling

Developers should ensure that any proposed piling methods do not pose a pollution risk to controlled waters. Piling to facilitate building foundations or the installation of ground source heat pumps has the potential to create a pathway between contaminated shallow soils and deeper geological formations and aquifers. Deep piling can also result in physical disturbance of aquifers. If piling is proposed, a Piling Risk Assessment will be required to demonstrate that the chosen piling method does not increase the risk of near-surface pollutants migrating into deeper geological formations and aquifers. A Hydrogeological Risk Assessment of physical disturbance to the aquifer should also be undertaken and if unacceptable risks are identified, appropriate mitigation measures must be provided. Submission of a Piling Risk Assessment with the planning application may negate the requirement for a piling related planning condition. We recommend that developers follow the risk management framework provided in our guidance for „Piling into Contaminated Sites and also refer to the document: „Pilling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination: Guidance on Pollution Prevention .

5. General

How we classify groundwater bodies within England and Wales changed in response to the Water Framework Directive and related UK enabling legislation. A summary of the changes can be found at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/117020.aspx, with the new maps available on the "What's in my Backyard" section of our website.

6. The developers should:

Agenda Item 6 Page 34

1. Follow the risk management framework provided in CLR11, „Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination , when dealing with land affected by contamination; 2. Refer to our “Guiding Principles for Land Contamination” for the type of information that we require in order to assess risks to controlled waters from the site. The Local Authority can advise on risk to other receptors, for example human health; 3. Refer to our “Verification of Remediation of Land Contamination” report; 4. Refer to our NEW “Groundwater Protection: Principles and practice (GP3:2012 v1)” documents (http://www.environment- agency.gov.uk/research/library/publications/144346.aspx); 5. Refer to our „Position Statement on the Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice ; 6. Refer to our “Technical Aspects of Site Investigations” Technical Report P5- 065/TR; 7. Refer to our “Piling and Penetrative Ground Improvement Methods on Land Affected by Contamination” National Groundwater & Contaminated Land Centre Project NC/99/73; 8. Refer to our website at www.environment-agency.gov.uk for more information.

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 - Article 31

The Council acted pro-actively through early engagement with the applicant at the pre- application stage which led to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively to secure a sustainable form of development in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragra phs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

DECISION

......

Agenda Item 7 Page 35

Pond

Red Lion Lodge 82.2m

3 Drain TCB LB 82.1m

Haylocks

Track New House Farm

The Bungalow

Deadman's Cross

Scale: 1:1250 Lombardis Pizza, Red Lion, Deadmans Cross, Shefford, SG17 5QQ Page 36

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Page 37

Item No. 7

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/02542/FULL LOCATION Lombardis Pizza, Red Lion, Deadmans Cross, Shefford, Bedford, SG17 5QQ PROPOSAL Change of use of part of the external area to form 2 No. separate car sales yards with an associated office on each site. To reform the access in accordance to new requirements. Associated fencing and resurfacing. PARISH Haynes WARD Houghton Conquest & Haynes WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Mrs Barker CASE OFFICER Lauren Westley DATE REGISTERED 08 August 2013 EXPIRY DATE 03 October 2013 APPLICANT Mr Singh AGENT SIMIC ASSOCIATES REASON FOR Called into Committee by Councillor Barker on the COMMITTEE TO grounds of overdevelopment, highways and DETERMINE detrimental impact to the countryside.

RECOMMENDED Approval DECISION

Summary of Recommendation:

The use would not have a negative impact on the character of the area or an adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and is acceptable in terms of highway safety. It is therefore in accordance with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), policies CS11, CS14, DM3 and DM4 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (20

Site Location:

The application site is located on the northern side of the A600, within t he hamlet of Deadman's Cross. The site was originally occupied by a public house (known as Red Lion) and attached dwelling. However following the closure of the public house, it now operates as an A3 restaurant (Indian) with an A5 take-away to the rear (P izza) with B&B accommodation available on the upper floors. The attached dwelling house is still in use for residential purposes.

The eastern end of the site is hard surfaced and used as a parking area for the existing uses on the site. The western end o f the site was originally the pub garden but has not been hardsurfaced. The boundaries of the site are fenced and vegetated with a mix of hedging and trees. Access into the site is directly off the A600.

The site is located within the Open Countryside.

Agenda Item 7 Page 38

The Application:

The application is mainly retrospective and seeks planning permission for the use of the site as two car sales yards. The site is arranged with one car sales to the northern end of the site and one car sales yard to the southern end of the site, behind the existing parking area for the current uses of the site. Access to both will be via the existing access, past the parking area for the existing uses. Each car sales yard will have its own office, which are mobile buildings, one of w hich is already in situ. When combined, the car sales yards will allow for the display of 68 motor vehicles, some of which are already in situ.

To facilitate this, the northern end of the site has been laid with tarmac, and the southern end covered in a gravel finish.

Areas of planting are proposed but the majority of which is already in situ. The boundary fencing is also already in situ.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Section 1 - Building a Strong, competitive economy Section 3 - Supporting a prosperous rural community Section 7 - Requiring good design Section 11 - Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Circular 11/95 - The use of Conditions in Planning Permissions

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North (2009) CS11 Rural Economy and Tourism CS14 High Quality Development DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Design in Central Bedfordshire: A Guide for Development DS7 Movement, Streets and Places

CBC Emerging Parking Strategy, Appendix F, Central Bedfordshire Local Transport Plan, endorsed for Development Management purposes by Executive October 2012

Planning History CB/13/01037/FULL Change of use of the external areas at the rear and to the sides of the property to form a car sales yard and a separate caravan/camper van (non-residential) storage site. To amend the road access and formalise the car parking to the front of the site as previously approved.

Withdrawn - 02.05.2013

CB/10/03712/FULL Change of use of part of the external area of the site to the siting of touring caravans and camper vans. Erection of Agenda Item 7 Page 39

reception/office area and toilet block. Widening of existing access.

Granted - 26.05.2011

Representations: Haynes Parish No response received at time of writing. Council

Neighbours Object to application - (Two responses • Residents of Deadmans Cross are contemplating/intending received at time to leave the hamlet as we are overun with planning of writing) applications that impact daily life. The threat of travellers, camping sites, car sales, static storage B&B and whatever else the Red Lion owners car to conjure up. • Red Lion have been able to do what they like and have had Council backing, so I can not see how this application will be any different.

Consultations/Publicity responses

Highways Request additional information from applicant before full assessment can be undertaken: • Where are the staff parking areas for proposed use; • Where are the customer parking areas for proposed use; • What is the frequency of transporters visiting the site.

It is considered that the once the information is provided, appropriate conditions can be attached to any grant of planning permission.

Trees and No response received at the time of writing Landscaping

Public Protection No response received at the time of writing

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle of Development 2. Impact on Character of the Area and Streetscene 3. Impact on Neighbouring Amenity 4. Highway, Access and Parking 5. Other Considerations

Considerations

1. Principle of development The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states in paragraph 28 that to promote a strong rural economy, policies should 'support the sustainable growth Agenda Item 7 Page 40

and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas'.

Policy CS11 of the Council's Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (CSDMP) states that the Council will seek to support the rural economy by supporting the diversification of the rural economy to commercial, industrial, tourism and recreational uses in the first instance.

It is also worth noting that there is an existing extant planning permission (CB/10/03721/FULL) for the change of use of the site (same area as the proposed car sales yards) to be used for the siting of touring caravans and camper vans, with the erection of a reception/office area and toilet block. This permission was granted in 2011 and can still lawfully be implemented. It therefore forms a legal fallback position and as such is a material consideration in the assessment of this application.

Given the above, it is considered that there is strong policy support for the continued commercial use of the site and the further diversification of businesses operating from the premises. It is noted that there are two existing car sale yards operating within the hamlet of Deadmans Cross, and this application will permit an additional two yards, albeit within the same premises. However national and council policies do not restrict the number of the same types of uses within an area and as such there are no grounds for rejecting the application on the basis of the close proximity of similar uses. In planning terms, there is policy support for the commercial use of the site and as such in principle, the use of the premises for car sales is in accordance with adopted local policies, and national guidance.

2. Impact on character of the area and streetscene The site is located within the hamlet of Deadmans Cross, which is in the open countryside. The hamlet is a small linear settlement of some 8 dwellings, a car garage with car sales and a separate car sales yard, and this property all of which address the A600 which runs through the hamlet. Therefore, whilst being small, the hamlet has existing commercial uses and a busy road, giving the hamlet a busier character than what might normally be expected in the countryside.

The application site has several existing commercial uses operating from the existing building (originally a public house), with the two car sales yards proposed to the north and rear of the building and parking areas. For clarity, the yards have been termed the north yard and south yard. The north yard will directly abut the A600 and as such is not screened by the existing built form on the site. However this area is well screened by existing boundary treatments that comprise fencing and landscaping, the majority of which is already in situ.

The main visual impact from the proposed use will be the parked cars and resulting hardstanding. The northern yard can not be seen from any public vantage points, even standing outside the site on the A600. The rear yard is set back behind the existing built form and associated parking areas, and as such can only be seen in the context of the existing commercial uses on the site. The existing planting and fencing significantly softens the appearance of the site, and further planting is proposed as part of this application. The boundary treatments are therefore considered a sympathetic soft response to the rural character of Agenda Item 7 Page 41

the countryside. Given the beneficial visual impact that this provides, it is considered reasonable to impose conditions to control the landscaping of the site.

The two office buildings, which are both mobile portacabin buildings, have been sited to the rear of the property. One building is located to the rear of the existing commercial building, and one is to the rear of the existing dwelling house. They are single storey, flat roofed buildings with a total height of 2.4m.

These are both considered to be sensitive locations with both structures screened from view by the boundary treatments, but also the existing built form.

Given the above, the use of the site for car sales is not considered to have any significant adverse impact on the visual amenity of the site or the surrounding area. The additional hardstanding which has been laid, particularly the tarmac, is not considered to be sympathetic to the open countryside setting, but the harm caused is mitigated by the existing boundary treatments and as such does not warrant refusal of the application.

As such the proposal is considered to accord with policies CS14 and DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

3. Impact on neighbouring amenity Core Strategy policy DM3 requires that new development respects the amenities of surrounding neighbours.

A dwelling is located on the site and will be directly adjacent to the car sales area. Adequate parking and garden space has been retained for this property.

All other neighbouring residential properties at Deadman's Cross are on the opposite side of the road. It is considered that a loss of amenity through the loss of outlook will not arise as the cars will be screened from view by the existing boundary vegetation. This vegetation is currently in excess of 2m in height and is dense, restricting views through.

There will be a degree of disturbance from the comings and goings of the staff and customers, as well as the arrival of the cars for sale. However it is considered that the level of noise and disturbance is likely to be no more than that which could be experienced from the use of the land as a garden attached to the restaurant, or the previous beer garden use or the noise from caravans and camper van occupiers (as previously approved). It is considered reasonable to attached a condition controlling the operational hours to ensure that the businesses only operate during sociable hours.

Overall it is considered that the proposal would not adversely effect the amenities of nearby neighbours.

4. Highway, access and parking Full highway comments are still pending the receipt of further information, as outlined above, and as such will be included as part of the late sheet. However it is considered that parking areas for staff and customers of the new uses will be achievable on site with the loss of display parking and as such the use is considered acceptable in highway terms, subject to conditions. Agenda Item 7 Page 42

Previously, concern has been raised by residents that the access to the site will be dangerous. The speed limit for this section of road is 40 mph road which will require 120.0m visibility splays in either direction and which is achievable. There is concern from neighbouring properties that this limit is rarely observed and that the 120 metres stretch of the visibility splay is directly after a deep bend in the road. However, breaches of the speed limit are a police matter and as such can not be taken into account as part of this planning application.

Plans have been submitted showing that the access is satisfactory for a pantechnicon (refuse vehicle) to turn within the site. Tracking diagrams have also been submitted showing that it is possible for transporter vehicles to enter and exit the site without pulling into oncoming traffic, subject to widening the existing access way. A waiting area is to be provided adjacent to the exit to ensure that there is sufficient room for tranporter vehicles to pull in off the highway.

It is considered that although there will slow moving vehicles as they brake to enter the site there will be sufficient visibility and breaking distance along this stretch of road due to the 40 mph speed limit. Likewise vehicles leaving the site should be visible to oncoming traffic.

It is anticipated that the applicant will be providing further details to address the comments raised by the Highways Officer. These details, along with the corresponding highway comments will be provided in the late sheet, prior to the Committee meeting.

5. Other considerations There have been comments made from local residents relating to the ongoing planning applications submitted within Deadmans Cross generally. The Council can not control the applications that are submitted, and can only deal with each application as and when it is submitted, which includes notifying adjacent occupiers.

There have also been comments made regarding the ongoing enforcement case and the use already being 'sanctioned' by the Council. It is not illegal for an applicant to commence a use or building without first seeking planning permission. In the event that this happens, enforcement action is taken to either cease use the use or require the submission of a retrospective application to retain the use or works. If a retrospective application is received, it is determined on its merits, against the adopted policies, in the same way as a proposed development would be.

6. Conclusion The retrospective change of use to car sales, with the associated offices and hardsurfacing, is considered to be in accordance with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework and adopted Council policies.

The use is not considered to have any significant negative impact upon the character or appearance of the site or the surrounding open countryside. It does not have any significant adverse impact upon the residential amenity of nearby occupiers or upon highway safety. Approval of the application is therefore recommended. Agenda Item 7 Page 43

Human Rights Act Based on the information submitted there are no known issues raised in the context of the Human Rights Act and as such there would be no relevant implications.

Equality Act Based on the information submitted there are no known issues raised in the context of the Equality Act and as such there would be no relevant implications.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

1 Within two months of the date of this permission, details of the external lighting of the site including locations, design, heights and level of luminance are to be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority. If a lighting scheme is installe d, it shall accord with the approved details and retained for the duration of the development.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring properties and the rural character of the local area, in accordance with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policy (2009).

2 Within two months of the date of this permission, details of surface water drainage for the site shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Within two months of the details being approved, the approved drainage works shall be constructed and implemented on site and thereafter retained for the duration of the development.

Reason: To avoid the carriage of mud or other extraneous material or surface water from the site so as to safeguard the interest of highway safety and reduce the risk of flooding and to minimise inconvenience to users of the premises.

3 Within two months of the date of this permission, and notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans , details of the modified junction of the vehicular access with the highway shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved modified junction shall then be constructed on site within two months of the details being approved.

Reason: In order to minimise d anger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and the premises and to mitigate oversail from Agenda Item 7 Page 44

delivery vehicles to the site, in accordance with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

4 Within one month of the date of this permission, details of visibility splays to be provided at the junction of the access with the public highway shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. The minimum dimensions of the required vision splay lines shall be 2.4m measured along the centre line of the proposed access from its junction with the channel of the public highway and 120.0m measured from the centre line of the proposed access along the line of the channel of the public highway. The approved vision splays shall be implemented on site within one month of the approval of the details and remain free of any obstruction for the duration of the development. Reason: To provide adequate visibility between the existing highway and the proposed access, and to make the access safe and convenient for the traffic which is likely to use it, in accordance with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

5 No deliveries of cars shall be taken at or dispatched from the site outside the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 on Mondays to Saturdays, and not at all on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties, in accordance with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

6 Th e landscaping scheme shown on plan 10536:02E shall be carried out no later than the end of the full planting season immediately following the date of this decision.

Thereafter the planting shall be adequately maintained for a period of five years from th e date of planting. Any of the trees or shrubs or both which die or are removed, or which become severely damaged or seriously diseased (during the said period of five years) shall be replaced with trees or shrubs or both, as the case may be, of similar s ize and species to those originally required to be planted and the same shall be maintained until properly established.

Reason: In order to ensure that the planting is carried out within a reasonable period in the interest of the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

7 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 10536:02E, 10536:03B and TSP/MRS/01.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Notes to Applicant

1. Any conditions in bold must be discharged in accordance with the timescales set out. Failure to comply with this requirement could Agenda Item 7 Page 45

invalidate this permission and/or result in enforcement action.

2. The applicant is advised that no works associated with the construction of the vehicular access should be carried out within the confines of the public highway without prior consent, in writing, of the Central Bedfordshire Council. Upon receipt of this Notice of Planning Approval, the applicant is advised to write to Central Bedfordshire Council's Highway Help Desk, Technology House, 239 Ampthill Road, Bedford MK42 9BA quoting the Planning Application number and supplying a copy of the Decision Notice and a copy of the approved plan. This will enable the necessary consent and procedures under Section 184 of the Highways Act to be implemented. The applicant is also advised that if any of the works associated with the construction of the vehicular access affects or requires the removal and/or the relocation of any equipment, apparatus or structures (e.g. street name plates, bus stop signs or shelters, statutory authority equipment etc.) then the applicant will be required to bear the cost of such removal or alteration.

The applicant is advised that, under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980, no part of the boundary structure, including fencing and foundations, shall be erected or installed in, under or overhanging the public highway and no door or gate shall be fixed so as to open outwards into the highway.

The Highway Authority has the power under Section 143 of the Highways Act 1980, to remove any structure erection on a highway.

3. The applicant is advised that the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 will apply to any works undertaken within the limits of the existing public highway. Further details can be obtained from the Traffic Management Group Highways and Transport Division, Central Bedfordshire Council, Technology House, 239 Ampthill Road, Bedford, MK42 9BD.

4. The applicant is advised that photographs of the existing highway that is to be used for access and the delivery of materials will be required by the Local Highway Authority. Any subsequent damage to the public highway resulting from the works as shown by the photographs, including damage caused by delivery vehicles to the works, will be made good to the satisfaction of the Local Highways Authority at the expense of the applicant. Attention is drawn to Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980 in this respect.

5. The applicant is advised that in order to achieve vision splays it may be necessary for vegetation overhanging the public highway to be removed. Prior to the commencement of work the applicant is advised to contact Central Bedfordshire Council's Customer Contact Centre on 0300 300 8308 to request the removal of the overhanging vegetation on the public highway.

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 - Article 31

The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant during the determination process which led to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively to secure a sustainable form of development in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Agenda Item 7 Page 46

Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

DECISION

......

323

30a Agenda Item 8

Page 47 535

30 313 737

32 1

40c PW 40b

40a 2

WINDMILL ROAD 61 14

CHAPEL ROAD

16 373

7 11 7a

THE THINNINGS 16a 575

777

2 18

26 15

12 23a

1 36 22 25a MILLARDS 27

17 23

3 43

42 41a

6 343

44 717

44b 949 N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. BILLINGTONLicence CLOSE No. 100049029 (2009) Application No. W E Date: 27:August:2013 CB/13/01850/FULL Map Sheet No S

Scale: 1:1250 18 Chapel Road, Flitwick, MK45 1EA Page 48

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 Page 49

Item No. 8

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/01850/FULL LOCATION 18 Chapel Road, Flitwick, Bedford, MK45 1EA PROPOSAL Erection of detached 2 bed bungalow with ancillary double garage and new crossover for No18. PARISH Flitwick WARD Flitwick WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Mrs Chapman, Gomm & Turner CASE OFFICER Sarah Fortune DATE REGISTERED 14 June 2013 EXPIRY DATE 09 August 2013 APPLICANT Mrs J Stevens AGENT FOD Ltd REASON FOR Called in by Councillor Fiona Chapman on grounds COMMITTEE TO of overdevelopment of the site and loss of amenity DETERMINE to neighbours.

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Approval

Recommended reasons for granting

There are no policy objections to the principle of the erection of a dwelling in this backland position in accordance with policies DM3, DM4 and CS1 in the Core Strategy and Development Management Planning Document dated 2009 and policies 38 and 43 in the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire dated 2013. There will be limited impact on the amenities of neighbours and there are no highway objections. The proposal complies with the Core Strategy and Development Management Planning Document dated 2009, the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire dated 2013 and the NPPF.

Site Location:

The site lies on the west side of Chapel Road in the residential built up area of the town of Flitwick. Number 18 Chapel Road is a detached, older style house which lies towards the front of the site and has a deep rear garden.

There are older houses and cottages on both sides of the site and a bungalow on the other side of the road. To the rear are detached houses within a housing estate which was built about thirty years ago and is known as Millards Close.

The Application:

This application is for the demolition of the long brick and timber barn and the smaller barn to the rear of the house and the erection of a detached two bed roomed bungalow with ancillary double garage in the rear garden of the existing older style house. Agenda Item 8 Page 50

Th e existing access to the site is to be used to serve this new bungalow. In addition, there is to be a new vehicular crossover for number 18 Chapel Road in the centre of the site frontage and this is to serve two parking spaces for number 18 Chapel Road.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

DM3 Amenity DM4 Development within and beyond Settlement Envelopes CS1 Development Strategy

Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 2013

Policy 43 High Quality Development Policy 38 Development beyond and within Settlement Envelopes. National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Design in Central Bedfordshire A Guide for Development 2009: Supp 3: Town Centre and infill Development.

