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

please ask for Helen Bell direct line 0300 300 4040 date 24 October 2013

NOTICE OF MEETING

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Date & Time Wednesday, 6 November 2013 10.00 a.m.

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

Richard Carr Chief Executive

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

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

[Named Substitutes:

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

All other Members of the Council - on request

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

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

AGENDA

1. Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence and notification of substitute members

2. Chairman's Announcements

If any

3. Minutes

To approve as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 9 October 2013. (previously circulated)

4. Members' Interests

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

REPORT

Item Subject Page Nos. 5 Planning Enforcement Cases Where Formal Action Has 7 - 12 Been Taken

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

Planning and Related Applications

To consider the planning applications contained in the following schedules:

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

Item Subject Page Nos. 6 Planning Application No. CB/13/02497/FULL 13 - 34

Address : Land at Central Garage, High Street, Cranfield

Erection of 135 dwellings.

Applicant : Bellway Homes Ltd

7 Planning Application No. CB/13/00441/FULL 35 - 60

Address : Land rear of The Wrestlers, 126 Church Street, Langford, Biggleswade SG18 9NX

Erection of 12 dwellings with access, parking, associated landscaping and public open space.

Applicant : Green King PLC

8 Planning Application No. CB/13/3212/FULL 61 - 90

Address : Land to the rear of The Bell Cottages, Studham, Dunstable LU6 2QG

Erection of eight two bedroom dwellings.

Applicant : N V Properties

9 Planning Application No. CB/13/03092/FULL 91 - 104 Address : New Lower School Site, Marston Park Great Linns, Marston Moretaine MK43 0DD

Provision of a second Primary School campus forming the expansion of Church End Foundation Lower School. The second campus is to be developed on land east of Bedford Road, Marston Moretaine, within the Marston Park Development.

Applicant : Willmott Dixon Construction LTD

10 Planning Application No. CB/13/02796/REG 105 - 120 Address : Land adjacent to 94 Ampthill Road, Flitwick

Flitwick Football Centre – Proposals comprise multiple facilities including: community room, kitchen, small office/reception, toilet facilities and 4 changing rooms. Forming new entrance off Ampthill Road with 33 car parking spaces, with 2 mini buses spaces and 2 disabled parking bays. The erection of a 3m high acoustic fence adjacent to the southern boundary and erection of a 6m high ‘ball stop’ netting barrier to the northern boundary adjacent to the A507 road.

Applicant : Facilities & Projects Manager, CBC

11 Planning Application No. CB/13/03248/FULL 121 - 132 Address : Cherry Tree Cottage, 108 West End, Haynes, Bedford MK45 3QU

Demolition of existing garage & single storey kitchen & bathroom. Erection of two storey extension with solar panels and glazed lobby link. Erection of detached garage, new fencing and re siting of oil tank.

Applicant : Mr M Bacon

12 Planning Application No. CB/13/03250/LB 133 - 140 Address : Cherry Tree Cottage, 108 West End, Haynes, Bedford MK45 3QU

Listed Building: Demolition of existing garage & single storey kitchen & bathroom. Erection of two storey extension with solar panels and glazed lobby link. Erection of detached garage, new fencing and re siting of oil tank.

Applicant : Mr M Bacon

13 Planning Application No. CB/13/02492/FULL 141 - 148 Address : 18 Mill Road, Cranfield, Bedford MK43 0JL

Change of use of double garage into 2 bedroom annexe.

Applicant : Mr L Atwill

14 Planning Application No. CB/13/03341/FULL 149 - 160 Address : 145 Tithe Farm Road, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5JD

Construction of new shop for hot food take away (A5).

Applicant : Mr Singh

15 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 4 December 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: 6th November 2013 Subject: Planning Enforcement cases where formal action has been taken

Report of: Director of Sustainable Communities

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

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

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

CORPORATE IMPLICATIONS Council Priorities:

This is a report for noting ongoing planning enforcement action.

Financial: 1. None Legal: 2. None .

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

Sustainability: 8. Not Applicable.

Procurement: 9. Not applicable.

RECOMMENDATION(S):

The Committee is asked to:

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

2.

Background

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

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

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

Appendices:

Appendix A – Planning Enforcement Formal Action Spreadsheet

Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 6th November 2013) NEW ENFORCEMENT DATE EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE LOCATION BREACH APPEAL COMPLIANCE RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. ISSUED DATE DATE DATE CB/ENC/10/0037 Land at 6 Sutton Road, Enforcement Notice - siting of 31-Aug-12 01-Oct-12 01-Dec-12 Not complied Legal letters sent, mobile home Potton, SG19 2DS mobile home for independent to be removed by 21/11/13. 1 residential accommodation

CB/ENC/10/0140 Land at 6 The Belfry, Luton. Enforcement Notices - 13-Sep-12 11-Oct-12 08-Nov-12 Appeal Await outcome of appeal LU2 7GA change of use of land from submitted 2 amenity land to use as 27/9/12 garden. CB/ENC/10/0172 Land at 10-12 High Street, Enforcement Notice - 19-Jun-13 19-Jul-13 19-Aug-13 Works have commenced on Shefford. SG17 5DG construction of an approved brick extension 3 unauthorised wooden 6/9/13. Compliance being extension monitored. CB/ENC/10/0440 Land at Foxbury Stables, Enforcement notice, change 21-Mar-13 18-Apr-13 18-Jan-14 Appeal Await outcome of appeal, Woodside Road, Woodside, of use to mixed use for submitted appeal site visit 14/10/13 4 Luton. LU1 4DQ keeping horses and for 17/4/13 residential purposes.

CB/ENC/10/0659 Land at 106 Bury Road, Enforcement Notice - change 25-Jun-13 25-Jul-13 25-Aug-13 Appeal Await outcome of appeal Shillington, Hitchin SG5 3NZ of use of garage and rear submitted 5 conservatory to a self 11/7/13 contained dwelling unit.

CB/ENC/11/0267 Land at White Gables Farm, 3 Enforcement Notices - 29-Apr-13 29-May-13 29-Jun-13 Appeals Await outcome of appeals - Blunham Road,Charlton, 1. Canopy/ loading bay submitted Inquiry 30/10/13 Moggerhanger MK44 3RA extension & lighting to grain 28/5/13 6 store building 2. Use of land for storage/parking of haulage vehicles

CB/ENC/11/0402 Land adjoining Greenacres, 2 Enforcement Notices 15-Oct-12 12-Nov-12 10-Dec-12 Not complied Further action subject to Legal Gypsy Lane, Little Billington, 1 - unauthorised 7 Leighton Buzzard. LU7 9BP encroachment onto field 2 - unauthorised hard standing, fence and buildings

CB/ENC/11/0499 Land at Erin House, 171 Enforcement Notice - 03-Sep-13 01-Oct-13 01-Dec-13 Appeal Await outcome of appeal Dunstable Road, Caddington, unauthorised erection of a received Agenda Item5 8 Luton. LU1 4AN double garage. 1/10/13

CB/ENC/11/0501 Land at 57 Houghton Road, Enforcement Notice - 04-Sep-13 05-Oct-13 05-Dec-13 Check compliance 5/12/13 9 Dunstable, LU5 5 AB construction of an aviary on the land. CB/ENC/11/0627 Land at Road Farm, How Enforcement Notice - change 06-Sep-13 06-Oct-13 06-Dec-13 Appeal Await outcome of appeal

End, Houghton Conquest. of use of the land for the received Page 9 10 MK45 3JS storage of of building 27/9/13 materials.

NOT PROTECTED - general data Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 6th November 2013) NEW ENFORCEMENT DATE EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE LOCATION BREACH APPEAL COMPLIANCE RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. ISSUED DATE DATE DATE CB/ENC/12/0098 Land at 26-28 Station Road, S215 Notice - Untidy land 15-May-13 15-May-13 12-Jun-13 Not complied Evidence to Legal 29/8/13 11 Arlesey storage of motor vehicles

CB/ENC/12/0134 Land at 8 - 14 Winfield Enforcement Notice - Breach 27-Aug-13 27-Sep-13 27-Oct-13 Appeal Await outcome of appeal Street, Dunstable. LU6 1LS of Condition 5 planning received 12 permission SB/TP/07/0699 for 23/9/13 erection of seven dwellings

CB/ENC/12/0142 62 Bury Hill, Potton, SG19 S215 Notice - Untidy land 26-Jul-13 26-Jul-13 26-Aug-13 Partial compliance Land in process of being tidied, 13 2RZ continue to monitor compliance

CB/ENC/12/0199 Plots 1 & 2 The Stables, Breach of Condition Notice 15-Oct-12 15-Oct-12 12-Nov-12 Occupied temporarily, await Gypsy Lane, Little Billington, Condition 3 SB/TP/04/1372 outcome of appeal for 14 Leighton Buzzard LU7 9BP named occupants Kingswood Nursery

CB/ENC/12/0330 Land to rear of The Farmers Enforcement Notice - raising 08-Aug-12 10-Sep-12 10-Nov-12 Appeal 19-Sep-13 Not complied Appeal dismissed, not Boy PH, 216 Common Road, and levelling of the land by dismissed complied, further action to be 15 Kensworth, Dunstable LU6 the importation of waste 19/7/13 taken 2PJ material

CB/ENC/12/0504 Land adj to Mileway House, Enforcement Notice - use of 03-May-13 03-Jun-13 03-Sep-13 Not complied Not complied, further action to Eastern Way, Heath and land for siting of storage be taken 16 Reach containers

CB/ENC/12/0521 Land at Random, Private Enforcement Notice - erection 16-Aug-13 16-Sep-13 16-Nov-13 Check compliance 16/11/13 Road, Barton Le Clay, of a dwelling. 17 Bedford MK45 4LE

CB/ENC/12/0597 Land at 290 West Street, Enforcement Notice - 04-Sep-13 05-Oct-13 05-Nov-13 Check compliance 5/11/13 Dunstable. LU6 1PA construction of a first floor 18 level terrace.

CB/ENC/12/0633 Land at Plot 2, Greenacres, Enforcement Notice - 17-Jan-13 14-Feb-13 14-Mar-13 Further action to be taken Gypsy Lane, Little Billington, construction of timber building subject to Legal. 19 Leighton Buzzzard. LU7 9BP and the laying of hard standing. Agenda Item5

CB/ENC/12/0635 Land at 12 Camberton Road, Enforcement Notice - change 11-Sep-13 11-Oct-13 11-Nov-13 Check compliance 11/11/13, 20 Linslade, Leighton Buzzard of use of amenity land to 11-Dec-13 and 11/12/13 LU7 2UP residential garden. Page 10

NOT PROTECTED - general data Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 6th November 2013) NEW ENFORCEMENT DATE EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE LOCATION BREACH APPEAL COMPLIANCE RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. ISSUED DATE DATE DATE CB/ENC/12/0641 Land at Motorcycle Track Breach of Condition Notice, 02-Jan-13 02-Jan-13 30-Jan-12 N/A Not complied Evidence to Legal 16/10/13 South of Billington Road, Condition 3 planning October 2013 Stanbridge. permission SB/TP/95/0176. 21 Training and practice taking place outside 1st April to 30th September

CB/ENC/12/0647 Land at 6 Lake Street, S215 Notice - figure on Listed 19-Sep-13 19-Oct-13 19-Nov-13 Check compliance 19/11/13 22 Leighton Buzzard. LU7 1RT Building

CB/ENC/13/0011 8 High Street, Biggleswade, Unauthorised advertisement Prosecution request to legal 23 SG18 0JL in Conservation Area 14/8/13

CB/ENC/13/0083 Land Adjacent to Magpie Enforcement Notice - failure 27-Jun-13 27-Jul-13 27-Aug-13 Appeal Await outcome of appeal Farm, Hill Lane, Upper to comply with Condition 5 submitted 24 Cladecote planning permission 26/7/13 MB/08/02009/FULL for gypsy/traveller site

CB/ENC/13/0236 Land at Flitwick Mill House, Enforcement Notice - erection 04-Sep-13 05-Oct-13 05-Dec-13 Check compliance 5/12/13 Greenfield Road, Flitwick. of timber summer house, and 25 MK45 5BE timber fencing.

CB/ENC/13/0273 Land to rear and adjacent to Enforcement Notice - change 12-Sep-13 10-Oct-13 10-Nov-13 Check compliance 10/11/13. Harling House, Harling Road, of use of land to use for a car Planning application received - 26 Eaton Bray, Dunstable. LU6 sales business and for siting CB/13/03222/FULL. 1QY of caravans in connection with car sales business.

CB/ENC/13/0276 Land at Motorcycle Track Breach of Condition 4 12-Sep-13 10-Oct-13 10-Oct-13 Planning application south of Billington Road, operating hours CB/13/02819/VOC to vary 27 Stanbridge. conditions. Await outcome of application.

CB/ENC/13/0367 Land at and adjoining Speed Enforcement Notice - change 04-Sep-13 05-Oct-13 05-Dec-13 Check compliance 5/12/13 The Plough, Barton Road, of use of the land for parking, 28 Pulloxhill, sale and storage of motor

vehicles. Agenda Item5 CB/ENC/13/0367 Land at and adjoining Speed Enforcement Notice - erection 04-Sep-13 05-Oct-13 05-Nov-13 Check compliance 5/11/13 The Plough, Barton Road, of fence. 29 Pulloxhill,

CB/ENC/13/0465 1 Cricketers Road, Arlesey, S215 Notice - untidy land 21-Oct-13 21-Oct-13 11-Nov-13 Check compliance 11/11/13, Page 11 30 SG15 6SP and 11/12/13

NOT PROTECTED - general data Planning Enforcement formal action (DM Committee 6th November 2013) NEW ENFORCEMENT DATE EFFECTIVE COMPLIANCE LOCATION BREACH APPEAL COMPLIANCE RESULT NOTES/FURTHER ACTION CASE NO. ISSUED DATE DATE DATE CB/ENC/13/0492 Land at Long Lake Meadow, Temporary Stop Notice - 09-Oct-13 09-Oct-13 05-Nov-13 Further action to be taken High Road, Seddington, Unauthorised siting of subject to Legal. 31 Sandy. SG19 1NU caravans Agenda Item5 Page 12

NOT PROTECTED - general data Agenda Item 6 Page 13

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No. W E Date: 23:October:2013 CB/13/02497/FULL

MapGrid Sheet Ref: No 495341, 242841 S

Scale: 1:5000 Land at Central Garage, High Street, Cranfield, Beds Page 14

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Page 15 Item No. 6

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/02497/FULL LOCATION Land At Central Garage, High Street, Cranfield PROPOSAL Erection of 135 dwellings. PARISH Cranfield WARD Cranfield & Marston Moretaine WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Bastable, Matthews & Mrs Clark CASE OFFICER Annabel Gammell DATE REGISTERED 25 July 2013 EXPIRY DATE 24 October 2013 APPLICANT Bellway Homes Ltd (Northern Home Counties) AGENT DLA Planning Ltd REASON FOR This is a major application with an objection from COMMITTEE TO the Parish Council. DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Granted

Summary of Recommendation:

The site is considered acceptable as it accords with national and local planning policy documents. The site was allocated for residential development within the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies. The design and layout at the site would be good and the amount and quality of play space would be acceptable. No significant harm would be caused to living conditions of ad jacent neighbouring properties. It is considered that a single vehicular access in conjunction with an additional pedestrian access would be an acceptable solution for site access, in addition parking would be provided in accordance with the Council’s stan dards. The development is in accordance with policies HA7, CS2, CS7, DM3, DM4 of Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policy Document, in addition to this it is considered this would result in a sustainable form of development in a ccordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Site Location:

The site comprises an area of some 5.52 ha, and is located to the north/west of Flitt Leys Close in Cranfield. Flitt Leys Close is a relatively modern residential road, accessed off the High Street, it is central to the village of Cranfield. The site is currently comprised of three agricultural fields; there is an existing hedgerow along the southern boundary with the properties on the High Street.

To the North of the site are agric ultural fields and Cranfield Airport. To the East is open countryside. To the South are properties on Flitt Leys Close, and High Street and properties on Lincroft are to the West of the site.

Vehicular access is taken from Flitt Leys Close which is a resi dential road comprised of 23 residential dwellings. Situated off the initial access to the road there is a small close comprising 2 take-aways, a restaurant and a business. The Agenda Item 6 dwellings on Flitt Leys Close were consented under planning application referen cesPage 16 MB/04/02359/OUT and MB/08/01369/RM (22.10.08), and constructed in 2010. The access to this development was reserved by the development Central Motors Bloor Homes, as additional housing was allocated within the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Site Allocation Document.

The site has pedestrian access from the High Street, as Footpath 22 crosses the site. The site is centrally located within the village, within half a mile of most of the village amenities such as Cranfield L ower School, Holywell Middle School, Cross Keys Public House, Budgens and the Parish Church.

The Application:

Planning permission is sought for the erection of 135 dwellings made up of the following:

• Market Housing (94 units)

29 x 3-bedroom houses 65 x 4-bedroom houses

• Affordable housing (41 units) (30%)

12 x 2-bedroom flats 12 x 2-bedroom houses 17 x 3-bedroom houses

• 2 Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) and 1 Local Area of Play (LAP)

Relevant Policies:

National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Local Policy

Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009)

CS2 Developer Contributions CS3 Healthy and Sustainable Communities CS4 Linking Communities – Accessibility and Transport CS5 Providing Homes CS7 Affordable Housing CS9 Providing Jobs CS13 Climate Change CS14 High Quality Development CS17 Green Infrastructure DM1 Renewable Energy DM2 Sustainable Construction of New Buildings DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes DM9 Providing a Range of Transport Agenda Item 6 DM10 Housing Mix Page 17 DM14 Landscape and Woodland DM15 Biodiversity DM17 Accessible Green spaces

Site Allocations (North) Development Plan Document (2011)

Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2009)

Design in Central Bedfordshire (a guide for development) (2010)

Appendix F (Parking Strategy) Central Bedfordshire Transport Plan (2012)

Relevant Planning History:

CB/13/02018/SCN - EIA - Screening Opinion: To assess the need for an EIA for a residential development of 135 dwellings. - 27.06.13 - No EIA required.

Consultation responses:

Neighbours were written to and press and site notices were published. The responses are summarised below:

Cranfield PC Cranfield Parish Council is not opposed to housing (at Central Motors) per se, but to the inadequate access from the High Street and it is believed the proposal is storing up problems by using an existing road which is already under pressure.

In addition Cranfield Parish Council is opposed to the application for the following reasons:

a) Adverse impact on existing Flitt Leys Close residents of 135 homes on top of the planned school and health centre and existing hot food takeaways. b) There has been no progress on a CBC pledge to tackle existing traffic congestion in Flitt Leys Close. c) The proposal inaccurately refers to Flitt Leys Close providing “adequate access", it claims without justification that bus services are adequate and it says CBC will encourage future residents to walk, cycle and car share. The Parish Council believes this last aspiration is "highly unlikely". d) Poor information - The planning documents refer to the health centre both being "lapsed" and going ahead e) The only alternative access to Flitt Leys Close is by public footpath f) There will be added pressure on parking from the health centre as most health centre parking places will be taken up by staff. g) There is inadequate parking per house because of the optimistic assumption that garages will be used for parking. h) There is no evidence for how a school bus will access the school Agenda Item 6 or alternatively drop children off safely without entering the access.Page 18 i) Concerns about access for fire service vehicles. j) Designated play areas have not been concentrated as requested. k) The proposed 'swale' or balancing lake provides no information for its maintenance or safety.

Neighbours 27 letters of objection and a petition containing 45 signatures have been received, commenting as follows:

• Traffic and Access Arrangements • The site is too close to the airport • Landscaping proposals are not acceptable • The location of a school is inappropriate • Concerns the development would lead to flooding • Impact on local sewerage • The principle of housing is unacceptable/ Not a sustainable location for new housing • The open space provision is poor • Impact upon infrastructure (gas, electricity, water) • Unacceptable Layout/Density • Not enough school places in Cranfield to accommodate additional children • The S106 should gift the school land, and remain in perpetuity • Impact upon Privacy/Overlooking • Poor community involvement • Noise during construction • There is brownfield land elsewhere • The affordable housing does not appear integrated • Impact upon habitat • The location of the take-aways • Cranfield can not take any more houses • Loss of farmland • Objection to the health centre • There is a lack of bungalows on site

The Council consulted again once amended plans were received and received two objections raising concerns as listed above.

It is anticipated that Cranfield Parish Council may wish to respond to the amended plans, if so its comments will be presented in the Late Sheet.

Consultee responses:

Sustainable Transport No objection

Waste The applicant will need to provide the following to the Council:

Agenda Item 6 • Detailed bin storage locations for each dwelling, witPageh 19 specific designs for any proposed communal dwellings. All individual dwelling storage locations must be at the rear of the property and all communal dwellings storage location must be within 10 metres of the highway • Detailed bin collection points • Confirm the ability that all dwellings are able to return their bins after collection to the storage area without having to pass through the dwelling. • Provide a tracking plan of the site to ensure our collection vehicles are able to access the site safely. Details are available on request on the specification of our vehicles. Play Officer No objection

Housing Development No objection Officer

Highways I acknowledge and am mindful of the local concerns surrounding the use of Flitt Leys Close as the sole means of vehicle access to this site and in particular the use of adjacent land for the provision of a lower school. Nevertheless I can confirm that there is no fundamental highway reason that would justify objecting to the current proposal for just residential development. The existing carriageway width at 5.5m is compliant with the CBC Design Guidance for a development of up to 300 dwellings. Indeed at the time of the original development of Flitt Leys Close, on land then occupied by Central Motors, sufficient land was identified and reserved to enable access to further development of the land now being pursued.

I am also conscious of the concerns regarding existing parking and congestion problems in the vicinity of the junction of FLC with High Street caused by customers using the nearby commercial enterprises. The highways authority are considering proposals to overcome the issues. These proposals do not have a significant bearing on the acceptability or otherwise of the application as submitted.

Internal Drainage Board No objection

Archaeology No objection recommends condition

Environment Agency Have objected and requested more information. It is considered that this objection is likely to be resolved pending further information, and subject to planning conditions. This will be updated on the late sheet.

Public Protection No objection recommends conditions Agenda Item 6 Page 20 Trees and landscaping No objections recommends conditions

There is supplied with the application a comprehensive landscaping plan which has a good variety of suitable planting throughout.

Planting has been concentrated on the plot fronts with generally low growing species which should cause no issues as regards obstructing windows etc and as such are likely to be retained by owners in the future.

Tree choice throughout the site with regards to street tree and amenity planting areas would seem to be perfectly acceptable and more imaginative than many applications whilst not being over ambitious.

Ecology No objection

Urban Design Suggested amendments on the first consultation. No Consultant comments received regarding the amendments. This will be updated on the late sheet.

Anglian Water Recommended a condition regarding a foul water strategy.

Determining Issues:

The considerations in the determination of this application are:

1. The principle of the development 2. Layout and appearance 3. Impact upon existing neighbours and future living conditions 4. Traffic and parking 5. Drainage, flooding and sustainability 6. Other considerations 7. s106 and affordable housing 8. Conclusions

Considerations:

1. Principle of the development

This is part of a larger site (5.52ha rather than 7ha) allocated by Policy HA7 (land at Central Garages, Cranfield) of the Site Allocations Development Plan Document which states:

Land at the rear of Central Garage, Cranfield, as identified on the Proposals Map, is allocated for residential development providing not more than 135 dwellings and the provision of a new Lower School, should that be required.

In addition to general policy requirements in the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD and appropriate contributions to infrastructure Agenda Item 6 provision in the Planning Obligations SPD, development on this site will bePage 21 subject to the following:

J Production of a Development Brief to guide development;

J Preparation of a Transport Assessment to help identify the impact of the development on the highway network and mitigate against impacts on junctions within Cranfield;

J Provision of adequate access to the site;

J Provision of satisfactory buffer landscaping to minimise the impact of development on the open countryside;

J Provision of green space in order to protect the biodiversity of the site; and

J Provision of a cycleway providing a link to Bridleway 22 north of the development site.

The application site does not include the area which would be for the Lower School (as allocated).

Prior to the planning application being submitted on the 18 th March 2013 Central Bedfordshire Council Executive adopted a Development Brief, in accordance with the policy. It is considered that this planning application has been submitted in accordance with the adopted brief.

The application is for the housing portion of the allocation, rather than the whole site, however this is considered an acceptable approach, as should a Lower School be required, a separate planning application would be needed. The land adjacent to the housing site, within the allocation would be subject to legal agreement to ensure it was available, should it be required.

2. Layout and appearance

Layout

The general layout is considered acceptable; the site is a relatively low density (25dph), with clear street hierarchy. The site has been designed with a main vehicular spine, with a feature square in the centre, which would be bisected by the shared surface, and green route through the site, linking the FP22 between the High Street and the route to the University.

A number of comments have been received that the density, and positioning of the dwellings is not appropriate for Cranfield, or a village setting, however it is considered that in order to comply with the policy requirements, and to use the land efficiently, this spine road approach with various smaller culs-de-sac off shoots is acceptable.

The majority of the site includes on plot detached garages, although this does give the appearance of a higher density than the dwelling density is, it is considered that the garages are required to comply with parking standards, and they also give additional storage and flexibility for future residents. Although Agenda Item 6 there are a relatively high number of garages on this site, they are predominantlyPage 22 set back, to allow parking in front of them. It is considered that they would not appear prominent within the street scene.

Rear gardens would meet the Council’s standards in terms of size and layout. All rear gardens would be approximately 10m deep, and no private garden would be less than 50sqm. Larger houses would mostly be served by larger gardens, approximately 100sqm. The layout complies with the 21 metre back to back privacy distance guidance standard.

Design

The Design and Access Statement explains the approach that has been taken in the design of the proposed buildings. The village of Cranfield, has a mixture of architectural styles, it is a linear development comprised largely of brick built two storey properties. Some of the most attractive properties within this locality are simple cottage styles, largely red brick and white render; simple chimney pots are relatively common.

