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

please ask for Leslie Manning direct line 0300 300 5132 date 24 January 2019

NOTICE OF MEETING

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Date & Time Wednesday, 6 February 2019 10.00 a.m.

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

Richard Carr Chief Executive

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

Cllrs K C Matthews (Chairman), R D Berry (Vice-Chairman), M C Blair, Mrs S Clark, K M Collins, I Dalgarno, F Firth, E Ghent, C C Gomm, K Janes, T Nicols, T Swain and J N Young

[Named Substitutes:

Cllrs D Bowater, Mrs C F Chapman MBE, S Dixon, Ms C Maudlin, A Ryan, P Smith and B J Spurr]

All other Members of the Council - on request

MEMBERS OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC ARE WELCOME TO ATTEND THIS MEETING N.B. The running order of this agenda can change at the Chairman’s discretion. Items may not, therefore, be considered in the order listed.

*This meeting will be filmed by the Council for live and/or subsequent broadcast online and can be viewed at https://centralbedfordshire.public-i.tv/core/portal/home.

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

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

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

Welcome

1. Apologies for Absence

To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitute Members.

2. Chairman's Announcements

To receive any announcements from the Chairman and any matters of communication.

3. Minutes

To approve as a correct record, the Minutes of the meeting of the Development Management Committee held on 9 January 2019 (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.

Planning and Related Applications Prior to considering the planning applications contained in the following schedules, Members will have received and noted any additional information relating to the applications as detailed in the Late Sheet for this meeting. Item Subject 5 Planning Application No. CB/18/02458/OUT (Biggleswade North)

Address: Land to the East of Baden Powell Way Biggleswade SG18 8SD

Outline planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and development of up to 1,500 dwellings (Use Class C3), up to 2ha of commercial development (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 a, b, c, B2 ,B8), up to 5ha of primary school development (Use Class D1) and up to 4ha of other leisure and community development (Use Classes D1 and D2), up to 60ha of open space including, play space, allotments and a country park, infrastructure including site access, internal roads, car parking, footpaths, cycleways, drainage and utilities. This planning application is for EIA development as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and is supported by an Environmental Statement.

Applicant: UK Regenerations Ltd REPORT TO FOLLOW 6 Planning Application No. CB/18/02251/OUT (Arlesey)

Address: The Lagoon, 197 Hitchin Road, Arlesey, SG15 6SE

Outline application: with all matters reserved except means of access for up to 147 dwellings and public open space

Applicant: Mr/Ms Andrews

7 Planning Application No. CB/18/02373/OUT (Stotfold & Langford)

Address: Loft Farm and West of Church Street, Langford, Biggleswade, SG18 9QA

Outline planning application for up to 95 dwellings and associated public open space, with all matters reserved except for access.

Applicant: Rosconn Strategic Land

8 Planning Application No. CB/18/03694/OUT (Shefford)

Address: Land at Ivel Road, Shefford, SG17 5LH

Outline planning application with all matters reserved (Except for means of access from Ivel road) for up to 90 residential dwellings, new internal access roads and footpaths, open space, sustainable urban drainage system and associated landscaping, infrastructure and earthworks.

Applicant: Catesby Estates plc

9 Planning Application No. CB/18/03781/FULL (Shefford)

Address: 32 Shefford Road, Meppershall, Shefford, SG17 5LN

Demolition of No. 32 Shefford Road and existing nursery buildings, and the construction of 60 No. dwellings, new vehicle access, site wide highways works, and provision of associated landscaping and amenity space (including SuDS).

Applicant: Inland Homes PLC 10 Planning Application No. CB/17/04959/OUT (Westoning, Flitton & Greenfield)

Address: Park Farm, Park Road, Westoning, Bedford, MK45 5LA

Proposed residential development of up to 73 units comprising of flats and houses, including demolition of up to two no. units on Manor Close. Proposal also includes for a village shop, a village hall and burial ground to be located within the site.

Applicant: European Property Acquisition Ltd

11 Planning Application No. CB/18/04183/OUT (Ampthill)

Address: Land East of No.13 Clophill Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AQ

Outline Application for erection of 14 dwellings including access

Applicant: Aldbury Homes

12 Planning Application No. CB/18/01651/RM (Toddington)

Address: Harlington Station Yard, Station Road, Harlington, LU5 6LD

Reserved Matters following Outline Approval CB/14/02348/OUT Redevelopment up to 45 residential units with associated amenity space, landscaping and parking provision. Demolition of existing bungalow.

Applicant: W E Black Ltd

13 Planning Application No. CB/18/03698/RM (Ampthill)

Address: 9 Silsoe Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AX

Reserved Matters Application CB/17/04031/OUT dated 12/01/2018. Appearance, landscaping, access, layout & scale.

Applicant: J.C.Gill Developments Ltd. 14 Planning Application No. CB/18/04383/FULL (Caddington)

Address: Manor Farm, Watling Street, Kensworth, Dunstable, LU6 3QU

Retrospective change of use from agriculture to temporary use as storage area for 5 years, with ancillary landscaping works and formation of hardstanding area using road plannings (scalpings).

Applicant: O'Hagan Transport Ltd

15 Planning Application No. CB/18/04058/FULL (Aspley & Woburn)

Address: Tree Tops, 13 West Hill, Aspley Guise, Milton Keynes, MK17 8DP

External steps and platform to access roof void storage over garage from existing garden level.

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Hercheui

16 Late Sheet

To receive and note, prior to considering the planning applications contained in the schedules above, any additional information detailed in the Late Sheet to be circulated on 5 February 2019.

17 Site Inspection Appointment(s)

Under the provisions of the Members Planning Code of Good Practice, Members are requested to note that the next Development Management Committee will be held on 6 March 2019 and the Site Inspections will be undertaken on 4 March 2019. Agenda Item 5 Page 7

N © Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Central Bedfordshire Council CASE NO. Licence No. 100049029 (2009) W E Date: 23:January:2019

Map Sheet No S

Scale: 1:10000 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Page 9

Application No. Crown Copyright and database 1:2,500 right. 2018 CB/18/02251/OUT Ordnance Survey 100049029 Central Bedfordshire Council. Date Created The Lagoon, 197 Hitchin Road, Cities Revealed Aerial 22-01-2019 Arlesey, SG15 6SE photography copyright The GeoInformation Group 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6 Page 11

Item No. 6

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/18/02251/OUT LOCATION The Lagoon, 197 Hitchin Road, Arlesey, SG15 6SE PROPOSAL Outline application: with all matters reserved except means of access for up to 147 dwellings and public open space PARISH Arlesey WARD Arlesey WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Dalgarno, Shelvey & Wenham CASE OFFICER Donna Lavender DATE REGISTERED 08 August 2018 EXPIRY DATE 07 November 2018 APPLICANT Mr/Ms Andrews AGENT Stephen Hinsley Planning Ltd REASON FOR Call In request from Ward Member Cllr R Wenham, COMMITTEE TO due to the proposal contributing significantly to DETERMINE providing affordable housing and housing mix.

RECOMMENDED DECISION Outline Application - Recommended for Refusal

Summary of Recommendation The proposal for residential development is outside of the Settlement envelope of Arlesey and as such regarded as development in the open countryside and contrary to Policy DM4 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document 2009. In addition, the proposed would result in the loss of a Gypsy & Traveller (G & T) site for which there is a clear need for. The proposal would have an impact on the character and appearance of the area which is considered to be significant and demonstrably harmful. The proposal would provide policy compliant affordable housing and provide for a provision of self build plots and over 55s accommodation with the whole scheme contributing to the Council’s 5 year housing supply as a deliverable site within the period. Financial contributions to offset local infrastructure impacts would be sought for education, leisure facilities and health facilities. However these benefits are not considered to outweigh the harm in terms of lack of policy compliance, the loss of a G & T site, nor its harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area.

Site Location:

The application site is located approximately 250 metres beyond the southernmost settlement boundary of Arlesey and approximately 75 metres to the east of the East Coast mainline. The site is within the open countryside and sits to the rear of 197 Hitchin Road and the neighbouring property, Fountain Cottage. Part of the site is an authorised Gypsy and Travellers site and comprises a number caravans together with associated hardstanding, internal roads and day rooms. The remainder of the site consists of arable land.

The Application: Agenda Item 6 Page 12

The site has an established use as a Gypsy & Travellers site, with permission for 19 static caravans to be stationed/occupied on the site and 5 touring caravans.

Permission is sought in outline with all matters reserved except means of access for up to 147 dwellings with 35 % affordable housing and public open space, with the retention of 197 Hitchin Road. Access would be provided from Hitchin Road by way of a mini roundabout.

The illustrative layout plan provides for a residential density of approximately 41 dwellings per hectare and a mix of accommodation including:  97x Flats (mix 1 & 2 beds with 21 x apartments reserved for over 55's)  50 market dwellings (4 of which are self built plots)

The application is accompanied with the following statements:

 Design & Access Statement  Transport Statement  Ecological Appraisal & Surveys  Flood Risk Assessment & Drainage Strategy  Foul Drainage Statement  Landscape Visual Appraisal

The site and development has been considered in relation to the EIA regulations (2017) and is below the threshold for the requirement of an Environmental Statement.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) 2- Sustainable Development 5 - Delivering a supply of homes 8 – Promoting healthy communities 9 – Promoting sustainable transport 11- Effective Use of Land 12 - Achieving well designed places 14 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment 16 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Planning Policy for Travellers Sites (PPTS) (2015)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009 CS1 Development Strategy DM4 Development Within & Beyond the Settlement Envelopes CS14 High Quality Development DM3 High Quality Development CS16 Landscape and Woodland DM14 Landscape and Woodland

Mid-Beds Local Plan 2005 Agenda Item 6 Page 13

Policy HO12 - Gypsies

Arlesey Neighbourhood Plan (adopted 2017)

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:

SP1: National Planning Policy Framework - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SP2: Sustainable Development SP7: Development within Settlement Envelopes SP8: Gypsy and Traveller, and Travelling Showpeople Pitch Requirement CC5: Sustainable Drainage H1: Housing Mix H2: Housing Standards H3: Housing for Older People H4: Affordable Housing H7: Self and Custom Build H8: Assessing Planning Applications for Gypsy and Traveller Sites T2: Highways Safety and Design T3: Parking HQ1: High Quality Development EE1: Green Infrastructure EE2: Biodiversity EE4: Trees, woodlands and hedgerows EE5: Landscape Character and value EE13: Outdoor sport, leisure and open space CC1: Climate Change and Sustainability HQ2: Planning Obs & CIL HQ3: Social and Community Infrastructure

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents  Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA), August 2016  Central Bedfordshire Design Guide, March 2014  Ministerial Statements:- Planning and travellers, 1 July 2013 Agenda Item 6 Page 14

 Central Bedfordshire Sustainable Drainage Guidance (May 2015)

Relevant Planning History: CB/15/03000/VOC Variation of Condition No. 2 on CB/12/03535/FULL dated 17/12/2012 to allow no more than 19 static caravans to be stationed / occupied on the site at any one time and no more than 5 touring caravans shall be stationed on the site at any one time. Of the 5 touring caravans stationed on the site, none shall be occupied. Approved 12/11/15

CB/14/04470/VOC Variation of condition 2 on application CB/12/03535/Full to be varied to read 'No more than 24 caravans shall be stationed on the site of which no more than 14 stall be static mobile homes' Refused 04/03/15.

CB13/03496/FULL Erection of two detached day rooms. Approved 02/12/13

CB/12/03535/FULL Change of use of land to use as residential caravan site for 4 additional gypsy families, with a total of 8 caravans including no more than 4 static caravans. Extension of hardstanding and erection of two amenity buildings and landscaping. Approved 17/12/12

CB/12/02799/FULL Change of use from agricultural land to use as a residential caravan site for 4 additional gypsy families, with a total of 8 caravans including no more than 4 static caravans, extension of hardstanding, erection of 2 amenity buildings and landscaping. Refused 26/9/12.

CB/11/03370/FULL Retention of use of land as a residential caravan site for 6 Gypsy families, including hardstanding, utility blocks and landscaping. Approved 5/3/12.

CB/09/05914/FULL Change of use of land to use as residential caravan site for four gypsy families with a total of 8 caravans, erection of amenity blocks and landscaping. Approved 2/11/09, temporary consent for 3 years.

CB/09/00639/FULL Change of use of land to use as residential caravan site for four gypsy families with a total of 8 caravans, erection of amenity blocks and landscaping - Refused 24/6/09.

MB07/01654/FULL Change of use from dwelling to mixed use of dwelling and caravan site - Appeal allowed 11/9/08, temporary consent for 3 years.

MB/04/02146/FULL Change of use of land to private gypsy transit site and construction of hard standing for a maximum of 15 pitches - Refused 17/3/05.

Town Council: Arlesey Town Council Objects on the following grounds: Agenda Item 6 Page 15

(Verbatim) -  The site is outside of the settlement envelope, which is contrary to CBC's planning policy DM4; refusal of the application is supported by CBC's identification of a 5 year land supply  The proposed development would further exacerbate existing High Street traffic flow issues, the presence of which have been previously acknowledge by CBC  The sustainability of the site is highly questionable in terms of pedestrian and public transport accessibility to/from local amenities  Approval of planning consent would result in the sacrifice of an allocated Gypsy and Traveller site  The proposed mini-roundabout is inappropriate in size for the speed at which vehicles enter the settlement at the site location.

Following the reconsultation, the following additional comments were received:

Hereby OBJECTS on the following grounds: 1) The site is outside of the settlement envelope, which is contrary to CBC's planning policy DM4; refusal of the application is supported by CBC's identification of a 5- year land supply. 2) The proposed development would further exacerbate existing High Street traffic flow issues, the presence of which have been previously acknowledged by CBC 3) The sustainability of the site is highly questionable in terms of pedestrian and public transport accessibility to/from local amenities 4) Approval of planning consent would result in the sacrifice of an allocated Gypsy and Traveller site. 5) Arlesey Town Council support comments made by Urban Design Consultants, and have concerns regarding proximity to Memorial copse/cemetery and footpath indicated as link to cemetery.

Internal Consultees: Private Sector Housing No Objection, details of the room sizes would be required to be assessed with a detailed application.

Self Build Provision Supports, the provision of self build however concerns that the 2 bed houses do not meet the demand on the register and there are concerns that the amount of space indicated available for self build could not facilitate the number of self built units for larger units which would better meet the demand of the register.

Requests that suitable conditions and clauses be included in any s106 agreement to ensure the provision is Agenda Item 6 Page 16

realised.

Housing Development Support, the proposal provides for 35% affordable Officer housing provision in accordance with policy. Suggested mix for affordable housing provision should be included in any s106 agreement to ensure the appropriate provision is realised.

Sustainable Growth No Objection, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure energy and water efficiencies in the construction of the units.

Public Art No Objection, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure a public art scheme.

Trees & Landscape Significant concerns over the extension loss of east boundary hedge line. If minded to approve, requires the imposition of a condition to secure a detailed landscape scheme and management plan with the detailed application.

Sustainable Travel Plans No Objection, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure a full residential travel plan.

Urban Design Concerns raised owing to the following reasons: Consultant  Site is disjointed from the existing settlement  Unsustainable due to distance to walk to services and facilities  Footpath link proposed fails to connect to the wider network  Massing of apartment blocks, inappropriate for a edge of settlement location  Street frontage dominated by parking  Landscape bund referred to in D & A not shown on illustrative plan  Proposals do not provide an active frontage to the streets nor the existing highway  Rear parking courts should be designed out of the scheme

SuDs Engineer No Objection, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure a SuDs scheme and associated maintenance.

Ecology Objects, due to the lack of ecological net gain.

Landscape Objects, due to the unacceptable impact of the proposed roundabout junction on existing features and the urbanising effect of the roundabout on a rural transitional section. Unacceptable loss of existing landscape and hedgerows resulting the degrading of rural character. Agenda Item 6 Page 17

The proposal failing to compliment the rural edge and unacceptable visual intrusive as a result of the proposed 2.5 storey nature of the development proposed as landscaping buffers and features of vertical dimension cannot be relied upon adjacent to the railway. Proposed orchard poorly integrated and not of sufficient size.

Green Infrastructure Remains the need to strengthen the GI corridor to the west and north of the site as these are important features. GI provision is segmented with no continuous links.

Pollution No Objection, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure remediation, a Construction Management Plan and a noise mitigation report with any detailed submission.

MANOP Recommends that the scheme provide not less than 20 units of mainstream housing for older people, 14 units of housing with support for older people or not less than 34 units of mainstream housing suitable for older people.

Waste No Objection, subject to the imposition of conditions to secure bin storage and collection arrangements and refuse vehicle tracking information.

Leisure Supports the provision of play space but recommends alternative siting having regard to future safety. In addition, contributions required to be sought towards facilities unable to be provided on site.

Highways No Objection to access arrangements, subject to the imposition of conditions. Objection retained in respect of the lack of up to date transport assessment.

Local Plan Object, as the proposal would result in the loss of permanent pitches and would undermine the Councils Gypsy & Traveller accommodation supply.

External Consultees: Internal Drainage Board No Comments to make

Environment Agency No Objection, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure a SuDs scheme.

Beds Fire & Rescue No Objection, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure a fire hydrants scheme.

Highways England No Objection, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure a Framework Travel Plan.

Network Rail No Objection, subject to the imposition of a condition to Agenda Item 6 Page 18

secure design considerations in relation to the main railway line.

Anglian Water No Objection, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure a foul water strategy.

S106 Sustainability Mitigation Obligations Healthcare: £369,195 towards health facilities that serve the geographic of Arlesey.

Education: Early Years Contributions towards Arlesey Pre-School - £94,613.92 Lower school contributions towards Arlesey Cross Development - £315,379.74 Middle school contributions towards Pix Brook Academy - £315,607.03 Upper School contributions towards Pix Brook Academy - £387,658.60

Leisure/Open space: Provision of new gym equipment and upgrading of the facilities at Saxon Pool £130,253

Improvement & Expansion of grass pitch facilities and drainage, changing facilties and flood lighting at Arlesey Town FC - £42,370

Community Halls: Contributions towards upgrades to the Arlesey Village Hall - £144,340

Other Representations: Neighbours x 6 Objects on the following grounds in summary:

 Dangerous access arrangements  Overdevelopment  Cumulative impact due to the significant amount of development in Arlesey  Impact on the open countryside  Increased traffic generation  Adverse impact on existing infrastructure and services  Closing the gap between Hitchin and Arlesey  No regard to the cemetery expansion phase 2  Loss of travellers park  Not in accordance with the Arlesey Neighbourhood Plan

6 x neighbours Support for the proposal, on the following grounds:

 Additional housing growth  Enhancement of the area  Additional social housing  New housing brings more business investment Agenda Item 6 Page 19

 Commuter accommodation opportunity

Determining Issues: The main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle 2. Affect on the Character and Appearance of the Area 3. Neighbouring Amenity 4. Highway Considerations 5. Other Considerations

Considerations

1. Principle: Sustainable Development 1.1 In the local context, the site falls outside the Settlement Envelope of Arlesey. Arlesey is designated as a Minor Service Centre under Policy CS1 of the Core Strategy, wherein the principle of new development commensurate with the scale of the settlement is accepted only within the Settlement Envelope. On the basis of Policy DM4 a residential proposal outside of the settlement envelope it would be regarded as contrary to policy.

1.2 The Council is able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land in excess of the 5 year requirement. Therefore, the Council’s policies concerned with the supply of housing are not considered to be out of date and paragraph 11 of the NPPF is not therefore engaged. However, proposals should still be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development (the over-arching principle of the NPPF) that is the determining consideration for this proposal.

1.3 NPPF Paragraph 79 allows housing development in rural areas where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities, it would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or where it would re-use redundant or disused buildings. The proposal herein makes no such contribution.

1.4 Arlesey Neighbourhood Plan is also a material consideration whereby this adopted plan seeks to direct and plan for growth within Arlesey for the plan period 2016-2031 and this site is also not allocated for growth within this plan.

1.5 Given the authorised use of the site is for the siting of caravans and the only permanent fixtures on the site granted permission being the day rooms which are ancillary to the use of the site, it is considered that the site does not constitute previously development land as defined in the NPPF (2018) and as such, the proposal does not represent the effective reuse of previously development land.

1.6 The site was considered in the Councils call for sites submission however this was not progressed forward for allocation.

1.7 Whilst it is considered that paragraph 11 of the NPPF is not activated as the Council's policies are considered to be consistent with the NPPF, consideration should be had to other material considerations as highlighted above and Agenda Item 6 Page 20

therefore it is considered that regard should be had to the golden thread of the NPPF in terms of Sustainable development. There are three dimensions to sustainable development which require consideration such as economic, social and environmental roles. Paragraph 9 of the NPPF states that these roles are mutually inclusive and as such in order to achieve sustainable development all three of the dimensions should be sought simultaneously and are considerations for the planning balance.

1.8 Economic The NPPF makes it clear that planning policies should aim to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping and other activities, therefore planning decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes maximised. It is acknowledged that the construction of 147 dwellings would support a limited level of employment, with associated benefits to the local economy, within the local area on a temporary basis during the construction period which could be expected to last no longer than three years.

1.9 It is also acknowledged that new residents are likely to support existing local services although these are limited. The future Council Tax payments that would be spent in the area are considered as benefits. Cumulatively these make positive contributions to fulfilling the economic roles.

1.10 Arlesey constitutes a Minor Service Area which has access to a range of facilities and services which would provide local employment opportunities. On the basis of all the considerations above, the development is considered to meet this strand of Sustainable Development.

1.11 Social The provision of 147 properties with a proportion of affordable housing and some self build provision, is given weight.

1.12 The proposal would result in the loss of Gypsy & Traveller and culturally suitable accommodation for non travelling travellers, which is considered in greater detail within this section 2 of this report, which weighs heavily against the proposal.

1.13 It is noted that MANOP have requested a specific proportion of dwellings within the site should be designed to be suitable for older persons and a proportion of the scheme will support this provision by providing for 21 units which would provide over 55s accommodation however none of the units support the needs for assisted accommodation requirements and therefore only limited weight can be given to this provision.

1.14 The provision of open spaces are considered benefits but given limited weight given that the provision proposed would only provide what is necessary for a scheme of this size and the concerns raised in respect of accessibility of the space.

1.15 The report has detailed that the site is regarded as a sustainable location and it is considered that the settlement offers services and facilities that can, to an Agenda Item 6 Page 21

extent, accommodate the growth resultant from this scheme. However the application site, by virtue of its relationship to the existing settlement does not create a 'high quality built environment' which is a specific requirement of the social strand as set out in the NPPF.

1.16 The development will impact on local infrastructure and as a result, development of a scale as proposed here, is required to offset these impacts, by entering into a S106 agreement to provide financial contributions to mitigate these impacts. No such agreement is provided and therefore the development is not considered to meet this strand of sustainable development.

1.17 Environmental The development results in sprawl into what is regarded as open countryside which is not a benefit.

1.18 The development site would result in the loss of Grade 3 moderate quality agricultural land whereby paragraph 170 of the NPPF recommends that Local authorities consider the long term implication of the loss of good quality agricultural land in the interest of sustainable growth. However whilst it is acknowledged that the proposal would be harmful as a result of this loss, it would not constitute significant development or loss of agricultural land but its loss does weigh against the proposal.

1.19 The NPPF states that opportunities should be taken to protect and enhance the natural environment and to improve biodiversity. The Councils Ecologists has objected to this application (which is explored in more detail later in this report under section 6) on the grounds that the supporting information supplied in respect of this application does not provide appropriate net gain which weighs against the proposal.

1.20 The relatively flat topography of the site and prevailing landscape results in the developments visual dominance having regard to the scale of the development, when viewed from adjacent land and neighbouring properties along Hitchin Road and also from the neighbouring railway line.

1.21 The potential benefits identified by the applicant, to be had from the development comprising of the policy presumption in favour of using land effectively are acknowledged but are not considered sufficient on the basis of the information supplied to outweigh the identified harm that 147 new residential units in this location. As such the proposal consists of an unsustainable form of development contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

1.22 It is the Councils opinion that the ‘tilted balance’ as referred to in para 14 of the NPPF does not apply in this case however even if it were to be triggered, the adverse impacts identified in terms of its environmental and social implications of the development, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development.

2. Principle: Loss of Gypsy & Traveller Accommodation 2.1 In addition to the NPPF, and the adopted and emerging Local Plans, the Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) (2015) must be considered. Section 5 Agenda Item 6 Page 22

of the NPPF states the Council has a duty to supply and maintain a variety of accommodations to facilitate the needs of different groups of its community which includes Travellers. Similarly paragraph 3 of the PPTS states that The Government’s overarching aim is to ensure fair and equal treatment for travellers, in a way that facilitates the traditional and nomadic way of life of travellers while respecting the interests of the settled community and achieving this through identifying and meeting the need of this population.

2.2 This is reiterated in policy SP8 of the emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan which seeks to facilitate a suitable level of pitches to meet the needs of G & T accommodation and of travelling show people. Whilst it is acknowledged that only limited weight can be attributed to this policy at this time, what is relevant is the evidence base which underpins this is the Councils Needs Assessment and pitch requirement and how this scheme would detrimentally affect the Councils ability to retain its supply.

2.3 Existing Provision and Need: Five Year Gypsy and Traveller Supply Statement for the five year period commencing 1st July 2018

The G&T need for Central Bedfordshire is 71 pitches over the period 2015 - 2035 (source: Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, August 2016). This figure comprises 23 pitches for 'Travelling' Gypsies and Travellers, and 48 pitches for 'unknown' Gypsies and Travellers.

2.4 The GTAA breaks down this need into 5 year periods which run from 2016 - 21, 2021 - 26 and so on. Taking the GTAA figures and annualising them, it can be seen that over the period 2016 - 2018, 10 pitches were needed to meet the pitch requirement set out above. The latest monitoring information (30th June 2018) shows that over that same period we have acquired an additional 35 pitches against the base data of the GTAA. Of these 3 are temporary, and 2 have lapsed which leaves a balance of 30 additional permanent pitches since the base date of the GTAA (April 2016). This is a surplus of 20 pitches of available supply when assessed against what was needed to be provided during that period.

2.5 5 pitches x 2 (years) = 10 pitches 30 (pp since 1st April 2016) - 10 = 20 pitches

The remaining need to be accommodated over the Plan period to 2035 is therefore 61 pitches (71 - 10).

The derivation of the new five year supply requirement is calculated by annualising the remaining need over the period 2018 to 2035 (61 pitches) by dividing by 16.25 (the remaining years in the Plan period), and then multiplying by 5.

61/16.25 (years remaining) = 3.75 pitches per year 3.75 x 5 (years) = 18.75

As noted between 1st April 2016 and 30th June 2018 a total of 30 pitches have been permitted. 10 of these were required to meet the needs identified over that period. The remaining requirement between 1st July 2018 and 31st March 2035 Agenda Item 6 Page 23

is 61 pitches.

71 - 10 = 61 pitches

This means that over the remaining 16.25 years of the Local Plan period, an average of 3.76 pitches will be required per year, or 18.75 pitches over the five year supply period.

61/16.25 (years) = 3.75 pitches per year 3.75 x 5 (years) = 18.75 years

Of the 30 pitches which have been approved since 1st April 2016, only 10 have been accounted for, leaving 20 pitches available to meet the requirements of the new five year supply period. This is 4.1 pitches more than is required.

30 supply (pp since 1st April 2016) - 10 = 20 pitches

Therefore at 1st July 2018 this Council can demonstrate 5.4 years supply of pitches against a requirement of 18.5 pitches.

18.75/5 = 3.75 pitches per year 20/3.75 = 5.33 (years)

2.6 However, having regard to the loss of the pitches on this site it would increase the need to facilitate additional pitches to 80 over the plan period which would reduce the current supply down to only 4.06 years having regard to the revised required of 4.92 pitches per year. As such, it is apparent that the loss of this site, would have a significant impact on the Councils current supply.

2.7 Availability & Lack of Alternative Accommodation

The planning permission under local authority reference CB/15/03000/VOC has a specific condition attached to its approval, for the use of the site for persons that fall within the definition of G & T. This planning permission remains extant.

2.8 The 19 pitches on this site were counted in the Councils Needs Assessment (2016), and as such despite the applicant's own assumptions in respect of the current calculated need, the Council has concluded that their assessment is the most up to date evidence base for calculating the current need position. If the pitches were to be lost, these pitches would be required to be facilitated elsewhere to meet the shortfall, of which this application fails to identify.

2.9 Whilst the applicant has provided some evidence which suggests that the persons currently occupying units on this site do not meet the 2015 G & T policy definition, it is difficult to verify this information. Furthermore, it is sensible to conclude that based on the Councils Needs Assessment, if units were made to become available, this site can fulfil the Councils G & T accommodation need. Enforcement Action is at the discretion of the Council to make these pitches available if necessary however it is acknowledged that this is a separate issue and not part of this determination. Notwithstanding this, if enforcement action was found to be expedient and action taken to remove any persons that do not fall within the G & T definition, that there would be 19 pitches available that Agenda Item 6 Page 24

could fulfil the Councils G & T need.

2.10 The applicant has also provided a signed letter which concludes that they have been unable to fulfil the occupation of the units with those meeting the G & T definition, however there is no indication of timeframes. There is also no evidence of any marketing undertaken.

2.11 In addition, as suggested above, the Councils own investigation of the needs assessment by ORS which was undertaken in 2016, was able to interview 4 residents of the site which met the G & T definition. In addition to this, the evidence which underpinned the 2015 variation of condition application for this site, also identified at least 3 persons who also met the definition. The applicants information of those occupying the site currently, do not seem to evidence that those persons still occupy the site, however this information is based on a snap shot in time and giving the nature of nomadic life, there is no evidence before the Council to suggest that this is not a temporary loss of those residents.

2.12 Notwithstanding the matters relating to the loss of pitches which could facilitate the need identified for the G & T population, the applicant has provided information that suggests that some of residents of the site previously led a nomadic life. The Council is also mindful however of its duties under the Equality Act. Whilst those residents do not formally meet the tests in terms of the 2015 policy definition of G & T, the evidence base contained within the Needs Assessment which underpin's the Councils emerging Local Plan and identifies that there is a need to accommodate culturally suitable accommodation for non travelling travellers. That need is to be met as a result of the changes to the G & T definition and these are occupiers that have ceased to travel permanently, for whatever reason. This site as such, whilst suggested to be not fully functioning (based on the applicants evidence provided to date) as a G & T site having regard to the 2015 definition of G & T, it is clear that the existing is capable to contributing to providing culturally suitable accommodation for the non travelling Traveller population if planning permission was granted to vary the occupancy condition on the existing permission.

2.13 No information has been provided regarding where the current occupants of the site would relocate to or the availability of sites that would be suitable to accommodate occupants as a result of the loss of this site.

2.14 Based on the information provided, the proposed scheme would give rise to the unacceptable loss of G & T accommodation and what is capable of providing culturally suitable alternative accommodation for non travelling Travellers. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy SP8 of the emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) (2015) and Section 5 of the NPPF (2018).

3. Affect on the Character and Appearance of the Area 3.1 Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy for the North reinforces the need for developments to reinforce the established character of area which includes the need to complement the surrounding pattern and grain of development. In addition, the Central Bedfordshire Design guide states that proposals should be designed as a sensitive response to the site and its setting, which is further is Agenda Item 6 Page 25

iterated in policies DM3 & DM4 respectfully.

3.2 In addition, Paragraph 3.23.3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies states that the nature and scale of development will be expected to reflect the size and character of the community within which it is proposed.

3.3 The overall density for the site would be approximately 40 dwellings per hectare which is not representative of the density of residential development within the immediate vicinity of the site and would appear unduly cramped. Concerns have been raised by consultees including highways and landscaping that whilst acknowledging that the layout shown is illustrative, that this level of development could not be accommodated along with all the associated highways, footways, GI and housing mix as proposed, in such as way that conform with the character of the prevailing area.

3.4 A specific concern was raised by the Councils Self Build Officer that the illustrative layout shows self build provision to be 2 beds attached/closely compacted housing leaving limited flexibility on the sizes of plots for self build provision that would better meet the needs of the Council register. Fundamentally, whilst this layout is only indicative, based on the number of units proposed it would be difficult to provide a layout which would accord to the general grain or would provide opportunities for appropriate integration with the existing settlement due to the lack of ability to provide suitable footpath connections to the existing development without use of third party land outside of the applicants control as the most direct route for connectivity is through the cemetery.

3.5 The indicative master plan submitted with this application shows a large number of dwellings proposed that would drag the built form of the settlement south and west into the open countryside. The extent of development area is not reflective of the character of this area and would not round off or relate satisfactorily to the body of the settlement and would replace open countryside and further urbanise Hitchin Road. The urbanisation would be exacerbated by the planned enhanced roundabout.

3.6 There are instances of development along Hitchin Road, giving more depth to the built form in this area and there are instances where existing and consented development has a similar depth in the town however none of these directly abut the application site. The application site does not abut existing development on its eastern boundary leaving an undeveloped strip between the site and Hitchin Road.

3.7 Residential development at this site would be inappropriate and harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside and is not respectful of the existing settlement. As such it is considered that the proposal would fail to conform with policies CS14 & DM3 of the Core Strategy for the North of Central Bedfordshire, policy HQ1 of the emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide and Section 12 of the NPPF.

4. Landscape Impact, Green Infrastructure & Biodiversity 4.1 The supporting text to Policy CS16 (Landscape and Woodland) sets out that the Agenda Item 6 Page 26

countryside outside settlements is a highly valued resource for agriculture, recreation, landscape and wildlife. Policy DM3 (High Quality Development) sets out that the development should be designed as a sensitive response to the site and its setting with consideration to longer views.

4.2 The site is within the open countryside, outside of the Settlement Envelope of Arlesey. It has largely has a rural, agricultural character. The site is valuable because of its openness.

4.3 The application was submitted with a comprehensive LVIA which identifies the assessment of impact of change and capacity of proposed landscape mitigation to integrate development within the wider landscape however despite this information objections were received from the Councils Landscape Officer on the basis that the proposed mass and form of proposed development was considered to be more in keeping with town centre or more urban development and not befitting to a more rural / edge of settlement site. The two and a half storey nature of the development along the western edge (alongside mainline rail), has the potential to be highly intrusive visually from the Hiz rural landscape to the west, from south and from key viewpoints from Fairfield to the east and there are fundamental concerns that landscape mitigation to the western edge will not visually integrate / mitigate development especially in winter time and at night time. Whilst it is acknowledged that some additional landscaping has been indicated along the edge shared with the railway, there is significant concerns about the viability of the said planting given its position relative to the railway. The Landscape Officer previously advised that existing and proposed planting to the rail corridor cannot be relied on to screen any future development proposals due to the requirement for Network Rail to ensure an appropriate buffer along this corridor due to both health and safety and maintenance considerations.

4.4 In addition serious concerns have been raised by the Councils Landscape Officer in respect of the impact of proposed roundabout junction with Hitchin Road. The junction proposals indicate the need to remove a significant portion of existing tree and shrub planting to the southeastern site boundary which currently forms an important mitigating feature limiting views to the site; removal of the proposed scale of existing landscaping to facilitate access will potentially reveal development in local and wider ranging views, and especially views from more elevated viewpoints to the east and south east. The proposed junction design would have a highly detrimental impact of the rural character of Hitchin Road and approach to south Arlesey not only in terms of scale and hard materials but will also require higher specification for street lighting, signage and white lines - all of which are highly urbanising.

4.5 The harm identified above to the character of the area would be permanent regardless of the landscape quality and it is considered that an open space offering does not offset the impact of harm to the character of the settlement in this location.

4.6 In accordance with CS17 of the Core Strategy for the North, the application indicative layout proposes a proportion of the site would be allotted to green infrastructure. However the Councils Green Infrastructure Officer concludes that the proposals are disappointing as the opportunities for GI are limited and segmented. Agenda Item 6 Page 27

4.7 The inclusion of biodiversity enhancements as discussed in the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal on the indicative masterplan are welcomed however previous concerns regarding minimal provision of 0.5ha of public open space being predominantly formal play with limited buffers around the periphery still stands. The scheme appears cramped and whilst attempts have been made to include enhancements such as wildlife ponds and a small orchard it resembles overdevelopment where the pressure from the number of residents using the open spaces will detract from their ecological value hence it will struggle to demonstrate a net gain for biodiversity.

4.8 As such, it is considered that there is serious landscape harm with little benefit in terms of green infrastructure, due to its inappropriate design and integration and the proposal fails to provide a net gain in biodiversity. Therefore the proposal fails to accord with policies CS16, CS17, DM3 and DM16 of the Core Strategy for the North, policies EE1, EE2, EE4, EE5 of the emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan and Section 11 of the NPPF.

5. Neighbouring Amenity 5.1 Existing Residents The detailed relationships between proposed dwellings would be a matter for consideration under a reserved matters application however it is considered that it would be possible to design a scheme which would not have adverse impact on the neighbouring amenity .

5.2 Future Occupiers As mentioned, above any matters pertaining to the detailed relationships between each proposed unit, would be a matter for consideration under a reserved matters application.

The Councils Pollution Officer is satisfied that despite the sites proximity to the railway line, a scheme could be designed such that would lead to acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure the necessary provisions through a noise mitigation scheme.

5.3 Whilst bin storage and collection points and cycle storage facilities have not been identified on the plan, the Councils waste officer is satisfied that there is sufficient space within the site to accommodate such facilities and as such is satisfied that this could be secured by condition as part of a planning permission. Therefore the proposal in this regard, would conform with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy for the North, policy HQ1 of the emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide and section 12 of the NPPF.

6. Highways Considerations 6.1 The proposed access and roundabout arrangements can all be facilitated within the sites or public highway ownership and are considered to meet appropriate highway standards.

6.2 Concerns was expressed by the Councils Highways Officer that whilst the indicative layout has made some consideration to the parking provision that might be required as a result of a scheme of this scale, full consideration has not been given to internal road widths and footways and so forth. Whilst these Agenda Item 6 Page 28

matters would otherwise be addressed at the detailed application stage and as such does not warrant a highway reason for refusal, there is some concern that the illustrative layout does appear to demonstrate a very dense development and therefore it may not be possible to accommodate the level of development proposed without further impact on landscape and proposed green infrastructure areas which would further impact on the character and appearance of the development as a whole.

6.3 The applicant has advised that they have designed and can supply as a benefit to the scheme, an alternative roundabout design that could facilitate a connection from the proposed future allocation to the East of Arlesey which has been put forward for a mixed use development in the emerging local plan. However the Local Plan is afforded limited weight only at the present time, given its stage of preparation and whilst there might be some perceived benefits for considering the future access of this land onto Hitchin road in the long term, this additional arm to the roundabout its not required to make this scheme acceptable and as such not a highway requirement for this proposal.

6.4 The Highways Officer however did advise that the Transport Statement (TS) dated June 2018 should have provided a statement that described the impact the application would have in Arlesey along with what is already committed development. Without this information, the Councils Highways Officer is unable to fully assess the impact on the existing highway network and or whether any additional mitigation within the bounds of the highway are necessary and as such the Councils Highways Officer has confirmed that this matter should be included as a reason for refusal if the information is not provided.

6.5 Points of connection to the right of way can only be accommodated through third party land (cemetery land) but links are proposed up to the cemetery in the interest of promoting healthy and sustainable modes of travel. In addition to the improved pedestrian network, a travel plan would be required in support of the application which would seek to demonstrate initiatives to improve/reduce the reliance on private modes of travel which would be secured by condition. In addition, in the interest of future proofing the site in relation to the increased uptake in electric vehicles, a condition would be imposed to realise a scheme for the charging of these vehicles. If the proposal would otherwise considered to be acceptable.

6.6 As such it is considered that the proposal would be prejudicial to highway safety and would conform with policy DM3 of the Core Strategy for the North of Central Bedfordshire, policies T2 & T3 of the emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide and section 9 of the NPPF in this respect.

7. Other Considerations 7.1 Affordable Housing Provision Under Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy, 35% of all developments for four dwellings and above should be provided as Affordable Housing units. The proposal for 147 units would qualify for Affordable Housing provision and 35% would equates to 51 units of which the applicant has proposed. The council is not in receipt of a signed 106 agreement which reaffirmed this obligation and commitment. As such the proposal would fail to comply with the requirements Agenda Item 6 Page 29

of Policy CS7.