Planning History - relvant

CB/12/03173/FULL Full: Erection of two bedroomed bungalow with ancillary double garage and new crossover for number 18 Chapel Road. Withdrawn: 6/11/2012

CB/12/01312/FULL Erection of detached dwelling with detached double garage and detached double garage for Number 18 Chapel Road. Refused: 25/05/2012

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Flitwick Town Council Support with reservations: concerns regarding the lack of amenity space within the existing plot if the development goes ahead. Overdevelopment and access/egress were also concerns raised by members.

Neighbours 3. Object on grounds that will have a serious impact on standard of living, detrimental impact on amenity of neighbours and visual impact of development, over Agenda Item 8 Page 51

development, noise, smell, adverse impact on trees on the site, overlooking, overshadowing, loss of light, it is not similar to the neighbouring properties and does not fit in with the scale of surrounding development, lack of garden areas, contrary to planning policies and it does not respect the local context and street pattern and the scale and proportions of surrounding properties. Would have overbearing impact on neighbours by way of massing, bulk and close proximity to neighbours. Dwellings around have large plots and gardens with no car access between neighbouring housing, lack of visibility at the access leading to highway danger, more cars would be to the detriment of highway safety, would contravene the Human Rights Act which states that a person has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their home, the development is contrary to Central Government planning policy as it will be to the detriment of the quality, character and amenity value of the area. If consent is granted request that consideration be given to the hours of working, and where construction vehicles are to park etc.. There will be a car park adjacent to neighbours instead of the present garden. The plans are not clear as to denoting which elevations are which on the site. Are the hedges to be removed? Concerns about smoke pollution from the chimney.

Any comments received regarding the revised plans will be reported to the Planning Committee. App Av

Consultations/Publicity responses

Highways officer No objections subject to conditions being attached to any consent.

E.H.O. No comment

Tree Officer No objection

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. Policy and Background 2. Size, Siting and Design in relation to the site and the visual amenity of the area. 3. Impact on amenities of neighbours 4. Access, Parking and Other Considerations

Considerations

Human Rights issues

Agenda Item 8 Page 52

There are no Human Rights Issues

Equality Act 2010

There are no issues under the Equality Act

1. Policy and Background

There have been recent planning applications in respect of the erection of a dwelling to the rear of the old house on this site. The first one was under ref: CB/12/01312/FULL and this related to the erection of a two storey house and detached double garage - and a detached double garage for number 18 Chapel Road. That was refused for three reasons: One was in respect of the scale and massing of the development appearing as overdevelopment of the site when viewed from the neighbouring property resulting in loss of amenity to these occupiers. The second reason related to the scale of the development being out of character with its setting and harmful to the established character of the locality contrary to planning policy. The third reason was in respect of it leading to an intensification of the use of a substandard access that makes no provision for adequate driver/driver intervisiblity leading to conditions of danger and inconvenience to users of the highway and the property. .

The site lies in the built up area of the town of Flitwick. Flitwick is classified as a Major Service Centre in the Development Management Planning Document dated 2009 under Policy CS1 where there are no objections to the principle of new residential development as long as various criteria are satisfied such as the site is of sufficient size to support the property, there will be adequate access and parking arrangements and no undue impact on the character of the site and the area generally or on the amenities of neighbours by way of outlook,. overlooking etc.. Policy DM4 states that 'within the Settlement Envelopes of Major Service Centres this authority will allow housing development that is commensurate with the scale of the settlement, taking account of its role as a local service centre..'

Policy 38 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 2013 states that within the Settlement boundaries of both Major and Minor Service Centres, the Council will appr ove housing, employment etc.. commensurate with the scale of the settlement, taking into account of its role as a local service centre.

The most recent planning application for the same development (CB/12/03173/FULL - the erection of a bungalow) was withdrawn as there were outstanding highways matters that needed to be resolved regarding the access arrangements to the site.

The National Planning Policy Framework states in Para 53 that Local Planning Authorities should consider the case for setting out policies to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area. The emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire states that the scale of any type of new development should reflect the scale of the settlement in which it is located and that most new forms of development will be infill development. However, in Agenda Item 8 Page 53

Major and Minor Service Centres the Council will approve housing, employment and other settlement related development commensurate with the scale of the settlement, taking into its account its role as a local service centre. Also, there must be no adverse impact upon the setting of the site, the character of the area and surrounding properties and uses. There is also a presumption in favour of sustainable development

In view of the above, there are no objections in principle to the erection of a dwelling in a backland location in a Major Service Centre such as Flitwick as long as the siting, size, design, access arrangements are acceptable in relation to the character of the area and to the amenities of neighbours by way of loss of light, overbearing impact or overlooking etc..

2. Size, Siting and design in relation to the site and the visual amenities of the area

The existing rear outbuildings on the site are to be demolished. The proposed bungalow is to be a single storey bungalow and is to be sited to the rear of the existing dwelling. It is to be 15 metres in length, have a width of 6 metres and a ridge height of 4.4 metres.

There is to be a gap of 17 metres between the rear of the existing property and the closest elevation of the new bungalow. There is to be a rear garden depth of 8 metres for the new bungalow. The existing house will have a rear garden depth of 14 metres and beyond this is to be the car parking area for the new bungalow. Two parking spaces are to be provided to the front of number 18 (a two bedroomed property) for use by its occupants.

This revised dwelling is single storey in heig ht and has been designed so that it appears as a barn like structure having a buff brick plinth with timber ship lap stained boarding to the walls stained dark brown. It has a lower ridge height than the house to the front of the site and lower than most of the properties around the site - which are generally two storey in height. It is accepted that it is of a design that is quite different from any of the surrounding properties but there is a mix of styles of properties in this area and the site is not in the Conservation Area. It is considered that a barn style property will appear as an outbuilding to the main house and that it will not appear as being out of keeping with the area, not have an adverse impact on the character of the area and will not be readily visible from the street scene.

The proposed garage is to be sited to the west rear corner of the site and is to be 5.3 metres to the ridge having a width of 5.4metres and a depth of 6 metres. The front is to be kept open and the rear elevation is to have no openings. It is to be finished in timber boarding the same as the proposed dwelling.

It is considered that the erection of dwelling and garage comply with policy DM3 in the Core Strategy and Development Management Planning Document dated 2009 and Policy 43 in the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire dated 2013 which states that all new development must be appropriate in scale and design to its setting and respect the amenities of surrounding properties and their occupiers. Flitwick is characterised by many Agenda Item 8 Page 54

backland development sites and it is considered that the development of this site in the manner proposed will not have an adverse impact on the character of this part of Flitwick particularly in that it will appear as a low rise outbuilding to the main house on the site. Also, the site at present does not make a positive contribution to the street scene.

3. Impact on amenities of neighbours

There are residential properties closely around the site. The new property is to be single storey in height and had been designed so that its main French windows face towards the rear garden beyond which are some detached houses in Millards Way. (The revised plans have labelled the elevation plans). The closest rear elevation of these is at a distance of 24 metres. In view of the fact that the property is to be single storey it is felt that loss of amenity by way of overlooking will be minimal. There is to be a new hedge planted along the rear boundary of the site. A condition is recommended which requires there to be some fencing as well as the hedge. It is considered that this will protect the neighbours from potential loss of privacy.

Number 16A Chapel Road, the dwelling to the north of number 18 Chapel Road, has no windows in its side elevation facing this access but its rear garden runs along the shared boundary with the proposed access drive. There will be some loss of amenity to occupiers of this neighbouring property by way of noise from the use of the access to the bungalow by cars and pedestrians since it is to come close to their side garden boundary but in view of the fact that there is mature hedging and other planting along this boundary then loss of amenity will not be sufficient as to sustain a refusal on these grounds. There will be limited potential for overlooking.

Concerns have been raised by neighbours to the south east of the site at numbers 20 and 22 Chapel Road about various matters including that the front area to the existing house on the site would not be garden but would have the appearance of a car park which would not present an attractive frontage and therefore represent a substantial loss of amenity. The revised plan indicates that only two parking spaces are to be provided in this front area and this will leave more space for green landscaping in the form of lawn, shrubs etc.. The proposed dwelling is to be 4.4 m high to the ridge and has been designed so that there are only ground floor windows facing towards number 20 Chapel Road. Also, the mature hedge is to be retained along this side shared boundary.

Whilst the erection of a new dwelling on this site may have some impact on the amenities of neighbours by way of increased disturbance and noise given that the proposal is for a two bedroomed bungalow it is considered that there are insufficient grounds to sustain a refusal on grounds of adverse impact of the development on the amenities of neighbours.

4. Access, parking and other considerations

Access to the proposed bungalow is to be alongside the existing property Agenda Item 8 Page 55

number 18 Chapel Road between its north facing elevation and the property to the north at 16a Chapel Road. There is to be a turning area to the front of the bungalow and a drive to the front of the new double garage for the bungalow.

A new crossover is to be formed for the existing property number 18 Chapel Road directly off Chapel Road and this is to serve two proposed car parking spaces to the front of number 18.

The two parking spaces which had been provided in the layout plans for the use by number 18 Chapel Road (the existing house on the site) have now been omitted as the highways officer is of the opinion that they are not required for the existing two bedroomed house and that the removal would enable the size of the turning area for the new bungalow to be increased and/or provide for more amenity spaces to either dwelling.

The level of visibility available at the existing and proposed accesses will be improved by the reduction in height of the existing privet hedge to 1.0m.

The proposed development is likely to give rise to an additional 4 to 6 vehicle movements per day. The highways officer is of the view that such an increase is relatively small and can be accommodated on the local road network.

There are a number of trees and shrubs within the application site - most of which would have to be removed if this proposed development proceeds. None of these trees are worthy of protection thus a reason for refusal on removal of these trees and shrubs would not be a reason for refusal as they could be removed at any time without any consent being required. However, if consent is to be granted it is recommended that conditions be attached which require full details of both hard and soft landscaping to be sub mitted for approval. The revised plans also indicate that existing hedging to the side of the site is to be retained and new hedging planted along the rear boundary.

An acceptable Unilateral Undertaking has been submitted in accordance with the Planning Obligations Strategy SPD. The proposal is therefore in conformity with Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Planning Document dated 2009.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be granted

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

1 The development hereby approved shall be commenced within three years of the date of this permission.

Agenda Item 8 Page 56

2 Full details of both hard and soft landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include:-

• proposed finished levels or contours; • materials to be used for any hard surfacing; • planting plans, including schedule of size, species, positions, density and times of planting; • cultivation details including operations required to establish new planting; • details of existing trees and hedgerows on the site, indicating those to be retained and the method of their protection during development works.

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

Reason: In order to ensure that the landscaping is carried out within a reasonable period in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

3 The scheme approved in Condition 2 shall be carried out by a date which shall be not later than the end of the full planting season immediately followi ng the completion of the development. Thereafter the planting shall be adequately maintained for a period of five years from the date of planting. Any of the trees or shrubs or both which die or are removed, or which become severely damaged or seriously d iseased (during the said period of five years) shall be replaced with trees or shrubs or both, as the case may be, of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted and the same shall be maintained until properly established.

Reason: In order to ensure that the planting is carried out within a reasonable period in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

4 A scheme shall be submitted for written approval by the Local Planning Authority indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme

before the use hereby permitted is commenced before the building(s) is/are occupied in accordance with a timescale agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenities of the locality.

5 No development shall commence until details of materials to be used for the external finishes of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance therewith.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development by ensuring that the development hereby permitted is finished externally with materials to match/complement the existing building(s) and the visual Agenda Item 8 Page 57

amenities of the locality.

6 Before the access is brought into use an area of land across the whole of the site frontage measuring at least 2.4m from and parallel to the nearside edge of the adjacent road carriageway shall be provided and thereafter be kept free of all obstruction to visibility exceeding a height of 1.0m above the adjoining carriagewy level.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility between the existing highway and the proposed access, and to make the access safe and convenient for the traffic that is likely to use it.

7 No development shall commence until details of the junction of the proposed vehicular access with the highway have been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until the junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and the premises.

8 Before the access is first brought into use a triangular vision splay shall be provided on each side of the new access and shall be 2.8m measured along the back edge of the highway from the centre line of the anticipated vehicle path to a point 2.0m measured from the back edge of the footway into the site along the centre lines of the anticipated vehicle path. The vision splays so described shall be maintained free of any obstruction to visibility exceeding a height of 600mm above the adjoining cariageway at all times.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility between the existing highway and the proposed access, and to make the access safe and convenient for the traffic which is likely to use it.

9 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers CBC01 and STE/01/P/sk/A/12/C

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

10 No development shall commence until detailed plans have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority showing existing and proposed site levels, proposed floor levels of the property and existing and proposed cross sections through the site and adjoining land. Only the approved details shall be implemented.

Reason: To safeaguard the amenities of neighbours and the visual amenities of the area generally.

Notes to Applicant

1. The applicant is advised that no works associated with the construction of the vehicular access should be carried out within the confines of the public Agenda Item 8 Page 58

highway without prior consent, in writing, of the Central Bedfordshire Council. Upon receipt of this Notice of Planning Approval, the applicant is advised to write to Central Bedfordshire Council's Highway Help Desk, Technology House, 239 Ampthill Road, Bedford MK42 9BA quoting the Planning Application number and supplying a copy of the Decision Notice and a copy of the approved plan. This will enable the necessary consent and procedures under Section 184 of the Highways Act to be implemented. The applicant is also advised that if any of the works associated with the construction of the vehicular access affects or requires the removal and/or the relocation of any equipment, apparatus or structures (e.g. street name plates, bus stop signs or shelters, statutory authority equipment etc.) then the applicant will be required to bear the cost of such removal or alteration.

2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 will apply to any works undertaken within the limits of the existing public highway. Further details can be obtained from the Traffic Management Group Highways and Transport Division, Central Bedfordshire Council, P.O. Box 1395, Bedford, MK42 5AN.

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 - Article 31

The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant at the pre- application stage and during the determination process which led to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively to secure a sustainable form of development in line with the requirements of the Framewor k (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

DECISION

......

2 2 Agenda Item 9 FISHER'S FIELD Page 59 16 14 21

2b THE

MAGPIES 11 2

2a BROWNSHILL

102

6 8

101

100 74

64 1 54b 122

54a 116 118

TCB

767 7 67a 969

107 75.9m 95 Branksome

81 89

78.2m

71a 71

El Sub Sta

Playground 1

39 35 45 43

GARDENERS CLOSE

525

18 5 to10 5

131

212 727

17 414

2 1

Scale: 1:1250 81 Ampthill Road, Maulden, MK45 2DH Page 60

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 Page 61

Item No. 9

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/02102/FULL LOCATION 81 Ampthill Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2DH PROPOSAL Minor demolition of existing stairway and access. Alterations and extensions to provide a new single storey (A1 Use) shop. PARISH Maulden WARD Ampthill WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Duckett, Blair & Smith CASE OFFICER Sarah Fortune DATE REGISTERED 13 June 2013 EXPIRY DATE 08 August 2013 APPLICANT Mr Malkiat Khinda AGENT Wentworth Building Design REASON FOR Called in to Committee by Councillor Paul Duckett COMMITTEE TO on grounds of overdevelopment of the site. DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Approval

Summary of decision

There are no objections in principle to the erection of a small shop unit in this central location within the village in accordance with policies CS11, CS12 and DM8 in the Core Strategy and Development Management Planning Document dated 2009 and policies 13 and 43 in the emerging Devleopment Strategy for Central Bedfordshire dated 2013 which seek to encourage proposals for retail uses in villages to support a rural economy as long as various criteria are satisfied. In this case, the highways officer is not raising any objections and there will not be significant addtional impact on the amenities of neighbours by way of the use of this small, new premises as a retail unit.

Site Location:

The site - which is roughly rectangular in shape - lies on the south side of Ampthill Road in the built up area of the village of Maulden an d comprises of a detached, 1960's/1970's L shaped brick built building that is used on the ground floor as a shop with a rear storage area. There is a small, single storey hair dressing salon to the rear corner of the site. There are three flats above the shop which share a common staircase.

The Application:

This application is for the demolition of the stairway and access on the west side of the existing main Co op building and the erection of a small single storey extension onto this elevation to facilitate a separate, self contained on site bakery and shop Agenda Item 9 Page 62

with a small servery counter.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework 2012

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

DM3 Amenity CS12 Town Centre and Retailing CS11 Rural economy and Tourism DM8 Village Shops and Pubs

Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire

Policy 43 High Quality Development Policy 13 Retail in the rural area. Policy 38 Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Design in Central Bedfordshire: A Guide for Development: Supp 6: Shop Fronts.

Planning History - relevant

12/00836 Extend existing storage area to front of the Co op store. Three new framed pictorials to be fitted to the front of the storage area to contain Co-operative graphics Granted: 10/05/2012

12/01259/ADV Four framed pictorials fitted to front storage area Granted: 11/06/2012

12/03181 Minor demolition of existing stairway and access. Alterations and extensions to provide a new single storey (A5) hot food takeaway unit. Refused: 26/01/2012

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Maulden Parish Council Object on grounds that it is overdevelopment of the site, the shop, flats and salon create parking problems already, there is one designated parking space which is reserved for the landlord when he visits the site. Deliveries to the Co-op cause major traffic hazard as they mainly have to double park on Ampthill Road reducing the cariageway to a single lane. The Co op already has an in store bakery Agenda Item 9 Page 63

and caters for the needs of the village. More litter would be left in this part of the village. Great concerns that if this application is granted for shop premises any change of use in the future could be alien to a village setting.

Neighbours 1: Objects: The reasons for refusal for the previous application remain and the traffic situation has got worse. Overdevelopment of the site. No parking facilities on the site at present. Will increase the traffic and parking problems at the site. There is a lot of illegal parking at present and delivery vehicles often double park over the central white line of the highway. Also, the Co op presently store their bins to the side of the shop in the location where the new development is proposed. 1. Objects most strongly. The traffic at the site is already a big problem and cars block neighbours driveways, deliveries to the Co op reduce the road to one lane, the village is already served by the in house bakery at the Co op and if permission is granted it may end up as a late night takeaway or any other business not in keeping with the rural area. App Adv

Consultations/Publicity responses

Highways Officer No objections

E.H.O. No objections subject to conditions.

Access Officer No comments

Archaeology Officer No objections

Community Safety No observations received. Officer

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are:

1. Background and Policy 2. Size, Siting and Design in relation to the character of the site and the area generally. 3. Impact on amenities of neighbours. 4. Access, Parking and Other Considerations

Considerations

Human Rights Act

Agenda Item 9 Page 64

There are no Human Rights Issues

Equalities Act

There are no issues under the Equalities Act

1. Background and Policy

The site lies in the centre of the village of Maulden and has supported a convenience food store for many years. The Co-op now occupies this well used village store and it has a very small in house bakery to the rear which provides for heating up of part cooked biscuits and cakes. There are flats above the store and semi-detached houses on both sides of the site as well as at further distance on the other side of the road.

Over many years the site has been the subject of a number of planning and advertisement applications. These have mostly been in respect of minor changes to the appearance of the property. The site is in one ownership but there are three separate occupancies.

In 1997 a Lawful Use Certificate (Proposed) was granted for the use of a small part of the rear of the shop - approximately 2% of the shop area - to be used as a pizza takeaway. Only one oven was to be used and no extraction was required. No external alterations were planned to the shop. It was concluded that this use was ancillary to the shop use and that planning permission was not required (ref: 01/MB/97/00109/LDC).

A more recent planning application for the minor demolition of the existing stairway and access and alterations and an extension to provide for a single storey hot food take away unit (A5) was refused on 26/01/2012 under ref: CB/12/03181/FULL. There were four reasons for refusal and these were in respect of the lack of extract details, lack of adequate parking, increase in traffic and adverse impact on the amenities of neighbours - by way of undue noise and general disturbance particularly during the evening hours - especially for occupiers of the flats above the adjoining retail shop.

This application whilst having a similar appearance to the previous one for the takeaway has a number of differences - the main one being that it is entirely a day time use whereas the takeaway would have been predominantly an evening and week end use which would have had a much greater impact on the amenities of neighbours. Also, this proposal is not likely to generate as many additional vehicles to the site since some of those visiting the site will be visiting the Co op as well and many will walk to the premises. The takeaway would have generated more people in cars from further afield who would be in addition to customers of the Co op next door.

The site at present comprises of a mixture of single and two storey late 1960's /early 1970's style L shaped configuration of development with an approx 5.3m plan depth addressing both the east- west street frontage together with a north south orientated return of approx 12.5m depth to the western edge.

The two storey frontage portion comprises a pitched and gabled roof of concrete Agenda Item 9 Page 65

interlocking tiles over a brickwork superstructure typical of the period. The rear portion of the site comprises of a single storey flat roof arrangement which serves the rear section of the Co op retail (A1) facility at ground floor level. To the west is a single storey lean to extension to the street frontage serving the porch and staircase access to the three no. first floor apartments/flats.

