PLANNING OFFICER DELEGATED REPORT
APPLICATION NUMBER CB/18/03308/OUT LOCATION Land at Bower Lane, Eaton Bray, Beds PROPOSAL Residential development of up to 120 dwellings with all matters reserved except access PARISH Eaton Bray WARD Eaton Bray WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Janes CASE OFFICER Debbie Willcox DATE REGISTERED 30 August 2018 EXPIRY DATE 29 November 2018 APPLICANT Settle Group and Taylor French Developments AGENT Optimis Consulting SUBMITTED PLAN LS347-LR01, 17059/102 Rev E, 17059/103 Rev D, NUMBERS 17059/104 Rev E RECOMMENDED DECISION Outline Application - Refused
Site Location: The 7.49 hectare application site is of an irregular shape and is located to the south east of the village of Eaton Bray. It is bounded to the north east by Bower Lane, to the west by residential properties in Moor End, Moor End Lane and Mill End Close and to the south east by open countryside. Public Footpath 14 runs along the south eastern boundary of the site. The site wraps around a small group of dwellings on Bower Lane; the other side of Bower Lane is built up to the west of the site, but development is very sporadic to the north and east of the site, reflecting the Green Belt boundary and the open countryside designation of this land.
The application site is washed over by the South Bedfordshire Green Belt. It comprises pasture, paddocks and orchards, including a redundant commercial orchard, which is subject to a tree preservation order (CB/TPO/09/00011). There is a designated County Wildlife Site in the north eastern part of the site, albeit it is acknowledged that the County Wildlife Site is no longer apparent on the site.
To the south of Eaton Bray lies the village of Edlesborough. The two villages are currently connected by a narrow area of development along Moor End, but otherwise have managed to preserve their own separate identities.
The Application: The application seeks outline planning permission with all matters reserved except for access for a residential development of up to 120 houses. The access arrangements would include 2 new vehicular access points from Bower Lane and alterations to Bower Lane, including realignment, road widening, footpath widening, the introduction of layby parking, speed control measures and road markings. A pedestrian access to Moor End Lane from the site is also shown.
An indicative masterplan has been submitted, showing further pedestrian links to the public footpath on the south eastern boundary of the site. It also shows the retention of the orchard, public open space, a SuDS feature, retained and relocated hedgerows and the provision of landscape buffers to the eastern boundary,
An indicative mix of housing suggests the provision of a mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bed units, to include 15 bungalows. The application offers 35% affordable housing.
RELEVANT POLICIES:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019) Section 2: Achieving sustainable development Section 4: Decision-making Section 5: Delivering a sufficient supply of homes Section 8: Promoting healthy and safe communities Section 9: Promoting sustainable transport Section 11: Making effective use of land Section 12: Achieving well-designed places Section 13: Protecting Green Belt land Section 14: Meeting the challenge of climate/coastal change,flooding Section 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review Policies BE8 Design Considerations H3 Housing Mix H4 Affordable Housing R15 Rights of Way Network T10 Parking - New Development (Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, the age of the plan and the general consistency with the NPPF, policies BE8, H3 & R15 are still given significant weight. Policies H4 and T10 are afforded less weight).
Central Bedfordshire Local Plan - Emerging The Central Bedfordshire Local Plan has reached submission stage and was submitted to the Secretary of State on 30 April 2018.
The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 48) stipulates that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The apportionment of this weight is subject to:
· the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; · the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; · the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework.
Reference should be made to the Central Bedfordshire Submission Local Plan which should be given limited weight having regard to the above. The following policies are relevant to the consideration of this application: LP SP2: NPPF - Sustainable Development LP SP4: Development in the Green Belt LP SP5: Preventing Coalescence & Important Countryside Gaps LP H1: Housing Mix LP H2: Housing Standards LP H3: Housing for Older People LP H4: Affordable Housing LP H6: Starter Homes LP H7: Self and Custom Build Housing LP T1: Mitigation of Transport Impacts on the Network LP T2: Highway Safety and Design LP T3: Parking LP T5: Ultra Low Emission Vehicles LP EE1: Green Infrastructure LP EE2: Enhancing biodiversity LP EE3: Nature Conservation LP EE4: Trees, woodlands and hedgerows LP EE5: Landscape Character and Value LP EE12: Public Rights of Way LP EE13: Outdoor sport, leisure and open space LP CC1: Climate Change and Sustainability LP CC5: Sustainable Drainage LP CC8: Pollution and Land Instability LP HQ1: High Quality Development LP HQ2: Provision for Social and Community Infrastructure Levy LP HQ3: Provision for Social and Community Infrastructure LP HQ5: Broadband and Telecommunications Infrastructure LP HQ7: Public Art LP DC5: Agricultural Land
Eaton Bray Neighbourhood Plan - Emerging The Eaton Bray Neighbourhood Plan concluded its Regulation 16 consultation on 29 March 2019.
The National Planning Policy Framework (paragraph 48) stipulates that from the day of publication, decision-takers may also give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
The apportionment of this weight is subject to:
· the stage of preparation of the emerging plan; · the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies; · the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework.
Reference should be made to the emerging Eaton Bray Neighbourhood Plan, which should be given limited weight having regard to the above.
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014) The Central Bedfordshire Landscape Character Assessment (2015) Central Bedfordshire Sustainable Drainage Guidance (2015) Affordable Housing Guidance Note for Central Bedfordshire (South Area) (2018) Relevant Planning History: Application Number CB/17/05360/PAPC Description Pre-Application Non Householder: Residential Development of 170 Units with two access points off Bower Lane, together with public open space, sustainable drainage feature and landscaping Decision Pre-application advice released Decision Date 08-02-2018
Consultees: Eaton Bray Parish Object Council The Parish Council does not support developments within Green Belt. Traffic: concerns with the large increase in traffic on parish roads. Local Amenities will be unable to support such a large scale development: (1) School - currently oversubscribed. (2) Local Doctors. (3) Drainage/Utilities. (4) Eaton Bray Parish Council would not be willing to take on the additional liability for this site: Orchard/Pond.
Totternhoe Parish I have been instructed by Totternhoe Parish Council to Council object to this Application on the following grounds:
· Development on a Greenfield Site · If approved, it would create a very large increase in traffic movement at all times on the roads leading to, from and through Totternhoe and the surrounding areas. These roads are in most cases, country lanes. · The facilities in the area of both Totternhoe and Eaton Bray, such as Schools, Shops and Doctors Surgery are very limited and would not be able to cope with any increased residency. · There are no employment facilities in the area, which is currently a mainly farming area and all adults of a working age would have to travel to their place of employment/ school/shops by motor vehicles. · The local Bus Service (No. 61) only goes through the other end of Eaton Bray, which is over 1 mile from the proposed site location and runs at 90 minute intervals from Dunstable to Aylesbury and return with no early or late buses.
We trust that these points will be taken into consideration by your Officers during the deliberation of the Application and that the Application will be rejected.
Highways Officer (Initial The proposal is to construct 120 dwellings within a comments) greenfield site on the out skirts of the village of Eaton Bray. Access is to be via two new simple priority junctions onto Bower Lane.
The majority of the section of Bower Lane fronting the site is subject to a 30mph speed limit and has a footway on the opposite side of the road to the application site, albeit substandard in width.
The proposal is to reduce the width of the carriageway of Bower Lane to 5.5m while widening the existing footway and introducing a new footway fronting the application site. there is also to be a section to provide parking bays 2.0m wide. It would appear that the carriageway is reduced further fronting numbers 2, 4 and 6 Bower Lane to create a footway which then continues to the existing footway on Moor End by occupying, in the main, the existing carriageway. I cannot say that this is ideal and would likely cause a hazard to all users.
Within the Transport Statement there is a statement that the proposed development will generate 624 movements, however it has not identified the quantity of traffic currently using Bower Lane and it is therefore not clear if the reduced width of less than 5.0m is acceptable. While, the statement accurately describes that Bower Lane only experience one accident I believe that the significant alterations and increase in traffic will cause issues in relation to this.
