Central Council Priory House Monks Walk , Shefford SG17 5TQ

please ask for Martha Clampitt direct line 0300 300 4032 date 29 November 2012

NOTICE OF MEETING

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Date & Time Wednesday, 12 December 2012 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 A Shadbolt (Chairman), K C Matthews (Vice-Chairman), P N Aldis, A R Bastable, R D Berry, M C Blair, D Bowater, A D Brown, Mrs C F Chapman MBE, Mrs S Clark, I Dalgarno, Mrs R J Drinkwater, Mrs R B Gammons, D Jones, Ms C Maudlin, T Nicols, I Shingler and J N Young

[Named Substitutes:

L Birt, P A Duckett, C C Gomm, Mrs D B Gurney, R W Johnstone, J Murray, B J Spurr, N Warren and P Williams]

All other Members of the Council - on request

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

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

AGENDA

1. Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members

2. Chairman's Announcements

If any

3. Minutes

To approve as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 21 November 2012. (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 * 5 - 10 Has Been Taken

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

Planning and Related Applications - To consider the planning applications contained in the following schedules:

Item Subject Page Nos. 6 Planning Application No. CB/12/03697/FULL * 11 - 24

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

Demolition of existing detached double garage & construction of a 2 bedroom bungalow, with new access and associated parking.

Applicant : Mr & Mrs M Ciancio

7 Planning Application No. CB/12/01496/OUT * 25 - 60

Address : Land at Warren Farm, Road,

Outline: Development of up to 410 dwellings, together with open space, accesses and surface water retention basin.

Applicant : Denison Investments Ltd & Connolly Homes Plc.

8 Planning Application No. CB/12/03535/FULL * 61 - 76

Address : Land rear of 197 Hitchin Road, , SG15 6SE

Change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for 4 additional gypsy families, with a total of 8 caravans including no more than 4 static caravans. Extension of hardstanding and erection of two amenity buildings and landscaping.

Applicant : Mr Patrick Rooney

9 Planning Application No. CB/12/03433/FULL * 77 - 88

Address : 21 Road, Everton, Sandy SG19 2LD

Change of use to care home from adult residential home to residential childrens home.

Applicant : Mrs D Bavister

10 Planning Application No. CB/12/02838/FULL * 89 - 102

Address : Kingdom Hall, 5 Shortmead Street, SG18 0AT

Brownfield development seeking demolition of existing outdated building and upgrade with a new building.

Applicant : Biggleswade Congregation of jehovah’s witnesses

11 Planning Application No. CB/12/02837/CA * 103 - 112

Address : Kingdom Hall, 5 Shortmead Street, Biggleswade SG18 0AT

Brownfield development seeking demolition of existing outdated building and upgrade with a new building.

Applicant : Biggleswade Congregation of jehovah’s witnesses

12 Planning Application No. CB/12/03455/FULL * 113 - 120

Address : Lower School, Bedford Road, Northill, Biggleswade SG18 9AH

Extend the perimeter fence of MUGA (Multi Use Games Area) by 1m in height.

Applicant : Northill Lower School

13 Planning Application No. CB/12/00193/MW * 121 - 148

Address : Totternhoe Lime and Stone Works, Knolls View, Totternhoe, LU6 2BU

Change of use of part of the former Lime Works from B2 to End of Life Vehicle and Metal Recycling Facility with associated plant and the erection of a de-pollution building.

Applicant : Totternhoe Metal Recycling Ltd

14 Site Inspection Appointment(s) *

In the event of any decision having been taken during the meeting requiring the inspection of a site or sites, the Committee is invited to appoint Members to conduct the site inspection immediately preceding the next meeting of this Committee to be held on 16 January 2013 having regard to the guidelines contained in the Code of Conduct for Planning Procedures.

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

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5 Page 7

Meeting: Development Management Committee Date: 12th December 2012 Subject: Planning Enforcement cases where formal action has been taken

Report of: Director of Sustainable Communities

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

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

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

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS Council Priorities:

This is a report for noting ongoing planning enforcement action.

Financial: 1. None Legal: 2. None .

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

Sustainability: 8. Not Applicable.

Procurement: 9. Not applicable.

RECOMMENDATION(S):

The Committee is asked to:

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

2. To receive an update of Minerals and Waste Planning Enforcement cases where formal action has been taken at Appendix B

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. The list at Appendix B briefly describes the breach of planning control for Minerals and Waste cases, dates of action and further action proposed.

13. 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 further details of Minerals and Waste cases in Appendix B please contact Roy Romans on 0300 300 6039.

Appendices:

Appendix A – Planning Enforcement Formal Action Spreadsheet – North & South Appendix B – Minerals and Waste Planning Enforcement Formal Action Spreadsheet

Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 12th December 2012) NEW ENFORCEMENT DATE EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE LOCATION BREACH APPEAL COMPLIANCE RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. ISSUED DATE DATE DATE CB/ENC/10/0037 Land at 6 Sutton Road, Enforcement Notice - siting of 31-Aug-12 01-Oct-12 01-Dec-12 Check compliance after 1/12/12 Potton, SG19 2DS mobile home for independent 1 residential accommodation

CB/ENC/10/0140 Land at 6 The Belfry, Luton. Enforcement Notices - 13-Sep-12 11-Oct-12 08-Nov-12 Appeal Await outcome of appeal LU2 7GA change of use of land from submitted 2 amenity land to use as 27/9/12 garden. CB/ENC/10/0189 Land adjacent to 17 The 2 Enforcement Notices 10-Aug-11 08-Sep-11 07-Nov-11 Appeal 29-May-13 Check compliance after 29/3/13 Causeway, material change of use of the and dismissed, 3 Bedfordshire MK45 4RA land to a caravan site and 08-Mar-12 compliance construction of hardstanding extended

CB/ENC/11/0402 Land adjoining Greenacres, 2 Enforcement Notices 15-Oct-12 12-Nov-12 10-Dec-12 Check compliance after Gypsy Lane, Little Billington, 1 - unauthorised 10/12/12 4 Leighton Buzzard. LU7 9BP encroachment onto field No site visits until further notice 2 - unauthorised hard standing, fence and buildings

CB/ENC/11/0664 Land adjoining Hill Grove, Enforcement Notice - brick 24-Oct-12 21-Nov-12 09-Dec-12 Part complied Rubble to be removed The Green, , wall and piers 5 Dunstable, LU6 2LN

CB/ENC/12/0057 Land at The Drovers, Flitwick Enforcement Notice - 30-May-12 30-Jun-12 30-July-12 30- Appeal 24-Nov-12 Notice upheld Road, Terracing of land and Aug-12 dismissed and Check compliance 6 installation of timber retaining 24/10/12 24-Dec-12 November/December 2012 walls CB/ENC/12/0162 The Grade II Listed building at Listed Building Enforcement 14-Jun-12 12-Jul-12 12-Oct-12 Part complied Remainder of work to be 24 Market Square, Notice - removal of ceilings completed by January 2013 7 Toddington, Dunstable LU5 and wall plaster. 6BS CB/ENC/12/0173 Land at London Gliding Club, Enforcement Notice. The 17-Apr-12 15-May-12 15-Jul-12 Appeal Await outcome of appeal Tring Road, Dunstable LU6 construction of a T Hangar. received 8 2JP 10/5/12 Agenda Item5 CB/ENC/12/0199 Plots 1 & 2 The Stables, Breach of Condition Notice 15-Oct-12 15-Oct-12 12-Nov-12 Check compliance after Gypsy Lane, Little Billington, Condition 3 SB/TP/04/1372 12/11/12 9 Leighton Buzzard LU7 9BP named occupants No site visits until further notice

CB/ENC/11/0403 Land to rear of Plots 1 & 2, 2 Enforcement Notices 15-Oct-12 12-Nov-12 10-Dec-12 Check compliance after

The Stables, Gypsy Lane, 1 - unauthorised fence 10/12/12 Page 9 10 Little Billington LU7 9BP 2 - unauthorised No site visits until further notice encroachment onto agricultural land

NOT PROTECTED - general data Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 12th December 2012) NEW ENFORCEMENT DATE EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE LOCATION BREACH APPEAL COMPLIANCE RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. ISSUED DATE DATE DATE CB/ENC/12/0257 Unit H Industrial Breach of Condition Notice. 19-Jun-12 19-Jun-12 19-Jul-12 Pre-app received 19/7/12 for Estate, Common Rd Condition 1 SB/TP/87/0748 variation of condition, 11 Kensworth height of storage discussions taking place. Await decision on variation.

CB/ENC/12/0284 Land at Plots 15 - 19 Breach of Condition Notice - 05-Oct-12 05-Oct-12 31-Dec-12 Check compliance after inclusive, Sovereign Close, Condition 3 to planning 31/12/12 12 Leighton Buzzard. LU7 1BZ permission SB/TP/05/00761 tree planting

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

CB/ENC/12/0433 Land at Twin Acres, Hitchin Breach of Condition Notice 09-Oct-12 09-Oct-12 04-Dec-12 Withdraw Notice Planning permission granted Road, Arlesey, Bedfordshire. Condition 3 planning 21/11/12 supersedes Notice. 14 SG15 6SE permission 02//MB/92/916 Monitor compliance with conditions

CB/ENC/12/0433 Land at Twin Acres, Hitchin 2 Enforcement Notices 09-Oct-12 06-Nov-12 04-Dec-12 Withdraw Notices Planning permission granted Road, Arlesey, Bedfordshire. 1- mobile homes 21/11/12 supersedes Notices. 15 SG15 6SE 2- hardstanding Monitor compliance with conditions

MB/ENC/08/0214 Land & Buildings at Lower Breach of conditions to 15-Dec-08 12-Jan-09 12-Feb-09 Part complied Await outcome of application Wood Farm, Sundon Rd, Permissions 02/00553 & Planning application 16 Harlington 06/00152. Enforcement CB/11/04219/full Notice - outside storage & received 14/12/11 portacabins SB/ENF/05/0005 215 Common Road, Enforcement Notice - Erection 16-Mar-05 18-Apr-05 18-Jul-05 6-May-05 6-Aug-05 Appeal dismissed & Court Hearing adjourned, Kensworth of a double garage and enforcement notice planning application for smaller 17 storeroom upheld. building received, await Not complied outcome.

SB/ENF/07/0006 Dunedin, Harlington Road, Change of use to bedsit 10-Aug-07 12-Sep-07 4-Dec-07 Appeal 9-Jan-09 Part complied - Prosecuted and fined SB/ENF/07/0007 Toddington accommodation, erection of dismissed. (use of buildings September 2011. SB/ENF/07/0008 building & extensions, non and land) Monitor site and action on Agenda Item5 18 compliance with Condition 2 completion of M1 roadworks if of SB/TP/98/0838 there is a breach of planning control. SB/ENF/08/0009 21 Emu Close, Heath & Construction of single storey 14-Apr-08 14-May-08 14-Aug-08 20-Jun-08 04-Sep-09 LDC proposed Prosecuted and fined October

Reach front and side extensions and granted 22/3/12. 2011. Page 10 19 loft conversion Part complied with In process of altering to comply LDC proposed with proposed LDC.

NOT PROTECTED - general data Minerals Waste Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 12 December 2012)

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

PINS appeal decision required the whole slab to be removed; Enforcement Notice - Depends on or remove 20% of slab and Former BR Goods Yard, Creation of large concrete Part Allowed requirements YES - Hearing provide boundary landscaping. 11/0360 Road, East slab (33m x 40m) on part of 3-Oct-11 9-Nov-11 (Grounds f & g) 13-Dec-12 Varies 3 - 4 28 Feb 2012 Operator has indicated that the Hyde area that should be Part Dismissed months 20% slab removal option is landscaped favoured.

Compliance requirements varied by outcome of Breach of Condition Notice - Depends on Former BR Goods Yard, Enforcement Notice appeal re Non compliance with requirements 11/0360 Chiltern Green Road, East 3-Oct-11 3-Oct-11 N/A retention of 80% of concrete landscaping provision in Varies 3 - 6 Hyde slab with revised landscaping CB/10/00457/MW months

Waste materials continued to Breach of Condition Notice - Summons exceed the 3m height Plot 2 Station Road Industrial Non compliance with height served re non restriction in 2012. 11/0374 14-Nov-11 14-Nov-11 14-Dec-11 N/A Estate, Ampthill of stockpiled materials - compliance of Prosecution action in progress Cond no.12 of perm 18/2005 stockpile height in liaison with Legal.

Breach of Condition Notice - Revised kerb alignment to Former BR Goods Yard, Non compliance with access improve exit towards main Complied 11/0360 Chiltern Green Road, East improvement works: Cond 3-Jul-12 3-Jul-12 14-Sep-12 N/A road for HGVs and hinder right 23 Nov 2012 Hyde no.3 of perm turn HGV movements has CB/10/00457/MW been carried out.. Agenda Item5 Page 11

Page 1 Minerals Waste Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 12 December 2012) Appeal on grounds b), f) and g) only. The planning merits of the change of use will not be considered. Both parties have submitted their statements to Enforcement Notice - the Planning Inspectorate Change of use of land to Depends on (PINS). Local residents have Plot 2+ 2bc Station Road waste transfer and material requirements YES - Hearing 11/0374 19-Jul-12 23-Aug-12 been notified of the appeal and Industrial Estate, Ampthill recycling facility which Varies 1-2 23 Jan 2013 have submitted their constitutes unauthorised EIA months comments to PINS.Regular development liaison continues with the Environment Agency re current conditions on site. Agenda Item5 Page 12

Page 2 Oak Ridge Agenda Item 6 OAKBANK DRIVE Page 13

PH

309

18

10

226 2

GROVE

Norfolk Lodge 34 46 38

CARLTON 30

54 Sussex Lodge

CHILTERN GARDENS

299

19

15 11a

Chiltern 11 Lodge 12

2

HEATH ROAD 14

El Sub Sta

3 1

12

Sandy Lane Cottages 297

15 9

7 9 Dormers 291

Bregawn

103.3m

5 1

Heathcroft The Cedars

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

HEATH PARK ROAD

Quince House

Lyndholme Applecross 224 Taney's Dell

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No. W E Date: 16:November:2012 CB/12/03697/FULL GridMap Sheet Reference: No 492392; 227246 S

Scale: 1:1250 Land adj. to 2 Sandy Lane, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3BE Page 14

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Page 15

Item No. 6

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/12/03697/FULL LOCATION Land Adj to 2 Sandy Lane, Leighton Buzzard, LU7 3BE PROPOSAL Demolition of existing detached double garage & construction of a 2 bedroom bungalow, with new access and associated parking PARISH Leighton- WARD Leighton Buzzard North WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Johnstone, Shadbolt & Spurr CASE OFFICER Heidi Antrobus DATE REGISTERED 16 October 2012 EXPIRY DATE 11 December 2012 APPLICANT Mr & Mrs M Ciancio AGENT Lee Butler MRICS REASON FOR COMMITTEE TO One of the Applicants is an Employee of Central DETERMINE Bedfordshire Council

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Refused

Site Location:

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

The property has a doub le detached garage with two separate garage doors which has a footprint of 36 sqm. The garage is located on the left hand side of the main elevation on Sandy Lane. The garage has an adjoining wall to the left of the frontage which subdivides the front and rear garden whilst providing a boundary for the existing rear garden of No.2 Sandy Lane. The existing rear garden is an ‘L’ shape and measures approximately between 109.8 sqm (as measured on Drawing No 51112) and this is partly bordered by a 1.8 metre fen ce and the existing bungalow, the side and rear of the detached garage and the adjoining brick wall which subdivides the front and rear garden.

The dual pedestrian access and vehicular access to the existing bungalow is located off Sandy Lane and there is off street parking in front of the garage for up to 3 cars. The curtilage fronting Sandy Lane is bordered by a 0.72 metre wall. The Sandy Lane garden frontage is approximately 10.5 metres in depth and the Heath Lane garden frontage has a depth of between 20 to 15.5 metres. On the Sandy Lane frontage, directly in front of the curtilage boundary wall, to the left of the Agenda Item 6 Page 16

existing access is a large mature fine Oak Tree which overhangs the existing front garden of No. 2 Sandy Lane and there is another larger Oak Tree nearby.

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

Planning Proposal

Demolition of existing detached double garage including the adjoining wall and the construction of a detached 2 bedroom bungalow, creation of an additional vehicular access point and 2 new driveways and associated boundary fencing.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Policies

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

6 Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7 Requiring good design

Regional Spatial Strategy

ENV7 Quality of the Built Environment SS1 Achieving Sustainable Development T14 Car Parking

South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review Policies

BE8 Design Considerations H2 Fall-In Sites T10 Parking

The NPPF advises of the weight to be attached to existing local plans adopted prior to the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act as in the case of the Local Plan Review. Due weight can be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework. It is considered that the above policies are consistent with the Framework and carry significant weight, other than T10.

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Design in Central Bedfordshire. A Guide for Development (2010) : Requiring Good Design D.S.1 New Residential Developments D.S.7 Movement, Streets and Places

Central Bedfordshire Local Transport Plan : Appendix F – Approach to Parking (2012)

Planning Obligations Strategy – 23 rd October 2009

Agenda Item 6 Page 17

Planning History

CB/12/02360/PAPC Pre Ap plication Advice: Erection of a 2 bed chalet bungalow and demolition of existing double detached garage of No. 2 Sandy Lane.

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

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Leighton Linslade Town Council Objected on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site.

Adjacent Occupiers 7 Objections received from local residents on the following grounds in total:

• Overdevelopment • Lack of garden/amenity space • Loss of amenity space • Loss of natural light to lounge and study/dining room of neighbouring property • Due to higher land overlooking and loss of privacy to back garden • Proposed buildline in front of existing properties on Sandy Lane • Not in character with rest of properties on Sandy Lane • Parking inadequate existing residents currently park on the green verge/highway – implications of additional property parking and associated visitor parking issues for 2 properties • The new proposed access which will be constructed opposite the existing property will be dangerous due to it being nearer the junction of Sandy Lane and Heath Road • Highways & safety issues relating to corner junction & the corner shop - people park on the corner on the yellow lines and outside No.2 Sandy Lane • Traffic speed and flows from the junction onto and off Sandy Lane, higher traffic flows due to the Oak Bank School being located on Sandy Lane • Impact on existing Oak tree • Current overflow parking from No.2 Sandy Lane from occupiers and visitors • Concerns in relation to drainage. Agenda Item 6 Page 18

Site Notice Posted 31/10/12 Advertised

Consultations/Publicity responses

Highways No Objection and provision of 5 planning conditions and 4 Informative Notes.

Trees & Landscape Objection – Impact on the Oak Tree.

Determining Issues

1. Pre Application Discussions 2. Planning Application Submission Documentation 3. Principle of Development 4. Character and Appearance of the Area 5. Design 6. Impact on neighbouring residential amenity 7. Parking and Access 8. Trees 9. Planning Obligations

Considerations

1. Pre Application Discussions

In July 2012 pre application discussions were undertaken with the Council (Ref CB/12/02360/PAPC- Reply 20 th July 2012) . In the pre application letter from the Council’s Planning Officer it was concluded that the proposal would not obtain planning permission as it was contrary to Policy H2, insufficient amenity space provision, detrimental to the fine Oak Tree on Sandy Lane.

2. Planning Application Submission Documentation

Following the validation of this planning application, the site visit was undertaken on the 31 st October 2012 and during the assessment of the planning application submission it was found that there were inconsistencies on the application forms and between the various drawings as detailed on the submitted plan No 17912 dated September 2012. The agent was informed and an amended plan and additional information was provided by the agent on the 6 th November 2012, plan no 51112 and a second clean copy of the drawing was provided by the agent on the 16 th November 2012.

In relation to the existing site the submitted drawings do not show the existing boundary wall to the rear garden that adjoins the detached garage and subdivides the front and rear garden.

3. Principle of Development

The property is an existing semi-detached residential bungalow which is Agenda Item 6 Page 19

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

In paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) it aims to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens that would cause harm to the local area. The creation of a new detached bungalow is not considered as appropriate and would lead to the loss of the valuable openness of the land which includes the front/ side and rear garden to the prominent corner plot of the existing property of No. 2 Sandy Lane that also fronts Heath Road. Therefore it is considered that the proposal would not comply with the requirements of the NPPF and Policy H2 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance - Design Supplement 1: New Residential Development (2010).

4. Character and Appearance of the Area

The existing semi-detached bungalow is the adjoining semi-detached bungalow to No.299 Heath Road. The existing semi-detached bungalow of No. 2 Sandy Lane has a large surrounding grassed frontage and is located on a prominent corner plot located on Heath Road and Sandy Lane. The main elevation of the property together with what appears to be a single storey extension fronts Sandy Lane and the property has a 10.5 metre frontage to Sandy Lane. The rear garden is located behind the existing detached garage which has an adjoining brick wall which subdivides the front and rear garden and leads up to the boundary fence to No.4 Sandy Lane.

The wider street scene of Sandy Lane is characterised by large two storey detached properties with spacious set back frontages of approximately 8.5 metres from the highway. The properties along Sandy Lane have large long rear gardens between 18.5 and 22.5 metres.

On the drawings the distance between the front of the proposed bungalow footprint to the highway fronting Sandy Lane varies between the submitted drawings as follows:

Drawing No Measurement of distance between the front of the proposed bungalow footprint and the highway 17912 – Block Plan 1:500 Between 6.5 and 8 metres from the highway 17912 – Access and Between 7.75 and 9.5 metres Parking Plan 1:100 51112 – Site Layout Plan Between 7.9 and 9.6 metres

Agenda Item 6 Page 20

The proposed footprint is set forward by approximately 1 metre in front of the properties that front Sandy Lane and is set forward by 2 metres in front of the existing semi-detached property of No.2 Sandy Lane.

The proposed bungalow includes the addition of an additional access to 2.9 metres to the right of the existing access. There will be the formation of two driveways from the existing and proposed 2 nd access which will create a turning area and parking for up to 2 cars for each property. The creation of these two driveways, two turning areas and associated parking areas will lead to a substantial loss of the amenity space in the form of the front and side garden which would be visible from Sandy Lane and Heath Road.

Approximate Approximate Approximate Footprint of Footprint of Footprint of 2 driveways Proposed Existing Detached Garage Bungalow Access and 137.5 sqm Parking Drawing 1:100 Block Plan 1:500 65.87 sqm Block Plan 1:500 36 sqm

Therefore minus the existing detached garage there would be a total loss of amenity space of approximately 167.37 sqm. The street scene of Sandy Lane is characterised as having spacious open set back frontages together with spacious rear gardens and this set back frontage is also visible from Heath Road.

Opposite No.2 Sandy Lane is the corner shop which is located on the corner of Sandy Lane and Heath Road. Along side the corner on Sandy Lane there are a set of yellow lines to prevent parking in this area. Further down Sandy Lane is the Oak Bank School. It was observed on the Officer’s site visit that Sandy Lane/Heath Road has a high vehicle flow due to the corner shop and school location. There is a higher level of car parking outside No.2 Sandy Lane and outside the corner shop near to the road junction of Sandy Lane and Heath Road due to the customers using the corner shop.

It is therefore considered that the proposal is not in keeping with the character of the existing property and it is not in keeping with the character of the wider street scene of Sandy Lane and Heath Road due to the substantial loss of amenity space. Therefore the proposal does not meet the requirements of the NPPF (2012), Policies H2 and BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and it does not meet the requirements of the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance – Design Supplement 1: New Residential Development (2010).

5. Design It should be noted there are some variations/inconsistencies between the measurements on the various submitted drawings so all measurements are approximate.

Agenda Item 6 Page 21

• The existing double detached garage has a floorspace of approximately 36sqm and this will be demolished. • The proposed 2 bedroom detached bungalow with chimney has a ground floor footprint which measures approximately 65.87 sqm. • The proposed block paved two accesses, driveways/turning areas and parking areas have an approximate area of 137.5 sqm. • The proposal would result in a total loss of approximately 167.37 sqm of amenity space. • A new access will be created 2.9 metres away to the right of the existing access. • The proposal is partly set forward by approximately 2 metres in front of the semi-detached bungalow of No.2 Sandy Lane and by at least 1 metre in front of the detached house of No.4 Sandy Lane. • The majority of the proposal would be constructed on the front/ side and rear garden of the semi-detached bungalow of No. 2 Sandy Lane which equates to approximately 137.5 sqm. • The grassed garden fronting Sandy Lane of approximately 137.5 sqm would be turned into two block paved driveways which would be subdivided by a hedge. Each driveway would accommodate 2 cars and a turning area. • The proposal would be approximately 2.3 metres from the side elevation of No.2 Sandy Lane and 0.9 to 1 metre from the side elevation of No. 4 Sandy Lane.

Remaining rear garden (based on drawing no 51112)

• The rear garden has been defined as a rear garden due to its enclosed nature and the various items that were located within the rear garden. • The existing semi detached bungalow of No. 2 Sandy Lane would have a remaining rear garden of approximately 21.35 sqm compared to the original existing rear garden of approximately 109.8 sqm. • The proposed 2 bedroom detached bungalow would have a rear garden of approximately 88.45 sqm and it would be 6 to 6.15 metres to the rear boundary fence which also forms a common boundary fence to the rear garden of No.299 Heath Road.

Proposed Elevations of the Proposed 2 bedroom Bungalow

• There are no windows proposed on the side elevation and it would be approximately 4.65 metres in height including the chimney and 4 metres without the chimney. • The chimney would be visible from the left hand side elevation which would face the side elevation of No. 4 Sandy Lane.

Materials

• The bungalow is proposed to be of a brick and tile construction with UPVC Windows.

The proposed 2 bedroom bungalow building by reason of its location, size, height, bulk, scale and unsatisfactory design would result in overdevelopment Agenda Item 6 Page 22

and be harmful to the established character of the existing property of No. 2 Sandy Lane which is located on a prominent open grassed corner plot and it is considered it would be harmful to the character of the wider street scene of Sandy Lane and Heath Road.

The proposed 2 bedroom bungalow would lead to a substantial loss of existing amenity space including the loss of the front / side and rear garden space to No. 2 Sandy Lane and the creation of insufficient garden space to the proposed 2 bedroom bungalow and insufficient garden space to the existing property of No.2 Sandy Lane. As such the development is contrary to the paragraph 53 and Section 7 of the NPPF (2012), Policies H2 and BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2004) and the requirements of the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance – Design Supplement 1: New Residential Development.

6. Impact on neighbouring residential amenity

8 objections have been received, 1 from the Town Council and 7 from neighbouring properties.

It is considered that the proposal would have a significant impact on the amenity of the adjoining semi-detached bungalow of No.299 Heath Road, the detached property of No. 4 Sandy Lane and the semi-detached property of No. 2 Sandy Lane

Loss of Light

The proposed detached bungalow would be located approximately 0.9 to 1 metres away from the side elevation of No.4 Sandy Lane. The side elevation of the proposed bungalow would be approximately 4.6 metres in height including the chimney and approximately 4 metres not including the chimney. The side elevation of the neighbouring property of No.4 Sandy Lane has 4 side elevation windows to the habitable rooms of the dining room and lounge which are visible from the street scene. The windows are slightly obscured for privacy and have a 1.8 fence by them although they are still visible above the fence. It is considered that the proposed approximate 4 to 4.6 metre side elevation of the bungalow would result in a loss of natural light to the habitable rooms of neighbouring property No.4 Sandy Lane.

Loss of Privacy

The rear elevation of the proposed bungalow is located approximately 6.15 to 6.2 metres away from the common boundary to the side of the rear garden to the neighbouring property of No.299 Heath Road which is also the adjoining semi-detached property to the existing property of No. 2 Sandy Lane. This proposal would result in a loss of privacy and amenity to the rear garden of No.299 Heath Road.

