This meeting Central Council will be filmed.* Priory House Monks Walk , Shefford SG17 5TQ

please ask for Helen Bell direct line 0300 300 4040 date 3 September 2015

NOTICE OF MEETING

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Date & Time Wednesday, 16 September 2015 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), R D Berry (Vice-Chairman), M C Blair, A D Brown, Mrs S Clark, K M Collins, S Dixon, E Ghent, K Janes, R W Johnstone, T Nicols, I Shingler and J N Young

[Named Substitutes:

D Bowater, Mrs C F Chapman MBE, I Dalgarno, Ms C Maudlin, P Smith, B J Spurr and T Swain]

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. *This meeting may be filmed by the Council for live and/or subsequent broadcast online at http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/modgov/ieListMeetings.aspx?CommitteeId=631. You can view previous meetings there starting from May 2015.

At the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting will be filmed by the Council. The footage will be on the Council’s website for six months. A copy of it will also be retained in accordance with the Council’s data retention policy. The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the Council.

By entering the Chamber you are deemed to have consented to being filmed by the Council, including during any representation you might make, and to the possible use of the images and sound recordings made by the Council for webcasting and/or training purposes.

Phones and other equipment may also be used to film, audio record, tweet or blog from this meeting by an individual Council member or a member of the public. No part of the meeting room is exempt from public filming unless the meeting resolves to go into exempt session. The use of images or recordings arising from this is not under the Council’s control. 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 19 August 2015.

(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 - 14 Been Taken

To consider the report of the Director of Regeneration and Business 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/14/05007/OUT 15 - 52

Address : Land to the West of Mill Road,

Outline planning application for the demolition of the existing dwellings at 47 and 49 Mill Road and the erection of up to 230 dwellings and associated infrastructure, with all matters reserved except for access.

Applicant : Gladman Developments Ltd

7 Planning Application No. CB/15/01362/OUT 53 - 86

Address : Land off Chapel End Road,

Outline application: of up to 125 dwellings with associated landscaping, public open space and infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access.

Applicant : Gladman Developments Ltd

8 Planning Application No. CB/15/02304/FULL 87 - 100

Address : 52 Clifton Road, , SG16 6BL

Demolition of existing storage building & erection of 8 No. 3 bed houses with carport and associated parking.

Applicant : Skillmaster Limited

9 Planning Application No. CB/15/01897/FULL 101 - 114

Address: Fen End Industrial Estate, Fen End, , Hitchin, SG5 4BA

Demolition of the existing industrial unit and construction of 10 no. 2 bed flats with associated parking and landscaping

Applicant: Stotfold Motor Centre 10 Planning Application No. CB/15/02290/FULL 115 - 126

Address: 32 - 34 Silver End Road, Haynes, , MK45 3PP

Proposed demolition of 2 No semi-detached properties and the erection of 1 No detached and 1 pair of semi-detached dwellings

Applicant: Mr Dove

11 Planning Application No. CB/15/02652/FULL 127 - 138

Address: Land Off Bedford Road, Marston Moretaine, Bedford, MK43 0LE

Re-plan of plot numbers 73 to 85, 201 to 219 and 189 to 192 to replace 36 dwellings with 39 and associated works granted consent under ref CB/12/03205/RM

Applicant: Barratt Homes Ltd, Northampton

12 Planning Application No.CB/15/02172/FULL 139 - 154

Address: 145 Bedford Road, Marston Moretaine, Bedford, MK43 0LD

Erection of 6 detached dwellings and new access from Bedford Road

Applicant: Mr Steele

13 Planning Application No. CB/15/00275/OUT 155 - 170

Address: Prebendal Farm, Grove Road, , , LU1 4BZ

Outline Development: Redevelopment of land previously used as a farm yard to residential use for 8 detached houses (market) and 4 semi detached houses (social use).

Applicant: Brickhill Properties GP Ltd

14 Planning Application No. CB/15/02666/FULL 171 - 182

Address: 226 Heath Road, , LU7 3AY

Proposed new dwelling including demolition of a part of the existing dwelling

Applicant: Jackson Lane Homes Ltd 15 Planning Application No. CB/15/02223/OUT 183 - 230

Address: Former site of Windy Willows Nursery, Sundon Road,

Demolition of existing site buildings and proposed residential redevelopment comprising up to 30 new homes (Resubmission of application CB/15/00524/OUT)

Applicant: Southern & Regional Limited

16 Planning Application No.CB/15/02818/FULL 231 - 240

Address: 45 Meadow Walk, Henlow, SG16 6HJ

Front and rear dormer

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Eary

17 Planning Application No.CB/15/00979/FULL 241 - 292

Address: Land adjacent to and to the north west of Vauxhall Motors, Luton Road, Chalton

Erection of Distribution Centre with associated office accommodation, access, earthworks, landscaping, parking and ancillary works.

Applicant: AXA Real Estate Ltd & General Motors Ltd

18 Site Inspection Appointment(s)

Under the provisions of the Members Planning Code of Good Practice, Members are requested to note that Site Inspections will be undertaken on Monday 12 October 2015. Agenda Item 5 Page 7

Meeting: Development Management Committee Date: 16TH September 2015 Subject: Planning Enforcement cases where formal action has been taken

Report of: Director of Regeneration and Business

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

Advising Officer: Director of Regeneration and Business 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 16th September 2015)

ENFORCEMENT LOCATION BREACH DATE ISSUED EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE APPEAL NEW RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. DATE DATE COMPLIANCE DATE

1 CB/ENC/11/0402 Land adjoining 2 Enforcement Notices 15-Oct-12 12-Nov-12 10-Dec-12 Not complied Meeting held 10/07/15 with Greenacres, Gypsy Lane, 1 - unauthorised planning agent to discuss new Little Billington, Leighton encroachment onto field planning application and Buzzard. LU7 9BP 2 - unauthorised hard resolution of outstanding standing, fence and buildings breaches.

2 CB/ENC/11/0499 Land at Erin House, 171 Enforcement Notice - 03-Sep-13 01-Oct-13 01-Dec-13 Appeal 27-Sep-14 Not complied Prosecution case being Road, unauthorised erection of a dismissed - progressed. Not guilty plea , Luton. LU1 double garage. high court submitted. Case due to be 4AN challenge heard by the Magistrates submitted starting 18/11/2015

3 CB/ENC/12/0174 Land at 15 St Andrews Enforcement notice - 29-Oct-14 29-Oct-14 28-May-15 Appeal Await outcome of appeal - Close, Slip End, Luton, unauthorised change of use of submitted Inspectors site visit on LU1 4DE dwelling house to four 01/12/14 06/08/15 separate self-contained units

4 CB/ENC/12/0199 Plots 1 & 2 The Stables, Breach of Condition Notice 15-Oct-12 15-Oct-12 12-Nov-12 Occupied temporarily, site Gypsy Lane, Little Condition 3 SB/TP/04/1372 being monitored. Billington, Leighton named occupants Buzzard LU7 9BP

5 CB/ENC/12/0508 Land at Site C, The Enforcement Notice- 17-Nov-14 15-Dec-14 15-Mar-15 & 15- Notice not complied with. Stables, Stanbridge Road, Unauthorised creation of new June-15 Report to be prepared to Great Billington, Leighton access and erection of gates. review whether to prosecute or Buzzard, LU7 9JH take direct action.

6 CB/ENC/12/0521 Random, Private Road, Enforcement Notice 2 - 24-Aug-15 24-Sep-15 24-Mar-16 & 24- Check compliance 24/03/16 Barton Le Clay, MK45 4LE Without planning permission June-16 and 24/06/16 the extension and alteration of the existing dwelling on the land. Agenda Item 5 Page 9

NOT PROTECTED - general data Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 16th September 2015)

ENFORCEMENT LOCATION BREACH DATE ISSUED EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE APPEAL NEW RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. DATE DATE COMPLIANCE DATE

7 CB/ENC/12/0530 19 Road, , Listed Building Enforcement 07-Jul-15 07-Aug-15 07-Sep-15 Appeal Appeal against Enforcement , SG18 9AB Notice - Unauthorised works to received Notice received 05/08/15, a listed building. 05/08/15 await outcome of appeal. Further site visit to be made in relation to compliance with breach of condition notice.

8 CB/ENC/12/0530 19 Ickwell Road, Northill, Breach of Condition Notice - 07-Jul-15 07-Jul-15 07-Aug-15 Appeal against Enforcement Biggleswade, SG18 9AB Condition 6 attached to Notice received 05/08/15, Planning permission await outcome of appeal. MB/06/00408/LB - external Further site visit to be made in finishes relation to compliance with breach of condition notice.

9 CB/ENC/12/0599 Millside Nursery, Harling Enforcement Notice - change 01-Sep-14 02-Oct-14 02-Jan-15 Compliance period extended, Road, , of use to a mixed use for further site visit being Dunstable, LU6 1QZ horticulture and a for a ground arranged. works contractors business

10 CB/ENC/12/0633 Land at Plot 2, Enforcement Notice - 17-Jan-13 14-Feb-13 14-Mar-13 Not complied Costs of direct action to be Greenacres, Gypsy Lane, construction of timber building obtained, await joint site visit. Little Billington, Leighton and the laying of hard Buzzzard. LU7 9BP standing.

11 CB/ENC/13/0083 Land Adjacent to, Magpie Breach of Condition Notice - 30-Jan-15 30-Jan-15 01-Mar-15 New planning application Farm, Hill Lane, Upper Condition 1 Boundary wall, received ref; CB/15/03057/Full Caldecote Condition 2 Septic tank, to retain walls, gates & piers. outflows and soakaways Legal will wait until application has been determined before considering further prosecution action. Agenda Item 5 Page 10

NOT PROTECTED - general data Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 16th September 2015)

ENFORCEMENT LOCATION BREACH DATE ISSUED EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE APPEAL NEW RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. DATE DATE COMPLIANCE DATE

12 CB/ENC/13/0336 The Stables, Dunstable 2 Enforcement Notices - 11-Jul-14 15-Aug-14 15-Oct-14 Appeals Aug-15 Appeals dismissed. Road, Toddington, Change of use from agriculture dismissed Compliance periods of two Dunstable, LU5 6DX to a mixed use of agriculture, months unchanged. Retail residential and retail sales and and residential use has building works for commercial ceased. Some areas of purposes compliance still outstanding. Further inspection to be made September 2015.

13 CB/ENC/13/0452 Long Yard, Dunstable 3 X Enforcement Notices - 12/08/2015 12 12-Sep-15 12-Nov-15 Check compliance 12/11/15 Road, , 1 -Erection of timber building Dunstable, LU6 2QL 2 - Material change of use from agriculture to storage of motor vehicles 3 - Material change of use of the land from agriculture to a mixed use for agriculture and the storage of motor vehicles, a touring caravan and building and hardore materials.

14 CB/ENC/13/0607 Clements End Farm. Enforcement Notice - Change 05-Jun-15 03-Jul-15 03-Sep-15 Appeal Await outcome of appeal. Clements End Road, of use from vehicle repairs to a received Studham, LU6 2NG mixed use for vehicle repairs 30/6/15 and vehicle sales.

15 CB/ENC/14/0056 5A - 5B King Street, Breach of Condition Notice - 13-Mar-15 13-Mar-15 13-Apr-15 Revised parking scheme Houghton Regis, LU5 5DS scheme for the parking of received 14/07/15 and vehicles on the site approved on 12/08/15. Condition requires scheme to be implemented within 1

month of approval. Agenda Item 5 Page 11

NOT PROTECTED - general data Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 16th September 2015)

ENFORCEMENT LOCATION BREACH DATE ISSUED EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE APPEAL NEW RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. DATE DATE COMPLIANCE DATE

16 CB/ENC/14/0351 105 High Street South, Enforcement Notice - the 13-Aug-14 13-Sep-14 13-Dec-14 Appeal 28-Jul-15 Second storey rear extension Dunstable, LU6 3SQ erection of a second storey dismissed required to be removed by rear extension 28/07/15. No demolition work yet carried out. Contact made with site owner and agent. Prosecution action re non compliance with Notice being considered.

17 CB/ENC/14/0360 Land at Glebeland, Tree replacement notice - 03-Oct-14 03-Nov-14 03-Mar-15 Appeal 08-Nov-15 Appeal dismissed, Tree Road, Felling of a sycamore tree dismissed Replacement Notice upheld Streatley, Luton, LU3 3PS with compliance date of 08/11/2015.

18 CB/ENC/14/0361 The Old Rose, 16 Section 215 notice - untidy 29-Apr-15 30-May-15 30-Aug-15 Check compliance with notice Road, land and buildings at the end of August 2015. , MK44 3RA

19 CB/ENC/14/0372 23 Birds Hill, Heath and Untidy Land - S215 21-May-15 22-Jun-15 22-Aug-15 Section 215 Notice with Reach, Leighton Buzzard, compliance date of 22/08/2015 LU7 0AQ

20 CB/ENC/14/0376 6 Denbigh Close, Marston Enforcement Notice - change 13-Aug-14 12-Sep-14 12-Dec-14 Appeal 27-Oct-15 Change of use appeal Moretaine, Bedford, MK43 of use of the Land from a dismissed dismissed. Time period for 0JY residential dwelling to a mixed compliance extended to 6 use of office and residential months until the end of October 2015.

21 CB/ENC/14/0378 25 High Street, Sandy, Enforcement Notice - the 13-Aug-14 12-Sep-14 12-Oct-14 Appeal decision 23-Aug-15 Enforcement Notice upheld for SG19 1AG installation of roller shutters 23/7/15. front roller shutter. Removal required by 23/08/15. Order for the work to be carried out made and anticipated to be done in the very near future. Review compliance September Agenda Item 5 2015. Page 12

NOT PROTECTED - general data Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 16th September 2015)

ENFORCEMENT LOCATION BREACH DATE ISSUED EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE APPEAL NEW RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. DATE DATE COMPLIANCE DATE

22 CB/ENC/14/0392 Land at 1 Wing Road, Section 215 notice - untide 29-Apr-15 29-May-15 29-Aug-15 Section 215 Notice served , LU7 2NG land and buildings requiring them to demolish the remainder of the existing building on the site. Date for compliance is 29/08/2015

23 CB/ENC/14/0414 Land at Asda Store, Breach of condition notice - 10-Oct-14 10-Oct-14 10-Nov-14 Advice from legal that delivery Church Street, Hours of delivery of trolleys does not breach the Biggleswade, SG18 0JS notice. Notice still in force and will not be withdrawn.

24 CB/ENC/14/0423 Land to the rear of, 197 Breach of Condtion Notice - 05-Dec-14 05-Dec-14 05-Jan-15 New planning application Hitchin Road, , Condtion 1 not complied with - received ref; SG15 6SE attached to planning CB/15/03000/VOC, serving permission 12/03535- use of breach of condition delayed land as a caravan site by any until application has been persons other than gypsies determined and travellers.

25 CB/ENC/14/0485 Clifton House and Repairs Notice - Listed 08-Jan-15 08-Jan-15 08-Mar-15 08/04/2015 Ongoing discussions with legal outbuildings, Church Building in state of disrepair and assets regarding the Street, Clifton, Shefford, possibility of Compulsory SG17 5ET Purchase.

26 CB/ENC/14/0539 6 Bedford Road, Enforcement Notice - 10-Nov-14 10-Dec-14 10-Jan-2015 &10- Appeal decision 23/01/2016 Appeal decision 23/07/15 - Moggerhanger, MK44 3RR Materials used affecting the Feb-205 23/7/15. Enforcement Notice upheld, appearance of the dwelling time for compliance extended to 6 months to reinstate brickwork (23/01/16).

27 CB/ENC/14/0552 Land at 28 Royce Close, Enforcement Notice - 10-Nov-14 10-Dec-14 10-Feb-15 Planning permission granted Dunstable, LU6 2NT Construction of a raised for revised scheme. terrace and fence. Alterations have been completed in compliance with approved plans. Notice withdrawn. Agenda Item 5

28 CB/ENC/15/0046 Running Water Farm, Enforcment Notice - Siting of a 13-Aug-15 14-Sep-15 14-Dec-15 Check compliance 14/12/15 Langford Road, mobile home Biggleswade, SG18 9RA Page 13

NOT PROTECTED - general data Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 16th September 2015)

ENFORCEMENT LOCATION BREACH DATE ISSUED EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE APPEAL NEW RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. DATE DATE COMPLIANCE DATE

29 CB/ENC/15/0253 238 Grassmere Way, Enforcement Notice - Change 20-Aug-15 20-Sep-15 20-Nov-15 Check compliance 20/11/15 Linslade, Leighton of use from amenity land to Buzzard, LU7 2QH garden land by enclosure of 2.2m fence Agenda Item 5 Page 14

NOT PROTECTED - general data Agenda Item 6 Page 15

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) W E Date: 01:September:2015

Map Sheet No S

Scale: 1:12500 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Item No. 6 Page 17

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/14/05007/OUT LOCATION Land to the West of Mill Road, Cranfield PROPOSAL Outline planning application for the demolition of the existing dwellings at 47 and 49 Mill Road and the erection of up to 230 dwellings and associated infrastructure, with all matters reserved except for access. PARISH Cranfield WARD Cranfield & Marston Moretaine WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Morris, Matthews & Mrs Clark CASE OFFICER Lisa Newlands DATE REGISTERED 29 December 2014 EXPIRY DATE 30 March 2015 APPLICANT Gladman Developments Ltd AGENT REASON FOR Called in by Cllr Clark and former Cllr Bastable. COMMITTEE TO It is a major application with a Parish Council DETERMINE objection and it is a departure from the Local Development Plan. RECOMMENDED DECISION Outline Application - Approval subject to the completion of S106 obligation.

Summary of recommendation:

At the time of writing the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing, and therefore the Council's policies in respect of housing in accordance with the guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework are considered to be out-of-date. Subsequently, paragraph 14 of the NPPF advises that where the development plan is deemed out-of-date that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development. The report acknowledges that there are adverse impacts that arise as a result of this development, in particular the impact on the character of the area due to the built development expanding into the open countryside; however, it is not considered that these would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be approved.

Site Location:

The application site is within the village of Cranfield, outside of the defined settlement envelope. The site is currenty a single agricultural field, it is bounded to the north and east by a mixture of existing hedgerows and residential properties. To the west the site adjoins agricultural land, separated by a ditch and a hedgerow, beyond that is Cranfield Airport and the runway which serves the airport. A new Agenda Item 6 housing development is being developed immediately south of the site. The land Page 18 between the new development and the application site is allocated for a new school and adjacent to that a site for a new health centre.

Access to the site is via Mill Road, with the demolition of 47 and 49 Mill Road to accommodate this provision. There are currently no public rights of way across the site. The agricultural land is considered to be Grade 3a and therefore of good quality agricultural value.

The Application:

Outline planning permission with all matters reserved except access is sought for the erection of up to 230 dwellings and associated infrastructure, with the demolition of two existing dwellings 47 and 49 Mill Road. The outline application covers an area of 10.86ha and comprises of residential development of up to 230 dwellings (7.58ha); Green Infrastructure (3.1ha), including public open space, equipped play, structural landscape, habitat creation and; Attentuation basin (0.20ha).

An indicative masterplan has been submitted with the application, this shows the provision of a skate park, landscape buffers to all boundaries and provision of additional land for the School and land for allotments.

Matters of layout, appearance, scale, landscaping would be reserved for subsequent approval.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

CS1 Development Strategy CS2 Developer Contributions CS3 Healthy and Sustainable Communities CS4 Linking Communities - Accessibility and Transport CS5 Providing Homes CS6 Delivery and Timing of Housing Provision CS7 Affordable Housing CS13 Climate Change CS14 Heritage CS16 Landscape and Woodland CS17 Green Infrastructure CS18 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

DM1 Renewable Energy DM2 Sustainable Construction of New Buildings DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes DM9 Providing a Range of Transport DM10 Housing Mix DM13 Heritage in Development Agenda Item 6 DM14 Landscape and Woodland Page 19 DM15 Biodiversity DM16 Green Infrastructure DM17 Accessible Green Spaces

Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 2014

Policy 1: Presumption in favour of development Policy 2 Growth Strategy Policy 4: Settlement Hierarchy Policy 19: Planning Obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy Policy 21: Provision of Social and Community Infrastructure Policy 22: Leisure and Public Open Space provision Policy 24: Accessibililty and Connectivity Policy 25: Functioning of the Network Policy 26: Travel Plans Policy 27: Parking Policy 28:Transport Assessments Policy 29: Housing Provision Policy 30: Housing Mix Policy 31: Supporting an ageing population Policy 32: Lifetime Homes Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 38: Within and Beyond Settlement Boundaries Policy 43: High Quality Development Policy 46: Renewable and low carbon energy development Policy 47: Resource Efficiency Policy 48: Adaptation Policy 49: Mitigating Flood Risk Policy 50: Development in the Countryside Policy 56: Green Infrastructure Policy 57: Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy 58: Landscape Policy 59: Woodlands, Trees and Hedgerows

The draft Development Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 24th October 2014. After initial hearing sessions in 2015 the Inspector concluded that the Council had not complied with the Duty to Cooperate. The Council has launched a judicial review against the Inspectors findings and has not withdrawn the Development Strategy. The first phase of the legal challenge took place at a hearing on 16th June 2015. This was to consider whether the court would grant the Council leave to have a Judicial Review application heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council's case. On the 22nd June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against his judgement. The status of the Development Strategy currently remains as a submitted plan that has not been withdrawn. Its policies are consistent with the NPPF. Its preparation is based on substantial evidence gathered over a number of years. It is therefore regarded by the Council as a sustainable strategy which was fit for submission to the Secretary of State. Accordingly it is considered that the emerging policies carry weight in this assessment.

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014) Agenda Item 6 Sustainable Drainage Guidance SPD (April 2014) Page 20 The Leisure Strategy (March 2014) The Mid Bedfordshire Landscape Character Assessment (2007) Draft Central Bedfordshire Landscape Character Assessment (2015)

Relevant Planning History:

Application Number CB/14/04525/SCN Description Screening opinion for up to 230 residential dwellings. Decision EIA not required

Consultees:

Cranfield Parish Council The Parish Council strongly object to the planning application for the following reasons:

 The proposal is contrary to CBC policy - the land is not an allocated site in the CBC emerging plan;

 The development will be in open countryside, i.e. outside the settlement limit. This is also contrary to CBC policy;

 The site should be assessed on its merits against other sites across Central Bedfordshire as part of the call for land. There is no evidence to suggest Cranfield should take further housing;

 There are 530 houses already planned; these should be integrated before further major sites are identified or developed;

 Landscape - the plans make it appear that this would be a simple case of infill, however the village has a very clearly defined edge behind Mill Road and the land proposed for development has a very open character of fields with strong field boundaries. it has a strong character of open countryside;

 This Council considers that December, when the consultation was undertaken, is an unreasonable time to do so. The storyboards produced by the applicant were not shown in a public meeting. No public meeting was held by the developer.

 There is a lack of infrastructure - doctors and schools;

 A more detailed archaeological report is needed if approval is given;

 There is only one proposed access to the site - onto Agenda Item 6 Mill Rd, which is already very busy. The access wouldPage 21 be in close proximity to the junctions with Longborns and Springfield Way;

 There would be a loss of amenity to those properties close to the development.

Other Town and Parish Moulsoe Parish Council Councils Objects on the following grounds:

 increased traffic movements including HGVs travelling to and from Cranfield from the M1 via Moulsoe;

 increased level of traffic from vehicles needing access to M1 and Milton Keynes post construction;

 request full transport assessment on the impact on not only Moulsoe but surrounding areas;

 Restrictions preventing construction traffic using Moulsoe. North Crawley Parish Council Objects on the following grounds:

 concern regarding construction traffic;

 Both North Crawley and surrounding villages are already overrun with traffic from Cranfield;

 request restrictions preventing construction traffic using North Crawley as a rat run Anglian Water Wastewater Treatment: Foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Marston Moretaine Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows. A Drainage Strategy will be required. Archaeology The geophysical survey identified evidence of ploughed out remains of medieval ridge and furrow field systems across much of the site with a small number of additional anomalies including a circular ditch in the southern part of the site. The trial trench evaluation investigated the circular ditch and other features. The circular ditch was dated to the post-medieval period and tentatively identified as the remains of a possible windmill mound which had been truncated by ploughing. A small number of other features were identified some of which could be identified with field boundaries shown on historic maps, others were undated or clearly of relatively modern origin.

On the basis of the results of the geophysical survey and trial trenching the site contains relatively few archaeological features and deposits which, where dated, Agenda Item 6 are post-medieval and later in date. The proposed Page 22 development will result in the loss of any archaeological remains the site contains, however, any loss of archaeological remains will not cause a major loss of significance to any heritage assets with archaeological interest. Consequently, I have no objection to this application on archaeological grounds. Bedfordshire No comments received Architectural Liaison Officer Fire Services No objection - adequate water supplies for fire fighting purposes; fire service access to the proposed development meets the requirements of Approved Document B of the Building Regulations. Cranfield Airport Following further correspondence and work undertaken the aviation safeguarding consultants are now satisfied with the information. However, we do still have concerns regarding that attenuation ponds will be built as part of the development. Attenuation ponds are a significant hazard to the Airport as they will attract birds to the ponds which will, in turn, attract birds on to the airport. Aircraft are vulnerable to birdstrikes, statistics show that 80% of all bird strikes occur on an aircraft’s taking off or landing phase of flight and therefore highlights the necessity to safeguard against birds especially as the proposed development is so close to the threshold of Runway 21.

Ecology The proposal involves the development of a higher value grade 3a arable field surrounded by a number of hedgerows. An ecological assessment has been undertaken and the area of the site containing new homes is found to be of relatively low value for ecology. TGI – is a group of trees to the rear of 47 Mill Rd property, according to 4.8 of the Ecological Appraisal this group of trees is unlikely to qualify as a Priority Habitat given its small size and low number of trees. On speaking to the Arborist who undertook the tree survey though it would seem that 7 or 8 fruit trees were present. Given the mix of species included plum, apple, damson and pear and that the tree canopies are within 20m of each other it would meet the criteria for a traditional orchard habitat of principal importance. This tree group would have to be removed to allow access to the site. The fact that this is the one of the main features of ecological significance across the site is disappointing. It is noted that replacement fruit trees are suggested to compensate for the loss of TG1 but I would ask if the route of the road Agenda Item 6 could be amended so as to allow for the retention of the Page 23 orchard.

Another Priority habitat identified is hedgerows, of which the majority of hedgerows on site qualify. Hedges are to be retained where possible and this is welcomed. Ecological buffers and attenuation features are noted on the Framework plan and these will support a green network of ecological corridors across the site. The Ecological Assessment lists a number of mitigation measures of which I approve and it also details enhancement opportunities in chapter 5, these can be added to further through consultation with the CBC Design Guide.

A bat survey has been undertaken but this requires further emergent surveys to be undertaken of the properties proposed for removal.

Education This development is within the catchment areas for Cranfield Cof E Academy and Holywell Middle School, with pupils from Holywell feeding into Wootton Upper School. Financial contributions for education would be required to fund additional capacity at all phases. Environment Agency No objection subject to condition. Highways No fundamental highways reason to justify an objection to the principle of the development. It is acknowledged that there will be local concerns regarding the impact of additional traffic the application is supported by a robust Transport Assessment detailing the traffic generation and distribution that confrms that the access and surrounding highway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic movements from the new development.

With regard to accessing the site the submitted plans indicate a junction arrangement onto Mill Road that is compliant with design standards in terms of layout and visibility splay provision. Whilst I am content with the configuration as proposed I would suggest that the junction take the form of a raised table junction which would have an influence on the speed of traffic along Mill Road. Therefore no objection raised subject to conditions.

Highways Agency No objection Housing Development I would expect to see 35% affordable housing or 80 Officer affordable residential units. I would like to see a tenure split of 63% Social/Affordable Rent or 50 units and 37% Agenda Item 6 Intermediate tenures such as Shared Ownership or 30 Page 24 units as per our Strategic Housing Market Assessment. I would like to see a range of units dispersed throughout the site (pepper potting) and integrated with the market housing to promote community cohesion & tenure blindness. I would also expect all units to meet at the very minimum the code for sustainable homes level 3 and meet all HCA design and quality standards. If these comments are taken on board, I would support this application.

Landscape Officer No objection - following further discussions and illustrative plans regarding the landscape buffers, I am satisfied with the proposal. A condition would be required in terms of full planting specification.

LDF Team At the time of writing the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing and therefore policies in respect of the supply of housing are deemed out of date as per paragraph 49 of the NPPF. In this context, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies and permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development.

The 5 year housing supply number is a given but the extent to which the Council can demonstrate it has a robust and defensible position fluctuates for numerous reasons including for example developers changing information about delivery rates and applications taking time to determine. It is therefore always advisable to have a buffer to allow for factors which may undermine the ability of the Council to defend its position. This site will make an important contribution to re-establishing a robust 5 year supply.

Given that the situation is fluid a further update on the 5 year supply will be provided on the late sheet.

National Air Traffic The proposed development has been examined from a Services (NATS) technical safeguarding aspect and does not conflict with our safeguarding criteria. Accordingly, NATS (En Route) Public Limited Company ("NERL") has no safeguarding objection to the proposal.

However, please be aware that this response applies specifically to the above consultation and only reflects the position of NATS (that is responsible for the management of en route air traffic) based on the information supplied at the time of this application. This letter does not provide Agenda Item 6 any indication of the position of any other party, whether Page 25 they be an airport, airspace user or otherwise. It remains your responsibility to ensure that all the appropriate consultees are properly consulted.

If any changes are proposed to the information supplied to NATS in regard to this application which become the basis of a revised, amended or further application for approval, then as a statutory consultee NERL requires that it be further consulted on any such changes prior to any planning permission or any consent being granted.

NHS The proposed development of 230 dwellings will result in circa 552 new registrations for primary care. The Cranfield Surgery is the closest GP practice to the development and would in the opinion of NHS England be most impacted by the increase in patient registrations. The Cranfield Surgery is deemed to be severely constrained at 57.8 patients per sqm, in excess of the 20 patients per sqm over the NHS England accepted capacity for Hertfordshire and South Midlands.

‘Constrained’ means a practice working over-capacity for the size of their premises and the clinical space available to provide the required services to their patients. A practice in this situation would usually need to be re- configured, extended or in exceptional circumstances even relocated to absorb a significant number of new registrations. For all the above reasons a S106 contribution is requested to support this practice and to make this scheme favourable to NHS England.

Leisure Services No objection, the provision of the play area, skate park and informal open space on site is considered acceptable. The site would create the need for additional outdoor sporting space, this is now proposed off-site on land adjacent to the site/ behind the existing Football Club and will be secured through the S106. The area for the allotments is considered acceptable and the laying out/ management of these will be secured through the S106.

Public Art No public art statement has been submitted with the application, we would be looking for some form of public art on the site and we will look to secure this through condition.

Public Protection No objection subject to conditions in terms of noise Agenda Item 6 mitigation measures; and lighting design scheme. Page 26

Contaminated Land No objection – the contamination report does confirm the Officer possibility of cross-boundary contamination. It would be the responsibility of the developer of the new application to ensure safe and secure development, and eliminate risks to building integrity too. A contaminated land condition is recommended.

Public Rights of Way No comment to make. No current recorded PROW in that area. Due to the location of the site, there doesn’t appear to be the potential to create linkages to other PROW in the area.

Sustainable Transport In order to facilitate access by alternatives to the car connectivity is required that minimises walking and cycling distances. Washingleys is included on the framework plan as a potential pedestrian link but there is no information as to the status of this and how it will be secured? Otherwise, there is a single point of access off Mill Road only which minimises the potential for permeability.

The Framework Plan also suggests that this development serves as the main access to the school rather than through the Bellway development. Whichever is approved a through pedestrian route between the 2 developments is preferred, particularly as this would then give residents the potential to link to the public right of way (FP22) that goes to Cranfield University and which CBC is looking to develop as a cycle route. This would also provide a potential access to the proposed health centre.

With regard to access to the school site through this development, it is anticipated that a larger proportion of children may well be car borne in which case measures will need to be put in place in order to mitigate the traffic impact of the school run. Consideration needs to be given to separate walking and cycling access into the school and ‘safer routes to school’ such that children are segregated from traffic through the development, perhaps via an off road footway/cycle way rather than off the secondary sreet that potentially will be shared space only. Transport Strategy No comments received

Tree and Landscape Main issue from a tree and landscape point of view is Officer going to be the removal of a number of mixed fruit trees located in the rear gardens of 47 and 49 Mill Road. Areas of mixed fruit trees such as these despite often being in poor condition are considered as being of considerable importance with regards the European Biodiversity Action Agenda Item 6 Plan with old traditional orchards being considered as Page 27 habitat to be preserved. This proposal would be contrary to this by removing this area of orchard, as such it would not in principle be acceptable. It would be worth considering bearing this in mind to look at refining the survey down to individual trees, identifying those most important and seeing if there was some way to retain some. The access road which is shown as being 6 metres in width and an addition 4 metres of footpath width is proposed to be centrally located in the area of the rear gardens of the two properties. It would seem that even if access were to have to go through this point then it could be located to the south edge of this strip of land and as such retain a number of these trees as existing landscape features which be preferable to their loss with suitable road construction measures being taken to ensure the ongoing health of the Poplars located in adjoining land to the south of the access. Landscape layout shown in the Design and Access Statement would indicate substantial planting as a buffer of landscaping along the west boundary and potentially an area of allotments. I think that if a full application were to be received then substantial effort should be put into ensuring that concerns by both Ecology, Landscape and Tree Officers should be addressed. This would take the form of quality planting and inclusion of a new area of Orchard trees within the landscape.

Waste  All communal properties will need to have a dedicated bin store in order to facilitate communal bins, details of each bin store and its location will need to be provided. The Council has created documents available on the Council website to aid developers, it would be advisable for the applicant to access these and ensure their propose meets our requirements.

 All individual dwellings will need to be able to store their bins in the rear of the property boundary, therefore rear garden access will be required for each property without have to pass through the house.

 Collection points, the applicant will need to take into consideration collection points for individual dwellings, The Council will not accept any proposal for bins to be presented behind on street parking or away from the road side. Agenda Item 6  Dropped kerbs will need to be provided at all Page 28 communal bin stores in order to allow the removal of bins onto the road for emptying.

Other Representations:

Neighbours, this The application has received 343 representations, 340 includes 33 objections, 2 comments and 1 petition. representations from those on Mill Road, 27 In summary objections have been raised on the following from those on the High grounds: Street; 16 from those within Washingleys, 16  Outside the settlement envelope; from those within Longborns, 30 from  the site is not an allocated site within the current those on Crawley Road, planning policy; and 14 from those in Broad Green. The  in addition to the 530 houses already under remainder would have construction - there would be too much pressure on been from those within existing infrastructure including roads and community Cranfield and the facilities; surrounding area.  Lack of dog bins within Cranfield;

 Concerns regarding the access on to Mill Road - this is already congested at peak times- the village infrastructure cannot accommodate a further 230 houses;

 schools cannot cope at present with existing intakes - they would be swamped if this development is approved;

 Promised facilities as a 'bribe', these never materialise - every developer promises a new surgery this has never been achieved. The local surgery/ GPs are stretched at the moment trying to cope with existing patients;

 loss of open countryside;

 the addition of so many houses would detract from the ambience enjoyed by many residents of the village;

 27 acres of greenfield site that should not be given over to development;

 Do not need agricultural land to be opened up for residents use and enjoyment - we are surrounded by beautiful countryside and public amenities of Rectory Wood, Marston Thrift, Hulcote Wood, Forest of Marston vale;

 Development was refused on the site in 1988 for valid Agenda Item 6 reasons which still apply today; Page 29  We should not have to put up with further expansion to meet Luton's shortfall in housing;

 No evidence that surface water drainage and sewerage infrastructure is adequate to prevent localised flooding;

 Consultation process by Gladmans has been inadequate and designed so residents wouldn't notice it.

 Alternative access to new lower school is equally as unacceptable as that from Flitt Leys;

 Inability for local schools to take on children who come from the university complex for short periods of time;

 Footpath/cycleway at the bottom of Longborns - this would impact on privacy and security, the landscape strip would make no difference;

 impact on wildlife;

 overdevelopment of the land;

 suburb of Milton Keynes;

 Good quality farmland and should remain as such;

 Applicant failed to demonstrate it is in line with the CSDM;

 It is not in line with the vision for Cranfield;

 Insufficient evidence to support development on this Greenfield site;

 Dentist full to capacity like the doctors;

 Framework doesn't respect the local appearance or character of the area;

 idea that the development will screen noise from airfield is crazy - it will create noise through general comings and goings and traffic movements;

 Site access will run alongside residential properties - increase noise pollution - construction of 1.8m high fence will not mitigate this;

 overlooked by proposed development;

 overbearing development;

 loss of privacy to neighbouring residents adjacent to Agenda Item 6 site access; Page 30  Stream not shown on plans;

 5 years of noise and pollution during construction phase;

 closer to airfield - greater potential for air traffic accident;

 Minor service centre - deliver 250 homes between 2011 and 2031 - already delivered 530;

 changed outlook;

 only one access route;

 footpath into Washingleys traverses privately owned land - jointly owned by 12 and 15 Washingleys with just a right of access for the farmer;

 Footpath into Washingleys would impact privacy of adjacent properties and alter the character of the cul- de-sac;

 Allotment provision not sufficient;

 disturbance of ground water drainage;

 pollution during construction and traffic pollution post construction;

 No direct link with university/ technology park;

 limited integration potential with the rest of the village;

 Exacerbate the existing traffic congestion in the village to an unacceptable level;

 Home Farm and Flitt Leys under construction - no more partially developed sites;

 need to assimilate new residents from existing planned development sites first;

 Destruction of village community;

 There has been a detailed assessment of the impact of additional houses on Cranfield in the refusal at appeal for the proposed development of land at Cranfield Airfield (04/00928/OUT). It was concluded that the impact of a further development in addition to the Home Farm development would be an overwhelming of the existing residents, with too great for comfort adjustments to be made to community life, and in particular that there could be difficulties in co- ordinating the sudden growth of the village with the Agenda Item 6 necessary provisions of additional education and Page 31 medical facilities

 The entrance into Mill Road will cause noise to the adjacent houses;

 limited integration potential with the village and restricted access points;

 Cranfield University object on the following grounds - The size and range of the potential impacts would suggest that an EIA is required and the impact on the airport should be considered; the university understands that the adopted plan is not seeking additional housing in Cranfield. If this was to change we would expect brownfield sites to come forward in preference to greenfield sites such as this.

 Proximity of the site to air traffic;

 Cranfield is meant to be a village not a town

 Increased danger to pedestrians

 The Doctors Surgery is not fit for purpose;

 Mill Road cannot sustain the additional traffic generated; We have received one letter of support on the following grounds:

 Cranfield not longer a village but a dormitory for Milton Keynes, Cranfield University and Bedford;

 the agricultural land proposed for development is heavy clay and relatively low value for food production;

 Cranfield has ample space and facilities;

 Several local retailers and tradesmen are in favour of expansion.

There are issues that need to be resolved - traffic congestion through the high street, creation of allotments, and a larger doctors surgery is built off the main road. Stop over Development Objects on the following grounds: (Cranfield Community Action Group)  We believe CBC can demonstrate a 5 year housing supply, and therefore this site is not required to deliver housing as part of the Council's strategy;

 The application site is outside of the settlement envelope, and has not been identified for development Agenda Item 6 as an allocated site in either the Mid Beds Local PlanPage 32 or the emerging CBC Development Strategy. This does not form part of the already agreed 530 houses planned for the village and under construction;

 The village needs time to assimilate the new residents from the consented permissions prior to any further sites being identified for development;

 Cranfield is not designed to take such another large development, the infrastructure is inadequate;

 The application is premature - the site should have been put forward under the call for sites, and fairly assessed with other sites put forward;

 the proposed footpath crosses private land. This land has specific right of access, however we believe it is legally unclear if it is possible to impose a public right of way on this land;

 The route of the footpath is not one which would match the requirements of residents from the application site - they would surely want a footpath that takes them to the High Street in Cranfield. This proposed site is towards the far end of the village and is not accessible on foot to the shops or schools for most. We believe the sustainability of the site is questionable without adequate pedestrian links;

 The new entrance to the site is very close to Springfield Way, which comes out onto Mill Road. Residents are concerned that this is an already congested road with road calming measures and a new Zebra crossing;

 inadequate S106 proposed. There is no offer of contributions towards health care or formal leisure open space. Cranfield has been identified as the worst provided for village of its kind in Central beds for playing field provision. The contribution towards traffic measures seems to include zebra crossing, which is now in place on Mill Road;

 Mill Road is a bus route that is often blocked with parked cars belonging to the homes on Mill Road and elsewhere together with continuous delivery vans to the local shops and homes. It is also used as a run- through for lorries, whilst remaining a main pedestrian Agenda Item 6 route for school children, parents with buggies, dog Page 33 walkers and the elderly;

 Services such as fire and ambulances take an estimated 20+ minutes to arrive. Any further overloading of Mill Road would make that much worse with devastating consequences to the community;

 An offer to support the bus service in Cranfield in the main document is not repeated in the S106 appendix, but seemed only to refer to bus stop provision, in any event. However bus stop provision is already good;

 Pressure on existing services - school expanision has been modelled on existing housing allocation, and does not take account of unplanned development. This will put unnecessary strain on existing resources. The Doctors Surgery is under particular pressure, and has still to absorb the new residents of 530 homes;

 It would not be sustainable because utilities, sewerage and water systems are already at capacity;

 For the inhabitants of Mill Road, Washingleys and Longborns there would be a total loss of privacy and security as historically fences and hedges are low, overlooked by agricultural fields;

Determining Issues:

1. The principle of development 2. Access and highway considerations 3. Impact on the character and appearance of the area 4. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents 5. Biodiversity 6. The benefits of the scheme 7. Planning Contributions 8. The Planning balance 9. Other matters

Considerations

1. The principle of development 1.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) and paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework set out that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 1.2 The Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) forms part of the Local Development Framework for the North Agenda Item 6 Area of Central Bedfordshire. It sets out the Strategy for providing homes andPage 34 jobs in Central Bedfordshire. At 3.3.1, it sets out the approach that will be taken to achieve these development requirements. Part of that approach is to control development within the open countryside. 1.3 The supporting text to Policy DM4 (Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes) sets out at 11.1.5 that outside settlement envelopes, where the countryside needs to be protected from inappropriate development, only particular types of new development will be permitted in accordance with national guidance. 1.4 The application site falls outside of the defined settlement envelope for Cranfield and is therefore considered to be within open countryside. Cranfield is designated as a minor service centre in Policy CS1 (Development Strategy) this states that new housing development will help deliver new community infrastructure and facilities that benefit the sustainability of the town. Policy DM4 states that within the settlement of ....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 local service centre. The proposal would therefore on this basis be considered as inappropriate development in the open countryside and would conflict with the development plan. 1.5 However, there are a number of other considerations that need to be taken into account when considering the principle of development in this instance. In June this year an appeal was allowed for a site in Langford, which was a development proposed outside the settlement envelope and the main reason for refusal was on this basis. As with this application, during the application and appeal process it was argued by the apellent that the Council had an undersupply of housing and could therefore not demonstrate a 5 year supply. The Inspector agreed with the appellant and one of the conclusions drawn was that the Council could not currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing. Therefore, at the time of writing this report it is considered that the Council do not currently have a 5 year supply of housing, and in these circumstances the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 49 would apply. This states that 'Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.' It is therefore concluded that at present the Council's Housing Policies are not up to date. Paragraph 14 of the same document states that 'For decision- taking this means... where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted'. 1.6 In line with this national policy position, it is considered that whilst the proposal would be contrary to Policy DM4 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies for Central Bedfordshire (North), this policy is currently regarded as being out of date. Therefore, in considering this application the Council must weigh any harm from the proposal against the benefits of the scheme. This will be addressed later in the report. Agenda Item 6 1.7 Cranfield as a whole is a minor service centre and provides a number of Page 35 facilites for local residents. It has good transport links to the surrounding area, including Bedford, Milton Keynes and further afield. The settlement provides educational facilites at both early years, lower and middle school level, a new Lower School was recently approved at the last Development Management Committee in August and will provide additional educational facilities. There is a planned library that will be delivered within Holywell Middle School. Upper School provision is within Wootton Upper School in Bedford Borough. There is GP provision within Cranfield and Marston Moretaine, although considered to be constrained, there are health facilities and land has been secured for a new health facility adjacent to the new Lower School. There is also a dentist available within the locality and a number of Public Houses. 1.8 Concern has been raised in a large number of the representations received that Cranfield cannot sustain any further growth and that the existing facilites are already stretched to capacity and therefore Cranfield is not a sustainable location. To conclude that Cranfield is a sustainable location would mean that the village could support the infrastructure needs of the existing and the projected population. Given the current planned new Lower School and library facility it is considered that these would be capable of coping with an increase in population as suggested. However, it is acknowledged that the health facilities in Cranfield are already severely constrained. However, given the choice that is available to patients in terms of registering at a GP practice and the aspiration of a new surgery within Cranfield, it is considered that it would not be justified to argue that Cranfield would be so unsustainable that it could not accommodate growth to the extent that the impact would be demonstrably harmful. However, health will be discussed in more detail further on in this report in terms of S106 contributions and the benefits of the scheme. 1.9 The site is currently an arable field and is identified as grade 3a agricultural land. This is good quality agricultural land with moderate limitations. The Agricultural Land Classification system classifies land into five grades. The best and most versatile land is defined as Grades 1, 2 and 3a. The NPPF within paragraph 112 states that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of a higher quality should be sought. It is considered that the loss of this area of agricultural land would constitute only minor harm. 1.10 In terms of the principle of development, it is acknowledged that the scale and location of the proposal are not considered to be suitable in terms of the Council's adopted policies in relation to housing. However, these policies in respect of paragraph 49 of the NPPF are considered to be out of date at the time of writing and therefore unless significant and demonstrable harm can be identified which outweigh the benefits of the scheme, then the principle of development should be regarded as acceptable.

2. Access and highway considerations 2.1 Access is a matter for consideration within this application. The proposal shows the development being served from a new access within Mill Road. Residential properties 47 and 49 Mill Road are to be demolished to provide sufficient land for the access from Mill Road to the development. The Council's Highways Officer has assessed the application and there is no fundamental highways reason to justify an objection. It is acknowlegded that there will be local concerns Agenda Item 6 regarding the impact of additional traffic, however, the application is supportedPage 36 by a robust Transport Assessment detailing the traffic generation and distribution. This confirms that the access and surrounding highway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic movements from the new development.

2.2 The submitted plans indicate a T-junction arrangement on to Mill Road that is compliant with design standards in terms of layout and visibility splay provision. The Highways Officer is content with the configuration as proposed, however, has suggested that the junction take the form of a raised table junction, which would have an influence on the speed of traffic along Mill Road. The speed of vehicles along Mill Road has also been raised in a number of representations as a concern in terms of introducing further traffic movements along this stretch of road. It is therefore considered appropriate that this would be conditioned on any grant of planning permission.

2.3 Detailed design matters are reserved for future consideration. In terms of parking provision any reserved matters application would be expected to incorporate the recommendations of the Council's adopted Design guide.

2.4 Concern has been raised within the representations regarding the access serving the school site and that this access would not be any better than the access from Flit Leys. The school would only have a pedestrian access from this development, now shown on the framework plan and this will be secured by condition. The new Lower School has already been designed and been granted permission at the previous Development Management Committee with the primary pedestrian and vehicular access being from Flit Leys. The Education Officer has stated that whilst a pedestrian access from the Mill Road development would be acceptable, they would not be looking for a further vehicular access from this development.

2.5 The proposed access is therefore considered acceptable and appropriate to serve this level of development and although it is acknowledged that there are local concerns regarding the additional traffic within the highway network, the Transport Assessment confirms that the access and surrounding highway network have sufficient capacity to accommodate the traffic movements from the proposed development. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable in terms of its impact on the highway.

3. Impact on the character and appearance of the area 3.1 The application site is outside the settlement envelope and is therefore considered to be within the open countryside. The site is currently an agricultural field which is bounded on three sides by residential development/ new Lower School and on the fourth side by the airfield for Cranfield Airport.The hedgerow network screens the site relatively well at present although the new properties on the Bellway site to the south are clearly visible in views from the west.

3.2 The Cranfield plateau is characterised by relatively large, level arable fields bounded by hawthorn hedgerows. This north-eastern edge of Cranfield retains a village scale, with open space at Broad Green and lanes leading to Bourne End and . The thick dense hedges beside Crawley Road are a particularly distinctive feature. The presence of the airfield provides a subtle but important contrast with the landing lights and aircraft activity. Agenda Item 6 Page 37 3.3 The Landscape Officer has commented on the application and originally had concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the character of the area and the surounding landscape. However, given the proposed landscape buffer it is considered that it would contain the development within the site and would reduce the impact of the expansion of the built development towards the plateau grassland of the airfield. The landscape buffering would be secured through condition and at the reserved matters stage, the framework plan indicates that the buffer would be between 10-15m along the north-western boundary, to the rear of properties in Mill Road north of the access road and to the rear of properties within Washingleys, Longborns and Broad Green/ Crawley Road. This landscape buffer would still allow views into the site but would limit the harm of the expansion into the open countryside.

3.4 The proposal includes a footpath combined within the landscape buffer from the north of the site to the south. This would provide a safe route to school and an alternative from using the estate roads.

3.5 The site would be relatively screened from views along Mill Road and there would only be partial views through the existing houses and along the access road. The landscape buffer would soften the development for the existing houses within Mill Road, although it is acknowledged that the open views across the site would be irreversibly lost as a result of the development and replaced by an extension of the built form in to the countryside. However, this would be limited to those properties that back on to the site, as there is no other public access on to the site. It is important to note that the loss of views is not a material planning consideration and that primarily the concern is the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

3.6 As mentioned previously, the site is bounded on three sides by development, there would be a loss of agricultural land and in turn open countryside through the expansion of the built form into the site. It is acknowledged that this would result in a harmful impact, particularly to those residents within Mill Road, which currently have open views across the site. However, taking account of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, consideration has to be given in terms of whether this harm is significant and demonstrable.

3.8 Given the limited views of the site and that there are no public footpaths that cross the site, and the enhanced landscaping that it proposed; it is considered that it would be difficult to sustain an argument that the adverse impact would result in a significant and demonstrable harm. There will be further consideration in terms of whether the benefits of the scheme outweigh any harm later in the report.

4. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents 4.1 The residential use of the site in itself would not be incompatible with existing residential uses to the eastern and northern boundaries. The layout, which would be assessed at reserved matters stage would need to demonstrate that the living conditions of existing neighbours would not be harmed through loss of privacy, or by creating an oppressive or overbearing impact.

4.2 The proposed framework plan and indicative lanscape buffer sections indicates that the proposed residential development, and play areas/ skate park would not Agenda Item 6 be located adjacent to the developed boundaries of the site, particularly MillPage 38 Road; Washingleys; Longborns; Broad Green and Crawley Road. With the play area/ skate park being on the western boundary with the adjacent airfield. The existing properties would therefore be screened by existing or proposed planting. The landscape buffer between the site and the rear boundary of properties within Mill Road is between approximately 10-15m, the rear gardens of these properties within Mill Road, particularly south of the access road are relatively long with a minimum of 35m increasing to over 60m near to the access road. Given this separation distance it is not considered that the proposal would result in any loss of privacy or any overbearing impact on these properties.

4.3 North of the access road, there are a number of properties within Longborns and Washingleys, that are close to the boundary with the site, in these areas the landscape buffer has been enhanced and would be approximately 15m in depth from the rear boundaries of these properties. It is therefore considered that this increased landscaping would result in a sufficient separation distance between the proposed development and the neighbouring properties to ensure that there would be no loss of privacy or overbearing impact from the proposal.

4.4 There are a number of other properties within Broad Green and Crawley Road that are close to the application site, some of which have been designed to have an outlook over the site. The landscape buffer has been enhanced in this area and would be approximately 10 metres in depth. This would again provide adequate screening to the site and ensure that there would be no loss of privacy or overbearing impact on these neighboruing properties.

4.5 Access to the site is proposed through the demolition of 47 and 49 Mill Road and the introduction of a new access road. Given this access between residential properties, it is clear that there would be the potential for significant noise and disturbance caused by traffic passing by the side walls and garden of the neighbouring properties. In order to ensure appropriate mitigation a scheme could be secured by way of a planning condition on any grant of planning permission.

4.6 In terms of future occupiers, any detailed reserved matters application would have to demonstrate that the layout/ scheme was designed in accordance with the Council's adopted Design Guide. This would ensure that a suitable level of amenity would be provided for new residents.

4.7 Given the framework plan and the information within the application, it is considered that the proposed could accommodate up to 230 dwellings without any detrimental loss of amenity to the existing neighbouring residents, subject to an acceptable layout.

5. Biodiversity 5.1 An ecological assessment has been undertaken and submitted with the application. The area of the site containing new homes is found to be of relatively low value for ecology given it being agricultural land.

There is a group of trees to the rear of 47 Mill Road which contains a number of fruit trees. Given the mix of species included plum, apple, damson and pear and that the tree canopies are within 20m of each other it would meet the criteria for a Agenda Item 6 traditional orchard habitat of principal importance. This tree group would havePage to 39 be removed to allow access to the site. Replacement fruit trees are proposed within the application to compensate for this loss. This can be conditioned on the grant of any planning permission.