There is a bus service that uses Bower Lane which is the number 43 bus from Eaton Bray to Totternhoe, as a result this road should be maintained, where possible, to a width of 6.5m.
It is not advantageous to reduce a through road of this nature to 5.5m and my recommendation is that it should be at least 6.5m wide to cater for buses. Further, for this type of road parking bays only 2.0m wide is substandard. Never-the-less the proposal will necessitate the removal of the hedge row and this will need to be addressed through the planning process.
The proposed alterations to the highway and in particular Bower Lane are not compatible with the nature of a through corridor and that which is subject to a bus service. Further these alterations and additional traffic is likely to cause a hazard to all users.
Subsequently, as submitted the proposal cannot be supported. Please advise the applicant of my comments and suggest they withdraw the proposal. However, if they wish to proceed please advise and I will provide you with reasons for refusal which will encompass all the issues above.
Highways Officer (Final The proposed drawings present, in general, a through lane comments) carriageway of 6.5m wide with parking spaces either side for some distance along Bower Lane. There is a priority narrowing along with a diversion in the alignment. In general, the proposal is to deliver a 2.0m footway either side of the carriageway measuring 6.5m with exception to the highway fronting nos. 2-6 Bower Lane where the carriageway narrows down to 5.0m. From this point amendments have been made such that the footway ends outside number 2 and there is an informal pedestrian crossing point to the footway on the northern side of Bower Lane. Under the circumstances, this is considered to be a reasonable compromise.
As I stated before, where there is a bus route the standard minimum carriageway to be maintained would be 6.5m, while there is a short section measuring only 5.0m wide. If this section was for a prolonged length then there would be merit in objecting to such a proposal, however, considering the length identified it would not be worthy of maintaining a highway objection alone.
The scheme shows traffic build outs by number 67 Bower Lane which may interfere with the entrance of the Burial Ground entrance. It is not essential that these buildouts are in the location shown or, indeed as detailed. Subsequently, this could be revisited within the detail of any Section 278 process to ensure that the activity associated with the Burial Ground would not be compromised.
It is also noted that the Village Gateway features are detailed to be removed but not replaced. This is a minor issue but within any permission it would be expected that an obligation would be imposed that a village Gateway scheme be reintroduced. Again, this is a minor issue.
However, it is also noted that the proposal is to remove the footway leading to Dunstable Road and the bungalow on the corner of that junction. This footway provides a function to the occupants of the bungalow and to a certain extent the occupants of Common Farm and as a result I would be opposed to the removal of this footway. But again, this is not a fundamental issue and can be dealt with by way of condition if permission were to be granted.
Again, it is observed that the local school is 900m walk and the local shop and centre to the village is some 550m away and is beyond the walking distance in relation to promote sustainability. Further, the local bus service is not such that it could be considered acceptable to promote sustainable modes of transport. It would not be for me to put weight to these issues such that I could confirm that it would warrant an objection that could be sustained.
Landscape Officer (Initial OBJECTION: There are serious landscape concerns comments) regarding proposed development of this site:
· The proposed development cannot be effectively mitigated and appropriately integrated within the landscape setting due to the open landscape character. · Will result in loss of an important spatial 'green gap' and increase coalescence with neighbouring Edlesborough. · Have a highly detrimental impact on green infrastructure and connectivity of assets including historic orchards and structural landscaping associated with the site · Require the removal of significant lengths of mature native hedgerow along Bower Lane to facilitate visibility splays, adjustments to highway alignment and provide new footways.
Site context and landscape setting: The application site is located to the south east of Eaton Bray village / north east of Edlesborough, separated by the River Ouzel corridor. The application site and surroundings sit within the Eaton Bray Clay Vale (LCA 5A); a rural, open, flat, primarily arable landscape following Medieval field patterns with pockets of pasture particularly next to settlements. Framed by the striking Dunstable Downs chalk escarpment and wider Chilterns AONB to the east and south, Totternhoe escarpment to the north, with extensive views across the exposed vale.
Limited woodland cover, planting structures tend to be flailed field hedgerows and wet woodland associated with the River Ouzel and tributaries. The area is notable for numbers of old orchards, especially Aylesbury prunes, and are distinctive landscape features relating back in landscape history.
Landscape and visual sensitivity associated with the site and vale setting is heightened due in part to the open character of the vale and also clear views to and from the surrounding elevated chalk escarpment including the AONB which further increases sensitivity.
The openness of landscapes and limited woodland cover demonstrates that development could not be mitigated effectively and appropriately in keeping with landscape character.
The site has expansive views and limited development to the south and east, primarily associated with farmsteads. Development elevations, roofs and lighting would be highly intrusive visually and especially in winter months within this open deciduous landscape.
Impact of development on Green Infrastructure and structural landscaping associated with the application site is not acceptable; The submitted 'Landscape Mitigation Enhancement & Connectivity Plan' shows existing orchards on and off site (Moor End) poorly linked via structural landscaping / GI connections. Development would result in disconnection and isolation of highly sensitive GI assets from each other and wider GI and this is not acceptable. The proposed retention of the larger central orchard appears to form POS associated with development, but pressure of use would have a serious impact on this valuable habitat and historic landscape feature.
Existing hedgerows within the site are shown as fragmented by proposed development - again impacting on habitat connectivity and landscape mitigation.
Development is poorly arranged in relation to structural landscape edges and landscape mitigation with built form backing on to landscape corridors which then become 'no-mans land' and vulnerable to misuse, poor / no management. - this arrangement of development in relation to structural landscaping is not in accordance with the CBC Design Guide SPD.
Loss of hedgerow boundaries along Bower Lane; according to the submitted 'Highways Improvement Plan' the likely loss of extensive lengths of existing native hedgerow along the site boundary with Bower Lane to facilitate visibility splays, access points to development, road re-alignment and additional footpaths is of serious concern. Ripping out of existing, established roadside hedgerows is not acceptable and will have a highly detrimental impact on the rural character of approach to Eaton Bray along Bower Lane with replacement hedging would take a number of years to establish and mature to provide a similar structural landscapes feature (see view below).
There are also landscape concerns regarding the proposed highway design along Bower Lane; introduction of 'dragons teeth', formalising road alignment, introduction of footways - and likely requirement for street lighting - as this will have a highly urbanising effect on this village gateway / approach.
Landscape Officer (Final Having reviewed revised proposals, the changes are not comments) sufficient to overcome landscape concerns
Ecologist The Planning Statement refers to pre-app advice received and states '..the Council's Ecology Officer was satisfied and acknowledged that the County Wildlife Site (CWS) no longer exists on the application site.' This infers that the Ecologist was satisfied with the proposal which is misleading as clear concerns were expressed regarding the proposal.
Comments on the outline follows; The area contains two orchards recorded as Habitats of Principal Importance with hedgerows providing valuable habitat connectivity. In addition, another orchard has been recorded off site as a finger into the scheme to the north east. Connectivity to this from the orchards within the development site would add benefit.
Proposals for habitat enhancement within the ecological strategy are welcomed and would support NPPF objectives however, despite these proposals consideration must also be given to potential impacts on habitats due to increased recreational pressure. 120 units will bring additional footfall and whilst features such as the swallow barn and bat tower are excellent ideas the success of these is questioned given potential risk from misuse and vandalism. Having such structures removed from the developed area is necessary to limit disturbance but also increases risk of harm. Bats and swallows can live in harmony with people and it would be better to have a structure that served a public use in addition to an ecological one and hence was 'policed'. Focus is placed on mitigation and enhancement effectively off site whereas the use of integrated bat, bird and bee bricks in the new development should be considered to further increase opportunities across the site, not just off it.
The central retained hedgerow is severed at 3 points considerably reducing its ecological value as a wildlife corridor. All existing hedgerows should be retained as existing and the layout should be amended to take account of the importance of connectivity.