It is considered that the design approach taken would be acceptable, the dwellings are between 7-8 metres in height, which is typical of local housing styles; the proposed material pallet includes rendered properties, which is also considered locally appropriate. It is considered that the housing design would be largely symmetrical which should result in visually pleasing street scenes.

3. Impact upon existing neighbours and future living conditions

The site is to the north of High Street and Flitt Leys Close, and to the east of properties on Lincroft.

Typical back to back distances across the site are in excess of the 21 metre guidance standard. Examples of distances between the proposed dwellings and the existing dwellings are as follows:

22 Lincroft to plots 58-65 – 21 metres 161 High Street to plot 38 – 34 metres 169 High Street to plot 26 – 38 metres 179a High Street to plot 22 – 31 metres 11 Flitt Leys Close to plot 22 – 23 metres 15 Flitt Leys Close to plot 21 – 21 metres 21 Flitt Leys Close to plot 17 – 21.5 metres

All the proposed properties are two stories, typical of Cranfield. It is considered that the distances between properties would be sufficient to ensure no undue harm to residential amenity. It is accepted that the backs of the properties on the High Street are largely open, and therefore this development may appear more intrusive than if those properties were currently enclosed, however it is considered that the rear gardens of these properties are relatively large, and a significant level of buffer planting and landscaping is proposed on this boundary. The relationship between existing properties and the new development is considered acceptable.

Overall it is considered that the development has been well designed to respond Agenda Item 6 to adjoining buildings and no significant harm would be caused to livingPage 23 conditions at neighbouring properties.

27 letters of objection/concern were received:

• Traffic and Access Arrangements

Please see Highway and parking section of this report.

• The site is too close to the airport

The runway associated with Cranfield Airport is to the rear of the site, it is considered that the proposed development would have a similar relationship to the properties on Lincroft, Merchant Lane, Townsend Close and the southern portion of the High Street. A Noise assessment has been submitted as part of this development and the public protection officer is content that the amenities of the residential properties could be safeguarded with the imposition of a suitable condition.

• Landscaping proposals are not acceptable

The landscaping was subject to change for the 2 nd consultation, this increased the planting on the southern edge between the properties on the High Street. It is considered that the landscaping proposals are acceptable for the location.

• The location of a school is inappropriate

This application is for 135 houses, as per the site allocation document, the legal agreement reserves the council the ability to construct a Lower School, should that be required. The school does not form part of this application and would be subject to a further planning application should it be required. However the principle of a school in this location was established by the site allocation document and the adopted Development Brief for the site. It is considered with the access from Flitt Leys Close that the land reserved for a school would be an appropriate location on this site.

• Concerns the development would lead to flooding

A flood risk assessment has been prepared, which the Environment Agency is currently considering. This matter will be updated on the late sheet.

• Impact on local sewerage

It is considered that suitable drainage solutions would be managed at the Building Control stage. In addition to this Anglian Water have commented on the application stating that foul drainage is in the catchment of Marston Moretaine Sewage Treatment Works, they specify that at present this has available capacity for the proposed flows.

• The principle of housing is unacceptable/ Not a sustainable location for new housing

Agenda Item 6 The principle of housing on this site was considered and set out in the Site Page 24 Allocation DPD and the adopted Development Brief. The site is considered a sustainable appropriate location for new housing, due to the location central within the village.

• The open space provision is poor

The open space provision on the site has been designed in consultation with the Council Play and Open Space officer; In this case it is considered an appropriate approach to split the provision into 3 smaller play areas, as this gives greater access opportunity for children to use the areas.

• Impact upon infrastructure (gas, electricity, water)

The developer would need to ensure that suitable infrastructure was in place prior to the occupation of the dwellings.

• Unacceptable Layout/Density

Although the council does not have any formally adopted density requirements, the design guide does suggest that within a village the density should be around the 30dph, this site (excluding the land which would be reserved for a lower school) would have a density of 25dph. It is considered that the density is acceptable, and in terms of the layout, a series of culs-du-sac off a spine road, would result in a good hierarchy of streets.

• Not enough school places in Cranfield to accommodate additional children

Subject to an appropriate Section 106 agreement suitable provision would be made to education for additional school places in relation to 135 dwelling houses.

• The S106 should gift the school land, and remain in perpetuity

It is considered that to have an option on the land to construct a school should it be required within the plan period should be sufficient to ensure should there be a need for a new lower school within Cranfield that one could be constructed on the site.

• Impact upon Privacy/Overlooking

Please see the Neighbouring comments section of this report.

• Poor community involvement

Prior to the submission of the planning application: The applicant presented the Development brief to the Parish Council meeting. The applicant had an evening exhibition for the development brief at Holywell School. The boards were then displayed in Budgens for two weeks. Agenda Item 6 The applicant placed development briefs at the doctors surgery, and local co-op.Page 25 After the planning application was submitted, two formal consultation processes have been undertaken. This involved extensive consultation by letter, site notice and a press notice. It is considered that the development has been the subject of a full and proper consultation process, which has included community involvement.

• Noise during construction

It is accepted that with any development within the construction period there will be localised disturbance. Conditions can be used to manage hours of construction to try to minimise the impact upon adjacent properties.

• There is brownfield land elsewhere

Although there may be brownfield land elsewhere, that does not have a bearing on this allocated site. This allocation forms part of the Councils Strategy for necessary housing provision.

• The affordable housing does not appear integrated

Although it might be ideal in integration terms to have the dwellings “pepper potted” at random throughout the site, this is not practical from a management point of view. The need for affordable housing within Cranfield has been established for 2 and 3 bedroom properties, which is the proposed provision. It is considered that the clusters, with the largest cluster (cluster 2) being 14 houses, would be acceptable.

• Impact upon habitat

An ecology report was submitted as part of the development. The land is largely farm land with some hedgerow. It is acknowledged that there will be disturbance to the site, from the development, however it is considered that the impacts would not be so severe as to restrict the granting of planning permission in this location. The land is not of any specific designation, the site was screened as EIA development. It was confirmed that the development did not require an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken.

• The location of the take-aways

At the access to Flitt Leys Close, there are two take aways and a restaurant. These businesses have been there since the construction of Flitt Leys Close, and form a small cul-du-sac, which has a limited parking provision. It is noted that at times in conjunction with the use of these businesses clients park on Flitt Leys Close, and this has caused conflict with existing residents. It is acknowledged that the existing issue has been raised with the Council, who are trying to address the existing issue. The Highways Officer has confirmed that the road Flitt Leys Close was designed to a standard which would be suitable to exceed the level of dwellings proposed.

• Cranfield can not take any more houses Agenda Item 6 Page 26 Cranfield is designated within the Core Strategy and Development Management Policy Document and the emerging Development Strategy as a Minor Service Centre. Minor Service Centres are considered to have suitable infrastructure for additional housing, in suitable locations. It is judged that Cranfield is a sustainable location for new residential development, with the level of local services, which include Lower/Middle Schools, Co-op, Budgens, Public Houses, restaurants and take aways.

• Loss of farmland

The use of this farmland has been established for housing, it is considered it is an acceptable location for new housing, and would not detrimentally impact upon the farm land supply within Cranfield.

• Objection to the health centre

No health centre is proposed as part of this development.

• There is a lack of bungalows on site

Although bungalows maybe desirable, there is no policy reason to a refuse a planning application because there are no bungalows on the site and no requirement for the developer to provide them.

4. Traffic and parking

Works to the highway and access arrangements

The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment that sets out the likely impact that the development would have on the local highways network. The Transport Assessment concludes that the development would be acceptable in terms of impact upon the public highway.

The highways officer has confirmed that in terms of housing the 5.5 metre wide carriageway of Flitt Leys Close is suitable for the additional 135 dwellings as proposed. This road width is identified within the Central Bedfordshire Highway Design Guidance as suitable for up to 300 dwellings. With the existing 23 dwellings on Flitt Leys Close and the proposed 135, the total number remains significantly lower than the capacity level.

The takeaways are an existing development, which require a separate solution, to ensure the clients and staff do not cause a danger to users of the public highway. The works to the highway, caused by the need relating to the existing businesses can not be conditioned or required by this development, however the issue is acknowledged, and the highways authority is considering measures to control inconvenient and obstructive parking.

Parking at the site

Parking at the site would be provided in line with the Council’s current parking standards. In addition to parking spaces that meet the standards, the market rate units would be provided with garages. The garages meet the Council's Agenda Item 6 recent standards (3.2 x 7m internally). Page 27

5. Drainage, flooding, and sustainability

The applicants have submitted a Flood Risk Assessment. Concerns have been raised by the Environment Agency regarding drainage on the site. They have objected and requested additional information, from the applicant. This issue will be updated on the late sheet, and the recommendation to grant is subject to a satisfactory resolution with the Environment Agency. It is noted that the objection is not a principle issue with the development of this site, but with the additional information required.

Swale:

A swale is proposed on the north western side of the site, this is envisaged to be largely dry, and landscaped as part of the landscape master plan. The swale would be part of the on site drainage scheme. The management of the swale and the other open space throughout the site would be subject to a management plan to be submitted as part of the Section 106.

6. Other considerations

Ecology

The Council’s Ecologist is concerned that the loss of existing trees and hedges however is satisfied that no protected species will suffer harm as a result on the proposals.

Trees

It is considered that the proposed landscape proposals are good, although some hedgerows would be removed; it is judged that a suitable provision would be planted.

Rights of Way

An existing footpath (FP22) is currently in place across this site, it is considered that these proposals would ensure that the route is dedicated and accessible. It is considered that the route would encourage sustainable travel to the centre of the village. No changes are proposed to the off site link between the site and the High Street. It is also considered that the main access via Flitt Leys Close, is also a suitable route for pedestrians, with pavements on both sides.

Human Rights Issues

The proposal would raise no known Human Rights Issues.

Equality Act 2010

The proposal would raise no known issues under the Equality Act.

Agenda Item 6 Page 28 7. s106 and affordable housing

30% (41 units) of the dwelling on site would be affordable and they would be a mix of two and three bedroom units. Whilst lower than the Council’s policy suggests (47 units would be provided if 35% was proposed) that the provision should be, it is considered that 30% is in accordance with Policy 34 of the emerging Development Strategy. The tenure mix as proposed is:

56% Shared Ownership 44% Affordable Rent

Contributions would be made to mitigate the impact of the development on existing local infrastructure in line with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance. The financial contributions towards the following are currently proposed:

Education Sustainable Transport Leisure, Recreational Open Space Community Facilities and Services

1.45 Hectares of land adjacent to the application site, for the provision of a Lower School within the next 10 years, should that be required.

There is not currently a signed Section 106, and the final figures have not been agreed, however all contributions have been tested against CIL regulations. Any update on this matter shall be made on the late sheet.

8. Conclusions

The principle of residential development at this site is established as acceptable by the site allocation policy and the adopted Development Brief. The site is not the complete allocation but it is considered that the application meets the requirement for housing in this location, and within the Section 106 the land for a school should that be required will be made available, which would be the complete allocation. The design and layout at the site would be good and the amount and quality of play space would be acceptable. No significant harm would be caused to living conditions of adjacent neighbouring properties. It is considered that a single vehicular access in conjunction with an additional pedestrian access would be an acceptable solution for site access, in addition parking would be provided in accordance with the Council’s standards. There would be no other planning impacts and the impact of the development on existing local infrastructure would be properly mitigated. Affordable Housing would be provided at an acceptable level.

Recommendation:

That Planning Permission is granted subject to the Environment Agency removing their objection to the development, the satisfactory completion of a suitable Section 106 agreement reflecting the terms set out in this report and the following conditions:

Agenda Item 6 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS Page 29

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 No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological investigation; that adopts a staged approach and includes post excavation analysis and publication, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The said development shall only be implemented in full accordance with the approved archaeological scheme. Reason: To record and advance understanding of the heritage assets with archaeological interest which will be unavoidably affected as a consequence of the development.

3 No develop ment shall commence at the site before details of existing and proposed site and slab levels and proposed cross sections through houses that border the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To protect living conditions of at neighbouring and proposed properties.

4 No development shall commence at the site before details and samples of materials to be used in the construction of the dwelling houses, ga rages and external surfaces of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out as approved.

Reason: To ensure that the appearance of the site would be acceptable.

5 Landscapin g shall be in accordance with approved plans 5268/PP1 B, 5268/PP2 B, 5268/PP3 B, 5268/PP4 B, 5268/PP5 B5268/PP6 B, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance at the site.

6 The planting and landscaping scheme shown on approved Drawings 5268/PP1 B, 5268/PP2 B, 5268/PP3 B, 5268/PP4 B, 5268/PP5 B5268/PP6 B shall be implemented by the end of the full planting season immediately following the completion and/or first use of any separate part of the development (a full planting season shall mean the period from October to March). The trees, shrubs and grass shall subsequently be maintained for a period of five years from the date of planting and any which die or are destroyed during this period shall be replaced during the next planting Agenda Item 6 season with others of a similar size and species. Page 30

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

7 Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development shall commence at the site before details of the proposed play area at the site including the proposed equipment, layout and materials to be used together with a timetable for implementation, and details of future management has been submitted to and approved in writing b y the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out as approved in accordance with the approved timetable.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for play at the site.

8 No development shall commence at the site before a cons truction and environmental management plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which shall detail methods that all developers, contractors and subcontractors will employ and shall include:

••• Details of traffic route s and points of access and egress to be used for the construction process, ••• Measures of controlling dust created by the development ••• Measures to be used to reduce the impact of noise arising from the noise generating activities on site in accordance with bes t practice set out in BS:5228:1997 ‘Noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. ••• The sighting and appearance of the works compounds ••• Wheel cleaning facilities for construction traffic. ••• The hours of work

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

Reason: to safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers, to protect the surrounding countryside, and prevent the deposit of materials on the highway.

9 No development shall commence on site until a Public Art str ategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings the Public Art thereby approved shall be constructed in accordance with approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of public art for the site which would relate to the dwellings, to better integrate the dwellings and public open space into the wider development of Cranfield.

10 No development approved by this permission shall take place until the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: a) A Phase 1 Desk Study incorporating a site walkover, site history, Agenda Item 6 maps and all further features of industry best practice relating to Page 31 potential contamination. b) Where shown to be necessary by the Phase 1 Desk Study, a Phase 2 Site Investigation report further documenting the ground conditions of the site with regard to potential contamination, incorporating appropriate soils and gas sampling. c) Where shown to be necessary by the Phase 2 Desk Study, a Phase 3 detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be taken to mitigate any risks to human health, groundwater and the wider environment. d) Any works which form part of the Phase 3 scheme approved by the local authority shall be completed in full before any permitted building is occupied. The effectiveness of any scheme shall be demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority by means of a validation report, unless an alternative period is approved in writing by the Authority.

Reason: To protect human health and the environment .

11 No development shall begin on site until, the applicant has submitted in writing for the approval of the Local Planning Authority a scheme of noise attenuation measures which will ensure th at internal noise levels from external air traffic noise sources shall not exceed 35dB LAeq, 07.00-23.00 in any habitable room or 30 dB LAeq, 23.00-07.00 and 45 dB LAmax 23.00-07.00 inside any bedroom and that external noise levels from air traffic noise s ources shall not exceed 55 dB LAeq, (1hr) in outdoor amenity areas. Any works which form part of the scheme approved by the local authority shall be completed and the effectiveness of the scheme shall be demonstrated through validation noise monitoring, wi th the results reported to the Local Planning Authority in writing, before any permitted dwelling is occupied, unless an alternative period is approved in writing by the authority.

Reason: To protect human health.

12 No development shall commence until the detailed 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 shall be occupied until the section of road whic h provides access has been constructed (apart from final surfacing) in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed roadworks are constructed to an adequate standard.

13 If the proposed road is not constructed to the full length and layout illustrated on the approved plan, a temporary turning space for vehicles shall be constructed within the site in a position to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any building taking access from the road is occupied.

Reason: To avoid the need for vehicles to reverse into or from the highway in the interest of road safety. Agenda Item 6 Page 32 14 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995, or any amendments thereto, the gar age accommodation on the site shall not be used for any purpose, other than as garage accommodation, unless permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose.

Reason: To retain off-street parking provision and thereby minimise the potential for on-street parking which could adversely affect the convenience of road users.

15 No development shall commence until a scheme for the secure and covered parking of cycles on the site (including the internal dimensi ons of the cycle parking area, stands/brackets to be used and access thereto), calculated at one cycle parking space per bedroom and 2 short stay spaces per unit, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme sh all be implemented for each individual dwelling before that dwelling is first occupied 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 i nterests of encouraging the use of sustainable modes of transport.

16 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 12044 (D) 040, 12044 (D) 050 A, 12044 (D) 200 A, 12044 (D) 201 A, 12044 (D) 202 A, 12044 (D) 300, 12044 (D) 301 A, 12044 (D) 302 A, 12044 (D) 303 A, 12044 (D) 304 A, 12044 (D) 310, 12044 (D) 311 A, 12044 (D) 312 A, 2044 (D) 313, 12044 (D) 314, 12044 (D) 315, 12044 (D) 316 A, 12044 (D) 330 A, 120 44 (D) 331 A, 12044 (D) 332 A, 12044 (D) 340, 12044 (D) 341 A, 12044 (D) 350, 12044 (D) 351 A, 12044 (D) 360 A, 12044 (D) 361 A, 12044 (D) 400, 12044 (D) 401 A, 12044 (D) 402 A, 12044 (D) 403 A, 12044 (D) 405 D, 12044 (D) 406 D, 12044 (D) 407 A, 12044 (D) 408, 12044 (D) 410 A, 12044 (D) 411 A, 12044 (D) 412 A, 12044 (D) 413 A, 12044 (D) 415 A, 12044 (D) 416, 12044 (D) 418 A, 12044 (D) 420 A, 12044 (D) 421 B, 12044 (D) 422 C, 12044 (D) 425 B, 12044 (D) 426 B, 12044 (D) 428, 12044 (D) 429 C, 12044 (D) 430 B, 12044 (D) 431 B, 12044 (D) 432 B, 12044 (D) 433 A, 12044 (D) 434 A, 12044 (D) 435 A, 12044 (D) 436 A, 12044 (D) 437 B, 12044 (D) 438 A, 12044 (D) 439 A, 12044 (D) 440 A, 12044 (D) 441 A, 12044 (D) 442 A, 12044 (D) 444, 12044 (D) 445 A, 12044 (D) 446, 12044 (D) 447 A,12044 (D) 450, 12044 (D) 460, 12044 (D) 461 A, 12044 (D) 462 A, 12044 (D) 463 A, 12044 (D) 464 A, 12044 (D) 465, 12044 (D) 466 A, 12044 (D) 470 A,12044 (D) 471 A, 12044 (D) 472 A, 12044 (D) 473 A, 12044 (D) 474 A, 12044 (D) 480 B, 12044 (D) 481 B, 12044 (D) 500, 12044 (D) 501, 12044 (D) 510, 12044 (D) 511, 12044 (D) 512, 12044 (D) 513, 12044 (D) 900 A, 12044 (D) 910 A, 12044 (D) 920 A, 12044 (D) 930 A, 12044 (D) 940 A, 12044 (D) 950, 12044 (D) 951, 12044 (D) 952, 12044 (D) 953, 12044 (D) 954 , 12044 (D) 955, 12044 (D) 956, 12044 (D) 960, 12044 (D) 970, 12044 (D) 971, 12044 (D) 972, 268/ASP1 B, 5268/PP1 B, 5268/PP2 B, 5268/PP3 B, 5268/PP4 B, 5268/PP5 B, 5268/PP6 B. .Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Agenda Item 6 Page 33

Notes to Applicant

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

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

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

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

Page 34

This page is intentionally left blank 1

123 Agenda Item 7 Page 35

Hall 33.1m 125

123a 125a

Path (um) 127

127a Telephone Exchange

104

135 Playground 14 13

1

1

35 9

POUND CLOSE 8 5

GARFIELD

6 55

149

The 41 Wrestlers

(PH)

161 54

Issues B 659

128 49

169 2

1

3

2

2a

7

to The 4

4 Butts

11

to

8

15

14

10

16 17

3

5

2 1 20 1

Plaiters 1a Cottage

32.9m

30 16 1b

CROWN LANE 30d 1c 2

TCB

El Sub Sta

30c 30b

4 PW 32 28

28a

5 32b 30

5a 32c War Meml

32d Club

7 to 9

32 34

11a 38

11e 40

13 N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No. W E Date: 22:October:2013 CB/13/00441/FULL

Map Sheet No S Land rear of The Wrestlers, 126 Church Street, Langford, Scale: 1:2000 Biggleswade SG18 9NX Page 36

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Page 37

Item No. 7

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/00441/FULL LOCATION Land rear of The Wrestlers, 126 Church Street, Langford, Biggleswade, SG18 9NX PROPOSAL Erection of 12 dwellings with access, parking, associated landscaping and public open space PARISH Langford WARD Stotfold & Langford WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Clarke, Saunders & Saunders CASE OFFICER Samantha Boyd DATE REGISTERED 22 February 2013 EXPIRY DATE 24 May 2013 APPLICANT Greene King PLC AGENT Caldecotte Consultants REASON FOR Departure from Policy HA22 of the Site Allocation COMMITTEE TO Development Plan Document DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Approval recommended subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement

Reason for Recommendation

The proposal would not fully comply with the terms of Policy HA22, however it is felt that there would be community benefits from the proposal in terms of the MUGA contribution and the area of land to be transfered as public open space in perpetuity. The applicant has demonstrated that the site cannot meet the terms of the policy and remain a viable scheme. Given the benefits to the community, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable despite the departure from Policy HA22.

The proposal would not have a negative impact on the character of the area or an adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and is acceptable in terms of highway safety therefore by reason of its size, design and location, is in conformity with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Management Policies, November 2009; and The National Planning Policy Framework. It is further in conformity with the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Design in Central Bedfordshire: A Guide for Development, 2010 and the Local Transport Plan: Parking Strategy: Appendix F (2013)

Site Location:

The application site is located to the west of Church Street in Langford on an area of overgrown land to the rear of The Wrestlers Public House and the existing properties in Pound Close. The site adjoins the King George V Play ing Field to the north, the rear gardens of the dwellings in Pound Close to the east and the River Ivel to the west. The south the site partly adjoins the The Wrestlers and its gardens along with an area of overgrown scrub land to the south.

Agenda Item 7 Page 38

There is no existing vehicular access into the site, there is however an informal footpath running through the site from Church Street to the King George V Playing Field. The site itself is overgrown with hedgerows and mature trees along the boundaries.

The surrou nding area is generally residential comprising a mixture of detached, semi-detached and older style terraced housing. Pound Close immediately adjacent to the site comprises a small cul de sac of six large detached modern dwellings.

The site is located p artly outside the settlement envelope however Policy HA22 of the Site Allocations DPD allocates part of the site for housing.

The Application:

Planning permission is sought for the erection of 12 dwellings to be located on the eastern section of the 1 .4ha site and within the 0.59ha of the housing allocation designated by Policy HA22.

The western section of the application will comprise an area of public open space which will be secured as part of this planning application. Of the 12 dwellings six would be located on the area of land adjacent to the Wrestlers Public House and the remaining six located to the rear of the existing dwellings in Pound Close all falling within the red line of the housing allocation. A new access road off Church Street is to be formed that would serve the development and provide a turning area. The proposal would also include the upgrading the informal footpath to the King George V Playing Field.

During the application process revised plans have been received with amend ments to the junction of the new access into the site and Church Street. The application now proposes the addition of a mini roundabout in Church Street close to the existing mini roundabout at the junction with Garfield forming a double mini roundabout layout. This approach was recommended by the Highways Officer.

The application also proposes a financial contribution towards the provision of a Multi Use Games Area in a location and to a specification preferred by Langford Parish Council. This would b e subject to a separate planning application at a later date.

The application will be subject to a Section 106 Agreement ensuring that the public open space and the contribution towards the MUGA is delivered.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

CS1 Development Strategy CS2 Developer Contributions CS3 Healthy and Sustainable Communities CS4 Linking Communities - Accessibility and Transport CS5 Providing Homes Agenda Item 7 Page 39

CS7 Affordable Housing CS14 and DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes DM10 Housing Mix CS18 and DM15 Biodiversity

Central Bedfordshire Site Allocations Development Plan Document Policy HA22 Land to the rear of the Wrestlers Public House Langford

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Design in Central Bedfordshire: A Guide for Development (2010) Planning Obligations Strategy (2008) Local Transport Plan: Parking Strategy

Planning History

There is no planning history for the site.

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Langford Parish Council No objections but wish to comment as follows:

1. Have concerns about the access to the site from Church Street. It looks congested with the mini roundabout at the entrance to Garfield which is offset to the north from the proposed access road. Would be a complex junction at busy times of day - could there be a stop sign for traffic exiting Garfield.

2. It is noted that the plans include culverting of the ditch at the south end of the site. If this were extended further north towards the Playing Field this would provide more flat ground for amenity use and given good opportunities for the siting of the MUGA or some other structure at this point.

Further comments on revised plans:

The revisions still fail to address the fundamental access issue perceived by the Parish Council, we will end up with 3 mini roundabouts and two speed bumps within the very short distance from Garfield to Station road. We believe this can be best dealt with by removing the existing mini roundabout at Garfield and installing stop signs both there and at the new development.

Neighbours One letter received from the tenants of The Wrestlers Public House with concerns that the new dwellings would Agenda Item 7 Page 40

have an impact on the business at the pub in particular live music events as the new dwellings are sited close to the rear of the pub. The pub has struggled to maintain business over the last few years and are concerned that there may be future problems.

One letter received from a neighbouring property with no objections to the proposed development however concerned over an area if land to be used as visibility splay that is within the applicant's ownership but has, for many years, been used as part of his garden.

One further letter received. Concerns over flooding and drainage issues. Impact on wildlife and ecology. Impact on privacy from Plots 9 and 10. Loss of natural light. Area too small for MUGA. Entrance to site too close to existing roundabout.