Further to the east and to the rear of the built configuration is an open concrete paved area currently leased to the Co op and the hairdresser to provide a 'right of way' only to pass with one upright cage. The area also facilitates secure staff access to the Co op - together with access to the hairdressing facility to the rear. It is intended to retain this hairdressing facility.

An adjacent hard standing to the west frontage is used for the purposes of parking reserved for use by the landlord. Delivery and any despatch serving the retail facility are from the street frontage.

Policy CS12 of the Core Strategy states that new retail and service provision will be acceptable in principle and Policy DM8 of this policy document states that planning permission will not be granted for the change of use or redevelopment of shops in villages where the result would be a loss in such facilities. The pre amble to this policy states that all local shops and pubs should be considered as important features of a settlement particularly if there are no alternative facilities within easy walking distance - as in the case of Maulden. Policy 13 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 2013 states that in order to support a vibrant and diverse rural economy, proposals for retail uses within villages will be approved subject to various criteria being met. The first of these is that the proposal is of a suitable scale, secondly that it is an appropriate location and thirdly that it would not result in unsustainable levels of traffic generation.

In view of the above there are no objections in principal to the proposed small scale new retail development since the site presently supports a well established service provider in the centre of the village where many people are able to access it on foot and this service would be extended if the present proposal for the bakers shop is permitted.

What does need to be looked at very carefully is the size, siting and design of the proposals in relation to the other developments at the site, impact of the use on the amenities of neighbours, the availability of on site parking and the impact of the proposals on traffic in the immediate environs.

2. Size, Siting and Design in relation to the character of the site and the area generally

This application is for the erection of a single storey extension onto the west side of the building having a width of 4 metres (approx) to the front and a main depth of 6.5 metres. It is to be used for a separate and self contained on site bakery and A1 shop use. This proposal includes the removal of the existing staircase to the flats as well as the small store to the east side of the site. The layout includes for an externally accessed dry store of 3.2m3 capacity to house and contain recyclables waste comprising dry, clean packaging, with a sperate sealed container for food waste - the majority of this waste is to be recycled by Agenda Item 9 Page 66

private collection.

The application seeks to enhance and improve on the previous in situ A1 usage in store bakery through counter provision dedicated to this service and affording a greater choice and selection of on site baked bread and confectionary

The applicant has not provided details of hours of opening or any extract details but these can be dealt with by way of conditions being attached to any permission. A new staircase is to be provided to the rear of the new take away as well as an external dry store. There are to be some minor changes to the external layout of the site generally including the reconfiguration of the access to the existing first floor apartment accommodation, construction of a side gate to serve the flats as well as the replacement of boundary treatments with more robust and functional and aesthetically appropriate solutions.

The external changes to the premises are quite minimal being subordinate to the main building at the site and will not have an adverse impact on its character or the character of the street scene generally. Indeed they could be seen as a tidying up of the site particularly when viewed from the west. In this respect, they comply with policies in the Core Strategy and Development Management Planning Document dated 2009 and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide.

It is clear that the site is very developed at present in that it has a large co-op, three first floor flats and a hairdressers to the rear. The proposed small side bakery addition will make the site have a more built up appearance. However, this in itself is not a reason for refusing the application on grounds that it will be overdevelopment of the site as many shops traditionally are on very constrained sites. What needs to be looked at is whether it has an adverse impact on the appearance of the site or the street scene, or has an undue adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbours etc..

In this case, as stated above, it is felt that this addition will not in itself detract from the appearance of the building itself or this part of the street scene. It is considered to be in conformity with planning policies DM3 in the Core Strategy and Development Management Planning Document dated 2009 as well as policy 13 in the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire which states that retail units will be approved in villages as long as the proposals is of a suitable scale, appropriate location and would not result in unsustainable levels of traffic generation. Policy 43 of this Policy document states that proposals must be of appropriate scale and design to their setting. This is a single storey addition which is to match the main building and therefore complies with this policy

3. Impact on amenities of neighbours

There are neighbours all around this site the closest ones being those in the three flats above the Co op as well as the occupants of number 83 Ampthill Road - which lies to the immediate west of the site and is in very close proximity to the proposed bakery/A1 development.

Agenda Item 9 Page 67

The application advises that provision is included within the application for an air handling/conditioning filtration and recycling/recirculation plant to afford and maintain high levels of air purity both internally to the existing and proposed premises and to minimise and control external emissions. Included in the air handing/extract system will be a Spectrum jet stream system to neutralise odour particles. The layout affords a permanent visual and acoustic screen between the adjacent residential properties and the proposed bakery and sales activities.

The occupiers of neighbouring dwellings will be subjected to some additional noise and disturbance especially from cars and customers arriving at and leaving the premises. The environmental health officer has advised that he has reservation over this application since the site is very close to residential properties - the house next door at number 83 and the flats above the Co op. However he has concluded that with the careful use of planning conditions it should be possible to ensure that any environmental health matters are controlled regarding noise and odour. Conditions are therefore being recommended to cover odour equipment, kitchen ventilation system and hours of opening to safeguard the amenities of neighbours.

Concerns have also been raised by the nearest neighbours about the potential for additional overlooking from the new bakery. This neighbour has windows in its side elevation which face onto the side of the Co op and onto the proposed bakery addition which is to come closer to their shared boundary. In view of these concerns the applicant is advising that he is to erect either low level close boarded or picket fence along this shared boundary to reduce the potential for overlooking towards the neighbours side living room windows. A condition is to be attached to cover the details of boundary treatment. The house next door is at a lower level than the application site. Also, the new replacement first floor side window is to be high level so there will be minimal potential for overlooking from this window. The occupants of the three first floor flats will have to walk along the side of the bakery near to this neighbour to reach the staircase up to the flats but any loss of amenity by way of noise and overlooking is not likely to be sufficient as to withhold planning permission.

4. Access, Parking and Other Considerations

There is an existing dropped kerb to the west of the site and this presently serves an A1 unit (hairdressers) to the rear of the Co op. The current planning application is for the removal of the external stairway and its replacement further into the site taking access from the forecourt. There is vehicular access to an open concrete paved area on the western side of the building which provides secure staff access to the Co op and leads to the hairdressers Unit.

The site is located opposite to the eastern junction of George Street.

No changes are proposed to the means of access to the public highway although the on-site drive/parking area is shown to be reduced in width. It is stated that the initial section of this area is used for the purpose of a singular parking space reserved for use by the landlord and " is hardly ever used". The on site parking provision therefore remains at one parking space.

Agenda Item 9 Page 68

Pedestrian access to the flats, hairdressers unit and the rear co op is maintained via a new gate which is shown to be constructed beyond the single parking space alongside the proposed baker/shop unit. The parking bay is shown to be 2.65m in width and therefore if a vehicle is parked in it, it is likely to cause obstruction to pedestrians wishing to gain access to the rear. There is no other on-site parking provision and all customer parking, together with servicing/deliveries to existing uses, takes place from the road-side. This will continue to be the case if permission is granted.

The highways officer is aware that a Certificate of Lawful Use was issued in March 1997 for a pizza counter within the existing convenience food-store under ref; MB/97/109/LDC. The application advises that the latest application is to enhance and improve upon previous in-situ A1 usage in -store bakery operations through a counter provision dedicated to this service and affording a greater choice and selection of on site baked bread and confectionary.

Although the proposed bakery is relatively small, generating a net increase of some 16m squared floor area it is likely to draw additional customers over and above those visiting the Co-op.

The application is supported by a Transport Statement which indicates that the proposed development could give rise to some additional 32 vehicle movements per day (16 arrivals and 16 departures) with some 3 vehicle movements occurring in the land use's peak hour (4.00pm - 5.00pm). The Transport Statement considers the opportunity for Pass-by, Transferred and Diverted Trips using the Trics Report 95/2 and concludes that it would be reasonably robust to assume that of the 32 additional trips to the new bakery 50% will be new trips and 50.% will be linked to existing trips to the adjoining facilities. Therefore only 16 vehicle movements per day are likely to be new to the network (8 arrivals and 8 departures) with only 1 or 2 vehicle movements occurring in the peak period.

The highways officer concurs with the above Transport Assessment conclusions. Therefore, whilst there is likely to be an increase in vehicular traffic to and from the site and a consequent increase in demand for on-street parking, the changes are not significant and certainly not great enough to warrant a highway reason for refusal which could be substantiated on appeal.

The archaeology officer is not raising any objections since the scale and nature of the proposal are such that the impact on any archaeological remains at the site or on the significance of the heritage assett with ecological interest would not be serious.

Waste for landfill will be confined to 2 No. 120 litre black bins, externally located to the rear. A bin collection point is provided to the street frontage.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be granted.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

Agenda Item 9 Page 69

1 The development hereby approved shall be commenced within three years of the date of this permission.

2 All external works hereby permitted shall be carried out in materials to match as closely as possible in colour, type and texture, those of the existing building.

3 A scheme shall be submit ted for written approval by the Local Planning Authority indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected. The boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme before the building hereby permitted is commenced

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenities of the locality.

5 Equipment shall be installed to effectively suppress and disperse fumes and/or odours produced by cooking and food prepar ation, and the equipment shall be effectively operated for so long as the commercial food use continues. Full details of the method of odour abatements and all odour abatement equipment to be used, including predicted noise levels of the equipment in operation, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to prevent the adverse impact of odours arising from cooking activities on the amenity of nearby residents.

6 The kitchen ventilation system approved in accordance with condition 5 above, together with any other external plant, machinery and equipment installed or operated in conection with this permission, shall be so enclosed, operated and/or attenuated that noise arising from such plant shall not exceed a le vel of 5dBA below the existing background level (or 10dBA below if there is a tonal quality) when measured or calculated according to BS4142:1997, at the boundary of any neighbouring residential dwelling. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate that noise from the installed plant achieves the required noise standard, prior to the use hereby permitted commencing.

Reason: To protect neighbouring residents from any adverse impact from noise arising from the kitchen extract ventilation system or other external plant on the premises.

Agenda Item 9 Page 70

7 The premises shall not be open to the public except between 07.00 hours and 17.30 hours Monday - Saturday and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, without the prior agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect the amenities of occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties.

8 Deliveries by commercial vehicles shall only be made to and from the site between 08.00 hours and 17.30 hours Monday-Friday, 08.00 hours and 17.30 hours on Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays without the prior agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of occupiers of the neighbouring residential properties.

9 The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied or used any time other than for an A1 (retail) use.

Reason: To safeguard the amenity of occupiers of the neigbouring residential properties, for the avoidance of doubt and to define the permission hereby granted.

10 Th e development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbersPL100, Pl101, PL102, PL103, Pl104, PL105/A, PL106/A, Pl107, PL108, Pl109/A

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Notes to Applicant

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 - Article 31

Reasons for Granting

DECISION Agenda Item 9 Page 71

......

Page 72

This page is intentionally left blank

93a 838 41.0m Agenda Item 10

93 Page 73 222

11 30 The 17 91

Rosary 626

89 727 30

HILLSON CLOSE

020 9 818

El Sub Sta

333 414

67c

PO 12 HOLME CLOSE 67b 18 8a

Surgery 3 67a 8 1 11 1 to 11a 6a

57 6

6 El Sub Sta

War Meml 15 Church 2 2

5 2

40.8m

21 6

010 3

4 1

41 SCOTCHBROOK ROAD

12 40.6m 2

1 23

35 25 11

33 22

BROWNS CLOSE 11 31

30 27 23

40.8m 21

Scale: 1:1250 1A Station Road, Marston Moretaine, Bedford, MK43 0PH Page 74

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10 Page 75

Item No. 10

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/01919/FULL LOCATION 1A Station Road, Marston Moretaine, Bedford, MK43 0PH PROPOSAL Extend existing co-op supermarket into adjacent unit, form new back of house area at the rear, relocate existing entrance to store with a new automatic sliding entrance door, colour variations to the shopfront and new mechanical plant at the rear of the store. PARISH Marston Moretaine WARD Cranfield & Marston Moretaine WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Bastable, Matthews & Mrs Clark CASE OFFICER James Clements DATE REGISTERED 04 June 2013 EXPIRY DATE 30 July 2013 APPLICANT The CO-operative Group AGENT Wellsfield Associates REASON FOR Councillor Bastable called-in the application for the COMMITTEE TO following reasons: DETERMINE • Issues with inadequate parking facilities

• Refrigeration units - the units would be located outside to the rear of the property with the risk of noise and vibration to local residents • A new bakery is proposed giving concerns about odours to neighbouring properties - consideration should have been given to an air filtration system RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application recommended for approval

Recommended reasons for Granting

The proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, nor on the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties. Accordingly the proposal is in conformity with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies for Central Bedfordshire (North), the NPPF (2012) and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide.

Site Location:

The proposal site is located at units 1 and 1A Station Road, Marston Moretaine, which is a Co-op supermarket and shop currently occupied by A M Newsagent. The proposal site is tw o of three units at groundfloor all with A1 uses. The third unit is occupied by a hair dressers.

The application site is within the settlement envelope for Marston Moretaine. The site is in a prominent location within the settlement. The units are servi ced via a car park to the side of the parade of shops with a service area to the rear of the building.

Agenda Item 10 Page 76

There are residential properties at first and second floors and to the rear of the service yard.

The Application:

Planning permission is sough to extend existing Co-op supermarket into adjacent unit, form new back of house area at the rear, relocate existing entrance to store with a new automatic sliding entrance door, colour variations to the shopfront and new mechanical plant at the rear of the store.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

8.Promoting Healthy Communties 7.Requiring good design

Bedfordshire Structure Plan 2011 None relevant

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009 DM4 - Development within and beyond settlement envelopes

Draft Development Strategy (2013) Policy 38: Within and Beyond Settlement Boundaries

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Design in central Bedfordshire - Design Supplement DS6: Shop Fronts and Signage

Planning History

CB/11/03176 Instalment of new covered holding area to be situated at the rear of the Co-Operative Food Store. New goods entrance and guttering to new holding area. Existing air conditioning unit to be re-positioned to accommodate new goods loading area - approved

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Parish/Town Council Objection - The Co-op is located in the centre of the village and is easily accessible to residents. However, there is already an issue with inadequate parking facilities and this problem is intensified when large vehicles arrive to deliver supplies to the store. The result is that the car park becomes completely blocked to all movement of vehicles. The Committee feel very strongly that this problem will be compounded by any increase in size of the supermarket.

Agenda Item 10 Page 77

As mentioned in the paragraph above, inadequate car parking is already an issue at this location. The committee believe that the above extension would escalate the situation further.

The refrigeration units are currently located within the Co- Op building itself. Under the above proposal the units would be located outside to the rear of the property. Residents living above and within the locality of the store are at risk of both noise and vibration from the refrigeration units. The Committee feels that the applicant should obtain an independent assessment to ascertain the likelihood and scale of the noise and vibration that may occur from these units which would provide evidence of the scale of disturbance neighbouring properties may be subjected to.

A new bakery is proposed within the extended supermarket. The committee feels that an air filtration system should have been considered in order to alleviate odours to neighbouring properties.

The proposed colour for the exterior of the building is neither in keeping or enhancing to the surrounding area.

No proposals have been put forward with regard to responsibility of litter control outside the premises. The Committee does not feel that the reliance on local authority litter bins sufficiently addresses the issue.

The extension to the co-op replaces a local newsagent. The newsagents employed paper boys/girls who delivered papers to those who found it difficult to access the shop ie disabled and older generation. The Committee expressed its concern at the loss of this facility.

Neighbours No objections received

Consultations/Publicity responses

Highways No objection Public Protection No objection subject to noise condition

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle of development 2. Highways and parking considerations 3. Residential amenity 4. Design and impact on the appearance of the locality

Agenda Item 10 Page 78

Considerations

Human Rights issues No significant issues raised

Equality Act 2010 No significant issues raised

1. Principle of development The proposal site is within the Settlement Envelope of Marston Moretaine which is designated as a Minor Service Area. Policy DM4 states:

Policy DM4: Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes

Within Settlement Envelopes, the Council will support schemes for community, education, health, sports and recreation uses or mixed community and other uses where a need for such facilities is identified through the Infrastructure Audit or up to date evidence. Where no land is available within the settlement, a site adjacent to the settlement may be granted planning permission. Such development should make the best use of available land and lead to more sustainable communities.

Within the Settlement Envelopes of both Major and Minor Service Centres, the Council will approve housing, employment and other settlement related development commensurate with the scale of the settlement, taking account of its role as a localservice centre.' . It should be noted that although the proposal states the application is to, 'extend existing co-op supermarket into the adjacent unit..' this does not actually require planning permission because both Units 1 & 1A have A1 uses. The use of the unit by the Co-op is therefore permitted development.

The application is therefore principally for the construction of a new covered service yard area and the siting of replacement aircon and condenser units, the relocation of the existing entrance to the Co-op supermarket with a new automatic sliding entrance door, new shopfront to unit 1A to include new fascia and roller shutter and colour changes to the existing Co-op shopfront (grey).

Development Management Policy DM3 states:

Policy DM3: High Quality Development

All proposals for new development, including extensions will:

• be appropriate in scale and design to their setting. • contribute positively to creating a sense of place and respect local distinctiveness through design and use of materials. • use land efficiently. • use energy efficiently. • respect the amenity of surrounding properties. • enhance community safety.

Agenda Item 10 Page 79

• comply with the current guidance on noise, waste management, vibration, odour, water, light and airborne pollution. • incorporate appropriate access and linkages, including provision for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. • provide adequate areas for parking and servicing. • provide hard and soft landscaping appropriate in scale and design to the development and its setting. • incorporate public art in line with the thresholds determined by the Planning Obligations Strategy. • ensure that public buildings are accessible for all, and comply with current guidance on accessibility to other buildings • respect and complement the context and setting of all historically sensitive sites particularly those that are designated.

2. Highways and parking considerations No changes are proposed to the existing means of access to the public highway and the level of off-street parking to the side and rear of the store remains unchanged. Although the floor-space to the food-store is being increased, the majority of it arises from the adjoining shop. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that the use of the unit by the Co-op is permitted development, it is unlikely that the new development will give rise to a material increase in traffic to and from the development site.

Similarly it would be difficult to verify that the proposed use of unit 1A would give rise to an increase in parking demand. In such circumstances therefore we do not consider that an objection on non-compliance with parking standards could be sustained from a highways aspect.

Concern has been raised that the existing servicing of the Co-op by lorries, achieved by reversing down part of Station Road into the car park and service area, would increase with the use of unit 1a by the Co-op which would cause further congestion and be harmful to highway safety.

The intention of the extension within the yard area is to provide a greater capacity for back-up storage. Therefore, if the turnover of the business remains the same, the frequency of deliveries will reduce. If however it increases, the applicant has stated that there is sufficient capacity within the delivery vehicles that there should be no increase in the frequency of vehicle movements. The same size of delivery vehicle (12m lorry) would be used by the Co-op.

3. Residential amenity The application includes the replacement of existing air conditioning units in the service area and the relocation of the existing internal bakery preparation area.

Bakery operation

The Co-op supermarket has an existing bakery operation within unit 1. The method of extraction for the existing bakery area is a simple vent-axia fan (slightly larger than a domestic extract fan). This will be relocated to the new bakery position. The bakery operation consists of pre-cooked goods being delivered to site frozen. They are then placed in a steam oven and simply re- heated. There is no full bakery operation at this site. Agenda Item 10 Page 80

External air conditioning and condenser units

The Parish Council has raised concern that the existing units are within the building and that their relocation outside would be harmful to adjacent residential properties. This is incorrect. The three existing air conditioning units and one condenser unit are sited on the rear wall of the supermarket within the service area.

Due to concerns raised about potential noise levels from the proposed plant, installation drawing no. 1942.02e Scheme J has been issued which removes the detailed plant installation but shows indicative locations for potential plant. This plan replaces the plan reference 1942.09a submitted with the planning application.

The Co-op have confirmed that they would accept a suitable Condition regarding acceptable noise levels for future plant to be installed (and other standard conditions the Council may wish to impose). A new detailed plant design may then be submitted as an application to Discharge the Condition.

Public protection have no objection to the proposals subject to a noise condition and have stated that the replacement units would be significantly quieter than the existing units which are a number of years old and do not conform to the Council's existing noise standards.

It should be noted that in 2011 planning application CB/11/03176 granted permission for the, 'Instalment of new covered holding area to be situated at the rear of the Co-Operative Food Store. New goods entrance and guttering to new holding area. Existing air conditioning unit to be re-positioned to accommodate new goods loading area'. This approval was not implemented.

Accordingly it is considered that there is no adverse harm to residential amenity.

4. Design and impact upon the appearance of the locality The proposed external changes that would be visible from Station Road and Bedford Road include the relocation of the existing entrance to the CO-op supermarket with a new automatic sliding entrance door, new shopfront to unit 1A to include new fascia & roller shutter and colour changes to the existing shopfront at unit 1 (grey). These changes are relatively minor in nature, in keeping with the architecture of the building, and are considered to be in accordance with the Council's design guidance.