Green Infrastructure The site currently includes a number of hedgerows and Officer orchard trees. It is good to see that the plans show the retention of the trees and landscaped areas around the site. A management plan will be required for all these areas.
The central hedgerow that runs through the site has been largely retained. However, the two 'breaks' to allow for a footpath and a road and house, will greatly lessen the value of this feature for wildlife as it will interrupt the 'corridor'. If possible the hedge should be fully retained and linked to the neighbouring features.
Trees & Landscape The Arboricultural Impact Assessment has identified a Officer number of high quality trees, the most vulnerable of which is the Sycamore T3 which centred in the middle of the site. Whilst the indicative site layout shows possible reference to the retention of this tree, the connecting hedgerow appears to be fragmented. It is advised that this hedge and tree is maintained within a central area of open space in any new development, in order to retain its landscape and ecological integrity.
It should also be recognised that the large group of trees marked as G5 on the tree survey drawing is an old orchard protected by Tree Preservation Order No. 11/2009 (Area A1). Whilst its condition may be poor, it has potentially high ecological and biodiversity value, and this would now be its main importance. In this respect, I welcome this orchard's retention as shown in the Ecology Strategy, which is to be developed as a community based project. It would be imperative that any final layout refers to the Tree Constraints Plan, as a design tool by the architect, in order to retain as much of the "A" and "B" rated trees within the site, as well as the strategically important boundary trees and hedgerow network that surrounds the site. The final design can then be supported by a Tree and Hedgerow Protection Plan and an Arboricultural Method Statement, to demonstrate that tree and hedge protection requirements have been adequately considered in the design process.
If you are minded to grant consent to this outline application, then the supplied condition should be imposed.
The Wildlife Trust We have a series of concerns regarding the ecological information that has been collected and the impact that the proposed layout of the development would have on important wildlife habitats.
County Wildlife Sites (CWS) CWS have been identified as important for wildlife when assessed against a set of criteria by local experts. and contain a range of priority habitats. Submission Local Plan 2015-2035 includes Policy EE3: Nature Conservation which seeks to protect these sites through the planning system. It is, therefore, important that they are appropriately considered from the start of a planning application. This application includes Eaton Bray Meadows CWS. Although we acknowledge that this site would no longer meet CWS criteria, we would have expected it to be clearly assessed (including the preparation of a species list and abundance compared with CWS criteria) within the Habitat and Protected Species Survey. Although it is mentioned in the Ecology Strategy and Statement, with the proposal to include a wildflower meadow, this has not clearly followed on from conclusions from the surveys. The Habitat and Protected Species Survey also fails to mention the River Ouzel CWS which is only 130m from the site and therefore, does not consider the impact of the development on this site. It also records Totternhoe Stone Pit as a grassland when it is a geological site. Paragraph 2.1.2 of the Survey states that the Bedfordshire and Luton Biodiversity Recording and Monitoring Centre were contacted for information regarding this development, but it appears that the results of this have not been integrated into the report.
Orchard The proposed development site also includes an orchard which could be regarded as a priority habitat under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC), 2006. Paragraph 3.1.10 includes that the orchard contains cherry and plum trees, which would be characteristic of traditional orchards in the Eaton Bray area. It also mentions the presence of dead and decaying wood, which are features of interest for a variety of invertebrates and bats. The diversity of wildlife which is associated with traditional orchards is why they have been recognised as a habitat of principal importance. We are pleased to see that the proposal includes the retention of most of the orchard trees. We would strongly recommend, however, that all orchard trees within the site are retained and managed as community features into the future. The Eaton Bray and Totternhoe area was once famous for their orchards, particularly for Aylesbury Prunes, it is likely that this orchard has both wildlife and historical value.
Hedgerows Native hedgerows are also a priority habitat within the NERC Act, 2006. Although the proposed development includes the retention of much of the hedgerows within the development site they are crossed by a series of paths and roads which reduce their effectiveness as commuting routes for wildlife including bats. We would strongly recommend that the layout of the development, should it receive consent, is reviewed to maintain and strengthen the integrity of the hedgerows. The Habitat and Protected Species Survey did not include where the bats which were observed were seen and so it has not been possible to highlight any particularly important commuting routes for retention. The Ecology Statement and Strategy includes a proposal to make the hedges more species rich which would be beneficial, but they also need to be well connected and as uninterrupted as possible.
Internal Drainage Board As the means of stormwater disposal is to be via a balancing facility it is essential this be completed prior to the construction of any impervious areas within the site.
The watercourse with Anglian Water outfall is not a watercourse the Board maintains. Appropriate permission for this outfall should be sought before discharging here.
Anglian Water No objection.
The developer should address risks to controlled waters from contamination at the site, following the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Environment Agency Guiding Principles for Land Contamination.
The water environment is potentially vulnerable and there is an increased potential for pollution from inappropriately located and/or designed infiltration (SuDS). We consider any infiltration (SuDS) greater than 2.0 m below ground level to be a deep system and are generally not acceptable. If the use of deep bore soakaways is proposed, we would wish to be re-consulted. All infiltration SuDS require a minimum of 1.2 m clearance between the base of infiltration SuDS and peak seasonal groundwater levels. All need to meet the criteria in our Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice (GP3) position statements G1 to G13. In addition, they must not be constructed in ground affected by contamination. Flood Risk Management No objection subject to the imposition of conditions. Team
MANOP If development on the site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle, then we consider that the development should include the following dwellings of a design and layout that makes them suitable for older people.
Not less than sixteen (16) units of mainstream housing and eleven (11) units of housing with support for older people, or not less than twenty-seven (27) units of mainstream housing suitable for older people.
Archaeologist The proposed development site has been shown to contain some denuded remains of medieval ridge and furrow and an earthwork representing a 19th century boundary feature. On the basis of the available evidence the site has low potential to contain archaeological remains of other periods. Although the development would result in the loss of the surviving agricultural features within the site and a loss of their significance, this loss amounts to very limited harm. Consequently, there is no objection to this application on archaeological grounds.
Affordable Housing Strategic Housing support this application as it provides for Officer 42 affordable homes which represents the provision of 35% affordable housing, providing for an over provision of affordable housing from current policy of 30%. The provision of 35% affordable housing is much welcomed.
The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA 2017) has identified a tenure requirement from qualifying affordable housing sites as being 72% affordable rent and 28% intermediate tenure. This makes a requirement of 30 units of affordable rent and 12 units of intermediate tenure (shared ownership) from the development.
Strategic Housing would welcome discussions with the applicant on the eventual affordable housing mix to ensure the mix is reflective of current needs, in particular around the mix and type of affordable rented units. The supporting documentation indicates the mix of units will include provision of accommodation for the elderly through the creation of bungalows and ground floor apartments. Strategic Housing would like to see an element of this provision come forward within the affordable housing mix to ensure delivery of these forms of units to meet identified needs and requirements.
We would like to see the affordable units dispersed throughout the site and integrated with the market housing to promote community cohesion & tenure blindness. We would also expect the units to meet all nationally described space standards. We expect the affordable housing to be let in accordance with the Council’s allocation scheme and enforced through an agreed nominations agreement with the Council.
Bedfordshire Police Concerns on the indicated levels of permeability Architectural Liaison (pedestrian & vehicular), and some of the parking. Officer Guidance, standards and research indicate that housing developments with high levels of permeability have increased risk of crime. The layout proposed would appear to be diametrically-opposed to this information. It is needlessly circulatory beyond what might be required to make provision for reasonable circulation on the one hand, and community safety on the other, with no attempt having been made to try and balance the competing demands.
Certain sections of the proposed parking conflict with guidance. Parking is not sufficiently well located to the dwellings and would not be acceptably surveilled.
I have read the applicant's Planning Statement and cannot see any reference to community safety, and how it will be addressed for this site. In the absence of which, Bedfordshire Police object to this application, which appears to substantially conflict with SBD, the NPPF, county-wide agreements between the force and the local planning authorities, and the CBC Design Guide.