Future Potential Amendments / Permitted Development Rights

It should also be noted there is the potential for future amendments to the design of the bungalow via the Permitted Development Rights or the Agenda Item 6 Page 23

submission of a future planning application that could result in the addition of dormer windows to the front and rear elevations which would cause further harm to the neighbouring residential amenity and would result in overlooking.

Loss of Amenity / Garden Space

The proposal would result in a loss of approximately 88.45 sqm of the rear garden to the existing semi-detached property of No. 2 Sandy Lane. This would leave No.2 Sandy Lane with a rear garden of approximately 21.35 sqm and the proposed bungalow would have 88.45 sqm.

The development would be sited close to the common side boundaries of the neighbouring property of No.4 Sandy Lane and the rear side garden boundary of No.299 Heath Road which would be harmful to the residential and visual amenity of neighbouring occupiers. The development would lead to the loss of a substantial amount of amenity land to No. 2 Sandy Lane. As such the development is contrary to Section 7 of the NPPF (2012), Policies BE8 and H8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2004) and the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance – Design Supplement 1: New Residential Development (2010).

7. Highways

The Highways Department assessed this proposal on the original submitted plans Drawing No 17912 dated September 2012. The Highways Officer noted there were found to be some discrepancies between the drawings. The Highways comments have been produced based on the Access and Parking Arrangement plan which is one of the drawings on Drawing No 17912.

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

The proposal involves the demolition of the existing double detached garage and the provision of a detached 2 bedroom bungalow on the land to the left of the existing bungalow of which the footprint would be set forward from the current build line of the double detached garage. The applicant is proposing to use the existing access for the new bungalow and to create a driveway to the left on the existing front garden to accommodate two off street car parking spaces and a turning area. The two off street car parking spaces would be located on the existing front garden in front of the side boundary hedge to the neighbouring property of No.4 Sandy Lane.

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

Agenda Item 6 Page 24

Each access / driveway would be subdivided by the proposed new Beech hedge.

The Highways Department were consulted on the proposal, they have no objections to the proposal and they require the attachment of 5 planning conditions and 4 Informative Notes. The Highways Officer observed that the provision of a turning area on each driveway would provide a space for a third vehicle for each property.

It is therefore considered that the proposals will be able to accommodate sufficient off street car parking in order to provide 2 off street car parking spaces for the proposed detached bungalow and to provide 3 off street car parking spaces for the existing semi-detached bungalow. The proposal therefore complies with the requirements of the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance - the Central Bedfordshire Local Transport Plan : Appendix F – Approach to Parking (2012).

8. Trees

At the front of the site, directly in front of the 0.72 metre boundary wall fronting Sandy Lane to the left of the existing access is a fine mature Oak tree and there is another large Oak Tree nearby. It was noted that a major hindrance of any development of this site is the provision of new vehicle access, which would unavoidably impact on the root system of a fine mature Oak tree located in the highway, and measured to have a trunk diameter of 605mm and the roots would be up to 7 metres. The Tree Officer has been consulted and has objected to this application stating that the proposal including the provision of the driveway and associated block paving would have a detrimental impact on the health and stability of the Oak tree which is an important street tree which would lead to a reduction in the visual amenity and character of the area.

9. Planning Obligations

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

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1 The proposal would result in a substantial loss of amenity space which currently falls within the curtilage of the semi-detached property of No.2 Sandy Lane. Paragraph 53 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) (NPPF ) aims to resist inappropriate development of residential gardens. Therefore the principle of the creation of a new 2 bedroom detached bungalow and the associated creation of two new driveways and associated parking areas is not considered as appropriate and would lead to the loss of valuable amenity land and therefore the proposal would not Agenda Item 6 Page 25

comply with the requirements of the NPPF (2012), Policies BE8 and Policy H2 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2004) and the proposal does not meet the requir ements of the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance – Design Supplement 1: New Residential Development (2010).

2 The proposal is considered to be out of character with the existing semi- detached property of No. 2 Sandy Lane, the propertie s along Sandy Lane and the wider street scene of Sandy Lane and Heath Road due to its proposed set forward location on the street scene of Sandy Lane and the substantial loss of a prominent grassed garden fronting Sandy Lane which is also visible from Heat h Road due to the prominent corner plot location together with the substantial loss of the rear garden to the existing property of No.2 Sandy Lane in an area that is characterised as having spacious set back frontages and spacious rear gardens. It is there fore considered that the proposal does not meet the requirements of the NPPF (2012), Policies H2 and BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2004) and it does not meet the requirements the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance – Design Supplement 1: New Residential Development (2010).

3 The development would be sited too close to the existing common side boundaries of the neighbouring property of No.4 Sandy Lane and the rear side garden boundary of No.299 Heath Road which would be harmful to the residential and visual amenity of neighbouring occupiers. As such the development is contrary to Section 7 of the NPPF (2012), Policy BE8 and H8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2004) and the Central Bedfordshire Council’s Supplementary Guidance – Design Supplement 1: New Residential Development (2010).

4 The development would have a detrimental impact on the health and stability of the fine Oak tree located directly adjacent to the property boundary on Sandy Lane which is deem ed as an important tree. The loss of the tree would lead to a reduction in the visual amenity and character of the area. As such the development is contrary to Section 7 of the NPPF and Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2004).

DECISION

......

......

Page 26

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Page 27

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No: W E Date: 28:November:2012 CB/12/01496/OUT

MapGrid Sheet Reference: No 5033578, S 236898 Land at Warren Farm, Flitwick Road, Ampthill Scale: 1:12500 Page 28

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Page 29

Item No. 7

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/12/01496/OUT LOCATION Land at Warren Farm, Flitwick Road, Ampthill PROPOSAL Outline: Development of up to 410 dwellings, together with open space, accesses and surface water retention basin. PARISH Ampthill WARD Ampthill WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Duckett, Blair & Smith CASE OFFICER Jennie Selley DATE REGISTERED 24 April 2012 EXPIRY DATE 24 July 2012 APPLICANT Denison Investments Ltd & Connolly Homes Plc AGENT Hives Planning Limited REASON FOR Request for referral to Committee by Councillor Duckett COMMITTEE TO for reason that he considers views of over 2000 DETERMINE members of the community are not being considered and the proposals do not take into consideration points previously raised. RECOMMENDED DECISION Outline Application - Granted

Site Location:

The application site comprises 19.2 hectares of land located on the southern edge of Ampthill. The site, which is roughly divided into two parcels to the east and west, sits between Flitwick Road on its western boundary and Abbey Lane to the east. Residential gardens back onto the northern site boundary. These properties, which are mainly two storey in height, are accessed off Fallowfield and Lammas Way. The Stables, a small mews type development is located to the north-east.

Redborne Upper School adjoins the site to the south-east with a commercial plantation directly to the south and the A507 road beyond this. The application site includes pedestrian routes through the plantation and a strip of land between the plantation and the A507. The Ampthill ‘Tidy Tip’, Household Waste Recycling Centre is to the south- east, separated from the site by an 18m wide tree belt and accessed off Abbey Lane. Ampthill’s football ground adjoins the far south-east si te boundary. Land to the south falls within the Green Belt.

The site consists of both arable land and grassland. The western portion slopes gently downwards from Flitwick Road while the eastern portion slopes gently downwards from north to south. There a re no public rights of way across the site, only permissive footpaths. Two ditches run through the site, one along the north-west boundary before flowing south and one which is further to the east and also flows southwards towards the A507. A number of tre es are located alongside the two ditches and there are a number of other mature and semi-mature trees located within the western portion of the site.

Agenda Item 7 Page 30

The Application:

The application seeks outline permission for the development of up to 410 dwellings with associated open space and surface water retention basin. All matters are reserved except means of access for which detailed drawings have been submitted.

The application is accompanied by a Design and Access Statement which provides a strategic fra mework for the site including a design concept, illustrative masterplan, land use and density plan, access and movement plan, open space and landscape plan and character areas plan. The application is also accompanied by a Planning Statement, Statement of Community Involvement, Transport Assessment, Green Travel Plan, Waste Management Strategy, Flood Risk Assessment, Noise Report, Archaeology Report, Tree Survey and Ecology Report.

The net developable area is 13.6 hectares which provides an average net den sity of 30 dwellings per hectare. A range of house sizes and types are proposed with 35% as affordable tenure types dispersed throughout the scheme. The dwellings will mainly be two storeys in height with two and a half storeys (rooms in roof) at entrance gateways and other key locations. All dwellings will be built to a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3.

Vehicular access to the site is proposed from Flitwick Road and Abbey Lane, connected by a 6m wide carriageway. This will provide the primary r oute through the site and include bus stops to accommodate a bus service through the site. A hierarchy of roads, including a number of shared surfaces and squares, would branch off this primary route. The Flitwick Road junction will comprise a priority junction arrangement and widened footpath along Flitwick Road within the application site to cater for school children walking to Redborne Upper School. The Abbey Lane junction will be reconfigured to provide a change in priority so traffic would turn off Abb ey Lane at a raised table junction and thereby discourage through traffic continuing northwards onto Oliver Street.

A pedestrian/cycle access only would connect the development into Lammas Way to the north and thereby provide a more direct route into the town. A pedestrian connection is also proposed directly from the site into Redborne School grounds.

The application proposes a network of public open space. This includes 3 play areas comprising a centrally located Neighbourhood Equipped Play Area (NEAP) and 2 combined Local Equipped and Local Areas of play (LEAP’s and LAP’s) at each end of the site. A series of smaller ‘greenways’ and squares would be dispersed amongst the housing along with open spaces on the Flitwick Road and Abbey Lane frontages to pr ovide key gateways into the site. The application includes pedestrian routes through the commercial plantation to the south to connect the site with the wider countryside. A SUDs system is proposed incorporating the existing ditches and a new attenuation p ond in the southern part of the site adjacent to the A507.

The following changes have been made to the original application as a result of consultation:

− A pedestrian/cycle connection through The Stables has been removed. Agenda Item 7 Page 31

− The primary route through the sit e has increased in width from 5.5m to 6m to accommodate buses. − The footpath along Flitwick Road has changed in width from 3.5m to 3m width with a 1m wide verge to provide greater visibility for drivers exiting the site without obstruction of view from pedestrians. - The curvature of the Abbey Lane junction has been increased and greater visibility provided for the Tidy Tip access. A more direct footpath alignment to reflect desire lines has been provided at the Osier Link junction.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) 4. Promoting sustainable transport 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 9. Protecting Green Belt land 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Regional Spatial Strategy East of Plan (May 2008) SS1 – Achieving Sustainable Development SS8 – The Urban Fringe H1 - Regional Housing Provision 2001-2021 H2 - Affordable Housing T1 – Regional Transport Strategy Objectives and Outcomes T4 – Urban Transport T9 – Walking, Cycling and Other Non-motorised Transport T14 – Parking ENV3 – Biodiversity and Earth Heritage ENV7 – Quality in the Built Environment ENG1 – Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Energy Performance WAT1 – Flood Risk Management WM6 – Waste Management in Development

Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009 CS1 – Development Strategy CS2 – Developer Contributions CS3 – Healthy and Sustainable Communities CS4 – Linking Communities – Accessibility and Transport CS5 – Providing Homes CS7 – Affordable Housing CS13 – Climate Change CS14 – High Quality Development CS15 – Heritage CS17 – Green Infrastructure CS18 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Agenda Item 7 Page 32

DM2 – Sustainable Construction of New Buildings DM3 – High Quality Development DM9 – Providing a Range of Transport DM10 – Housing Mix DM14 – Landscape and Woodland DM15 – Biodiversity DM16 – Green Infrastructure DM17 – Accessible Greenspaces

Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Site Allocations DPD (April 2011) HA4 – Land west of Abbey Lane, Ampthill

Supplementary Planning Guidance Affordable Housing (July 2004) Planning Obligations (north) (November 2009) Mid Bedfordshire Recreation Open Space Strategy (2004) Design in Central Bedfordshire: A Guide to Development (2010)

Other Guidance Warren Farm, Ampthill Development Brief (November 2011)

Planning History

CB/10/02471/SCN A Screening Opinion was issued to confirm that an Environmental Impact Assessment would not be required for the development the subject of this application.

Representations: (Town Council & Neighbours)

Ampthill TCl: Supports the application but have the following serious concerns about access to the site and feel that further investigation and consultation needs to take place: i) Strongly disagree with highways that Flitwick Road can take additional traffic without implementing new measures. There needs to be a roundabout to include the Tavistock Avenue junction. Should be noted that Flitwick Road is a heavily used pedestrian route and safer route to school. ii) Abbey Lane is not capable of taking this amount of traffic as it is a narrow road with poor visibility at the Household Waste Recycling Centre junction. Increased traffic flow along Abbey Lane could lead to further congestion in Oliver Street which is already a heavily trafficked area due to 3 doctors surgeries and access for the ambulance and fire stations. iii) New access off the A507 should be explored as a viable means of access to the site whilst providing good footpath and cycleway links via Abbey Lane.

Agenda Item 7 Page 33

Flitwick TCl: Object on the following grounds: i) Concerns with access/egress to the site, particularly the Flitwick Road entrance. The installation of a roundabout should be considered in this location. ii) Concerns about how the present infrastructure will cope with additional facilities i.e. commuter parking (particularly in Flitwick), schools, doctors surgeries, leisure facilities etc.

Neighbours 127 representations have been received from the following properties:

Abbey Close: No’s 8, 14,16 Adams Close: No. 22 Alameda Road: No. 45 Aragon Road : No’s 5, 25 Ashburnham Road: No.21 Barkers Close: No. 9 Cedar Close: No. 20 Cherry Tree Way : No’s 2, 5 Fallowfield : No’s 4, 5, 18, 23, 30, 32, 36, 47, 48, 52, 60, 62, 70, 71, 73, 75, 102, 104 Flitwick Road : No’s 3, 27, 29, 51, 51A, 80, 107 Glebe Road: No’s 10, 15, 17, 31, 39 Grange Road: No’s 4, 15, 25, 27, 34, 44, 50 Hawthorn Close: No’s 2, 14 Holland Road: No’s 1, 11, 12, 20, 78, Katherines Court: No.15 Kings Road (Flitwick): No.60 Lammas Way: No’s 8, 11, 18, 27, 29, 31, 33 Manton Close : No. 3, Neotsbury Court: No. 10 Oaktree Road: No’s 5, 26 Oat Piece (Marston Moretaine): No.18 Old Orchard: No’s 1, 2, Oliver Street : Willowgarth and No’s 54A, 66, 169, 169A, 169B, 187, 195, 197 Osier Link: No’s 1, 2 Paddocks Close: No. 3 Park Hill: No. 2 Preston Close: No.23 Rushbrook Close: No’s 11, 12 Russell Drive: No’s 34, 52, 55, 72 Russett Close: No’s 2, 11 Saunders Piece: No. 25 Tavistock Avenue: No. 28 The Avenue (Flitwick): Southview, Bracadale, The Bungalow The Hawthorns (Flitwick) : No. 38 The Stables: Abbey Lodge & No’s 2, 3, 5, Wagstaff Way: No’s 2, 32 Wingate Drive: No. 42 Woburn Street : No. 6

Agenda Item 7 Page 34

Viridor Waste Management Limited (operators of the Household Waste Recycling Centre in Abbey Lane) Ampthill Development Action Group (ADAG)

The following petitions have also been received:

− 25 signatures submitted by residents of The Stables, Ampthill. − 1821 signatures submitted by ADAG. This on-line petition is dated 14 th October 2010 which is prior to submission of the current application. It was originally submitted with 1670 signatures in response to consultation on the Core Strategy Site Allocations DPD. The petition has more recently been added to and the electronic signatories are therefore dated between 14 th October 2010 and 3 rd May 2012. The petition is accompanied by comments from signatories.

Objections and concerns raised by all of the above can be summarised as follows:

Principle and scale of development • Overdevelopment of the site and the town. • No need for additional housing and not in the interests of Ampthill. • Must be more suitable locations elsewhere. • Should build on brownfield sites in Luton and Bedford first or invest in existing housing. • Ampthill’s history, character, village feel, community ties and appeal to visitors will be eroded further. This impact is irreversible. • Possibility of Ampthill and Flitwick merging leading to infamous ribbon development of the pre-war years. • Loss of countryside and green belt. • Lack of local employment so Ampthill will become a dormitory commuter town. • Development should be spread across communities, not focussed on a single area as this leads to imbalanced growth. • Maximum number of dwellings should be set. • Affordable housing should meet current Ampthill needs including for the elderly and young families. Elderly accommodation should be located in the northern part of the development, closer to the towns services. Priority should be given to people with Ampthill connections. • A recreation ground would be more use to the community.

Impact on Infrastructure & Services • Further pressure on existing local infrastructure and services including schools, health services, emergency services, post office, roads, internet, community and leisure facilities. • Further pressure on utilities, drainage and water resources. • Improvements must be made to infrastructure, services and utilities before the development starts. Agenda Item 7 Page 35

• All development funding should be clearly identified, made public and used in Ampthill. • No additional community facilities are provided including playing fields and open space. • No allotment provision.

Traffic, Access & Parking • Increased volume of vehicular traffic leading to further congestion, dangerous road conditions and problems for emergency vehicle access in Ampthill and Flitwick. • Not realistic to assume that people will walk or cycle rather than drive. Roads in the centre of Ampthill are not suitable for cycling. • Vehicle access should be taken off A507. • Vehicle access should be from a dedicated link road between the site and Flitwick Road () running parallel to Abbey Lane with improved access to the Tidy Tip. • A footpath/cycleway link through the Stables is dangerous as it has no footpaths or front gardens and vehicles may not be aware of pedestrians or cyclists, particularly small children. Refer to a recent incident in Biggleswade. A path should be provided off Abbey Lane alongside Warren Farm Bungalow instead. • There is inadequate access to public transport. Should re-open Ampthill railway station to serve new developments in the town. • Will make existing parking problems in town centre, particularly around Waitrose store, worse leading to fewer shoppers. • Will make parking problems around the town worse and more dangerous including around doctors surgeries in Oliver Street, shops in Russell Drive, Bedford Street, Station Road and Woburn Road. • Will add to parking problems at Flitwick station. • Adequate parking should be provided for the new housing. • People will use local roads as cut through’s including Aragon Road and Oliver Street. This will impede clear access for ambulance and fire vehicles based in Oliver Street. • Proposed access on Flitwick Road is dangerous particularly as this is a route to school. The nearby bus stop will be a hazard to pedestrians and traffic pulling out. • Proposed new junction layout on Abbey Lane is dangerous because of rural nature of the road, speed of approaching traffic, use by emergency vehicles, need for right hand turns and blocking visibility for Tidy Tip access. A roundabout could be a better option. • Safety concerns for children crossing Abbey Lane to go to the football pitch and walking to school. • Safety concerns with substandard Tidy Tip access. Suggest moving this to coincide with the application site access. • Suggest a right turn lane and directional signage for vehicles travelling from the west waiting to turn into the Tidy Tip. • Development will impact on business activities at the Tidy Tip. Request a condition requiring a detailed programme of highway works for approval by the Tidy Tip operators. Agenda Item 7 Page 36

• A non-lit footpath and bridleway, set within a landscaped strip, should be provided along the northern boundary of the development to provide access between Abbey Lane and Flitwick Road and the green spaces.

Impact on Amenity • Loss of privacy, security and overlooking, particularly from 2.5 and 3 storey houses. Single storey buildings should be located adjacent to existing housing. • Reduction in sunlight and daylight. • Will harm quality of life for existing residents and future generations. • Pedestrian/cycle access through Lammas Way and The Stables will reduce privacy, increase vandalism and provide a cut through for school children dropped off by parents. • Existing tree belt at rear of properties provides screening so should be retained or replaced. • Noise and security concerns about play areas and footpaths close to existing properties. • New fencing should be provided for housing backing onto the development. • Odours from the Tidy Tip and the sewage treatment works for new residents. • Increased crime problems. Will be unable to walk streets at night. • New through road close to existing properties will add to undesirable impacts. • Increase in social housing will impact on those living nearby. • Disruption from construction work and traffic.

Design • Not in keeping with surrounding properties which are stable conversions and two storey houses. Three storey townhouses at both entrances will detract from the open space theme and block views of the woodland behind. • No aesthetic merit to design and not in keeping with Ampthill. • Recreational areas should be larger to allow use by existing residents.

Environmental Impacts • Development is unsustainable. • Increased noise, dust, pollution and waste. • Increased light pollution. • Loss of the Tidy Tip will result in fly tipping around the local lanes. • Impact on wildlife, including skylarks and bats. • Need to protect green space for growing demands of food production. • Drainage problems from existing ditches which need to be maintained. • Impact on existing trees. Agenda Item 7 Page 37

• Question whether water will still drain off garden into stream at rear of property which backs onto site.

Timing of Development • Development is premature before others in the town are complete and sold. Have yet to see effects of other new developments in and around Ampthill. • Development should not start until 2020, the date identified in the housing trajectory presented to the Core Strategy Examination.

Submitted Documents • Tree report does not accurately describe status of trees in and adjacent to adjoining properties. • Proposals are not clear, not detailed enough and are not written in plain English. • Illustrative masterplan fails to take account of land drainage ditches referred to in the Flood Risk Assessment. • Unclear on type and height of buildings. • Poorly presented material. • Bat survey under-estimates true numbers. • Transport Assessment does not take account of other peak travel times and does not account for traffic from existing and planned surrounding developments.

Planning Process & Consultation • Not a democratic process and goes against the principles of Localism and Human Rights. • Not enough consultation with residents. • Residents letters addressed to occupier/owner risked being thrown away. • Not enough time for response. • Opposition has already been made clear, including petition with nearly 2000 signatures, but is being ignored.

The following objections have been made which are non-material planning considerations and cannot therefore be taken into account: • Increase in revenue from Council taxes. • Profit motives of the applicants. • Way of meeting housing targets. • Loss of private outlook. • A way of making jobs for builders. • New Homes Bonus should be used to help Ampthill cope with the development. • Property values. • Council has a duty of care.

Agenda Item 7 Page 38

Consultations/Publicity responses

Housing Development Expects to see 35% affordable housing or 144 affordable Officer residential units. Would like to see the units dispersed throughout the site and integrated with the market housing to promote community cohesion and tenure blindness. Expect all units to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and meet all HCA design and quality standards. Would support the application if these comments are taken on board.

Forest of Marston Vale Seek a contribution to the delivery of the Forest of the Marston Vale as set out within the Mid Bedfordshire Planning Obligations Strategy 2008.

National Grid Identified in the vicinity of the site: • Low or medium pressure (below 2 bar) gas pipes and associated equipment. (Therefore highly likely that there are gas services and associated apparatus in the vicinity). • Above ground gas sites and equipment. Provides advisory notes regarding safe distances and notification procedures.

Environment Agency The development will be acceptable provided conditions are included requiring a surface water drainage scheme for the site in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment.

Sport England Object as no certainty provided at this stage that a financial contribution will be made towards indoor and outdoor sports facilities. A contribution towards off-site provision rather than on- site provision is considered appropriate.

Countryside Access Content that the application provides quality access and open Service space provision to fulfil relevant policy objectives and in line with pre-application discussions. Welcomes the commitment to provide further pedestrian links into the existing community and the wider countryside. Also welcomes the provision of a footpath link from The Stables into the development but this would not necessarily be a public right of way and it is more appropriate to include within the adopted highway network.

Archaeologist The site contains archaeological remains of Iron Age occupation and the post-medieval agricultural landscape including relate industrial activity. These remains represent heritage assets with archaeological interest of regional significance. Therefore recommends a condition requiring the applicants to submit a written scheme of archaeological investigation and for this to be approved prior to commencement of any development.

Agenda Item 7 Page 39

Ampthill & District • Concerned that land allocated for housing in Ampthill up to Preservation Society 2013 will be approved by 2013. This will be an enormous expansion for a small town in a short period without necessary increased infrastructure. • Will place further pressure on the inadequate parking facilities for long stay business users and short term shoppers in the town centre. • The health centre at Houghton Close cannot accept more cars and question whether can accept an additional 800 patients. • Schools in Ampthill are fully subscribed and without substantial expansion will not be able to accept extra children. • The smaller Ampthill Heights development was refused access off Flitwick Road due to the proximity of Redborne School and required a roundabout onto the bypass for road safety reasons. A ‘T’ junction access off Flitwick Road does not therefore make sense particularly as school children will cross here. The intention to encourage the road between Flitwick Road and Abbey Lane as a rat run alternative to Oliver Street will increase hazard here. Urge the creation of a roundabout junction off the bypass or if this us unacceptable a mini roundabout on Flitwick Road. • The realignment of Abbey Lane to provide traffic priority to the new development is unnecessary. A small roundabout providing equal priority from all directions is recommended thereby avoiding encouragement of a rat run through the development. • Urge that all financial contributions for infrastructure should be used solely to benefit the residents of Ampthill. • Highways Agency No objection.

Trees & Landscape • An Area Tree Preservation Order was placed on the site. Officer • Would look to retain the trees along the northern boundary of the site to retain a mature backdrop and screening to the development. • Would look to retain three individual oaks of good form which have been incorrectly classified as Category C trees. Two further mature oak trees on the east side of the site can readily be incorporated into the proposed wildlife corridor. • An important area of screening of mixed planting should be retained as it is maturing well and will provide screening to the A507 should the commercial plantation be felled at some point in the future. • Full tree protection measures will be required with method statements of all works or any access proposed within the root protection area of those trees to be retained.

Agenda Item 7 Page 40

• Suggest further planting along the green corridors south of the residential development to help with screening should the commercial plantation be felled. • Extensive planting is required where the site abuts the A507 including a continuation of the existing planting. • Suggest that the attenuation pond is located to the west of the existing pond to help preserve the planting around this. • Full landscaping details will be required. • Recommend use of a permanent drip feed watering system to improve establishment of new planting and address water shortages. • Anglian Water • Should advise the applicant that there are assets within or close to the development that may affect the layout of the site. • Parts of the development fall within the 400m encroachment zone of Flitwick Sewerage Treatment Works. This may lead to an unacceptable standard of amenity for future occupiers or prejudice the ability of Anglian Water to carry out works that may be necessary to deliver wider growth or protection of the environment. A revised layout should be submitted or an odour assessment should be commissioned to give an indication of the impact on amenity for the new residents. • The development is also sited within 15m of a sewage pumping station which cannot be easily relocated. Therefore require a condition to safeguard a 15m buffer zone around the sewage pumping station. • The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Flitwick Sewerage Treatment Works which will have capacity for these flows. • The surface water drainage strategy/flood risk assessment is outside our jurisdiction and the Planning Authority will need to seek the views of the Environment Agency but request that the agreed strategy is conditioned.

Highways Officer Transport Assessment Further clarification was required on a number of details within the Transport Assessment. This has now been satisfactorily provided. Overall it is concluded that the impact of the development, based on a robust assessment can be mitigated by the improvements proposed. Detailed Access Arrangements The junction arrangements proposed are the outcome of pre- application discussions. However concerns were raised regarding the following details : • Westbound forward visibility to the tee junction with the new Abbey Lane.

Agenda Item 7 Page 41

• Visibility for drivers exiting to the left of the recycling centre and football pitch junctions on Abbey Lane as they will have a to look behind them as a result of the proposed new curvature of the road. Current visibility from these junctions should be protected as much as possible. • There is a lack of speed reducing features east of the new Abbey Lane junction. • The curvature of the realigned section of Abbey Lane. • Visibility for pedestrians and cyclists at the crossing point east of the tee junction with the new Abbey Lane. • Visibility for drivers exiting onto Flitwick Road, particularly when there are school children on the footpath. • Visibility for pedestrians crossing the Flitwick Road junction. Amended drawings have been provided by the applicants to address all of these detailed concerns.