Site notice displayed - 14/03/2013 Application advertised in local press - 15/03/13

Consultations/Publicity responses

Archaeology The proposed development is located within the core of the medieval village of Church End, Langford (HER 17135 and 19481), this is a heritage asset with archaeological interest as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework .

On the advice of the Archaeology Team an archaeological field evaluation comprising a programme of trial trenching was undertaken in 2012 in order to provide information on the impact of the proposal on archaeological remains. A copy of the report (Foundation Archaeology May 2012) on the field evaluation forms part of the planning application. The application, therefore, conforms to the requirements of Paragraph 128 of the NPPF and Policy 45 of the Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire (Pre-submission version January 2013). It should be noted, though, that the evaluation was restricted to the eastern part of the site defined by the red line in the Location Plan in the application. This is the part of the site allocated for housing under Policy HA22 of the Site Allocations document. It did not include the western part of the site which the application proposes as open or amenity space for community benefit destined to be handed over to the Parish Council.

Archaeological features and deposits were found in all the trial trenches opened up across the site. They represent a substantial settlement dating from the late Agenda Item 7 Page 41

Saxon and early medieval periods (10th to late 12th - early 13th century). The quality of the pottery found in the evaluation indicates that the archaeological remains are well preserved and one of the pits contained a waterlogged deposit suggesting high potential for the preservation of organic remains. A burnt deposit that produced metal slag suggests that industrial activity was taking place within the settlement. A small quantity of Roman material was found in the evaluation but this probably does not represent evidence of occupation, rather the presence of Roman settlement somewhere in the vicinity of the application site. A number of Mesolithic flint artefacts were recovered from the evaluation. Although no contemporary features were identified, their fresh condition indicates that they were found close to their original place deposition. The site is located close to a river, a characteristic location for Mesolithic sites, therefore, it likely that the flint artefacts represent a Mesolithic occupation or activity site.

The investigation of rural Saxon and medieval settlements to examine diversity, characterise settlement forms and understand how they appear, grow, shift and disappear is a local and regional archaeological research objective (Wade 2000, 24-25; Oake 2007; 14 and Medlycott 2011, 70). Mesolithic sites are very rare in Bedfordshire, regionally and nationally, developing a basic understanding of the character and context of Mesolithic occupation has been identified as important local and regional research topics (Austin 2000, 6; Oake 2007, 9 and Medlycott, 2011, 7-8). Therefore, the archaeological remains the proposed development site contains and the heritage assets with archaeological interest they represent are of local and regional significance.

The proposed housing development will have a negative and irreversible impact upon the archaeological remains of Mesolithic occupation and late Saxon and early medieval settlement the site contains and will result in a loss of significance of the heritage assets with archaeological interest. This does not present an over- riding constraint on the development providing that the applicant takes appropriate measures to record and advance understanding of the heritage assets. This will be achieved by the investigation and recording of any archaeological deposits that may be affected by the development. In order to secure this, please attach the following condition to any permission granted in respect of this application. "No development shall take place until a written scheme Agenda Item 7 Page 42

of archaeological investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The said development shall only be implemented in full accordance with the approved archaeological scheme." Reason: To record and advance understanding of the archaeological resource which will be unavoidably destroyed as a consequence of the development. This condition will cover the impact of the housing development on the eastern part of the site. The western part of the site will not be subject to housing development but will be given to the Parish Council as an open space for community benefit. This land is likely to become an extension to the playing field to the north and there is an aspiration to create a MUGA partly funded by the housing development; although it is not clear whether the MUGA will be built on the western part of the application site or the existing playing fields. This part of the site was not covered by the archaeological field evaluation but it is clear that the archaeological deposits identified in the evaluation extend into the western part of the site. If the use of this part of the site as an open space does not involve any construction works or landscaping there would probably be no impact on archaeological remains. However, any works within the area such the construction of a MUGA or footpaths as well as landscaping would certainly have a damaging affect on archaeological remains. I am concerned that the Parish Council's aspirations of this part of the site may be compromised by the need to protect archaeological remains and that these aspirations may result in further damage to the archaeology. This problem could be resolved by extending the investigation of the eastern part of the site secured by the condition (above) westwards to encompass the whole of the area within the red line, thereby removing the archaeological constraint before the land is handed over to the Parish Council. Alternatively a condition could be attached to any planning permission removing permitted development rights for the western part of the site to ensure that any future developments within it are subject to planning permission as a way of controlling the impact of any future works on archaeology.

Tree and Landscape Comprehensive tree survey supplied with the application identifies that there is little in the way of trees on site that would be affected by the proposal. Trees of importance are located to the west of the site and are close to the river. This area is not proposed for development.

Some minor trees and vegetation will be removed but they are of no significance. Agenda Item 7 Page 43

New landscaping should include additional planting between the access road and the Pond Close properties to provide some additional screening and use the opportunity to remove the existing conifer boundary planting east of Pond Close and improve with additional planting and the opportunity for one good specimen tree within this location.

Details of proposed new native hedge planting to the north of Plots 10 and 12 will be required.

Boundary treatment to the south of Plots 1 to 6 should include new native hedge planting and either post and rail fencing or wire fencing to retain a view over open countryside.

The site boundary to the west includes a large amount of land that it appears will not be developed. We should use this application to improve the west of the site with new planting. Details should be asked for.

Full hard and soft landscape details to include species, sizes, densities of planting.

Protective fencing details to be supplied to prevent damage to trees to the west of the site during development.

Public Protection The site is within 250m of a historic landfill site. (contamination) Please attach the following condition to any permission granted: No development approved by this permission shall take place until the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority : a) A Phase 1 Desk Study incorporating a site walkover, site history, maps and all further features of industry best practice relating to potential contamination. b) Where shown to be necessary by the Phase 1 Desk Study, a Phase 2 Site Investigation report further documenting the ground conditions of the site with regard to potential contamination, incorporating appropriate soils and gas sampling. c) Where shown to be necessary by the Phase 2 Desk Study, a Phase 3 detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be taken to mitigate any risks to human health, groundwater and the wider environment. Any works which form part of the Phase 3 scheme Agenda Item 7 Page 44

approved by the local authority shall be completed in full before any permitted building is occupied. The effectiveness of any scheme shall be demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority by means of a validation report (to incorporate photographs, material transport tickets and validation sampling), unless an alternative period is approved in writing by the Authority. Any such validation should include responses to any unexpected contamination discovered during works.

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

Strategic Landscape No objections to the proposals in principle but would like Officer to make the following comments and suggestions: Whilst views to the site from the west and Ivel Valley are filtered by trees along the river corridor there is opportunity to enhance this urban / rural interface : The entrance from Church Street offers views through to the river valley beyond the site, the opportunity to include native trees and shrubs to form a gateway which is sympathetic with the rural landscape beyond would be appropriate. The treatment of the site access route could be more rural in character possibly through the use of lower conservation style kerbs. The southern site boundary along the access road doesn't appear to allow adequate space for planting and I would suggest a close boarded timber fence alone is not sympathetic and should be avoided. The turning head / visitor parking / land to west adjacent to plot 6 appears unresolved. Referring back to the sketch layout provided as part of the Pre App the original design for this portion of the site worked much better in terms of landscape and continued a more subtle line of development. The proposed footpath linking the development with the King George V playing fields must be sympathetic with the rural character of the open space / Ivel Valley via design and materials - i.e. no hard kerbing / blacktop. I support the suggestion made by Sport England that the MUGA needs to be placed more central to car parking Agenda Item 7 Page 45

and other play facilities - a MUGA within the application site area would be detrimental to landscape character. There is great opportunity to consider enhancement of the site and open space in terms of landscape and habitat improvements / creation. If the application were to be approved I would look forward to a condition being applied requesting a detail landscape plan for the whole site.

Environment Agency No objection to the principle of the application. At this stage we are satisfied that a suitable drainage solution may be achieved. however at present further information is required in order to demonstrate that the surface water plans will provide a satisfactory method of managing surface water run-off from the site therefore a condition relating to surface water drainage works should be attached to any permission issued.

There is a historic landfill less than 250m from this site, there are no comments regarding contamination.

Anglian Water No assets owned by Anglian Water within the development site boundary.

Wastewater Treatment - foul drainage is within the catchment of Poppyhill Sewage Treatment Works which at present has capacity for these flows. Foul Sewerage Network - the sewerage system at present has available capacity for these flows. Surface Water Disposal - the surface water/flood risk assessment submitted with the application is not relevant to Anglian Water and therefore out of jurisdiction for comment.

Beds and River Ivel The Board note from Section 2.3 of the Flood Risk Drainage Board Assessment that finished floor levels are to be set at least 600mm above the 1:100 year flood level and a factor for climate change. In addition the Board note that the applicant intends to manage storm water by means of a sustainable drainage system and it is their intention to limit storm water runoff from the site to predevelopment levels. Although the Board has no objection to this proposal in principle they are unable to assess its efficiency until it has been provided.

The Board therefore suggest that planning permission should not be granted without conditions requiring that the applicant's storm water design and construction proposals are adequate before any development commences.

Agenda Item 7 Page 46

Minerals and Waste Approximately half the land falls within a mineral safeguarding area identified in the emerging Minerals and Waste plan. The area identified for housing does not fall within the MSA however the western half of the site does. The proposed development does not fall within the list of exemptions listed within minerals policy14 therefore the Minerals and Waste team request for a Minerals Resource Assessment to be undertaken and sent to the team for comment.

Building Control No disability issues however fire service access to plots 9,10, 11 and 12 may be a problem.

Beds Police No objections

Ecology Officer I have read through the Phase 1 Habitat survey that was undertaken in January 2012. This report looks at the various habitats on site and makes an evaluation as to the sites importance for protected species. Amphibians, badgers, bats, birds and terrestrial mammals were all discounted and given a negative value, suitable habitat was found on site for reptiles. In the conclusions the report contradicts itself in stating 'as the site is fairly small it would be onerous to undertake full reptile surveys.' Given that the site will only be partially developed there will be opportunities for the retention of reptile habitat. I would seek to condition that the area to be developed is made unsuitable for reptiles prior to construction works through the establishment and maintenance of a short sward to prevent harm to a protected species as a result of the development.

In the conclusion the report makes a number of suggestions for habitat enhancement in the form of bird and bat boxes and also with the creation of an artificial otter holt which I support. It also states that the removal of trees & scrub should avoid the bird nesting season.

Neither the design and access statement, nor the layout plans give any indication to a provision for biodiversity interest. This is an area of semi-natural habitat which borders the River Ivel. Langford Common County Wildlife Site lies across the river opposite the site which is also a Local Nature Reserve. Whilst the development proposals are for a low density development the management of the remaining open space will be crucial to ensure a net gain to biodiversity can be achieved rather than a loss of habitat. I would wish to see a condition be place on any permission granted for the provision of a habitat management plan to show how the undeveloped parts of the site can be best managed for biodiversity interests. Agenda Item 7 Page 47

The western part of the site lies within the floodplain and hence cannot be developed and I would like to see a suitable management plan provided to show how the existing value of the site can be maintained and enhanced. As otters are know to use this part of the Ivel the inclusion of a holt would be such an opportunity. The site lies within the Biodiversity Opportunity Area map identifying it to have enhancement opportunities for wetlands so a focus on this western edge would be ideal.

I note that the provision of a MUGA is considered with this application though the siting of it is yet to be decided. Please consider the impact that lighting of such a facility can have on the river corridor. Bats will commute along the river and to have a lit MUGA close by could have a detrimental impact to their commuting and foraging patterns. Consideration as to the siting of the otter holt will also be needed to ensure it is well clear of any such facilities to avoid disturbance.

Public Protection (noise) I am concerned that noise from The Wrestlers public house may be detrimental to future occupiers of the proposed development. However, I note from the proposed layout that plot 1 will have only bathroom windows directly facing the public house and that a close boarded 1.8m timber fence is proposed along the boundary with the pub. I would advise that this fence is an acoustic fence to provide a noise barrier along this boundary. The wrestlers pub is also in close proximity to an existing house on Church Street and there is no history of noise complaints being made to the council.

I visited the site and noted that the pubs beer garden and car park are to the front of the premises and to the rear is what appears to be a private garden for the landlord which would be adjacent to the proposed residential gardens.

Therefore I have no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition being attached to any permission requesting details of the boundary fencing between the dwellings and the Wrestlers.

Highways Whilst I am aware that this is an allocated site I do have concerns with regard to the access and its proximity to the mini roundabout at Garfields. As submitted I believe that it presents an unacceptable arrangement and should not be permitted on highway safety grounds.

I would suggest that the applicant be advised to revise the proposal to effectively provide a double mini- Agenda Item 7 Page 48

roundabout junction. This will involve moving the junction slightly to the south with possibly a revision to the eastern kerbline of Church Street.

Further comments on revised plans:

In a highway context I can confirm that the scheme is now acceptable. Given that the location of the point of access onto Church Street is immediately adjacent to the existing mini-roundabout serving as access to the residential estate known as Garfields the only safe option was to effectively mirror that junction and combine the two into a double mini-roundabout configuration. That arrangement is now shown on the revised plans.

In all other respects the internal layout accords with the guidelines in DS7 and car parking is compliant with the latest strategy.

Rights of Way Officer No comments

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. The principle of the development 2. The impact on the character and appearance of the area 3. The impact on neighbouring amenity 4. Highway considerations 5. Any other relevant issues

Considerations

1. The principle of the development

The application site is partly outside the Settlement Envelope for Langford.

The Settlement Envelope boundary line crosses the site from the north west corner of the rear garden of No. 128 Church Road to the south west corner of the rear garden of 4 Pound Close. Only Plots 1 and 2 are sited within the Settlement Envelope however the site has been allocated for housing under Policy HA22 of the Site Allocations DPD. Policy HA22 reads as follows:

Site Area: 0.59 ha

Land to the rear of The Wrestlers Public House, Langford, as identified on the Proposals Map, is allocated for residential development providing a minimum of 9 dwellings, of which 4 units are affordable, amenity open space and a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA).

In addition to the general policy requirements in the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD and appropriate contributions to Agenda Item 7 Page 49

infrastructure provision in the Planning Obligations SPD, development on this site will be subject to the following:

• Control of surface water drainage to ensure that there is no increase in run-off into surrounding water courses; • Provision of adequate access from the King George V Memorial Playing Fields to the proposed Multi Use Games Area; and • Retention of the informal footpath from Church Street to the King George V Memorial Playing Fields.

The principle of residential development is considered acceptable provided that the requirements of Policy HA22 are met.

During the application process the applicant has submitted a viability assessment which has concluded that the requirements of the allocation policy cannot be delivered when providing the affordable housing requirements and the full contributions to infrastructure provision in accordance with the Planning Obligation Strategy. In addition, discussions between the Parish Council and the applicant have concluded that the application site is not an ideal location for the siting of a MUGA which has resulted in the applicant's proposition of a financial contribution to the Parish Council towards the facility.

The MUGA is to be provided under the terms of Policy HA22. It would be expected to conform with Sport Englands standards of 37m by 18.5m with markings for tennis, netball and basket ball. Discussions with the Parish Council have revealed that the predicted siting of the MUGA, in the north west corner of the site, may not be an appropriate location for the facility. Sport England advise that MUGA's are best located close to car parks, adjacent to roads for maintenance and emergency access, close to places of supervision but away from noise sensitive areas, and where there is good access for people with disabilities. Consequently the Parish Council are reviewing an alternative location for the MUGA. In order for the Parish to secure the relevant funding for the MUGA (some funding has already been made available through contributions from existing residential developments) a financial contribution of £60,000 is proposed as pa rt of this application to meet the existing shortfall. Once the future location of the MUGA has been decided by the Parish, it will be subject to planning permission and the suitability of the proposed site assessed during the application process.

Policy HA22 also requires the provision of amenity open space to the western section of the site covering 0.71 ha of land. This area of land will be transferred to the Parish Council for use by the community as part of the development proposals and the Parish shall take on responsibility for its future maintenance. The land should be transferred to the Parish in an acceptable state, ie: levelled and seeded following occupation of the first dwelling.

In terms of viability, section 19.0 of the Planning Obligations Strategy recognises that there may be cases where financial obligations and affordable housing requirements would have significant harm on the viability of a proposal. This attitude is echoed in the NPPF. Therefore the viability of a scheme is a material Agenda Item 7 Page 50

planning consideration where it has been proven in a financial appraisal that there would be a significant impact on the viability of the development.

In this case the financial appraisal submitted with the application which has been considered by a consultant act on behalf of the Council demonstrates that the allocation cannot be delivered when providing the MUGA, the public open space, affordable housing and financial contributions towards local infrastructure given the predicted build costs, the highway works and the cost of evaluating on site archaeology. The appraisal was assessed on the basis that no affordable housing would be provided, the area of land to the east would be transferred as public open space and there would be a contri bution of £60,000 to the Parish. The viability assessment concluded that the developer would receive a small profit from the development however the profit margin is well below what would normally be expected.

Despite being unable to fully meet the terms of Policy HA22, when considering the overall the benefits available to the community, on balance the proposal is considered acceptable.

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

The proposed dwellings are located in fairly close proximity to the existing dwellings in Pound Close and Church Street. Plots 1 -6 form the street scene when entering the development and Plots 7 -10 run along the rear garden boundaries of the properties in Pound Close. The properties are well spaced apart, provide adequate private amenity space for future occupants and are designed with the appearance of cottage style properties with varying roof heights and frontages.

There is no dominant character to the surrounding area. Pound Close comprises modern red brick detached dwellings and opposite there are smaller cottages of buff brick and render. Further north the new development at Garfield comprises modern red and yellow brick dwellings. The Wrestlers is a double fronted rendered building set back from Church Street by the parking area and further afield properties are mixed in scale and character. In this respect the general layout and design of the dwellings is considered to be acceptable and not out of character with the surroundings.

In terms of parking, the proposal complies with the Council's Parking Strategy in that there is one on plot parking space for each bedroom within each property. The double garages for Plots 9 and 10 are also compliant with the parking strategy being 7m in depth. Plot 8 includes a double car barn which is 5m in depth however as the barn would be open fronted it is unlikely that the building would be used for storage or for parking cycles.

The access road includes the provision of a footpath link to the King George V Playing Fields.

The provision of the amenity open space to the west of the site would retain the appearance of the openness in this part of the site which forms the edge of the built environment. The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and would not result in significant harm to the character of the area in accordance Agenda Item 7 Page 51

with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies.

3. The impact on neighbouring amenity

The properties most affected by the development are No's 3 and 4 Pound Close and The Wrestlers Public House.

The side elevation of Plot 1 is sited approximately 24m from the rear elevation of The Wrestlers therefore given this distance no adverse impact is considered to occur. There is to be a first floor window in the side elevation of Plot 1 however the window serves a bathroom and is likely to be obscurely glazed reducing any potential overlooking. Furthermore the garden area to the rear of The Wrestlers is well covered by mature trees and is used for the public house as such there would be no impact on the residential amenities the occupants of the Wrestlers. In any case, a distance of 24m between properties is considered to be acceptable spacing.

Plot 10 is located to the rear of No. 3 Pound Close. It is off set from the rear so that only the linked garage is directly to the rear of No. 3. Due to the layout of Pound Close most of the rear garden space is located to the side of the dwelling. Plot 10 has been designed so that there would be one window it the rear elevation which is to serve the stairwell. The window would face into the garden area of No. 3 however as it is not a primary window no significant overlooking is considered to occur however the existing occupants privacy can be further protected if this window is obscurely glazed.. Given the separation distance and the design of the dwelling there would be no adverse impact on the amenities of No. 3.

Plot 9 would be partly to the rear of No.s 3 and 4 Pound Close however given the design and orientation of Plot 9, the linked garage would be closest to the boundary with these properties. The side elevation of the garage would face the boundary and would include one ground floor window. This is not considered to result in adverse overlooking. The proposed properties are sufficiently separated from the existing dwellings to ensure that there would be no overbearing impact or significant loss of light.

In terms of the amenity of future occupiers of the dwellings, the dwellings are designed and positioned so that they would not overlook each other or result in a detrimental impact on light or outlook. The occupants of Plot 1 and 2 would be closest to the public house garden area where noise and disturbance may arise particularly given the live music events held at the pub. It has been recommended that details of the proposed fencing between the public house and Plot 1 be submitted as a condition so that an acoustic barrier can be secured along this boundary to reduce any noise impact. The Public House is located in a residential area and shares its southern boundary with a dwellinghouse therefore noise from the pub does not appear to be an issue for the existing residents.

The proposal is considered acceptable in terms of the impact of the proposal on the existing neighbouring properties and the future occupants of the dwellings. The proposal therefore accords with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Agenda Item 7 Page 52

Development Management Policies Document.

4. Highway considerations

The p roposal requires the construction of a new access to serve the properties. A mini roundabout is proposed at the point of access onto Church Street immediately adjacent to the existing mini-roundabout serving as access to the residential estate known as Garfield. The access arrangements have been discussed with Highways Officers and the only safe option was to effectively mirror the junction at Garfield and combine the two into a double mini- roundabout configuration. That arrangement is now shown on the revised plans therefore no objection has been raised by Highways.

In terms of parking provision, the proposal complies with the Local Transport Plan: Parking Strategy appendix F. Garages are also designed to be compliant with the strategy with regard to their size.

5. Other issues

Archaeology

An archaeological field evaluation comprising a programme of trial trenching was undertaken in 2012 in order to provide information on the impact of the proposal on archaeological remains. However it is noted that the evaluation was restricted to the eastern part of the site defined by the red line in the Location Plan in the application.

Archaeological features and deposits were found in all the trial trenches opened up across the site therefore the proposed housing development will have a negative and irreversible impact upon the archaeological remains found. However this does not present an over-riding constraint on the development providing that the applicant takes appropriate measures by the investigation and recording of any archaeological deposits which can be secured by a condition.

Minerals and Waste

The area of land identified as public open space falls within the Minerals Safeguarding area however the land to be developed falls outside of the Minerals Safeguarding area, therefore it is unlikely that the proposed development would cause sterilisation of minerals of economic importance. Such issues would have been considered in full when the site was being considered for it's inclusion in the Site Allocation Document.

Drainage

There are no objections from the relevant drainage/flooding consultees however a condition should be attached relating to the methods of surface water run-off.

Contamination

Agenda Item 7 Page 53

The site is within 250m of a historic landfill site. There are no objections to the proposed subject to a condition requiring investigation into potential land contamination prior to any works commencing.

Ecology

The Phase 1 Habitat survey submitted with the application established that the site was a suitable habitat for reptiles. Therefore as the site is only to be partially developed, to prevent harm to the protected species the area to be developed should be made unsuitable prior to construction works taking place. This can be secured by a condition.

The ecology officer's recommendation to include a condition for the preparation of a management plan for future ecological enhancements to the area of open space are noted, however given that the land will be used by the general public and the exact nature of any future development is unknown, it is not considered necessary to expect a management plan for ecology at this stage. However a condition has been included to ensure that there is provision for future wildlife habitats including the provision of new hedgerows and other enhancement features.

Planning Obligation Strategy

The proposal would fall within the remit of the Planning Obligation Strategy which requires developer contributions towards new community facilities and infrastructure however the circumstances of this site have identified viability issues as outlined above therefore in this case no planning contributions will be sought.

A Section 106 agreement is currently in negotiations and will include a payment of £60,000 to the Parish Council for the provision of a MUGA upon commencment of the development and the transfer of the public open space.

Human Rights issues/ Equality Act 2010

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

6. Conclusion

The proposal would not fully comply with the terms of Policy HA22, however it is felt that there would be community benefits from the proposal in terms of the MUGA contribution and the area of land to be transfered as public open space in perpetuity. The applicant has demonstrated that the site cannot meet the terms of the policy in full and remain a viable scheme. Given the benefits to the community, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable despite the departure from Policy HA22.

The proposal would not have a negative impact on the character of the area or Agenda Item 7 Page 54

an adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and is acceptable in terms of highway safety therefore by reason of its size, design and location, is in conformity with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Management Policies, November 2009; and The National Planning Policy Framework. It is further in conformity with the Supplementary Planning Guidance: Design in Central Bedfordshire: A Guide for Development, 2010 and the Local Transport Plan: Parking Strategy: Appendix F (2013)

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the following conditions and the completion of the S106 Agreement securing a £60,000 contribution to the Parish Council for the provision of a MUGA and the transfer of the public open space land to the Parish Council.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

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 No development shall commence until 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. The development shall be carried out in accordance therewith.

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

3 No development shall commence until details of surface water drainage for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The drainage works shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans before any part of the development is brought into use.

Reason: To ensure that adequate surface water drainage is provided to prevent water pollution and flooding.

4 No development shall commence until details of the final ground and slab levels of the dwellings hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include sections through both the site and the adjoining properties, the location of which shall first be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the site shall be developed in full accordance with the approved details.

Agenda Item 7 Page 55

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory relationship results between the new development and adjacent buildings and public areas.

5 No development shall commence on site until a written scheme of archaeological investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The said development shall only be implemented in full accordance with the approved archaeological scheme.

Reason: To record and advance understanding of the archaeological resource which will be unavoidably destroyed as a consequence of the development.

6 No development shall commence on site until the following has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority : a) A Phase 1 Desk Study incorporating a site walkover, site history, maps and all further features of industry best practice relating to potential contamination. b) Where shown to be necessary by the Phase 1 Desk Study, a Phase 2 Site Investigation report further documenting the ground conditions of the site with regard to potential contamination, incorporating appropriate soils and gas sampling. c) Where shown to be necessary by the Phase 2 Desk Study, a Phase 3 detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be taken to mitigate any risks to human health, groundwater and the wider environment. Any works which form part of the Phase 3 scheme approved by the local authority shall be completed in full before any permitted building is occupied. The effectiveness of any scheme shall be demonstrated to the Local Planning Authority by means of a validation report (to incorporate photographs, material transport tickets and validation sampling), unless an alternative period is approved in writing by the Authority. Any such validation should include responses to any unexpected contamination discovered during works.