The service yard can also be partly viewed from public views and would include the construction of a new covered yard area with a timber framed flat-roof construction with felt finish & weldmesh side panels and the siting of replacement airconditioning and condenser units. The existing service area is open and visually cluttered. The proposed changes to the service area would be an enhancement to the appearance of this area.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be Approved subject to the following:

Agenda Item 10 Page 81

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

1 The development shall begin not later than three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 Notwithstanding the details shown on drawing no. 1942.09e, no development shall commence until a scheme for protecting the existing residential dwellings from noise from fixed plant machinery and equipment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Noise resulting from the use of the plant, machinery or equipment shall not exceed a level of 5dBA below the existing background level (or 10dBA below if there is a tonal quality or distinguishable characteristics) when measured or calculated according to BS4142:1997, at a point one metre external to the nearest noise sensitive building. The use hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the scheme has been implemented in accordance with the approved details, and shown to be effective, and it shall be retained in accordance with those details thereafter. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.

3 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 1942.01a, 1942.09e & 1942.10.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Notes to Applicant

1. This permission relates only to that required under the Town & Country Planning Acts and does not include any consent or approval under any other enactment or under the Building Regulations. Any other consent or approval which is necessary must be obtained from the appropriate authority.

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 - Article 31

The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant during the determination process which led to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively to secur e a sustainable form of development in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

DECISION ......

...... Page 82

This page is intentionally left blank 17 Agenda6 Item 11 8 Page 83

LABURNUM ROAD Laburnum 17a

Lower 19

818 51 21

School 1 20

131

030

ROBERT HUNT33 GARDENS

232 22 to 25 to 22

Swimming Pool

1 3

20 2 b3b

El Sub Sta 313

2a 32 2b

24a 24 24b

55 26a

727 28

939 LB 24.9m 43

Manse

40 41

Playground

24.3m 1

50a 50

50b 18

CEDAR

525

BEDFORD ROAD 23b

929 131

GARDENS 333

9 to 12 7

28 to 35 2

13 to 27

THE AVENUE MAYFIELD CT 12

Scale: 1:1250 38 Bedford Road, Sandy, SG19 1EW Page 84

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11 Page 85

Item No. 11

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/02393/FULL LOCATION 38 Bedford Road, Sandy, SG19 1EW PROPOSAL Single storey rear extension (modification to previously approved under CB/12/03398) PARISH Sandy WARD Sandy WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Aldis, Maudlin & Sheppard CASE OFFICER Amy Lack DATE REGISTERED 19 July 2013 EXPIRY DATE 13 September 2013 APPLICANT Torst Ventures Ltd AGENT Robert Trigg REASON FOR Called in by Cllr Aldis - There are concerns that the COMMITTEE TO extension which has already been rebuilt once still DETERMINE does not comply with the approved plans, the roof line is not symmetrical and is an inappropriate form of development and the side wall next to 40 Bedford Road is too high leading to a severe loss of light to a main living room and a tunnelling effect.

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Granted

Summary of decision:

The retrospectively proposed extension to the rear of the dwelling will not unduly impact upon the character of the street scene or surroundin g conservation area, nor will it adversely impact upon the residential amenity which is currently enjoyed by neighbouring properties. By virtue of the siting, design, scale and mass of the proposal it is considered acceptable and in accordance with policie s CS14 CS15, DM3, DM4 and DM13 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) and Central Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) with respect to Requiring good design and Conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Site Location:

38 Bedford Road is a two and a half storey, semi-detached dwelling located on the north side of the street. Constructed of buff brick with a slate roof the property occupies a sub-divided late Victorian villa.

The application site benefits from a wide 8 metre frontage which is significantly wider than the plot widths typical of the immediate development along this site of Bedford Road.

The site falls with the settlement envelope and Conservation Area of Sandy to the west of the town centre. No trees shall be impacted upon by the proposal. Agenda Item 11 Page 86

The Application:

This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of single storey rear extension.

Following the demolition of an existing single storey mono-pitched extension to the eastern half of the rear of the dwelling, planning permission was granted for a single storey rear extension under planning application reference CB/12/03398/FULL.

This extant permission approved an extension measuri ng approximately 4.6 metres in width and 4.4 metres in depth. With a dual pitched roof it rose to a maximum ridge height of approximately 3.5 metres, falling to an eaves height of 2.2 metres.

The single storey extension built to the rear of the dwelling h as not been built in accordance with the above permission. Accordingly, planning permission is retrospectively sort for this alternative addition. As built the extension measures approximately 3.5 metres, to the east falling to an eaves height of 2.2 metre s, and to the west a parapet wall defines the shared boundary with adjoining neighbour No.40 approximately 2.6 metres in height. The extension projects northwards from the rear wall of the existing dwelling by 4.2 metres in to the rear garden, a total wid th of 4.5 metres.

RELEVANT POLICIES: National Guidance

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) Circular 11/95 - The use of Conditions in Planning Permissions

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (November 2009)

CS14 High Quality Development CS15 Heritage

DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes DM13 Heritage in Development

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Central Bedfordshire Council’s Technical Guidance - Design Supplement 4: Residential Alterations and Extensions (January 2010)

Planning History

CB/12/03398/FULL Erection of a single storey rear extension. Approved 08.11.12 CB/13/01482/FULL Land adj to No. 38: Erection of a three bedroom detached dwelling. Withdrawn 11.07.13

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours) Agenda Item 11 Page 87

Sandy Town Council No consultation response received.

Consultation response (dated ) in response to previous planning application reference CB/12/03398/FULL:

Support the proposal but noted that the plans show changes to the existing cross over/access to the road. The Council's comment is only with respect to the extension.

Neighbours No objections to the development have been made in writing directly to the case officer. However, the owner/occupier of the adjoining property, No.40 Bedford Road, has approached the Conservation Officer for his opinion on the development that has taken place at the application site, as proposed by this application. The concerns which they raise can be summarised as follows:

- The roof pitch seems at odds with the proportion and style of the existing house; - The lintels, these are not gauged to match the existing, they appear straight vertical bricks, fanned by adding a couple of pieces to the end, this appears at odds with the windows they sit above; - The brick colour does not match the existing, the stock yellows are in no way sympathetic to the existing and the new brick courses do not align with the old.

A full copy of the above correspondence can be viewed on the application file.

Publicity

Local Press 02.08.13 advertisement Site Notice 29.07.13 Posted to the pole of a road sign to front of property.

Consultations/Publicity responses

Conservation This is a relatively sensitive part of the conservation area, though this sensitivity relates in particular to the road frontages and the public realm. The modified design of the single storey rear extension, currently under construction and much completed, now subject of this application is disappointing after the previous discussions with the applicant and agent for the earlier application granted permission (CB/12/03398/FULL) with close attention to detail and careful selection of materials that would have been in accord with our usual conservation area expectations/ requirements. The extension as it now is (your photos are most helpful as a record) Agenda Item 11 Page 88

is rather odd with the asymmetry of the rear elevation slate roof, parapet wall to the side boundary and somewhat sub-standard brick to the rear. However, as you mentioned, the view from the Bedford Road footway, i.e. where the extension is mostly viewed from in terms of public realm, is probably acceptable. The impact on the neighbours is unfortunate, though, and I can quite understand their disquiet at this outcome. I will visit again to view and assess the neighbour impact- although you will have already carefully assessed the daylight/ sunlight implications and any oppressiveness/ loss of amenity involved.

Determining Issues

The development has been assessed in the co ntext of human rights issues and The Equalities Act (2010) and it is considered it would have no relevant implications. As such, from the consultation responses received and from an inspection of the application site and surrounding area the main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle of development 2. Character, design, context and impact upon the surrounding conservation area 3. Residential Amenity 4. Car parking and highway safety

Considerations

1. Principle of development

The site falls within the Sandy Settlement Envelope where Policy DM4 (Development within Settlement Envelopes) of the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) states that the broad principle of residential development will normally be acceptable. Further to this the principle of development has been accepted by approval of CB/12/03398/FULL

As such, the proposal is considered acceptable in principle. Notwithstanding this, the implications for other policies of the Local Plan shall be considered within the main body of the report below.

2. Character, design, context and impact upon the surrounding conservation area.

The site falls within the Sandy Conservation Area. As such, careful consideration should also be given to Policy DM13 (Heritage in Development) as well as DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009). Pre-application discussions with the Conservation Officer resulted in detailing to improve the design of the extension (as considered under application reference CB/12/3398/FULL) and now incorporates gauged brick arches over openings, more sympathetic to the character of the building it extended, also serving to enhance the character of Agenda Item 11 Page 89

this part of the Conservation Area as has been implemented on site and under consideration of this current application.

Located to the rear of the dwelling and single storey in height the proposal is not considered to have a significant presence in the street scene that is significantly different from that of the original single storey addition that previously existed to the rear (as illustrated on drawing number 12/BR/02). While upvc windows and presumably plastic rain water goods are discouraged in conservation areas, the dwelling is not listed and located to the rear it is considered unreasonable to insist on higher quality detailing.

The roof has been finished in slate and reclaimed buff bricks in keeping with those of the original dwelling have been used on the east elevation which is visible from the public realm. It is acknowledged that a less sympathetic brick has been used to the rear north elevation and side elevation which sits on the shared boundary with adjoining No.40, but these materials, and the amended roof profile (asymmetrical comparable to the symmetrical roof profile of the extension approved by reference CB/12/03398/FULL) are not visible in the street scene of Bedford Road and as such the impact of the proposal upon the wider surrounding conservation area is considered acceptable. Accordingly the proposal is considered to comply with policies DM3 and DM13 of the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

3. Residential amenity

Hard to the common boundary with adjoining neighbour No.40 Bedford Road to the west, it is acknowledged the extension will have a greater impact upon the residential amenity of these neighbours than the former single storey extension which has been demolished and was set off the boundary by approximately 2.2metres.

When compared to the extension approved under planning application reference CB/12/03398/FULL the retrospective proposal considered by this application presents a parapet wall 0.2 metres higher than that previously approved. Further to visiting the site it is considered unlikely that this 0.2 metre difference in height will result in any materially greater loss of light as a result of overshadowing by the development. Located north east of these neighbours the extension does take some early morning light. The kitchen, a utility space and a toilet are located toward the rear of No.40 but, benefiting from northeast and northwest facing openings to the rear of the dwelling and mindful that this proposed addition extends no further into the garden than the original single storey rear extension (prior to the approval of CB/12/03398/FULL) that it has replaced, the difference is considered to be negligible. With respect to outlook this has been reduced but not to the extent that would warrant refusal. The proposal is only single storey in height and its dual pitched roof beyond the parapet slopes away from this adjoining neighbour.

In order to safeguard the privacy of the residential occupiers at No.37 a condition should be imposed which precludes any openings on the west facing elevation (condition 1). No other neighbouring dwellings are materially affected given their siting.

Agenda Item 11 Page 90

Subject to the suggested condition the proposal is considered acceptable with respect to residential amenity and in accordance policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

4. Highway safety and car parking

On site car parking remains unaffected by the proposal. Accordingly there is not considered to be any adverse implications for car parking or highway safety as a result of the proposal.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be approved subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

1 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows shall be inserted into the west elevation of the extension hereby approved.

Reason: To protect the amenity of neighbouring residents (Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009).

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers [12/BR/04/G; 12/BR/01; 12/BR/02].

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Notes to Applicant

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 - Article 31

The Council acted pro-actively through early engagement with the applicant at the pre- application stage which led to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively to secure a sustainable form of development in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accord ance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

DECISION

......

...... Agenda Item 11 Page 91

Page 92

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12 Page 93

Map Sheet No S

Double Arches Quarry, Eastern Way, Heath And Reach, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 9LF Scale: 1:5000 Page 94

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12 Page 95

Item No. 12

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/02037/VOC LOCATION Double Arches Quarry, Eastern Way, Heath And Reach, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 9LF PROPOSAL Removal of Condition 11 of planning permission CB/10/03034 - The wind turbine shall not emit greater than expected amplitude modulation the level of broadband noise emitted by a turbine at blade passing frequency. PARISH Heath & Reach WARD Heath & Reach WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Versallion CASE OFFICER Abel Bunu DATE REGISTERED 13 June 2013 EXPIRY DATE 12 September 2013 APPLICANT Arnold White Estates AGENT Engena Limited REASON FOR Departure from the Development Plan COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Variation of Condition – Recommended for Approval

Recommended Reasons for Granting:

Whilst the proposed development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt, the proposal demonstrated the very special circumstances required of such developments which led to the grant of planning permission, reference CB/10/03034/FULL . The principle o f the development on this site is therefore established. The proposed development without complying with Condition 11 of the planning permission would not alter this principle. Furthermore, the development would not be materially harmful to residential ame nity thereby conforming to the development plan comprising Policies BE8 and SD1, of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review, Policies 1,3,23,36,43, 46,50,57 and 58 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and national advice contai ned in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Central Bedfordshire Renewable Energy Guidance (2013).

Site Location:

The application site lies within the boundaries of Double Arches Quarry, an active sand processing plant that comprises part of a larger operational minerals extraction area. The site lies to the north-east of Leighton Linslade, on Eastern Way, within the Parish of Heath and Reach.

The site is a raised area of land located in the north eastern part of the quarry, adjacent to the settling ponds. Although, it is within the existing boundary of the quarry, it lies outside of the permitted and future working area of the quarry.

Agenda Item 12 Page 96

The quarry sits within a larger complex of sand quarries, which alongside Nine Acres and Churchways Quarries, is identified as a County Wildlife Site (CWS) and includes a number of waterbodies. These include settlement ponds, which vary in size and location as working patterns dictate, there are also larger lakes which are used by a local angling club.

Approximately 0.2km to the west of the site is Double Arches Pit Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI), which is designated as such for its geological importance. The King’s and Baker’s Wood and Heaths SSSI is located approximately 0.7km northwest of the proposed location, with part of the SSSI being designated as a National Nature Reserve. This SSSI/NNR is separated from the proposed turbine location by the remainder of the site, Woburn Road, Stone Lane Quarry and Churchways Quarry.

The settlements of Heath and Reach and Leighton Linslade are located to the south-west of the application site. Further beyond to the south-east is the conurbation of Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis. There are also a number of smaller settlements in the locality including Overend Green, Potsgrove and Battlesden, and further afield, Woburn, Milton Bryan, Hockliffe, Eggington, Stanbridge, Billington, Soulbury, Stoke Hammond and Great Brickhill.

The Application:

seeks planning permission for the removal of Condition 11 attached to planning permission reference CB/10/03034 in respect of the control over the level of broadband noise emitted by a turbine at blade passing frequency,(amplitude modulation).The condition states that :

The wind turbine shall not emit greater than expected amplitude modulation. Amplitude modulation is the modulation of the level of broadband noise emitted by a turbine at blade passing frequency. These will be deemed greater than expected if the following characteristics apply:

a) A change in the measured L Aeq 125 milliseconds turbine noise level of more than 3dB (represented as a rise and fall in sound energy levels each of more than 3dB) occurring within a 2 second period. b) The change identified in (a) above shall not occur less than 5 times in an y one minute period provided that the L Aeq, 1 minute turbine sound energy level for that minute is not below 28dB. c) The changes identified in (a) and (b) above shall not occur for fewer than 6 minutes in any hour that the measurements are undertaken.

Nois e immissions shall be undertaken at a complainant’s dwelling and shall be measured not further than 35m from the relevant dwelling building, and not closer than 3.5m of any reflective building or surface other than the ground, or within 1.2m of the ground. Where there is not access to the land of a relevant dwelling, measurements to assess compliance with the noise limit of this condition shall be undertaken at a measurement location approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority that is accessible.

Agenda Item 12 Page 97

Reason: To ensure that the amenities of neighbouring occupiers are not prejudiced by excessive noise.

The application relates to a development that was granted permission subject to a number of conditions, of which Condition 11 forms the subject of this ap plication, for the erection of a 149 metre high wind turbine, including access and associated infrastructure.

The reason for seeking the removal of the condition has been supported by the following documents submitted with the application :

• Report by Dr Mackenzie : Double Arches Wind Turbine, Amplitude Modulation Condition • NANR277, Wind Farm Noise Statutory Nuisance Complaint Methodology, DEFRA. • Spaldington Airfield Appeal Decisions : APP/E2001/A/2137617, APP/E2001/A/2139965 • Watford Lodge Appeal Decision : APP/Y2810/A/11/2153242 • Bass J, 2012, Investigation of the Den Brook Amplitude Modulation Methodology for wind turbine noise, IOA Acoustics Bulletin Vol.36, No.6, Vol. 37 No.1. • The Marston Vale Millenium Country park Wind Turbine, Central Bedfordshire Council, CB/12/00718/VOC, Agenda Item 13. • Wolley Hill appeal decision : APP/H0520/A/11/2158702 • Batsworthy Cross Appeal Decision : APP/X1118/A11/2162070. • Drawing Number 3100.013

RELEVANT POLICIES: The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27th March 2012 and replaced most of the previous national planning policy documents, PPGs and PPSs.

South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review The NPPF advises of the weight to be attached to existing local plans for plans adopted prior to the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, as in the case of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review. Due weight can be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework. It is considered that the following policies are broadly consistent with the Framework and significant weight should be attached to them.

SD1 Keynote Policy BE7 Conservation and Enhancement of Historic Parks and Gardens; BE8 Design Considerations NE3 Control of Development in the AGLV R15 Retention of Rights of Way Network

Endorsed Core Strategy - South The Pre-Submission Core Strategy for Southern Central Bedfordshire was endorsed for Development Management purposes by the Executive in August 2011 following the decision of The Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Committee's resolution on the 29th July 2011 to seek the withdrawal of the Luton and southern Central Bedfordshire Joint Core Strategy.

Agenda Item 12 Page 98

Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire

Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, significant weight is given to the policies contained within the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, which is consistent with the NPPF. The draft Development Strategy is due to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2013 and the following policies are considered relevant to the determination of any subsequent application :

Policy 1 : Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 3 : Green Belt Policy 23 : Public Rights of Way Policy 36 : Development In the Green Belt Policy 43: High Quality Development Policy 46 : Renewable and low carbon energy development Policy 50 : Development In the Countryside Policy 57 : Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy 58 : Landscape

Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2000 – 2015 (Adopted January 2005)

M4: Protection of Mineral resources within mineral consultation areas; G3: Proposals within the Greensand Trust area to support the aims and objectives of the Greensand Trust; GE26: Restoration of Mineral sites.

Supplementary Planning Guidance

• South Bedfordshire Landscape Character Assessment • Central Bedfordshire and Luton Borough Councils Joint Committee Sustainable Development and Adaptation and Mitigation of Climate • Change Study (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2010) • Central Bedfordshire Renewable Energy Guidance (2013).

Planning History

CB/10/03034/FULL Permission. Erection of a 2.3 MW wind turbine (108m high to top of hub, 149m high to tip of rotor) including access and associated infrastructure. SB/08/01073/SCO Request for scoping opinion of the Local Planning Authority – regulation 5 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations for the installation of two wind turbines.

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Heath and Reach The standard quoted in Condition 11has been discredited Parish Council and is no longer valid. The condition should not just be deleted, but should be rephrased to specify a limit on the noise produced by the turbine. If not, future turbines could be situated closer to the village and cause nuisance. A precedent should not be set.

Agenda Item 12 Page 99

Neighbours Objection 4 Sandhouse cottages, The Sandhouse Cottage, 21 Reach lane • Insufficient clarity regarding the expected noise levels with Condition 11. • No justification to remove the condition. • Justification has not been adequately explained for the public to adequately comment on. • Removal of condition does not protect the public or environmental interests against noise. • Proposal would negatively impact on quality of family's life. • Previous permission should be reviewed in its entirerity. • New houses planned east of Leighton Buzzard would be negatively impact by noise.

Consultations/Publicity Responses Site Notice date : 03/07/13 Press Notice Date : 23/06/13 Public Protection Detailed comments submitted by the Council's Environmental Consultant are contained in the MAS Report objecting to the application unless an alternative condition is attached as set out in Appendix A of the report.

The summary of the response to the applicant's submission is covered from paragraph 5.0 of the MAS report.

Tree and Landscape No comments Officer Ecologist No comments Minerals and Waste No objection Conservation No objection Archaeology The proposal to remove Condition 11 from this planning permission will not materially alter the impact of the development on archaeological remains or on the significance of the heritage asset with archaeological interest. Therefore, I have no objection to this application on archaeological grounds.

Other Local Authorities

Milton Keynes Council No objections but advises that the local residents's views should be considered. Luton Borough Council No objections.

Agenda Item 12 Page 100

Aviation

Ministry of Defence – No comments received. Wind Energy London Luton Airport No safeguarding objection.