Waste Services • The applicant will need to provide access from the rear of each individual dwelling to the front to allow removal of waste bins without passing though the dwelling. • Proposed communal collection points will need to be sufficient in size for the number of bins and ensure that access to the store does not exceed 10 metres from the rear of the collection vehicle. • Should use the Council’s guides on requirements for waste management and new developments. • Ecologist Satisfied that the development will not have a detrimental impact on protected species. The landscape strategy in identifies the desire to create a range of habitats on the site, this is to be encouraged with a focus on biodiversity within Green Infrastructure corridors. A number of measures are proposed in the Ecological Assessment to ensure that the development results in a net gain for biodiversity.

Conservation & Design The site is located within the setting of Ampthill Conservation Area, however, unlike the open rural landscape to the north and west of the town, it is not considered to make a significant contribution to it. The site is not of significant landscape quality and is surrounded by modern development therefore any views of the site from the Conservation Area are generally seen in the context of this surrounding development. As such, the principle of housing development on the site is acceptable.

The general broad design principles, layout and character areas of the site are supported. In particular, the proposed location of public open spaces is considered acceptable and would allow the development to integrate into the surrounding environment. The application site sits at a transition point between the urban town to the north and the countryside to the south east, as such there is great opportunity to provide a variation of building forms Agenda Item 7 Page 42

throughout the site that would respond to its surroundings and provide a degree of interest that is lacking in the modern development to the north. In particular, the eastern extent of the site, the area known as the Woodland Edge and Wildlife Corridor would benefit from a varied modest vernacular built form set on slightly larger plots to allow glimpsed views of the rural landscape to the south, whilst the entrance points would benefit from a more formal urban, terraced development (as stated in the D&A statement) similar that that found in the main town.

Leisure Services Happy with the proposals for play areas and open space as discussed at the pre-application stage. Contributions should be made to outdoor sports space and indoor sporting facilities as per the Planning Obligations Strategy.

Sustainable Transport The content of the revised Travel Plan is now satisfactory. Officer Before we can give it final approval the applicant is required to comply with steps 1 to 5 on our online travel plan management software. The developer should be obligated to provide a new bus service running between Bedford and Flitwick (including Flitwick railway station) running on a half-hourly frequency from Monday-Friday 6.30am-7.30pm (the latter being important in order to meet potential demand from commuters returning from London to Flitwick by train) with services reduced to hourly frequencies on Saturday and bus stops within the development to serve this new service. Also require contributions towards additional cycle parking at Flitwick railway station and a proposed contingency budget to fund an additional round of welcome packs with free bus travel vouchers to residents.

Public Protection Officer Lengthy discussions have taken place with the Public Protection Officer following an initial objection on the basis that the applicant’s noise assessment failed to address noise from both the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) and the Redborne School playing pitches, including the recently installed all weather playing pitch.

A draft scheme to address noise from Redborne School, which is to be secured by an existing condition on the school (application CB/12/00468/FULL), has been submitted and the Public Protection Officer is satisfied that this scheme, along with careful consideration of the layout of housing at reserved matters stage can deal with noise from the playing pitch.

In terms of noise from the HWRC, the Public Protection Officer wants to see a condition can be imposed to secure a scheme of noise mitigation for any affected dwellings in accordance with the Council’s standards. This is likely to include an acoustic fence on the boundary, consideration of design, layout and orientation of the proposed houses to mitigate noise further. Agenda Item 7 Page 43

Internal Drainage Board The revised drainage strategy addresses the concerns of the Board. This now ensures that run-off from developed land is conveyed via a piped network and attenuated in the attenuation pond prior to entering the existing ditch system. The storage figures are assumed to be correct and along with other details should be subject to appropriate conditions.

Minerals & Waste Team A permitted non hazardous waste transfer site lies approximately 560 metres to the west. The site currently takes in 35,000 tonne's of waste per annum and last year submitted an application to increase this tonnage to 75,000 tonne's. Although this application was withdrawn it is likely to be resubmitted this year. During the summer of 2011 odours were experienced from the site by residents in Ampthill Heights and Tavistock Avenue and at times these odours were described as quite offensive. Both the Authority and the Environment Agency were involved in dealing with these odour complaints at the time. The site now appears not causing odour related issues that the authority is aware of. Further to this Ampthill Home Waste Recycling centre (HWRC, Tidy Tip) lies within 25 metres of the proposed road. Buffer Zones would normally be expected to be set around 200 metres for mineral working and 250 metres for waste management facilities. Although the proposed waste transfer site is approximately 560 metres from the site, odours at the time were reported from Tavistock Avenue which is some 400 metres from the waste site. It cannot be guaranteed that odours will not be experienced from the site in the future or how far these odours will travel. There is a also the potential of noise from the HWRC that lies approximately 25 metres from the proposed development and Public Protection should be consulted for their views. Further more an application has been received to increase the morning hours to 7am from 8 am to allow vehicles to enter and leave the site and for bins to be moved around before the site opens to the public, however no determination of this proposal has been made as of yet.

The application referred to directly above for extension of operating hours, CB/12/02046/MW, has now been approved. Public Protection did not consider that the extension of hours, which is for site operatives only, would result in any further detriment to the future residents of Warren Farm.

Police Architectural No response received. Liaison Officer

Agenda Item 7 Page 44

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle of Development 2. Layout, Density and Built Form 3. Impact on Amenities of Existing and Future Residents 4. Highways and Sustainable Transport 5. Flood Risk and Drainage 6. Open Space, Landscaping and Ecology 7. Archaeology 8. Planning Obligations 9. Other Issues

Considerations

1. Principle of Development The site was allocated for residential development to provide a minimum of 410 dwellings under Policy HA4 of the Central Bedfordshire (North) Site Allocations DPD. The principle of residential development of the site has therefore already been established in policy terms. A significant number of representations have raised issues regarding the principle of development including objections about overdevelopment, need, site suitability and impact on Ampthill. However these issues, including the timing of the development, were considered previously at the site allocation stage.

As the current application proposes up to 410 dwellings and includes land within the Green Belt it has been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan. The lower number of dwellings proposed to those sought by Policy HA4 is considered to be acceptable in view of there no longer being minimum density requirements set by the Government and a general acceptance of lower density developments.

The application proposes provision of open space, including a NEAP and attenuation pond, within the designated Green Belt. The NPPF allows these uses as an exception providing they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The NEAP would be located adjacent to and seen against the backdrop of housing. Officers are satisfied that there would be no material harm to the Green Belt and that it would continue to serve to prevent the merging of Ampthill and Flitwick.

2. Layout, Density and Built Form Site Allocations Policy HA4 required production of a Development Brief to guide development and this was completed in September 2012 following public consultation including with the Warren Farm, Ampthill Stakeholder Group. The Development Brief was approved for Development Management purposes by the CBC Executive Committee. It outlines the aims for the development to deliver and identifies the constraints and opportunities which any planning application must address. The vision for the site comprises three main elements:

1. Connectivity across the site – the scheme must allow for convenient movement while ensuring a sense of security to allow the creation of a successful place.

Agenda Item 7 Page 45

2. Integration with the existing neighbourhood – both physically in terms of design and socially. Good connections to existing facilities will also be important. 3. Access – Pedestrian and vehicular access to be provided at both ends of the development from Flitwick Road and Abbey Lane with a continual through route between these access points as part of the development. The through road should have an appropriate design speed so as not to compromise pedestrian safety or the quality of residential environment created.

The masterplan proposals submitted under this application adequately demonstrate that the vision for the site will be achieved. A hierarchy of routes across the site, including a number of shared surfaces, will provide safe and convenient connectivity. A pedestrian/cycle link into the adjoining housing via Lammas Way will help to integrate the development with the existing neighbourhood. Pedestrian/cycle links will provide convenient access to the town centre and facilities via Flitwick Road and Oliver Street, to Redborne School via the front and rear entrances and to Flitwick train station and the countryside to the south. The proposed through road between Flitwick Road and Abbey Lane will provide vehicular connectivity and act as a focal point for the development, particularly where it incorporates ‘arrival spaces’ and passes through key open space areas.

The average net density of 30 dph is considered to be appropriate for this site on the edge of the town and would be similar to densities in nearby residential areas. The development would be dispersed with open space in the form of formal play areas, squares and greens. The applicants have stated that a range of house sizes and types will be provided to reflect local need and provide a mixed community.

The application proposes mainly 2 storey dwellings with 2.5 storey (rooms in roof) height at entrance gateways and other key locations as required by the Development Brief. These heights would be in keeping with surrounding properties and is considered appropriate for this edge of town site. Contrary to representations made no 3 storey buildings are proposed and no detailed design is provided at this outline stage. The applicants Design and Access Statement provides an assessment of the existing design context , sets out different character areas for the development and commits to a unique identity which recognises locally distinctive styles and materials.

Any outline planning permission would be conditioned to require the site to be Design Coded. The Design Codes would build on the principles outlined in the Development Brief and would inform any future reserved matters applications.

3. Impact on Amenities of Existing and Future Residents A number of objections have raised concern about the impact of the development on the amenities of existing properties located adjacent to the site. Whilst a detailed layout is not proposed at this outline stage, an illustrative layout has been provided which demonstrates that the development could be designed with rear gardens backing onto the northern boundary of the site. This would ensure adequate distance to preserve the amenities of existing residents. The existing trees along the northern site boundary would be preserved and new boundary treatment provided to further ensure the privacy of existing houses. No three storey housing is proposed and Officers would ensure at the Reserved Matters stage that any 2.5 storey housing does not overlook existing properties.

Agenda Item 7 Page 46

Concern has also been raised that the pedestrian/cycle access proposed through Lammas Way and The Stables will reduce privacy, increase vandalism and provide a cut through for school children dropped off by parents. The Stables connection has now been deleted from the scheme due to the large number of objections to this. In terms of the Lammas Way connection, the concerns of a small number of residents has to be balanced with the need to provide a direct route for new residents to the town centre and facilities. Officers would ensure at reserved matters stage that the connection preserves privacy and is well overlooked from the new housing to prevent vandalism.

Objections have also raised concern about noise and security problems from play areas being close to existing dwellings. The nearest activity area would be approximately 40m from the rear boundary of existing properties and would be screened from the activity area by new housing which will provide surveillance of the play areas. Noise and security problems are therefore unlikely to arise.

Conditions on any consent could ensure that any disruption from construction work and traffic is minimised by agreement of details of wheel cleansing facilities and construction traffic routing and parking.

The Public Protection Officer raised two key areas of concern for future occupiers of the development:

1. Noise from the sports pitches at Redborne School This includes the existing sports pitches and the recently opened all weather playing pitch on the northern boundary of the school, adjoining the application site.

The recently opened all weather playing pitch was approved under application CB/12/00468/FULL. This was subsequent to the allocation of the Warren Farm site for residential development. As Officers were aware of the housing allocation and in the light of concerns raised by the Warren Farm land owners, a condition was attached to the consent for the all weather playing pitch requiring the school to submit for approval a noise mitigation scheme to protect the amenity of future residential properties. The school has submitted draft details which include provision of a bund and fencing. The Public Protection Officer considers that along with careful consideration of the layout of the Warren Farm development this scheme should be adequate to protect future residents from noise of the adjoining pitches. A condition also requires details of hoods/shields to be agreed for any lighting of the pitch to protect residential amenity.

2. Noise from the Household Waste Recycling Centre (HWRC) The applicant’s acoustic survey also identified that mitigation is necessary to protect future residents from the noise of the adjoining HWRC. The main source of noise is from items being dropped into the various receptacles and these being moved around the site, noise from compacting equipment and general vehicle movement.

A mature belt of trees screens the HWRC from the application site. Further mitigation will be necessary to screen future properties and the Public Protection Officer has agreed that the details of this mitigation could be secured by condition. The applicants have already submitted details of a 3m high acoustic fence on the HWRC boundary which would provide some degree of protection to future residents. This would need to be supplemented in any approved mitigation scheme with careful consideration of Agenda Item 7 Page 47

design, layout and orientation of the houses to mitigate noise further.

The applicants have proposed a condition which requires the mitigation scheme to be designed to achieve internal noise levels as set out in BS8233. Their acoustic consultants have advised this would afford the same noise levels for the new dwellings as existing surrounding properties. The applicants also gained the opinion of a second acoustic consultant to confirm that their assessment, which had been carried out under BS4142 (method for rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas), and mitigation proposed under BS8233 is appropriate.

The Public Protection Officer does not agree with the BS8233 standard for achieving noise mitigation as this averages out noise levels and does not therefore take into consideration loud impact sounds from the HWRC. They have commented that the Council’s standard should be met, which is a higher standard than BS8233. A condition requiring submission of a scheme of mitigation has been agreed with the Public Protection Officer and this would require compliance with the Council’s standard.

The applicants are not willing to accept the condition recommended by Officers as they consider that mitigation to BS8233 is acceptable, should be specified in the condition and any higher standard could seriously affect the viability of the site. However the Public Protection Officer objects to the condition proposed by the applicant and the condition agreed with Public Protection is therefore recommended.

Although it was not raised at the site allocations stage, Anglian Water are concerned about the proximity of the development to the existing Flitwick Sewerage Treatment Works (STW) to the south. They comment that parts of the development would fall within the 400m encroachment zone of the STW. The applicants have provided a plan to demonstrate that the nearest dwellings would be 388m from the STW. As this is close to being outside the 400m encroachment zone and the prevailing wind is south- westerly, meaning that winds will not often blow smells in the direction of the site, no significant harm to future residential amenity is anticipated.

4. Highways and Sustainable Transport In respect of the two main concerns raised by local residents:

1. Further traffic congestion and parking problems in Ampthill

The Transport Assessment (TA) submitted with the application confirms that with the off-site junction improvements proposed the development is not likely to result in any additional traffic congestion or danger on the existing highway network. In addition to the traffic generated from the development, the TA modelling takes account of traffic generated by the following developments:

− land at Steppingley Road and Froghall Road, Flitwick (Valley Farm) − land at Doolittle Mill, Ampthill − Centre Parcs − Ampthill Heights

Agenda Item 7 Page 48

Traffic impact has also been applied for a period of 10 years, rather than the normal 5 year period applied under Government guidance. The TA is therefore considered to provide a robust assessment of the traffic impact of the development.

The TA has identified that the development will generate the need for off-site improvements to the surrounding highway network as follows:

1. A507/Maulden Road/Flitwick Road Roundabout 2. A507/Froghall Road/Doolittle Mill Roundabout 3. A507/Ampthill Road/Flitwick Road Roundabout

In all three cases entry approaches to the roundabout would be widened to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development. It is also anticipated that the Land at Steppingley Road and Froghall Road (Valley Farm), Flitwick development would contribute towards improvements to junctions 2 and 3.

The Warren Farm Stakeholder Group has requested that the Warren Farm development contributes to solving existing parking problems in Ampthill town centre. This cannot be justified in highway impact terms from the development alone and would not meet the relevant tests for contributions. This response has previously been given to the Stakeholder Group and as a result a separate Ampthill Stakeholder Group was set up to move the issue of parking in the town centre forward.

Whilst some comments of the Stakeholder Group cannot be accommodated, the proposed new junction layout arrangement on Abbey Lane arose as a result of concerns raised at pre-application Stakeholder meetings about traffic congestion problems in Oliver Street. The new arrangement will change the priority for traffic travelling into Ampthill such that traffic would turn off Abbey Lane at a raised table junction and thereby discourage through traffic continuing northwards onto Oliver Street.

2. Access to the site from Flitwick Road and Abbey Lane

The principle of access to the site from Flitwick Road and Abbey Lane was agreed at the pre-application stage and is set out in the approved Development Brief. There is no justification in highway capacity terms for taking access to the site off the A507. This would require provision of another roundabout on the A507, thereby leading to further delay for those travelling on the A507 and would fail to properly connect the site with the rest of the town making access to the town centre and services less convenient. An access road and roundabout would also erode the openness of the Green Belt.

Representations have referred to the Ampthill Heights development which is served off a roundabout on the A507 and queried why the same arrangement cannot apply to the Warren Farm development. Vehicular access to Ampthill Heights via Tavistock Avenue or Station Road, rather than directly off Flitwick Road was not considered appropriate at the time for highway capacity reasons. It is considered that access via Flitwick Road and Abbey Lane for the Warren Farm scheme would result in a development which is well connected to the rest of the town.

Agenda Item 7 Page 49

Representations have also called for roundabouts to be provided at the Flitwick Road and Abbey Lane junctions. The applicants Transport Assessment confirms that there is no justification for a roundabout to be provided at either junction in highway capacity terms. It is also considered that a roundabout would be out of keeping with the character of Flitwick Road and would cause further delay for those travelling along the road. A 3m wide footpath is proposed along the Flitwick Road frontage to address concerns about school children spilling off the pavement and into the road. The 3m footpath is set back from the edge of the road by a 1m wide verge and this will help ensure visibility for drivers exiting the application site should there be large numbers of school children on the footpath.

The TA demonstrates that despite the rural nature of Abbey Lane, it can accommodate additional traffic from the development. A priority junction with a raised table would help reduce speeds to 20mph for those travelling into Ampthill and through the application site and would thereby make pedestrian crossing of Abbey Lane safer than exists. Again, any requirement for the application to solve existing problems with visibility at the adjacent HWRC (Tidy Tip) junction cannot be justified. The application has however been amended to ensure that there is no detriment to the existing visibility from the HWRC junction as a result of the development and this involves provision of a visibility splay across the application site.

Other Highways issues A non-lit footpath and bridleway, set in a landscaped strip along the northern boundary of the development has been suggested to provide access between Abbey Lane and Flitwick Road. This is not necessary with the proposed pedestrian/cycle connections into Lammas Way and onto Flitwick Road. It would also create an unsafe route between back gardens.

Sustainable Transport The applicants revised Green Travel Plan details that the site will be served as follows: − Footpath/cycle connections provided to Ampthill Town Centre which is 2km to the north. − Footpath/cycle connections provided to Flitwick train station which is 2km to the south. − Bus stops provided within the application site to be served by a half hourly service between 07:00 and 19:00 hours.

In securing these measures it is therefore considered that the site will be adequately served by non-car forms of transport. In light of the close proximity of Flitwick Train Station it is considered appropriate to secure financial contributions towards cycle parking rather than car parking at the station. The measures proposed in the Green Travel Plan, including provision of a residents ‘Welcome Pack’ with travel vouchers will be secured via a Planning Obligation.

5. Flood Risk and Drainage The existing greenfield site drains to two ditches which flow through the site in a southerly direction under the A507 and then into a watercourse controlled by the Internal Drainage Board (IDB). The allocated part of the site is not within the floodplain and therefore falls within Flood Risk Zone 1 which is considered to be low risk. Small elements of the site which are proposed as public open space, adjacent to the A507, fall within the floodplain. Agenda Item 7 Page 50

The proposed development will incorporate a number of drainage features to ensure that the existing greenfield run off rate is not increased and is designed to accommodate a 1 in 100 year flood event plus 30% allowance for climate change. Surface water run-off will discharge to the existing ditches which will be incorporated into open space throughout the development, as shown on the masterplan. Run-off will then be restricted by a flow control chamber and attenuated within a pond prior to discharge into the ditch which leads to the IDB controlled watercourse. The proposed attenuation pond would be located within an area of open space adjacent to the A507.

The IDB have no objections to the method of storm water disposal and it is considered that the existing ditches, with modification, are adequate for this purpose. The applicants state that the drainage system would be maintained by an appropriate organisation subject to further discussions.

There is no intention to alter the existing situation of water draining off rear gardens for Fallowfield properties into the northern boundary ditch. The details of how this ditch is incorporated into the development will need to be considered carefully at reserved matters stage.

6. Open Space, Landscaping and Ecology The applicant’s landscape strategy identifies a network of open spaces through the development in accordance with the requirements identified by Leisure Services. The development will deliver around 6 hectares of public open space including three play areas, two for younger children at each end of the development and one larger play space central to the scheme.

In response to representations made, a need for further allotments to be provided on this site has not been identified by the Council. Also, the recreational areas provided are of sufficient size and there is no justification to make them larger to accommodate existing recreational deficiencies in the area. Nevertheless the open space will be accessible for use by existing Ampthill residents.

A number of trees have been identified as worthy of retention within the site and these will be secured by condition, including full tree protection measures, so that they can be incorporated into the layout. A landscaping condition will secure further planting in the southern part of the site to ensure adequate screening to the A507 should the existing commercial plantation be felled. The existing planting on the north-west site boundary is proposed to be retained.

The applicant has produced an Ecological Assessment which details species found during recent survey work and proposes a number of enhancements including provision of native planting, ecological management, bird boxes and roosting opportunities for bats. The Council’s Ecologist is satisfied with these enhancements which could be secured by condition. The existing habitats which are of ecological value including the watercourses, hedgerows and trees will be retained as part of the open space as detailed above.

Agenda Item 7 Page 51

7. Archaeology The applicants have conducted a geophysical survey and trial trench excavations which have identified a number of archaeological features related to Late Iron Age occupation and the post –medieval agricultural landscape. These represent heritage assets with archaeological interest of regional significance. A condition is therefore recommended to secure a written scheme of archaeological investigation for these areas prior to the commencement of development.

8. Impact on Infrastructure and Services Impact on existing infrastructure and services is another key issue raised during the consultation of this application. Contributions can be secured to ensure that the additional impacts arising from the development can be mitigated In accordance with the statutory tests for Planning Obligations. Contributions cannot be used to remedy existing deficiencies of infrastructure and services in the area.

The applicants have agreed to provide the full financial contributions required under the Planning Obligations SPD (North). The total package to be secured via a Section 106 Agreement would include a contribution of around £4.9 million, provision of on site leisure, recreational and green infrastructure facilities, off site highway works (as detailed above) and the full 35% affordable housing provision (45 dwellings). The applicants propose a Tariff style payment arrangement on a per dwelling basis. Providing the statutory tests for Planning Obligations are met, this would allow the Council greater flexibility in deciding exactly how the contribution will be spent within the locality.

The breakdown of financial contributions is as follows:

Education £3,344,763.60 Sustainable Transport £230,072.00 Health Facilities £621,591.00 Leisure, Recreational Open Space & Green Infrastructure £505,809 Community Facilities & Infrastructure £28,510.00 Community Cohesion £7,790.00 Waste Management £18,860.00 Emergency Services £101,927.00 Public Realm and Community Safety £108,871.00

Total £4,968,193.60

The Leisure, Recreational Open Space and Green Infrastructure contribution will include contributions towards indoor and outdoor sports facilities as requested by Sport England. Part of the contribution could be used towards planned improvements to Ampthill Park, as recently requested by Ward Members.

The proposed affordable housing ‘package’ consists of 70% Shared Equity and 30% Affordable Rent tenure types. These would comprise a range of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings pepper-potted across the site. The Affordable Rent properties will include 15 single storey dwellings for older people which would be fully Lifetime Homes compliant.

Agenda Item 7 Page 52

9. Other issues In terms of other issues raised through the consultation process:

Submitted Documents The documents submitted with the application are considered to be sufficient in order to adequately assess the proposals and its impacts.

Planning Process and Consultation The Council issued over 800 letters to individual households in streets nearest to the application site which far exceeds the statutory consultation requirement. In addition to this site notices and a press notice were posted. Residents were also informed of the consultation and given the opportunity to comment through the Warren Farm Stakeholder Group and the Warren Farm website. The statutory time period for response of 21 days was provided but residents actually had longer than this due to the different timings of the site notices, press notice and letters. Adequate opportunity for comment was therefore provided.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be granted subject to satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the following conditions:

1 Approval of the details of the appearance, landscaping, layout a nd scale of the development within each area approved as ident ified in condition 4, and the landscaping adjoining it (herein called ‘the reserved matters’) shall be obtained in writing from the local planning authority before development is commenced within that area. The development shall be carried out in accordanc e with the approved details.

Reason: To comply with Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 (as amended).

2 Application for approval of the reserved matters for each area, as identified in condition 4, shall be made to the local planning authority before the expiration of 5 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 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in accordance with the Approved Plans drawings numbers: Red Line Plan 1239- O-1112; Land Use Plan 1239-O-1121 Rev B; Principal Points of Access 1239-O-1122 Rev A; Access & Movement 1239-O-1123 Rev C; Flitwick Road Junction Layout 13921/2001 F; Abbey Lane Junction Layout 13921/2002 G; and Lammas Way Access 13921/2003.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Agenda Item 7 Page 53

4 Prior to the submission of the first reserved matters, an areas plan for the entire application site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The areas plan shall show a maximum of 6 areas; define the location and extent of each residential area and the number of dwellings in each area; and also the timing of the provision of the link road, the Lammas Way pedestrian access and the green infrastructure. The development of each area shall be carried out in accordance with the approved areas plan.

Reason: In order to ensure the timely provision of the development.

5 Prior to the submission of the first reserved matters application for each area, a detailed design code for that area of the development shall be submitted to the local planning authority for written approval. The detailed design code for each area shall demonstrate how it relates to any adjoining area(s) design code(s); how the objectives of the Design and Access Statement (April 2012) will be met, and shall be in accordance with the drawings and documents referred to in Condition 1 above. The design code for each area shall: a) explain how the code fits in with the Adopted Warren Farm Development Brief (February 2012) and its purpose. b) 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. c) identify any character areas within which the following design principles shall be identified: (i) public realm including details of landscaping, public art opportunities, public realm material types (landscape, street furniture etc) and refuse collection. (ii) 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. (iii) boundary treatments including types to front, side and rear boundaries. (iv) building types & uses. (v) building densities and heights. (vi) key gateways, landmark buildings, vistas and frontages. (vii) architectural detailing and materials including key roofscape principles, building material types & design details: including signage and lighting (where applicable). (viii) 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.

Agenda Item 7 Page 54

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).

6 No more than 410 dwellings shall be constructed on the site pursuant to this planning permission.

Reason: The application is for outline planning permission for 410 dwellings.

7 Prior to the commencement of the development in each area approved by condition 4 of this permission, a Code of Construction Practice shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This shall detail methods that all developers, contractors and sub-contractors will employ at all times during demolition, construction and other engineering operations on the site. The Code of Practice shall include:

- Measures to be used to control and suppress dust; - Measures to be used to reduce the impact of noise and vibration arising from noise and vibration generating activities on site in accordance with best practice as set out in BS 5228:2009 ' Code of Practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites' - The siting and appearance of works compounds

The implementation of the development shall only be undertaken in accordance with the approved Code of Practice.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring residential premises in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

8 No works in respect of the construction of the development hereby permitted shall be undertaken at the following times:

a) Outside the hours of 0700 - 1800 on Mondays to Fridays (inclusive);

b) Outside the hours of 0800 - 1300 on Saturdays;

c) Not at all on Sundays and on public holidays.

Reason: To minimise the disturbance and inconvenience to residents living near the site in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

9 No development shall commence until an overarching landscape and Open Space Strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Landscape and Open Space Strategy shall set out the in principle requirements for treatment of the areas of landscaping and open space, shall be in accordance with the Land Use Agenda Item 7 Page 55

Plan drawing number 1239-O-1110 Rev D and the areas plan and shall include:

a) a programme for implementation;

b) long-term design objectives for the laying out of areas of green infrastructure and open space within the residential development areas including any replacement planting;

c) short and long-term management responsibilities;

d) maintenance schedules for all hard and soft landscape areas and open spaces (other than privately owned domestic gardens), and any associated features.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved overarching Landscape and Open Space Strategy.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance of the development in accordance with Policies DM3 and DM16 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

10 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment dated June 2012.

Reason: To prevent the risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, to ensure the future maintenance of surface and foul water drainage systems in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) and Central Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

11 No d evelopment shall commence 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 drainage strategy should demonstrate that the surface water run-off generated up to and including the 1% AEP (100 year return period) critical storm, plus a suitable allowance for climate change, will not exceed the run-off from the undeveloped site following the corresponding rainfall event. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed.