NHS and Bedfordshire Consideration of the potential consequences of this CCG development and the health infrastructure implications has been undertaken on behalf of NHS England and Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group.
This development, should the application be successful, will affect the GP surgeries in Dunstable. Dunstable surgery premises are considered severely constrained with an average capacity of 25.22ppm2 (patients per square metre). A severe premises constraint affects a surgery's ability to take on new patients and even new GP's and allied clinical staff, especially with the requirement to offer a wider range of patient services from GP Practices, including mental health and community services and some outreach specialist services from local hospitals, delivering care locally and reducing referrals into secondary care.
This application will result in circa 312 additional patient registrations and create a constraint that will require premises reconfiguration, extension or even re-location to create additional clinical capacity. For this reason, in order to make this development acceptable to NHS commissioners, it is requested that a contribution for £1,060.50 per dwelling is made towards the Dunstable GP infrastructure, supporting the delivery of the 5 Year Forward View and Primary Care at Home models.
Bedfordshire Fire and Requests a condition requiring the provision of fire Rescue hydrants.
Leisure Team An on-site LAP/LEAP is required and also a contribution of £75,000 towards the upgrade of the play facilities at Eaton Bray Recreation Ground.
2.44 hectares of on-site open space should be provided, which should include formal recreation areas.
No contributions are sought for indoor sports and leisure facilities or playing pitch facilities.
Education Team Contributions would be sought from the proposal as follows:
Early Years £124,437.60 Primary £580,708.80 towards the creation of additional capacity at Eaton Bray Academy
Secondary £763,281.79 towards the expansion of All Saints Academy
Public Protection No objection subject to conditions in respect of land contamination, and a requirement for a CEMP to include air pollution, noise and working hours.
Public Art Officer Given the proposed scale of development public art is required to be included in development proposals to enhance public interfaces, reinforce quality in design and highlight sense of place. A Public Art Plan will be required by Condition if the application were to be approved.
Travel Plan Officer Requests a condition requiring the submission and implementation of a travel plan.
Waste Services Provides advice on waste collection requirements.
Other Representations: The Chilterns Society The Society opposes this development for the following reasons. 1. The number of houses proposed for the scheme is an overdevelopment of the site. 2. Does Eaton Bray really need more houses of the type proposed - the Society thinks not unless these are "affordable" and suitable to first time buyers. 3. We believe the number of houses and size of plots should be more in keeping with existing residential buildings close to the site and in the neighbourhood generally. 4. Such a high density of development in this location would put a great deal of extra pressure on existing services such as schools, doctors etc which serve not only Eaton Bray but other neighbouring localities. 5. The added volume of traffic to local roads consequent to this scheme would be to the detriment of existing residents and seriously affect their amenity value and particularly that of the village. For the above reasons The Society considers this application should not be granted planning approval
Neighbours and general Letters of objection from 577 residents, objecting for the public following reasons: · The land is Green Belt and should not be built upon; · The site has been assessed as making a strong contribution towards Green Belt objectives; · Harm to the Green Belt will be significant as the development would conflict with all the purposes for including land within the Green Belt; · The planning statement downplays the contribution of the site to the Green Belt; · There are no very special circumstances to justify development within the Green Belt. Of those the developers put forward, only three relate to an unmet need or untapped benefit that could be gained at this location and of these three the benefits are weak or provide no tangible value; · One of the suggested very special circumstances is the road improvements, but these would not be necessary if the development were not to go ahead; · The retention of the Orchard is not a very special circumstance as it is protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The documents are also contradictory, with one set referring to public access whilst other documentation says that public access will be restricted; · The proposal conflicts with the emerging Neighbourhood Plan for Eaton Bray, which states that all development should be within the boundaries of the village; · Development should be concentrated on brownfield sites in urban areas or in new towns rather than eroding villages; · The proposed development would remove a protected gap between the villages of Eaton Bray and Edlesborough leading to coalescence. The villages need to maintain their separate identities; · The proposal would result in significant landscape harm and have a harmful impact on the rural character of the area; · The proposal would harm the setting of the Dunstable Downs by extending development towards the foot of the hills; · The scale of the development is disproportionate to the scale of the village and would result in a population increase of around 12%; · There is insufficient infrastructure in the village; the schools and health facilities are full, emergency services are under strain, and it is already extremely difficult to park by the village shops. There are also few employment opportunities within the village. The proposal does not include any on-site additional services or employment. The proposal is therefore unsustainable; · The proposal would not bring economic, social or environmental benefits and is therefore unsustainable; · The proposal would generate a high level of traffic which would increase existing severe congestion problems and worsen air pollution; · The Transport Statement does not consider cumulative impact with other consented or allocated development in Eaton Bray and Edlesborough; · Public transport provision has been significantly reduced and is not frequent enough to use for commuting or social evening engagements; · The roads around Eaton Bray are extremely dangerous for cycling; · There is already heavy traffic in Bower Lane (which is a bottleneck), particularly with commuter traffic and there have been many minor accidents; · Bower Lane is used as a rat run and this has got worse since the opening of the M1 Junction 11a; · The brow of the hill at the top of Bower Lane causes accidents when the winter sun is shining. Positioning a new access here is going to be very unsafe; · Cars speed up and down Bower Lane and nothing will stop them. Widening the road would exacerbate this; · Alterations to Bower Lane would remove existing parking provision for Bower Lane residents; · The roundels should be replaced with speed bumps; · It is doubtful that farm vehicles could manoeuvre along the proposed traffic calming features on Bower Lane. This is a farming community and must make provision for farm traffic; · Poor access onto Bower Lane; · The proposed highway works would just “move the problem” along Bower Lane; · The highway works should include a roundabout at the junction of Bower Lane, Harling Road and Dunstable Road; · There are vehicular crossovers to existing properties where the layby is proposed; · The layby would provide more danger for cars pulling out of driveways; · The layby does not provide enough parking to reflect the amount of on-street parking on Bower Lane at the moment and the addition of all the highway improvements would displace more cars than would be provided for; · The proposed traffic calming measures requires the use of private land which is not available; · There is no parking for the cemetery, so the hearse and mourners’ cortege vehicles have to park on Bower Lane, where the proposed chicane is to be located; · The addition of a chicane to Bower Lane would make the road more dangerous; · The amendments to the proposed highway works have not addressed previously raised concerns about highway safety and congestion on Bower Lane; · The revised highway scheme removes the footpath at the exit of the village which currently links to the public footpath leading to Brook Street in Edlesborough and provides footway access to No. 1 Dunstable Road – this is not an improvement; · No driveway access to the allotments is shown; · The proposed priority flow is likely to result in traffic backing up to Dunstable Road in one direction and the Bower Lane junction in the other direction. This happened on Lancott Hill between Totternhoe and Dunstable a couple of years ago and had to be removed because of the problems it caused; · The highways improvements would worsen congestion caused by the development rather than improving the congestion; · Cars waiting at the priority junction would result in noise and air pollution to local residents; · The highways improvements would require hedging to be ripped out to the detriment of local character and biodiversity; · The proposed highways improvements would ruin the rural character of the area; · Works to the Bower Lane highway could impact on the structural stability of the cottages on Bower Lane, which were built with no footings; · The condition of the roads in and around Eaton Bray is very poor with lots of potholes; · Car parking provision should be at a rate of 1 per bedroom with an extra space for 1 bedroom properties; · Any new houses should provide electric vehicle charging points; · The new road proposals are an improvement, but roundels, signs and red tarmac will not be enough to slow down speeding traffic; · There are existing flooding problems in the area, and the site is regularly partially underwater in the winter. This proposal would exacerbate the issue and lead to increased flooding of existing neighbouring properties, especially as we are to expect more regular extreme weather events in the future; · The drainage documents state that potential flooding of the water sewer in Mill End Close would be contained within the road by kerb heights and directed south-west. However, to reach the road, excess surface water would already have had to pass through the gardens of houses in Mill End Close; · The proposal does not include any details as to how flood water will get to the balancing pond and what will happen if it overflows; · Who will maintain the pond, will there be a retaining wall or pumping station, what happens if it overflows? · The water in the attenuation pool would be stagnant in Summer and there are already reports of outbreaks of Blue-Green algae in water nearby at Pitstone and Marsworth. This is a significant health hazard; · The development would eventually drain into the Ouzel, which already breaks its banks. The Ouzel flows into the Ouse, which has significant capacity problems; · SuDS bring their own long-term problems and are not a silver