7.2 Climate Change Policy DM1 requires all development above 10 dwellings to deliver 10% of the development’s energy demand from renewable or low carbon sources. The proposed development is over the policy threshold. Policy DM2 requires all new residential development to meet CfSH Level 3. The energy standard of the CfSH Level 3 is below standard required by the Part L2013 of the Building Regulations. All new development should therefore as minimum comply with the new Part L2013 of the Building Regulations and deliver 10% of their energy demand from renewable sources to meet requirement of policy DM1. The Councils Sustainability Officer would wish to encourage the developer to achieve a higher energy efficiency standard than this prescribed by the 2013 part L of the Building Regulations, as energy efficient fabric leads to lower energy demand and smaller renewable energy installation to satisfy the requirement of policy DM1. If the proposal were considered otherwise acceptable, such matters could be satisfactorily resolved as part of any forthcoming reserved matters application and could be controlled by condition. As such, the proposal would conform with policies DM1 & DM2 of the Core Strategy for the North and Section 14 of the NPPF.

7.3 Contamination The Geophysical report which accompanies the application identifies the need for further investigation. As such, the Councils Pollution Officer has advised, a land contamination investigation, remediation and validation condition is required to ensure that the contamination is effectively remediated to ensure the site is suitable for residential use.

7.4 Cumulative Impact on Town Whilst concerns have been expressed by local residents in respect of the cumulative impact on Arlesey due to the number of residential development proposals in recent years, planning applications can only be determined on the basis of their individual merits and therefore this is not a material consideration that alone could weigh against the proposal.

7.5 Fire Hydrants The Bedfordshire Fire Service has identified that new residential developments should allow for the provision of fire hydrants and appropriate access. This is a matter than could be designed into the layout and can be controlled by condition prior to commencement.

7.6 Financial Contributions Significant weight should be given to the National Planning Policy Framework, which calls for the achievement of the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. It is considered that Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the North is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. This states that developers are required to make appropriate contributions as necessary to offset the cost of providing new physical, social, community and environmental proposals .

In this case, the applicant has not submitted or signed an agreement for Section 106 Unilateral Undertaking. The proposal is for 147 residential units Agenda Item 6 Page 30

and contributions to projects for the improvement to leisure, healthcare, community facilities and education facilities have been demonstrated as being required in mitigation. As such on the basis of the impact on the local infrastructure it is considered that the proposal would not amount to sustainable development. Furthermore, whilst additional benefits have been supplied such as self build provision and over 55s accommodation, the weight attributed to those benefits within the planning balance are significantly reduced without a signed legal agreement. As such it is considered that the proposal would conflict with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework to provide sustainable development, and with policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the North.

7.7 Flood Risk & SuDs The site is located within Flood Zone Area 1 whereby the probability of flooding is identified as being low. As such, no objections have been raised by the Environment agency.

From 6th April 2015 local planning policies and decisions on planning applications relating to major development (developments of 10 dwellings or more; or equivalent non-residential or mixed development [as defined in Article 2(1) of the Town and County Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015], must ensure that sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) for the management of surface water runoff are put in place, unless demonstrated to be inappropriate. A drainage strategy was supplied for consideration as part of the application and the Councils SuDs Officer is satisfied that an appropriate Sustainable Drainage System could be implemented on site so as limit any flooding potential and as such has not wish to raise any objection to this proposal subject to the imposition of conditions to control its provision. In addition, neither the Internal Drainage Board or Anglian Water have wished to raise an objection to this application. As such it is considered that the proposal accords with the Councils adopted SuDs guidance and the section 14 of the NPPF.

7.8 Impact on Services Whilst concerns have been expressed by local residents about the impact of the proposed dwellinghouses on the existing water and sewage connections, the Internal Drainage Board and Anglian Water has not raised any objections in this regard.

7.9 Public Art Central Bedfordshire Council actively encourages the inclusion of Public Art in new developments and looks to developers / promoters of sites to take responsibility for funding and managing the implementation of Public Art either directly or through specialist advisers and in consultation with Town and Parish Councils and Central Bedfordshire Council. The Councils Public Art Officer has raised no objection to the granting of this permission, subject to the imposition of a condition to secure an art strategy.

7.10 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. Agenda Item 6 Page 31

Recommendation: That Outline Planning Permission be REFUSED due to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

1 The site is outside of the Arlesey Settlement Envelope and is within the open countryside and given its location, scale and relationship to the existing settlement the development would cause significant and demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area and prevailing landscape by extending built development into the countryside appearing as a poor built environment. In addition the proposal would fail to provide any net gain in terms of green infrastructure or biodiversity. The potential benefits to be had from the development are not considered sufficient to outweigh the significant and demonstrable harm identified above. As a result the proposal would not amount to sustainable development and would be inappropriate and unacceptable in principle. The proposal therefore fails to conform with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and policies CS14, CS18, DM3, DM4 and DM14 of the Core Strategy for the North of Central Bedfordshire and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide.

2 The proposal would result in the unacceptable loss of Gypsy & Traveller (G & T) pitches and what would be capable of providing culturally suitable accommodation for non travelling Travellers and of which no alternative suitable sites have been proposed. Its loss would significantly impact on the Councils ability to ensure an appropriate supply of G & T accommodation, contrary to Planning Policy for Travellers Sites (PPTS, 2015) and the NPPF (2018).

3 In the absence of a completed legal agreement securing financial contributions to offset infrastructure impact, including education, recreation and the provision of affordable housing, the development would have an unmitigated and unacceptable impact on existing local infrastructure. The development would therefore not amount to sustainable development and would be contrary to the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Policies CS2 (Developer Contributions) and CS7 (Affordable Housing) of the Core Strategy for the North and Policies H4 & HQ2 of the emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

4 The application fails to demonstrate the impact the development would have on the highways within Arlesey having regard to already committed development. Without this information, the Council is unable to fully assess the severity of the impact on the existing highway network and be satisfied that development can be accommodated in a manner that would not cause severe danger and inconvenience to users of the highway; as such the proposal is contrary to DM3 of the Core Strategy for the North and Section 9 of the NPPF.

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. Agenda Item 6 Page 32

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.

DECISION

...... Agenda Item 7 Page 33

Application No. Crown Copyright and database 1:2,500 right. 2018 CB/18/02373/OUT Ordnance Survey 100049029 Central Bedfordshire Council. Date Created Loft Farm and West of Church Cities Revealed Aerial 22-01-2019 Street, Langford, Biggleswade, photography copyright SG18 9QA The GeoInformation Group 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7 Page 35

Item No. 7

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/18/02373/OUT LOCATION Loft Farm and West of Church Street, Langford, Biggleswade, SG18 9QA PROPOSAL Outline planning application for up to 95 dwellings and associated public open space, with all matters reserved except for access. PARISH Langford WARD Stotfold & Langford WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Dixon, Saunders & Saunders CASE OFFICER Stuart Robinson DATE REGISTERED 26 June 2018 EXPIRY DATE 21 August 2018 APPLICANT Rosconn Strategic Land AGENT Strutt and Parker REASON FOR COMMITTEE TO Departure from the Development Plan DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Outline Application - Recommended for Approval

Update to Committee:

The application was originally considered by the Development Management Committee on 5 December 2018. The Committee resolved that further consideration of the planning application be deferred for up to two meeting cycles to enable Members to:

 Receive evidence relating to the ability of construction vehicles to enter the application site by passing through Tithe Farm Close.  Assess the impact on the existing residents in Tithe Farm Close in the immediate vicinity of the proposed new access to the application site as a result of the increase in traffic resulting from the development.  Find an alternative access to the application site, subject to the developer’s approval to do so.

In response to the Committee's requests, the applicant has provided a Construction Management Plan, a plan showing vehicle tracking diagrams and a plan showing the construction compound location.

In order to consider these points further the Council have re-consulted the Langford Parish Council. The Parish Council have provided comments and these have been summarised below. Agenda Item 7 Page 36

 Concerns have not been alleviated regarding the vehicle movement track. The tracking is based upon no cars being parking along Tithe Farm Close.  The turning circles are extremely tight. Question whether bollards are to be erected to protect properties.  Question whether CCTV is to be installed to police the entrance.  Concerns regarding delivery vehicles waiting in the entrance.  Question whether a digger can get into the site if they do not fit on the lorries stated within the documents.  Concern regarding the response by the Police Liaison Officer not being uploaded until after the Committee meeting  Question whether there parking for tradesmen is feasible and sufficient.  Question whether there will be deliveries on weekends.  Question how the end of the close will be cut off, as it could inconvenience residents and people with businesses from their homes.  Question whether Biggleswade Town Council have been consulted as the access is via Biggleswade Road  Insist that a drive through wheel washer be brought on to the site.  Insist that the proposed Puffin crossing is provided prior to the start on site  Request that an alternative access is sought.

The applicant also met with Cllr Dixon to talk through the Construction Management Plan and the issues raised at the Committee meeting.

Following on from these comments, and the meeting with Cllr Dixon, the applicant provided an amended Construction Management Plan. This Construction Management Plan seeks to address the concerns raised and has been considered below.

Alternative Access The applicant has provided additional clarification following the Committee meeting and have provided a plan showing the access points they have investigated. The applicant has stated that, prior to the submission of the application, they investigated purchasing dwellings in the surrounding area adjoining the site, however it was determined that Tithe Farm Close represented the only realistic access in and out of the proposed development site. The applicant has highlighted that several surrounding properties do not directly adjoin the application site, meaning that any access would require multiple land owners agreement. They have also highlighted that many of the properties along Church Street are not wide enough and do not have sufficient visibility splays.

For these reasons, the applicant has been unable to find an alternative access which is considered to be an improvement upon Tithe Farm Close.

Impact to Residential Amenity In response to this point, further clarification has been provided by the applicant. They have stated that the land, situated in front of No.14 Tithe Farm Close, is not within No.14's ownership and was historically under licence by No.14, but this ceased in 2016. No.14 will retain the same sized front garden as it currently has and would have sufficient space within the site to accommodate two car parking spaces. Agenda Item 7 Page 37

The construction process, would have an impact in terms of residential amenity, however, such as construction noise. This would, however, be for a limited time period, and would be controlled by the Construction Management Plan. The impact to No.14, is not considered to present an unacceptable adverse impact. It is also noted that the Pollution Team have not objected to the proposed development.

Construction Vehicle Access In order to evidence that the construction vehicle access is acceptable, the applicant has provided vehicle tracking diagrams for a 10.2 metre long vehicle and a 12.0 metre long vehicle. These diagrams show that access is achievable. The Parish Council have highlighted that access is only achievable were there is no car parking on Tithe Farm Close. The road has no car parking restrictions, so it cannot be controlled that cars do not park on the access road. In response to these concerns, the applicant has stated that appropriate site management, including a “Banksman” and an assistant, if required, construction traffic can manage the access. The future builder will be required to be a member of/register the site with the National Federation of Builders, Considerate Constructors Scheme as specified in the CMP.

It has also been highlighted that delivery vehicles may adversely impact the amenity and safety of residents, by parking on Tithe Farm Close and waiting in the area. In response to this matter, the applicant has stated:

"Delivery of all materials to the site will only take place between the hours of 0930 and 1500 to safeguard any children using Tithe Farm Close and Church Street. During these delivery times, no waiting cones will be placed along Tithe Farm Close to restrict parking. Signs informing residents of delivery times will be clearly displayed on lighting columns on Tithe Farm Close. Any vehicles that arrive to the vicinity of the site ahead of these operating hours will be required to wait at the eastbound layby on the A507 near Henlow/Perfect Aquatics."

The Parish Council have questioned whether a digger would be able to get on site. The Construction Management Plan states that the heavy plant will be road legal, and wheel based, rather than tracked. They can be delivered away from the site and the centre of the village if necessary and driven to the site. Whilst tracked heavy plant vehicles would commonly be expected for a development of that proposed, there is nothing to suggest that wheel based heavy plant cannot be used. A Highways Officer has considered the submitted material. Whilst they have not raised an objection, they have highlighted concerns in relation to large vehicles arriving to the site outside of delivery and work hours. Without controls and/or restrictions, large vehicles may try to wait on Tithe Farm Close, impacting the amenity of residents.

Finally, the Parish Council have requested that the proposed upgrading of the Zebra crossing to a Puffin crossing takes place prior to the commencement of the development. Whilst the applicant has stated they are agreeable to this, Officers consider that this would be an unreasonable condition, as the impact in terms of pedestrian safety would occur after occupation of the development. For this reason Officers consider that the condition (which is condition 11 within the original report) should remain. Agenda Item 7 Page 38

Conclusion Based upon the further information, it is considered by officers that the development would present an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of residential amenity or highways safety. As such, the original recommendation is reiterated within this report.

Reason for Recommendation:

The proposal is located outside of the Settlement Envelope and therefore represents a departure from the development plan. However the site, due to its scale and location, is considered to represent sustainable development, which outweighs non-compliance with Policy DM4.

The applicant commits to various financial contributions to offset the impact on local infrastructure. The development would also provide affordable housing, compliant with Policy CS7. There is not considered to be any material harm in terms of highways safety, residential amenity, character, ecology or flood risk, and the development is considered to be acceptable in principle.

Site Location:

The application site comprises of a 5.45 ha parcel of land, located to the north-west of Langford. The site largely comprises of a pasture field, subdivided by temporary or permanent fencing. The site contains a number of existing agricultural buildings to the centre and eastern areas of the site, including stables, pig pens and chicken huts.

The site adjoins residential development to the south, east and partially to the north. To the north-west of the site lies Chestnut Pool Fisheries. To the west lies the River Ivel, a County Wildlife Site. A small parade of shops is located to the east of the site. To the south-east of the site is Langford Village Academy, a lower school.

The site is located outside of the Langford Settlement Envelope. The western area of the site falls within Flood Zone 2.

The Application:

This application seeks outline planning permission for up to 95 dwellings. All matters are reserved as part of this application, apart from access.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

Policy CS1: Development Strategy Agenda Item 7 Page 39

Policy CS2: Developer Contributions Policy CS7: Affordable Housing Policy CS14: High Quality Development Policy CS16: Landscape and Woodland Policy DM3: High Quality Development Policy DM4: Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes Policy DM10: Housing Mix Policy DM14: Landscape and Woodland Policy DM15: Biodiversity

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:

SP1: National Planning Policy Framework - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SP7: Development within Settlement Envelopes T2: Highways Safety and Design T3: Parking HQ1: High Quality Development HQ8: Back-land Development H2: Housing Standards EE2: Biodiversity DC5: Agricultural Land

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014)

Relevant Planning History:

No relevant planning history. Agenda Item 7 Page 40

Consultees:

Langford Parish Council Object for the following reasons:  Highlight concerns regarding the Transport Assessment. The TA incorrectly states it is a 30mph road, even though it is a 20 mph road. The TA does not identify other committed developments, such as Flexmore Way.  The access road width is not practical for the potential vehicle usage and the scale of development.  The visibility of the access is limited and an alternative should be sought.  Parking and access are already issues in relation to Church Street and Tithe Farm Close.  Minimal public transport within the village.  Concerns regarding flooding and drainage.

Anglian Water No objection, subject to conditions.

Internal Drainage Board No objection, subject to a condition.

Beds Fire and Rescue No objection.

Environment Agency No objection.

Police Architectural Object to the application due to concerns regarding the Liaison level of permeability, which is considered to negatively impact security.

CBC MANOP No objection. Comments state that no less than thirteen units of mainstream housing suitable for older people should be provided.

CBC Archaeology No objection, subject to a condition. CBC Landscaping Request more detail in relation to internal landscaping and tree planting CBC Leisure No objection. Contributions would be expected towards indoor and outdoor sport provision. CBC Travel Plans No objection, subject to a condition. CBC Ecology No objection, subject to a condition. CBC Trees No objection. CBC Waste Services Comments in relation to expected bin provision CBC Pollution No objection, subject to a condition CBC Drainage No objection, subject to conditions. CBC Sustainability Comments in relation to self and custom build expectations. CBC Affordable Housing No objections. The following mix is stated for the affordable dwellings: Agenda Item 7 Page 41

Property Type Affordable Rent 1 Bed Flat 10% 2 Bed Flat 10% 2 Bed House 45% 3 Bed House 30% 4 Bed House 5%

Property Type Shared Ownership 1 Bed Flat 10% 2 Bed Flat 25% 2 Bed House 35% 3 Bed House 30% 4 Bed House 0% CBC Public Art No objection, subject to a condition CBC Minerals and Waste Awaiting formal comments following re-consultation.

Other Representations:

Neighbours 94 objections have been received in response to the application. These have been summarised below:  The site is located outside of the Settlement Envelope  The site is not allocated within the emerging Local Plan  Overdevelopment of the site and the proposed development is too dense.  Infrastructure capacity issues  The proposed development would not provide additional services.  Concern regarding congestion.  No public benefits  Prejudicial to the outcome of the Neighbourhood Plan (which begun production in July 2018). The proposed development would undermine the neighbourhood plan-making process.  The development would be harmful to the character of the area.  Concerns in relation to highways safety  The permissive path is inaccurate and misleading.  The suggested footpath (annotated to the south west corner) is not a public footpath.  Existing public transport is not a viable option  All new housing should include solar panels.  Concerns regarding dust, noise and vibration resulting from the proposed development.  The ecological surveys are not sufficient. Concerns regarding impact to biodiversity.  Concern regarding flooding. Unclear whether flood risk has been assessed in relation to Tithe Farm Close.  Limited school places.  The doctors surgery has no capacity. Agenda Item 7 Page 42

 The sewage works has limited capacity.  Concern regarding privacy  Concern regarding loss of light  Suggest a landscape buffer should be provided to existing residents

A response has been submitted in support of the proposed development, stating:  Welcome further development and the additional amenities that development brings.

Determining Issues: The main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle 2. Affect on the Character and Appearance of the Area 3. Neighbouring Amenity 4. Highway Considerations 5. Planning Obligations 6. Other Considerations

Considerations

1. Principle 1.1 The application site is located to the north-west of Langford, outside of the Settlement Envelope of the village. The site largely comprises of a pasture field, subdivided by temporary or permanent fencing. The site contains a number of existing agricultural buildings to the centre and eastern areas of the site, including stables, pig pens and chicken huts.

1.2 Several responses have been received in relation to the principle of development. These include objections in relation to the scale of the proposal, the siting outside of the Settlement Envelope and the fact that the site has not been allocated within the emerging Local Plan.

1.3 Policy CS1, within the adopted Local Plan, classifies settlements by virtue of their scale, services and facilities. This Policy identifies Langford as a Large Village.

1.4 Policy DM4, within the adopted Local Plan, applies weight in favour of development within Settlement Envelopes and restricts development divorced from the settlements identified within Policy CS1. Policy DM4 states that:

"Beyond Settlement Envelopes, limited extensions to gardens will be permitted provided they do not harm the character of the area. They must be suitably landscaped or screened from the surrounding countryside and buildings may not be erected on the extended garden area." Agenda Item 7 Page 43

The proposed development would therefore not comply with Policy DM4. It has been confirmed by several recent appeal decisions that Policy DM4 is not out- of-date and can be afforded at least moderate weight. Whilst the proposed development would not comply with Policy DM4, it must be considered whether there are material considerations that outweigh non-compliance with this Policy.

1.5 The Council is able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land in excess of the 5 year requirement. Therefore, the Council’s polices concerned with the supply of housing are not considered to be out of date – the ‘tilted-balance’ test in Paragraph 11 of the NPPF is not therefore engaged. However, proposals should still be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development - that is the determining consideration in relation to whether the principle of the application is acceptable.

1.6 The settlement of Langford is classified as a Large Village within the adopted Local Plan. Langford contains a number of shops and services, including village shops, pubs, a Lower School and a village hall. In terms of accessibility, the Lower School is approximately a 10 minute walk away. It is also noted that two bus stops, with regular routes to Hitchin and Sandy, are a 10 minute walk away. Therefore, the location, in itself, is not considered to be unsustainable.

1.7 Settlements that are classified as Large Villages are considered to be able to accommodate small scale housing and employment uses together with new facilities to serve the village. Although 'small scale development' is not defined, the scale of the proposed development should reflect the scale of the settlement in which it is to be located. The scale of the proposal is considered to be reflective of the scale of the settlement.

1.8 Whilst the development would be contrary to Policy DM4, it is considered that the loss of open countryside, in this instance, is not considered to present an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character of the area. The proposal would adjoin development to the north-east, east and south. Therefore, whilst the development would fall within open countryside, it would not appear as a lone encroachment into the countryside.

1.9 The proposed development would provide small economic benefits, in terms of the creation of (temporary) jobs in relation to the construction of the proposal. There would also be Council Tax benefits, in terms of additional residents within the area.

1.10 It is considered that some weight, in relation to the sustainability of the site, can be given to the social benefits of providing additional housing, including affordable housing. This matter has limited benefits, as the provision of affordable housing would be expected in accordance with Policy CS7.

1.11 It is noted that the site was submitted (as two separate sites) for the Council's call for sites and was not allocated within the emerging Local Plan. The site proceeded through the first round of assessment, in relation to the emerging allocations, however the final assessment concluded that there were more Agenda Item 7 Page 44

suitable sites within Langford. It must be noted that the allocation process within the emerging Local Plan is not the same process as the consideration of a planning application. This allocation process does not provide significant weight against the proposed development.

1.12 Based upon the above considerations, it is considered that, whilst the proposal is contrary to Policy DM4, the loss of open countryside and impact on the character of the area is not, in this instance, harmful to the extent that it would warrant a reason to refuse planning permission. Therefore, it is considered that the scheme can be considered acceptable in principle. Additional material considerations may contribute towards the benefits and dis-benefits of the development and can impact the final planning balance. These are considered in the remaining sections of the report.

2. Affect on the Character and Appearance of the Area 2.1 The proposed development would be located to the west of Church Street, and would be accessed via Tithe Farm Close. The application site forms an irregularly shaped parcel of land, infilling between Church Street and the River Ivel.

2.2 The application seek outline planning permission, with all matters reserved apart from access. In order to clarify whether the site could accommodate a development of up to 95 dwellings, the applicant has provided an indicative layout plan and a development parameter plan, which identifies the broad location of residential development and open space.

2.3 The proposed development would be located to the rear Church Street, which is broadly typified by linear residential development. The surrounding area does contain instances of back-land development, such as Tithe Farm Close and Vicarage Close. Therefore, the location of the development is not considered to be incompatible with the character of the surrounding area.

2.4 Neighbouring residents have raised concerns regarding the scale of the proposed development. The layout, appearance and scale of the development have not been detailed as part of this application. It is noted that the density of the development would be approximately 32 DPH. Such a density is similar to that of the surrounding area, which is typically around 30 DPH.

2.5 Whilst the landscaping is a reserved matter, it is considered that the proposal would provide sufficient space to accommodate strengthening of the site's boundaries, reducing the visual presence of any development.

2.6 Neighbouring residents have raised concerns regarding the proposed development, suggesting it will increase flooding within the area. The western section of the site, adjoining the River Hiz, falls within Flood Zone 2. The remainder of the site is not within Flood Zones 2 or 3. Based upon the submitted parameter plan, the residential development would not be located within Flood Zones 2 or 3. The Council's Drainage officer has not raised an objection to the proposed development. Agenda Item 7 Page 45

2.7 The submitted plans are considered to demonstrate that a development, of up to 95 dwellings, could be accommodated without presenting an adverse impact to the character or design of the area.

2.8 As such, based upon the information submitted, it is considered that the proposal would not present an unacceptable adverse impact to the character of the area. The proposal would be in accordance with Policies CS14 and DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (North) Local Plan and Policy HQ1 and HQ8 of the Central Bedfordshire Submission Local Plan.

3. Neighbouring Amenity 3.1 The application seek outline planning permission, with all matters reserved apart from access. Therefore, the submitted layout provides an indication of what could be accommodated within the site. It is noted that several residents have raised concerns regarding the impact to residential amenity, including loss of light, loss of privacy and the impact of pollution upon surrounding properties. These concerns will need to be addressed through future reserved matters applications, if the outline application is approved.

3.2 The application has been considered by a CBC Pollution Officer, who has not raised an objection regarding the impact of the development upon neighbouring residents.

3.3 Based upon the information submitted, it is considered that the proposed development would not present an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of loss of amenity. Therefore, the proposal is considered to comply with Policies CS14 and DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (North) Local Plan and Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Submission Local Plan.

4. Highways and Parking Considerations 4.1 As part of this outline planning application, access has been detailed. The proposed access would be taken from via Tithe Farm Close, an existing residential estate road. Several residents have raised concerns regarding the proposed access, suggesting the access would not be wide enough, would not have sufficient visibility and would ultimately harm highways safety.

4.2 As part of the application, the applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment. This analysis concludes that the proposed development will not have a material detrimental impact on the operation of the junctions assessed or on the local highway network generally.

4.3 This Assessment has been considered by a Highways Officer, who has not raised an objection, subject to conditions. As part of these conditions, the following improvements have been suggested:

 The existing Zebra crossing outside Langford Village Academy should be upgraded to a signalised Puffin crossing. The advantage over the existing Zebra crossing is that drivers have a clear instruction to stop and they also provide assistance for pedestrians with a visual impairment. Agenda Item 7 Page 46

 Provision of a speed table 10 metres from the proposed T junction.  The provision of a portable Vehicle Activated Sign (VAS) to use on the approach to the community facilities on Church Street (shop/PH/pharmacy/hairdressers), to identify vehicle speeds, would be sought via a financial contribution.

4.4 As outline permission is sought, parking provision would have to be detailed through future reserved matters applications. Based upon the information submitted, there is nothing to suggest the car parking provision would not comply with the standard within the adopted Design Guide.

5. Planning Obligations 5.1 Spending Officers were consulted as part of this application and comments were returned from Education, Leisure, Open Space and Community Buildings. Contributions towards local Early, Middle and Upper Schools, have been agreed with the applicant. Affordable housing would also be sought at 35% of the development. A LEAP would also be provided via the s106 agreement.

5.2 The NHS have also requested a contribution, which has been agreed with the applicant. The contribution relates to the re-configuring of Langford Surgery premises to allow for additional space within the surgery.

5.3 If members support the application, then these contributions would form part of a s106 agreement, to be completed and signed following the Committee.

6. Other Considerations

Prejudicial to Neighbouringhood Plan 6.1 Langford was designated a Neighbourhood Area for the purposes of making a Neighbourhood Development Plan on 4th July 2018. Therefore, the production of a Neighbourhood Plan for Langford is at a very early stage. Several residents have raised objections in response to the application, stating that approving the application would be prejudicial to the production of the Neighbourhood Plan.

6.2 The National Planning Policy Guidance identifies that refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft Neighbourhood Plan has yet to be submitted for examination. As the Neighbourhood Plan has yet to be drafted, there is no indication how the proposed development would prejudice the production of the plan. Therefore this matter is considered to have no weight.

Rights of Way 6.3 To the west of the site lies a footpath (detailed as a permissive footpath on site), which adjoins a County Wildlife Site and an area of land maintained by the Council. The Rights of Way and Countryside Access teams have not raised an objection, and have requested access and land to improve the maintenance of this area and the improve connectivity. Agenda Item 7 Page 47

6.4 If the application is approved, then a portion of land would be transferred to the Council and a maintenance contribution would be provided. This would be controlled within a s106 agreement.

Impact to Minerals 6.5 The site falls within the Minerals Safeguarding Areas for River Valley/Glacial Sand and Gravel and Woburn Sands as identified in the Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2014. Policy MSP 11 therefore requires the proposals to be accompanied by a Minerals Resource Assessment (MRA).

6.6 An MRA has been submitted and, whilst the report contains inaccuracies, it is accepted by officers that surface development within the site is acceptable.

Security 6.7 Concerns have been raised by the Bedfordshire Police Architectural Liasion regarding the risk of crime and impact to security of the area, resulting from the proposed development. This objection principally relates to the level of permeability within the site and through to the surrounding area.

6.8 As this application is for outline planning permission, the layout has not been explicitly detailed as part of this application. Therefore, the permeability through the site would be detailed as part of reserved matters applications. In its current form, the proposed development provides a single vehicle access and an additional pedestrian access. Such an arrangement is not considered to present an overly permeable site. With this in mind, and due to the outline nature of the application, the development is not considered to present an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of security.

Human Rights and Equality Act issues 6.9 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 approved subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

1 Applications for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority within two years from the date of this permission. The development shall begin not later than one year from the final approval of the reserved matters or, if approved on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved. Agenda Item 7 Page 48

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

2 No development shall take place until approval of the details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development within that area (herein called “the reserved matters”) has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To comply with Part 3 Article 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 2015.

3 The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Travel Plan (June 2018).

Reason: To promote sustainable modes of travel and to reduce the potential traffic impact of the development on the local highway network, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the adopted Local Plan, Policy HQ1 of the emerging Local Plan and the NPPF.

4 Prior to the commencement of the development, hereby approved, a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the agreed Flood Risk Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Statement (June 2018) and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The scheme shall also include details of how the system will be constructed, including any phasing, and how it will be managed and maintained after completion. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved final details before the development is completed, and shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the agreed management and maintenance plan.

Reason: To ensure the approved system will function to a satisfactory minimum standard of operation and maintenance and prevent the increased risk of flooding both on and off site, in accordance with the NPPF. These details are required prior to the commencement of development, as any construction may limit the ability of the development to provide adequate SuDS arrangements.

5 Prior to the occupation of the development, hereby approved, a finalised ‘Maintenance and Management Plan’ for the entire surface water drainage system, inclusive of any adoption arrangements and/or private ownership or responsibilities, and that the approved surface water drainage scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The surface water drainage system shall be maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter. Agenda Item 7 Page 49

Reason: To ensure that the implementation and long-term operation of a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) is in line with what has been approved, in accordance with Written Statement HCWS161 and the NPPF.

6 Prior to the commencement of development, an Ecological Enhancement Strategy (EES) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The EES shall contain the following:

(A) Review of the site potential and constraints as informed by species survey; (B) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed works; (C) Detailed working methods to achieve stated objectives including locations of integrated bird and bat boxes to be erected in accordance with RSPB and BCT guidelines on appropriate scale maps and plans; (D) Details of lighting considerations to prevent disturbance to bats; (E) Type and source of materials to be used where appropriate , e.g. native species of local provenance; (F) Timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned with proposed phasing of development; (G) Persons responsible for implementing the works; (H) Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance.

The EES shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

Reason: To secure a net gain in terms of biodiversity, in accordance with DM3 of the adopted Local Plan, Policy HQ1 of the emerging Local Plan and the NPPF. These details are required prior to the commencement of development, as any construction may limit the ability of the development to provide net gains in terms of biodiversity.

7 No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological investigation; that includes provision for post excavation analysis and publication, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby approved shall only be implemented in full accordance with the approved archaeological scheme. Reason: This condition is pre-commencement as a failure to secure appropriate archaeological investigation in advance of development would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework that requires developers to record and advance of understanding of the significance of any heritage assets affected by development before they are lost (wholly or in part).

8 Prior to the occupation of the development, hereby approved, the junction of the proposed vehicular access (altered road priority layout) with the highway shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details on Drg DWG- 02 Rev C and retained thereafter. Furthermore, no building shall be occupied until a speed table (circa 10m from the centre line of the new T junction Agenda Item 7 Page 50

layout) has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority, for approval in writing. The approved speed table shall has been constructed in accordance with the approved details, prior to the occupation of the development, and retained thereafter..

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and the premises, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the adopted Local Plan, Policy HQ1 of the emerging Local Plan and the NPPF.

9 Prior to the occupation of the development, hereby approved, the visibility splay at the junction of the access with the public highway, as shown on the approved drawing (DWG-02 Rev C), shall be provided. All parts of the splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions above the adjacent carriageway level.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility between the existing highway and the proposed access(es), and to make the access(es) safe and convenient for the traffic which is likely to use it (them), in accordance with Policy DM3 of the adopted Local Plan, Policy HQ1 of the emerging Local Plan and the NPPF.

10 The development shall be served by means of roads and footpaths which shall be laid out and drained in accordance with the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide September 2014 or other such documents that replace them, and no building shall be occupied until the roads and footpaths which provide access to it from the existing highway have been laid out and constructed in accordance with the above-mentioned Guidance.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the proposed estate road, in accordance with the adopted Policy DM3 of the adopted Local Plan, Policy HQ1 of the emerging Local Plan, the adopted Design Guide and the NPPF.

11 Prior to the first occupation of the development, details of a PUFFIN signalled crossing (which would upgrade the Zebra crossing in near vicinity to Langford Village Academy on Church Street) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The PUFFIN signalled crossing shall be installed in accordance with a timescale to be agreed between the applicant and the Local Planning Authority and retained thereafter. Any Statutory Undertakers equipment or street furniture shall be re-sited to provide an unobstructed footway to the crossing.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and pedestrian movement, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the adopted Local Plan, Policy HQ1 of the emerging Local Plan, the adopted Design Guide and the NPPF.

12 Prior to the commencement of works above ground level a scheme for protecting the proposed dwellings from noise shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, for approval in writing. None of the dwellings hereby approved shall be occupied until such a scheme has been implemented in Agenda Item 7 Page 51

accordance with the approved details, and shown to be effective, and it shall be retained in accordance with those details thereafter.

Reason: To protect human health and residential amenity in accordance with Policy DM3 of the adopted Local Plan, Policy HQ1 of the emerging Local Plan and the NPPF.

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

Reason: To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the adopted Local Plan, Policy HQ1 of the emerging Local Plan and the NPPF. These details are required prior to commencement as the viability of the strategy could potentially be affected by the commencement of the development.

14 No development shall be commenced until an estate street phasing and completion plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The estate street phasing and completion plan shall set out the development phases and the standards that estate streets serving each phase of the development will be completed.

Reason: To ensure that the estate streets serving the development are completed and thereafter maintained to an acceptable standard in the interest of residential / highway safety; to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the highways infrastructure serving the development; and to safeguard the visual amenities of the locality and users of the highway, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the adopted Local Plan, Policy HQ1 of the emerging Local Plan and the NPPF.

15 Prior to commencement of any above ground building works, details of electrical wiring to accommodate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra low emission vehicles for dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the development protects and exploits opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of people in accordance with section 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

16 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Management Plan, associated with the development of the site, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which will include information on: Agenda Item 7 Page 52

(A) The parking of vehicles (B) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in the development (C) Storage of plant and materials used in the development (D) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding / scaffolding affecting the highway if required. (E) Footpath/footway/cycleway or road closures needed during the development period (F) Traffic management needed during the development period. (G) Times, routes and means of access and egress for construction traffic and delivery vehicles (including the import of materials and the removal of waste from the site) during the development of the site. (H) details of the responsible person who can be contacted in the event of a complaint;  mitigation measures in respect of noise and disturbance during construction including piling techniques, vibration and noise limits, prior notification to the occupiers of potentially affected properties, monitoring technology, screening, a detailed specification of plant and equipment to be used, and construction traffic routes; and  a scheme to minimise and monitor the emission of dust and dirt during construction and to prevent the burning of materials on site.  Measures for controlling the use of site lighting whether required for safe working or for security purposes.

The approved Construction Management Plan associated with the development of the site shall be adhered to throughout the development process.

Reason: This condition is pre-commencement, in the interests of safety, protecting the amenity of local land uses, neighbouring residents and highway safety. (Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy for the North and Section 9 of the NPPF).”

17 No ground works shall take place unless and until a Minerals Recovery Plan (MRP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority. The MRP shall be followed at all times during construction.

Reason: To secure the best use of materials, in accordance with Policy MSP11 within the Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2014 and the NPPF. This condition is required prior to the commencement of the development, as any development may adversely affect any mineral recovery.

18 This consent relates only to the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers DWG-04, DWG-02 Rev.C, DE322_003 Rev.C and DE322_005.

Reason: To identify the approved plans and to avoid doubt. Agenda Item 7 Page 53

INFORMATIVE NOTES TO APPLICANT

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

2. The applicant is advised that in order to comply with a number of the highways conditions of this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Central Bedfordshire Council as Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. You are advised to contact the Highways Agreements Officer, Community Services, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ. E-mail [email protected]

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 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 (paragraph 38) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

...... This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 Page 55

Application No. Crown Copyright and database 1:2,500 right. 2018 CB/18/03694/OUT Ordnance Survey 100049029 Central Bedfordshire Council. Date Created Land at Ivel Road, Shefford Cities Revealed Aerial 22-01-2019 photography copyright The GeoInformation Group 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8 Page 57

Item No. 8

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/18/03694/OUT LOCATION Land at Ivel Road Shefford PROPOSAL Outline planning application with all matters reserved (Except for means of access from Ivel road) for up to 90 residential dwellings, new internal access roads and footpaths, open space, sustainable urban drainage system and associated landscaping, infrastructure and earthworks. PARISH Shefford WARD Shefford WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Liddiard & Brown CASE OFFICER Nicola Darcy DATE REGISTERED 11 October 2018 EXPIRY DATE 10 January 2019 APPLICANT Catesby Estates plc AGENT Savills (UK) Ltd REASON FOR 1. Departure from Development Plan COMMITTEE TO 2. Major application with Town Council objection DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Outline Application - For approval subject to a S106 agreement

Summary of recommendation: The proposed residential development on the site represents a departure to the Development Plan. The site is considered to be a sustainable location for development with appropriate levels of access to the settlements services and amenities. The development will result in change to the countryside setting but any such harm would be mitigated through landscape design. Matters relating to highway safety and capacity are acceptable and can be mitigated through condition. A range of other material considerations including neighbour amenity, ecology and flood risk are neutral whilst positive weight can be given to the provision of housing and a policy compliant level of affordable housing.

Site Location:

The Application Site comprises a single agricultural field of 5.14 ha, which slopes gently up from Ivel Road to the east, levelling out towards its eastern boundary.

To the north of part of the Application Site is a recent residential development (known as Tillers Close / Planters Close) that has recently been completed by Bovis Homes. There is an existing mature hedgerow along the southern boundary of this Agenda Item 8 Page 58 development, and a slightly less mature hedgerow along its eastern boundary with the Application Site. The remainder of the northern boundary of the Application Site is formed by the overgrown and semi-wooded route of the former railway line. To the north of the former railway line is a site which members resolved to approve planning permission for a residential development of 150 dwellings and a new primary school under LPA reference CB/18/02298/OUT at the Development Management Committee on 19/10/1018. To the east of the Application Site, and outlined in blue in the submitted plans, is a young tree planted area (referred to as the 'Blue Land' in this report) with farmland beyond. To the south is the planted embankment running along the northern side of the A507, which is set lower than the Application Site, with farmland beyond. To the west is Ivel Road with a mix of commercial and residential development beyond.

The Application:

Outline planning permission is sought for up to 90 dwellings (which has reduced from 100 during the application process), and associated uses and works. The new dwellings would be accommodated on approximately 3.58 ha with around 1.0 ha of open space (including landscaping, etc). As such, the density of the Proposed Development is 29 dph (dwellings per hectare).

No mix of house types or sizes is proposed except that it should predominantly comprise a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses, with the potential for some 1 and 2 bedroom flats. The dwellings would be generally two storey in height and no more than 2.5 storey's.

The Proposed Development would be served via a new main site access formed off Ivel Road. The access has been designed in consultation with the Officers of the Council’s highway department, to adoptable standards. A pedestrian crossing on Ivel Road is already proposed as a result of a previous development and the new access has been designed to tie into those existing and planned pedestrian facilities.

In addition to the Proposed Development within the Application Site, an area of additional land to the east is identified and edged in blue on the Site Location Plan – the ‘Blue Land’. The Blue Land is under the control of the Applicant.

Following the grant of planning permission and subject to the signing of a S106 pertaining to this application, it is the applicants proposal for the Blue Land to be transferred to the Council on a leasehold basis for a period of 125 years. Within the Blue Land, 2.1 ha of land would be made available on a freehold basis for education purposes. This would be sufficient in size for a 2FE (Forms of Entry) primary school. The remainder of the Blue Land would be made available as additional public greenspace.

The land to be made available for education purposes would be provided with the necessary access and utilities up to the Application Site Boundary as shown in red on the Site Location Plan. This is to ensure the Council is provided with viable and deliverable parcel of land for future education purposes within Shefford. Agenda Item 8 Page 59

Within the application, the use of the Blue Land for a 2FEprimary school has been tested and shown to be deliverable within the application and supporting documents.