The scheme shall be based upon the principles within the agreed Flood Risk Assessment dated June 2012 and shall also include:

••• Full storm event simulation results with appropriate inputs and parameters demonstrating the surface water runoff rates for the Q BAR , Q 30 , Q 100 and Q 100 PLUS CLIMATE CHANGE storm events, of the critical storm season and duration; ••• Full results of proposed drainage system modelling in the Agenda Item 7 Page 56

above referenced storm events, inclusive of all collection, conveyance, storage, flow control and the 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; ••• 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 the existing state, nature and capacity of ditches in situ, and a full assessment of post-development impacts on the utilisation of the ditches for surface water conveyance; ••• 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; ••• Evidence that the Internal Drainage Board have been fully consulted and any requirements fully complied with; ••• Full details of the maintenance and/or adoption of the system inclusive of all collection, conveyance, storage, flow control and disposal elements.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, both on and off site in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) and Central Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

12 No development shall commence until a scheme to dispose of foul water for the development hereby permitted has been authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that adequate foul drainage has been provided in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) and Central Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

13 No development shall take place in an area of the development approved as per condition 4 above until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a detailed waste audit scheme for that area. The waste audit scheme shall include details of refuse storage and recycling facilities. The development of each area shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To ensure that development is adequately provided with waste and recycling facilities in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) and Central Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). Agenda Item 7 Page 57

14 Prior to the commencement of development in each area, details of the finished floor and site levels for each area of the development approved as per condition 4 above, shall be submitted concurrently with the reserved matters applications for that area and approved in writing by the local planning authority and shall include full details of finished floor levels for each building and finished site levels (for all hard surfaced and landscaped areas) in relation to existing ground levels. The development shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved level details.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure a satisfactory form of development.

15 No development shall take place in an area of the development approved as per condition 4 of this permission until details of the plans and sections of the proposed roads, including gradients and method of surface water disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and no building within that area shall be occupied until the section of road which provides access thereto has been constructed (apart from final surfacing) in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed road works are constructed to adequate standard.

16 No buildings, or structures, including fences, of height greater than 0.6m are to be constructed within the 2.4m x 60m visibility envelope of the tidy tip access, as shown on the approved site access drawing (Drawing Number 13921/2002G).

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

17 The details required by Condition 1 of this permission shall include a scheme for protection of dwellings fro m noise from the adjoining Household Waste Recycling Centre, as identified in Spectrum Acoustics Report Ref JW545/11222 dated 16th October 2012. No dwellings shall be occupied until the scheme providing protection for those dwellings has been implemented i n accordance with the approved details and has been demonstrated to achieve the required noise levels to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be retained in accordance with those details thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupants of the development in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

18 The applicant or developer will secure the implementation of a Written Scheme of Archaeological Investigation for the Poplar Plantation Area (as identified on the Areas Plan required by Condition 3 above) subject to works for the approved drainage strategy and the areas identified with archaeological remains of Iron Age occupation and the post medieval kiln feature as shown on drawing Arch.001 and any land immediately adjoining these areas as may be reasonably appropriate . No Agenda Item 7 Page 58

development shall take place within those identified areas until the Written Scheme for those areas which shall identify the extent of the land in which the Scheme is to be implemented has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The said development shall only be implemented in accordance with the Scheme thereby approved.

Reason: To record and advance understanding of the significance of the heritage assets with archaeological interest in accordance Central Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

19 The landscaping scheme required by condition 1 of this permission shall show the numbers, types and sizes of trees, grass and shrubs to be planted and their location in relation to proposed buildings, underground services and/or engineering works and shall include details of any hard surfaces and earth mounding. The approved scheme for each area approved by condition 3 of this permission shall be implemented by the end of the full planting season immediately following the completion of that identified area (a full planting season means the period from October to March). The trees, shrubs and grass shall be subsequently 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 and maintained until satisfactorily established.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of landscaping in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

20 Prior to commencement of development in each area approved by condition 4 of this permission, including any ground clearance or excavation, protective fencing, the details of which shall be first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be erected around the trees T45, T47, T56, T57, T58 and G16 as identified on Arbtech Consulting Limited Drawing No. TCP – 01 dated 27/012011. The protective fencing shall be retained at full height and extent until completion of development in each area. No materials shall be stored or deposited and no mixing of materials shall take place within the area so protected.

Reason: To protect the trees so enclosed in accordance with Section 8 of BS5837 of 2005 or as may be subseque ntly amended in accordance with Policy DM14 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

21 The development shall be carried out in accordance with all ecological mitigation proposals set out in Aspect Ecology Report No. ECO2174.EcoAs.dv2 dated April 2012. Reason: To protect and enhance features of recognised nature conservation importance in accordance with Policy DM15 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009). Agenda Item 7 Page 59

22 The details required by condition 1 of this permission shall include a scheme for parking, garaging and manoeuvring and the loading and unloading of vehicles in respect of each building forming part of the identified area thereof and shall be in accordance with the details approved by the Design Code for each area. The approved scheme pursuant to condition 1 shall be made available for use before the building is occupied and those areas shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To ensure that adequate turning, parking and unloading space is available in the interest of road safety.

23 Prior to commencement of development in each area approved by condition 4 of this permission, a scheme showing the proposed boundary treatment of that area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall show the type and height of fences, hedges, walls or other means of enclosure and shall be in accordance with the details approved by the Design Code for each area. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the adjacent residential units are first occupied.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance for the development and to safeguard the amenity of future occupiers in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

Reasons for Granting

The site is allocated for residential development to provide a minimum of 410 dwellings under Policy H A4 of the Central Bedfordshire (North) Site Allocations DPD. Whilst the application proposes up to 410 dwellings the lower number of dwellings proposed is considered to be acceptable in view of there no longer being minimum density requirements set by Cent ral Government and a general acceptance of lower density developments. The application also proposes provision of open space, including a NEAP and attenuation pond, within the designated Green Belt. The NPPF allows these uses as an exception providing they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The proposal would meet these requirements. The application has been advertised as a departure from Development Plan policy for the above reasons.

The proposal will deliver a sustainable form of residential development which will include provision of affordable housing, on site open space facilities, off-site highways improvements and financial contributions towards infrastructure to mitigate the l ocal impacts of the development. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with relevant sections and policies of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Plan, Central Bedfordshire (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Managem ent Policies 2009, Affordable Housing (July 2004) and Planning Obligations (north) (November 2009) SPD’s, Mid Bedfordshire Recreation Open Space Strategy (2004), Design in Central Bedfordshire: A Guide to Development (2010) and the Warren Farm, Ampthill De velopment Brief (November 2011).

Agenda Item 7 Page 60

Notes to Applicant

1. 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.

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

3. 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. (HN vii)

4. The applicant is advised that in order to comply with Conditions 3 and 13 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. (HN viii)

5. 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. (HN xii)

6. All roads to be constructed within the site shall be designed in accordance with Central Bedfordshire Council’s publication “Design in Central Bedfordshire A Guide to Development” and the Department for Transport’s “Manual for Streets”, or any amendment thereto. (HN xiii)

7. The applicant is advised that all cycle parking to be provided within the site shall be designed in accordance with Central Bedfordshire Council’s “Cycle Parking Guidance - July 2010”.

8. You are advised to note the comments of National Grid as set out in the enclosed letter.

Agenda Item 7 Page 61

9. Anglian Water has assets close to or crossing this site or there are assets subject to an adoption agreement. Therefore the site layout should take this into account and accommodate those assets within either prospectively adoptable highways or public open space. If this is not practicable then the sewers will need to be diverted at the developers cost under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991 or, in the case of the apparatus under an adoption agreement, liaise with the owners of the apparatus. It should be noted that the diversion works should normally be completed before development can commence.

10. If the developer wishes to connect to the Anglian Water sewerage network they should serve notice under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Anglian Water will be able to advise of the most suitable point of connection.

11. If the proposed pipe network crosses under and/or is within 7 metres of an Internal Drainage Board controlled watercourse the Boards statutory consent will be required.

12. • The proposal is situated over a Principal and Secondary aquifer.

• Only clean, uncontaminated surface water should be discharged to any soakaway, watercourse or surface water sewer.

• Where soakaways are proposed for the disposal of uncontaminated surface water, percolation tests should be undertaken, and soakaways designed and constructed in accordance with BRE Digest 365 (or CIRIA Report 156), and to the satisfaction of the Local Authority. The maximum acceptable depth for soakaways is 2 metres below existing ground level. Soakaways must not be located in contaminated areas. If, after tests, it is found that soakaways do not work satisfactorily, alternative proposals must be submitted.

• Drainage from parking areas that will discharge to a surface watercourse must be first passed through an oil interceptor. The Environmental Permitting Regulations make it an offence to cause or knowingly permit any discharge that will result in the input of pollutants to surface waters.

• Storage of domestic oil in above ground tanks >3500 litres must be undertaken on site in accordance with the Control of Pollution (oil storage) (England) Regulations 2001. Storage of domestic oil in above ground tanks <3500 litres must be undertaken in accordance with Approved Document J of the Building Regulations.

13. Any removal of trees, scrub or hedgerow should take place outside the bird breeding season of March to August inclusive. Should any such vegetation have to be removed during, or close to this period it should first be thoroughly assessed by a suitably experienced ecologist as to whether it is in use by nesting birds. Should nests be found, a suitable area of vegetation (no less than a 5m zone around the nest) should be left intact and undisturbed until it is confirmed that any young have fledged before works in that area proceed. This process should be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Agenda Item 7 Page 62

REASON: In order not to cause destruction of, or damage to , the nests of wild birds, their eggs and young. This corresponds to the protection afforded to them under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

DECISION

......

...... Agenda Item 8 Page 63

Drain

The Fountain 45.7m Cottage

The Lagoon

The Bungalow

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No. W E Date: 23:November:2012 CB/12/03535/FULL Map Sheet No S

Scale: 1:1250 Land rear of 197 Hitchin Road, Arlesey. SG15 6SE Page 64

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 Page 65

Item No. 8

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/12/03535/FULL LOCATION Land rear of 197 Hitchin Road, Arlesey, SG15 6SE PROPOSAL Change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for 4 additional gypsy families, with a total of 8 caravans including no more than 4 static caravans. Extension of hardstanding and erection of two amenity buildings and landscaping. PARISH Arlesey WARD Arlesey WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Dalgarno, Drinkwater & Wenham CASE OFFICER Vicki Davies DATE REGISTERED 17 October 2012 EXPIRY DATE 12 December 2012 APPLICANT Mr Patrick Rooney AGENT Philip Brown Associates REASON FOR At the request of Cllr Dalgarno in light of the COMMITTEE TO significant public interest. DETERMINE RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Granted

Site Location:

The application site is located approximately 250 metres beyond the southernmost settlement boundary of Arlesey and approximately 75 metres to the west of the East Coast mainline. The site is within the open countryside and sits to the rear of the applicant's property, 197 Hitchin Road and the neighbouring property, Fountain Cottage.

The Application & Background:

The application seeks consent for change of use from agricultural land to use as a residential caravan site for 4 addition al gypsy families, with a total of 8 caravans including no more than 4 static caravans, extension of hardstanding, erection of two amenity blocks and landscaping.

The proposal would extend the rear part of the existing site to the west by 35m and to the north by 10m. The extension to the north includes the package sewage treatment plant and provides a 7m wide access to the rear of the site. The package sewage treatment plant was installed following the approval of the 2011 application to extend the sit e but has never been included within any planning application. The access to the rear of the site and the sewage treatment plant would have landscaping to soften the fencing.

The application also seeks consent for two amenity buildings which would m easure 6m by 4m and are sectional in construction. The proposed amenity blocks would match those already on site. The whole of the application site would be hard surfaced using block paving to match the existing site. Agenda Item 8 Page 66

Access to the site would be via the existing entrance to 197 Hitchin Road.

The site is allocated in the draft Gypsy and Traveller DPD, December 2010, for a total of 10 pitches. The site currently has planning permission for a total of 6 pitches on two distinct parcels of land, the firs t being a narrow area of land to the south of the dwelling at 197 Hitchin Road which measures 70.4 metres long and 14.3m wide which accommodates 2 pitches. The second parcel is a rectangular site measuring 53.9m by 42.6m which accommodates 4 pitches.

Pl anning application, CB/12/02799/FULL, was submitted earlier this year, which was refused. The application showed the extension of the site to the north of the existing site which was outside of the area shown in the DPD as allocated for development. The proposed location of the extension to the site would have been adjacent to the neighbouring dwelling and was considered to have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of the neighbouring residents.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Policies

National Planning Policy Framework Section 7 - Requiring Good Design Section 11 - Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment

Planning Policy for Traveller Sites

Regional Spatial Strategy East of England Plan (May 2008)

SS1 Achieving Sustainable Development H3 Provision for Gypsies and Travellers ENV7 Quality in the Built Environment

Bedfordshire Structure Plan 2011

No relevant policies

Central Bedfordshire Council (North Area) Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009

CS1 Settlement Hierarchy CS14 High Quality Development DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes.

Mid Beds Local Plan First Review Adopted December 2005 - Saved Policies

HO12 Gypsies

Agenda Item 8 Page 67

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Design in Central Bedfordshire: A Guide for Development

Draft Submission Gypsy and Traveller DPD - policy GT3 - endorsed for the purposes of Development Management by Executive 4/10/11

Planning History

CB/12/02799/FULL Change of use from agricultural land to use as a residential caravan site for 4 additional gypsy families, with a total of 8 caravans including no more than 4 static caravans, extension of hardstanding, erection of 2 amenity buildings and landscaping. Refused 26/9/12. CB/11/03370/FULL Retention of use of land as a residential caravan site for 6 Gypsy families, including hardstanding, utility blocks and landscaping. Approved 5/3/12. CB/09/05914/FULL Change of use of land to use as residential caravan site for four gypsy families with a total of 8 caravans, erection of amenity blocks and landscaping. Approved 2/11/09, temporary consent for 3 years. CB/09/00639/FULL Change of use of land to use as residential caravan site for four gypsy families with a total of 8 caravans, erection of amenity blocks and landscaping - Refused 24/6/09. MB07/01654/FULL Change of use from dwelling to mixed use of dwelling and caravan site - Appeal allowed 11/9/08, temporary consent for 3 years. MB/04/02146/FULL Change of use of land to private gypsy transit site and construction of hard standing for a maximum of 15 pitches - Refused 17/3/05.

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Arlesey Town Council Strongly object for the following reasons: - the Town Council has serious concerns for highway safety as the proposal would lead to an increase in the use of an access on a stretch of classified road, where the national speed limit applies; - there is concern that the accommodation will not be used for the purpose stated in the application; - part of the site is on the northern side of the land which is on the boundary with the neighbour's property, this will have a detrimental impact. - the proposed pitches would have an adverse impact on the extension of the cemetery because of the water table which is high in the area; and - it is the town council's understanding that work has already commenced. Neighbours At the time of writing 473 letters have been received in objection to the application. The objections raise the following issues: Agenda Item 8 Page 68

- the access to the site is dangerous - vehicles are left partly in the road whilst the gates are opened - concern over drainage of the site - impact on drainage at the cemetery - conditions on previous permissions have not be adhered to - alternative locations should be found - the site is being changed from family accommodation to business - impact on the residents of Fountain Cottage - the site should be located further away from Fountain Cottage - ditch has been filled in - noise from the existing and future occupants of the site - the application is retrospective - the site already has more static caravans than permitted - there are non-gypsy occupants living on the site - fear of crime - there is no safe footway to allow access to local amenities and facilities - why do they need 2 amenity blocks when they only currently have 1? - if the 4 pitches are allowed at Twin Acres is there a need for an additional 4 on this site? - 10 pitches would result in a site which is too big and unmanageable - the G&T site allocations document should be produced before the application is determined - there are not enough educational facilities in th village to cope with the extra children - children in the local school coming and going to travel will disrupt other pupils education - the site is close to Arlesey pits, a large water body which is inappropriate - the site is inappropriate as it is too close to the landfill site - medical facilities are full and additional pressure would impact on the level of care provided - the site is inadequately served by electricity, water and sanitation - erosion of the Green Belt - inequitable distribution of gypsy sites

Consultations/Publicity responses

Highways Development Control The proposal would result in an intensification in use of the site access but given that the access has been approved for the use as a gypsy caravan site, the officer does not consider that an objection could be sustained to this proposal. The officer does have reservations regarding the location of Agenda Item 8 Page 69

the site in relation to Arlesey, it is a remote site where sustainable transport links are limited and in terms of foot and cycle are non-existent. The officer requests that this is flagged up against any further extensions to the site which may be of a more significant size. Public Protection The proposed development site is located 75m away from the mainline London to Edinburgh railway which is a potentially contaminative use. It is noted that the current use of the land is a grassed agricultural field. The officer therefore requests an informative regarding contaminated land.

The site is between 75m and 135m from the railway line however the officer advises that due to the occupants not being permanently resident on the site an informative should be attached to any approval.

The officer also requests an informative be attached to any planning permission regarding the need for a site license. Private Sector Housing No response received.

Building Control No response received.

Internal Drainage Board No response has been received to this application, however in response to the previous application the following was received.

The Board notes that the proposed method of storm water disposal is by way of soakaways. It is essential that ground conditions are investigated and if found satisfactory the soakaways are constructed in accordance with the latest Building Research Establishment Digest 365. In the event that ground conditions are found not to be suitable for soakaway drainage any direct discharge to the nearby watercourse will require the Board's prior consent. The Board request a condition to this effect.

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle of Development 2. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area 3. Impact on Amenities of Neighbours and Future Occupiers 4. Highways and Parking Issues 5. Other Issues Agenda Item 8 Page 70

Considerations

1. Principle of Development Policy Background

The site lies outside of the built up area of Arlesey within the open countryside where there is a general presumption against the granting of planning permission for new development. The new "Planning Policy for Traveller Sites" guidance sets out that Local Authorities should strictly limit new Traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements.

"Planning Policy for Traveller Sites" is specifically designed to provide guidance on determining Gypsy applications and to ensure fair and equal treatment for Travellers, in a way that facilitates that traditional and nomadic way of life for Travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community. The document also defines Gypsies and Travellers, the definition remains the same as that in the replaced Circular 1/2006.

The application site lies outside the settlement envelope of Arlesey within the open countryside. Policy HO12 accepts that it is not essential that sites are within settlement envelopes but that they should relate well to existing built development, community facilities and public transport. In addition the application site is shown in the draft Gypsy and Traveller DPD and the proposal is considered therefore to be in accordance with the policy document. The DPD shows the whole of the site being allocated to provide 10 pitches, there are currently 6 pitches consented on the site and this application would provide a further 4 pitches to total the 10 pitches allocated.

Gypsy and Traveller Pitch Provision

A Central Bedfordshire-wide Gypsy and Traveller Plan is being prepared to deliver the pitch requirement for the northern and southern parts of Central Bedfordshire to 2031. A request for potential sites to be included in the plan has been made to which responses have been received. The plan making team are now reviewing the sites put forward along with other potential sites before consultation on the site options commences in February 2013. A final draft document will be produced in May-June 2013 for submission to the Secretary of State in September 2013. It is anticipated that the examination hearings will be in January 2014, with the Inspector's report being received in April 2014 and the adoption of the plan in June 2014.

In conjunction with the preparation of the new Gypsy and Traveller Plan, on 10 April 2012 the Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee approved the Gypsy and Traveller Plan pitch numbers and site assessment methodology. The previous pitch figure targets have therefore been superseded by the recently approved figures. The report set out that the Gypsy and Traveller Pitch Requirement to 2031 which has recently been updated to:

Pitch Need from 2006 to 2011 - 57 Growth between 2011 and 2016 (3%) - 28 Growth between 2016 and 2021 (3%) - 33 Agenda Item 8 Page 71

Growth between 2021 and 2026 (3%) - 38 Growth between 2026 and 2031 (3%) - 45

Total (from 2006 to 2031) 201

Existing Permanent Permissions granted between 2006 and October 2012 (to be subtracted from the total) – 68

Plus recent permissions granted in November 2012 at: Oak Tree Nurseries = 3 additional pitches Twin Acres, Arlesey = 4 additional pitches

Total number of permanent planning permissions between 2006 and November 2012 (to be subtracted from the total) - 75

Pitches lost at the Timberlands site (to be added to the total) +4

OVERALL NEED TO 2031 (minus recently approved pitches) 130

On the basis of these pitch numbers the Authority has already achieved the necessary provision of 57 pitches to 2011 with the current number of existing permanent pitches being 66. Between 2011 and 2016 an additional 28 pitches need to be found, this equates to 5.6 pitches per year. The number of pitches that the Authority therefore needs to provide by the end of 2012 should be 57 + 6 = 63. As the current provision stands at 75 this shows the Authority has provision to the end of 2014.

Giving planning permission to extend this existing site in accordance with the draft DPD would result in there being less need to be met by sites coming forward through the emerging Gypsy and Traveller Plan for the whole of the authority's area.

2. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area The application site is well screened from the road, being located beyond the rear of 197 Hitchin Road and Fountain Cottage. Post and rail fencing and tree and hedge planting is proposed along the northern and western boundaries and would restrict views from properties in Ramerick Gardens to the south and the mainline railway to the west.

The proposed amenity blocks are of a functional but acceptable design and relatively modest size. The blocks are 6m by 4m with pitched roofs measuring 3.9m to the ridgeline. The blocks are cream in colour with brown roof tiles. Each building accommodates a bathroom and laundry/utility areas with a washing machine. Whilst in the context of a caravan site the amenity buildings are considered acceptable it is judged that on their own they would be out of keeping in the open fields.

An objector questions why the current application proposes two amenity blocks for 4 pitches when the current site only has one amenity block. There are currently two amenity blocks on site to serve the existing 6 pitches which were granted permanent consent in 2011, it is therefore not considered that an additional two amenity blocks would be disproportionate. Agenda Item 8 Page 72

Concern is also raised by objectors that the backdrop of a Gypsy and Traveller site to the cemetery is inappropriate. The distance between the site and the cemetery is over 100m. The northern edge of the existing site is demarcated by 2m high timber close boarded fencing. The northern edge of the proposed site is shown as post and rail fencing and tree and hedge planting. Planting is also shown along part of the existing timber fencing. Overall it is not considered that the existing or proposed Gypsy pitches would have any significant adverse impact on the character of the area to the detriment of the cemetery due to the distance between the sites and the proposed planting.

A conditions have been added to the previous planning permissions requiring landscaping and it is considered that a condition should also be attached to this permission. The additional hard surfacing would not be visible from outside of the site. It is not considered that the proposed extension to the site would have any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area.

The site do not have any significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and therefore comply with saved Mid Beds Local Plan policy HO12 part (i) and draft DPD policy GT3.

3. Impact on Amenities of Neighbours and Future Occupiers The Inspector in determining the appeal relating to the pitches along the boundary with the neighbouring property considered that with appropriate boundary fencing the level of activity on the site would not cause unacceptable harm to residential amenity. In determining the application for larger part of the existing site which is located at the end of the rear garden of Fountain Cottage it was considered that due to the distance from the dwelling and the boundary treatment that there would not be any significant adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents.

The majority of the proposed extension to the site would be located to the west, rear of the existing site. The extension to the site which would accommodate caravans would be approximately 45m from the boundary with the property known as Fountain Cottage. Saved Mid Beds Local Plan policy HO12 part (iii) and draft DPD policy GT3 both require that the amenities of neighbouring residents are not unacceptably harmed. Due to the distance between the proposed extension to the residential part of the site and the neighbouring property and it light of the Inspectors comments it is not considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents sufficient to justify refusing the application.

The boundary of Fountain Cottage is demarcated by fencing and planting. No clear views into the neighbouring property are possible from the proposed caravans or the hard standing area around them due to the boundary treatment. It is not considered that the proposal would have any significant adverse impact on the amenities of residents of Ramerick Gardens as they would be over 600 metres away.

In respect of the amenities of the future occupants of the proposed site it has been recommended by the Environmental Health Officer that due to the proximity of the site to the railway that an acoustic bund or barrier of 2 to 2.5 Agenda Item 8 Page 73

metres in height would be required to mitigate noise from the railway. The officer does however recognise that the site is not permanently occupied and recommends an informative is attached to any planning permission granted highlighting the noise issue.

The Environmental Health Officer also requests an informative regarding the material used for the earth bunds.

It is considered that a condition should be added to any planning permission requiring that no additional lighting is installed without the details of such lighting previously being submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Some objectors comment that the small extension of the site to the north would have an adverse impact on the amenities of the occupiers of Fountain Cottage. The extension of the site to the north would only accommodate the existing sewage treatment plant and allow access to the rear of the site. The use of this land can be controlled by a condition requiring the site to be laid out in accordance with the submitted plan. In light of the use of the land within the extension to the north of the site it is not considered that there would be any adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring residents.

It is considered that the proposal would not result in a significant adverse impact on residential amenity which would justify refusing planning permission. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with saved Mid Beds Local Plan policy HO12, part (iii) and draft DPD policy GT3.

4. Highways and Parking Issues The existing access to the site is from Hitchin Road which is subject to the national speed limit for which a visibility splay of 2.4m x 215m is required each side of the access. Highways Development Control confirmed in relation to the previous application on the site that the visibility splays can be achieved in both directions, however towards the southern direction the visibility splay is currently restricted by the boundary hedge of the neighbouring field. Whilst the trimming of the hedge is outside of the applicant's control he can request that the Highway Authority cut it back.

It is a matter of concern to objectors that vehicles particularly those with a caravan attached cannot pull clear of the highway whilst waiting for the gates on the access to the site to open. A condition was added to the previous planning permission granted which required the gates to be set back 13m from the highway to enable vehicles to pull off the road. The condition has been complied with and the gates have been moved back.

Concern has been raised that the additional 4 pitches would increase the level of traffic on the highway and using the access. The Highways Development Control Officer comments that the access is on a good standard and raises no objection to the proposal.

The Highways Development Control Officer raises the issue that the site is served by limited public transport and is poorly served in terms of pedestrian and cycle facilities. The accessibility of the site was assessed during the site allocations process for the DPD. The occupants of the site have access to Agenda Item 8 Page 74

public transport and there is a very narrow footway along the western side of Hitchin Road.

5. Other Issues Concerns have been raised regarding flooding due to the increased area of hard surfacing however the site is not within any flood protection zones and the Bedfordshire and River Ivel Internal Drainage Board have not objected to the proposal. The Town Council and other objectors have raised concern over the impact the proposal would have on the cemetery. The cemetery is approximately 135m north of the application site and it is therefore possible that the drainage of the site may impact on the drainage of the cemetery. It is therefore considered that additional information regarding the drainage of the site and any potential impact on the cemetery should be required and that this can be secured by condition.

Some objectors make comments regarding the impact an additional 4 pitches would have on the infrastructure and services of Arlesey. Whilst there would be an impact on local infrastructure it would be small. Financial contributions towards infrastructure are sought on applications for permanent bricks and mortar dwellings however the current policy does not include the provision to seek financial contributions from Gypsy and Traveller site applications. This matter is going to be considered during the preparation of the emerging Gypsy and Traveller Plan.

Although the officer's recommendation is for approval if Member's are minded to refuse this application they first need to consider whether there are any conditions which could be attached to the consent which would make it acceptable, this would also include granting a temporary permission.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be granted subject to:

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

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

2 This permission does not authorise use of the land as a caravan site by any persons other than gypsies and tr avellers, as defined in Annexe 1 of Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, CLG, 2012.

Reason: To limit the use of the site to gypsies and travellers.

3 No more than 8 caravans (of which no more than 4 shall be static caravans) shall be stationed on the site at any one time.

Agenda Item 8 Page 75

Reason: To control the level of development in the interests of visual and residential amenity.