Another priority habitat identified is hedgerows, of which the majority of hedgerows on site qualify. The hedges are to be retained where possible and this is welcomed. Further details of this would be considered at the reserved matters stage. Ecological buffers and attenuation features are shown on the framework plan and these will support a green network of ecological corridors across the site. It is therefore considered that there would be a biodiversity net gain overall.

6. The benefits of the scheme 6.1 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that '...where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless: any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this framework taken as a whole...'. Therefore, consideration has to be given to the perceived benefits of the scheme. The application has therefore put forward the following benefits:

6.2 Provision of Market Housing The scheme would create up to an additional 230 dwellings. The application states the site would provide substantial delivery in the next 5 years.

6.3 Provision of Affordable Housing The scheme would be policy compliant in terms of affordable housing and would therefore secure 35% affordable housing on the site. This would equate up to 81 dwellings.

6.4 Social Benefits The proposal would provide housing to meet the need and growth aspirations. The site is located in an accessible and sustainable location close to key services and facilities.

6.5 Economic Benefits The scheme would support approximately 110 FTE jobs and would be eligible for a new homes bonus in the region of £2.45million. Increased local spending power given the increased local residents.

6.6 Employment Benefits The site borders Cranfield University and Technology Park, which is designated as a key employment site and there is an employment allocation, providing new employment opportunities.

6.7 Public Open Space The proposal involves the provision of informal public open space, landscaping, provision of footpaths across the site, an equipped play area, skate park and informal recreational open spaces. The proposal will also provide an off site grass pitch area and changing facilities to the rear of the existing football club. This will be secured through the S106 process/ negotiations.

6.8 Biodiveristy and Ecological Benefits The NPPF looks for development to ensure that biodiversity is maintained and Agenda Item 6 enhanced where possible on the site. The proposal includes a substantialPage 40 amount of landscape buffering, green corridors and the retention of existing hedgerows where possible. An attentuation pond is located along the north- western boundary at a low point of the site and will be a landscape feature of value to wildlife and residents alike.

6.9 Planning contributions The proposal will add to the existing population in Cranfield and will therefore lead to an increased pressure on existing infrastructure, services and facilities. The application states that the applicant will enter into a planning obligation for all obligations that are deemed to be necessary to make the scheme acceptable in planning terms. The detail of the planning contributions proposed will be discussed in the following section.

6.10 Conclusion The provision of both market and affordable housing can be regarded as a benefit of the scheme. Whilst affordable housing is a policy requirement, there is caselaw which determines that such provision should be regarded as a benefit which should be given weight in the planning balance. In addition to this the provision of housing is also a benefit which should be given weight in determining an application, as it will make a contribution to re-establishing the Council's required 5 year housing supply. Policy DM10 requires a mix of housing within schemes, there is also a shortfall of elderly accommodation within the district. It is a Council priority to provide accommodation that would be suitable for the elderly therefore along with the lifetime homes standards required, it is considered appropriate to secure the provision of bungalows as part of any reserved matters application should permission be granted.

6.11 In terms of economic benefits these can be given weight as a benefit, although the perceived benefit of local spending power is considered somewhat tenuous. Likewise, the perceived social benefit case is not made with any notable evidence other than it provides dwellings at a time when the Council has issues with providing the required housing land supply.

6.12 The extent of landscaping, buffers, informal open space and attentuation pond, whilst providing a possible biodiversity gain in accordance with the NPPF is unlikely to be a considerable benefit of the scheme which is given a lot of weight; as it is primarily a mitigation measure due to the impact on the landscape and the loss of the open countryside. However, the provision of a grass pitch area off site will provide an additional facility for the local community. Representations were received from a number of residents including Cranfield Colts in terms of the lack of provision of football pitches within Cranfield and the need for a greater level of provision. This would therefore be seen as an added benefit to the scheme, that without this development may not have been provided.

6.13 The proposal involves the provision of public open space, including an equipped play area and a skate park, it also provides land for allotments which is an aspiration of the Parish Council. The Skate Park and allotments are considered to be a benefit to the scheme and as aspects that were an aspiration of the Parish Council to be provided in the future. The public open space and equipped play area, would serve the demand of the proposed development. All aspects would be accessible to the community and should therefore be regarded as a benefit. Agenda Item 6 Page 41 6.14 Among other contributions provided which will be discussed in more detail in the following section, the proposal will provide additional land for the new Lower School bounding the site. This will provide land to expand the Lower School to accommodate the additional pupil yield from the development.

7. Planning Contributions 7.1 A S106 agreement will be used to secure the relevant contributions required towards local infrastructure. The Heads of Terms are still under discussion at the time of writing and will be finalised on the late sheet prior to the Development Management Committee. The current heads of terms being discussed are as follows:

Education  Lower School - Provision of additional land in lieu of contributions  Middle School - Expansion/ re-configuration of Holywell Middle School £533,305.60  Upper School - Provision of new 6th form block at Wootton Upper School - £654,009.60

Leisure  Land and provision of laid out grass pitches with associated changing facilities or contribution in lieu of laying out the pitches and provision of changing facilities;  Provision and laying out of 0.2ha of land for allotments, including management scheme;  Provision of 0.06ha of land for on-site play provision, including management scheme;  Provision of 0.03ha of land for provision and layout of a skate park, including management scheme;

Health

 The applicants have agreed to pay a contribution towards the provision of a new health facility in Cranfield, however, at the time of writing the exact sum is still under consideration. This will be reported on the late sheet.

Affordable Housing  35% affordable housing will be secured across the site.

Other Provision of open space and future management.

7.2 The proposed heads of terms are considered to meet the tests as set out in terms of the Community Infrastructure Levy and a final Heads of Terms will be finalised prior to the Development Management Committee.

8. The Planning Balance 8.1 It has been made clear throughout the body of this report that the main consideration in this application is in relation to paragraph 14 of the NPPF, which states that given the Council's housing policies are currently considered to be out-of-date planning permission should be granted unless it can be demonstrated Agenda Item 6 that the adverse impacts of the scheme significantly and demonstrably outweighPage 42 the benefits.

8.2 The impacts of the scheme are considered to be the encroachment of the built development into the open countryside, resulting in the irreversible loss of open countryside and the harm to the character of the area.

8.3 It is clear that if the Council's housing policies were considered to be up to date then this application would not be supported and would be seen as contrary to Policy DM4 which relates to settlement envelopes. However, at the time of writing this report, that is not the case. The impact of the proposal on the character of the open countryside is considered to be harmful, however, it is not considered that this adverse impact would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits detailed above. Therefore, it is not considered that planning permission can justifiably be refused.

8.4 The site would be bounded on three sides by built development, and would have a pedestrian access to the new lower school. It is not considered that it would be an isolated form of development although the connectivity with the rest of the village would only be via the access route.

8.5 It is acknowledged that the proposal would cause some harm to the character of the area by extending the built form further into the open countryside, however, it is considered on balance that the harm identified would not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits oulined in Section 6 and 7 of this report.

9. Other Matters 9.1 Human Rights The development has been assessed in the context of human rights and would have no relevant implications.

9.2 The Equalities Act 2010 The development has been assessed in the context of the Equalities Act 2010 and would have no relevant implications.

Recommendation:

That subject to the completion of a S106 agreement, outline planning permission be granted subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

1 No development shall take place within each area approved as identified on drawing no 6390-L-02_N until approval of the details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development within that area (herein called “the reserved matters”) has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To comply with Part 3 Article 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 2015. Agenda Item 6 Page 43 2 Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority within three years from the date of this permission. The development shall begin not later than two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, if approved on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3 No development shall commence until a foul water strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the foul water strategy so approved unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009

4 Development shall not begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, 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 be based upon the principles within the agreed Flood Risk Assessment and shall also include:

 Full calculations detailing the existing surface water runoff rates for the QBAR, Q30 and Q100 storm events;  Full storm event simulation results with appropriate inputs and parameters demonstrating the surface water runoff rates for the QBAR, Q30, Q100 and Q100 plus climate change storm events, of the critical storm season and duration;  Full results of proposed drainage system modelling in the above- referenced storm events, inclusive of all collection, conveyance, storage, flow control and disposal elements, together with an assessment of the system performance;  Detailed drawings of the entire proposed surface water drainage system, including levels, gradients, dimensions, and pipe reference numbers;  Results of infiltration testing and effects upon surface water drainage proposals;  Full details of the proposed attenuation and flow control measures, including dimensions, design and water levels, gradients and – where a vortex flow control is used – the manufacturer’s design flow curve;  Details of overland flood flow routes in the event of system exceedance or failure, with demonstration that such flows can be appropriately managed on site without increasing flood risk to occupants, or to adjacent or downstream sites;  Full details of the maintenance and/or adoption of the system Agenda Item 6 inclusive of all collection, conveyance, storage, flow control and Page 44 disposal elements.

The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity, and ensure future maintenance of these.

5 Prior to the demolition of 47 and 49 Mill Road, a further emergent bat survey should be undertaken and a report submitted showing the results and any mitigation measures required. The demolition/ works required to these properties shall be carried out in accordance with any mitigation measures detailed.

Reason: To ensure that the appropriate mitigation measures are in place given the likelihood of bats within the properties to be demolished.

6 No development shall commmence until full engineering details of the access arrangements shown for indicative purposes on Hydrock plan 001 Revision shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and no dwelling approved under any subsequent reserved matters application shall be brought into use until such time as the agreed works have been implemented.

Reason:To ensure the provision of appropriate access arrangements and associated off-site highway works in the interests of highway safety.

7 Any subsequent reserved matters application shall include the following;

 A raised table junction where the estate road joins onto Mill Road.  Estate roads designed and constructed to a standard appropriate for adoption as public highway.  Pedestrian and cycle linkages to existing routes  Vehicle parking and garaging in accordance with the councils standards applicable at the time of submission.  Cycle parking and storage in accordance with the councils standards applicable at the time of submission.  A Construction Traffic Management Plan detailing access arrangements for construction vehicles, routing of construction vehicles, on-site parking and loading and unloading areas.  Materials Storage Areas.  Wheel cleaning arrangements.  A Residential Travel Plan.

Reason:To ensure that the development of the site is completed to provide adequate and appropriate highway arrangements at all times. Agenda Item 6 8 Development shall not begin until a detailed scheme for protectingPage 45 proposed dwellings from noise has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The scheme will include consideration of both site layout and building design to achieve an acceptable noise environment. None of the dwellings shall be occupied 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: To protect the amenity of future residential occupiers of the development in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies for Central Bedfordshire (North)

9 Development shall not begin until a detailed scheme for protecting existing neighbouring dwellings from road traffic noise associated with the proposed new access road to the development has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The new access road 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: To protect the amenity of existing residential occupiers neighbouring the development in accordance with Policy DM3 of Core Strategy and Development Management Policies for Central Bedfordshire (North)

10 No occupation of the dwellings hereby approved shall take place until a suitable lighting design scheme and impact assessment devised to eliminate any detrimental effect caused by obtrusive light from the development on the proposed dwellings and existing neighbouring land uses shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be prepared by a suitably qualified lighting engineer in accordance with relevant publications and standards. Only the details thereby approved shall be implemented.

Reason: To protect the amenity of existing residential occupiers neighbouring the development, and future residential occupiers of the development in accordance with Policy DM3 of Core Strategy and Development Management Policies for Central Bedfordshire (North)

11 No development other than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of remediation shall take place until conditions (a) to (d) below have been complied with, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. If unexpected contamination is found after development has begun, development must be halted on that part of the site affected by the unexpected contamination to the extent specified by the Local Planning Authority in writing until condition (d) has been complied with in relation to that contamination.

(a) Site Characterisation Agenda Item 6 An investigation and risk assessment, in addition to any assessment Page 46 provided with the planning application, must be completed in accordance with a scheme to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The contents of the scheme are subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings must be produced. The written report is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The report of the findings must include: A survey of the extent, scale and nature of the contamination; An assessment of the potential risks to: Human health Property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes Adjoining land Ground waters and surface waters Ecological systems Archaeological sites and ancient monuments An appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s)

This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.

(b) Submission of Remediation Scheme A detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.

(c) Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

(d) Reporting of Unexpected Contamination In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out Agenda Item 6 the approved development that was not previously identified it must bePage 47 reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of condition (a), and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme must be prepared in accordance with the requirements of condition (b), which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report must be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority in accordance with condition (c).

Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors. (Policy 44, DSCB)

12 Each reserved matters application for landscaping shall include the following:  Strategic landscape buffering as indicated on the Framework Plan number 6390-L-02_N on the north, western and eastern boundaries;  details of public amenity open space, Local Equipped Areas of Play (LEAP), facilities for Young People  Location and details of replacement fruit trees for those lost through the provision of the access It should include relevant details of location, layout, size, timing for delivery, location and specification of boundary structures, play equipment and materials. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision of open space, landscape buffering and play equipment across the site in accordance with Policy CS3 of Core Strategy and Development Management Policies for Central Bedfordshire (North)

13 Details of the layout and design of the play area shown on the approved drawing, including the equipment, furniture, surfacing and boundary treatment to be installed, together with a timetable for its implementation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate play and children’s recreation facilities. (Policy 43, DSCB)

14 The development hereby approved shall include the provision of a minimum of 10 bungalows across the site. These shall be detailed in any reserved matters application. Agenda Item 6 Reason: To ensure a suitable housing mix across the development in Page 48 accordance with Policy DM10 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies for Central Bedfordshire (North)

15 No development shall take place on the construction of the dwellings hereby approved until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing how renewable energy and low energy sources would generate 10% of the energy needs of the development and also showing water efficiency measures achieving 110 litres per person per day. The works shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability and in accordance with Policy DM1 and DM2 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies for Central Bedfordshire (North)

16 Any reserved matters application for layout shall include details for the provision of public art on the site. The details shall include:  A detailed description of the public art that will be provided at the site;  A timetable for implementation and completion of the public art at the site;  A brief for the involvement of the artists;  An assessment of the positive impact the Public Art will have on the environment and/or the local residents;  A description of the commissioning and procurement process;  Details for future care and maintenance.

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

Reason: To ensure the inclusion of public art is provided on the site.

17 There shall be no more than 230 residential units at the site.

Reason: To ensure that the site is not overdeveloped.

18 Prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application for the development, a detailed design code shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The detailed design code shall demonstrate how the objectives of the Design and Access Statement will be met, and shall be in accordance with the Framework Plan 6390-L-02_N. The design code shall:  outline the street network/hierarchy and include cross sections for each street type that outline the various applicable elements within the cross section, including overall range of building line distance(s), set backs/privacy strip(s), cycle lane(s) (if applicable), verge width(s), pavement width(s) , any on street parking, bus stops (if applicable) and carriageway width(s). Details of surface material type(s) will also be provided.  identify any character areas within which the following Agenda Item 6 design principles shall be identified: Page 49  public realm including details of landscaping, public art opportunities, public realm material types (landscape, street furniture etc) and refuse collection.  block principles including ranges for plot widths and depths, building lines, frontages and set backs, any on plot or other parking, cycle parking, servicing and storage and collection of waste.  boundary treatments including types to front, side and rear boundaries.  building types & uses.  building densities and heights.  key gateways, landmark buildings, vistas and frontages.  architectural detailing and materials including key roofscape principles, building material types & design details: including signage and lighting (where applicable).  environmental and sustainability standards including details of any sustainable urban drainage system (“SUDS”) serving that area. The development of each area shall be carried out in accordance with the approved design code for that area.  Address the access to the site as a gateway feature, ensure adequate privacy and noise reduction measures for the properties neighbouring the access road.

Reason: To ensure that the details and appearance of the development are acceptable to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

19 The development hereby approved shall include the provision of a pedestrian access to the new Lower School adjacent to the site. This shall be detailed in any reserved matters application.

Reason: To ensure connectivity with the adjacent school and promote a sustainable form of development in accordance with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies for Central Bedfordshire (North).

20 No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a scheme for the provision of waste receptacles has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The receptacles shall be provided before occupation takes place.

Reason: To ensure appropriate waste provision on the site.

21 Development shall not commence until a construction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. All works shall be undertaken in accordance with Agenda Item 6 the approved details. The approved statement shall include: Page 50  the hours of construction work and deliveries;  parking of vehicles for site operatives and visitors;  loading and unloading of plant and materials;  storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;  wheel washing facilities;  details of the responsible person who can be contacted in the event of a complaint;  mitigation measures in respect of noise and disturbance during construction including piling techniques, vibration and noise limits, prior notification to the occupiers of potentially affect properties, monitoring technology, screening, a detailed specification of plant and equipment to be used, and construction traffic routes; and  a scheme to minimise and monitor the emission of dust and dirt during construction and to prevent the burning of materials on site.

Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenity and in accordance with Policy DM3 of Core Strategy and Development Management Policies for Central Bedfordshire (North).

22 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 6390-L-02_N

Reason: To identify the approved plan/s and to avoid 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.

2. The applicant is advised that in order to comply with this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Central Bedfordshire Council as Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. Further details can be obtained from the Development Control Group, Development Management Division, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ.

3. The applicant is advised that if it is the intention to request Central Bedfordshire Council as Local Highway Authority, to adopt the proposed highways within the site as maintainable at the public expense then details of the specification, layout and alignment, width and levels of the said highways together with all the necessary highway and drainage arrangements, including run off calculations shall be submitted to the Development Control Group, Development Management Division, Central Agenda Item 6 Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, SheffordPage 51 SG17 5TQ . No development shall commence until the details have been approved in writing and an Agreement made under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 is in place.

4. The applicant is advised that no highway surface water drainage system designed as part of a new development, will be allowed to enter any existing highway surface water drainage system without the applicant providing evidence that the existing system has sufficient capacity to account for any highway run off generated by that development. Existing highway surface water drainage systems may be improved at the developers expense to account for extra surface water generated. Any improvements must be approved by the Development Control Group, Development Management Division, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ.

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 5, Article 35

Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. 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 Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Page 53

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) W E Date: 27:August:2015

Map Sheet No S

Scale: 1:3000 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Page 55

Item No. 7

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/15/01362/OUT LOCATION Land off Chapel End Road, Houghton Conquest PROPOSAL Outline application: of up to 125 dwellings with associated landscaping, public open space and infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access. PARISH Houghton Conquest WARD Houghton Conquest & Haynes WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Mrs Barker CASE OFFICER Alex Harrison DATE REGISTERED 13 April 2015 EXPIRY DATE 13 July 2015 APPLICANT Gladman Developments AGENT REASON FOR Call in by Cllr Angela Barker – COMMITTEE TO it is not CBC policy to grant housing of this scale DETERMINE outside the settlement envelope unless exceptional. This is also not on our forward plan for future growth.

RECOMMENDED Outline Application - Approval subject to the DECISION completion of a S.106 Obligation

Reason for recommendation.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing, and therefore policies with respect to the supply of housing (including Settlement Envelopes) are deemed out of date as per paragraph 49 of the NPPF. The NPPF (paragraph 14) advises that where the development plan is absent, silent or out of date that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development. For reasons discussed in this report it is considered that, although there are adverse impacts that arise as a result of this development, the proposal does accord with relevant local and national policy in regards sustainable development, and therefore it is recommended that permission be granted.

Site Location:

The application site is a parcel of land located immediately north east of the settlement of Houghton Conquest. It is an undeveloped site of 8.37ha consisting largely of agricultural field. The site abuts Chapel End Road to the south, Mill Lane to the north and abuts residential curtilages of dwellings on Crancott Close, Stanbridge Way and Broadway to the west. The eastern boundary abuts further open countryside.

The Application: Agenda Item 7 Page 56

Outline planning permission is sought for the erection of up to 125 dwellings with associated landscaping, public open space and infrastructure. The only matter for consideration with this application is access and the remaining 4 matters of appearance, layout, landscaping and scale are reserved.

The application is accompanied with a Development Framework plan that illustrates the proposed vehicular access will be provided to the south, off Chapel End Road. A pedestrian and emergency vehicle access is proposed to the north off Mill Lane. The Framework Plan illustrates development will be served off an internal spine road with a number of secondary roads and private accesses shown running from this. Footpath links are indicated within the development and the northern extent of the site indicates that a footpath link will be provided to the existing public right of way.

The Framework Plan sets out area parameters relating to the different land uses proposed. The site is 8.38ha in size and the Frameworks allocates the following areas:  Residential development area – 4.31ha (providing a density of 29 dwellings per hectare)  Public Open Space – 3.93ha  Potential nursery/forest school – 0.14ha

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) In particular, but not limited to: Paragraphs, 7, 9, 11, 14, 17 and 49

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009 CS1 Development Strategy CS2 Developer Contributions CS3 Healthy and Sustainable Communities CS4 Linking Communities - Accessibility and Transport CS5 Providing Homes CS6 Delivery and Timing of Housing Provision CS7 Affordable Housing CS13 Climate Change CS14 High Quality Development CS16 Landscape and Woodland CS17 Green Infrastructure CS18 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation DM1 Renewable Energy DM2 Sustainable Construction of New Buildings DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes DM9 Providing a Range of Transport DM10 Housing Mix DM14 Landscape and Woodland DM15 Biodiversity DM16 Green Infrastructure Agenda Item 7 Page 57

DM17 Accessible Green Spaces

Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 2014

The draft Development Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 24th October 2014. After initial hearing sessions in 2015 the Inspector concluded that the Council had not complied with the Duty to Cooperate. The Council has launched a judicial review against the Inspectors findings and has not withdrawn the Development Strategy. The first phase of the legal challenge took place at a hearing on 16th June 2015. This was to consider whether the court would grant the Council leave to have a Judicial Review application heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council's case. On the 22nd June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against his judgement. The status of the Development Strategy currently remains as a submitted plan that has not been withdrawn. Its policies are consistent with the NPPF. Its preparation is based on substantial evidence gathered over a number of years. It is therefore regarded by the Council as a sustainable strategy which was fit for submission to the Secretary of State. Accordingly it is considered that the emerging policies carry weight in this assessment.

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014) Sustainable Drainage Guidance SPD (April 2014) The Leisure Strategy (March 2014) The Mid Bedfordshire Landscape Character Assessment (2007) Draft Central Bedfordshire Landscape Character Assessment (2015) Houghton Conquest Green Infrastructure Plan (2010)

Planning History

The Northern extent of the site has been subject to the following previous application.

Application Number MB/79/01176 Description Outline Application: Residential development – 6 Bungalows Decision Refuse Decision Date 28.02.1980

The southern extent of the site has been subject to these previous applications.

Application Number MB/95/00418/FULL Description FULL: Continued use of land to graze horses and retention of stables. Decision Approve Decision Date 16.05.1995

Application Number MB/95/01176 Description FULL: Erection of stable. Decision Approve Decision Date 01.11.1995

Representations: Agenda Item 7 Page 58

(Parish & Neighbours)

Houghton Conquest Green Infrastructure Plan - The proposed area of Parish Council development has been marked in the Green Infrastructure Plan as an area where there is a ‘desire to preserve green space between the village and ’

2011 Census - The planning application suggests that without the development Houghton Conquest will become a retirement village, yet the 2011 census shows that the % of those over 65 is only 1.4% above the national average. It also shows that although a higher than national average % work from home, a higher than national average also use a car to travel to work.

Past Planning Applications - There is a past history of planning applications in this vicinity being refused with one such refusal stating ‘the proposed development would constitute an expansion of the village into open countryside’ Approved Applications - There are a large number of existing approved planning applications in the Parish Boundary waiting to be built, as listed below:  Wixams Main Settlement (Village 2, 3, and 4 within CBC only) – 2,250  Wixams Southern Extension Allocated MA3 – 1,000  Wixams Southern Extension, emerging policy 63 – 500  Land at former Hostel Site (HA6) – 52 (currently being developed)  Land at Stewartby (HO8(2)) – 120

Further development would be excessive and inappropriate.

The area is outside the village development envelope, and large numbers of residents have already demonstrated a strong opposition in written responses to the consultation, and in person by attendance and comment at recent Parish Council meetings.

The Parish Council therefore objects to the proposal on the basis it is outside the village envelope and with existing approved applications constitutes over development and a detrimental change to village character.

Furthermore, the Parish Council supports the petition against the development submitted to Central Bedfordshire Council by residents of the Parish. Agenda Item 7 Page 59

Neighbours 65 letters have been received. Of these 62 letters have been received raising the following collated objections:  Access to public transport, hospitals, schools, shopping etc is not viable for such a large development.  Wixams already provides substantial development and there is no need for more.  Development is outside the village envelope on a greenbelt site and will result in a loss of agricultural land.  Development is vast (increase in the size of the village, around 25%) and out of character for the village (numbers quoted in objections range between 630 and 740 existing dwellings)  Site is prone to flooding.  Increase in traffic volume will be too large. Roads are not suitable for additional traffic and the village is being used as a rat run and a roundabout needs to be in place before further traffic is encouraged.  Village school and others are already oversubscribed with pupils taught in temporary classrooms and the applicant's assessment undervalues the anticipated pupil numbers from this development.  Adverse effect on wildlife that thrives at the site.  Mill Lane is a rural lane and increased activity on the Lane would be to the detriment of existing residents.  Public transport system cannot support a worker with a normal 9-5 job and referred to stations are some miles away. Majority of new residents likely to be commuters.  No certainty over securing contributions for infrastructure.  Plans submitted show no details of layouts and dwellings, landscape buffer etc.  Nursery/Forest School is annotated as potential only and not guaranteed.  The arguments over sustainability of the location of the site as submitted by the applicant are questionable and many are made without evidence.  It is questionable whether or not the water supply for the village is adequate enough to serve the development. Agenda Item 7 Page 60

 There would be noise and disturbance from construction works and noise disturbance from the development once occupied.  Overlooking to 55 Mill Lane

One letter received from the Head teacher of the Lower School who make the following comments:  The lower school will run out of space by 2016  School has accommodated previous development which included peoples requiring more needs than anticipated and the school is in the catchment area for new development at Kempston Hardwick and others  New classroom would be required in September 2016.  Early Years offering needs expanding so that 4 year olds can be separate from 2 year olds. It is not beneficial to have another nursery competing with the school offering.  Children could benefit from Forest School facilities

One petition has been received containing 353 signatures objecting to the development on the following grounds:

 Development is outside of the settlement envelope.  Size of development tis detrimental to the village which will change the character and appearance of the village and will lose the community.  No guarantees on the number of houses that could be built.  Existing roads cannot cope with the extra traffic, farm vehicles use Chapel End Road and London Lane is being used as a rat run.  Amenities and infrastructure cannot cope with the additional population. Developers do not keep their word on building new facilities.  The school is full as is local health centres ad it has been mooted that Bedford Hospital may close.  Existing residents want a quiet village life.  Gladman public consultation was misleading and the proposal shows dwellings 5 metres from existing borders.  Ecological survey is flawed as it doesn’t take account of winter wildlife  Should not be approved dues to an aviation fuel Agenda Item 7 Page 61

pipe and ancient hedgerow running on Chapel End Road. Water drainage and supply is also an issue.  Wixams is not yet finished.  Application is submitted as Central Bedfordshire Council has no 5 year housing land supply.

1 letter of support received.

Consultations/Publicity responses

LDF Team At the time of writing the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing and therefore policies in respect of the supply of housing are deemed out of date as per paragraph 49 of the NPPF. In this context, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies and permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development.

The 5 year housing supply number is a given but the extent to which the Council can demonstrate it has a robust and defensible position fluctuates for numerous reasons including for example developers changing information about delivery rates and applications taking time to determine. It is therefore always advisable to have a buffer to allow for factors which may undermine the ability of the Council to defend its position. This site will make an important contribution to re-establishing a robust 5 year supply.

Given that the situation is fluid a further update on the 5 year supply will be provided on the late sheet.

Highways Proposed Parking Standards Although parking provision does not strictly form part of this outline application, the submitted Transport Assessment states that car parking will be provided based upon the following allocated parking: 1 bedroom – I space pert unit; 2 bedroom – 2 spaces per unit; 3 bedroom – 3 spaces per unit; 4 bedroom – 4 spaces per unit.

Visitor parking will also be provided at a level of 0.25 spaces per unit. Equating this to a notional development of 125 units would result in a visitor parking provision of 31 spaces.

The above level of parking provision is in accordance with CBC’s adopted design guidance and is supported by this office. Agenda Item 7 Page 62

Transport Policy A full assessment of the relevant policy considerations has been undertaken to which this proposal accords well. Proposed Development Trip Rates.

In order to determine the likely trip rates associated with the proposed development, an interrogation of the TRICS database has been undertaken to establish a dataset of comparative sites. This office is satisfied that the dataset used is comparative.

The resultant trip rate data equates to the following traffic generation expected to occur at the site access. AM Peak (In – 18/Out – 51/Total – 69) PM Peak (In – 49/Out – 29/Total – 78)

Future traffic has been growthed utilising TEMPRO – this is supported and assessment years being 2014 and 2020. This office notes that we are now in 2015 and as such, this information is out of date and will need updating within the submitted Transport Assessment, however is prepared to accept the figures for assessment purposes due to the recent nature.

Trip Distribution and Assignment Proposed Traffic Distribution upon the local network has been based upon existing Turning proportions. This is accepted.

The results of the trip assignment and distribution exercise have demonstrated that no junctions within the highway study area are expected reach thresholds where formal operational assessment of the highway network would be required.

Operational junction assessment has been undertaken for the proposed site access junction with Chapel End Road.

The junction has been modelled using the micro- simulation software PICADY (Priority Intersection CApacity and DelaY).

The results of the operational assessment satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed site access junction will operate well within its theoretical capacity limits during both the AM and PM peak hours throughout the assessment period.

Highway Safety The submitted Transport Assessment has undertaken a Agenda Item 7 Page 63

review of the most recent 5 year accident data for the study area. This office is satisfied, that any traffic or highways related issues will not exacerbate any existing road safety trends within the vicinity of the site.

Site Access Strategy The site is to be served buy a singular vehicular access. The proposed access has been designed in accordance with CBC’s adopted Design Guidance and vehicular visibility splays of 2.4m x 90m can be achieved in line with Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

In line with the above, this office offers no objections to this proposal.

Sustainable Transport This site links to the existing highway footway network at Chapel End Road and Mill Lane.

Links to the Public Rights of Way network is via FP8 which needs to link to the internal footpath network across the public open space.

Unfortunately there seems no way to link this development directly to the existing settlement at Crancott Close or Broadway which would improve accessibility to the adjacent village settlement.

The 30mph speed limit on Chapel End Road commences to the east of Broadway and this clearly will need to be extended to encompass the access to the new development. The parish council have raised concerns over traffic speeds as vehicles exit and enter the village at Chapel End Road and the entrance to the new development needs to be such that it addresses those concerns seeking a solution that helps slow traffic and also promotes a safe walking route into Houghton Conquest.

Bus stop provision is poor along Chapel End Road and the nearest bus stops exist in the form of flags on lamp columns or on isolated poles only and in my view a contribution should be sought to improve the public transport facilities in Houghton Conquest improving accessibility for non car drivers from this site and to mitigate the impact of the increased traffic through facilitating access to public transport.

Education No objection on the grounds of education. The middle and upper schools are within Bedford Borough, but are accessible. There are, however, a number of developments in the area, including over the border in Beds Borough, which are placing increasing pressure on Agenda Item 7 Page 64

Marston Vale Middle and Wootton Upper school, so I would seek financial contributions towards projects to enlarge these schools.

Housing Development I support this application as it provides for 35% affordable Officer housing which is in accordance with current policy requirements. The only comment in relation to the proposed is the supporting documents indicate 43 affordable units. We would seek 44 units with the 43.75 units being rounded up to make 44 affordable units from the proposed development. I would like to see the affordable units well dispersed throughout the site and integrated with the market housing to promote community cohesion and tenure blindness. I would also expect all units to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and all HCA Design and Quality Standards.

Public Protection I do not object in principle to the proposed development, but I would ask that the following conditions are imposed on any permission granted.

 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, the applicant shall submit in writing for the approval of the local planning authority a scheme of noise attenuation measures which will ensure that internal noise levels from external road traffic noise sources shall not exceed 35dBLAeq, 0700-2300 in any habitable room or 30dBLAeq 2300-0700 inside any bedroom, and that external noise levels from external road traffic noise sources shall not exceed 55dBLAeq 1hr in any outdoor amenity areas. Any works which form part of the scheme approved by the local authority shall be completed and the effectiveness of the scheme shall be demonstrated through validation noise monitoring, with the results reported to the local planning authority in writing, before any permitted dwelling is occupied, unless an alternative period is approved in writing by the authority.

 No burning shall take place on site during any phases of the development.

 During all phases of the development the working hours shall be restricted to:

8 AM till 6 PM Monday to Friday 8 AM until 1 PM Saturdays and no working at all on Sundays or Bank Holidays and any vehicles arriving at and leaving the site must do so within these working hours. Agenda Item 7 Page 65

The Institute of Air Quality Management’s “Guidance on the Assessment of Dust from Demolition and Construction (February 2014)” would class the applicant site as large and the sensitivity of receptors in the area as high. The applicant should therefore produce a Dust Management Plan as part of an overall Construction Management Plan. The applicant is advised to have regard to the Mayor of London’s publication “The Control of Dust and Emissions from Construction and Demolition: Best Practice Guidance – Supplementary Planning Guidance July 2014” and in particular to Chapter 5 “Dust and Emissions Control Measures”, which are summarised in Appendix 7 of the Best Practice Guidance.

Should you wish to discuss this further please contact me.

Trees and Landscape No comments received.

Landscape Officer Landscape character / impact: The current site is attractive, productive agricultural land with a small proportion of pony paddocks. However, it is well contained by the existing settlement edge and the well established new woodland "Howard Piece" which extends over 2ha to the east. A further new woodland , Conquest Wood has been planted by the FMV to the south of the site, in a position which would help screen views from the Greensand Ridge.

I do not object to the development of the site on landscape terms. However, there are aspects of the Development Framework Plan which I would like to see amended to help protect the amenity of local residents.

The FP does indicate a good proportion of public open space adjacent to the wood, but I would prefer to see an adjusted design which would provide additional planting along the boundary of Chapel End Road and at the site's limited frontage on Mill Lane, adjacent to the emergency access. Existing residents on these lanes will have experienced a rural outlook and I would prefer to see the limited landscape proposals indicated for these boundaries to be strengthened, even if there is a corresponding reduction of the amenity open space.

The proposed main access from Chapel End Road is directly opposite residential properties, which are judged to be highly sensitive receptors. The LVIA states that mitigation is required, but these properties will look out on a roundabout junction, a school building and hard Agenda Item 7 Page 66

surfaced , lit sports facility.

I would also like the final design to create a sense of place within the Forest of Marston Vale - especially as the site will link two new woodlands. The wayleave over the pipeline creates a greenway without a focal point- it would be important to create a destination for this path! I am not convinced that the development requires a formal square - a less formal "village green" would be more appropriate.

Tree and hedge planting within the development needs to reflect the Forest and the rural setting - I would hope the development would avoid the current approach using formal railing and ornamental shrubs to define front gardens. Houghton Conquest has a number of picket fences and walling which includes ironstone as well as local brick - including local details in the external works would enhance the development.

If possible, the development could pick up views to the church and the wind turbine. There are magnificent views south to the greensand ridge which should also be exploited.

I have seen the Ecologist's comments on the lighting impact of the MUGA. I also would prefer this area to be transposed with the Forest School, as long as the MUGA can be designed to minimise impact on local residents. It would make sense for a Forest School or Nursery to have direct links to the open space, orchard and woodland.

I am concerned that the development will lead to increased pressure on Howard Piece - the footpath through this wood is very narrow at present. The development will need to contribute to increased management of the woodland and connecting rights of way.

If approved, I would be happy to liaise over landscape proposals – e.g. it would be important to use stock of local provenance. There might also be scope to use hay from Kingswood and Glebe Meadows to provide seed to diversify the amenity grassland.

Ecology Having read through the ecological appraisal I am satisfied that the proposals would not result in a detrimental impact to biodiversity. A number of recommendations are made at the end of the report.

The Design and Access Statement shows good areas of green space which link into the existing Howard Piece wood and areas of young plantation. Existing trees and Agenda Item 7 Page 67

hedgerows are to be retained and ecological enhancement in the form of a community orchard, pond and landscaped parkland is proposed.

Focus has been placed on multi-functional habitats which promote open access, such as a woodland trim trail. The site lies within the Marston Vale Community Forest so a greater onus on woodland cover would be expected, especially by linking trees and GI through the site.

The inclusion of SUDs in the form of a drainage pond could extend further into the development in the form of rain gardens and rills, thus supporting biodiversity throughout the site.

I note that the MUGA is shown on the eastern edge of the site but I would rather this was on the opposite side trading places with the nursery to prevent potential light pollution in to the new woodland / open areas, in accordance with 4.23 of the ecological appraisal.

The NPPF calls for development to deliver a net gain for biodiversity and the CBC Design guide offers suggestions on opportunities for enhancements such as the inclusion of integrated bird and bat boxes. Certainly I would wish to see boxes included at a 1 box: 1 dwelling ratio across the development.

Should planning permission be granted I would wish to see a Construction Environment Management Plan submitted to guide ecologically sensitive clearance of the site and to ensure biodiversity enhancements are delivered.

Sustainable Growth The proposed development should comply with the Officer requirements of the development management policies DM1: Renewable Energy and DM2: Resource Efficiency. These policies were identified by the applicant as relevant to the proposed development in the Planning Statement. The document states that the development has been design to meet the policies’ requirements, but does not provide details how the proposed development will meet the requirements.

The proposed development is over the threshold of the policy DM1 to meet the development’s 10% energy demand from renewable sources.

Policy DM2 encourages all new development to meet CfSH Level 3. The energy standard of the CfSH Level 3 is below standard required by the Part L2013 of the Building Regulations. The proposed development should Agenda Item 7 Page 68

comply with the Building Regulations and deliver 10% of its energy demand from renewable or low carbon sources. I would encourage applicant to take a fabric first approach and consider Passivhaus design principles such as optimal solar orientation of dwellings, to lower energy demand before applying renewable energy technologies.

The design of the scheme should consider orientation of dwellings and risk of summer overheating. West facing dwellings/rooms are more likely to overheat and should be avoided or shaded using design features such as overlarge eaves and canopies, use of solar control glazing. Alternatively, shading can be achieved by planting of appropriate deciduous trees which would provide shade in summer and allow the light and heat to penetrate dwellings in winter months when heat gain is beneficial.

Tree planting must be taken into consideration at the initial planning stage of the development to ensure that the spreading roots and canopy with not cause damage to the properties and underground services when the tree reaches maturity. I would advice a consultation with a tree officer to select the most appropriate tree species. In terms of water efficiency, the development should achieve 105 litres per person per day (requirement of CfSH Level 3/4). The standard could be met through installation of water efficient fittings, such as low flow taps and dual flush toilets. Proposed water harvesting system could help to achieve even higher water efficiency standard. I note that the applicant proposes to achieve this standard through meeting a Level 3 of the CfSH standard. Water butts should be installed to collect rain water and reduce potable water use in the garden.

Planning conditions I would suggest the following planning conditions to be attached:  10% energy demand of the development to be secured from renewable sources;  Water efficiency standard to be 110 litres per person per day.

Green Infrastructure Co- The proposed development is in conflict with the Ordinator Houghton Conquest Parish GI plan, which identifies the area as a priority for preserving greenspace between the village [Houghton Conquest] and Wixams. This has been identified by the community as a priority GI aspiration. The Parish GI plan has been endorsed by CBC as something we would use when considering development proposals, and therefore this conflict should be taken into Agenda Item 7 Page 69

account.

The design of the development, in terms of considering how GI enhancement could be maximised, is inadequate. There is insufficient consideration given to how the site relates to green infrastructure assets in the immediate vicinity. Some consideration is given to the adjacent woodlands at Howard's Piece and Conquest Wood (which would both be affected by increased visitor pressure as a direct result of the development, and should therefore receive developer contributions to mitigate this impact). However, the location of the site in relation to adjacent Rights of Way has not been adequately considered. Enhanced walking access should be integrated with green infrastructure within the site. Footpaths connect to the site at the north-east corner, but insufficient consideration has been given to how these integrate with routes / paths around the open space area.

The design of the SuDS should deliver multiple environmental benefits, in line with the adopted SuDS SPD. No reference has been made to this guidance, and the proposals for SuDS design are unacceptable, and do not comply with the requirements of the SPD. There is no evidence of appropriate consideration having been given to non-piped transfer or treatment of surface water, nor has there been a genuine exploration of the water management and treatment train. The approach is essentially a pipe and pond solution with the addition of water butts. There is insufficient information on pollution control, and the design of the detention area is not integrated in the design of the wider green infrastructure proposals for the site, which are the other side of the site. The proposals are unacceptable in policy terms.

Countryside Access A development of this size, with approximately 125 Services houses, will bring additional pressures to countryside sites in the area, mainly Kings Wood– an ancient semi- natural woodland and Glebe Meadows to the South/South West (approx. 1200m away). both are registered SSSI sites.

CBC’s development Strategy includes specific policies to protect, enhance and promote enjoyment of the Public Rights of Way and Countryside Access to sites that has a positive effect on the quality of life and health.

Future maintenance of POS within the development - • At this stage, we believe it is not a site that fits the criteria for the Countryside Access Service (CAS) to maintain in the future. Agenda Item 7 Page 70

If the application is approved, we have no material objection and believe the provision of public open space within the development is well provided.

Public Art With reference to CBC Development Strategy Policy 43 High Quality Development:

11.26 The Council recognises the important role that public art plays as part of wider public realm improvements in the creation of local distinctiveness. Accordingly the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide sets out the councils approach to delivering Public Art. The Design Guide sets a threshold to include Public Art on public facing developments of over 100 homes or 1000 square metres and requests that developers and promoters of projects produce a Public Art Strategy for sites to be agreed with the Council.

The Central Bedfordshire Design Guide provides extensive guidance on the opportunities for the inclusion of Public Art within developments and process for achieving this:

Central Bedfordshire Council actively encourages the integration of Public Art into new developments across the area. It is the Council’s preference that developers and promoters of projects should take responsibility for the funding, management and implementation of Public Art either directly or through specialist agents, in consultation with Town and Parish Councils and Central Bedfordshire Council.

Public Art must be integrated within development design process at the earliest stages and inform master plans and design briefs. Where possible artists should be appointed as an integral part of the design team. Public Art must be site specific . Given the site context and rich cultural and social history, rural industry, trades and materials - and natural environment resources - there is a wealth of resources to engender sense of place and local distinctiveness through site specific public art interventions. Public art is also a valuable tool for community engagement, engaging existing communities and new, especially through workshops.

Therefore I recommend that for the Outline application A Public Art Statement is required setting out how public art will be integrated within this development and describing: Nature and purpose of public art interventions are described. Agenda Item 7 Page 71

Relationship with site; preferred locations including buildings and spaces (these can be identified in layout plans)

An outline public art brief explaining how artists will be involved, recruiting process and process for community involvement

The CBC Design Guide provides full guidance on opportunities and process for including public art but please do contact me if you have any queries or wish to discuss further.

Sustainable Urban We recommend that this proposal be refused due to Drainage (SuDs) insufficient detail being provided regarding the Management Team. management of surface water from the purposed development.

Reason We agree that the principles of surface water drainage have been sufficiently addressed for the outline application and we also agree that the final design, sizing and maintenance of the surface water system can be agreed at the detailed design stage. However, we have some significant concerns with the calculations submitted and cannot recommend a condition until we are satisfied that the design will be based on evidence resulting from the correct methodology for calculating the proposed run off rates and attenuation storage.

Table 4 (Section 6.2 of the FRA produced by Hydrock) identifies that post development run-off will be restricted to the Qbar rate for the site (15.6 l/s), based on the developable area of 4.31 ha (including gardens etc). However, Table 5 (Section 6.6) calculates the attenuation volume for the 1:1yr, 1:30yr and the 1:100yr+CC based on the impermeable area only (2.37 ha). This is not appropriate. The proposal will therefore only attenuate for the impermeable area of the development whilst discharging at a rate based on the impermeable and permeable areas of the site, resulting in an increased volume of surface water leaving the site than does at present. The allowable discharge post development should be based on the greenfield run off rate for the positively drained area only (i.e. the area that enters the drainage system and is attenuated), otherwise the run-off from the difference in areas is double counted and may result in an increased risk of flooding from surface water. This is not acceptable in terms of the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and supporting Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems. Agenda Item 7 Page 72

This risk is further exacerbated by a known issue of flood risk downstream to the proposed development site and our recommendation for refusal takes into account the significant effect on the likelihood and consequence of flooding at this location if surface water management of the developments is not appropriately designed.

In order to be deemed acceptable the proposal needs to demonstrate that the discharge rates and volumes from the site do not increase post development across all modelled storm events (i.e. Qbar, 1:1yr, 30yr, and 100+CC). The proposed discharge rate should be based on the same area that is to be positively drained and therefore attenuated. If the proposed discharge rates are based on the developable area, this assumes the entire area will be positively drained. For this reason the maximum attenuation storage volume should be calculated based on the run-off for the entire developable area (albeit considering the different rates/volumes from the permeable and impermeable areas which discharge to the system). If only the impermeable areas are proposed to be positively drained then the allowable discharge rates must be amended to reflect this area only (which in turn will have a knock on impact on the attenuation storage requirement).

Additional advice Further to the above, Section 3 of the FRA explains the existing flood risk downstream of the site in more detail and states that surveying should be undertaken at the detailed design stage to establish the condition of the receiving watercourse and whether any improvements can be made to reduce the risk of flooding. We therefore recommend that this be made a priority and if the watercourse is found to be unsuitable in any way that betterment be provided in order to mitigate future risk to the site as well as to the downstream properties. This may include an appraisal of potential alterations to the existing downstream features or structures, or the provision of long term storage on site in order to mitigate flood risk downstream. Community engage with the surrounding households and land owners may provide additional opportunities to ensure the management of the watercourse is improved in the long term and would also provide transparency on what is a locally sensitive flood issue.

Please note that Land Drainage consent will be needed in addition planning approval in order to carry out any work that is proposed in, over, or adjacent to a watercourse, or which will likely affect the current flow of water in an Agenda Item 7 Page 73

ordinary watercourse.

Following the submission of clarifying information, it is considered that outline planning permission could be granted to the proposed development and the final design, sizing and maintenance of the surface water system agreed at the detailed design stage. I will therefore recommend that we remove our objection on the understanding that an enhanced Surface Water Drainage Strategy will be provided, including an associated Maintenance and Management Plan for the proposed drainage system.

Anglian Water. Raised no objections subject to a condition requiring approval of a foul water strategy.

Forest of Marston Vale Increasing Woodland Cover Given the application site has wooded boundaries in the form of hedges and trees, Howard Piece Wood to the east and Conquest Wood to the south the Trust recommends that the developer creates wildlife corridors through the development by planting street trees & hedges and increasing the tree canopy within the site to at least 30% in line with the above policy. Any additional planting should be of native stock and could be purchased through a local charity called the Community Tree Trust which is based in and collects seeds from native tree stock for growing on and selling to the public and commercial sectors.

Increasing Public Access to Existing Woodland Howards Piece Woodland is located to the east of the development boundary and is owned by the applicant. A new 18m spur is proposed to link the proposed development to Public Footpath 8 via Howards Piece Wood. Given this woodland was planted with funding from the Forestry Commission and included permissive public access it seems only right that new and existing residents are permitted to utilise the wood as part of the proposed development. The Trust requests that formal public access is dedicated within the woodland that connects to the development and its proposed trim trail and the existing public footpath.

Conquest Wood The new residents of the proposed development will benefit from the use of the surfaced paths that exist within the Forest of Marston Vale Trusts site called Conquest Wood, located to the south of the development. The surfaced paths would benefit from an additional layer of granite dust to safe guard continued use throughout all seasons and for the increase in use by the new residents. Agenda Item 7 Page 74

The benches and picnic tables located within the woodland will also be used by the new residents and with increase in use new structures would be beneficial to new and existing users. Costs for this infrastructure is as follows:  Conquest Wood path improvement works – 20mm granite dust x 2m wide x 1025m long @ £4.75 lin/m = £4869. Blinding now required to maintain ‘access for all’ standard for increase in footfall.  Replace existing wooden benches with new @ £300 each to guarantee long term and minimal maintenance seating areas 5 x £300 = £1500.  Installation of new picnic tables x 2 @ £500 each = £1000

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. The Principle of Development 2. Access and Highway considerations 3. Impact on the character of the area. 4. Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. 5. The Benefits of the scheme 6. Planning Contributions 7. The Planning balance. 8. Other matters.

Considerations

1. Principle of Development. 1.1 The site lies outside of the settlement envelope of Houghton Conquest and is located in land regarded as open countryside. The adopted policies within the Core strategy and Development Management Policies 2009 limit new housing development on unallocated sites to within settlement envelopes (Policy DM4). Houghton Conquest is designated as a large village and Policy DM4 limits new housing development to small scale development. On the basis of this policy a residential proposal outside of the settlement envelope would be regarded as unacceptable.

1.2 However, in this instance there are a number of other considerations that have to be balanced when considering the principle of development. On 29/06/2015 the Council lost an appeal at a site in Langford which is similar in terms considerations into the scale of development and the locational constraints. Part of the conclusions of the appeal decision were that the Council has an undersupply of housing and therefore cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing. In these circumstances the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 49 applies which states that the Council's Housing Policies are not up to date. Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states, among other things, that where the development plan policies are out‑of‑date, the Council should grant planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against Agenda Item 7 Page 75

the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

1.3 Therefore the current situation in policy terms is that while it is acknowledged that the proposal would be contrary to policy DM4, this policy has to be regarded as being out of date. In considering the application the Council must weigh any harm from the proposal against the benefits of the scheme and the report will address this matter.

1.4 Looking at Houghton Conquest as a settlement, the village and immediate area provide a number of facilities:

 Lower school with early years provision.  Shop with post office  2x pub/eatery  Village hall  Park/play equipment  Sports pitches  Skate park  Allotments.  Bus route 42 – Bedford to Dunstable. Hourly. (including stops at Waitrose and Rail Station)  Middle and upper schools within Bedford Borough but are accessible and there is also pressure on Marston Vale Middle and Wootton Upper school.  Healthcare is provided in Ampthill which has the nearest GP and dentist, both of which are accepting new patients.  Consideration should also be given to the proximity of the village to the Wixams development and in particular the future Rail Station, local centre and employment possibilities

1.5 The above list shows that the village itself provides a number of facilities and nearby catchments can accommodate in areas where the village itself does not provide. It is not considered correct to conclude that Houghton Conquest is a sustainable location capable of accommodating growth on the basis of the list above. In order to be regarded as sustainable the village would need to be able to support the infrastructure needs of the existing and the projected population and this is not the case. However, at the same time, taking account of the close location of facilities and infrastructure services it is also considered that it would not be justified to argue that Houghton Conquest is so remote and short of facilities that it would be so unsustainable that it could not accommodate growth to the extent that the impact would be demonstrably harmful.

1.6 In terms of the principle of development, it is acknowledged that the scale and location of the proposal are not considered to be suitable in light of the Council’s adopted policies. However, these policies have to be considered out-of-date at this time and therefore unless significant and demonstrable harm can be identified from the merits of this proposal the principle of housing development should be regarded as acceptable.

2. Access and Highway considerations. 2.1 Other than the principle of development, the only detailed matter for Agenda Item 7 Page 76

consideration is access. The proposal shows vehicular access to be gained at the southern end of Chapel End Road. The Council's Highways Officer has reviewed the proposal having regard to the capacity of the road network against the anticipated number of vehicle movements as well as considerations into parking requirements. The proposed access will create a T-junction arrangement onto Chapel End Road, designed to adoptable standards. No objection has been raised to the proposed access arrangements and it is considered that the design can accommodate the projected vehicle movements associated with the development without harming the existing road network. Subject to a condition requiring full details for the access to be approved, there is no objection to the access proposals.

2.2 The scale of development proposed is such that the provision of up to 125 houses would impact on highway infrastructure. There will be added strain on the public transport network. The village is served by a regular bus service but the quality of the bus stops is poor. It is felt necessary to require the upgrade of existing bus stops as an improvement to the existing public transport facilities and the applicant as agreed to this. The scheme therefore provides an improvement in this respect that can be secured through a S106 agreement.

2.3 Furthermore it is noted that the location of the access is beyond the existing 30mph speed limit signs at the entrance to the village on Chapel end Road. In the interests of the safety of both pedestrian and motorists the appellant is required to finance the relocation of the beginning of the 30mph zone to a suitable location that encompasses the proposed access. This will be secured by way of finance for a Traffic Regulation Order to enable the Council to carry out the works to the required standard.

2.4 Detailed design matters are reserved for future consideration. In terms of parking provision any reserved matters application would be expected to incorporate the recommendations of the Council's adopted Design Guide. This Guide sets out the Council's standards for parking provision and road layout and any submission would be required to be compliant with this document to be considered acceptable.

2.5 On the basis of the considerations given above the proposal is considered to propose an appropriate access arrangement on a road network that has capacity to accommodate the levels of growth proposed and therefore it is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the highway.

3. Impact on the character of the area 3.1 The Landscape Officer has considered the impact of the scheme and has raised no objections advising that the site is contained by between the settlement extent and new woodland planting to the east. It is noted that the Green Infrastructure Co-ordinator has raised objection principally on the grounds that the development would be on land providing the gap between the village and the Wixams Development. A number of comments have been made regarding the layout of the development but it should be noted that layout is a reserved matter and therefore this level of detail has not been submitted. The site is noted as constituting productive agricultural land with a small proportion of paddocks used for equine activities. On the approach to the village along Chapel End Road, the site is notably visible and currently serves as the immediate open Agenda Item 7 Page 77

countryside adjacent to the extent of the built village. This would be irreversibly lost as a result of this development and replaced by what would in the short to medium terms, be an extension of the built form into the open countryside. Indicative landscape proposals show that the development would be screened over the long-term.