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

7 Development shall not commence until full details of both hard and soft landscaping has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include:-

• all proposed boundary treatments, to include materials and dimensions; • materials to be used for any hard surfacing; Agenda Item 7 Page 56

• minor structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, signs, etc); • proposed and existing functional services above and below ground level; • planting plans, including schedule of size, species, positions, density and times of planting; • cultivation details including operations required to establish new planting; • details of existing trees and hedgerows on the site, indicating those to be retained and the method of their protection during development works.

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

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

8 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years of completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority give written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the site and the area generally.

9 No development shall commence until full details of mitigation, conservation and/or enhancement measures for (protected/locally im portant) species shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. These measures shall include:

a) surveys at agreed periods during (season) by an agreed expert to determine the possible presence of particular protected species previously specified by the Local Planning Authority. b) details of appropriate mitigation measures and contingency plans should such a protected species be found to be present and either (i) preparing for breeding, (ii) in the process of breeding or (iii) rearing young; c) mechanisms to enhance identified existing wildlife habitats through the development process. d) new hedgerows along the boundary of the public open space to encourage wildlife habitats.

The works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure all impacts from development are taken into account and mitigated.

10 No development shall commence until a Site W aste Management Plan Agenda Item 7 Page 57

has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development.

11 No development shall commence un til specifications of the works to be undertaken on the area of land to the west of the site, prior to its use as public open space land, has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented in accord ance with a timescale to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and in complete accordance with the approved specifications.

Reason: To safeguard the future use of the public open space and ensure that it is transferred to the Parish Council in an appropriate condition.

12 No development shall commence until the detailed plans and sections of the proposed estate road and the mini roundabout, including method of surface water disposal have been approved by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied until the section of road which provides access has been constructed (apart from final surfacing) in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the proposed roadworks are constructed to an adequate standard.

13 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.

14 Before first occupation of the approved development, the double mini- roundabout junction arrangement serving the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved in principle plan no 12c and constructed to the specification of the Highway Authority and Local Planning Authority's satisfaction. Reason: To secure a satisfactory access appropriate to the development, in the interest of public safety and convenience

15 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Deve lopment Order 1995, or any amendments thereto, the garage accommodation on the site shall not be used for any purpose, other than as Agenda Item 7 Page 58

garage accommodation, unless permission has been granted by the Local Planning Authority on an application made for that purpose. Reason: To retain off-street parking provision and thereby minimise the potential for on-street parking which could adversely affect the convenience of road users.

16 Prior to the first occupation of Plot 10 the first floor landing window in the eastern elevation of the development shall be fitted with obscured glass of a type to substantially restrict vision through it at all times, and restriction on its opening, details of which shall have been previously submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties.

17 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 12 r ev C, 08, 00A, 13 rev A, 09 rev A, 11 rev C, 10 rev A, 07, 02 rev A, 06, 03 rev A, 04 rev A, 05 rev A, 10963ea-01, BS5837 Tree Survey dated Nov 2012 rev 17th December 2012, Flood Risk Assessment ref ENV/0104/12FRA October 2012, Archaeological Evalu ation No. 800 May 2012, Habitat Survey dated 27/01/12.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Notes to Applicant

1. The applicant is advised that in order to comply with this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Central Bedfordshire Council as Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements at the junction onto Church Street. Further details can be obtained from the Development Control Group, Development Management Division, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ. The applicant is advised that the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 will apply to any works undertaken within the limits of the existing public highway. Further details can be obtained from the Traffic Management Group Highways and Transport Division, Central Bedfordshire Council, Technology House, 239 Ampthill Road, Bedford MK42 9BD. The applicant is advised that if it is the intention to request the 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 Highways Development Control Group, Development Management Division, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford Agenda Item 7 Page 59

Bedfordshire 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. The applicant is advised that all cycle parking to be provided within the site shall be designed in accordance with the Central Bedfordshire Council’s "Cycle Parking Annexes – July 2010"

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

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

DECISION

......

......

Page 60

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 Page 61 166.6m

DUNSTABLE ROAD

Bell Wood

172.7m

29

21

Path

Bell Farm Bell Inn

171.1m

The Oaks

1

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No. W E Date: 21:October:2013 CB/13/03212/FULL GridMap Sheet Reference: No 502235; 216039 S

Scale: 1:1250 Land to the rear of The Bell Cottages, Studham, Dunstable, LU6 2QG Page 62

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 Page 63

Item No. 8

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/03212/FULL LOCATION Land to the rear of The Bell Cottages, Studham, Dunstable, LU6 2QG PROPOSAL Erection of eight two bedroom dwellings PARISH Studham WARD Caddington WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Stay CASE OFFICER Abel Bunu DATE REGISTERED 16 September 2013 EXPIRY DATE 11 November 2013 APPLICANT NV Properties AGENT Worth Planning and Design Ltd REASON FOR Called in by Cllr Richard Stay for the following COMMITTEE TO reasons: DETERMINE ••• The site is waste land ••• Cottages built in keeping with the Bell Cottages would be appropriate ••• Development would support the viability of the Bell Public House ••• Very special circumstances exist in this case RECOMMENDED DECISION Recommended for Refusal

Reasons for Refusal

The proposed development has been recommended for refusal for the following reasons:

1. It would be inappropriate in the Green Belt and no very special circumstances have been put forward such as would outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. 2. The proposed development is not infilling, but represents an encroachment onto the open countryside which would be harmful to its openness, character and appearance of the open countryside, Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Conservation Area. 3. In design terms, the proposed development would fail to take opportunities to enhance the character of the area and its local distinctiveness. 4. The development would be prejudicial to highway safety. 5. No section 106 Agreement has been si gned to demonstrate that the development would be able to make sufficient contributions towards infrastructure provision.

The proposal is therefore contrary to the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review, emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshir e and national advice within the National Planning Policy Framework as detailed in the Officers's Report.

Agenda Item 8 Page 64

Site Location:

The application site lies to the west of Dunstable Road and The Bell Cottages in the village of Studham and extends over an area o f 0.5 hectares. The site is washed over by the Green Belt and lies within the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). Part of the site, currently occupied by the Bell Public House car park lies within t he Conservation Area and the rest of the field on which the development is proposed falls just outside its limits. Access to the application site is directly off Dunstable Road, opposite the Bell Public House. The site is enclosed along the north western b oundary by a row of mature trees and hedge, beyond which is open countryside. A public footpath defines the south western boundary of the site beyond which is the Bell Farm. The Bell Cottages form a row of 5 two storey terraced dwellings situated to the e ast of the site and to the north of the site access. The eastern boundary of the site is defined by a native hedgerow which abuts a public footpath that links areas of Studham Villages. The application site is currently undeveloped.

The Application:

The application seeks planning permission for the erection of 8 two storey semi- detached dwellings. Details of the proposal have been amended by the agent to reflect that 50% of the units would be affordable dwellings are summarised below :

Open market dwellings : 4

Affordable dwellings : 4

Grand Total : 8 dwellings

Scale All the dwellings would be two storeys high comprising pairs of semi-detached houses with rear gardens ranging in size from 94.5 sqm to 399.8sqm.The dwellings would each accommodate two bedrooms at first floor level and would measure 8 metres deep, 12 metres wide and 8.7 metres high. Each dwelling would have a garage to the side measuring 5.5 metres deep, 2.6 metres wide and 5 metres high.

Access and Parking The development would be ser ved by an existing access onto the Bell Public House's car park. Parking provision would be in accordance with the minimum standards set in the Local Parking Strategy and would comprise garages and driveways.

Layout The dwellings would be laid out in a l inear pattern facing towards the south east except Plots 7 and 8 which would have a south-north orientation. In addition to the rear gardens, the plots would each be provided with front amenity areas. Two communal open spaces would be provided to the nort h of the Bell Cottages's rear gardens and another open space would form a buffer between the dwellings and the existing footpath to the south west. Vehicular areas would be located to the front of the dwellings and would comprise hard surfaced areas for dr iveways, turning and visitor parking spaces. It is also proposed to re-configure the Bell Public House car Agenda Item 8 Page 65

park to the south of the Bell Cottages. It is also proposed to construct an automated sliding wrought iron gate across the access to the development site behind the Public House car park.

Landscaping and boundary treatment In addition to the retention of existing trees on the site boundary, new planting is proposed. The front boundaries of the plots would form an open plan layout.

The following documents have been submitted in support of the application:

• Design and Access Statement • Heritage Asset Assessment • Transport Statement • Affordable Housing Statement • Tree Survey Report • Section 106 Agreement template • Letter of support from the ward councillor

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (March 2012) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27th March 2012 and replaced most of the previous national planning policy documents, PPGs and PPSs. The following sections are considered directly relevant :

Section 1 : Building a strong, competitive economy Section 4 : Promoting sustainable transport Section 6 : Delivering a wide choice of quality homes Section 7 : Requiring good design Section 8 : Promoting healthy communities Section 9 : Protecting Green Belt Land Section 10: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 11 Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review The NPPF advises of the weight to be attached to existing local plans for plans adopted prior to the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, as in the case of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review. Due weight can be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework. It is considered that the following policies are broadly consistent with the Framework and significant weight should be attached to them, with the exception of Policies T10 and H4, which are afforded less weight.

SD1 Keynote Policy BE8 Design Considerations NE3 Control of Development in the AGLV T10 Parking - New Developments H4 Affordable Housing H5 Affordable Housing in Rural Areas

Agenda Item 8 Page 66

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

Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire

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

Policy 1 : Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2 : Growth Strategy Policy 3 : Green Belt Policy 8: Change of Use Policy 19: Planning Obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy Policy 21 : Provision for Social and Community Infrastructure Policy 22 : Leisure and open space provision Policy 23 : Public Rights of Way Policy 24: Accessibility and Connectivity Policy 25: Capacity of the Network Policy 27 : Car Parking Policy 28 : Transport Assessments and Travel Plans Policy 29: Housing Provision Policy 30: Housing Mix Policy 34: Affordable Housing Policy 35: Exception Sites Policy 36 : Development In the Green Belt Policy 38 : Within and beyond settlement Boundaries Policy 43: High Quality Development Policy 45 : The Historic Environment Policy 49 : Mitigating Flood Risk Policy 50 : Development In the Countryside Policy 57 : Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy 58 : Landscape Policy 59 : Woodlands, Trees and Hedgerows

Supplementary Planning Guidance

1. Planning Obligations Strategy, 23 October 2009 2. Design in Central Bedfordshire: A Guide for Development - Design Supplement 1: New Residential Development 3. Design in Central Bedfordshire: A Guide for Development - Design Supplement 7: Movement, Streets and Places

Agenda Item 8 Page 67

4. Central Bedfordshire Local Transport Plan: Appendix F : Parking Strategy (Adopted in October 2012 by the Executive for Development Management Purposes)

Other guidance 5. Chilterns Buildings Design Guide, First Published in 1999.

Planning History

CB/13/02686/FULL Not proceeded with. Erection of nine two bedroom dwellings

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Parish Council Initial response from Parish Council received 14/10/13:

“Having reviewed the relevant documentation and proposed development plans, it is clear the applicant is relying on “Very Special Circumstances” (VSC) argument which was also used in the recent planning application for Bell Farm (CB/13/02733/FULL).

Accordingly, before the Parish Council can formally respond to the subject application, we request your formal advice as to whether or not Central Bedfordshire Council and their Planning Team believe that there is a valid VSC argument in this case, and whether or not the land in question in “land previously developed” as outlined by the NPPF (Annex 2).

I can confirm that five residents of Studham attended the meeting and raised several relevant issues which will be included in our formal response in due course.” Neighbours 27 Bell Cottages, 3, 4, Objection for the following reasons: 13 Dunstable Road, 2 • Inappropriate development in view of the recently Church Close, Cherry approved 23 dwellings on Bell Farm. Trees, Swannells • Quality of life would be compromised due to the Wood, High Beeches, movements of construction vehicles at the two sites. Church Road. • The development would create a mini-town in view of the approved scheme on Bell Farm. • Unrestrained development would threaten coalescence with Dunstable. • Development is contrary to policies protecting the Green Belt and Conservation Area. • Dangerous exit onto Dunstable Road. • No need for more houses in Studham. • No strong very special circumstances put forward. • Highway safety would be compromised due to three roads converging on Dunstable Road within a few metres of each other, ie the site access, Bell Farm access and Southern Way. Agenda Item 8 Page 68

• Studham Conservation Area should not be allowed to exist as an island surrounded by new development. • Character of the historic village surrounded by open green areas would be lost. • Approving the development would set a precedent for other developers. • Light pollution, extra traffic and noise. • Inadequate services in the village, namely, sewerage and power. Parking is limited in the village and additional houses would worsen the situation.

Top Acre Farm General Comment • The application could provide an opportunity to remove poor quality trees thereby reducing local health and safety hazards. • We are pleased that the application proposes no amendments to the existing vehicular access rights.

Consultations/Publicity responses

Conservation and Recommendation: refusal Design Officer The application, submitted on behalf of NV Properties, seeks the erection of eight two-bed houses in open grassland at the north end of Studham village.

Within the Design and Access Statement supporting the application, the proposed development is directly linked to continued efforts to buoy-up the business viability of the Bell public house, with which the applicant is associated, and which is one of two public houses in the village, and to assist the delivery of a bed and breakfast lodge within the grounds of the pub which was approved by the Local Planning Authority in 2012.

The application site forms the immediate setting to the designated village Conservation Area, which is also covered by wider AONB designation and is subject to full Green Belt protection. The Conservation Area was designated in 1973, and it should be noted that the designation document makes particular reference to the importance of the northern approach to the old village core and the distinctive village setting in high quality countryside.

To correct, at the outset, an inaccuracy of the submitted supporting Design and Access Statement that the current proposal follows 'early engagement' with the Local Planning Authority, I can confirm that the proposed Scheme has not been subject to Local Planning Authority pre-application consideration and advice, and I note that the applicant has validated this approach to Scheme Agenda Item 8 Page 69 development in supporting documentation entitled "The Bell Inn's application to build 8 cottages".

The open grassland of the application site is an important landscape element embedding the historic built environment of the village into its essential countryside setting - it is part of the intimate, historic landscape forming the important northern 'gateway' to the village, contrasting with the open expanses of commonland that characterise the southern approaches.

It is my considered view that the essential value to village (and Conservation Area) character of the open grassland of the application site has been consistently downplayed in the application submissions, and much is made of its currently 'overgrown' state, as if to illustrate its current worthlessness - I find any conclusion of suitability for site development based on this assessment fundamentally weak.

Similarly, the impact of the proposed development in the context of local landscape and village layout is also downplayed, most strikingly in the submitted supporting Heritage Asset Assessment.

Assertions of this kind demonstrate to me a fundamental lack of understanding of local character, significance and harm in this case, all of which are set out in the NPPF as key considerations in respect of 'good design' (Section 7), and the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment (Section 12).

I also think that this lack of understanding is reflected in the design of the proposed development, with a baseline assertion that the proposal constitutes 'infill' and a 'rounding-off' of village layout, although the submitted Scheme layout plan clearly shows it, topographically, as village expansion thrusting beyond the existing built environment of the village into its open countryside setting.

That this is expansion rather than infill is crucial, I think, to an understanding of the reality and local impact of the proposed Scheme.

As an underlying 'development management' principle, it does not seem to be an unreasonable assumption and expectation that new development should respect and integrate with local character and context - indeed, this is a key presumption of both national planning guidance and local design guidance (including the Chilterns Building Design Guide). Agenda Item 8 Page 70

A quick scout around the historic core of the village will demonstrate its architectural character and arrangement. In the face of this, the curiously chimney-less, uniformly rendered and 'serried' formality of the proposed development (complete with un-articulated, attached garage buildings) is starkly out of step.

Noting its specifically AONB and Conservation Area setting context, I confirm that I have been unable to reconcile the proposed development with either the basic (ie. location and layout) or detailed (architectural) 'tests' set out in the established design guidance.

It is my view that, beyond a (fundamental) unacceptability of development of this site, the site is simply too small to incorporate successfully a development of this scale and form, and that even the parcelling-out of domestic gardens would be a 'urbanising' (and therefore harmful) encroachment in this sensitive context.

Underscoring this point of site unsuitability for the proposed development, I am mindful of the considered comments of the Central Bedfordshire Council Tree and Landscape Officer which conclude the unavoidable conflict between the proposed development, as laid out, and the maintenance, in good health, of the historic boundary hedgerow separating the application site from the open farmland beyond.

The landscape character significance of this hedgerow is clear, and with this, its essential significance to local character and village Conservation Area setting.

In the application submission, much is made of the mitigating factor of natural screening - the Tree and Landscape Officer highlights that unavoidable future management resulting from the uncomfortably close positioning of the development to the hedgerow will lead to an undermining of hedgerow health, and consequent amenity and screening value.

In this, most sensitive context, I consider the resultant harm would be significant.

In respect of the consideration of new development within, and in the setting of, the historic built environment, the NPPF establishes that resultant harm should be clearly and convincingly justified (paragraph 132).

I am clear about the harm entailed in the proposed development but, as presented, I find the justification for Agenda Item 8 Page 71

site development far from convincing :-

• I take fundamental issue with the promoted suitability of the application site for development

• I am unclear how an approval of this 'enabling' development could be regulated through available Planning powers to secure continued investment in the pub business (the objective placed at the heart of the justification).

In conclusion, I would like to make Members aware of my view that the current application raises fundamental issues about the significance and value to be attached to village character and its conservation, and the principle of village expansion justified under Green Belt 'Very Special Circumstances', particularly, as here, in the absence of an overarching, locally-focused Planning strategy provided by a Neighbourhood Plan.

I would also like to re-iterate my view that the business objective which is placed at the heart of the 'very special circumstances' justification cannot be assured and indeed carries inherent risks.

The perceived impact of the proposed development upon village character, however, will be permanent.

Highways Officer I have concerns in relation to the proposal and the access to it (through the Bell Public House car park) is not shown to be public highway or indeed designed to the standard of a public highway.

• While the visibility splays from the existing access onto Dunstable Road is shown to be 2.4m by 43m I doubt that this can be achieved. A speed survey has not been carried out and therefore a visibility splay could not be reduced. Therefore it is considered that the proposal demonstrates an intensification of use of a substandard access. • A 9.9m long refuse vehicle has been used to demonstrate the swept path analysis when the length of the authority’s refuse vehicle is 11.4m.

I have concerns in relation to the issues raised above and as a result I could not agree that the proposals shown are acceptable on highway grounds. I am happy to discuss this further but in the meantime I am only in a position to offer a refusal.

In a highway context I recommend that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:- Agenda Item 8 Page 72

The development, if permitted, would lead to the intensification of use of an existing access which provides inadequate driver / driver intervisibility and will lead to condition of danger for all road users. And The proposed development makes inadequate provision for a satisfactory vehicular access road to serve the development.

Tree and Landscape Although mitigation measures in respect of tree Officer constraints have been addressed in the report, what is clearly of concern is the close juxtaposition of the new properties with the existing trees, even if the requirements of BS5837;2012 have been accommodated.

It is noted that the edge of the canopies are almost at the edge of the new building line, and this will create conflict with the end users when the pressures of home occupancy come to bear and lead to pressure for the trees to be substantially pruned to the detriment of their health and screening value.

The boundary contains mature Ash specimens where heavy pruning will render then liable to infection from decay fungi Inonotus hispidus . The trees occupy a strategically important boundary, backing onto open farmland, where screening of development would become a crucial factor.

I therefore object to the application as I consider that the positioning of the development would lead to unavoidable conflict with the existing boundary trees and end users that will lead to pressure for the trees to be unnaturally managed, leading to a reduction in their health, amenity and screening value.

Landscape Officer Having studied the application there appears very little information on landscape setting especially with the site located within the Chilterns AONB. The Design and Access Statement advises there will be 'no adverse effect on conserving the landscape' but this is not demonstrated in the application.

Further details are required describing the site and surrounds including:

A landscape and visual assessment describing views to and from the site based on photos with supporting text. Sections describing site levels, proposed development and relating to topography and planting structures within Agenda Item 8 Page 73

and beyond the site boundary. Details of landscape mitigation informed by the landscape and visual assessment, and enhancement opportunities.

Housing Development I support this application as it provides for 3 affordable Officer homes which reflects the 30% current policy. The Affordable Housing Statement indicates that 71% or two units will be provided as Affordable Rent and 29% or one unit as Intermediate Tenure. This reflects the tenure split as identified in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. I would expect to see the units well dispersed throughout the site and integrated with the market housing to promote community cohesion and tenure blindness. I would also expect all the units to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and meet all HCA Design and Quality Standards.

Ecologist The application does not appear to be supported by an ecological survey so my comments are based on aerial photos and the tree survey. The site appears to be arable with trees / hedges bordering. 1 Ash Tree is proposed for removal and I note that the tree survey acknowledges the importance of trees for protected species such as bats and birds. Therefore I would recommend that the tree is assessed for interest for these species prior to removal to allow for necessary mitigation to be undertaken.

Public Rights of Way Public Footpath no. 1, Studham runs to the south of the Officer proposed site and as with the Bell Farm proposal, would be impacted on to some extent by the proposed development. The matter of the private vehicular right of access of one of the adjoining landowners should also be brought to the attention of the applicants. This may have an impact on this development also.

As with the Bell Farm development, our main concern would be the width of the Public Footpath and it's treatment lying between the two developments. Despite not being mentioned in either the Transport Assessment or Design and Access Statement submitted, the Public Footpath is clearly shown on the historic maps from 1880 and 1901 and is an important local asset providing access for walkers to and from the village and the local pub. It will obviously become an important asset for the new residents of both developments as both a sustainable travel opportunity and the main dog- walking/recreational route into the wider countryside and to the local church. Our view therefore is that in lieu of a financial contribution under a Section 106 agreement, we would look for extra width to be provided to the north of the path to make this proposal consistent with the Agenda Item 8 Page 74 development to the south and consistent with the overall aim of improving the amenity of the path for existing walkers, visitors, locals and the new residents of both developments.

It is unclear from the site layout plan submitted, where the intended boundary for plot 1 is and what this is proposed to be (fence, hedge etc..). This would have an impact on the Public Footpath and I would be interested to know what width has been left for the Public Footpath and private right of access. It would seem that if the area near Plot 1 is to be open space, no fencing along this section would be required. It is unclear as to what the intended purpose of the open space shown is - for whom is this for and who will manage it.

As with the Bell Farm development, should a close- boarded fence or hedge along Plot 1 be proposed, we would need additional width to be left for the Public Footpath to avoid the path become narrow, shaded and overgrown with a poor surface. We would therefore suggest an additional 2 metres along the length of the Public Footpath to the north which would also remove the pinch points which could be potential areas of anti-social gathering and behaviour due to the fact that the path is not overlooked by any of the properties on either side.

I would also need to be reassured, that there would be no issue with cars parking on the Public Footpath in the car park area. Again further information about the proposed boundary treatment in this area and the width left for the Public Footpath would be useful.

At Dunstable Road, it should be ensured that the visibility of the vehicle access is good and compatible with that proposed by the Bell Farm development and that there is good intervisibility between vehicle users and walkers exiting from the Public Footpath onto Dunstable Road and crossing to and from the pub and Public Footpath no. 2 on the other side of Dunstable Road. We would suggest that an open maintained verge area is retained next to the Public Footpath exit onto Dunstable Road to aid visibility.

If permission is granted for this development, other issues which should be taken into account are that the siting of any tree protection barriers and fencing must not obstruct or affect the Public Footpath in any way. The tree protection fencing between trees T1 and T2 in particular seems very close to the Public Footpath. Also, no materials or vehicles associated with the development should be left on or near the Public Footpath so as to Agenda Item 8 Page 75

cause an obstruction, hazard or inconvenience to its users at any time. I would also advise against any additional, new tree or shrub planting near the Public Footpath which will over time grow and may encroach upon the width of the path if not properly maintained.

In conclusion, we would not object to the proposal on the basis of an agreement to the additional width being provided as suggested and would be happy to discuss a condition to the permission to secure this or allow for further discussion on the Public Footpath and any Section 106 Agreement if appropriate.

Public Protection No comment.

Education Officer To be reported at the meeting.

Open Spaces, Leisure I note the unsigned S106 offers Leisure contributions of and Recreation £13576 for Indoor Sports & LC plus £1752 for Play. While it is not clear how these were calculated they are acceptable for this development. My only request would be that they are combined in the final S106 and are available for any Leisure function (i.e. indoor sp&LC, play or outdoor sport).

English Heritage • The development would be harmful to the character of the area and should be refused unless appropriately justified. • The Bell Cottages and The Bell Public House form an important gateway to the Conservation Area. • The development would make a significant difference to the character of the northern part of the Conservation Area, the setting of the Bell Cottages and the wider setting of the Grade II Listed Public House. • By developing the whole site, this side of the conservation area would dramatically change, the Cottages' relationship to the landscape would be altered and dwellings which are not complementary to the form of the historic buildings would be introduced into a prominent and sensitive site. • The NPPF identifies protection and enhancement of the historic environment as an important element of sustainable development and establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development.(paragraphs 6,7 and 14). • The NPPF also states that the significance of listed buildings and Conser vation Areas can be harmed or lost by alteration to them or development in their setting.(par. 132)The conservation of heritage assets, in this case, Studham Conservation Area and the Bell Public House is a core principle of the planning Agenda Item 8 Page 76

system.(par. 17). • The development of the whole field would be harmful to the setting of the Conservation Area and the fact that a wholly modern form of development at variance with the scale and form of the historic dwellings that characterise the conservation area is being proposed only compounds that harm. • Paragraph 134 of the NPPF requires that the harm to the heritage asset's significance should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development. In this case, there might be some benefit through the provision of new housing. The council should weigh any benefit against the harm identified but a clear and convincing justification should be found as required by par. 132 of the NPPF. The possibility of delivering the benefit elsewhere should also be considered ( we are aware that 23 dwellings were approved on a site that does not have such a harmful effect on the Conservation Area).If that justification is not made, we recommend refusal of the application.