bullet; · The proposed paths shown around the attenuation pond would give rise to dangerous conditions; · Sewers are already at full capacity; · Car headlights from the new accesses would shine directly into habitable rooms of existing residential properties; · The tightly packed houses would be contrary to the character of surrounding development and would not provide enough room for adequate parking provision; · The development would result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers; · There would be a loss of light to neighbouring occupiers; · There would be an increase in noise and light pollution; · The development would surround residential gardens on three sides; · The scheme does not take into account the aspirations within the emerging Neighbourhood Plan for the delivery of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom houses suitable for the young and the elderly rather than the provision of executive homes; · The development is inappropriately located for the elderly as the few services the village has are 20 minutes brisk walk away from the site; · The recent affordable housing needs survey identified a need for only 12 affordable homes within the village; · The proposed affordable housing is minimal and clustered together instead of being integrated into the development; · More development would spoil the rural feel of the village and turn it into a town; · More development would lead to an increase in crime; · The development would contravene the Local Plan, which rejected the site after consideration of its suitability; · Loss of ancient hedgerows; · The proposal would destroy an important wildlife habitat. The report submitted with this application is a desk-based study based on out-of-date reports that do not reflect the current situation. There is abundant wildlife in this area and such a development would put this at serious risk; · The ecologist who prepared the report does not appear to be a member of CIEEM and has referenced out-of-date regulations in respect of protected species; · A full survey of the Eaton Bray Meadows CWS should be included. The assessment should also mention the River Ouzel CWS, which is only 130m away and has not been mentioned at all; · The results of the information request from the Bedfordshire and Luton Biodiversity Recording and Monitoring Centre do not appear to have been properly integrated into the report; · The orchard on the site is a priority habitat under the NERC Act 2006. Deadwood habitats are of vital importance to Section 41 species such as Noble Chafer and the proposed removal of these would destroy these habitats. All orchard trees and their associated deadwood should be retained and managed; · A more detailed invertebrate survey should be performed by an expert, as those who prepared the report clearly did not realise the importance of dead wood habitats for Section 41 invertebrates; · Native hedgerows are also a priority habitat and the proposal would result in fragmentation, reducing their effectiveness as commuting routes; · Bat surveys date from 2015 and the results presented do not show detailed records. The bat survey should be repeated in greater detail; · The proposal do not take account of a nearby badger sett or the flight paths of owls who nest in the barns on the adjoining land; · The proposal would not retain enough of the existing orchard to preserve habitats and a corridor to the open farmland; · The proposal should include wildlife corridors and hedgehog friendly fencing; · The proposal will hinder attempts to build up the Red Kite population in the area; · One of the development roads ends abruptly at the boundary of the field next to the orchard. Building there would significant exacerbate flooding and have an unacceptable visual impact; · The development would cause significant landscape harm to the AONB; · The development would destroy the ancient Salt Road (Middle Path) that runs from East Anglia across the country to Wales; · Loss of food producing agricultural land; · None of the so-called benefits of the scheme have any standing as they all already exist (There are already footpaths to Edlesborough, orchards, habitats and hedgerows); · The proposed community orchard will not be properly maintained by home owners as they will be too busy, so who will maintain it? · The development would be adjacent to a working pig farm; · There is insufficient demand for this volume of housing in Eaton Bray, as proved by unsold new builds elsewhere in the village; · Any additional housing demand will be met by the site which has been allocated within the emerging Local Plan; · Since the 1980s the number of houses in Eaton Bray has increased by circa 60%. The village has done its bit for the housing crisis; · Edlesborough is already being developed, which will impact local roads and infrastructure; · The village regularly experiences water shortages and power cuts; increased housing numbers will exacerbate the situation; · Broadband speeds are poor and would suffer further from extra loading on the system; · Construction activities could damage nearby historic dwellings; · Construction activities would have a harmful impact on the mental and physical health of neighbouring occupiers; · People will park to use the newly created cycleway/footway, causing anti-social behaviour; · The application is a money-making scheme for a landowner who does not live locally; · The proposal would reduce house prices by worsening the environment from peaceful to stressful; · The development would set a precedent that would result in Eaton Bray, Edlesborough and Totternhoe merging into one town; · As the application is outline then it is impossible to judge the impact.
1 letter of support for the following reason: · Finally, some development somewhere other than Leighton Buzzard.
Pegasus Group on Comments on the application as follows: behalf of Willis Dawson · The proposal is contrary to the emerging Local Plan, Ltd which allocates only one site in Eaton Bray (the Eaton Park site), which is proposed to be removed from the Green Belt; · The NPPF requires development to be plan-led; · The allocation is well located for local facilities, including the local school and would be able to be well integrated with the village; · The allocated site has demonstrated its viability and deliverability; · The master planning process for the allocation has demonstrated that the site can accommodate 58 homes, which would include the delivery of 17 affordable homes. Appropriate contributions to local infrastructure would also be made.
Considerations
1. Principle of Development and Green Belt Considerations The application site is washed over by the Green Belt; Policy GB1 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review is not saved and therefore Section 13 of the NPPF contains the key policies for determining applications for development within the Green Belt in the area covered by the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review.
The NPPF includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which is set out in paragraph 11. It states that, where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
The footnote to paragraph 11(d)(i) explains that the policies referred to include those in the Framework dealing with land designated as Green Belt.
Section 13 of the NPPF explains that the fundamental aim of Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; it notes that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.
Paragraph 134 sets out the five purposes of Green Belt, which are: a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
Paragraph 136 states that, once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered where exceptional circumstances are fully evidenced and justified, through the preparation or updating of plans.
Paragraph 143 states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 144 instructs local planning authorities to give substantial weight to any harm to the Green Belt. It explains that "very special circumstances" will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
Paragraph 145 states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate development, unless the proposal meets one of a supplied list of exceptions. The proposed development does not meet any of the exceptions.
The application documentation acknowledges that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt and therefore offers a list of "very special circumstances" which the application documentation argues would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt.
However, before a balancing exercise can take place, any other harm resulting from the proposal needs to be identified. Green Belt harm will be considered in this section of the report, whilst other matters are considered in further sections.
The application documentation states that the proposal would only be harmful to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, however, that is not considered to be the case. It is noted that the site is currently wholly undeveloped, with only a couple of extremely small, agricultural structures on the site. Openness is commonly defined as an absence of development. The proposal would result in around 50-55% of the site being developed for housing, with associated roads, gardens and other infrastructure and domestic paraphernalia. This would result in a substantial loss of openness on the site, which could not be mitigated by the introduction of planting belts on site boundaries. Significant weight is therefore attributed to the loss of Green Belt openness. The application documentation argues that the proposal would not conflict with any of the five purposes for including land within the Green Belt. Each purpose will be considered in turn: a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas The application documentation references the LUC Central Bedfordshire and Luton Green Belt Study (LUC Report; November 2016), which identifies this site and other land to the north east of Eaton Bray as making no / weak contribution to this purpose because it is not adjacent to large built-up areas (such as Leighton-Linslade and the Luton-Dunstable-Houghton Regis conurbation). It is therefore agreed that the proposal would not materially conflict with this purpose for including land within the Green Belt b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; The application documentation states that the site makes no contribution to this purpose, but only attributes this to Eaton Bray and Edlesborough not being towns; and already being joined via Moor Lane. However, the LUC Green Belt Study identifies the land parcel within which the site sits as making a moderate contribution to this purpose. The development of the site is therefore considered to conflict with this purpose and would result in further harm to the Green Belt. c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; The application documentation claims that the site only makes a weak contribution to this purpose. It argues that this is because the site is physically and visually contained by development and perimeter landscaping and therefore relates more to the settlement than the open countryside. The documentation also states that the words "assist" suggests that other policies should be used to prevent encroachment, such as countryside gap or landscape protection policies.