As noted above, Members have resolved to approve planning permission subject to the signing of a S106 agreement, on land to the north (ref. CB/18/02298/OUT) for 150 dwellings and a new 2FE primary school. If delivered, this would remove the need for a school to be delivered on the Blue Land. However until that application has been determined and the school site delivered, there is a degree of uncertainty and hence the Applicant is making the Blue Land available for use for a school.

Upon transfer to the Council, it will be for the Council to determine whether the education use is progressed (in the event Hitchin Road does not come forward), the land will otherwise remain as a woodland.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

CS1 - Development Strategy CS2 - Developer Contributions CS7: Affordable Housing CS14 - High Quality Design CS15 - Heritage CS16: Landscape & Woodland CS17: Green Infrastructure CS18: Biodiversity & Geological Conservation DM1: Renewable Energy DM2: Sustainable Construction of New Buildings DM3 - High Quality Design DM4 - Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes DM5: Important Open Spaces within Settlement Envelopes DM13 - Heritage in Development DM14 - Landscape and Woodland DM15 - Biodiversity DM17: Accessible Green Spaces

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: Agenda Item 8 Page 60

 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:

SP2: Sustainable Development SP5: Preventing Coalescence/Important Countryside Gaps H1: Housing Mix H2: Housing Standards T2: Highway Safety & Design T3: Parking EE2: Biodiversity CC5: Sustainable Drainage HQ1: High Quality Development

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014)

Relevant Planning History:

Case Reference CB/18/01189/PAPC Location Land to the East of Ivel Road, Shefford, Beds Proposal Pre Applicatin Non-Householder Advice: development of up to 90 dwellings. Decision Decision Date

Consultees:

Shefford Town Council The Planning and Highways Committee have resolved to object to the amended outline planning application CB/18/03694/OUT (land at Ivel Road, Shefford). There are many grounds for concern relating to this outline application. Many repeating objections/comments submitted as the response to the initial outline application. The main objections are as follows:-.

Full Capacity of Shefford Health Centre We are led to understand that the Shefford Health Centre is currently at maximum capacity. Once the development at Campton Fields has been completed and fully occupied, this will create an additional demand of several Agenda Item 8 Page 61 hundred new patients for the Health Centre. We are also presented with one hundred and fifty new properties at the proposed development off Hitchin Road which will create a further demand of a minimum of six hundred patients. This proposed outline application for ninety dwellings will create yet more demand, a minimum of three hundred and sixty new patients for the Health Centre. Just as with the schools, there is insufficient spare capacity to support such growth and it is unacceptable to defer the provision of this essential health service when it is obvious that demand will far exceed supply in the short and medium term. Such infrastructure capacity will need to be implemented and delivered coincident with any development. To allow this housing growth to proceed without sufficient capacity in this essential service would be negligent and a dereliction of duty by Shefford Town Council in its failure to raise this issue.

Capacity of the Existing Sewage Disposal System. The current sewage volume handled by the pumping station in Ivel Road is at capacity. Bulk tankers are regularly used to assist the capacity of the pipelines.

Poor Vehicle Access with Only Single Access Road. (see additional comments)

Insufficient Lower and Middle school places with current provisions. The Lower School will be oversubscribed once housing, for planning applications already passed, are built, and the Middle School will be at capacity.

Additional objections raised are as follows: -- The Travel Plan submitted is inaccurate, and does not give a true picture of the traffic volume on Ivel Road once the ninety dwellings are built.

The continual changing of house numbers and play area locations, has led to deliberate confusion about the true size of the site.

There is an allocation of S106 monies funding facilities outside the community area such as the Saxon Centre in Biggleswade. The facility is shown as twenty minutes away but this is misleading as it can be only be accessed in this time if travelling by car outside peak hours, and not if travelling by public transport. Additionally, there are no buses on Sunday. Agenda Item 8 Page 62

The failure to disclose ineffective public transport links.

The redrawing of the site boundary results in more of the wooded area being destroyed.

Shefford Town Council also wish to comment: - S106 monies should be committed to fund facilities in the Shefford Community. Saxon Pool is not in the Shefford Community therefore it is very confusing to the Town Council that S106 funds are proposed to be allocated to the facility.

If the proposed school is built at the far end of this estate it will mean over five hundred further vehicle movements through the estate every school day. This has been calculated as follows: Two classes per year, five years in the school, and thirty pupils per class – there is potential for over two hundred and fifty vehicle arrivals followed by over a further two hundred and fifty vehicle departures at peak times, twice a day. Add to this the traffic from the school and teaching staff, and this is in addition to the residents’ own traffic which is likely to be another seven hundred and twenty vehicle movements per day (eight vehicle movements per dwelling per day).

There is potential for in excess of twelve hundred traffic movements per day through a single, narrow road onto a major thoroughfare in and out of Shefford. The vast majority of these movements will be during peak periods. This is not sustainable and will give rise to considerable problems for existing residents in the area, and those on the proposed development. Even without the additional school traffic, the resulting congestion on Ivel Rd, and on traffic entering and leaving the new development is unacceptable. Should this development be permitted the Town Council suggests that an additional access road be created leading directly to the Shefford Road/A507 roundabout, as has similarly been done in Stotfold.

The Travel plan fails to highlight the number of fatality accidents on the adjacent A507 Shefford Bypass. Reported accidents since 2000 show twenty eight casualties, slight injury to fatal, involving forty seven vehicles of all classes.

Highways We are content with the main body of the Transport Assessment report but we are concerned over the 3m wide through lanes and right turn lane. After speaking with colleagues in the Section 278 team they are firmly of Agenda Item 8 Page 63 the opinion that this should be 3.5m as first thought would be the case for a new ghost right turn junction. This will mean that alterations to the to find an extra 1.5m of road width will be required. As the application seeks to approve access then this is a matter that will need to be addressed before HDC could give a positive response.

There is also a consensus that a Traffic Regulation Order to lower the speed limit to 40mph on the approach arms to the roundabout as the design is based on 60kph a 30mph speed limit will need to be introduced along Ivel Road which will act as a buffer zone to the 20mph speed limit. The raised table/informal crossing is acceptable but for some reason it is shown as a zebra crossing on the RSA which should be removed. We are acceptable to parking restrictions as per the RSA but would go further and introduce restrictions on the eastern side of Ivel Road and in to the junction area of the new development.

Comments on Revised Plan

The turning land for the ghost right turn has now been provided at 3.5m and as such accords with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) the through lanes are at 3m in width and this was supported by a road safety audit (RSA).

As previously mentioned, the Transport assessment is considered acceptable, the breakdown of the level of traffic along Ivel Road is projected as being 12.7% going north with the remaining 87.3% going south to the A507 roundabout based on census information. This would be circa 33 outward movements in the am peak with 27 inward movements in the pm peak. Based on the projected movements this would be 4 vehicles heading north on Ivel Road and 29 vehicles heading south on Ivel Road.

There will be a requirement for Traffic Regulation Order’s to lower the speed limit to 40mph on the approach arms to the A507 along with a 30mph speed limit will along Ivel Road which will act as a buffer zone to the 20mph speed limit. Parking restrictions are required per the RSA on Ivel Road to prevent on road parking which currently exists and in to the development junction itself.

A construction management plan would be added at the reserved stage. Agenda Item 8 Page 64

Pollution The submitted Phase 1 Contamination Assessment concludes that the risk from ground contamination / gas is mainly low, but that there a small area of moderate risk on the northern boundary of the Application Site. as stated in the Phase 1 report: At this stage, based on the desk study information available, it is considered that allowance be made for the following in the northeastern part of the site:

· Gas protection measures comprising under floor venting (i.e. beam and block floors), methane barrier membrane fully sealed around service entries and extended across cavities in northeastern part of the site.

In terms of noise it has been recommended to assess and propose specific noise mitigation once the final masterplan is known, taking into account building distribution, heights and outdoor amenities limits in order to better assess compliance against standards. As stated in the noise assessment: "based on the incorporation of an external fence and the potential to introduce stand-off distances and orientation of buildings, it is envisaged that the potential mitigation afforded by all these measures would ensure that all external amenity areas would be within the relevant noise limits." Noise from road traffic may neverthless adversely impact amenity of future residents so the ventilation systems used and noise levels from that system, window design and U and G values, noise barrier design and construction materials will all need investigation and detailing prior to development commencing. Current residents may be impacted by access roads so this too should be assessed and mitigated as necessary.

Offers no objection subject to conditions.

Archaeology The proposed development will have a negative and irreversible impact upon any surviving archaeological deposits present within the site area, and therefore upon the significance of heritage asset 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 any surviving heritage assets with archaeological interest. This will be achieved by the investigation and recording of any archaeological deposits that may be affected by the development; and will take the form of an open area excavation with the provision for a programme of community engagement. The archaeological scheme will include the post-excavation Agenda Item 8 Page 65

analysis of any archive material generated and the publication of a report on the investigations. In order to secure this, a condition is recommended.

SUDS No objection subject to recommendations and conditions

Landscape 18/03694 - Ivel Road, Shefford Revised scheme - Landscape and Visual: This revised scheme includes an area of amenity open space to include the play facilities ,which is welcomed. This has meant that the southern edge of the plantation woodland has largely been safeguarded from development , with a limited incursion to create the suds storage area. The conservation of the woodland is a landscape and ecology priority - it may be a relatively new feature but it is important in the context of Shefford and the wider Ivel Valley landscape. Three properties are planned close to the woodland edge, which is a concern. The density is still higher than the number proposed in the Local Plan, which would allow for a wider buffer to be planned adjacent to the woodland edge and to provide a wider swathe of grassland to integrate the suds features. Extension of the wood is a design requirement noted in the Local Plan for this site.

There is also a concern regarding the potential use of noise attenuation measures . At Campton Fields this has included the use of bunding, which can be visually intrusive and would need to be subject to extensive planted integration. The existing woodland edge beside the A507 would need to be conserved.

The internal tree planting proposals would need to be enhanced before the scheme could be considered acceptable - more roadside trees and a stronger design for the amenity area. This space provides scope for larger growing landmark trees , which would help to integrate development with the wooded feature and create a landscape feature on the skyline, which would be welcomed. Previous comments regarding the trees proposed for the back gardens still stand.

The LVIA only covers the residential proposal- the school layout is not considered in terms of cumulative impact. There are serious concerns regarding the loss of this woodland for a school - woodland cover is low .Reduction of woodland at this scale is unacceptable and cannot be supported on landscape grounds. The longterm future of the remaining woodland would be highly uncertain, as Agenda Item 8 Page 66

school expansion requirements would inevitably put pressure onm the remaining resource.

A detailed landscape scheme based on native species will be required, to include treatment of the grassland and Suds as well as trees, shrubs and hedging. The internal landscaping would be expected to respect the rural edge setting.

A Landscape and Ecology Management Plan would also be required.

Sustainability Officer To ensure that the proposed development meets requirements of the adopted policies:CS13, DM1 and DM2a the following conditions are requested:

 10% energy demand of the development to be secured from renewable or low carbon sources;

 all dwellings should achieve water efficiency standard of 110 litres per person per day;

 assessment of overheating risk in dwellings is undertaken and appropriate measures to are implemented to minimise any identified risk. Ecology There are deep concerns regarding this proposal and the detrimental impact it will have on the woodland habitat. The site allocation HAS 44 in the emerging Local Plan identifies the site to provide up to 72 dwellings, not the 100 proposed.

The current proposal within in the red line shows area of woodland to be cleared to allow for open space. The Ecological Appraisal states that '... new ecologically important habitat, such as wildflower grassland to ensure no net-loss of biodiversity can be achieved.'. The NPPF is clear that development should deliver net gains for biodiversity rather than merely maintain the status quo.

Public enjoyment of the countryside can take many forms and does not necessarily require an area of open ground. Any loss of woodland should be resisted and if necessary formal play space accommodated elsewhere on the development. Woodland offers many opportunities for informal play and consideration to natural informal play should be considered.

The concept masterplan does not appear to have taken account of either CBC Design Guide advice or that from the Ecological Consultants in that gardens border Agenda Item 8 Page 67

retained hedgerows and woodland. 5.8 of the PEA states 'Design of the scheme should seek to avoid gardens backing onto areas of off-site woodland habitat to avoid the dumping of garden waste and the introduction of non- native and/or ornamental plants to the woodland.'.

Whilst biodiversity enhancements such as integrated bat and bird boxes and nectar rich planting schemes are beneficial, the scheme as proposed fails to demonstrate that net gains can be delivered and hence is contrary to policy.

Comments on Revised Scheme

The amendment to the red line and repositioning of the play area is welcomed and the orientation of dwellings along the southern boundary is acceptable however previous comments in relation to the orientation of dwellings to exiting boundary features of the hedgerow to the north and the woodland to the east still remain as follows; The concept masterplan does not appear to have taken account of either CBC Design Guide advice or that from the Ecological Consultants in that gardens border retained hedgerows and woodland. 5.8 of the PEA states 'Design of the scheme should seek to avoid gardens backing onto areas of off-site woodland habitat to avoid the dumping of garden waste and the introduction of non-native and/ornamental plants to the woodland.

Local Plans The site which this application covers is proposed for allocation by the submitted Local Plan. The Local Plan was submitted to the Secretary of State on April 30th 2018. The Council has been communicating with the Inspector, but the date for Examination is not yet set. This Examination is expected to be held in the early 2019. Policy SP1 sets out the Local Plan’s Growth Strategy. It states that 39,350 new homes and 24,000 new jobs will be provided and identifies Strategic Allocations and medium and small-scale extensions to villages and towns. The submission Local Plan proposes allocation of part of this site as HAS44 for approximately 72 dwellings. Therefore, the principle of development of this site is supported. It should be noted that some modifications are proposed to this policy (see ED D05), this modification was to require ‘serviced land (2.1ha) for a new lower / primary school’. However, it is noted that an application for an alternative Agenda Item 8 Page 68

site in Shefford which proposes a school was recently approved at Planning Committee.

MANOP (Meeting the The requirement for new housing development to meet Accommodation Needs the needs of older people is set out in Policy H3 of the of Older People Team) Local Plan 2015-2035. 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 in accordance with the standardsset out in the appendix to this response:

- Not less than twelve (12) units of mainstream housing suitable for older people.

Fire and Rescue Service One hydrant at least every 180 metres – with no property further than 90 metres from the nearest hydrant. The minimum flow should be as described in the National Guidance Document published by UK Water and the Local Government Association. IDB 'No comments'

Environment Agency No objection

Anglian Water No response at the time of writing

Housing Development Strategic Housing support this application as it provides for Officer 32 affordable homes which reflects the current affordable housing policy requirement of 35%. The supporting documentation does not indicate the tenure split of the affordable units. 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 23 units of affordable rent and 9 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.

NHS This development, should the application be successful will affect Shefford Medical Centre. The current premises were designed for a total patient list size of 22,000 to deliver core General Medical Services. There are already 18,000 patients registered with the practice and with residential developments already under construction in Agenda Item 8 Page 69

and around Shefford it is expected to reach full capacity very shortly, 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 286 additional patient registrations and create a constraint that will require premises reconfiguration and extension to create additional clinical capacity. For this reason, in order to make this development acceptable to NHS commissioners, it is requested that a contribution is made towards the infrastructure supporting the delivery of the 5 Year Forward View and Primary Care at Home models. In order to mitigate the impact of this development on local healthcare services, it is requested on behalf of BCCG and NHS England that a contribution is made for £1,059.50 per dwelling towards local healthcare infrastructure.

Other Representations:

Neighbours 6 Letters of objection - Existing infrastructure cannot cope with any further development - Increased traffic congestion on Ivel Road - Harvest Rise would become a rat a run should a road link be implemented - Dr's surgery over subscribed - Harm to existing wildlife

Determining Issues: The main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle 2. Highway impact and access 3. Character and Appearance 4. Neighbour amenity impact 5. Other considerations 6. Sustainable Development 7. Conclusion

Considerations

1. Principle 1.1 Shefford is designated as a minor service centre - it is a settlement that contains a number of services including schools, supermarket, local shops, petrol station, restaurant/pubs, local businesses, industrial area, community halls and public Agenda Item 8 Page 70

transport availability via buses. It is considered that, as a settlement, Shefford should be regarded as being sustainable

1.2 Policy CS1 classifies settlements by virtue of their scale, services and facilities. Further, the thrust of Policy DM4 is to apply weight in favour of development within Settlement Envelopes and restrict development divorced from the settlements identified within Policy CS1. This policy position is largely echoed by Policy SP7 within the emerging Local Plan.

1.3 Policy DM4 restricts new housing development on land outside of the settlement envelope and, on this basis, the application is regarded as contrary to that policy.

1.4 The Council is able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land in excess of the 5 year requirement. Therefore, the Council’s polices concerned with the supply of housing are not considered to be out of date and paragraph 11 of the NPPF is not therefore engaged. However, proposals should still be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development – the over-arching principle of the NPPF - that is the determining consideration in this application.

1.5 As indicated above, the Local Plan is afforded limited weight only at the present time, given its stage of preparation. The Local Plan sets out a clear direction of travel for the allocation of various sites within the administrative boundary of the Council.

1.6 The emerging Local Plan proposes to allocate the site (the land outlined in red and blue in this application) for residential development under Policy HA1 and a minor modification to the allocation includes a site for a primary school. The site assessment states that the number of houses the site could accommodate is 72 dwellings with no significant landscape, heritage or access constraints. The allocation does not detail any requirements for connectivity via additional pedestrian links.

1.7 The number of dwellings proposed is 90 dwellings which equates to 29 dwellings per hectare which is considered to be appropriate considering the urban grain of adjacent sites.

1.8 Given the stage of preparation, the emerging Local Plan is currently only awarded limited weight - the development should therefore be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the planning balancing exercise of weighing positive aspects of the development against negative impacts.

1.9 In respect of any concern in respect of prematurity, the NPPF sets out that a refusal of planning permission that an application is premature is unlikely to be justified other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account. The NPPF goes on to explain that two such circumstances are likely, Agenda Item 8 Page 71

but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both the development proposal is so substantial that the grant of permission would undermine the plan making process or phasing of new development and, the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but not yet formally part of the Development Plan. The scale of development in this application is such that such situations would not be arise.

2. Highway impact and access

2.1 The Town Council have objected to the development and raise concerns with regard to a single access point and consider the Travel Plan to be inaccurate.

2.2 The Highways Officer considers the Transport assessment acceptable, the breakdown of the level of traffic along Ivel Road is projected as being 12.7% going north with the remaining 87.3% going south to the A507 roundabout based on census information. This would be circa 33 outward movements in the am peak with 27 inward movements in the pm peak. Based on the projected movements this would be 4 vehicles heading north on Ivel Road and 29 vehicles heading south on Ivel Road.

2.3 Following concerns raised by the Highways Officer, the turning land for the ghost right turn has now been provided at 3.5m and as such accords with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) the through lanes are at 3m in width and this was supported by a road safety audit (RSA).

2.4 There will be a requirement for Traffic Regulation Order’s to lower the speed limit to 40mph on the approach arms to the A507 along with a 30mph speed limit along Ivel Road which will act as a buffer zone to the 20mph speed limit. Parking restrictions are required per the RSA on Ivel Road to prevent on road parking which currently exists and in to the development junction itself.

2.5 There will inevitably be increased traffic movements associated with the development and the concerns from the Town Council are acknowledged. However, no objections are raised by the Highway Officer in relation to capacity of existing highway infrastructure and the development does not represent a severe impact in NPPF terms, subject to conditions and Section 278 Agreement

Pedestrian Links 2.6 The principles of good urban design encourages permeability and access and the NPPF sets out that developments should be designed such that reliance on private vehicles are reduced and use of sustainable modes of transport are encouraged. Paragraph 91 of the NPPF promotes street layouts that allow for easy pedestrian and cycle connections within and between neighbourhoods whilst paragraph 102 states that opportunities should be sought to promote walking, cycling and public transport.

2.7 The allocation of the site for residential development in the emerging Local Plan does not include a requirement that the development provide any specific links through to adjacent developments. The residential site to the north of the application site (Harvest Close, Tillers Rise and Planters Place) was allocated for development in the Site Allocations Development Plan Document April 2011. Agenda Item 8 Page 72

Policy MA6 of this document requires the safeguarding of a route through that site to allow sufficient future access and services to the current application site being considered by Members. The S106 agreement which relates to that approved and now implemented residential development to the north includes a stipulation preventing any physical or practical impediment that would prevent or inhibit future development of any adjoining property to the northern and eastern edge of the site. In planning terms then, this legal agreement would allow the developers of the application site currently being considered by Members, to link with the adjoining residential site to the north by way of a pedestrian/cycle link. A planning condition is therefore recommended requiring the provision of a foot/cycle link within the current application site to connect with existing provision on the residential development to the north within any future Reserved Matters Application, which would include a consideration of layout.

2.8 It may be desirable to more directly link the application site with the site to the north (Hitchin Rd, Shefford - LPA reference CB/18/02298/OUT) in order to better link the two developments having in mind the proposed school on the northern site. There is a strip of woodland between this application site and the site to the north which is not within the red outline of the application site and is not within the Applicant’s control. The Applicant has suggested a financial contribution for the future creation of a pedestrian link through this wooded area, although no specific figure has been indicated.

2.9 Having regard to the allocation of the site in the emerging Local Plan and, in terms of providing access to the towns services and amenities, as a stand alone planning application, the principle is considered to be acceptable. Pedestrian and cycle links can be provided through existing development to the north (and was envisaged in the policy position and legal agreement pertaining to that land as previously set out). A link through the area of woodland to the north is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, particularly in light of the fact it is within different ownership and not included within the red outline of the application. Such a link through a wooded area may also not be particularly desirable in terms of the impact on trees, ecology and in respect of creating a safe route for pedestrians and cyclists.

3. Character and Appearance

3.1 The proposed development, comprising up to 90 dwellings will inevitably and fundamentally alter the character of the site.

3.2 The Site is well enclosed, with trees and hedgerows along much of its boundary. This includes a dense belt of vegetation along the southern Site boundary with the A507, and which extends along the western Site boundary with Ivel Road. This vegetation screens views into the Site from the A507 / Ivel Road and from the countryside further south. The south western tree belt is relatively thin in places, therefore a condition requiring additional planting would help screen the site further. Agenda Item 8 Page 73

3.3 Since the original submission, the developer has reduced the number of dwellings and reduced their 'red line' to encompass only the developed area, leaving the woodland in the 'blue land' in its entirety to be transferred to the Council. As acknowledged previously, the proposed amount of development (90 dwellings) with a density of 29dph is considered to be appropriate to the edge of settlement location and relationship with adjoining residential development.

The Landscape Officer comments 3.4 The Landscape Officer raises concerns with regard to the loss of the woodland should the school come forward, with the close proximity of the houses with the woodland edge and the possibility of the woodland edge against the A507 being lost to noise attenuation bunding.

3.5 As the allocation includes a school, some loss of the trees should that school ever come forward, would be inevitable. However, the application as it stands proposes no removal of the woodland area and, as this land is to be transferred to the Council, it would be within the Councils control as to how that land is dealt with. It is not anticipated that this site would be required for a school having regard to the resolution made by Members in relation to the provision of a school on the Hitchin Road site (LPA reference CB/18/02298/OUT).

3.6 The application is in outline form and as such, the layout of the development, including the relationship of dwellings with the woodland would be considered in any forthcoming reserved matters application.

3.7 The value of the woodland against the southern edge with the A507 is acknowledged. A landscaping plan can be secured by condition to ensure its retention and supplementary planting to thicken the woodland in thinner areas. Having regard to the allocation of the site, it is considered that there will be no material impact on the character or appearance of the site or the woodland.

4. Neighbour amenity impact 4.1 On the basis of the indicative plan, it appears that the site is capable of accommodating the number of dwellings proposed, the detailed relationships between proposed dwellings would be a matter for consideration under a reserved matters application. However it is considered that it would be possible to design a scheme which would not have adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.

4.2 In relation to the impact of construction and construction vehicles on neighbouring properties in terms of noise and general disturbance. Development of this scale and given the relationship with existing dwellings will inevitably result in a degree of impact on existing residents. However, subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring detailed construction management plans, is such that such harm will not be significant or to such an extent as to warrant the refusal of the application.

5 Other considerations Agenda Item 8 Page 74

5.1 S106 and financial contributions 5.2 Significant weight should be given to the National Planning Policy Framework, which calls for the achievement of the three dimensions of sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. It is considered that Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the North is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. This states that developers are required to make appropriate contributions as necessary to offset the cost of providing new physical, social, community and environmental proposals. Emerging policy in the Local Plan sets out a similar requirement.

5.3 The development will impact on local infrastructure and as a result, development of a scale as proposed here, is required to offset these impacts, by entering into a S106 agreement to provide financial contributions to mitigate these impacts. At the time of writing, the contributions sought and agreed by the Applicant are as follows:

Indoor Sport: £79,701 towards the provision of the planned extension works for additional studio space at Saxon Leisure Centre. Outdoor Sport: £32,045 towards pitch improvements for Shefford Sports Club. To mitigate the demand generated by the development a contribution of £79,701 is sought towards the creation of additional studio space at Saxon Pool LC. £18,900 Contribution will be spent on refurbishment works for Shefford Library £80784 A contribution to Phase 2 of the STMA refurbishment requires initial ground works and 3 pitched rooves. Affordable Housing: 35% £95,355 NHS contribution Education Contributions: £109,874.23 EY £366,247.44 Lower £313,035.84 Middle £383,864.83 Upper £1,173,022.3 4

Total

5.4 The Town Council have commented that the contributions for improvements to Saxon Leisure Centre would not directly serve any benefit to the community of Shefford. The Spending Officer for Leisure has stated that Saxon Leisure Centre is a multi-facility leisure centre offers a range of facilities / activities to which residents will travel an accepted drive time of 20 mins and the application site lies within the catchment of the Leisure Centre. Agenda Item 8 Page 75

5.5 The contributions sought are considered to be CIL compliant aswell as necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and fairly and reasonably related in scale; in accordance with para 56 of the NPPF.

Affordable Housing 5.6 On receipt of the application, the proposal includes the policy compliant tenure split and level of Affordable Housing at 35%.

Meeting the Accommodation Needs of Older People (MANOP) 5.7 The MANOP team have identified that 8 units of Category 2 homes should be provided. As the relevant policy, H3, is within the emerging Local Plan, only limited weight can be applied. 35% affordable housing has been agreed to, the affordable housing taken together with the potential for Category 2 homes coming forward in a Reserved Matters application are considered to be a significant benefit to the scheme.

Flood Risk and sewerage 5.8 The Town Council have raised concern with regard to the additional sewerage generated by the new development. Anglian Water have not yet responded to the consultation and any response with be provided on the Late Sheet. However, the developer would be required to agree such matters with Anglian Water in order to meet the statutory Building Regulations for sewage disposal. 5.9 The Flood Risk Team recommend the inclusion of a planning condition requiring a detailed strategy to deal with surface water drainage. The plans submitted show space for green infrastructure and two basins are indicated for sustainable drainage features which will slow the movement of water within the site whilst providing biodiversity and water cleaning benefits. Having regard to the advice received there will be no harmful impact in flood risk terms, subject to condition.

Ecology 5.10 The Council's Ecologist has concerns that there would be gardens backing onto areas of off-site woodland habitat which could lead to the dumping of garden waste and the introduction of non-native and/or ornamental plants to the woodland. However, as the site is in Outline form only, the orientation and position of dwellings are details that can be considered as part of any future Reserved Matters application.

5.11 Biodiversity enhancements such as integrated bat and bird boxes and nectar rich planting schemes are beneficial, the Ecologist states that the scheme as proposed fails to demonstrate that net gains in biodiversity can be delivered.

5.12 As the application is in Outline form, the Ecologist has agreed that a condition could be imposed to address potential net gain of biodiversity on site.

Vehicle charging 5.13 A planning condition is recommended requiring information in relation to this matter.

Impact on future residents - noise Agenda Item 8 Page 76

5.14 In line with Policy DM3 and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guidance, the proposals respect the amenity of surrounding properties, with substantial green buffering used along the more sensitive southern boundary.

5.15 The noise assessment submitted with the application details the possibility of noise disturbance to future residents from the A507 and Ivel Road.

5.16 As the application is in Outline form, the distance from the road to the nearest dwellinghouses has not be agreed, therefore the Pollution Officer has requested noise conditions to safeguard future residents.

Best most versatile land 5.17 The NPPF sets out that local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of BMV agricultural land. Furthermore it is stated that where the development of significant agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality in preference to that of higher quality. Having regard to the Natural England agricultural land classification the site is classified as grade 2. Whilst there will clearly be a loss of agricultural land the loss will not be significant

Contamination 5.18 The submitted Phase 1 Contamination Assessment concludes that the risk from ground contamination / gas is mainly low, but that there a small area of moderate risk on the northern boundary of the Application Site .At this stage, based on the desk study information available, it is considered that allowance be made for the following in the north eastern part of the site:

· Gas protection measures comprising under floor venting (i.e. beam and block floors), methane barrier membrane fully sealed around service entries and extended across cavities in northeastern part of the site.

5.19 The Pollution Officer has recommended suitably worded condition in respect to land contamination.

6. Sustainable Development

6.1 Paragraphs 7-10 of the NPPF set out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development – there are three dimensions (economic, social and environmental) which are mutually dependent and should be sought simultaneously through the planning system. Consideration of the development in relation to these dimensions therefore forms part of the balance of considerations of this application:-

6.2 Economic The NPPF makes it clear that planning policies should aim to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping and other activities, therefore planning decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes maximised. It is acknowledged that the construction of 90 houses would support a level of employment, with associated benefits to the Agenda Item 8 Page 77

local economy, within the local area on a temporary basis during the construction period.

6.3 It is also acknowledged that new residents are likely to support existing local services although these are limited. The future Council Tax payments that would be spent in the area are considered as benefits. Cumulatively these make positive contributions to fulfilling the economic roles

6.4 The site is located in a Minor Service Area which has access to a range of facilities and services which would provide local employment opportunities, although these are not within walking distance of the site and therefore there would be a dependency on public and private transportation. However on the basis of all the considerations above, the development is considered to meet this strand of Sustainable Development.

6.5 Social In order to demonstrate a package of benefits, the agent has put forward affordable housing in line with the policy requirement of 35%. The provision of 90 houses with a proportion of affordable housing is given weight. The provision of affordable housing is noted as a benefit to the scheme, as is the provision of open spaces/play.

6.6 A portion of the site, shown as 'Blue Land' is woodland and, as discussed above, it is agreed that this land would be transferred to the Council through a S106 agreement. The Council are then able to determine the future of the woodland, depending on the future delivery of the school proposed to the north of the application (Land at Hitchin Lane Shefford ref: CB/18/02988/OUT). Should the proposed school be delivered on that site to the north, this woodland could be retained and enhanced utilising an agreed maintenance payment from the developer. This area of woodland is considered to be a significant benefit to the community and the applicant has agreed in principle to a financial contribution towards the long term management of the woodland. A figure is yet to be agreed and Members will be updated at Committee.

6.7 The site is regarded as a sustainable location and it is considered that the settlement offers services and facilities that can accommodate the growth resultant from this scheme.

6.8 Environmental The site does provide environmental benefits through the provision green infrastructure and informal open space.

6.9 The NPPF states that opportunities should be taken to protect and enhance the natural environment and to improve biodiversity. The Councils Ecologist is satisfied that the proposal could secure additional biodiversity gain through effective detailed design and has suggested a condition to secure this.

6.10 The principles of good urban design encourages permeability, access and the NPPF does encourage developments to be designed such that reliance on private vehicles are reduced and use of sustainable modes of transport are Agenda Item 8 Page 78

encouraged. The planning application as currently proposed would create adequate and appropriate opportunities to access the amenities, services and facilities in Shefford by walking and cycling, particularly opportunities for connectivity via Harvest Close to the north west of the site.

6.11 The development site is considered to be sustainably located with appropriate access arrangements. Therefore, it is considered that the scheme can be considered acceptable.

6.12 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.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The development proposal represents a departure to policy DM4 of the Development Plan. The NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and this sets out that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and there is a need to boost the supply of housing. For the reasons outlined above the development is considered to be sustainable and no significant harm to material considerations is identified.

7.2 Some harm to the countryside setting is acknowledged. Other environmental matters including ecology, flood risk, contamination and noise impact are either neutral, positive or are able to be mitigated by condition.

7.3 In the overall balance of considerations, the material considerations weighing in favour of the application, are considered to outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan and harm identified.

Recommendation:

That Planning Permission be APPROVED subject to the signing of a S106 agreement and the following planning conditions:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

1 Application for the approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority within three years from the date of this permission. The development shall begin not later than two years from the final approval of the reserved matters or, if approved on different dates, the final approval of the last such matter to be approved.

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

2 No development shall take place until approval of the details of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the development within Agenda Item 8 Page 79

that area (herein called “the reserved matters”) has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To comply with Part 3 Article 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 2015.

This condition is pre-commencement as the reserved matters are required to be considered and determined prior to commencement of any development.

3 No development shall take place (including ground works or site clearance) until an Ecological Enhancement Strategy (EES) for the creation of new wildlife features such as hibernacula, the erection of bird/bat and bee boxes in buildings/structures and tree, hedgerow, shrub and wildflower planting/establishment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content shall be informed by an up to date Ecological Appraisal of the site and include the: a) purpose and objectives for the proposed works; b) detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) necessary to achieve stated objectives (including, where relevant, type and source of materials to be used); c) extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale maps and plans; d) timetable for implementation, demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of construction; e) persons responsible for implementing the works; f) details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance.

The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter

Reason: This is a pre-commencement condition to ensure development is ecologically sensitive and secures biodiversity enhancements in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

4 No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological resource management (SARM) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The SARM shall include: method statement for archaeological investigation and recording of archaeological remains present at the site; provision for preservation in situ (where appropriate); provision for programme of community engagement; provision for post excavation analysis and publication. The development hereby approved shall only be implemented in full accordance with the approved archaeological scheme and this condition will only be fully discharged when all of the archaeological work; including post excavation analysis, the publication of the results of the fieldwork and the deposition of the Agenda Item 8 Page 80

archive with a store approved by the Local Planning Authority has been completed. Reason: This condition is pre-commencement as a failure to secure appropriate archaeological investigation in advance of development would be contrary to paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), that requires developers to record and advance of understanding of the significance of any heritage assets affected by development before they are lost (wholly or in part).

5 The number of dwellings approved on the site shall be restricted to 90 as shown on the revised site layout plan no. 1002 Rev C.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision of housing is provided.

6 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Traffic Management Plan, associated with the development of the site, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which will include information on: (A) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in the development (B) Storage of plant and materials used in the development (C) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding / scaffolding affecting the highway if required. (D) Wheel washing facilities (E) Footpath/footway/cycleway or road closures needed during the development period (F) Traffic management needed during the development period. (G) Times, routes and means of access and egress for construction traffic and delivery vehicles (including the import of materials and the removal of waste from the site) during the development of the site.

The approved Construction Management Plan associated with the development of the site shall be adhered to throughout the development process.

Reason : In the interests of safety, protecting the amenity of local land uses, neighbouring residents and highway safety.

This condition is pre-commencement as it requires consideration of the impact on the highway network and highway safety prior to any development taking place.

7 Within the submission of any reserved matters planning application, the layout of the development shall be designed to provide a provide a pedestrian and cycle access up to the boundary of the application site and Harvest Rise.

Reason: To ensure that adequate accesses are brought forward and delivered at reserved matters stage in the interests of encouraging sustainable modes of transport. (Section 9, NPPF) Agenda Item 8 Page 81

8 Within the submission of any reserved matters planning application, proposed dwellings shall be located not less than 15m from the south eastern boundary of the site and land between the boundary edge and residential curtilages shall be landscaped with native species and semi- mature trees.

Reason: To ensure that adequate landscaping is provided to screen the development from the A507. (Section 12 NPPF)

9 No building shall be occupied until the junction of the proposed vehicular access (drg no.19308-02 Rev G) with the highway has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and the premises.(Section 9, NPPF)

10 Visibility splays shall be provided at the junction of the access with the public highway before the development is brought into use. The minimum dimensions to provide the required splay lines shall be 2.4m measured along the centre line of the proposed access from its junction with the channel of the public highway and 59m measured from the centre line of the proposed access along the line of the channel of the public highway. The required vision splays shall for the perpetuity of the development remain free of any obstruction to visibility.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility between the existing highway and the proposed access, and to make the access safe and convenient for the traffic which is likely to use it. (Section 9, NPPF)

11 The development shall be served by means of roads and footpaths which shall be laid out and drained in accordance with the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide September 2014 or other such documents that replace them, and no building shall be occupied until the roads and footpaths which provide access to it from the existing highway have been laid out and constructed in accordance with the above-mentioned Guidance. This infrastructure shall also provide for a zebra crossing adjacent to the school which shall be provided prior to any occupation of the school.

Reason: In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the proposed estate road. (Section 9, NPPF)

12 Visibility splays shall be provided at all internal road junctions within the site. The minimum dimensions to provide the required splay lines shall be 2.4m measured along the centre line of the side road from its junction with the channel to the through road and 25m measured from the centre line of the side road along the channel of the through road. The vision splays required shall be provided and defined on the site by or on behalf of the developers and be entirely free of any obstruction. Agenda Item 8 Page 82

Reason: To provide adequate visibility at road junction in the interest of road safety. (Section 9, NPPF)

13 The detailed layout plans to be submitted for approval of reserved matters in connection with this development shall illustrate independent vehicular turning head area(s) for an 11.5m refuse collection vehicle.

Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn outside the highway limits thereby avoiding the reversing of vehicles on to the highway. (Section 9, NPPF)

14 The detailed layout plans to be submitted for approval of reserved matters in connection with this development shall include car and cycle parking in accordance with Central Bedfordshire Design Guide September 2014 or other such documents that replace them has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and made available for use before the development is occupied and the car and cycle parking areas shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide September 2014. (Section 9, NPPF)

15 No building shall be occupied until Traffic Regulation Orders on both sides of Ivel Road and the development junction for the provision of No Parking restrictions have been implemented. Furthermore, speed limit reductions on the A507/Ivel Road/Shefford Road roundabout approach roads restrictions to 40mph and a 30mph speed limit on Ivel Road from the existing 20mph speed limit to the A507/Ivel Road/Shefford Road roundabout have been implemented.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and pedestrian movement. (Section 9, NPPF)

16 Within the submission of any reserved matters planning application, details of areas for play in the forms of LEAPS and LAPS including the equipment, furniture, surfacing and boundary treatment to be installed, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details thereby approved shall be implemented prior to occupation of the 50th dwelling being first occupied and retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate play and children’s recreation facilities. (Section 8, NPPF)

17 Prior to commencement of any above ground building works, details of electrical wiring to accommodate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra low emission vehicles for dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Agenda Item 8 Page 83

Reason: To ensure the development protects and exploits opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of people in accordance with section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

18 Within the submission of any reserved matters planning application relating to the site, section drawings between the site and existing built development adjacent to the boundaries will be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development will thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure adequate information is provided at reserved matters stage in the interests of ensuring appropriate relationships with neighbouring buildings and living conditions. (Section 12, NPPF)

19 Prior to the occupation of any dwelling on the site, a scheme for the provision of waste receptacles for each dwelling shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The receptacles shall be provided before occupation takes place.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and to reduce waste generation in accordance with the Councils's Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2014, Policy WSP5 and the adopted SPD "Managing Waste in New Developments" (2006).

20 No development approved by this permission shall take place until the following has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

A Phase 2 intrusive Contamination Investigation as recommended by the previously submitted Phase 1 Assessment, along with any necessary Remediation Method Statement(s) for the mitigation of plausible pollution pathways thereby identified. Works shall be undertaken by competent persons and follow the 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11

Reason: This is a pre-commencement condition in order to ensure that the amenity of existing residential occupiers and future occupiers of the proposed dwellings are properly protected.

21 No occupation of any permitted building shall take place until the following has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

A validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of all remediation measures implemented by any approved Remediation Method Statement(s). Works shall be undertaken by qualified professionals and follow the 'Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11'.