Other consultees

BBC Reception Advice Arqiva is responsible for providing the BBC and ITV's transmission network and is responsible for ensuring the integrity of Re-Broadcast Links, and also protect its microwave networks. We have considered whether this development is likely to have an adverse affect on our operations and have concluded that we have no objection to this application. Network Rail No objections English Heritage The application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of the Council's specialist conservation advice. CPRE Bedfordshire Objection: CPRE Bedfordshire objected to this turbine installation essentially from the standpoint of its impact on the surrounding landscape. We did not raise noise impact issues at the time because we saw that as something that could be dealt with under Conditions, which is exactly what your Council has sought to do via Condition 11. Given the massive intrusion this installation will create into its landscape surroundings, it is all the more important that the Conditions under which permission has been granted are not weakened in respect of any other of its environmental impacts. The applicant claims that research by Salford University into EAM is inconclusive as to its causation, and that since the research indicated that EAM might be an issue at only 4 – possibly 8 – of the 133 sites examined, it is statistically highly unlikely to arise at Double Arches. One has to ask the obvious question, namely why, if it is so unlikely, is the applicant so anxious to have the Condition removed? We note, in fact, that the Salford research has been subsequently re-interpreted, and that this re-interpretation indicates that EAM could potentially be an issue at 25% of the sites examined. Perhaps this is why the applicant, 2 years after the Condition was first imposed, is suddenly concerned to secure its removal. The applicant refers to the VOC decision in the Marston Mortaine case, and the various Appeal decisions referred to in considering that matter. The applicant suggests that the decision on Marston Mortaine to allow the removal of a Condition similar to that at Double Arches strongly supports his claim that the Condition at Double Arches should also be removed. However, we note the evidence by MAS Environmental, referred to in the Marston Agenda Item 12 Page 101

Mortaine case, that turbine height is one of the factors that could be involved in the causation of EAM. At Marston Mortaine, the height of the turbine proposed is 120m base-to-tip – at Double Arches it is 149m. This is not only very considerably higher, it is a height at which there is as yet hardly any actual experience of noise impacts – specifically EAM – anywhere in this country. Indeed, we believe that in a land-based environment there is very little experience with turbines of this height in other countries either. For the above reasons, we consider that Condition 11 is of particular relevance and importance at Double Arches, and that the application for its removal should be refused. If EAM proves not to be a problem at Double Arches, the applicant has nothing to worry about – but if EAM does prove to be a problem, then Condition 11 ensures that the operator must do something about it.

Chilterns Conservation No comments. The Board recommends that the decision- Board maker takes into account the following: • The Chilterns AONB Management Plan • The Chilterns Buildings Design Guide and Supplementary Technical Notes on Chilterns Building Materials (Flint, Brick and Roofing Materials) • The Environmental Guidelines for the Management of Highways in the Chilterns

• The Board’s Position Statement on Development Affecting the Setting of the Chilterns AONB

Highways Agency No objection. Friends of the Earth South Bedfordshire Friends of the Earth are writing to support the application CB/13/0237 to remove condition 11 concerning AM for the wind turbine at Double Arches Quarry, as there does not appear to be any justification for the condition according to many recent Inspector’s reports on planning appeals on wind turbines including the appeal that CBC lost on Biggleswade wind farm, and according the recent good practice published by the Institute of Acoustics. Indeed this condition could make the operation of a wind turbine impossible even though it completely fulfilled the government guidelines on noise. The government guidance is fairly clear that it does not support this type of condition. The Government has recently, this May 2013, endorsed the “Good Practice Guidance to the application of ETSU R-97 for the assessment and rating of wind turbine noise” published Agenda Item 12 Page 102 by the Institute of Acoustics. This good practice guide which was peer reviewed was produced with considerable work following the report from Hayes Mackenzie. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/ attachment_data/file/201013/130520_Institute_of_Acousti cs.pdf “ A GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF ETSU-R-97 FOR THE ASSESSMENT AND RATING OF WIND TURBINE NOISE” states that “7.2 Amplitude Modulation 7.2.1 The evidence in relation to “Excess” or “Other” Amplitude Modulation (AM) is still developing. At the time of writing, current practice is not to assign a planning condition to deal with AM.” This should be a fairly unambiguous reason for granting approval. However considering the views of councillors of CBC on wind turbines and their reluctance to believe that their planning decisions on renewable energy need to be in accordance with government policy, there is also a long line of decisions of Planning Inspectors who did not agree with this condition and did not allow it and did not think that this condition fulfills the necessary requirements of a condition. This condition was proposed by Mike Stigwood of MAS Consulting , who has been employed by Central Bedfordshire Council. His evidence for Central Bedfordshire Council on the Biggleswade wind farm did not persuade the Inspector who said “However, although the Council’s acoustic witness contended that there was general acceptance that EAM occurred at 10-16% of wind farms nationally, no cogent evidence was advanced to support that figure. A study by the University of Salford in 2007 considered that AM could be a factor in 4 of the 133 wind farms then operational in the UK and a possible factor in another 8. It concluded that the incidence of AM in the UK was low. Even taking account of the Council’s acoustics witness’ criticism that the study may have underestimated the incidence of the phenomenon, and his assessments at certain wind farm sites, there is no real challenge to that conclusion. Importantly too the Government have seen no reason to change advice in PPS22 on using the ETSU methodology in response to the Salford report. Nor is there any evident reason why the appeal site should be particularly prone to EAM. Although it was suggested that it was likely to be common in flat eastern parts of the country and could be exacerbated by wind Agenda Item 12 Page 103 shear and linear layout or particular spacing of turbines, these assertions were not supported by evidence. And although the proposed layout does indeed include two separate lines of three turbines this does not appear to me to really constitute a linear layout in any real sense. As I am not convinced that there is a real possibility of EAM at the site I consider that the Council’s suggested condition to control it does not pass the test of necessity in Circular 11/95. If there is no clear need for it, it cannot be justified on a precautionary basis or because to impose it would “cause no harm”; nor do parallels drawn with the Den Brook case advance the argument appreciably. I also have doubts as to whether such a condition would meet the Circular tests of enforceability and precision in that, despite what the Council’s acoustics witness said about being able to identify EAM and distinguish it from other noise, this would appear to depend so heavily upon individual judgement as to render the approach unsafe.” I think that the fact the Inspector draws attention to the issue that “ Importantly too the Government have seen no reason to change advice in PPS22 on using the ETSU methodology in response to the Salford report” is followed by the unequivocal comment in the latest good practice published by IOA this May endorsed by the government, that current practice is not to assign a planning condition to AM, seems to indicate that this condition is not sound and would not be supported in an Appeal . However if this is not completely clear; for although Mike Stigwood was shown to be a lonely voice in the Acoustics world in the BIggleswade Wind Farm Public Inquiry and his work has had little in the way of peer review, he is passionate about his subject and the length of his submissions have suggested to some that his concerns about wind turbines should be listened to and public money should be spent supporting them, there are some other points that illustrate why this condition should be removed and his evidence should not be given weight. In the Forest Marston Vale wind turbine application, APPLICATION NUMBER CB/12/00718/VOC, the officer for CBC stated concerning the condition on AM. “Given that the condition does not meet all the tests set out in Circular 11/95, it is considered that it may be unlawful and therefore the application should be approved and the condition removed.” This is after the several pages of detailed analysis of the subject of AM by the officer for CBC. The Inspectors in Cotton Farm, St Neots, Wadlow, Barmoor, Sober Hill, Greenrigg/Ray and Crook Hill appeals have rejected the EAM condition. In the Watford Lodge Inquiry[APP/Y2810/A/11/2153242] Agenda Item 12 Page 104

the Inspector concluded that ‘a great deal of confusion and fruitless effort would be likely to arise from the use of the EAM condition suggested’ and that the suggested condition would be likely to fail the Circular 11/95 tests of necessity, enforceability and precision’. His final observation at paragraph 99 was that ‘in any event, there would be other means of approaching the problem, should it arise, through statutory nuisance legislation’. The condition on AM in Denbrook could be removed as RES has put in an application in April this year to remove it , http://www.den-brook.co.uk/news.aspx and http://www.westdevon.gov.uk/article/4504/Denbrook- Wind-Farm-Development . Since the Court of Appeal ruling, RES has spent several months monitoring background noise levels at other rural wind farm sites and running the data through the parameters set by the High Court. The results of these tests consistently show that excess AM, as defined by the current condition, is present even at locations where there are no wind turbines. RES likens this situation to a policeman registering speeding motorists on his speed gun even when there are no cars there. This is backed up the report in the Acoustics Bulletin on the Den Brook Condition which is part of this application We believe that application should be approved and the condition removed as soon as possible otherwise it becomes increasingly difficult to understand the link between the actions of CBC and the NPPF’s paragraph .” Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, In line with Climate Change Act”. To help increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources. They should have a positive strategy to promote energy from renewable and low carbon sources. We would hope that the decisions of Development Management would reflect the NPPF and therefore we would urge CBC to support this application.

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are; 1. Principle of the development 2. Residential amenity 3. Whether condition 11 meets the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 11/95

4. Other matters

Agenda Item 12 Page 105

Considerations

1. Principle of the development The principle of the development was established with the grant of planning permission which forms the subject of this application to remove a condition regulating EAM noise, reference CB/10/03034. Section 73 of the Act provides for applications for planning permission to develop land without complying with conditions previously imposed on a planning permission. The local planning authority can grant such permission unconditionally or subject to different conditions, or they can refuse the application if they decide the original conditions should continue. The original planning permission will continue to subsist whatever the outcome of the application under section 73. (Paragraph 60,Circular 11/95). In determining such an application under section 73, the decision maker should take into account any changes in circumstances since the parent permission was issued. In this case, since the grant of permission in 2010, the following documents have been published which are considered to be material changes in circumstances : • National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which came into force on the 27th March 2012. • the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire (DSCB) went out to public consultation in January 2013. • Central Bedfordshire Renewable Energy Guidance (2013). • the publication by the Government in July 2013 of the Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy.

The NPPF carries a presumption in favour of developments for renewable energy and states that in order ' to help increase the use and supply of renewable energy and low carbon energy, local planning authorities should recognise the responsibility on all communities to contribute to energy generation from renewable or low carbon sources'.(paragraph 97). Further advice at Paragraph 98 states that 'when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should,' ...approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable.' This approach is followed in Policy 46 of the DSCB . All the other matters considered in the previous application regarding landscape character, aviation, cultural and archaeological considerations, ecology, hydrology, geology, flood risk, contamination, traffic generation, telecommunications and the impact on public rights of way, remain relevant but there would be no justification to re-examine them in the current application given that none of the consultees and interested parties have raised new issues which call for a fresh examination of these matters. Furthermore, the previous permission is extant and hence provides a fallback position in the event of a refusal to grant permission. The main issue for consideration in this application therefore is the impact of EAM noise on residential amenity and whether or not a condition to mitigate its effects would be lawful. This will be examined in detail below.

2. The effect on the residential amenity of nearby residents with respect to noise impact The main properties which might be affected by the proposal are Overend Green Farm, Checkley Wood Farm, Churchways Farm, Sandhouse Cottages and Sandhouse Farm.

The main consideration relates to the impact of EAM on residential amenity and as such, it is imperative to examine what the term Excess Amplitude Agenda Item 12 Page 106

Modulation (EAM) means. Various appeal decisions have helped shed light on this phenomenon.

Excess Amplitude Modulation (EAM) is commonly referred to as blade swish. It would involve the control of noise that might occur over and above the normal level of blade swish noise. In allowing an appeal in relation to the Langford Wind Farm development, the Inspector stated that 'Amplitude Modulation (AM) or "blade swish" is an aspect of the aerodynamic noise from wind turbines that can be particularly noticeable or insistent but which is still not fully understood'.

The companion guide to the former PPS22 states in paragraph 42 that ' there are two quite distinct types of noise source within a wind turbine. The mechanical noise produced by the gearbox, generator and other parts of the drive train; and the aerodynamic noise produced by the passage of the blades through the air' . The paragraph concludes by saying ' Aerodynamic noise from wind turbines is generally unobtrusive - it is broad-band in nature and in this respect is similar to, for example, the noise of wind in trees'.

It is common knowledge that there have been instances at some wind farms of reported noise characteristics which could not be attributed to normal blade swish. The Government commissioned a study into the phenomenon which was undertaken by the University of Salford and the findings were published in 2007. The research suggested a relatively low incidence of occurrences (evident in 4 and possibly another 8 sites out of a total of 133), however, these findings were based on descriptions of noise characteristics and later re-interpretation of the data suggested that the incidence might be as high as 25%. Whilst several potential causes have been identified, despite the research undertaken by Salford University, there remains no consensus as to the trigger for excess amplitude modulation. The Appeal in relation to Land at Cotton Farm, St Neots which was allowed by the Inspector states that 'Based on the findings of low incidence and the number of people affected being small, the Government's view is that there is not a compelling case for more work on AM and that the minimisation of increases in noise through the use of ETSU-R-97 remains appropriate. Various factors are considered to be possible causes of excess AM these include - squat turbine designs, linear turbine arrangements, turbines too closely spaced together, high levels of wind shear, reflective surfaces close to the receiver, topography, distance from dwellings, wind direction and background noise levels.

It can be seen from the information above that there is little agreement over the causes of excess amplitude modulation and given the University of Salford's research it is considered that the incidence of it occurring is relatively low even taking into account that although after re-interpretation this increased to potentially 25% of the 133 sites that were examined.

The applicant’s reasons for seeking the removal of the condition are based mainly on this background and the main arguments are summarised below :

It is contended that the condition is unlawful for the following reasons : Agenda Item 12 Page 107

• Based on Dr Andy Mckenzie’s technical analysis, it is submitted that the condition is untested as a means of regulating amplitude modulation and in any case, is not based on any published research. • The wording of Condition 11 is based on that submitted by the Den Brook Judicial review Group at the second Denbrook Inquiry and subsequently incorporated into the decision notice issued by the Inspector in allowing the appeal. [APP/Q1153/A/06/2017162]. It is understood that this condition was formulated by the consultant advising the Den Brook Judicial Review Group based upon his own appreciation of listening to and recording of wind farm noise at other sites. It is not based on consideration of any dose –response relationship or other research, published or otherwise and has not been incorporated into any appeal decisions thereafter. It is therefore essentially untested as a means of regulating amplitude modulation by anyone other than its proposer and on that basis, it is not justified as a means to regulate amplitude modulation at Double Arches. • The condition means that the level of variation in noise from the wind farm may not exceed 3dB which is generally held to be the change in level which is the minimum perceptible under normal conditions as required by PPG24, Planning and Noise, before it was withdrawn. It also corresponds to a level of variation corresponding to normal variation in noise propagation conditions completely independent of any variation in turbine noise at source. • Several appeal decisions used to support Dr Mckenzie’s analysis confirm that similar conditions submitted at public inquiries have been rejected by Planning Inspectors on the basis that they would fail the test of necessity in Circular 11/95. • Research undertaken Renewable Energy Systems and published in the Institute of Acoustics Bulletin (Vol 36, No.6 subsequently corrected in Vol.37, No.1) investigated the methodology of the Den Brook condition using real measured data to assess its performance. It was established that the condition would be breached by natural variation in noise propagation conditions, and the variation in noise from other sources. The paper established greater than expected amplitude modulation for 67-83% of the time where it was applied to ambient noise measurements at two rural locations with no wind turbines installed. Clearly, if compliance with a planning condition cannot be achieved before the development is even carried out, it cannot pass the tests of ‘enforceability’ or ‘reasonableness’. • EAM has only been identified at a small number of sites across the UK. A report commissioned by DEFRA, BERR(formerly DTI) and the CLG to investigate AM of wind turbine noise found that AM was only considered to be a factor at four, and at a possible further eight of the 133 operational sites at the time. At the four sites, it was considered that conditions associated with AM might occur between about 7 and 15% of the time. It is therefore statistically highly unlikely that EAM would be an issue at Double Arches. The EAM condition is therefore neither necessary nor reasonable . • There is currently no consensus on a robust assessment methodology for detecting EAM. It is therefore currently not possible to craft a condition which includes a robust and tested means of determining the presence of EAM which would meet the tests of precision and enforceability . Indeed, given the findings of the RES research which Agenda Item 12 Page 108

established that the Den Brook condition is breached even without any turbines installed, gives weight to this argument. • The EIA did not establish the need for such a condition. It would be inappropriate to apply the precautionary principle unless there is objective scientific evidence to demonstrate that there is a real risk of EAM occurring on the application site. Condition 11 is therefore unnecessary, unreasonable, imprecise and unenforceable , and therefore outside of Circular 11/95 and unlawful. • A report for the CBC Committee submitted in respect of the Marston Vale development confirmed that such a condition is unlawful. • The recently published Institute of Acoustics Good Practise Guide to the Application of ETSU-R-97 for the Assessment and Rating of Wind Turbine Noise notes that ‘the evidence in relation to ‘Excess’ or ‘Other’ Amplitude Modulation (AM) is still developing. At the time of writing, current practice is not to assign a planning condition to deal with AM’. Excess or Other AM is often used to identify the occurrence of AM in ways not anticipated by ESTU-R-97. • A condition such as this is not only very onerous for an operator, but is not justified by the likely corresponding subjective response and would be likely to prevent the operation of any wind farm in practice. Contract report NANR277 for DEFRA, Wind Farm Noise Statutory Nuisance Complaint Methodology notes that not only is it ‘not simple or easy to implement’ but ‘it does not represent a validated method of assessing the significance of any impact or effect on amenity’. • A variation of this condition was submitted to the conjoined Inquiry into two wind farms at Spaldington Common and Spaldington Airfield [APP/E2001/A/10/2137617] and [APP/E2001/A/10/2139965] where the Inspector concluded that, ‘whilst both these schemes would display some of the characteristics thought to be associated with EAM, the current situation can be summed up as, there is no agreement over what the cause of the phenomenon is, there is no agreement what the level of risk is in relation to any one particular wind farm and there is no agreement how to measure it. Here the evidence does not suggest that the sites pose any greater risk of EAM so as to adopt an approach that differs from ETSU. Moreover, where such an approach has been taken, I am aware of the problems that have arisen in attempting to construct appropriate conditions.Moreover, it would appear that the conditions suggested by STOP [the 3rd Party action group] could lead to some sounds being identified as EAM when in fact it comes from a source that would be generally regarded as innocuous. These factors lead me to the conclusion that such conditions, and the STOP conditions in particular, would fail the tests in Circular 11/95. • A similar condition was submitted to the Watford Lodge Inquiry [APP/Y281/A/11/2153242] where the Inspector concluded that, ‘a great deal of confusion and fruitless effort would likely to arise from the use of the EAM condition suggested’ and that ‘the suggested condition would be likely to fail the circular 11/95 tests of necessity, enforceability and precision’. His final observation at paragraph 99 was that ‘in any event, there would be other means of approaching the problem, should it arise, through statutory nuisance’. • The latest position on AM as considered in appeal cases, is that from Batsworthy Cross [APP/X1118/A/11/2162070], where the Inspector considered that a condition could not be tailored to tackle ‘Other’ AM because of current lack of knowledge. He concluded that, because of Agenda Item 12 Page 109

this, ’whilst not an ideal solution, reliance on the statutory nuisance regime offers the best recourse available to local residents, should OAM be found to occur’. • The MAS report relies upon new evidence that is not yet published nor peer reviewed. Indeed MAS confirm that the papers that back up their case are not to be published until 28th August. Even after publication, these papers should be subject to full professional peer review before being relied upon to inform planning decisions. • Despite the length and wide ranging opinions in the MAS report, Mr Stigwood does not demonstrate the actual need and necessity for this condition or for the alternative condition he proposes for Double Arches other than to cite his forthcoming paper and examples where he believes EAM may have occurred. • Therefore nothing has changed since June 2012 when Central Bedfordshire Planners recommended that the same condition be removed at the Marston Vale with the Officer’s recommendation concluding 'Given that the condition does not meet all the tests set out in Circular 11/95, it is considered that it may be unlawful and therefore the application should be approved and the condition removed’ (Ref: Officers Conclusion Page 16).

The Council’s Environmental Consultant’s (MAS) observation on the application

The Consultant states that arguments for removal of the condition are based on a letter of 12th June from Engena and a report by Dr McKenzie of the Hayes McKenzie partnership of 4th June 2013. Both are based on extensive misconceptions about EAM.

It has become increasingly clear that all modern large wind farms cause EAM, including single turbines and that it is the main cause of complaints post development. Whether the problem arises on a regular basis or in a Substantial way depends whether dwellings occur at noise hot spots. There has been a concerted effort by the industry and their representatives to prevent this becoming well understood and also to prevent controls as these then expose the problem and enable constraints that protect communities.

As a result of the industry efforts to introduce confusion and obfuscation to enable developments to continue without control at MAS Environmental we extended our research and as a result have established with much greater clarity the extent of the problem. The findings are being presented in an international paper in August 2013.

Evidence is now coming to light of potential health effects from modern turbines, identified first in the 1980s from a 3 year study but only recently re- discovered. These indicate possible problems which the EAM condition helps control.