Environment Agency No objection.

Waste Planning Officer Matters to be addressed by the applicant: • Waste collection point, I assume that the through access road is not intended to be adopted by the Council. We would therefore require a collection point for the 8 cottages. This will need to be on the highway boundary. • The 8 dwellings will need to have a location at the rear of each property in order to allow for the storage of bins when not presented for collection.

Chiltern Conservation Objection. Board The Board objects to the planning application for the following reasons: • The Board considers that the proposal does not accord with the development plan, which in this case includes the saved policies of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004 (SBLP). In addition the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are important material considerations. The policies of the emerging Central Bedfordshire Development Strategy (CBDS) are also material considerations. This document has not yet reached submission stage and, therefore, the weight which can be accorded to it will depend on the relevance of its policies and the extent to which they accord with the NPPF. Agenda Item 8 Page 77

• The form of development proposed is considered to be inappropriate in the Green Belt and would have a significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would result in the construction of two storey houses on land which is currently undeveloped and part of the local countryside. This is clearly contrary to policy and the application does not demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify planning permission being granted. • The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application lists eleven matters that it claims are very special circumstances which justify an exception being made to Green Belt policy in this case. It can immediately be seen that the majority of the claimed ‘very special circumstances' are nothing of the sort. They are not special and are no more than would be expected of any planning application. The assertion that the proposal would not cause ‘serious, unjustified encroachment into the Green Belt’ is plainly wrong. Significant encroachment would occur, and the words used by the applicant to attempt to underplay the seriousness of that encroachment have no part in the tests set out in the Development Plan and the NPPF for inappropriate development in a Green Belt. • Housing need can also not be convincingly argued to be a very special circumstance in this case as it applies across the whole of Central Bedfordshire, and could be equally claimed as justification for development in any other location in the Green Belt. Further, Central Bedfordshire Council has published a Development Strategy which proposes major allocations of land for housing development to meet that housing need. In any event, this proposal would make no material contribution to meeting ‘district’ housing need. It is noted that the application is not solely for ‘affordable housing’ and is not accompanied by any analysis or assessment of local housing need. • It is clear that this proposal would do significant harm to the Green Belt and seriously undermine the purposes for which it was designated. This harm is not outweighed by the benefits claimed for the proposed development, none of which represent very special circumstances. • The application site is in the Chilterns AONB, a nationally designated landscape where the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the area is to be given priority. The proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on this part of the Chilterns landscape by extending development into currently open Agenda Item 8 Page 78

countryside, and through the adverse visual and landscape impact which would result from the construction of 8 substantial, two storey dwellings on an open and previously undeveloped site. The part of the application site on which the 8 houses are proposed makes a positive contribution, in its current open state, to the natural beauty of this part of the AONB and to the historic core of Studham village. • No Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been submitted with the application. No other illustrative material has been submitted to show the impact the proposed development would have on the landscape and views of the site from publicly accessible locations in the surrounding countryside. It can be assumed from this that no such assessment has been undertaken. This is a serious omission in this sensitive area where landscape and visual matters are a vitally important consideration. • The site forms an important part of the landscape setting of the historic core of Studham, which is also a Conservation Area. The site can be clearly seen from a range of publicly accessible locations in the surrounding countryside. At present the site can be seen by those approaching Studham on the section of Dunstable Road north of Bell Cottages. At this point the footpath and carriageway immediately adjoin the eastern boundary of the site and offer views across it to Bell Cottages which form part of the Studham Conservation Area. This juxtaposition of open countryside and historic built form is recognised as a characteristic element of the Chiltern landscape. The retention of this juxtaposition of built and natural environment is an important material consideration which should be accorded great weight in the determination of this application. Its loss would significantly reduce the character and quality of this part of the AONB and the Conservation Area. • It is also important to take account of the landscape and visual impact of the proposed houses when seen from Dunstable Road. Currently, the site is not fully visible from the carriageway of Dunstable Road as this is at a lower level than the adjacent footpath. However the proposed houses will be clearly seen from the carriageway. This will have a significant adverse impact on this part of the approach to the Conservation Area through the loss of the historic relationship between Bell Cottages, which marks the edge of the historic core of the village, and the mosaic of open fields which form its landscape setting. The importance of this relationship is recognised in the Studham Conservation Area Appraisal prepared by Agenda Item 8 Page 79

Bedfordshire County Council as long ago as 1973, a relationship which has not materially changed in the intervening 40 years, and remains a relevant material consideration today. Its loss would be a serious matter. • The site and adjoining buildings can also be seen from the network of public footpaths to the west of the site. In these views the buildings appear as glimpsed features in an otherwise undeveloped landscape, visible only through gaps in the intervening hedges. The proposed two storey houses would, however be much more clearly visible than the existing buildings from these areas, both above and through the intervening hedge line, and would appear as visual intrusions in the rural landscape. • The proposed houses will be on a larger scale than existing development. The ridge heights are proposed to be 8.7m above ground level, significantly higher than that of the adjoining cottages. Further, the eight proposed dwellings, each with attached garage to side, will occupy a large part of the currently undeveloped part of the site. • In addition, the proposed dwellings will be significantly closer to the hedgerow on the western boundary of the site than existing buildings. They will therefore appear as a more prominent feature in the landscape and views from outside the site, seen through and above the existing hedge line. • The site layout plan submitted with the application shows the rear plots of the proposed houses extending up to the centre line of the hedge which forms the western boundary of the site. This drawing also shows that a number of hedgerow trees will be within the garden plots. It will be very difficult, should permission be granted for the proposed development, to ensure the retention, and appropriate management, of this hedgerow by the various householders. Similarly it will be difficult for the Local Planning Authority to resist proposals for the removal of the hedgerow trees, in the interests of residential amenity and occupiers’ use and enjoyment of their gardens. • The historic core of Studham, when viewed from the rising ground of Studham Common to the south, is seen as a collection of roofs and upper walls of buildings set amongst mature trees. These trees effectively serve to screen parts of the built form from views from the south. However from Studham Common, Bell Cottages, the Bell pub and buildings on Bell Farm, adjacent to the application site, can be clearly seen, even in summer when trees are in full Agenda Item 8 Page 80

leaf. It follows from this that the proposed two storey houses will also be visible, and have the potential for adverse visual and landscape interest. The likelihood is that the effectiveness of the hedgerow as a screen for the proposed development will be lost and its adverse visual and landscape impact increased. • The Board also considers that the design of the proposed buildings is bland and does not conform to the advice in the Chilterns Buildings Design Guide. It is also considered that the dominance of the proposal would be exacerbated by virtue of the fact that the design does not incorporate any chimneys (which generally help to lessen the impact of large expanses of roof covered in tile or slate). • The Board considers that the proposed development is contrary to the Development Plan. It is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the site is not previously developed in terms of paragraph 89 and Annex 2 of the NPPF. It would lead to significant loss of openness of the Green Belt, and encroachment into open countryside. It would contribute to the coalescence of settlements in the area. • The benefits claimed for the proposed development by the applicant do not represent very special circumstances. They are largely unsubstantiated, unconvincing and specific to the site owner. They do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm, including that to the Chilterns AONB and the Conservation Area. They do not justify an exception to the normal restrictions on inappropriate development in the Green Belt. • In the light of the above it is clear to the Board that planning permission should not be granted for this proposal and the Board therefore recommends that the Council should refuse this particular planning application.

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle of the development 2. Impact on the openness of the Green Belt 3. Design appraisal 4. Impact on the character and appearance of the open countryside, the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Area of Great Landscape Value and the adjoining Conservation Area 5. Impact on residential amenity 6. Impact on access, parking provision and highway safety 7. Other material considerations Agenda Item 8 Page 81

Considerations

1. Principle of the development Having regard to the location of the application site within the designated South Bedfordshire Green Belt, the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV), the main issue to consider is whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, if so, whether there are any very special circumstances sufficient to outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, including harm to the character and appearance of the AONB, AGLV, Conservation Area and open countryside.

Policy GB1 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review which provided the principle criteria for assessing new developments in the Green Belt was deleted and replaced by national guidance now contained in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy 36 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire. This national advice and the emerging policy state that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt. Exceptions to this are listed in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the NPPF. If the development is considered inappropriate, paragraph 87 of the NPPF states that it is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances. Such 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 (paragraph 88).

The application site is undeveloped and can be considered as 'greenfield land'. The proposed development would spread the built foot print of the existing cottages and would further encroach onto an otherwise open countryside to the north west of the site. The proposed development incorporates gardens that would extend towards the rear and hence represent further encroachment into the open countryside. The erection of garden fences would further emphasise this encroachment which would result in an urban form of development and the domestication of a large area of the countryside. Accordingly, the proposed development would be inappropriate within the meaning of the NPPF. Paragraph 87 advises that inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Further advice at paragraph 88 is clear that 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.

Overall, the proposed development would conflict with the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt. These purposes are listed at paragraph 80 of the NPPF as follows: • to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Agenda Item 8 Page 82

Very Special Circumstances In an attempt to prove the existence of very special circumstances, the applicant has submitted the following information : Support for the continued existence of the Bell Public House • The NPPF encourages developments that support the continued existence of community facilities such as public houses and schools. • The development would help to raise the much needed funds to implement the planning permission for the bed and breakfast lodge which would support CBC's efforts to promote tourism. Income from tourism makes a significant contribution to CBC's economy. • CBC recognises the vital role that shops and pubs play in supporting rural communities. • CBC is notable for the presence of a number of significant employment facilities in the countryside and Green Belt. The council values existing businesses within CBC and supports proposals for the expansion which will contribute positively to the local economy and provide new jobs within the area. The proposed development would ensure the protection of the existing employees of which some are local residents and provide opportunities for recruiting more for the Bed and Breakfast lodge. Additionally, with the re- development of the Bell Farm, this would worsen the impact on local employment. Size of dwellings proposed Small properties would keep the community balanced and allow the existing residents to downsize and remain in the village. Small dwellings would attract young families to the village. There is a demonstrable need for affordable housing. Historically, there has been a shortfall of affordable housing within the rural areas partly due to the limited opportunity for infill development in the villages. The CBC development strategy, 'Affordable housing and the Green Belt', states that there is need for affordable housing in the Green Belt settlements and the council will consider favourably the provision of affordable housing on rural exception sites in the Green Belt. Quality The proposed development is of tasteful design and would not be a housing estate of 'sheer ugliness' or soullessness'. The dwellings would be of the same style as the Bell Cottages and would complement the surroundings.

Environment Protecting and enhancing the environment and making the best and most efficient use of the areas's resources is key to sustainable development. The Council's strategy for environmental enhancement is to provide a 'Green Framework for Growth'. This framework includes identifying the most sustainable locations using sustainability criteria to identify where development minimises negative effects on the environment, and maximises the opportunity to deliver benefits.

Section 106 Agreement

A draft section 106 template has been submitted with the application consenting Agenda Item 8 Page 83 to make financial contributions towards infrastructure provision as follows:

• Education: £24, 536 • Healthcare: £3,800 • Indoor Sports Centres: £13,576 • Recreational Open space and Children's Play: £1,752 • Waste Management: £1,184 • Police Force: £1,312

Total: £46, 160

Appraisal

The applicant’s very special circumstances case has been examined in light of the national advice within the NPPF and is not considered acceptable for the following reasons :

Support for the continued existence of the Bell Public House The applicant seeks to elevate the importance of protecting the survival of the Public house above any other policy consideration. This is considered a fundamentally flawed approach which ignores national advice. Indeed, national advice within the NPPF stresses that in pursuit of sustainable development, the three strands of economic, social and environmental roles should not be undertaken in isolation, because they are mutually dependent. Therefore, to achieve sustainable development, economic, social and environmental gains should be sought jointly and simultaneously through the planning system. It is our view that the argument in support of sustaining the Public house is not balanced and does not justify the acceptability of the proposed development. Furthermore, there is no evidence that all possible avenues of securing alternative funding for Public House have been explored and there is no guarantee that any proceeds from the sale of the development site would be channelled to the Public House. Moreover, it is doubtful if such a requirement could be lawfully enforced. Even assuming that this could be done, there is no guarantee that the Public House's fortunes would change as a direct result of the cash injection into the business. This ignores other factors like market competition and changing consumer behaviour.

Affordable Homes National advice within the NPPF encourages the provision of affordable houses on exception sites where appropriate to reflect local needs and circumstances. This approach is supported in Policy 35 of the DSCB and Policy H5 of the SBLPR.

Policy 35 states that:

The Council may make an exception to the usual settlement boundary constraints surrounding settlements within Central Bedfordshire under very specific circumstances. This will only apply to the development of Exception Sites which meet the following criteria:

• designed to meet local housing needs. It is recognised that a significant demographic need may arise from older persons. The local needs of all Agenda Item 8 Page 84

sections of community will be evidenced by a housing needs survey. • subject to a Section 106 legal agreement or unilateral undertaking. • allocated in accordance with the Council’s adopted Local Lettings Policy. • small-Scale development (usually 10 dwellings but in special circumstances larger developments may be considered). • provide affordable homes that will remain affordable in perpetuity. • provide only a limited number of open market dwellings subject to site specific viability testing (up to 20% of the total dwellings). • a mix of tenures to be made available to meet the identified local need. • in the case of shared ownership, ‘stair-casing’ or purchasing additional equity shares will be restricted to 80% of the properties’ open market value. This is to ensure that the property remains affordable in perpetuity. • situated outside the existing settlement envelope but relates well to the existing settlement and is in-keeping with surrounding character.

Whilst the policy supports the provision of affordable housing in Green Belt settlements, this is only acceptable on 'rural exception sites' of which the application site is not. The proposed development is not predominantly for the provision of affordable homes and as such offers nothing very special in this respect. Notwithstanding the applicant's reference to the proposed development as one designed to plug the gap in the provision of the affordable homes, the development would only offer 50% of the units as affordable dwellings. Whilst it might be the case that there is a shortage in the supply of affordable housing units in the rural villages, (although this is not supported by any analysis of the situation in the village), the solution is not to build on land that should be accorded the highest level of protection against inappropriate development such as this. (NPPF paragraph 115). Furthermore, contrary to the applicant's assertion, the proposal does not constitute infill development. Policy H12 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review cited in the Design and Access which deals with infill developments is therefore not relevant to this proposal. This policy does not identify Studham as a village where infill development is appropriate. Furthermore, paragraph 11.7 of the DSCB provides the following definition of infill development: 'Infill development can generally be defined as small-scale development for two dwellings in a small gap in an otherwise built up frontage, utilising a plot which should continue to complement the surrounding pattern of development. The dwelling or dwellings proposed should have a plot size and frontage length which is similar to those of adjoining frontage properties. There should be no adverse impact on the setting of the site, the character of the area, and surrounding properties and uses.'The proposed development in fact represents encroachment of built development onto the open countryside which would be detrimental to the character of the locality and the setting of the Conservation Area. The proposal therefore fails the tests laid down in Policy 35 of the DSCB and Policy H5 of the SBLPR and is contrary to national advice within the NPPF.

Quality The applicant's conclusion regarding the quality of the design is not accepted. For the reasons detailed by the Conservation and Design Officer, English Heritage and the Chiltern Conservation Board, it is considered that the proposed development fails to respond to the character of the area. National advice within the NPPF is quite clear that the Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and good design is a key aspect of sustainable Agenda Item 8 Page 85

development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.(paragraph 56). Paragraph 64 goes on to say that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. The proposed scheme represents poor design which fails to integrate with its immediate historic and countryside setting.

Section 106 Agreement

The Agreement has not been signed and the heads of terms have not been defined. Furthermore, financial contributions are a standard requirement applicable to most new housing developments and hence cannot be given much weight as very special circumstances.

National advice requires that following an assessment of the appropriateness or otherwise of a development in the Green Belt, the LPA should also examine if there would be any other harm caused by the development.

Policy SD1 of the SBLPR states that preference will be given to the proposals on sites within the first four categories of the Development Strategy and proposals on sites in the remaining categories of the development strategy will only be favourably considered where the applicant can demonstrate that:

• there is a need that could not be met by proposals in the local plan;

• there are no sites in the first four categories that could practicably meet that need;

• the proposal would be preferable to sites in the first four categories in terms of reducing the need to travel; relationship to existing services and facilities; and accessibility by modes of transport other than the car;

• there is adequate service and community infrastructure, existing or proposed, to accommodate the proposal; and

• the proposal is acceptable in terms of Green Belt Policy.

In this case, the site falls outside the preferred categories and hence fails to satisfy the above criteria. Furthermore, having regard to the poor design, harmful visual impact and highway safety concerns, the principle of the proposed residential development is considered to be unacceptable on this site.

2. Impact on the openness of the Green Belt The NPPF advises, at paragraph 79 that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. This approach is echoed in Policy 36 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire (DSCB). The proposed development represents an encroachment into the open countryside beyond the built up area defined by the Bell Cottages. This harm would not be outweighed by the limited benefits to be had from approving the scheme. Furthermore, the very special circumstances case as discussed above, is considered unacceptable.

Agenda Item 8 Page 86

3. Design appraisal

Density of the development The proposed development would translate to 16 dwellings per hectare which would reflect the sensitivity of the area.

Layout and scale The proposed development would spread the built development beyond the limits of the Conservation Area defined by the Bell Cottages. Furthermore, the layout appears regimented thus failing to reflect the informal courtyard design that would be more in keeping with a rural location such as this. The development, as a result, fails to respect and integrate with the local character and context.

Visual impact The applicant has failed to identify the key elements of the context of the application site and hence the application was not supported by a detailed visual appraisal. There is therefore no evidence that the proposed development would not have a harmful visual impact on the open countryside.

Trees and landscaping The applicant commissioned a tree survey and the major findings and recommendations are contained in a report submitted with the application. The report identified mitigation measures to likely harm to the trees. Additional planting is proposed. The Tree and Landscape Officer however raises objections regarding the proximity of the dwellings to the boundary, which would result in the development threatening the continued existence of the trees along the western boundary which offer a vital screen beyond the application site.

Access and Parking The access to the application site would be via the existing Bell Public House car park, next to the Bell Cottages.

Car parking would primarily be provided on individual plots and would comprise garages, and driveways situated to the side of the dwellings in accordance with the Council’s minimum parking standards. The scheme would also provide 5 visitor spaces grouped in front of Plots 3 and 4. It is considered that the parking layout would afford adequate natural surveillance.

4. Impact on the character and appearance of the open countryside, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Area of Great Landscape Value and the adjoining Conservation Area The NPPF is quite clear at paragraph 115 that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in the AONB which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. Policy BE8 requires all development to, amongst other things, complement and harmonise with surrounding development, to carefully consider setting and to have no adverse impact upon amenity. This criterion is echoed in Policies 43 & 45 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire (D.S.C.B). It is therefore considered that the proposed development would have a materially harmful impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area mainly due to the siting and scale of the dwellings. It is considered that the proposed Agenda Item 8 Page 87

development would fail to preserve or enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area and provide sufficient mitigation to any visual harm to the locality. Overall, the design solution does not demonstrate an appreciation of the constraints and opportunities of the context of the development and hence would cause irreversible damage to the character and appearance of the area.

5. Impact on residential amenity Policy 43 of the Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire requires new development to respect the amenity of surrounding properties and their occupiers. The proposed dwellings would maintain adequate separation distances with the Bell Cottages such that no harm would be caused to residential amenity.

6. Impact on access, parking provision and highway safety Overall, the development would be prejudicial to highway safety as detailed in the Highways Officer's comments due to the intensification of the use of a substandard access with poor visibility on entry onto Dunstable Road.

7. Other material considerations

Objections The objections received from third parties have been taken into account and given weight in accordance with their relevance to the determination of the application.

The Development Plan

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

It is noted that a number of policies which the applicant sought to rely on to justify the proposed development have either been deleted or are irrelevant. These policies, extracted from the SBLPR and listed in the Design and Access Statement are summarised below : GB1 - Green Belts (Deleted) GB2 - Major Development Sites in the Green Belt (Not relevant ) NE1 -Location and Design of Development in the Countryside (Deleted) NE10 -Diversifying the use of Agricultural Land (Not relevant) BE4 -Control of Development in the Conservation Areas (Deleted) BE5 -Control of Development in the Conservation Areas (Deleted) BE6 -Control of Development in Areas of Special Character (Not relevant) T1 -Controlling the Location and Traffic Impact of Development (Deleted) H1-Making Provision for Housing and Accompanying Schedule of Proposed Housing Sites (Not relevant) H2 -Making Provision for Housing via 'Fall-in' Sites (Not relevant) H12 -Controlling Infilling in Villages (Not relevant)

The failure to identify the correct policies might have contributed to the wrong conclusion that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character of the area.

Agenda Item 8 Page 88

Pre-application consultations

National advice within the NPPF encourages early engagement on development proposals in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the planning application system. (paragraph 188). In this case, as outlined in the supporting documents, the applicant opted not to seek pre-application advice.

Human Rights issues

Whilst there has been opposition to the application from some local residents and other interested parties, it is not considered that the application raises significant human rights concerns.

Equality Act 2010

The development does not raise equality issues which could not be dealt with under the relevant legislation.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be REFUSED.

RECOMMENDED REASONS

1 The site lies within the South Bedfordshire Green Belt, where permission will not be granted except in very special circumstances for development for purposes other than those listed in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The development would be situated on greenfield land and wou ld be contrary to the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore inappropriate and harmful to the visual amenity and rural character of this Green Belt location and the very special circumstances advanced are not consider ed sufficient to permit the development. The development is therefore contrary to national advice contained within the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies 35 and 36 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and SD1 and H5 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review.

2 The proposal is contrary to Policy H12 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review, whereby planning permission will not be granted for additional residential development in rural areas with the exception, i n Category 2 villages, of infill sites which are physically contained by existing development and where infilling would not result in an adverse impact on the setting of the site and the character of the area. This proposal does not constitute infilling an d Studham is not designated as a Category 2 Village in the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review. The proposed development in fact represents an encroachment into the open countryside beyond the built up area. The National Planning Policy Framework advises , at paragraph 79 that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. The development would therefore be contrary to t his national advice and Policies 36 & 37 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire (DSCB).

Agenda Item 8 Page 89

3 One of the objectives of the Government in the rural areas is to raise the quality of life and the environment through the promotion of goo d quality, sustainable development that respects and, where possible, enhances local distinctiveness and the intrinsic qualities of the countryside and the continued protection of the open countryside for the benefit of all. Because of the poor design, change in the character of the use of the land and the introduction of domestic paraphernalia that would go with the occupation of the dwellings, the proposed development would fail to enhance the local rural distinctiveness of the area and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Area of Great Landscape Value and Conservation Area and thus, would be contrary to the principles of good design set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies SD 1, BE8 and NE3 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policies 43, 45 and 50 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire.

4 The development, if permitted, would lead to the intensification of use of an existing access which pr ovides inadequate driver / driver intervisibility. Furthermore, the proposed development makes inadequate provision for a satisfactory vehicular access road to serve the development which would lead to conditions of danger for all road users contrary to P olicy 43 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and national advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.

5 The supplementary planning guidance regarding Planning Obligations was adopted in January 2010 and requires that a ll residential development, including single dwellings, will be subject to standard charges to ensure that smaller-scale developments meet their obligations to fairly and reasonably contribute towards new infrastructure and facilities. The application fail s to make contributions towards the provision of new infrastructure to sustain the proposed development thereby conflicting with the Central Bedfordshire Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance: Planning Obligations Strategy for Southern Bedfords hire (2010), Policy 19 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and National advice within the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted pro-actively through early engagement with the applicant by inviting pre-application con sultations. This positive advice has however not been followed and therefore the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) have been met in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

DECISION

......

......

Page 90

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 Page 91

GREAT LINNS 12

2

515

525 1

3

121 111

14 323

LITTLE LINNS N © Crown18 Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No: W E Date: 22:October:2013 CB/13/03092/Full Map Sheet No S New Lower School Site, Marston Park Great Linns, Marston Moretaine. Scale: 1:1250 Page 92

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 Page 93 Item No. 9

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/03092/FULL LOCATION New Lower School Site, Marston Park Great Linns, Marston Moretaine MK43 0DD PROPOSAL Provision of a second Primary School campus forming the expansion of Church End Foundation Lower School. The second campus is to be developed on land east of Bedford Road, Marston Moretaine, within the Marston Park Development. PARISH Marston Moretaine WARD Cranfield & Marston Moretaine WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Bastable, Matthews & Mrs Clark CASE OFFICER Annabel Gammell DATE REGISTERED 13 September 2013 EXPIRY DATE 13 December 2013 APPLICANT Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd AGENT Hunters Architects South Ltd REASON FOR Application made on behalf of the Education COMMITTEE TO Department and objections have been received. DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Granted

Summary of Recommendation

The principle of having a Lower School in this location has been previously established. It is considered that the design and the detailed acc ess is in accordance with National and Local planning policy.

Site Location:

The site forms part of the Marston Park, a mixed use development to the east of the village of Marston Moretaine. Along its western boundaries it adjoins existing residential areas off Bedford Road and Station Road.

It adjoins the Marston Vale Millennium Country Park and Forest Centre to the east/southeast. To the northeast is Anglian Water sewage treatment works. The site area totals some 31 hectares and is currently under construction. The site is partly occupied, with phase 1 largely completed.

The site lies within the Settlement Envelope of Marston Moretaine and is allocated for residential development through the saved policy contained within the Mid Bedfordshire Local Plan First Review.

The site also lies within the Marston Vale Strategy Area and the Marston Vale Community Forest. It is also within the Flood Plain.

This portion of the site is some 1.17 ha in the northern area of the main site. The whole site is covered by an outline planning consent for a mixed use development Agenda Item 9 comprising approximately 480 dwellings, 3 hectares of B1 employment use, primaryPage 94 school, local centre, community sports hall and other engineering operations (all matters reserved except means of access).