Firstly, it is noted that the LUC Green Belt study identifies the parcel of land within which the site sits as making a relatively strong contribution to this purpose. The study states that the contribution a parcel makes to safeguarding the countryside from encroachment can be directly related to the extent to which it:
• Displays the characteristics of countryside. • Relates to the adjacent settlement and to the wider countryside, regardless of administrative boundaries
The study notes: "the word ‘countryside’ is typically defined as land/scenery which is rural in character, i.e. a relatively open natural, semi-natural or farmed landscape that falls outside of, or inset into, the defined boundaries of settlements. Countryside lacks dense, urbanising development. Urbanising influences were considered to include any features that compromise the rural character and openness of the countryside. Development commonly found within the countryside, such as agricultural or forestry related development, isolated dwellings, historic schools and churches were not considered to have an urbanising influence."
It also reports guidance from PAS which states: "The most useful approach is to look at the difference between urban fringe – land under the influence of the urban area - and open countryside, and to favour the latter in determining which land to try and keep open, taking into account the types of edges and boundaries that can be achieved."
Notwithstanding the claims of the application documentation, the site has all the characteristics of open countryside, comprising grazing pasture land, orchards, hedgerows and other landscaped features on the site. There are no urbanising features on the site. Whilst the site is edged by residential development to the north west, west and south west, to the south east and east lies open countryside. Opposite the eastern half of the site, the land to the north of Bower Lane also lies within the open countryside, albeit there is sporadic development along it. There is nothing about the site or its surroundings which suggests that the site comprises urban fringe rather than open countryside.
Impact on landscape character will be assessed in more detail in Section 2, however, it is considered that the characteristics of the site itself is that of open countryside and its context and surroundings do not detract from that. As such, it is considered that the proposed development would represent a significant and harmful encroachment into the countryside and significant weight is attributed to the conflict with this purpose. d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; The LUC Green Belt study categorises the parcel within which the site sits as making no or weak contribution to this purpose due to its separation distance from historic towns. It is therefore considered that there is no conflict with this purpose. e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land The application documentation correctly notes that the LUC Green Belt study recognised that this purpose was not relevant to the assessment of sites within the Green Belt for the purposes of the study. However, the documentation then concludes that the application site does not contribute to this purpose. This is not considered to be the case because the LUC study did not include this purpose within the study because it applies equally to all Green Belt sites. As such, there would be a conflict with this purpose and harm must be attributed to this conflict.
It is therefore identified that the development would cause harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, significant harm to openness and conflict with three of the purposes for including land within the Green Belt. In accordance with the NPPF, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.
The application documentation (including the Neighbour Consultation Rebuttal Letter dated 24 January 2019) puts forward 11 circumstances, which it argues combine to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt; and any other harm. These will be listed and assessed below: a) Retention of the existing orchard on the site, together with enhancements. The proposed development would allow the orchard to be used by the local and wider community, taking into account that this area is currently in private ownership. The retention of the existing orchard is a requirement as it is protected under a Tree Preservation Order. Notwithstanding that, it is considered securing the proper management of the orchard for both biodiversity and community use is a benefit of the scheme, in accordance with national and local planning policies and the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. Moderate weight is therefore given to this circumstance. b) Significant highway improvement works to improve a road which is potentially substandard to addition to providing traffic calming measures and off-road car parking. The proposed highway improvements will be considered in more detail in the highways section below. However, it is noted that the submitted Transport Statement has identified that evidence shows that the highway network serving the site currently generally operates safely. Bower Lane has not been identified as requiring improvements or traffic calming in any studies or emerging plans or policies, other than associated with development. It is also noted that the originally submitted highways "improvement" works received objections from the Highways Officer on the basis that they would result in hazardous road conditions. The provision of a 2m footpath on the development side of Bower Lane to Moor End Lane also attracted objections from the Landscape and Ecology Officers on the basis that they would require the loss of the roadside hedgerow.
Revised plans have since been submitted, which provide a more acceptable layout in highway safety terms, but it still unclear to what extent the proposals as a whole represent a benefit to the community, and to what extent they comprise necessary mitigation measures to accommodate the impacts of the development. Furthermore, no modelling information has been submitted that assesses the impact that the proposed chicane and priority narrowing feature would have on traffic flows along Bower Lane.
The provision of a 2m wide footway along the length of Bower Lane is considered to be a benefit, as is the provision of layby parking for residents of Bower Lane; however the necessary loss of the hedgerow along the site frontage and the introduction of urbanising features are all harmful impacts of the proposed highways improvement scheme.
For all the above reasons, only limited weight is given to the proposed highway improvement scheme.
Delivery of up to 120 dwellings which would make a significant contribution to the Council’s five-year housing land supply. At the time of writing, the most recent five year land supply statement identified that on 1st January 2019 the Council could demonstrate a 5.71 year housing land supply (including a 5% buffer).
The NPPF states that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led, and the Council's emerging Local Plan has been submitted for examination, which is scheduled to begin in May 2019. The plan has been through a robust site selection process to ensure that the required housing is delivered on the most appropriate sites, and has allocated a site for housing within Eaton Bray. It is noted that the application site was submitted for consideration, but was rejected on the grounds of the coalescence that it would cause between Eaton Bray and Edlesborough. The plan-making process is the most appropriate method of providing sites to meet identified housing need, rather than ad-hoc development in the Green Belt.
The Written Ministerial Statements of 1 July 2013 and 17 January 2014 also clearly state that the single issue of unmet demand, whether for traveller sites or for conventional housing, is unlikely to outweigh harm to the green belt and other harm to constitute the 'very special circumstances' justifying inappropriate development in the green belt.
Any residential development proposal can argue that they are making a contribution to housing supply and it is not considered that this circumstance is "very special". Only very limited weight is therefore given to this circumstance. d) Increased percentage of affordable housing – 35% is proposed, with this being 5% above the Council’s policy requirement. The Housing Needs Survey for the emerging Eaton Bray Neighbourhood Plan demonstrated a requirement for 12 affordable homes within Eaton Bray. Again, the plan-making process is the most appropriate way of allocating appropriate sites for the provision of affordable housing and the allocated site within the submission Local Plan would provide sufficient affordable homes to meet the identified need within Eaton Bray.
Whilst the additional 6 houses would make a limited contribution to the Council's wider requirement for affordable housing, in this context, the contribution would be so small that only limited weight can be given to this consideration.
e) Housing for the elderly in the form of bungalows and ground floor apartments. This is a policy requirement under both Policy H3 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review and Policy H3 of the emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan. Therefore, no weight is attributed to this circumstance.
f) Green Infrastructure improvements – including the improvements to the existing local Public Rights of Way, retention of hedgerows where possible and the provision of LEAP/LAP. The retention of hedgerows is a policy requirement, but not all hedgerows are to be retained, some will be removed and others will be fragmented. The provision of a LEAP/LAP is also a policy requirement. Improvements to the local Public Right-of-Way would be a benefit, but are unspecified and therefore only given limited weight.
g) Introduction of a pedestrian/cycle link to Edlesborough village centre via Moor End Lane, providing improved connectivity between Bower Lane and the southern/south-western part of the village. The indicative master plan does not show a direct route through the site from Bower Lane and Moor End Lane. Only limited weight can be attributed to this circumstance.
h) Provision of a substantial landscape buffer to create a permanent edge to the settlement on the eastern edge with additional landscape buffers being retained to the south-western and western edge of the site. This would be required mitigation and does not constitute a very special circumstance.
i) Delivery of Sustainable Urban Drainage that permeates through the site. This is a policy requirement and does not constitute a very special circumstance.
j) Increased opportunity to enhance existing and create new habitats. It is unclear why the residential development of the site is necessary to enhance the existing habitats, or create new habitats. No weight can therefore be attributed to this circumstance.
k) Delivery of a net gain in biodiversity due to the proposed landscape and ecology enhancement measures. This is a policy requirement and does not constitute a very special circumstance.