Summary responses to the application arguments by the Council’s Environmental Consultant (MAS).

At paragraph 5.0 the Consultant summarises his advice to the Council by providing a direct response to the applicant’s submission. The applicant’s Agenda Item 12 Page 110 arguments are presented in italics with the Consultant’s response following immediately below. • The condition is only based on one individuals appreciation of listening to wind farm noise at other sites and not any dose-response relationships or other research. This is incorrect and baseless. Dr McKenzie has no information to support such statements which are untrue. Findings are based on complaints correlated with impact levels, a report by Hayes McKenzie confirming levels of 2-6dB as unacceptable, extensive work in Europe and elsewhere demonstrating similar levels, separate investigations by three experts at MAS Environmental and a series of listening room tests where people have been subjected to EAM. • The condition is untested. This is untrue. The condition has been tested by us on data from at least 15 wind farms and was independently checked by the Renewable Energy Foundation. • Planning Inspectors have concluded the condition does not meet the test of necessity. This is primarily based on a 2007 report by Salford University. This is correct but ALL those decisions were based on the now discredited Salford Report commissioned by BERR. If the Salford findings were remotely correct there would be an argument the control is not necessary. The Salford study was deeply flawed on many levels including the investigation techniques applied and the number of cases of EAM it missed. No planning inspector has been presented with the recent findings which now indicate at least 80 onshore wind farms causing EAM at dwellings and the true figure likely to be 140 plus. • EAM is only experienced at a small number of sites (4 out of 133). This is based on the discredited Salford report to BERR and now known to be woefully inaccurate. We have data showing EAM at 16 sites and evidence it is the cause of complaints at over 80 sites. • The condition is breached by natural variation in noise and ambient noise even when no wind turbines are installed. Innocuous sounds could trigger the condition. This is untrue and the statements derive from a basic failure to understand how noise level controls work or alternatively they could derive from deliberately misrepresenting the condition. The condition levels only apply to emissions from the wind turbine. Thus it cannot be triggered by other noise as it does not apply to other noise. The condition states "The wind turbine shall not emit ". This is very clear that it does not state the noise level in the environment shall not exceed the parameters. To demonstrate how easy this is to check we are providing a simple means of testing the condition with real data and full explanation on our website. This will be live within 10 days of this report. The fact that ambient noise levels can exceed the decibel limits set is true of every noise limit condition ever applied to any environmental source of noise. Many will exceed the limits 100% of the time. That does not render them unenforceable or unreasonable. In many cases conditions set levels below the background noise level and they are exceeded all the time by extraneous noise. This has long been understood and there are detailed procedures to deal with this. The fact the industry acousticians were able to convince inspectors this is a problem reflects on how those acousticians have successfully misled inspectors. If the argument was remotely valid then we have no means of controlling noise as the alleged problem would apply to all conditions. Of all the noise level conditions that are applied, the EAM condition used in this case is the hardest to falsely trigger Agenda Item 12 Page 111 and easiest to remove extraneous noise from or differentiate EAM within. • There is no consensus on a robust assessment methodology. Wind industry acousticians will not agree an assessment methodology. That has proved a very successful method of avoiding this control which had it been applied to the 80 or so wind farms causing this problem that we know of, residents could have been provided some respite. The lack of agreement serves as a mechanism of avoiding control. The creation of disagreement and arguments of problems is a "smokescreen" and obfuscation. • Current practice of planning inspectors has been not to impose conditions. This is correct due to the successful misinformation by industry acousticians, reliance on a discredited report by Salford University for BERR and fallacious arguments. • The 3dB change identified as the measure is the minimum perceptible. This is incorrect and misrepresents the science. If the character of a noise does not change but its energy level changes 3dB then in most circumstances it is not significantly noticeable but that is not what happens here and Dr McKenzie should be aware of this. Turn the volume up of white noise (hissing on a radio) and 3dB is the point of noticeable change. However, in the case of EAM the character is changing significantly all the time and it is clearly noticeable with smaller changes than 3dB. This can be seen by examining extracts provided on our website and considered in more detail below. To demonstrate this is possible, it is useful to consider how the courts have assessed this issue. They have confirmed in the case of Godfrey v Conwy CBC that a noise could be immeasurable and still cause a statutory nuisance, provided it was incongruous and out of character with the soundscape of the area. If you cannot measure a noise then you certainly could not measure any change in that noise. The noise in the Godfrey case was changing music noise such as drum beats. This point arises because its character can change causing unacceptable impact without any recordable decibel change that is recordable as a change. • The Courts who upheld the condition were not concerned with its technical merits.

This is incorrect as I have demonstrated and there is evidence the court did consider the reasoning of the inspector on technical content. Further it is reasonable for the court to conclude any technical issue would or should have been raised by any party if it considered such an issue existed. None were raised by any party. If every decision of the courts could be undermined simply by raising a new issue not previously considered relevant to put before the court at the time then we would not be able to rely on the decisions of the court. This is a case where the Court of Appeal upheld the conditions and there was no argument the technical wording was flawed or created an unreasonable requirement. On the technical evidence the court did not challenge or consider there was any fault with the rationale of the inspector in applying the controls. • The condition is very onerous for the operator and not justified by the likely corresponding subjective response and will likely prevent the operation of the wind farm in practice. On the one hand it is claimed the occurrence of EAM is rare and control is not necessary and then in the same application it is claimed controls over EAM would be very onerous and not justified by the subjective response. Thus there is both acceptance EAM is likely to occur (contrary to the application) and then a claim people would not be adversely affected by it. No evidence people are accepting of such a level of EAM is provided and Dr McKenzie Agenda Item 12 Page 112 does not use any research to support his argument. It is instructive that the levels exceed those identified by ETSU-R-97 and those identified by Malcolm Hayes (Dr McKenzie's business partner) in his report to the then DTI in 2006 where he identified AM levels of 2-3dB as exceeding those identified by ETSU-R-97 and warranting a decibel penalty. It is also instructive that Dr McKenzie does not refer to the work by his business partner that contradicts his own assertions or their report on Kessingland which indicates levels in excess of those identified by ETSU-R-97 warrant action investigation / action. • Statutory Nuisance can be used to address the problem should it arise. There are clear reasons why this is inappropriate, not least the significant differences between planning controls and limitations on nuisance action. If it was arguable then we need few controls over noise from development as statutory nuisance is a legitimate fallback in almost every case of noisy development. This is not how noise is administered demonstrating the disparity in this argument. Statutory nuisance is my main area of expertise. It has thus far failed to address the problems in every wind farm case arising that I have come across. Even ETSU-R-97 points out the defences that can be used against a statutory nuisance action indicating its inability to address the problems.

MAS Conclusions For the extensive reasons given in the report, it is necessary to control EAM from any wind farm as it is the most common noise problem leading to a large number of complaints in the UK.

The EAM condition applied has been repeatedly tested without difficulty and arguments over problems are simply obfuscation albeit successful prior to us demonstrating robustly the condition works and EAM control is necessary. Information is provided on our website to allow anyone to test the condition for themselves and experience the levels of EAM that would be prevented.

The condition is based on extensive research, comparison with complaints and social studies as well as existing controls / limits of acceptability already identified. An amended version is attached which improves controls.

There is widespread wind industry opposition and a lack of consensus which appears to be a mechanism thus far successfully avoiding control. Statutory nuisance controls are demonstrated as inappropriate and have defences rendering enforcement ineffectual.

If the controls (devised to allow approval) are rejected then refusal is recommended as this is a very serious problem.

Suggested revised condition by MAS: The wind turbine shall not emit greater than expected amplitude modulation. Amplitude modulation is the modulation of the level of broadband noise emitted by a turbine at blade passing frequency. These will be deemed greater than expected if the following characteristics apply: a) A change in the measured L Aeq 100 milliseconds turbine noise level of more than 3dB (represented as a rise and fall in sound energy levels each of more than 3dB) occurring within a 2 second period. b) The change identified in (a) above shall not occur less than 5 times in any one minute period provided that the L Aeq, 1 minute turbine sound energy level for Agenda Item 12 Page 113 that minute is not below 28dB. c) The changes identified in (a) and (b) above shall not occur for fewer than 6 minutes in any hour. Noise emissions at the complainant’s dwellings shall be measured not further than 35m from the relevant dwelling building, and not closer than 3.5m of any reflective building or surface other than the ground, or within 1.2m of the ground. i) Within 21 days from receipt of a written request of the Local Planning Authority, following a complaint to it alleging noise disturbance at a dwelling which relates to amplitude modulation, the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority, to assess whether there is greater than expected amplitude modulation from the wind farm at the complainant’s property. The written request from the Local Planning Authority shall set out at least the date, time and location that the complaint relates to.

Within 14 days of receipt of the written request of the Local Planning Authority made under this condition, the wind farm operator shall provide the information logged in accordance with this co ndition to the Local Planning Authority in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e). ii) Prior to the commencement of any measurements by the independent consultant to be undertaken in accordance with this condition, the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval the proposed measurement location identified. Measurements to assess compliance with the noise limit of this condition shall be undertaken at the measurement location or locations approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. iii) Prior to the submission of the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise emissions in accordance with the requirements of this condition, the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval a proposed assessment protocol setting out the range of meteorological and operational conditions (which shall include the range of wind speeds, wind directions, power generation and times of day) to determine the assessment of rating level of noise emissions. iv) The proposed range of conditions shall be those which prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise, or are identified as causing greater than expected amplitude modulation, having regard to the written request of the Local Planning Authority, and such other conditions as the independent consultant considers likely to result in a breach of the noise limits. The assessment of the noise emissions shall be undertaken in accordance with the assessment protocol approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. v) The wind farm operator shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the independent consultant’s assessment of greater than expected amplitude modulation within 2 months of the date of the written request of the Local Planning Authority unless the time limit is extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be provided in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) of the Guidance Notes. The instrumentation used to undertake the measurements shall be calibrated in accordance with Guidance Note 1(a) and certificates of calibration shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority with the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise emissions. vi) The wind farm operator shall continuously log power production, nacelle Agenda Item 12 Page 114 wind speed, nacelle wind direction and nacelle orientation at the wind turbine all in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d). 10m height wind speeds averaged over 10 minute periods shall be measured at a location approved by the Local Planning Authority for comparison with noise levels, for the duration of the noise level compliance check survey. Rainfall shall also be measured during any measurement regime at a location approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. These data obtained shall be retained for the life of the planning permission. The wind farm operator shall provide this information in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) to the Local Planning Authority on its request, within 14 days of receipt in writing of such a request. Once the Local Planning Authority has received the independent consultant’s noise assessment required by this condition, including all noise measurements and audio recordings, where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of an established breach of the noise limit, upon notification by the Local Planning Authority in writing to the wind farm operator of the said breach, the wind farm operator shall within 14 days propose a scheme for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be designed to mitigate the breach and to prevent its future recurrence. This scheme shall specify the timescales for implementation. The scheme shall be implemented as reasonably approved by the Local Planning Authority and according to the timescales within it. The scheme as implemented shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

Guidance Note in relation to EAM condition (this is part of the condition) Amplitude Modulation (AM) is the regular variation of the broadband aerodynamic noise caused by the passage of the blades through the air at the rate at which the blades pass the turbine tower.

Where the Local Planning Authority considers the level of AM may be at a level exceeding that envisaged by the condition, they may require the operator to appoint an approved independent consultant to carry out an assessment of this feature under this condition. In such circumstances, the sound level meter provided for assessment should include a switchable noise recording system which can be activated by the complainant, the independent consultant appointed by the operator or the Local Planning Authority. The independent consultant shall initiate recordings of the turbine noise at times and locations when significant amplitude modulation is considered to occur. Such recordings shall allow for analysis of the noise in decibels using one- third octave bands from 20 Hz up to 10kHz at intervals of 100ms. It shall also record audio at a standard of not less than 16 bit, 44KHz rate.

Whether condition 11 meets the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Circular 11/95?

The National Planning Policy Framework states in paragraph 206 that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. This guidance reflects the advice set out in Circular 11/95.

Circular 11/95 sets out that there are six tests for conditions, as a matter of policy the Circular states that conditions should only be imposed where they satisfy all of the tests. The tests are discussed in detail within paragraphs 14- Agenda Item 12 Page 115

42 of the Circular. These explain that conditions should be: i) necessary - the guidance is that Local Planning Authorities in considering whether a particular condition is necessary, should ask themselves whether planning permission would have to be refused if that condition were not to be imposed. ii) relevant to planning - the guidance is that conditions should be relevant to planning, any condition which has no relevance to planning is ultra vires. Guidance also states in paragraph 22 that other matters are subject to control under separate legislation and a condition which duplicates the effect of other controls will normally be unnecessary. iii) relevant to the development permitted - a condition must fairly and reasonably relate to the development permitted. If it is not considered to relate to the development permitted it is considered ultra vires. iv) enforceable - the guidance states that a condition should not be imposed if it cannot be enforced. There are two aspects of this, the practicality of enforcement and whether compliance is reasonable. In terms of the practicality of enforcement, this relates to whether it is possible to detect a contravention and prove a breach of its requirements. In terms of whether compliance is reasonable, in applying a condition it is necessary to consider whether the person carrying out the development can reasonably be expected to comply with it. v) precise - a condition must be worded so that it is precise in terms of being able to ensure that a condition is enforceable and also to ascertain what must be done to comply with it. vi) reasonable - a condition may be unreasonable even though it may be precisely worded and apparently within the powers available. It may be unreasonable because it is unduly restrictive or so onerous that as a matter of policy it should be avoided. As set out above conditions should only be imposed on the grant of planning permission if they meet all six of the tests set out. Therefore, in applying a condition and similarly in assessing whether a condition should be removed, it is necessary to consider whether it is necessary, relevant to planning, relevant to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other aspects. The guidance is very clearly set out in Circular 11/95 in that in applying a condition or assessing whether it should be removed authorities should ask themselves whether planning permission would have to be refused if that condition were not imposed. The argument that a condition will do no harm is no justification for its imposition; as a matter of policy a condition ought not to be imposed unless there is a definite need for it.

In this case, it is imperative to note the requirement at Paragraph 15 of Circular 11/95 which states that , ' The same principles, of course, must be applied in dealing with applications for the removal of a condition under section 73 or section 73A (of the Act): a condition should not be retained unless there are sound and clear-cut reasons for doing so.'

The following section therefore turns on to an assessment of Condition 11 in light of the above tests and against the evidence submitted for and against the application.

Agenda Item 12 Page 116

Conclusion In addition to the appeal decisions cited by the applicant, a recent decision at Land To The North Of Edworth Road, Langford, reference, MB/09/00118/FULL is considered relevant. During the Public Inquiry evidence was presented by MAS Environmental on a number of noise issues in relation to the application. One of these included the need for a EAM condition. MAS Environmental raised concerns at the Inquiry and during the application process that there is a particular risk of EAM at Langford and that if the appeal proposal were approved it should be controlled by condition. The Inspector's decision discussed this in detail in paragraph 56 of his decision stating that 'although the Council's acoustic witness contended that there was a general acceptance that EAM occurred at 10-16% of wind farms nationally, no cogent evidence was advanced to support that figure'. The Inspector goes on to emphasis that there is not any real evident reason why the appeal site should be particularly prone to EAM. MAS Environmental suggested it was likely to be common in flat eastern parts of the country and could be exacerbated by wind shear and linear layout or particularly spacing of turbines. The Inspector states that the assertions made by the Council's witness were not supported by evidence.

The Inspector in this case concludes that 'as I am not convinced that there is a real possibility of EAM at the site I consider that the Council's suggested condition to control it does not pass the test of necessity in Circular 11/95. If there is no clear need for it, it cannot be justified on a precautionary basis or because to impose it would "cause no harm"...I also have doubts as to whether the condition would meet the Circular tests of enforceability and precision in that, despite what the Council's acoustic witness said about being able to identify EAM and distinguish it from other noise, this would appear to depend so heavily upon individual judgment as to render the approach unsafe'.

The Woolley Hill decision was issued in March 2012. MAS Environmental point out in their response to the Council that there was no detailed discussion in relation to noise during the Inquiry and the issue only arose when noise conditions were discussed. The appeal was to consider the erection of 4 three bladed wind turbines, up to a height of 130.5m, at a site known as Land east of Whitleather Lodge, Woolley Hill, Ellington, Huntingdon. In the Inspectors decision it refers to the Salford University research and the re-interpretation of the data suggesting that the incidence might be as high as 25%.

The Inspector discussed the condition in detail and emphasises that the recognised guidance for wind farm noise assessment is ETSU-R-97 which accepts a certain level of increased noise at residential properties. It also anticipates an element of amplitude modulation which is widely claimed to be no longer adequate for modern, much larger turbines. However, it remains current guidance, endorsed by the Government, and there is nothing of material weight to supplement it or to replace it.

In terms of necessity, the Inspector emphasises that in line with Circular 11/95 a condition ought not to be imposed unless there is a definite need for it. The Inspector in this case rules that the likelihood of excess amplitude modulation manifesting itself cannot be predicted, and there is nothing to suggest that Woolley Hill would be particularly prone, or even likely, to such Agenda Item 12 Page 117 tendencies, the imposition of a condition cannot be claimed to be necessary in the sense of mitigating foreseeable impacts.

The Inspector continues by stating in paragraph 193 of the decision that 'none of these aspects, compounded by the lack of understanding on excess amplitude modulation, provide good reason for the imposition of a condition as a matter of routine or precaution. To my mind, on the basis of the evidence before me, the test of necessity has not been fully met'. The Inspector also states that the condition would be unreasonable, as there is no agreed methodology for measuring excess amplitude modulation, based on convincing research and therefore it would be unreasonable to impose a condition on such an uncertain basis.

The Inspector concludes the discussion on EAM by stating:

'In conclusion, despite the findings of the Inspector in the Den Brook case, the evidence presented to me does not provide convincing justification that an excess amplitude modulation condition would be necessary. In addition, such a condition, if imposed, would be unreasonable given the current limited knowledge and understanding of excess amplitude modulation and a lack of consensus beyond the guidance of ETSU-R-97.'

In the majority of appeal decisions before us, the Inspectors have noted that whilst they have misgivings, the Statutory Nuisance route open to Local Authorities is at present the best means currently available for resolving the phenomenon of EAM and not through condition.

It is concluded therefore that the two diametrically opposed views focusing on the process of measuring EAM and its impact on residential amenity confirm the absence of consensus in the wind energy industry about these matters. The absence of conclusive research and knowledge on these matters leaves the decision maker to rely on existing good practice guidance, previous planning decisions and the relevant planning policy framework which comprises the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. All other relevant documents cited in opposition or support of the current application have been considered material to the determination of the application and given weight in accordance with their relevance to the main issue. In the absence of any significant possibility of EAM occurring at the application site, it is not considered that the condition to control it would be justified in terms of necessity. In terms of its relevance to planning, the condition would also not be justified given that the matters can be controlled under separate legislation. Whilst the condition is considered relevant to the development permitted, it would not be enforceable as confirmed in the Langford appeal decision, notwithstanding the MAS report’s conclusion to the contrary. With regards the test of precision, given the recent appeal decisions and in particular, the Langford case, it would be difficult to justify the condition on this basis in the absence of certainty over methodology for identifying and measuring EAM and the subjectivity this introduces. The appeal decisions examined in this case clearly emphasise that an EAM condition would be unreasonable due to the uncertainty in methodology for measuring EAM and the lack of agreement over its causes and therefore the predictability of it occurring at any given site. For the same reasons, the revised condition offered by MAS would not be justified. It is considered that the new evidence referred to in the MAS report still needs to be tested and accepted. Agenda Item 12 Page 118

Furthermore, Condition 10 which relates to noise levels in particular would remain and afford adequate protection against noise to the local residents. Given that Condition 11 does not pass all the tests set out in Circular 11/95, it is considered that it may be unlawful and therefore should be removed.

3. Other matters

Objections It is considered that the objections raised have been adequately dealt with in the preceding sections of this report. However, with specific reference to the CPRE objection, the applicant has offered the following response :

Whilst we have noted in the documentation that the Excessive Amplitude Modulation (EAM) is statistically highly unlikely to arise at Double Arches, the reason for applying for the removal of the condition is because the condition cannot be enforced. As highlighted in the submission by Dr McKenzie the condition is essentially untested as a means for regulating EAM and is likely to be breached not only by natural variation in noise propagation conditions, but also by variation in noise from other sources. Dr McKenzie cited a test of the condition published in the IoA bulletin that demonstrated that the levels would be breached with no wind turbine installed . It is not possible to construct and operate a project where it is known that the condition would be breached. In our submission we have referenced Inspectors' conclusions on this issue, and it has consistently been found that this condition would fail the Circular 11/95 tests of necessity, enforceability and precision. With respect to the comments on turbine height, there is no evidence to suggest that turbine height is a factor that influences the occurrence of EAM. Indeed where EAM has been found it has been at sites with lower tip heights.