The Application:

Full Planning permission is sought for a new campus for the existing Lower School in Marston, known as Church End Foundation Lower School.

The site would have the capacity for a single form entry Lower School, it is no ted that although the application states it is for a 2 nd campus to an existing school, the facilities would be tantamount to a new Lower School in this location.

Relevant Policies:

National Policy

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Local Policy

Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009)

CS2 Developer Contributions CS3 Healthy and Sustainable Communities CS4 Linking Communities – Accessibility and Transport CS5 Providing Homes CS7 Affordable Housing CS9 Providing Jobs CS13 Climate Change CS14 High Quality Development CS17 Green Infrastructure DM1 Renewable Energy DM2 Sustainable Construction of New Buildings DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes DM9 Providing a Range of Transport DM10 Housing Mix DM14 Landscape and Woodland DM15 Biodiversity DM17 Accessible Green spaces

Marston Park Design Code (2010)

Design in Central Bedfordshire (a guide for development) (2010)

Appendix F (Parking Strategy) Central Bedfordshire Transport Plan (2012)

Relevant Planning History:

Application: Planning Number: CB/13/03447/RM Validated: 17/09/2013 Type: Reserved Matters Agenda Item 9 Status: Registered Date: Page 95 Summary: Decision: Description: Reserved Matters: Infrastructure landscaping, linear park 1 and commercial access details. (Following outline application MB/06/0593/OUT Mixed use development comprising approximately 480 dwellings, 3 hectares of B1 employment use, primary school, local centre, community sports hall and other engineering operations (all matters reserved except means of access).

Application: Planning Number: CB/13/01941/RM Validated: 17/06/2013 Type: Reserved Matters Status: Withdrawn Date: 13/09/2013 Summary: Decision: Application Withdrawn Description: Reserved Matters: Infrastructure landscaping, linear park 1 and commercial access details. (Following outline application MB/06/0593/OUT Mixed use development comprising approximately 480 dwellings, 3 hectares of B1 employment use, primary school, local centre, community sports hall and other engineering operations (all matters reserved except means of access).

Application: Planning Number: CB/13/00146/NMA Validated: 05/02/2013 Type: Non-material Change to Permission Status: Decided Date: 01/03/2013 Summary: Decision: Non-Material Amendment - Granted Description: Non-Material Amendment: Revised plans

Bungalow alterations Alterations to house types

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

Application: Planning Number: CB/12/00108/NMA Validated: 11/01/2012 Type: Non-material Change to Permission Status: Decided Date: 03/02/2012 Summary: Decision: Non-Material Amendment - Granted Description: Non-material amendment: to planning permission CB/10/04231/RM alteration to Aylsham house type from Agenda Item 9 one bedroom house to two bedroom house. Page 96

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

Application: Planning Number: CB/11/03929/FULL Validated: 31/10/2011 Type: Full Application Status: Decided Date: 28/12/2011 Summary: Decision: Full Application - Granted Description: First floor extension over existing carport to form new bedroom with en-suite.

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

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

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

Agenda Item 9 Page 97

Application: Planning Number: CB/11/01708/REN Validated: 16/05/2011 Type: Replacement PP sub to new time limit Status: Decided Date: 11/10/2011 Summary: Decision: Rep PP - New Time Limit - Granted Description: Renewal of Planning Permission: Application MB/06/00593/OUT dated 07/10/2008. Mixed use development comprising approximately 480 dwelling, 3 hectares of B1 employment use, primary school, local centre, community sports hall and other engineering operations.

Application: Planning Number: MB/06/0593/OUT Validated: Type: Outline Status: Decided Date: 07.19.08 Summary: Decision: Granted Description: Mixed use development comprising approximately 480 dwellings, 3 hectares of B1 employment use, primary school, local centre, community sports hall and other engineering operations (all matters reserved except means of access).

Application: Planning Number: CB/10/04231/RM Validated: 19/11/2010 Type: Reserved Matters Status: Decided Date: 24/02/2011 Summary: Decision: Reserved Matters- Granted

Application: Planning Number: MB/97/01086/OA Validated: 29/07/1997 Type: Outline Application Status: Decided Date: 25/11/1997 Summary: Refused Decision: Refuse Description: OUTLINE: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (480 DWELLINGS), EMPLOYMENT USES (B1, B2, B8), SURGERY, SHOP, ACCESS ROADS AND OPEN SPACE. (ALL MATTERS RESERVED EXCEPT MEANS OF ACCESS).

Application: Planning Number: MB/97/01087/OA Validated: 29/07/1997 Type: Outline Application Status: Decided Date: 26/11/1997 Summary: Refused Decision: Refuse Description: OUTLINE: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (480 DWELLINGS), EMPLOYMENT USES (B1, B2, B8), SURGERY, SHOP, ACCESS ROADS AND OPEN SPACE. (ALL MATTERS RESERVED EXCEPT MEANS OF ACCESS).

Agenda Item 9 Page 98

Consultation responses:

Neighbours were written to and press and site notices were published. The responses are summarised below:

Marston P C No objection

Neighbours 2 letters of objection have been received, commenting as follows:

• I would like to object due to additional traffic entering the nice quiet marston park estate and surrounding area. Increased noise during the day. Privacy issues may occur due to parents parking outside our house or indeed in the marston park estates and walking their children to the school.

• I think much more consideration should be given to car parking and drop off points and there are a number of roads in Marston Park that are tight and already congested with cars due to poor planning. From my experience if parents want to drive they will drive regardless of the impact it has on the local streets which is going to be a nightmare for residents.

Consultee responses:

Sustainable Transport No objections, recommends a condition relating to the Travel Plan.

Sport England No comment to make

Minerals and Waste No objections

Highways Given the history of this site in relation to the surrounding development I can confirm that the proposal as submitted is acceptable in a highway context. I acknowledge that the principle means of vehicle access to the site has been revised from that originally envisaged and is now proposed from the driveway serving the community building. This arrangement is entirely appropriate as access to the staff parking and servicing areas.

I am pleased to note that the submission includes a School Travel Plan and assume that the finer details will be agreed with colleagues in the sustainable transport team.

With regard to on-site highway related issues I can confirm that the proposed level of parking for staff and Agenda Item 9 visitors is Appendix F compliant as is the provision Page of 99 operational space for service vehicles.

I note that the submission also includes details of the on- site facilities during the construction period.

In these circumstances I confirm that there is no highway reason why planning approval should not be granted.

Environment Agency No comment received

Public Protection No comment received

Trees and landscaping No objection, recommends landscape condition

Ecology No objection

Determining Issues:

The considerations in the determination of this application are:

1. The principle of the development 2. Layout and appearance 3. Impact upon existing neighbours and future living conditions 4. Traffic and parking 5. Other considerations 6. Conclusions

Considerations:

1. Principle of the development and background

This is part of a larger site known as Marston Park, it was always envisioned that there would be the requirement for additional educational provision on this site. Land for a Lower School was secured within the legal agreement with the original planning permission MB/06/00593/OUT. In addition to the land being secured within the legal agreement outline planning permission has been granted for a school on this site. It is identified within the Design Code for Marston Park, and shown on the Master Plan in this location.

This application is for full planning permission, this is because although the general location and use of the site is in accordance with the outline planning permission, condition 6 of the outline consent requires all reserved matters applications to be subjection this condition:

“No development shall take place in a sub area other than in accordance with the approved Detailed Design Guide and Code, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development achieves the objectives set out in the Development Brief and Strategies.”

There is a section within the Design Code which describes the school, this Agenda Item 9 places certain design and access requirements upon the school, it is consideredPage 100 that the design as proposed does not fully accord with the details previously set out. This is why the application has been submitted in full opposed to as a reserved matter application. However it is considered that the principle of a school in this location has been established.

2. Layout and appearance

The layout is in general similar to that which has been previously approved. The access for staff parking will now be taken off the same access as the community building, as opposed to through the commercial land. It is considered an acceptable change and more practical in terms of the timing and delivery of the site. The school will have links with the use of the community building, and it is considered that the access arrangements would be practical.

The Design Code envisioned a significantly larger school than that proposed by this application. To create a sense of enclosure the frontage of the school was meant to be 2.5-3 storeys in height. Although the proposal is for a single storey school, to make the frontage appear more prominent within the streetscene, a canopy is proposed. This is to achieve distance views of the community facilities down Gold Furlong.

The proposed design is judged to be acceptable within this context. It would be practical in nature, it is proposed to be single storey, this is both due to the requirement for number of classrooms, and also to ensure it is fully accessible. The appearance would not be as prominent as it was originally considered would be appropriate, however the overall design, is considered good for the site. A large proportion of the building would be rendered, which is locally appropriate, and there is a large amount of glazing proposed, which is also typical of the wider housing site. Overall it is considered that the building and design would be practical and suited to the function and purpose of the site.

3. Impact upon existing neighbours and future living conditions

The site has outline consent in this location for a school of up to three storeys, the closest residential property will be on the opposite side of the road, some 20 metres away. It is considered that in terms of impact upon light, privacy, outlook or the causing of an overbearing impact the school would not significantly impact upon the residential amenity of adjacent properties.

Two letters were received, which both highlighted the impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of impact upon parking, and the highway, this will be considered in Section 4 of the report.

4. Traffic and parking

It is accepted that with this type of new development there is likely to be an impact upon the public highway. It is however considered that this highway network was designed with a school in this location known. It is judged that it is an accessible appropriate location for a school of this scale. It is appropriately located with other community facilities, and near the access of the housing, which means that parents/guardians would not need to travel though the housing site to access the school. Agenda Item 9 A School Travel Plan has been submitted as part of the application, wherePage 101 sustainable methods of transport are encouraged. It is considered that the access and parking arrangements accord with Central Bedfordshire policies and are therefore acceptable.

5. Other considerations

Human Rights Issues

The proposal would raise no known Human Rights Issues.

Equality Act 2010

The proposal would raise no known issues under the Equality Act.

6. Conclusions

The principle of a Lower School on this site has been established by the previously granted outline consent, and within the Marston Park Design Code. The design and layout at the site would be acceptable, and would provide a suitable learning environment. No significant harm would be caused to living conditions of adjacent neighbouring properties. The parking and access would be provided in accordance with the Council’s standards.

Recommendation:

That Planning Permission is granted subject to the following conditions:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

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 No development shall take place, notwithstanding the details submitted with t he application, until details of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs of the proposed building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordanc e with the approved details.

Reason: To control the appearance of the building in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality. (Policy 43, DSCB)

3 Before the building is first brought into use, a School Travel Plan shall be prepared, submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall contain details of:

Agenda Item 9 a. plans for the establishment of a working group involving the Page 102 School, parents and representatives of the local community b. pupil travel patterns and barriers to sustainable travel c. measures to encourage and promote sustainable travel and transport for journeys to and from school d. an action plan detailing targets and a timetable for implementing appropriate measures and plans for annual monitoring and review

All measures agreed therein shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: In the interests of highway safety, to reduce congestion and to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport

4 No works shall begin on site until the vehicular access from the site onto Great Linns has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

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

5 Before the premises are occupied all on site vehicular areas shall be surfaced in a stable and durable manner in accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Arrangements shall be made for surface water drainage from the site to soak away within the site so that it does not discharge into the highway or into the main drainage system.

Reason: To avoid the carriage of mud or other extraneous material or surface water from the site so as to safeguard the interest of highway safety and reduce the risk of floodin g and to minimise inconvenience to users of the premises and ensure satisfactory parking of vehicles outside highway limits .

6 No development shall commence until a wheel cleaning facility has been provided at all site exits in accordance with a scheme t o be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The wheel cleaner(s) shall be removed from the site once the roadworks necessary to provide adequate access from the public highway have been completed (apart from final surfacing) to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenity and to prevent the deposit of mud or other extraneous material on the highway during the construction period.

7 No development shall commence until full details of both hard and soft landscaping have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include:-

••• proposed finished levels or contours; ••• materials to be used for any hard surfacing; ••• minor structures (e.g. furniture, play equipment, signs, etc); ••• planting plans, including schedule of size, species, positions, density and times of planting; ••• cultivation details including operations required to establish new planting; Agenda Item 9 ••• details of existing trees and hedgerows on the site, indicating thosePage 103 to be retained and the method of their protection during development works. ••• details of boundary treatment

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

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

8 All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years of completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species unless the Local Planning Authority give written consent to any variation.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the site and the area generally.

9 No development shall commence until details of the method of disposal of foul and surface water drainage have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority including any land drainage system. Thereafter no part of the development shall be brought into use until the approved drainage scheme has been implemented.

Reason: To ensure that adequate foul and surface water drainage is provided and that existing and future land drainage needs are protected.

10 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers PL10C, PL03 B, PL04A, PL11A, PL05A, PL07A, PL06A, PL08A, PL12 C, 101.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Notes to Applicant

1. The applicants attention is drawn to their responsibility under The Equality Act 2010 and with particular regard to access arrangements for the disabled.

The Equality Act 2010 requires that service providers must think ahead and make reasonable adjustments to address barriers that impede disabled people.

These requirements are as follows:

• Where a provision, criterion or practice puts disabled people at a substantial disadvantage to take reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage; Agenda Item 9 • Where a physical feature puts disabled people at a substantial disadvantagePage to 104 avoid that disadvantage or adopt a reasonable alternative method of providing the service or exercising the function; • Where not providing an auxiliary aid puts disabled people at a substantial disadvantage to provide that auxiliary aid.

In doing this, it is a good idea to consider the range of disabilities that your actual or potential service users might have. You should not wait until a disabled person experiences difficulties using a service, as this may make it too late to make the necessary adjustment.

For further information on disability access contact:

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

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

Planning permission has been granted for this proposal. The Council acted pro-actively through early engagement with the applicant at the pre-application s tage which led to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively to secure a sustainable form of development in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Plann ing (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

Agenda Item 10 Page 105

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No: W E Date: 23:October:2013 CB/13/02796/REG3

Map Sheet No S Land Adjacent to 94 Ampthill Road, Flitwick Scale: 1:15000 Page 106

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10 Item No. 10 Page 107

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/02796/REG3 LOCATION Land Adjacent To 94, Ampthill Road, Flitwick PROPOSAL Flitwick Football Centre - Proposals comprise multiple facilities including; community room, kitchen, small office/reception, toilet facilities and 4 changing rooms. Forming new entrance off Ampthill Road with 33 car parking spaces, with 2 mini buses spaces and 2 disabled parking bays. The erection of a 3m high acoustic fence adjacent to the southern boundary and erection of a 6m high 'ball stop' netting barrier to the northern boundary adjacent to the A507 road. PARISH Flitwick WARD Flitwick WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Mrs Chapman, Gomm & Turner CASE OFFICER Judy Self DATE REGISTERED 16 August 2013 EXPIRY DATE 15 November 2013 APPLICANT Facilities and Projects Manager - Central Bedfordshire Council AGENT B3 Architects REASON FOR Facilities and Projects Manager – Central COMMITTEE TO Bedfordshire Council DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Granted

Summary of Recommendation

The proposal would provide an enhanced facility to the community of Flitwick. It would not result in any significant harm to either the character or appearance of the area and there will be no adverse impact on the residential amenity of any neighbouring property by reason of loss of light, privacy or noise and disturbance. Public Protection have not raised any objection to the proposed development. The proposed development is acceptable with regards to highway safety in accordance with the Local Transport Plan: Appendix F - Parking Standards. The proposal therefore complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy CS3: CS14: DM3 CS4: DM4: DM14: DM15 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies November 2009 and Po licy 22: 36: 38: 43: 57: 59 of the draft Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire.

Site Location and proposal:

The site lies to the north of Flitwick and is adjacent to both Ampthill Road and the A507. The site is located within both open country side and the South Bedfordshire Green Belt.

Previous planning permission was granted for a pavilion at Flitwick in 2009. The current proposal slightly repositions the building and provides for a slightly different Agenda Item 10 design. The new football pitch facility is a replacement for the existing pitches at thePage 108 Flitwick Leisure Centre. The proposed building measures 30.7m x 16.8m with height to ridge of 6.4m (max).

The design comprises of a community room, kitchen, small office/reception, toilet facilities and 4 changing rooms. The pavilion offers changing and showering facilities for both players and officials with the size and numbers being based upon the requirement for the pitches shown with additional limited support facilities for the spectators, anticipated to be mainly young player’s parents.

It is proposed to erect a 3m high acoustic fence adjacent to the southern boundary and erection of a 6m high 'ball stop' netting barrier to the northern boundary adjacent to the A507 road.

Planning permission had been recently granted for a change of use of land from agricultural to D2 (outdoor sport and recreation) and associated landscaping. Currently works have commenced on site to clear the site and for the associated work which were approved under CB/13/00333/ REG3. The site is owned by Central Bedfordshire Council.

During the determination of the application the acoustic fence was reduced in length following discussions with the Environmental Health Officer (public protection) as there is no need to extend thi s beyond a point which is perpendicular to the rear of properties on Chauntry Way. All the neighbours have been consulted over the revised plan.

RELEVANT POLICIES: National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies, November 2009 CS3: Healthy and Sustainable Communities CS14: DM3 High Quality Development CS4: Linking Communities - Accessibility and Transport DM4: Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes DM14: Landscape and Woodland DM15: Biodiversity

Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire Policy 22: Leisure and open space provision Policy 36: Development in the Green Belt Policy 38: Within and Beyond Settlement Boundaries Policy 43: High quality development Policy 57: Biodiversity and Geodiversity Policy 59: Woodlands, trees and hedgerows (Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, significant weight is given to the policies contained within the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, which is consistent with the NPPF. The draft Development Strategy is due to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2014.)

Supplementary Planning Guidance None applicable to this application

Agenda Item 10 Page 109

Planning History

CB/13/00333 Regulation 3: Change of use of land from agricultural to D2 (outdoor sport and recreation) and associated landscaping. It is proposed to use the land for outdoor sports and recreation - playing fields with 1 full sized and 6 junior grass pitches. CB/09/05708 Regulation 3: Change of use of land to football pitches with associated changing pavilion and external landscaping - approved

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Flitwick TC Supports the application. Members had concerns regarding the number of car parking spaces outlined in the application as it appeared to be insufficient. Members would like to see a provision for overflow parking, particularly due to the function room included in the application which would need to accommodate more vehicles.

Neighbours Four objections have been received. 1 The Birches 1B The Birches 2 The Birches 94 Ampthill Road Management Ltd

Whilst a number of the queries relate to the previous application (CB/00333/REG3) the following issues and concerns have been raised. The comments received have been summarised as following:

1. Concern that work has commenced on site ahead of a planning decision.

2. Concern over the location of the facilities.

3. Concern over the proposed opening hours.

4. Concern over noise protection measures (acoustic fence and bund) given that an acoustic report is not available – also concern over the design / length of the soil bund as it does not extend continuously along the southern boundary. The following measures should have been considered:

a. That the applicant pays for the overhead power lines to be buried underground (as was discussed with the original plans in 2009) so that the earth bund can extend further along the southern boundary; Agenda Item 10 Page 110 b. The acoustic fence looks very unattractive and there should be planting on its southern boundary.

5. Concern over the level of use from the Football Centre and the potential for noise and disruptive behaviour and would like assurances that:

c. No alcohol licence is granted in the future should approval be recommended

d. That the gates be locked to the site when it is not in use to prevent anti-social behaviour

6. Concern over the traditional style of the development given that the previously approved planning application detailed a low visual impact building with a green roof.

7. Will the building offer the same type of sound proofing provisions as the previously approved building.

8. The plans are not clear with regards to the landscaping on the bund.

9. The details of the perimeter fencing along the Ampthill Road boundary are not clear on the submitted plans as people are using the gated access to the track which allows access to the field at the rear. Is this to be permanently fenced off as school children and dog walkers are using it as a cut through.

Consultations/Publicity responses

Internal Drainage Board (IDB) No objection Environment Agency No objection Public Protection - contamination No comments to make Highways No objection subject to conditions Play and Open Space Officer No comments to make Community Safety Officer No comments to make Sport England Supports the application Ecology Supports the SUDs proposals Tree & Landscapes No objection subject to a landscaping condition Archaeology No objection Public Protection - noise No objection subject to conditions

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. The principle of development 2. The visual impact of the development and the impact upon the Green Belt Agenda Item 10 3. Impact on the amenities of neighbours Page 111 4. Highway considerations 5. Other Considerations

Considerations

Human Rights issues The development has been assessed in the context of the Human Rights and would have no relevant implications.

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

1. The principle of development The application site lies outside the Settlement Envelope for Flitwick in open Countryside and within the Green Belt.

Permission was granted in 2009 for a new football pitch facility on the land as the site was deemed to be a suitable location for the proposed development. As such the principle of development has been established as acceptable. In addition the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) states that local planning authorities should:

• “Plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation”.

It is considered these would also be in accordance with the NPPF as national planning policy supports facilities which would be for outdoor sport and recreation.

2. The Visual Impact of the Development and the Impact upon the Green Belt The building is located parallel to the western boundary and close to the existing road so that it does not impinge onto the playing field too much and relates to the hedgerow. The car parking is formed between the proposed building and the main road.

The roofing materials have been revised from the previously approved scheme in the light of robustness, long life and security. The building is to be brick clad under a mill finished, stucco embossed aluminium double pitched roof. The roof finish will age and dull over time with the sheets taking on a dull grey patina.

The site lies to the north of Flitwick and is adjacent to both Ampthill Road and the A507. The site is located within both open countryside and the South Bedfordshire Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework supports the:

• “Provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it”.

The proposed development is considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework as it is an appropriate use within the Green Belt and would preserve the openness of the Green Belt. In addition, the emerging Agenda Item 10 Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire places an importance Page on 112 providing new ‘green space’ in the form of playing pitches that provides opportunities for open access to the public for recreational purposes.

In conclusion it is considered that the proposal would not result in any harm to the character and appearance of the area and would preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

3. Impact on the amenities of neighbours The western part of the southern side of the site is adjacent to a number of existing residential properties. At the closest point the proposed football pavilion is positioned 80m from the nearest properties on the modern 'close' setting of 'The Birches'. Given the degree of separation no direct impact to the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers would result by way of overbearing impact; loss of privacy or loss of light. The issues raised from the consultation process primarily relate to noise disturbance and these concerns have been addressed below.

Response to the objections received:

1. Concern that work has commenced on site ahead of a planning decision.

Response: The pitch construction has already gained planning permission under CB/13/00333 and the design and formation of the pitches will not result in any net rising of the ground and the flood plane. Pitch construction has taken advantage of existing gradients with grading only to remove any small peaks and troughs forming a suitable playing surface. A soil storage area has been retained to site the pavilion on.

Currently works have commenced on site to clear the site and for the associated work which were approved under CB/13/00333/REG3.

2. Concern over the location of the facilities.

Response: The proposed pavilion is positioned approximately 72m away from the southern boundary and centred within the area in accordance with the previously approved scheme

3. Concern over the proposed opening hours.

Response: The hours are stated to be Monday to Friday 08:00 to 20:00; Saturday 08:00 to 24:00 and 08:00 to 22:00 on Sunday’s and bank holidays. As part of the planning process guidance is sought from Environmental Health (Public Protection) and appropriate conditions will be attached to any grant of permission.

4. Concern over noise protection measures (acoustic fence and bund) given that an acoustic report is not available – also concern over the design / length of the soil bund as it does not extend continuously along the southern boundary. The following measures should have been considered:

Agenda Item 10 a. That the applicant pays for the overhead power lines to be buriedPage 113 underground (as was discussed with the original plans in 2009) so that the earth bund can extend further along the southern boundary;

b. The acoustic fence looks very unattractive and there should be planting on its southern boundary.

Response: It is inevitable that some noise will be generated by the training, playing and supporting of football on the site but these outside activities will only take place during daylight hours during the year as no floodlighting of the pitches is being proposed. The grass pitches would be in limited use given the need to prevent damage from over-use.

Whilst the idea of burying the power lines was mooted a number of years ago it was reliant on an external funding source which is no longer available.

A consultant acoustician has been consulted by the applicant about the generation of noise on the site and the potential for noise nui sance to residents. It was suggested that the best way of deflecting noise away from the residential area to the southwest was be the erection of an acoustic fence 3m high. Whilst it is considered that the introduction of such a fence would have some visual impact to the occupants of the adjacent properties, given the comments received during the determination of the previous application and the current application it was considered that noise was the overriding issue and concern.

As detailed in the previously approved planning application, extensive tree and shrub planting is detailed and is being considered by the Council under one of the conditions imposed. The first 62m of the fence running west to east will be screened by sympathetic planting with native trees and shrubs however this planting cannot be undertaken where electricity overhead power lines rise out the ground further east and stretch for the remainder of the site. Restrictions are in place on objects and items placed or grown under the overhead lines by the utility company. The fence would be placed north of the overhead power lines as necessary to comply with statutory regulations and would be unscreened in this area.

5. Concern over the level of use from the Football Centre and the potential for noise and disruptive behaviour and would like assurances that:

c. No alcohol licence is granted in the future should approval be recommended

Response: The building would be sited a sufficient distance away from the nearest residential property and a noise barrier (bund and fence) would be provided. The application does not include a bar.

d. That the gates be locked to the site when it is not in use to prevent anti-social behaviour

Response: The new entrance off Ampthill Road will be gated with the height restriction barrier. Any gaps within the existing hedge line will be reinforced with a timber post and rail fence whilst establishing the newly planted hedge. Agenda Item 10 Page 114 6. Concern over the traditional style of the development given that the previously approved planning application detailed a low visual impact building with a green roof.

Response: The impact on the sky line is intended to be minimal under the proposal. The changing and community room building is designed to be formed at a low pitch with an aluminium standing seam mill finish stucco embossed roof covering. The roof finish will age and dull over time with the sheets taking on a dull grey patina which will further reduce the overall visual impact of the structure and helping it sit within the natural openness of the site.

The external appearance of the building is broken down by using different types of finishes such as feature panels of Western Red Cedar timber cladding.