3.2 The loss of landscaping and expansion of the village into the open countryside is considered to result in a harmful impact, however taking account of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, consideration has to be given to whether or not this harm is significant and demonstrable.

3.3 As part of the consideration of this application the report will consider the benefits of the scheme (Section 5 and 6) and balance these with the adverse impacts (Section 7) before making a recommendation. The Landscape Officer has not highlighted any landscaping features of significance on the site and noted that the framework proposes additional landscaping. In order to warrant a justifiable reason to refuse the application this consideration will need to be considered in light of whether or not the impact is significant and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the scheme.

3.4 Taking the issue of the impact on the landscape character of the area in isolation. The proposal is considered to have an adverse impact. However, as already emphasised, in this instance this application has to give careful consideration to all issues in light of the advice in the NPPF, notably a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

4. Impact on neighbouring residential amenity. 4.1 At this edge of village location, the site is immediately adjacent the rear boundary fences of properties to the south east on Crancott Close, Stanbridge Way and Broadway. There are also residential properties on Mill Lane and Chapel End Road to which the development will be visible. The proposed Development Framework plan indicates that the proposed residential area of the development and areas for play would not be located adjacent the boundaries of the site and that said boundaries would be screened by either existing or proposed planting.

4.2 Although detailed design matters are reserved, the information submitted with this application shows that it would be possible to develop the site for up to 125 dwellings without resulting in a detrimental harm to the amenity of existing neighbouring residents by virtue of impact such as overlooking, loss of light or noise disturbance.

4.3 In terms of providing suitable level of amenity for potential occupiers, any detailed scheme would be expected to be designed in accordance with the Council's adopted Design Guide and this guide includes recommendations to ensure suitable amenity levels are provided. Therefore it is considered that the adopted policy can ensure that a suitable level of amenity could be provided for new residents.

5. The benefits of the scheme 5.1 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states, amongst other things that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and in terms of determining Agenda Item 7 Page 78

applications in instances where relevant policies are out‑of‑date, it means granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF as a whole.

5.2 As stated in para 1.3 the relevant CSDMP DM4 is considered to be out of date at the current time. In accordance with the NPPF, consideration therefore has to be given to the perceived benefits of the scheme. The applicant has provided within the Planning Statement a list of the aspects they consider to be benefits of the development. These are:

 The Provision of Market Housing – As a boost to housing supply, ‘with substantial delivery within the next 5 years’  The Provision of Affordable Housing – at 35% which amounts to up to 43 dwellings.  Transport Improvements – The applicant states that increased patronage resultant from this application would increase the sustainability of the existing public transport system.  Economic Benefits and New Homes Bonus – support approximately 114 full time equivalent jobs and eligible for New Homes Bonus of approximately £1.2M.  Local Spending Power – through increased residents.  Biodiversity and Ecological Benefits – Landscape and Green Infrastructure benefits through conservation of existing landscaping and proposed landscaping. Attenuation pond will also provide a landscape feature with wildlife value.  Social Benefit – housing to meet need and support growth aspirations in a location close to key services and facilities.  Public Open Space – Provision of informal open space and a country park/open space with woodland trim trail.  Contributions – The applicant is willing to enter in an agreement to provide necessary contributions to infrastructure improvements

5.2 The provision of both market and affordable housing can be regarded as benefits of the scheme. Affordable housing provision is a policy requirement regardless of how it is dressed to be perceived in a submission however there is pertinent case law that also determines such provision should be regarded as a benefit in any case. Consideration should be given to the fact that the provision of housing is a benefit in the contribution it makes to re-establishing the Council's required 5 year housing land supply. There is a policy requirement to provide a mix of housing types and therefore to help secure this it would be reasonable to condition the provision of bungalows as part of any reserved matters proposal should permission be granted.

5.3 The point made by the applicant on transport improvements is considered to be weak and should be given little weight. Increased demand on an existing public transport system can be seen as much as an additional strain on this infrastructure rather than a benefit. The applicant also cites the fact that the Agenda Item 7 Page 79

highway has capacity to accommodate the development as a benefit which is also a point that should be afforded little weight. However (as stated in paras 2.2 and 2.3) as a result of the consultation with Transport colleagues an identified need to bus stop improvements in the village arose and the applicant has agreed to fund the provision of two formal stops in locations that are currently subject to a sign on a post arrangement. The applicant has also agreed to find the relocation of the existing speed limit signs on Chapel End Road so that it encompasses the new development. It is the provision of these improvements that should be regarded as a benefit.

5.4 The economic benefits can be given weight as a benefit although the perceive benefit of local spending power is considered somewhat tenuous. Likewise the perceived social benefit case is not made with any notable evidence other than it provides dwellings at a time where the Council has issues with providing the require land supply.

5.5 The extent of landscaping indicatively proposed, including the provision of informal open space and an attenuation pond, along with extent of retained landscaping , is such that the proposal demonstrates the potential to a gain in biodiversity. It is considered presumptuous to state that the additional landscape is benefit to the scheme. The development of the site results in an irreversible loss of existing landscape character. The loss of open countryside is considered to be an adverse impact of the scheme as a matter of principle. The provision of additional planting is principally proposed to mitigate the impact of the increased built form and while this would be achieved in the long term will not be apparent in the shot to medium term. While the proposal can be considered to result in a biodiversity enhancement it is questionable to conclude that the loss of open countryside to residential development with associated landscaping amounts to a landscape benefit.

5.6 The provision of public open space is considered to be a benefit to the extent that it caters for a demand born out largely from the scale of development proposed. However it should be noted that a multi-use games area (MUGA) is proposed within the development but this was not listed by the applicant. On the basis that it would be accessible to the community it should be regarded as a benefit.

5.7 Contributions are intended to be secured through a S106 agreement and these are considered to be a benefit. Contributions are addressed in the next section to help give clarity as to the extent of contributions sought.

5.8 The applicant has also not included the provision for a site for a nursery/woodland school as a benefit to the scheme. It should be noted that the proposal is to provide a site for such a facility and not to provide the facility itself. The provision of a site is supported by the Council's Early Years team although it is acknowledged that it would not be a requirement under the CIL Regs. As a result the provision of such a facility should be considered on its merits as part of the proposal. It is considered that it is acceptable in planning terms and the applicant has confirmed that it would be marketed for development privately rather than transferred as a parcel for land to the Council. Specifics aside, this should be given weight as a benefit to the scheme. Agenda Item 7 Page 80

6. Contributions and the S106 agreement 6.1 Contributions would be secured through a S106 legal agreement which would specify amounts along with other relevant matters. The content of a S106 agreement, including the agreed financial amounts should be given weight as a benefit of the development.

6.2 In terms of financial contributions the Heads of Terms are still in discussion at this point and will be finalised prior to the Committee Meeting with confirmed Heads of Terms to be included in the Late Sheet. Currently the financial contributions as being discussed are as follows:

Sustainable Transport  £5,000 towards a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to reduce the speed limit to 30mph for the extension of the 30mph speed limit adjacent to the site entrance further north on Chapel End Road.  £44,000 towards the provision of two bus shelters in the vicinity of the site.

Education  Lower School Contribution – Houghton Conquest Lower School expansion - £288,050  Middle School Contribution – Marston Vale Middle School expansion - £289,848  Upper School Contribution – Wooton Upper School expansion - £355,430.40

Leisure  Discussions are ongoing for contributions to provide additional gym equipment for Flitwick Leisure Centre. At the time of drafting this report no agreed amounts have been reached but there is agreement in principle to justified contributions being provided.  Contributions amounts will also have to take account of the proposed MUGA and Local Area for Play.  The Council wishes to see the addition and enhancement of footpaths links within the adjacent Howard Pierce Wood.  Contributions sought to enhance nearby Conquest Wood due to increased usage arising from the development. Contributions sought are:  Conquest Wood path improvement works – 20mm granite dust x 2m wide x 1025m long @ £4.75 lin/m = £4869.  Replace 5 existing wooden benches costing £300 each to guarantee long term and minimal maintenance seating areas.  Installation of 2 new picnic tables costing £500 each.

Waste Management Contribution  £46 per dwelling towards equipping all new residential properties with kerbside and domestic waste/recycling containers.

6.3 As well as financial contributions the S106 agreement seeks to secure other pertinent issues. In this instance the S106 would seek to secure the provision of the open space and future management and to secure the affordable housing Agenda Item 7 Page 81

particulars including numbers and tenure.

6.4 At the time that this application is considered by the Development Management Committee it is expected that Heads of Terms for the agreement will be finalised.

7. The Planning Balance 7.1 Paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that, in circumstances where relevant policies have to be considered out of date, planning permission should be granted unless it can be demonstrated that the adverse impacts of a scheme significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

7.2 The benefits are demonstrated in Section 5 and these should be weighed against the adverse impacts which, in this instance, amount to the encroachment of built form into the open countryside resulting in the irreversible loss of aid countryside. The impact of this is harm to the character of the area. If the Council's policies on housing development were considered to be up to date this application would not be supported and recommended for refusal. However at the time of considering this application this is not the case and while it is considered that the impact of the proposal on the character of the open countryside is harmful it is not considered to be to the extent that it would outweigh the benefits detailed above to the extent that planning permission can be justifiably refused.

7.3 Although detailed design matters are reserved in this application, the framework plan shows that, indicatively, the development would not have good connectivity to the existing village and would sit somewhat isolated from its built form. As above, although this is considered to be an adverse impact it is still not considered to be to the extent that it would outweigh the benefits detailed above to the extent that planning permission can be justifiably refused.

7.4 In spite of the harm that would be caused to the character of the area and the concerns over the detached nature of the development proposed it is considered that the extent of harm caused would not outweigh benefits identified in the report to the extent that it could be regarded as significant and demonstrable. As such, the application is recommended for approval.

Recommendation

That subject to the completion of a S106 agreement, outline planning permission be granted subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

1 Details of the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping, including boundary treatments (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To comply with Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning Agenda Item 7 Page 82

(General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended).

2 Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3 The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

4 Each reserved matters application for landscaping shall include a scheme showing the areas of open space to be provided as part of that reserved matters application; including any public amenity open space, Local Equipped Areas of Play (LEAP) and Local Areas of Play (LAP). The scheme shall also include relevant details of the location, layout, size, programme for delivery, location and specification of boundary structures, play equipment and materials. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and the approved programme for delivery.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision of open space and play equipment on site in accordance with policy CS3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009.

5 No development shall take place until an Environmental Construction Management Plan detailing access arrangements for construction vehicles, on-site parking, loading and unloading areas, materials storage areas and wheel cleaning arrangements shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The construction of the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Environmental Construction Management Plan.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety, to ensure a satisfactory standard of construction and layout for the development and to comply with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009.

6 No development shall take place until details of the existing and final ground, ridge and slab levels of the buildings hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include sections through both the site and the adjoining properties. Thereafter the site shall be developed in accordance with the approved details. Agenda Item 7 Page 83

Reason: To ensure that an acceptable relationship results between the new development and adjacent buildings and public areas in accordance with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

7 No works relating to the construction of the dwellings hereby approved shall take place until details of hard and soft landscaping (including details of boundary treatments and public amenity open space, Local Equipped Areas of Play and Local Areas of Play) together with a timetable for its implementation have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out as approved and in accordance with the approved timetable.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the development would be acceptable in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009

8 No works relating to the construction of the dwellings hereby approved shall take place until a Landscape Maintenance and Management Plan for a period of ten years from the date of its delivery in accordance with Condition 7 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the management body, who will be responsible for delivering the approved landscape maintenance and management plan. The landscaping shall be maintained and managed in accordance with the approved plan following its delivery in accordance with Condition 7.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the site would be acceptable in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009

9 No development shall take place until details for the protection of the retained trees and hedgerows during construction in accordance with the Root Protection Areas identified in the 'Arboricultural Assessment' dated March 2015, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. There shall be no built development within the identified Root Protection Areas, branch spreads and tree shadows of the retained trees and hedgerows, in accordance with the Arboricultural Assessment' dated March 2015.

Reason: To ensure retained landscape features are protected in th interests of ecological preservation and achieving high quality development in the interests of policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies.

10 Notwithstanding the details in the approved plans, no development shall take place until the detailed design and associated management and maintenance plan for the proposed surface water drainage for the site, based on sustainable principles and a detailed site specific Agenda Item 7 Page 84

assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved drainage system shall be implemented in accordance with the approved detailed design and shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the agreed management and maintenance plan.

Reason: To ensure the approved system will function to a satisfactory minimum standard of operation for the lifetime of the development.

11 No development shall take place until a foul water strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Unless otherwise agreed in writing the works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of any dwelling subsequently approved.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, and improve habitat and amenity in accordance with policy DM2 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009.

12 The development hereby approved shall include the provision of a minimum of 5 bungalows across the site. These shall be detailed in any reserved matters application.

Reason: To ensure a suitable housing mix across the development in accordance with policy DM10 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009.

13 No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of an Ecological Management Plan which will guide the ecologically sensitive clearance of the site and ensure the provision of biodiversity enhancements. The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure development is ecologically sensitive and secures biodiversity enhancements in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

14 No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority showing how renewable and low energy sources would generate 10% of the energy needs of the development and also showing water efficiency measures achieving 110 litres per person per day. The works shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability.

15 No development shall commence at the site before a schedule identifying a phase or phases for the provision of public art at the site Agenda Item 7 Page 85

has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development shall commence at the identified phase or phases before a Public Art Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Public Art Plan shall include:

 A detailed description of the public art that will be provided at the site.

 A timetable for the implementation and completion of the public art at the site.

 A brief for the involvement of the artists.

 An assessment of the positive impact the Public Art will have on the environment and / or the local residents.

 A description of the commissioning and procurement process.

 Details for future care and maintenance.

The development shall be carried out as approved in accordance with the Public Art Plan.

Reason: To ensure that appropriate public art is provided at the site.

16 There shall be no more than 125 residential units at the site.

Reason: To ensure that the site is not overdeveloped.

17 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers GLA21.01 Revision 1, GLA21.02 (insofar as it relates to setting the parameters of porposed land uses).

Reason: To identify the approved plan/s and to avoid 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.

2. In accordance with Condiiton 10, the applicant is advised to note that the Surface Water Drainage Strategy should comprise, at a minimum -  Detailed information relating to the hydro-geological context of the site and site specific investigation results.  Details of the proposed development, impermeable areas, peak flow Agenda Item 7 Page 86

rate and storage requirements with clear methodology.  A detailed SuDS design statement.  Management of exceedance, climate change and urban creep.  How the design meets water quality, ecological criteria and social objectives.  A method statement detailing construction of the drainage system.  A finalised maintenance and management plan, including details of the responsible body for individual components of the surface water drainage. Detailed plans and drawings (to an appropriate scale and clearly labelled).

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 5, Article 35

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 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) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

......

Agenda Item 8

Page 87 43

Path (um) 33

41.8m 56 El

Sub Sta

23

19b 19a

Works

48 2 13

1 42.0m 3

Ransom Court

36

Colebrooke 2

AshbrookeWaygood

Honeysuckle MANOR ROAD

2 8 24 41.7m CLIFTON ROAD Marena Sylton

WESTFIELD ROAD

22b 1

N © Crown Copyright. All 10rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Works Licence No. 100049029 (2009) W E Date: 27:August:2015

Map Sheet No 9 S

Scale: 1:1250

Track This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 Page 89 Item No. 8

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/15/02304/FULL LOCATION 52 Clifton Road, Henlow, SG16 6BL PROPOSAL Demolition of existing storage building & erection of 8 No. 3 bed houses with carport and associated parking PARISH Henlow WARD Arlesey WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Dalgarno, Shelvey & Wenham CASE OFFICER Alex Harrison DATE REGISTERED 25 June 2015 EXPIRY DATE 20 August 2015 APPLICANT Skillmaster Limited AGENT Pentangle Design Group REASON FOR Called in by Cllr Wenham COMMITTEE TO  Gardens not compliant with design guide DETERMINE  Front dwellings forward of building line, disrupting streetscene  Not clear if exit onto Clifton Rd is compliant with highways requirements for width, visibility etc  Henlow PC have objected RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Approval

Reason for Recommendation:

The proposed development is noted as being prominent in the streetscene however is not considered to be so prominent as to result in harmful impact on the character of the area. The proposal has been amended to reduce the scale of development where it abuts the limits of the village and to improve the amenity space provision. The parking provision is compliant with the recommendations of the Design Guide and the access proposal is considered to be safe. The development is therefore considered to be acceptable in light of development plan policy and is recommended for approval.

Site Location:

The application site is located on the north side of Clifton Road, in the south west part of Henlow, within the village settlement envelope. It comprises an area of 0.159 hectares. It is enclosed by a public footpath and a two storey house/garden to the west, open fields to the north and north east, and a car repair workshop to the east. On the south side of Clifton Road are higher density two storey residential properties.

The site was previously occupied by a two storey office building with a mansard roof and dormer windows on its south and east elevations but this has recently been removed. The site previously had associated car parking at the front. There is an existing access to the south side of the site onto Clifton Road Agenda Item 8 The Application: Page 90

Planning permission is sought of the demolition of the remaining building on the site and the erection of 8 dwellings with associated parking and amenity areas. The layout proposes three dwellings fronting Clifton Road with a central access leading to a rear courtyard parking area which is fronted by the remaining 5 units.

The proposal provides two parking spaces per dwelling either in car ports or uncovered as well as providing two visitor spaces within the site.

The plans have been amended since their original submission resulting in a reduction in scale and height of Plots 4 – 8 at the rear of the site.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009 CS1 Development Strategy CS14 High Quality Development DM2 Sustainable Construction of New Buildings DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes.

Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 2014

The draft Development Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 24th October 2014. After initial hearing sessions in 2015 the Inspector concluded that the Council had not complied with the Duty to Cooperate. The Council has launched a judicial review against the Inspectors findings and has not withdrawn the Development Strategy. The first phase of the legal challenge took place at a hearing on 16th June 2015. This was to consider whether the court would grant the Council leave to have a Judicial Review application heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council's case. On the 22nd June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against his judgement. The status of the Development Strategy currently remains as a submitted plan that has not been withdrawn. Its policies are consistent with the NPPF. Its preparation is based on substantial evidence gathered over a number of years. It is therefore regarded by the Council as a sustainable strategy which was fit for submission to the Secretary of State. Accordingly it is considered that the emerging policies carry weight in this assessment.

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014)

Relevant Planning History:

Application Number MB/07/00515/FULL Description Full: Erection of 10 flats in 2 blocks and formation of new access road Decision Approve Decision Date 17/07/2007 Agenda Item 8 Application Number CB/13/03868/FULL Page 91 Description Renewal of Planning Permission: CB/10/02347/REN decision dated 22/12/10 for the erection of 10 flats in 2 blocks and formation of new access road (replacement of planning permission MB/07/00515/FULL dated 17 July 2007) Decision Withdrawn before determination.

Consultees:

Henlow Parish Council Henlow Parish Council object to the above planning application for the following reasons:

Highways This latest scheme has taken into account the issues raised during the pre-application scheme considered under reference CB/13/02270/PAPC. As such I am happy to confirm that there is no fundamental highway objection to the proposal. The site is located within the village, accessed from a public highway subject to a 30mph limit at a point where all visibility splays are achievable within the confines of the highway land. The site has been previously used for commercial purposes and the traffic generation is not significantly different. The vehicle access arrangements together with the on- site parking, garaging/car ports and vehicle turning areas are shown to be constructed in hard surfacing and are laid out to accord with the pre-application advice.

Cycling and Walking Had no comments to make Officer

Rights of Way Public Footpath No.1, Henlow parish runs parallel to the northern boundary of the application site. The centre of the legal width of the footpath is 0.9metres from the rear boundary. A previous application for a similar development was made aware of this point, however it is never mentioned in this contemporary application.

I have no material opposition to this application but wish to make an application under CIL with regard to the increased use of the Rights of Way network by the future residents (25.6 persons @ 3.2 residents per unit housing) of this development.

Ecology I have no objection to the proposals but advise that the NPPF calls for development to deliver a net gain for biodiversity and opportunities for enhancement should be considered. A considerable leylandii hedge is evident on Google Streetview but this is not shown on the existing site plans hence the inclusion of integrated bird bricks and flower/ nectar rich planting would achieve biodiversity gains. I would hope that the proposal could deliver 5 integral bird / bat bricks on the 5 properties to the rear of the site. Agenda Item 8 Page 92 LDF Team We support the reuse of the application site for housing and have no further comments to make.

Contaminated Land Raised no objections subject to conditions

Public Protection No comments received.

Other Representations:

Neighbours 1 letter received raising the following objections:  Overdevelopment creating cramped conditions  Houses on street frontage are forward of the Clifton Road building line.  All dwellings have 3 bedrooms  Parking does not comply with Central Beds’ parking standards  Plots 1, 2 and 3 could cause on street parking.  Internal layout conflict with door openings around the staircase ad ground and first floor.

Determining Issues:

1. Principle of Development 2. Impact on the character of the area 3, Impact on residential amenity. 4. Highways and parking issues 5. Other considerations.

Considerations

1. Principle of Development 1.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 49 states that 'housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development'. In the local context, the site falls within the Settlement Envelope of Henlow. Henlow is designated as a Large Village under Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, wherein the principle of new development is considered acceptable.

1.2 Policy DM4 (Development within Settlement Envelopes) of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (CSDMP) states that the Council will approve small scale housing within Large Villages subject to compliance with any other relevant policies. Most relevant is Policy DM3 (High Quality Development) which seeks to ensure new development is well designed and complements the character of the area in which it is located, respects the amenity of neighbouring properties and provides adequate access and parking arrangements.

1.3 The development of this site with housing is therefore generally supported in principle by both the NPPF and Policy DM4 of the CSDMP. However any proposal submitted will need to complement the surrounding pattern of Agenda Item 8 development, particularly in terms of scale, massing and plot coverage, andPage 93 design. These issues will be an important consideration in the determination of any planning application in accordance with Policy DM3 and are discussed below.

2. Impact on the character of the area 2.1 The proposal creates a frontage on the southern boundary close to the highway but set back to provide areas of defensible space adjacent the existing footway. This is a character that is common on the southern side of Clifton Road. The side in which the site lies is more characterised by notable set backs in residential plots. A number of concerns have been raised in this respect. The Council has previously permitted (MB/07/00515/FULL) a larger scaled and bulkier building in the frontage area of this site that provided a number of flats. The bulk of this proposal is less than the previously approved scheme. The frontage created by this proposal would not be a continuation of any established building line but at the same time the predominant character in the wider area is one of dwellings that front the highway and this is inkeeping with this character and is therefore considered to be acceptable.

2.2 The scale of dwellings fronting the highway also contributes to what would be a prominent feature in the streetscene. The prominence is not, however, considered to amount to a detrimental impact to the character of the area. The scheme is considered to add to the variety of dwelling scales in this area and is considered acceptable as a result. The scale of dwellings at the northern extent of the site have been amended since their original submission to reduce their height from 2.5 storey dwellings to 2 storey dwellings. This element of the scheme now provides a more appropriate scale bearing in mind it is located at the edge of the village and backs onto open countryside. Plot 6 has been designed to have a prominent front gable which would act as a termination feature when viewed through the site from Clifton Road, picking up on the recommendations of the Design Guide.

2.3 The proposed materials pallet as indicated in the application is considered to add variety to the scheme and add to the quality of design and visual interest that would be created. These materials would require approval prior to constructions of the dwellings commencing but they are considered to be appropriate in principle.

3. Impact on residential amenity. 3.1 There are neighbouring dwellings either side of the application site and there will be a visual impact from the development. This impact is however considered to be acceptable as the scale and density of development is considered to be appropriate in this area.

3.2 The dwellings are proposed without any windows serving habitable rooms in the gable ends that face the adjacent sites. Where windows are proposed they serve the stairwell for the dwelling in question and do not create a direct outlook. Plots 7 and 8 have a frontage that overlooks land outside of the site remit but this adjoining land is non-residential comprising of a workshop and curtilage and therefore this raises no amenity concerns. Dwellings on the other side of Clifton Road are considered to retain a suitable distance to mitigate any impact. It is therefore considered that there would be no harm to existing amenity though overlooking. Agenda Item 8 Page 94 3.3 The relationship between the proposal and existing dwellings is such that there is not considered to be any overbearing impact from the development or any risk to loss of light or shadowing. On the basis of the above, the proposal is not considered to have any detrimental impact to neighbouring residential amenity.

3.4 In terms of the provision of amenity for new occupiers the amended scheme, in addressing the scale of development, has a knock-on effect of addressing initial concern with garden spaces. The Parish Council raised objection that the amenity space proposed could not meet the design guide requirements. This was the case with the initial submission as all dwellings had 3 bedrooms which meant half of the gardens is not provide a garden area in accordance with the design guide. The amended scheme has reduced a number of units to 2 bedrooms which also lowers the standard for garden space. The revised layout shows that two of the units have garden areas that are below the recommended standard by no more that 7 square metres. The concerns of the Parish are acknowledged and it is unfortunate that the Design Guide recommendations have not ben met however the shortfall is not considered to result in the provision of amenity space that it would result in demonstrable harm to the amenity of the occupiers of the property.

3.5 Within the development the layout ensures suitable distances are achieved between the dwellings and even though all dwellings have a south facing frontage the layout does not result in direct overlooking to garden area or other dwellings. As a result it is considered that the scheme provides acceptable levels of amenity for the future occupiers of the development.

4. Parking and Highway Considerations. 4.1 The revised scheme has resulted in a reduction in the size of dwellings resulting in a make up of 4no 3-bed dwellings and 4no 2 bed dwellings. The layout continues to provide two spaces per dwelling which is acceptable in accordance with the recommendations of the Design Guide. The proposal also meets the standard in terms of providing visitor parking spaces. The layout allows for each dwelling to access their parking spaces without compromising the access ability of any neighbouring unit. The scheme is therefore considered to provide acceptable parking to accommodate the development.

4.2 Access will be provided somewhat centrally on the southern boundary direct onto Clifton Road. Objection has been received on the grounds of poor visibility when leaving the site however no such objections have been raised by the Highways Officer. The existing footpath and provision of front garden areas means that suitable visibility splays can be provided and therefore no objection is raised in this respect.

4.3 Within the site the access provides suitable width to allow two vehicles to pass and provide turning space for all residents. The nature of the layout means that this results in a large area of hardstanding in the site but its impact from the public realm is limited due to the screening provided by the frontage dwellings.

4.4 The proposal is considered to provide appropriate levels of parking in light of the recommendations of the Design Guide and has been designed to ensure that the access and manoeuvring space are safe and as a result there are no concerns regarding highway safety. Agenda Item 8 Page 95 5. Other Considerations 5.1 Human Rights and Equality Issues Based on the information submitted there are no known issues raised in the context of Human Rights/equalities Act 2010 and as such there would be no relevant implications with this proposal.

5.2 Planning obligations The Rights of Way Officer has asked for an indeterminate amount due to increased usage of the right of way running to the north of the site. On 31 July 2015 the High Court quashed previously announced policy changes which directed Local Planning Authorities not to impose affordable housing contributions and other infrastructure contributions on housing proposals for ten dwellings or fewer. Therefore the Council is now able to consider such contributions on all housing developments. In this instance, the application was submitted prior to the decision of the court with the understanding that no such contributions would be required or sought. In the interests of adopting a reasonable and flexible approach it is considered that it would not be reasonable for the Council to require affordable housing or infrastructure contributions to a development of this scale.

Recommendation:

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

1 The development hereby permitted 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 No works on the construction of the dwellings hereby approved shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been 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 in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

3 No development shall take place until details of the existing and final ground and slab levels of the buildings hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include sections through both the site and the adjoining properties. Thereafter the site shall be developed in full accordance with the approved details. Agenda Item 8 Reason: To ensure that an acceptable relationship results between the Page 96 new development and adjacent buildings and public areas.

4 Notwithstanding the details in the approved plans, none of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until a landscaping scheme to include all hard and soft landscaping and a scheme for landscape maintenance for a period of five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented by the end of the full planting season immediately following the completion and/or first use of any separate part of the development (a full planting season means the period from October to March). The trees, shrubs and grass shall subsequently be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape maintenance scheme and any which die or are destroyed during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of landscaping.

5 None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until a scheme has been submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected which shall include acoustic fencing on the western boundary of the site. The boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme before the buildings are occupied and be thereafter retained.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the neighbouring occupants and the future occupiers of the buildings.

6 None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until all access and junction arrangements serving the development have been completed in accordance with the approved plans and all other existing access points within the highway frontage of the site have been stopped-up by raising the existing dropped kerb and reinstating the footway to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway.

Reason: To secure a satisfactory access appropriate to the development, in the interest of public safety and convenience.

7 No development shall take place until details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority of a Construction Traffic Management Plan which details access arrangements for construction vehicles, on-site parking and loading and unloading areas, materials storage areas and wheel cleaning facilities. The construction of the development hereby approved shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and the site. Agenda Item 8 8 The development shall not be occupied or brought into use until the parking Page 97 scheme shown on Drawing No. 3176 3 Rev A has been completed. The scheme shall thereafter be retained for this purpose.

Reason: To ensure provision for car parking clear of the highway. (Policy 27, DSCB)

9 No development shall take place unless and until the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning 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 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: The details are required prior to commencement to protect human health and the environment in accordance with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

10 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 3176 01 Rev A, 3176 02, 3176 03 Rev A, 3176 07 Rev B, 3176 08 Rev A, 3176 09 Rev D, 3176 10 Rev C, 3176 11 Rev B, 3176 16 and 3176 17

Reason: To identify the approved plan/s and to avoid doubt. Agenda Item 8 Notes to Applicant Page 98

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.

2. In respect of conditions 8 and 9, 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.  The British Standard for Topsoil, BS 3882:2007, specifies requirements for topsoils that are moved or traded and should be adhered to.  The British Standard for Subsoil, BS 8601 Specification for subsoil and requirements for use, should also be adhered to. There is a duty to assess for Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) during development and measures undertaken during removal and disposal should protect site workers and future users, while meeting the requirements of the HSE.

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 contact Central Bedfordshire Council's Highway Help Desk on 03003008049. 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 parking for contractor's vehicles and the storage of materials associated with this development should take place within the site and not extend into within the public highway without authorisation from the highway authority. If necessary the applicant is advised to contact Central Bedfordshire Council's Highway Help Desk on 03003008049. Under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 the developer may be liable for any damage caused to the public highway as a result of construction of the development hereby approved.

5. The applicant is advised that Central Bedfordshire Council as highway authority will not consider the proposed on-site vehicular areas for adoption as highway maintainable at public expense.

6. The applicant is advised that no highway surface water drainage system Agenda Item 8 designed as part of a new development, will be allowed to enter any existingPage 99 highway surface water drainage system without the applicant providing evidence that the existing system has sufficient capacity to account for any highway run off generated by that development. Existing highway surface water drainage systems may be improved at the developers expense to account for extra surface water generated. Any improvements must be approved by the Development Control Group, Development Management Division, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ.

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 5, Article 35

Discussion with the applicant to seek an acceptable solution regarding the scale of dwellings took place and amended plans were submitted. 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) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

......

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

Page 101 16

TAYLOR'S ROAD

Play Area

Works 12

43.0m 6

Factory

FEN END

1

51 46

ASTWICK ROAD ASPEN GARDENS

1 Works 42

El Sub Sta 40 Works

39 4

45

38 2 27 49

43.0m 2a

El Sub Sta 36 Works

29 2b 32 N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. 32

41 Central Bedfordshire16 Council CASE NO.

Licence No. 100049029 (2009) 30

W E Date: 27:August:2015 32a

13 El Sub Sta

Map Sheet No Scale: 1:1250 32c S DANE 16 Garage 19 31

19 20

CLOSE 26 17 Drain This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 Page 103

Item No. 9

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/15/01897/FULL LOCATION Fen End Industrial Estate, Fen End, Stotfold, Hitchin, SG5 4BA PROPOSAL Demolition of the existing industrial unit and construction of 10 no. 2 bed flats with associated parking and landscaping PARISH Stotfold WARD Stotfold & Langford WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Dixon, Saunders & Saunders CASE OFFICER Samantha Boyd DATE REGISTERED 22 May 2015 EXPIRY DATE 21 August 2015 APPLICANT Stotfold Motor Centre AGENT DLP Planning Consultants REASON FOR The applicant is a close relative of Cllr John COMMITTEE TO Saunders DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Refusal Recommended

Reasons for Recommendation

The application site is allocated for employment use under Policy E1 of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2011). Policy E1 and Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009) seek to safeguard the site for employment use therefore the proposal for ten new dwellings would result in the loss of a safeguarded employment site which is unacceptable.

The proposal also is considered to result in a harmful visual impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area given the proposed layout and scale of building which would appear unduly prominent within the street scene and given the corner location of the site. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in significant impact from noise from the industrial units which would result in loss of amenity to future occupants of the properties.

The proposal also fails to demonstrate that the surface water management options are feasible, can be properly maintained and would not lead to any other environmental issues.

The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CS10 and DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009) and the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2011) and the NPPF.

Site Location:

The application site is 1 Fen End Industrial Estate and comprises a vacant industrial unit on the corner of Fen End and Astwick Road. The site is enclosed by chain link fencing on the frontage of the site. To the south east the site is adjoined by Agenda Item 9 Page 104 residential properties in Astwick Road and to the south west there are existing occupied industrial units. Fen End is a small industrial estate of mixed uses on the edge of Stotfold and extends beyond the application to the rear and opposite. The Application:

The proposal is to demolish the industrial unit and replace it with a development of 10 x 2 bedroom flats with associated parking and landscaping.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

Site Allocations Development Plan Document 2011 Policy E1 Safeguarded Employment Sites

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

CS1 Development Strategy CS2 Developer Contributions CS9 Providing Jobs CS10 Location of Employment Sites DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) Paragraph 22 Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 2014

The draft Development Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 24th October 2014. After initial hearing sessions in 2015 the Inspector concluded that the Council had not complied with the Duty to Cooperate. The Council has launched a judicial review against the Inspectors findings and has not withdrawn the Development Strategy. The first phase of the legal challenge took place at a hearing on 16th June 2015. This was to consider whether the court would grant the Council leave to have a Judicial Review application heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council's case. On the 22nd June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against his judgement. The status of the Development Strategy currently remains as a submitted plan that has not been withdrawn. Its policies are consistent with the NPPF. Its preparation is based on substantial evidence gathered over a number of years. It is therefore regarded by the Council as a sustainable strategy which was fit for submission to the Secretary of State. Accordingly it is considered that the emerging policies carry weight in this assessment.

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014) Relevant Planning History:

CB/14/03040/Full Proposed demolition of existing factory unit to build two number five bed houses and one number four bed house with associated garages, car parking and external works. change of use from general industrial to residential. Refused 20/11/014 Agenda Item 9 Page 105

48/2002/0232 Change of use from vehicle repairs and sales to general industrial use to include the storage, surfacing and maintaining equipment in connection with supplying road traffic management systems and equipment. Approved August 2002

07/00783/Full Change of Use of to scaffold yard and depot - Refused July 2007.

07/00150/Full Change of Use to scaffold yard and depot - Refused March 2007

Consultees:

Stotfold Town Council No objections Site notice 28/05/15

Other Representations:

Neighbours 44 Astwick Road One letter received - comments summarised

There were trees on the site which could have influenced this development however they have been felled. Dispute whether the size of parking spaces meets the requirements of a modern day car. There is already parking issue in Fen End with lorries and cars from the industrial units parking on the road and in Astwick Road. Insufficient parking could result in overspill onto surrounding roads. Omission of gardens for small family accommodation is detrimental. Addition of houses in Stotfold has already put pressure on infrastructure.

CBC SuDS Team The submitted Surface Water Drainage Strategy for the application CB/15/01987/FULL does not demonstrate that the surface water management options proposed are feasible, can be properly maintained and would not lead to any other environmental problems. Therefore, in the absence of an acceptable Surface Water Drainage Strategy we recommend refusal of this application based on insufficient detail being provided regarding the mitigation of flood risk and a viable approach to the disposal of surface water.

CBC Highways There is an issue with a required turning area for a service/delivery vehicle. The agent states that this type of vehicle will not enter the site but instead park on Fen End and walk to service/deliver to the apartments. This is not realistic, the road is of a suitable width for a service/delivery driver to assume, and rightly so, that they Agenda Item 9 Page 106

can access the site, but in doing so would have to reverse into Fen End, where visibility and manoeuvring will be obstructed by on street parking in the close proximity of the junction with Fen End/Astwick Road, and where drivers entering Fen End will not expect to be met with a reversing service/delivery vehicle. The reversing vehicle will also exceed the reversing distance as set out in the current design guide.

The cycle parking provision has been passed onto the cycle/walking officers for their comments, which to date have not been favourable due to the location of the long stay parking provision which is not overlooked and is ‘open’ sided and fronted.

The refuse storage/collection provision has been passed onto waste management and I do not believe the location is favourable. The collection point is some distance from the highway and the refuse vehicle will have to park on street to collect the waste. Fen End has heavy on street parking issues which will impede the refuse vehicle getting close to the kerb, and the parked vehicles will obstruct access to the refuse vehicle (along with any raised kerb) for operatives to wheel the paladins to the rear of the collection vehicle lift.

All of these issues can be dealt with by conditions for information to be submitted prior to development but will require the vehicle parking provision to be reconfigured, along with the cycle parking provision and bin storage/collection point; this will inevitably require the site layout to be altered.

CBC Tree and A previous application for three dwellings on this site was Landscape refused, but received with that application was a comprehensive tree survey that identified three category A trees that would have been retained in a redevelopment of the site. These trees were part of shelterbelt of trees along the road front of the site and would have added mature landscaping and also a degree of sound reduction to the properties, an issue which is identified in this current application. Unfortunately it would appear that there was no interest in retaining any trees on site, the end result of which is that they have all been removed.

As such it would appear that all we can expect now is details for landscaping and boundary treatment.

CBC Ecology Having looked at the proposals I would have no objection, however on looking at the aerial view on page 12 of the Design & Access statement it is clear that there are a Agenda Item 9 Page 107

number of trees on site and yet the application form states no trees present. As the building has been left dormant for a number of years it is also possible that there could be a bat or bird interest in it.

CBC Public Protection - Due to the previous use of the site, and it being the contamination responsibility of the developer to make the site safe and suitable for use, relevant conditions should be attached to any permission granted

CBC Public Protection - Object to the development on the grounds of Noise unacceptable impact on future occupiers from the adjacent industrial uses.

Internal Drainage Board Ground conditions should be investigated and if satisfactory soakaways designed to BRED 365. If soakaways are not suitable the Boards consent is required for discharge to nearby watercourse. Alternatively the applicant should enquire to Anglian Water.

CBC Sustainable The development should provide 10% renewable energy Growth sources.

Strategic Landscape Landscape Character / Visual Impact - this is a Officer disappointing application as trees which would have made a contribution have been felled. I do not have any objection to the proposal to develop residential properties on the site . However, a detailed landscaping plan is required which respects landscape character and the rural frontage. The site falls within landscape character area 4C - the Upper Ivel Clay Valley - which has experienced a decline in character and amenity partly through the development of incongruous infill and a lack of screening and integration. The village of Astwick is considered particularly sensitive and it is important that the design is well screened to avoid intrusion in the views from Stotfold Common.

A planting scheme based on native hedging and includes feature trees which will contribute to the street frontage will be required. I would not consider a standard urban style planting solution eg Photinia or a tree with coloured or variegated leaves acceptable.

Determining Issues:

1. The principle of the development 2. The impact on the character and appearance of the area 3. Impact on amenity 4. Other considerations Agenda Item 9 Page 108

Considerations

1. The principle of the development

1.1 Fen End Industrial Estate is identified as a safeguarded Key Employment Site for B1, B2 and B8 uses within the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (adopted 2011) (allocation E1) which means that employment use on these sites will continue to be safeguarded under Policy E1 and Policy CS10: Location of Employment Sites of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document.

1.2 The application site comprises an empty industrial unit which has clearly been vacant for a number of years. The applicant states that the unit has been advertised for sale or rent since 2006 however no suitable occupier has been found.

1.3 In 2007 planning permission was sought for a change of use to a scaffold yard and depot however the application was refused. Previously there have been a number of applications at the premises for various different uses as outlined above. Since then, the building has stood empty, is overgrown and run down.

1.4 While the site is within the Settlement Envelope for Stotfold, given its allocation as a Key Employment Site, the redevelopment of the site for residential purposes would be contrary to Policy CS10 which safeguards Key Employment sites in order to strike a balance between housing growth and job provision.

Paragraph 22 of the NPPF advises that the long term protection of sites 1.5 allocated for employment use should be regularly reviewed and where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for the allocated employment use, applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits.

The applicant has submitted a Statement of Marketing in support of the 1.6 application. It states that the property has been marketed by an appointed agent (Davies King Chartered Surveyors) and they were instructed to sell or let the unit in January 2006. In 2004 the property was advertised in a local paper and a board placed on the site and has been in place continuously since 2006 but was replaced in November 2014. The statement notes the previous planning history and decisions made by the Council citing this as a reason why the premises has not attracted an end user. In 2007 a scaffolding company expressed an interest however an application to change the use of the building to a scaffold yard was refused.

The Marketing statement does not include details of any further attempts to 1.7 advertise the premises since 2007 apart from the board at the premises. It was noted during the site visit for the previous application that the board had fallen down and was overgrown with trees and shrubs. The board alone is not considered to be a sufficient means of marketing an empty commercial unit and other methods of marketing do not appear to have been explored in recent years. Agenda Item 9 Page 109

It is noted that the building is in a state of disrepair and appears to have been 1.8 neglected for many years. It is acknowledged that the building would require significant renovation or even demolition and rebuild, which may not be viable, however it is the owners responsibility to ensure the building is maintained to a standard that would attract an end user and ensure the site is used for its intended employment purpose. The state of the building cannot be considered as the sole reason which would outweigh the conflict with Policy CS10 and E1: the safeguarded employment site.

Based on the information submitted, the applicant has not sufficiently 1.9 demonstrated that there is no real prospect of the building being used for employment purposes therefore the demolition of the unit and its replacement with 10 dwellings is considered to be unacceptable as it would involve the loss of important employment land. It would also make it difficult for the Council to resist applications for other vacant units in Fen End seeking redevelopment of their site for housing which would result in further loss of employment land, reducing the availability of local employment opportunities and choice of commercial premises. The proposal is therefore contrary to the advice given in the NPPF and Policy E1 and CS10 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009).

2. The impact on the character and appearance of the area

2.1 The proposed development comprises a two storey building sited on the frontage of the site with a covered access to the parking court at the rear. The building would appear prominent in the street scene given it corner location on the junction of Astwick Road and Fen End. The design of the building, particularly the rear elevation is bland offering no architectural features for such a large building in a prominent location.

2.2 In terms of the scale of the building, the steeply pitched roof of the highest section is some 9m in height, well in excess of the adjacent residential properties which have low pitch roofs approximately 7m or so in height.

2.3 Policy DM3 seeks to ensure that new development contributes positively to creating a sense of place and respects local distinctiveness. While the area is mixed in character, the proposal would appear much larger in scale than the adjacent dwellings and would dominate this corner of the junction.

2.4 The proposal is therefore considered to result in a harmful impact to the character and appearance of the area given its scale, design and siting and is therefore contrary to Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009)

3. Impact on amenity

3.1 The main residential property materially affected by the proposal would be the immediate neighbour No 46 Astwick Road. 46 is located to the south east of the application site and separated by a garden wall (approx 1.8m) and mature trees. The garden of No 46 was viewed during a site visit and with the existing Agenda Item 9 Page 110

boundary treatment at 46, the proposed building would be barely visible. Even if the vegetation were to be removed, the block noted as plots 1 and 2 is set back from the rear of No 46 therefore no significant loss of light or privacy would occur.

3.2 Other properties in the vicinity are located some 35m from the rear elevation of the proposed flats which is considered to be a sufficient distance to avoid adverse overlooking.

3.3 In terms of the amenities of the existing surrounding properties, the proposal is not considered to result in significant impacts to amenity.

3.4 Amenity of future occupiers The proposed development will be adversely affected to a significant extent by industrial noise from adjacent and nearby industrial units. The submitted acoustic assessment does not demonstrate that the councils noise standards can be achieved at the proposed dwellings.

3.5 Meadowcroft Food Services at units 7A and 7B Fen End have their yard area to the south west boundary of the proposed development and with the current layout ground floor habitable rooms, ground and first floor bedrooms would overlook the yard loading/unloading area and the front of the industrial premises. Meadowcroft Food are a food distribution company normally operating Monday to Friday. They have a daily milk delivery typically between 0300 and 0400 hrs where noise sources would include reversing beepers, unloading by hand into roll cages which are then rolled across the yard and into the building. Three times a week (Mon, Wed, Fri) between 0530 and 0600 hrs they have a food delivery with noise from reversing beepers, tailgate up and down, roll cages on yard and vehicle noise. Also twice a week before 0600 hrs they have a palletised food delivery that is off loaded by an electric fork lift truck. Typically they can have anything up to five deliveries a day before 0700 hrs in the morning. Also from 0630 hrs they have chillers running to chill delivery vans prior to loading. They have a further 5 to 8 deliveries coming in per day and 10-15 vehicles are loaded to go out. Generally they finish around 1800 hrs. The chiller units are left on overnight within the building but they are contained within the building envelope. It is understood that Meadowcroft have recently expanded into unit 7B and that therefore their business may have increased by approximately 1/3 since the Cass Allen noise assessment was undertaken in September 2011, with a corresponding increase in loading/unloading and delivery noise. It is also understood that existing houses in Saxon Avenue have complained to Meadowcroft foods about noise from milk deliveries waking them up and they have asked the driver to try a keep noise to a minimum but noise from this type of activity is difficult to control and early morning deliveries are essential to the operation of the business.

3.6 Maxima Fitness occupies unit 7C and is also located with their yard area to the south west boundary of the proposed development site. They have a goods delivery once or twice a week arriving at 0630 hrs. It is parked along the boundary fence with unit 1 Fen End for unloading which they do with a fork lift truck. They also load vehicles in the same location at the boundary with 1 Fen End. In addition they load a van with the fork lift truck from the storage containers located to the yard on the SE boundary of their unit in the evening Agenda Item 9 Page 111

typically up to 2300 hrs. They usually work Mondays to Fridays and some Saturdays.

3.7 AGB Narib are located to the north east of the proposed development and are a joinery manufacturer. They generally operate from 0800 to 1700 hrs Monday to Friday and sometimes Saturdays 0800 to 1700 hrs. Generally deliveries are at 1015 hrs to the front of their premises, directly opposite the proposed houses. This will be unloaded with a gas powered Fork lift truck with reversing beeper and vehicle noise. Their roller shutter doors open into the main workshop area with wood working machinery and apart from being open for deliveries and collections loading/unloading are also open for ventilation during warmer weather. This will result in noise from woodworking machinery impacting on the proposed development. They also have an externally located dust extraction system in the yard between their unit and Plastic facilities/A J Joinery which has associated motor and air movement noise and can be clearly heard at the proposed development site.

3.8 Plastic Facilities are located in unit 1A Fen End and operate from 0730 to 1600 hrs Monday to Friday and 0700 to 1200 hrs Saturdays. They do not have any external equipment or machinery and are unlikely to significantly impact on the proposed development other than general vehicle movements on the Industrial Estate road.

3.9 A J Joinery are located in unit 1B Fen End they are open from 0600 to 1800 hrs 7 days a week. They undertake paint spraying on site (primer) with associated extraction plant, loading and unloading from as early as 0600 hrs. They also have an external dust extraction system located in the yard between their building and AGB Narib and there is a line of sight from this and part of their yard to the proposed development.

3.10 Unit 3 Fen end also has a roof mounted extraction system (believed to be Oakwood Joinery paint spraying extraction) which may require further investigation as to its potential impact and hours of operation.

3.11 Therefore there is significant noise and also potentially fumes/odours from industrial activities from adjacent units that impacts upon the proposed development site with deliveries/collections from as early as 0300 hrs to as late as 2300 hrs and indeed some plant may operate overnight too. Of particular concern is early morning deliveries to the industrial units to the south west boundary of the proposed development occur daily from 0300, then 0530 and with several more before 0700 hrs. The applicants proposal has bedroom windows for all of the proposed dwellings directly overlooking this yard area and it is felt that the delivery noise would make it extremely difficult for most people to get sufficient sleep if they occupied these rooms. Further concern is that several units operate external plant which may have tonal noise and noise at lower frequencies that are more difficult to mitigate through measures such as increased noise insulation.

3.12 The applicant has submitted a noise impact assessment for the proposed development. The noise assessment monitoring consists of a 24 hour period of remote monitoring from 1710hrs on Tuesday 17th September 2011 to 1640hrs on Wednesday 18th September 2011. The monitoring period was almost 4 Agenda Item 9 Page 112

years ago since that time significant changes have occurred at the Industrial Estate during this period including an increase in business at Meadowcroft Foods and the relocation of AJ Joinery into the estate along with associated external plant and equipment. Therefore the monitoring data is not considered to be representative of the current impact of the industrial noise on the proposed development.

3.13 Public Protection Officers raised a number of concerns regarding the methodology of the noise assessment and the applicant has been liaising with the Public Protection Officer dealing with the application. However despite attempts to overcome the objections, there is still a strong objection in terms of the impact on the amenities of the future occupants of the dwellings with regard to unacceptable noise levels. This is contrary to Policy DM3 which seeks to ensure that all new development respects amenity and complies with current guidance on noise.

4. Other Considerations

4.1 Contamination Due to the previous use of the site, and it being the responsibility of the developer to make the site safe and suitable for use, should permission be granted conditions should be attached ensuring the land is assessed for contamination and mitigation measures proposed, if necessary.

4.2 Highways Highways Officers have raised a number of concerns relating to the layout of the site in particular the cycle parking provision which is not favourable due to the location of the long stay cycle parking provision which is not overlooked and is ‘open’ sided and fronted.

4.3 The refuse storage/collection point is some distance from the highway and the refuse vehicle will have to park on street to collect the waste. Fen End has heavy on street parking issues which will impede the refuse vehicle getting close to the kerb, and the parked vehicles will obstruct access to the refuse vehicle (along with any raised kerb) for operatives to wheel the paladins to the rear of the collection vehicle lift.

4.4 Further there is an issue with a required turning area for a service/delivery vehicle. The agent states that this type of vehicle will not enter the site but instead park on Fen End and walk to service/deliver to the apartments. This is not realistic, the road is of a suitable width for a service/delivery driver to assume, and rightly so, that they can access the site, but in doing so would have to reverse into Fen End, where visibility and manoeuvring will be obstructed by on street parking in the close proximity of the junction with Fen End/Astwick Road, and where drivers entering Fen End will not expect to be met with a reversing service/delivery vehicle. The reversing vehicle will also exceed the reversing distance as set out in the current design guide.

4.5 The applicant has been made aware of the above issues which could be dealt with by condition but a suitable scheme is likely to result in an amended layout Agenda Item 9 Page 113

which may require a further planning consent depending on whether the amended is material. It would be more appropriate for the issues to be dealt with during the application process.

4.6 Fundamentally there are no objections from a highways point of view subject to the above issues being resolved.

4.7 Affordable Housing On 31 July 2015 the High Court quashed previously announced policy changes which directed Local Planning Authorities not to impose affordable housing contributions and other infrastructure contributions on housing proposals for ten dwellings or fewer. Therefore the Council is now able to consider such contributions on all housing developments.

4.8 However as the application was submitted prior to the decision of the court with the understanding that no such contributions would be required it is considered reasonable that in this instance no affordable housing or contributions would be sought from this development in this location.

4.9 Drainage In line with para 103 of the NPPF, when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere. In the absence of an acceptable Surface Water Drainage Strategy the proposal is considered to be unacceptable and contrary to paragraph 103 of the NPPF. In summary, the application lacks the necessary ground investigation, hydraulic and structural design considerations and maintenance proposals to demonstrate the proposed surface water drainage system is feasible and that it will safely manage surface water for the lifetime of the development which it serves.

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

Recommendation: That planning permission is refused for the following reasons:

RECOMMENDED REASONS

1 The application site is allocated for employment use under Policy E1 of the Site Allocations Document (Adopted 2011), Core Strategy and Development Management Policy CS10 (adopted 2009) and Policy E1 seeks to safeguard the site for employment use therefore the proposal for 10 new dwellings would result in the loss of a safeguarded employment site which is unacceptable and the applicant has failed to demonstrate there is no prospect of the site being used for employment purposes through a comprehensive up to date marketing campaign. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy and Development Agenda Item 9 Page 114

Management Policies Document (2009) and Policy E1 of the Site Allocation Document (2011).

2 The proposal is considered to result in a harmful visual impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area given the design and scale of the building which would appear unduly prominent within the street scene and would dominate the corner at the junction with Fen End and Astwick Road. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009)

3 The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not result in significant impact from noise from the adjacent industrial units which would result in unacceptable impact on the amenity of future occupants of the properties. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009)

4 In the absence of an acceptable Surface Water Drainage Strategy the applicant has failed to demonstrate that surface water management can be properly maintained for the lifetime of the development it serves, in that it lacks the necessary ground investigation, hydraulic and structural design considerations and maintenance proposals. The proposal is therefore considered to be unacceptable and contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 5, Article 35

The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The applicant was invited to withdraw the application to seek pre-application advice prior to any re-submission but did not agree to this. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively 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) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

......