Reason: To ensure that the amenity of existing residential occupiers and future occupiers of the proposed dwellings are properly protected. Agenda Item 8 Page 84

22 No development shall take place until an ecological design strategy (EDS) addressing mitigation, compensation and enhancement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The EDS shall include the following a) Review of the site potential and constraint, to be informed by up to date survey information including a reptile survey b) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed works c) Detailed working methods to achieve stated objectives including locations of integrated bird and bat boxes to be erected in accordance with RSPB and BCT guidelines on appropriate scale maps and plans d) Details of lighting considerations to prevent disturbance to bats. e) Type and source of materials to be used where appropriate, e.g. native species of local provenance. f) Timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned with proposed phasing of development. g) Persons responsible for implementing the works h) Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance. i) Details for monitoring and remedial measures

The EDS shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

Reason: To ensure adequate provision for ecology in terms of securing net gains.

The condition is pre-commencement as additional survey work is required to be undertaken in relation to reptiles.

23 Development shall not begin until a detailed scheme to protect proposed dwellings from noise from the road traffic on the A507 and existing dwellings from traffic noise from the proposed access roads, at the proposed development has been submitted and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any works which form part of the scheme approved by the local authority shall be completed before any permitted dwelling is occupied, unless an alternative period is approved in writing by the Authority. The scheme shall include details of noise barrier(s) along the boundary with the road(s), building insulation and a ventilation strategy for the proposed dwellings.

Reason: This is a pre-commencement condition to ensure the amenity of existing residential occupiers and future occupiers of the proposed dwellings are properly protected.

24 Development shall not begin until details of a ventilation scheme (which shall be designed to achieve the standards set out below) for the proposed dwellings has been submitted to and approved in writing by The Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall enable appropriate internal ambient noise levels to be achieved whilst ventilation is provided at the minimum whole building rate as described in The Agenda Item 8 Page 85

Building Regulations Approved document F. The scheme shall also ensure that the thermal comfort criteria defined in the Chartered Institute of Building Engineers (CIBSE) Environmental Design Guide A (2006) is achieved with windows closed where required to meet the noise standards for road noise as specified in the above condition.

Reason: This is a pre-commencement condition to ensure that the amenity of future occupiers of the proposed dwellings are properly protected.

25 No development shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme, to manage surface water run off from the development for up to and including the 1 in 100 year event (+40%CC), and a maintenance and management plan for the scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The discharge rate from the development will be limited to the equivalent 1 in 1 year rate, or an appropriate rate as agreed by the Bedford Group of Internal Drainage Boards or sewage undertaker. The final detailed design shall be based on the agreed drainage Strategy (Ref:133260-R1(2)-FRA, September 2018) and DEFRAs Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (March, 2018), and shall be implemented and maintained as approved. Maintenance will ensure the system functions as designed for the lifetime of the development. Any variation to the connections and controls indicated on the approved drawing which may be necessary at the time of construction would require the resubmission of those details to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The applicant should address points 1, 2, 3 and 4 within informative 6 when submitting details to discharge the condition.

Reason: To ensure the approved system will function to a satisfactory minimum standard of operation and maintenance and prevent the increased risk of flooding both on and off site, in accordance with para 163 and 165 of the NPPF and its supporting technical guidance.

26 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, number 1002 Rev C.

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

INFORMATIVE 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. Agenda Item 8 Page 86

2. The applicant is advised that in order to comply with the highway related conditions of this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Central Bedfordshire Council as Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. You are advised to contact the Highways Agreements Officer, Community Services, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ. E-mail [email protected]

3. The applicant is also advised that if any of the works associated with the construction of the vehicular access affects or requires the removal and/or the relocation of any equipment, apparatus or structures (e.g. street name plates, bus stop signs or shelters, statutory authority equipment etc.) then the applicant will be required to bear the cost of such removal or alteration.

4. The applicant is advised that the requirements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 will apply to any works undertaken within the limits of the existing public highway. Further details can be obtained from the Traffic Management Group Highways and Transport Division, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, Bedfordshire, SG17 5TQ.

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

6. The Drainage Officer advises that the final design and maintenance arrangements for the surface water system to be agreed by condition should include details in line with the following recommendations:

1. Detailed site investigation results (including any site specific soakage tests and ground water monitoring shown in accordance with BRE 365) will need to be provided with the detailed design.

2. We believe drawing No 133260 is incorrectly labelled on the Key, “existing watercourse” seems to be permeable paving. FRA also states no existing watercourses. Any existing, watercourses will need to be part of the continued maintenance and management plan to ensure the discharge can be conveyed from site.

3. We will require full calculations to verify storage requirement. Correspondence with the IDB or water sewage authority should be included in the next submission to prove acceptance of discharge rate, therefore final storage required. Agenda Item 8 Page 87

4. A full drainage drawing is required, this should show; pipe numbers, inverts, control features, storage etc.

5. Where the use of permeable surfacing is proposed, this should be designed in accordance with the ‘CIRIA RP992 The SuDS Manual Update: Paper RP992/28: Design Assessment Checklists for Permeable/Porous Pavement’.

6. The final detailed design including proposed standards of operation, construction, structural integrity and ongoing maintenance must be compliant with the ‘Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems’ (March 2015, Ref: PB14308), ‘Central Bedfordshire Sustainable Drainage Guidance’ (Adopted April 2014, Updated May 2015), and recognised best practise including the Ciria SuDS Manual (2016, C753).

To ensure future homeowners and subsequent homeowners will be aware of any maintenance requirements / responsibilities for surface water drainage, including ditches; further measures should be proposed by the applicant and may include, for example, information provided to the first purchaser of the property and also designation/registration of the SuDS so that it appears as a Land Charge for the property and as such is identified to subsequent purchasers of the property.

DECISION

......

...... This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 Page 89

Application No. Crown Copyright and database 1:2,500 right. 2018 CB/18/03781/FULL Ordnance Survey 100049029 Central Bedfordshire Council. Date Created 32 Shefford Road, Meppershall, Cities Revealed Aerial 22-01-2019 Shefford, SG17 5LN photography copyright The GeoInformation Group 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 Page 91

Item No. 9

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/18/03781/FULL LOCATION 32 Shefford Road, Meppershall, Shefford, SG17 5LN PROPOSAL Demolition of No. 32 Shefford Road and existing nursery buildings, and the construction of 60 No. dwellings, new vehicle access, site-wide highways works, and provision of associated landscaping and amenity space (including SuDS). PARISH Meppershall WARD Shefford WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Liddiard & Brown CASE OFFICER Nicola Darcy DATE REGISTERED 09 October 2018 EXPIRY DATE 08 January 2019 APPLICANT Inland Homes PLC AGENT Planning Potential Ltd. REASON FOR 1. Departure from Development Plan COMMITTEE TO 2. Major development with Parish Council Objection DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - For approval subject to a S.106 Agreement

Summary of recommendation: The proposed residential development on the site represents a departure to the Development Plan. The site is considered to be a sustainable location for development with appropriate levels of access to the settlements services and amenities. The development will result in change to the countryside setting but any such harm would be mitigated through landscape design. Matters relating to highway safety and capacity are acceptable and can be mitigated through condition. A range of other material considerations including neighbour amenity, ecology and flood risk are neutral whilst positive weight can be given to the provision of housing and a policy compliant level of affordable housing.

Site Location:

The site lies to the south east of Shefford Road, adjoining the highway at no.32 Shefford Road, a detached dwelling which is to be demolished as part of the application proposals, to provide access into the site. The site measures 3 hectares and is a generally rectangular plot of arable land, previously in use as a nursery.

There are two dilapidated greenhouses along the northern boundary of the site in addition to the detached two-storey dwelling fronting Shefford Road. The site has a slight west to east gradient, with the existing two-storey dwelling the highest point on site. The topographical survey details a 7m drop from west to east. Agenda Item 9 Page 92

There are no statutory or locally listed buildings on or within close proximity to the site. The site is not located within a Conservation Area. Meppershall Conservation Area lies to the south of the village, encompassing Manor House and its curtilage, St Mary’s Church Road and residential dwellings along Church Road and Shillington Road.

The site is bounded to the south east by Hoo Road, a single-track lane which provides access to the farmland to the north, which degrades into a gravel bridleway. The rear gardens of residential dwellings border the site to the north west and south west.

The application site sits adjacent to the defined Settlement Envelope Boundary of Meppershall to the north and west, adjoining existing residential properties, and within the open countryside.

The Application:

Full Planning Permission is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling at no. 32 Shefford Road and existing nursery buildings, and the construction of 60 no. dwellings with a density of 30 dwellings per hectare, a new vehicle access, site-wide highways works, and the provision of associated landscaping and amenity space (including SuDS).

The following reports, drawings and documents are submitted as part of the application: • Cover Letter; • Application Drawings; • Design and Access Statement; • CGI / Visuals; • Surface Water Drainage Strategy; • Flood Risk Assessment; • Transport Assessment; • Travel Plan; • Topographical Survey; • Statement of Community Involvement; • Noise Statement; • Tree Report; • Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Method Statement; • Soft Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan; • Soft Landscape Specification; • Landscaping Plans; and • Sustainability Assessment.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

CS1 - Development Strategy CS2 - Developer Contributions Agenda Item 9 Page 93

CS7: Affordable Housing CS14 - High Quality Design CS15 - Heritage CS16: Landscape & Woodland CS17: Green Infrastructure CS18: Biodiversity & Geological Conservation DM1: Renewable Energy DM2: Sustainable Construction of New Buildings DM3 - High Quality Design DM4 - Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes DM5: Important Open Spaces within Settlement Envelopes DM13 - Heritage in Development DM14 - Landscape and Woodland DM15 - Biodiversity DM17: Accessible Green Spaces

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:

SP2: Sustainable Development SP5: Preventing Coalescence/Important Countryside Gaps H1: Housing Mix H2: Housing Standards T2: Highway Safety & Design T3: Parking EE2: Biodiversity CC5: Sustainable Drainage HQ1: High Quality Development

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014) Agenda Item 9 Page 94

Relevant Planning History:

Application: Planning Number: CB/18/03346/PAPC Validated: 31/08/2018 Type: Pre-Application - Charging Fee Status: Decided Date: 15/10/2018 Summary: Description: Pre-Application Non-Householder Advice: Residential development of 62 dwellings.

Application: Planning Number: CB/18/03077/PAPC Validated: 13/08/2018 Type: Pre-Application - Charging Fee Status: Decided Date: 28/09/2018 Summary: Description: Pre-Application Advice Non-Householder: Development of the site for housing (62 units), including access, landscaping and drainage.

Application: Planning Number: CB/18/01151/PAPC Validated: 27/03/2018 Type: Pre-Application - Charging Fee Status: Decided Date: 08/06/2018 Summary: Description: Pre-Application Non-Householder Advice: Residential development of 64 dwellings.

Consultees:

Parish Council MPC would like to record the possible faults in the assumption that this application will “go ahead” and these include the following: 1. Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) has recently submitted its Local Plan 2035 for approval by an Inspector. The inspection process examines all areas of the submitted Local Plan 2035 and when representations from all stakeholders both for and against the Local Plan are in hand, the Inspector will then decide if the submitted Local Plan and the various policies within it can be approved. The site described in this application was put forward by the land owner in the Local Plan 2035 “call for sites” and forms part the basis of draft Policy SA4. MPC considers that the granting of full approval for this application, CB/18/03781/FULL, should not be assumed in advance of the Inspector’s decision concerning the submitted Local Plan as a whole. MPC contests that this full application is in fact premature and other factors must be included in a thorough and up to date assessment now, or at the appropriate time when the Local Plan has been approved or modified, rather than relying on the preliminary assessment included as part of draft Policy SA4. MPC has been advised that government Planning Practice Guidance para 14 states that an application can be refused as premature if: a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development central to an emerging Local Agenda Item 9 Page 95

Plan or neighbourhood planning; and b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area. 2. Since the assessment of this historical call for sites, a Judicial Review has overturned CBC’s refusal of planning application CB/17/03887/OUT Stocken House, 59 Shefford Road, Meppershall, Shefford, SG17 5LL (outline permission except for access for 145 homes) and the application is now granted with conditions. 59 Shefford Road was included in the call for sites exercise and assessed as unsuitable to carry forward into draft Policy SA4 and not included in the draft Local Plan. 3. The fact that Meppershall will now contribute 145 properties to the housing targets in the submitted Local Plan adds to the unsustainability of another 60 properties on the opposite side of Shefford Road in this application. It must also be queried whether this site would have passed the initial assessment for the submitted Local Plan if it had been known at the time that 145 houses were to be built nearly opposite. CBC announced that it has a robust 5 Year Forward Land Supply of 5.82 years, as at 1 July 2018. CBC has no need for additional development land at this time and should wait until the Inspector has determined the validity of the submitted Local Plan 2035 and Policy SA4 and substantial sites properly assessed then. 4. The development proposed under this application is substantial and its cumulative effect on local services, including schooling, transport and highways over and above the effect of application CB/17/03887/OUT 59 Shefford Road would be so significant that to grant permission would deepen the harm to the community caused by the approval of application CB/17/03887/OUT 59 Shefford Road. 5. The entrances to the two sites 32 and 59 Shefford Road are less than 150 metres apart on opposite sides of the single carriageway of Shefford Road and will create an unsustainable highways challenge in Shefford Road, which is the main artery in this linear village. The site entrance is also impacted by the newly completed development opposite, approved under CB/17/02143/FULL on land adjacent to 23 Shefford Road, with six semi-detached chalet style dwellings. 6. Draft Policy SA4 page 10 http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/Images/exam-5aa- annex-26-site-assessments-stage-b_tcm3-30795.pdf shows that the assessment is that the developable area on this site, based on the density of the settlement hierarchy, has a capacity of 47. This FULL application requests 60 houses. Therefore, this site should be unacceptable to CBC. On balance it is MPC’s view that the Application should be Agenda Item 9 Page 96

refused at this time on the grounds of prematurity until it can be properly assessed when the Local Plan is approved. Highways The road layout shows a 4.8m wide carriageway with 2m wide footways only on the western side though it is shown on the Site Access Drawing. This does not comply with the 2014 Design Guide in that footways or service margins of 2m are required on both sides and around turning heads.

As there are several roads that contain more than five dwellings, they should be provided with 2m wide footways/service margins and turning heads. Only private drives for plots 25 to 28 and 29 to 31 are deemed to be private drives. However, a turning head is required elsewhere and where a fire tender would not comply with Approved Document B i.e. within 45m of the nearest highway to the furthest room in a dwelling, namely private drive serving plots 29 to 31. The RCV tracking plan will need to be to scale which is not currently the case.

In relation to car parking triple tandem parking is not permitted but unallocated residential has been provided for plots 16 to 22 has been provided. Visitor parking should be evenly dispersed through the development with inset parking bays, visitor spaces in private areas would not count. Disability spaces for corresponding dwellings have been provided as per the guidance. Access to cycle parking needs to be provided to the covered/secure cycle parking including where garages are provided. Garages to have 6m parking space directly in front of the door.

There are a number of highway issues that need to be addressed, different plans have different features where as they should be showing the same. A number of roads need to be widened to include footways or service margins at 2m on both sides and around turning head areas, including the need for a turning head in the vicinity of plot 24. If a flush shared surface is proposed throughout the development, that would be acceptable but changes to different materials would not be. It is felt that a meeting would be ideal to look at the issues that have been raised.

Amended plans have been submitted, the revised Highway comments will be reported on the Late Sheet.

Pollution Initial comments stated that the submitted noise assessment did not assess noise from the commercial building with HGV parking in the yard area that is located at 36b Shefford Road and is immediately adjacent to plot 6 of the proposed development or the noise impact of the new site entrance road on the existing dwellings immediately adjacent to 32 Shefford Road. Agenda Item 9 Page 97

The initial objection overcome by the submission of a Noise Assessment, recommends condition regarding potential contamination. Archaeology The proposed development site lies adjacent to the historic core of the settlement of Meppershall (HER 17105) and under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) this is a heritage asset with archaeological interest. However, the archaeological potential of this area is currently considered to be low. Consequently, if planning consent is granted for the development proposals outlined in this application, there will be no archaeological constraint. SUDS No objection subject to recommendations and conditions Landscape Development layout not acceptable in terms of orientation of proposed development onto landscape boundaries to wider open rural landscape to north-east - this advice was provided as Pre App stage.

Exposed development edge to north eastern site boundary is not acceptable - interface with wider rural landscape must be mitigated effectively and appropriately to integrate and screen future development via strategic planting and this must be incorporated within the public realm, with proposed development orientated on to this edge in a positive arrangement and strategic landscape mitigation not forming back garden boundaries.

The inclusion of landscape buffers and on site garden trees to integrate development with existing residential edges is a positive measure as is the proposed landscape / GI link through development to Hoo Lane and wider PROW network.

Revision of development layout and appropriate integration of landscape mitigation in relation to north-east site boundary is required.

Amended plans have been submitted, the revised Landscape comments will be reported on the Late Sheet. Sustainability Officer The applicants’ approach to achieving requirements of policies CS13, DM1, DM2 and emerging policy CC1 proposed in the Energy and Sustainability Statement (September 2018) is welcomed and supported. To ensure that the outlined measures are incorporated into the development and policy requirements are achieved, it is requested that following evidence is provided prior to commencement of construction work: Part L 2013 compliance sheets (as designed) showing a minimum 10% improvement over and above the Building Regulations; Agenda Item 9 Page 98

Part G water calculator sheets for each dwelling design showing achievement of the higher water efficiency standard of 110 litres per person per day; Evidence that dwellings are not at risk of overheating. It is also requested that a Post-construction Validation Report is submitted. This report is to include as-built evidence. GI Officer The link provided through the site to Hoo Lane is welcomed and will meet with the wider RoW network. However, the planting could be stronger to provide a clear, connected corridor. This can be achieved by the use of shrubs and trees in the public realm. The green space to the East of the site should include more planting and not just be an area of short cut grass with limited GI value. Again, a varied planting proposal for the site should be provided.

The use of trees in private gardens to help integrate the development with the neighbouring residential developments is positive. Ecology Having read the Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA) it is apparent that number 32 Shefford Rd contains a maternity bat roost and consequently the applicant will need to apply for a European Protected Species licence from Natural England to allow lawful destruction of the roost.

Mitigation measures for this loss and ecological enhancements in addition are detailed in the report, however as the NPPF now expects development to deliver net gains the number of additional bat and bird boxes is poor and more would be expected. To ensure site clearance and construction is undertaken in an ecologically sensitive manner conditions are advised. Local Plans Thank you for consulting the Local Plans team. As of 1st November 2018, the council can demonstrate a 5.84-year supply of housing. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development should not be engaged. This site has already come forward as part of the Call for Sites process of the Draft Local Plan. The site was successful and allocated under HAS39. Whilst there was some issues highlighted in the call for sites process, including access, education, ecology and landscape, mitigation measure were identified to address these. The site during the Call for Sites process came forward with 47 dwellings to be built. However, the planning application has come forward for 60 dwellings. As long as the site can still provide a sustainable development and does not impede any mitigation measures identified through our assessment of the site. As the Local Plan is awaiting examination, full weight Agenda Item 9 Page 99

cannot be given to its policies but increasing consideration and weight should be given to the Local Plan as it approaches examination and adoption. As the Local Plan is not yet adopted, the degree of weight applied is for the case officer to determine. MANOP (Meeting the The requirement for new housing development to meet the Accommodation Needs needs of older people is set out in Policy H3 of the Local of Older People Team) Plan 2015-2035. Although a number of the units proposed are stated on the accommodation schedule to meet Category 2 of Part M of the Building Regulations examination of the plans of those units have led to the conclusion that despite this most do not meet the standard for accommodation suitable for older people. This is primarily because these dwellings (whilst potentially adaptable) are not liveable on a single floor. As submitted, the two (2) ground floor apartments and the three (3) wheelchair standard dwellings are of a design and layout suitable for older people. The proposed development therefore does not meet the above policy requirement of eight (8) units.

Request that 8 units of mainstream housing should be provided for older people. Fire and Rescue Service Need one hydrant at least every 180 metres – with no property further than 90 metres from the nearest hydrant. IDB No development should take place within 9 metres of the bank top without the board's consent. No objection. Environment Agency No objection Housing Development In the current format, Strategic Housing are unable to offer Officer support to the application and object on the non-compliance of affordable housing provision. The supporting Planning Statement indicates the application for 60 dwellings provides for 32% affordable housing equating to the provision of 19 affordable units which is contrary to current affordable housing policy. We would expect to see 35% affordable housing equating to 21 affordable housing units from the development. Conservation Officer No objections

Other Representations:

Neighbours 58 Objections on the following grounds: - Noise from neighbouring kennels - Possible contaminated land - Impact on protected species - Access poor visibility - Traffic congestion - No public transport access - Impact upon amenity of existing residents Agenda Item 9 Page 100

- Demolition of 32 Shefford Rd - Overdevelopment of Meppershall - Greater burden upon schools and GP's - Surface water flood risk - layout should be redesigned behind 45 and 47 Orchard Close - loss of sense of community - Proposed junction dangerous CPRE Objection on the following grounds: - application is premature - land is considered as Grade 2, best and most versatile - housing allocation in Meppershall has already been exceeded by other permitted sites - Unsustainable site in Environmental terms - Site not suitable on economical grounds due to insufficient contributions - Site not sustainable on grounds of transport

Determining Issues: The main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle of Development 2. Sustainable Development 3. Highway impact and access 4. Character and Appearance 5. Neighbour amenity impact 6. Other considerations 7. Planning Balance 8. Conclusion

Considerations

1. Principle of Development 1.1 The site is located to the east of Meppershall, between Hoo Road and Shefford Road. The site is located to the east of the Settlement Envelope, which adjoins the boundary of the site on the northern and western boundaries. The site is currently a horticultural nursery, and therefore an agricultural use.

1.2 Policy CS1 classifies settlements by virtue of their scale, services and facilities. Further, the thrust of Policy DM4 is to apply weight in favour of development within Settlement Envelopes and restrict development divorced from the settlements identified within Policy CS1. This policy position is largely echoed by Policy SP7 within the emerging Local Plan.

1.3 Policy DM4 restricts new housing development on land outside of the settlement envelope and, on this basis, the majority of the application site is regarded as contrary to that policy.

1.4 The Council is able to demonstrate a five-year supply of housing land in excess of the 5 year requirement. Therefore, the Council’s polices concerned Agenda Item 9 Page 101

with the supply of housing are not considered to be out of date and paragraph 11 of the NPPF is not therefore engaged. However, proposals should still be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development – the over-arching principle of the NPPF - that is the determining consideration in this application.

1.5 As indicated above, the Local Plan is afforded limited weight only at the present time, given its stage of preparation. The Local Plan sets out a clear direction of travel for the allocation of various sites within the administrative boundary of the Council.

1.6 The emerging Local Plan proposes to allocate the site for residential development under Policy HA1: Small and Medium Allocations (Site Ref: NLP237). The site assessment states that the number of houses the site could accommodate is 54 dwellings with no significant landscape, heritage or access constraints.

1.7 The Parish Council are critical that planning permission should not be approved until the Local Plan has been examined. As noted above, given the stage of preparation, the emerging Local Plan is currently only awarded limited weight – the development should therefore be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the planning balancing exercise of weighing positive aspects of the development against negative impacts. In respect of any concern in respect of prematurity, the NPPF sets out that a refusal of planning permission that an application is premature is unlikely to be justified other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, taking the policies in the Framework and any other material considerations into account. The NPPF goes on to explain that two such circumstances are likely, but not exclusively, to be limited to situations where both the development proposal is so substantial that the grant of permission would undermines the plan making process or phasing of new development and, the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but not yet formally part of the Development Plan.

1.8 The development is for 60 dwellings and, in the context of the overall strategy for Central Bedfordshire, is not significant and will not therefore prejudice the Local Plan process. A refusal of planning permission on prematurity grounds is not therefore justified.

2. Sustainable Development

2.1 Although it is acknowledged that the development is, for the most part, contrary to policy DM4 it is also considered that the individual merits of this site and its relationship to the existing settlement (as explained in more detail below) are such that the loss of open countryside in this instance is not considered to result in a significantly harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area.

2.2 Weight can also be given to the benefit of the site providing housing and the provision of affordable housing. The NPPF requires Local Authorities to significantly boost the supply of housing and the evidence base which Agenda Item 9 Page 102

supports the emerging Local Plan sets out a clear need for affordable units. Significant weight can therefore be given to the provision of housing and affordable housing.

2.3 Considerations of other material considerations relating to the objectives of sustainable development are discussed further in the report.

3. Highway impact and access

3.1 The plans submitted show that there will be appropriate levels of access between the site and existing highway infrastructure to encourage pedestrian and cycle access to the village's amenities.

3.2 To the south of the site the plans submitted show that the site will maintain a pedestrian link into Hoo Lane.

3.3 Having regard to the advice from the Highways Officer, the proposed layout has been amended and further advice with regard to the acceptability of the revisions is awaited from the Highways Officer (which will be reported on the Late Sheet). There will inevitably be increased traffic movements associated with the development however, no objections are raised by the Highway Officer in relation to capacity of existing highway infrastructure and the development does not represent a severe impact in NPPF terms.

4. Character and Appearance

4.1 The proposed development, comprising 60 dwellings will inevitably and fundamentally alter the character of the site.

4.2 The site is located on the north-eastern edge of Meppershall to the south-east of Shefford Road. Meppershall is a large village with a scattered settlement pattern and Shefford Road / High Street is at its core.

4.3 The site is an arable field with a detached two storey house facing Shefford Road on its most north-western edge, and the majority of the site is outside the settlement boundary of Meppershall.

4.4 The site is bordered by Hoo Road and a Bridleway on it’s southern edge; this boundary is currently open and there are open views into the site. There is a nursery and another building on its north-eastern edge due to the previous land uses.

4.5 Residential development in Meppershall borders the site to the north-west and south-west, and open countryside to the north-east and south-east.

4.6 There is a relatively strong public rights of way network in the local area. No public footpaths currently cross the private land containing the site, although Bridleway BW14 is adjacent to the site’s south-eastern boundary (on Hoo Road).

4.7 The visual effects and possible indirect landscape effects on the of this path has been investigated in the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Agenda Item 9 Page 103

(LVIA.) As well as users of public rights of way, the effects on recreational users of the Old Meadow Park to the south, residential receptors and road users in the detailed study area has been investigated in the LVIA.

4.8 The site lies within Landscape Character Area (LCA) 8D: Upper Gravenhurst - Meppershall Clay Hills which is bordered by Area 4C Upper Ivel Clay Valley.

4.9 Meppershall is elevated and there is intervisbility with the surrounding landscape. There are close and medium range views of the village from all directions although vegetation and landform often intervenes in views. New development currently being built out on the villages south-western edge is seen clearly against the skyline in views from the south-west.

4.10 The Landscape Officer comments The Landscape Officer has raised concerns that there would be an exposed development edge to the north eastern site boundary which is not acceptable - and that the interface with wider rural landscape must be mitigated effectively and appropriately to integrate and screen future development via strategic planting within the public realm.

4.11 The Landscape Officer acknowledges the inclusion of landscape buffers and on site garden trees to integrate development with existing residential edges is a positive measure as is the proposed landscape / GI link through development to Hoo Lane and wider PROW network.

4.12 The application has now been amended to include more landscaping along the north eastern site boundary. It is considered that additional landscaping could be required by condition. Members will be updated on any further comments made by the Landscape Officer in respect of the amended plans.

5. Neighbour amenity impact

5.1 Several objections have been received by neighbouring occupiers, however, the relationships between the proposed dwellings and the existing dwellings on all boundary edges are considered to be acceptable with all measurements significantly exceeding 21m back to back distances as recommended by the Council's Design Guide. As such, there would be no harmful impact upon neighbouring amenity.

5.2 In relation to the impact of construction and construction vehicles on neighbouring properties in terms of noise and general disturbance. Development of this scale and given the relationship with existing dwellings will inevitably result in a degree of impact on existing residents. However, subject to the imposition of a planning condition requiring detailed construction management plans, is such that such harm will not be significant or to such an extent as to warrant the refusal of the application.

6. Other considerations

6.1 S106 and financial contributions Significant weight should be given to the National Planning Policy Framework, which calls for the achievement of the three dimensions of sustainable Agenda Item 9 Page 104

development: economic, social and environmental. It is considered that Policy CS2 of the Core Strategy for the North is in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework. This states that developers are required to make appropriate contributions as necessary to offset the cost of providing new physical, social, community and environmental proposals. Emerging policy in the Local Plan sets out a similar requirement.

6.2 At the time of writing; the Agent acting for the developer has yet to confirm formal agreement to all of the requests from Spending Officers – Members will be updated at the Committee meeting of any comments received. Spending Officers have so far required and suggested the following:

6.3 Education Contributions Early Years £58,589.37

Lower £195,297.90

Middle £196,516.94

Upper £240,981.81

Total £691,386.03

Libraries: £12,600

Outdoor Sport: £27,187 is required for the Parish Council’s project for the provision of new outdoor gym equipment at Meppershall Rec Gnd. A suggested contribution by the developer is welcomed. 2. Children’s Play: £75k towards a new play area and equipment behind the village hall. 3. Allotments: £11,500 is required to improve security fencing, irrigation system and eco toilet at Meppershall Allotments. A suggested contribution by the developer is welcomed.

6.4 Affordable Housing On receipt of the application, the proposal for Affordable Housing was 32%, the developer has since offered the policy compliant 35% which has overcome the Housing Development Officer's concerns. The tenure split will be determined in the detailed S.106 Agreement.

6.5 The application prioritises the delivery of family housing, in accordance with the 2017 Strategic Housing Market Assessment. This application proposes a mix of one and two -bed flats; and two, three and four -bed houses. The Housing Development Officer has made no objection to the proposed mix. 6.6 Meeting the Accommodation Needs of Older People (MANOP) The MANOP team have identified that 5 units proposed are of a design and layout suitable for older people, but to be 'policy compliant', 8 should be provided. As the relevant policy, H3, is within the emerging Local Plan, only limited weight can be applied. 35% affordable housing has been agreed to, the affordable housing taken together with the 5 units offered under Category 2 of Agenda Item 9 Page 105

Part M of the Building Regulations are considered to be a significant benefit to the scheme.

6.7 Flood Risk and sewerage The site is within flood zone 1 – a low area of fluvial flood risk. The Flood Risk Team recommend the inclusion of a planning condition requiring a detailed strategy to deal with surface water drainage. The plans submitted show space for green infrastructure and a basin is indicated for sustainable drainage features which will slow the movement of water within the site whilst providing biodiversity and water cleaning benefits.

6.8 Some representations including the Town Council raise objection in relation to sewerage – objections to the planning application from Anglian Water have not been received and this detailed matter will be the subject of separate agreement with that consultee.

6.9 Ecology The Application Site currently comprises a residential property, former agricultural field and former nursery buildings. The development proposals will see the demolition of the buildings and loss of the former agricultural field. Phase 2 bat surveys have confirmed that the existing residential dwelling supports a maternity roost of common pipistrelle bat with a maximum count of 24 individuals. The common pipistrelle maternity roost is of medium conservation status.

6.10 As the proposals will result in the destruction of the bat roosts, an European Protected Species licence from Natural England will be required prior to the demolition of the building. An outline of the mitigation strategy, which will be detailed further within the EPS licence application, the Agent's report provided demonstrates that the proposed development is capable of achieving a licence.

6.11 The proposed mitigation scheme provides details of the required supervision; timing of works to avoid the times of year when bats are most vulnerable to disturbance (i.e. outside of the maternity and hibernation seasons); and compensatory roosting provision in the form of integrated bat tubes, suitable to support a maternity colony of crevice dwelling species.

6.12 Measures to mitigate for impacts have been set out along with recommendations for enhancement of the Application Site’s ecological value. Having regard to National Planning Practice Guidance, from a planning perspective, consideration is required to be given as to whether the Habitat derogation tests will be satisfied as part of that process which are:-1) the activity is for a certain purpose, for example it’s in the public interest 2) there is no satisfactory alternative that will cause less harm to the species 3) the activity doesn’t harm the long-term conservation status of the species. The Council also has a duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 to have regard, in the excercise of its function, the purpose of conserving biodiversity.

6.13 No objections to the development proposal are raised by the Council's Ecologist and it is advised that the applicant will need to apply for a European Agenda Item 9 Page 106

Protected Species licence from Natural England to allow lawful destruction of the bat roost. Mitigation measures for this loss and ecological enhancements in addition are detailed in the report, however as the NPPF now expects development to deliver net gains the number of additional bat and bird boxes is poor and more would be expected. To ensure site clearance and construction is undertaken in an ecologically sensitive manner, conditions are recommended. Additionally, whilst the Ecological Impact Assessment does detail some enhancements; it would be helpful to have this clearly set out in a strategy to ensure the proposal is able to deliver a net gain for biodiversity, this can also form a condition.

6.14 Vehicle charging The Agent's Design and Access Statement states that vehicle charging points will be implemented as demand grows, however a planning condition is recommended requiring information in relation to this matter.

6.15 Impact on future residents - noise The supporting Noise Assessment demonstrates that existing noise levels pose no constraint to the proposed residential uses and substantive mitigation measures will not be required. Similarly, noise egress from the Dog Kennels, situated approximately 200m from the site, will not require any further mitigation, having been considered as part of the noise assessment. On this basis, thermal double glazing will be more than sufficient to comply with the day and night-time internal noise criteria.

6.16 In line with Policy DM3 and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guidance, the proposals respect the amenity of surrounding properties, with substantial green buffering used along the more sensitive southern boundary. The scheme also ensures that separation distances between properties are appropriate, while the orientation of units ensures that the layout does not give rise to overlooking concerns. It is therefore considered that the proposals will have no materially significant harmful effect upon the privacy of neighbours or future occupiers.

6.17 Best most versatile land The NPPF sets out that local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of BMV agricultural land. Furthermore it is stated that where the development of significant agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality in preference to that of higher quality. Having regard to the Natural England agricultural land classification the site is classified as grade 2, whilst there will clearly be a loss of agricultural land the loss will not be significant.

6.18 Contamination Part of the application site incorporates existing agricultural use – and it is therefore necessary and reasonable for investigatory work and necessary mitigation to be required through a planning condition. Any subsequent remediation of contamination would be a benefit to the environment and human health.

7. Planning Balance Agenda Item 9 Page 107

7.1 Paragraphs 7-10 of the NPPF set out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development – there are three dimensions (economic, social and environmental) which are mutually dependent and should be sought simultaneously through the planning system. Consideration of the development in relation to these dimensions therefore forms part of the balance of considerations of this application:-

7.2 Economic The NPPF makes it clear that planning policies should aim to minimise journey lengths for employment, shopping and other activities, therefore planning decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movements are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes maximised. It is acknowledged that the construction of 60 houses would support a limited level of employment, with associated benefits to the local economy, within the local area on a temporary basis during the construction period.

7.3 It is also acknowledged that new residents are likely to support existing local services. The future Council Tax payments that would be spent in the area are considered as benefits. Cumulatively these make positive contributions to fulfilling the economic roles.

7.4 The site is in close proximity to Shefford which constitute a Minor Service Area which has access to a range of facilities and services which would provide local employment opportunities, although these are not within walking distance of the site and therefore there would be a dependency on public and private transportation. However on the basis of all the considerations above, the development is considered to meet this strand of Sustainable Development.

7.5 Social In order to demonstrate a package of benefits, the agent has put forward affordable housing in line with the policy requirement of 35%, the provision of 60 houses with a proportion of affordable housing is given weight. The provision of affordable housing is noted as a benefit to the scheme, as is the provision of open spaces/play. The agreement of the tenure split is a matter to be reported to committee at the Committee Meeting.

7.6 The site is regarded as a sustainable location and it is considered that the settlement offers services and facilities that can accommodate the growth resultant from this scheme.

7.7 The development will impact on local infrastructure and as a result, development of a scale as proposed here, is required to offset these impacts, by entering into a S106 agreement to provide financial contributions to mitigate these impacts. The details are discussed above.

7.8 Environmental The site does provide environmental benefits through the provision green infrastructure and informal open space.

7.9 The NPPF states that opportunities should be taken to protect and enhance the natural environment and to improve biodiversity. The Councils Ecologist is Agenda Item 9 Page 108

satisfied that the proposal could secure additional biodiversity gain through effective detailed design and has suggested a condition to secure this.

7.10 The principles of good urban design encourages permeability, access and the NPPF does encourage developments to be designed such that reliance on private vehicles are reduced and use of sustainable modes of transport are encouraged. The planning application as currently proposed would create adequate and appropriate opportunities to access the amenities, services and facilities in Meppershall by walking and cycling by use of the access to Hoo Lane to the south of the site which leads to further outdoor recreation opportunities. Furthermore, there is an agreement by the applicant to enter into a S.106 agreement to provide a financial contribution which will fund outdoor sports equipment alongside the pitch on the recreation ground.

7.11 The development site is considered to be sustainably located with appropriate access arrangements. Therefore, it is considered that the scheme can be considered acceptable.

7.12 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.

8. Conclusion

8.1 The majority of the development proposal represents a conflict with policy DM4 of the Development Plan. The NPPF is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and this sets out that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and there is a need to boost the supply of housing. For the reasons outlined above the development is considered to be sustainable and no significant harm to material considerations is identified.

8.2 Some harm to the countryside setting is acknowledged. Other environmental matters including ecology, flood risk, contamination and noise impact are either neutral, positive or are able to be mitigated by condition.

8.3 In the overall balance of considerations, the material considerations weighing in favour of the application, are considered to outweigh the conflict with the Development Plan and harm identified.

Recommendation:

That Planning Permission be APPROVED subject to the signing of a S106 agreement and the following planning conditions:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS Agenda Item 9 Page 109

1 The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this permission.

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

2 No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Traffic Management Plan, associated with the development of the site, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which will include information on:

(A) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in the development (B) Storage of plant and materials used in the development (C) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding / scaffolding affecting the highway if required. (D) Wheel washing facilities (E) Footpath/footway/cycleway or road closures needed during the development period (F) Traffic management needed during the development period. (G) Times, routes and means of access and egress for construction traffic and delivery vehicles (including the import of materials and the removal of waste from the site) during the development of the site.

The approved Construction Management Plan associated with the development of the site shall be adhered to throughout the development process.

Reason: In the interests of safety, protecting the amenity of local land uses, neighbouring residents and highway safety. This condition is pre-commencement as it requires consideration of the impact on the highway network and highway safety prior to any development taking place.

3 Prior to commencement of any above ground building works, details of electrical wiring to accommodate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra low emission vehicles for dwellings shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the development protects and exploits opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of people in accordance with section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4 Development shall be carried out in accordance with the landscaping scheme shown on plan ref: Landscape Masterplan, INL21723-10 Rev. C and associated Landscape Maintenance Plan. The scheme shall be implemented by the end of the full planting season immediately following the completion and first use of any separate part of the development (a full planting season means the period from October to March). The trees, shrubs and grass shall subsequently be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape Agenda Item 9 Page 110

maintenance scheme and any which die or are destroyed during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of landscaping. (Sections 12 & 15, NPPF)

5 No development shall take place until a site specific Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The plan must demonstrate the adoption and use of the best practicable means to reduce the effects of noise, vibration, dust and site lighting. The plan should include, but not be limited to:  Procedures for maintaining good public relations including complaint management, public consultation and liaison  Arrangements for liaison with the Councils Pollution Team  All works and ancillary operations which are audible at the site boundary, or at such other place as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be carried out only between the following hours: 08 00 Hours and 18 00 Hours on Mondays to Fridays and 08 00 and 13 00 Hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.  Deliveries to and removal of plant, equipment, machinery and waste from the site must only take place within the permitted hours detailed above.  Mitigation measures as defined in BS 5528: Parts 1 and 2 : 2009 Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites shall be used to minimise noise disturbance from construction works.  Procedures for emergency deviation of the agreed working hours.  Central Bedfordshire Council encourages all contractors to be ‘Considerate Contractors when working in the district by being aware of the needs of neighbours and the environment.  Control measures for dust and other air-borne pollutants. This must also take into account the need to protect any local resident who may have a particular susceptibility to air-borne pollutants.  Measures for controlling the use of site lighting whether required for safe working or for security purposes.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of surrounding occupiers during the construction of the development.

6 No development shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme, to manage surface water run off from the development for up to and including the 1 in 100 year event (+40%CC), and a maintenance and management plan for the scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The discharge rate from the development will be limited to the equivalent 1 in 1 year rate, or an appropriate rate as agreed by the Bedford Group of Internal Drainage Boards. The final detailed design shall be based on the agreed drainage Strategy (Ref: WHS1629, October 2018) and DEFRAs Non-statutory technical standards for Agenda Item 9 Page 111

sustainable drainage systems (March, 2018), and shall be implemented and maintained as approved. Maintenance will ensure the system functions as designed for the lifetime of the development. Any variation to the connections and controls indicated on the approved drawing which may be necessary at the time of construction would require the resubmission of those details to the Local Planning Authority for approval.