Human Rights issues Having regard to the level of opposition and support for the application, the proposed development raises significant human rights concerns. However, given the Council's conclusion that the removal of the condition would not significantly prejudice residential amenity weighed against the benefits of the scheme to the whole debate about mitigating the harmful effects of climate change, it is considered that a decision to withhold planning permission would be unjustified.

Equality Act 2010 The proposal raises no concerns about equality.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the following:

Agenda Item 12 Page 119

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

1 The development shall begin not later than three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The maximum height of the turbine hereby permitted, when measured from the turbine base to the blade tip in the vertical position, shall be no greater than 149 metres. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of visual amenity. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R & 43 DSCB)

3 No development shall take place until full details of the turbine, including make,model, design, power rating, sound power levels and tonal assessment have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the turbine is in accordance with the details submitted in the Environmental Statement and protect the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R and 43 DSCB)

4 No development shall take place until details of the external appearance and colour finishes of the turbine and details of the design, including samples of the external materials and the associated infrastructure hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter. Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the area. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R & 43 DSCB)

5 No development shall take place until a Construction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The CMS shall identify: i) Areas on site designated for the storage of heavy duty plant and equipment, including vehicles, and car parking facilities for construction site operatives and visitors; ii) Activities like earth moving, aggregate mixing, crushing, screening, and piling and on-site storage and transportation of raw material; iii) Working practices to control emissions of dust and mud arising from on-site activities, including details of wheel-wash facilities; iv)Working practices for protecting nearby dwellings, including measures to control noise and vibration arising from on-site activities as set out in British Standard 5228:2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites; v) Details of bunded facilities for any storage of oils, fuels or chemicals; vi) Details of the temporary construction compound; and vii) A programme for the construction works. Agenda Item 12 Page 120

Reason: To protect the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties and highway safety. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R & 27 & 43 DSCB)

6 The temporary construction compound shall be removed no later than three months from the date of commissioning of the turbine and the ground restored to its previous condition within six months of such removal, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the surrounding area and to ensure that the compound is removed within an acceptable timeframe as the structure is temporary. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R & 43 DSCB)

7 No development shall take place until a traffic management scheme for the implementation of the permission has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include arrangements for exceptional loads and appropriate temporary signage and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R & 27 & 43 DSCB)

8 No development shall take place until a scheme of foul drainage for the constructional and operational phases of the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure appropriate drainage. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R & 43 DSCB)

9 The development shall not be brought into use until a scheme of ecological mitigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme. The scheme shall include: i) Details of the management programme controlling the habitats and vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the turbine; ii) The position of 20 Schwegler 1FF bat boxes to be agreed in consultation with the Bedfordshire Bat Group; iii) A scheme of post-implementation monitoring to be agreed with Natural England. This scheme shall include techniques such as Anabat recording at turbine height, bat transects on site and corpse searches, as well as monitoring bird strike mortality. Reason: To ensure that biodiversity interests are protected. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R and 43 & 57 DSCB)

10 The rating level of noise immissions from the wind turbine, (including the application of any tonal penalty) when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes, shall not exceed 35dB LA90 at any dwelling except those identified in the table below for any relevant 10m height 10 minute mean above ground level measured integer wind speed between 1-10m/s. In the case of the six dwellings identified in the tables attached to this condition, the rating level of noise immissions from the wind turbine, Agenda Item 12 Page 121

(including the application of any tonal penalty) when determined in accordance with the attached Guidance Notes, shall not exceed the decibel value identified for the relevant integer 10m measured wind speed set out in the tables and: A. Prior to the First Export Date the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval a list of proposed independent consultants who may undertake compliance measurements in accordance with this condition. Amendments to the list of approved consultants shall be made only with the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. B. Within 21 days from receipt of a written request of the Local Planning Authority, following a complaint to it alleging noise disturbance at a dwelling, the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority, to assess the level of noise immissions from the wind farm at the complainant’s property in accordance with the procedures described in the attached Guidance Notes. The written request from the Local Planning Authority shall set out at least the date, time and location that the complaint relates to. Within 14 days of receipt of the written request of the Local Planning Authority made under this paragraph (B), the wind farm operator shall provide the information logged in accordance with paragraph (G) to the Local Planning Authority in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e). C. Prior to the commencement of any measurements by the independent consultant to be undertaken in accordance with these conditions, the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval the proposed measurement location identified in accordance with the Guidance Notes where measurements for compliance checking purposes shall be undertaken. Measurements to assess compliance with the noise limit of this condition shall be undertaken at the measurement location approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. D. Prior to the submission of the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise immissions in accordance with paragraph (E), the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval a proposed assessment protocol setting out the following: i. the range of meteorological and operational conditions (which shall include the range of wind speeds, wind directions, power generation and times of day) to determine the assessment of rating level of noise immissions; and ii. a reasoned assessment as to whether the noise giving rise to the complaint contains or is likely to contain a tonal component The proposed range of conditions shall be those which prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise, having regard to the written request of the Local Planning Authority under paragraph (B), and such others as the independent consultant considers likely to result in a breach of the noise limits. The assessment of the rating level of noise immissions shall be undertaken in accordance with the assessment protocol approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. E. The wind farm operator shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise immissions undertaken in accordance with the Guidance Notes within 2 months of the date of the written request of the Local Planning Authority made under paragraph (B) unless the time limit is extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be provided in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) of the Guidance Notes. The instrumentation used to undertake the measurements shall be calibrated in accordance with Guidance Note 1(a) and certificates of calibration shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority with the independent consultant’s assessment of the rating level of noise immissions. F. Where a further assessment of the rating level of noise immissions from the wind Agenda Item 12 Page 122 farm is required pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the attached Guidance Notes, the wind farm operator shall submit a copy of the further assessment within 21 days of submission of the independent consultant’s assessment pursuant to paragraph (E) above unless the time limit has been extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. G. The wind farm operator shall continuously log power production, n acelle wind speed, nacelle wind direction and nacelle orientation at the wind turbine all in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d). 10m height wind speeds averaged over 10 minute periods shall be measured at a location approved by the local planning authority for comparison with noise levels, for the duration of the noise level compliance check survey. Rainfall shall also be measured during any measurement regime at a location approved by the local authority in writing. These data obtained shall be retained fo r the life of the planning permission. The wind farm operator shall provide this information in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) to the Local Planning Authority on its request, within 14 days of receipt in writing of such a request. H. Once the Loc al Planning Authority has received the independent consultant’s noise assessment required by this condition, including all noise measurements and audio recordings, where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of an established breach of the noise limit, upon notification by the Local Planning Authority in writing to the wind farm operator of the said breach, the wind farm operator shall within 14 days propose a scheme for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be designed to mitigate the breach and to prevent its future recurrence. This scheme shall specify the timescales for implementation. The scheme shall be implemented as approved by the Local Planning Authority and according to the timescales within it. The scheme as implement ed shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed with the Local Planning Authority. For the purposes of this condition, a “dwelling” is a building which is lawfully used as a dwelling house and which exists or had planning permission at the date of this consent.

Table 1 - Between 07:00 and 23:00 - Noise level dB L A90, 10-minute Measured wind speed at 10 meter height (m/s) within the site averaged over 10-minute periods Location 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 The dwellings identified as H14-H19, Overend Green as

specified in the Double Arches Wind Turbine 35 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 Environmental Statement Volume 1: Main text July 2010 paragraph 7.3.3

National Grid Ref H14-H17 = 493263 228805 H18 = 493357 228735 H19 = 493365 228682

Agenda Item 12 Page 123

Table 2 - Between 23:00 and 07:00 - Noise level dB L A90, 10-minute Measured wind speed at 10 meter height (m/s) within

the site averaged over 10-minute periods Location 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 The dwellings identified as H14-H19, Overend Green as specified in

the Double Arches Wind Turbine Environmental 43 43 43 43 43 43 44 45 47 49 50 52 Statement Volume 1: Main text July 2010 paragraph 7.3.3

National Grid Ref H14-H17 = 493263 228805 H18 = 493357 228735 H19 = 493365 228682

Reason: To ensure that the amenities of neighbouring occupiers are not prejudiced by excessive noise. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R and 43 DSCB)

11 Within 21 days from receipt of a written request of the Local Planning Authority, following a complaint to it alleging noise disturbance at a dwelling which relates to amplitude modulation, the wind farm operator shall, at its expense, employ a consultant approved by the Local Planning Authority, to assess whether there is greater than expected amplitude modulation from the wind farm at the complainant’s property. The written request from the Local Planning Authority shall set out at least the date, time and location that the complaint relates to. Within 14 days of receipt of the written request of the Local Planning Authority made under this condition, the wind farm operator shall provide the information logged in accordance with this condition to the Local Planning Authority in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e). i) Prior to the commencement of any measurements by the independent consultant to be undertaken in accordance with this condition, the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval the proposed measurement location identified. Measurements to assess compliance with the noise limit of condition 2 shall be undertaken at the measurement location or locations approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. ii) Prior to the submission of the independent consultant’s assessment of the Agenda Item 12 Page 124 level of amplitude modulation in accordance with the requirements of this condition, the wind farm operator shall submit to the Local Planning Authority for written approval a proposed assessment protocol setting out the range of meteorological and operational conditions (which shall include the range of wind speeds, wind directions, power generation and times of day) to determine the assessment of the amplitude modulation. iii) The proposed range of conditions shall be those which prevailed during times when the complainant alleges there was disturbance due to noise, or are identified as causing greater than expected amplitude modulation, having regard to the written request of the Local Planning Authority, and such other conditions as the independent consultant considers likely to result in a breach of the noise limits. The assessment of the noise immissions shall be undertaken in accordance with the assessment protocol approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. iv) The wind farm operator shall provide to the Local Planning Authority the independent consultant’s assessment of greater than expected amplitude modulation within 2 months of the date of the written request of the Local Planning Authority unless the time limit is extended in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The assessment shall include all data collected for the purposes of undertaking the compliance measurements, such data to be provided in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) of the Guidance Notes. The instrumentation used to undertake the measurements shall be calibrated in accordance with Guidance Note 1(a) and certificates of calibration shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority with the independent consultant’s assessment of the amplitude modulation noise immissions. v) The wind farm operator shall continuously log power production, nacelle wind speed, nacelle wind direction and nacelle orientation at the wind turbine all in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d). 10m height wind speeds averaged over 10 minute periods shall be measured at a location approved by the local planning authority for comparison with noise levels, for the duration of the noise level compliance check survey. Rainfall shall also be measured during any measurement regime at a location approved by the local authority in writing. These data obtained shall be retained for the life of the planning permission. The wind farm operator shall provide this information in the format set out in Guidance Note 1(e) to the Local Planning Authority on its request, within 14 days of receipt in writing of such a request. vi) Once the Local Planning Authority has received the independent consultant’s noise assessment required by this condition, including all noise measurements and audio recordings, where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied of an established breach of condition 2, upon notification by the Local Planning Authority in writing to the wind farm operator of the said breach, the wind farm operator shall within 14 days propose a scheme for the approval of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be designed to mitigate the breach and to prevent its future recurrence. This scheme shall specify the timescales for implementation. The scheme shall be implemented as approved by the Local Planning Authority and according to the timescales within it. The scheme as implemented shall be retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Agenda Item 12 Page 125

Reason: To ensure that the amenities of neighbouring occupiers are not prejudiced by excessive noise. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R and 43 DSCB)

12 No development shall commence until a scheme detailing the investigation and alleviation of any potential interference to telecommunication links, caused by the turbine hereby permitted, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority through consultation to the appropriate telecommunication providers. The approved mitigation measures shall be carried out prior to the erection of the turbine. Reason: To ensure that the impact of the turbine on telecommunications links is adequately mitigated. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R and 43 DSCB)

13 The wind turbine hereby approved shall operate in accordance with a shadow flicker mitigation scheme which shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the operation of any wind turbine unless a survey carried out on behalf of the developer in accordance with a methodology approved in advance by the local planning authority confirms that shadow flicker effects would not be experienced within habitable rooms within any dwelling. Reason: To ensure shadow flicker is adequately mitigated. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R and 43 DSCB)

14 The planning permission is for a period from the date of the installation until the date occurring 25 years after the date of Commissioning of the Development. Written confirmation of the date of commissioning of the development shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority no later than 1 calendar month after that event. Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and landscape protection. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R and 43 DSCB)

15 Not later than 3 months from the date that the planning permission hereby granted expires, or if the turbine ceases to operate for a continuous period of 6 months then, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, it shall be dismantled and removed from the site and the land reinstated to its former condition. Reason: To ensure that the turbine is removed at the end of its operational life and to safeguard the character of the locality. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R and 43 DSCB)

16 All electrical cabling on site shall be buried underground unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of visual amenity. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R and 43 DSCB)

17 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 Local Planning Authority) shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the remediation strategy detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with. Reason :To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters (particularly the underlying principal aquifer and EU Water Framework Agenda Item 12 Page 126

Directive drinking water protected area) from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; paragraphs 109, 120, 121), EU Water Framework Directive, Anglian River Basin Management Plan and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection (GP3:2012) position statements A4 to A6, D1 to D4 and N7 .

18 Prior to commencement of development, a verification report demonstrating completion of the works set out in the approved remediation strategy and the effectiveness of the remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The report shall include results of sampling and monitoring carried out in accordance with the approved verification plan to demonstrate that the site remediation criteria have been met. 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, as identified in the verification plan, and for the reporting of this to the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters (particularly the underlying principal aquifer and EU Water Framework Directive drinking water protected area) from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; paragraphs 109, 120, 121), EU Water Framework Directive, Anglian River Basin Management Plan and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection (GP3:2012) position statements A4 to A6, D1 to D4 and N7.

19 Piling or any other foundations designs using penetrative methods shall not be permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to ground water. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters (particularly the underlying principal aquifer and EU Water Framework Directive drinking water protected area) from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; paragraphs 109, 120, 121), EU Water Framework Directive, Anglian River Basin Management Plan and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection (GP3:2012) position statements A4 to A6, D1 to D4 and N7.

20 No infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted other than with the express written consent of the Local Planning Authority, which may be given for those parts of the site where it has been demonstrated that there is no resultant unacceptable risk to controlled waters. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters (particularly the underlying principal aquifer and EU Water Framework Directive drinking water protected area) from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses in line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF; paragraphs 109, 120, 121), EU Water Framework Directive, Anglian River Basin Management Plan and Environment Agency Groundwater Protection (GP3:2012) position statements A4 to A6, D1 to D4 and N7. Agenda Item 12 Page 127

21 Prior to the commencement of development a scheme showing full details of the levels of the proposed access road for the site in relation to flood zones, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The access road shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved plans. Reason: To ensure that flood risk from fluvial sources does not increase as a result of the access road construction. (Policy 49 DSCB)

22 The turbine shall be fitted with 25 candela omni-directional red lighting at the highest practicable point and this shall be retained for the lifetime of the turbine. Reason: In the interests of air safety. (Policies 8 S.B.L.P.R and 43 & 44 DSCB)

23 No development shall commence until the applicant or developer has secured the implementation of a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The said development shall only be implemented in accordance with the scheme thereby approved. Reason: To record and advance understanding of the significance of the heritage asset. (Policies 8 S.B.L.P.R and 43 & 45 DSCB)

24 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 3100.013; Technical Information contained within Environmental Statement dated July 2010 Volumes 1-4 (inclusive) and Transport Assessment dated July 2010. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Notes to Applicant

1. In accordance with Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010, the reason for any condition above relates to the Policies as referred to in the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (SBLPR) and the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire (DSCB).

2. This permission relates only to that required under the Town & Country Planning Acts and does not include any consent or approval under any other enactment or under the Building Regulations. Any other consent or approval which is necessary must be obtained from the appropriate authority.

3. The granting of this permission does not absolve the applicants from complying with the relevant law protecting species, including obtaining and complying with the terms and conditions of any licences required, as described in Part IV B of Circular 06/2005.

Agenda Item 12 Page 128

4. Guidance Notes for Noise Conditions These notes are to be read with and form part of the noise conditions. They further explain the conditions and specify the methods to be deployed in the assessment of complaints about noise immissions from the wind farm. The rating level at each integer wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the wind farm noise level as determined from the best-fit curve described in Note 2 of these Guidance Notes and any tonal penalty applied in accordance with Note 3. References to assessment of rating levels does not apply to the assessment of greater than expected amplitude modulation.Reference to ETSU-R-97 refers to the publication entitled “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms” (1997) published by the Energy Technology Support unit (ETSU) for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).

5. Note 1 applies to planning condition 10 and Note 1(e) & 1(d) also applies to planning condition 11 (d) Values of the LA90,10-minute noise statistic required for condition 10 should be measured at the complainant’s property, using a sound level meter of EN 60651/BS EN 60804 Type 1, or BS EN 61672 Class 1 quality (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements) set to measure using the fast time weighted response as specified in BS EN 60651/BS EN 60804 or BS EN 61672-1 (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements). This should be calibrated in accordance with the procedure specified in BS 4142: 1997 (or the equivalent UK adopted standard in force at the time of the measurements). Measurements shall be undertaken in such a manner to enable a tonal penalty to be applied in accordance with Guidance Note 3. (e) The microphone should be mounted at 1.2 - 1.5 metres above ground level,fitted with a two-layer windshield or suitable equivalent approved by the Local Planning Authority, and placed outside the complainant’s dwelling. Measurements should be made in “free field” conditions. To achieve this,the microphone should be placed at least 3.5 metres away from the building facade or any reflecting surface except the ground at the approved measurement location. In the event that the consent of the complainant for access to his or her property to undertake compliance measurements is withheld, the wind farm operator shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority details of the proposed alternative representative measurement location prior to the commencement of measurements and the measurements shall be undertaken at the approved alternative representative measurement location. (f) The LA90, 10-minute measurements should be synchronised with measurements of the 10-minute arithmetic average wind speed and with operational data logged in accordance with Guidance Note 1(d), including the power generation data from the turbine control systems of the wind farm. (g) To enable compliance with the conditions to be evaluated, the wind farm operator shall continuously log arithmetic mean wind speed in metres per second (m/s), arithmetic mean wind direction in degrees from north and rainfall data in each successive 10-minute periods by direct measurement at the meteorological monitoring location approved by the Local Planning Authority. In relation to noise condition 10 it is this procedure, which is determined as valid in accordance with Note 2(b), such correlation to be undertaken in the manner described in Note 2(c). The wind farm operator shall continuously log arithmetic mean nacelle anemometer wind Agenda Item 12 Page 129

speed,arithmetic mean nacelle orientation, arithmetic mean wind direction as measured at the nacelle and arithmetic mean power generated during each successive 10-minutes period for each wind turbine on the wind farm. All 10- minute periods shall commence on the hour and in 10-minute increments thereafter synchronised with Greenwich Mean Time. (h) Data provided to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with paragraphs (E) (F) and (G) of noise condition 10 and as required under noise condition 2 shall be provided in comma separated values in electronic format.