Agenda 50 Item 10 84.9mPage 115

47 46

15

15a Shelter 36

7

3 1 86.2m

FS

Memorial 34

10

8

2

30a 26

16

14

46

SILVER END ROAD 20

87.8m 14

21

34 12

9 10 N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009)

W E Date: 27:August:2015 27

1 Map Sheet No LONGDEN S

Scale: 1:1000 11 CL

3 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10 Page 117

Item No. 10

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/15/02290/FULL LOCATION 32 - 34 Silver End Road, Haynes, Bedford, MK45 3PP PROPOSAL Proposed demolition of 2 No semi-detached properties and the erection of 1 No detached and 1 pair of semi-detached dwellings PARISH Haynes WARD Houghton Conquest & Haynes WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Mrs Barker CASE OFFICER Samantha Boyd DATE REGISTERED 03 July 2015 EXPIRY DATE 28 August 2015 APPLICANT Mr L Dove AGENT Bradbury Design Ltd REASON FOR Call in by Ward Member Cllr Barker. COMMITTEE TO Reasons: Large development for small plot, off DETERMINE road parking required, traffic issues due to splay coming off site. Bin storage and bike storage not adequate or off road parking for cars. Impact on Foresters Close regarding disruption and noise. RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Approval

Reasons for Recommendation

The principle of the proposed development in this location is considered to be acceptable and compliant with Policy DM4 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009). The proposal 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 therefore by reason of its size, design and location, is in conformity with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Management Policies, November 2009; and The National Planning Policy Framework. It is further in conformity with the technical guidance Central Bedfordshire Design Guide 2014.

Site Location:

The application site is 32 and 34 Silver End Road in Haynes. The existing dwellings are two former Local Authority semi-detached prefabricated dwellings constructed in the 1950's and located on the corner of the junction with Foresters Close and Silver End Road

No. 32 has an existing hardstanding parking area for two vehicles and a dropped crossing at its frontage and No. 34 has a single access and parking with a dropped crossing from Foresters Close.

The surrounding area is mostly residential. In Foresters Close and on the northern Agenda Item 10 Page 118 side of Silver End Road there are similar semi detached properties, while to the southern side of Silver End Road there are larger detached dwellings. Foresters Close is also the main access route to Haynes Lower School.

The Application:

Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing semi detached dwellings and their replacement with a detached dwelling and a pair of semi detached dwellings including parking and access.

The applicant states the reasons for the demolition is that the existing properties are of non standard construction and thermally inefficient. The houses were designated under the 1984 Housing Defects Act making them non mortgageable without specific conditions.

During the application process the agent amended the site address to include both 32 and 34 Silver End Road. The applicant Mr & Mrs Dove live at No 34 and have served Notice on Mr & Mrs Preen who live at No 32 as the red line of the application site includes both properties.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes

Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 2014

The draft Development Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 24th October 2014. After initial hearing sessions in 2015 the Inspector concluded that the Council had not complied with the Duty to Cooperate. The Council has launched a judicial review against the Inspectors findings and has not withdrawn the Development Strategy. The first phase of the legal challenge took place at a hearing on 16th June 2015. This was to consider whether the court would grant the Council leave to have a Judicial Review application heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council's case. On the 22nd June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against his judgement. The status of the Development Strategy currently remains as a submitted plan that has not been withdrawn. Its policies are consistent with the NPPF. Its preparation is based on substantial evidence gathered over a number of years. It is therefore regarded by the Council as a sustainable strategy which was fit for submission to the Secretary of State. Accordingly it is considered that the emerging policies carry weight in this assessment.

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014) Relevant Planning History:

None relevant Agenda Item 10 Page 119

Consultees:

Haynes Parish Council Haynes Parish Council objects to this application: The additional dwelling represents overdevelopment of the site & creates extra potential traffic at what is already a busy junction adjacent a bus stop. Off road parking is essential at this location. Parking is already an issue in this area. The access splay appears inadequate. Construction traffic should not impede access to Foresters Close where there is a school & therefore regular pedestrian & vehicular traffic. Bin storage area appears to obstruct the path. Access for bicycles appears too narrow.

Other Representations:

Neighbours 3 Letters received - objections summarised below -

49 Foresters Close  Additional dwelling represents overdevelopment of site and creates potential extra traffic at the junction.  Off road parking is essential, parking is already an issue.  Access splay inadequate.  Construction traffic should not impede access to Foresters Close

2 Foresters Close  2 Foresters Close will be overlooked - Loss of Privacy.  Will increase traffic congestion in Foresters Close.

Foresters Residents  Title of one of the properties is owned by a CBC Association member of staff. This is not declared in the forms.  Concerns over pedestrian and vehicle safety, particularly during school terms.  Layout and density of the 2 buildings will cause site space congestion during construction.  Hard to believe that the proposed properties will allow 7 parking spaces against the current 4.

Internal Drainage Board No comments to make Public Protection No comments to make Waste Officer No comments received

Highways The four bedroom dwelling will use a widened access for no. 32 at Silver End Road, and provide three frontage parking spaces. A garage is indicated but I have Agenda Item 10 Page 120

discounted this as part of the parking provision as it is below the required internal dimensions for a single garage. The parking provision is acceptable along with the visibility from the access. The existing plan shows a 0.7m wide strip of verge at the frontage of 34 (this should continue across the frontage of no. 32 but has been paved). The proposal shows this area (public highway) reduced to 0.4m down to 0.2m wide, this is incorrect and should be 0.7m wide across the frontage of the properties at Silver End Road and should be demarcated as such.

The two three bedroom dwellings will have two parking spaces each. The north-east dwelling will use the widened access for no. 34 at Foresters Close. The dwelling adjacent to the four bed dwelling will provide a new access from Silver End Road. Visibility from the access is acceptable along with the amount of parking provision.

Access to the cycle parking along the side of the dwellings should be 1.5m wide although I am willing to accept a reduction to 1.2m. However the access are shown as less than 1.0m which is an unsuitable width for a person to wheel a cycle to the parking area.

I have also spoken with our cycle and walking officer and the ‘Whitby CycleRax’ is not suitable parking provision for long stay parking. The information submitted also states it is for ‘short term parking’. The short stay cycle parking should be located at the dwelling frontage for short stay use. The cycle officer has pointed out that insurance companies will not ‘payout’ if cycles are stolen from this type of short stay cycle parking ‘Barnsley CycleRax’.

The indicated pedestrian visibility splays are incorrect and the boundary fences will partially interfere with the required splays and extend into the public highway (verge) and will obscure driver/driver intervisibility.

These are all issues that can be dealt with by conditions.

Site Notice 03/08/15

Determining Issues:

1. The principle of the development 2. The impact on the character and appearance of the area 3. Neighbouring amenity 4. Other considerations

Considerations

1. The principle of the development Agenda Item 10 Page 121

1.1 The application site is within the Settlement Envelope for Haynes where new residential development is considered acceptable by Policy DM4. The proposal is in effect for one new dwelling on the site as it involves the demolition of a pair of semi detached dwellings and their replacement together with one additional detached dwelling.

1.2 In principle the development is considered to be acceptable in this location subject to compliance with any other relevant policies.

2. The impact on the character and appearance of the area

2.1 The proposal is to replace the existing pair of semi's with a detached dwelling and a new pair of semi-detached dwellings.

2.2 The detached four bedroom dwelling is designed with a gable frontage, similar in appearance to the adjacent property at 30a Silver End Road. It has a single storey porch extension which extends over the integral garage. The dwelling is to be set off the boundary with 30a by 1m and provides three parking bays to the frontage. The rear garden is over 100sqm which is considered to be more than adequate for a four bedroom dwelling.

2.3 The proposed semi- detached dwellings are also designed with a gable frontage. They are slightly staggered in layout enabling the property closest to the junction to be set back further into the site. Each property has been provided with 2 parking spaces, one with access off Silver End Road and the other with access from Foresters Close. With regard to garden space, one of the three bedroom properties would be provided with 60 sq m of rear garden space however the plot close to Foresters Close would have much less at 36sq m. While 36 sqm rear amenity space falls short of the recommended garden size in the Councils Design Guide, this plot has a large enclosed front garden area (over 100 sq m) extending around the side of the dwelling given it's corner plot. The front garden is considered as useable space which would compensate for the smaller rear garden. For this reason, the rear garden size is considered to be acceptable.

In terms of the impact on the character and appearance of the area, the 2.4 proposal is not considered to result in a harmful impact. concerns have been raised relating to overdevelopment, however the proposal has provided the required parking spaces, garden space and there is adequate spacing between the buildings. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable and in compliance with the Design Guide and Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009).

3. Neighbouring amenity

3.1 The application site is located on the corner of Foresters Close and Silver End Road. To the rear the site overlooks No 2 Foresters Close and to the south it adjoins 30a Silver End Road. All other properties are well separated from the application site.

3.2 The side elevation of No. 2 is sited approximately 18m from the rear elevation of No. 34 Silver End Road and around 22m from the rear of No 32. The rear windows of the existing dwellings face towards the rear garden of 2 Foresters Agenda Item 10 Page 122

Close and would currently have views directly into each others gardens.

3.3 The proposed semi-detached dwellings would be located around 14m from the side elevation of No 2; the detached dwelling around 14.5m from the side boundary of No.2's rear garden. The dwellings are designed with first floor bedroom windows facing rear, however given the existing situation and the distances involved, the proposal would not result in significant overlooking and unacceptable loss of privacy to No.2 Foresters Close. Furthermore the proposed dwellings are sited such that there would be no loss of light or overbearing impact.

3.4 No 30a is a detached dwelling to the southern side of the application site. The proposed detached dwelling would be sited adjacent to 30a, 1m off the boundary, which is similar to the existing situation. The proposed detached dwelling is deeper than the existing semi, however it would not extend past the rear of No. 30a therefore no unacceptable loss of light, privacy or overbearing impact is likely to occur that would be any greater than the existing situation between the properties.

3.5 Overall given the existing situation and the relationship between the properties (proposed and existing), the proposal is not considered to result in an adverse impact on the amenities of the adjoining neighbours and is therefore acceptable in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009).

4. Other Considerations

4.1 Highway considerations

4.2 There is no objection to the development from a highway safety point of view and parking is compliant with the Councils Design Guide. The Highways Officers raised some concerns regarding cycle access between the properties and the type of parking stands proposed, however it is felt that a gap of 1m is a reasonable space for cycle access. It is noted that the plans show a cycle storage shed to the rear of each garden and provided the shed is lockable, this arrangement is considered to be an acceptable way to store cycles. With regard to visitor cycle storage, each property has access to an enclosed rear gardens therefore visitors will more likely store their cycles in the rear garden. In this case it is not felt necessary to insist on short stay cycle racks to the front of each dwelling.

4.3 Concern has been raised regarding congestion at the junction area, however it is not felt that one additional dwelling in this location would increase traffic to an unacceptable level. Each property has been provided with off road parking spaces in accordance with the Design Guide. It is accepted that there would be some disturbance during construction with deliveries etc, however this inevitable with all construction works and not a reason to restrict new development.

4.4 The proposal is considered to be acceptable with regard to the impact on highway safety and is therefore complaint with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009). Agenda Item 10 Page 123

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

4.6 S106 contributions On 31 July 2015 the High Court quashed previously announced policy changes which directed Local Planning Authorities not to impose affordable housing contributions and other infrastructure contributions on housing proposals for ten dwellings or fewer. Therefore the Council is now able to consider such contributions on all housing developments. However as the application was submitted prior to the decision of the court with the understanding that no such contributions would be required it is considered reasonable that in this instance no contributions would be sought from this development in this location.

Recommendation:

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

1 The development hereby permitted 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 No development shall take place until details of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs of the development hereby approved have been 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: Required prior to the commencement of the development to control the appearance of the building in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality. (Policy DM3)

3 The final ground and slab levels of the buildings hereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with the levels as shown on plan number 6456-02D. The site shall be developed in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that an acceptable relationship results between the new development and adjacent buildings and public areas. (Policy DM3)

4 The demolition works hereby approved shall be completed and all of the materials and fabric from the demolished [building(s)/structure(s)] shall be removed from the site within 1 month of the commencement of the demolition works. Agenda Item 10 Page 124

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area. (Policy DM3)

5 Before (any of) the accesses is first brought into use, a triangular vision splay shall be provided on the south-west and north-west side of the accesses at Silver End Road, and the west side of the access at Foresters Close, 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 highway 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 accesses, and to make the accesses safe and convenient for the traffic which is likely to use them. (Policy DM3)

6 The south-east boundary at the access with Foresters Close shall be set back into the site for a distance of 1.8m measured from the highway boundary and 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 (Policy DM3)

7 The proposed vehicular access shall be surfaced in bituminous or other similar durable material (not loose aggregate) with the highway boundary demarcated, as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for a distance of 5.0m into the site, measured from the highway boundary, before the premises are occupied. Arrangements 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 highway safety.(Policy DM3)

8 No building shall be occupied until the junction of the proposed and widened vehicular access with the highway 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.

9 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 6456-01 E, 6456-02 D.

Reason: To identify the approved plan/s and to avoid doubt. Agenda Item 10 Page 125

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.

2. In accordance with Article 35 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the reason for any condition above relates to the Policies as referred to in the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009).

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 contact Central Bedfordshire Council's Highway Help Desk, Tel: 0300 300 8049 quoting the Planning Application number. 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 structure, including foundations, planting, boundary treatments and parking 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 erected on a highway

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, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, SG17 5TQ

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. Agenda Item 10 Page 126

The applicant is advised that the storage of materials associated with this development should take place within the site and not extend into within the public highway without authorisation from the highway authority. If necessary further details can be obtained from Bedfordshire Highways (Amey), District Manager (for the relevant area) via the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Customer Contact Centre on 0300 300 8049.

Best practical means shall be taken at all times to ensure that all vehicles leaving the development site during construction of the development are in a condition such as not emit dust or deposit mud, slurry or other debris on the highway, in particular efficient means shall be installed prior to commencement of the development and thereafter maintained and employed at all times during construction of the development of cleaning the wheels of all vehicles leaving the site

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 5, Article 35

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 accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

......

Agenda Item 11 Page 127

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) W E Date: 01:September:2015

Map Sheet No S

Scale: 1:11250 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11 Page 129 Item No. 11

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/15/02652/FULL LOCATION Land Off Bedford Road, Marston Moretaine, Bedford, MK43 0LE PROPOSAL Re-plan of plot numbers 73 to 85, 201 to 219 and 189 to 192 to replace 36 dwellings with 39 and associated works granted consent under ref CB/12/03205/RM PARISH Marston Moretaine WARD Cranfield & Marston Moretaine WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Morris, Matthews & Mrs Clark CASE OFFICER Annabel Robinson DATE REGISTERED 17 July 2015 EXPIRY DATE 16 October 2015 APPLICANT Barratt Homes Ltd, Northampton AGENT KRT Associates Ltd REASON FOR This is a major planning application with an COMMITTEE TO objection from the Parish Council. DETERMINE RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Approval

Summary of Recommendation:

The planning application is recommended for approval, the design of the housing scheme would be in accordance with Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DM3, CS1, CS2, CS5, DM4, DM13, CS15. It would not have a significant impact upon the residential amenity of any adjacent properties, and would result in a new sustainable form of development suitable for the location. It is considered that the design is in accordance with the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide, the Marston Park Design Code and the submitted Development Strategy and National Planning Policy Framework.

Site Location:

The site is currently part of the wider site known as “Marston Park”, originally referred to as “Land off Bedford Road, Marston Moretaine”. The site is currently accessed from Bedford Road, however a secondary access from Station Road is also being constructed.

This part of the site is to the south of the site adjacent to the access on Station Road, adjacent to the existing access for the Forest of Marston Vale. The redline includes an area of land where 36 dwelling houses have been consented. The wider site is under construction, however these dwellings have not yet been constructed. The additional access from Station Road is under construction. Agenda Item 11 Page 130 The Application:

A full planning application for:

The re-plan of plot numbers 73 to 85, 201 to 219 and 189 to 192 to replace 36 dwellings with 39 and associated works granted consent under ref CB/12/03205/RAM

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

DM3 High Quality Development CS14 High Quality Development CS1 Development Strategy

Submitted Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 2014 (Submitted October 2014)

The draft Development Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 24th October 2014. After initial hearing sessions in 2015 the Inspector concluded that the Council had not complied with the Duty to Cooperate. The Council has launched a Judicial Review against the Inspectors findings and has not withdrawn the Development Strategy. The first phase of the legal challenge took place at a hearing on 16th June 2015. This was to consider whether the court would grant the Council leave to have a Judicial Review application heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council’s case. On the 22nd June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against this Judgement. The status of the Development Strategy currently remains as a submitted plan that has not been withdrawn. Its policies are consistent with the NPPF. Its preparation is based on substantial evidence gathered over a number of years. It is therefore regarded by the Council as a sustainable strategy which was fit for submission to the Secretary of State. Accordingly it is considered that the emerging policies carry weight in this assessment.

Policy 1 Sustainable Development Policy 43 High Quality Development

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Design in Central Bedfordshire: A guide for development

Planning History

Application: Planning Number CB/15/00884/FULL : Validated: 24/03/2015 Type: Full Application Status: Decided Date: 19/05/2015 Agenda Item 11 Summary: Decision Full Application - Granted Page 131 : Description Seeks planning permission for 9 dwelling houses. Re-plan : of plots 122-127 & 151-153 of planning application CB/10/04231/RAM (phase 1 Marston Park)

Application: Planning Number: CB/14/02084/OUT Validated: 30/05/2014 Type: Outline Application Status: Decided Date: 01/04/2015 Summary: Decision: Outline Application - Granted Description: Outline Planning Permission with all matters reserved : Development of up to 50 dwellings (falling within use class C3) circa 1.23 hectares of employment related development for uses falling in use classes B1, D1 and D2; a local centre of circa 0.13 hectares to include a range of retail and commercial uses falling within use classes A1/A2/A3/A4/A5, 0.3 hectares of school playing field land; associated infrastructure including the principle of access from gold furlong (the primary street serving the existing Marston Park development), and its approved access road spur; internal access roads, pedestrian footpaths and cycle routes including improvements to the pedestrian connection linking through to Stewartby Lake, car and cycle parking, utilities and drainage, landscape works and ground remodelling.

Application: Planning Number: CB/12/00263/RAM Validated: 23/01/2012 Type: Reserved Matters Status: Decided Date: 20/03/2012 Summary: Description: Reserved Matters: Application MB/06/00593/OUT dated 07/10/08. Mixed use Development comprising approximately 480 dwellings, 3 hectares of B1 Employment Use, Primary School, Local Centre, Community Sports Hall and other Engineering Operations. House type substitutions to Plots 117,118,150-154.

Application: Planning Number: CB/12/00108/NMA Validated: 11/01/2012 Type: Non-material Change to Permission Status: Decided Date: 03/02/2012 Summary: Description: Non-material amendment: to planning permission CB/10/04231/RAM alteration to Aylsham house type from one bedroom house to two bedroom house.

Application: Planning Number: CB/12/00061/NMA Validated: 10/01/2012 Type: Non-material Change to Permission Status: Decided Date: 13/01/2012 Summary: Description: Non Material Amendment: Amendment to layout of Plots 96, 98 and 100, elevation changes to Plots 81, 83, 91, 92 & 114 following outline application 06/00593/OUT for the Agenda Item 11 erection of 191 dwellings in sub area 1 (details of layout, Page 132 scale, appearance and landscaping)

Application: Planning Number: CB/11/02716/ADV Validated: 08/08/2011 Type: Advertisement Status: Decided Date: 26/09/2011 Summary: Description: Erection of advertisement flag poles and board signs for sales office

Application: Planning Number: CB/11/02758/NMA Validated: 03/08/2011 Type: Non-material Change to Permission Status: Decided Date: 31/10/2011 Summary: Description: No-material amendment: to plots 96, 98, 100, 101-104 alterations to parking arrangements and garages. Gardens reduced to plots 105 and 106 for parking amendments. Elevation amendments to plots 81, 83, 91, 92 and 114

Application: Planning Number: CB/11/02713/FULL Validated: 20/07/2011 Type: Full Application Status: Decided Date: 14/09/2011 Summary: Description: Erection of triple garage to be used as a sales centre with associated car parking and landscaping

Application: Planning Number: CB/11/02280/NMA Validated: 27/06/2011 Type: Non-material Change to Permission Status: Decided Date: 21/07/2011 Summary: Description: Non-material amendment: to planning permission CB/10/04231/RAM plot substitution of plots 59 to 63 (5 units) to replace market sale units with shared ownership and rented properties.

Application: Planning Number: CB/11/01708/REN Validated: 16/05/2011 Type: Full Application Status: Decided Date: 11/10/2011 Summary: Description: Renewal of Planning Permission: Application MB/06/00593/OUT dated 07/10/2008. Mixed use development comprising approximately 480 dwelling, 3 hectares of B1 employment use, primary school, local centre, community sports hall and other engineering operations.

Application: Planning Number: CB/10/04231/RAM Validated: 19/11/2010 Type: Reserved Matters Status: Decided Date: 24/02/2011 Summary: Description: Reserved Matters following outline application 06/00593/OUT for the erection of 191 dwellings in sub area Agenda Item 11 1 (details of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) Page 133

Application: Planning Number: CB/10/01359/FULL Validated: 27/04/2010 Type: Pre-Application - Charging Fee Status: Decided Date: 12/11/2010 Summary: Description: Full: Erection of a 120.5 metre high wind turbine and ancillary infrastructure.

Application: Planning Number: MB/06/00593/OUT Validated: 06/04/2006 Type: Outline Application Status: Decided Date: 07/10/2008 Summary: Description: Outline: Mixed use development comprising approximately 480 dwellings, 3 hectares of B1 employment use, primary school, local centre, community sports hall and other engineering operations (all matters reserved except means of access)

Representations:

(Consultations/Publicity/Neighbour responses)

Marston Parish Having considered the matter, Parish Council Council objects to the above application on grounds of insufficient parking. There are existing parking issues within the Marston Park development and it is strongly felt that adequate on plot/site parking must be provided to avoid compounding the situation.

Should the Planning Officer be minded to approve this application, the Parish Council would expect to see an increase in Section 106 payments as a result of the provision of additional housing.

Public Protection No comments received

Tree and No comment to make Landscape Officer

Sport England No comment to make

Ecology No objections

IDB No comment to make

Sustainable No comment received Transport Highways This application for a re-plan of part of the site raises no Development significant highway issues. There may be a need to adjust the Management vehicle access points onto the estate road and the location of street furniture including lighting units but this can be part of the on-going Section 38 Adoption process with the appropriate Agenda Item 11 agreements officer in the Highway Development ManagementPage 134 team.

Nevertheless must point that the parking arrangements are no longer compliant with the latest design guidance which suggests that tandem parking is not permitted and that garages should be of a size to accommodate storage and working areas. However I am conscious that the entire site has been designed in accordance with guidance that allowed such parking arrangements and smaller garages and as such I assume you may find it unreasonable to insist on full compliance with current standards.

If that is the case I have no further comment or conditions as I have already intimated the highway issues will be addressed as part of the S38 process.

SuDs Officer Objected as there was no SuDs plan.

Neighbouring/ No comments received Local properties etermining Issues

The main considerations of the application are:

1. Principle of Development

2. Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

3. Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties

4. Access and Parking

5. Any Other Considerations

6. Conclusions

Considerations

1. Principle of Development

1.1 The principle of development on this site has been established though the Marston Park Design Code, Outline and Reserved Matters consent. The area has previously has consent for 36 residential dwellings, this is a re-plan of that area to provide 39 dwellings. It is considered that the principle for residential development in this location is acceptable.

1.2 The outline consent granted consent for 480 dwellings, this would increase this figure, which is why a full planning permission has been sought. Although it is acknowledged that the development would be more than the 480 envisioned for the site, it is considered that an additional three dwellings would not represent such a significant Agenda Item 11 departure to the original plans that it would be fundamentallyPage 135 unacceptable.

2. Impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area

2.1 The layout would appear very similar to that previously approved; the house types proposed are used elsewhere within Marston Park. Where there are changes to the previously approved scheme, the houses have been made smaller to allow for the additional plots to be included within the same space. Many of the previously approved double garages have been amended to single garages to also provide additional space. It is considered that the proposed amendments would have no significant impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

2.2 It is considered that there is still a mix of style and design in the street scene, the over all character and design is in accordance with the adopted Design Code for this part of the site. There would be a greater number of slightly smaller houses, however the design detail is very similar to that previously approved.

2.3 The density of the development at 36 dwellings for this part of the site was 21 dwellings per hectares, the density of the proposed development of 39 dwellings would be a density of 23 dwellings per hectares. This calculation is worked out of the site area given in the application form of 1.72 hectares of land. The density is low due to the largely detached nature of the dwelling houses, on plot parking and garden sizes.

3. Impact upon amenities of neighbouring properties

3.1 The development has been designed to have no significant impact upon those existing dwellings outside of the site. There is a large landscaped area between the properties on Station Road and this development. The proposed alterations do not affect this relationship significantly.

3.2 The future residential amenity of the future residents has been considered, all back to back distances are Design Guide compliant, and very similar to the previously approved relationships.

3.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties regarding this application.

4. Access and Parking

4.1 Access

4.1.1 The access remains as previously approved, the infrastructure is currently under construction. These works are subject to numerous Section 38 Agreements, and are not significantly changed by this Agenda Item 11 application. Page 136

4.2 Parking

4.2.1 The Parish Council have objected to the application on the basis of the parking layout. Since the time of the objection the applicant has provided a revised layout which provides for an additional 26 on plot spaces.

4.2.2 The parking arrangements are similar to that previously approved, which is tandem on plot parking. Although it is acknowledged that tandem parking is not supported within the new Central Bedfordshire Design Guide, the site is covered by a separate Design Code, which is silent on the issue of tandem parking, and encouraging of parking courts. It is considered that tandem on plot parking is preferable to parking courts. It is judged that the level of parking is satisfactory and an enhancement on the previously approved scheme. The majority of 4 bedrooms dwelling houses have three spaces (not including garages, which are undersized for the current Design Guide).

5. Any Other Considerations

5.1 Sustainable Urban Drainage

5.1.1 The application was submitted without a SuDs plan, during the application, a plan has been submitted, which shows use of porous materials and attenuation into existing green areas and water courses.

5.2 Planning Obligations

5.2.1 At the time the application was submitted to the Local Authority, the best practice advice for tariff style planning obligations and affordable housing was that it would not be sought for development of under 10 dwellings. This application being for an additional 3 dwelling houses fell into this category. Since the time the application has been submitted, this piece of legislation was challenged and has been removed. It is considered that as the application was submitted at a time when these contributions were not sought that it would not be appropriate to seek the contributions at the end of the application process. Any additional contributions sought would be subject to CIL regulations and would need to be pooled into specific projects relating to those additional 3 dwelling houses.

5.2.2 The Section 106 Agreement for the development of Marston Park was agreed for 480 dwelling houses, although it is accepted that this would bring the total number of dwelling houses above this figure (483), the over all package of the agreement was relatively favourable, and it is considered that attempting to renegotiate it to reflect this change would have very little impact upon the total amount of funding that would be secured. A large proportion of the triggers for securing works and funding have already been reached and secured though the original Agenda Item 11 consent. Page 137

5.2.3 A deed of variation has been sought, to link this application to the existing Section 106 this matter will be updated on the late sheet.

5.3 Human Rights issues:

5.3.1 It is the officers understanding that the proposal would raise no Human Rights issues.

5.4 Equalities Act 2010:

It is the officers understanding that the proposal would raise no issues under the Equality Act 2010.

6. Conclusions

6.1 It is considered that an additional 3 dwelling houses, on the wider site of 480 dwelling houses would have very little impact upon development as a whole. Full planning permission has been sought for these alterations based on the sales of the existing site and the type of housing that has been popular, it is considered that the additional housing would be in accordance with Local and National Planning Policy and is therefore acceptable.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission is approved subject to the following and a Deed of Variation of the Section 106 Agreement being signed:

1 The development hereby permitted 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 All external works hereby permitted shall be carried out in materials as shown on plan number 1098-152 D, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development by ensuring that the development hereby permitted is finished externally with materials to match the existing building in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality. (Policy 43, DSCB)

3 The boundary treatment as shown on plan number 1098-151 R shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme before the buildings are occupied and be thereafter retained.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenities of the locality. (Policy 43, DSCB) Agenda Item 11 4 The development shall not be occupied or brought into use until the parkingPage 138 scheme shown on Drawing No. 1098-151 R has been completed. The scheme shall thereafter be retained for this purpose.

Reason: To ensure provision for car parking clear of the highway. (Policy 27, DSCB)

5 No dwelling shall be occupied until a landscaping scheme to include all hard and soft landscaping, has been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented by the end of the full planting season immediately following the completion and/or first use of any separate part of the development (a full planting season means the period from October to March).

Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of landscaping. (Policies 43 and 58, DSCB)

6 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 1098-126 C,1098-151 R, 1098-152 D, 1098-134, 1098-168, 1098- 167, 1098-175, 1098-171, 1098-172, 1098-173, 1098-47 A, 1098-50 B, 1098-51 B, 1098-53 A, 1098-55 A, 1098-59 B, 1098-61 B,1098-68 B, 1098- 99, 1098-99, 1098-165,1098- 166, 1098-174 A.

Reason: To identify the approved plan/s and to avoid doubt.

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 5, Article 35

Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. 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 Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

......

SNAGGE COURT Drain Agenda Item 12

11 Page 139

Playground 7

8

1 1a

157

155

153a

Path

153

151a

151 149 2

147a 136

147

134 132a

145

12 130 Pavilion

Playing Field

39.4m 27 126

L Twrs ROAD 116 Games Court

BEDFORD N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO.

Licence No. 100049029 (2009) 104

W E Date: 01:September:2015 CLIFTON WAY

102a Map Sheet No 102 S 1 100a

PCs 100

Scale: 1:1250 2

98

7 5 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12 Page 141 Item No. 12

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/15/02172/FULL LOCATION 145 Bedford Road, Marston Moretaine, Bedford, MK43 0LD PROPOSAL Erection of 6 detached dwellings and new access from Bedford Road PARISH Marston Moretaine WARD Cranfield & Marston Moretaine WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Morris, Matthews & Mrs Clark CASE OFFICER Annabel Robinson DATE REGISTERED 12 June 2015 EXPIRY DATE 07 August 2015 APPLICANT Mr Steele AGENT DLA Town Planning Ltd REASON FOR Called in by Councillor R Morris: COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE Access is too narrow for emergency services and poor visibility on exit. RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Approval

Summary of Recommendation:

The planning application is recommended for approval, the design of the housing scheme would be in accordance with Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DM3, CS1, CS2, CS5, DM4, DM13, CS15. It would not have a significant impact upon the residential amenity of any adjacent properties, and would result in a new sustainable form of development suitable for the location. It is considered that the design is in accordance with the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide and the submitted Development Strategy and National Planning Policy Framework.

Site Location:

The site is currently part of the garden area for 145 and 147 Bedford Road, Marston Mortaine.

The site is formed of two large residential gardens, with a total area of 0.3 hectares. Access is taken from Bedford Road, to the south west of the dwelling house known as 145 Bedford Road.

The site is largely cleared, shrub and grass, to the north is a ditch, amenity land and the old A412, to the east is the residential gardens of 147a and adjacent properties on Bedford Road, to the south is further garden areas for 145 and 147 Bedford Road, and to the west is a pavilion and park.

The Application:

This is a full application for the provision of 6 detached dwelling houses, and associated areas including gardens, parking and access. Agenda Item 12 Page 142 RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

DM3 High Quality Development CS14 High Quality Development CS1 Development Strategy

Submitted Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 2014 (Submitted October 2014)

The draft Development Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 24th October 2014. After initial hearing sessions in 2015 the Inspector concluded that the Council had not complied with the Duty to Cooperate. The Council has launched a Judicial Review against the Inspectors findings and has not withdrawn the Development Strategy. The first phase of the legal challenge took place at a hearing on 16th June 2015. This was to consider whether the court would grant the Council leave to have a Judicial Review application heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council’s case. On the 22nd June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against this Judgement. The status of the Development Strategy currently remains as a submitted plan that has not been withdrawn. Its policies are consistent with the NPPF. Its preparation is based on substantial evidence gathered over a number of years. It is therefore regarded by the Council as a sustainable strategy which was fit for submission to the Secretary of State. Accordingly it is considered that the emerging policies carry weight in this assessment.

Policy 1 Sustainable Development Policy 43 High Quality Development

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Design in Central Bedfordshire: A guide for development

Planning History

Application: Planning Number: CB/14/00790/FULL Validated: 10/04/2014 Type: Full Application Status: Withdrawn Date: 29/05/2014 Summary: Decision: Application Withdrawn Description: Part demolition of side extension and erection of two detached dwellings Agenda Item 12 Page 143

Representations: (Consultations/Publicity/Neighbour responses)

Marston Parish Having considered the matter, Marston Moreteyne Parish Council Council objects to the above application for the following reasons:-

The proposed development is deemed to be back-land development and would create a new linear development where one does not exist at present. As such it is out of scale and character with the surrounding area. It is the Council’s opinion that this development does not constitute infilling and is therefore an inappropriate form of development. To approve this application would be to set a precedent within the area which would be to the detriment of the neighbourhood and have an adverse impact upon residents.

The site is obtrusive to existing residents whose rear gardens are adjacent to the development and as such those residents would see a loss of privacy and be subject to an increase in noise disturbance and light pollution.

The Council does not believe that the access is suitably wide enough to adequately support emergency vehicular access should the need arise.

There are currently problems with a high number of vehicles parking on the public highway in this area which creates safety issues for both pedestrians and other motorists. Access into and out of private driveways are compromised through a lack of visibility splay and it is the Council’s opinion that this development will compound these issues through the potential of up to an additional 20 vehicles being located within the development and as such would be to the detriment of both highway and pedestrian safety.

The Council has noted that clearance work has already started on the site and as such no tree or ecological surveys were carried out beforehand.

The Council requests that neighbours comments are taken into consideration in regard to this application.

Given the above objections, the Parish Council requests that the application is refused.

Tree and Having been to the site, it would appear that almost all trees on Landscape site have been removed with the few remaining appearing to be Officer outside the boundary of the site. This includes the boundary hedge alongside the access road. We will require details of how this boundary hedge will be retained in good order and without Agenda Item 12 damage particularly with regards roots that are likely to Pagebe within 144 the footprint of this access.

Details of additional landscape and boundary treatment will be required to include species, sizes and densities of planting.

BS 5837 2012 Tree survey showing remaining trees and hedges outside the site boundary with reference in particular to the mature trees to the rear of the site. Survey will show root protection area of these trees and arboricultural impact assessment will detail how they will be retained in good health throughout development. This may include detail of "no dig construction" methods for hard surfacing/foundations. Contaminated No objections, recommended informative. Land Officer IDB Planning permission should not be granted without conditions requiring the applications storm water design and construction proposals.

Affordable On 28 November 2014 changes to the National Planning Practice Housing Officer Guidance were published setting out the Government’s position that affordable housing and tariff-style planning obligations should not be sought for certain small developments (10 dwellings or less or 1,000 square metres of gross floor space). This is a material consideration to be taken into account in decision-making on planning applications. The weight given to this material consideration will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis and in relation to the weight of the existing Development Plan policies, which remain the starting point for consideration in line with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

In light of this, we would not seek affordable housing on this site.

Highways Like the pre-application scheme for 4 dwellings there is no Development fundamental highway objection to the proposal. The site is Management located within the village, accessed from a public highway subject to a 30mph limit at a point where all visibility splays are achievable within the confines of the highway land. The vehicle access arrangement together with the on-site parking, garaging and vehicle turning area accord with the pre-application advice.

In these circumstances I am content with just the standard '..carried out in accordance with the approved plan' condition rather than requiring numerous highway conditions.

Neighbouring/ 14 letter of objections and concerns raised from: 126A, 126B, Local properties 128, 132,132A, 151,151A, 153, 153A, 155, 157 Bedford Road, 50 St Marys Close, 1 Lake View, and "The Retreat" Station Road - "Marston Mortaine Action Group" (MMAG).

1 petition against the development of 38 signatures Agenda Item 12 Page 145 4 letters of support raised from: 134, 147, 147A and 149 Bedford Road.

Objections relating to:

 Flooding issues  Loss of house values in Bedford Road  Danger to the Children's Home from the access road  Additional traffic generated/additional parking on Bedford Road  The possibility of 4/5 additional houses to the rear of 147A  Marston has had enough housing with Marston Park and Mortayne Farm  Overlooking of the rear of properties on Bedford Road  Inappropriate access arrangements for 6 dwellings (not wide enough)  Noise/mud during construction  Local school is over subscribed  Emergency vehicles unable to access the site  Potential for rubbish to be strewn in the road (bins in road)  Backland development  Design not in keeping with the existing housing  Traffic monitoring on Bedford Road should be undertaken  The site was cleared prior to the application being submitted  Ecology concerns  The access will be too close to the playing field access

Some residents provided photos showing parking and traffic along Bedford Road to illustrate their objections.

Support relating to:

 There is a housing shortage  The need for family housing  This site is not within Green Belt land and therefore desirable  It will tidy up an untidy site  Design of the dwellings is acceptable

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are:

1. Principle of Development

2. Impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area

3. Impact on amenities of neighbouring properties Agenda Item 12 Page 146 4. Access and Parking

5. Any Other Considerations

6. Conclusions

Considerations

1. Principle of Development

1.1 The site is completely within the defined settlement envelope of Marston Mortaine, where the principle of residential development is considered acceptable, subject to normal planning considerations.

1.2 The site is made up for part of two rear garden areas, and therefore is considered to be a greenfield site. Within the defined settlement there is no restriction with development on greenfield sites.

1.3 It is judged that the principle of development is acceptable in accordance with CS1 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policy Document 2009.

2. Impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area

2.1 The layout would form six residential dwelling houses set in a close with an independent access road. The houses would be clustered at the top of the access and form an independent development behind the existing frontage of Bedford Road. Although it is generally considered desirable for new development to front the main road, it is judged that in this location, the road would form a new development where the houses would relate to each other, independent of the frontage development.

2.2 The proposed design is judged to be acceptable within this context. In character terms, this area of Marston Mortaine has been considerably altered since Bedford Road was the main road between Bedford and Milton Keynes. Properties on the opposite site of the road, have been subdivided up to allow for additional development. The development of Lake View has very similar plot density to that proposed, and the area of land between 130- 134 Bedford Road, has been divided into four dwelling houses. It is considered that although this area of Marston is relatively linear, the character does include development behind the traditional road frontage, of plots similar in scale to that proposed. The garden areas of 145 and 147 Bedford Road are larger than those adjacent, due to the sloping nature of the drain to the rear of the site.

3. Impact upon amenities of neighbouring properties

3.1 The closest residential property would be 147A Bedford Road. It is considered that due to the scale of the development, and the distances between the properties that the existing and future residential amenity of all residents would be ensured. The development has been considered in terms Agenda Item 12 of impact upon light, outlook, privacy, and the causing of an overbearingPage 147 impact. The closest residential properties to this development are 145 and 147 Bedford Road, the scheme has been designed to respect these properties residential amenity. The back to back distance between plot 3 and 147 would be 25 metres, the side to back relationship between plot 1 and 145 would be 15 metres, in order to protect the residential amenity of this property, it would be conditioned that the 1st floor window in the side elevation would be obscurely glazed. The garden areas retained for 145 and 147 would be approximately 250 sqm per dwelling, which is significantly in excess of the garden standard size recommended within the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide, it is considered that the level of amenity space retained for these properties would be appropriate.

3.2 14 letters of objection and concern have been received from residents within Marston Mortaine. The concerns are as follows:

3.2.1  Flooding issues

The site is not within a defined area of flooding concern. The applicant has provided a drainage strategy which includes:

A: Permeable paving and shingle drainage channels The access road will be constructed to be permeable so rainwater can drain through it and return to the ground aquifers in a near natural manner. Driveways, footpaths and patio areas will be contoured to allow run off to permeate through shingle strips adjacent to the driveways

B: Rainwater storage The properties will be built with rainwater storage vessels that will contain water recovered from the roofs of the properties for re- use in the garden etc. Surplus water will be returned to the ground via filtration soakaways in the gardens of the properties.

 Loss of house values in Bedford Road

This is not a material planning consideration.

 Danger to the Children’s Home from the access road

It is considered that the access road would be located to the side of 145, the Childrens Home (same use class as residential dwelling house) is at 147 Bedford Road, the access should pose no greater hazard to the users of this facility than a standard residential cul-du-sac.

 Additional traffic generated/additional parking on Bedford Road

This matter is considered in Section 4.

 The possibility of 4/5 additional houses to the rear of 147A

The application sets out 6 dwellings to the rear of 145 and 147, no applications have been submitted for 147A, which would be subject to a Agenda Item 12 separate planning process/consultation. The rear garden of 147A isPage smaller 148 than the proposed site, due to the topography of the land and the location of the drain to the rear.

 Marston has had enough housing with Marston Park and Mortayne Farm

Whilst Marston Mortaine has been afforded housing growth, this does not mean that additional residential development is unacceptable in principle.

 Overlooking of the rear of properties on Bedford Road

The closest plot to the residential properties on Bedford Road, is Plot 3, this plot has been designed to have a back to back relationship with number 147, and the distance back to back is some 25 metres. The side facing wall would face the additional properties (147A, 149, 151, 151A, 153 etc), the only windows at 1st floor level of this plot are obscure glazed bathroom and landing windows. It is considered that no significant overlooking would occur at these distances and with the window arrangement as proposed.

 Inappropriate access arrangements for 6 dwellings (not wide enough)

This matter is considered in Section 4.

 Noise/mud during construction

This issue would be temporary during construction, it is considered that should a statutory nuisance be caused by the development there is separate legislation to ensure residential amenity is retained.

 Local school is over subscribed

Marston Park has recently had a new lower school constructed on it, it is considered that the scale of this development would not have a significant impact upon the education provision for the village.

 Emergency vehicles unable to access the site

This matter is considered in Section 4.

 Potential for rubbish to be strewn in the road (bins in road)

It would be the responsibility of the owners of the bins to ensure they were suitably arranged for bin day collection, the layout includes an area to the side of the access road for bin day collections, and each plot has identified areas for bins to be stored.

 Backland development

This site is development behind the line of the existing road frontage, however it is judged that this is not out of character for this part of the village. Agenda Item 12  Design not in keeping with the existing housing Page 149

The housing on Bedford Road is large and detached, it is acknowledged that the proposed properties are smaller than the site at the front, however it is considered it is more appropriate for them to be slightly smaller so they would have less impact upon the wider streetscene.

 Traffic monitoring on Bedford Road should be undertaken

This is considered in Section 4.

 The site was cleared prior to the application being submitted

The site was cleared, however it is within the applicants rights to undertake landscaping works to a residential garden. There were no Tree Preservation Orders and the site is not within a Conservation Area. Conditions requiring tree works and landscaping will be conditioned in accordance with the Landscape Officers recommendations.

 Ecology concerns

An Ecology Report has been undertaken, this matter will be updated on the late sheet.

 The access will be too close to the playing field access

It is considered that the location of the access is acceptable, and would not interfere with the playing field access.

3.3 Four residents sent in letters supporting the development:

3.3.1  There is a housing shortage  The need for family housing  This site is not within Green Belt land and therefore desirable  It will tidy up an untidy site  Design of the dwellings is acceptable

It is considered that all the above points have been considered in the recommendation to Development Management Committee.

4. Access and Parking

4.1 Access

4.1.1 The access will be taken from Bedford Road, it will be a completely independent access, adjacent to 145 Bedford Road, the road would form a cul-du-sac. The access would be 4.5 metres wide, which would allow for entrance and exit of two way traffic, this would narrow to 3.1 metres on a straight access, this would allow for clear visibility to allow vehicles to access the dwelling houses. The highways officer raises no objections to this access arrangement, and has confirmed that it would be suitable for an emergency Agenda Item 12 vehicle to gain access to the dwelling houses. Page 150

4.1.2 The access would be on Bedford Road, this road has been designed for relatively heavy traffic, as it was the original link road between Bedford and Milton Keynes, once it was bypassed by the A421 the traffic significantly decreased. The road is a 30mph residential road, and the Highway Officer did not consider the need for a traffic survey to ascertain that the road capacity could accommodate 6 additional dwelling houses.

4.2 Parking

4.2.1 The dwellings have been planned with four car parking spaces per dwelling, this is in excess of the Councils minimum standard of 3 per dwelling house. It is considered appropriate for there to be extra space for visitors in light of the concerns that many existing residents have made regarding parking on Bedford Road. It is considered unlikely that with this level of parking provided on plot per dwelling that many residents would choose to park on Bedford Road and walk to the dwellings within the cul-du-sac.

4.2.2 It is noted that the parking is tandem, however the Highways Officer has not objected to this arrangement. The garage length is compliant with the Design Guide standard and can be considered a parking space.

5. Any Other Considerations

5.1 Ecology

5.1.1 An Ecology report has been submitted, comment on it will be updated on the late sheet.

5.2 Planning Obligations

5.2.1 At the time the application was submitted to the Local Authority, the best practice advice for tariff style planning obligations and affordable housing was that it would not be sought for development of under 10 dwellings. This application being for 6 dwelling houses fell into this category. Since the time the application has been submitted, this piece of legislation was challenged and has been removed. It is considered that as the application was submitted at a time when these contributions were not sought that it would not be appropriate to seek the contributions at the end of the application process.

5.3 Human Rights issues:

5.3.1 It is the officers understanding that the proposal would raise no Human Rights issues.

5.4 Equalities Act 2010:

5.4.1 It is the officers understanding that the proposal would raise no issues under the Equality Act 2010.

6. Conclusions Agenda Item 12 Page 151 6.1 The principle of residential development in this location is acceptable in principle. It is considered that sustainable forms of development should be approved in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 14. The application was called into Development Management Committee on highway grounds, the Highways Officer has confirmed that the development would be acceptable and safe in accordance with the plans as submitted. The site would be behind the existing frontage development, however the 6 dwellings would create a new street, and relate reasonably to eachother. There would be a satisfactory level of amenity space for each dwelling, and provide additional housing in this location.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission is approved subject to the following:

1 The development hereby permitted 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 No above ground works shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been 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 in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality. (Policy 43, DSCB)

3 The first floor window(s) in the north east (side) facing elevation of plot 3 hereby permitted shall be permanently fitted with obscured glass of a type to substantially restrict vision through it at all times and shall be non-opening, unless the parts of the window(s) which can be opened are more than 1.7m above the floor of the room(s) in which the window(s) is installed. No further windows or other openings shall be formed in the north east (side) facing elevation of plot 3 as described on plan number PL01C.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of occupiers of adjoining properties. (Policy 43, DSCB)

4 The first floor windows in the south east (side) facing elevation of plot 1 of the development hereby permitted shall be permanently fitted with obscured glass of a type to substantially restrict vision through it at all times and shall be non-opening, unless the parts of the window(s) which can be opened are more than 1.7m above the floor of the room(s) in which the window(s) is installed. No further windows or other openings shall be formed in the south east (side) facing elevation of this plot.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of occupiers of adjoining properties (Policy 43, DSCB) Agenda Item 12 Page 152 5 No dwelling shall be occupied until a landscaping scheme to include all hard and soft landscaping and a scheme for landscape maintenance for a period of five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented by the end of the full planting season immediately following the completion and/or first use of any separate part of the development (a full planting season means the period from October to March). The trees, shrubs and grass shall subsequently be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape maintenance scheme and any which die or are destroyed during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of landscaping. (Policies 43 and 58, DSCB)

6 No foundations shall be dug until details of the proposed foundations have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority to include the layout, with positions, dimensions and levels, of service trenches, ditches, drains and other excavations on site, insofar as they may affect trees and hedgerows on or adjoining the site. The foundations shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the protection of the root systems and rooting medium associated with the trees and hedgerows to be retained. (Policies 43 and 59, DSCB)

7 The development shall not be occupied or brought into use until the access and parking scheme shown on Drawing No. PL01C has been completed. The scheme shall thereafter be retained for this purpose.

Reason: To ensure provision for car parking clear of the highway. (Policy 27, DSCB)

8 No development shall take place until details of the method of disposal of surface water drainage (which shall include details of soakaways) have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, including any land drainage system. Thereafter no part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until the approved drainage scheme has been implemented.

Reason: To ensure that adequate surface water drainage is provided and that existing and future land drainage needs are protected. (Policies 43 and 44, DSCB) This condition is required to be pre- commencement as it may affect the levels of the site, which would need to be agreed before any construction took place.

9 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers PL01 C, PL02, PL03, PL04, PL05A, PL06, PL07, PL08, PL09, PL10, PL11A, PL12A.

Reason: To identify the approved plan/s and to avoid doubt. Agenda Item 12 Page 153

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.

2. The applicants attention is drawn to their responsibility under The Equality Act 2010 and with particular regard to access arrangements for the disabled.

The Equality Act 2010 requires that service providers must think ahead and make reasonable adjustments to address barriers that impede disabled people.

These requirements are as follows:

 Where a provision, criterion or practice puts disabled people at a substantial disadvantage to take reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage;  Where a physical feature puts disabled people at a substantial disadvantage to avoid that disadvantage or adopt a reasonable alternative method of providing the service or exercising the function;  Where not providing an auxiliary aid puts disabled people at a substantial disadvantage to provide that auxiliary aid.

In doing this, it is a good idea to consider the range of disabilities that your actual or potential service users might have. You should not wait until a disabled person experiences difficulties using a service, as this may make it too late to make the necessary adjustment.

For further information on disability access contact:

The Centre for Accessible Environments (www.cae.org.uk) Central Bedfordshire Access Group (www.centralbedsaccessgroup.co.uk)

3. Highway Notes:

Advice Note 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 highway without prior consent, in writing, of the Central Bedfordshire Council. Upon receipt of this Notice of Planning Approval, the applicant is advised to contact Central Bedfordshire Council's Highway Help Desk on 03003008049. 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. Agenda Item 12 AN 2/. The applicant is advised that parking for contractor's vehicles and thePage 154 storage of materials associated with this development should take place within the site and not extend into within the public highway without authorisation from the highway authority. If necessary the applicant is advised to contact Central Bedfordshire Council's Highway Help Desk on 03003008049. Under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 the developer may be liable for any damage caused to the public highway as a result of construction of the development hereby approved.

AN3/.The applicant is advised that Central Bedfordshire Council as highway authority will not consider the proposed on-site vehicular areas for adoption as highway maintainable at public expense.

4. As the adjoining site to the rear is of long historic use (former brickworks) there may be unexpected materials or substances in, on or under the ground. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure safe and secure conditions, so a watching brief is asdvised and any indications of potential contamination problems should be forwarded to the Contaminated Land Officer, Andre Douglas, for advice, on 0300 300 4004 or via [email protected].

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 5, Article 35

Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. 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 accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

......

Agenda Item 13 Page 155

GROVE ROAD

Mast (Telecommunication)

17 58

Prebendal Farm 52a El Sub Sta

15 48

25

40

11 28 38a 38

32 PREBENDAL DRIVE 24

3 20

1

30 THE ORCHARDS

6 16

PH 9

22

2

2

14 12

B 4540

Garage GP

Hall

PH

5 LB

Playground

1 14 4

17 8

TCB

29 16 12

2

31 1 162.5m

37 CLAYDOWN WAY

37a

20 39 24 24

47

13 1a 24b

22

36 21 26 26a N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved.21 28 Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. 24 17

Licence No. 100049029 (2009)25 27 28

W E Date: 19:August:2015164.6m

42

37

36 32

Map Sheet No 12 35 Garage 1

S 33 1 4 St Andrews Walk 1

7 ST ANDREW'S CLOSE 7

8

38 Scale: 1:2000 12

5

37

ROSSWAY 6 47

58

49 34 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 Page 157 Item No. 13

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/15/00275/OUT LOCATION Prebendal Farm, Grove Road, Slip End, Luton, LU1 4BZ PROPOSAL Outline Development: Redevelopment of land previously used as a farm yard to residential use for 8 detached houses (market) and 4 semi detached houses (social use). PARISH Slip End WARD Caddington WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Collins & Stay CASE OFFICER Nicola Darcy DATE REGISTERED 02 February 2015 EXPIRY DATE 04 May 2015 APPLICANT Brickhill Properties GP Ltd AGENT BHD Ltd REASON FOR Called-in by Cllr Richard Stay for the following COMMITTEE TO reasons: DETERMINE  Meeting housing need locally  Provides enabling support for the aggregated farm operation & allows investment in new machinery & protects jobs  Site firmly supported for housing through substantive consultation for the local Neighbourhood Plan  Proposed S106 provides enabling resources to complete large section of Heritage Greenway  Site is edge of village & would have no adverse impact on the Green Belt

RECOMMENDED Application recommended for refusal DECISION

Summary of Recommendation

The planning application is recommended for refusal as the site lies within the South Bedfordshire Green Belt, where permission will not be granted except in very special circumstances for development for purposes other than those uses listed in paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework. No very special circumstances have been established in this case to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. The harm would comprise harm by reason of inappropriateness, harm by reason of impact on openness, harm to the character and appearance of the area and encroachment into open countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and policy 36 of the Development Strategy in Central Bedfordshire, revised pre-submission version June 2014. Additionally, the limited facilities within Slip End are likely to result in additional journeys by private car to other locations to access health, retail and leisure opportunities. The proposal is not considered to be sustainable development and therefore is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy SD1 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and policies 1 and 24 of the Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, revised pre-submission version June 2014.