The applicant should address the points; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 detailed in Informative number 2 when submitting details to discharge the condition:

Reason: To ensure the approved system will function to a satisfactory minimum standard of operation and maintenance and prevent the increased risk of flooding both on and off site, in accordance with para 163 and 165 of the NPPF and its supporting technical guidance.

7 No building/dwelling shall be occupied until the developer has formally submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority a finalised ‘Maintenance and Management Plan’ for the entire surface water drainage system, inclusive of any adoption arrangements and/or private ownership or responsibilities, and that the approved surface water drainage scheme has been correctly and fully installed as per the final approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the implementation and long term operation of a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) is in line with what has been approved, in accordance with Written Statement HCWS161.

8 No development shall take place (including any demolition, ground works, site clearance) until a method statement for based on advice detailed in the September 2018 Ecological Impact Assessment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content of the method statement shall include the: a) purpose and objectives for the proposed works; b) detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) necessary to achieve stated objectives (including, where relevant, type and source of materials to be used); c) extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale maps and plans; d) timetable for implementation, demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of construction; e) persons responsible for implementing the works; f) initial aftercare and long-term maintenance (where relevant); g) disposal of any wastes arising from works.

The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

Reason: To enable proper consideration of the impact of the development on the contribution of nature conservation. (Section 15, NPPF) Agenda Item 9 Page 112

9 No development shall take place (including ground works or site clearance) until an Ecological Enhancement Strategy (EES) for the creation of new wildlife features such as hibernacula, the erection of bird/bat and bee boxes in buildings/structures and tree, hedgerow, shrub and wildflower planting/establishment has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The content shall be informed by the September 2018 EcIA of the site and include the: a) purpose and objectives for the proposed works; b) detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) necessary to achieve stated objectives (including, where relevant, type and source of materials to be used); c) extent and location of proposed works shown on appropriate scale maps and plans; d) timetable for implementation, demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of construction; e) persons responsible for implementing the works; f) details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance.

The works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained in that manner thereafter

Reason: To enable proper consideration of the impact of the development on the contribution of nature conservation. (Section 15, NPPF)

10 No development approved by this permission shall take place until the following has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

A Phase 1 Desk Study report prepared by a suitably qualified person adhering to BS 10175 and CLR 11 documenting the ground and material conditions of the site with regard to potential contamination.

Reason: To protect human health and the environment in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009).

11 No occupation of any permitted building shall take place until the following has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:

Where shown to be necessary by the Phase 1 Desk Study, a Phase 2 Site Investigation adhering to BS 10175 and CLR 11, incorporating all appropriate sampling, prepared by a suitably qualified person.

Where shown to be necessary by the Phase 2 Site Investigation a detailed Phase 3 Remediation Scheme (RS) prepared by a suitably qualified person, with measures to be taken to mitigate any risks to human health, groundwater and the wider environment, along with a Phase 4 validation Agenda Item 9 Page 113

report prepared by a suitably qualified person to confirm the effectiveness of the RS.

Any such remediation/validation should include responses to any unexpected contamination discovered during works.

Reason: To protect human health and the environment in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document (2009).

12 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 1783_P_01 Rev. A, 1783_P_02 Rev. A, 1783_P_03 Rev. A, 18001 - 01 Rev. A, House Type 4EB 1400W - 18001 - 20, House Type 4EB 1400W – 18001 - 21, House Type 4EB 1400W – 18001 - 34, House Type 4EB 1400W – 18001 - 35, 1 & 2b Apartments – 18001 – 31 Rev. A, INL21723-03 Rev. A – Tree Protection Plan, INL21723-08 Rev. A - Landscape Concept Plan, INL21723-09 Rev. B – Landscape Strategy Plan, INL21723-10 Rev. C – Landscape Masterplan, INL21723-10 Rev. C – Landscape Masterplan, INL21723 11 Rev. A – Landscape Proposals Sheet 1 of 4, INL21723 11 Rev. A – Landscape Proposals Sheet 2 of 4, INL21723 11 Rev. A – Landscape Proposals Sheet 3 of 4, INL21723 11 Rev. A– Landscape Proposals Sheet 4 of 4, INL21723 12 Rev. B– Hard Landscape Proposals Sheet 1 of 4, INL21723 12 Rev. B – Hard Landscape Proposals Sheet 2 of 4, INL21723 12 Rev. B – Hard Landscape Proposals Sheet 3 of 4, INL21723 12 Rev. B – Hard Landscape Proposals Sheet 4 of 4, INL21723 20 Rev. B – Feature Entrance Detail, INL21723 21 Rev. B – Pocket Park Detail, INL21723 22 Rev. B – Open Space Detail, INL21723 23 Rev. A – Housing Court Detail.

Reason: To identify the approved plans and to avoid doubt.

INFORMATIVE NOTES TO APPLICANT

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

2. The Drainage Officer advises that the final design and maintenance arrangements for the surface water system to be agreed by condition should include details in line with the following recommendations:

 We would suggest making the ground level obviously higher between the pond and the existing property (installing a bund maybe) to ensure the property occupiers do not “feel more threatened by flooding.” This, in case of exceedance, would direct water on the Agenda Item 9 Page 114

natural path with no threat of flow towards the property.

 The road could be drained via filter strip and swale/rill to the pond.

 Existing, ditches will need to be part of the continued maintenance and management plan to ensure the discharge can be conveyed from site.

 There are no calculations to verify storage requirement.

 A full drainage drawing is required, this should show; pipe numbers, inverts, control features, storage etc.

 Where the use of permeable surfacing is proposed, this should be designed in accordance with the ‘CIRIA RP992 The SuDS Manual Update: Paper RP992/28: Design Assessment Checklists for Permeable/Porous Pavement’.

 Parking areas would benefit from permeable paving, this would prevent the direct discharge of polluted water to the storage.

 The final detailed design including proposed standards of operation, construction, structural integrity and ongoing maintenance must be compliant with the ‘Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems’ (March 2015, Ref: PB14308), ‘Central Bedfordshire Sustainable Drainage Guidance’ (Adopted April 2014, Updated May 2015), and recognised best practise including the Ciria SuDS Manual (2016, C753).

 To ensure future homeowners and subsequent homeowners will be aware of any maintenance requirements / responsibilities for surface water drainage, including ditches; further measures should be proposed by the applicant and may include, for example, information provided to the first purchaser of the property and also designation/registration of the SuDS so that it appears as a Land Charge for the property and as such is identified to subsequent purchasers of the property. Any methods involving designation or registering a Land Charge are to be agreed with the LPA.

Land drainage Consent under the Land Drainage Act 1991 must be secured to discharge surface water to the existing watercourse/ditch, and details of this provided with the full detailed design. An easement should be provided on the developable side of the watercourse to allow for access for maintenance, this should be 9m but may depend on the maintenance requirements considered appropriate.

3. The British Standard for Topsoil, BS 3882:2007, specifies requirements for topsoils that are moved or traded and should be adhered to. The British Standard for Subsoil, BS 8601 Specification for subsoil and requirements for use, should also be adhered to. Agenda Item 9 Page 115

4. There is a duty to assess for Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) during development and measures undertaken during removal and disposal should protect site workers and future users, while meeting the requirements of the HSE.

5. Applicants are reminded that, should groundwater or surface water courses be at risk of contamination before, during or after development, the Environment Agency should be approached for approval of measures to protect water resources separately, unless an Agency condition already forms part of this permission. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10 Page 117

Application No. Crown Copyright and database 1:2,500 right. 2018 CB/17/04959/OUT Ordnance Survey 100049029 Central Bedfordshire Council. Date Created Park Farm, Park Road, Westoning, Cities Revealed Aerial 22-01-2019 Bedford, MK45 5LA photography copyright The GeoInformation Group 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10 Page 119

Item No. 10

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/17/04959/OUT LOCATION Park Farm, Park Road, Westoning, Bedford, MK45 5LA PROPOSAL Proposed residential development of up to 73 units comprising of flats and houses, including demolition of up to two no. units on Manor Close. Proposal also includes for a village shop, a village hall and burial ground to be located within the site. PARISH Westoning WARD Westoning, Flitton & Greenfield WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Jamieson CASE OFFICER Peter Vosper DATE REGISTERED 13 October 2017 EXPIRY DATE 12 January 2018 APPLICANT European Property Acquisition Ltd AGENT David Coles architects ltd REASON FOR Requirement to report the non-determination of a COMMITTEE TO ‘major’ application to Development Management DETERMINE Committee for a resolution. RECOMMENDED DECISION Outline Application - Recommended for Refusal

Reason for Recommendation:

This ‘major’ outline planning application for up to 73 residential units is subject to an appeal against non-determination. The appeal is due to be heard by method of a hearing on 2 April 2019. The application is therefore no longer before Central Bedfordshire Council for determination. However, under paragraph 4.4.53 of Part 3E of the Central Bedfordshire Constitution, the non-determination of a ‘major’ application needs to be reported to Development Management Committee for a resolution.

This outline application seeks approval for the matter of access, with the remaining matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for consideration at reserved matters application stage. The proposed access to the site is considered acceptable. However, the proposed development represents inappropriate and harmful development within the Green Belt and countryside, and is therefore unacceptable in principle. Furthermore, the proposal presents harm to heritage assets - archaeology on site, and to the setting of a medieval circular moated manor adjacent to the site, a Scheduled Monument. The application also fails to provide a Sequential Test to demonstrate whether there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. Agenda Item 10 Page 120

Site Location:

The application site of 4.175 hectares is a long parcel of land previously used for agriculture. It currently provides rented paddock space for horses, divided by post and electric fencing, some of which are kept at the neighbouring stud farm. The site contains a pair of semi detached dwellings in Manor Close, and a group of agricultural buildings to the north east.

The site is in the Green Belt and part is in flood zones 2 and 3. Public Footpath no. 7, Westoning crosses the site from north to south.

The site is located immediately to the south west of the village of Westoning (the village is outside the Green Belt) which contains various local amenities including a village hall, a shop, a butchers, two public houses, and a recreation club, which has a playground and children's play area.

There are a range of land uses surrounding the site. To the north and east are dwellings. To the west is Westoning Manor Park (HER 7007), a mid to late 19th century park and garden area. Westoning Manor was redeveloped in 2000 into apartments. Also, immediately adjacent to the western boundary is a medieval circular moated manor (HER 233), a Scheduled Monument. To the south is Manor Park Stud Farm which contains facilities for the keeping, maintaining and training of race horses.

The Application:

Outline planning permission is sought for a residential development of up to 73 units comprising flats and houses.

Approval is being sought for the matter of access, with the remaining matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for consideration at reserved matters application stage.

The proposal also includes a village shop, a village hall, and a burial ground. The two semi detached dwellings in Manor Close would require demolition to facilitate a new 'T' junction access onto Park Road.

Public Footpath no. 7 would be retained and incorporated into the proposal.

Relevant Policies:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), July 2018

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 Agenda Item 10 Page 121

Section 13: Protecting Green Belt land Section 14: Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change Section 15: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Section 16: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

Policy CS1: Development Strategy Policy CS2: Developer Contributions Policy CS3: Healthy and Sustainable Communities Policy CS4: Linking Communities - Accessibility and Transport Policy CS5: Providing Homes Policy CS6: Delivery and Timing of Housing Provision Policy CS7: Affordable Housing Policy CS13: Climate Change Policy CS14: High Quality Development Policy CS16: Landscape and Woodland Policy CS17: Green Infrastructure Policy CS18: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Policy DM1: Renewable Energy Policy DM2: Sustainable Construction of New Buildings Policy DM3: High Quality Development Policy DM4: Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes Policy DM9: Providing a Range of Transport Policy DM10: Housing Mix Policy DM14: Landscape and Woodland Policy DM15: Biodiversity Policy DM16: Green Infrastructure Policy DM17: Accessible Greenspaces

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: Agenda Item 10 Page 122

Policy SP1: Growth Strategy Policy SP2: National Planning Policy Framework - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy SP4: Development in the Green Belt Policy H1: Housing Mix Policy H2: Housing Standards Policy H4: Affordable Housing Policy T1: Mitigation of Transport Impacts on the Network Policy T2: Highway Safety and Design Policy T3: Parking Policy EE1: Green Infrastructure Policy EE2: Enhancing biodiversity Policy EE4: Trees, woodlands and hedgerows Policy EE12: Public Rights of Way Policy CC1: Climate Change and Sustainability Policy CC3: Flood Risk Management Policy CC5: Sustainable Drainage Policy CC6: Water Supply and Sewerage Infrastructure Policy HQ1: High Quality Development Policy HQ2: Planning Obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy Policy HQ3: Provision for Social and Community Infrastructure Policy HE1: Archaeology and Scheduled Monuments

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide, March 2014

Relevant Planning History:

Application Number CB/17/00529/OUT Description Outline: Proposed residential development of up to 82 units comprising of flats and houses, including demolition of up to, two no. units on Manor Close. Decision Withdrawn Decision Date 18 May 2017

Consultees:

Westoning Parish Westoning Parish Council objects to the above Council application and urges Central Bedfordshire Council to refuse the application on the following grounds: 1. A development of this scale should be considered through the Local Planning Process and not by means of a speculative application. 2. A large part of the application site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and therefore should not be considered suitable for development due to the adverse impact that development on this land would have on the rear gardens of the nearby properties. Agenda Item 10 Page 123

3. The site lies within the South Bedfordshire Permanent Green Belt and therefore a development of this nature is contrary to CBC Policy SP3 in the emerging Local Plan and NPPF and NPPG as no “very special circumstances” have been advanced in support of the application. 4. The openness of the Green Belt would NOT BE PRESERVED by this proposed inappropriate development and therefore would be contrary to NPPF Para 89. Ref: High Court judgement R (Boot) v Elmbridge Borough Council (2017). 5. The application includes proposed ‘community benefits’ that do not accord with the identified needs of the village due to inappropriate location, poor accessibility and limited capacity proposed by the application. 6. The application includes proposed ‘community benefits’ that could be prejudicial to the ongoing viability of existing village facilities as Westoning is too small to support two ‘general stores’. 7. The proposed access to the site is at a point where there would be restricted visibility to the south. 8. The proposed inclusion of a burial ground is unlikely to be feasible due to the site being so close to a Flood Zone and the waterlogged nature of the land. 9. The main sewer serving Westoning is old and of limited capacity and may not be able to cope with the impact of this proposed development. 10. The proposed access would result in a dangerous junction with the A5120 for traffic exiting the site. To provide safe access to and egress from this site would require a full roundabout and there is insufficient space for one to be constructed. 11. The noise generated by traffic braking, accelerating and turning into and out of this site would result in significantly increased noise levels for neighbouring properties. 12. The A5120 has circa 20,000 vehicle movements per day and additional vehicle movements at this point would be likely to exacerbate the traffic queues through the village. NB Westoning Parish Council convened a public meeting on 14 November 2017, specifically to consider this application, which was attended by 106 residents. The views expressed in the above objection were endorsed by those attending the meeting unanimously. Agenda Item 10 Page 124

Highways (Development This application follows on from 17/00529/OUT where Management) further information was required in terms of vehicular flows and speeds on Park Road, the A5120. The reason for the additional information is that the junction that the applicant has submitted falls below what would be required on a road such as this which we believe has a 19,322 AADT (annual average daily traffic) flow on the main arm.

As such coupled with the minor arm, that leading into the development, having a projected figure of over 300 AADT, then a ghost right turn junction would be required. The projected AADT on the minor arm is some 1252 according to the Transport Assessment. The ship and community centre are pushing the numbers up on this arm and with a shop already existing some 300m away to the northeast of the site.

It should be noted that the AADT figures in this area are provided by the Department for Transport. Should a survey be provided (which had been previously requested) at the location of the proposed site and less than proves that less than the flow is less than 15,000 AADT we would be prepared to look again at the proposed T junction access to serve this development.

Trees and Landscape I have examined the plans and documents associated with this outline application, and note that there are three mature trees around the boundary of the site; namely an Ash in the westernmost corner of the site, an Oak in the southwest hedgerow, and a Horse Chestnut on the northwest boundary. The Horse Chestnut will be lost as a result of the indicative site layout (Ref. "Initial Sketch Plan") being proposed, whilst the Ash and Oak would be retained. All the mature trees on this site are protected by TPO No. 5/1967 and are included in Area A1 in the Schedule of this Order.

Whilst the layout is favourable in terms of trees being retained, it is noted that the Horse Chestnut is being removed on the basis of identified areas of decay within the crown. In this respect, it would be a requirement that any tree removal should be based on a BS 5837 : 2012 tree survey undertaken by a qualified arboriculturist, where the condition and justification for tree removal can be open and transparent to the LPA and to any wider public scrutiny. In this respect, if you are minded to grant consent to this application, then the following condition should be imposed:- Agenda Item 10 Page 125

Detailed layout proposals to be submitted shall be based on the findings of a BS 5837 : 2012 Tree Survey and Tree Constraints Plan, to be prepared by a suitably qualified arboriculturist, which will demonstrate that tree protection measures have been adequately considered in the design process. The final layout proposal shall be then supported by a Tree Protection Plan and an Arboricultural Method Statement, to specify all tree protection measures required to be implemented. REASON To identify the above and below ground tree constraints that will enable a design that can incorporate suitable tree protection measures, for all trees deemed to be of sufficient quality and appropriate for retention.

Archaeology The comments below were made on planning application CB/17/00529/OUT (withdrawn) which this application is a re-submission of. The comments below remain valid in relation to this application and must be addressed.

The proposed development site lies within Westoning Manor Park (HER 7007), a mid to late 19th century park and garden area around the Manor of Westoning. Under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) this is a heritage asset with archaeological interest.

The site boundary also clips an area defining the extent of a medieval circular moated manor (HER 233) and associated drainage leats and fishponds. This rare circular moat is also a Scheduled Monument (NHLE 1008759); however the scheduled area does not extend onto the application site, but lies against the western boundary. Under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) this is a designated heritage asset of the highest significance.

The application site lies just to the south of the historic medieval core of Westoning (HER 17009) which seems to have had three focal points of development. The first was around the manor and parish church of St Mary Magdalene in the western part of the settlement, the second along church road to the junction with Tyburn Lane where there is the suggestion of a green or market place and the third was around Westoning Lower School in the east of the village. Agenda Item 10 Page 126

The Manor was held at the time of Domesday by King William and remained in royal hands until 12th century, after which it passed through various families. The construction of the circular moat has been attributed to William Inge who held the manor in 1297. The area around the moat and manor is the likely focus for the earliest medieval development of the village and the potential for evidence relating to this on the site is high. The later development of the village around the market/green is likely to date to 14th century when it was granted the right to hold a market (1303 AD). Archaeological evidence from an excavation at the Lower School (Albion Archaeology, 2008) showed that this area declined after the market was granted. Shrunken medieval settlements are common and it is likely that the area around the manor also shrank at this time.

The desk-based assessment (Oxford Archaeology South, V1, 2017) that accompanied the application identified a moderate potential for medieval remains, but also stated that the lack of finds or features recorded may be due to the limited number of archaeological investigations undertaken in the area. The site visit identified visible earthworks as shallow depressions, probably remnant ditches or surviving evidence of ridge and furrow ploughing practices, and suggesting buried archaeology could be preserved on the site. It also notes that building construction will severely impact on any buried archaeological resources.

The desk-based assessment does not however consider the impact to the setting of the scheduled monument, which is of particular concern. While it is noted that the developer does not intend to build substantially on the north-western third of the site, this is an outline proposal and could easily change, bringing the built edge closer to the monument.

NPPF paragraph 132 states: ‘When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the Agenda Item 10 Page 127

asset's conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.’

NPPF paragraph 133 continues this theme and states that: ‘Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent.’

The desk-based assessment should contain a significant section on impact of the development on setting of the medieval moated manor and include photographic views to and from the site and this Scheduled Monument. It should also be compliant with the Historic England guidance (2015) The Setting of Heritage Assets – Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning :3.

In addition to the failure to consider the impact of the development proposals on the setting of the Scheduled moated site, there is insufficient information on the impact of the proposals on the buried archaeological resource or the surviving earth works which may require preservation in situ.

Paragraph 128 of the NPPF states the following regarding applications that have the potential to affect heritage assets: ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets' importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a Agenda Item 10 Page 128

site on which development is proposed includes or has the potential to include heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.’

This requirement is echoed by the adopted Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014).

The scale of the proposal means that it will have a negative and irreversible impact on any surviving archaeological remains present at the site. However, the extent, character and importance of these remains have not been established, and cannot be by desk-based assessment alone. As a consequence this application requires an archaeological evaluation, initially via a geophysical survey and the results of this subsequently tested by intrusive ground investigation comprising targeted trial trenches. The results of the geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation should be used together with an updated desk- based assessment (setting and evaluation results considered) together with any technical details on the construction methods to be employed, to assess the level of impact the proposed development will have on any surviving archaeological remains at the site.

Historic England should also be consulted as to the appropriateness of the planned development in relation to the Scheduled Monument and with particular consideration to setting

The applicant/agent should commission the required assessments as soon as possible and the application should not be determined until an appropriate geophysical survey report, evaluation report and updated desk-based assessment (including a detailed impact assessment) has been submitted. If the applicant/agent is not prepared to submit the required information then this application should be refused on the grounds that is it contrary to paragraphs 128, 132-134 of the NPPF.

Ecology The revised layout is preferred over CB/17/00529 as it allows for better connectivity around the south west of the Agenda Item 10 Page 129 site. Though comments for the earlier application still apply as follows;

The Ecological Survey does not identify any habitats or species of concern on the site with existing heavily grazed paddocks and species poor hedgerows. The main constraint to development would appear to be the floodplain and the large oak tree on the southern boundary. The indicative layout is informed by these and the proposed development should be able to deliver a net gain for biodiversity in accordance with the NPPF.

The amount of retained open space is welcomed, this should be enhanced through a sympathetic management plan to make the most of potential habitat opportunities. As so much of the site is affected by the floodplain the opportunity to create areas of wet habitats including wet flushes should be explored keeping access and recreation for informal uses only. The retention of the oak tree is also welcomed and this together with additional planting utilising locally native species should support a net gain for biodiversity.

The plan does not indicate a drainage strategy and there are opportunities for further habitat creation here through the use of SUDS. The Ecology Survey makes no recommendations for enhancements other than the inclusion of integrated bat bricks which would be expected together with integrated bird bricks particularly on peripheral properties where habitat connectivity are strongest.

To ensure these measures are incorporated into the development a condition should require the provision of an Ecological Design Strategy as follows;

No development shall take place until an ecological design strategy (EDS) addressing enhancement measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The EDS shall include the following. a) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed works. b) Review of site potential and constraints. c) Detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) to achieve stated objectives. d) Extent and location/area of proposed works on appropriate scale maps and plans. e) Type and source of materials to be used where appropriate, e.g. native species of local provenance. Agenda Item 10 Page 130

f) Timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of development. g) Persons responsible for implementing the works. h) Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance. The EDS shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

Waste Services The Council’s waste collection pattern for Westoning is as follows:  Week 1 – 1 x 240 litre residual waste wheelie bin, 1 x 23 litre food waste caddy  Week 2 – 1 x 240 litre recycling wheelie bin, 2 x reusable garden waste sacks, and 1 x 23 litre food waste caddy.

Please note that bins are chargeable for all properties and developers will be required to pay for all required bins prior to discharging the relevant condition. Our current costs for these are: £25 +VAT per 240l bin, and £5 +VAT per set of food waste bins.

Wherever possible, refuse collection vehicles will only use adopted highways. If an access road is to be used, it must be to adoptable standards suitable for the refuse vehicle to manoeuvre safely around site (please see vehicle dimensions below**). Typically, until roads are adopted, bins are to be brought to the highway boundary or a pre- arranged point. If residents are required to pull their bins to the highway, a hard standing area needs to be provided for at least 1 wheelie bin and a food waste caddy, in addition to 2 reusable garden waste bags. However, householders should not be expected to transport waste bins over a distance greater than 25m. Bins must not encroach on or cause a hazard or obstruction to the public highway. Waste vehicles will reverse a maximum of 15m to the point of collection.

For any flats that are part of the development the following information applies. Communal waste provision is allocated on the basis of 90l per week per waste stream per property; therefore we would provide 1100l, 660l or 360l bins to be collected fortnightly. These will be charged at £350 + VAT per 1100l / £250 + VAT per 660l / £35 + VAT per 360l bin. Our waste collection crew will move communal bins a maximum of 10m from the bin store to the waste collection vehicle, providing there are suitable dropped kerbs. Agenda Item 10 Page 131

Bin stores should be easily accessible from the main highway and it is crucial that the store is secure with a lock to prevent potential fly tipping issues. A lock code will need to be provided to the Central Bedfordshire Waste Services Team. The door used by the collection crews will need to be wide enough to allow for easy removal of bins from the storage area. A dropped kerb will need to be provided to enable easy manoeuvrability, access and egress of the bins. The crew are not expected to move the bins over any undulating, non paved, uneven surface, or where the gradient is deemed excessive. Lighting within the bin store should be provided so that the bins can be used safely by residents when it is dark.

We would require a design layout to highlight where the bin store will be located.

Waste must be collected via a safe and appropriate operation at all times and therefore we would need confirmation that the RCV can manoeuvre safely around site and enter and exit in forward gear.

Refuse Vehicle Dimensions**

Eagle Elite 2 6x4 non rear steer, 11.5m long

Overall Length 11.500m Overall Width 2.530m Overall Body height 3.756m Mon Body Ground Clearance 0.309m Track Width 2.530m Lock to Lock Time 4.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 11.550m

SuDS Management - Although we would like to see more of a separation of the Final Response proposed flood zone from existing property, we consider that planning permission could be granted to the proposed development and the final design and maintenance arrangements for the surface water system agreed at the detailed design stage, if the following recommendations and planning conditions are secured. 1. The final detailed design including proposed standards of operation, construction, structural integrity and ongoing maintenance must be compliant with the ‘Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems’ (March 2015, Ref: PB14308), ‘Central Bedfordshire Sustainable Drainage Guidance’ (Adopted April 2014, Updated May 2015), and recognised best practise including the Ciria SuDS Manual (2016, C753). Agenda Item 10 Page 132

2. To ensure future homeowners and subsequent homeowners will be aware of any maintenance requirements / responsibilities for surface water drainage; further measures should be proposed by the applicant and may include, for example, information provided to the first purchaser of the property and also designation/registration of the SuDS so that it appears as a Land Charge for the property and as such is identified to subsequent purchasers of the property. Any methods involving designation or registering a Land Charge are to be agreed with the LPA. Recommended conditions; Condition 1: No development shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the agreed Flood Risk Assessment (November 2017) and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall also include details of how the system will be constructed, including any phasing, and how it will be managed and maintained after completion. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved final details before the development is completed, and should include confirmation from the Environment Agency of adjusted flood plain and flood plain compensation that will not affect proposed or existing properties Reason: To ensure the approved system will function to a satisfactory minimum standard of operation and maintenance and prevent the increased risk of flooding both on and off site, in accordance with para 103 of the NPPF. Condition 2: No building/dwelling shall be occupied until the developer has formally submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority a finalised ‘Maintenance and Management Plan’ for the entire surface water drainage system, inclusive of any adoption arrangements and/or private ownership or responsibilities, and that the approved surface water drainage scheme has been correctly and fully installed as per the final approved details. Reason: To ensure that the implementation and long term operation of a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) is in line with Agenda Item 10 Page 133

what has been approved, in accordance with Written Statement HCWS161.

Rights of Way Please find attached a copy of the Council's Public Rights of Way Definitive Map, showing the location and route of Public Footpath no. 7, Westoning which crosses the site.

It is welcome that the application acknowledges the Public Footpath and attempts to incorporate it into the design in the initial sketch scheme. Further consideration will have to be given to the path, however, in any future application as no detail is given regarding proposed width, surface type, landscaping to the side etc.. and i would ideally like to see a cross section within any reserved matters application. Any design for the path should be in line with our Rights of Way Standards and i would be grateful if you could pass a copy of these comments, along with the Standards PDF to the applicant/agent. As further information would need to be provided, i would suggest our standard Rights of way condition be attached to any grant of outline planning application to obligate the provision of the additional information required:-

Condition: No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision of Public Footpath no. 7, Westoning has been submitted to and approved in writing by Central Bedfordshire Council to include:  the design of access of Public Footpath no. 7, Westoning (to include landscaping, widths and surfacing)  proposals for the permanent diversion of Westoning Public Footpath no. 7 (where necessary)  the temporary closure and alternative route provision (where necessary) of Public Footpath no. 7, Westoning, where this is considered necessary during construction

The public right of way scheme submitted should be in accordance with the approved ROW Standards and Guidance.

Reasons: In the interests of the amenity of pedestrians and other non motorised users and to ensure safety of users is not compromised by the traffic associated with the development.

Notes to applicant: The applicant is advised to ensure that the definitive legal line of any public right of way is mapped at the earliest opportunity and that no development should take place on or near a public right of way Agenda Item 10 Page 134 unless the necessary statutory legal process (where necessary) has been completed in accordance with: i. An order made, confirmed and certified under the provisions of Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ii. An order made, confirmed and certified under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 iii. An order made under any other relevant legislation concerning the modification, creation, diversion or extinguishment of a right of way.

For consideration by the applicant, my initial thoughts/comments on the initial sketch plan are as follows:-

 no detail of width of path - we would look for a standard 2 metres minimum width.  consideration should be given to whether the public footpath should be wider (3 metres) to allow use by cyclists  no detail of surface type is provided - is the path to be tarmaced? It should not really simply be a pavement to the vehicle access road (see standards document)  no detail is provided as to the proposed boundary treatments to the public footpath and this needs to be provided. The initial sketch scheme seems to show the path overlooked by the properties which is good but no boundary fencing or landscaping between the property garden and the path which seems unrealistic. Further detail will also have to be provided about the proposed boundary treatment between the Public Footpath route and the proposed parking spaces if any fencing is proposed.  Further detail will need to be provided with regard to the landscaping proposed alongside the Public Footpath - between the Public Footpath and the spine road. What type, exact location and who will maintain long-term to ensure it does not encroach. Ideally any landscaping should be set back from the path and should not include species which are thorny or quick growing such as blackthorn, which can become a problem. The existing tarmaced section of Public Footpath no. 7 Westoning from Church Road to the field suffers from vegetation planted to the side of the tarmaced path which has encroached upon the useable width and not been maintained by the developer/owner of the land.  ideally at least one cross section of the path showing it's proposed layout (incorporating the above information on width, surface, landscaping and Agenda Item 10 Page 135

boundary treatments) should be submitted as part of the Rights of Way scheme at reserved matters stage  Details will need to be provided of any temporary closure forseen for Public Footpath no. 7 when construction takes place. This should include a suitable alternative route and details of how long any temporary closure is likely to be for. Again, our Rights of Way Standards document gives guidance and i can provide any further advice required.

Any proposals for Public Footpath no. 7 across the site should fully consider the improvement of the path in terms of width and surfacing to form part of a fully sustainable network of walking and cycling routes for leisure and potentially to local schools and amenities.

Housing Development I support this application as it provides for 25 affordable homes which reflect the current affordable housing policy requirement of 35% in the North. The supporting documentation does not indicate the tenure split of the affordable units. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) has identified a tenure requirement from qualifying affordable housing sites as being 73% affordable rent and 27% intermediate tenure. This makes a requirement of 18 units of affordable rent and 7 units of intermediate tenure (shared ownership) from the development.

I would like to see the affordable units dispersed throughout the site and integrated with the market housing to promote community cohesion & tenure blindness. I would also expect the units to meet all nationally prescribed 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.

Leisure and Open Space Leisure Strategy – Policy Standards & Facility Requirements

Chapter 1: Leisure Facilities Strategy: indoor sport and leisure facilities Chapter 2: Recreation & Open Strategy: 9 types of open space Chapter 3: Playing Pitch Strategy: 9 types of outdoor pitch facilities

1. Chapter 1: Leisure Facilities Strategy Agenda Item 10 Page 136

1 Chapter 1 identifies facility requirements for new/improved indoor sports and leisure centre facilities. This development lies within the identified 20 minute drive time to the public multi-facility indoor leisure centre. No contribution is sought from this development.

2. Chapter 2: Recreation & Open Strategy

1 Chapter 2 identifies local standards for nine open space typologies, which set the baseline requirement for the provision of on-site open space facilities, or off-site contributions for the larger, more strategic typologies.

2 Based on an estimated occupancy of 2.4/dwgs x 73 dwgs = 175 estimated occupants Table 1. below shows the open space required from this development.

Table 1. Open Space Requirements

Open Space Number of Types of Standard Requirement Standard People in Open Per Person (People in Type of Open Per 1000 Number of Development Space (Standard Development Population Dwellings (No. of dwgs Combined Space per 1000 / x Standard (ha) x 2.4 or bed 1000) (ha) Per Person) numbers) * (Ha) Countryside 3.19 0.00319 73 175 0.56 Recreation Strategic Sites Urban Parks 0.39 0.00039 0.07

Informal Informal 2.6 0.0026 0.46 Recreation Recreation Large Formal Recreation 1.2 0.0012 0.21 Areas See Local also Chapter 3 Recreation Small Amenity 0.55 0.00055 0.1 Spaces Facilities for Facilities 0.11 0.00011 0.02 Children for Children & Facilities for 0.05 0.00005 0.01 Young Young People People

Allotments 0.37 0.00037 0.06 Allotments

Cemeteries Cemeteries & N/A Site/parish-specific requirement & Burial Burial Grounds Grounds

Total 1.48 Agenda Item 10 Page 137

*Categories can be provided in combination as indicated in the final column above where this provides more appropriate facilities. E.g. children’s play and facilities for young people may often be provided together.

Facilities required for this development:

Small Amenity Spaces, Children Play Facilities and Facilities for Young People

3 The application proposes an on-site LEAP play area, however, to serve the 3-10yr age group this should be increased to a combined LEAP/LAP play area of 400- 450sqm with 8+ pieces of equipment for 3-10yr olds with appropriate safety surfacing, fencing, gates, seating etc.

Proposed Open Space

4 The application proposes 1.4ha of ‘Flood Plain and Open Space’ on which the LEAP will also be sited. The proposed open space cannot be classed as open space if it will flood. Siting the play area on land that will flood is also inappropriate and presents potential dangers to children using it.

A more suitable location for the play area is required unless it can be guaranteed that the site will not flood/hold water.

Burial Ground

5. Locating a burial ground between a flood plain and an attenuation pond raises major concerns regarding the drainage for the burial ground. Specialist advice is required regarding the location, layout, drainage and soil composition of the proposed burial ground.

2 Chapter 3: Playing Pitch Strategy

Provision Required:

1 Chapter 3 identifies facility requirements for nine types of outdoor sports facilities, courts and pitches in Central Bedfordshire.

2 The D&A statement identifies a ‘shortfall of outdoor playing fields’ and says that the proposed scheme has endeavoured to consider the community in the Agenda Item 10 Page 138

development of the scheme. The application does not propose any on-site sports, and this would be wholly inappropriate given the drainage issues.

3. A contribution to the provision/improvement of outdoor sports facilities in the village would be appropriate in lieu of any on-site provision. Westoning PC has been consulted again in December to identify a sports project but no response was received. The PC was consulted on the previous application but planned to object so did not identify a project to which a contribution could be sought.