7. Will the building offer the same type of sound proofing provisions as the previously approved building.

Response: As part of the planning process guidance has been sought from Environmental Health (Public Protection) and appropriate conditions will be attached to any grant of permission.

8. The plans are not clear with regards to the landscaping on the bund.

Response: As detailed in the previously approved planning application, extensive tree and shrub planting is detailed and is being considered by the Council under one of the conditions imposed. This extensive tree planting of earth mounds and bunds formed is considered to enhance the currently poor quality habitat that exists on the site aiding the local ecological environment and also to provide a softer more natural screen for the neighbouring properties.

9. The details of the perimeter fencing along the Ampthill Road boundary are not clear on the submitted plans as people are using the gated access to the track which allows access to the field at the rear. Is this to be permanently fenced off as school children and dog walkers are using it as a cut through.

Response: The track which allows access to the field at the rear is within private ownership and is not Council owned land.

4. Highway implications Access to the site is from Ampthill Road with 33 car parking spaces, with 2 mini buses spaces and 2 disabled parking bays. Whilst the comments from Flitwick Town Council have been noted the proposed development is in accordance with the Local Transport Plan: Appendix F - Parking Standards. Discussions have taken place with the Highways Authority and they are satisfied that the proposed scheme is acceptable in terms of highway safety.

5. Other considerations

Acoustic fencing and barriers

Agenda Item 10 Having discussed the use of the premises, the timing and the durationPage of 115 activities with Environmental Health (Public Protection) they are satisfied that an acceptable balance can be achieved between the proposed use of the football pitches and the existing residents in terms of minimising any impact. The installation of an acoustic fence to a height of 3m is considered to be a suitable option to minimise the noise from the pitches and the construction of the fence will also minimise the impact on residents of any noise associated with the community building. Whilst the plans (as submitted with the application) details the acoustic fence to extend the full width of the site it is the opinion of Environmental Health (Public Protection) that there is no need to extend this beyond a point which is perpendicular to the rear of properties in Chauntry Way. Revised plans have been received and all the neighbours have been consulted. No objection has been raised by Environmental Health subject to the specified conditions.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be approved subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

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 No development shall take place until a scheme detailing provision for on site parking for construction workers and deliveries for the duration of the construction period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be implemented throughout the construction period.

Reason: To ensure adequate off street parking during construction in the interests of road safety.

3 No development shall commence until wheel-cleaning facilities have been provided at all site exits in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be installed and made operational before development commences and the Site Developer(s) shall ensure that all vehicles exiting the site use the approved wheel cleaning facilities. The wheel cleaning facilities shall be retained until the developmen t has been substantially completed or until such time as the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that the roadworks necessary to provide adequate and clean access to and from the public highway have been completed (apart from final surfacing).

Reason: I n the interests of the amenity and to prevent the deposit of mud or other extraneous material on the highway during the Agenda Item 10 construction period. Page 116

4 Not withstanding the details submitted as part of the application, samples of the external walls and roof shall be submitted for written approval by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the building and of the area generally.

5 Before first occupation of the approved development, all access and junction arrangement serving the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved in principle plans and constructed to the specification of the Highway Authority and Local Planning Authority's satisfaction.

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

6 Concurrent with the new access being brought into use all other existing access points not incorporated in the development hereby permitted shall be stopped up by raising the existing dropped kerb, removing the existing hardsurfacing and reinstating the footway and verge and highway boundary to the same line, level and detail as the adjoining footway verge and highway boundary

Reason: To limit the number of access points onto the highway where vehicular movements can occur for the safety and convenience of the highway user.

7 Before first occupation or use of the development the access roads and parking areas as shown on the approved Plans shall be provided and maintained thereafter for that use.

Reason: To ensure the development makes adequate provision for the off- street parking and manoeuvring of vehicles likely to be associated with its use.

8 All areas for parking and storage and delivery of materials associated with the construction of this development shall be provided within the site on land which is not public highway and the use of such areas must not interfere with the use of the public highway.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and free and safe flow of traffic.

9 The proposed development shall be carried out and completed in all respects in accordance with the access siting and layout illustrated on the approved plan and defined by this permission and, notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) there shall be no variation without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the development of the site is completed insofar as its various parts are interrelated and dependent one upon another and to Agenda Item 10 provide adequate and appropriate access arrangements at all times. Page 117

10 Before the pitches are first brought into use, details of any lighting to be erected, including height; design and details of its level of intensity, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning. The lighting shall be erected in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and the safety of traffic on the adjoining road network

11 No sound reproduction or amplification equipment (including public address systems, loudspeakers, tannoys etc) which is audible from the site boundary shall be installed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority.

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

12 The football pavilion hereby permitted shall not be used except between the hours of 08:00 to 22:00 Monday to Friday, 0800 to 24:00 on Saturdays and 08:00 to 22:00 Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, without the prior agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

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

13 Not withstanding the details submitted as part of the application a noise management scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, detailing how noise from the use hereby approved shall be effectively managed to protect the amenity of local Residents. The approved plan shall thereafter be implemented in full prior to the use hereby permitted first being brought into use. Reason: To protect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties

14 The final specification of the proposed acoustic barrier shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to its construction. It shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the agreed specification prior to the use hereby permitted first being brought into use. Reason: To protect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

15 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 91235.G71.SI-90. (site location); 91325.G71.95.E (general layout plan); 91235.G71.98.A (entrance & car park); 91235.G71.98.B (entrance & car park area); 91235.G71.98.C (entrance & car park layout); 91325.G71.99.A (site plan); 20193.GA.G2-102.A (floor plan); 20193.GA.G2- 103.A (roof plan); 91325.GA.G2-104 (elevations); 91325.GA.G2-105 (elevations); 91325.GA.G2-106 (sections); CBC/001 (planting).

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Agenda Item 10 Page 118 Notes to Applicant

1. The applicant is advised that no works associated with the construction of the vehicular access should be carried out within the confines of the public highway without prior consent, in writing, of the Central Bedfordshire Council. Upon receipt of this Notice of Planning Approval, the applicant is advised to write to Central Bedfordshire Council's Highway Help Desk, Technology House, 239 Ampthill Road, Bedford MK42 9BA quoting the Planning Application number and supplying a copy of the Decision Notice and a copy of the approved plan. This will enable the necessary consent and procedures under Section 184 or 278 of the Highways Act to be implemented. The applicant is also advised that if any of the works associated with the construction of the vehicular access affects or requires the removal and/or the relocation of any equipment, apparatus or structures (e.g. street name plates, bus stop signs or shelters, statutory authority equipment etc.) then the applicant will be required to bear the cost of such removal or alteration.

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

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

4. The applicants attention is drawn to their responsibility under The Equality Act 2010 and with particular regard to access arrangements for the disabled.

The Equality Act 2010 requires that service providers must think ahead and make reasonable adjustments to address barriers that impede disabled people.

These requirements are as follows:

• Where a provision, criterion or practice puts disabled people at a substantial disadvantage to take reasonable steps to avoid that disadvantage; • Where a physical feature puts disabled people at a substantial disadvantage to avoid that disadvantage or adopt a reasonable alternative method of providing the service or exercising the function; • Where not providing an auxiliary aid puts disabled people at a substantial disadvantage to provide that auxiliary aid. Agenda Item 10 Page 119 In doing this, it is a good idea to consider the range of disabilities that your actual or potential service users might have. You should not wait until a disabled person experiences difficulties using a service, as this may make it too late to make the necessary adjustment.

For further information on disability access contact:

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

Page 120

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11 Page 121

94.5m

The Bungalow Pond

105a

106

105

Drain

Pond

98.1m

108

107 109

Farthings Haynes West End

99.6m 110

TCB

100.8m 112a TCB N © Crown Copyright. All rightsGP reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No. W E Date: 22:October:2013 CB/13/03248/FULL Map Sheet No S

Scale: 1:1250 Cherry Tree Cottage, 108 West End, Haynes, Bedford, MK45 3QU Page 122

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11 Page 123

Item No. 11

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/03248/FULL LOCATION Cherry Tree Cottage, 108 West End, Haynes, Bedford, MK45 3QU PROPOSAL Demolition of existing garage & single storey kitchen & bathroom. Erection of two storey extension with solar panels and glazed lobby link. Erection of detached garage, new fencing and re siting of oil tank. PARISH Haynes WARD Houghton Conquest & Haynes WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Mrs Barker CASE OFFICER Mark Spragg DATE REGISTERED 13 September 2013 EXPIRY DATE 08 November 2013 APPLICANT Mr M Bacon AGENT Friend Associates Ltd REASON FOR Called in by Councillor Barker, given the size of the COMMITTEE TO extension and garage in the context of a listed DETERMINE building

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Approval

Reason the application is recommended for approval:

The design, appearance and siting of the extension, garage, fencing and resited oil tank would conserve the character of the listed building and would not have any adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties or the highway network. As such it is in conformity with policies CS14, CS15, DM3, DM4 and DM13 of the Core Strategy and Management Policies (2009) and The National Planning Policy Framework. It is further in conformity with the technical guidance Design in Central Bedfordshire, a Guide for Development (2010) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Site Location:

The application site is located within a sporadic group of properties along West End, Haynes. It is a Grade II listed timber framed one and a half storey semi-detached cottage with a thatched roof. It has been previously extended to the side in the 1970’s with a flat roofed single storey extension. Immediately to the rear of the cottage is a shed building and oil tank.

Adjacent to the north west front boundary of the site is a modern pre-fabricated concrete garage extending to a length of approximately 18 metres.

The surrounding area comprises a mix of properties, mostly modern brick built, with a mix of concrete and clay tiled roofs. No. 105, the neighbouring property to the north is a large extended two storey timber clad dwelling with a detached garage at Agenda Item 11 Page 124

the front. No. 109 is the other half to the application property and as such is similarly white rendered with a thatched roof.

The Application:

Planning permission is sought to demolish the existing flat roof side extension and attached rear shed and replace with a one and a half storey timber clad side extension with a tiled roof, attache d to the original cottage via a contemporary glazed link. The extension would provide two additional bedrooms within the roofspace served by two dormer windows on the north elevation and a single dormer window and solar panels on the south facing roofslope.

The application also proposes a replacement detached single garage, set back behind the line of the existing pre-fabricated garage, between the proposed extension and the boundary with No.105. The application also includes new fencing within the site frontage and resiting of the oil tank from behind the cottage to the rear of the new garage.

The application is accompanied by a Design, Access and Heritage Statement and is submitted together with a listed building application (CB/13/03250/LB).

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies for Central Bedfordshire (North)

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

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Design in Central Bedfordshire: A guide for development

Planning History

13/02634/FULL Demolition of existing garage and extension. Erection of two storey extension with glazed roof lobby and solar panels. Erection of detached garage. Withdrawn.

13/02636/LB Demolition of existing garage and extension. Erection of two storey extension with glazed roof lobby and solar panels. Erection of detached garage. Withdrawn.

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Agenda Item 11 Page 125

Haynes Parish Council No objection.

Neighbours Two letters of objection have been received. The comments are summarised as follows:

− The proposals are not sympathetic to the listed building − The proposal is too large for the site. − Concern about the proximity of the garage to the boundary with 105. − Possible overlooking of the rear of 105.

Consultations/Publicity responses

Conservation Officer Demolition of the single storey side/rear flat roofed extension is welcomed. This extension is unattractive, jarring and damaging to the character and appearance of the listed building.

Demolition of the detached concrete garage would provide the opportunity to reposition the garage further into the site, closer to the house.

Whilst the proposed extension is relatively large it is of a far more thoughtful design and form than the existing flat roof extension. The design and form of the proposed extension and the scale has been amended and reduced following a number of meetings and discussions. As a result the main wall span of the extension would be less than the existing cottage.

The proposal benefits from the separation of the extension by the glazed link and setting back of the front wall of the proposed extension to create a clear distinction from the historic cottage.

The solar panels would be tucked away at the rear part of the new roof behind the link.

The range of traditional natural materials and detail is considered acceptable.

Conclusion

The demolition of the existing extensions and garage and replacement with a new extension and garage are considered acceptable. The significance of the character and appearance of the historic cottage would be conserved and enhanced. No objection subject to conditions. Agenda Item 11 Page 126

Highways No objection subject to conditions.

English Heritage No objection

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. Impact on the character and appearance o f the listed building and the surrounding area 2. Impact on neighbouring amenity 3. Highway issues

Considerations

1. Impact on the character and appearance of the listed building and the surrounding area

This application follows detailed pre application discussion with both the Planning Officer and Conservation Officer.

The extension has been designed to retain the special character of the listed building by providing a clearly distinct extension. Some concern has been raised by third parties that the materials proposed in the extension would be out of keeping with that of the listed cottage. It is considered good practice in such situations to design an extension such that it contrasts with the host building rather than attempting to duplicate it. The Conservation Officer considers that the glazed link allows for a clear separation between the two contrasting buildings.

The extension has been designed with a set back from the frontage of the existing house and would be set below ground level to allow sufficient internal headroom within the roofspace, with the ridge being no higher than the host building. The dormer windows would be modest and set well within the roofslope, whilst the solar panels would be located at the rear on the south facing roofslope where they would not be visible to and public views.

The tiled roof and timber clad finish whilst contrasting, as intended with the original cottage, would nevertheless reflect the materials used within the surrounding area, including the neighbouring property No.105.

Whilst the extension would be relatively large it is considered that it has been well designed, having taken on board advice from the Conservation Officer. It has been reduced and the design amended to a scale and form which is now considered appropriate in both planning and listed building terms. Furthermore, the demolition of the unattractive flat roof extension and rear shed is seen as a Agenda Item 11 Page 127

benefit.

The proposed timber clad garage at 4.5m high would be slightly higher than the existing garage. However, it would be set, as amended, 5.5m further back from the front boundary (9m in total) and would have a much more attractive finish than the existing concrete prefabricated garage, being in keeping with the new extension and the neighbouring garage at 105.

The new low level wooden fencing within the site is considered acceptable. Similarly, the resiting of the oil tank behind the new garage would screen it from the streetscene and move it further from the listed building.

In summary, it is considered that the proposals are well designed and would ensure the historic character and appearance of the listed building is retained whilst respecting the appearance of the surrounding area.

2. Residential amenities of both existing and future residents

The extension has been designed such that the dormer windows facing No.105 to the north would be obscure glazed, with main windows serving the bedrooms being in the front and rear gables to avoid any direct overlooking. A rooflight in the north facing roofslope would be high level. Furthermore, due to the relationship of No.105 to the proposed extension it is not considered that any undue overlooking of the rear garden of that property would result.

The proposed replacement garage would be sited just inside the boundary with No.105 and as amended has been set back to reduce its projection in front of the neighbours. Whilst it would extend adjacent to the neighbours side elevation no main windows exist in that elevation. As such, it is not considered that the relationship would be harmful to the privacy or amenity of No.105.

Given the siting the extension over 9m from the boundary with the adjoining cottage (No.109) it is not considered that any loss of light would result. In addition, the south facing dormer window is proposed to be obscure glazed and this could be conditioned to ensure no loss of privacy.

The other neighbouring property, No.107 is located on the opposite side of the road from the proposed extension at a distance of approximately 23m. As such, is it not considered that any undue loss of privacy or amenity would result to the occupants of that property.

3. Highway safety

The proposal involves widening of the existing access and the provision of an extended parking area to allow off road parking for three cars. The Highways Officer considers that the proposal would improve the existing access and would not result in any harm to highway safety.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS Agenda Item 11 Page 128

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 No development shall commence until detailed drawings of all proposed new and/ or replacement doors and windows, together with a detailed specification of the materials, construction and finishes, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall be provided which clearly show (as appropriate)- a section of the glazing bars, frame mouldings, door panels, the position of the door or window frame in relation to the face of the wall, depth of reveal, arch and sill detail. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and details.

Reason: To ensure that the special architectural or historic interest of the building or structure, its character and appearance is properly preserved, maintained and enhanced, in accordance with standard conservation good practice.

3 No development shall commence until a full and detailed, precise specification of all proposed materials (e.g. type and origin/ manufacturer and mix of lime and sand/ aggregate for mortars or plasterwork/ render, wood lath, brick, stone, tile, slate, thatch, cast iron, timber or wood). In addition a method statement shall be submitted for approval clearly explaining the sequence of the proposed works and how the approach accords with usual conservation good practice; and an itemised schedule of works (describing fully all repairs, re-instatements and replacement works) and agreed making good, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall b e carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and details.

Reason: To ensure that the special architectural and historic interest of the building or structure, its character, significance and appearance is properly preserved, conserved, maintained and enhanced, in accordance with standard conservation good practice.

4 All rainwater goods shall be cast iron unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the special architectural and historic interest, character, appearance and integrity of the setting of the listed building is properly maintained, and to accord with standard conservation good practice.

Agenda Item 11 Page 129

5 Following the carrying out or completion of the building operations or alterations for which consent is hereby granted, all making good of the existing building shall be carried out in materials and finishes which closely match, like-for-like, those historic materials and finishing details used in the existing building or structure- to accord with usual conservation good practice and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. If there is any doubt regarding the approach to any proposed making good, or any alternative materials are proposed, a precise specification of the materials and finishes should be submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA.

Reason: To ensure that the special architectural and historic interest, character and appearance of the building is properly maintained, in accordance with standard conservation good practice.

6 None of the components, members or elements comprising the structural timber frame and fabric – including the infill panel material, stave or wattle and daub or brick, stone and plaster- of the building shall be cut, damaged, altered or otherwise detrimentally changed, other than those parts specifically identified within the submitted detailed annotated working drawings and precise schedule of works relating to the timber frame. All such alteration works shall be in accordance with usual conservation good practice and forming part of the agreed specification, method statement and approach stated in the listed building consent. Sandblasting or any other abrasive cleaning is not acceptable.

Reason: To ensure that the special architectural or historic interest of the building or structure, its character and appearance is properly preserved, maintained and enhanced, in accordance with standard conservation good practice

7 No development shall commence until details of the junction of the widened ve hicular access with the highway have been approved by the Local Planning Authority and the extended dwelling shall not be occupied until the junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

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

8 Before the extended premises are occupied all on site vehicular areas shall be surfaced in a manner to the Local Planning Authority’s approval so as to ensure satisfactory parking of v ehicles outside highway limits. Arrangements shall be made for surface water from the site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge into the highway.

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

Agenda Item 11 Page 130

9 The extension shall be constructed at the level shown on drawing 2A relative to the existing building.

Reason: To produce a satisfactory relationship between the extension and the host property.

10 The first floor dormer windows and rooflight of the development hereby permitted shall be of fixed type and fitted with obscured glass to substantially restrict vision, up to 1.7m above finished floor level. No further windows or other openings shall be formed within the roof.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties

11 No development shall commence until details of the proposed new fencing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approv ed scheme shall be fully implemented before the development is first occupied or brought into use and thereafter retained.

Reason: To safeguard the setting of the listed building.

12 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers [OS Location Plan, 2A, 3D, 4B ].

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Notes to Applicant

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

2. The applicant is advised that the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 will apply to any works undertaken within the limits of the existing public highway. Further details can be obtained from the Traffic Management Group Highways and Transport Division, Central Bedfordshire Council, Technology House, 239 Ampthill Road, Bedford MK42 9BD. Agenda Item 11 Page 131

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

Page 132

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12 Page 133

94.5m

The Bungalow Pond

105a

106

105

Drain

Pond

98.1m

108

107 109

Farthings Haynes West End

99.6m 110

TCB

100.8m 112a TCB GP N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No. W E Date: 22:October:2013 CB/13/03250/LB Map Sheet No S

Scale: 1:1250 Cherry Tree Cottage, 108 West End, Haynes, Bedford, MK45 3QU Page 134

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12 Page 135

Item No. 12

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/03250/LB LOCATION Cherry Tree Cottage, 108 West End, Haynes, Bedford, MK45 3QU PROPOSAL Listed Building: Demolition of existing garage & single storey kitchen & bathroom. Erection of two storey extension with solar panels and glazed lobby link. Erection of detached garage, new fencing and re siting of oil tank. PARISH Haynes WARD Houghton Conquest & Haynes WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Mrs Barker CASE OFFICER Mark Spragg DATE REGISTERED 13 September 2013 EXPIRY DATE 08 November 2013 APPLICANT Mr M Bacon AGENT Friend Associates Ltd REASON FOR Called in by Councillor Barker, given the size of the COMMITTEE TO extension and garage in the context of a listed DETERMINE building RECOMMENDED DECISION Listed Building - Appoval

Reason the application is recommended for approval:

The design, appearance and siting of the extension, garage, fencing and resited oil tank would conserve the character of the listed building. As such it is in conformity with policies CS15 and DM13 of the Core Strategy and Management Policies (2009) It is further in conformity with the technical guidance Design in Central Bedfordshire, a Guide for Development (2010) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

Site Location:

Th e application site is located within a sporadic group of properties along West End, Haynes. It is a Grade II listed timber framed one and a half storey semi-detached cottage with a thatched roof. It has been previously extended to the side in the 1970’s wi th a flat roofed single storey extension. Immediately to the rear of the cottage is a shed building and oil tank.

Adjacent to the north west front boundary of the site is a modern pre-fabricated concrete garage extending to a length of approximately 18 metres.

The surrounding area comprises a mix of properties, mostly modern brick built, with a mix of concrete and clay tiled roofs. No. 105, the neighbouring property to the north is a large extended two storey timber clad dwelling with a detached garage at the front. No. 109 is the other half to the application property and as such is similarly white rendered with a thatched roof.

The Application: Agenda Item 12 Page 136

Listed building consent is sought to demolish the existing flat roof side extension and rear storage she d and replace with a one and a half storey timber clad side extension with a tiled roof and a glazed link to the original building. The extension would provide two additional bedrooms within the roofspace served by two dormer windows on the north elevation and a single dormer window on the south facing roofslope.

The application also proposes solar panels on the rear part of the new roof and a replacement detached single garage, set back behind the line of the existing pre fabricated garage, between the proposed extension and the boundary. In addition the application includes new fencing and the resiting of an oil tank.

The application is accompanied by a Design, Access and Heritage Statement. An application for planning permission (CB/13/03248/FULL) has also been submitted.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies for Central Bedfordshire (North)

CS15: Heritage DM13: Heritage in Development

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Design in Central Bedfordshire: A guide for development

Planning History

13/02634/FULL Demolition of existing garage and extension. Erection of two storey extension with glazed roof lobby and solar panels. Erection of detached garage. Withdrawn.

13/02636/LB Demolition of existing garage and extension. Erection of two storey extension with glazed roof lobby and solar panels. Erection of detached garage. Withdrawn.

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Haynes Parish Council No objection.

Neighbours Two letters of objection have been received. The comments are summarised as follows:

− The proposals are not sympathetic to the listed Agenda Item 12 Page 137

building − The proposal is too large for the site. − Concern about the proximity of the garage to the boundary with 105. − Possible overlooking of the rear of 105.

Consultations/Publicity responses

Conservation Officer Demolition of the single storey side/rear flat roofed extension is welcomed. This extension is unattractive, jarring and damaging to the character and appearance of the listed building.

Demolition of the detached concrete garage would provide the opportunity to reposition the garage further into the site, closer to the house.

Whilst the proposed extension is relatively large it is of a far more thoughtful design and form than the existing flat roof extension. The design and form of the proposed extension and the scale has been amended and reduced following a number of meetings and discussions. As a result the main wall span of the extension would be less than the existing cottage.

The proposal benefits from the separation of the extension by the glazed link and setting back of the front wall of the proposed extension to create a clear distinction from the historic cottage.

The solar panels would be tucked away at the rear part of the new roof behind the link.

The range of traditional natural materials and detail is considered acceptable.

Conclusion

The demolition of the existing extensions and garage and replacement with a new extension and garage are considered acceptable. The significance of the character and appearance of the historic cottage would be conserved and enhanced. No objection subject to conditions.

English Heritage No objection

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are; Agenda Item 12 Page 138

1. Impact on the architectural and historical interest of the listed building.

Considerations

1. Impact on the architectural and historical interest of the listed building.

This application follows detailed pre application discussion with both the Planning Officer and Conservation Officer.

The extension has been designed to retain the special character of the listed building by providing a clearly distinct extension. Some concern has been raised by third parties that the materials proposed in the extension would be out of keeping with that of the listed cottage. It is considered good practice in such situations to design an extension such that it contrasts with the host building rather than attempting to duplicate it. The Conservation Officer considers that the glazed link allows for a clear separation between the two contrasting buildings.

The extension has been designed with a set back from the frontage of the existing house and would be set below ground level to allow sufficient internal headroom within the roofspace, with the ridge being no higher than the host building. The dormer windows would be modest and set well within the roofslope, whilst the solar panels would be located at the rear on the south facing roofslope where they would not be visible to and public views.

The tiled roof and timber clad finish whilst contrasting, as intended with the original cottage, would nevertheless reflect the materials used within the surrounding area, including the neighbouring property No.105.

Whilst the extension would be relatively large it is considered that it has been well designed, having taken on board advice from the Conservation Officer. It has been reduced and the design amended to a scale and form which is now considered appropriate in both planning and listed building terms. Furthermore, the demolition of the unattractive flat roof extension and rear shed is seen as a benefit.

The proposed timber clad garage at 4.5m high would be slightly higher than the existing garage. However, it would be set, as amended, 5.5m further back from the front boundary (9m in total) and would have a much more attractive finish than the existing concrete prefabricated garage, being in keeping with the new extension and the neighbouring garage at 105.

The new low level wooden fencing within the site is considered acceptable. Similarly, the resiting of the oil tank behind the new garage would screen it from the streetscene and move it further from the listed building.

In summary, it is considered that the proposals are well designed and would ensure the historic character and appearance of the listed building is preserved.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS Agenda Item 12 Page 139

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 No development shall commence until detailed drawings of all proposed new and/ or replacement doors and windows, together with a detailed specification of the materials, construction and finishes, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall be provided which clearly show (as appropriate)- a section of the glazing bars, frame mouldings, door panels, the position of the door or window frame in relation to the face of the wall, depth of reveal, arch and sill detail. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and details.