Site Location: Agenda Item 13 Page 158 The site lies 160m to the north west of the village centre, fronting onto Grove Road which runs a north westerly direction from the village to Woodside. The site has a common boundary with Prebendal Drive.

The site was originally Prebendal Farm and its associated yard and was in active agricultural use five years ago when farming operations were amalgamated with Woodside Farm. All that remains of the original farm is the farmhouse itself which has been recently refurbished and now rented out as a residential use. An L-Shaped block fronting Grove Road, was granted permission in 1993 for change of use from a redundant barn to the sale of pet foods and is currently leased by small retailers. A small housing development lies to the south east of the site with open fields to the north of the site. There is no significant landscaping denoting the boundaries of the site and there is a corrugated roofed, open barn building within the application site.

The Application:

The application seeks outline planning permission for the residential development of the site of 12 dwellings. The existing dwellinghouse and converted retail unit and parking area would be retained on the Grove Road frontage and are outside of the application site.

The application is for all matters reserved except for access. The development would be served by 1 main vehicle access point off Grove Road.

The application was accompanied by: - Planning Statement - Design and Access Statement - Layout Plan - Location Plan - Transport statement - Ecological Survey - Phase 1 Geoenvironmental Desk Study

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

Section 4: Promoting sustainable transport Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7: Requiring good design Section 8: Promoting healthy communities Section 9: Protecting Green Belt land Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review Policies Policy BE8 Design Considerations Policy T10 Controlling Parking in New Developments Policy H4 Providing Affordable Housing Policy H3 Meeting Local Housing Needs

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 Agenda Item 13 framework. It is considered that Policies BE8 and H3 are broadly consistent withPage 159 the Framework and carry significant weight. Policies T10 and H4 carry less weight but are considered relevant to this proposal

Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 2014

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Growth Strategy Policy 3: Green Belt Policy 19: Planning Obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy Policy 22: Leisure and open space provision Policy 23 : Public Rights of Way Policy 24: Accessibility and Connectivity Policy 25: Capacity of the Network Policy 27: Car Parking Policy 28: Transport Assessments and Travel Plans Policy 29: Housing Provision Policy 30: Housing Mix Policy 32: Lifetime Homes Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 36: Development in the Green Belt Policy 43: High Quality Development Policy 44: Protection from Environmental Pollution Policy 50: Development in the Countryside Policy 56: Green Infrastructure Policy 57: Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy 58: Landscape Policy 59: Woodlands, Trees and Hedgerows

The draft Development Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 24th October 2014. After initial hearing sessions in 2015 the Inspector concluded that the Council had not complied with the Duty to Cooperate. The Council has launched a judicial review against the Inspectors findings and has not withdrawn the Development Strategy. The first phase of the legal challenge took place at a hearing on 16th June 2015. This was to consider whether the court would grant the Council leave to have a Judicial Review application heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council's case. On the 22nd June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against his judgement. The status of the Development Strategy currently remains as a submitted plan that has not been withdrawn. Its policies are consistent with the NPPF. Its preparation is based on substantial evidence gathered over a number of years. It is therefore regarded by the Council as a sustainable strategy which was fit for submission to the Secretary of State. Accordingly it is considered that the emerging policies carry weight in this assessment.

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014)

Relevant Planning History:

CB/14/03582/PAPC - Pre-App Charging Fee Advice Released (24/10/14)

Representations:

(Consultations/Publicity/Neighbour responses) Agenda Item 13 Page 160 Parish Council The Parish Council supports the application for the following reasons:  The site is being promoted for redevelopment in the Slip End and Caddington Neighbourhood Plan and although the site is in the Green Belt, the Parish Council would not resist redevelopment of this site.  The site is an eyesore and contributes nothing to the Green Belt and has little ecologicial value.  By supporting the application, it fulfils the role of the Neighbourhood Plan, allowing small sites to contribute to the housing deficit.  The landowners (Messrs Brown) are supporting and cooperating with the Heritage Greenway Trust, agreeing several footpath diversions to allow delivery of the proposed Heritage Footpath Scheme. Under the circumstances, the Parish Council believe that the proposed development should be approved.

Highways DM No objection

Ecology  No objections  Further provision could be made and recommends that integral bird boxes are included in the development at a ratio of 1 per unit.  The ecological survey notes that the site should be reassessed for badger activity prior to works commencing and also makes the recommendation that scrub and bramble should be close cut to prevent any reptile or amphibian interest in the site.

Tree and Landscape Requests Tree Survey Officer Housing Development I do not support this application of 12 units at Prebendal Officer Farm. This site being in the Green Belt will be of contentious issue and will require very special circumstances for the development to be able to take place. Whilst this application does provide for 30% affordable housing, in my view if any development were to take place it should be treated as a rural exception site and an application be made along those lines. The supporting documentation indicates that there is an identified affordable housing need which was identified and evidenced through the Housing Needs Survey undertaken within the parish. A rural exception site at Prebendal Farm would go some way to meeting the identified affordable housing need within the Parish. An exception site would also ensure that the affordable housing would be provided for local people with a local connection to the Parish with the affordable housing remaining as affordable in perpetuity. An exception site would provide an appropriate tenure mix providing a range of affordable rent and intermediate tenures to meet the identified local needs.

If Members are minded to approve this application then Agenda Item 13 we would seek an affordable housing requirement of 30%Page 161 which equates to the provision of 4 affordable units. Further to this, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) has a tenure split requirement from sites meeting the affordable housing threshold as being 63% affordable rent and 37% intermediate tenure. This would make a requirement of 3 units of affordable rent and 1 unit of intermediate tenure from the proposed development.

The supporting documentation for the application states that the affordable housing will be provided to local people of Slip End. As this is an application for a general housing development and not for a rural exception site then the housing can not be designated as being allocated for local people with a local connection. The allocation will have to adhere to the allocations policy and will be let through the Choice Based Lettings (CBL) system the Council operates. If the applicant wants the housing to be for local people then an application should be made as an exception site where the housing will be affordable in perpetuity for local people with a local connection. This would also help to meet the identified affordable housing need within the Parish. Allocation of housing for a rural exception site will adhere to the Rural Exception Sites Local Lettings Policy.

Environment Agency The site is located above a secondary Aquifer and is considered to be of high sensitivity which could present potential pollutant/contaminant linkages to controlled waters. The EA recommends several conditions.

Land Contamination No objection subject to conditions relating to the Officer submission of pre-commencement site surveys.

Archaeology The proposed development site lies within an area that has produced evidence of prehistoric activity and under the terms of the NPPF this is a heritage asset with archaeological interest. However, the archaeological potential of this area is considered to be low. Consequently,there are no objections on archaeological grounds.

Integrated Transport Requests highway improvements to connect the Delivery development with the bus stop opposite.

Other Representations:

Neighbours 1 objection letter relating to the limited space between the new development and the existing houses in Prebendal Drive and to the Green Belt status of the land.

Determining Issues

1. Green Belt & Principle of the development 2. Harm to the Green Belt Agenda Item 13 3. Very special circumstances Page 162 4. Impact on Biodiversity and Landscape 5. Amenity 6. Highways, Sustainable Transport and Parking 7. Affordable Housing 8. Legal Agreement 9. Sustainable Development 10. Other Issues

Considerations

1. Green Belt and Principle of the Development 1.1 The site is within the Green Belt and is not one of the types of development listed in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF. The proposal therefore conflicts with the policy set out in section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the reasons for including land within the Green Belt set out in paragraph 88. Policy 36 of the Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, revised pre-submission version June 2014, reflects the approach of national policy in relation to the Green Belt.

1.2 As the proposal is not listed in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF it is inappropriate development. Paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

1.3 The proposal is therefore by definition harmful to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. Very special circumstances will therefore need to be demonstrated to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by inappropriateness and any other harm which would arise as a result of the development.

1.4 The application site is also outside of any settlement and is for the purposes of planning in the open countryside. The NPPF sets out that planning should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Development Strategy policy 50 sets out that "outside the defined settlement boundaries new development will only be supported if it satisfies the appropriate policies and the following criteria where applicable: - where development would represent the most sympathetic, viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or - where development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting."

1.5 The proposal does not represent enabling development in relation to a heritage asset, nor does it involve the re-use of buildings.

1.6 The principle of the development is therefore unacceptable due to its location within the Green Belt and open countryside subject to the consideration of very special circumstances considered below.

2. Harm to the Green Belt 2.1 The application suggests the VSCs should outweigh the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This is not the test that the NPPF applies, the NPPF requires that VSCs clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. In order to consider whether the VSCs outweigh the potential harm, that harm Agenda Item 13 first needs to be identified. Page 163

2.2 The proposal would cause harm by reason of inappropriateness, it would also cause harm by reason of loss of openness, harm to the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt by failing to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The level of harm caused by each of these is considered in more detail below.

2.3 Harm by reason of inappropriateness The application site is within the Green Belt and constitutes inappropriate development. The harm by reason of inappropriateness should be given significant weight.

2.4 Harm to openness The NPPF highlights the openness of the Green Belt as its most important attribute and the development of the site would result in the loss of openness. Openness is the absence of development and it is considered that although the application site is adjacent to existing development the proposal would have an adverse impact on the openness of the land within the Green Belt.

2.5 It is accepted that a limited amount of development would result in limited harm; however the proposal comprises a development of 12 dwellings and associated road, landscaping etc which would cause significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

2.6 Significant weight should be given to the harm to openness which would result from the development.

2.7 Harm to the character and appearance of the area The boundaries of the site are formed by sporadic hedgerows of varying maturity, density and health. There are clear views into and across the site. If housing was erected on the land it would be clearly visible above the existing landscaping.

2.8 There would also be an adverse impact on the character of the landscape as the site is currently an open yard with only one open sided building in the centre of the site. The proposal would significantly alter the open character to one of built development.

2.9 Encroachment One of the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt is to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The application would clearly fail to comply with this purpose as it would represent encroachment into the countryside contrary to Green Belt policy.

2.10 Conclusion on harm It is considered that the potential harm which would result from the development would be significant and the applicant must demonstrate very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt.

3. Very Special Circumstances 3.1 The application sets out that there are a number of reasons to approve the application, although these matters have not been referred to as 'very special circumstances'. The reasons are set out below. Agenda Item 13 3.2 The site has been considered by the Neighbourhood Plan Steering GroupPage 164 and is supported by them as an appropriate site to come forward through the plan. The consideration of this site among other sites in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan for Caddington and Slip End has zero weight as a material consideration at present, particularly given that, the plan has yet to be submitted to Central Bedfordshire Council. The Development Strategy is not yet adopted and the site is within the Green Belt where development cannot be allocated through the Neighbourhood Plan alone.

3.3 The correct approach to contributing to housing stock by providing housing in villages would be to use the "Call for Sites" process to seek to encourage the Local Planning Authority to release the land from the Green Belt and allocate it for residential development. The NPPF is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. There is no mechanism to review the Green Belt boundary through a planning application which is effectively what this application is seeking to do.

3.4 The site has been 'previously developed.' The site comprises an open yard with a single, dilapidated, corrugated roofed, open sided barn which is not considered to be of substantial contruction. No evidence has been put forward to suggest that there were permanent buildings on the site.

3.5 The site will generate significant Planning Obligations money and would provide contributions to the Heritage Greenway. The proposal for a heritage greenway would comprise a route from the southern tip of Slip End to the northern tip of Caddington, which will include the upgrade of existing footpaths to encourage sustainable methods of transport such as walking, cycling and horse riding.

3.6 The Caddington & Slip End Neighbourhood Plan is at a stage of preparation where no weight can be given to the aspirations that can be found within it. The proposed Heritage Greenway is also a significant distance from the application site and any planning contributions arising from this application would not meet the CIL tests as the Greenway is not directly related to the development. Therefore the level of weight that can be given to the public benefit that would result from the provision of contributions for the Heritage Greenway is negligible.

3.7 The Council do not currently have a five year housing land supply Although the Council at the time of writing, cannot demonstrate an up to date 5 year housing land supply, this small scale site in the Green Belt does not accord with paragraphs 49 and 14 of the NPPF where “the adverse impacts of this development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework as a whole.”

3.8 The proposal would cause harm by reason of inappropriateness, it would also cause harm by reason of loss of openness, harm to the character and appearance of the area and conflicts with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt by failing to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The level of harm caused by each of these is considered in more detail below.

3.9 Overall it is not considered that the very special circumstances set out above clearly outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt. The proposal therefore Agenda Item 13 would be contrary to the NPPF and policy 36 of the Development Strategy. Page 165

4. Impact on Biodiversity & Landscape 4.1 Biodiversity Development Strategy policies 56 and 57 require a net gain in terms of green infrastructure provision and biodiversity and geodiversity. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 requires the Council in exercising its functions, to have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.

4.2 The Ecology Officer has recommended that bird boxes be provided at one box per dwelling which is considered to be in accordance with the relevant policies and conditions could secure a scheme. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with policies 56 & 57 of the Development Strategy.

4.3 Landscaping South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review policy BE8 requires that the proposal takes full account of the need for landscaping and takes into account existing trees and vegetation. Development Strategy policies 43 and 59 seek to ensure that developments incorporate high levels of landscaping and retain existing trees.

4.4 The Tree and Landscape Officer has requested an arboricultural assessment, however, there are no longer any trees on the site. As the application is in outline format there are no detailed landscaping plans, conditions could however be used to secure a landscaping scheme. The proposals are therefore considered to comply with policy BE8 of the Local Plan and policies 43 & 59 of the Development Strategy.

5. Amenity 5.1 South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review policy BE8 and Development Strategy policy 43 require that new development is of high quality and is appropriate in scale and design to it's setting as well as contributing positively to creating a sense of place and respecting local distinctiveness in addition the policies require a high quality development in terms of design, layout and provision of open space.

5.2 Illustrative layout The illustrative layout is only for information in this outline application but does represent one potential approach to the development of the site. The Design Guide sets out internal and external space standards and also a recommended back to back distance. The illustrative layout has been assessed against these standards.

5.3 No typical housetype plan has been submitted with the application. Therefore, the internal space standard cannot be assessed.

5.4 External Space Standards The Design Guide requires that the minimum depth for rear gardens should be 10m to ensure both that suitable levels of privacy are maintained and that reasonable sized gardens are created. For a 2 bed dwelling a minimum area of 50m2 (based on a 5m width) with a depth of 10m should be provided as rear garden, for a dwelling with 3 or more bedrooms a minimum of 60m2 with a depth of 12m. Where dwellings have awkward shaped plots side gardens could be taken into account. Agenda Item 13 5.5 Many of the dwellings shown on the layout plan do have gardens large enoughPage 166 to comply with the guidance set out in the Design Guide, those which show an under provision could be amended to meet the criteria.

5.6 Residential Amenity - Existing residents South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review policy BE8 and Development Strategy policy 43 state that new development ensures general and residential amenity is not adversely affected

5.7 The relationship between the existing dwellings in Prebendal Drive and the proposed dwellings is very close. As the site layout is for illustrative purposes only, this matter could be addressed within the Reverved Matters application.

5.8 The Design Guide includes a back to back distance of 21m which should be achieved between dwellings to ensure privacy is maintained. The proposed dwellings have no 'back to back' relationship conflicts, there are front to front and front to side relationships to consider and subject to the placing of fenestration, based on the illustrative plan it is considered that adequate separation distances can be achieved to protect the residential amenity of existing residents.

5.9 Existing residents would experience a change in circumstances if the proposed development was built, with increased activity adjacent to their properties and/or gardens. Whilst this level of activity may not be welcomed it is not considered that it is a reason to refuse the application.

6. Highways, Sustainable transport and parking 6.1 Development Strategy policy 25 sets out that planning permission will be granted where it can be demonstrated that development will not endanger highway safety or prejudice the free flow of traffic on the highway network.

6.2 The application is in outline with all matters reserved apart from access. The submitted plans show the main point of access would be taken from Grove Road.

6.3 The Highways Development Control Officer has confirmed that he has no objection to the use of the existing access.

6.4 Parking Development Strategy policy 27 requires that appropriate levels of parking in line with those set out in appendix 8, which are the same as those in the Design Guide are provided.

6.5 It is proposed that all parking is on plot either adjacent to the private garden or within private garaging. The level of parking would be in accordance with the parking standards.

6.6 Integrated Transport Delivery The Principal Highways Officer considers that improvements should be made in order to connect the development to the bus stop opposite, proposed works would involve the provision of a courtesy crossing by way of the installation of tactile paving and footpath improvements and the upgrade of the existing bus stop. These improvements would be in line with Policy 24 of the Development Strategy and could be delivered via a planning obligations contribution, dicscussed in detail at section 8 of this report. Agenda Item 13 Page 167 7. Affordable Housing 7.1 The application description details that four of the twelve dwellings would be offered as 'social housing.' This would equate to a 30% affordable housing provision. The supporting planning statement states that these four dwellings would be specifically for local people and families that live in the village already and who need their own independent accommodation but cannot afford to buy a house. The Parish Council have stated that they support the application on this basis. However, the Housing Developoment Officer has objected to the application as he considered the site should be treated as a rural exception site which would ensure that the affordable housing would be provided for local people with a local connection to the Parish with the affordable housing remaining as affordable in perpetuity. An exception site would also provide an appropriate tenure mix providing a range of affordable rent and intermediate tenures to meet the identified local needs. As this is an application for a general housing development and not for a rural exception site, the housing cannot be allocated for local people with a local connection. The allocation would have to adhere to the allocations policy and would be let through the Choice Based Lettings (CBL) system the Council operates.

7.2 If the applicant wants the housing to be for local people then an application should be made as an exception site where the housing will be affordable in perpetuity for local people with a local connection. This would also help to meet the identified affordable housing need within the Parish. Allocation of housing for a rural exception site would adhere to the Rural Exception Sites Local Lettings Policy.

7.3 If Members were minded to approve this application then we would seek an affordable housing requirement of 30% which equates to the provision of 4 affordable units. Further to this, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) has a tenure split requirement from sites meeting the affordable housing threshold as being 63% affordable rent and 37% intermediate tenure. This would make a requirement of 3 units of affordable rent and 1 unit of intermediate tenure from the proposed development.

8. Legal agreement 8.1 The Planning Obligation Strategies that have previously been used to inform the collection and negotiation of contributions can no longer be applied. From 6 April 2015 only site specific planning obligations can be negotiated until the adoption of the Central Bedfordshire Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which is expected towards the end of 2015.

8.2 Spending Officers from Leisure, Education and Sustainable Transport have requested the following contributions:

8.3 £21,052 Leisure contribution which would support improvements at the Crawley Road site. £8,295.84 Slip End Pre-School. £50,885.45 for improvements to Manshead School. £10,000 for improvements to the highway to connect the proposed development to the bus stop opposite.

8.4 The spending requests must be assessed in line with CIL tests set out in Regulation 122(2) of the CIL Regulation 2010 (as amended) which ensure that the requested obligation is; necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and is fairly and reasonably Agenda Item 13 related in scale and kind to the development. All of the above requests appearPage to 168 meet the criteria in order for the Council to request such payments, however, no detailed negotiations on the agreement have taken place due to the in principle objection to the development.

9. Sustainable Development 9.1 The NPPF sets out at paragraph 9 that: "pursuing sustainable development involves seeking positive improvements in the quality of the built, natural and historic environment, as well as in people's quality of life, including (but not limited to): - making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages; - moving from a net loss of bio-diversity to achieving net gains for nature; - replacing poor design with better design; - improving the conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and - widening the choice of high quality homes."

9.2 The traditional view of sustainability being in relation to reducing journeys by private car should also be considered. The limited facilities within Slip End are likely to result in additional journeys by private car to other locations to access health, retail and leisure opportunities.

9.3 Overall it is not considered that the proposal represents sustainable development and would be contrary to national policy in the NPPF and local policies in the South Bedfordshire Local Plan and the Development Strategy.

10. Other Issues 10.1 It is not considered that the application raises any issues under the Human Rights Act.

10.2 It is not considered that the application raisies any issues under the Equality Act.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:

RECOMMENDED REASONS

1 The site lies within the South Bedfordshire Green Belt, where permission will not be granted except in very special circumstances for development for purposes other than those uses listed in paragraphs 89 & 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework. No very special circumstances have been established in this case to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. The harm would comprise harm by reason of inappropriateness, harm by reason of impact on openness, harm to the character and appearance of the area and enroachment into open countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and policy 36 of the Development Strategy in Central Bedfordshire, revised pre-submission version June 2014.

2 The limited facilities within Slip End are likely to result in additional journeys by private car to other locations to access health, retail and leisure opportunities. The proposal is not considered to be sustainable development and therefore is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy SD1 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and policies 1 and 24 of the Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, Agenda Item 13 revised pre-submission version June 2014. Page 169

Notes to Applicant

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 5, Article 35

Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The applicant was invited to withdraw the application to seek pre- application advice prior to any re-submission but did not agree to this. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively 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) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

This page is intentionally left blank 321

319 15 Agenda Item 14 107.3m DRIVE Page 171 25

106.5m

Gas Governor

6 105.7m

The Craddocks SHENLEY 4

236

CLOSE LB

El Sub Sta 20

2

Northbank

5 2

Fyall

OAKBANK DRIVE

PH

309

12

226 11

ST LEONARD'S CLOSE

34 32 46

38 30

54

CHILTERN GARDENS

299

24

19 23

15

11a 11

2

HEATH ROAD 14

El Sub Sta

3 34 1

12 Sandy Lane Cottages 297 33

7 9

291

103.3m

6 5 N © Crown Copyright.1 All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) 2 W E Date: 19:August:2015

Map Sheet No S 83 Red Rooves Heathwood Lower School Scale: 1:1250

73 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14 Page 173 Item No. 14

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/15/02666/FULL LOCATION 226 Heath Road, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3AY PROPOSAL Proposed new dwelling including demolition of a part of the existing dwelling PARISH Leighton-Linslade WARD Leighton Buzzard North WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Johnstone, Spurr & Ferguson CASE OFFICER Donna Lavender DATE REGISTERED 14 July 2015 EXPIRY DATE 08 September 2015 APPLICANT Jackson Lane Homes Ltd AGENT A. P Whiteley Consultants Ltd REASON FOR Called in by Ward Councillor Spurr on grounds of COMMITTEE TO overdevelopment, detrimental impact on the DETERMINE landscape character of the area and privacy.

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Recommend for Approval

Summary of Recommendation The proposed development would be situated within a predominantly residential location and would provide a dwellinghouse with a suitable level of amenity for future occupiers without adverse impact on the local residential amenity or prejudicial impact on highway safety and would have no adverse impact on the areas special character, in accordance with policy BE6 & H2 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review, policies 43 & 58 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and the NPPF.

Site Location:

The application site consists of a two storey detached dwellinghouse with attached double garage located on Heath Road within the town of Leighton Buzzard. The site encompasses a large residential garden space in excess of 45 metres deep. The site is flanked to the north by 228 Heath Road and to the south by properties in Chiltern Gardens.

The Application:

Permission is sought to remove the existing attached garage to provide access to proposed a new residential dwellinghouse within the furthermost garden space of the host dwellinghouse.

The proposed detached dwellinghouse would consists of a two storey unit with basement space encompassing a footprint of approximately 167m2. An integral garage and one off road parking spaces is proposed to facilitate the unit with access gained alongside the existing dwellinghouse.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012)

South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2004) Policy BE6 Control of Development in Areas of Special Character Agenda Item 14 Policy BE8 Design Considerations Page 174 Policy H2 Making Provision for Housing via “Fall-in” sites Policy T10 Controlling Parking in New Developments (Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, the age of the plan and the general consistency with the NPPF, policies BE6, BE8 & H2 are still given significant weight. T10 is afforded less weight.)

Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 2014 Policy 1 : Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2 : Growth Strategy Policy 19: Planning Obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy Policy 24: Accessibility and Connectivity Policy 27: Car Parking Policy 29: Housing Provision Policy 43: High Quality Development Policy 45: The Historic Environment Policy 58 : Landscape (The draft Development Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 24th October 2014. After initial hearing sessions in 2015 the Inspector concluded that the Council had not complied with the Duty to Cooperate. The Council has launched a judicial review against the Inspectors findings and has not withdrawn the Development Strategy. Its status therefore currently remains as a submitted plan that has not been withdrawn and its policies carry weight as consistent with the NPPF. This also reflects the fact that its preparation is based on substantial evidence gathered over a number of years and is therefore regarded by the Council as a sustainable strategy which was fit for submission to the Secretary of State.)

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents 1. Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (Sept 2014)

Relevant Planning History: CB/15/01259/FULL - Permission sought for the erection of one detached dwellinghouse (Withdrawn 12/05/15).

CB/14/04700/PAPC - Advice sought for the erection of two dwellinghouses within the curtilage (Advice given, 19/12/14).

SB/TP/92/00547 - Application submission for the erection of two detached dwellinghouses and garages. Application Withdrawn on 24/09/92 on the Councils advice, as the proposed application would have likely been refused due to the loss of a substantial amount of trees and inappropriate access for two additional dwellinghouses.

Consultees: 1. CBC Highways Officer No Objection, subject to the imposition of conditions to (04/08/15) - ensure adequate provision.

2. CBC Ecology Advises an ecological assessment to ascertain the affect (10/08/15) of the development on existing biodiversity and any proposals for net gain.

3. CBC Trees & No objection, subject to the imposition of a landscape Landscape Officer method statement condition. (11/08/15) - Agenda Item 14 Other Representations: Page 175 1. 8 Chiltern Gardens Objects to the removal of a significant number of trees and (31/07/15) - the potential impact of the development on the root protection area of existing trees.

2. 16 St Leonards Objects on the following grounds (in summary) - Close (04/08/15), 19 St Duplication of correspondence : Leonards Close (11/08/15) & 10 St  Inappropriate backland development Leonards Close  Out of character (13/08/15) -  Impact on existing trees and landscaping  Impact on biodiversity  Highway safety concerns

3. 5 St Leonards Close Objects on the basis of highway safety and impact on (04/08/15) - biodiversity.

4. 23 St Leonards Objects on the basis of impact on landscaping and Close (10/08/15) - biodiversity.

5. 11 St Leonards Objects on the following grounds (in summary) - Close (15/08/15) -  Highway Safety implications  Construction concerns - basement  Loss of light  Privacy concerns

6. 18 St Leonards Objects on the following grounds (in summary) - Close (15/08/15) -  Refusal of previous applications  Impact on wildlife  Highway safety concerns

7. 16 St Leonards Objects on the following grounds (in summary) - Close (15/08/15) -  Out of keeping  Impact on landscaping  Extraction concerns - basement

8. 14 St Leonards Objects on the following grounds (in summary) & encloses Close (18/08/15) - petition with 108 signatures against development:

 Unacceptable impact on the character of the area  Loss of trees and landscaping  Wildlife implications  Highway safety concerns

9. 22 Shenley Hill Road Objects due to the impact on trees and landscaping and (18/08/15) - potential danger of digging basement foundations.

10. 4 Chiltern Gardens Objects on the following grounds (in summary): (18/08/15) -  Precedent  Wildlife implications  Affect on trees  Parking implications

11. 12 St Leonards Objects on the following grounds (in summary): Agenda Item 14 Close (18/08/15) - Page 176  Floorspace larger than existing dwellinghouse  Tree damage/ loss  Impact on Areas Special Character  Increased traffic generation  Intensification of access

12. 40 Chiltern Objects on the following grounds (in summary): Gardens (18/08/15) -  Intensification of access  Impact on wildlife  Overlooking  Precedent  Access safety  Noise disturbance

13. Leighton Buzzard Objects as the development falls within an Area of Special Society (18/08/15) - Character and the potential impact on the existing trees which contribute to this character. Furthermore to highway safety issues.

Determining Issues The main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle 2. Affect on the Character and Appearance of the Area 3. Neighbouring Amenity 4. Highway Considerations 5. Other Considerations

Considerations 1. Principle 1.1 Policies SD1 and H2 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (SBLPR) encourage the use of infill sites to provide additional accommodation. Whilst national advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) generally encourages the effective use of land, specific advice regarding the development of residential gardens is clear that this should be resisted where harm would be caused to the local area. (paragraph 53). Further advice is provided in Annex 2 where the definition of previously developed land excludes private residential gardens. It is however acknowledged that this plot would not adversely cause harm to the character of the local area, due to the sufficient garden space to be retained for the existing and proposed dwellinghouse which would be consistent to external garden spaces recommended within the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide and are representative of garden spaces within the locality.

1.2 Furthermore Policy H2 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review sets out the criteria for assessing proposals for development on infill sites. The policy states that developments for would only be deemed acceptable providing that efficient use of the site was made in terms of density and layout and would respect and enhance the character of the area whilst providing good living conditions for future and existing occupiers in terms of amenity and accessibility. 1.3 Accordingly, the proposed development would represent the effective use of land and would be well situated without any resultant amenity or highway impact. There would be no resultant harm to residential amenity, the character Agenda Item 14 of the locality and highway safety. These matters have be addressed belowPage in 177 greater detail. As such it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with policy H2 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and national advice contained within the NPPF.

2. Affect on the Character and Appearance of the Area 2.1 Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review requires all development to, amongst other things, complement and harmonise with surrounding development, to carefully consider setting and to have no adverse impact upon amenity.

2.2 The dwelling is of a modern and sustainable design in terms of materials and the introduction of a green sedum roof, which has been limited in height and footprint to respect the prevailing character of the area. Due to the variation is house styles, the proposed dwellinghouse would not appear out of character and due to its sympathetic height would not appear dominate or overbearing. Furthermore the palette of natural materials such as wood, provides a design which is sympathetic of the heavily tree and landscape character of the area.

2.3 Furthermore the property is located in an Area of Special Character and therefore policy BE6 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review is also relevant and states that within the areas of special character as defined on the proposals map, planning permission will not be granted for redevelopment to higher densities, subdivision of large plots, infilling, backland development or large extensions which would result in loss of gardens, other open land or mature woodland, or give rise to an over-intensive level of development, in a way which would unacceptably harm the special character of the area. The proposal would not result in the loss of substantial garden space as the footprint has been significantly reduced since the previously withdrawn so in this respect the development is compliant.

2.4 Concerns were expressed by the Trees and Landscape Officer to the previously withdrawn application about the impact of the siting of the new dwellinghouse on the trees situated along the boundary. The trees and landscaping within the area are integral to the areas special character and as such revisions were made prior this application to ensure that theses trees and landscaping could so far as practicable could be retained. Despite concerns raised by local residents, the Trees and Landscape Officer is satisfied that sufficient landscaping and trees would be retained and has therefore not wished to raise any objection to this proposal the imposition of landscape protection conditions, during construction.

2.5 The proposed development would complement the general heterogenous character of the area made up of varying plot and building sizes. Viewed within the wider context of the site, the development would conform with policies BE6, BE8 & H2 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review, policies 43 & 58 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide.

3. Neighbouring Amenity 3.1 There is a 20 metre or more in some cases, separation between the adjacent dwellinghouses and the proposed dwellinghouse, in accordance with the advice contained within the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide to ensure that the development would not result in mutual overlooking. All first floor windows have also been positioned such to not direct overlooking the closest residential properties. Agenda Item 14 3.2 An adequate separation of 2 metres being the shortest and 4 metres beingPage the 178 longest has been provided between the proposed dwellinghouse and the adjoining boundaries in order to retain a sense of openness between buildings and to resist overbearing impact.

3.3 In terms of amenity space for future occupiers, each bedroom space meet's the minimum standards which are conveyed within the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide. Furthermore, the garden space for both the existing and proposed dwellinghouse would be in excess of 100sqm which is well above the minimum external standards conveyed within the same technical guidance.

3.4 A siting for bin storage has not been concluded however this can be secured by condition. A condition will also be imposed requiring details of the boundary treatment between the existing and proposed dwellinghouse in the interest of amenity. Therefore the proposal would conform with policies BE8 and H2 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and policy 43 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide.

4. Highway Considerations 4.1 The proposed development of a 5 bedroom dwelling in this location has the potential to generate 10 to 12 additional traffic movements per day. However it is considered that these can be satisfactorily accommodated on the local road network.

4.2 Vehicular access is shown to be achieved via a widening of the existing dropped kerb footway crossover and an access road provided to the side of the existing dwelling following the demolition of part of the existing dwelling. The level of visibility available at the existing site access has been compromised by the vegetation that has been allowed to grow over the footway. Given that the development, if permitted, will lead to an increase in use of the existing, albeit modified access, the level of visibility should be improved.

4.3 There is room on the front forecourt to accommodate three parking spaces to serve the existing dwelling. The on-site parking provision serving the retained dwelling is considered to be acceptable. A forecourt/turning area is shown to be provided to the front of the proposed dwelling together with a single attached garage. The area is large enough to accommodate three vehicles and provide a turning area such that all vehicles likely to enter the site can enter, turn and leave in forward gear. The on-site parking provision for the proposed dwelling can therefore be considered acceptable.

4.4 In light of the above, despite concerns raised by local residents, the Highways Officer has not wished to raise an objection to the granting of this permission subject to the imposition of conditions. Only conditions which are fundamentally relevant to highway safety and which are not controlled by the Councils approved contractor have been imposed on this application. Therefore it is considered that the application would conform with policy T10 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review, policies 27 & 43 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide.

5. Other Considerations 5.1 BIodiversity The site lies within the Greensand Ridge NIA and as such the NPPF calls for a net gain for biodiversity. The fact that a green roof is proposed would provide a biodiversity opportunity. Whilst objections have been raised by local residents in Agenda Item 14 respect of the impact on local habitats and species, an ecological survey wasPage 179 supplied during the life of the application which concludes that there is no evidence of protected species found in either the garden or buildings proposed to be demolished such as the garage and outbuilding. Proposals for net gain and potential mitigation methods were evidenced in the survey and can be controlled by condition. This would also alleviate any concerns raised by the local residents in terms of the impact of the development on existing or future species. Therefore the proposal is considered to conform with policy 57 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire.

5.2 Construction Issues Concerns have been raised by a number of residents about the impact on residents as a result of the excavation works for the proposed basement. Matters of safety of the construction would be controlled under Building Regulations and any resultant disturbance to residents during construction would be controlled under Public Protection legislation. As such, this matter is not a material planning consideration. Finishing levels however will be controlled by condition to ensure that control is retained for the finished height of the building in the interest of visual amenity.

5.3 Financial Contributions Significant weight should be given to the National Planning Policy Framework, which calls for the achievement of the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. It is considered that Policy 19 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. This states that developers are required to make appropriate contributions as necessary to offset the cost of providing new physical, social, community and environmental proposals .

In this case, the applicant has not submitted or signed an agreement for Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking. Given the fact that the proposal is for one dwellinghouse it would not give rise to the requirement for significant education or community infrastructure contributions, it is considered that the proposal would not conflict with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework to provide sustainable development, and with policy 19 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire.

5.4 Human Rights issues The proposal raises no Human Rights issues.

5.5 Equality Act 2010 The proposal raises no Equality issues.

Recommendation: That Planning Permission be APPROVED subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted 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 dwellinghouse should be constructed and finished with the Agenda Item 14 materials as indicated on drawing no. JLH/21507/MODPLAN1 unless Page 180 otherwise 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 in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R & 43, D.S.C.B)

3 A scheme shall be submitted for approval in writing 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 proposed dwellinghouse is occupied and shall be thereafter retained.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenities of the locality. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R & 43, D.S.C.B)

4 No development shall take place until details of the existing and final ground and slab levels of the buildings hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include sections through both the site and the adjoining properties, the location of which shall first be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the site shall be developed in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that an acceptable relationship results between the new development and adjacent buildings and to control the overall height of the proposed building. Failure to agree levels prior to development could result in unacceptable heights of the proposed dwellinghouse on completion resulting an unacceptable dominance not anticipated by this development. (Policies BE8 S.B.L.P.R and 43, D.S.C.B)

5 Prior to development, an appropriate Landscape Protection Method Statement, Landscape Protection Plan and Landscape Strategy shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, clearly showing the build specification for protective fencing and all related good working practices, which shall be in accordance with BS 5837 : 2012 "Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction" and a net gain to biodiversity. The positioning of the fencing shall be erected to protect the natural canopy spread and root protection areas of all boundary planting, including trees, hedging and shrubs. The approved Landscape Protection Plan, Method Statement and Strategy shall then be fully implemented before the commencement of any site construction works, and the approved fencing shall remain firmly in place throughout the entire course of development.

REASON : To ensure that a satisfactory standard of landscape protection is fully implemented in the interests of maintaining the health, natural canopy spread and screening value of all boundary planting. Failure to secure these details prior to commencement of development could result in the unreasonable loss of mature trees and landscape that add amenity value and screening (Policy BE8 S.B.L.P.R and 57 & 58 D.S.CB) Agenda Item 14 6 Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied or brought intoPage 181 use, the scheme for access including appropriate visibility splays, parking, garaging and manoeuvring shown on Drawing No LJHL/21507/LAYOUTMOD1 shall be laid out, drained and surfaced in accordance with details previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and those areas shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

Reason:To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn clear of the highway to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the adjoining highway. (Policy 43 D.S.C.B)

7 The dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until details of the bin storage & collection point has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the bin storage/collection areas have been implemented in accordance with the approved details The bin storage & collection point shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of amenity. (Policy 43 D.S.C.B)

7 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers LJHL/21507/LAYOUTMOD1, LJHL/21507/COMPARE1 & JLH/21507/MODPLAN1.

Reason: To identify the approved plan/s and to avoid doubt.

Notes to Applicant

1. In accordance with Article 35 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, 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 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, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, Bedfordshire, SG17 5TQ 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. Agenda Item 14 4. The applicant is advised that the requirements of the New Roads and StreetPage 182 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, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, Bedfordshire, SG17 5TQ.

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.

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 5, Article 35

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 Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

......

Agenda Item 15

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009)

W E Date: 01:September:2015 Page 183

Map Sheet No Scale: 1:2500 S This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 15 Page 185 Item No. 15

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/15/02223/OUT LOCATION Former site of Windy Willows Nursery, Sundon Road, Houghton Regis PROPOSAL Demolition of existing site buildings and proposed residential redevelopment comprising up to 30 new homes (Resubmission of application CB/15/00524/OUT) PARISH Houghton Regis WARD Parkside WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Ryan CASE OFFICER Stuart Robinson DATE REGISTERED 15 June 2015 EXPIRY DATE 14 September 2015 APPLICANT Southern & Regional Limited AGENT Phillips Planning Services Limited REASON FOR Departure from Development Plan and Town COMMITTEE TO Council objection to a major application DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED That, the Development Infrastructure Group DECISION Manager be authorised to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the prior consultation of the Secretary of State, in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, the completion of a prior Section 106 Agreement and subject to conditions.

Summary of Recommendation: The application site is located within the Green Belt and would be harmful to the Green Belt due to its inappropriateness and its impact on openness. In line with national planning policy, substantial weight is to be attached to Green Belt harm.

However, the relationship between the site and the large-scale development now consented for HRN Site 1 to the east and north; the previously developed nature of the site and its history; and the substantial body of evidence from work on planning policy documents to date supporting the adjoining mixed use development allocation site, which would remove the application site from the Green Belt have altered the planning context within which the site sits and weigh substantially in favour of the proposal. The proposed redevelopment would provide a complementary use adjacent to the larger urban expansion area. The development is capable of providing footway/cycle links, consistent with the aims of the Houghton Regis (North) Framework Plan, and public open space as part of a larger green corridor. The development would therefore support the delivery of a larger sustainable urban extension. These factors, taken together, represent very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm.

Subject to suitable mitigation, no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed development or due to the impact on local services and facilities. In all other respects the proposal is considered to be in conformity with the adopted Development Plan policies, the emerging Development Strategy for Central Agenda Item 15 Page 186

Bedfordshire, and national policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Site Location: The application site comprises of a narrow strip of land, measuring 1.39 ha in area, adjoining Sundon Road. The majority of the site has previously contained various workshops, storage buildings and enclosures, used in connection with a horticultural nursery, landscaping contractors and a car breakers and vehicle storage use. The southern portion of the site comprises of vacant grassland. The site is bound by hedgerows along the southern, eastern and north eastern boundaries.

The site is located to the north of the Kingsland Campus site, adjoining a set of playing fields. To the west of the site is Osbourne House, a private residential property.

A lattice tower electricity pylon is located along the southern boundary of the site. Power lines cross the site, connecting to this lattice tower.

The site is located outside of the settlement of Houghton Regis and is located wholly within the Green Belt. The site is located outside of the proposed Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation but is surrounded by the proposed allocation to the east and north The site also adjoins the Houghton Regis North – Site 1 development which lies immediately to the north of Sundon road and to the east of the application site. The site is not a designated employment site. The site is not within close proximity to the Houghton Regis Conservation Area or any TPO trees.

The Application: This application seeks outline planning permission for up to 30 dwellings. As part of this application the existing site buildings are proposed to be demolished. All matters are reserved apart from access.

The proposed access would connect directly to Sundon Road, in a similar location to the existing site access. A 1.8 metre footpath would be provided along the southern side of Sundon Road, towards the existing Houghton Regis settlement. This footway would have an uncontrolled crossing which would then connect to a footpath on the northern side of Sundon Road to create a pedestrian link between the application site and the existing settlement. The proposed access would contain a 1.8 metre wide footway either side of the access road within the site.

The public and consultees were re-consulted on 23 July 2015 in order to consult upon a detailed access plan and a site parameter plan. The site parameters plan identifies an open space/ green infrastructure corridor at the front of the site, in close proximity to the existing lattice tower and electricity pylons. This plan identifies that residential development would be located to the east of the site, connected by an access road area which provides a link to Sundon Road.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) Section 1: Building a strong, competitive economy Section 4: Promoting sustainable transport Section 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Section 7: Requiring good design Agenda Item 15 Page 187

Section 8: Promoting healthy communities Section 9: Protecting Green Belt land Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review Policies (SBLPR) Policy BE8: Design Considerations Policy T10: Controlling Parking in New Developments Policy H4: Providing Affordable Housing Policy R10: Children’s Play Area Standard Policy R11: Provision of New Urban Open Space in New Residential Developments Policy R14: Protection and Improvement of Recreational Facilities in the Countryside

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 Policies BE8 and R14 are consistent with the Framework and carry significant weight. Other South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review Polices set out above carry less weight where aspects of these policies are out of date or not consistent with the NPPF.

Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2005) Policy W4: Waste minimisation and management of waste at source

Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire and Luton Borough Council’s Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Strategic Sites and Policies (2014) Policy WSP5: Including waste management in new built development

Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire (DSCB) Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Growth Strategy Policy 3: Green Belt Policy 19: Planning Obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy Policy 22: Leisure and open space provision Policy 24: Accessibility and Connectivity Policy 25: Functioning of the Network Policy 26: Travel Plans Policy 27: Parking Policy 28: Transport Assessments Policy 29: Housing Provision Policy 30: Housing Mix Policy 32: Lifetime Homes Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 36: Development in the Green Belt Policy 43: High Quality Development Policy 44: Protection from Environmental Pollution Policy 47: Resource Efficiency Policy 49: Mitigating Flood Risk Policy 50: Development in the Countryside Policy 56: Green Infrastructure Policy 57: Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy 58: Landscape Agenda Item 15 Page 188

Policy 59: Woodlands, Trees and Hedgerows Policy 60: Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation

The draft Development Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 24th October 2014. After initial hearing sessions in 2015 the Inspector concluded that the Council had not complied with the Duty to Cooperate. The Council has launched a Judicial Review against the Inspectors findings and has not withdrawn the Development Strategy. The first phase of the legal challenge took place at a hearing on 16th June 2015. This was to consider whether the court would grant the Council leave to have a Judicial Review application heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council’s case. On the 22nd June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against this Judgement and the weight accorded to the Development Strategy in decision making should be viewed in this context. The status of the Development Strategy currently remains as a submitted plan that has not been withdrawn and its policies carry weight as consistent with the NPPF. This also reflects the fact that its preparation is based on substantial evidence gathered over a number of years and is therefore regarded by the Council as a sustainable strategy which was fit for submission to the Secretary of State.

Luton and Southern Central Bedfordshire Joint Core Strategy - adopted by CBC Executive for Development Management purposes on 23 September 2011.

Supplementary Planning Guidance Houghton Regis (North) Framework plan - adopted by CBC Executive for Development Management purposes on 2 October 2012.

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide - adopted by CBC Executive as technical guidance for Development Management purposes on 18 March 2014.

Central Bedfordshire Leisure Strategy - adopted by CBC Executive as technical guidance for Development Management purposes on 18 March 2014.

Central Bedfordshire Sustainable Drainage Guidance - adopted by CBC Executive as technical guidance for Development Management purposes on 22 April 2014.

Managing Waste in New Developments SPD (2005)

South Bedfordshire District Landscape Character Assessment (2009)

Central Bedfordshire and Luton Local Transport Plan 2011-2026 (LTP3)

Planning History – Application Site

CB/15/00524/OUT Outline application withdrawn: Demolition of existing site buildings and proposed residential redevelopment comprising of up to 53 dwellings – 19/05/2015. CB/14/01641/SCN EIA Screening Opinion released: Construction of approximately 60 residential units, associated access, open space and landscaping – 15/05/2014. CB/14/01642/SCO EIA Scoping Opinion released: Construction of approximately 60 residential units, associated access, open space and landscaping – 15/05/2014. SB/07/00220/FULL Full application approved: Retention of existing surfacing and existing glasshouse. Change of use to composite use for Agenda Item 15 Page 189

horticultural nursery and landscaping contractors.

Planning History – Adjacent sites of note

The following relevant planning history relates to the adjoining development to the north and east of the application site, known as the Houghton Regis North Site 1 development (or HRN1).

CB/12/03613/OUT Outline application approved: Outline planning permission with the details of access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale reserved for later determination. Development to comprise: up to 5,150 dwellings (Use Class C3); up to 202,500 sqm gross of additional development in Use Classes: A1, A2, A3 (retail), A4 (public house), A5 (take away); B1, B2, B8 (offices, industrial and storage and distribution); C1 (hotel), C2 (care home), D1 and D2 (community and leisure); car showroom; data centre; petrol filling station; car parking; primary substation; energy centre; and for the laying out of the buildings; routes and open spaces within the development; and all associated works and operations including but not limited to: demolition; earthworks; engineering operations. All development, works and operations to be in accordance with the Development Parameters Schedule and Plans – 02/06/2014.

Representations:

Houghton Regis Town 30/06/15: Council Objects on the following grounds. 1. The site is in the Green Belt and as the Development Strategy has stalled and not been tested for soundness, it should not be relied upon as the basis for decision making on developments in the Green Belt. 2. The application proposals fail to adequately respond to the guidance and provisions of the Framework Plan. 3. The proposed access is potentially unsafe. 4. The application is premature. If delayed until HRN1 is underway, access for this development could possibly be achieved at the opposite end of the site, keeping away from the main road.

Sundon Parish Council 22/06/14:

 As you will be aware a Planning Inspector examined the Council’s Development Strategy and concluded the Council failed in its duty to cooperate with a neighbour. On the 16th June 2015 at a hearing a judge ‘threw out’ the Agenda Item 15 Page 190

Council’s request for a Judicial Review of this decision on the grounds the Government had ‘no case to answer’. Currently the Council does not have an approved Development Strategy.  The National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 83, says ‘local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plan (Development Strategy) which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy’. The soundness of the Council’s policy for changing the boundaries of its Green Belt is accepted when the Council’s Development Strategy is approved by a Planning Inspector or the Secretary of State.  The National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 87, says ‘As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances’. There are many examples of planning applications for housing developments within the Green Belt being refused because they are inappropriate and harm the Green Belt.  The planning application to develop land west of Bidwell (HRN2) is supported by a ‘Statement of Very Special Circumstances’. The Council does not have a policy that explains what very special circumstances justify changing Green Belt boundaries to accommodate a development site. The Council’s ‘Policy 36: Development within the Green Belt’ stipulates a presumption against inappropriate development. It states new buildings are regarded as inappropriate except in very special circumstances. The Policy does not explain what very special circumstances justify building within the Green Belt. The policy is clearly only concerned with permitting small scale development in very special circumstances.  The proposed HRN2 site is within the Green Belt and the plan is to provide new buildings on this site. Planning permission for the site should be refused on the grounds the development is inappropriate and contrary to the Council’s ‘Policy 36: Development within the Green Belt’. All development sites are within The Green Belt. Sites 1, 3, 4, and 5 are contiguous. HN2 by itself comprises 1850 houses therefore planning permission for each site should be refused for the same reason as HN2 and because the scale of their cumulative impact is Agenda Item 15 Page 191

inappropriate.  The approval of individual planning applications for Houghton Regis North sites is unwelcome as they represent the incremental implementation of this Strategic Allocation. This allocation together with the Luton North Strategic Allocation means the cumulative economic, environmental, and social impacts of all sites within them and across the remainder of South Central Bedfordshire and Luton are not being properly considered.  The Council’s failure to produce a sound strategy and then pursue a costly application for a Judicial Review despite clear Government advice calls into question the Council’s plan making competence and therefore the presumption its Development Strategy is sound and sustainable.

Osbourne House 28/06/15:  We full support this application.  No issue regarding the access to the site.  It should be noted that the Town Council fully supported a previous application on the site for Garden Centre that is in total contradiction of their current stance on the application proposal.  Question what the land will be used for if it isn’t redeveloped.  The development would be very small in comparison with the Houghton Regis North Site 1 development. However, the application is very important to the overall flow of the HRN1 site. A link through the application site in to urban extension would be of benefit not just to the application site but also to the wider development.  The applicant has engaged with us throughout the planning process for over 7 years now and our concerns and views have been considered at every stage.  The proposed green corridor along with the adjoining scrubland/conservation land can be enhanced.  Ask that you consider the overall benefits that this proposal can/will bring to the current and future residents in the immediate vicinity of the site and the local area.

28/06/15: Windrush  My partner and I objected to the first planning application for development of this site and the same objection criteria apply. Such as access and increased traffic flow.  Whilst this second application shows a decrease in Agenda Item 15 Page 192

housing, the proposal is purely a speculative development for personal gain and does nothing to enhance the area, whereas HRN Site 1 will afford the town greater opportunities.  Major works are presently in operation along Sundon Road and extra traffic movement to and from Windy Willows during its development will impact on an already congested road network and also thereafter.  The current speed limit is now at 40mph and is it to be expected to revert back to the National Speed Limit once the A5/M1 and Woodside Link completes. It is not yet known how this new road network will benefit this local area.  Does this application fall within any existing District Development Plan?  Has the site already applied for change of use from commercial to domestic? It appears that buildings on site are being occupied in this way and need to be investigated.  Houghton Regis is undergoing great changes and its core infrastructure is still quite fragile and any extra unnecessary development will add to its saturation.

04/08/15:  I am aware of the reduction of homes on the site, however my original objections are still applicable.  HRN Site 1/A5 – M1 Link Road and Woodside Link Road developments are severely impacting on the traffic flow of Sundon Road. Any further increase in traffic will not serve the local residents.  I am not convinced that the application is an acceptable productive use of the site and would not be for the benefit of Houghton Regis.  It is not yet known how the final transport network capacity will accommodate the projected vehicular movement in the area and its sustainability. Any additional development will compromise the overall positive enhancement of Houghton Regis.

100 Westminster 01/08/15: Gardens  The access plan indicates good visibility onto Sundon Road. Traffic on this road varies, however when it is empty traffic does have a tendency to run very fast. Added to the fact that the Woodside Link is being built, together with an expected reduction in traffic flows, I am happy to support the application on visibility lines.  I welcome the proposed footpath alongside Sundon Road, together with the much needed cross-over point into the Tithe Farm area.  The Site Parameter Plan is helpful, however it does not identify the management arrangements for this Agenda Item 15 Page 193

site. There is a danger that this could become unsightly if not appropriately managed. CBC’s green infrastructure team should be invited to comment.

Consultations/Publicity responses

CBC Public Protection – 18/06/15: Pollution  No objection to the application on the understanding that the land adjacent to the site within the HRN1 development is to predominantly residential and unlikely to be to the detriment of the future occupiers in terms of pollution.

CBC Sustainable Comments in relation to previously submitted application Growth  The Design and Access statement and the Planning Statement do not acknowledge sustainability policies from the emerging Development, such as Policy 47 Sustainable Buildings and Policy 48 Adaptation. These policies set requirements and standards guiding sustainable development in Central Bedfordshire. These policies are supported by paragraphs 56, 93, 95, 97 and 99.  Policy 47: Sustainable Buildings requires development to source 10% of the energy demand from renewable or low carbon sources as a minimum. It also encourages the development to achieve higher energy efficiency than minimum standards set by the Building Regulations.  In terms of water efficiency, the development should achieve 110 litres (105 litres for internal use plus 5 litres for external use) per person per day which could be met through installation of water efficient fittings, such as low flow taps and dual flush toilets. This requirement is an equivalent of minimum water standard for the CfSH Level 3/4. I would expect all dwellings within the proposed development to meet this standard.  Policy 48: Adaptation requires that a new development is designed to minimise risk posed by climate change, e.g. overheating, surface water flooding. Dwellings should be design to prevent summer overheating; e.g. all flats to have double aspect, windows should be fitted with solar controlled glazing or other solar control measures such as brise soleil. Modelling for overheating should be undertaken based on temperatures projected for next 30 years rather than on actual temperatures from past 30 years.  Three conditions have been requested. These include: o 10% energy demand of the development to be secured from renewable sources, this to be Agenda Item 15 Page 194

calculated as built; o Water efficiency standard to be at 110 litres per person per day; o Thermal modelling is undertaken and demonstrates that dwellings have no or low risk of overheating taking into account projected climate changes.