Historic England As discussed in our previous letter the development area is adjacent to a significant and well preserved moated enclosure known as the moated site and fishponds south east of Westoning Manor. This is the proposed location of the C13 manor of Westoning which pre-dates the existing hall. The Moat and church II* church are likely to have formed the core of the former medieval village and are the oldest surviving features of the village. We consider that the moat has a very high value and is of national importance. It is also designated as a scheduled monument. The development boundary lies immediately to the southeast and the red-line boundary is immediately adjacent to the site. We note that the edge of the development within the redline boundary has changed from the previous application and the housing is now only 50m from the monument. We have raised the proximity of the development to the monument as a concern, in particular that the development would have the potential to erode the rural context of the monument and would harm the significance of the scheduled monument through a development within its setting. The National Planning Policy Framework identifies protection and enhancement of the historic environment as an important element of sustainable development and establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development in the planning system (paragraphs 6, 7 and 14). The conservation of heritage assets is a core principle of the planning system (paragraph 17) upon which the NPPF places great weight (see paragraphs 17 and 132). Paragraph 128, requires the applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected (both designated and non-designated) and that the level of detail should be sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. Paragraph 131 says that when determining planning applications, account should be taken of ‘the desirability of sustaining and enhancing Agenda Item 10 Page 139 the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation’ and, ‘the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality. The NPPF paragraph 132 requires planning authorities to place ‘great weight’ on the conservation of designated heritage assets, and states that the more important the asset the greater the weight should be. It also recognises that significance can be harmed by development within the setting of an asset. This paragraph also states that ‘any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification’. It is also recognised in the NPPF (paragraph 134) that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. We note that again this is an outline application. We are concerned that the development has moved closer to the monument and that the buffer between development and the monument has halved. The degree of visibility and therefore the degree of harm to which the monument would be subjected has therefore increased. We note however that the level of harm to the monument is still less than substantial and would therefore be subject to paragraphs 132 and 134 of the NPPF. We do not consider that the changes are sufficient to warrant an objection in principle; however, the closeness of the development does create some additional level of concern. We would therefore ask that the council seek additional safeguards at the outline and reserved matters stages. Our first concern would be to ensure that the amenity land at the north western end of the development area remains open and undeveloped in order to protect the setting of the monument. If carefully handled this area has the potential to enhance the significance of the site in terms of paragraph 131 of the NPPF. This would need to restriction on the use of this land and restrictions on the use of landscaping. We recommend that it is not used for playing fields, and that play equipment should also be situated elsewhere within the development. Any landscaping proposals for this area need to be subject to a fully developed and agreed landscape strategy. Secondly we recognise that the design and layout of the houses that would be within the view of the monument are critical in achieving any enhancement to the setting and would ask that the council seek safeguards in relation to the design, density, height and massing of the development and to control this via an agreed conditions Agenda Item 10 Page 140

at the outline stage. In particular we are concerned about the size, height and visibility of the village hall structure which is a new addition to this scheme. This needs to be in scale with existing buildings in the area and in keeping with the height of the houses in this part of the proposed development. We would also ask that the council consider putting a condition on the development to restrict roof heights on the buildings facing the monument and we would look for a design and layout that seeks to place the perimeter access road and parking to the rear of those houses that face onto the monument. This would create a softer edge to the development and place some of the most visually harmful elements (cars, bins, roads, street lights and hard landscaping etc) to the rear of the houses. Any changes to the design would need to be indicated in the application and covered by a design code to ensure that it was followed through at full application stage. We also consider that the council should seek advice from their archaeological advisors on the need for a programme of archaeological works under paragraph 141 of the NPPF. Recommendation Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. We consider that the issues and safeguards outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraphs 128, 131, 132, 134 and 141 of the NPPF. Your authority should take these representations into account and seek amendments, safeguards or further information as set out in our advice. If there are any material changes to the proposals, or you would like further advice, please contact us. Campaign to Protect This is an application for development of 73 houses on Rural England Grade 3 (BMV) agricultural land in open countryside, that sits fully within Green Belt and outside of the Settlement Envelope of Westoning. There are therefore three existing reasons for refusing permission for this development, as contrary to CBC Policies and those of the NPPF. This site was not put forward in the Call for Sites and much of the site is in Zones 3 and 2 of the Flood Plain, within a groundwater protection Zone 3 and at risk of groundwater flooding, as well as being 100% in Green Belt and grade 3 – best and most versatile agricultural land . Therefore, it would not have been taken forward for consideration within the Draft Local Plan, had it been submitted, as would not have met the required CBC criteria. Any development of the site would exacerbate the risk of flooding. It is noted Agenda Item 10 Page 141 that the maintenance of soakaways would fall to the owners of the properties. The NPPF states that where there are risks such as those identified, alternative sites should be sought. The final version of the Local Plan is going to be published for consultation on 10th January 2018 and does not include this site. Development within the Green Belt requires the existence of very exceptional circumstances, which do not exist for this site as illustrated above and further below. Government has consistently insisted that the protection of Green Belt would be maintained at a very high level. When a previous application for the site was submitted, the applicant was notified by the Planning Officer that permission required exceptional circumstances to be established. The application was subsequently withdrawn. The applicant is mistaken in believing that provision of a village shop or cemetery on the site, and a sum towards the provision of a new parish hall elsewhere, would meet the exceptional circumstances required for the release of Green Belt land – which sets a very high bar. There is a high risk that the shop would undermine the existing businesses within the village and that the site would not be considered a suitable one for a burial ground – even if it had the support of the residents and the Parish Council, which does not appear to be the case. The large number of objections already registered for this application, would indicate that this has no support locally. The development of the site would have a negative impact on the adjacent stud farm and the experience of walking the PROW - and would contribute to reducing the current gap between settlements of Harlington and Westoning and lead to further urbanisation of the countryside. The impact of additional traffic along the congested A5120 and around the nearby crossroads and pelican crossing, cannot be underestimated – particularly the increasing impact of slow moving or stationary traffic on noise and air pollution for existing roadside housing. This is already a problem experienced in Ampthill. CBC published its most recent statement of 5 year land supply in October 2017, demonstrating a robust 5.94 years supply of housing land. The NPPF presumption in favour is not engaged and CBC policies continue to attract due weight, as expanded upon below. Development here cannot be considered as ‘necessary’ or meet the criteria for exceptional circumstances to release Green Belt land. The ongoing and rapid expansion of Flitwick and Ampthill and the effect of this development on the A5120 through road, which also gives access to the M1 from Ampthill, Flitwick, Maulden, Flitton and Greenfield and further afield, Agenda Item 10 Page 142 cannot be ignored. This stretch of the road is highly congested during peak hours and new housing estates are already being built along its route this site is in close proximity to the crossroads and pelican crossing. As already referred to above, stationary traffic causes increased air pollution and is particularly damaging to air quality surrounding roadside houses – a feature of this area. The NPPF seeks to encourage multiple benefits from the use of land in urban and rural areas, recognising that some open land can perform many functions (such as for wildlife, recreation, flood risk mitigation, carbon storage, or food production). The NPPF refers to planning as having an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity ...... The site is immediately adjacent to the SAM of Westoning Moat. Impacts on biodiversity of this site have not been investigated despite the proximity. There is a high probability of archaeological remains being present on this previously undisturbed site. It is also within 20m of a watercourse – the River Flit runs to the south west of the site and a watercourse feeds into the river Flit. The site is at high risk of surface water flooding and medium risk of flooding from the river itself. This site is not sustainable on environmental grounds and should be refused. A recent High Court Judicial Review (December 2016 East Bergholt Parish Council Suffolk vs Babergh District Council. - CO/2375/2016) has led to significant changes in the way the 5 year land supply and local need for housing, is required to be assessed. The judge decided that Babergh had misrepresented “what ‘local housing needs’ meant in the context of the local plan” – the court also agreed with East Bergholt’s interpretation that the needs of the local area differed from those of the wider district - ’The officers' conclusion that "local need" refers to the needs of the district's population as a whole is wrong.’ This is obviously very significant in terms of this application as there is no identified need for housing within Westoning or the wider area and this is Green Belt. The NPPF is clear on the intention for development to be ‘plan led’ in order that all aspects of economic, social and environmental sustainability are addressed and ensured. In upholding the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission to a site outside of the Village Envelope, the Inspector in the case of Appeal Ref: APP/X2410/W/16/3152082 Land to the east of Seagrave Road, Sileby, Leicestershire, interpreted the NPPF as having the specific intention of requiring decision taking to Agenda Item 10 Page 143 be plan-led. The Inspector applied the recent Court of Appeal judgments in Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ. 168 and Daventry DC v SSCLG [2016] EWCA Civ. 1146, to find that saved policies, which included tightly-drawn settlement boundaries, were not inconsistent with the NPPF per se. He accepted the "important point" made by the Council that such policies promote the Core Planning Principle of "efficient, plan - led decision taking", a point the Inspector emphasised carried "some particular force". The position of the Policies currently relied upon by CBC, was demonstrated by the Henlow planning appeal decision (APP/P0240/W/15/3003634. The Council’s decision not to grant the Henlow site planning permission, was ultimately upheld at Appeal because development of the site was incompatible with paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on environmental grounds. Additionally their content was similar in meaning to NPPF paragraph 49 and the other NPPF environmental policies. The following quotes are taken from the Henlow planning appeal decision and continue to be relevant to this and similar sites. DM4 deals with developments within settlement envelopes ...... where no land is available within the settlement a site adjacent to the settlement may be granted planning permission. Nonetheless, the fixed settlement envelopes would have the effect of constraining development, including housing, within these settlements. CS 16 recognises the countryside outside of settlement as being a highly valued resource and should be protected for its own sake, safeguarding it from the increasing pressures of development. DM14 goes on to identify that any development that has an unacceptable impact will be resisted. Their overall objective is to protect the character and amenity of the countryside of which the appeal site forms a part. Therefore I (the inspector) consider CS Policies DM4, DM14 and CS16 are relevant policies for the supply of housing within the meaning of Para 49 of the Framework...... To the extent that the policies are concerned with the supply of housing, they must be regarded as out of date. However, the objectives of CS Policies DM4, DM14 and CS16 remain broadly consistent with those in the Framework which requires decision makers to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. To the extent that the policies are concerned with these matters I consider that they continue to attract due weight. Objections in Relation to Core Strategy & Development Management Policies – November 2009 Agenda Item 10 Page 144

CPRE do not believe this development is sustainable on environmental grounds as illustrated above and in Policies referenced below. Policy DM4: Development within and beyond settlement envelopes The proposed site sits outside of the Village Envelope and would not be allocated for Market Housing, as under policy DM4 – only Exception sites would be considered. Policy CS8 Exception Schemes refers. Policy DM14 Landscape and Woodland - CBC Development Strategy Policy 56 had expanded and updated those policies requiring landscapes to be conserved and enhanced. CS16 Landscape and Woodland Preserve and enhance the varied countryside character and local distinctiveness in accordance with the findings of the Mid Bedfordshire Landscape Character Assessment. DM16 Green Infrastructure DM16 seeks to ensure that development that adversely affects green infrastructure assets will not be permitted. Such assets include natural green spaces. CPRE believes this site is not sustainable on environmental grounds as outlined above. CPRE believes this site is not sustainable on economic grounds. With no Community Infrastructure Levy in place there will beno contribution being paid directly to the area to mitigate the effects of the development. Currently for economic reasons, it is the stated policy of CBC to use the New Homes Bonus to support the provision of front line services across Central Bedfordshire and not directly in support of areas affected by development. The provision of a shop on site could undermine the sustainability of the existing ones. In his conclusion, when denying Appeal Ref: APP/X2410/W/16/3152082 Land to the east of Seagrave Road, Sileby, Leicestershire, the Inspector stated Additionally I only give little weight to the economic benefits of ephemeral construction jobs and the additional patronage of village services. CPRE believes this application should be refused as there is demonstrably no demand for such housing in Westoning or the wider area and the detriments to the local area clearly outweigh any perceived benefits: the proposal conflicts with the sustainability objectives of National Planning Policy and the requirement for development to be plan led. Finally, please note that in our submissions in respect of the proposed development, while we have taken every effort to present accurate information for your consideration, as we are not a decision maker or statutory consultee, we cannot accept any responsibility for Agenda Item 10 Page 145

unintentional errors or omissions and you should satisfy yourselves on any facts before reaching your decision.

Environment Agency - We are able to remove our objection. Final Response We consider that planning permission could be granted to the proposed development as submitted if the following planning conditions are included as set out below. National Planning Policy Framework Flood Risk Sequential Test In accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 101, development should not be permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. It is for the Local Planning Authority to determine if the Sequential Test has to be applied and whether or not there are other sites available at lower flood risk as required by the Sequential Test in the NPPF. Our flood risk standing advice reminds you of this and provides advice on how to do this. By consulting us on this planning application we assume that your Authority has applied and deemed the site to have passed the NPPF Sequential Test. Please be aware that our response to the submitted detail should not be taken to mean that we consider the proposal to have passed the Sequential Test. Review of Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) We have reviewed the submitted FRA (Abington Consulting Engineers, 15 January 2018, Revision D) and the Flood Risk Modelling Report (JBA Consulting, 10 January 2018, Draft - Version 2).The site falls partially within Flood Zone 2 and 3, due to the presence of a small drain on the site. Modelling has been submitted in support of this application and has demonstrated that the extent of the functional floodplain is confined to the drain. The model also provides smaller extents for the 1% AEP and 0.1% AEP flood events than the current Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea) indicates. This model has been reviewed for this planning application, but no Evidence-Based Review (to update the Flood Map) has been completed. The model and the FRA have demonstrated that there is potential for this site to be developed, so long as that appropriate Floodplain Compensation is provided. CONDITION The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a detailed scheme to provide floodplain compensatory storage to demonstrate Agenda Item 10 Page 146 that there is no increase of flood risk on or off site, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the timing / phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme, agreed, in writing, by the local planning authority. Reason To ensure there is no loss of floodplain storage and no increase in flood risk elsewhere. Advice to LPA / Applicant We strongly recommend that the mitigation measures proposed in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) are adhered to, such as finished floor levels of the development shall be set no lower than 73.8mAOD. FURTHER COMMENTS Climate Change The FRA has not adequately assessed the impact of climate change, as it fails to account for the potential increase in the fluvial flood risk to the site. The FRA refers to the increase in peak rainfall intensity, but not the impact on river flows. However, from our review of the modelling, it is clear that the impact of climate change has been modelled so we are able to accept this application. Please ensure the applicant updates the FRA to reflect the outputs of the model with regard to climate change prior to the submission of the Reserved Matters application. Floodplain Compensation The FRA mentions Floodplain Compensation, and calculations of the losses and gains have been supplied, so it is clear that some consideration has been given to this. However, no information has been provided about how the floodplain compensation will be designed e.g. plans and cross-sections showing the losses and gains. We acknowledge that this is an Outline application, so further detail will be required at the Reserved Matters stage. Proposals for floodplain compensation must be up to a level including the appropriate climate change allowance. The need for floodplain compensation should be considered at an early stage before the design of the development is advanced. This will help in the design of appropriate floodplain compensation. At present, it appears that the intention is to remove the southeast section of floodplain and move land at the northwest of the site into the floodplain. No consideration appears to have been given to the potential for this to alter Agenda Item 10 Page 147

flood flow routes and thus detrimentally affect the flood risk of adjacent properties. Evidence should be provided to demonstrate that the proposed floodplain compensation will not adversely impact on the flood risk offsite. Surface Water Flood Map The Risk of Flooding from Surface Water map (accessible at https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long- term- flood-risk), indicates that there is significant surface water flood risk, both on the site and in Westoning itself. Therefore, consideration should be given to potential surface water flow routes across the site, to ensure that the development does not increase the risk of site. The possibility of using this development to reduce the risk to existing properties should also be considered. Advice to Applicant The FRA states that the model has been submitted for an Evidence-Based Review to update the Flood Map for Planning (Rivers and Sea). At the time of writing, this is not the case. The model has only been reviewed for its use in support of a planning application. The FRA also states that a further Flood Map Challenge (Evidence Based Review) will be undertaken to take account of the proposed re-profiling of the site. As a model has already been generated for this site, we would recommend that modelling is used to demonstrate that Flood Zones 2 and 3 have changed. Please note that if an Evidence Based Review is not undertaken, or is unsuccessful, this may affect the ability of property owners to get insurance. Anglian Water ASSETS Section 1 – Assets Affected 1.1 Our records show that there are no assets owned by Anglian Water or those subject to an adoption agreement with in the development site boundary. WASTEWATER SERVICES Section 2 – Wastewater Treatment 2.1 The foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Flitwick Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows. Section 3 – Foul Sewerage Network 3.1 Development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. A drainage strategy will need to be prepared in consultation with Anglian Water to determine mitigation measures. Agenda Item 10 Page 148

We request a condition requiring the drainage strategy covering the issue(s) to be agreed. Section 4 – Surface Water Disposal 4.1 From the details submitted to support the planning application the proposed method of surface water management does not relate to Anglian Water operated assets. As such, we are unable to provide comments on the suitability of the surface water management. The Local Planning Authority should seek the advice of the Lead Local Flood Authority or the Internal Drainage Board. The Environment Agency should be consulted if the drainage system directly or indirectly involves the discharge of water into a watercourse. Should the proposed method of surface water management change to include interaction with Anglian Water operated assets, we would wish to be re-consulted to ensure that an effective surface water drainage strategy is prepared and implemented. Section 5 – Trade Effluent 5.1 Not applicable Section 6 – Suggested Planning Conditions Anglian Water would therefore recommend the following planning condition if the Local Planning Authority is mindful to grant planning approval. Foul Sewerage Network (Section 3) CONDITION No development shall commence until a foul water strategy has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No dwellings shall be occupied until the works have been carried out in accordance with the foul water strategy so approved unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON To prevent environmental and amenity problems arising from flooding. Bedfordshire Fire and A. Although this should normally be dealt with at Building Rescue Service Regulations consultation stage, I would like to draw the developer’s attention to the requirements of Building Regulations “Approved Document B (Fire Safety) Volume 1 - Dwellinghouses” or “Volume 2 – Buildings other than dwellinghouses” as appropriate, particularly ‘B5 - Access and Facilities for the Fire Service’, to ensure compliance is met and specifically as below with respect to dwelling houses:- Agenda Item 10 Page 149

 Vehicle access for a pump appliance to within 45m of all points within a dwelling house;  Turning facilities should be provided in any dead end access route that is more than 20 m long. This can be by a hammerhead or turning circle, designed on the following table. Vehicle Access Route Specification:-

Vehicle Access Route Specification:- Table 2 : Typical Vehicle Access Route Specification (**Based on Bedfordshire FRS vehicles) Appliance Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Type Width of Width of Turning Turning Clearance Carrying Road Gateways Circle Circle height (m) Capacity between (m) between between (tonne)** Kerbs (m) Kerbs (m) Walls (m) Pump 3.7 3.1 16.8 19.2 3.7 18.0 High Reach 3.7 3.1 26.0 29.0 4.0 26.0

If the criteria for fire appliance access to within 45 metres as set out above cannot be reached for residential premises, the Building Control and Fire Authority should be consulted at an early stage, as alternative arrangements may be acceptable. Typically, this is either because the new site is landlocked or because the new access is too narrow to get an appliance close enough.

The following options are available if access is within:- 45 - <60 metres - Domestic/residential sprinklers required; 60 - 90 metres - Domestic/residential sprinklers and a fire hydrant installed immediately by the access driveway; Over 90 metres - Not acceptable

B. We would ask that fire hydrants are installed in number and location at the developer’s cost as follows:-

On a residential site we will need one hydrant at least every 180 metres – with no property further than 90 metres from the nearest hydrant. The minimum flow should be as described in the National Guidance Document published by UK Water and the Local Government Association. The relevant section is copied below from Appendix 5:-

On a commercial site we will require one hydrant at least every 120 metres apart for normal risk premises and 90m apart for high risk premises, with the result that no individual building should be further than 60 metres (normal risk) or 45 metres (high risk) from the nearest hydrant. The minimum flow should be as described in the Agenda Item 10 Page 150

National Guidance Document published by UK Water and the Local Government Association. The relevant section is copied below from Appendix 5:-

4. Shopping, offices, recreation and tourism Commercial developments of this type should have a water supply capable of delivering a minimum flow of 20 to 75 litres per second to the development site.

In addition to the formal guidance or requirements, I would add that where possible consideration is given to access for the hydrants, so they are positioned on pathways/pedestrian areas, close to but not within vehicle standing areas where they are likely to be obstructed by parked cars/lorries (e.g. in an area designated for parking or loading as part of the development).

Bedfordshire and River The proposals in this application are acceptable in Ivel Internal Drainage principle but the Board makes the following comments: Board 1. The Board notes the challenges being made to the Environment Agency flood maps. Final comments on the flood plain adjustment and positioning of houses cannot be made until the Environment Agency have confirmed acceptance of the revised modelling produced by the Applicant.

2. The Board notes that the proposed method of storm water disposal is by way of soakaways.

It is essential that soakways be investigated and if ground conditions are found satisfactory constructed in accordance with the latest Building Research Establishment Digest 365.

In the event soakways are found not to be suitable any direct discharge to the nearby watercourse will require the Board's prior consent.

3. Floor levels must be set at 500m above the 1 in 100 year + 40%cc level which may be higher than the proposed 300m above 1 in 100 year level.

Please include a suitably worded condition in any planning permission that may be granted.

Other Representations:

Neighbours 75 representations objecting to the proposal were received: Agenda Item 10 Page 151

- Site not included in the call for sites. - Application being considered outside the Local Plan. - Central Beds have five year supply of housing land. - Increased congestion on the A5120. - Safety concerns from access to site. - The development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and its openness would not be preserved. No very special circumstances advanced. - Westoning does not need any more houses. Schools cannot cope with any more pupils and health care services cannot cope with any more patients. - Proposal is an overdevelopment. - The shop, village hall and cemetery are superfluous due to the ones currently enjoyed being perfectly adequate. - Site has a history of being waterlogged and is in floodplain. - Impact on protected wildlife.

Determining Issues: The main considerations of the application are:

1. Principle of Development and Impact on Green Belt and Countryside 2. Impact on the Historic Environment 3. Flood Risk 4. Layout and Design 5. Impact on Amenity of Neighbouring and Future Occupants 6. Impact on Trees 7. Highway Considerations 8. Affordable Housing Provision and Section 106 Requirements 9. Other Considerations

Considerations:

1. Principle of Development and Impact on Green Belt and Countryside 1.1 As stated above, the site is in the Green Belt. It is in the countryside immediately to the south west of the Settlement Envelope of the village of Westoning.

1.2 It should be noted that the site was not put forward as a potential site to meet future demand for homes and jobs in the Call for Sites part of the Local Plan process, nor is it an allocated site in the Emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan.

1.3 Paragraph 134 in Section 13 (Protecting Green Belt land) of the NPPF states that 'Green Belt serves five purposes: - to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; Agenda Item 10 Page 152

- 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'.

1.4 Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states that '.... inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances'.

1.5 Paragraph 144 states that '.... local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations'.

1.6 Paragraph 146 states that 'A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt'. Several exceptions to this are listed; however, these do not include housing, a shop or a village hall. Change of use of land to a burial ground is a form of development which is not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided it preserves its openness and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

1.7 The proposal is therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt and as such, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It should therefore only be approved in very special circumstances.

1.8 Section 5.0 of Design, Access and Justification Statement (DAJS) (David Coles Architects) submitted in support of the application, outlines factors to be considered as very special circumstances. A letter from Westoning Parish Council to Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) stating that if development was to occur within Westoning the needs of the village would have to be considered is referred to.

1.9 One of these needs is a new burial ground. As such a burial ground with associated parking for 16 no. cars to be shared with the proposed village hall is included in the proposal. The village hall is included in response to the Parish Council stating in their Local Plan response to CBC that the existing 'Westoning Village Hall is the only large community meeting space in the village, is over 170 years old, small, inflexible, and costly to maintain'. A shop is also proposed on the basis that the existing shop serving Westoning is located on the A5120, with vehicle access only available from this road and limited parking available.

1.10 In response, whilst the need for a new burial ground and replacement village hall are understood, the need for them to be in the application site is not convincing. There is no commentary in the DAJS as to why other sites within settlement envelope of Westoning, and therefore not in the Green Belt - and in a less peripheral location - have been dismissed. Whilst the access and parking constraints of the existing village shop are understood, there is no commentary on whether the village needs a second village store. The response of the Parish Council to this application is also of note in these respects: 'The application Agenda Item 10 Page 153

includes proposed ‘community benefits’ that do not accord with the identified needs of the village due to inappropriate location, poor accessibility and limited capacity proposed by the application' and 'The application .... could be prejudicial to the ongoing viability of existing village facilities as Westoning is too small to support two ‘general stores’.

1.11 As such, the provision of these community facilities do not amount to very special circumstances, which could on their own or in combination, clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and other harm to the countryside identified below.

1.12 Other factors are referred to in the DAJS as very special circumstances. These include responding to the concern of the Parish Council that the development 'should not exceed 70 to 80 additional dwellings' and therefore a scheme of up to 73 units is proposed. Providing a good mix of housing and addressing traffic management concerns, as requested by the Parish Council, are other factors. The provision of a LEAP is also referred to.

1.13 In response, none of these factors either on their own or in combination clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and other harm to the countryside identified below. They are matters which need to be addressed for a planning application to be comprehensive, not matters which ‘go above and beyond’ to be considered as ‘very special’.

1.14 in countryside immediately to the south west of the Settlement Envelope of the village of Westoning. Outside settlements, only particular types of new development will be permitted. These include residential development consisting of 100% affordable housing generally not exceeding 10 units (Policy CS8 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (CSDMP) - North 2009) and the re-use or replacement of an existing dwelling. A residential development of up to 73 units is not included as an exception. The proposal would harm the open character of the countryside beyond the established settlement edge of Westoning, defined by agricultural land and hedgerows. Whilst scale is a reserved matter, it would be expected that some of the proposed dwellings would be two, and possibly three storey. As the site is virtually flat there would be far reaching views of the development, particularly from the south and west. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DM4 of the CSDMP in that it would be an inappropriate development in, and therefore harmful to, the countryside.

1.15 In considering whether the proposed development is acceptable in principle, it is noted that most recent Five Year Land Supply Statement for the five year period commencing 1 October 2018 demonstrates a 5.84 years supply of deliverable housing sites.

1.16 The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 13 (Protecting Green Belt land) of the NPPF and Policy DM4 of the CSDMP. Agenda Item 10 Page 154

2. Impact on the Historic Environment 2.1 The application site lies just to the south of the historic medieval core of Westoning (Historic Environment Record (HER) 17009). Also, the site lies within Westoning Manor Park (HER 7007), a mid to late 19th century park and garden area around the Manor of Westoning. Under the terms of the NPPF this is a heritage asset with archaeological interest.

2.2 Also, immediately adjacent to the western boundary (but not within the site) is a medieval circular moated manor (HER 233) and associated drainage leats and fishponds. This rare circular moat is also a Scheduled Monument (NHLE 1008759). Under the terms of the NPPF this is a designated heritage asset of the highest significance.

2.3 An Archaeology Desk Based Assessment (DBA) (Oxford Archaeology, Version 1, February 2017) was submitted in support of the application. This identifies a moderate potential for medieval remains, but also states that the lack of finds or features recorded may be due to the limited number of archaeological investigations undertaken in the area. The site visit identified visible earthworks as shallow depressions, probably remnant ditches or surviving evidence of ridge and furrow ploughing practices, and suggesting buried archaeology could be preserved on the site. It also notes that building construction will severely impact on any buried archaeological resources.

2.4 However, the DBA does not consider the impact of the proposal on the setting of the Scheduled Monument. The development has the potential to erode the rural context of the Monument. Furthermore, there is insufficient information on the impact of the proposals on the buried archaeological resource or the surviving earth works which may require preservation in situ.

2.5 To address this the application requires an archaeological evaluation, initially via a geophysical survey and the results of this subsequently tested by intrusive ground investigation comprising targeted trial trenches. The results of the geophysical survey and trial trench evaluation should be used together with an updated desk-based assessment (setting and evaluation results considered) as well as any technical details on the construction methods to be employed, to assess the level of impact the proposal will have on any surviving archaeological remains at the site.

2.6 Such information has not been submitted and therefore as the proposal stands, it presents harm to heritage assets and their setting contrary to paragraphs 189, 190 and 193, 194 and 195 of the NPPF. Whilst a development as indicated on the Initial Sketch Scheme (plan 16142 (D) 002 Rev A) may be acceptable in terms of its impact on the historic environment, without further information of its impact on surviving archaeological remains, and on the setting of the Scheduled Monument, this cannot be ensured.

3. Flood Risk 3.1 The Environment Agency’s (EA's) flood plain map shows the majority of the site within Flood Zone 1 which is described as having a ‘low probability’ of flooding. Due to the presence of a small drain on the site, the north western part of the Agenda Item 10 Page 155

site is located in Flood Zone 2 which is described as having a ‘medium probability’ of flooding and Flood Zone 3 which is described as having a ‘high probability’ of flooding.

3.2 A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (Abington Consulting Engineers, Revision D, 10 January 2018) and a Flood Risk Modelling Report (JBA Consulting, Draft - Version 2, 10 January 2018) were submitted in support of the application. These documents have been reviewed by the EA.

3.3 The modelling demonstrates that the extent of the functional floodplain is confined to the drain. The EA are satisfied that the model and the FRA demonstrate that there is potential for this site to be developed, so long as appropriate floodplain compensatory storage is provided. Such floodplain compensatory storage is required to demonstrate that there is no loss of floodplain storage and no increase of flood risk on or off site, and should be the subject of a condition attached to any planning permission granted.

3.4 Whilst the EA are satisfied that there is the potential for the site to be developed if compensatory storage is provided, they also make reference to the requirement in the NPPF to not permit development if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding, i.e the Sequential Test. No such exercise has been undertaken in the submitted FRA, for example a consideration of whether other sites adjacent to and near to the village of Westoning identified by CBC's call for sites with a lower flood risk are available.

3.5 In the absence of a Sequential Test, the proposal is contrary to paragraph 158 in the NPPF. This states, 'Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower risk of flooding. The strategic flood risk assessment will provide the basis for applying this test'.

4. Layout and Design 4.1 The proposal needs to accord with the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009 Policy CS14 (High Quality Development) which, amongst other things, requires development to respect local context and to focus on the quality of buildings individually and collectively, and Policy DM3 (High Quality Development) which, amongst other things, requires development to be appropriate in scale and design to its setting and to contribute positively to creating a sense of place.

4.2 As appearance, landscaping, layout and scale are reserved matters, a full judgement on the layout and design of the proposal can only be made when such an application is submitted. However, an Initial Sketch Scheme (plan 16142 (D) 002 Rev A) has been submitted with the application.

4.3 Notwithstanding the concerns expressed elsewhere in terms of the provision of information to ensure the setting of the Scheduled Monument is protected, and the lack of a Flood Risk Sequential Test, it is noted that the layout attempts to Agenda Item 10 Page 156

position proposed built development away from and place areas of open space within the more sensitive parts of the site.

4.4 The proposed dwellings generally appear to be sufficiently separated from each other, with adequate space for landscaping. There would also appear to be sufficient communal and private amenity space. However, there is a uniformity in the setbacks of dwellings from the frontages of plots; some variation of setbacks would create interest.

4.5 An on-site LEAP play area of circa 400 sq m is proposed. However, to serve the 3 to 10 year age group this should be increased to a combined LEAP/LAP play area of 400 to 450 sq m with 8+ pieces of equipment and appropriate safety surfacing, fencing, gates, seating etc. The LEAP is shown to be within an area of flood plain and open space. A more suitable location for the play area is required unless it can be guaranteed that the site will not flood/hold water.

5. Impact on Amenity of Neighbouring and Future Occupants 5.1 The proposal needs to accord with the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009 Policy DM3 (High Quality Development) which requires development to respect the amenity of surrounding properties, and Section 5 (Residential Development) of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide.

5.2 Appearance, layout and scale are reserved matters. Therefore in the absence of elevation and floor plans for the proposed dwellings, and not having information on building height and window positions etc, a full judgement of the impact of the proposal on the amenity of existing and future neighbouring occupants can only be made when a reserved matters application is submitted.

6. Impact on Trees 6.1 All the mature trees on the site are protected by TPO No. 5/1967. One of these trees, a Horse Chestnut on the north west boundary, would be lost as a result of the indicative site layout. This removal needs to be based on a tree survey, where the condition and justification for tree removal can be open and transparent to the LPA and to any wider public scrutiny. A condition to this end, and also requiring details of protection measures for retained trees, should be attached to any planning permission granted.

7. Highway Considerations 7.1 As stated above, this outline application seeks approval for the matter of access. The proposed development would be accessed from Park Road, the A5120, by the formation of a new 'T' junction. This would require the modification of the existing southern arm of Manor Close and demolition of two dwellings (No’s 5 and 6 Manor Close). The remaining existing housing off Manor Close would retain a southern access and be served from the new access road.

7.2 Within the Transport Assessment (Abington Consulting Engineers, Fourth Issue, 9 February 2018) submitted in support of the application, plan 16038/102 Agenda Item 10 Page 157

Rev A provides detail of the new 'T' junction. The Highway Authority consider this access to be in an appropriate location. Further information was requested with the previously withdrawn application (CB/17/00529/OUT) in terms of vehicular flows and speeds on Park Road. This is because the proposed junction falls below what would be required on a road such as this which it is understood has a 19,322 annual average daily traffic (AADT) flow. As the proposed development has a projected flow of 300 AADT, a ghost right turn junction would be required.

7.3 It should be noted that the AADT figures in this area are provided by the Department for Transport. Should a survey be provided by the applicant (which had been previously requested) at the location of the proposed site and shows that the flow is less than 15,000 AADT, the need for a ghost right turn junction could be reconsidered.

7.4 A condition should be attached to any planning permission granted requiring the modified access onto the A5120, as shown on plan 16038/102 Rev A, changed if necessary to include a ghost right turn, to be implemented prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

7.5 Whilst it is accepted that amendments may take place with a reserved matters application, the Initial Sketch Scheme (plan 16142 (D) 002 Rev A) depicts a clear street hierarchy and shows an internal road layout with reasonable alignment.

7.6 Resident parking is shown to be mainly on plot with driveways and garages, or in courts. Whether the number of spaces is sufficient will be determined at reserved matters stage, in light of a finalised layout and details of the number of bedrooms in dwellings.

8. Affordable Housing Provision and Section 106 Requirements 8.1 The application would provide 25 affordable homes which reflects the current affordable housing policy requirement of 35% in the North of Central Bedfordshire. In accordance with the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), 73% or 18 of these units shall be affordable rent and 27% or 7 shall be intermediate tenure (shared ownership). The affordable units should be dispersed throughout the site and integrated with the market housing.

8.2 The Leisure and Open Space consultation response identifies that a contribution to the provision/improvement of outdoor sports facilities in the village would be appropriate in lieu of any on-site provision. Westoning Parish Council have been consulted on several occasions to identify a sports project but to date have not done so.

8.3 Therefore in the event that the appeal against non-determination of this planning application is allowed and planning permission granted, it needs to be subject to a S106 Agreement requiring the provision of affordable housing as outlined. Agenda Item 10 Page 158

9. Other Considerations 9.1 Ecological Impact

The revised Initial Sketch Scheme (plan 16142 (D) 002 Rev A) is preferred to that for the previously withdrawn application (CB/17/00529/OUT) as it allows for better connectivity for ecology around the south west of the site. The proposed development should be able to deliver a net gain for biodiversity in accordance with the NPPF. Opportunities for further habitat creation and the provision of ecological enhancement measures to be incorporated into the development should be required through a condition for an Ecological Design Strategy (EDS) attached to any planning permission granted.

9.2 Rights of Way

Public Footpath no. 7, Westoning crosses the site from north to south, with kissing gates at either end. The application acknowledges the Public Footpath and attempts to incorporate it into the design as shown on the Initial Sketch Scheme (plan 16142 (D) 002 Rev A). As the design develops, and with the submission of the reserved matters application, further detail of the path, for example, proposed width, surface type and landscaping to the side, will need to be provided.

9.3 Response to Parish Council and Neighbour objections

Most of the matters raised are considered in the discussion above.

9.4 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 reasons.

RECOMMENDED REASONS

1 The proposed development represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal would be detrimental to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt, and an encroachment into the countryside. No factors which could amount to very special circumstances to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and other harm, are evident. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 13 (Protecting Green Belt land) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2018.

2 The proposed development beyond the Settlement Envelope of the village of Westoning would harm the open character of the countryside in this location defined by agricultural land and hedgerows. The proposal is therefore inappropriate and harmful development in the countryside, and contrary to Policy Agenda Item 10 Page 159

DM4 (Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes) of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (CSDMP) - North 2009.

3 The Archaeology Desk Based Assessment submitted with the application fails to consider the impact of the proposed development on the setting of the medieval circular moated manor (HER 233), adjacent to the application site, a Scheduled Monument (NHLE 1008759) and designated heritage asset. Furthermore, there is insufficient information on the impact of the proposal on the buried archaeological resource or the surviving earth works within the application site. In the absence of such archaeological evaluation and an updated Desk Based Assessment, the proposal presents harm to heritage assets and their setting, contrary to paragraphs 189, 190 and 193, 194 and 195 in Section 16 (Conserving and enhancing the historic environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2018.

4 Part of the site is in Flood Zone 2 which has a ‘medium probability’ of flooding and Flood Zone 3 which has a ‘high probability’ of flooding, as defined on the Environment Agency's flood plain map. However, the application fails to provide a Sequential Test to demonstrate whether there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding, and is therefore contrary to paragraph 158 in Section 14 (Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), March 2018.

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 6, Article 35

In the Council’s view the proposal is unacceptable for the reasons stated, and is not considered to be a sustainable development which would improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. The Council has therefore complied with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

...... This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11 Page 161

Application No. Crown Copyright and database 1:2,500 right. 2018 CB/18/04183/OUT Ordnance Survey 100049029 Central Bedfordshire Council. Date Created Land East of No. 13 Clophill Road, Cities Revealed Aerial 22-01-2019 Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AQ photography copyright The GeoInformation Group 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11 Page 163

Item No. 11

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/18/04183/OUT LOCATION Land East of No.13 Clophill Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AQ PROPOSAL Outline: Erection of 14 dwellings including access PARISH Maulden WARD Ampthill WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Duckett, Blair & Downing CASE OFFICER Terence Garner DATE REGISTERED 12 November 2018 EXPIRY DATE 07 January 2019 APPLICANT Aldbury Homes AGENT DLP Planning Ltd REASON FOR Departure to Development Plan. Parish Council COMMITTEE TO Objection to major application. DETERMINE

RECOMMENDED DECISION Outline Application - Recommended for Approval

Summary and Background to the Recommendation:

This is a second application pertaining to this site which is outside of the normal identified settlement boundary, as such it technically conflicts with the current settlement strategy contained within Council Policies CS1 & DM4. Consequently, the development would normally be resisted as being against the Development Plan.

It is also acknowledged that there would be a degree of harm to the open aspect of the area and its landscape character.

However, the development does represent a logical expansion to the settlement and would contribute significantly to the economic and social dimensions of sustainability.

The identified harm and conflict with the Development Plan would be significantly out-weighed by the benefits of this scheme, particularly when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework. This was clearly an issue with Members at previous committees on 3rd January 2018 and 31st January 2018 when they considered an earlier application for this site; application reference: CB/17/01156/OUT.

Members may recall that the application was deferred in January 2018 and subsequent to that deferral the applicant appealed against non-determination and the decision-making process was given to the Planning Inspectorate to determine the application through the planning appeal process. Appendix 1, is a copy of the Inspectors decision letter. Agenda Item 11 Page 164

The planning appeal; reference APP/P0204/W/18/3194555, was determined on 5th November 2018, a copy of which is attached as Appendix 1, at which point the appeal was dismissed, however, the Inspector accepted many of the issues pertaining to the application, including character and appearance of the area, development plan policy and considered that whilst the development would result in the development of land between two parts of Maulden, it would not lead to any significant harm due to its low density.

Consequently, the Inspector considered that the development would be broadly consistent with the aims and objectives of Policies CS1, CS14, DM3 and DM4 of the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) (CSDMP).

However, the benefit of such housing was considered by the Inspector as severely diminished due to the lack of affordable housing, and it was on this principle and the lack of an agreed Section 106 that the appeal was dismissed.

The current application has been submitted to resolve the issue of lack of affordable housing highlighted in the Inspectors decision letter.

Site Location:

The application site is located east of Maulden, between No. 13 Clophill Road and Wheatlands Close and comprises a rectangular arable field accessed off Clophill Road to the south. The site has agricultural land to the north, with residential development to the east and west.

The Application:

This is an outline application which proposes a residential development of 14 dwellings on a rectangular area of land of 0.94ha. The area of land concerned bridges a gap in the built area along Clophill Road, between Wheatlands Close to the south-east of the site and 13 Clophill Road to the north-west.

The site is bordered to the north by agricultural land, with built areas to the east and west and further agricultural land to the south.

Access to the site is from the southern boundary of the site directly from Clophill Road.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018) The determination of planning applications is made; mindful of Central Government advice and the Local Plan for the area.

National planning policies are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), this 65 page document was originally published in March 2012 and replaces 44 documents, including Planning Policy Guidance Notes, Planning Policy Statements and a range of other national planning guidance. The NPPF is a key part of reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible.

The NPPF states that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, consequently it includes a 'presumption in favour of sustainable Agenda Item 11 Page 165 development'. This is taken to mean approving applications which are considered to be sustainable and accord with the development plan.

The latest National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was revised on 24 July 2018 and continues to be a significant and instrumental part of the Governments reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, as well as promoting sustainable growth.

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

The policies below form part of the overall consideration of the current application:

 CS1 Development Strategy – Rural Areas – Large and Small Villages – Maulden is considered to be a large village within the meaning of the policy.  CS2 Developer Contributions – The Council’s Planning Obligations Strategy SPD seeks to improve the approach to negotiating and securing developer contributions with new development.  CS3 Healthy and Sustainable Communities – Ensures that appropriate and sufficient infrastructure is provided for new and existing developments including safeguarding, supporting and identifying sites for community uses, education, recreation, sports, open space and play and health activities.  CS4 Linking Communities - Accessibility and Transport – Seeks to deliver and encourage strategic transportation schemes for road, rail, cycle networks and public transport.  CS5 Providing Homes – Makes provision for new housing sites for the period 2001 – 2026.  CS6 Delivery and Timing of Housing Provision – Provides for a 5 year housing land supply.  CS7 Affordable Housing – Identifies a strategy for housing developments to provide 35% affordable housing.  CS13 Climate Change – Encourages the use of renewable energy, low carbon technologies, sustainable construction and design, conserving water resources and recycling water, waste minimisation, re-use and re-cycling, green travel plans with better access to walking, cycling and public transport.  CS14 High Quality Development – Developments required to be of highest quality respecting character, local distinctiveness, buildings of collective or individual quality and the creation of attractive, accessible and mixed use public realm.  CS16 Landscape and Woodland – Conserve and enhance the varied countryside character and local distinctiveness. Conserve and enhance woodlands including ancient and semi-natural woodland, hedgerows and veteran trees.  CS17 Green Infrastructure – Seeks a net gain in green infrastructure through the protection and enhancement of assets and provision of new green spaces.  CS18 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Supports the designation, management, protection of biodiversity, geological and wildlife sites as well as habitats and species identified in the Local Biodiversity Action Plan.  DM1 Renewable Energy – Requires new proposals to favour renewable energy installations, respect to residential amenity and areas of high sensitivity such as the Chilterns AONB. Agenda Item 11 Page 166

 DM2 Sustainable Construction of New Buildings – Proposals for new development should contribute towards sustainable building principals.  DM3 High Quality Development – All proposals for new development, including extensions will need to show a high quality of design, respect to scale, local distinctiveness, sense of place and choice of construction materials, together with consideration for residential amenity, community safety, accessibility and hard and soft landscaping.  DM4 Development Within and Beyond Settlement Envelopes – Within Settlement Envelopes schemes will be supported for community, education, health, sports and recreation uses. Within Large Villages, small scale housing and employment uses will be permitted.  DM6 – Development within Green Belt Infill Boundaries – Infill development is considered acceptable in principle within Green Belt Infill Boundaries respecting quality of development proposed and impact on the settlement and its surroundings.  DM10 Housing Mix – All new developments will provide a mix of housing types, tenures and sizes to meet the needs of all sections of the community and promote sustainable communities, social cohesion and to include life time homes.  DM14 Landscape and Woodland – Trees, woodlands and hedgerows will be protected, tree planting or contributions towards planting will be sought to enhance and mitigate developments and the character of areas within the district.  DM15 Biodiversity – Seeks to protect wildlife, species, habitats and designated sites, developers will be expected to secure the protection of wildlife and recognised habitats.  DM16 Green Infrastructure – Will promote and protect green infrastructure by ensuring developments will contribute to the provision, extension and maintenance of green infrastructure having regard to the Spatial Strategy.  DM17 Accessible Green Spaces - Requires for new developments to contribute to the provision and maintenance of accessible green space and children’s play space or in the case of small scale sites provide off site contributions.