4 Notwithstanding the details of the application all caravans together with all buildings, other structures, materials and equipment including fences, telegraph poles and lighting columns, septic tanks/cesspits and pipes, cables, meter boxes and other services brought on to the Site in connection with the development hereby approved shall be removed and all hardcore, tarmac and other hard surfacings on the above areas shall also be broken up and completely removed and the Site levelled, topsoiled and seeded with grass or turfed, within three months of the date of failure to meet any one of the requirements set out in (A) to (D) below:

(A) no development shall commence unless and until a scheme detailing:

i. the existing and proposed means of foul and surface water drainage of all parts of the Site;

ii. the existing and proposed external lighting on the boundary of and within all parts of th e Site including the location of all individual luminaires, their output (in lumens) and any shields, baffles or louvres together with the details of any existing or proposed lighting columns;

iii. the existing walls, fencing, gates or other means of enclosure on the boundaries of and within all parts of the Site, together with any additional such walls, fencing, gates or other means of enclosure proposed;

iv. a landscaping scheme, clearly identifying ground preparation works, details of all tree, hedge and shrub planting and where appropriate earth mounding including details of species, plant sizes and proposed numbers and densities, together with the means of their protection.

(hereafter referred to as the site development scheme) shall have been submitted for t he written approval of the Local Planning Authority and the said scheme shall include a timetable for the implementation of the various components of the scheme;

(B) within 11 months of the date of this decision the site development scheme shall have been approved by the Local Planning Authority or, if the Local Planning Authority refuse to approve the scheme, or fail to give a decision within the prescribed period, an appeal shall have been made to, and accepted as validly made by, the Secretary of State;

(C) if an appeal is made in pursuance of (B) above, that appeal shall have been finally determined and the submitted site development scheme shall have been approved by the Secretary of State; and

Agenda Item 8 Page 76

(D) the approved scheme shall have been carried out a nd completed in accordance with the approved timetable, or in accordance with any amended details and/or revised timetables as might be agreed from time to time in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In order to ensure that the development is satisfactory drained, that the lighting associated with the development does not have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding area, that the proposal takes account for the need of hard and soft landscaping and that the development has no adverse effect upon general or residential amenity in accordance with saved policy HO12 of the Mid Beds Local Plan, policy GT3 of the draft Gypsy and Traveller DPD and polices CS14 and DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (north) Core Strategy.

5 At the same time as the site development scheme required by Condition 4 is submitted to the Local Planning Authority there shall be submitted a schedule of maintenance for a period of five years of the proposed planting beginning at the completion of the final phase of implementat ion as required by that condition; the schedule to make provision for the replacement, in the same position, of any tree, hedge or shrub that is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies or, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, becomes seriously da maged or defective, with another of the same species and size as that originally planted. The maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

Reason: In order to ensure that the proposal takes account for the need for hard and soft landscaping in accordance with saved policy HO12 of the Mid Beds Local Plan, policy GT3 of the draft Gypsy and Traveller DPD and policies CS14 and DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (north) Core Strategy.

6 At the same time as the site development sch eme required by Condition 4 is submitted to the Local Planning Authority there shall be submitted a programme of management and maintenance of the drainage system for the lifetime of the development. The drainage system shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved programme.

Reason: In order to ensure that the development has no unacceptable adverse effect upon general or residential amenity in accordance with saved policy HO12 of the Mid Beds Local Plan, policy GT3 of the draft Gypsy and Traveller DPD and policies CS14 and DM3 of the Central Bedfordshire (north) Core Strategy.

7 No vehicle over 3.5 tonnes shall be stationed, parked or stored on this site.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of local residents .

8 No commercial activities shall take place on the land, including the storage of materials.

Reason: In order to protect the amenities of local residents .

Agenda Item 8 Page 77

9 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers CBC/001, CBC/002, PBA1 and PBA2.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Reasons for Granting

The proposal is in conformity with Policy HO12 of the Mid Bedfordshire Local Plan First Review 2005 and policy GT3 of the draft Gypsy and Traveller DPD as there is no unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, the amenities of nearby residential properties are not unacceptably harmed and a safe, convenient and adequate standard of access can be provided. The site is also identified in the draft Gypsy and Traveller DPD as a site suitable for use as a Gypsy and Traveller site for up to 10 pitches. It is also in conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Policy for Traveller Sites.

Notes to Applicant

DECISION

......

......

Page 78

This page is intentionally left blank 010 Agenda Item 9

Page 79 7

21

31

11

16 2

LAWNS

THE

El Sub Sta

GREEN LANE

7 1

Greenways

19 21

68.5m POTTON ROAD

25

Everton Lower School

31 Recreation Ground

35

66.8m

2

8 14

Pavilion N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No W E Date: 27:November:2012 CB/12/03433/FULL Map Sheet No S

Scale: 1:1250 21 Potton Road, Everton, Sandy Page 80

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 Page 81

Item No. 09

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/12/03433/FULL LOCATION 21 Potton Road, Everton, Sandy, SG19 2LD PROPOSAL Change of use to care home from adult residential home to residential childrens home . PARISH Everton WARD Potton WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Mrs Gurney & Zerny CASE OFFICER Amy Lack DATE REGISTERED 12 October 2012 EXPIRY DATE 07 December 2012 APPLICANT Mrs D Bavister AGENT REASON FOR Called to Committee by Cllr Gurney and Cllr Zerny COMMITTEE TO given concern over inappropriate location for the DETERMINE proposed facility.

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Granted

Site Location:

The application site comprises a detached single storey building constructed of brown brick with a tile roof. Originally built as a residential dwelling (Use Class C3) this bungalow, until recently was occupied by a residential care home for the elderly (Use Class C2).

To the east is a private access track known as Green Lane, serving bungalow dwellings Greenways and Glebe House to the north of the application site. Northwest of the site is a residential cul-de-sac, The Lawns, comprising two storey semi-detached and detached dwellings. To the west is neighbouring No.19 Potton Road, a semi-detached chalet style bungalow. To the south is Potton Road, which is subject to a speed restriction of 30mph but not any parking restrictions. Beyond is a recreational green, comprising a public recycling collection area immediately opposite the application site. To the western end of the recreational space is a play equipment area.

The external curtilage of the building is almost entirely covered in block paving with a small rear garden and on site car parking provision for at least 4 cars and a turning space at the front.

The Application:

This application seeks planning permission for the use of the site as a residential care home for children (Use Class C2 - residential institutions).

The accommodation can home up to five children (ages 0 to 18 years old) but the applicant has confirmed that the inten tion is for occupants between 10 to 16 years of Agenda Item 9 Page 82

age and care will not be offered to children over 17 years of age.

The application form states that the business will employ up to 14 full-time and 1 part-time member of staff. However, at any one time there will be no more than 4 employees on a shift. At least one member of staff will sleep in and another will remain awake over night.

The children, who are expected to be long-term residents, will have emotional and behavioural difficulties. In some cases this might mean they struggle socially or to effectively regulate their behaviour which means living with a foster family may not be appropriate.

No external alterations or extension are proposed to the existing building by this planning application.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Guidance

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

Regional Spatial Strategy East of England Plan (May 2008)

SS1: Achieving Sustainable Development ENV7: Quality in the Built Environment

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (November 2009)

CS14 High Quality Development DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes

Planning History

MB/00/02004/FA Erection of timber shed for storage purposes. Approved 26.01.01 MB/85/0053A/RM Reserved matters: Bungalow. Approved 14.08.86 MB/85/00053/OA Outline; Bungalow and double garage. Approved 14.05.85

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Everton Parish Council Access to the playing field and play area will require the occupants of the home to cross Potton Road which suffers from speeding vehicles and use by HGVs. As such, there is concern for highway safety.

An inadequate bus service and lack of shops mea n a lack of facilities for children including health provision/doctors surgery. Agenda Item 9 Page 83

Everton Lower School What is the justification for thinking children between 10-16 are best placed within this community and what services have been identified to support th ese children for recreational time?

How will these children be supervised over 24 hours?

What is the added value to the area as stated by the applicant?

What is the applicant's qualification or track record for such ventures?

Current or future propriet ors of the home will be permitted to house children of an Everton Lower School age. The maximum permitted number of pupils at the lower school is 50. This could potentially result in 10 per cent of the school being children from the home. This would be wh olly disproportionate of the village community having a significant impact upon the school. Third Party Representations The owner/occupiers of the following addresses have made representations in objection to the proposal:

− Park Farm, Church Lane − Glebe House, Green Lane − Greenways, Green Lane − 16 The Lawns − The Elms, 33 Sandy Road − 17 Warden Hill − 23 Warden Hill

These can be summarised as follows:

Residential amenity

− Teenagers with behavioural problems just over the shared boundary with Greenways will caus e an unacceptable disturbance to these neighbours.

Car parking and highway safety

− Result in additional pressures for car parking on the street; − The private road Green Lane immediately east was used by staff of the adult care home, compounded by parents o f the lower school dropping off and picking up children, this proposal will only exacerbate this situation and Agenda Item 9 Page 84

compromise highway safety. No parking should take place in this area or to the front of 21 Potton Road.

Suitability of location

− A quiet village with no facilities for children and poor access to Sandy or Potton these children will be left bored around the village looking for amusement; − The inadequate size of the garden means that the children will not be entertained within the site; − The playgroun d across the road from the site is used by the children from Everton Lower School, it is not appropriate for older children or those with emotional or behavioural difficulties; − The children who would be living in this property would be more suited to an en vironment that has a better representation of society, not stuck in the countryside with no facilities to amuse them; − Impact upon the villagers and children could be disastrous. The arrival of a gang of children would be a threat to the safety of the exist ing children of Everton, the security of villager's homes and may shatter the community spirit that binds the village together; − Everton Lower School is small and does not have the resources to deal with an influx of children requiring additional support; − This will result in troubled urban children being located in a village location which is alien to them and as research evidence suggests is a situation that has high failure rates; and − Housing children in this location who then need transport to and from s chools and to activities will cost the tax payer. For this reason a travel plan should be required.

The above is a summary of concerns raised by the third party representations that have been received. Full copies of these responses can be viewed on the application file.

A petition signed by 137 local residents has also been received in objection to the proposal. The petition was signed by residents for the following reason:

'We do not believe such a facility would be able to provide appropriate supervi sion or suitable amenities. We believe the unsupervised presence of the residents Agenda Item 9 Page 85

of such a care home would be a disruption and possible danger to our children, adults and elderly, and to our personal possessions and homes'.

A full copy of the petition re ceived and addresses of the residents which signed it can be view on the application file.

Publicity

Site notice 19.10.12. Posted to front of building.

Public meeting with 21 November 2012 applicant

Consultations/Publicity responses

Highways No response received.

Public Protection. No objection. But a noise management plan is requested that covers matters such as the number of residents, the likely noise generated and how the applicant intends to manage this, typical use and access to outdoor spaces.

This is requested to allow for an evaluation of any likely impact upon neighbours and comment accordingly. Comments then made by the Environmental health team will enable the applicant to consider the possibility of future restrictions being placed on the premises either through planning or 'Statutory Nuisance' legislation.

Determining Issues

From the consultation responses, representations received and an inspection of the site and surroundings the main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle of development 2. Character, context and design of external spaces. 3. Impact upon neighbouring residential amenity. 4. Car parking and highway safety 5. Refuse and recycling 7. Third party representations 8. Conclusion

Considerations

1. Principle of development

Agenda Item 9 Page 86

The existing building and its curtilage is currently considered to be in a residential institutional use, falling within Class C2 of the Town and Country Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended).

There is no planning history to suggest that express planning permission has been sort historically for a change of use from a dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a residential institution (Use Class C2). Notwithstanding this, the former use of the site as a residential care home for the elderly (Use Class C2) is thought to have operated continuously for a period of at least 10 years, from the late 1990's, before now standing vacant. However, the applicant has not sort to demonstrate that the site can be lawfully used as a residential institution and thereby immune from enforcement action, instead approval of this application will regularise the use of this site. Accordingly, this application for full planning permission, should consider the use of the site as a residential institution home, in this case for the care and homing of children, on its own planning merits. It is however a material consideration that the site has historically operated as a care home and the local planning authority have no record of complaint.

There is no policy basis that resists the loss of housing in the Local Plan but notwithstanding this the use of this site as a care home provides an equivalent amount of residential floorspace, albeit residential floorspace of a different character. On this basis the proposal is considered acceptable in principle. The tests of impact upon the amenity of the village of Everton and its suitability with respect to material planning considerations will be assessed within the main body of the report below.

2. Character, context and design of external spaces.

No external alterations are proposed by this planning application. As such, there will be no visual impact as a result of this proposal upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The building will remain to be read as a residential bungalow within the streetscene of Potton Road, a form that is in keeping with this part of the village. The proposal is therefore compliant with policies CS14, DM3 and DM4 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) and Central Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

3. Residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers

Use of the site as either a single dwelling or as a care home are not, for the purposes of planning, considered uses which are inherently different. With respect to the potential impact of the proposal upon privacy, loss of light, or potential for an enclosing or over bearing impact, no alterations or extensions are proposed to the building and as such the impact of the built form of the site upon the residential amenity currently enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers will be unchanged.

With respect to noise, disturbance, circulation around the site and movements to and from the site these impacts could potentially be more intensive than would be expected by a single dwelling house. However, these movements are unlikely to be so significantly increased to warrant refusal of the application upon these grounds and the site will essentially function as residential accommodation and is Agenda Item 9 Page 87

unlikely to be more disruptive in this regard than the previous use of the site as a home for the elderly.

The Environmental Officer consulted on the application has raised concern based on experience from other sites which have changed in use from residential dwellings to uses such as care homes and complaints have been received with respect to noise. Accordingly, they request the submission of a noise management plan to cover matters such as the number of residents, likely noise generated, how this noise will be managed and use of outdoor spaces. In this case such a requirement of the applicant is not considered reasonable. Based on the historic use of the site as a care home and that the proposal will not house any more occupants than a modest sized family dwelling which is in keeping and character with the scale of the residential accommodation in the village, noise nuisance should be controlled via Statutory Nuisance legislation. Should the application have sort permission for a large scale purpose built care home or the change of use of a dwelling with an uncharacteristically large number of bedrooms the potential impact would justify such a requirement.

Establishing the use of the site as being Use Class C2 would mean that the building and its curtilage would not be limited to care provision uses. As such, it is recommended that should planning permission be granted for the change of use to a residential institution then a condition be imposed to restrict future change of use of the site to allow assessment of the impacts of any change in the use of the site (condition 2). The proposal is considered to adequately respect the constraints of the site and residential amenity of its neighbours and therefore accords with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

4. Car parking and highway safety

The site frontage is entirely block paved and makes on site car parking provision for at least four cars. The applicant confirms that at any one time there is unlikely to be more than four staff on site. This car parking provision, supplemented by onsite cycle parking provision proposed in the rear garden area, is considered adequate for the proposed use of the site and will ensure there will be no increased competition for on street car parking nor any impact upon highway safety.

There is adequate space within the rear garden area to accommodate a shed as detailed on the block plan, to provide secure and covered cycle parking in connection with the care home. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to provide full details of the structure and its installation prior to first use of the building as a children's care home (condition 3).

A number of the third party representations and the consultation responses received from Everton Parish Council mentioned the busy nature of Potton Road and need for prospective occupants to cross this road to access the green on the opposite side. The road is subject to a speed restriction of 30 mph and 21 Potton Road fronts onto a straight section of the carriage way which provides good visibility. Onus is with the carers to decide whether or not to allow the children out supervised to cross this road. For the purposes of planning the occupation of the site as a care home poses no greater implications for highway safety than Agenda Item 9 Page 88

use as a dwelling house.

The proposal is considered to make adequate on site provision for car parking and cycle parking and will not have any undue impact upon highway safety. In this regard it therefore accords with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

5. Refuse and recycling provision

The storage of wheelie bins for recyclable and residual waste is proposed to the side of the building. In this location the wheelie bins will not be visible in the street scene but will accessible from within the site and easy maneuvered to and from the street on collection days in a manner similar to a residential dwelling house. This on site arrangement accords with this Council's current waste strategy and will not unduly impact upon the appearance of the street scene or neighbouring residential amenity compliant with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

7. Third party representations

The sustainability credentials of the site are relatively poor. As cited in a number of the third party representations received, the site is not located within easy walking distance of an existing local centre with shops and services and public transport to neighbouring towns of Potton and Sandy is limited. Notwithstanding this, the application is for the residential care of children, whom as per a private dwelling house, would rely on their parent/guardian for transportation. Despite a relatively small, hard-landscaped rear garden, immediately opposite on the other side of Potton Road there is a large recreational ground and provision of play equipment. The reasoning for the petition suggests the prospective occupants of the care home, when unsupervised, would be a disruption and possible danger to children, adults and elderly in Everton, residents personal possessions and their homes. This suggestion of criminal and anti-social behaviour is not evidenced and is not a planning consideration upon which the approval or refusal of this planning application should rest. Should occupants of this care home or any other member of the community partake in antisocial or criminal behaviour this should be a matter for the police, not the local planning authority to pre-empt or enforce against.

Other bodies will also regulate how the home operates. The business will be subject to inspection by Ofsted, who must give permission for the home to operate and will assess the accommodation against a number of standards to ensure the home provides appropriate care and meets the needs of the resident children. Their consideration will include the suitability of the site and its location.

In response to the local concern about the suitability of the location the applicant maintains that this considered is no different than that for the other children who currently live in Everton. The village benefits from a recreational park and the children will be able to attend groups and activities outside of the village. The community has the potential to offer a safe and caring environment, and occupying the children's time with paid activities does not enable the them to learn to live together or what would be expected within a family home. The Agenda Item 9 Page 89

applicant confirms that there will be carers looking after the children on a 24 hour basis and if it is considered safe for the child then they may play locally without supervision. The applicant wishes to highlight that the children of the home have the same rights as any other children.

With respect to schooling, the resident children are likely to have differing educational needs. Some may already attend a mainstream school and the applicant confirms that efforts will be made to retain the children within their current school. Where mainstream schooling is not considered appropriate the organisation 'Active Support' will collect and drop-off the children. Given the age range of children that are likely to be accommodated it is unlikely that any will attend Everton Lower School. Notwithstanding this, consideration must be given to the possibility that should the site still be in use as a residential dwelling as originally built and there would be nothing to preclude its occupation by a young family placing similar pressures on the provision of schooling at the Lower School. One of the third party representations received asked what added value there will be for the local community. The applicant has responded confirming that there will be job opportunities for those who have the relevant experience and qualifications and the skills that the staff and management offer could benefit the local school should they wish for any such support. The applicant is a qualified Social Worker who has worked within children services for 11 years which includes a number of years as an assistant manager within residential care for a Local Authority.

8. Conclusion

The occupation of the building by a residential institution providing care of resident children is considered acceptable. The appearance of the building will remain as a residential dwelling house, in keeping with the character of the surrounding village. Provisions for cycle parking, refuse and recycling storage and on site car parking are considered adequate and will not unduly impact upon the appearance of the street scene or neighbouring residential amenity.

Notwithstanding the concerns raised by the local community, the majority of which are not material planning considerations and subject to other legislative controls, for the reasons given above the proposal is considered to have a neutral impact and is acceptable for planning purposes. Approval is recommended.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be approved for the reasons set out as follows:

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

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

2 The application site shall be used as a residential care home for no more Agenda Item 9 Page 90

than 5no. children at any one time falling within Class C2 of the Use Classes Order and for no other use specified in Use Class C2 of the Schedule or the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or any Statutory Instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order without modification.

Reason: To fully assess the impact of occupation of the site by any other use.

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

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate cycle parking to meet the needs of occupiers of the proposed development in the interests of encouraging the use of sustainable modes of transport.

4 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the s ubmitted plans, numbers [Site Plan; Block Plan; Floor Plan].

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Reasons for Granting

The proposed use of 21 Potton Road as a residential institution for the care of children (Use Class C2) is acceptable in principle. The use will have a neutral impact upon the character of the surrounding area, car parking and highway safety. There would be no significant harmful impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers nor the wider local community. The development accords with the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

DECISION

......

64 El Sub Sta Agenda7g ItemSt Andrew's 10 CofE VC Lower

60 62 PageChapel Fields School 91 and Nursery 18

ELPHICK COURT

7a THE CLOSE 19 The Beaumont

Nursing Home 1

1 to 10 to 1

15 Fairlands

2 4

1 Victoria 40

SHORTMEAD STREET

44 Place 5 11

17a

3

4 3

34 to 44

7

18b 18a

2

32

Millers 18 The Bungalow

Church Court 1 to 33 to 1

MS El Sub Sta 8

10

IVEL GARDENS The Vicarage

20 1

The Old

6a School

29.6m 6

2 Unit 1

1 to

6 111 St Andrew's St PH Andrews Church 1 El Sub Sta Court

9 Bank

13

2 to

7 9 4 5 11 13

HIGH STREET 17 N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) ApplicationB 659 No W E Date: 28:November:2012 CB/12/02838/FULL Map Sheet No S

Kingdom Hall, 5 Shortmead Street, Biggleswade Scale: 1:1250 Page 92

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10 Page 93

Item No. 10

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/12/02838/FULL LOCATION Kingdom Hall, 5 Shortmead Street, Biggleswade, SG18 0AT PROPOSAL Brownfield development seeking demolition of existing outdated building and upgrade with a new building. PARISH Biggleswade WARD Biggleswade North WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Jones & Mrs Lawrence CASE OFFICER Amy Lack DATE REGISTERED 14 September 2012 EXPIRY DATE 09 November 2012 APPLICANT Biggleswade Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses AGENT RBC (London & Home Counties) REASON FOR Called to Committee by Cllr Jane Lawrence who has COMMITTEE TO been asked to do so by the Town Council who DETERMINE wishes to refuse permission on the same grounds as before e.g. a historic building within the Conservation Area paid for by public subscription as a memorial to the fallen in the 1914-1918 war. RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Granted

Site Location:

The application site, fronting Shortmead Street to the east, is located on a corner plot with Ivel Gardens to the south, comprising a single storey building and associated car parking to the rear. Built in 1923/24 as the St. Andrews Church Memorial Hall to commemorate the fallen of Biggleswade in the First World War, the building, black and white mock Tudor in design was renamed the Kingdom Hall in 1978 and used as a place of worship (Use Class D1 - Non-residential institutions.) occupied by a Jehovah's Witnesses. The site falls within the Biggleswade Conservation Area and on this corner plot is prominently sited withi n the streetscene. The building is not listed. The development along Shortmead Street and wider surrounding area is varied in nature and is characterised by a mix of uses, mainly commercial.

The existing building was bought in the 1970s when it was extensively refurbished to serve as a place of worship. Whilst it has been well maintained to date the building does not provide inclusive access for all, suffers from damp and is energy inefficient.

The Application:

This application seeks planning permission for the wholesale redevelopment of the Agenda Item 10 Page 94

site, demolishing the existing building and erecting a new purpose-built hall for religious purposes.

Located in a similar position to the existing building, fronting onto Shortmead Street, the proposed building, s ingle storey in height has a footprint with a maximum length of 21 metres and depth of 13.4 metres. With a dual-pitched roof, which is hipped to its half way height at roof level, the building will rise to a maximum ridge height of approximately 7 metres, falling to an eaves height of 3 metres.

On site car parking and vehicular access remains as existing, off Ivel Gardens to the rear of the building. A total of 22no. car parking spaces are proposed, inclusive of 2no. disabled car parking spaces.

Two She ffield style hoops are proposed on the hard landscaped area between the car parking and the entrance into the building making provision for the parking of 4no. cycles.

No on site refuse and recycling storage provision is proposed.

The accommodation will comprise an auditorium to the north of the building. Two smaller meeting/store rooms, a chair store and toilet facilities are located to the south of the building, adjacent to the main entrance.

This application is submitted in conjunction with an application for Conservation Area Consent, application reference CB/12/02837/CA which proposes the demolition of the existing building.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Guidance

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

Regional Spatial Strategy East of England Plan (May 2008)

SS1: Achieving Sustainable Development ENV6: The Historic Environment. ENV7: Quality in the Built Environment

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (November 2009)

CS15 Heritage CS14 High Quality Development DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes DM13 Heritage in Development

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Agenda Item 10 Page 95

Design in Central Bedfordshire. A Guide for Development (2010) - Design Supplement 5 - The Historic Environment.

Planning History

CB/11/01495/FULL Demolition of existing building and erection of replacement single storey building (place of worship). W/D CB/11/01496/CA Conservation Area Consent: Demolition of building. W/D CB/12/02837/CA Brownfield development seeking demolition of existing outdated building and upgrade with a new building. Pending.

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Biggleswade Town Council Objects to the proposal as it woul d be a loss of a building with an important historical connection to Biggleswade and it is situated in the Conservation Area.

If the application is approved a History Society plaque should be installed to commemorate Kingdom Hall.

Third Party Representations The owner/occupiers of the following addresses have made representations in objection to the proposal:

− 8 Broadmead − 3 Ivel Gardens − 4 Ivel Gardens

These can be summarised as follows:

− Built as a memorial hall to commemorate those of Biggleswade who f ell in the First World War and part of the town’s heritage this building should not be demolished; − The construction period is likely to cause noise and disturbance which should be restricted and the site kept tidy. − Additional traffic during the constructio n period will be inconvenient. − Potential privacy issue for No.4 Ivel Gardens by introduction of windows on rear elevation.

The above is a summary of concerns raised by the third party representations that have been received. Full copies of these responses can be viewed on the application file.

Consultations/Publicity responses

English Heritage No objection subject to planning permission for a replacement building and a contract has been Agenda Item 10 Page 96

signed for the construction of the replacement building.

The proposed replacement building has been subject to pre-application discussions which have significantly improved the design of the building, particularly the material palette. However, further improvements could be made, particularly to the Shortmead Street elevation. Vertical emphasis to reflect the style of the existing building would benefit the design. Subject to addressing this concern there is no objection and no further consultation with English Heritage is required.

Conservation No objection. It is accepted that the Kingdom Hall is an undesignated heritage asset and part of the historic development of Shortmead Street but it is not eligible for listing or identified in the 2005 Conservation Area Appraisal.

Demolition is considered acceptable subject to a suitable replacement. Further to amended plans which have addressed the concerns raised by English Heritage and historic discussions about the redevelopment of this site the proposed replacement is considered acceptable.

Biggleswade History society The existing building is of great historic importance for the Town of Biggleswade. The modernisation and refurbishment of the existing building would be a better use of funds than total demolition and re-build and retain this important building.

The replacement building proposed by this application is considered an improvement on the previous proposal, but it is still considered of little architectural merit and not sympathetic to the character of its surroundings.

The untimely manner of the proposal in light of the centenary of the beginning of WW1 in 2014 is insensitive.

The society wishes to disassociate itself with any decision to destroy the existing building.

Archaeology No objection. Given the nature and location of the proposed development it is unlikely that any serious harm will be caused to any surviving archaeological deposits within the application Agenda Item 10 Page 97

area. Therefore a Heritage Asset Assessment is not required.

Highways No objection as the proposal is for a replacement building and the gates and parking area already exist.

Trees and Landscape No objection.

A comprehensive tree report was submitted as part of the application and subject to a condition to ensure that the recommendations, methods and working practices as detailed in the Tree Report are adhered to in full the proposal is acceptable.

Disability Discrimination No comments to make. It is requested that the applicant be advised by informative the need to serve a Section 80 notice to Building Control not more than 28 days before the intended date of demolition.

Public Protection. No objection. Any operational noise or construction noise can be dealt with through existing legislation.

Determining Issues

From the consultation responses, representations received and an inspection of the site and surroundings the main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle of development 2. Character, context, design of external spaces and impact upon the surrounding Conservation Area 3. Impact upon the neighbouring residential amenity. 4. Car parking and highway safety 5. Refuse and Recycling 6. Inclusive access 7. Third party representations 8. Conclusion

Considerations

1. Principle of development

The existing building and its curtilage is currently considered to be in a non- residential institutional use, falling within Class D1 of the Town and Country Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended).