Section 9 of this report includes a balancing exercise, weighing up the benefits of the scheme as set out above against the identified harm.
2. Impact on Landscape Character and the Character and Appearance of the Area The application site is located within the Eaton Bray Clay Vale (LCA 5A); a rural, open, flat, primarily arable landscape following Medieval field patterns with pockets of pasture particularly next to settlements. It is framed by the striking Dunstable Downs chalk escarpment and wider Chilterns AONB to the east and south and the Totternhoe escarpment to the north, with extensive views across the exposed vale.
There is limited woodland cover, planting structures tend to be flailed field hedgerows and wet woodland associated with the River Ouzel and tributaries. The area is notable for numbers of old orchards, especially Aylesbury prunes, and are distinctive landscape features relating back in landscape history.
The Council's Landscape Officer has identified that landscape and visual sensitivity associated with the site and vale setting is heightened due in part to the open character of the vale and also clear views to and from the surrounding elevated chalk escarpment including the AONB which further increases sensitivity.
The application was accompanied by a Landscape Technical Note; and subsequently a Landscape Briefing Note. This documentation states that existing residential development creates an urban edge which wraps around the site. It claims that "This land use is of a domestic use and character, rather than agricultural, or quasiagricultural, and is not open countryside."
The Landscape Technical Note also states that the site is perceived as being sandwiched between Eaton Bray and Edlesborough and is physically contained within the built limits of Eaton Bray. It states that the site is perceived as being transitional rather than open countryside.
However, as set out in Section 1 of this report, this is not considered to be the case. The land use is clearly agricultural, albeit grazing/pasture and orchard rather than arable and the site abuts the open countryside to the south-east, east and north-east. The presence of residential development to the north west, west and south west, whilst discernible on and around the site, does not detract from the site's rural character or the contribution it makes to the setting of Eaton Bray. The introduction of residential development on the site would have a highly urbanising effect on the landscape, and, as noted by the Council's Landscape Officer, the open setting of the site and the wider vale would make it impossible to effectively mitigate and appropriately integrate the development into the wider landscape setting.
The site can clearly be identified with one of the identified landscape characteristics of the Landscape Character Area, notably "Intensive agricultural landscape, predominantly arable, but with some pockets of pasture particularly near settlements." It is considered that the site represents a pocket of pasture near a settlement, and the erosion of these pockets of pasture would have a harmful impact on landscape character.
The Landscape Technical Note states:
"whilst the landscape surrounding Eaton Bray within the Eaton Bray Clay Vale Landscape Type is rural, open and exposed; the site itself feels on the edge of the village, rather being divorced from it, in the open countryside. Hence, the site does not relate strongly to the open countryside, it does read as an undeveloped parcel of land on the outer urban edge.
The field pattern within the site area is irregular and of small scale. These fields are enclosed by vegetated domestic curtilages (of the adjoining residential development) and the larger field pattern of the surrounding agricultural land to the south of the site. Therefore, the site is part of the former, and lies ‘sandwiched’ between the settlement edge of Eaton Bray, Moor End and the projected finger of Edlesborough."
It is considered that this significantly downplays the characteristics of the site as a pocket of pasture near a settlement. The field pattern of pasture land is typically different from the large scale, intensive arable fields that surround it. It is also characteristic that it would be related to the settlement. Whilst the site is clearly on the edge of a village, that does not remove or reduce its importance as characteristic pasture land in the open countryside.
It is noted that within the Landscape Character Assessment, one of the landscape guidelines for the long-term management of the Eaton Bray Clay Vale includes the following:
· Small irregular field patterns around settlements should be restored and enhanced;
The proposal would result in the loss of this characteristic field pattern, to the detriment of the character of the site, its setting and the wider landscape character area.
Bower Lane is characteristic of a village edge road, and itself demonstrates a transition. At the western edge of the site it is built up on both sides and is clearly part of the village, but as it proceeds eastwards along the northern boundary of the site, development becomes much more sporadic and by the eastern boundary of the site, it is clearly part of the open countryside. This transition itself contributes to the character of the area, and the loss of this transition would, in itself, be harmful.
However, it is also important to note that, just because there is some limited development to the north of the site on Bower Lane, this is not considered to be sufficient to "sandwich" the development between Eaton Bray and Edlesborough. Rather, the development would represent visual intrusion and urbanisation of Bower Lane as far as Dunstable Road, beyond the existing settlement limits.
The Landscape Officer has objected to the proposal, partly on the basis that it would lead to coalescence between Eaton Bray and Edlesborough. The supplied application documentation repeatedly insists that this would not happen, predominantly because the settlements have already coalesced. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is some coalescence between Eaton Bray and Edlesborough, along Moor End, it is considered that the two villages currently maintain their separate identity, which would be threatened by the proposal, or any other proposal which would increase the amount of built form between the two settlements.
It is noted that the site was put forward in the "call-for-sites" for the emerging Local Plan. The site did not pass stage 1 of the site selection exercise on the basis that development of the site would cause coalescence with Edlesborough. This is a material consideration in the determination of this application.
Whilst the emerging Neighbourhood Plan is not at a sufficiently advanced stage to carry weight in the determination of this application, it should be noted that the plan identifies the site as a designated Local Gap, to be protected under policy EB8 in order to prevent the coalescence of Eaton Bray with Edlesborough. Coalescence is both a physical and a visual consideration; and can be a matter of perception. Whilst the authors of the Landscape Technical Note do not perceive that there would be coalescence as a result of the development, the Council's Landscape Officer and the community of Eaton Bray do consider that the development of this site would lead to coalescence, and weight must be attributed to this perception. It is considered that the proposal would lead to further, harmful coalescence between Eaton Bray and Edlesborough and would be contrary to another of the Landscape Character Assessments guidelines for new development, namely retaining village identity by preventing the merger of settlements.
The Landscape Officer has also objected on the grounds that the proposal would result in the loss of native hedgerow along Bower Lane. The Landscape Briefing Note states that the loss of existing hedgerow is restricted and limited only to that necessary to facilitate safe access to the highway; however, it is noted that the entire hedgerow would need to be removed to allow for the proposed road widening works. It is proposed that the hedge be translocated or replaced with semi-mature hedgerow, further into the site, but the urbanising impacts of the proposed highway works, with pavements, road widening, signage, speed control measures, dragon tooth and other road markings would all have a significantly harmful impact on the existing rural character of Bower Lane.
In conclusion, it is considered that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the intrinsic beauty of the countryside, the landscape character of the site and its surroundings and the established character of the area; and would result in a harmful increase in coalescence between Eaton Bray and Edlesborough. The proposal is therefore considered to conflict with Section 15 of the NPPF, Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review, Policies EE5 and HQ1 of the submission version of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, the Central Bedfordshire Landscape Character Assessment (2015) and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide.
It is also noted that 89% of the site comprises best or most versatile agricultural land. The loss of this land would be contrary to paragraph 170 of the NPPF, which requires planning decisions to recognise the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland;
3. Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure The Masterplan has been amended to retain more hedgerow within the site, utilising existing field accesses to provide accesses within the site, which would go some way to overcoming concerns of the fragmentation of these important elements of green infrastructure.
Site layout and landscaping are reserved matters, and should permission be granted, it would be considered appropriate to impose planning conditions requiring the retention of the orchard and other identified site trees and hedgerows of high value, the provision of substantial landscape buffers along sensitive edges and the provision and implementation of an ecological enhancement strategy, including long term management of all green infrastructure features, which should be retained outside of individual domestic curtilages.
Subject to the careful control of these matters by way of planning condition and / or planning obligation and reserved matters application, it is considered that the impacts on biodiversity and green infrastructure could be made acceptable.