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.

Furthermore, Paragraph 49 of the Framework states that an argument that an application is premature is unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission. Agenda Item 11 Page 167

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:

SP1: National Planning Policy Framework - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development SP7: Development within Settlement Envelopes T2: Highways Safety and Design T3: Parking HQ1: High Quality Development H2: Housing Standards EE2: Biodiversity DC5: Agricultural Land CG8: Important Countryside Gaps

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014)

Relevant Planning History:

Application Number CB/17/01156/OUT Description Outline application – Proposed development of up to 23 dwellings including access. Decision Deferred by Committee on 3rd January 2018- Appealed Decision Date Appeal Dismissed - 5 November 2018

Consultees:

Maulden Parish Council Maulden Parish Council strongly object to this application on the following grounds: 1. Outside the Maulden Settlement Envelope 2. Significant harm to the village character. 3. The village school is at breaking point and no meaningful school provision has been or can be provided by the addition of this quantity of houses. 4. Draft CBC Local Plan will be published at the end of June and this application 5. Considering the emerging Maulden Neighbourhood Plan and an emerging desire in the village to be involved in the NP, to build a significant settlement in this part of the village, we feel this application is premature and insufficient. 6. Loss of green space and visual amenity.

In addition and without prejudice to the above objection the application makes mention of that the applicants will enter into a S106 Agreement with appropriate contributions towards community facilities and consequently Maulden Parish Council would propose the following provisions to be made and agreed with the developer: Agenda Item 11 Page 168

Recreation and Open Strategy  Provision of on-site facilities. None are identified in the proposed site plan.  Increase and improvements to the facilities at the existing Brache Recreation Ground to benefit the whole village. New slides and additional facilities for the play area. New bench's to replace the old ones that have had to be removed due to wear and tear.

Outdoor Sport As no on-site outdoor sports facilities would be appropriate on this development a contribution towards improvements to the changing rooms at the recreation ground, new toilet block and sports facilities/equipment for outdoor sports

School Places As mentioned in our objection Maulden School is currently full so there is a need for more school places as a result of a development of this size. This needs to be addressed by the Local Education Authority.

Traffic Calming Concern over road safety within the village has been expressed for many years by both MPC and local organisations. Vehicles speeding are a problem along Clophill Road in the area of the proposed development and various traffic calming options are being discussed between MPC/CBC. The increased traffic will only add to the problem along Clophill Road and the rest of the village. Therefore a contribution to traffic calming measures in the village and a safe pedestrian crossing point adjacent to the village shop should be included.

Community Benefit Fund This has been proposed for other developments in the village so the setting up a Community Benefit Fund and a contribution that could be used by MPC to fund local causes such as the extension to the Village Hall.

Subsequent Comments With reference to the amendments to this application, whilst recognising that the number of dwellings has been reduced from 23 to 14, the revised plan does not overcome the previous objections and consequently Maulden Parish Council strongly object to the amended application on following basis:

* Outside Maulden Settlement Envelope. Settlement envelopes serve to prevent coalescence between settlements and to protect the separate character and identify physical identity of the village. * Significant harm to the village character and an unacceptable impact on the settlement envelope. * Loss of green space and visual amenity. * No community benefit for Maulden Agenda Item 11 Page 169

* CBC "call for sites" assessment has excluded the site (ALP151) in the Draft Local Plan as not suitable for development.

CBC comments correspond with MPC view as follows: the site is mostly Grade 2 agricultural land and lies between two distinctly separate settlement envelopes. Development here would fill in a gap in the settlement pattern which is distinctive and unique to the historical pattern of Maulden, development could have an unacceptable impact on the character of the settlement.

Archaeology No comment received Bedfordshire Fire and Thank you for your notification of the proposed development Rescue described as above. Our comments are as in A. and B. below. A. Although this should normally be dealt with at Building Regulations consultation stage, I would like to draw the developer’s attention to the requirements of Building Regulations “Approved Document B (Fire Safety) Volume 1 - Dwellinghouses” or “Volume 2 –Buildings other than dwellinghouses” as appropriate, particularly ‘B5 -Access and Facilities for the Fire Service’, to ensure compliance is met and specifically as below with respect to dwelling houses:-Vehicle access for a pump appliance to within 45m of all points within a dwelling house;Turning facilities should be provided in any dead end access route that is more than 20 m long. This can be by a hammerhead or turning circle, designed on the following table. Vehicle Access Route Specification:-Table 2 : Typical Vehicle Access Route Specification (**Based on Bedfordshire FRS vehicles)Appliance Type Minimum Width of Road between Kerbs (m)Minimum Width of Gateways (m)Minimum Turning Circle between Kerbs (m)Minimum Turning Circle between Walls (m)Minimum Clearance height (m)Minimum Carrying Capacity (tonne)**Pump3.73.116.819.23.718.0High Reach3.73.126.029.04.026.0If the criteria for fire appliance access to within 45 metres as set out above cannot be reached for residential premises, the Building Control and Fire Authority should be consulted at an early stage, as alternative arrangements may be acceptable. Typically, this is either because the new site is landlocked or because the new access is too narrow to get an appliance close enough. The following options are available if access is within:-45 -<60 metres- Domestic/residential sprinklers required;60 -90 metres- Domestic/residential sprinklers and a fire hydrant installed immediately by the access driveway; Over 90 metres-Not acceptable B. We would ask that fire hydrants are installed in number and location at the developer’s cost as follows:-On a residential site we will need one hydrant at least every 180 metres –with no property further than 90 metres from the nearest hydrant. The minimum flow should be as described in the National Guidance Document published by UK Water and the Local Government Association. The relevant section is copied below from Appendix 5:-1. Housing “Housing developments with units of Agenda Item 11 Page 170

detached or semi-detached houses of not more than two floors, should have a water supply capable of delivering a minimum of eight litres per second through any single hydrant. Multi- occupied housing developments with units of more than two floors, should have a water supply capable of delivering a minimum of 20 to 35 litres per second through any single hydrant on the development." In addition to the formal guidance or requirements, I would add that where possible consideration is given to access for the hydrants, so they are positioned on pathways/pedestrian areas, close to but not within vehicle standing areas where they are likely to be obstructed by parked cars/lorries(e.g.in an area designated for parking or loading as part of the development) Bedfordshire Police No comment received Ecology Officer The Ecological Survey submitted with the application did not find any habitats of great value on site and the proposed layout allows for opportunities for habitat enhancement, net gains for biodiversity should be sought. The Ecological report makes recommendations these, together with enhancements, should be conditioned via a Biodiversity Method Statement. Environment Agency No comment received Flood Risk Team No comment received Green Infrastructure No comment received Officer CPRE CPRE believes that this application should be refused as it is premature and undermines the Local Plan Inspection process. At para14 of the DCLG Procedural Practice in the Examination of Local Plans it states -It must be remembered that the examination process starts on submission of the plan. The CBC Local Plan was submitted for Inspection on 30th April 2018.As evidenced below, the site has already been assessed and rejected for inclusion in the Local Plan and found to be environmentally unsustainable. The site has been allocated as part of an Important Countryside Gap in the New Local Plan which has been submitted to the Inspector. CBC can demonstrate a 5.84 year land supply and recent Appeal decisions support that position and the Policies currently relied upon by CBC. The presumption in favour and the ‘planning balance’ are not engaged. All of the land in this area to the north of Clophill Road was submitted in the call for sites in preparation of the Local Plan. Only one of these sites was taken forward for inclusion -at Hall End in Maulden HAS 36/37 for 25 homes. The proposed site failed at Stage 2. This site is not appropriate for development. This site is mostly Grade2 agricultural land and lies between two distinctly separate settlement envelopes. Development here would fill in a gap in the settlement pattern which is distinctive and unique to the historical pattern of Maulden, development could have an unacceptable impact on the character of the settlement. In addition potential issues with education capacity have been raised. Strategic Growth Team Highways Officer The application proposes the erection of up to 14 dwellings on land on the northern side of Clophill Road between No.13 and Agenda Item 11 Page 171

Wheatlands Close. It is outline form with all matters except means of access reserved for subsequent approval.

The proposed access is shown to be laid out as a 5.5m wide priority junction with 6m kerb radii and 2.0m footways on each side of the access road. This is of sufficient standard to serve the scale of development proposed. However, this then reduces to a shared surface of 5.5m with 1.0m verges. This is not to the authority’s standard which should be reconsidered and can be dealt with at reserved matters.

In the vicinity of the site, Clophill Road is subject to a 30mph speed limit. The proposed access is located on the inside of a slight bend and just below the crest in the road. The submitted plans show that 2.4 x 59m visibility splays are provided and that this is deemed acceptable.

There is an existing field access in the south-east corner of the site which will become redundant if this development is permitted. This will need to formally stopped up and the kerb, footway and verge reinstated. This matter can be dealt with by condition.

There is an existing footway on the north side of Clophill Road that runs across the site frontage. As part of the development proposals this should be increased in width to a minimum of 2.0m via a condition to secure this.

The creation of the new junction with Clophill Road will necessitate some changes to the existing system of street lighting which should be dealt with as part of the S278 Highways works required to enable the access.

Regardless of the evidence in the Transport Statement and the trip rates presented, I consider that the proposed development could be satisfactorily accommodated on the local road network and that the impact of the development traffic will not be severe.

The internal road layout is indicative only and therefore any acceptance to the means of access should not be construed as an approval to the proposed layout. Similarly, the layout shows a parking provision which does not comply with the Council’s parking standards.

These matters can however be addressed at the reserved matters stage if outline permission is granted. Strategic Housing Strategic Housing support this application as it provides Officer for 5 affordable homes which reflects the affordable housing policy requirement of 35%. The supporting documentation does not indicate the tenure split of the affordable units. The Strategic Housing Market Agenda Item 11 Page 172

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 4 units of affordable rent and 1 unit of intermediate tenure (shared ownership) from the development.

Outlined below is a suggested mix for the affordable housing. Whilst a suggested mix has been provided by Strategic Housing, 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.

Affordable rent: 4 dwellings (72%) Unit Type Percentage 2 Bed House 50% 3 Bed House 50%

Shared Ownership: 1 dwelling (28%) Unit Type Percentage 3 Bed House 100%

We would like to see the affordable units dispersed throughout the site and integrated with the

IDB No Comment received Landscape Officer There are strong landscape objections to this proposal. Although the Application contains landscaped green infrastructure which would contribute to the quality of the development, although the proposal contains a central greenspace which would provide a degree of openness ,development around the perimeter of the site would still introduce built form which would impact on views from the north and from Clophill Road itself. Night time impact is also a concern as this would intrude into the countryside and further the sense of coalescence of built form along Clophill Road.

If the Application was minded for approval, it would be important to secure a much more substantial landscape scheme to buffer views from the north, to protect the amenity of the Greensand dip slope and limit views from the higher ground.

A Landscape Management Plan would also be required to ensure the management of the existing hedgerows and maintenance of the boundary hedge at it's current height and for the management of the proposed features. Agenda Item 11 Page 173

MANOP Team The requirement for new housing development to meet the needs of older people is set out in Policy H3 of the Local Plan 2015-2035.

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 in accordance with the standards set out in the appendix to this response:

 Not less than two (2) units of mainstream housing suitable for older people. Pollution Officer No Comment received Senior Drainage Having reviewed the submitted documents, we support the Engineer approval of outline planning permission for the proposed development. The final surface water drainage design and maintenance arrangements for the system shall be agreed at the detailed design stage Planning & Projects Wherever possible, refuse collection vehicles will only use Officer (Waste & Refuse) adopted highways. If an access road is to be used, it must be to adoptable standards suitable for the refuse vehicle to manoeuvre safely around site. Typically, until roads are adopted or if the RCV is unable to manoeuvre around the site, bins are to be brought to the highway boundary or a pre-arranged point. If residents are required to pull their bins to the highway, a hard- standing area needs to be provided for at least 3 wheelie bins and a recycling caddy per property. SuDS We consider that outline planning permission could be granted to the proposed development and the final design and maintenance arrangements for the surface water system agreed at the detailed design stage. Self Build Officer - Paragraph 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework Environmental Policy requires housing mix that reflects needs of different groups in the Team community, including people wishing to commission or build their own homes. Should the planning permission be granted, it is requested that delivery of minimum of one serviced plot for self and custom build dwelling is secured through a condition or Section 106. Sustainable Growth The proposed development should comply with the requirements Officer of the development management policies: DM1: Renewable Energy; DM2: Sustainable Construction of New Buildings; and Core Strategy policy CS13: Climate Change. Policy DM1 requires all new development of more than 10 dwellings to meet 10% energy demand from renewable or low carbon sources. The proposed development is above the policy threshold and therefore all dwellings should have 10% of their energy demand sources from renewable or low carbon sources. The development therefore should be designed with climate change in mind taking account of increase in rainfall and temperature. The development should minimise hard standing surfaces and increase green, natural areas to allow rainwater Agenda Item 11 Page 174

infiltration and minimise heat island effect through evaporation and tree shading. Travel Plan Officer No Comment received Spending Officers No Comment received Fire Safety - Area No Comment received Command North (North & Eastern Corridor) The Greensand Trust The Greensand Trust object to the application due to the detrimental effect it would have on the landscape character of the village. A very distinctive feature of Maulden is the fact that it is made up of a series of ‘ends’, separated by open agricultural land, in addition to the main village. This characteristic is of great importance to the residents of the village and surrounding area.

The 2018 Maulden Green Infrastructure plan, developed through two rounds of consultation with residents of the parish, contains a policy to ensure protection of the distinctiveness of the different ‘ends of the village’. This policy will be fed through to the Maulden Neighbourhood Plan which is currently being developed.

The importance of this feature is supported by the fact that Central Bedfordshire Council is proposing that the application area be included within a designated important Countryside Gap in its Pre-submission Local Plan, protected by policy. The proximity of the application area to the Conservation Area and the Church, and its visibility from these, also make it an inappropriate place for development. The distinctive nature of the local area, valued by local residents and Central Bedfordshire Council, is at great risk of being completely lost due to a number of recent planning decisions along Clophill Road filling in gaps, losing open areas and views. Serious weight now has to be given to protecting it. Bedfordshire and River No comment received Ivel Internal Drainage Board Public Art Officer No requirement: The proposals in terms of numbers of units fall below the threshold requiring provision of public art. Environmental Health No objection subject to relevant conditions. Bedfordshire and River No Comment received. Ivel Internal Drainage Board

Other Representations:

Neighbours 4 letters of objection summarised as follows:-

1. The entry and exit to the new houses is almost opposite the entry to what is now 10A Clophill Road, the new entrance and the proposed one are both on a gradient and a bend. Agenda Item 11 Page 175

2. The new exit/entrance is close to the lower school the road is already busy this development would exacerbate the situation.

3. The area on the application is an important Green Space in Maulden. This has been designated as such by the yet to be adopted Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan.

4. Maulden suffers with speeding vehicles, this proposed development would create potentially another 30 vehicles or more. The road surface, and the general lack of infrastructure could potentially be chaotic.

5. The development will increase pollution due to additional vehicles and will effect safety on the roads.

6. As this proposed development is so close to the lower school – this will increase the already high level of carbon monoxide in addition to the danger created by this excess traffic?

7. There are flooding issues in the village at the junction of Clophill Road and Church Road.

8. Public transport is not sufficient for more housing in the area.

9. The character of the village we be lost Cllr Downing Letter from Councillor Downing - Serious consideration should be given as to how this land is described in the draft CBC Local Plan. It was not designated for building on.

Determining Issues: The main considerations of the application are;

1. Principle 2. Sustainable location for development 3. The quality of the design and the impact upon the character of the area 4. The impact upon living conditions 5. Highway Considerations 6. Other Material Considerations i) Sustainability ii) Economic iii) Environmental iv) Ecology v) Flood Risk vi) Affordable Housing and Contributions vii) Contaminated Land viii) Agricultural Land Value 7. Planning Appeal Decision

Considerations Agenda Item 11 Page 176

1. Principle of the Development 1.1 The application site is located outside of the defined ‘settlement envelopes’ of Clophill and Maulden and the Council can currently demonstrate a five year supply of housing land. 1.2 It is acknowledged that the approach of Policy DM4 in seeking to control the principle of development beyond settlement boundaries is more restrictive than the balanced, cost/benefit, approach set out in the Framework. The balancing of harm against benefit is a defining characteristic of the Framework’s overall approach. However, this policy also seeks to ensure development is channelled to more sustainable settlements, away from isolated rural locations which have limited access to services and facilities. 1.3 In this respect, Policy DM4 is entirely consistent with the thrust of the Framework which seeks to promote sustainable social, economic and environmental development. Overall, it is considered that weight may still be attributed to this policy in the determination of this application as the Council seeks to deliver planned development in a sustainable manner. 1.4 The proposal, for residential units outside of a settlement boundary, conflicts with the current settlement strategy of the Council (denoted by Policies CS1 and DM4). This weighs against the grant of permission, however this matter was referred to in the Planning Inspectors decision letter issued for the previous application, this is included in full at Appendix 1.

2. Sustainable location for development 2.1 The Framework adopts a broad definition of sustainable development in that it states that the policies in paragraphs 18 – 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice. The Framework also establishes that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, which includes economic, social and environmental dimensions. 2.2 The quality of the design and the impact upon the character of the area Policies CS14, DM3 and DM4 seeks to ensure proposals are of a high quality of design, respect the local context in which they are in, are appropriate in terms of scale and have an acceptable impact upon the landscape. Chapter 12 of the Framework emphasises the importance of good design. 2.3 The application site comprises an area of open agricultural land, adjacent to built residential form to the east and west and is accessed off Clophill Road which bounds the site to the south. Though there is established vegetation to the front of the site, views would be available of the proposed development from certain vantage points along Clophill Road. 2.4 Under the adopted Development Plan, the site is not an identified ‘gap’ in policy terms and comprises no discernible landscape features. With the Pre-submission Local Plan the site is shown to be a recognised Countryside Gap (CG8), however the planning inspector reviewed this and considered that the Pre-submission Local Plan could have little weight in terms of its policies and considered that the development of this site would not cause any significant harm to the countryside and consequently did not use this for the reason to dismiss the appeal. Given the existence of built residential form immediately adjacent to the site and as a large section of open space would be left within the middle of the site, the Inspector considered that this development proposes a logical expansion to the village. 2.5 The Inspector further stated “The units would not be more than two storeys in height and sufficient space would be left about them to ensure that they did not appear cramped upon their plots. Further, a Landscaping Plan could be secured to ensure that built form is appropriately softened and that there is no further fragmentation of existing hedgerows. Though the extent to which the development would be visible would depend upon details Agenda Item 11 Page 177

reserved for future determination, and it is anticipated that views of the units would be screened by established and proposed vegetation, it is acknowledged that the final form of the proposal would result in residential development on land predominantly absent of built form. This would not result in the merging of settlements or harm to the wider landscape character, but would add to the erosion of the countryside.” 2.6 Overall, there would be some visual and landscape harm arising from the loss of the site’s open and undeveloped character. However, this could be mitigated, through the appropriate management of elements reserved for future consideration and through conditions. As such, the proposal would not result in significant harm in this regard.

3. The impact upon living conditions

3.1 Policy DM3 aims to preserve neighbouring amenity. Furthermore, guidance in paragraph 131 of the NPPF is to give great weight to outstanding innovation and high levels of sustainability, whilst always seeking to secure high quality design and good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings. 3.2 Though the detailed layout and overall design of units is reserved for future consideration, it is considered that, given the size of the application site, units could be positioned and designed in such a way as to not result in significant and demonstrable harm to the living conditions of surrounding units. Furthermore, given the existence of surrounding residential units and the scale of the proposal, it is not considered that the access would result in significant harm in terms of increased noise and disturbance from vehicular movements associated with the development. 3.3 Furthermore, it is noted that specific concerns have been raised with regards to the impacts of the proposal in terms of noise and disturbance during construction. The construction of units must adhere to environmental health legislation (which, amongst other things, manages the hours of construction to appropriate times) and it is recommended that a Construction Management Plan is provided through condition. This would ensure that vehicular movements and methods of dust suppression are appropriately managed, in the interest of neighbouring living conditions. Overall, it is not considered that the proposal would result in significant harm in this regard.

4. Highway Considerations 4.1 Guidance within the ‘Design for Central Bedfordshire: A Guide for Development’ states that, generally, one bedroom units will require one parking space, two and three bedroom units will require two parking spaces and four bedroom units will require three spaces. 4.2 Though plots seem large enough to accommodate sufficient off-road parking, the overall layout of units is reserved for future consideration. However, a condition requested by Highways Officers would ensure that parking provision is in accordance with the Council’s standards applicable at the time of submission. 4.3 Turning to highway safety, on discussion with Highways Officers it is considered that the access to the site would be acceptable and that the required visibility splays can be achieved. Subject to relevant conditions no objection has been raised in this regard.

5. Other Material Considerations 5.1 Sustainability - The Framework adopts a broad definition of sustainable development in that it states that the policies in paragraphs 18 – 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development means in practice. The Framework also establishes that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the Agenda Item 11 Page 178

achievement of sustainable development, which includes economic, social and environmental dimensions.

The proposal would make a small but valuable contribution to the existing housing stock. Given that one of the key aims of the Framework is to significantly boost the supply of housing, the proposal is considered sustainable in this regard and significant weight in favour of the proposal is attached to this factor. Further, it is noted that there has been concern raised with regard to there not being the services within Clophill and Maulden to support this development. However, both settlements are defined as Large Villages within Policy CS1 and have a number of services and facilities. Taking this into account, and given the statutory duty of relevant bodies to provided services (such as health and education) it is considered that there are sufficient services within the Large Village to accommodate the additional units. 5.2 Economic The proposal would also result in economic benefits, through the purchase of materials and services in connection with the construction of the dwellings and an increase in local household expenditure. The proposal is considered sustainable in this regard, which again weighs in favour of the grant of permission. 5.3 Environmental It is acknowledged that the proposal would result in some (moderate) harm to the character of the rural setting. However, the proposal is within close proximity to services and facilities and, overall, the development would not be environmentally unsustainable. 5.4 Ecology The presence of protected species is a material consideration, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework (paragraphs 170 -177), Natural Environment & Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 (section 40), Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 as well as Circular 06/05. Furthermore, Policy CS18 seeks to support the maintenance and enhancement of habitats and states that development that would fragment or prejudice the biodiversity network will not be supported. The site lies in the Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area (NIA) and as such development would be expected to deliver net gains for biodiversity. To ensure that this gain is secured, Ecology Officers have recommended the imposition of a condition requiring an Ecological Enhancement Strategy. Subject to the imposition of this condition, no objection has been raised by Ecology Officers and the proposal would be acceptable in this regard. 5.5 Flood Risk - Policy CS13 seeks to ensure that proposals incorporate suitable drainage infrastructure. It is acknowledged that concern has been raised with regards to the proposal being susceptible to and increasing the risk of flooding.

However, the site lies wholly within Flood Zone 1 – indicating a low probability of flooding. Further, on discussion with internal Drainage Engineers, it is considered that, subject conditions requesting the submission of a detailed Surface Water Drainage Plan and an associated maintenance plan, the proposal would not increase the risk of flooding to the surrounding area and proposed units would not be susceptible to such risks. Subject to the imposition of this requested condition, the proposal would be acceptable in this regard. 5.6 Affordable Housing and Contributions - Policy CS7 states that development of four or more dwellings should provide an element of affordable housing and Policy CS2 seeks to secure appropriate contributions. The applicant has agreed to provide five affordable units (four affordable rent and one unit of intermediate tenure) in line with policy requirements. At present, there is a draft agreement to secure this. As such, this application is presented to the Committee for approval subject to securing this appropriate agreement in due course. Agenda Item 11 Page 179

It is noted that the Parish Council has requested financial contributions for various local projects. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulation 122 states that planning obligations must be necessary, directly related, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development in question. Further, CIL Regulation 123 prohibits the pooling of 5 or more contributions towards a single project. No other financial contributions have been requested from relevant consultees and no projects have been identified to which contributions may be ‘pooled’. For these reasons, the request by the Parish Council would not comply with the CIL Regulations and it is not considered reasonable to request additional contributions from the applicant. 5.7 Contaminated Land Given the existing agricultural use of the site, on discussion with Public Protection it is considered that there may be some risk to human health through ground contamination. As such, it is recommended that a conditions is imposed requiring the developer to keep a watching brief during constructions. Subject to the imposition of this condition, any unexpected contamination can be reported and appropriately remediated. 5.8 Agricultural Land Value It is noted that there are concerns with regards to the loss of agricultural land. The land at the site is identified as being Grade 2 in quality. In line with Annex 2 of the Framework, this is considered ‘best and most versatile’ land. The Framework, at paragraph 170, states that local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. However, the application has demonstrated that this land is not farmed intensively. As such, it is not considered reasonable to refuse the application on the loss of Grade 2 agricultural grounds alone.

5.9 Planning Appeal Decision As mentioned earlier in the report, following Committee deferral of the previous application in January 2018, a Section 78 appeal was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate against the Council failing to make a decision on the application within the prescribed period. The appeal was subsequently dismissed on 5th November 2018.

The main issues identified by the Inspector were those of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and whether the development would provide affordable housing. In addition, there were matters referring to housing land supply and whether the Council could show a 5 year supply. The Inspector did not dwell on this issue as there were arguments from both sides but remained focussed on the issues of character, appearance and affordable housing.

The Inspector stated that “on the assumption that the Council cannot demonstrate such a supply, the 2018 NPPF indicates that planning decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development for decision taking, where Development Plan policies which are the most important for determining the application are out of date, permission should therefore be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the 2018 Framework”.

The Inspector made reference to Policy DM4 stating that, “ it does not explicitly prevent development outside of the defined village envelope, which is largely drawn tightly around the existing built up area. It is also clear that the development would make best use of the available land and would lead to a more sustainable community through additional residents to support the local facilities in Maulden and surrounding villages. Furthermore, Agenda Item 11 Page 180

the existing built form along Clophill Road is largely ribbon development, particularly within Maulden Green End. To my mind, the development of the appeal site would have a very similar character to the existing built form and would not result in any significant harm to the overall character and appearance of the area.”

It was further stated that,” taken as a whole, I have found that proposal would not make provision for the delivery of much needed affordable housing and this factor weighs heavily against allowing the proposed development. Notwithstanding that, the development would still give rise to some minor social benefits in that it would provide much needed additional housing. The development would also bring some minor economic benefits through the construction process and the potential to support local facilities. These matters are in favour of the proposed development. “

“The indicative plans submitted show that the development of the site would provide 14 new dwellings, although given the outline nature of the proposal that number may be higher.”

“The development of the site with new dwellings would clearly contribute towards housing land supply in Central Bedfordshire. However, the benefit of such housing is severely diminished by the lack of provision of affordable housing.”

“Against this background, the harm identified significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits when assessed against the policies in the 2018 Framework when taken as a whole. The proposal cannot therefore be considered to be sustainable development.”

Having regard to the Inspectors comments above it is clear that the development has aspects of concern in regard to the open character of the site and its appearance within the village. Referencing DM4, the Inspector did not consider that the development of the site would cause any demonstrable harm to the character of the area and as such supported the form of development on the site, however the lack of affordable housing detracted from the sustainability of the development.

The Inspector commented that “Taking all of the above into account, the development would not give rise to any significant harm to the character and appearance of the area…. the development would be broadly consistent with aims and objectives of Policies CS1, CS14, DM3 and DM4 of the CSDMP which amongst other matters seek to ensure that new development is of a high quality, conserves and enhances the local character of the area. It would also accord with the overarching aims of the 2018 Framework.”

The importance of this was however weighed against the need for a sustainable development and without any affordable housing provision the development could not be supported by the Inspector and the appeal was dismissed principally for the lack of affordable housing.

6. Conclusion 6.1 The previous consideration of the application CB/17/01156/OUT, considered at the January 2018 committee, had particular regard for the impact and effects on the character of the area. It was considered that the proposal, for residential units outside of a settlement boundary, conflicts with the current settlement strategy of the Council (denoted Agenda Item 11 Page 181

by Policies CS1 and DM4) and the Council considered this to weighs against the grant of permission. 6.2 Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be some harm to the landscape character, it is clear that the Inspector, when assessing the proposal considered that the development represents a logical expansion to the settlement and could contribute significantly to the economic and social dimensions of sustainability. However without any affordable housing provision it was clear that the scheme did not provide for that extra element to allow for the acceptance of the scheme with the appeal. 6.3 In the light of the comments made by the Inspector in regard to the limited harm that the development would have on the character of the area, and the fact that the application now has 35% affordable housing, it is considered that the scheme of development would now provide a sustainable and beneficial development particularly when assessed against the Framework as a whole.

7. Other Considerations

7.1 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 APPROVED subject to the following: the signing of a S106 agreement to require 35% affordable housing and relevant planning conditions.

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

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

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

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

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

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

Reason: To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Agenda Item 11 Page 182

4 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans; 16216 (D) 001 & 16216 (D) 002 Rev. C

Reason: To identify the approved plans and to avoid doubt.

5 The development shall not commence until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The statement shall include: i) waste management measures; ii) details of site compounds, offices and areas to be used for the storage of materials; iii) methods and details of dust suppression during construction; iv) proposals to minimise harm and disruption to the adjacent local area from ground works, construction noise and site traffic. v) construction traffic routes The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details so approved.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and the living conditions of surrounding properties.

6 The dwellings hereby approved shall not be occupied until details of the bin storage areas have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out and retained in accordance with details approved in this regard.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in accordance with Policies CS14, DM3 and DM14 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009.

7 No development shall take place until a landscaping scheme to include all hard and soft landscaping and a scheme for landscape maintenance for a period of five years following the implementation of the landscaping scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented by the end of the full planting season immediately following the completion and/or first use of any separate part of the development (a full planting season means the period from October to March). The trees, shrubs and grass shall subsequently be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape maintenance scheme and any which die or are destroyed during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of landscaping. (Section 12, NPPF)

8 No development shall commence until a detailed surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the agreed Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (March 2017) and assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the Agenda Item 11 Page 183

development and the expected outfall extent, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schemes all include provision of attenuation for the 1 in 100 year event (+40% allowance for climate change). Any revisions to the agreed strategy shall be fully justified and approved before the development is completed and shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the agreed management and maintenance plan. Details of how the system will be constructed including any phasing of the scheme, and how it will be managed and maintained after completion will also be included. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved final details before the development is completed, and shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the agreed management and maintenance plan.

Reason: To ensure the approved system will function to a satisfactory minimum standard of operation and maintenance and prevent the increased risk of flooding both on and off site, in accordance with para 163 NPPF.

9 Prior to the first occupation of the dwellinghouses hereby approved, a finalised ‘Maintenance and Management Plan’ for the entire surface water drainage system, inclusive of any adoption arrangements and/or private ownership or responsibilities, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be in accordance with this approved plan.

Reason: To ensure that the implementation and long term operation of a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) is in line with what has been approved, in accordance with Written Statement HCWS161.

10 During any ground works on the site a Watching Brief shall be kept to monitor any potentially contaminated material. Should any such material be encountered, the development must cease immediately and the Council must be informed without delay and an appropriate course of action agreed in writing. Subsequently, the development shall continue in accordance with this agreed course of action until completed.

Reason: To minimise the risk to human health through ground contamination.

11 No development shall take place until an Ecological Enhancement Strategy (EES) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The EES shall include the following: a) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed works informed by a review of the ecological assessment. b) Review of site potential and constraints. c) Detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) to achieve stated objectives. d) Extent and location/area of proposed works on appropriate scale plans. Agenda Item 11 Page 184

e) Type and source of materials to be used where appropriate, e.g. native species of local provenance. f) Timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of development. g) Persons responsible for implementing the works. h) Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance.

The EES shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of biodiversity, in accordance Policy CS18 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009.

12 The detailed layout plans to be submitted for approval of reserved matters in connection with this development shall include plans and sections of the proposed access road(s), footways, cycleways, turning areas, street lighting, etc. to accord with the Council’s published standards.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory means of access between the proposed dwellings and the public highway and to ensure that the proposed dwellings can be properly serviced.

13 No dwelling shall be occupied until a 2.0m wide footway has been constructed on the northern side of Clophill Road across the whole of the site frontage in accordance with details of a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall include new street lighting. Any Statutory Undertakers equipment or street furniture shall be re-sited to provide an unobstructed footway.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and pedestrian movement.

14 No dwelling shall be occupied until visibility splays have been provided on each side of the junction of the proposed access road with the public highway. The minimum dimensions to provide the required splay lines shall be 2.4m measured along the centre line of the proposed access road from its junction with the channel of the public highway and 59m measured from the centre line of the proposed estate road along the line of the channel of the public highway. The vision splays required shall be provided and defined on the site by or on behalf of the developers and be kept free of any obstruction.

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

15 Before the new road access junction is first brought into use, any existing access within the frontage of the land to be developed, not incorporated in the access hereby Agenda Item 11 Page 185

approved shall be closed in a manner to the Local Planning Authority’s written approval.

Reason: In the interest of road safety and to reduce the number of points at which traffic will enter and leave the public highway.

16 The detailed layout plans to be submitted for approval of reserved matters in connection with this development shall illustrate a scheme for the provision of off- street parking and cycle parking in accordance with the Council’s published standards.

Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off and park clear of the highway, thus minimising conditions of danger, obstruction, and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the premises.

17 The supporting documentation to be submitted for approval of reserved matters in connection with this development shall include a construction management statement which incorporates details of:

 Parking of vehicles for site operatives and visitors;  Loading and unloading of plant and materials;  Storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;  Construction traffic routes and hours of operation; and  Details of the responsible person who can be contacted in the event of a complaint.

All works shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the safe operation of the surrounding road network during the construction period.

18 The number of dwellinghouses approved shall not exceed 14.

Reason: To appropriately manage the scale of the development at the site, in accordance with Policies CS14, DM3 and DM4 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2009.

INFORMATIVE NOTES TO APPLICANT

1. 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 Central Bedfordshire Council's Highway Help Desk, Tel: 0300 300 8049. Agenda Item 11 Page 186

2. The applicant is advised that as a result of the development, new highway street lighting will be required and the applicant must contact the Highways Agreements Officer, Highways Contract Team, Community Services,, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ for details of the works involved, the cost of which shall be borne by the developer. No development shall commence until the works have been approved in writing and the applicant has entered into a separate legal agreement covering this point with the Highway Authority.

3. The applicant is advised that in order to comply with the Conditions of this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Central Bedfordshire Council as Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. Further details can be obtained from the Highways Agreements Officer, Highways Contract Team, Community Services, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ. Tel., 0300 300 5268 *May need to be amended to suit decision notice.

4. 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) Order 2015 - Part 6, Article 35

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 during the determination process which led to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively to secure a sustainable form of development in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraphs 186 and 187) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

...... Agenda Item 12 Page 187

Application No. Crown Copyright and database 1:1,250 right. 2018 CB/18/01651/RM Ordnance Survey 100049029 Central Bedfordshire Council. Date Created Harlington Station Yard, Station Cities Revealed Aerial 21-01-2019 Road, Harlington photography copyright The GeoInformation Group 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 12 Page 189

Item No. 12

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/18/01651/RM LOCATION Harlington Station Yard, Station Road, Harlington PROPOSAL Reserved Matters following Outline Approval CB/14/02348/OUT Redevelopment up to 45 residential units with associated amenity space, landscaping and parking provision. Demolition of existing bungalow. PARISH Harlington WARD Toddington WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Costin & Nicols CASE OFFICER Caroline Macrdechian DATE REGISTERED 10 May 2018 EXPIRY DATE 09 August 2018 APPLICANT W E Black Ltd AGENT W J Macleod Ltd REASON FOR Parish Council objection that cannot be overcome COMMITTEE TO through conditions. DETERMINE RECOMMENDED Reserved Matters - Recommended for Approval DECISION

Summary of Recommendation:

The detailed matters relating to layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are considered acceptable and would serve to provide an attractive redevelopment of the land. It is considered that the proposal would positively contribute to the rejuvenation of this vacant and underused brownfield site. The impact on adjoining neighbours would be acceptable, and a suitable design and landscaping provision has been achieved that would provide a high quality environment for future occupiers. Having regard to the sustainable location of the site, the level of parking is deemed appropriate. The proposal is thereby considered to accord with the objectives of national and local planning policy and represents a sustainable form of development. It is therefore recommended for approval.

Site Location:

The application site is an elongated parcel of land measuring approximately 0.77 hectares that lies adjacent to the Midland Mainline Railway to the west of the site, beyond which is Harlington Train Station. Access to the site is from Station Road, which lies adjacent to the northern boundary of the site. Residential dwellings in Park Leys, Christian Close, Prudence Close and Pilgrims Close adjoin the eastern boundary of the site but are separated by a public footpath that runs from Station Road to Prudence Close. A mature band of trees is provided along the eastern boundary of the site. There is a drop in levels into the site from Station Road and there are level differences between neighbouring properties to the east of the site, most Agenda Item 12 Page 190 notably properties in Prudence Close and Pilgrims Close. Station Road to the north of the site is within Harlington Conservation Area.

The Application:

Outline consent for up to 45 residential dwellings on the site was granted in November 2017. The outline consent sought approval for the access only with all other matters reserved for future approval.

The reserved matters application seeks the provision of 45 residential units (24 no. one bedroom flats and 21 No. 2 bedroom flats) to be provided in six three storey buildings. Approval of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping is sought. The proposal includes parking for 70 vehicles, cycle and bin stores, and private amenity areas.

Details are provided in this application in relation to condition 4 (tree survey), 7 (highway standards), 10 (safeguarded links), and 13 (noise assessment). It is appropriate then to consider those submissions within the determination of this RM application.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018)

2: Achieving sustainable development 4: Decision-making 5: Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 9: Promoting sustainable transport 11: Making effective use of land 12: Achieving well-designed places

The National Planning Practice Guidance should be used in support of the NPPF.

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

CS1 Development Strategy CS5 Providing Homes DM2 Sustainable Construction of New Buildings DM3 High Quality Development DM4 Development Within & Beyond Settlement Envelopes DM9 Providing a Range of Transport DM10 Housing Mix

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. Agenda Item 12 Page 191

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 H1: Housing Mix LP H2: Housing Standards LP H4: Affordable Housing LP HQ1: High Quality Development LP T2: Highway Safety and Design LP EE4: Trees, woodlands and hedgerows LP SP7: Development within Settlement Envelopes LP T3: Parking

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014) Supplement 1 - Placemaking in Central Bedfordshire Supplement 5 - Residential Development

Relevant Planning History:

Application Number 14/02348/OUT Description Outline: Redevelopment up to 45 residential units with associated amenity space, landscaping and parking provision. Demolition of existing bungalow. Decision Granted Decision Date 22/11/2017

Application Number MB/05/00262/FULL Description Construction of 60 space car park Decision Granted Decision Date 13/02/2008

Application Number MB/03/00982/FULL Description Construction of car park (175 spaces) following demolition of existing workshop and office. Decision Granted Decision Date 13/02/2008 Agenda Item 12 Page 192

Consultees:

Harlington Parish The proposal was that HPC should object on the grounds Council of: It is not in keeping with the conservation area. Insufficient parking, below the required level of social housing. Dangerous entry and exit to the location. Network rail has a concern regarding parking and the ability to access the area with maintenance vehicles. Local Councillors No representations received Conservation Officer No representation received. Archaeology No objection to this application on archaeological grounds as this matter is to be addressed through condition 3 of the outline permission. Network Rail A detailed response has been provided. Site access - Note and appreciate the inclusion of condition 10 in relation to railway access in the outline permission. Swept path analysis supports requirements for continued access by large vehicles to the railway access point at the eastern end of the site. Concern is raised regarding the narrow width of the road and potential for this to be restricted by parked vehicles. Require the removal of trees on the corner between blocks A and B to ensure vehicle access is not prohibited once the trees are fully grown.

Drainage - Note that the outline permission includes conditions in relation to drainage. The response includes the drainage requirements for Network Rail (can be added as an informative).

Landscaping - a detail list of the types of trees that are acceptable/unacceptable adjacent to a railway are provided. The proposed planting plan appears to meet the requirements.

Lighting - It is appreciated that condition 8 of the outline permission relates to this issue.