There is no policy basis that resists the loss of a facility for the local community in the Local Plan, nor the National Planning Policy Framework Agenda Item 10 Page 98

(2012) with respect to such a facility within a town or larger settlement.

Notwithstanding this it should be noted that the application proposes the wholesale redevelopment of the site and will provide a purpose-built building for occupation as a place of worship to replace the hall to be demolished. The site will remain in community use and will provide better quality facilities than the existing building in a sustainable location which is established in the town.

Accordingly, there is no 'in principle' policy objection to the redevelopment of the site for purposes similar to its existing D1 use. This is subject to the proposed development being assessed against the other issues and policies within the development plan addressed below.

2. Character, context, design of external spaces and impact upon the surrounding Conservation Area

The existing building was erected as the Church Memorial Hall in 1924 to commemorate the town’s soldiers who were killed in the First World War. It is sited within the Biggleswade Conservation Area and within close proximity to the listed buildings of St. Andrew's Church and No.s 36, 38 and 40 Shortmead Street. Notwithstanding this the building itself is not listed and has not been identified as being of local interest in the Conservation Area Appraisal (2005).

Whilst significant concerns have been raised by the third party representations received, the Biggleswade History Society and the Town Council at the loss of the building for what it represents and the visual contribution they consider it makes to the immediate locality, no objection has been raised by the Conservation Officer or English Heritage to the demolition of the existing building provided the replacement building is acceptable. The impact of the loss of the building has been considered by the application for Conservation Area Consent, planning reference CB/12/02837/CA submitted in conjunction with this application which recommends approval of the demolition.

The existing building and the proposed building are both legible in the streetscape as community buildings. The character of a building should clearly reflect its functionality and with respect to best practice in urban design should create a place which can be easily located and understood. It would not be appropriate to try and present a building that tried to 'blend in' with the street. The existing building, occupied by a community use, has stood on this site for over 80 years and is accepted here, so a purpose built building which in its deign reflects its use is considered appropriate. Associated car parking, cycle parking and hard landscaping around the external spaces of the building help to reinforce the public nature of the building, aiding its accessibility and legibility.

The key to the success of the proposed building in responding to its prominent siting and location within the Biggleswade Conservation Area will be in its detailing. An inherent constraint to designing a successful hall-type building that does not dominate a street scene where narrower widths of buildings and plots address the street is overcoming their usually large footprint and low height. A form which often results in a long, squat building with high level windows that present a lengthy unforgiving wall with little animation. Since the Agenda Item 10 Page 99

application was originally submitted further advice from English Heritage has influenced the final design of the building. The result has been a greater emphasis on vertical detailing to the front facade, achieved by introducing a narrow width projecting bay (north of centre), mimicked by a similar element which is slightly smaller in scale to demarcate the entrance into the building (to the south) which has served to provide some relief from an otherwise long, deep rectangular building.

A range of materials and palette is proposed to the external finish of the building. Mock Tudor timber cladding to the gable ends at roof level is proposed, remnant of the existing building. The roof is to be slate with terracotta detailing along the ridges of the roofscape. The face of the building will be largely finished in a buff cream brick with red brick detailing and exposed mock timber rafter ends below the eaves. Subject to a condition to control the material detailing of the building to ensure the building is finished to a high standard that will enhance the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area (condition 2), the proposed replacement building is considered to successfully respond to its context in terms of its design, scale and massing. It proposes a design that relates to the use of the building as a community facility and therefore is compliant with policies CS15, CS14, DM3, DM4 and DM13 and Central Government advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

3. Residential Amenity of Neighbouring Properties

The residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers at property Nos. 4, 6 and 8 Ivel Gardens who share a common boundary to the west of the application site and No. 7 Shortmead Street local immediately to the north is of most concern. All other properties are adequately removed and as such unlikely to be directly affected by the proposed redevelopment of the site.

No. 7 Shortmead Street benefits from a separation distance of approximately 15 metres from the existing building. The proposed building will extend marginally closer to the building at No.7, reducing this distance by approximately 2.5 metres. Notwithstanding this no harm to residential amenity with respect to overlooking, loss of light or an overbearing impact is likely to arise, given the degree of separation, the single storey height of the building, a lack of windows on the north elevation facing this neighbour and the existing use of the site which will be unchanged.

Nos. 4-8 Ivel Gardens front onto the close with the rear gardens adjoining the site to the rear. The gardens measure approximately 10 metres in depth. Whilst the concern with regard to the repositioning of windows on the west facing elevation to the rear is noted, these openings are unlikely to afford any significantly improved opportunities to overlook neighbouring properties. Further to this the degree of separation which will be retained by the largely unchanged position of the proposed building on the site means the proposal is unlikely to have any adverse impact upon the residential amenity that is currently enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers. In fact a newer, higher quality building is likely to reduce noise and disturbance generated from within the building, thereby improving the impact of the use of this site as a D1 building. As such, the proposal is considered to adequately respect the constraints of Agenda Item 10 Page 100

the site and accord with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

4. Car Parking and Highway Safety

The gated vehicular access into the site is to remain unchanged, to the rear of the building, off Ivel Gardens. The gates, although not set back from the footway of Ivel Gardens into the site already exist, as does the parking area.

The on site car parking provision fails to accord with the current adopted parking strategy. However, no objection has been raised by the Highway Officer consulted on the application who is mindful of the existing use of the site and that this application for the replacement building is not projected to increase the number of trips to and from the site. The proposal is therefore considered to have a neutral impact with respect to highway safety and car parking and for this reason considered acceptable.

5. Refuse and recycling provision

No details have been provided with respect to the storage of wheelie bins for recyclable or residual waste. The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application states on site provision is unnecessary because refuse is removed by the congregation members after each meeting and this arrangement will continue.

However, mindful that this building could be occupied by another D1 use without the requirement to seek consent from the local planning authority it is considered prudent to secure adequate on site provision in accordance with this Council's current waste strategy for this new building. Accordingly, a condition is recommended that requires the submission of such details prior to the commencement of the development (condition 4).

6. Disabled access

The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application confirms that the proposed building will provide level access and the drawings appear to be consistent with this and the requirements of Part M of the current building regulations. As such, the proposal is considered to make good provision of inclusive access for all which is significantly improved upon the arrangements made by the existing building, complying with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) and guidance provided in the NPPF (2012).

7. Third Party Representations

Whilst the comments are noted with respect to the potential noise and disturbance to nearby occupiers during the demolition and construction phases of the development the Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the proposals for the redevelopment of the site, satisfied that any operational noise or construction noise can be dealt with by existing legislation.

Agenda Item 10 Page 101

The request from the Town Council for a commemorative plaque, or similar, to be erected at the site or attached to the building in recognition of the existing building should it be lost by the proposed development cannot be a requirement of this planning permission should it be granted. However, the applicant has confirmed that they would be keen to come to an arrangement with the Town Council. This is acknowledged by way of a recommended informative.

8. Conclusion

The community use is acceptable on this site. The proposed replacement building is considered to be a positive asset to this part of the Conservation Area comparable to the building which currently exists which is of little architectural value and not fit for purpose. Subject to conditions to ensure a quality of detailing which is sympathetic to the importance of the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area approval is recommended.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be approved for the reasons set out as follows:

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

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

2 Details of materials to be used for the external finishes of the development hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be carried out in accordance therewith.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development by ensuring that the development hereby permitted is finished externally with materials to match/complement the existing building and the visual amenities of the locality.

3 All Arboricultural works shall be carried out by a competent tree contractor, proficient in both root-zone and aerial arboricultural work and shall follow strictly the agreed method statements and specifications set out in the 'Tree Survey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment Report and Arboricultural Method Statement' reference 1882.Biggleswade.TAG.AIA submitted with this application. The developer's arboriculturalist shall monitor, record and confirm the implementation and maintenance of tree protection measures as set out in this approved document.

Reason: To protect the heath and welfare of the trees to be retained on the site.

Agenda Item 10 Page 102

4 Prior to the first use of the building hereby approved details of a bin storage/collection point shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details and the approved arrangements for waste and recycling retained therein unless agreed otherwise in writing.

Reason: In the interest of amenity.

5 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers [216/PL2/100; 216/PL2/101; 216/PL2/102; 216/PL2/103; 216/PL2/202/A; 216/PL2/300/A; 216/PL2/301/A; 216/P L2/302/A and1882.Biggleswade.TAG.AIA].

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Reasons for Granting

The proposed replacement building to be occupied by a non-residential institutional use (Use Class D1) successfully responds to the character and appearance of the surrounding Conservation Area. It will not have any significant adverse impact upon the residential amenity of nearby occupiers or jeopardise highway safety. By virtue of the siting, design, scale and mass of the proposal it is considered acceptable and in accordance with policies CS14, CS15, DM3, DM4 and DM14 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) and Central Government guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) with respect to requiring good design and conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

Notes to Applicant

1. The applicants attention is drawn to their responsiblity 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. Agenda Item 10 Page 103

For further information on disability access contact:

The Centre for Accessible Environments (www.cae.org.uk) Central Bedfordshire Access Group (www.centralbedsaccessgroup.co.uk)

2. The applicant is advised of the importance of the existing building and its role in commemorating those residents of Biggleswade who served in the First World War and died. In the interests of acknowledging this the display of a commemorative plaque or similar is requested at the application site. Accordingly, the applicant is advised to contact Biggleswade Town Council to arrange for such an installation.

DECISION

......

Page 104

This page is intentionally left blank 66

Dark Lane 64a 8

64

El Sub Sta Agenda7g Item 11 PageSt Andrew's105 CofE VC Lower

60 62 Chapel Fields School and Nursery 18

44

ELPHICK COURT

7a THE CLOSE 19 The Beaumont

Nursing Home 1

1 to 10 to 1

15 Fairlands

2 4

1 Victoria 40

SHORTMEAD STREET

44 Place 5 11

17a

3

4 3

34 to 44

7

18b 18a

2

32

Millers 18 The Bungalow

Church Court 1 to 33 to 1

MS El Sub Sta 8

10

IVEL GARDENS The Vicarage

20 1

The Old

6a School

29.6m 6

2 Unit 1

1 to

6 111 St Andrew's St PH Andrews Church 1 El Sub Sta Court

9 Bank

13

2 to

7 9 4 5 11 13

HIGH STREET 17 N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No. W E Date: 26:November:2012 CB/12/02837/CA Map Sheet No S

Scale: 1:1250 Kingdom Hall, 5 Shortmead Street, Biggleswade SG18 0AT Page 106

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11 Page 107

Item No. 11

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/12/02837/CA LOCATION Kingdom Hall, 5 Shortmead Street, Biggleswade, SG18 0AT PROPOSAL Brownfield development seeking demolition of existing outdated building and upgrade with a new building. PARISH Biggleswade WARD Biggleswade North WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Jones & Mrs Lawrence CASE OFFICER Amy Lack DATE REGISTERED 14 September 2012 EXPIRY DATE 09 November 2012 APPLICANT Biggleswade Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses AGENT RBC (London & Home Counties) REASON FOR Called to Committee by Cllr Jane Lawrence who has COMMITTEE TO been asked to do so by the Town Council who DETERMINE wishes to refuse permission on the same grounds as before e.g. a historic building within the Conservation Area paid for by public subscription as a memorial to the fallen in the 1914-1918 war. RECOMMENDED DECISION Conservation Area - Granted

Site Location:

The application site, fronting Shortmead Street to the east, is located on a corner plot with Ivel Gardens to the sou th, comprising a single storey building and associated car parking to the rear. Built in 1923/24 as the St. Andrews Church Memorial Hall to commemorate the fallen of Biggleswade in the First World War, the building, black and white mock Tudor in design was renamed the Kingdom Hall in 1978 and used as a place of worship (Use Class D1 - Non-residential institutions.) occupied by a Jehovah's Witnesses. The site falls within the Biggleswade’s Conservation Area and on this corner plot is prominently sited withi n the streetscene. The building is not listed. The development along Shortmead Street and wider surrounding area is varied in nature and is characterised by a mix of uses, mainly commercial.

The existing building was bought in the 1970s when it was exten sively refurbished to serve as a place of worship. Whilst it has been well maintained to date the building does not provide inclusive access for all, suffers from damp and is energy inefficient.

Agenda Item 11 Page 108

The Application:

This application seeks Conservation Area Consent for demolition of the exiting building.

This application for consent is submitted in conjunction with an application for full planning permission, application reference CB/12/02838/FULL which proposes the erection of a replacement building for the purposes of worship. RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Guidance

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

Regional Spatial Strategy East of England Plan (May 2008)

ENV6: The Historic Environment

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (November 2009)

CS15 Heritage DM13 Heritage in development

Planning History

CB/11/01495/FULL Demolition of existing building and erection of replacement single storey building (place of worship). W/D CB/11/01496/CA Conservation Area Consent: Demolition of building. W/D CB/12/02838/FULL Brownfield development seeking demolition of existing outdated building and upgrade with a new building. Pending.

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Biggleswade Town Strongly object. Council The approval of this application would result in the loss of a historical Building and grounds and is located within a Conservation Area. This application should go before the Development Management Committee for its consideration.

Neighbours A number of representations has been received with reference to the proposed development of the site under planning application reference CB/12/02838/FULL. The owner/occupiers of the following addresses have made representations that either commented on the demolition of the existing building or specifically referenced this Conservation Area Consent application: Agenda Item 11 Page 109

- 8 Broadmead - 3 Ivel Gardens - 4 Ivel Gardens

The representations can be summarised as follows:

- The existing building has particular historic and architectural merit. - The existing building makes a positive contribution to the Conservation Area. - The demolition and construction phases of the proposals for this sit will result in nuisance, noise and disturbance The above representations are a summary of the comments that have been received. Full details of the representations can be inspected on the application file

Publicity

Site notice 02.10.2012 Local press 05.10.2012 advertisement

Consultations/Publicity responses

English Heritage No objection subject to planning permission for a replacement building and a contract has been signed for the construction of the replacement building.

Conservation No objection. It is accepted that the Kingdom Hall is an undesignated heritage asset and part of the historic development of Shortmead Street but it is not eligible for listing or identified in the 2005 Conservation Area Appraisal.

Demolition is considered acceptable subject to a suitable replacement.

Trees and Landscape No objection.

A comprehensive tree report was submitted as part of the application and subject to a condition to ensure that the recommendations, methods and working practices in detailed in the Tree Report are adhered to in full the proposal is acceptable.

Highways No comment with respect to demolition of existing building.

Agenda Item 11 Page 110

Biggleswade History The existing building is of great historic importance for Society the Town of Biggleswade. The modernisation and refurbishment of the existing building would be a better use of funds than total demolition and re-build and retain this important building.

The replacement building proposed by this application is considered an improvement on the previous proposal, but it is still considered of little architectural merit and not sympathetic to the character of its surroundings.

The untimely manner of the proposal in light of the centenary of the beginning of WW1 in 2014 is in sensitive.

The society wishes to disassociate itself with any decision to destroy the existing building.

Public protection. No objections. Mindful of the comments made by nearby occupier to the previously withdrawn applications for this site it is still considered that issues of construction noise etc. can be dealt with through existing legislation.

Archaeologist No objection. Given the nature and location of the proposed development it is unlikely that any serious harm will be caused to any surviving archaeological deposits within the application area. Therefore a Heritage Asset Assessment is not required.

Determining Issues

From the consultation responses, representations received and an inspection of the site and surroundings the main considerations of the application are;

1. Impact of the loss of the building upon the heritage asset. 2. The merits of the alternative proposal for the site 3. Third party representations

Considerations

1. Impact of the loss of the building upon the heritage asset.

This application for Conservation Area Consent and the application for full planning permission submitted in conjunction with this application are supported by a Heritage Statement as required by paragraph 128 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2012. The Conservation Officer consulted on the application and the response from English Heritage have not raised any concerns about this analysis and support the whole-sale redevelopment of the site subject to the imposition of planning conditions to address matters of detail Agenda Item 11 Page 111 on the Full planning application to ensure that the proposed replacement building is appropriate given this prominent site in the Conservation Area.

The NPPF (2012) refers to heritage assets as a building, monument, site or area, which is identified as having a degree of significance meriting considerations in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. They are valued components of the historic environment and include assets identified by the local planning authority. It goes on to advise in paragraph 132 that the more important the asset the greater the weight that should be placed upon the asset's conservation. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

The NPPF includes a provision of a presumption in favour of the conservation of heritage assets. In this instance the Kingdom Hall is not a designated heritage asset but the Conservation Area within which it is located is and weight should also be given to the setting of nearby listed buildings St. Andrew's Church and No.s 36, 38 and 40 Shortmead street. As such, the presumption in favour of conservation is relevant.

In dealing with the wholesale redevelopment of the site which could potentially lead to substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, in this case the Biggleswade Conservation Area and setting of nearby listed buildings the NPPF (2012) advises that:

Local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:

- the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; - no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; - conservation by grant-funding or some form of charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; - the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.

The applicant states that the demolition of the existing building and its replacement is the only viable option available to provide a place of worship that is 'fit for purpose' for use by the Jehovah's' Witnesses congregation. Further to this the existing building is generally regarded as a building of no architectural merit that has, at best a neutral impact upon the surrounding Conservation Area. This a view is also held by both the Conservation Officer and consultee at English Heritage. As such, the demolition of the existing building would not bring about an adverse change to the character and appearance of this part of the Biggleswade Conservation Area and its demolition is considered acceptable, according with Local Plan policy DM13 and guidance provided by Central Government in the form of the NPPF (2012).

Agenda Item 11 Page 112

2. The merits of the alternative proposal for the site

The proposals for redevelopment of the site submitted under planning application reference CB/12/02838/FULL have been recommended to the Development Management Committee for approval. If planning permission is granted then this provides justification for the removal of the building because the development cannot proceed if it is retained. In the event that planning permission is refused it would be logical to also refuse the application for Conservation Area Consent.

A condition is recommended to require that the existing building be retained until such time as redevelopment of the site as permitted by planning application reference CB/12/02838/FULL is to implemented in conjunction with the demolition of the existing building (condition 2). This will serve to avoid the possibility of the early demolition of the existing building and the potential for the site to be vacant which would have a more detrimental impact upon the surrounding Conservation Area and street scene than the presence of the current building.

3. Third Party Representations

The concerns raised with respect to the historical and architectural importance of the existing building have been addressed above under the headings 'Impact of the loss of the building upon the heritage asset' and 'The merits of the alternative proposal for the site'. Whilst mindful and sympathetic to the local importance of the existing building and what it represents to Biggleswade and its residents unfortunately these attachments are not material in determining whether or not the demolition of the building is acceptable. This assessment must only be made with respect to the impact the loss of the building would have upon the surrounding Conservation Area and setting of nearby listed buildings. The building itself is not listed and of not architectural merit. For these reasons its retention by refusal of this application would be unjustified.

The Environmental Health Officer consulted on the redevelopment of the site is satisfied that the concerns expressed with respect to the impact of noise and disturbance during the demolition and construction phases of the development can be dealt with through existing legislation. As such, it is not considered necessary to impose conditions that will duplicate such legislation.

4. Conclusion

The existing building is not considered to make a positive contribution to the surrounding Conservation Area. Its removal should be permitted to enable the proposed replacement to be built.

The proposed replacement building will be a positive asset to this part of the Conservation Area for the reasons set out in the report to Committee for the planning application. This view is shared by the Conservation Officer and English Heritage.

Approval is recommended.

Agenda Item 11 Page 113

Recommendation

Conservation Area Consent be granted subject to the following conditions:

1 The works shall begin not later than three years from the date of this consent.

Reason: To comply with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 The demolition works hereby approved shall only be carried out in connection with the redevelopment of the site as permitted by planning permission reference CB/12/02838/FULL and the two permissions shall be implemented as a single continuous development scheme.

Reason: To ensure that an unsightly cleared site is not created to the detriment of the character and amenities of the area.

3 All Arboricultural works shall be carried out by a competent tree contractor, proficient in both root-zone and aerial arboricultural work and shall follow strictly the agreed method statements and specifications set out in the 'Tree Survey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment Report and Arboricultural Method Statement' reference 1882.Biggleswade.TAG.AIA submitted with this application. The developer's arboriculturalist shall monitor, record and confirm the implementation and maintenance of tree protection measures as set out in this approved document.

Reason: To protect the heath and welfare of the trees to be retained on the site.

4 The development hereby permitted shall no t be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers [216/PL2/100; 216/PL2/101; 216/PL2/102; 216/PL2/103; 216/PL2/202/A; 216/PL2/300/A; 216/PL2/301/A; 216/PL2/302/A and1882.Biggleswade.TAG.AIA].

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Reasons for Granting

The loss of the existing building would not cause any detrimental harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area of the setting of nearby listed bulidings as designated heritage assets, subj ect to a suitable replacement which has been granted planning consent under planning application reference CB/12/02838/FULL. The proposal accords with the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and policies CS15 and DM13 of the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009).

Agenda Item 11 Page 114

Notes to Applicant

1. The applicant is advised that a Section 80 notice should be sereved to Building Control not more than 28 days before the intended date of demolition.

DECISION

......

......

Agenda Item 12 Page 115

THORNCOTE ROAD 20

21 18

VA Lower School

Northill C of E 17a

(Primary)

15

13 14

11

8 7

Hayward House

Cemetery

2

Woodcote 1

Well GP

4 1 32.6m

St Mary's Church

Harvey The Rectory Hall

Little Acorns

Valdell House 32.2m

Old Orchard House Lych Gate

7

9a The Crown (PH) N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No W E Date: 23:November:2012 CB/12/03455/FULL Map Sheet No S

Scale: 1:1250 Northill Lower School, Bedford Road, Northill, Biggleswade Page 116

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12 Page 117

Item No. 12

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/12/03455/FULL LOCATION Northill Lower School, Bedford Road, Northill, Biggleswade, SG18 9AH PROPOSAL Extend the perimeter fence of MUGA (Multi Use Games Area) by 1m in height PARISH Northill WARD Northill WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Mrs Turner CASE OFFICER Samantha Boyd DATE REGISTERED 27 September 2012 EXPIRY DATE 22 November 2012 APPLICANT Northill Lower School AGENT Landscope REASON FOR Objection from neighbour received COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Granted

Site Location:

The application site is Northill Lower School on Bedford Road in Northill, opposite St Mary’s Church on the north side of the road. The main school building is a single storey red brick building within the Northill Conservation Area. There is a small car- park to the side (west) and the school play ground, Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) and playing field are to the rear (north), outside the conservation area but still within the Northill Settlement Envelope.

The general area is residential in character. The cemetery is to the west of the school’s site, to the north is open countryside and the eastern boundary of the school site is lined with residential dwellings.

The Application:

Planning p ermission is sought for a 1.5m extension to the height of the perimeter fence of the existing MUGA.

The existing MUGA is predominantly an all weather, fenced tennis court which can be used for a range of games including volleyball, football, basketball a nd tennis. It has a metal framed structure with 3metre chain link fencing enclosing it. The structure has a floor area of 665 sq. metres.

The extended part of the fence would be angled by approximately 50 degrees internally which would result in the overall height of the fencing being 4m.

RELEVANT POLICIES: Agenda Item 12 Page 118

National Planning Policy Framework 2012

Regional Spatial Strategy

East of England Plan (May 2008)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

CS14, DM3 High Quality Development CS15, DM13 Heritage DM4 Development within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Design in Central Bedfordshire 2010

Planning History

CB/11/02984/VOC Variation of Condition: Formation of multi use games area with mesh fencing approved on planning permission MB/05/01313/FULL dated 20 October 2005. Application for removal of condition 4 for development to be used by pupils and staff of the school and variation of condition 5 for hours of use to 9am to 8.30pm Monday to Friday. The multi use games area shall only be used at weekends or public holidays following prior written agreement by the Local Planning Authority. Granted

CB/09/05330/FULL Full: Erection of fitness trail on school playing field. Granted.

MB/08/02296/FULL Full: Replacement of existing flat-roof bay windows with new pitched-roof bay windows. Granted.

MB/05/01313/FULL Full: Formation of multi use games area with mesh fencing. Granted.

MB/05/00554/FULL Full: Formation of all weather Surface multi-use games area with mesh fencing. Refused.

MB/04/01945/FULL Full: Formation of all weather surface multi-use games area including mesh fencing and floodlighting. Refused.

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Northill Parish Council No comments to make

Neighbours One letter received - MUGA is unnecessary facility and Agenda Item 12 Page 119

should not have been built in the first place. The MUGA is 1m from boundary and and extra 1m in height would create even more of an eyesore, inconvenience and distress caused by MUGA would be worsened by a 4m fence at the bottom of the garden visible from every room in the house.

Consultations/Publicity responses

Conservation and Being tucked away to the rear of the site, the proposed Design heightening of the perimeter fence to 4m has no impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area therefore no objection.

Sport England Do not wish to comment on this particular application.

Public Protection No comments

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. Background of application 2. The effect on the character and appearance of the area 3. The impact on neighbouring amenity

Considerations

1. Background of application

The application site lies within the village settlement envelope where Policy DM4 of the Core Strategy seeks to support schemes for community, education, health and sports and recreation uses or mixed community uses and advises that such development should make the best use of available land and lead to more sustainable communities.

This proposal relates to an existing MUGA which has been in use by the school for the last 6 years. Planning permission was granted in 2005 for the MUGA together with the 3m high fencing. Originally the MUGA was for use by Northill Lower School, at the Development Management Committee on 9 November 2011, Members granted planning permission to extend the use to the general public. A condition was imposed restricting the use of the MUGA to 0900 to 2030 Mondays to Saturdays and not at all on Sundays or Public holidays without prior written consent from the Local Planning Authority.

While considering the application in 2011, the Development Management Committee advised the applicant that they wished to see the fencing surrounding the MUGA increased in height in order to protect the amenities of the adjacent occupiers.

This application seeks to address the concerns raised by Members. Agenda Item 12 Page 120

2. Impact on the character and appearance of the area

The MUGA structure in question has already been erected and this application relates solely to the increase in the fence height. The MUGA is to the rear of the school site and barely visible from the surrounding area. The additional fencing would not be to such a height that it would be visible above the school building and thus it is considered that the proposal would have no greater impact in terms of the character and appearance of the area, than there is at present.

3. The impact on neighbouring amenity

Whilst to the rear of the school site, the MUGA is located close to the rear boundaries of residential properties in Thorncote Road, to the east of the school.

Given the close proximity of the MUGA to the school boundary, the additional fencing is proposed to protect the amenities of the adjoining neighbours in terms of balls being thrown into the gardens causing a nuisance. However one letter has been received from an adjoining owner objecting to the increase in height of the fence. Concerns relate mainly to the visual impact of the additional height of the fence and an objection to location of the MUGA in general.

As stated earlier, this application relates solely to the increase in fence height, therefore the objection to the siting of MUGA itself cannot be considered. While it is acknowledged that the fence is visible from the garden of this property, the garden is however considerably large. There is over 30m between the rear elevation of the property and the eastern side of the MUGA fence, and mature trees and shrubs line the property boundary.

Overall it is considered that the proposed would be a benefit to all neighbouring properties that surround the MUGA site in that it is likely to result in less nuisance from the activities taking place. This is considered to outweigh the visual impact of the increased height of the fence.

The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the following:

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

Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which is designed to ensure that a planning permission does not continue in existence indefinitely if the development to which it relates is not carried out. Agenda Item 12 Page 121

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 structure.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development by ensuring that the development hereby permitted is finished externally with materials to match/complement the existing building(s) and the visual amenities of the locality.

3 The development hereby permitted shall not be carrie d out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers CBC/001, CBC/002 .

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Reasons for Granting

The proposed increase in fence height would not have a negative impact on the charac ter of the conservation area or an adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties therefore by reason of its size, design and location, the proposal is in conformity with Policies CS14, DM3, DM4, CS15 and DM13 of the Core Strategy and Management Policies, November 2009; and The National Planning Policy Framework, 2012.

Notes to Applicant

DECISION

......