4. Design Layout The application is in outline form, with layout reserved for future consideration. However, the indicative masterplan indicates that this quantum of development could be delivered on the site at a density of 30.6 dwellings per hectare within the net developable area (3.92 hectares of the site), which is considered to be an appropriate density for the village location and would be sufficient to deliver sufficient parking and garden space in accordance with the Council's standards.
All other matters relating to design and layout would be considered at reserved matters stage.
5. Neighbouring Amenity The application is in outline form and building positions and heights are reserved matters. It is acknowledged that gardens which are currently surrounded by open countryside would have development introduced within much closer proximity and that views over open countryside would be lost. Whilst there is considered to be a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area; in terms of the amenity of neighbouring residents, right to a view is not a material planning consideration.
It is considered that there is sufficient space that dwellings could be positioned on the site and building heights controlled such that there would not be a loss of light to habitable rooms of neighbouring occupiers or the loss of a reasonable expectation of privacy as controlled by the Council's design standards. It is noted that in rural locations, there is an increased expectation of privacy that would have to be taken into consideration when determining any reserved matters application.
Neighbouring occupiers have also raised concerns about light and noise pollution arising from the development following construction. Whilst the proposal would result in the introduction of noise and light pollution where there is currently an absence, the level of noise and light is not expected to exceed what would be found on any residential development and is not considered to be sufficient reason for refusing the application.
Concerns have also been raised in respect of the impact of construction activities. These impacts could be controlled to a certain extent by existing environmental legislation and the imposition of a condition requiring the submission and implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan. Residual impacts would be of a temporary duration and would not be sufficient to justify a refusal of the application.
Concerns have also been raised in respect of neighbouring house prices, however, this is not a material planning consideration.
Subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, and careful consideration at reserved matters stage, it is considered that the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable impacts on neighbouring amenity.
6. Highways Considerations The application was accompanied by a Transport Statement which has been assessed by the Highways Officer. The Transport Statement concludes that the impact of the development on the surrounding highway network would be acceptable in terms of traffic flows, and the Highways Officer has not disputed this.
Concerns have also not been raised by the Highways Officer in respect of the safety of the two proposed vehicular accesses into the site.
The proposal is accompanied by a list of proposed highways works to Bower Lane, which includes road-widening, footway provision and widening, the relocation of the 30mph limit, the introduction of layby parking for residents of Bower Lane and speed control measures and road markings.
The initial highway works scheme was reviewed by the Highways Officer and was found to raise safety concerns. The scheme has since been modified; and although it no longer raises safety concerns, there are some minor concerns which would be the subject of planning conditions and / or planning obligations should planning permission be granted to ensure that they would not be taken forward in their current form.
The bus services have been reduced since the Transport Statement was prepared and the site is no longer considered to be served by a bus service that is of sufficient frequency to promote sustainable methods of transport. The type, quality and speed of the roads leading to nearby towns make regular cycling an unattractive option and the majority of occupiers of proposed dwellings are likely to rely on car based method of transport for some services and employment. However, Eaton Bray is classified as a large village, with some day-to-day services and Edlesborough also provides some day-to-day services. It is considered that the level of services within the village are sufficient that Eaton Bray is not considered to be an unsustainable location for residential development.
Subject to sufficient controls over the proposed highway works, it is considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the safety and capacity of the surrounding highway network.
7. Flood Risk and Drainage Public consultation responses have raised concerns in respect of the impact of the proposed development on flood risk in the area. The application was accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy and neither Anglian Water, the Internal Drainage Board, nor the Council's Flood Risk Management Team have raised concerns, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions requiring more details of the drainage system once the layout of the development has been agreed.
8. Affordable Housing and Infrastructure Requirements The proposal offers 35% affordable housing, which is a benefit of the scheme.
Through consultation with appropriate bodies it has been recognised that the proposal would increase pressure on local infrastructure, in particular education provision, healthcare and children's play space. The appropriate bodies have identified financial contributions that would be required to meet the infrastructure needs generated by the development.
However, the applicant has not submitted or signed an agreement for a Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking and thus there is no method of securing the affordable housing or the required contributions. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not amount to sustainable development as no legal agreement has been entered into to deliver the necessary financial contributions to mitigate the impact of the scheme on local infrastructure or the affordable housing. It is therefore considered that the proposal would conflict with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework to provide sustainable development.
9. Planning Balance It has been identified that the scheme would cause harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, significant harm to openness and conflict with three of the purposes for including land within the Green Belt. In accordance with the NPPF, substantial weight must be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Furthermore, it has been identified that the proposal would have a harmful impact on landscape character and the character and appearance of the area. It is considered that the degree of harm is such that significant weight should also be attributed to this identified harm.
It has also been identified that the proposal would result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. Based on the relatively small size of the site, only limited weight is given to this consideration.
The application documentation put forward 11 considerations which it argues forms a case for very special circumstances that would outweigh the identified harm. However, as set out in Section 1 of this report, five of these considerations represent policy requirements or do not rely on the development to take place and therefore carry no weight.
The proper management of the orchard for biodiversity and community use attracts moderate weight, the highways improvements and linking footpath to Moor End Lane and improvements to the public right-of-way carry limited weight.
The contribution of the proposed development to housing land supply and affordable housing supply would be a benefit of the scheme, however, neither of these elements can be described as "very special" and would apply to any residential development. At this time the Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, and therefore very limited weight is attributed to these circumstances, however, even if the Council could not demonstrate a 5 year land supply, it is considered that the benefits of delivering additional housing, combined with the additional benefits described above would not be sufficient to outweigh the substantial identified harm to the Green Belt, landscape character and the character and appearance of the area.
In accordance with paragraph 144 of the NPPF therefore, it is considered that very special circumstances do not exist and the proposal conflicts with Section 13 of the NPPF. The application of Section 13 provides a clear reason for refusing the development and therefore, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the NPPF the proposal is not considered to represent sustainable development.
10. Other Considerations
Human Rights and Equality Act issues: Based on information submitted there are no known issues raised in the context of Human Rights / The Equalities Act 2010 and as such there would be no relevant implications.
Recommendation That Planning Permission be REFUSED for the following:
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS
1 The site lies within the South Bedfordshire Green Belt and the proposal would comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would be harmful by reason of inappropriateness, significant loss of openness and by conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Very special circumstances that would outweigh the identified harm have not been demonstrated in this case. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 2 The proposed development would result in the loss of grade 2 and grade 3a agricultural land and, by virtue of its open countryside location, the scale of development, the loss of characteristic pasture land and the site's relationship with other built development and the open countryside; would result in harm to the character and appearance of the site and its surrounding and the relationship of the site and the neighbouring existing settlement with the immediate and wider landscape. The development is therefore contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to deliver high quality, sensitive development and safeguard valued landscape character, and policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review.
3 In the absence of a legal agreement securing the provision of affordable housing and contributions towards local infrastructure, the development would fail to make an acceptable contribution towards local affordable housing stock, and would fail to mitigate the impacts of the development on local infrastructure. The development would therefore be contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Affordable Housing Guidance Note for Central Bedfordshire (South Area).
INFORMATIVE NOTES TO APPLICANT
Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 6, Article 35 The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant in an attempt to narrow down the reasons for refusal but fundamental objections could not be overcome. The applicant was invited to withdraw the application but did not agree to this. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.
Tick Box 1 No member has requested that this application be referred to Committee 2 Where the proposal is for There are no unresolved objections from major development and it is the Town or Parish Council proposed to grant permission The application is not a departure from established planning policies 3 The application is not submitted by a member of the Council 4 The application is not submitted by an officer of the Council 5 The Council is not the Applicant 6 The application is made under Regulation 3 or for development of the Council's own land and no representation has been made that is contrary to the recommendation, except where, in the case of an objection, this can be resolved by the imposition of conditions
This application therefore complies with the criteria laid down for determination under delegated powers.