Comments in relation to current application - 25/06/15:  In addition to previous comments, I would like to point out that the Local Policy BE8: Design and Environmental Standards has been acknowledged by the applicants as applicable to the development and yet there are no proposals to address this policy requirement. The policy states that proposals should maximise energy efficiency and conservation through orientation, layout and design of buildings, use of natural lighting and solar gain, and take full advantage of opportunities to use renewable or alternative energy sources. It also requires proposals to demonstrate how trees and vegetation have been used to achieve visual, acoustic, energy saving, wildlife and other environmental benefits.

CBC Housing 25/06/15: Development  Would expect to see 30% affordable housing or 9 affordable homes of mixed tenures of 63% Affordable Rent and 37% Intermediate Tenure, resulting in 6 units for Affordable Rent and 3 units of Intermediate Tenure/Shared Ownership.  Affordable housing should be dispersed through the site, integrated with market housing to promote community cohesion and tenure blindness  Would expect all units to meet the minimum HCA design and quality standards.  If these comments are applied then I would support the application.

CBC SuDS Engineer 01/07/15:  Consider that outline planning permission could be granted and the final design, sizing and maintenance of the surface water system agreed at the detailed design stage following an appropriate Surface Water Drainage Strategy and finalised Maintenance and Management Plan being submitted.  Two conditions have been requested if the application is approved. These conditions would require details of enhanced Surface Water Drainage Strategy and to require that the SuDS scheme is checked for completion. Agenda Item 15 Page 195

Comments in relation to revised information submitted as part of the current application - 10/08/15:  Further to previous comments, recommend condition to clarify the management and maintenance arrangements for SuDS and details of any temporary drainage and protection of the surface water drainage system throughout construction.

CBC Rights of Way Comments in relation to previously submitted application - 06/03/15:  Although no public right of way would be directly affected by the proposed development, there are several in the local area which the new local residents will undoubtedly use.  It is unfortunate that the submitted transport assessment refers to walking and cycling routes but does not consider the nearby public rights of way in this and the availability of these for pedestrians and cyclists. Public Footpath no. 44 in particular is to become public bridleway as part of the A5-M1 link Side Roads Order and so this would be a cycle route available to these new residents.  As part of the submission, it is noted that a new footway will be provided to the west of the Windy WIllows site into Houghton Regis (along the southern side of Sundon Road) and a crossing of Sundon Road will be provided near to the existing housing. I have some concerns, however, that no footway/cycle route is proposed to the east of the development which would be required to join up with any crossing of Sundon Road provided by the HRN Site 1 scheme. This link to the east would be vital to allow any new residents of the Windy Willows development to link to any crossing and proceed north across the A5-M1 link bridge and into the wider countryside. Simply having the provision of a footway/cycle route on the north side of Sundon Road as suggested by the indicative site layout plan, would in my view simply lead to people crossing Sundon Road from the access road to go east which would be far from satisfactory. They are unlikely to go west to that crossing simply to come back on themselves again eastwards.

Comments in relation to current application - 01/07/15:  The travel plan does not mention the rights of way network as a sustainable travel/walking and cycling option.  There is no dedicated cycleway within the immediate vicinity of Sundon Road but there is public bridleway no. 44 to the north of Sundon Agenda Item 15 Page 196

Road.  There no mention of the provision of a footway to the east of the access road to link up to the HRN Site 1 proposals and any crossing of Sundon Road to be provided. My view is that the development should provide a pavement east of the proposed access along the south of Sundon Road within their red line boundary. Alternatively the heads of terms of Section 106 should include a financial contribution to the provision of a pavement in this location.  The indicative layout plan shows a lack of pavement to the east of the access road and this would mean new residents would have to cross Sundon Road with no crossing point to go eastwards and get to public bridleway no. 44 and other public rights of way and countryside to the north of Sundon Road.

Comments in relation to revised information submitted as part of the current application - 05/08/15:  See previous comments (dated 01/07/15).  The need for a pavement/footway to the east along Sundon Road from the junction of the proposed access road with Sundon Road will be key to allow full permeability to the HRN1 facilities and the public rights of way network to the north through the development and beyond the A5-M1 link road. At the very least I believe the applicants for this proposal should provide an eastern pavement within their red line boundary or provide a financial contribution to the Council to provide such a pavement connection at some future date.

CBC Ecology 02/07/15:  The Ecological Appraisal has assessed potential impact on habitats on species and made recommendations to ensure these are minimised whilst also suggesting enhancements. I would like to see the provision of a condition to produce a Construction Environment Management Plan, which would include the recommendations which this appraisal made as a condition. This will guide the future development procedures to ensure the development delivers a net gain for biodiversity.  The Design and Access Statement acknowledges that there will be an ecological corridor under the pylons, which is welcomed.  The existing vegetation in the eastern part of the site has developed to a nectar rich habitat of value for pollinators so a refection of this species diversity both within the ecological corridor and also in the landscaping around the residential properties would help to demonstrate a net gain for Agenda Item 15 Page 197

biodiversity.

Comments in relation to revised information submitted as part of the current application - 04/08/15:  Would like to see a condition included if the application is approved to secure the recommendations within the Ecological Appraisal.

CBC Integrated 03/07/15: Transport Team  The proposed layout of the site indicates that footway and cycle links would be provided through the residential cul-de-sacs and also potentially though the south east corner of the site. This is acceptable and it should also be noted that the HRN1 masterplan looks to create links through to Parkside Drive via Linmere Walk, adjacent to the educational campus. It is important therefore to safeguard this connection as it will be the most direct link to Houghton Regis Academy without going along Sundon Road.  Previous discussions around footway and cycle route connectivity had focussed on the lack of footway connecting the site to Houghton Regis and I am pleased to see that this has now been addressed although the proposal is only for a 1.8m wide footway. This also needs to be accompanied by speed limit reductions along this section of road.  The application also discusses accessibility to public transport and the fact that residents of Windy Willows would be within 8 to 10 minutes walking distance of the services along Sundon Road/Parkside Drive. The Council’s policy is for all residents to be within 400 metres walking distance of a bus stop and it is not clear how that would be facilitated until the public strategy for HRN Site 1 is implemented.  The HRN Site 1 development also proposes a secondary school opposite the proposed site and therefore access to these facilities will be particularly important in the context of this site and a crossing of Sundon Road needs to be secured.  A travel plan statement has been provided, however given the fact that this application is to be considered against the context of the surrounding development known as HRN Site 1 it is appropriate that the delivery of any smarter choice measures should be in line with those secured for HRN Site 1.

CBC Leisure 06/07/15:  The facility priority for indoor sports and leisure centre facilities relevant to this development is the Central Bedfordshire Council medium term priority Agenda Item 15 Page 198

to provide a replacement for the current Houghton Regis leisure centre.  A commensurate contribution is sought for provision of a new leisure centre. A contribution of approximately £24,450 is sought.  The application proposes a LAP play area. This is insufficient for the development. A play area of approx. 540sqm (3 above typologies requirement combined) should be provided with 8 pieces of equipment to cater for 3-12 year olds with a buffer of 10-20m.  With appropriate design and landscaping, the area under the pylons should provide a mixed use green corridor, providing formal play facilities with associated amenity space, walking and cycling routes as well as informal space delivering biodiversity and ecological benefits  The D&A Statement (pg 23 4.42) states that it would be inappropriate to locate the play area in the green corridor. The green space provides a good opportunity to provide play facilities on the periphery of the green corridor, integrating formal and informal uses with the choice of appropriate play facilities. This location allows the appropriate buffer area to be achieved.  No contribution is sought regarding outdoor sporting space.

CBC Education 07/07/15:  A deficit of secondary school places is expected from September 2017 onwards and the relocation and expansion of Houghton Regis Academy is planned to manage demand for places in the area.  Using pupil yield multiplied by 2009 DfE cost multiplier identifies that: o £261,384.04 would be required as a secondary school contribution towards the relocation and expansion of Houghton Regis Academy. o £36,639.96 would go towards early years provision in the area.

CBC Green 08/07/15: Infrastructure  Welcome the principle of a GI corridor linking the GI network across the wider HRN site.  As the corridor is currently occupied by buildings extensive enhancement would be required to maximise amenity and ecological benefits.  There is little information provided in the application regarding how to achieve a net GI benefit. It would also take time to develop such a corridor.  Would like to see the development phased so as to require enhancement and creation of the GI Agenda Item 15 Page 199

corridor prior to construction of the residential development.  The proposals for infiltration are welcomed, however the Drainage Impact Assessment and the Flood Risk Assessment make no reference to the Council’s Sustainable Drainage Guidance SPD.  A surface water drainage strategy should be required by condition and should demonstrate how local policy objectives will be delivered.  It is noted that the site will use filter drains for surface water management. The use of surface conveyance (swales) should be prioritised. Currently the proposals do not demonstrate why piped conveyance is proposed, as they are not in line with existing policy.

Comments in relation to revised information submitted as part of the current application - 04/08/15:  The updated parameter plan shows that the open space/green infrastructure corridor does not extend the full width of the area below the electricity pylons.  The green infrastructure corridor needs to be wider, covering the full width of the pylon corridor, in order to complement the adjacent development proposals, and deliver green infrastructure at the strategic scale necessary to support the wider urban extension.  Furthermore, much of the corridor is identified as being for 'access'. This appears to be much wider than that required for an access road, and therefore impinges unnecessarily on the extent of the green infrastructure corridor. As identified above, there is a need to maximise the extent of the green infrastructure corridor in order to deliver strategic scale green infrastructure. Therefore, in order not to prejudice this green infrastructure corridor, the area identified as 'access' needs refining and reducing, and the area of the green infrastructure corridor should be increased.

CBC Archaeology 08/07/15:  The proposed site is known to contain a late Iron Age and Roman settlement, defined as a heritage asset.  The Iron Age and Roman settlement was first identified from finds of Roman pottery and domestic material and iron slag, suggesting industrial activity made during fieldwalking and small scale trenching. Subsequently, an archaeological field evaluation was undertaken as part of the planning application for the Houghton Regis North 1 development to the east and south of this site. The evaluation comprised geophysical Agenda Item 15 Page 200

survey and trail trenching. This identified a series of enclosures and other features including possible trackways and evidence of domestic occupation. Features relating to this Iron Age and Roman settlement extend into the site.  The application includes a report on an archaeological trial trench evaluation (Heritage Network 2015). The trial trenches were all located at the south eastern end of the proposed development site because of land access issues and layout of the development which locates the houses in that part of the site. The evaluation identified a number of archaeological features within the south eastern part of the site. Pottery found in these features suggests that they are mainly of Late Iron Age to Early Roman date, though a small quantity of Late Bronze Age – Early Iron pottery suggests that there may also be an earlier phase of activity within the site. The character and date of the features found in the evaluation indicate that they represent a north westwards extension of the Iron Age and Roman settlement identified within the Houghton Regis North 1 development site to the south and east. It is likely that further remains relating to the Iron Age and Roman settlement site extend in to the north western part of the site, though this cannot be confirmed as this area has not been subject to trial trenching.  The evaluation report identifies that groundworks required by construction of the development as being likely to have a destructive impact on the buried archaeological remains.  Paragraph 141 of the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of heritage assets before they are lost (wholly or in part) in a manner proportionate to their importance and the impact, and to make this evidence (and any archive generated) publicly accessible. While there may have been some truncation of archaeological deposits as a result of later development within the application area; it is now well proven that archaeological deposits can and do survive in good condition in such circumstances  The proposed development will have a negative and irreversible impact upon any surviving archaeological deposits present on the site, and therefore upon the significance of the heritage assets with archaeological interest. This does not present an over-riding constraint on the development providing that the applicant takes appropriate measures to record and advance Agenda Item 15 Page 201

understanding of the archaeological heritage assets or protect remains in situ in areas where this is possible such as the play and open space shown on the Indicative Site Layout plan. A condition has been sought in order to secure a written scheme of archaeological resource management.

Comments in relation to revised information submitted as part of the current application - 13/08/15:  The submitted amendments do not materially alter the impact of the proposed development on archaeological remains, therefore my original comments still apply.

CBC Landscape 09/07/15:  No objection in principle, however the following points are made.  The proximity of proposed development in relation to existing trees along the northern and eastern site boundaries appears very tight. Concerns have been raised regarding the impact of development on tree roots, shading of gardens, future inappropriate management of trees. Loss of screening effect of existing landscape structures must be avoided.  The dwellings to the north west portion of the site would benefit from being set further back from the corridor to enable the planting of trees to assist screening of the pylons.  The surface water drainage and inclusion of SuDS needs to be described in principle at least; rills, bio retention areas, swales and filter strips, and linked to the proposed landscaping.  Natural and formal play needs to be accommodated within the green corridor. An indication of landscape character of this corridor within the site needs to be described.  The layout of the pumping station is not shown.

Comments in relation to revised information submitted as part of the current application - 10/08/15:  Reiterate previous comments.  It is unclear which trees or length of trees will be lost around the access. More information is required.

CBC Contaminated 09/07/15: Land  Two conditions have been suggested if the application is approved.  These conditions would seek that a Phase 2 investigation report be submitted and approved prior to development and that a validation report is submitted and approved before occupation. Agenda Item 15 Page 202

CBC Trees and 10/07/15: Landscape Comments in relation to previously submitted application.  The northern, eastern and southern boundary hedgerows, although marked for retention and protection within this scheme, will require considerable pruning to accommodate development. The hedges have a good degree of natural canopy depth and height and offer a diverse range of native species. To accommodate the proposed layout will result in a severe reduction in hedgerow height and width, which has important ecological and landscape implications.  The hedgerows have been identified in the ecology report as having elevated ecological value, and were noted as being strong wildlife corridors, significant for foraging and transit movement. The hedgerow canopy height and spread offers considerable benefit in this respect. Bats would also use these hedgerows for commuting routes and for foraging. From a landscape perspective, the size of the existing hedgerows are presently in keeping with the scale and proportion of the buildings being proposed, and the severe reduction in height and width would reduce their effective landscape value in relation to this new development, and their ability to soften the large buildings, many of which will be up to three storeys high.  It is therefore requested that the development imposes less boundary encroachment, by altering the layout accordingly, so as to retain a robust network of hedgerows not requiring any heavy access facilitation pruning, in order to enable a more effective landscape feature in both screening terms, and to provide more sustainable wildlife corridor routes that are fit for purpose.  Sufficient provision should also be made for internal landscaping, using carefully chosen tree cultivars to break up the lines of the built form, and also the extensive car parking areas serving the high number of homes for this site.

Comments in relation to current application  The latest site layout in respect of CB/15/02223/OUT places less pressure on the northern and eastern boundary, although there will be branch conflict with the gable ends of various properties on the northern boundary, but the southern hedgerow will still be subject to heavy access facilitation pruning, compromising both the screening and environmental value of the hedgerow.  If the hedgerow is deemed to have strategic Agenda Item 15 Page 203

planning significance, or significant ecological value, then the layout should be adjusted accordingly to place less pressure on boundary planting, and if the Arboricultural Implications Assessment Plan is adjusted accordingly to respond to this concern, then an appropriate condition can be related to it. CBC Planning Policy 13/07/15:  The site is located outside of the Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation.  The area contains two strategic sites which have recently been approved and one which is due to be considered.  The withdrawn Joint Core Strategy identified land between A5-M1 to the north of Houghton Regis as a strategic allocation for residential-led mixed use development. Although this plan was withdrawn, it was not because of any disagreement between the joint Councils regarding the site. The emerging Development Strategy reaffirms the Houghton Regis North allocation.  In the decision-making process for granting planning permission for CB/12/03613 (Site 1), the harm to the green belt and the very special circumstances for allowing development in the Green Belt were discussed at length. It was considered that the harm to the green belt was outweighed by the very special circumstances that existed for the site.  As the application site is within the Green belt it needs to demonstrate that there will be no harm to the green belt, that very special circumstances exist and that the proposals conform to the adopted Houghton Regis North Framework Plan, which guides the development of the wider allocation.  The application site is currently a brownfield site which has been used previously as a mixed nursery and landscape contractors as well as storage and car related uses. As the site will be enclosed by Houghton Regis and HRN Site 1 the application site will no longer check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas nor prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. Due to the planning permission of HRN Site 1 which is located along the northern boundary of the application site, the application site does not assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.  The applicant identifies a range of very special circumstances within the application. On their own, these ‘special circumstances’ hold limited weight but collectively it is considered that together with the application sites location and relationship to Agenda Item 15 Page 204

the adjoining Site 1 and Houghton Regis, that very special circumstances may exist which outweighs the harm to the green belt.  A Framework Plan for the Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation has been adopted. The application site itself is not covered by the Framework Plan. It is located next to an area indicated for residential and mixed use. Power lines runs through the site and as such the layout of the application site has taken this into account in that development is located on the far east of the site, adjoining the proposed development at HRN1. It is considered that although the site is not covered by the Framework Plan it is in general conformity with it and has aligned development on the site to development on the adjoining site.  In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed development in principle accords with the adopted Framework Plan and contributes to the aims and objectives of this Plan, albeit the proposal does not fall within the Framework Plan. In terms of the application site’s very special circumstances it is considered that there may be very special circumstance that outweighs the harm to the green belt to the north of Houghton Regis given the history of the site and the planning permission for Site 1 HRN.

CBC Waste Services 30/07/15:  Question whether the access road is to be adopted and whether it would be built to adoptable standard allowing for a 26 tonne refuse vehicle to access the site.  Need to see proposals for turning a refuse vehicle within the site in order to enter in forward gear and exit again in forward gear. This will need to be in the form of vehicle tracking using a 11 metre long vehicle

CBC Highways 25/08/15:  The Transport Assessment was undertaken for a scheme of 46 residential flats and 7 houses. The scope of the Transport Assessment has been agreed during pre-application discussions.  Personal Injury accident data for the Transport Assessment’s highway network of interest has been obtained for the most recent five year period. This approach is supported.  Vehicular access from a new created simple priority junction at Sundon Road is supported.  Vehicular visibility splays in excess of the required 160m can be achieved and as such, the proposed site access is acceptable in this regard.  A new footway/cycle way linking the site to the Agenda Item 15 Page 205

current footway network of Houghton Regis is proposed. The footway width is limited to 1.8m by on site constraints including street furniture including telegraph poles and highway verge level differences. Although considered to be a minimum width for footway provision, linking only to the site, the pedestrian flows are likely to be very low with just 28 arrivals and 30 departures on foot predicted over the course of a day. This is supported.  The level of traffic expected to utilise the site access during the network peak hours is considered immaterial in traffic engineering terms. The development is not expected to have any material traffic impact upon either the local or strategic local highway network. In line with the above, this office raises no objections to this proposal.

Environment Agency 30/06/15:  No objection.  If planning permission is approved then a condition has been requested to submit a scheme for surface water disposal.

Historic England 29/06/15:  It is not necessary for this application to be notified to Historic England.

Highways England 26/06/15: (previously Highways  Offer no objection. Agency)

Bedfordshire Fire & 29/06/15: Rescue Service  Requested that hydrant provision for this development is a requirement at the planning stage under Section 106 of the Planning Act at a cost to the developer.  The recommended hydrant spacing for dwellings would be 90 metre from the nearest property and then a distance of up to 180 metres apart.

Anglian Water 03/07/15:  No assets owned (or subject to an adoption agreement) by Anglian Water within the site.  The site is within the catchment of Dunstable Water Recycling Centre, which will have available capacity for these flows.  If the developer wishes to connect to our sewerage network they should serve notice under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Anglian Water will advise the most suitable point of connection.  The Environment Agency should be consulted regarding the surface water strategy/flood risk. Request that the agreed strategy is conditioned in Agenda Item 15 Page 206

the planning approval.

National Grid Assets 19/06/15:  Confirm receipt of consultation letter.

03/07/15:  No objections to the proposal which is in close proximity to a High Voltage Transmission Overhead Line – ZA.

RPS on behalf of 23/07/15: National Grid  Objects as the application misrepresents the overhead line as a constraint on development. The green corridor should be identified as constraint instead.  Objects as the illustrative masterplan has failed to mitigate the impact of the retained line and the lattice tower in terms of urban design and proximity to the pylon.  National Grid requests that the application, if approved, includes protection as such of the HRNFP strategic green infrastructure corridor where it passes through the application site, and unobstructed public access to it. Not to do so risks severing the continuity of the strategic green infrastructure corridor, and risks a reserved matters application for development across it. To protect the strategic green infrastructure corridor could contribute to the ‘very special circumstances’ justifying development of the remainder of the application site in the Green Belt.  Landhold Capital has notified National Grid of a proposed claim for injurious affection based on an assumption of developing the whole application site (to include the site of Osborne House) with 92 dwellings. This is not justified by ‘very special circumstances’, would cause significant and further harm to the already diminished Green Belt and could require National Grid to cause even further harm in the Green Belt contrary to its statutory duties to private, public and environmental interests.  There is no planning policy reason to prevent development under or near to an overhead power line, provided statutory restrictions are met.  The Design and Access Statement should make reference to the industry standard guidance on development in proximity to power lines – A Sense of Place.  Poor urban design as the illustrative layout shows that five properties would directly face a lattice tower.  The following amendments have been suggested: o A parameter plan to show the extent of the Agenda Item 15 Page 207

green corridor and the development area. o A requirement that the layout is fixed rather than illustrative or an adjustment so that the five houses do not face the lattice tower. o The introduction in a parameter plan of mitigating landscape between the development area and the lattice tower. o An addendum to the Design and Access Statement reconciling the illustrative layout with the established principles in ‘A Sense of Place’.  A condition has been suggested to codify these amendments.

Natural England 28/07/15:  No comments to make regarding this application.

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. Compliance with the Adopted Development Plan for the Area 2. Compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework 3. The weight applied to and compliance with the Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Core Strategy 4. The weight to applied to and compliance with the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 5. Green Belt considerations 6. Relationship to DSCB Policy 60 and to the Houghton Regis (North) Framework Plan 7. Highways considerations 8. Landscape, Green Infrastructure and open space considerations 9. Housing mix and design considerations 10. Other considerations 11. Planning obligations 12. Conclusions

Considerations

1. Compliance with the Adopted Development Plan for the Area

1.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 at section 38 (6) provides that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

1.2 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out this requirement:

“Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood Agenda Item 15 Page 208

plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.” (para. 2)

1.3 The Framework also states:

“This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as a starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place.” (para. 12)

1.4 Therefore the structure of the report is dictated by the need for the Committee to determine the application by reference to the primacy of the development plan, the degree to which it is up-to-date, and the material considerations that apply specifically to this planning application.

1.5 The formal development plan for this area comprises the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (SBLPR) (2004), the Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2005), and the Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire and Luton Borough Council’s Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Strategic Sites and Policies (2014).

1.6 The site falls within the Green Belt defined by the proposals map for the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review. Within the Green Belt no exception for major development is made and the proposal is therefore inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Green Belt is the fundamental land use issue in relation to both the development plan and the NPPF. For this reason Green Belt considerations are dealt with in full under Section 5 of this report. All other relevant policy considerations under the development plan are addressed below.

1.7 Policy BE8 lists a number of design considerations that development proposals should reflect. Having regard to the submitted site parameter plan it is considered that the proposed residential development is capable of achieving a high quality design at the reserved matters stage. The proposed development would be able to integrate into the surrounding urban expansion area and would be capable of taking account of the need for hard and soft landscaping, as well as amenity space. The application is therefore considered in compliance with Policy BE8.

1.8 Policy T10 identifies the considerations that relate to the provision of car parking within new developments. Revised parking standards are contained within the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide, which was adopted as technical guidance for Development Management purposes in 2014. With this in mind, it is considered that very little weight should be given to Policy T10.

1.9 Policy H4 sets out the terms of the provision of affordable housing and requires that such provision will be sought from developments of over 1 hectare in size. No specific target amount is included within the policy, though there is an indicative target level stated in the supporting text of the policy of 20%.

1.10 Policy H4 was established before 2004 and before the substantial work that was undertaken in preparation of the subsequent Luton and South Bedfordshire Core Strategy (withdrawn but adopted by CBC for Development Agenda Item 15 Page 209

Management purposes in 2011) and as taken forward by the emerging Central Bedfordshire Development Strategy. Recent work for the Development Strategy supports a requirement of around 30% of the development for affordable housing purposes. Therefore this policy is considered to be out-of-date and it is recommended that limited weight is afforded to Policy H4 in respect of occupancy and the indicative affordable housing target. Instead, the affordable housing policy in the emerging Central Bedfordshire Development Strategy, which would normally require 30% affordable housing as part of qualifying developments, is of greater relevance and the application is assessed in terms of its compliance with this policy below.

1.11 Policies R10 and R11 set out the requirements for play areas and formal and informal open spaces. The standards set out in the Central Bedfordshire Leisure Strategy, which was adopted as technical guidance for Development Management purposes in 2014, supersede previous requirements set within Policies R10 and R11 and the weight to be attached to the standards in Policies R10 and R11 is diminished. The provision of play areas and open space is addressed in Section 8 of this report.

1.12 Policy R14 seeks to improve the amount of informal countryside recreational facilities and spaces, including access, particularly close to urban areas. The detailed access plan, identifies that footpaths will be provided, linking the site with Houghton Regis. The site parameter plan identifies that the site is capable of providing a Green Infrastructure/open space corridor to the north- west of the site. The specific nature of this area will be developed through detailed reserved matters applications. The application is therefore considered to be compliance with Policy R14.

1.13 Policy W4 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan relates to minimising waste generated as part of the development. This is echoed in policy WSP5 which relates to waste management in new built developments which seeks sufficient and appropriate waste storage and facilities in all new developments. Provision for adequate collection areas and suitable turning arrangements for collection vehicles can be secured as part of subsequent detailed applications at the reserved matters stage. The provision of waste receptacles for all dwellings can be secured through a condition, if the application is approved. The proposed does not therefore conflict with the aims of Policies W4 and WSP5.

2. Compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework

2.1 For the reasons set out above, it is necessary to consider the planning application against the NPPF as a significant material consideration. In the following paragraphs, the proposal is considered against each relevant statement of NPPF policy.

2.2 Building a strong, competitive economy The development of housing and the provision of appropriate infrastructure alongside support for local shops and services and employment relating to the construction of the development contribute to building a vibrant economy for Houghton Regis.

2.3 Promoting sustainable transport Agenda Item 15 Page 210

The application is supported by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan Statement. The site is well related to the local highway network with convenient access to the M1, Luton and Dunstable by car. The proposal would provide a new footway to Houghton Regis, promoting pedestrian access.

2.4 Delivering a wide choice of quality homes The indicative layout plan for the proposed residential development shows a suitable mix of likely housing types. Should permission be granted, the detailed proposals to be submitted at the reserved matters stage should demonstrate that an appropriate variety of housing will be provided. It is appropriate to ensure that variety in general market housing is provided for and the reserved matters scheme(s) should reflect the latest available information on such requirements. The proposal would provide for on-site affordable housing at 30% of the total residential provision and this would be secured through Legal Agreement. In relation to this, it is relevant to note that there are no development viability constraints which would prevent full affordable housing provision in this case.

2.5 Requiring good design The application is in outline and therefore detailed design matters will be for later consideration. However, the NPPF promotes good design at every level. Aspects of the design proposals and parameters are assessed in more detail below. However, it is considered that the proposed residential development is be capable of achieving a high quality design at the reserved matters stage which would relate well to the surrounding area and to the features within the site.

2.6 Promoting healthy communities The NPPF describes this policy objective as seeking to include meeting places (formal and informal), safe environments, high quality public open spaces, legible routes, social, recreational and cultural facilities and services. This includes schools, health facilities, formal and informal play areas and access to shops and leisure facilities. The level of open space proposed as part of the application is considered appropriate to the scale of the development. The detail regarding suitable play provision can be dealt with by planning condition and addressed at the reserved matters stage. Appropriate financial contributions to offset the impact of the development on facilities and services such as secondary education, early years education and leisure facilities can be secured by Legal Agreement.

2.7 Protecting Green Belt land The protection of the Green Belt forms part of the core planning principles set out within the NPPF and this is fundamental policy consideration. Within the Green Belt there is a presumption against residential development which is considered inappropriate development. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The NPPF states:

“When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” Agenda Item 15 Page 211

2.8 Very special circumstances have been submitted as part of this application. The merits of these very special circumstances are addressed in Section 5 of this report.

2.9 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change The NPPF seeks to support the move towards a low carbon future by planning for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and actively supporting energy efficiency consistent with nationally described standards. Opportunities for implementation of sustainable design and construction principles and the incorporation of renewable energy sources and low-carbon technologies as part of the development will be need to be considered in the context of subsequent detailed submissions. The site is not located in an area at risk from flooding (located in Flood Zone 1). The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which demonstrates that, subject to a condition to secure the approval and implementation of a detailed surface water drainage scheme, the development would not give rise to an increased risk of flooding.

2.10 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment The application was submitted with a Landscape and Visual Appraisal and an Ecological Assessment addressing the key biodiversity and other landscape impacts and benefits likely to arise from the proposed development. The proposal would create an area of accessible multi-functional open space at the front of the site, providing opportunities to connect with the wider green infrastructure in the area. The residential development would be predominantly located on an area of vacant grassland. It is considered that the development can deliver a net gain for biodiversity by providing a specific area for open space, which could provide provision for bird/bat nesting opportunities, new native tree planting and suitable habitat enhancements. It is highly unlikely that any of these benefits could be realised without some form of development on this site in order to facilitate this. In balancing policy objectives in relation to the natural environment, it is considered that the proposal is compatible with NPPF principles in this respect.

2.11 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment The application site is not within close proximity to any listed buildings. The site is known to contain a late Iron Age and Roman settlement. The submitted archaeological report contains an evaluation of trail trenching. This evaluation identified a number of archaeological features within the site, suggesting a range of Late Iron Age to Early Roman features, in addition to a small quantity of Late Bronze Age features. Subject to further investigation and recording which can be secured by condition and carried out in connection with the development, the proposal satisfies NPPF requirements with respect to the historic environment.

2.12 As previously stated, Green Belt considerations are dealt with in full in Section 5 of this report. The proposal is considered compliant with all other relevant planning principles and aims under the NPPF.

3. The weight applied to and compliance with the Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Core Strategy

3.1 The L&SCB Joint Core Strategy was prepared by the Luton and South Agenda Item 15 Page 212

Bedfordshire Joint Committee in the period between 2007 and 2011. It sought to replace the strategic elements of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan and Luton Borough Plan and to take forward the growth agenda promoted for this area through the Regional Plan and associated policy documents. The Joint Core Strategy was submitted for Examination and part of that process was completed before the document was ultimately withdrawn in 2011 on the grounds that Luton Borough Council no longer wished to pursue its adoption. However the evidence that supported the Joint Core Strategy remains supportive of the growth agenda for the area.

3.2 For this reason, Central Bedfordshire Council endorsed the L&SCB Joint Core Strategy and its evidence base as guidance for Development Management purposes on the 23rd August 2011 and has incorporated the majority of this work within the new Central Bedfordshire Development Strategy. As Development Management guidance, the Joint Core Strategy does not carry the same degree of weight as the adopted Development Plan but is a material consideration in the assessment of the application.

3.3 The site is not included within any specific development allocation within the Joint Core Strategy, however it is closely related to land within the Houghton Regis North Allocation within the Joint Core Strategy, which would have removed the application site from the Green Belt. The proposal is considered in compliance with the general policy tests of the Joint Core Strategy.

3.4 The details of the endorsed policies are not dealt with in this section as relevant aspects of the Joint Core Strategy are dealt with in greater detail elsewhere within this report.

4. The weight to be applied to and compliance with the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire

4.1 The Central Bedfordshire Development Strategy document was submitted to Secretary of State 24 October 2014 and initial hearing sessions were held in February 2015.

4.2 On the 16 February 2015 the Planning Inspector, Brian Cook wrote to the Council explaining his view that the Council had not met the Duty to Co- operate as set out in section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This is a legal requirement that Local Authorities work cooperatively on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to the strategic priorities and demonstrate this cooperation through the plan-making process. The need to comply with this requirement is distinct from the test of “soundness” i.e. whether the Plan is fit for purpose. Given his view that the Duty to Co-operate had not been met, the Inspector’s letter recommended the non-adoption of the Plan and advised that the Council should withdraw the Plan or await his final Report.

4.3 The Council has subsequently notified the Planning Inspectorate that it does not intend to withdraw the Development Strategy and that the Planning Inspector should not issue his final report as the Council intends to challenge his decision. An application for Judicial Review of the Inspector’s decision dated 16 February 2015 was made by the Council in the High Court on 12 March 2015. Agenda Item 15 Page 213

4.4 The first phase of the application for Judicial Review of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision took place at a Court hearing on 16 June 2015. This was to consider whether the Court would grant the Council leave to have an application for Judicial Review heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council’s case, focusing on the mechanics of the plan making process. Having considered its case, the Council has decided to continue to pursue the challenge through the Courts and has now indicated its intention to do so. On the 22 June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against this Judgement. The appeal process in relation to the Judge’s decision on 16 June 2015 is ongoing.

4.5 The Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire is not adopted policy, but is an important material consideration in the determination of the application and carries the weight as a submitted local plan. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states that, from the day of publication, decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:  the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);  the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and  the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

4.6 The site is not included within any specific development allocation within the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, however it is closely related to land within the Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation within the emerging Development Strategy, which would remove the application site from the Green Belt. The proposal is considered in compliance with the general policy tests of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire.

5. Green Belt considerations

5.1 The site is located to the south west of the proposed North Houghton Regis Strategic Allocation, as set out within the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire. At the present time, until the Development Strategy is adopted, the land falls within the Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 83 of the NPPF states that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan.

5.2 The emerging Development Strategy has been submitted for examination but has not yet been adopted. Government guidance contained within the National Planning Practice Guidance advises that, in the context of the NPPF and the presumption in favour of sustainable development, prematurity is unlikely to justify the refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Agenda Item 15 Page 214

5.3 Within the Green Belt there is a presumption against residential development which is considered inappropriate development. The protection of the Green Belt forms part of the core planning principles set out within the NPPF and is the fundamental policy consideration. Substantial weight is to be attached to any Green Belt harm.

5.4 The National Planning Policy Framework identifies that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt should be considered inappropriate within the Green Belt. Paragraph 87 of the National Planning Policy Framework identifies that “inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”.

5.5 Paragraph 88 of the National Planning Policy Framework further this point, stating that:

“When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

5.6 There is no definition of the meaning of ‘very special circumstances’ but case law has held that the words "very special" are not simply the converse of "commonplace". The word "special" in the guidance connotes not a quantitative test, but a qualitative judgement as to the weight to be given to the particular factor for planning purposes.

5.7 The applicant has submitted a Planning Statement which identifies a range of issues which the applicant considers to constitute very special circumstances in favour of the application proposal. These are as follows:

1. The adoption of the Luton & South Bedfordshire Core Strategy for development control purposes and the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire.

2. The Houghton Regis North – Site 1 planning permission.

3. Lack of Green Belt impact.

4. Redevelopment of a brownfield site and the enhancement of the environment.

5.8 The report will now consider the merits of each issue considered to merit very special circumstances before considering whether the submitted very special circumstances, when considered together, can be judged to be very special circumstances sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm identified.

The adoption of the Luton & South Bedfordshire Core Strategy for development control purposes and the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire 5.9 The applicant has identified that, as the site is located within an area of land to be removed from the Green Belt within the Luton & South Bedfordshire Agenda Item 15 Page 215

Core Strategy and emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, this should warrant very special circumstances. In order to consider this point, one must consider the relevance and weight of the Luton & South Bedfordshire Core Strategy and the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire.

5.10 As previously stated within Section 3, the L&SCB Joint Core Strategy has been adopted for Development Management purposes, however it does not carry the same degree of weight as the adopted Development Plan. Therefore it is still a material consideration in the assessment of the application.

5.11 This document identifies the site as suitable for removal from the Green Belt as the Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation, located to the north and east of the site, would be allocated to provide a mixed use development of approximately 7,000 dwellings.

5.12 The Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation has been identified within the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, as Policy 60. Once again, as part of this proposed allocation, the application site would be removed from the Green Belt.

5.13 The emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire sets out the current proposed Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation as a key component of the planned growth strategy for the period until 2031. Given the emerging nature of the Central Bedfordshire Development Strategy, the representations lodged in response to Policy 60 are therefore material to the consideration of the weight to be attached to the Development Strategy at this time. Following the Pre-Submission Consultation (known as Publication) further consultation was held between the 30 June to 26 August 2014. This was the final stage of formal consultation before the plan was submitted to the Secretary of State.

5.14 Approximately 1,645 comments on the Development Strategy were received during this consultation; these included both comments in support and objection. The comments considered as main matters can be found within the Main Issues Statement (Regulation 22 (1) (c) (v) – Submission (October 2014). In summary the objections to the Development Strategy related to the Duty to Co-operate, viability and deliverability of the Development Strategy, consistency with the NPPF, the allocation of sites within the Green Belt and the unmet housing need and insufficient supply of houses.

5.15 43 responses were received on Policy 60: Houghton Regis North Strategy Allocation. Of these 43 responses, 7 were in support, 17 were general comments and the remaining 17 were objections. The supporters of Policy 60 were; Woburn Sands and District Society, Axa Real Estate Investments Ltd, David Locke Associates, Houghton Regis Development Consortium, Landhold Capital and Bidwell West Consortium.

5.16 The objections related to the viability and deliverability of the allocation, consistency with the NPPF, clarification on details of the allocation, specifically phasing, and the Duty to Co-operate. The objectors included; Paul Newman Homes, Trenport Investment Ltd, O&H Property Ltd, Compton Land Development, Taylor French Development, Harlington Parish Council, Parish Council and private individuals. Agenda Item 15 Page 216

5.17 In terms of comparison to other Policies in the emerging Development Strategy related to sustainable urban extensions, namely North of Luton (Policy 61), East of Leighton Linslade (Policy 62), Wixams Southern Extension (Policy 63) and Chaulington (Policy 63A). Policy 61 received 60 comments of which 28 were objections and 4 in support. Policy 62 received 23 comments; 10 objecting and 3 in support. Policy 63 received 6 comments; 3 objecting and 2 supporting. Policy 63A received 12 comments; 4 objecting and 2 supporting. The objections received to Policy 60 were less than those received for the other Strategic Allocations (SA) policies in percentage terms, with the exception of Policy 63A. The support and objections for and against Houghton Regis North was therefore in line with the support and objections received for the other SA’s.

5.18 The objections lodged in response to consultation on the Development Strategy, the Inspector’s letter and conclusions regarding the Duty to Cooperate, specifically with Luton Borough Council, and the outcome of the Court hearing of 16 June 2015 serve to limit the weight to be applied to the Development Strategy and Policy 60 at this time.

5.19 It is concluded that the weight is to be attached to the policies contained within the emerging Development Strategy at this time is limited. However given the underlying evidence base and consistency with national policy, this remains a material consideration in the determination of the application.

The Houghton Regis North – Site 1 planning permission 5.20 In December 2012 an outline planning application was received for the Houghton Regis North – Site 1 site, located around the northern and western edge of Houghton Regis. This application was granted outline planning permission in June 2014 for up to 5,150 dwellings, employment and retail land and other associated uses. This permission has been upheld in a Court judgement relating to Luton Borough Council’s application for Judicial Review. The subsequent appeal against this judgement was dismissed in a further Court judgement dated 20th May 2015. The HRN1 planning permission establishes that Green Belt land north of Houghton Regis can be developed.

5.21 The applicant notes that, as the site is located in a similar location to this development, the same principles apply. As such, the applicant considers that it is no longer realistic or logical to consider the application site as an edge of settlement Green Belt site and rather it must be reasonably seen as part of the permitted, expanding urban edge.

5.22 Given the context of the site and its relationship to the consented Houghton Regis North – Site 1 development, it is appropriate to consider the application site against the five purposes of including land within Green Belt, within the National Planning Policy Framework. This is detailed in the following section.

Lack of Green Belt impact 5.23 The applicant has argued that, as the Houghton Regis North - Site 1 application has been approved, the value of the application site as Green Belt has diminished. As such it no longer serves the five purposes of land within the Green Belt.

5.24 Paragraph 80 of the National Planning Policy Framework discusses this point Agenda Item 15 Page 217

specifically, stating that:

“Green Belt serves five purposes:  to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;  to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;  to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;  to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and  to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land”

5.25 The following paragraphs provide an assessment of the value of the application site against the five purposes within the National Planning Policy Framework.

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas 5.26 The site adjoins the Houghton Regis North – Site 1 site, which has been granted outline planning permission. The application site is bounded by the approved site on three sides. The other site boundary adjoins Kingsland Campus, an existing education facility. With this in mind, it is not considered that the development of the application site would result in unrestricted sprawl as it would be enclosed on all sides by the existing developed area and the consented urban expansion area.

To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another 5.27 The site is enveloped by the Houghton Regis North – Site 1 site. The site does not serve any Green Belt function in terms of preventing the merging of neighbouring towns.

To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment 5.28 The majority of the site has previously contained various workshops, storage buildings and enclosures, used in connection with a horticultural nursery, landscaping contractors and a car breakers and vehicle storage use. As the land is predominantly previously developed and closely related to the existing developed area of Houghton Regis, the site does not serve any Green Belt function in terms of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns 5.29 The site is not identified as important to the setting or special historic character of Houghton Regis.

To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land 5.30 The proposal would involve the reuse of land which is predominantly previously developed. As the site measures approximately 1.39 ha in area, the development of the site is unlikely to stifle the regeneration of derelict urban land. This must also be viewed in the context of the wider urban expansion of Houghton Regis, which would have a far more significant impact to urban regeneration of the area.

5.31 With these points in mind, it is considered that it would not serve any of the five the purposes of including land within the Green Belt to resist the development on Green Belt grounds. As such, this point is a key consideration in the case for very special circumstances. Agenda Item 15 Page 218

Redevelopment of brownfield site/ enhancement of the environment 5.32 The applicant notes that the existing site is previously development, having been used as a mixed nursery and landscape contractors as well as various storage and car related uses. The applicant has stated that the site, as it currently exists, would detract from the wider Houghton Regis North urban extension. It is also identified that the proposed green space would improve the character of the area.

5.33 The majority of the site is considered to be previously developed, while the remaining land within the site comprises of vacant grassland associated with these uses. The site contains several containers and buildings which are considered to add little to the amenity of the wider area.

5.34 The National Planning Policy Framework identifies in paragraph 89 that the construction of new buildings may be acceptable in exceptional circumstances. This includes:

“limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development.”

5.35 The National Planning Policy Framework provides further support for the redevelopment of previously developed land in Paragraph 111, stating that:

“Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land.”

5.36 The site is not considered to be of high environmental value. The site is not considered to positively contribute to the character of the local area due to the existing uses on site and the site’s design and layout.

5.37 The proposal would contribute towards a larger green infrastructure/open space corridor, which forms part of the consented urban extension. The development would also provide pedestrian and cycle connectivity through the wider Houghton Regis area. As such, it would support the delivery of the urban extension.

5.38 These aspects of the proposal are considered to weigh in favour of the case for very special circumstances.

Conclusions 5.39 The proposed development would be harmful to the Green Belt due to its inappropriateness and its impact on openness. In line with national planning policy, substantial weight is to be attached to any Green Belt harm.

5.40 However, the relationship between the site and the large-scale development now consented for HRN Site 1 to the east and north; the previously developed nature of the site and its history; and the substantial body of evidence from work on planning policy documents to date supporting the adjoining mixed use development allocation site, which would remove the application site from Agenda Item 15 Page 219

the Green Belt have altered the planning context within which the site sits and weigh substantially in favour of the proposal. The proposed redevelopment would provide a complementary use adjacent to the larger urban expansion area. The development is capable of providing footway/cycle links and public open space as part of a larger green corridor. The development would therefore support the delivery of a larger sustainable urban extension.

5.41 Taken together, these factors are considered very special circumstances sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm identified.

6. Relationship to the Houghton Regis (North) Framework Plan

6.1 The Houghton Regis (North) Framework Plan sets out the Council’s general expectations on how the aims of the urban extension may take physical form and defines a vision for the development of the extension to Houghton Regis.

6.2 Whilst the Framework Plan primarily focuses on the area of the Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation, the Framework Plan does consider adjoining land parcels.

6.3 The Houghton Regis Town Council have responded to this application, stating that the proposal fails to adequately respond to the guidance and the provisions within the Framework Plan.

6.4 The Framework Plan Diagram identifies that a pedestrian/cycle route should be provided through the site, in a broadly north/south direction. The Framework Plan Diagram does not identify any specific land uses relating to the application site, simply noting the route of an electricity pylon.

6.5 The Framework Plan identifies the opportunity for a larger green corridor of open space along the route of the electricity pylons, north and south of the site, to be planned as part of the larger development. The proposal would provide for public open space as part of this green corridor. This is reflected in the land use parameter plan for the application and would be a fixed element of any planning permission. The proposal therefore responds positively to the general land use proposals under the Framework Plan.

6.6 The application contains a detailed access plan which identifies the access arrangements, including footways, onto Sundon Road. While the detailed layout is reserved, the indicative site layout plan identifies that access routes can be provided through the site at the south eastern corner and to the north of the site. The applicant does not have ownership of these adjoining parcels of land, however it is considered that the detailed layout can provide opportunities for pedestrian and cycle links.

6.7 With these points in mind, the application is considered to be capable of delivering the pedestrian/cycle links envisioned for the area. The proposal would be consistent with the aims of the Houghton Regis (North) Framework Plan.

7. Transport and Highways

7.1 The site is currently accessed from Sundon Road, providing an access point in a very similar location to the proposed access point. Agenda Item 15 Page 220

7.2 The site is within close proximity to two major road infrastructure schemes; the A5-M1 Link Road and the Woodside Link Road. These schemes will have a significant impact in terms of reducing congestion across the wider Houghton Regis and Dunstable area. It must also be noted that the application site directly adjoins the HRN Site 1 application site to the north and east.

7.3 Whilst the details of the layout are reserved, the applicant has provided an indicative site layout plan which shows that connections are possible between the application site and the HRN Site 1 development.

7.4 Concerns have been raised by Houghton Regis Town Council and an adjoining neighbour regarding the safety of the proposed access and the anticipated increase in traffic. CBC Highways have considered this application and have identified that the access will achieve the required visibility splays to provide for safe access.

7.5 It is noted that the Transport Assessment considered the site earlier when 53 residential units were proposed. CBC Highways have considered the scope of the Transport Assessment and have considered this approach acceptable.

7.6 As part of the detailed access arrangements the applicant has identified that a 1.8 metre wide footway will be provided on both sides of the access road. As part of the application, the 1.8 metre wide footway would be extended along Sundon Road where it will then provide an uncontrolled crossing with dropped kerbs, tactile paving and bollards. The applicant has not specifically identified whether the footway would be extended along the east of Sundon Road.

7.7 CBC Rights of Way have commented on this application, welcoming the provision of a western footway, but requesting that a footway is provided along the east of Sundon Road in order to connect with the Houghton Regis Site 1 development. One must also note that the HRN Site 1 development has yet to produce a site wide masterplan, and so the layout of the HRN Site 1 development is indicative at this moment in time. In order to address this point, a condition has been recommended, if the planning application is approved, to provide details of a scheme of Highways works. If the application site is developed after the HRN Site 1 development has begun construction, then the applicant would be expected to provide an eastern footway link.

7.8 CBC Waste Services have raised questions regarding whether the access will be built to adoptable standards and adopted, and whether a refuse vehicle can enter and exit the site. The details regarding adoption of the road have not been detailed at this moment in time. Detailed tracking plans, to identify that refuse vehicles can enter and exit the site, will be provided when the reserved matters application is submitted for the proposed layout.

8. Landscape, Green Infrastructure, open space and leisure considerations

8.1 As part of this outline application the applicant has provided a Site Parameter Plan, which identifies the extent of land to be used for open space and green infrastructure.

8.2 The Site Parameters Plan identifies that the open space and green infrastructure corridor would be approximately 35.0 metres wide, allowing the Agenda Item 15 Page 221

area identified for access to measure approximately 14.0 metres in width. It must be noted that the applicant has sought to balance the need to provide a footway on both sides of the access road with the need to provide open space and green infrastructure. The applicant has also included a narrow buffer between the access road and the land to the north. Whilst the concerns of CBC Green Infrastructure regarding the scale of proposed open space are noted, there are no specific requirements for strategic green infrastructure on this site under the Houghton Regis (North) Framework Plan. Given the number of dwellings proposed, it is considered that the proposed Parameters Plan establishes an appropriate balance between open space, housing development and its access arrangements.

8.3 CBC Landscape and CBC Trees have also responded to this application. Although no objections have been raised, clarification has been sought regarding the impact to the northern and southern hedgerow/tree boundaries. Details regarding the landscaping and layout of the proposed development have yet to be provided. These details will be sought at reserved matters stage, if the application is approved. Any such reserved matters submission would need to satisfy suitable relationships between new and retained trees and hedging and built development.

8.4 CBC Leisure have considered this application and have identified that a play area of 540 square metres and contributions for local leisure facilities should be provided. Whilst details of landscaping and layout are reserved at this moment in time, the site has sufficient land to accommodate such a play area. Should planning permission be granted, future maintenance arrangements for the proposed open space and play area would need to be secured as a planning obligation.

8.5 With these points in mind, the application is considered to be acceptable in terms of landscape, green infrastructure, open space and leisure.

9. Housing mix and design considerations

9.1 The detailed design, scale and layout does not form part of the outline application and would be subject to later reserved matters applications in the event that planning permission is granted. The submitted layout plan is indicative and would not form part of the planning permission. Subsequent detailed proposals would need to address the detail within the scheme, and ensure that solutions and measures would be adopted to ensure the consideration of privacy, relationships between dwellings, garden spaces and relationships with access roads, footpaths and public spaces.

9.2 However the indicative layout has been considered in relation to the Council’s Design Guide in order to satisfy whether the developable area proposed is capable of accommodating up to 30 units within the constrained nature of the site. The proposal has also been considered regarding whether it is capable of achieving a well designed layout having regard to positive placemaking and urban design principles.

9.3 An objection has been received from National Grid, identifying concerns regarding the design of the scheme, its relationship to the lattice tower electricity pylon and the lack of reference to the industry standard guidance on development in proximity to power lines, known as “A Sense of Place”. As Agenda Item 15 Page 222

previously stated, the detailed layout and landscaping of the proposed development do not form part of this outline application. While no specific reference is made to the A Sense of Place guidance within this application, the proposal does address some of the principles within this guidance, such as utilising land beneath power lines. Having considered the Council’s Design Guide alongside the A Sense of Place guidance the proposed development is considered acceptable in design terms.

9.4 The development would provide on-site affordable housing at 30% of the total residential provision. The provision of affordable housing, including the tenure mix can be secured through Legal Agreement. There are no development viability constraints which would prevent full affordable housing provision in this case.

10. Other considerations

Human Rights 10.1 In assessing and determining this planning application, the Council must consider the issue of Human Rights. Article 8, right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of Protocol 1, right to property, are engaged. However, in balancing human rights issues against residential amenity impacts, further action is not required. This planning application is not considered to present any human rights issues.

Equality Act 2010 10.2 In assessing and determining this planning application, the Council should have regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination. This application does not present any issues of inequality or discrimination.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 10.3 Section 17 of this Act places a duty on local authorities and the police to cooperate in the development and implementation of a strategy for tackling crime and disorder. Officers are satisfied that the development is capable of achieving a design that can assist in preventing crime and disorder in the area.

11. Planning obligations

11.1 Having regard to the above, various planning obligations would need to be secured by Legal Agreement. Principally, the Legal Agreement would need to achieve the following:  Provision of affordable housing at 30% of the overall residential development and the tenure mix.  Establish obligations in respect of site management (e.g. by Management Company) including long term management and maintenance arrangements in relation to the proposed play area and areas of open green space, planting and drainage features.  Various financial contributions in order to offset the impact of the development on various local facilities and services.

11.2 The costs of mitigating the impacts associated with the proposed development have been calculated in consultation with relevant spending officers. A full list of financial contributions is set out below: Agenda Item 15 Page 223

Service area Financial contribution Education – Early Years £36,639.96 Education – Secondary £224,744.08 Leisure – Leisure Facility Provision £24,450

11.3 The planning obligations set out above are considered to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and therefore meet the test for planning obligations as under paragraph 204 of the NPPF and Part 11 of the 2010 CIL Regulations.

11.4 The applicant has agreed to meet these costs in full in order to offset the impact of the development on local infrastructure and services in line with DSCB Policy 19 and the Council’s Planning Obligations SPD. There are no development viability constraints which would prevent the necessary planning obligations, including full affordable housing provision, being secured in this case.

12. Conclusions

12.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt and would be harmful to the Green Belt due to its inappropriateness and its impact on openness. In line with national planning policy, substantial weight is to be attached to Green Belt harm.