......

Page 122

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 Page 123 Page 124

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 Page 125

Item No. 13

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/12/00193/MW LOCATION Totternhoe Lime And Stone Works, Knolls View, Totternhoe, Dunstable, LU6 2BU PROPOSAL Change of use of part of the former Lime Works from B2 to End of Life Vehicle and Metal Recycling Facility with associated plant and the erection of a de-pollution building PARISH Totternhoe WARD WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Mrs Mustoe CASE OFFICER Georgina Toye DATE REGISTERED 09 May 2012 EXPIRY DATE 29 August 2012 APPLICANT Totternhoe Metal Recycling Ltd AGENT Wilbraham Associates REASON FOR COMMITTEE TO DETERMINE Called in by Ward Cllr Mrs Mustoe

RECOMMENDED DECISION Waste Application - Granted

Site Location and background:

The application site is located within the former Totternhoe Lime Works complex, approximately 3 miles to the east of Dunstable. The former Totternhoe Lime Works complex was used by the Totternhoe Lime and Stone Company for over 50 years for extracting processing and storage of lime for distribution. Post 19 93, the company concentrated on importing quicklime and converting it to hydrated lime and therefore did not rely upon chalk sourced from the adjoining workings at Totternhoe. The Lime Works ceased to be operational in early 2009 with the closure of the Totternhoe Lime and Stone Company. The whole of the Lime Works was subsequently sold in July 2011. In December 2009, a Lawful Development Certificate was allowed on appeal describing the pre-existing use of the Lime Works for the hydrating of lime as imm une from enforcement action, having been carried out for a period in excess of 10 years, and being a use falling within Class B2 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). Therefore, the lawful use of the Lime Works is regarde d as general industrial (B2). A further Certificate of Lawful Use (ref. CB/10/00236/MWLP) was issued by the Council on 25 June 2010 in respect of land on the south side of the main former works. Again, the land was certified as lawful for purposes of hydrating lime, being a use within Class B2. The Lime Works are currently used for the hire, sale and repair of plant and vehicles, including the application site itself. In addition, a plasterboard recycling business and a concrete crushing operation occupy the far (southern end) of the former Lime Works next to Totternhoe Stone Pit. Agenda Item 13 Page 126

There are old chalk workings next to the Lime Works which supplied the raw mineral for production. These old quarries were sold to the Wildlife Trust several years ago who manage the areas and the surrounding Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) for nature conservation purposes. The SSSIs include the Totternhoe chalk quarries that are located approximately 150 metres to the south east of the application land. A Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) no. 45 runs adjacent to the application area on the eastern boundary and through the middle of the SSSIs. Totternhoe Stone Pit is the sole remaining active quarry adjoining the old lime works, approximately 150 metres to the south east of the application area. It is designated as a geological SSSI and is worked on a campaign basis for specialist building stone. The Nature Reserve is situated approximately 230 metres to the southwest of the application l and. Public Right of Way no. 23 (PROW) is runs near the main access to the former Lime works. The entrance into the former Lime Works is located at the end of the residential road of Knolls View. It too would serve the application proposal site. This entrance is used by the existing businesses on the complex for plant hire, plaster board and concrete crushing. The nearest residential property, Mapesedge, adjoins the proposed means of access off the public highway. A further 27 residential properties on Knollls View are located to the west of the former Lime Works entrance, the closest being 50 metres from this access point. The proposed operational area is 240 metres from the nearest dwelling on Knolls View (excluding Mapesdge) A footpath is located on one side of the residential street of Knolls View and there is a playground which is approximately 50 metres to the west of the access to the old Lime Works. The footpath is not continuous and stops at the last house on Knolls View which is approximate ly 50 metres from the main entrance of the site. A sign at the entrance of Knolls View directs cyclists, horse riders and walkers to the PROW 23 and BOAT 45 and the new Sewell Greenway which is part of the Sustrans Scheme. (The Sustrans Scheme is part of a national cycle network and is routed to/from Stanbridge – Dunstable – and uses the old disused railway). Since the path along Knolls View is not continuous, pedestrians and cyclists need to use part of the road located near the main site access to access the PROW, BOAT or the Sewell Greenway.

The Application:

Essentially, the proposed development would consist of two different operations, namely a facility treating End of Life Vehicles and a scrap metal recycling operation. The operat ional area is located adjacent to the north eastern boundary of the old Lime Works.

End of Life Vehicle facility (ELV) The proposed development consists of bringing scrap vehicles to the site on HGVs, weighing them and then storing them on site prior to transfer to a new de-pollution building. Once the vehicles have had all fluids removed, the gearbox, batteries, engine, and tyres would be removed and the airbags discharged. The vehicles would then be stored before crushing and baling on site. Once th e vehicles have been crushed and baled, they would be held on site in a designated area before being transferring to a different site elsewhere for fragmentation. Agenda Item 13 Page 127

The proposed de-pollution building would be 12 metres wide by 6 metres deep (72m2) with a m ono pitch roof having eaves and ridge heights of 4.5 metres and 5.0 metres respectively. The front elevation would be open. Vehicles would be raised on a hydraulic lift to allow access to the sump and fuel tanks. The building will also be used for non ferrous metals and storage.

Tanks will be positioned adjacent to the de-pollution building and will store screen wash, oil, petrol, diesel, and engine coolant and brake fluid. These tanks will be emptied as required. The tanks would vary in size but not exceed 2 metres in height and 1.5 metres in diameter. All tanks would be bunded and be a galvanised metal in a green or blue colour. The tanks will be situated on a concrete pad. The concrete pad will be drained to the foul sewage system via interceptors

Metal recycling operation Smaller metals would be imported to the site by the public and businesses for the purpose of recycling. It is proposed that metals would also be collected in skips from surrounding sites and companies and then cut in to smal ler pieces of metal using alligator shears. The material will then be graded to size and then stored in storage bays measuring 3 metres to 5 metres and located on the south western boundary.

In addition to the non ferrous metal baler, crusher and car baler, other plant and equipment that would be used on site for both operations includes a 35 tonne track mounted crane, alligator shears, a 3.3 tonne fork lift truck and a 3.5 tonne JCB Teletruck.

It is proposed that operations will take place between the hours of 7:00 hours to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 7:00 hours to 16:00 hours on a Saturday with no operations on Sunday and Bank Holidays. The vehicle baler will only be used between the hours of 09:00 to 16:00 Monday to Fridays, with no operation on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank Holidays.

It is estimated that the throughput of ELVs and scrap metal will be 1000 tonnes per week or c. 50,000 tonnes per annum. This would generate a maximum of 50 HGV movements per working day (25 in and 25 out).

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Statement (NPPF) (March 2012) Sustainable Development Protecting Green Belts Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment

Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 10

Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals & Waste Local Plan adopted 2005 (MWLP) Policy W1 - key principles Policy W9 - Waste Transfer and Materials Recovery Facilities Policy GE1 - Matters to be addressed Policy GE5 - Protection of Green Belt Land Policy GE9 - Landscape protection and Landscaping Agenda Item 13 Page 128

Policy GE11 - Protection of Sites of National nature conservation importance Policy GE17 - Pollution Control Policy GE18 - Disturbance Policy GE 21 - Public Right of Ways Policy GE23 - Transport: Suitability of Local Road Network

Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Plan for Submission (with main Modifications and additional modification) May 2012 (MWCS) Policy WCP 8 Non- hazardous waste transfer and materials recovery Policy WCP 15: Hazardous Waste.

Planning History

Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use CB/10/00106/MWLP - Withdrawn or Development involving baling of tyres, 7 April 2010 plastics, metals, paper and card; sorting of dry recyclables. Totternhoe Lime Works

Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Use CB/10/00236/MWLP – Approved or Development for B2 use. 25 June 2010 Land adjacent to Totternhoe Stone Quarry.

Change of use of part of site to a Waste BC/CM/2008/0031 - Refused 2008 Transfer Station. Totternhoe Lime Works.

Representations: (Parish)

Totternhoe Parish Council - Object to the proposal for the following reasons:

• The proposal is an unsuitable Industrial activity in the Green Belt. • Disturbance to wildlife in the adjacent Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) • Problems with heavy traffic in Knolls View with its population of young children and a recreation ground. Knolls view is additionally used to access the Sewell Greenway and Green Lanes by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and such users should not be exposed to a stream of traffic from HGVs • Pollution of the ground from lubricants, coolants and other liquids and other liquids that could be spilt and the likelihood that these could leach into the ground water. In addition adjacent to the site is Sewell spring (Shirrel Spring) which is a local petrifying spring believed to be used in ancient times. This spring is fed from the Totternhoe chalk escarpment. • Smoke from the burning of unwanted materials during the breaking process such as upholstery, plastics and insulations adversely affecting the amenity of local residents. • Possible non compliant waste being stored on site and the effects this would have on local residents. The applicant deemed necessary to put procedures in place for such waste, thus acknowledging that its uncontrolled arrival and export is a possibility. Agenda Item 13 Page 129

• Noise and disturbance to local residents, visitors to the SSSI and users of the adjacent footpaths and bridleways from the operational machinery creating an unacceptable level of noise. • The operational hours will involve the movement of Hives and are unacceptable to local residents who have already suffered uncontrolled access to the site. It exposes local children on their way to school to danger. Knolls View is a narrow road which has already proved that two large vehicles have insufficient space to pass each other. This is evident by damaged caused to the footpaths and road verges. Therefore the road is totally unsuitable le for HGVs and the amenities of the local residents would be adversely affected. • A scrap yard attracts the dumping of unwanted vehicles, especially at times when the yard is closed. It is unknown for vehicles to be abandoned at the entrance of scrap yards as evidenced in many other similar sites in the country. The operators are unable to control such dumping no matter what assurances they give in a planning application. • Current activities on the site are poorly controlled by the management of established companies operating on site. This is evidenced by recent litter clearance project by Ground works who are working to improve the amenity of Greens Lane. Waste cleared included tyres, scrap metal and building waste. • The adverse affect on the wider landscape. The site is overlooked from the Knolls and the view from Castle Mounds and the proposed development with the associated noise and dirt would be the final desecration of the landscape. • The proposal offers no opportunities for local employment. • The proposed building being typical prefabricated structures.

Consultations

Environment Agency- Does not object.

Wildlife Trust – No comments have been received.

Greensand Trust – Do not object to the proposal

Natural England – Do not object to the proposal as it is considered that the development does not pose any likely or significant risk to those features of the natural environment and so does not wish to make specific comments.

Central Bedfordshire Highways DC –The authority’s Highways Officer does not object to the proposal and states the TRICs data and category that was used confirmed that the data was correct. The only difference was the size of the vehicles especially articulated type and the width of Knolls View. The Highways officer points out that they are not abnormal loads and are permitted on the public highway and that the Lime Works itself would have previously attracted these types of vehicles and therefore there should not be a restriction in granting of planning permission.

Central Bedfordshire Highway Safety Officer – does not object to the proposal but comments that the following measures could help to assist with the safe running of the site: Agenda Item 13 Page 130

• Various signage at distinct locations which warn pedestrians of HGVs using Knolls View and warning signs for drivers of HGV regarding horses, pedestrians and also the children’s park • Warning signage for HGVs turning. • Installation of double yellow lines to protect the entrance to the site so HGVs will not come in to conflict with parked cars. • Although not official legal signage covered by a traffic order, 20mph signs posted in the location of the site. • Possible CCTV system so when vehicles leave the site they can see who and what is in front of them before they leave the site. • Possible flashing amber light system warns pedestrians, horse riders, etc that vehicles are about to leave the site.

Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) – Object to the proposal for the following reasons: Policy W9 of the MWLP states that proposals for waste transfer/materials recovery operations will be permitted within an area of land allocated for industrial (B2) use provided that they are intended to serve and identified need that cannot be met by existing facilities. CPRE comments that no needs-based evidence or justification has been put forward by the applicant in support of his proposals.

They further comment that the proposal fails the proximity principle and is not a sustainable development but would also have adverse impacts locally which are considered significant, particularly in terms of traffic.

There seem to be significant inadequacies in the transport assessment as to the issue of traffic generation and discrepancies between the TA and the EIA.

A further failure is the attempt to address the suitability of Knolls View for access by heavy articulated vehicles which would feature as a daily flow. This is a particular issue in reference to the narrowness of Knolls View at one point which, quite apart from the general unsuitability of this road, would preclude with HGVs from passing without mounting the kerb or verge.

No acknowledgement is made in the noise assessment of the additional noise disturbance caused to residents by the increased volume of traffic which would be traversing this road. The applicant nevertheless suggests, in the concluding paragraph of S 5.3 that careful site management would seek to ensure that any potential for disturbance to the surrounding occupants would be minimised. CPRE cannot regard such a generalised aspiration as satisfactory and that in practise and for significant period of every day, nearby residents will be inflicted with noise that will be at intrusive levels.

The CPRE are not convinced that an element of dust will always be contained on site as stated in the non technical summery para 8.2. In their view some windblown escapement to nearby residents will be inevitable. This is clearly unacceptable.

Since this the applicant has submitted further information that CPRE were consulted on but hold their objection stating that the information did not address their concerns.

Agenda Item 13 Page 131

Central Bedfordshire Public Protection – Do not object to the proposal as the noise assessment submitted with the proposal assessed weekday background noise levels and there is no reason to dispute the figures of 50dBLAeq, 1hr. However, Public Protection asks that the measures put forward in the noise report to minimise noise impact are the subject of planning conditions. These include the use of the baler between 09:00 and 16:00, the use of white noise type signals instead of tonal reversing signals and for the baler to be positioned on site where noise could be further mitigated.

Central Bedfordshire Rights of Way (RoW) Officer – Object to the proposal and comments that there seems to be little reference to the fact that Knolls View is an access for all users such as walkers, cyclists and horse-riders as well as landowners with private rights of access to Byway 24 and the extensive network of byways, bridleways and footpaths beyond. The byway also connects to National Cycle Network route 6. The ROW team sates that there seems to be no information in the Transport Technical note or additional information regarding the impact the increase of traffic along Knolls View would have on Rights of Way users. The RoW Officer has found no suggested mitigation for the increase in vehicle use of Knolls View to protect the high number and frequency of non-motorised users.

Therefore the RoW Officer would be concerned about the effect of any increase in vehicle traffic along Knolls View on members of the public using it to access our Rights of Way and cycling network.

In relation to noise, noise impact on users of the Public Rights of Way, particularly Byway Open to all Traffic no. 45 alongside the application site, does not appear to have been included in the provided noise assessment. The ROW Officer notes the reference to acceptable levels for public spaces but no specific reference is made to Public Rights of Way and the horse-riders who will be using the byway alongside the site in particular. There is a concern that any noise from the development may startle a passing horse and the fact that the noise may be sudden and the source invisible could make matters worse.

The RoW Officer received further information from the applicant but uphold their objection as this information did not address their concerns fully. The RoW Officer also supports the comments / concerns the Council's Landscape Officer regarding the area of the site parallel to the byway along the north-eastern site boundary and the proposed mitigation planting. The RoW Officer would not wish anything which could startle a passing horse to be visible above the fencing line and would not wish anything to be planted in mitigation directly along the byway itself. The further concern is for the long-term maintenance of any newly planted vegetation alongside the path to ensure it does not encroach or overhang the BOAT 45.

British Horse Society – Do not object to the application but have the following comments to make: There is already a lot of activity on this site with large vehicles & noise next to the BOAT. They are the increase in traffic and the noise. The British horse society also state that they have met with the company on site and it is understood the drivers would be told to take care when meeting horse riders and that the site speed limit would be 10 mph (and 20mph on Knolls View) and that all HGV drivers would be told not to turn left from Knolls View into Totternhoe Village. So far the lorry drivers have been very courteous to horse riders along Knolls View.

Agenda Item 13 Page 132

They also have concerns regarding the proposed black thorn hedge along the side of BOAT 24/45 is obviously been planted to keep out trespassers. Blackthorn spreads quickly and would soon start appearing on the BOAT it does not have to be very high to produce thorns which lodge in horse’s legs & knees and cause a very bad poisonous infection.

Cllr Mustoe – has called the proposal in for the following reasons: • Unsuitable industrial activity in the Green Belt • Constant heavy traffic in Knolls View • Noise and disturbance to local residents • Disturbance to Wildlife in the adjacent site of SSSI

Andrew Selous MP – requests that the Parish Councils comments are taken into account and at the relevant planning committee.

Publicity – The planning application was publicised in accordance with Town and Country Planning (General Development Management Procedure) Order 2010, comprising a Site Notice, a press advert in the local newspaper and 33 neighbour notification letters. As a result of this publicity, there have been 7 letters of objection plus one petition with 40 signatures. The main concerns are:

• Unsuitable activity in the Green Belt • Disturbance to wildlife in the adjacent National Nature Reserve • Danger of increased heavy traffic in Knolls View, with its population of young children and a recreation ground for young people. • Pollution from lubricants, coolants and other liquids if spilt and the threat of these leaching in to ground water. Further more there would be no security around these tanks and that anyone could walk onto the site. • Smoke from the burning of materials such as upholstery, plastics and insulation. • The development may attract the dumping of unwanted vehicles at times when the yard is closed or who would be responsible for collecting these vehicles? • Noise and disturbance to local residents, visitors the NNR and users of the public Rights of way and bridleways from the operation f the machinery. • Noise disturbance on the green belt as a whole. • Further damage being caused as HGVs are mounting the kerbs and verges because by two HGVs cannot pass each other along section of Knolls View. • Speed of lorries down knolls View and Castle Hill Road makes the houses shake including a grade 2 listed building. The operator has not proposed any control methods or how other associated vehicles will be controlled. • The junction of Knolls View with Castel Hill Road is unsuitable for this volume of HGVs

Determining Issues

If the proposal will harm the openness of the Green Belt If the proposal will harm the Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) If the proposal will cause disturbance to nearby residents by way of noise and dust. If the proposed increase of HGV vehicles will cause a hazard to pedestrians and horse riders. Agenda Item 13 Page 133

Considerations

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that any determination of a planning application shall be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan comprises the saved policies of the Bedfordshire and Luton Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2005 (MWLP), the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004 (SBLP) and the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy Plan for Submission May 2012 (MWCS).

National guidance can be found within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Policy Statement 10 (PPS10) ‘ Planning for Sustainable Waste Management’ .

The policies contained within the MWLP continue to be saved pursuant to a Government Direction dated 14 September 2007 pending the adoption of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework. Therefore, the applicable policies in this case are Policy W1 - Key Principles, Policy W9 - Waste Transfer Stations and Material Recovery, GE1 – Matters to be addressed, which sets out the criteria for assessing applications and information requirements, Policy GE5 – protection of Green Belt Land, Policy GE9 Landscape protection and Landscaping, GE11- Protection of Sites of National and nature conservation, GE17 Pollution Control GE18 Disturbance, GE21 Public Right of Ways and GE23 Transport: Suitability of Local Road Network.

Landscape

Policy GE9 of the MWLP requires waste development to be sympathetic to local landscape character and where a proposal is likely to have an adverse effect on the landscape character of the area, it will only be granted where any adverse effect is reduced as far as practicable and is outweighed by other planning benefits. The policy states that where appropriate, development proposals will be required to include a landscaping scheme. Where a landscaping scheme is required but is not submitted, or is inadequate, inappropriate or likely to prove ineffective, planning permission will be refused.

The applicant proposes to carry out planting on the north eastern boundary with BOAT 45, including gapping up of the existing hedge with Blackthorn and Hawthorn. The Landscape Officer is concerned regarding the impact on the local landscape character and amenity value of BOAT 24 running parallel to the north-eastern site boundary. The changes in levels on and off site result in the BOAT commencing below the site level to the northern corner of the site and rises to the south and is above site level at the southern site point. The area allocated for planting diminishes to approximately 0.5 m width between the site boundary and concrete slab base at the southern point. This restricts the amount of mitigation planting that can be undertaken towards this end of the site. The Landscape Officer’s second concern is that the proposed planting includes not the most suitable species to plant along a Byway. The Council's Rights of Way Officer agrees with this concern. The Rights of Way Officer would not wish anything that could startle a passing horse to be visible above the fencing line. However, the British Horse Society has not raised this particular concern. However, the British Horse Society and the Rights of Way officer both have reservations about the proposed screening planting along the BOAT. There is potential for the newly planted trees and bushes to encroach upon the route if not maintained and thorns Agenda Item 13 Page 134 produced from fast-growing Blackthorn plants can lodge in horses’ legs & knees and cause a very bad poisonous infection. It is considered that conditions can overcome these concerns. A precise planting specification avoiding thorny species can be agreed as part of a detailed landscaping scheme and an obligation to keep the new planting in check so that it does not overhang the BOAT could be imposed as an ongoing requirement throughout the life of the development.

The Parish Council also has concerns regarding the effect of the development on the wider landscape. They comment that the proposed development can be overlooked from the Knolls and Castle mounds. The Landscape Officer however comments that the application site sits within a matrix of commercial uses located at the Lime Works. Other more elevated and exposed development within the Lime Works site is highly intrusive visually. However, the application site is located at the lower north eastern part of the works complex and is screened from the wider landscape to the east and north via local topography and hedgerow planting. Therefore it is considered that the proposed development will not have an impact on the wider landscape and that the main consideration is the screening along the Byway. Natural England comments that the proposal could provide opportunities for landscape enhancement.

However the Landscape Officer has requested schemes to be approved before development commences, including: • A detailed landscape plan to include survey details of existing trees and planting on and adjoining the site. • A detailed landscape management plan including 5 years of aftercare/ maintenance. (Access for maintenance of planting needs to be clarified). The landscape officer also comments that the following conditions should also added • Storage - bays, containers, bales and machinery / plant be located away from the north-eastern site boundary to minimise visual intrusion • A limit on lighting is included with inclusion of shades to avoid light spill and timers to lighting sensors.

It is considered that if the above requirements are imposed with the addition of pre- development conditions that will mitigate the lighting and screening the proposal accords with MW policy GE9.

SSSI

MWLP Policy GE11 states that planning permission for waste proposals that would result in harm to a designated or proposed Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) or national Nature Reserves (NNR) will not be given permission unless the reason for the development clearly outweighs the nature conservation value of the site and national policy to safeguard such sites. Where such development is permitted, measures will be required to mitigate or compensate for the effects of the development.

The proposed application sites lies within 200 metres of three SSSIs. The applicant has stated that the de-pollution and scrap metal baling operations will be carried out inside the building. Further to this, the proposed site is at a lower elevation than all the SSSIs. Natural England does not object to the proposal and states that there is minimal risk to the SSSI’s from operations. However, although Natural England do object or make specific comments, they state that it should not be interpreted that Agenda Item 13 Page 135 there will not be any impacts on the natural environment. The agent has submitted a risk assessment of impacts from operations to nearby sensitive receptors (including the SSSIs). The report shows that there are two pathways that could potentially cause issues to the surrounding SSSIs. This is by air and water runoff. As the de-pollution of vehicles and baling of scrap metals will be carried out in a building on a impermeable surface with sealed drainage and oil interceptors, the risk of surface water run off and air contaminates will be low.

The applicant has not put forward any environmental enhancements other than landscaping along the north east boundary. A landscaping scheme would need to be submitted and approved before development commences. However the applicant has shown that there will be very limited impact on the SSSIs and therefore the proposed development accords with MWLP Policy GE11.

Pollution Control MWLP Policy GE17 states that permission will not be granted for waste development proposals if there is significant risk of contaminating land or discharging pollution into the atmosphere or polluting water courses or ground water at levels which would exceed statutory pollution and emissions controls.

Totternhoe Parish Council and a number of residents are concerned regarding pollution of the ground from lubricants, coolants and other liquids that could be spilt and the likelihood that these could leach into the ground water. In addition, adjacent to the site is Sewell spring (Shirrel Spring) which is a local petrifying spring believed to be used in ancient times. This spring is fed from the Totternhoe chalk escarpment.

The agent suggests that in order to prevent unlawful access secure fencing will be maintained around the proposed site. The entrance gates are of a heavy steel construction and are locked whenever the premises are closed. Further to this, the site will have CCTV surveillance with motion detectors and a central monitoring system connected directly to the local police station. This will be activated whenever the site is closed. The proposed application area does have a concrete surface and the tank farm will be sited on this concrete pad. The proposal also contains adequate drainage which includes a 1.2m wide open channels along the north-eastern/western and south western boundaries. All run off will pass though one of two oil interceptors before discharging via the existing connection to the foul sewer. Any oil spillages would be covered in absorbent granules and disposed of in accordance with best practice.

The Environment Agency has not objected to the proposal as the site will require a permit and therefore it can be considered that pathways for contamination to groundwater have been mitigated as far as practicable and the proposal accords with MWLP Policy GE17.

Disturbance

Waste operations can be intrusive activities and can cause disturbance to nearby residents or other land users. MWLP Policy GE18 (Disturbance) states that permission for waste sites which are likely to generate disturbance from noise, vibration, dust, mud on the highway, fumes, gases, odour, illumination, litter birds and peats where the impact of any anticipated disturbance is reduced as far as practicable Agenda Item 13 Page 136 and is outweighed by other planning benefits. The NPPF Technical Guidance states that unavoidable dust and noise emissions must be controlled, mitigated or removed at source.

The Parish Council has highlighted the issue of smoke emissions from the burning of unwanted materials during the breaking process such as upholstery, plastics and insulations which could adversely affect the amenity of local residents. In addition, residents are concerned that there would be noise and disturbance to local residents, visitors to the NNR and users of the public rights of way and bridleways from the operation of the machinery.

Noise The applicant has submitted a Noise Assessment that included carrying out the assessment under the British Standard BS4142 and Environment Agency Guidance. The agent also points out that there would be an increase of noise when the baler is in use and has therefore suggested mitigation measures to be implemented, these included:

• Plant and machinery to be kept well maintained • Baler is to be located adjacent to the existing retaining wall to ensure that the acoustic benefit from the wall is maximised. • All plant to be switched off when not in use. • Ensure access roads are maintained in good condition to ensure that noise associated with the vehicles travelling into the facility are minimised. • To adopt either white noise type signals or radar systems in vehicles and on mobile plant. • Restrict the use of the baler between the hours of 09:00 – 16:00 weekdays with no operation on Saturdays.

The CPRE comment that no acknowledgement was made in the applicant’s Noise Assessment regarding the additional noise disturbance to residents from the increased volume of traffic which would be traversing this road. The CPRE consider that failure to assess and address this aspect is a major deficiency in the applicant’s proposal.

In the Noise Assessment, the applicant states that noise levels at the nearest properties (Mapesedge and 26 Knolls View) would be between 41 and 43dB LAeq one hour, against a proposed noise limit of 50dB. Noise levels would therefore be at least 7dB(A) below the proposed limit. It is also stated in the Noise Assessment that noise generated by general operations on site would be at least 10dB (a) below the ambient noise level in the area, which are principally influenced by traffic on the A505. The CPRE are sceptical of this statement.

The main potential noise impact is that generated when a mobile materials handling machine and crusher/baler unit is in use, a process that would require both these items to be in operation simultaneously. Further to this in relation to noise, the ROW team are concerned regarding noise impact on users of the Public Rights of Way, particularly Byway Open to all Traffic no. 45, and that this aspect has not been covered in he submitted Noise Assessment. There is a concern that any noise from the development may startle a passing horse and the fact that the noise may be sudden and if the source is invisible this could make matters worse. However, it is not considered that noise impact from the proposed development would be significantly Agenda Item 13 Page 137 different in character to noise generated by typical activities on the existing lawful industrial activities on the site which are not subject to any detailed controls. The British Horse Society has not objected to the application on grounds of noise.