Reason: To ensure that the special architectural or historic interest of the building or structure, its character and appearance is properly preserved, maintained and enhanced, in accordance with standard conservation good practice.

3 No development shall commence until a full and detailed, precise specification of all proposed materials (e.g. type and origin/ manufacturer and mix of lime and sand/ aggregate for mortars or plasterwork/ render, wood lath, brick, stone, tile, slate, thatch, cast iron, timber or wood). In addition, a method statement, clearly explaining the sequence of the proposed works and how the approach accords with usual conservation good practice; and an itemised schedule of works (describing fully all repairs, re-instatements and replacement works) and agreed making good, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings and details.

Reason: To ensure that the special architectural and historic interest of the building or structure, its character, significance and appearance is properly preserved, conserved, maintained and enhanced, in accordance with standard conservation good practice.

4 All rainwater goods shall be cast iron unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the special architectural and historic interest, character, appearance and integrity of the setting of the listed building is properly maintained, and to accord with standard conservation good practice.

5 Following the carrying out or completion of the building operations or Agenda Item 12 Page 140

alterations for which consent is hereby granted, all making good of the existing building shall be carried out in materials and finishes which closely match, like-for-like, those historic materials and finishing details used in the existing building or structure- to accord with usual conservation good practice and to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. If there is any doubt regarding the approach to any proposed making good, or any alternative materials are proposed, a precise specification of the materials and finishes should be submitted to and agreed in writing by the LPA.

Reason: To ensure that the special architectural and historic interest, character and appearance of the building is properly maintained, in accordance with standard conservation good practice.

6 None of the components, members or elements comprising the structural timber frame and fabric – including the infill panel material, stave or wattle and daub or brick, stone and plaster- of the building shall be cut, damaged, altered or otherwise detrimentally changed, other than those parts specifically identified within the submitted detailed annotated working drawings and precise schedule of works relating to the timber frame. All such alteration works shall be in accordance with usual conservation good practice and forming part of the agreed specification, method statement and approach stated in the listed building consent. Sandblasting or any other abrasive cleaning is not acceptable.

Reason: To ensure that the special architectural or historic interest of the building or structure, its character and appearance is properly preserved, maintained and enhanced, in accordance with standard conservation good practice

7 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the de tails shown on the submitted plans, numbers [OS Location Plan, 2A, 3D, 4B ].

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Agenda Item36 13 Page 141

MILL ROAD

45 26

1

112.7m

21

11 2

El Sub Sta

33

22 33

4

29 8 18a

112.9m

SPRINGFIELD WAY

18 45

12 212

11a 13 57

9

7 24

MILLFIELD CL

113.1m 4

5c CEMETERY

5b 61

59

2 34

Church

27c

17 to 20 27b

21 27 Portnall 25a N El 13 to 16 © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No: E W Date: 21:October:2013 CB/13/02492/Full

Map Sheet No S 18 Mill Road, Cranfield Scale: 1:1250 Page 142

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 Page 143

Item No. 13

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/02492/FULL LOCATION 18 Mill Road, Cranfield, Bedford, MK43 0JL PROPOSAL Change of use of double garage into 2 bedroom annexe. PARISH Cranfield WARD Cranfield & Marston Moretaine WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Bastable, Matthews & Mrs Clark CASE OFFICER Judy Self DATE REGISTERED 14 August 2013 EXPIRY DATE 09 October 2013 APPLICANT Mr L Atwill AGENT REASON FOR Ward Cllr Bastable called the application in on the COMMITTEE TO grounds stated by the Parish Council, These are: DETERMINE We consider the proposal to be overdevelopment of the site as the garage appears to be another dwelling.

Concern that there is no turning space and additional need for parking would impact on the parking in Mill Road. RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Granted

Recommended reasons for granting

The change of use of the double garage into a two bedroom annexe would not result in any significant harm to either the character or appearance of the area or the residential a menity of any neighbouring residential properties. The proposed development is acceptable with regards to highway safety in accordance with the Local Transport Plan: Appendix F - Parking Standards. The proposal therefore complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy DM3 and Policy DM4 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies November 2009, Policy 38 and 43 of the draft Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide for Residentia l Development dated 2010.

Site Location:

The application site comprises of a modern three bedroom dwelling with a double detached garage located in front of the main house. The site is accessed via a drive which lies to the south of no. 18a Mill Road. The application site is surrounded by residential properties that vary in size, age and design. The site lies wholly within Agenda Item 13 Page 144 the settlement envelope of Cranfield which is identified in Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy as being a minor service centre.

Pre-application guidance has been sought.

The Application:

Planning permission is sought for the change of use of the double garage into a 2 bedroom annexe. The proposed layout comprises a bedroom, bathroom and lounge/diner at ground floor level with a second bedroom in the roofspace.

Confirmation has been received by the applicant that the application site is to be shared with their daughter and her two children.

The double garage measures 6.8m in width and 6m in depth and the dual pitched roof measures 5. 5m in height. The garage would not be enlarged in any way. The fenestration changes include the replacement of the two ‘up & over’ garage doors with casement windows. The insertion of a first floor window in the front (south facing) elevation and a rooflig ht in the side (east facing) elevation which is to be obscurely glazed.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies, November 2009 Policy DM3 High Quality Development Policy DM4 Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes

Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire Policy 38: Within and Beyond Settlement Boundaries Policy 43: High Quality Development (Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, significant weight is given to the policies contained within the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, which is consistent with the NPPF. The draft Development Strategy is due to be submitted to the Secretary of State in June 2013.)

Supplementary Planning Guidance Central Bedfordshire Design Guide: A Guide for Development: Local Transport Plan: Appendix F - Parking Standards

Planning History

Reference: MB/04/01528/FULL Location: Land To The Rear Of 18, Mill Road, Cranfield Description: Full: Erection of detached dwelling Decision: approved Date: 13/12/2004 ______

Agenda Item 13 Page 145

Reference: MB/03/02270/OUT Location: Land To The Rear Of 18, Mill Road, Cranfield Description: Outline Planning Permission: Erection of detached dwelling (all matters reserved except means of access) Decision: approved Date: 25/03/2004 ______

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours)

Cranfield Parish Council We consider that proposal to be overdevelopment of the site as the garage appears to be another dwelling.

Concern that there is no turning space and the additional need for parking would impact on the parking in Mill Road.

Neighbours No comments received

Site Notice posted 10/9/13

Consultations/Publicity responses

Highways No objection subject to conditions

Determining Issues

The main considerations of the application are;

1. Background and the principle of development 2. Impact on the character and appearance of the area 3. Residential amenity of neighbouring properties 4. Other issues

Considerations

Human Rights issues The development has been assessed in the context of the Human Rights and would have no relevant implications.

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

1. Background and the principle of development The double garage lies within the curtilage of the main dwelling and the conversion into habitable accommodation requires consent from the Local Planning Authority as permitted development rights have been removed. Agenda Item 13 Page 146

The proposed development comprises of the conversion of the garage to residential accommodation. Whilst the garage is substantial in size, given the close proximity to the main dwelling it appears ancillary to the main house and an appropriate condition would be attached to any grant of permission for it to remain as such.

The garage would not be enlarged in any way and the fenestration changes are modest in nature. The existing garage falls within the residential curtilage of the main dwelling and the principle of a change of use is considered to be acceptable.

2. Impact on the character and appearance of the area The double garage is not readily visible from Mill Road itself, being behind no. 18a Mill Road. The private driveway measures approximately 40m in length and given the 'tucked away' location of the site no harm to the character and appearance of the area would result.

3. Residential amenity of neighbouring properties The proposed development comprises of the conversion of the garage to residential accommodation. No first floor windows are proposed which could overlook any neighbouring properties. No harm to residential amenity (by way of overbearing impact, overlooking or loss of light) would arise.

4. Other issues Highway safety and parking standards The existing is a three bedroom dwelling with parking for four vehicles (two in the garage and two in front, one of which was a visitor space), turning for a service/delivery sized vehicle with an access adjacent to 18a.

The proposal is to alter the double garage into a two bedroom annex with two parking spaces in front, replacement parking for the existing dwelling will be adjacent to the dwelling, and visitor parking in the turning head. The proposal will use the existing access. The proposed annex is to be ancillary to the dwelling.

No objection has been raised by the Highways Authority as the submitted layout is sufficient to provide turning for a service/delivery vehicle and an adequate working area for an emergency vehicle. There is adequate parking provision providing there is no boundary treatment within the courtyard area of the proposed annex and existing dwelling and the specified condition will be attached to any permission.

Parish Council Comments:

1. We consider that proposal to be overdevelopment of the site as the garage appears to be another dwelling.

It is not considered that the conversion of the existing garage would be overdevelopment of the site. The garage would not be enlarged in any way and the fenestration changes are modest in nature. Given the close proximity of the garage to the main dwelling it appears ancillary to the main house and an appropriate condition would be attached to any grant of permission for it to remain as such. Agenda Item 13 Page 147

2. Concern that there is no turning space and the additional need for parking would impact on the parking in Mill Road.

The Highways Officer is satisfied that this development is acceptable in terms of highway safety as adequate parking provision can be accommodated within the site.

Recommendation

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

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

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

3 The proposed development shall be carried out and completed in all respects in accordance with the access siting and layout, parking layout, refuse collection point and on site turning illustrated on the approved plan No. LJW7/13/C and defined by this permission and, notwithstanding the provision of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995, (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) there shall be no variation without the prior approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To provide adequate on site parking and turning and to provide adequate and appropriate access arrangements at all times.

4 No boundary treatment shall be erected within the courtyard parking and turning area in front of the annex and/or in front of no. 18 Mill Road without prior approval in writing from the local planning authority.

Reason: To provide an adequate turning area and ‘working’ area for emergency vehicles.

5 The annexe hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 18 Mill Road, Cranfield, and it shall not be occupied as a separate independent dwelling.

Reason: The ancillary accommodation created by the development is not suitable, Agenda Item 13 Page 148

because of the circumstances of the site, to be used as a separate, independent residential unit, and in order to comply with the Council's Planning Obligation Strategy.

6 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers LJW7/13/A; LJW7/13/B; LJW7/13/C; LJW7/13/F; LJW7/13/E; LJW7/13/DR and site location plan;

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

Notes to Applicant

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

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

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

Reasons for Granting

The change of use of the double garage into a two bedroom annexe would not result in any significant harm to either the character or appearance of the area or the residential amenity of any neighbouring residential properties. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable with regards to highway safety. The proposal therefore complies with the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Developmen t Management Policies November 2009, Policy 43 of the draft Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide for Residential Development dated 2010.

115

83 Agenda Item 14 Page 149

LEAF ROAD 75

52 Playground

444 127 838

15

El 139

Sub Sta 636 135

62 6

10 4 141

Short Path

Cherry Tree Walk 70

LEAF ROAD 9 78

153

1 6

157 133.5m

82

164 696

LEAF ROAD

090 161 1

LB 6 162 145 Borders Way

TCB 5 150

143

129.1m

137 138 7

133 127 128

31 76 1

125

2 262

21

070 2 126

BLACK THORN ROAD 060

11 68 1 116

9

646

454

10

252

18 636

115 26

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. LEAFIELDS Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) Application No. W E Date: 21:October:2013 CB/13/03341/FULL GridMap Sheet Reference: No 502068; 224727 S

Scale: 1:1250 145 Tithe Farm Road, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5JD Page 150

This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14 Page 151

Item No. 14

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/13/03341/FULL LOCATION 145 Tithe Farm Road, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, LU5 5JD PROPOSAL Construction of new shop for hot food take away (A5) PARISH Houghton Regis WARD Tithe Farm WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Williams CASE OFFICER Debbie Willcox DATE REGISTERED 20 September 2013 EXPIRY DATE 15 November 2013 APPLICANT Mr Singh AGENT Paul Lambert Associates Ltd REASON FOR Called in by Cllr Williams as a result of concerns COMMITTEE TO regarding the impact the proposal would have on DETERMINE residential amenity. RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Refusal

Summary of Recommendation: The application is recommended for refusal for the following reason:

"The application contains insufficient information to show that the proposed hot food takeaway would not have an adverse impact on residential amenity by reason of mechanical noise and odour and is therefore contrary to Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policies 43 and 44 of the em erging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire."

Site Location: The application site comprises a piece of land situated to the south east of an existing convenience store on the corner of Tithe Farm Road and Leaf Road in Houghton Regis. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in nature.

The Application: In 2012 planning permission was granted under reference no. CB/12/02685/FULL for a single storey side extension to the existing shop, adjacent to Tithe Farm Road with a footprint of 54 sqm footprint. As yet, the extension has not been constructed.

This application seeks planning permission for the same extension, but to utilise it as a separate business, a hot food takeaway, instead of an expansion of the existing convenience store.

The application proposes that two full-time employees would operate the business. There is no information given as to the nature of the food that would be served or the opening hours of the premises.

Agenda Item 14 Page 152

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review Policies BE8 Design Considerations T10 Parking - New Development (Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, the age of the plan and the general consistency with the NPPF, policy BE8 is still given significant weight. Policy T10 is afforded less weight).

Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire Policy 21: Provision for Social and Community Infrastructure Policy 27: Car Parking Policy 43: High Quality Development Policy 44: Protection from Environmental Pollution (Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, significant weight is given to the policies contained within the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire, which is consistent with the NPPF. The draft Development Strategy is due to be submitted to the Secretary of State in 2013.)

Supplementary Planning Guidance Central Bedfordshire Design Guide: A Guide for Development: Local Transport Plan: Appendix F - Parking Standards

Planning History Application: Planning Number: CB/12/04211/FULL Validated: 28/11/2012 Type: Full Application Status: Withdrawn Date: 21/01/2013 Summary: Decision: Application Withdrawn Description: Construction of new shop for hot food takeaway (A5)

Application: Planning Number: CB/12/02685/FULL Validated: 15/08/2012 Type: Full Application Status: Decided Date: 09/10/2012 Summary: Decision: Full Application - Granted Description: Construction of extension to shop

Application: Planning Number: CB/12/01769/FULL Validated: 17/05/2012 Type: Full Application Status: Withdrawn Date: 19/06/2012 Summary: Decision: Application Withdrawn Description: Construction of new shop for hot food takeaway (A5)

Representations: (Parish & Neighbours) Houghton Regis Town Object to the scheme as there is no information in regards Council to the proposed type of food or opening times and this could impact the acceptability of the proposal in a residential area. Concerns in regards to parking, litter, and unacceptable noise levels late at night.

Neighbours 1 petition received in favour of the scheme - 207 signatures of which 68 live on Tithe Farm Road or Leaf Road. Agenda Item 14 Page 153

1 petition received objecting to the scheme - 55 signatures, all of which live on Tithe Farm Road or Leaf Road, within 150m of the site.

6 objections received on the following grounds: • Will exacerbate existing litter problems and attract vermin • Will exacerbate existing anti-social behaviour problems • Odour • Noise • Parking and traffic problems • Close proximity to a school - will increase childhood obesity • Existing fast food outlets are in close proximity • Loss of privacy

Consultations/Publicity responses CBC Highways There appears to be a previous planning application granted permission for an extension to the existing retail unit, which was not given to the Highways DC section for comments. This current application is based on the same footprint, therefore I can really only offer comments to the change of use of the building to a hot food takeaway.

I would not wish to raise any highway objection to the change of use of the establishment, as there appears to be off-street parking available in the form of the car park opposite the development and some on-street parking available along Tithe Farm Road.

I would, however, wish to raise a concern which should have been identified on the previous application.

The applicant is intending to lower the ground level behind the public highway and is proposing to construct a retaining wall, which will in effect be supporting the public highway.

I will need written confirmation from the applicant that the retaining structure has been designed to take in to account the loading of the retained public highway and the imposed loading of a vehicle parking on the highway (I know the adjacent land is a footway but this would be worst case). The applicant will also need to confirm that the construction works adjacent to the highway will be undertaken in accordance with the Specification for Highway Works (see Manual of Contract Documents for Highway Works).

I would recommend the following condition is imposed.

Agenda Item 14 Page 154

Before development commences, details confirming that the structure, retaining the public highway, has been designed to withstand all loadings including the retained public highway and imposed loads due to users of the highway, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The construction works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason To ensure that the proposed works are constructed to an adequate standard and in the interest of users of the highway.

I would suggest the following informatives are imposed.

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

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

Community Safety Preliminary objection received from the police to a late Officer night refreshment facility in this location based on anti- social behaviour in the area. More information will be available on the Late Sheet.

Public Protection I write with respect to the above application and regrettably advise that in its current format I have to object to the application.

The proposed use is located in a sensitive location close to residential dwellings and it is therefore of paramount importance prior to determining the application that we are confident that there will be no detriment to the local residents from either noise or odour, predominantly from the use of the kitchen extract system. In order to do this the application should be accompanied by detailed technical assessments, firstly of the odour abatement Agenda Item 14 Page 155

technology to be employed and thereafter a noise assessment to determine that the chosen system is also suitable acoustically. This is very dependant on the final use type (Indian, Chinese, etc) and if this is not known as appears in this instance then we would expect them to design for the worst case scenario. I do appreciate that this application is supported by a noise assessment, but simply stress that this does not appear to be based on any specified equipment and whilst using the correct assessment Methodology in BS4142 applies the wrong compliance criteria adopted by this authority.

Should the applicant wish to withdraw this application or resubmit then I advise that they contact me for informal advice. At this stage though I remain concerned that the proposal will be to the detriment of local residents and insufficient information has been presented to demonstrate otherwise. Neither is the application suitable for the imposition of conditions to control such.

Public Health The response from Public health is to recommend that planning permission is refused. The decision is supported by the following report:-

Overview:-

Ward data for Tithe Farm and Parkside, supplied by Central Bedfordshire, shows that these 2 areas in particular have an above average level of obesity in children from Yr6 (aged 10-11). It is also clear that the obesity levels rise from YrR to Yr6. This is also reflected in the average BMI of adults referred to a 12 week programme with Slimming World or Weight Watchers by their GP in these wards from 2012/13 data, which is 40.2.

These wards are in the 20% most deprived wards in Central Bedfordshire.

Obesity is a major cause of concern and especially in areas of multiple deprivations, where this food outlet is proposed. The type of food that will be offered for sale from the take-away has not been decided within the planning application, and this would be an issue for consideration.

Higher levels of obesity affect the more disadvantaged and deprived communities. i.e. high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, shortened life expectancy.

From a survey carried out on behalf of the Food Standards Agency - ‘Low Income Diet and Nutrition’ The Agenda Item 14 Page 156 summary states that:- 1. Average consumptions of fruit and vegetables were one half of the recommended five portions a day. 2. A substantial proportion of men and women were overweight or obese. 3. The poor diets of the low income population were accompanied by higher levels of smoking, higher alcohol intake and lower physical activity compared with the general population.

Potential risks to Public health:-

• There are already 6 other take-away food outlets within 0.65 miles from this proposed development. By having more availability to food that is unhealthy, if consumed in large quantities, and by not giving people a choice of a healthier alternative, there could be a further rise in obesity rates.

• The ward data also shows that both these wards have a younger age profile than Central Bedfordshire and that deprivation is an issue with high proportions of children and older people living in income deprived households.

• The Take-away is situated very close to a school which from September 2013 is deemed Primary. This means that the school now takes pupils from nursery to Yr 5 (9-10 years of age), and from September 2014, nursery to Yr 6 (10-11 years of age).

• The raising of the age of pupils at the school will lead to more young people coming to school by themselves, either by walking or cycling. The older pupils may have money to use on school meals or break-time snacks.

• The concern would be that the older pupils may use the money off site at the take-away and buy food which is not regulated in the same way as school food must be under current legislation of food across the whole school day.

• Even if pupils were not allowed off-site during lunchtime, there could still be access to the take-away on the route home. As the opening hours could not be specified in the planning application this is something that would need to be taken into account.

National and Local Guidance Two of Central Bedfordshire’s priorities in the Health and Wellbeing Strategy 2012-2016 are:- Agenda Item 14 Page 157

• Helping people make healthy lifestyle choices • Reducing childhood obesity

Determining Issues The acceptability of the proposed extension has been confirmed by the grant of planning permission CB/12/0685/FULL and therefore the main considerations of the application apply to the use of the proposed extension as a hot food takeaway. The main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle of the Development 2. Impact on Residential Amenity 3. Parking and Highway Safety 4. Other Issues

Considerations

1. Principle of the Development The preamble to Policy 21 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire includes local food outlets within the definition of community infrastructure. Both the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy 21 encourage the provision of community infrastructure within residential communities. The principle of providing a new community facility such as a food outlet within a residential area is therefore considered to be acceptable.

2. Impact on Residential Amenity Impact of the structure The extension would not be any closer to the nearest residential dwelling at the rear of the shop than the existing building. Furthermore, because of its subservient relationship with the existing building, it is considered that the extension would not appear overbearing when viewed from Number 147. The extension would not be fitted with any windows in the rear elevation and hence there would be no overlooking and loss of privacy to the adjoining property occupiers. Taking these factors into account, it is considered that the proposed physical extension would not be harmful to residential amenity.

Noise and Odour Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review requires that proposals for new development or change of use have no unacceptable impact upon residential amenity and that development likely to generate noise, disturbance and other pollution emissions does not unacceptably disturb or otherwise affect adjoining properties and use. Policy 43 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire also require proposals to respect the amenity of surrounding occupiers and to comply with current guidance on noise and odour. Policy 44 states that proposals which are likely to cause pollution in relation to noise and odour will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that measures can be implemented to minimise impacts to a satisfactory level which protects health, environmental quality and amenity.

The Public Protection Officer has made it clear that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that odour and noise from extraction mechanisms would not exceed a satisfactory level. As a result, it cannot be Agenda Item 14 Page 158 stated that residential amenity would be adequately protected from environmental pollution in terms of mechanical noise and odour resulting from the proposed new takeaway and thus the proposal fails to conform with Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policies 43 and 44 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire.

The applicant has been made aware of the comments of the Public Protection Officer and has expressed an intention to supply further information to overcome these concerns prior to the Committee meeting. An update will be provided on the Late Sheet.

Noise and Disturbance The application does not include proposed opening hours, however it is anticipated that a use of this nature would wish to be open until late in the evening. The site is in very close proximity to residential dwellings and it is considered that allowing a takeaway to be open until late in the evening would result in an increase in levels of activity during the later evening, and consequently an unacceptable level of noise and disturbance to local residents, contrary to Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policy 43 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire.

The comments of the Community Safety Officer are noted. It is considered that the concerns of the local Police give weight to the consideration that the takeaway would be likely to result in higher levels of noise and disturbance, particularly between 9pm when the existing shop closes and the eventual closing time of the takeaway.

It is considered that if the takeaway were to close at the same time as the existing shop this would prevent an increase of activity within the area from 9pm onwards and would offer a greater protection to the amenity of residential occupiers within the vicinity. Opening hours can be controlled by condition, and should planning permission be granted for the proposal, a condition would be imposed preventing the takeaway from operating beyond 9pm on any evening.

It is noted that the extant planning permission for an extension to the existing shop has unrestricted hours and the shop itself could be open 24 hours a day. However, the characteristics of convenience shops and takeaways are different, as is the nature of the activity that these uses generate and it is not considered that this provides sufficient weight to justify the granting of planning permission for a takeaway without carefully controlling opening hours to protect residential amenity.

In conclusion, while residential amenity can be adequately protected from noise and disturbance as a result of increased activity by a suitable condition, it is considered that the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed takeaway would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents in terms of odour and mechanical noise. As a result, the proposal conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policies 43 and 44 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire.

Agenda Item 14 Page 159

3. Parking and Highway Safety It is noted that the Highways Officer has no concerns in regards to the use of the approved extension as a takeaway as there is sufficient off-street parking available in the immediate vicinity.

The comments regarding the structure of the Highway are also noted and, should planning permission be granted, the recommended condition and informatives would be imposed as suggested.

It is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon highway safety.

4. Other Issues Waste Management It is noted that there is an existing waste collection problem at the existing convenience store. It is not considered that this has any bearing on the determination of the current application. It is considered that the waste management for the proposed takeaway could be controlled with the use of an appropriate condition should planning permission be granted.

Public Health The comments of the Public Health Officer and the neighbouring residents regarding the existence of other takeaways in the vicinity and the location of a school within easy walking distance are noted. However, there are no current planning policies are local or national level that preclude the locating of takeaways near school premises and therefore it is considered that it would not be possible to defend a reason for refusal on the basis of the proximity of the school to the site.

Human Rights issues The neighbouring residents have raised a number of concerns that could impinge on their Human Rights, which are protected by the Human Rights Act. These have been carefully considered in Section 2 above. It is not considered that any other Human Rights issues are raised by the application.

Equality Act 2010 The proposal does not make clear whether or not the proposed unit would be fully accessible, however, this is not considered a sufficient reason to withhold planning permission. It is considered that, should planning permission be granted, an informative should be added reminding the applicant of their responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.

Recommendation That Planning Permission be REFUSED subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED REASON 1 The application contains insufficient information to show that the proposed hot food takeaway would not have an adverse impact on residential amenity by reason of mechanical noise and odour and is therefore con trary to Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policies 43 and 44 of the emerging Development Strategy for Central Bedfordshire.

Agenda Item 14 Page 160

Notes to Applicant 1. Please note that the unnumbered drawings submitted in connection with this application have been given unique numbers by the Local Planning Authority. The numbers can be sourced by examining the plans on the View a Planning Application pages of the Council’s website www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk.

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

Planning permission has been refused for this proposal for the clear reasons set out in this decision notice. The Council acted pro-actively through p ositive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The applicant was invited to withdraw the application to seek pre-application advice prior to any re-submission but did not agree to this. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) (Amendment No. 2) Order 2012.

DECISION

......

......