12.2 However, the relationship between the site and the large-scale development now consented for HRN Site 1 to the east and north; the previously developed nature of the site and its history; and the substantial body of evidence from work on planning policy documents to date supporting the adjoining mixed use development allocation site, which would remove the application site from the Green Belt have altered the planning context within which the site sits and weigh substantially in favour of the proposal. The proposed redevelopment would provide a complementary use adjacent to the larger urban expansion area. The development is capable of providing footway/cycle links, consistent with the aims of the Houghton Regis (North) Framework Plan and public open space as part of a larger green corridor. The development would therefore support the delivery of a larger sustainable urban extension. These factors, taken together, represent very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm.

12.3 Subject to suitable mitigation, no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed development or due to the impact on local services and facilities. In all other respects the proposal is considered to be in conformity with the adopted Development Plan policies, the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, and national policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Recommendation

That, the Development Infrastructure Group Manager be authorised to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the prior consultation of the Secretary of State, in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, the completion of a prior Section 106 Agreement to secure planning Agenda Item 15 Page 224 obligations as summarised in this report and subject to conditions:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

1 Approval of the details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (herein called ‘the reserved matters’) of the development shall be obtained in writing from the local planning authority before development is commenced in that area. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To comply with Article 4 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015. This information is required prior to commencement of the development as it will provide the detail necessary for this development to be delivered.

2 Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. The development shall begin no later than two years from the approval of the final reserved matters.

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

3 No development shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, with detailed design, management and maintenance plans, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The detailed design must be based on sustainable principles, the national Non-statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems and a detailed site- specific assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented prior to first occupation of the development in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, and improve habitat and amenity in accordance with Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policy 49 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire Revised Pre-Submission Version June 2014. This condition must be approved prior to construction as the construction of the development prior to the implementation of the surface water drainage scheme may have a detrimental impact upon the surface water drainage of the site and the surrounding area.

4 Prior to the first occupation of the development a scheme of highways improvement works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which includes details regarding improvements to footways/cycleways , including connectivity to establish shared footways/cycleways including to the existing urban area of Houghton Regis to the west. The approved scheme shall then be implemented in full prior to the first occupation Agenda Item 15 Page 225

of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed highways improvement works are appropriate and proportional to the mitigation required and are constructed to adequate standard and that public rights of way are protected, enhanced and promoted as part of the development in accordance with Policy R14 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policies 23 and 43 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire Revised Pre-Submission Version June 2014. These details are required prior to occupation of the development in order to establish sustainable transport routes to the existing settlement.

5 No development shall commence until the following documents have been submitted to and approved in writing: (a) A Phase 2 investigation report as recommended by the previously submitted February 2015 Nott Group Desk Study Report. (b) Remediation Method Statement if the Phase 2 investigation report discovers the need for remediation. Reason: To protect and prevent risks to human health, groundwater and the wider environment in accordance with Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policy 49 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire Revised Pre-Submission Version June 2014. Details are required prior to commencement of development in order to identify any issues and appropriate mitigation which may impact the construction of the development.

6 Prior to the first occupation of the development a Validation Report (including photographs and depth measurements) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any unexpected contamination discovered during works should be brought to the Attention of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To protect and prevent risks to human health, groundwater and the wider environment in accordance with Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policy 49 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire Revised Pre-Submission Version June 2014. Details are required prior to occupation of the development in order to confirm that any contamination has been appropriately managed and to ensure that further mitigation is not required while residents are present.

7 No development shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include details of:

a) Construction Activities and Timing; b) Plant and Equipment, including loading and unloading; c) Construction traffic routes and points of access/egress to be used by construction vehicles; Agenda Item 15 Page 226

d) Details of site compounds, offices and areas to be used for the storage of materials; e) Contact details for site managers and details of management lines of reporting to be updated as different phases come forward; f) Details for the monitoring and review of the construction process including traffic management (to include a review process of the CEMP during development).

Construction working hours shall be 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays, with no working on Sundays or Bank Holidays. There shall be no burning on site.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved CEMP.

Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed using methods to mitigate nuisance or potential damage associated with the construction period and in accordance with Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policy 44 of Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire. These details are required prior to construction of the development as the details will directly influence how the construction is managed.

8 The development shall source 10% of the energy demand from renewable or low carbon sources as a minimum.

Reason: To ensure that the development achieves high energy standards, to mitigate the impacts of climate change and to deliver sustainable and resource efficient development in accordance with Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policy 47 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and in accordance with Section 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

9 No development shall commence until a scheme of habitat mitigation, enhancement and conservation measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schemes of habitat mitigation shall be informed by the Ecological Appraisal (June 2015) and shall include: (a) General construction safeguards and measures (b) Safeguards in respect of roosting bats, hedgehogs and nesting birds (c) Details of a sensitive lighting scheme (d) Provision of invertebrate dead wood piles (e) Provision of bat boxes (f) Provision of bird boxes

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

Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed using methods to mitigate nuisance or potential damage associated with the construction period and in accordance with Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policies 43 and 44 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire Revised Agenda Item 15 Page 227

Pre-Submission Version June 2014. These details are required prior to construction of the development as the details will directly influence how the construction is managed.

10 No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological resource management; that includes post excavation analysis and publication has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be implemented in full accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To record and advance understanding of the heritage assets with archaeological interest which will be unavoidably affected as a consequence of the development and to secure the protection and management of archaeological remains in accordance with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Details are required prior to commencement of development so that the development does not unavoidably affect the heritage assets with archaeological interest before they can be protected and managed.

11 No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a scheme for the provision of waste receptacles has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The receptacles shall be provided before occupation takes place.

Reason: To provide sufficient provision for secure and appropriate storage and removal of waste in accordance with Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policies 43 and 44 of the Development Strategy for the emerging Central Bedfordshire Revised Pre-Submission Version June 2014. These details are required prior to occupation of the development in order to guarantee that waste storage and removal can take place when the development is occupied.

12 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, Project Number: 093992, Drawing No. 15-01 and 15-05 and Drawing No. 1321-01.

Reason: To identify the approved plans and to avoid doubt.

Notes to Applicant

1 The applicant must note that the application site has several significant constraints which have an impact upon the future design of the layout and the wider development. The applicant must note that indicative layout’s proposed connections through to neighbouring sites to provide sustainable access to the Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation. Any detailed layout should incorporate this element.

2 The water environment is potentially vulnerable and there is an increased potential for pollution from inappropriately located and/or designed infiltration Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). Agenda Item 15 Page 228

3 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.

4 In accordance with Article 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, 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).

5 Any conditions in bold must be discharged before the development commences. Failure to comply with this requirement could invalidate this permission and/or result in enforcement action.

6 The applicant is advised that as a result of the development, new highway street lighting will be required and the applicant must contact the Development Management Group, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ for details of the works involved, the cost of which shall be borne by the developer. No development shall commence until the works have been approved in writing and the applicant has entered into a separate legal agreement covering this point with the Highway Authority.

7 The applicant is advised that in order to comply with the conditions of this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Central Bedfordshire Council as Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. Further details can be obtained from the Development Management Group, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ.

8 The applicant is advised that if it is the intention to request Central Bedfordshire Council as Local Highway Authority, to adopt the proposed highways as maintainable at the public expense then details of the specification, layout and alignment, width and levels of the said highways together with all the necessary highway and drainage arrangements, including run off calculations shall be submitted to the Development Management Group, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ . No development shall commence until the details have been approved in writing and an Agreement made under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 is in place.

9 The development of the site is subject to a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

10 There is a duty on the applicant to assess for Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) during development and measures undertaken during removal and disposal should protect site workers and future users, while meeting the requirements of the HSE. Agenda Item 15 Page 229

DECISION

......

......

This page is intentionally left blank 1

22 Agenda Item 16 Page 231

24

13

32 27

43

Path (um)

21a

21

33

37

53

38 28

55

MEADOW WALK

57

48

30

36 N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. 68

6 Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. 8 Licence No. 100049029 (2009)

3 E

W5 Date: 28:August:2015 60

2 Map Sheet No 4

17

S 62

1 14

18

Path 19

Scale: 1:1000 12 20

9 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 16 Page 233

Item No. 16

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/15/02818/FULL LOCATION 45 Meadow Walk, Henlow, SG16 6HJ PROPOSAL Front and rear dormers. PARISH Henlow WARD Arlesey WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Dalgarno, Shelvey & Wenham CASE OFFICER Stuart Robinson DATE REGISTERED 29 July 2015 EXPIRY DATE 23 September 2015 APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Eary AGENT Alun Design Consultancy REASON FOR Called in by Cllr Wenham over concerns relating to COMMITTEE TO the impact to the street scene, the impact to the DETERMINE rural setting and parking.

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Granted

Summary of Recommendation:

The application is recommended for approval as it is considered acceptable in terms of its siting and design, the impact on the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings. There would be no unacceptable adverse impact to the amenity of neighbouring residents or in terms of highways safety. As such the proposal would be in accordance with Policies CS14 and DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (North) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2009), Policy 43 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire (2014), the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (2014) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Site Location:

The application comprises of a two storey detached property, located to the east of Henlow. The site is located at the end of a residential cul-de-sac. The site is part of a wider recent development, known as Land East of the Former Dairy.

The property is constructed with cream render external walls and grey roof tiles.

The site is located within the Settlement Envelope of Henlow, outside of the Henlow Conservation Area. The site is washed over by the Henlow Grange TPO.

The Application:

The application seeks planning permission for two front and a rear dormer windows. The two front dormer windows would each measure 1.8 metres in width, 2.5 metres in depth and 1.9 metres in height. The rear dormer window would measure 8.0 metres in width, 2.5 metres in depth and 2.2 metres in height. Agenda Item 16 Page 234

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Central Bedfordshire (North) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) Policy CS14: High Quality Development Policy DM3: High Quality Development Policy DM4: Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes

(Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, the age of the plan and the general consistency with the NPPF, policies CS14, DM3 and DM4 are still given significant weight.).

Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire (2014)

Policy 1 Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 38 Within and Beyond Settlement Boundaries Policy 43 High Quality Development

The draft Development Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 24th October 2014. After initial hearing sessions in 2015 the Inspector concluded that the Council had not complied with the Duty to Cooperate. The Council has launched a judicial review against the Inspectors findings and has not withdrawn the Development Strategy. The first phase of the legal challenge took place at a hearing on 16th June 2015. This was to consider whether the court would grant the Council leave to have a Judicial Review application heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council's case. On the 22nd June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against his judgement. The status of the Development Strategy currently remains as a submitted plan that has not been withdrawn. Its policies are consistent with the NPPF. Its preparation is based on substantial evidence gathered over a number of years. It is therefore regarded by the Council as a sustainable strategy which was fit for submission to the Secretary of State. Accordingly it is considered that the emerging policies carry weight in this assessment.

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014)

Relevant Planning History:

Application Number CB/13/03418/FULL Description Erection of a front porch Decision Granted Decision Date 20/11/2013

Application Number CB/10/01647/NMA Description Amendments to front elevation ground floor window, change to position of chimneys and change to the size and position of roof lights. Amendments related to house type H5 Plots 3,4,5,31,32 and 33 (following outline approval MB/05/00535/OUT dated 22/09/06 and Reserved Matters approval MB/07/02148/RM dated 13/3/08). Agenda Item 16 Page 235

Decision Granted Decision Date 27/05/2010

Application Number CB/07/02148/ARM Description Erection of 38 dwellings with associated car parking and open space. Decision Granted Decision Date 13/03/2008

Application Number CB/05/00535/OUT Description Erection of 38 dwellings (all matters reserved except means of access). Decision Granted Decision Date 22/09/2006

Consultees:

Henlow Parish Council Object for the following reasons: a) Adverse impact on the street scene of the front dormers b) Rear dormer excessive in size, overbearing and out of character with the property c) Parking concerns - unclear if sufficient private parking exists with fifth bedroom being created. There are already serious parking issues in Meadow Walk.

Highways  The parking provision remains unaltered and is acceptable under current guidance.  Concerned that the removal of the roof storage area will lead to the double garage being lost as vehicle parking provision, and used for replacement storage area. A condition has been suggested to retain the garage for car parking provision, if approved.

Other Representations:

Neighbours No comments received.

Determining Issues:

1. Impact on the character and appearance of the area 2. Neighbouring amenity 3. Car parking 4. Other considerations

Considerations Agenda Item 16 Page 236

1. Impact on the character and appearance of the area 1.1 The proposed front dormer windows would be located in a position where they would be clearly visible in the private turning area of Nos.41, 43 and 45 Meadow Walk. Views from the south of this turning area are partially screened by No.47 Meadow Walk. The proposed rear dormer window would not be visible within the street scene as it would be screened by the existing dwelling.

1.2 The Parish Council have raised concerns regarding the impact of the front dormer windows on the design of the local area. Whilst these comments are noted, there are several pitched roof front dormer windows in close proximity to the site. Examples of this include a group of terraced properties opposite the private turning area, known as Nos. 42, 44 and 46 Meadow Walk and a group of three properties, known as Nos.27, 29 and 31 Meadow Walk, adjacent to an amenity area to the west.

1.3 The pitched design of the proposed front dormer windows would be similar in nature to these examples. Given their scale and design, the proposed front dormer windows would be in keeping with the existing dwelling.

1.4 The proposed rear dormer window would be constructed with a shallow pitched roof and cream render walls and grey roof tiles to match the construction materials of the existing dwelling. The roof design is not common within the surrounding area and would be considered relatively large due to its width. However, given its location at the rear of the dwelling, the design is not considered to be unduly dominant or obstructive. As such it would not result in unacceptable harm to the character of the property or locality.

1.5 In summary the proposal would be in accordance with Policies CS14, DM3 and DM4 the Central Bedfordshire (North) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and Policies 1, 38 and 43 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire. The design would accord with the Central Bedfordshire Council Design Guide and would not result in a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area or the street scene. As such the development is considered to be acceptable.

2. Neighbouring amenity 2.1 The Parish Council have raised an objection regarding the size of the proposed rear dormer window, stating that the dormer would have an overbearing impact to neighbouring residents. The proposed dormer windows would be located at least 2.5 metres away from the boundary of No.43 Meadow Walk and approximately 8.5 metres away from the boundary of No.47 Meadow Walk. Given the size, location and nature of the proposed development, the dormer windows are not considered to present an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of being unduly overbearing or through loss of light.

2.2 The proposed front dormer windows would directly face No.41 Meadow Walk which is located approximately 18.0 metres away. It must be noted that the existing property already has first floor windows which face this property and, as such, the proposed front dormer windows would have a similar field of view to the existing windows. The proposed rear dormer window would face a field. With these points in mind, the development is not considered to present an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of loss of privacy. Agenda Item 16 Page 237

2.3 Therefore it is considered that the proposal would meet the requirements of Policies CS14 and DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (North) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and Policy 43 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire. It would also comply with the objectives of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide. As such the proposal would not be considered to cause a detrimental impact in terms of loss of privacy, loss of light or result in noise or light pollution and is considered acceptable.

3. Car parking 3.1 The Parish Council have raised concerns regarding whether there is sufficient car parking space for the property. The existing dwelling contains two car parking spaces and a detached double garage, measuring approximately 6.0 metres in depth and 7.0 metres in width. The proposed development would increase the number of bedrooms within the property from four to five.

3.2 The Central Bedfordshire Design Guide identifies that a property with four or more bedrooms should provide at least 3 car parking spaces, with one potentially provided on-street. The property is currently considered to provide three parking spaces on site, as the detached double garage would be of a sufficient size to qualify as a single parking space, in accordance with the Design Guide. Aside from this, it must also be noted that Design Guide does not differentiate between four and five bedroom properties within its parking standards. As such the increase from four to five bedrooms would not require the provision of additional car parking space.

3.3 A Highways Officer has considered the parking provision and has recommended that, if the application is approved, then the garage should be conditioned so it is only used for the purposes of car parking. Whilst these comments are noted, such a condition is not considered reasonable or necessary, given the nature of the application and the context of the site.

3.4 With these points in mind, the parking provision would meet the requirements of Policies CS14 and DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (North) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and Policy 43 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire. It also complies with the objectives of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide. As such the parking provision is considered acceptable.

4. Other Considerations

4.1 Human Rights issues: The proposal would not raise any Human Rights issues.

4.2 Equality Act 2010: The proposal would not raise any issues under the Equality Act.

Recommendation:

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the following: Agenda Item 16 Page 238

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

1 The development hereby permitted 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 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.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development by ensuring that the development hereby permitted is finished externally with materials to match the existing building in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality in accordance with Policies CS14 and DM3 of Central Bedfordshire Council's Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document and Policies 43 of the emerging Central Bedfordshire Council Development Strategy.

3 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers E/3337/15/EX-01, E/3337/15/PL-01 and E/3337/15/PL-02 Revision A.

Reason: To identify the approved plans and to avoid 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.

2. The rate of Council Tax you pay depends on which valuation band your home is placed in. This is determined by the market value of your home as at 1 April 1991. Your property's Council Tax band may change if the property is extended. The Council Tax band will only change when a relevant transaction takes place. For example, if you sell your property after extending it, the new owner may have to pay a higher band of Council Tax.

If however you add an annexe to your property, the Valuation Office Agency may decide that the annexe should be banded separately for Council Tax. If this happens, you will have to start paying Council Tax for the annexe as soon as it is completed. If the annexe is occupied by a relative of the residents of the main dwelling, it may qualify for a Council Tax discount or exemption. Contact the Council for advice on 0300 300 8306. Agenda Item 16 Page 239

3. 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.

4. The applicant is advised that the storage of materials associated with this development should take place within the site and not extend into within the public highway without authorisation from the highway authority. If necessary further details can be obtained from Bedfordshire Highways (Amey), District Manager (for the relevant area) via the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Customer Contact Centre on 0300 300 8049.

5. The contractor and / or client are to ensure that any building material debris such as sand, cement or concrete that is left on the public highway, or any mud arising from construction vehicular movement, shall be removed immediately and in the case of concrete, cement, mud or mortar not allowed to dry on the highway

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 5, Article 35

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 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) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

......

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 17 Page 241

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) W E Date: 28:August:2015

Map Sheet No S

Scale: 1:5000 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 17 Page 243 Item No. 17

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/15/00979/FULL LOCATION Land adjacent to and to the north west of Vauxhall Motors, Luton Road, Chalton PROPOSAL Erection of Distribution Centre with associated office accommodation, access, earthworks, landscaping, parking and ancillary works. PARISH Chalton WARD Toddington WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Costin & Nicols CASE OFFICER Adam Davies DATE REGISTERED 31 March 2015 EXPIRY DATE 30 June 2015 APPLICANT AXA Real Estate Ltd & General Motors Ltd AGENT David Lock Associates REASON FOR Departure from Development Plan COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED That, the Development Infrastructure Group DECISION Manager be authorised to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the prior consultation of the Secretary of State, in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, the completion of a prior Section 106 Agreement and subject to conditions.

Summary of Recommendation

The application site is located within the Green Belt and would be harmful to the Green Belt due to its inappropriateness and its impact on openness. There would be a degree of related harm due to the loss of agricultural land. In line with national planning policy, substantial weight is to be attached to any Green Belt harm and the other harm identified.

Market indicators demonstrate a need for identified specific commercial development within the area. Having regard to the scale and location of the application site and its relationship to the existing conurbation, strategic road network and the planned growth area, the site is well suited to provide employment stock of which there is current shortage of quality supply in the area. The development would contribute towards the delivery of local transport infrastructure and services for the area, including the Woodside link road scheme. The site is partly allocated for employment development under the adopted South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004 and includes the route of the realigned B579 Luton Road, which is already separately consented. The development would be closely related to existing and consented development on all sides in the form of employment areas, and transport infrastructure. The proposal is consistent with the emerging policy allocation under the Development Strategy and the Council’s adopted North of Luton and Sundon RFI Framework Plan which are supported by historic policy Agenda Item 17 documents, identifying the need for land in this area to be released from the GreenPage 244 Belt for mixed use development. If the Development Strategy is not progressed to adoption, there would be no allocated supply of employment land to meet local employment needs. In this context, delaying a decision or refusing the planning application in the absence of an adopted planning allocation for the entire site would serve no good planning purpose, other than to delay or prevent much needed employment and economic growth for the area. Taken together, these represent very special circumstances sufficient to clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm and other harm identified.

Subject to suitable mitigation, no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed development or due to the impact on local services and facilities. In all other respects the proposal is considered to be in conformity with the adopted Development Plan policies, the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, and national policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Site Location:

The site comprises a 14.4ha area of arable farmland and scrub land to the north west of Luton. The land lies immediately to the north of the existing General Motors warehouse facility at Luton Road, east of the .

The site is bordered by the existing B579 Luton Road to the west, the Midland Mainline railway line to the east and the existing General Motors (Vauxhall) facility to the south. Immediately to the north is the site of the new Junction 11a of the M1 (J11a) which has been approved by Development Consent Order. The creation of the new motorway junction would necessitate the partial realignment of the existing Luton Road, within the application site. These realignment works have also been consented. To the west of the motorway the Woodside link road is planned to provide a direct connection between the new J11a and the centre of Dunstable. Works in connection with these committed highway development are underway and all of the new road projects are due to open to the public in Spring 2017. Should this be progressed and delivered in future, the route of the proposed A6-M1 link road would lie to the north.

The land is immediately adjacent to the administrative boundary with Luton Borough. The site is within the Parish of Chalton. Chalton village lies to the north, both to west of the motorway and to the east of the motorway at Sundon Road. The villages of , Sundon and are located to the north east.

The southern part of the site is designated as a Main Employment Area as defined on the proposals map for the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004. The remainder of the land is within the designated Green Belt but the site forms part of the proposed North of Luton Strategic Allocation, as set out within the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, which proposes that this land be excluded from the Green Belt. The Land North of Luton and Sundon RFI Framework Plan, which has been adopted by the Council for Development Management purposes envisions the development of this area to provide mixed use employment.

The Application: Agenda Item 17 Page 245 Full planning permission is sought for the development of a new distribution centre (Use Class B8).

The proposal comprises two development plots. The larger plot (Plot 1), east of the realigned Luton Road would comprise a new 31,118 sqm B8 warehouse with associated office accommodation and a gatehouse. The proposed B8 unit would measure a maximum of 24 metres in height in order to provide an internal clearance of 20 metres. The external elevations would be finished with profiled cladding and elements of glazing. The site frontage onto Luton Road would be laid out to provide staff and visitor parking areas including disabled and cycle parking and soft landscaping including new tree planting along the road frontage. HGV parking, servicing and loading areas would be provided to the north and rear of the main building, adjacent to the trainline. Additional landscape planting is proposed to the south, east and north boundaries.

The smaller development plot (Plot 2) would be to the west of Luton Road. It would comprise a new 4,785 sqm B8 warehouse unit with associated office accommodation. The building would measure a maximum of 14 metres in height to provide an internal clearance of 10 metres. The elevations would be finished with the same profiled cladding and similar glazed elements as Plot 1. The staff and visitor parking areas, including disabled and cycle parking provision would be located at the northern end of the plot where the development would front onto Luton Road. The HGV turning, parking and loading areas would be located to the south (rear of the building). New soft landscaping is proposed on all boundaries of the plot, including onto Luton Road.

The proposed development plots would be served by a new roundabout onto the realigned Luton Road. Access to the strategic network using J11a of the M1 would be via a new road bridge forming part of the B579 and the new Woodside link road. In order to facilitate construction of Plot 1, a new temporary site access is proposed from the existing Luton Road, at the southern end of the site. Following the construction phase, the temporary access is to be stopped up and the land reinstated with structural landscaping.

Surface water is to be conveyed by piped drainage to four new surface water attenuation areas within the application site. The attenuation areas are to discharge to the surface water drain within the adjoining General Motors site.

The following has been submitted in support of the application:  Plot location and site plans (August 2015)  Proposed building plans, sections and elevations (February 2015)  Gatehouse, fencing and external finishes details (August 2015)  Landscape concept sections (July 2015) and plan (August 2015)  Indicative Construction Phasing Plan (July 2015)  Planning Design and Access Statement (February 2015)  Landscape and Visual Assessment (February 2015)  Draft Heads of Terms for S106 (February 2015)  Acoustic Survey (February 2015)  Agricultural Land Quality Assessment (February 2015)  Air Quality Assessment (February 2015)  Protected Species Survey (February 2015) Agenda Item 17  Employment Statement (February 2015) Page 246  Flood Risk Assessment (July 2015)  Heritage Statement (February 2015) and Archaeological Evaluation (March 2015)  Land Contamination Assessment (February 2015)  Landscape Maintenance and Management Proposals (February 2015)  Phase 1 Ecology Statement (February 2015)  Transport Assessment (February 2015)  Arboricultural Survey (February 2015)  Utilities Report (February 2015)  Waste Audit (May 2015)  Letter from General Motors (applicant)  Letter from Wincanton (prospective occupier)  Letter from HTC DAF (prospective occupier)  Letter from Agility Logistics (prospective occupier)  Letter from DS Schenker (prospective occupier)

In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 the applicant obtained a formal screening opinion from the Council dated 10 December 2014 prior to the submission of the planning application. The Local Planning Authority has adopted the opinion that an EIA is not required.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Section 1: Building a strong, competitive economy Section 4: Promoting sustainable transport Section 7: Requiring good design Section 9: Protecting Green Belt land Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review Policies (SBLPR) Policy SD1: Sustainability Keynote Policy Policy NE10: Diversifying the Use of Agricultural Land Policy BE8: Design Considerations Policy T10: Controlling Parking in New Developments Policy E1: Providing for B1-B8 Development within Main Employment Areas

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 Policies SD1, NE10 and BE8 are consistent with the Framework and carry significant weight. Other South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review Polices set out above carry less weight where aspects of these policies are out of date or not consistent with the NPPF.

Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2005) Agenda Item 17 Policy W4: Waste minimisation and management of waste at source Page 247

Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire and Luton Borough Council’s Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Strategic Sites and Policies (2014) Policy WSP5: Including waste management in new built development

Emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire (DSCB) Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Growth Strategy Policy 3: Green Belt Policy 6: Employment Land Policy 7: Employment Sites and Uses Policy 24: Accessibility and Connectivity Policy 25: Functioning of the Network Policy 26: Travel Plans Policy 27: Parking Policy 28: Transport Assessments Policy 36: Development in the Green Belt Policy 43: High Quality Development Policy 44: Protection from Environmental Pollution Policy 45: The Historic Environment Policy 46: Renewable and low carbon energy development Policy 47: Resource Efficiency Policy 48: Adaptation Policy 49: Mitigating Flood Risk Policy 50: Development in the Countryside Policy 57: Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy 58: Landscape Policy 59: Woodlands, Trees and Hedgerows Policy 61: North of Luton Strategic Allocation

The draft Development Strategy was submitted to the Secretary of State on the 24th October 2014. After initial hearing sessions in 2015 the Inspector concluded that the Council had not complied with the Duty to Cooperate. The Council has launched a Judicial Review against the Inspectors findings and has not withdrawn the Development Strategy. The first phase of the legal challenge took place at a hearing on 16th June 2015. This was to consider whether the court would grant the Council leave to have a Judicial Review application heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council’s case. On the 22nd June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against this Judgement. The status of the Development Strategy currently remains as a submitted plan that has not been withdrawn. Its policies are consistent with the NPPF. Its preparation is based on substantial evidence gathered over a number of years. It is therefore regarded by the Council as a sustainable strategy which was fit for submission to the Secretary of State. Accordingly it is considered that the emerging policies carry weight in this assessment.

Luton and Southern Central Bedfordshire Joint Core Strategy - adopted by CBC Executive for Development Management purposes on 23 September 2011.

Supplementary Planning Guidance Land North of Luton and Sundon RFI Framework Plan - adopted by CBC Executive for Development Management purposes on 31 March 2015. Agenda Item 17 Page 248 Central Bedfordshire Design Guide - adopted by CBC Executive as technical guidance for Development Management purposes on 18 March 2014.

Central Bedfordshire Sustainable Drainage Guidance - adopted by CBC Executive as technical guidance for Development Management purposes on 22 April 2014.

Managing Waste in New Developments SPD (2005)

South Bedfordshire District Landscape Character Assessment (2009)

Central Bedfordshire and Luton Local Transport Plan 2011-2026 (LTP3)

Central Bedfordshire Council Employment & Economic Study (2012)

Planning History

None relevant.

Consultation Responses

Chalton Parish 14/05/2015: Council  The extent of consultation on the proposals is queried. It is noted that public consultations and exhibitions were undertaken in relation to the overall strategy for Land North of Luton but not specifically about the detail of this application.  It is questioned who the end users of the site will be as this will dictate the nature and level of vehicle movements associated with the site affecting local roads.  Concern is raised that the development would add to the projected increase in traffic movements, including goods vehicles, on minor, local roads, such as the B579 through Chalton village which is narrow and constrained.  The application acknowledges existing pollution levels in the area which the development would add to. Concern is raised regarding the cumulative pollution impacts, including due to J11a.  Appropriate environmental protection measures would be necessary.  The Parish Council objects strongly to the uncosted draft S106 Legal Agreement which presents the proposed planning obligations as a fait accompli without consultation with the Parish.  Employees will require the use of infrastructure which is defined as transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, health and social care facilities, play areas, parks and green spaces. It is not unreasonable for the Agenda Item 17 development to contribute to these. Page 249  Any public transport contribution must benefit the surrounding community.  As the realignment of the B579 is necessary in connection with the construction of J11a, pedestrian and cycle ways should not be part of any S106 contribution.  The use of solar panels on the roofs of the proposed warehouse units is recommended.  Concerns are raised that jobs created by the development would be taken by incomers rather than local people. It is recommended that these jobs be set aside for local people if possible.

Toddington Parish 23/04/2015: Council  Would not wish to see development allowed to be implemented until all new road networks are in place.

Luton Borough 05/05/2015: Council  Object on grounds of prematurity, cumulative negative impacts and the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which cannot be adequately justified.  As per directions under the NPPF, the application should be refused on grounds of prematurity as :- a) The proposal is substantial and has significant, cumulative impacts alongside excessive employment provision proposed by the Development Strategy. Permission would undermine the plan-making process by pre- determining decisions about the scale, location and phasing of new development. b) The Development Strategy is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area. c) Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity is justified where a draft Local Plan has been submitted for examination.  CBC is urged to carefully consider the cumulative impacts of the development, particularly transport impacts, together with other developments in an around the North of Luton allocation area.  The proposal is appropriate development in the Green Belt as it does not meet the exception tests under paragraphs 89 and 90 NPPF. The need for economic development does not represent very special circumstances.  The application does not show the Woodside link road. If CBC is minded to approve the application, a condition should be imposed to ensure operations do not commence until the A5-M1 Link Road, J11a and Woodside Link are open to the public. Agenda Item 17  Positive road signage is recommended to direct goodsPage 250 vehicles to the new road infrastructure.

CBC Local Planning 18/08/2015: and Housing  The majority of the site is within the Green Belt. The southern part of the site is allocated for employment in the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004 (Policy E1).  The withdrawn Luton and Southern Central Bedfordshire Joint Core Strategy identified land north of Luton as a strategic allocation for a residential led, mixed use development. The principle of the north of Luton allocation was supported by both Luton Borough Council and Central Bedfordshire Council and the withdrawal of this plan was not due to disagreement between the authorities regarding this allocation.  The emerging Development Strategy reaffirmed the Land North of Luton Strategic Allocation which would contribute to meeting local housing and employment needs.  The land between the M1 and Midland Mainline, where the application site sits, was not included in the wider allocation under the withdrawn Joint Core Strategy. It is now proposed to be removed from the Green Belt as part of the emerging North of Luton Strategic Allocation under the Development Strategy in the interests of ensuring the best and most suitable site layout and as the land would be surrounded by development.  The Development Strategy policy requirements include approximately 3,200 homes and up to 13ha of employment land to be provided within the plan period (2031), with additional development equating to around 800 homes and 7ha of employment land beyond the plan period. The allocation is predicated upon a requirement to provide a strategic link road from the new M1 junction 11A to the A6. The emerging policies carry some weight as part of a submitted plan.  Under current policy, the application needs to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  A Framework Plan for Land North of Luton and Sundon RFI has been adopted by the Council as technical guidance for Development Management. The Plan was produced in partnership with the North of Luton Consortium including one of the applicants, AXA Real Estate Ltd. The Framework Plan was informed by engagement with technical specialists, stakeholder and officers. The Council engaged proactively with Luton Borough Council in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, particularly in relation to transport, the distribution of land uses and infrastructure, and the approach to public consultation. A period of extensive Agenda Item 17 public consultation took place in November 2014. Page 251  Within this area, the land is identified for employment uses within the Framework Plan. Employment uses in this location have the opportunity to maximise access to the M1 and create a strategic employment hub centred on Junction 11A and the Woodside link road, alongside the employment uses permitted at North Houghton Regis. This area is well located for the proposed logistics use with very close access to the new Junction 11A of the M1. It is also adjacent to an existing employment site occupied by General Motors. The proposed application does not rely on the delivery of the M1 to A6 strategic Link Road, with access to the M1 facilitated by Luton Road and committed Highways England Junction 11A scheme. The proposal accords with the Framework Plan but is part of a larger vision for the wider urban extension.  The NPPF places significant weight on the need to support economic growth through the planning system and that local planning authorities should plan proactively to meet the needs of businesses. This is reflected within the emerging Development Strategy.  In terms of scale, quality and location the existing supply of employment land are unlikely to meet the needs of the warehousing logistics sector.  The proposed application would bring forward B8 distribution floorspace, and the applicant states that this would create around 491 new jobs, in a location where demand has been demonstrated by potential end users. Given the committed housing growth at Houghton Regis North, the proposed development at North of Luton and the close proximity to the existing Luton and Dunstable conurbation, the site would benefit from access to key employment markets.  The proposed development has the opportunity to capitalise on significant, committed infrastructure in the form of the new M1 Junction 11A, the Woodside link road and new and existing employment areas in Houghton Regis and Luton.  There has been historic support for housing and employment growth to the north of the Luton and Dunstable conurbation, and proposals to the North of Luton have been reaffirmed by the emerging Development Strategy. It is considered that the proposed development accords with the adopted Framework Plan and contributes to achieving the overall aims and vision. Part of the site is allocated under South Bedfordshire Local Plan Policy E1 and the proposal has the potential to meet the aspirations of the NPPF and emerging Development Strategy in securing economic growth, by creating jobs in an area of need and meeting market demands. The proposed Agenda Item 17 development also has the opportunity to capitalisePage on 252 significant, committed infrastructure and could contribute to the delivery of the Woodside link road. Taking these circumstances collectively it is considered that very special circumstances exist which outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.

CBC Business 17/08/2015: Investment  Fully support the application from a commercial perspective.  Recent analysis by Lambert Smith Hampton has identified that, excluding Prologis Park, Dunstable (part completed, let to Amazon, development underway on remainder of development, strong occupier interest) and large scale units already under offer, there is approximately 500,000sq.ft availability across the Luton and Dunstable Market area.  This represents less than 7 months supply of employment land.  Forecasting for the demand for strategic B8 use (above 100,000sq.ft) has historically been under estimated.  Market demand is strong, particularly along the M1 corridor reflecting national shortages of supply and returning investor interest.  Business Investment is currently dealing with three live enquiries (not related to the end user for this site) all over 100,000 sq.ft.  Business Investment have seen a significant increase in the demand for land and premises, with a 75% increase in enquires over the last year, (a figure actually less than that noted by Lambert Smith Hampton).  Dunstable and the surrounding area remains the highest level of overall demand.  Recent jobs growth in Central Bedfordshire greatly exceeded forecast rates in the latest East of England forecasting model jobs forecasts data (6,200 jobs additional jobs according to 2013 Business Register and Employment Survey) compared to the Development Strategy forecast of approximately 1350 jobs per annum over the plan period.  These factors combined, highlight the need for securing increased high quality employment land allocations, particularly of the right quality in the right location to meet known demand.  Business Investment would seek to work with any occupiers/ developers to secure added benefit for the local area in terms of apprenticeships.

CBC Transport 14/08/2015 & 19/08/2015: Strategy  No objection.  The development would utilise the Woodside link road, Agenda Item 17 which is currently under construction, to access thePage M1 253 and the rest of the strategic road network. As such a contribution towards this scheme is appropriate.  It must be ensured that the development site does not compromise the opportunity to increase capacity at the M1 J11a in the future if required.  Opportunities should be provided to maximise the number of sustainable trips to the site and minimise reliance on the car. Contributions should be made to public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure as necessary and as detailed in other responses you will have received from the Highways and Transport Directorate.  A contribution of £40,000 towards the delivery of the Woodside Link is requested.

CBC Transport 06/05/2015: Strategy – Travel  The travel plan submitted is of an acceptable standard Plans for an interim plan, pre construction/ occupation.  An assessment checklist is provided highlighting some issues that the eventual occupier(s) should be aware of.  Concern is raised that the level of cycle parking does not meet current policy standards.  The proposed Sheffield cycle stands would be acceptable.

10/08/2015:  The proposed number of cycle parking spaces (99 on Plot 1 and 15 on Plot 2) is acceptable.  The proposed location for the cycle parking shown on this plan is suitable for both long and short stay provision due to the proximity to the main entrances of both sites.  It is recommended that the cycle parking areas are covered by on site CCTV to improve security and attractiveness.

CBC Highways 25/08/2015: Development  The submitted Transport Assessment covers the Management current baseline conditions and a future Assessment year of 2031. This is supported and consistent with the Council’s Development Strategy and the HRN 1 planning application.  The submitted Transport Assessment has considered the NPPF, the Central Bedfordshire Local Transport Plan 3, the Luton Local Transport Plan 3 and the South Bedfordshire Local Plan to which the proposal accords well in highways and traffic terms.  The submitted Transport Assessment highlights the planned highways schemes of the A5-M1 link road and the Woodside link road connections. Agenda Item 17  Existing localised travel patterns have been determinedPage 254 by an interrogation of the 2011 census data, particularly for non-vehicular trips. This approach is supported.  The principle of the proposed access strategy is supported by this office.  The principle and geometric parameters of the proposed roundabout junction to Luton Road appear adequate. Constructional details for the junction should be supported by safety audits and swept path analysis drawings should be secured by condition.  A new bus layby is shown to be provided within the site. This is supported. Swept path analysis drawings for this should be secured by condition.  A temporary construction access has been illustrated. It is understood that this is not fixed and is dependent upon the opening of the realignment of Luton Road. A Construction Method Statement and Construction Traffic Management Plan that details both construction access and vehicular routing should therefore be secured by condition. [OFFICER NOTE: The temporary construction access detailed within the application is a fixed element of the proposal. As such, this access can be controlled by planning condition without the need for a full Construction Method Statement and Construction Traffic Management Plan. Details of vehicle routing during construction are to be separately controlled as part of the Construction Environmental Management Plan which is to be secured by planning condition.]  Concern is raised that the level of proposed cycle parking, as set out in the Transport Assessment would be in excess of that required under local policy. The Council’s Sustainable Transport Officers should be consulted for their views. [OFFICER NOTE: Sustainable Transport Officers have confirmed the level of cycle parking proposed is appropriate for the development.]  The level of operational parking proposed meets adopted CBC standards and is supported.  The site’s proposed internal highways layout appears satisfactory. A condition should be attached to any planning permission granted requiring the submission of a full suite of internal swept path analysis for HGV manoeuvring.  In interrogation of the TRICS database has been undertaken in order to establish a valid trip rate dataset. This is supported.  The expected trip rates are as follows: AM Peak Hour (0800-0900) – In 31 Out 21 Total 52 PM Peak Hour (1700-1800) – In 14 Out 34 Total 48  Forecast traffic flows have been taken from the Central Bedfordshire and Luton Transport Model (CBLTM). Agenda Item 17 This has been agreed and is supported. Page 255  Operational junction assessment takes the form of 2016 assessment year and 2031 future year scenarios.  The proposed site access roundabout has been modelled using ARCADY (Assessment of Roundabout CApacity and DelaY) micro simulation software. The models have been validated by this office.  During the 2016 Assessment Year, the proposed junction is expected to operate well within its theoretical capacity limits with a Max RFC (Maximum Ratio of Flow to Capacity) of 0.52 (52%) and a MaxQ (Maximum Vehicular Queue length) of 1 pcus (Passenger Car Units) occurring on the Luton Road southern arm of the junction during the AM peak hour (0800-0900).  During the 2031 Future Year, the proposed junction is expected to operate well within its theoretical capacity limits with a Max RFC of 0.57 and a MaxQ of 1 pcus occurring on the Luton Road northern arm of the junction during the AM peak hour (0800-0900).  The development is not expected to have any material traffic impact upon either the local or strategic local highway network.  In line with the provisions detailed above, this office raises no objections to this proposal.

CBC Tree & 28/04/2015: Landscape  The development would result in the loss of 4 individual Ash and Turkey Oak trees and large groups of semi/mature or early mature trees comprising of Ash, Oak, Cherry, Norway Maple, Hornbeam, Horse Chestnut, Alder, Sycamore, Field Maple and Elm, all of which are of moderate value. Other low value specimens would also be lost.  A mitigation plan, comprising comprehensive replanting to restore landscape screening and habitat value is proposed.  Further clarification regarding specific planting details may be required.  Recommends a condition to secure the implementation of remedial works and tree protection measures.

15/05/2015:  Concerns were previously raised regarding the sole use of Acer platanoides 'Emerald Queen' along the re- routed B579 Luton Road.  Although this is an excellent avenue tree, a monotypical planting scheme is potentially vulnerable to future pest and disease attack and may therefore render the entire group vulnerable to loss.  The applicant should diversify the planting species as much as possible to guard against such potential Agenda Item 17 problems. Page 256

21/08/2015:  No further comment.

CBC Landscape 30/04/2015:  No objection in principle.  The area would undergo considerable change due to the development of J11a, HRN and North of Luton. The submitted photomontages show the site in this context.  It is positive that the shorter elevations are orientated to more sensitive landscape views north of the proposed allocation area.  The use of mid grey, pale green and pale grey cladding as proposed is preferable. There are other opportunities to deconstruct the external elevations with vertical elements and variation in roof heights to break up the mass of the units.  Clarification is requested regarding the proposed roof forms in order to judge the impact of roofscapes in wider views. [OFFICER NOTE: Pitched roof elements and roof lights would be set behind vertical upstands.]  The landscaping proposals are welcomed. Ideally these should be linked to a green infrastructure strategy and SuDs proposals.  Landscaping proposals for J11a should be indicated as part of the plans.  More information is required describing how SuDs features would integrate with the landscaping proposals.  More variety within the fencing and boundary planting and additional planting would be welcomed to provide an improved relationship with the public realm.  Car parking areas should include SuDs and trees to provide shade and reduce any ‘heat island’ effect.  There does not appear to be any outdoor open space proposed for staff.

18/08/2015:  The site would form a gateway to the planned growth areas and landscaping should evoke a sense of place and quality in design.  The findings of the Landscape and Visual Assessment are agreed. Additional sections to gauge scale would be useful.  Building design should engender distinctiveness, and sustainable design features. Various examples are provided.  Opportunities to ‘visually deconstruct’ should be explored. Various examples are provided.  It is disappointing that the use of green, brown or biosolar roofs is not considered. Agenda Item 17  Landscaping should relate to planting proposals forPage the 257 A5-M1; provide for landscaped approaches to buildings; include imaginative SuDs elements enhancing habitat creation; provide tree planting in parking areas to support SuDs and avoid ‘heat island’ areas and reinforce site boundaries and create an avenue on Luton Road.  Details of lighting, social zones, and cycle provision would be required.

CBC Ecology 23/04/2015:  No objection.  Given the amount of disturbance that the area will suffer in connection with the approved Highway works for the M1 the overall ecological impact of this scheme will be minimal.  The proposed layout plan includes an overarching green infrastructure strategy which would incorporate new woodland and hedgerows, species rich grassland areas and SuDS which will overall provide an enhanced ecological value for the site.  The proposed species list for the trees and shrubs, including Emorsgate seed mixes is acceptable.  Landscaping should be secured by condition to ensure a net gain for biodiversity is delivered.

05/08/2015: No further comment.

CBC Green 17/08/2015: Infrastructure  Green infrastructure proposals should relate to the visual and drainage context of the site.  Landscaping on the western edge of the site is visible and important as the approach and gateway to the North of Luton area.  The proposed parking for Plot 2 adjacent to the site access makes it difficult to provide an attractive gateway. A drainage basin in this area is suggested allowing for more landscaping on the western boundary.  The SuDs approach is unsatisfactory as the attenuation ponds are located in the corners of the site, whereas a larger pond could provide broader landscape benefits and would be more preferable. SuDs elements should support ecological benefits.  There is no demonstration of surface water treatment or source control. The use of green roofs, permeable paving, lack of kerns and surface water conveyance (e.g. swales) should be demonstrated.

CBC Sustainable 24/04/2015 & 07/08/2015: Development  Reference to the Council’s sustainability policies Agenda Item 17 (SBLPR Policy BE8 and DSCB Policy 47). Page 258  Reference to Government guidance regarding the use of solar PV installations on large roof spaces.  Surplus electricity generated on site should be exported to the national grid.  The core elements of BREEAM should be explored through the construction of the buildings.  Recommends a condition to ensure the use of renewable energy sources.

CBC Public 18/08/2015 & 21/08/2015: Protection  The acoustic report demonstrates that it is indeed feasible to operate the proposed distribution centre.  The author of the report acknowledges that some assumptions have to be made in the assessment about the final end use and therefore it is necessary to undertake a revised assessment once these final details have been confirmed.  Having regard to the submitted acoustic report assessment, it is agreed that vehicle noise is unlikely to result in any adverse impact on local receptors.  Recommends a condition to control noise relating to fixed external plant.  It is known to the Local Authority that the air quality in the study area is poor and that there are concentrations of nitrogen dioxide which exceed the annual mean objective along the M1 boundary.  This was considered by the Authority during consideration of the various other significant development and infrastructure applications to date.  However there is only likely to be an imperceptible increase in the concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 as a result of this specific development. There is unlikely to be any new exceedances of the objectives and therefore it is unlikely that the Authority would be in a position to defend any objection to the application on these grounds.  The Authority does have a duty to monitor air quality and therefore we will continue to fulfil these duties and take appropriate actions where necessary.

CBC Public 05/05/2015 & 14/08/2015: Protection –  The Land Contamination Assessment appears to Contaminated Land satisfactorily scope out the need for any further investigations pertaining to potential risks to human health.  No objection.  Recommends informative regarding potential contamination.

CBC Archaeology 28/04/2015:  The submitted Heritage Statement comprises the Agenda Item 17 results of a geophysical survey, a desk-basedPage 259 assessment and a written scheme of investigation.  The archaeological trial trench evaluation has also been completed. The trial trench evaluation revealed two undated features in a total of fourteen trenches.  The archaeological potential of this site is low and the development is unlikely to have a significant impact on any surviving archaeological remains.  No objection.

19/05/2015:  No further comment.

CBC Minerals & 27/04/2015: Waste  MWLP: SSP Policy WSP5 is referenced.  The application must be accompanied by a waste audit. The audit should set out measures which would be put in place to minimise the tonnage of waste going to landfill and how the amount of construction materials that have to be processed, purchased and transported would be reduced.

19/08/2015:  Adequate provision for recycling facilities should be provided and the actions described in the submitted Waste Audit should be undertaken.

Environment 23/04/2015: Agency  Object. No Flood Risk Assessment has been provided.

14/05/2015:  EA removes its previous objection.  The submitted Flood Risk Assessment and surface water management proposals satisfactorily outline surface water drainage proposals for the site.  Recommend a condition requiring approval of detailed drainage proposals.  The water environment is potentially vulnerable to infiltration in connection with Sustainable Urban Drainage systems. Relevant guidance is provided.  The site is located above a Principal Aquifer. However, EA does not consider this proposal to be High Risk. Relevant guidance is provided.

Anglian Water 27/04/2015:  No Anglian Water assets would be affected by the proposal.  The foul water drainage for this site would be within the catchment of Chalton Water Recycling Centre which has capacity to accept flows from the site. The developer would need to serve notice under the Water Industry Act 1991 should they wish to connect to the Agenda Item 17 foul sewage network. Page 260  The Environment Agency would need to consider surface water drainage proposals which would need to be secured by condition.

Natural England 01/05/2015:  The site is in close proximity to the Sundon Chalk Quarry Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The SSSI does not represent a constraint in determining this application.  General advice is provided with respect to protected species, local wildlife sites and biodiversity enhancements.

04/08/2015:  No objection.

Highways England 28/04/2015:  No objection.

Network Rail 08/06/2015:  No objection in principle.  The application site appears to include land within the ownership of Network Rail [OFFICER NOTE: The extent of land ownership on the shared boundary with the Network Rail land has been clarified by the applicant and all land associated with the train line has now been excluded from the application site.]  Surface and foul water drainage proposals must be designed to be collected and diverted away from Network Rail property and to satisfy local and other regulations as part of any planning approval.  All operations involving the use of cranes or other mechanical plant must be carried out in a ‘fail safe’ manner, with appropriate clearances from Network Rail property.  No interference with the integrity of Network Rail property/ structure must occur in connection with earth works or excavations. Details of any such works to be carried out near Network Rail property should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement, to be approved in consultation with Network Rail.  Security of the railway boundary will need to be maintained at all times.  Suitable safety barriers should be provided alongside the Network Rail land.  The proposed 3m high palisade fencing proposed on the boundary of the Network Rail land is acceptable to ensure securing of the railway line.  Method statements may be required detailing the proposed method of construction, risk assessment in Agenda Item 17 relation to the railway and construction trafficPage 261 management plan. Where appropriate, submissions must detail drainage, demolition, lighting and building work or any works to be carried out on site that may affect the safety, operation, integrity and access to the railway, including vibro-impact machinery and abnormal vehicle loads.  The proposals should ensure no encroachment into Network Rail land, including as a result of tree or shrub planting. A list of suitable planting species is provided.  External lighting should be controlled by condition to ensure the development does not give rise to the potential for train drivers to be dazzled or result in confusion with railway signalling.  Access to the railway operator’s land must not be obstructed.  Should planning permission be granted, it is requested that such matters are controlled by condition where appropriate and otherwise brought to the applicant’s attention by way of informatives to the developer.

21/08/2015:  No objection in principle.  The developer has contacted Network Rail’s Property Services team to resolve boundary concerns.  Reference is made to Network Rail’s previous comments of 08/06/2015 and the need to resolve technical matters, including drainage arrangements with Network Rail.

Determining Issues The “Determining Issues” in this report sets out the relevance of the current Development Plan to the decision, followed by the importance of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Green Belt.

Furthermore, there is detail on how the policy context above is reflected through the preparation of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire.

Therefore, the main determining issues for the application are considered in the following sections:

1. Compliance with the Adopted Development Plan for the Area

2. Compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework

3. The weight applied to and compliance with the Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Core Strategy

4. The weight to be applied to and compliance with the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire Agenda Item 17 5. The Green Belt and assessment of the potential very special circumstancesPage 262 that may arise

6. Issues a. Transport and highways b. Landscape and visual impacts and design considerations c. Air Quality, Noise impacts and Land Contamination d. Flood Risk e. Utilities

7. Other matters

8. The Requirement for Planning Conditions

9. The Requirement for Planning Obligations

10. Conclusion

Considerations

1. Compliance with the Adopted Development Plan for the Area

1.1 The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 at section 38 (6) provides that that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

1.2 The National Planning Policy Framework sets out this requirement:

“Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework must be taken into account in the preparation of local and neighbourhood plans, and is a material consideration in planning decisions.” (para. 2)

1.3 The Framework also states:

“This National Planning Policy Framework does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Proposed development that accords with an up-to-date Local Plan should be approved, and proposed development that conflicts should be refused unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. It is highly desirable that local planning authorities should have an up-to-date plan in place.” (para. 12)

1.4 Therefore the structure of the report is dictated by the need for the Committee to determine the application by reference to the primacy of the Development Plan, the degree to which it is up-to-date, and the material considerations that apply specifically to this planning application.

1.5 The formal Development Plan for this area comprises the South Agenda Item 17 Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (SBLPR) 2004, the Minerals and WastePage 263 Local Plan (2005), and Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire and Luton Borough Council’s Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Strategic Sites and Policies (2014).

1.6 The site falls partly within the Green Belt defined by the proposals map for the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004. Within the Green Belt no exception for major development is made and the proposal is therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Green Belt is the fundamental land use issue in the relation to both the Development Plan and the NPPF. For this reason Green Belt considerations are dealt with in full under Section 5 of this report. All other relevant policy considerations under the Development Plan are addressed below.

1.7 Policy NE10 sets out the Council’s adopted policy in respect of the change of use of agricultural land which will be considered favourably provided the development is appropriate to the rural area, compatible with Green Belt Policies, has no adverse impact on nature conservation or protected areas, does not result in the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land and has no significant adverse impact on the transport network or landscape. Having regard to the assessments set out below, it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the transport network, landscape and local character, nature conservation or protected areas. The development would conflict with current Green Belt policy. The proposal would result in the loss of 7.4Ha of agricultural land categorised as Sub Grades 2 and 3a (good and very good quality). In these respects the proposal would be in conflict with SBLPR Policy NE10. This conflict must be considered in the context of the wider benefits arising from the development which are addressed in depth within the assessment of very special circumstances in support of the proposal as set out below.

1.8 Policy BE8 lists a number of design considerations that development proposals should reflect. Having regard to the detailed proposals submitted, including the proposed landscaping, it is considered that the application satisfies the design criteria of this adopted policy.