The Council’s Public Protection team has not objected to the application. They have no reason to dispute the applicant’s assessment of weekday background noise levels as being approximately 50dBLA90. They note that the Noise Assessment suggests a limit of 50dBLAeq, 1 hour and whilst this is 5dB less than the level recommended in guidance (Minerals Planning Statement 2), there is no objection to such a limit. The Public Protection Team has recommended that the measures put forward in the applicant’s ‘Site Management’ section of the Noise Assessment also be included in any condition. This would include restricting the use of the baler to the hours of 09:00 and 16:00 Monday to Friday.

The CPRE are concerned about noise from vehicles using Knolls View when accessing the site. However, the Lime Works as a whole has a B2 use with no restriction on vehicle numbers and size and hours of operations. Large vehicles have been known to travel down Knolls View very late into the evening. If this applicant is granted, this would allow restrictions or controls to be placed on operational hours and numbers of HGV’s using Knolls View for this development. It can therefore be argued that the overall noise impact would be less than what is currently being experienced on the application area and within acceptable working hours. Nevertheless, conditions would need to attached to any permission to impose the above-mentioned controls and a further condition would need to be added requiring a noise scheme to be submitted and approved before operations commence.

Dust Another concern is that the operation will cause dust emissions. Other than car baling and storage, all operations would be located within the proposed building. The applicant has suggested that the proposed development will create very little dust but will nonetheless sweep the yard on a regular basis to ensure that dust cannot be picked up by strong winds. A pre-development condition will added requiring a scheme to be submitted and approved for the suppression and control of dust.

There are concerns that burning may take place on site; the agent suggests that no burning will take place as operations will not warrant any burning. A condition would need to be imposed on any consent which prohibits burning.

Therefore, it is considered that with the mitigation measure proposed by the applicant, together with the imposition of pre-development conditions requesting schemes for the mitigation of noise and dust, the proposal accords with MWLP Policy GE18.

Public Rights of Way

MWLP Policy GE21 states that where public rights of way are disrupted by waste developments, planning permission will only be granted where suitable alternative arrangements are made to maintain or enhance public access opportunities or where no suitable alternative arrangements can be made, the disruption to the rights of way network is reduced as far as practicable and is clearly outweighed by other planning benefits of the proposal. . Agenda Item 13 Page 138

The ROW Officer object to the proposal as Knolls View is one of the main public access roads to the bridleway and footpath network. In light of the ROW Officer’s concerns, the applicant proposes to provide signage to inform pedestrians and horse riders of HGVs (and visa versa). However, there are other concerns regarding noise impact on equestrian users and the potential for proposed landscaping measures along the boundary with BOAT 45 to have a detrimental effect on access if new planting is allowed to grow unchecked and if thorny shrub species are included in the planting mix. It is not considered that noise impact from the proposed development would be so significantly different in character to noise generated by typical activities on the existing lawful industrial activities on the site which are not subject to any detailed controls. Notably, the British Horse Society has not cited noise as a concern. In respect of planting, a condition could be framed to ensure the selection of appropriate trees and shrubs that do not produce thorns which may be picked up by passing horses and as part of the planting maintenance requirements an obligation could be placed on the applicant / owner to trim the planting as required to prevent it from overhanging the BOAT.

In terms of views from the BOAT, which is the only section where the site can be seen at close quarters, the applicant has agreed to provide a reinforced planted strip which in time will help to screen views of the site for users of the route.

It is concluded that the development accords with MWLP Policy GE 21.

Highways

MWLP Policy GE23 states that where access to a proposed development site can only be achieved by road, permission will only be granted if the material is capable of being transported to and from the site via the strategic highway. The suitability and capacity of available access routes must also be taken into account. Proposals which use significant lengths of unsuitable roads to gain access to the strategic network will not be permitted, unless suitable improvements can be agreed with the developer.

There are two issues that need to be considered. These are whether Knolls View is a suitable road to allow access to the proposed development and whether there will be a detrimental impact on highway safety from the proposal. The ROW Officer is also concerned about the effect of any increase in vehicle traffic along Knolls View on members of the public using it to access our rights of way and cycling network. The ROW team is particularly concerned about any increase in the number and frequency of heavy goods vehicles and articulated vehicles. The Parish Council and local residents are concerned that the Knolls View is not wide enough to accommodate two vehicles passing each other at certain sections of the road. They are also concerns that there will be an increase in HGVs on Castle Hill Road affecting the safety of children using the recreation area.

The Lime Works as a whole site does not have any restriction on number, size and type of vehicles that can enter the site over any given period. The applicant states that there will be no more than 50 HGV Movements per day (25 in and 25 out). The applicant suggests that this represents a marginal increase. The applicant has stated that no HGV traffic would go through the village, and that the site’s code of practice would be to direct vehicles towards the A505. The Highways Officer does not object to the proposal. The Highways Officer notes that through TRICs the category for Vehicle Repair Garages has been used by the applicant. The Highways Officer Agenda Item 13 Page 139 confirms that the predicted flow is about 55 HGV movements per day. He also comments that existing scrap metal sites were used to predict the flow of traffic from the proposed development by using the TRICS system. The TRICS system shows that from existing metal sites HGV movements would be about 70 per day, which would be 15 trips greater than proposed in the application. However the Highways Officer also advises that overall the proposed size of the vehicles would tend to be greater in size than historically used by the Lime Works but which are not abnormal loads and are permitted on the public highway. The Lime Works would have attracted these type of vehicles. Therefore, the Highway Officer’s advice is that there should not be a restriction in granting of planning permission on grounds of type and level of traffic. During a planning appeal in 2006 for closure and redevelopment of the Lime Works for erection of 40 dwellings, the Inspector commented that the highway was sufficient in width and that the dwellings were sufficiently set back from the road to conclude that she could see no objection to the continued commercial use for access purposes of Knolls View.

All neighbour objections received are concerned with the safety of children using the recreation field and those wishing to access the ROW network. The Highways Safety Officer is concerned that there may be some safety issues and suggested that the following mitigation measures could help resolve the matter, namely: • Various signage at distinct locations which warn pedestrians of the HGVs which will use the route and warning signs for the HGVs of horses pedestrians and also the children’s park • Warning signage for HGVs turning. • Installation of double yellow lines to protect the entrance to the site so HGVs will not come in to conflict with parked cars. • Although not official legal signage covered by a traffic order, a 20mph signs posted in the location of the site. • Possible CCTV system so when vehicles leave the site they can see who and what is in front of them before they leave the site. • Possible flashing amber light system warns pedestrians, horse riders, etc that vehicles are about to leave the site. The agent has responded to these concerns and has agreed to the provisions of additional signage to warn pedestrians of HGVs and to warn HGV drivers of the presence of pedestrians, horses and the children’s park. The applicant agrees to the installation of double yellow lines to protect the entrance to the overall site and to erect a sign at the access gates advising HGVs to go 20mph. Further to this the applicant has agreed to a mirror at the access to the whole site to enable HGV drivers to obtain an improved vision of Knolls View before they exit the site. The agent also comments that these measures would be sufficient and that amber lights and CCTV would not be needed. To ensure that the work is carried out schemes will be required to be submitted and approved before development commences. In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal accords with MWLP policy GE23 as there is unlikely to be significant adverse impact on the road network from the proposal and the safety concerns highlighted by local residents can be mitigated through the imposition of appropriate conditions.

Agenda Item 13 Page 140

Green Belt

The Government continues to attach great importance to Green Belts and the well established presumption against development in such areas, other than for specific purposes. The NPPF states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Green Belt serves five purposes:

• To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • To prevent neighbouring towns from 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.

In accordance with the advice in the NPPF, when determining planning applications the determining authority should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. As with previous green belt policy in Planning Policy Guidance 2 (PPG2), inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. When considering an application, the NPPF advises that 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.

A Local Planning Authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There are a certain forms of development that are exceptions to this rule, as set out paragraph 89 of the NPPF. This includes (final bullet point, paragraph 89) ‘ limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land) whether redundant or in continuing use, which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it that the existing development’ .

Therefore, the application proposal could qualify as appropriate development under the above exception provided that there is no greater impact on openness of the Green Belt and no conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

There would be permanent changes to the application site that would cause a small reduction in openness. A new building is proposed on an area of land that is currently open, albeit enclosed in part by a steel retaining wall to reinforce changes in levels. Whilst the application land is already used for storage of plant and equipment and forms part of a wider permitted industrial brownfield site with larger and more prominent buildings on higher ground, this does not prevent the proposed building from having an impact on openness. The site and proposed building would be visible from the neighbouring BOAT 45 as there is only a patchy strip of existing vegetation on the boundary. However, there is a distinction to be made between the impact on visual amenity and openness and even if the site was well-screened, the openness of the Green Belt would still be harmed. It is concluded that the development would have a slight negative impact on openness and the development is therefore inappropriate in Green Belt terms, as defined by the NPPF.

Agenda Item 13 Page 141

In terms of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, it is considered that these would not be compromised by the proposed development. The site is in a rural location so would not be contributing to any unrestricted sprawl of a large built-up area. Although in the countryside, the land affected would be confined to an area of existing brownfield land and authorised for B2 use so there would be no further encroachment. The other purposes are not deemed to be relevant to this case and are therefore not breached.

At a local level, MWLP Policy GE5 conforms broadly to the NPPF. The appropriate test in respect of waste development is whether the proposal would preserve the openness the Green Belt and minimise conflict with the purposes of it is designation and, irrespective of this, whether very special circumstances can be demonstrated to justify the proposal. This is because waste development is not listed as an appropriate use in the Green Belt. The proposal does not accord with Policy GE5 unless very special circumstances can be shown.

Very Special Circumstances

Having determined that the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt it is necessary to consider whether any special circumstances exist that are sufficient to outweigh the normal presumption against such development. Those put forward in this case are essentially related to the urgent need for additional facilities and the lack of suitable non-Green Belt sites.

Need for the development Although there is no specific policy for ELV and scrap metal facilities, the operations are considered to fall within the category of a waste transfer and materials recovery facility. Policy W9 of the MWLP therefore applies. This policy identifies preferred locations for waste transfer / recovery stations, including permitted industrial land with B2 use.

This policy approach is also reflected by new policy WCP 8 in the upcoming MWCS. The proposed application also falls into the criteria as a development that will manage hazardous waste. Policy WCP15 of the MWCS is therefore also relevant. It states that proposals for the transfer/bulking up of hazardous wastes will only be permitted on land at existing waste management sites and /or on employment and where not in close proximity to sensitive occupiers.

The CPRE comment that whilst the NPPF sets out a general presumption in favour of development on brownfield sites, it makes clear that the presumption applies only if the proposal can be seen as sustainable - defined as development which would not compromise the quality of life of future generations. The CPRE are of the view that the former Lime Works is not a sustainable site for the activity proposed.

Currently, the applicant collects ELVs from Central Bedfordshire and transports these to his facility in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire. If this application is permitted, ELVs collected in Luton and Central Bedfordshire would instead be taken to Totternhoe, which is a much shorter distance. The applicant suggests the application site is well placed to make a contribution to meeting the national need due to it proximity to the growing urban populations of Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable, Houghton Regis and Agenda Item 13 Page 142

Luton. The proposed site also has a good primary freight route access via the A505 to the whole of Central Bedfordshire. The applicant has suggested that there is a local need for this type of development within the Central Bedfordshire area. By using the Census of 2011, the applicant has shown that Central Bedfordshire has a higher than national average of cars and vans per household, and that the number of household with two or more cars in Central Bedfordshire was 44% while the national average in England was 30%. Therefore, it is argued that there should be a larger than average network of facilities in Central Bedfordshire to cope with rising number of ELVs which are not presently provided. The applicant has carried out an assessment to identify existing facilities. The applicant has used technical papers produced for the Minerals & Waste Core Strategy (MWCS) and the Environment Agency’s sites database as part of this exercise. Eleven locations in the Central Bedfordshire and Luton area were identified and visited by the applicant. The applicant concludes that there are only two ELV / scrap metal facilities within Central Bedfordshire which are located at Station Road Industrial Estate, Ampthill (some 13.3 miles from the Lime Works using the shortest route) and at Frenchs Avenue, Dunstable which is less than 2 miles from the Lime Works (by the shortest route). The applicant contends that the Ampthill site falls outside their selected area of search or catchment area. However, the site as Frenchs Avenue, operated by Dunstable Car Disposal, covers the same catchment area that has been identified by the applicant in order to seek to justify the Totternhoe site – i.e. Leighton Linslade / Dunstable / Houghton Regis and surrounding rural areas. However, a key difference is that whereas the Frenchs Avenue site is only licensed by the Environment Agency to accept ELVs, the proposed operation at Totternhoe would handle both ELVs and general scrap metals. Furthermore, the Frenchs Avenue premises are small in comparison to the proposed scale of operation at the application site. According to the last 12 months of waste tonnage returns submitted by Dunstable Car Disposal to the Environment Agency, there has been a quarterly throughput of between 70 and 90 tonnes, which equates to an approximate annual throughput of less than 360 tonnes (or around 200 cars per year). This is in contrast to the anticipated maximum yearly throughput of 50,000 tonnes for the application site. It appears to be the case that the Frenchs Avenue facility does not itself provide sufficient operational capacity to deal fully with ELV waste arisings in the urban areas of Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable, Houghton Regis and Luton. The applicant has visited and analysed all of the sites on the Environment Agency’s database within the area of search. Apart from the Frenchs Avenue site at Dunstable, other sites on the list were occupied and in different use or they had closed and were not vacant. One site at Progress Way, Luton is available but deemed to be far too small. It was concluded there were no suitable sites on the Agency’s list of licensed sites. The applicant argues that an ELV and metal recycling site is most suitably located on an existing industrial site, with significant open space, in proximity to the primary road network, relatively remote and well screened and particularly relatively remote from residential areas and/or other sensitive receptors. The application site satisfies all of these criteria. Although the applicant claims that he has kept an eye out in the past for suitable sites, no other suitable premises have came forward in this area before and therefore the applicant has acquired the application site. The development will serve the Leighton Buzzard/Dunstable/Houghton Regis and surrounding rural areas. All of this land (outside the urban areas) is designated as Green Belt. The Council itself recognises the lack of available sites locally (even in the urban areas) for waste Agenda Item 13 Page 143 management uses generally and that has been the applicant's experience too. By contrast, the application site is well located to serve the catchment area and is not remote from the principal road network as well as meeting the criteria for sites as noted above. The former Lime works is a brownfield site with established industrial usage and contains two other operational waste recycling facilities. The applicant has provided some justification for the selected area of search but has not attempted to assess the detailed need for additional operational capacity which is specific to their area of search which would have been a more robust approach, although it is accepted that this would be a more difficult exercise. The applicant has demonstrated however that there is a shortage of sites (and hence operational capacity) within their identified area of search. It is likely to be the case that the majority of ELVS and scrap metals will be sourced from within the Central Bedfordshire and Luton area and this is more sustainable than waste from the Central Bedfordshire area being taken further afield to the applicant’s facility in Aylesbury. The Parish Council and some residents are concerned that vehicles could be left outside the site. The applicant suggests that the reason for abandoned cars is that there is such a shortage of facilities, although this has not been substantiated. The applicant has pointed out that when ELV are received on site the disposer is currently paid £90.00 to £150.00 per car and as such there is no incentive for owners to abandon cars at the site gates. It is concluded that there is shortage of sites in the search area assessed by the applicant and there appears to be some justification for limiting their search to a particular part of the Plan Area. On the assumption that the application site would mainly handle ELV and scrap mental form Central Bedfordshire and Luton, it can be seen to fit with the proximity principle. The proposed site lies within a larger site that has a permitted industrial B2 use and therefore the proposal accords with MWLP Policy W9. Lack of Suitable Non-Green Belt sites : The applicant has provided evidence of having carried out a recent search for alternative sites in non-Green Belt locations which subject to certain criteria could accommodate their business within the Southern Central Bedfordshire and Luton Borough area (i.e. Dunstable, Houghton Regis, Leighton Buzzard and Luton area). The area of search has not been extended to other areas (e.g. Ampthill, Flitwick, Shefford, Biggleswade) as the applicant contends that a facility further away would not meet a pressing local need.

The applicant has provided evidence to show that leading commercial agents (Lambert Smith Hampton) were instructed to carry out the site search, which resulted in the identification of three non-Green Belt sites within the area of search. The applicant provides a reasonable explanation as to why all three sites are deemed to be unsuitable (based on clear criteria) and therefore a sequential assessment is not appropriate.

Therefore, considering all the facts put forward, the applicant has provided some justification for the selected area of search or catchment area where a single relatively small operational site at Dunstable has been identified which is only licensed to handle ELVs and where no suitable alternative sites outside the Green Belt have been found. The area of search includes the growth area of Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable / Houghton Regis where population will increase. The applicant has also shown from Agenda Item 13 Page 144 the alternative site search that other premises are unsuitable for the proposed operation.

The applicant refers to an available site on Stanbridge Road, near Leighton Buzzard, which is within the Green Belt but it is not clear whether there is potential to make use on any existing building on site. However, based on the submitted information, there is evidence to suggest that the operator has experienced difficulty in identifying suitable alternative sites within the catchment area and that there is an overall need for this type of facility. Therefore it can be concluded that very special circumstances exist.

Economic Impact

The proposal would create 11 new jobs which will consist of 2 managers/supervisors, 4 machine operators and 5 yard operatives/de-pollution staff. The applicant suggests that all employees will receive the training required to carry out their roles.

Planning Benefits

Currently the proposed area for development is part of a wider site that has a B2 industrial use with no restrictions on hours of work or vehicle numbers, the proposal will therefore bring the following gains.

• Restriction on the number of HGV movements into the site from un restricted to 55 movements per days • Restriction on the hours of work from un-restricted to 0700 hours to 18:00 hours Monday to Friday and 0700 hours to 16:00 hours on Saturday with no operation on Sundays and Bank Holidays. • The proposal will enhance the patchy landscaping along the BOAT 45.

Fall Back Position

The fallback position in the event that planning permission is refused is that general industrial activities continue on the application land, which could include certain types of waste use. The whole of the former lime works including the application area has a B2 lawful use with no specific restrictions and permitted development rights for limited built development under Part 8 of the General Permitted Development Order.

Conclusion

It is considered that proposed development accords with the NPPF and MWLP Policy GE 5 as the proposed building will only have a slight negative impact on the openness of the Green Belt. It is also considered that there is a local need for this type of development and that very special circumstances exist to justify permitting the proposal.

The applicant has agreed to submit a landscaping scheme and conditions for lighting and plant and storage to be located away from the Northeastern corner of the site and therefore it is considered that with the addition of the pre-development conditions that will mitigate the lighting and screening the proposal accords with MW policy GE9.

Agenda Item 13 Page 145

The applicant has shown that there will be very limited impact on the SSSI’s and therefore the proposed development accords with MWLP Policy GE11.

The Environment Agency has not objected to the proposal and therefore it can be considered that all pathways for contamination to groundwater have been mitigated as far as practicable and the proposal accords with MWLP Policy GE17.

Provided that the mitigation measure proposed by the applicant are implemented and subject to the imposition of conditions requiring detailed schemes in relation to noise and dust to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development, it is judged that the proposal accords with MWLP Policy GE18 (Disturbance).

It is considered that the development will have limited impact on the surrounding ROW and that any visual disturbance will be mitigated by planting. As such, the proposal accords with MWLP Policy GE 21. It is considered that the proposal accords with MWLP Policy GE23 as there will be little additional impact on the road network from the proposal and the safety issues identified can be mitigated. It is considered that since the proposed site would mainly be accepting ELV and scrap metals from the Central Bedfordshire and Luton areas, the proposal fits with the proximity principle. The proposed site lies within a larger complex that has a permitted industrial B2 use and therefore the proposal accords with MWLP Policy W9 and PPS10.

RECOMMENDATION

That planning permission is granted subject to the condition laid out below.

1 Planning permission shall extend to the area delineated by a thick black line on the attached plan no. CB/12/00193/MW-1 and development shall be carried out in accordance with the planning application dated 19 th January 2012 (as validated on 9 th May 2012) and all accompanying supporting information dated 26 th July 2012, 11 th September 2012 and 19 th October 20 12, except for any minor amendments which may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To define the permission and allow for minor amendments.

2 The development hereby permitted shall be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Local Planning Authority within 7 days of such commencement.

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.

Agenda Item 13 Page 146

3 Access

No development shall commence unless and until a scheme for the erection of warning signs and the mirrors to be located by the access of the former Lime works has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such as scheme shall include provision for:

• Sign(s) stating the speed of HGVs to be no more than 20mph • Sign(s) warning HGV drivers of pedestrians and horses; • Sign(s) warning pedestrians of HGVs.

The scheme as may be approved shall be implemented prior to the importation of waste and thereafter maintained in accordance with the scheme at all times.

Reason: In the interest of Highways Safety (MWLP Policy GE23).

4 The access road from the public hig hway to the operational site shall be kept clear of mud and dust at all times.

Reason: To minimise any nuisance to nearby residents by reason of dust and to protect the surrounding SSSI (Policies GE18 and GE11 of the MWLP).

5 Hours of Operation

No ope rations authorised or required under this permission shall take place on site except between the hours of: 07:00 to 17:00 hours Mondays to Fridays 07:00 to 16:00 hours Saturdays

And no operations authorised or required under this permission shall take place on Sundays and Public / Bank Holidays.

Reason: To minimise any nuisance to nearby residents by reason of Noise (Policy GE18 of the MWLP).

6 Site Operations

A record of daily HGV movements generated by the operations hereby permitted shall be ma intained at all times and submitted to the Local Planning Authority within 7 days of any written request covering the period specified in the request.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and for monitoring compliance with other conditions of this permission (Policy GE23 of the MWLP).

7 Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, there shall not be more than 50 HGV movements (1 in and 1 out equals 2 movements) in any one working day (pro-rata for Saturdays) associated with the development hereby permitted.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety (Policy GE23 of the MWLP). Agenda Item 13 Page 147

8 No fixed plant, machinery or buildings other than those authorised by this permission shall be erected on site.

Reason: To protect the Green Belt and in the interests of visual amenity. (Policies GE 5 and GE9 of the MWLP).

9 No storage of wastes, materials, plant or other site associated equipment including skips shall take place on site at a height in excess of 3 metres from ground level.

Reason: To protect the Green Belt and in the interests of visual amenity. (Policies GE 5 and GE9 of the MWLP).

10 No car de-pollution activities or treatment and baling of scrap metals (excluding ELVs) shall take place outside the building hereby permitted.

Reason: To restrict development to that applied for and to minimise disturbance in the interests of local amenity (Policy GE18 of the MWLP).

11 No development shall commence unless and until a detailed site layout / working plan (drawn to scale) has bee n submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall include the following information:

• Positioning and colour of all buildings. • Positioning and colour of the tanks. • Positioning of the storage bays, containers, plant and machinery and circulation space. • Specification and colour of boundary fencing.

The details shall thereafter be implemented as approved and complied with at all times.

Reason: To main control over the development, to protect the Green Belt and in the interests of visual amenity (Policies GE5 and GE9 of the MWLP).

12 Environment:

No operations authorised by this permission shall take place unless and until a CCTV camera has been installed in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of and provide for:

• The columns and cameras to be used; • The area to be covered by the cameras; • The capability for remote access viewing of live footage and recordings.

The C CTV system shall thereafter be implemented only in accordance with the approved scheme and complied with at all times.

Reason: To allow the monitoring of traffic movements and operating hours (MWLP Policies GE18 and GE23). Agenda Item 13 Page 148

13 No floodlighting or securi ty lighting shall be used on site except in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall cover and include provision for:

• Details of number, location and specificati on of floodlights or security lights; • Minimising potential for light spill or glare. • Lighting timers and sensors.

The scheme as may be approved shall be complied with at all times.

Reason: To minimise disturbance to residential and rural amenity and to protect the nearby SSSIs. (MWLP Policies GE11 and GE18) .

14 No development shall take place unless and until a scheme for the suppression, control and monitoring of dust has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Suc h a scheme shall include measures to be undertaken in the event of any complaints about dust. Thereafter, the scheme as may be approved shall be carried out in full and complied with at all times

Reason: To minimise disturbance to residential properties and local amenity. (Policy GE 18 of the MWLP).

15 Except for temporary operations, the free-field Equivalent Continuous Noise Level, LAeq,1hr, due to operations on the site, shall not exceed 50dB LAeq,1hr, when measured at the boundary of any residential dwelling. For temporary operations, such as site preparation, construction, soil and overburden stripping, the free-field noised level due to work at the nearest point to each dwelling shall not exceed 70dBb LAeq, 1hr, when measured at the boundary of an y residential dwelling. Temporary operations shall not exceed a total of 8 weeks in any calendar year.

Reason: To minimise nuisance to nearby residents by reason of noise (Policy GE18 of the MWLP).

16 In addition to and notwithstanding the operational hours prescribed in condition 5 of this permission, the car baler shall only be used between the hours of 0900 to 1600 hours on weekdays and not at all on Saturdays.

Reason: To minimise nuisance to nearby residents by reason of noise (Policy GE18 of the MWLP).

17 Except as may otherwise be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, no tonal reversing alarms shall be used on mobile plant on the site.

Reason: To minimise nuisance to nearby residents by reason of noise (Policy GE18 of the MWLP).

Agenda Item 13 Page 149

18 No plant or machinery equipment shall be used on site unless fitted and operated with noise suppression equipment in accordance with the equipment manufacturer’s specification.

Reason: To minimise nuisance by way of noise (MWLP Policy GE18).

19 No development shall place unless and until a scheme for the control and monitoring of noise has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include procedures to be followed and measures to be undertake n in the event of any complaints about noise and shall also include details of: a) Monitoring location(s) b) Monitoring frequency and duration and the equipment to be used; c) The logging of all weather conditions and on site and off site events occurring during measurements including ‘phased out’ extraneous noise events; d) Timetable for the reporting of results to the Local Planning Authority and; e) Protocol to be followed if any breaches of the prescribed noise limits are found, including provisions fo r noise mitigation measures to be introduced.

Thereafter the scheme as may be approved shall be implemented in full and complied with at all times.

Reason: To enable compliance with prescribed noise levels for on-site operations to be adequately monitored and assessed (MWLP Policy GE 18).

20 No burning of any wastes or materials shall take place on site.

Reason: To minimise disturbance to nearby residential properties by reason of smoke and odour (Policy GE 18 of the MWLP).

21 Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls. The volume of the bunded compound shall be at least the equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. All filling points, vents, gauges an d sight glasses shall be located within the bund. The drainage system of the bund shall be sealed with no discharge to any watercourse, land or underground strata. Associated pipe work shall be located above ground and protected from accidental damage. All filling points and tank overflow pip outlets shall be detailed to discharge downwards into the bund.

Reason: To prevent water pollution (Policies GE17 and GE20 of the MWLP).

22 Prior to being discharged into any watercourse, surface water sewer or soak- a-way, all surface water drainage shall be passed though an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity compatible with the site being drained.

Reason: To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to prevent increased risk of pollution to the water environment (Policies GE17 and GE20 of the MWLP).

Agenda Item 13 Page 150

23 Landscaping

No development shall take place unless and until a detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such a scheme shall include:

• A survey to identify existing trees and vegetation to be safeguarded and retained. • A specification detailed the species, size, number and location of all trees, shrubs and hedgerow to be planted. • Planting techniques. • Measures to be und ertaken for protection of planting against weeds and vermin; • Measures to be undertaken to ensure that the planting does not encroach upon the Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) throughout the life of the development.

The approved planting shall be carrie d out in full in the first planting season following approval of the scheme. Thereafter, all plants shall be maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of planting and any failed, damaged or missing plants during this period shall be replaced with o thers of a similar size and species and maintained until satisfactorily established.

Reason: To provide for the satisfactory landscaping of the site (Policies GE9 and GE10 of the MWLP).

[N.B. Where conditions include the phrase "Except as may be/unless otherwise approved in writing by the County Planning Authority.." this is to allow for exemptions to be approved for temporary periods for special circumstances or minor amendments to be made.]

DECISION

......

......