6. Note 2 applies to planning condition 10 (a) The noise measurements should be made so as to provide not less than 20 valid data points as defined in Note 2 paragraph (b). (b) Valid data points are those measured in the conditions set out in the assessment protocol approved by the Local Planning Authority under paragraph (E) of the noise condition but excluding any periods of rainfall measured at the approved meteorological measurement location provided in accordance with the planning permission on the wind farm site. (c) Values of the LA90,10-minute noise measurements and corresponding values of the 10-minute ten metre height wind speed for those data points considered valid in accordance with Note 2 paragraph (b) shall be plotted on an XY chart with noise level on the Y-axis and wind speed on the X-axis. A least squares,“best fit” curve of an order deemed appropriate by the independent consultant (but which may not be higher than a fourth order) should be fitted to the data points and define the wind farm noise level at each integer speed. Note 3 (a) Where in accordance with the approved assessment protocol under paragraph (D) of planning condition 10, noise immissions at the location or locations where compliance measurements are being undertaken contain or are likely to contain a tonal component, a tonal penalty is to be calculated and applied using the following rating procedure. (b) For each 10-minute interval for which LA90,10-minute data have been determined as valid in accordance with Note 2 a tonal assessment shall be performed on noise immissions during 2 minutes of each 10-minute period. The 2-minute periods should be spaced at 10-minute intervals provided that uninterrupted uncorrupted data are available (“the standard procedure”). Where uncorrupted data are not available, the first available uninterrupted clean 2-minute period out of the affected overall 10-minute period shall be selected. Any such deviations from standard procedure shall be reported. (c) For each of the 2-minute samples the tone level above audibility (Lta), shall be calculated by comparison with the audibility criterion given in Section 2.1 on pages 104 -109 of ETSU-R-97. (d) The tone level above audibility (Lta) shall be plotted against wind speed for each of the 2-minute samples. Samples for which the tones were below the audibility criterion or no tone was identified, a value of zero audibility shall be substituted. (e) A least squares “best fit” linear regression shall then be performed to establish the average tone level above audibility for each integer wind speed derived from the value of the “best fit” line fitted to values within ± 0.5m/s of each integer wind speed. If there is no apparent trend with wind speed then a simple arithmetic mean shall be used. This process shall be repeated for each integer wind speed for which there is an assessment of overall levels in Agenda Item 12 Page 130

Note 2. (f) The tonal penalty is derived from the margin above audibility of the tone according to the figure below. Note 4 (a) If a tonal penalty is to be applied in accordance with Note 3 the rating level of the turbine noise at each wind speed is the arithmetic sum of the measured noise level as determined from the best fit curve described in Note 2 and the penalty for tonal noise as derived in accordance with Note 3 above at each integer wind speed within the range set out in the approved assessment protocol under paragraph (E) of the noise condition. (b) If no tonal penalty is to be applied then the rating level of the turbine noise ateach wind speed is equal to the measured noise level as determined from the best fit curve described in Note 2. (c) In the event that the rating level is above the limit(s) set out in the Tables attached to the noise conditions or the noise limits for a complainant’s dwelling approved in accordance with paragraph (C) of the noise condition, the independent consultant shall undertake a further assessment of the rating level to correct for background noise so that the rated level relates to wind turbine noise immission only. (d) The wind farm operator shall ensure that all the wind turbines in the development are turned off for such period as the independent consultant or the Local Planning Authority requires to undertake the further assessment. The further assessment shall be undertaken in accordance with the following steps: i. Repeating the steps in Note 2, with the wind farm switched off, and determining the background noise at each integer wind speed within the range set out in the approved assessment protocol under paragraph (E) of the noise condition. ii. The wind farm noise at this speed shall then be calculated iii. The rating level shall be re-calculated by adding the tonal penalty (if any is applied in accordance with Note 3) to the derived wind farm noise at that integer wind speed. iv. If the rating level after adjustment for background noise contribution and adjustment for tonal penalty (if required in accordance with note (iii) above) at any integer wind speed lies at or below the values set out in the Tables attached to the conditions or at or below the noise limits of 35dB LA90(10min) for other dwellings existing at the time of this approval then no further action is necessary. If the rating level at any integer wind speed exceeds the values set out then the development fails to comply with the conditions.

7. The applicant is advised that photographs of the existing highway that is to be used for access and delivery of materials will be required by the Local Highway Authority. Any subsequent damage to the public highway resulting from the works as shown by the photographs, including damage caused by delivery vehicles to the works, will be made good to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority and at the expense of the applicant. Attention is drawn to Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980 in this respect.

8. The Environmental Statement submitted with this application has been taken into account and the following issues considered in detail: • Landscape and Visual Impact • Ground conditions, geology and hydrogeology • Ecology Agenda Item 12 Page 131

• Noise • Shadow Flicker • Traffic and Transportation • Aviation • Electro-magnetic interference • Minerals and Waste • Architectural and Cultural Heritage It is considered that given the siting of the proposal within a working quarry and the wider environmental benefits in terms of the amount of energy that would be produced by the turbine and the saving in terms of tonnes of carbon dioxide would amount to a case for very special circumstances. This would outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt, the surrounding area, and the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties.

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 - Article 31

Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the a pplicant during the determination process. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively to secure a sustainable form of development in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

DECISION

......

Page 132

This page is intentionally left blank Oak Ridge

OAKBANK DRIVE Agenda Item 13 Page 133

309

226 2

GROVE

Norfolk Lodge 34 46 38

CARLTON 30

54 Sussex Lodge

CHILTERN GARDENS

299

15 11a

Chiltern 11 Lodge 12

HEATH ROAD 14

El Sub Sta

3 1

Sandy Lane Cottages 297

15 9

7 9 Dormers 291

Bregawn

103.3m

5 1

Heathcroft The Cedars

Little Hallam Green Gables Two Trees Red Rooves Newgale Heathwood Lower School

HEATH PARK ROAD

Quince House

Lyndholme Applecross

Taney's Dell

Map Sheet No S

Land adj to 2 Sandy Lane, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3BE Scale: 1:1250 Page 134

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 Page 135

Item No. 13

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/02360/FULL LOCATION Land adj to 2 Sandy Lane, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3BE PROPOSAL Demolition of existing garages & construction of a new 2 bed bungalow, together with a new access and parking for No 2 Sandy Lane. (Re-sub of 12/3697Full) PARISH Leighton-Linslade WARD Leighton Buzzard North WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Johnstone, Shadbolt & Spurr CASE OFFICER Nicola Darcy DATE REGISTERED 03 July 2013 EXPIRY DATE 28 August 2013 APPLICANT Mr & Mrs M Ciancio AGENT Lee Butler MRICS REASON FOR Applicant’s partner is an employee of the Council COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application – For Approval

Site Location:

The site currently contains a left hand sided semi-detached single store y bungalow of which the main elevation fronts Sandy Lane. The property is attached to the neighbouring bungalow of No.299 Heath Road. This pair of semi-detached bungalows are located on a prominent corner of Heath Road and Sandy Lane. The existing property of No.2 Sandy Lane is of a brick and tile construction with UPVC windows. The bungalow appears to have had a single storey extension on the left side of the Sandy Lane elevation between the existing bungalow and the double detached garage.

The property h as a double detached garage with two separate garage doors which has a footprint of 36 sqm. The garage is located on the left hand side of the main elevation on Sandy Lane. The garage has an adjoining wall to the left of the frontage which subdivides the f ront and rear garden whilst providing a boundary for the existing rear garden of No.2 Sandy Lane. The existing rear garden is an ‘L’ shape and this is partly bordered by a 1.8 metre fence and the existing bungalow, the side and rear of the detached garage and the adjoining brick wall which subdivides the front and rear garden.

The property is located on the corner location of Sandy Lane and Heath Road and the street scene is residential in character. On the adjacent corner to the existing property of No.2 Sandy Lane is a corner shop and the highway in this area has double yellow lines. Further along Sandy Lane is the Oak Bank School.

Agenda Item 13 Page 136

Planning Proposal

Permission is sought for the demolition of the existing detached double garage and the construction of a detached 2 bedroom bungalow together with the creation of a new vehicular access point and parking.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review Policies Policy BE8 Design Considerations Policy T10 Controlling Parking in New Developments Policy H2 Making Provision for Housing via “Fall-in” sites

(Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, the age of the plan and the general consistency with the NPPF, policies BE8 and H2 are sti ll given significant weight. Policy T10 is afforded less weight).

Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 24: Accessibility and Connectivity Policy 27: Car Parking Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 43: High Quality Development Policy 59: Woodlands, Trees and Hedgerows

(Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, significant weight is given to the policies contained within the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, which is consistent with the NPPF. The draft Development Strategy is due to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2013.

Planning History

CB/12/03697/FULL Refused application for the demolition of the exiting garages and construction of a new 2 bed bungalow. (Appeal dismissed) CB/12/02360/PAPC Pre Application Advice: Erection of a 2 bed chalet bungalow and demolition of existing double detached garage of No. 2 Sandy Lane.

CB/11/01919/FULL Change of Use: From amenity land to resident ial garden by the erection of a 900mm fence

Agenda Item 13 Page 137

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Leighton Linslade Town Council The Committee discussed application reference CB/13/02360 (Land adj to 2 Sandy Lane) and the comments made by the Secretary of State i n the Appeal to the previous application. The Committee felt that the previous objection for overdevelopment remained valid but recognised it was not possible to put forward an objection on these grounds on this occasion. RESOLVED to make no comment regard ing application reference CB/13/02360 (Land adj to 2 Sandy Lane)

Adjacent Occupiers 21 Sandy Lane - inappropriate design and size of garden - over development - increase of congestion caused by indisrciminate parking

4 Sandy Lane - Loss of light - out of keeping with the area - inadequately sized garden - increase of indiscriminate parking on verges - impact upon highway safety - damage to Oak tree - impact upon visual amenity - overdevelopment

8 Sandy Lane - impact upon highway safety - out of keeping - drainage concerns - over development - impact upon Oak tree - in conflict with deeds

Sandy Lodge, Sandy Lane - impact upon highway safety - impact upon root system of Oak tree

23 Sandy Lane - impact upon highway safety - out of character - increase of indiscriminate on verge

Agenda Item 13 Page 138

Consultations/Publicity responses

Highways This is similar to the previous application except for the parking area for the proposed bungalow is to remain in its current position and served by the existing access.

The applicant will be able to achieve two off road parking spaces within the curtilage of the proposed dwelling and a minimum of two new parking spaces for the existing dwelling, which will be served via a new vehicular access.

I would not wish to raise any highway objection to the proposal, subject to the following highway conditions.

Trees & Landscape I refer to your memorandum dated 8th July 2013 and my examination of the application documents and wish to state that in recognition that the new access will now be located on the opposite side of the existing access in relation to the highway Oak tree, and that the existing car park surfacing will be unchanged, I will have no objections to this application.

Determining Issues

1. Principle of Development 2.. Design 3. Impact on Neighbouring Residential Amenity 4. Highways 5. Trees 6. Planning Obligations

Considerations

1. Principle of Development

The property is an existing semi-detached residential bungalow which is located within an existing residential area within Leighton Buzzard. The principle of the creation of appropriate new dwellings as infill within built up areas excluded from the Green Belt is acceptable providing they meet the requirements of the NPPF, Policies H2, BE8 and T10 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2004) and the requirements of the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance – Design Supplement 1: New Residential Developments and Design Supplement 7: Movement, Streets and Places (2010) and the Central Bedfordshire Local Transport Plan: Appendix F – Approach to Parking (2012).

Agenda Item 13 Page 139

A previous application was refused for the following reasons:

1) impact upon visual amenity of the street scene 2) loss of amenity land 3) impact upon residents 4) impact upon highway Oak tree

The applicant appealed against the Council's refusal and the Inspector did not uphold the Council's reasons for refusal except the reason regarding the impact upon a highway Oak tree. Therefore due to the considerations of the Inspector and the removal of the secondary access, the principle of development is considered to be acceptable.

2. Design

The Inspector had the following comments to make regarding the overall design of the bungalow:

Paragraph 6 'Beyond No 2 on the same side of the Lane as the appeal site houses are separated by small gaps of typically 1m. As a result, the proposed bungalow with gaps of approximately 2m separating it from neighbouring dwellings would fit in with the pattern of spacing which characterises development on this side of the Lane.'

Paragraph 7 'No 2 is a spaciously laid out plot with ample garden to the front and both sides of the dwelling. The proposed development to its western side and associated hardstanding for parking and turning would complement the pattern of development along Sandy Lane. Along Heath Lane the open undeveloped character of the other side garden would not change. The proposed dwelling would project approximately 0.75m forward of the front elevation of Nos 4 to 10. However, owing to its single storey height this would not result in the dwelling being unduly prominent. As a consequence, the design of the development in relation to the streetscene would be acceptable.'

As such the development is considered to be in accordance with paragraph 53 and Section 7 of the NPPF (2012), Policies H2 and BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2004), policy 43 of the Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and the requirements of the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance – Design Supplement 1: New Residential Development.

3. Impact on neighbouring residential amenity

The Inspector had the following comments to make regarding the impact upon residential amenity:

Natural light

Paragraph 9 'The eastern side of the house at 4 Sandy Lane, which contains 4 obscurely glazed ground floor windows, is located approximately 2m away from where the flank wall of the proposed bungalow would be. However, owing to the position of the bungalow within the plot only the window closest Agenda Item 13 Page 140

to the front of the house would be overlapped by the bungalow. Given that the study / dining room that this window serves would still benefit from sunlight entering the room through another side window, and secondary daylight enters the room through the front room and rear extension of the house, this would not result in darker living conditions than it would be reasonable to expect within this habitable room.'

Overlooking & visual impact

Paragraph 10 'The rear elevation of the bungalow would face the side boundary of the rear garden of 299 Heath Road. A tall fence, approximately 1.8m in height and an established hedge marks the boundary. As the proposed dwelling would be a bungalow the height of the boundary treatment would be sufficient to prevent overlooking. The removal of permitted development rights, which could be secured by condition, would also remove the risk of the construction of dormer windows that would materially overlook the appeal site. In terms of visual impact the bungalow would be located sufficiently far away from the boundary with No 299 for it not to be a prominent feature in views from the house or the garden. As a result, it would also not adversely affect the outlook from No 299.'

Amenity space

Paragraph 11 '2 Sandy Lane is a corner plot with the front of the dwelling facing Sandy Lane and with gardens to its sides. The development of the appeal site would result in the loss of its western side garden. However, the eastern side garden, which was recently extended to include amenity land, would be sufficiently large to meet the needs of the occupiers of No 2.'

Conclusion on living conditions

Paragraph 12 ' For the reasons given above, the proposed development would not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. As such it would comply with Policies BE8 and H8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2004), policy 43 of the Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance – Design Supplement 1: New Residential Development (2010).'

4. Highways

The current bungalow of No.2 Sandy Lane is a 3 bedroom semi-detached bungalow that currently has a detached double garage and an off street car parking area for up to 3 cars. A 3 bedroom property is required to provide 3 off street car parking spaces in order to meet the Council’s Highway Standards.

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing double detached garage and the provision of a detached 2 bedroom bungalow on the land to the left of the existing bungalow of which the footprint would be set forward from the current build line of the double detached garage. The applicant is proposing to use the existing access for the new bungalow and to use the existing hardstanding forward of the proposed new bungalow for parking and a turning Agenda Item 13 Page 141

area.

For the existing property of No.2 Sandy Lane the applicant has proposed to create a new access which is 2.5 metres to the right of the existing access and from this access it is proposed to create a parking area for 2 off road car parking spaces and associated turning area which would be on the existing front garden right up to the corner of No.2 Sandy Lane that fronts Heath Road.

It is therefore considered that the proposals will be able to accommodate sufficient off street car parking in order to provide 2 off street car parking spaces for the proposed detached bungalow and to provide a minimum of 2 off street car parking spaces for the existing semi-detached bungalow which is as existing, ensuring no net loss of parking spaces for the existing dwellinghouse. The proposal therefore complies with the requirements of the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance - the Central Bedfordshire Local Transport Plan : Appendix F – Approach to Parking (2012).

5. Trees

At the front of the site, directly in front of the 0.72 metre boundary wall fronting Sandy Lane to the left of the existing access is a fine mature Oak tree and there is another large Oak Tree nearby. The previous application detailed an additional access, the Tree Officer objected to this application stating that the proposal including the provision of the driveway and associated block paving would have a detrimental impact on the health and stability of the Oak tree which is an important street tree which would lead to a reduction in the visual amenity and character of the area. This current application omits the access closest to the tree and as such, the Tree Officer has removed his objection subject to the imposition of a tree protection condition.

6. Planning Obligations

The applicants submitted a draft Unilateral Undertaking with the planning application for £5965. This provision meets the requirements for the provision of a new 2 bedroom property as detailed within the Council’s Planning Obligations Strategy – 23 rd October 2009.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

1 The development shall begin not later than three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Agenda Item 13 Page 142

2 Before development begins and notwithstanding the deta ils submitted with the application, details of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs of the proposed bungalow shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To control the appearance of the building. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R and Policy 43 D.S.C.B.).

3 No building shall be occupied until the proposed vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and the premises. (Policies BE8 & T10, S.B.L.P.R and policies 27 & 43, D.S.C.B)

4 Before the access is first brought into use, a triangular vision splay shall be provided on each side of the new access and shall measure 2.8m along the back edge of the highway from the centre line of the anticipated vehicle path to a point 2.0m measured from the back edge of the footway into the site along the centre line of the anticipated vehicle path. The vision splay so described and on land under the applicant’s control shall be maintained free of any obstruction to visibility exceeding a height of 600mm above the adjoining footway level.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility between the existing highway and the proposed access and to make the access safe and convenient for the traffic which is likely to use it. (Policies BE8 & T10, S.B.L.P.R and policies 27 & 43, D.S.C.B)

5 The proposed vehicular access shall be constructed and surfaced in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for a minimum distance of 5m into the site, measured from the highway boundary, before the premises are occupied. Arrangement shall be made for surface water drainage from the site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge into the highway.

Reason: To avoid the carriage of mud or other extraneous material or surface water from the site into the highway so as to safeguard the interest of the highway. (Policies BE8 & T10, S.B.L.P.R and policies 27 & 43, D.S.C.B)

6 Before development begins, a scheme for the parking of cycles on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented before the development is first occupied or brought into use and thereafter retained for this purpose.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate cycle parking to meet the needs of occupiers of the proposed development in the interests of encouraging the use of sustainable modes of transport. (Policies BE8 & T10, S.B.L.P.R and policies 24 & 43, D.S.C.B) Agenda Item 13 Page 143

7 Before development begins, details of a bin storage/collection point shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained for such purpose.

Reason: To avoid the long term storage of refuse containers on the highway so as to safeguard the interest of highway safety. (Policy BE8, S.B.L.P.R and policy 43, D.S.C.B)

8 Prior to development, a Tree Protection Plan shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The Tree Protection Plan shall be based on the requirements of BS 5837 : 2012 "Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - Recommendations", and BS 5837 : 2005 where this is appropriate. The Tree Protection Plan shall clearly indicate the position and build specification of protective fencing and/or ground protection that shall entirely enclose the existing grass areas within the site that falls within the Root Protection Area of the adjacent highway Oak tree. The fencing and/or ground protection shall be clearly dimensioned from existing fixed points on the site, to enable accurate setting out and checking. Fenced exclusion zones shall exclude all plant, machinery, builders access, vehicle parking, storage materials, installation of underground services and all construction operations. Ground protection shall resist all compaction of the lower ground surfacing, protect the ground from all excavation and underground service incursion and shall act as a load suspension layer. The approved Tree Protection Plan shall then be strictly implemented before all construction operations commence, and shall be maintained in place until the end of all construction works.

Reason: To create a construction exclusion zone and/or ground protection zone around the Root Protection Area of the adjacent highway Oak tree by securely enclosing, or adequately covering, the Root Protection Area of this tree in order to avoid root damage and soil compaction being incurred in this area during all construction operations, and to prevent incursion by underground services, thereby maintaining the good health and stability of the Oak tree in the interests of visual amenity. (Policy 59, D.S.C.B.)

9 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no extensions, alterations or addition of windows to the building hereby permitted shall be carried out without the grant of further specific permission from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To control the external appearance of the building in the interests of residential amenity. (Policy BE8 S.B.L.P.R. and Policy 43 D.S.C.B.).

10 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the det ails shown on the submitted plans, numbers 51112 & 17912. Agenda Item 13 Page 144

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Notes to Applicant

3. The applicant is advised that no works associated with the construction of the vehicular access should be carried out within the confines of the public highway without prior consent, in writing, of the Central Bedfordshire Council. Upon receipt of this Notice of Planning Approval, the applicant is advised to write to Central Bedfordshire Council's Highway Help Desk, Technology House, 239 Ampthill Road, Bedford MK42 9BA quoting the Planning Application number and supplying a copy of the Decision Notice and a copy of the approved plan. This will enable the necessary consent and procedures under Section 184 of the Highways Act to be implemented. The applicant is also advised that if any of the works associated with the construction of the vehicular access affects or requires the removal and/or the relocation of any equipment, apparatus or structures (e.g. street name plates, bus stop signs or shelters, statutory authority equipment etc.) then the applicant will be required to bear the cost of such removal or alteration.

4. The applicant is advised that the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 will apply to any works undertaken within the limits of the existing public highway. Further details can be obtained from the Traffic Management Group Highways and Transport Division, Central Bedfordshire Council, P.O. Box 1395, Bedford, MK42 5AN.

5. The applicant is advised that photographs of the existing highway that is to be used for access and delivery of materials will be required by the Local Highway Authority. Any subsequent damage to the public highway resulting from the works as shown by the photographs, including damage caused by delivery vehicles to the works, will be made good to the satisfaction of the Local Highway Authority and at the expense of the applicant. Attention is drawn to Section 59 of the Highways Act 1980 in this respect. (HN xi)

6. The applicant is advised that all cycle parking to be provided within the site shall be designed in accordance with Central Bedfordshire Council’s “Cycle Parking Guidance - August 2006”.

7. This permission is subject to a legal obligation under Section 106 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Agenda Item 13 Page 145

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012 - Article 31

Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. Discussion with the applicant to seek an acceptable solution was not necessary in this instance. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively to secure a sustainable form of develop ment in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

Reasons for Granting

The proposal would not have a significant impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, visual amenities of the area or impact upon the highway Oak tree and is acceptable in terms of highway safety and therefore is in conformity with Policies BE8, T10 and H2 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004, policies 19, 27 and 43 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and the National Planning Policy Framework. It is further in conformity with the technical guidance Design in Central Bedfordshire, a Guide for Development, 2010.

DECISION

......

Page 146

This page is intentionally left blank