1.9 Policy T10 sets out the considerations that apply when looking at the provision of car parking in new developments. Revised parking standards are contained in the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide which was adopted as technical guidance for Development Management purposes in March 2014. For these reasons, it is considered that very little weight should be given to Policy T10.

1.10 The southern part of the site is designated as a Main Employment Area as defined on the Proposals Map for the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004. Policy E1 states that, within Main Employment Areas, planning permission will not be granted for uses other than B1, B2 or B8. The proposed warehouse development would fall within Use Class B8 and would be in compliance with Policy E1.

1.11 Policy W4 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan relates to minimising waste generated as part of the development. This is echoed in MWLP: SSP policy WSP5 which relates to waste management in new built developments. CBC Agenda Item 17 Minerals and Waste have reviewed the Waste Audit which has beenPage 264 submitted in support of the proposal and consider that this will provide for satisfactory waste management as part of the development in order to comply with adopted Policies W4 and WSP5.

2. Compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework

2.1 For the reasons set out above, it is necessary to consider the planning application against the NPPF as a significant material consideration. In the following paragraphs, the proposal is considered against each relevant statement of NPPF policy.

2.2 Building a strong, competitive economy The application is supported by an Employment Statement which sets out the national planning policy and the emerging local policy context which are supportive of job creation in general and economic growth in this particular location. The statement examines the local economic climate of both Central Bedfordshire and Luton. It is stated that growth in local employment has not kept pace with the growth in population between 2001 and 2011. Against a national average unemployment rate for Great Britain of 7.2%, Luton has an above average unemployment rate of 8.6% whereas unemployment rates with Central Bedfordshire are below average at 4.9% (NOMIS Official Labour Market Statistics, 2012). Office of National Statistics survey data shows high levels commuting out of Central Bedfordshire, particularly towards Greater London, Luton, Milton Keynes and Bedford. The proposed development would therefore be benefit to both authority areas in addressing unemployment, particularly in Luton Borough and out commuting. On a national basis, it is stated that office and industrial supply is becoming increasingly constrained, especially within the logistics sector (Lambert Smith Hampton, UK Investment Bulletin Q4 2014). Locally, the Council’s own employment review and studies demonstrate recent growth in the supply of small and ‘mid-sized’ employment sites but a need for larger stock in order to meet local demand, particularly as a result of the planned delivery of the Woodside link road and M1 J11a road projects. The Council’s employment review and studies reflect the significant market demand for large format B8 stock along the M1 corridor, of up to 84.3Ha of land. The applicant’s employment statement indicates that vacant employment land within Central Bedfordshire is not capable of capturing this strategic B8 market due to its size and location.

2.3 Based on the HCA Employment Densities Guide, 2012, the application projects that the development is capable of supporting 491 full time equivalent jobs during full operation, 113 temporary jobs during the construction period as well as 147 additional jobs as a result of indirect support for local service employment which would result from the operation of the site. It is stated that, cumulatively, this would equate to an annual increase in the local economy of £11,293,000.

2.4 Whilst no named operator is provided as part of the application, the applicant has provided a letter from national supply chain solutions provider Wincanton which confirms their interest in the site. The applicant has provided a similar letter from road transport, trailer and vehicle provider, HTC Agenda Item 17 DAF. HTC DAF currently occupies a constrained site at Camden Way, LutonPage 265 and have confirmed their interest in the application site. Global distribution firm Agility Logistics has confirmed that the site is of considerable interest to meet their needs in terms of its scale and strategic location along the southern M1 corridor and adjacent to the new J11a. Additionally DB Schenker has provided a letter expressing interest in the site. The letter states that supply chains are evolving such that inbound product flows are becoming shorter and easier to manage, closer to the point of consumption. As such there is a trend for some businesses, particularly retailers, to reduce their levels of owned stock. DB Schenker will therefore need to be able to base an increasing proportion of its activity in the region and the potential of the site, adjacent to J11a, is recognised. General Motors have also provided a letter in support of the application. This confirms that the proposed development and disposal of this land by General Motors is part of a strategic review of local surplus sites to enable General Motors to focus on its core business in Luton and Central Bedfordshire. In connection with this, the employment report accompanying the planning application states that the development would support opportunities for General Motors to reinvest in their existing facility, contributing to the safeguarding of existing employment. The letter provided by General Motors indicates that refurbishment works are planned as part of a future planning application.

2.5 Having regard to the above, and the advice of the Council’s Business Investment section, there is a demonstrable need for specific commercial development within the area of this scale and type. The site is well located adjacent to the consented A5-M1 link road, Woodside link road and J11a of the M1 which will provide convenient access to the strategic road network for logistics, industrial and other commercial traffic within the area. This will allow for easy and efficient access to London and other locations. London Luton Airport, which is well connected globally, is within 11 miles of the site. The site of the proposed Sundon Quarry Rail Freight Interchange lies in close proximity to the north. The site is also well located to draw labour from the planned North of Houghton Regis Strategic Allocation area, the existing conurbation of Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis and the wider area including Leighton Buzzard, Bedford and Milton Keynes. The proposal would therefore support the building of a strong and competitive economy in line with this core NPPF objective.

2.6 Promoting sustainable transport The application is supported by a Transport Assessment which examines the existing baseline transport conditions alongside consented development including the A5-M1 link road, Woodside Link road and the HRN1 development, and the impacts of the proposed development on the local and strategic transport network. Subject to the delivery of committed highway infrastructure to serve the wider growth area, there would be sufficient capacity within the highway network to accommodate the proposed development. The site is well related to the local and strategic highway network with convenient access to the M1, Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis by car. Access to M1 J11a would be via a new road bridge forming part of the B579 and the new Woodside link road. The A5-M1 link road, Woodside link road and M1 J11a are all due to open in Spring 2017 and works have commenced in respect of these. In line with the recommendations of Transport Strategy Officers, the development would Agenda Item 17 need to provide support funding for the delivery of the Woodside link road,Page 266 proportionate to its impact on the road network. The applicant has confirmed their agreement to provide suitable financial contributions, at £40,000 towards the delivery of the Woodside Link Road and this can be secured by Legal Agreement. The operation of the development is planned to coincide with the first opening of the planned road projects. This would ensure that commercial traffic associated with the site makes use of the strategic road network rather than constrained, local routes, to the detriment of neighbouring villages such as Chalton. This could be controlled by Legal Agreement. Other local mitigation works to facilitate safe and suitable access to the site for pedestrian and cyclists via the realigned Luton Road, together with appropriate traffic calming measures, can be secured by planning condition. Appropriate public transport provision would need to secured by way of Legal Agreement. A Travel Plan has been submitted setting out proposed initiatives to promote transport by sustainable modes. The implementation of the final Travel Plan, specific to the end user, would need to be secured in connection with any planning permission. CBC Sustainable Transport Officers have confirmed that the proposal would provide an appropriate level and type of cycle parking provision.

2.7 Requiring good design The NPPF promotes good design at every level. The development would be seen in views from Chalton village, in wider landscape views to the north, and within public views from the west, particularly from Houghton Regis and the M1. The applicant has explored variations in the design proposals in order to minimise the visual and landscape impacts of the proposal. This includes the use of graded external cladding and structural landscaping. The physical screening which would be provided by the planned motorway infrastructure would also serve to mitigate the visual impacts of the buildings. This would also be assisted by the proposed A6-M1 link road and any associated landscaped elements, should this be progressed and delivered as part of the proposed North of Luton strategic allocation. The development would make efficient use of the land for employment purposes incorporating suitable service and parking arrangements new landscaping and drainage features. It is considered that the application demonstrates an acceptable design proposal which would respond appropriately to the existing urban area, planned employment west of the motorway and the adjoining transport network.

2.8 Protecting Green Belt land The protection of the Green Belt forms part of the core planning principles set out within the NPPF and this is the fundamental policy consideration in relation to this application. Within the Green Belt there is a presumption against major development which is considered inappropriate development. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The NPPF states:

“When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” Agenda Item 17 Page 267 This is the primary decision that the Council will need to reach before considering other material considerations and therefore the issue is dealt with separately below.

2.9 Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change The NPPF seeks to support the move towards a low carbon future by planning for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions and actively supporting energy efficiency consistent with nationally described standards. Concerns have been raised by Chalton Parish Council that, together with the planned J11a and other development, the proposal would add to local pollution levels in the Parish. It is known that the committed road infrastructure, consented development north of Houghton Regis and uncommitted development forming part of the proposed North of Luton strategic allocation would necessitate pollution monitoring and mitigation measures. Given the scale and nature of the development relative to the surrounding development proposals, CBC Public Protection does not consider the proposal to be objectionable in terms of pollution impacts. The applicant has provided further clarification in respect of the sustainability aspirations for the development. It is stated that the base buildings are designed to achieve BREEAM “Excellent” environmental performance on the basis that the building occupiers specifies an appropriate fit-out. The base buildings would exceed the standards identified in the Building Regulations for air tightness, and the need for artificial lighting would be minimised by the use of additional roof lights. The intention is that insulation standards would exceed current Building Regulation requirements and natural ventilation would be employed wherever feasible. Low energy gas fired hot water generators would be used in the offices, and water saving appliances would be used to reduce energy and water consumption. A Building Management System would be provided to minimise the carbon footprint of the building throughout its operational life. The development would be capable of meeting 10% of its energy demand from renewable sources, subject to final build spec and this can be controlled by planning condition. The site is within Flood Zone 1 and is defined as having a low probability of flooding. The proposed drainage strategy is based on the provision of surface water attenuation ponds to discharge to the surface water drain within the adjoining General Motors site. Subject to appropriate conditions the development would not give rise to an increased risk of flooding.

2.10 Conserving and enhancing the natural environment As noted, the development would result in the loss of 7.4Ha of agricultural land categorised as Sub Grades 2 and 3a (good and very good quality). This would conflict with the high level aim of protecting the best quality agricultural land under the NPPF. The application was submitted with a Landscape and Visual Assessment, Landscape Maintenance and Management Proposals, Phase 1 Ecology Statement and a Protected Species Survey. These documents satisfactorily address the other key biodiversity and landscape impacts likely to arise from the proposed development.

2.11 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment The submitted Heritage Statement sets out the results of archaeological Agenda Item 17 work undertaken in connection with the application in the form ofPage a 268 geophysical survey, a desk-based assessment and a written scheme of investigation. Archaeological trial trench evaluation has also been completed which has revealed two undated features in a total of fourteen trenches. The archaeological potential of the site is considered to be low and the development is unlikely to have a significant impact on any surviving archaeological remains. The proposal therefore satisfies NPPF requirements with respect to the historic environment.

2.12 As stated, Green Belt is the fundamental land use issue in the relation to both the Development Plan and the NPPF. For this reason Green Belt considerations are dealt with in full below.

3. The weight applied to and compliance with the Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Core Strategy

3.1 The L&SCB Joint Core Strategy was prepared by the Luton and South Bedfordshire Joint Committee in the period between 2007 and 2011. It sought to replace the strategic elements of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan and Luton Borough Plan and to take forward the growth agenda promoted for this area through the East of England Regional Plan and associated policy documents. The Joint Core Strategy included a number of strategic development allocations, including land in the area north of Luton. The Joint Core Strategy was submitted for Examination and part of that process was completed before the document was ultimately withdrawn in 2011 on the grounds that Luton Borough Council no longer wished to pursue its adoption. However the Joint Core Strategy was not abandoned due to a disagreement between the joint Council’s regarding the North of Luton allocation and both Councils were supportive of the principle of the development allocation. The Joint Core Strategy remains relevant to current policy in so far as the evidence base which underpinned it has directly informed the Development Strategy which remains supportive of this growth agenda.

3.2 For these reasons, Central Bedfordshire Council endorsed the L&SCB Joint Core Strategy and its evidence base as guidance for Development Management purposes on the 23rd August 2011 and has incorporated the majority of this work within the new Central Bedfordshire Development Strategy. As Development Management guidance, the Joint Core Strategy does not carry the same degree of weight as the adopted Development Plan but is a material consideration in the assessment of the application. Limited weight is to be applied to it.

3.3 The withdrawn Joint Core Strategy identified land north of Luton as a strategic allocation form residential led, mixed use development. Whilst the application site now forms part of the proposed development allocation under the Development Strategy, the land between the M1 and the Midland Mainline, where this application site sits, was not part of the wider allocation area to be removed from the Green Belt under the Joint Core Strategy.

3.4 The details of the endorsed policies are not dealt with in this section as relevant aspects of the Joint Core Strategy are dealt with in greater detail Agenda Item 17 elsewhere within this report including in the next section dealing with Pagethe 269 emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire. However the proposal is considered to be in compliance with the policy principles of the Joint Core Strategy and would support the growth strategy set out as part of the withdrawn plan.

4. The weight to be applied to and compliance with the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire

4.1 The Central Bedfordshire Development Strategy document was submitted to Secretary of State 24 October 2014 and initial hearing sessions were held in February 2015.

4.2 On the 16th February 2015 the Planning Inspector, Brian Cook wrote to the Council explaining his view that the Council had not met the Duty to Co- operate as set out in section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. This a legal requirement that Local Authorities work cooperatively on planning issues that cross administrative boundaries, particularly those which relate to the strategic priorities set out in paragraph and demonstrate this cooperation through the plan-making process. The need to comply with this requirement is distinct from the test of “soundness” i.e. whether the Plan is fit for purpose. Given his view that the Duty to Co-operate had not been met, the Inspector’s letter recommended the non-adoption of the Plan and advised that the Council should withdraw the Plan or await his final Report.

4.3 The Council has subsequently notified the Planning Inspectorate that it does not intend to withdraw the Development Strategy and that the Planning Inspector should not issue his final report as the Council intends to challenge his decision. An application for Judicial Review of the Inspector’s decision dated 16 February 2015 was made by the Council in the High Court on 12 March 2015.

4.4 The first phase of the application for Judicial Review of the Planning Inspectorate’s decision took place at a Court hearing on 16 June 2015. This was to consider whether the Court would grant the Council leave to have an application for Judicial Review heard in the High Court. The Judge did not support the Council’s case, focusing on the mechanics of the plan making process. Having considered its case, the Council has decided to continue to pursue the challenge through the Courts and has now indicated its intention to do so. On the 22 June 2015 the Council lodged an appeal against this Judgement. The appeal process in relation to the Judge’s decision on 16 June 2015 is ongoing.

4.5 The Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire is not adopted policy, but is an important material consideration in the determination of the application and carries weight as a submitted local plan. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF states that, from the day of publication, decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to:  the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced the preparation, the greater the weight that may be given);  the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the Agenda Item 17 weight that may be given); and Page 270  the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).

4.6 The representations lodged in response to the Development Strategy and Policy 61 are therefore material to the consideration of the weight to be attached to the Development Strategy at this time. Following the Pre- Submission Consultation (known as Publication) further consultation was held between the 30 June to 26 August 2014. This was the final stage of formal consultation before the plan was submitted to the Secretary of State

4.7 Approximately 1,645 comments on the Development Strategy were received during this consultation; these included both comments in support and objection. The comments considered as main matters can be found within the Main Issues Statement (Regulation 22 (1) (c) (v) – Submission (October 2014). In summary the objections to the Development Strategy related to the Duty to Co-operate, viability and deliverability of the Development Strategy, consistency with the NPPF, the allocation of sites within the Green Belt and the unmet housing need and insufficient supply of houses. Policy 61 received 60 comments of which 28 were objections and 4 in support.

4.8 The objections lodged in response to consultation on the Development Strategy, the Inspector’s letter and conclusions regarding the Duty to Cooperate, specifically with Luton Borough Council, and the outcome of the Court hearing of 16 June 2015 serve to limit the weight to be applied to the Development Strategy and Policy 61 at this time.

4.9 It is important to note that there is a substantial body of evidence from work on previous plans underpinning the overall growth strategy. The Council has undertaken considerable work in connection with the Sustainability Appraisal to assess possible alternative sites which might be better suited to meet local planning needs, and none has been identified that was better than those identified within the emerging plan. As submitted, the Strategy remains the Council’s emerging planning policy to deal with the development needs beyond the period of the currently adopted Development Plan, the SBLPR (2004). The Development Strategy is at an advanced stage of preparation having been formally submitted to the Secretary of State and is considered by the Local Planning Authority to be consistent with the NPPF.

4.10 It is therefore concluded that limited weight is to be attached to the policies contained within the emerging Development Strategy at this time. However given the underlying evidence base and consistency with national policy, this remains a material consideration in the determination of the application.

4.11 Policy 61 specifically sets out the requirements for the Houghton Regis North Strategic Allocation. The policy details the delivery of approximately 3,200 homes and 13Ha of new employment land within the plan period focused primarily to the west of the allocation to maximise access to the M1. The allocation area also has the potential to provide up to 800 additional homes and 7Ha of employment land beyond the plan period. The Agenda Item 17 employment proposals form part of this overall package of growth as definedPage 271 under the proposed allocation to support the creation of a sustainable urban extension and in support of the regeneration needs of the wider conurbation area. The proposal is therefore in accordance with the broad policy aspirations for Land North of Luton under the Development Strategy.

4.12 In support of DSCB Policy 61, the North of Luton and Sundon RFI Framework Plan has been produced and sets out the Council’s general expectations on how the aims of the urban extension may take physical form. It defines a vision for the development of the North of Luton area. The Framework Plan diagram and supporting text set out the key land uses to be provided as part of the proposed urban extension. The fundamental purpose of the Framework Plan is to set broad aspirations for key elements of the allocation and to guide the development as a whole based on the constraints and opportunities for the proposed allocation. The Framework Plan has been adopted by the Council for Development Management purposes. The current employment proposal is in accordance with land use proposals as detailed the Framework Plan diagram which envisions employment development in this area.

5. Green Belt considerations

5.1 The site is partly within the Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 83 of the NPPF dictates that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. The grant of planning permission will not therefore remove the land from the Green Belt. Rather, it would mean development in the Green Belt is permitted. A change to the Green Belt designation can only be realised through adoption of a new Development Plan.

5.2 Where proposals for inappropriate Green Belt development are made under a planning application, Paragraph 87 of the NPPF is clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Prematurity 5.3 Luton Borough Council has raised concerns and objections to the proposals on the grounds that the development is proposed within the Green Belt, in advance of any formal change to the Green Belt designation and allocation of the land for development through the adoption of a new Development Plan. On this basis it is stated that the application should be refused on the grounds of prematurity.

5.4 In the context of this objection, it should be noted that automatic refusal of planning applications, simply on grounds of prematurity, would be incorrect. National planning policy dictates a fuller consideration of material considerations is required. This has been confirmed by the High Court Judgement in respect of the grant of planning permission for the HRN1 development. This Judgement was subsequently upheld within the Court of Agenda Item 17 Appeal. Paragraph 83 of the NPPF is specifically addressed as part of Pagethe 272 High Court judgement in respect of the planning permission relating to Land North of Houghton Regis Site 1. Paragraphs 55 and 56 of the High Court Judgement may assist Members in the consideration of this application. These are as follows:

5.5 “Paragraph 83 does not lay down a presumption or create a requirement that the boundaries of the Green Belt must first be altered via the process for changing a local plan before development may take place on the area in question. Paragraphs 87-88 plainly contemplate that development may be permitted on land within the Green Belt, without the need to change its boundaries in the local plan, provided “very special circumstances” exist.

5.6 Nor does para. 83 somehow create a presumption that the boundaries of the Green Belt must first be altered by changes to the local plan (effected through the local plan development process, which includes independent examination by an inspector) before permission for development can be given, in a case where (as here) there is a parallel proposal to alter the boundaries of the Green Belt set out in the local plan. Whilst it may be easier to proceed in stages, by changing the local plan to take a site out of the Green Belt (according to the less demanding “exceptional circumstances” test) and then granting permission for development without having to satisfy the more demanding “very special circumstances” test, there is nothing in para. 83 (read in the context of the entirety of section 9 of the NPPF) to prevent a planning authority from proceeding to consider and grant permission for development on the land in question while it remains within the designated Green Belt, provided the stringent “very special circumstances” test is satisfied.”

5.7 Government guidance contained within the National Planning Practice Guidance provides clear direction in relation to circumstances when it might be justifiable to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity. It is stated that, within the context of the NPPF and, in particular, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account.

5.8 Such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both:

a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging Local Plan or Neighbourhood Planning; and

b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.

5.9 Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be Agenda Item 17 justified where a draft Local Plan has yet to be submitted for examination,Page or 273 in the case of a Neighbourhood Plan, before the end of the local planning authority publicity period. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how the grant of permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.

5.10 In the consideration of the present application is should be acknowledged that the emerging DSCB is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.

5.11 In relation to the nature of the proposal and its potential cumulative effects, the application is accompanied by range of reports examining the potential effects of the development together with existing and committed development within the area. This report details Officer’s assessments of these effects. It is concluded that, subject to suitable mitigation, no significant adverse cumulative impacts would result from the proposed development. The site is partly allocated for employment development under the adopted South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004 and includes the route of the realigned Luton Road which has already been separately consented.

5.12 On this basis, Officers do not consider that the proposed development is so substantial that the grant of planning permission would serve to undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development. It is not considered that the grant of planning permission would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process so as to warrant refusal on the grounds of prematurity.

The purposes of the Green Belt 5.13 Within the Green Belt there is a presumption against large scale development which is considered inappropriate development. The protection of the Green Belt forms part of the core planning principles set out within the NPPF and is the fundamental policy consideration. Substantial weight is to be attached to any Green Belt harm.

5.14 Green Belts serve five purposes:  to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;  to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;  to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;  to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and  to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

5.15 The following sets out an assessment of the value of the application site in terms of the five purposes of the Green Belt and the degree to which the proposal would conflict with or support these.

5.16 To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas The site is partly located outside of the existing settlement boundary but would be closely related to the existing Vauxhall distribution centre to the south; the realigned B579 Luton Road and the new Junction 11a Agenda Item 17 infrastructure to the west and north; and the Midland mainline and existingPage 274 industrial areas within Luton to the east (Willow Gate trading estate/Camford Way). The site would be substantially contained on all sides by this existing and committed development. This would provide for permanent physical boundaries on all sides. It is not therefore considered that the development of the application site would result in unrestricted sprawl.

5.17 To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another The site does not serve any Green Belt function in terms of preventing the merging of neighbouring towns.

5.18 To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment Notwithstanding that the site would be substantially enclosed by strong, physical boundaries preventing unrestricted sprawl, at the present time, the proposed development would represent an encroachment upon the countryside.

5.19 To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns The preservation of the site as undeveloped land is not identified as important to the setting or special historic character of Luton or other settlements.

5.20 To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land Housing, employment and other development needs within Central Bedfordshire derive substantially from those settlements in the southern part of the Council area. Evidence suggests that whilst some development can take place within the existing urban areas, the total amount of land available is well below that needed to meet the local planning need. There is historic policy support for the proposed strategic allocation which is planned to support a broad range of planning objectives for the wider urban area. Resisting development of the site would not serve this Green Belt function.

5.21 The proposal would be harmful to the Green Belt due to its inappropriateness, and its impact on openness as it would presently involve development outside of the existing built-up area, encroaching into the existing countryside. The NPPF states:

5.22 “When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

5.23 It is therefore necessary to consider whether very special circumstances exist which are sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt identified. This is the primary decision that the Council will need to reach before considering other material considerations.

5.24 There is no definition of the meaning of ‘very special circumstances’ but case law has held that the words "very special" are not simply the converse of "commonplace". The word "special" in the guidance connotes not a quantitative test, but a qualitative judgement as to the weight to be given to Agenda Item 17 the particular factor for planning purposes. Page 275

The applicant’s case for very special circumstances 5.25 The Planning, Design and Access Statement for the application sets out an assessment of the Green Belt value of the site. It is stated that, excluding land allocated for employment development under current planning policy, and the realigned Luton Road, which has already been separately consented, 55% of the site is within the Green Belt. The site is visually and geographically constrained by existing and committed boundaries. The development would infill an area of land surrounded by development and would sit within the context of the general character of the area. The application concludes that the level of harm to openness is relatively low as the site fulfils a limited function in respect of the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt. The application then sets out the following matters in support of the development which weigh against this Green Belt harm. These are summarised as follows.

 There is national policy support for economic development and growth under the NPPF. This is reflected in other recent planning permissions for employment development in the Green Belt (reference to Doncaster Inland Port, Rossington; Pinewood Studios, South Buckinghamshire; and Radlett RFI, Hertfordshire).

 The proposal responds to an identified market need along the M1 corridor and would deliver a significant number of jobs for the existing conurbation and the planned growth area.

 The proposal would provide opportunities for General Motors to reinvest in their existing operations site at Luton Road.

 The proposal would support an expansion of local bus services and connectivity for cyclists.

 The visual and landscape impact would be limited due to the surrounding development and the visual profile of the development.

 Reference is made to previous policy documents which have identified land within the area as suitable for removal from the Green Belt.

 The continued use of the land for agricultural purposes would be compromised by air quality, land quality and viability reasons following the delivery of Junction 11a.

Assessment of the case for very special circumstances 5.26 The application is supported by an Employment Statement and several letters from prospective occupiers as is detailed within paragraphs 2.2 to 2.5 of this report.

5.27 Having regard to market indicators, including live enquiries and engagements with other commercial agents within the area, CBC Business Investment consider that this provides an accurate assessment of current Agenda Item 17 levels of supply and demand. CBC Business Investment has seenPage a 276 significant increase in the demand for land and premises, with a 75% increase in enquires over the last year. It is projected that take up and inward investment can be expected to rise significantly in the short term, partly in response to committed development and infrastructure including the consented HRN1 development, the M1 junction 11a, the A5-M1 and Woodside link roads. These factors highlight the need for increased employment land, particularly of the right quality in the right location to meet known demand and support the growth of local business.

5.28 The site occupies a highly accessible location, closely related to the consented J11a of the M1 and the associated A5-M1 and Woodside link road projects which will provide access to the strategic road network. The site is within 11 miles of London Luton Airport.

5.29 It can be anticipated that the development would provide wider economic benefits for the area through inward investment and the creation of jobs. The site is well located to draw labour from the planned North of Houghton Regis Strategic Allocation area. It is also capable of supporting local employment for the existing community within the current conurbation of Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis and the wider area including Leighton Buzzard, Bedford and Milton Keynes. Based on HCA employment density guidance, it is projected that the development has the potential to create in the region of 491 jobs and support additional employment during the 18 month construction period. The provision of employment in connection with both the construction and operation of the development would contribute to building a vibrant economy for the area.

5.30 The need for employment development is supported the Council’s employment land reports and review, including the Central Bedfordshire Council Employment & Economic Study (2012). This forms part of the evidence base for the Development Strategy and the proposed development allocations under the emerging plan, including the application site. The development is consistent with the emerging DSCB Policy 61 and the Council’s adopted North of Luton and Sundon RFI Framework Plan. It is also supported by previous policy documents, including the withdrawn Joint Core Strategy which identified a need for land within the Green Belt to be released for mixed use development in this area.

5.31 It is appropriate to apply some limited weight to the policy context which supports employment development in this location. However, irrespective of the degree of weight to be applied to the Development Strategy, there is an evident need for employment development of this type and in this location. Within this context, it should be acknowledged that, if Development Strategy and DSCB Policy 61 are not progressed to adoption, there would be no allocated supply of employment land to meet local employment needs.

5.32 Part of the site is currently allocated for employment development under the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004. The application site also includes the route of the realigned B579 Luton Road which has already been consented. Given this, the demonstrable need for employment development in this location, and the above assessment against the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt, it is considered that delaying a decision Agenda Item 17 or refusing the planning application on Green Belt grounds until the formalPage 277 confirmation of a planning allocation in the Development Plan will serve no good purpose, other than to delay or prevent much needed employment and economic growth for the area.

5.33 The development would provide significant funding, at £40,000 towards the delivery of the Woodside link road. This is appropriate in order to mitigate the impact of the development on the road network but would also support the wider growth aspirations within the area by contributing to the delivery of the strategic Woodside link road and the broad-ranging benefits associated with the scheme. The delivery the Woodside link road, A5-M1 and J11a projects are critical to the successful delivery of the planned growth in the area the associated economic and regeneration benefits for the wider conurbation.

5.34 The development would additionally provide support for the expansion of local bus services and pedestrian and cycle connections on the realigned Luton Road. These would be required to provide for sustainable connections to the site but would also benefit the wider area.

Conclusions 5.35 The application site is located within the Green Belt and would be harmful to the Green Belt due to its inappropriateness and its impact on openness. There would be a degree of related harm due to the loss of agricultural land. In line with national planning policy, substantial weight is to be attached to any Green Belt harm and the other harm identified.

5.36 Market indicators demonstrate a need for identified specific commercial development within the area. Having regard to the scale and location of the application site and its relationship to the existing conurbation, strategic road network and the planned growth area, the site is well suited to provide employment stock of which there is current shortage of quality supply in the area. The development would contribute towards the delivery of local transport infrastructure and services for the area, including the Woodside link road scheme. The site is partly allocated for employment development under the adopted South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004 and includes the route of the realigned B579 Luton Road, which is already separately consented. The development would be closely related to existing and consented development on all sides in the form of employment areas, and transport infrastructure. The proposal is consistent with the emerging policy allocation under the Development Strategy and the Council’s adopted North of Luton and Sundon RFI Framework Plan which are supported by historic policy documents, identifying the need for land in this area to be released from the Green Belt for mixed use development. If the Development Strategy is not progressed to adoption, there would be no allocated supply of employment land to meet local employment needs. In this context, delaying a decision or refusing the planning application on Green Belt grounds in the absence of an adopted planning allocation for the entirety of the site would serve no good planning purpose, other than to delay much needed employment and economic growth for the area.

5.37 Taken together, these represent very special circumstances sufficient to clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm and other harm identified. Agenda Item 17 Page 278

6 Issues

(a) Transport and highways 6.1 National and local planning policy relating to transport and access promotes sustainable development which should give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, have access to high quality public transport initiatives, create safe and secure layouts and minimising journey times.

6.2 Where developments generate significant amounts of movement, decisions should take account of whether opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up, safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people and improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. The NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.

6.3 The submitted Transport Assessment (TA) sets out the existing transport baseline situation. This details the key road network connections including the consented A5-M1 link road, M1 J11a and Woodside link road which are under construction, and the realignment of the B579 Luton Road, through the application site. There is presently no regular bus route serving this part of Luton Road. The nearest bus connections are approximately 400 metres north (No. 20 - Luton Road / Sundon Road) and 1km south (No.6 – Toddington Road). Connections to London and other locations via rail are available from Station, approximately 2.8km south of the site. Reference is made to the consented Houghton Regis North Site 1 development, west of the M1, for up to 5,150 dwellings and circa 200,000sqm of additional development.

6.4 The TA details the parking requirements and likely trip generation for the development based on the proposed floor area and the TRICS database. A transport impact assessment is provided, detailing local and national policy, which concludes that the level of traffic generated would be negligible when distributed onto the wider network. The proposed roundabout onto the realigned B579 Luton Road would be suitable to accommodate the expected vehicle trips.

6.5 CBC Highways Development Management has reviewed the TA and raises no objection to the proposal in transport impact terms. The development would need to provide support funding at £40,000 towards the delivery of the Woodside link road, which is required to serve the site. It is understood that a HGV ban is planned for roads through Chalton village which would prevent goods vehicles associated with the proposed development from utilising local roads in preference to strategic routes. Any local HGV ban would need to be implemented through highways legislation, rather than under planning legislation and is beyond the scope of this planning application. However the operation of the site is planned to align with the public operation of the new strategic transport connections and this can be subject to control through Legal Agreement in the interests of ensuring the site is served by these major roads and to avoid adverse impacts upon constrained local roads Agenda Item 17 through the neighbouring villages. Page 279

6.6 The site access arrangements are considered to be acceptable subject to final constructional details, together with suitable footway/cycleway connections and traffic calming measures to be provided on the realigned B579 Luton Road. These works do not form part of the consented realignment being undertaken as part of the development of M1 J11a and would need to be secured by planning condition and in connection with the S278 highways process.

6.7 Temporary access, to allow for construction on Plot 1, during the realignment of the B579 is proposed to the south of the site from the existing Luton Road. This would involve the temporary loss of an existing landscaped area adjacent to the adjoining General Motors site. The stopping up of this construction access and reinstatement of this land as a landscaped area following occupation of Plot 1 would need to be controlled by condition.

6.8 With respect to pedestrian and cycle movements and public transport initiatives, Travel Plan measures would need to be secured by condition. It is proposed that public transport provision for the site would be secured by separate agreement with local bus providers. This would ensure that the site is accessible using public transport from local centres such as Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis and from the Luton-Dunstable Busway. The applicant has engaged with local bus operators, including Arriva and Grant Palmer regarding potential bus provision, such as through an extension to any existing service route. The timing, running routes and other parameters for any bus service for the site would need to be agreed with the Council’s Public Transport Officers. This would be required in advance of any wider public transport strategies being implemented over the longer term to serve the wider growth area including the consented developments, North of Houghton Regis and the proposed North of Luton Strategic Allocation, should this be progressed.

(b) Landscape and visual impacts and design considerations

6.9 The development would occupy a prominent location at the western edge of the proposed North of Luton allocation area. Given the scale of the development, there would be wider views of the warehousing, particularly the larger unit proposed for Plot 1. The application is accompanied by a Landscape and Visual Assessment which provides photomontages to show the site in this context and an analysis of the visual impacts of the development at various times of the year, from various public viewpoints.

6.10 The larger building proposed for Plot 1 would be appreciably taller than the existing General Motors warehouse but would not be of the same scale of footprint and it would not present the same wide elevations when seen in close public views. In longer range views from the north, the proposed building would also be partly screened by new structural landscaping within the site and also by the new M1 J11a which would be constructed 4 to 5 metres above the level of Luton Road and the application site. Graded colour panelling would assist in minimising the visual impact of the building in wider views. Other design solutions to break up the massing of the building have been considered by the applicant, in discussion with the Agenda Item 17 Council, but are not a feature of the submitted application, given that no Pageend 280 user is yet to be identified.

6.11 Significant tree planting is proposed adjacent to the realigned Luton Road to provide a landscaped approach to the buildings with soft landscaped areas to the site boundaries. CBC Landscape and Green Infrastructure Officers have expressed a preference for additional landscaped areas and have recommended various changes to the proposed landscape strategy for the site. These have been discussed with the applicant but can not be accommodated due to a number of practical constraints. The realignment of Luton Road would necessitate the siting of a major electrical cable along one side of the realigned road. Due to the size of the cable, wayleave/easement requirements would dictate a minimum setback for trees along the road. Opportunities for additional landscaping within the site or a single, large surface water attenuation area, are also constrained by practical servicing requirements for the site and available land. Having regard to the employment aspirations of the site under the adopted Framework Plan, the physical constraints of the site and the character of the existing employment areas to the south and east, it is considered that the proposal demonstrates an acceptable balance between soft landscaping, built development and servicing areas.

(c) Air Quality, Noise impacts and Land Contamination 6.12 Matters relating to air quality are addressed above within paragraph 2.9 and as part of the comments provided by CBC Public Protection which are summarised as part of the representations section. Whilst the wider growth area development would necessitate pollution monitoring and mitigation measures, it is not considered that the proposed development is objectionable in relation to potential pollution impacts. Given the location of the site and its relationship to employment areas and transport infrastructure, the development is unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on local receptors as a result of vehicle noise. This is subject to the construction of the Woodside link road and J11a, and the routing of logistics traffic towards these strategic roads, away from local routes through the neighbouring villages. Potential noise impacts from fixed external plant can be adequately controlled by planning condition. Having regard to the advice of the Council’s contaminated land officer, the submitted Land Contamination Assessment and the historic use of the land, no significant risks to human health associated with contaminated land are anticipated.

(d) Flood Risk 6.13 The site is within Flood Zone 1 and is defined as having a low probability of flooding. The application is accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment which has been appraised by the Council’s technical drainage officer and the Environment Agency. The proposed drainage strategy is based on the provision of surface water attenuation ponds to discharge to the surface water drain within the adjoining General Motors site. It has been satisfactorily demonstrated that development would not give rise to an increased risk of flooding. In line with the advice of CBC Sustainable Drainage and the Environment Agency, a detailed surface water drainage scheme, based on sustainable principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the site is to be secured by planning condition. Agenda Item 17 Page 281 (e) Utilities 6.14 The application is supported by a Utilities Report which provides a review of available capacity and potential connection arrangements for the site. In relation to electricity infrastructure, the report notes that the existing 33 KV underground electricity cable at Luton Road is to be realigned within the highway as part of the works to facilitate the construction of J11a. There is also an existing 11KV overhead line to the north of the site. UK Power Networks indicate the development can be served from this line. No off-site reinforcement of gas infrastructure would be required and the site can be served by the existing gas infrastructure main presently serving the existing General Motors facility. Existing BT Openreach telecoms apparatus is installed underground at Luton Road which would need to be diverted as part of the realignment of the highway. Connections to serve the site could be accommodated as part of these diversion works. Additionally, Virgin Media and Vodafone broadband infrastructure is located between the application site and the M1. This would require diversion in connection with the construction of J11a. Connections for the site could be provided as part of these works. Affinity Water has been contacted on behalf of the applicant. It is expected that potable water for the site can be provided via a new connection to the existing 9 inch diameter water infrastructure main serving the existing General Motors development to the south. In response to consultation under the planning application, Anglian Water have advised that the foul water drainage for this site would be within the catchment of Chalton Water Recycling Centre which has capacity to accept flows from the site. The developer would need to undertake further detailed statutory utilities appraisals in connection with the development and meet the costs of all necessary utilities works as required by statutory undertakers and other individual utilities providers as outlined in the Utilities Report.

7. Other matters

Human Rights 7.1 In assessing and determining this planning application, the Council must consider the issue of Human Rights. Article 8, right to respect for private and family life, and Article 1 of Protocol 1, right to property, are engaged. However, in balancing human rights issues against residential amenity impacts, further action is not required. This planning application is not considered to present any human rights issues.

Equality Act 2010 7.2 In assessing and determining this planning application, the Council should have regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination. This application does not present any issues of inequality or discrimination.

Crime and Disorder Act 1998 7.3 Section 17 of this Act places a duty on local authorities and the police to cooperate in the development and implementation of a strategy for addressing crime and disorder. Officers are satisfied that the development is capable of achieving a design that can assist in preventing crime and disorder in the area. Agenda Item 17 Page 282 8. The Requirement for Planning Conditions

8.1 The recommendation includes the detailed wording of all conditions, but it is appropriate to summarise the requirements here for ease of understanding. The following would need to be addressed by planning condition.

8.2 1. Time limit for implementation

2. Office areas to be used as ancillary to main warehouse use

3. Submission of CEMP

4. Submission of detailed surface water drainage scheme

5. Submission of material to be used in external construction

6. Implementation of tree protection

7. Implementation of landscaping

8. Noise controls

9. Lighting controls

10.Use of sustainable energy sources

11.Waste management measures

12.Submission of detailed scheme of highway improvement works

13.Implementation of parking

14.Control over temporary access for construction

15.Submission of travel plan

16.Submission of waste audit

17.Submission of employment and skills plan

18.Approved plans and documents

9. The Requirement for Planning Obligations

9.1 Having regard to the above, various planning obligations would need to be secured by Legal Agreement. Principally, the Legal Agreement would need to achieve the following:

 Financial contributions towards the delivery of the Woodside link road, at £40,000, which is required to serve the development.  Controls over the occupation of the development tied to the public Agenda Item 17 opening of the new strategic road network connections, includingPage 283 the Woodside link road.  Procurement of a suitable public transport service for the site, by separate agreement with a bus operator, the parameters of which are to be agreed with the Council.

9.2 The comments of Chalton Parish Council are noted which indicate that broad infrastructure contributions should be considered as the definition of infrastructure includes flood defences, schools, hospitals, health and social care facilities, play areas, parks and green spaces. The statutory tests for planning obligations dictate that infrastructure funding to be secured in connection with a planning permission can only sought to mitigate against the impacts specifically arising from the development. Other, broader, infrastructure requirements such as those referred to by the Parish Council, would not meet statutory tests as they apply to the proposed warehouse development. These should be met in connection with the larger urban extension, if this is progressed, where those requirements arise. The planning obligations summarised above under paragraph 9.1 are considered to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and therefore meet the test for planning obligations as under paragraph 204 of the NPPF and Part 11 of the 2010 CIL Regulations.

10 Conclusions

10.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt and would be harmful to the Green Belt due to its inappropriateness and its impact on openness. There would be a degree of related harm due to the loss of agricultural land. In line with national planning policy, substantial weight is to be attached to any Green Belt harm and the other harm identified.

10.2 Market indicators demonstrate a need for identified specific commercial development within the area. Having regard to the scale and location of the application site and its relationship to the existing conurbation, strategic road network and the planned growth area, the site is well suited to provide employment stock of which there is current shortage of quality supply in the area. The development would contribute towards the delivery of local transport infrastructure and services for the area, including the Woodside link road scheme. The site is partly allocated for employment development under the adopted South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004 and includes the route of the realigned B579 Luton Road, which is already separately consented. The development would be closely related to existing and consented development on all sides in the form of employment areas, and transport infrastructure. The proposal is consistent with the emerging policy allocation under the Development Strategy and the Council’s adopted North of Luton and Sundon RFI Framework Plan which are supported by historic policy documents, identifying the need for land in this area to be released from the Green Belt for mixed use development. If the Development Strategy is not progressed to adoption, there would be no allocated supply of employment land to meet local employment needs. In this context, delaying a decision or refusing the planning application in the absence of an adopted Agenda Item 17 planning allocation for the entire site would serve no good planning purpose,Page 284 other than to delay or prevent much needed employment and economic growth for the area. Taken together, these represent very special circumstances sufficient to clearly outweigh the Green Belt harm and other harm identified.

10.4 Subject to suitable mitigation, no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed development or due to the impact on local services and facilities. In all other respects the proposal is considered to be in conformity with the adopted Development Plan policies, the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, and national policy contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Recommendation

That, the Development Infrastructure Group Manager be authorised to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the prior consultation of the Secretary of State, in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009, the completion of a prior Section 106 Agreement to secure planning obligations as summarised in this report and subject to conditions:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

1 The development hereby permitted 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 provisions of Class B1 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), the premises shall only be used as offices ancillary to the main Class B8 use of the site.

Reason: To prevent the establishment of an independent office unit on the site.

3 No phase of the development shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The CEMP(s) shall comprise;

a) Environment Management Responsibilities; b) Construction Activities and Timing; c) Plant and Equipment, including loading and unloading; d) Construction traffic routes, points of access/egress and parking to be used by construction vehicles; e) Details of site compounds, offices and areas to be used for the storage of materials; f) Emergency planning & Incidents; g) Contact details for site managers and details of management Agenda Item 17 lines of reporting to be updated as different phases come forward; Page 285 h) On site control procedures in respect of: i. Traffic management measures including wheel cleaning for construction vehicles ii. Air and Dust quality iii. Noise and vibration iv. Water quality v. Ecology vi. Trees, Hedgerows and Scrub vii. Waste and Resource Management viii. Archaeological and Cultural Heritage ix. Visual and Lighting x. Utilities and Services xi. Protection of species and habitats i) Detailed phasing plan to show any different phasing; j) Details for the monitoring and review of the construction process including traffic management (to include a review process of the Construction Environmental Management Plan during development). k) A method statement detailing the proposed method of construction and risk assessment in relation to any excavation, drainage, demolition, lighting and building work or any works to be carried out on site that may affect the safety, operation, integrity and access to the railway and Network Rail property. Where appropriate, the method statement shall detail the following: i. Excavations/ earthworks to be carried out in the vicinity of Network Rail property/ structures ii. Temporary works compounds to be installed in the vicinity of Network Rail property/ structures iii. Security of the railway boundary including any temporary or permanent alterations to the boundary treatment or safety barriers iv. The use of vibro-compaction machinery v. Routing of abnormal loads construction traffic vi. Diversion of any surface and foul water away from Network Rail property

The works shall be implemented only in accordance with the details approved.

Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed using methods to mitigate nuisance or potential damage associated with the construction period. Details must be approved prior to the commencement of development to mitigate nuisance and potential damage which could occur in connection with development.

4 No phase of the development, with the exception of site clearance shall not begin until a scheme for surface water disposal for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme(s) shall be based on sustainable principles and a detailed site specific assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development. Infiltration systems shall only be used where it can be demonstrated that they will not pose a Agenda Item 17 risk to groundwater quality. The scheme(s) shall be implemented Pagein 286 accordance with the approved details and shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with an agreed management and maintenance plan.

Reason: To protect and prevent the pollution of controlled waters from potential pollutants associated with current and previous land uses. Details must be approved prior to the commencement of development to prevent any potential pollution of controlled waters which could occur in connection with development.

5 Notwithstanding the details submitted with the application, no construction of an approved building shall take place, until details of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs of that phase of development hereby approved have been 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 development in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

6 All tree protection measures, remedial tree works and arboricultural methodology, shall be undertaken in accordance with the recommendations made in Section 6 of the Tree Survey Report (received 16 March 2015), including Appendix 2 "Survey Schedule" and Appendix 3 "Tree Protection Plan" as prepared by RGS Arboricultural Consultants, dated February 2015. All tree protection fencing shall remain securely in place throughout the construction phase of the development.

Reason: To ensure the implementation of all tree protection measures and good arboricultural practice in respect of retained trees, in order to maintain their health, screening, biodiversity, habitat and amenity value.

7 The planting and landscaping scheme shown on approved Drawing No. 01 Rev. J received 10 August 2015 and as detailed within the Landscape Design Statement reference 1525/15/RP01 Rev B (received 16 March 2015) and the 5 Year Soft Landscape Works Maintenance and Management Proposals reference 1525/15/RP02 Rev B (received 16 March 2015) shall be implemented by the end of the full planting season immediately following the completion and/or first use of any phase of the development (a full planting season shall mean the period from October to March). The trees, shrubs and grass for each phase shall subsequently be maintained for a period of five years from the date of planting and any which die or are destroyed during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of landscaping in the interests of biodiversity, visual and landscape amenity.

8 Noise resulting from the use of any external 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 Agenda Item 17 metre external to the nearest noise sensitive building. Page 287

Reason: In the interests of amenity.

9 No fixed lighting shall be erected or installed until details of the location, height, design, sensors, and luminance have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details for each phase shall ensure the lighting is designed to minimise the potential nuisance of light spillage from the site. The lighting shall thereafter be erected, installed and operated in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of biodiversity, visual and landscape amenity, highway safety and any potential nuisance and disturbances to neighbours.

10 No phase of the development (excluding site clearance and ground engineering) shall take place until a scheme of measures to source 10% of the energy demand for that phase from renewable or low carbon sources. The scheme(s) shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of that phase of the development is occupied. Reason: To ensure the delivery of sustainable and resource efficient development. Details must be approved prior to the commencement of development to ensure the development incorporates suitable sustainable measures as part of the building construction where appropriate.

11 The Site Waste Management Plan and Operational Waste Management Plan for each phase, including provision for on-site refuse storage and recycling facilities for that phase, shall be implemented in accordance with the Waste Audit received 6 May 2015 hereby approved throughout the construction and operational phases of the development as detailed within the Waste Audit.

Reason: To ensure that development is adequately provided with waste and recycling facilities.

12 No part of the development shall be bought into use until a until a scheme of access arrangements and highways improvement works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include construction details of the permitted access arrangements, traffic calming and footway/cycleway connections at Luton Road, to be supported by a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and associated Designers Response and a full suite of swept path analysis drawings associated with the roundabout junction hereby permitted. The approved scheme shall then be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed highway works are constructed to adequate standard, are appropriate and proportional to the mitigation required to serve the development. Agenda Item 17 13 No phase of the development shall be brought into use until a scheme Pagefor 288 the laying out of the HGV parking and service areas within the site, and bus infrastructure within the site, for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme(s) shall be supported by a full suite of internal swept path analysis plans for HGV and bus manoeuvring, including full vehicle wheels and body tracking details. The approved scheme(s) shall then be implemented in full prior to the first occupation of that phase of the development.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed serving areas and bus infrastructure are constructed to adequate standard to serve the development.

14 No phase of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until the parking scheme for that phase shown on Drawing No. 3668-114 Rev. 21 hereby approved has been completed. The parking scheme for each phase of development shall thereafter be retained for this purpose.

Reason: To ensure provision for car parking clear of the highway.

15 Temporary vehicular access to allow for the construction of the approved development for Plot 1 shall be provided in accordance Drawing No. 3668- 114 Rev 21 hereby approved. The temporary access shall then be stopped up and the land shall be reinstated as a landscaped area within three months of the commencement of operational vehicular movements (excluding construction movements) of Plot 1. Prior to the commencement of operational vehicular movements (excluding construction movements) of Plot 1, a scheme of soft landscaping for this area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented by the end of the full planting season immediately following the cessation of the use of the temporary access (a full planting season means the period from October to March). The trees, shrubs and grass shall subsequently be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape maintenance scheme and any which die or are destroyed during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season.

Reason: To allow for safe and suitable access to the site during the construction phase for Plot 1 and to ensure that this landscaped area is reinstated in the interest of biodiversity, visual and landscape amenity, and highway safety.

16 No phase of development shall be bought into use until a Travel Plan for that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan(s) shall include details of:  Predicted travel to and from the site and targets to reduce car use.  Details of existing and proposed transport links, to include links to pedestrian, cycle and public transport networks.  Measures to minimise private car use and facilitate walking, cycling and use of public transport.  Timetable for implementation of measures designed to promote travel choice.  Plans for monitoring and review, annually for a period of 5 years at which time the obligation will be reviewed by the Council. Agenda Item 17  Details of provision of cycle parking in accordance with councilPage 289 guidelines.  Details of marketing and publicity for sustainable modes of transport to include site specific travel information packs, to include site specific travel and transport information; travel vouchers; details of relevant pedestrian, cycle and public transport routes to/ from and within the site; and copies of relevant bus and rail timetables  Details of the appointment of a travel plan co-ordinator.  An Action Plan listing the measures to be implemented and timescales for this.

The Travel Plan(s) for each phase of the development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved timetable for that phase and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of that phase of the development is occupied.

Reason: In the interests of promoting sustainable transport and reducing the number of trips by private car.

17 No development of any buildings shall take place until details of the existing and final ground and slab levels of the buildings for that phase of development hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include a fixed datum point outside of the site. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that an acceptable relationship results between the development, adjacent buildings and public view points, in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality.

18 Prior to the commencement of operational vehicular movements (excluding construction movements) of each development plot, an Employment and Skills Plan for that plot shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with each approved Employment and Skills Plan.

Reason: To provide an opportunity for residents of the local area to access employment opportunities.

19 The phased development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted documents;  Plot Location Plots 1 and 2 – 3668-122 Rev 11 (received 10 August 2015);  Site Plan Plots 1 and 2 - 3668-114 Rev 21(received 10 August 2015);  External Finishes Plan – 3668-123 Rev 10 (received 10 August 2015);  Landscape Concept Plan – 01 Rev J (received 10 August 2015);  Fencing Layout & Details – 3668-124 Rev 7 (received 9 July 2015);  Gatehouse Details – 368-125 Rev 4 (received 9 July 2015);  Landscape Concept Sections – 02 Rev B (received 9 July 2015);  Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy July 2015 – R14791/F001 (received 9 July 2015);  Proposed Warehouse Plan Plot 1 (20m Haunch) – 3668-117 Rev 5 Agenda Item 17 (received 16 March 2015); Page 290  Proposed Sections Plot 1 (20m Haunch) – 3668-115 Rev 2 (received 16 March 2015);  Proposed Roof Plan Plot 1 (20m Haunch) – 3668-126 Rev 4 (received 16 March 2015);  Proposed Warehouse Plan Plot 2 (10m Haunch) – 3668-118 Rev 4 (received 16 March 2015);  Proposed Sections Plot 2 (10m Haunch) – 3668-119 Rev 2 (received 16 March 2015);  Proposed Roof Plan Plot 2 (10m Haunch) – 3668-127 Rev 3 (received 16 March 2015);  Landscape Design Statement – 1525/15/RP01 Rev B (received 16 March 2015);  5 Year Soft Landscape Works Maintenance and Management Proposals – 1525/15/RP02 Rev B (received 16 March 2015);  Tree Survey Report dated February 2015 (received 16 March 2015); and  Waste Audit dated May 2015, received 6 May 2015

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

INFORMATIVES

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.

2 In accordance with Article 35(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the reason for any condition above relates to the Policies as referred to in the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (SBLPR), the Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2005), and Bedford Borough, Central Bedfordshire and Luton Borough Council’s Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Strategic Sites and Policies (2014), the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire (DSCB) and the NPPF.

3 Any conditions in bold must be discharged before the development commences. Failure to comply with this requirement could invalidate this permission and/or result in enforcement action.

4 As the site is of long historic use there may be unexpected materials or substances in, on or under the ground. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure safe and secure conditions, so any indications of potential contamination issues encountered during construction should be forward to the Contaminated Land Officer, Andre Douglas for advice, on 0300 300 4004 or via [email protected].

5 The applicant is advised that as a result of the development, new highway street lighting will be required and the applicant must contact the Development Management Group, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ for details of the works involved, the cost of which shall be borne Agenda Item 17 by the developer. No development shall commence until the works havePage been 291 approved in writing and the applicant has entered into a separate legal agreement covering this point with the Highway Authority.

6 The applicant is advised that in order to comply with the conditions of this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Central Bedfordshire Council as Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. Further details can be obtained from the Development Management Group, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ.

7. The development of the site is subject to a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

This page is intentionally left blank