Conditions should be added in relation to the method statements/Asset Protection Project Manager (OPE). All other matters can be addressed through informatives. Highways Initial response - The proposal is for the construction of 45 flats taking access from Station Road. The access is shown to be a bellmouth and measuring 5.5m wide. There is a footway running along one side (but behind the hedge) and terminates at the first bend of the new access road. The proposal is for 21 two bedroom flats and 24 one Agenda Item 12 Page 193

bedroom flats along with 70 parking spaces. There should be a 2.0m footway for the entire length of the access road which will also ensure that the required inter visibility from the parking courts can be provided and maintained. To comply with the authority’s parking standard 77 spaces would be required while only 70 are shown. Further, some of these bays are substandard as they would be difficult to manoeuvre into and out of. The parking spaces that would need to be reconsidered as follows:- Bays 34 and 70 will need to be extended 1.0m in each direction; Bays 46-47 and 57-58 will need to be extended by 1.0m in each direction; and Bays 59 and 64; Bays 48 and 52; Bays 35 and 41; Bay 28 - will need a 1.0m apron between the 2 bays extending beyond the parking aisle. 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.

Comments on revised proposal - Content with the arrangement and confirm that the proposal could be approved with standard highway conditions. Trees Officer I have examined the plans and documents relating to this application, in particular the Arboricultural Survey supporting document undertaken by Merewood Arboricultural Consultancy, dated 16th April 2018. In respect of this document, Section 5.0 'Implications Assessment' has identified encroachment of parking areas into the Root Protection Areas of a number of adjacent trees, and proposes three options to address this conflict. By far the more favourable option would be to implement Option 3, as set out in Section 5.15 of the document, which requires the use of a 'no-dig' car parking area option. This would need to be secured by way of a condition requiring an appropriate Arboricultural Method Statement, in addition to securing tree protection measures as set out in the Tree Protection Plan, and the pruning identified in the 'Implications Assessment' that is required to accommodate the buildings, especially Block D. There is no objection to the loss of just the one tree T16 (Alder). Conditions to be imposed. Waste Services This must be paid prior to discharging the relevant condition. A purchase order must be raised for the quantity of bins required and sent to Waste Services Agenda Item 12 Page 194

quoting the relevant planning reference number.

Wherever possible, refuse collection vehicles will only use adopted highways. If an access road is to be used, it must be to adoptable standards suitable for the refuse vehicle to manoeuvre safely around site (please see vehicle dimensions below). The current vehicle tracking has been done using the incorrect vehicle so will need to be revised and resubmitted to Highways to confirm it is suitable.

As this is a development of flats, the following information applies. Communal waste provision is allocated on the basis of 90l per week per waste stream per property; therefore, we would provide 1100 litre, 660 litre or 360 litre bins to be collected fortnightly. Our waste collection crew will move communal bins a maximum of 10m from the bin store to the waste collection vehicle, providing there are suitable dropped kerbs. We will require confirmation of this prior to ordering any bins for the development.

Bin stores should be easily accessible from the main highway and it is crucial that the store is secure with a lock to prevent potential fly tipping issues. A lock code will need to be provided to the Central Bedfordshire Waste Services Team. The door used by the collection crews will need to be wide enough to allow for easy removal of bins from the storage area. A dropped kerb will need to be provided to enable easy manoeuvrability, access and egress of the bins. The crew are not expected to move the bins over any undulating, non-paved, uneven surface, or where the gradient is deemed excessive. Lighting within the bin store should be provided so that the bins can be used safely by residents when it is dark. We would require a design layout to highlight where the bin store will be located. Landscape Officer Concern potential impact of development on substantial treed edge to east of site; the CBC design Guide advises landscaping should be retained within the public realm and not form rear garden boundaries, this is to aid appropriate management and longevity of landscaping. Orientating development to face this existing landscape feature would allow more space for trees / landscaping and could also assist in enhancing environment / natural surveillance of footpaths and access. The proximity of development to trees may also be an issue - the CBC Trees & Landscape Officer can offer expert advice. Landscape mitigation planting to the southern site boundary adjacent to the railway yard is required to integrate development and uses. Agenda Item 12 Page 195

Detail on design of proposed 3m high acoustic fence is required along with detail on other boundary treatments, gates. Adult Social Care In order to be able to meet the needs of older people we would therefore request that any approval is subject to the following planning conditions: • The design and layout of the parking, access and all dwellings in the approved scheme shall meet the requirements of M4(2) Category 2 - Accessible and adaptable dwellings, set out in Part M of the Building Regulations 2010. • In addition, the design and layout of not less than three (3) of the dwellings in the approved scheme shall meet requirements of M4(3) Category 3 Wheelchair user dwellings, set out in Part M of the Building Regulations 2010. SuDS Management No comments to make but look forward to reviewing the Team details as they become available. Anglian Water No comments to make as the application does not relate to drainage. Leisure and Open Space No Leisure comments. Sustainable Growth The submitted Planning Statement states that the development will be designed to meet the policies DM1: Renewable Energy and DM2: Sustainable Construction of New Buildings requirements, however no details are provided within the submitted application documents. In addition, the development should be designed to ensure that the dwellings are not at risk of overheating to comply with policy CS13: Climate Change. Education - Spending No response received Officer Early Years - Spending No response received Officer Affordable Housing - Strategic Housing support this application as it provides for Spending Officer 5 affordable homes which reflects the affordable housing percentage of 11% from permission CB/14/02348/OUT. The 11% affordable housing being based on viability. The S106 dated 21 st November 2017 denotes the affordable housing requirements from permission CB/14/02348/OUT in terms of the tenure of the affordable units. The S106 requires for 63% affordable rent and 37% shared ownership. No details in relation to tenure have been submitted with the application. We expect the 5 affordable units to fully comply with the S106 requirements with the provision of 3 affordable rented units (63%) and 2 shared ownership units (37%). It would be helpful to have the tenure confirmed by the applicant. Agenda Item 12 Page 196

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. Community Halls - No response received Spending Officer Libraries - Spending No response received Officer Sustainability - Spending No response received Officer Transport - Spending No response received Officer Public Transport - No response received Spending Officer Rights of Way Officer Public Footpath 24 runs N--S immediately outside the eastern edge of the development site. The eastern boundary of the footpath consists mainly of the boundary fences and hedges of the properties in the various closes off Park Leys. The western boundary of the footpath strip is currently separated from the development site by a blue painted metal security fence.

The alignment of the path should not be diverted. The connectivity to highways at both ends should be retained, i.e. to Park Leys and the detached footway leading to Station Rd. at the N end, and to Pilgrims Way & the underpass below the railway onto Public Footpath no. 3 at the south end. If at all possible the development should NOT necessitate the temporary closure of the public footpath, but if this is required any TTRO should be applied for in a timely manner and at least 7 weeks before the closure is required to start; details are on our website under Countryside / Rights of way.

The blue metal security fencing should be removed and the site left open-plan, or partially open-plan to the public footpath, with at least some of the properties overlooking the path rather then backing onto it. This will reduce the likelihood of anti social behaviour.

In lieu of a section 106 contribution towards local public rights of way the developer could carry out improvement works to the existing public footpath; particularly south of the end of the tarmac detached foot way. For example widening to 2.0 metres with a surfaced strip of 1.5 metres, in a porous compacted and blinded material (e.g. gravel or Agenda Item 12 Page 197

road planings), that is wheel-chair and child-buggy friendly; and cutting back of the hedge / other vegetation having regard to the presence of mature trees which should be left in situ if healthy. Informal planting done as part of the development should take account of the line and width of the public footpath and should be placed so as not to over- hang or obstruct it as it matures. The land strip where the public footpath lies along its frontage with the site, is owned by this Council.

We do not consider that this path warrants upgrading to cycle track as there are existing minor roads that serve this purpose, and we would not like to encourage cyclists onto FP3 etc. west of the rail line where cycling on public footpaths across farmland would constitute civil trespass against the agricultural landowner.

Ongoing after the development, the 'Boundary Features' that separate the site and its green space from the public footpath, such as trees, hedges, fences, ditches, banks, bollards, anti-vehicle barriers, etc. abutting the right of way, will be the developers' to maintain, or their successor owners or the management company put in place to manage the infrastructure of the site.

Police Architectural No objections subject to a condition seeking lighting to Liaison Officer communal unadopted areas. Pollution Team Initial Response - no new/additional information in relation to noise/mitigation in line with the previously submitted revised noise assessment has been submitted. I therefore copy previous comments made on this application below. If more recent noise information has been submitted then please let me know.

Final comments - Satisfied with the details subject to a condition seeking mechanical ventilation. Fire Safety Response highlights that should normally be dealt with a Building Regulations consultation stage. Points raised relate to vehicle access for a pump appliance, turning facilities and provision of fire hydrants at the developers cost.

Other Representations:

Neighbours Local residents were consulted by letter and site notices were posted in the vicinity of the site. Representations have been received from 3 local residents and the following concerns are raised:  Balconies would directly overlook garden and house due to 3 storey height; Agenda Item 12 Page 198

 Loss of sunlight;  Traffic flow should be given further consideration due to access constraints;  3 storey buildings are out of keeping with the village;  Encroachment into the copse at the south end of the site;  No amenity land included;  Noise assessment is out of date;  Insufficient number of affordable homes;  Inadequate public consultation - all properties in Park Leys development should have received letters;  Overlooking as tree coverage is not all year round;  noise from residents;  Building work noise;  Loss of wildlife;  Matter should be discussed at village committee;  An agreement should be in place setting out liability should certain points not be adhered to eg. stating there would be no overlooking.

Considerations

1. Main Planning Considerations 1.1 The principle of developing the site for residential purposes and the main access into the site was established by virtue of the outline consent. The material planning considerations therefore relate to layout, scale, appearance and landscaping.

2. Layout 2.1 At outline stage an indicative layout was provided and this has informed the final layout approach that has been put forward. The site is constrained due to its elongated shape, close proximity to the railway line, topography and provision of mature trees along the eastern boundary, which have all informed the final layout approach.

2.2 The reserved matters layout generally reflects the indicative plan, with the exception that the coach houses have been removed from the scheme. This is beneficial as the built form is positioned further away from Station Road, which is a Conservation Area. Block A would be sited approximately 60m from Station Road and the area between Station Road and block A would be open amenity space. The remaining blocks (B to F) are sited along the eastern boundary of the site in a linear arrangement, and are separated by parking courts. Parking areas in the northern section of the site around block A and B are broken up with the provision of trees, which adds a degree of visual interest.

The Parish Council have objected on the basis that the proposal would not be 2.3 inkeeping with the conservation area but no further detail is provided to confirm the justification for this. At outline stage, the Conservation Officer confirmed that the site is not situated in the conservation area and is not immediately visible but is located next to an important group of cottages and any development needs to Agenda Item 12 Page 199

reflect the urban grain of the village. The revised layout submitted at outline stage was deemed acceptable in terms of the conservation area. As the proposed layout has been influenced by the indicative layout it is not considered that any adverse impact to the conservation area would result.

The access road from Station Road runs adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site but turns between block A and B. The road then continues along the 2.4 western boundary of the site, where it terminates at the access point for the Network Rail yard. The site incorporates a mixture of pedestrian footways and shared surfaces with the main entrances to the blocks fronting the access road.

In respect to the impact on neighbouring residents, the main consideration relates to the impact on those neighbours to the east of the site. The distance from the rear of the proposed blocks to the flank wall of existing neighbours 2.5 properties ranges from approximately 10m at the northern end of the site and increases to 30m at the southern end of the site. The Design Guide does not stipulate the separation distance required between the rear of a building and the flank of a neighbouring building. Whilst the neighbouring properties sit at a lower level, due to the tree coverage it is not considered that any resultant overlooking would be adverse. Neighbouring residents have raised concerns on this basis and whilst noted it is not considered to justify a reason for refusal. A further concern raised by residents is that there would be noise disturbance from future residents, however given the residential character of the area it is not considered that any additional noise would be detrimental to neighbouring amenity.

Internally the apartments adopt suitable layouts with all habitable rooms benefitting from appropriate window openings to provide adequate daylight penetration and outlook. The units are generally arranged with open plan kitchen/living areas with either one or two bedrooms and a bathroom. The units 2.6 achieve the minimum internal space standards set out in the MHCLG Technical housing standards-nationally described space standard document.

Affordable housing units would be provided within block D, and the quantum proposed accords with the requirements of the S106 agreement. The applicant is also committed to provided the required split of shared ownership and affordable rent. Each unit would have 2 bedrooms and accords with the national 2.7 internal space standards previously referred to. It is noted that the Affordable Housing Officer sought dispersal of the units across the site. However, given that only 5 units are required for affordable housing provision, and having regard to the need for an affordable housing provider to manage their stock, this is not always a feasible option. As block D is consistent in design terms to the other blocks it is considered that this would assist in ensuring tenure blindness.

External amenity space is provided in the form of balconies on the upper floors that range in size from 5 to 6sq.m, which accords with the requirements of Supplement 5 of the Design Guide. Each ground floor flat is provided with a private patio area that also accords with the minimum size requirements for private amenity space. It is deemed appropriate for a condition to be imposed 2.8 seeking details of the means of enclosing the private amenity areas. Agenda Item 12 Page 200

Appropriately sized bin and cycle stores, that are readily accessible, have been provided in the blocks, with the exception of block B and F, which would utilise the bin and cycle stores in block C and E, respectively. Block A would have external bin and cycle stores and details of the material would need to be clarified via a condition. 2.9 The original concerns raised by the Highway Officer have been addressed and no objection to the development is raised. The vehicular and pedestrian provision is appropriate. The Highways Officer recommends inclusion of planning conditions seeking details of construction vehicles during the construction phase - a plan is submitted with the application which shows this 2.10 detail (plan no. 18/3465/22) so this condition would be unnecessary. A condition is also sought regarding details of the junction improvements but this was considered at outline stage and such a condition is therefore unnecessary. Further to this, a condition is sought for details of the surfacing to parking areas and surface water drainage, in terms of the former a plan is submitted with the application that shows this detail (dwg no. 18-3465-20 and 18-3465-21) and in terms of the surface water there is already a condition imposed at outline stage.

3. Scale 3.1 An indicative cross section was provided at outline stage and showed that the buildings would be 2.5 storeys in height, which equalled approximately 10m. No planning conditions were attached with the outline planning permission that restricted the height of the development. The plans submitted show that each block would be 3 storeys, which measure 10.5m. It is acknowledged that the established character is 2 storeys and whilst this is more significant in its proportions, the 0.5 storey increase in height is not considered detrimental to the character. Increasing the height of the buildings has enabled a reduction in the extent of built form, and has provided an opportunity to open up the site at the entrance. Given the setback from the conservation area it is not considered that any adverse impact would result. Section 11 of the NPPF advocates the effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and it is considered that the proposal adheres to the aims and objectives of the NPPF.

3.2 In terms of the footprint of the buildings, they are generally consistent with the footprint of the blocks shown on the indicative layout plan, at which stage it was deemed acceptable. No issues are therefore raised regarding the scale of the footprint.

3.3 Plans showing the levels of the proposed dwellings and sections with adjoining development are submitted, which show an appropriate height and relationship of development. This is partly due to the extent of tree coverage along the eastern boundary.

4. Appearance 4.1 A traditional design approach has been adopted for the blocks with a tiled hip roof form. Block A and B serve as focal points in the development, having a different form and appearance, whereas block C, D, E and F are consistent in form. Nonetheless each building would be finished in facing bricks, blocks A, C, E and F would be finished in a buff brick and blocks B and D would be finished in a red Agenda Item 12 Page 201

brick. Elements of render would also be utilised, along with heads, cills and banding to be in reconstituted stone. The provision of stacked balconies, which would be steel and glass, add interest to the appearance of each block. Generally the entrance points are provided in a central position of the front elevation of each block thereby providing a focal point. It is considered that the overall form, design, appearance and materials of construction would be high quality. However, there is a lack of detailed information regarding the specific materials of construction and a planning condition is recommended requiring further detail of this element.

5. Landscaping 5.1 A comprehensive landscaping scheme has been submitted with the application and includes detailed proposals for the site, offering areas of shared amenity space and areas of buffer landscaping.

5.2 The Landscape Officer has indicated that the tree band to the east should be retained in the public realm and not form rear garden boundaries to aid management and longevity of the landscape. By orientating the development towards the existing landscape feature it would allow for more enhanced planting and natural surveillance of footpaths and access. These concerns are noted but the layout has been developed based on the indicative layout plan provided at outline stage. Additionally, the significant concerns regarding noise and disturbance from the railway line and train station, have influenced the design. Owing to the constraints of the site this is considered the most suitable resolution.

The Tree Officer is satisfied with the details subject to conditions seeking an 5.3 Arboricultural Method Statement and tree protection measures. No objection has been raised regarding the loss of an Alder tree on the site.

Plans have also been submitted showing hard landscaping finishes across the 5.4 site, which is primarily tarmac for the access road with permeable block paving to the parking bays. However, the Highways Officer has requested a condition seeking details of the surfacing to ensure it meets adoptable standards. It is therefore deemed appropriate to include this condition.

A 3m high acoustic fence is proposed along the western boundary of the site. 5.5 Details of the design are required, as requested by the Landscape Officer, along with detail on all other boundary treatments and gates.

6. Other Considerations

6.1 Noise

In accordance with condition 13 of the outline consent, details have been submitted to address the matter of noise from the railway line and tannoy systems at the station. The Pollution Officer raised concerns regarding the level of information provided but this was addressed and it is agreed that the habitable room windows facing the railway will be fixed shut. These rooms should have mechanical ventilation for air purge purposes. This matter would need to be addressed through a condition. Agenda Item 12 Page 202

6.2 Parish Council Objection

The Parish Council have objected to the proposal based on a number of issues. It is considered that these matters have been overcome as set out below:  It is not in keeping with the conservation area – the site falls outside the conservation area and follows the layout that was established at outline stage. The footprint of the buildings is generally consistent with the plans submitted at outline stage. There has been an increase in the proportions of the buildings but this is offset by the reduction in built form and movement of development away from the conservation area. Conditions would be imposed seeking details of all materials and boundary treatments.  Insufficient parking – The proposal provides 70 parking spaces, which is 7 spaces below standard. The site is in a highly sustainable location with access to bus and rail services. The Highways Officer is satisfied with the proposal. It is recommended to include a condition seeking a Residential Travel Plan to overcome this matter  Below the required level of social housing – this matter was negotiated at outline stage.  Dangerous entry and exit to the location – access was dealt with at outline stage.  Network rail has a concern regarding parking and the ability to access the area with maintenance vehicles – this can be addressed through a condition regarding a parking management strategy.

6.3 Conditions

The Adult Social Care Team have requested that conditions are imposed ensuring that the development meets Part M of the Building Regulations. The supporting Design and Access Statement provides further detail and therefore this condition is deemed unnecessary.

In accordance with the comments from Waste Services, a condition should be imposed to secure the necessary bin charges. This condition was imposed at outline stage (condition 12) and is therefore unnecessary.

The Police Architectural Liaison Officer has requested a lighting conditions but this was imposed at outline stage (condition 8) and is therefore unnecessary.

6.4 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.

In accordance with the considerations set out in this report, this application satisfies the following planning conditions:- 4 (tree survey), 10 (safeguarded links), and 13 (noise assessment). In terms of condition 7 (highway standards), it is considered that further detail is required for a scheme to widen the adjacent public footpath and no residential travel plan has been submitted so these matters will be dealt with through conditions. Agenda Item 12 Page 203

Recommendation:

That Planning Permission should be granted subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers 18-3465- 10A, 18-3465-11, 18-3465-12A, 18-3465-13, 18-3465-14A, 18,3465-15A, 18- 3465-16A, 18-3465-17A, 18-3465-18A, 18-3465-19, 18-3465-20, 18-3465-21, 18-3465-22, 18-3465-23, and OS Site Location Plan.

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

2 No above ground building work shall take place until details of the materials to be used for the external walls, roofs, balconies, bin and cycle enclosure for Block A of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To control the appearance of the building in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality. (Section 12, NPPF)

3 A scheme shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected, including the means of enclosing the private patio areas. The boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved scheme before the building(s) are occupied and be thereafter retained.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenities of the locality. (Section 12, NPPF)

4 Full details of the design and materials of the 3 metre high acoustic fence to be provided along the western boundary of the site shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the buildings are occupied. The acoustic fence hereby approved shall be erected prior to occupation and shall be retained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenities of the locality. (Section 12, NPPF)

5 The bin storage/collection areas hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall be available for use prior to occupation. The bin storage/collection areas shall be retained thereafter. Agenda Item 12 Page 204

Reason: In the interest of amenity. (Section 12, NPPF)

6 The cycle parking stores shall be fully implemented before the development is occupied and thereafter retained for this purpose.

Reason: To ensure the provision of cycle parking to meet the needs of occupiers of the proposed development in the interests of encouraging the use of sustainable modes of transport. (Section 94, NPPF)

7 The approved landscaping scheme, as set out on dwg. no. 18-3465-20 and 18-3465-21 shall be implemented by the end of the full planting season immediately following the completion and/or first use of any separate part of the development (a full planting season means the period from October to March). The trees, shrubs and grass shall subsequently be maintained in accordance with the approved landscape maintenance scheme and any which die or are destroyed during this period shall be replaced during the next planting season.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of landscaping. (Sections 12 & 15, NPPF)

8 Prior to development, an Arboricultural Method Statement shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval, setting out details of the 'No Dig' car parking area construction, as being proposed as Option 3, (Section 5.15) of the Arboricultural Survey document, dated 16th April 2018, as prepared by Merewood Arboricultural Consultancy. Also to be included in the Arboricultural Method Statement is the access facilitation pruning required, as identified in Section 5.17 of the Arboricultural Survey. The approved Arboricultural Method Statement shall then be implemented in strict accordance with the required works specification and operational timings for this work. Reason: To ensure the satisfactory protection of root systems and rooting medium, where there are construction requirements within the designated Root Protection Areas of retained trees, in order to maintain the health and stability of the trees in question, and to ensure a high standard of pruning work to facilitate development.

9 Prior to the commencement of development, all tree protective fencing and ground protection shall be installed in strict accordance with the Tree Protection Plan, dated April 2018 including Sections 5.19 and 5.20 Arboricultural Survey by Merewood Arboricultural Consultancy, dated 16th April 2018. The protective fencing and ground protection shall then remain securely in position throughout the entire course of development. Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory standard of tree protection is maintained throughout the entire course of development, in order to maintain the health and stability of the trees in question. Agenda Item 12 Page 205

10 Prior to occupation, full details of the means to upgrade Harlington Footpath No. 24, which should include construction details and where necessary boundary treatment details, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme hereby approved shall be available for use prior to occupation of the development and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability and to enhance access for residents (Section 9, NPPF).

11 Notwithstanding the details contained in Sharps Redmore Acoustic Technical Note dated 11th December 2018, all habitable rooms facing the railway line shall be fixed shut for so long as the development remains in existence. Prior to above ground works, full details of the required mechanical ventilation in these aforementioned habitable rooms shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing. The mechanical ventilation scheme hereby permitted shall be installed prior to occupation and retained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a suitable standard of living for future occupiers (Section 12, NPPF).

12 Prior to occupation, full details of a parking management strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The strategy hereby requested shall include details for maintaining an unobstructed access to the Railway Yard at the southern boundary of the site, as indicated on dwg. no. 18-3465-10A. The strategy shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interest of retaining access to the adjacent yard (Section 9, NPPF).

13 Prior to occupation, a Residential Travel Plan setting out measures to reduce car travel and encourage sustainable travel modes shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Residential Travel Plan hereby be approved shall be implemented at first occupation and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of sustainability (Section 9, NPPF).

INFORMATIVE NOTES TO APPLICANT

1. In accordance with Article 35 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the reason for any condition above relates to the Policies as referred to in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Core Strategy for North Central Bedfordshire.

2. All roads to be constructed within the site shall be designed in accordance with Central Bedfordshire Council’s publication “Design in central Agenda Item 12 Page 206

Bedfordshire (Design Supplement 10 – Movement, Street and Places” and the Department of the Environment/Department of Transport’s “Manual for Street”, or any amendment thereto.

3. The details submitted with this application have satisfied the requirements of planning conditions 4, 10 and 13 of LPA reference CB/14/02348/OUT

4. The applicant's attention is drawn to the comments provided by Network Rail in their email dated 01 June 2018, which reiterate the informatives set out in the outline decision (LPA ref. 14/02348/OUT dated 22nd November 2017).

DECISION

......

...... Agenda Item 13 Page 207

Application No. Crown Copyright and database 1:1,250 right. 2018 CB/18/03698/RM Ordnance Survey 100049029 Central Bedfordshire Council. Date Created 9 Silsoe Road, Maulden, Bedford, Cities Revealed Aerial 22-01-2019 MK45 2AX photography copyright The GeoInformation Group 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 13 Page 209

Item No. 13

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/18/03698/RM LOCATION 9 Silsoe Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AX PROPOSAL Reserved Matters: Application CB/17/04031/OUT dated 12/01/2018. Appearance, landscaping, access, layout & scale PARISH Maulden WARD Ampthill WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Duckett, Blair & Downing CASE OFFICER Lauren Rance DATE REGISTERED 01 October 2018 EXPIRY DATE 26 November 2018 APPLICANT J.C.Gill Developments Ltd. AGENT JRT Architectural Design Limited REASON FOR Cllr Jamieson is a neighbour to the application and COMMITTEE TO has commented on the application. Therefore in DETERMINE accordance with the Scheme of Delegrtion (PARt 3E/Page 41 para 4.4.22.3) the application is required to be determined by the Committee RECOMMENDED DECISION Reserved Matters – Recommended for Approval

Reason for Recommendation:

The principle of the construction of a new dwelling to the rear of No.9 Silsoe Road is acceptable as previously approved under outline application CB/17/4031/OUT. The development would not result in an unacceptable impact on the character of the area, an adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties or highway safety. Therefore subject to conditions, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of the reserved matters- layout, appearance, scale, access and landscaping.

Site Location:

The site consists of open grassland to the rear of No.9 Silsoe Road. The access to the site is within Maulden settlement envelope but the site is otherwise outside the settlement envelope. The access is to the north of No.9 Silsoe Road.

To the north of the site is a relatively recently constructed bungalow which was granted planning permission at appeal under LPA reference CB/15/03296/OUT.

To the south of the site (and on land to the rear of No. 9a Silsoe Road) outline planning permission has been granted for a new dwelling. There is a current Reserved Matters application relating to that outline planning permission which is yet to be determined by the Council (LPA reference CB/18/04467/RM). Access to Agenda Item 13 Page 210 that site makes use of the access shown in this application.

The Application:

Outline planning permission was granted at the site with all matters reserved under reference CB/17/4031/OUT for a new dwelling at the site.

The application now seeks to apply for the reserved matters of the site to the dwelling, garage and parking in terms of layout, appearance, scale, access and landscaping..

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018)

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

CS14 High quality Development DM3 High quality Development

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:

HQ1 High Quality Development

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014)

Relevant Planning History:

Case Reference CB/17/04031/OUT Agenda Item 13 Page 211

Location 9 Silsoe Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AX Proposal Outline: Erection of one 4 bed dwelling Decision Outline Application - Granted Decision Date 12/01/2018

Case Reference CB/17/04939/VOC Location 9 Silsoe Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AX Proposal Variation or removal of condition 6 of planning permission CB/16/05823/OUT. The condition is requested to be removed or restricted to 1.5 storeys with rooms in the roof with and agreed maximum ridge height. Decision Variation of Condition - Granted Decision Date 05/01/2018

Case Reference CB/16/05823/OUT Location 9A Silsoe Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AX Proposal Outline application: Erection of one dwelling with up to four bedrooms at Land at the rear of 9A Silsoe Road, Maulden Decision Outline Application - Granted Decision Date 02/03/2017

Consultees:

Maulden Parish Council Objection on the grounds of highway safety both due to the access width and visibility. Ecology Previous conditions stated on outline condition still apply. Trees and Landscape No objection Highways No objection subject to conditions

Other Representations:

Neighbours Two neighbours have objected to the scheme on the following grounds:  Height and overbearing  Precedent  Previous appeal decisions  Loss of light  Loss of outlook A neighbour has raised a concern over a private right of way over the application site (along the north and east boundary) that is required in order to provide access to an adjacent piece of land.

Considerations

1. Principle of Development 1.1 By granting outline planning permission CB/17/4031/OUT, the principle of residential development on the application site was considered to be acceptable. As the site is adjacent to the existing settlement boundary of Maulden, it is considered to be a sustainable location in terms of access to services and amenities within the settlement Agenda Item 13 Page 212

2. Layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and Impact on Character and Appearance 2.1 As acknowledged in approving the outline planning application, the proposed development would increase the built form beyond the settlement envelope and would result in a loss of open countryside. However there are dwellings to the north, west and south of the site and when viewed from Silsoe Road, due to the access arrangements and the existing vegetation and trees to the east of No.9, the dwelling would not be highly visible in the landscape.

The access to the site would be taken from Silsoe Road along an access 2.2 that runs to the north of No.9 Silsoe Road and follows the alignment of the northern and eastern boundary of the application site. This access leads to the application site to the south – land to the rear of no.9a Silsoe Road (for which there is a current reserved matters application (LPA reference CB/18/04467/RM)).

Silsoe Road is predominantly linear in form and the proposal is outside the 2.3 settlement envelope. Having regard to the siting of the bungalow to the north of the site (which was allowed at appeal under LPA reference CB/15/03296/OUT)(APP/P0240/W/16/3154544) together with the siting of agricultural units to the east of the application site and, an outline permission to the south of the site (LPA reference CB/16/05823/OUT), means that the proposed layout would not appear out of character with the surrounding pattern of development.

In respect of the appearance of the proposed dwelling, there is a mix of 2.4 dwelling styles and materials of construction used within the built form in Silsoe Road, and the current design which incorporates similar proprotions and design attributes, would not appear out of character with the surroundings. No details are supplied in terms of proposed materials but this can be conditioned as part of any planning application.

In respect of the scale of the proposed dwelling, the dwellings along Silsoe 2.5 Road are two storey in height. The neighbouring dwelling allowed on appeal is only single storey (access is from Clophill Road), however the Inspector did not make comment on whether a two storey dwelling would be appropriate in this location, instead said that the dwelling when viewed from the approach along Clophill Road would have the back drop of other dwellings along Silsoe Road and so would not appear out of character or highly visible. The inspector also stated that existing landscaping would help provide this backdrop, and in this current proposal the existing established vegetation to the rear of No.9 and to the front of the proposed dwelling would provide this. Due to the separation distance between Clophill Road and the proposed dwelling of over 40 metres as well as the established hedging along Clophill Road the proposed dwelling would not be highly visible at the proposed scale or appear out of character.

Level details submitted with this application (as required as a condition of the Agenda Item 13 Page 213

2.6 outline permission) are acceptable in relation to the site and the surrounding dwellings. The height of the dwelling has been assessed (approximately 1.42m higher than No.7 Silsoe Road and 3.26m taller than No.9). The first floor accommodation is located partially within the roofspace and following amendments to the scheme the roof height and eaves have been reduced to limit the degree of impact on the surrounding dwellings together with reinforcing the character of the surrounding area. The outline permission for the dwelling to the rear of No.9a Silsoe Road has had a condition varied to also allow accommodation within the roofspace as it was considered this increased height would not to harm the character and appearance nor the residential dwellings.

In respect of landscaping, the proposed landscape scheme is considered 2.7 acceptable and in-keeping with the surrounding area, and the Trees and landscape officer is supportive of the scheme. A planning condition is recommended requiring imposition of this landscape scheme.

Overall, the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on the character 2.8 and appearance of the area, and accords with Policy DM3 (High Quality Development) of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North and Section 5 (Residential Development) of the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide and Section 12 of the NPPF.

3. Impact on Neighbour Amenity 3.1 No.9 Silsoe Road is located to the front and west of the proposed dwelling and the rear elevation of No.9 is over 40m away from the principle elevation of the new dwelling. At this distance it is considered that there would be no unacceptable loss of privacy, light, outlook nor overbearing impact to No.9. It is also of note that there is established vegetation within No.9s ownership along their rear boundary that would provide additional privacy. The level plan submitted shows that with the reduced roof height and the separation distance there would be no unacceptable overbearing impact to No.9.

3.2 No.7 Silsoe Road is located to the north west of the proposed dwelling and is separated from it by the access road. The separation distance between the proposed dwelling and No.7 is approximately 36 metres. Due to this separation distance and relationship between the proposed dwelling and this neighbour it is considered that there would be no unacceptable loss of light, outlook nor cause an overbearing impact on this neighbour.

3.3 The newly constructed bungalow to the north of the application site at High Gables is separated from the dwelling by the new access road and is located 7 metres from the north elevation of the proposed dwelling. There would be no unacceptable loss of privacy to the bungalow as the first floor side window of the proposed dwelling serves a bathroom which can be required to be obscure glazed through planning condition. The bungalow to the north of the application site does have windows on the south elevation with a view south into the application site. However, these windows currently have the outlook of the boundary fence and serve a hallway and are not considered habitable rooms. There is no unacceptable loss of light, outlook nor would the proposed Agenda Item 13 Page 214

development result in a harmful overbearing impact to the bungalow. The outside amenity space for the bungalow may have some loss of light mid to late morning during the winter (when the sun is at its lowest) however this would not warrant a reason for refusal.

3.4 No.9a Silsoe Road is separated from the proposed dwelling by over 36 metres and so would not be unacceptably impacted by the proposal.

3.5 As noted previously, outline planning permission for a dwelling to the rear of No.9a has been granted and the reserved matters application is currently being considered by the Council. Having regard to the plans submitted in relation to that adjoining application and the position and distance from the boundary it is considered that it would not cause an unacceptable impact.

3.6 Therefore, for reasons outlined above, it is considered that the proposed development would not cause harm to the amenity or living conditions of the neighbouring dwellings, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) and Section 12 of the NPPF.

4. Impact on Amenity of Future Occupants of the Dwelling 4.1 The proposed dwelling would provide 4 bedrooms. The bedrooms provided as part of the scheme would be considered to be useable and liveable, with a window serving each bedroom allowing an acceptable amount of light to each room, and therefore would provide an acceptable living standard for the future occupiers. The habitable rooms would also provide a sufficient amount of useable and habitable space to create an acceptable living and amenity standard for the future residents. Each dwelling is provided with a suitable rear garden and bin storage.

4.2 Therefore, for reasons outlined above, it is considered that the proposed development would provide a sufficient living standard, and acceptable amenity space for the future occupants and residents of the proposed dwellinghouses, in accordance with Policies DM3, DM14, CS14 and CS16 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009), section 12 of the NPPF, Policy HQ1 of the emerging Local Plan and would further comply with design and space standards outlined within the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (2014).

5. Highway Considerations 5.1 The access would be to the west of the site from Silsoe Road, and parking would be provided in the garage and on the drive. A turning space for a delivery lorry is also provided as part of this application.

5.2 A matter has been raised from a neighbour in terms of the access arrangements to the south of the application site on land to the rear of No.9a Silsoe Road (for which there is understood to be a lawful right of access) Having regard to the current plans for the reserved matters application to the south of the application site (LPA reference CB/18/04467/RM)the proposed access for that new dwelling runs through and to the northern boundary of the application site and along the east Agenda Item 13 Page 215

boundary. The representation received has requested that in order to manoeuvre vehicles to the neighbouring site the access road needs to be curved in the north east corner. This matter has been raised with the applicant of this planning application being considered by the Committee but, in any event, is not pertinent to the considerations of this planning application and is a civil matter between the two parties.

5.3 Concerns have also been raised in terms of the width of the access to the site, however the Highways Officer has no objection to the scheme subject to conditions and therefore it is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in the context of Car Parking and Highway Safety, in accordance with Policy DM3 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009), and would further accord with design principles outlined within the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (2014).

6. Other Considerations 6.1 Ecology

Conditions on the outline permission still apply.

6.2 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.

6.3 Conclusion

The proposed dwelling is acceptable in regards to scale, layout, design and landscaping without having an unacceptable impact upon the neighbouring dwellings or the character of the area. The access to the site is acceptable in highways terms and so it is recommended that the reserved matters be granted.

Recommendation:

That Reserved Matters be APPROVED

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS / REASONS

1 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers JG/2018-02/02A, SRM01 Rev A, JG/2018-02/03A, JG/2018- 02/07A, JG/2018-02/05, JG/2018-02/06B, JG/2018-04B and Site Location Plan.

Reason: To identify the approved plan/s and to avoid doubt. Agenda Item 13 Page 216

2 The planting, landscaping scheme shown on approved Drawing No. SRM01 Rev A dated 28/11/18 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 season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: To ensure an acceptable standard of landscaping. (Sections 12 & 15, NPPF)

3 The boundary treatment scheme shown in drawing number SRM01 Rev A shall be constructed in the positions, design, materials and type shown prior to the building being occupied. The boundary treatment shall then be retained thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development and the visual amenities of the locality. (Section 12, NPPF)

4 No above ground development shall take place, until details of the materials to be used for the external walls and roofs of the development hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To control the appearance of the building in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality. (Section 12, NPPF)

5 The proposed vehicular access shall be surfaced in bituminous or other similar durable material (not loose aggregate) as may be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for a distance of 5.0m into the site, measured from the highway boundary, before the premises are occupied. Arrangements shall be made for surface water drainage from the site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge into the highway.

Reason To avoid the carriage of mud or other extraneous material or surface water from the site into the highway so as to safeguard the interest of highway safety.

6 The turning space for vehicles illustrated on the approved drawing no. JG/2018-02/02A shall be constructed before the development is first brought into use and thereafter retained for the purpose of a turning area

Reason To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn outside the highway limits thereby avoiding the reversing of vehicles on to the highway. Agenda Item 13 Page 217

7 The first floor window serving an ensuite in the north facing elevation of the development hereby permitted shall be permanently fitted with obscured glass of a type to substantially restrict vision through it at all times and shall be non-opening, unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7m above the floor of the room in which the window is installed.

Reason: To safeguard the privacy of occupiers of adjoining properties (Section 12, NPPF)

INFORMATIVE NOTES TO APPLICANT

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

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

3. The applicant is advised that no works associated with the construction of the vehicular access/crossover 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 follow this link on the Council website http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/transport/request/dropped-kerb.aspx or contact Central Bedfordshire Council Tel: 0300 300 8301 quoting the Planning Application number. This will enable the necessary consent and procedures under Section 184 of the Highways Act to be implemented. The applicant is also advised that if any of the works associated with the construction of the vehicular access affects or requires the removal and/or the relocation of any equipment, apparatus or structures (e.g. street name plates, bus stop signs or shelters, statutory authority equipment etc.) then the applicant will be required to bear the cost of such removal or alteration. To fully discharge condition 7 the applicant should provide evidence to the Local Planning Authority that the Highway Authority have undertaken the construction in accordance with the approved plan, before the development is brought into use.

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 by this link on the Council website Agenda Item 13 Page 218

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/transport/request/dropped-kerb.aspx or contact Central Bedfordshire Council Tel: 0300 300 8301

The applicant is advised that parking for contractor’s vehicles and the storage of materials associated with this development should take place within the site and not extend into within the public highway without authorisation from the highway authority. If necessary the applicant is advised to follow this link on the Council website http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/transport/request/dropped-kerb.aspx or contact Central Bedfordshire Council Tel: 0300 300 8301. Under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 the developer may be liable for any damage caused to the public highway as a result of construction of the development hereby approved.

The applicant is advised that no private surface water drainage system designed as part of a new development, will be allowed to enter any existing highway surface water drainage system

The contractor and / or client are to ensure that any mud or building material debris such as sand, cement or concrete that is left on the public highway, or any mud arising from construction/demolition vehicular movement, shall be removed immediately and in the case of concrete, cement, mud or mortar not allowed to dry on the highway

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 6, Article 35

The Council acted pro-actively through positive engagement with the applicant during the determination process which led to improvements to the scheme. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively to secure a sustainable form of development in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Agenda Item 14 Page 219

Application No. Crown Copyright and database 1:1,250 right. 2018 CB/18/04383/FULL Ordnance Survey 100049029 Central Bedfordshire Council. Date Created Manor Farm, Watling Street, Cities Revealed Aerial 22-01-2019 Kensworth, Dunstable, LU6 3QU photography copyright The GeoInformation Group 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 14 Page 221

Item No. 14

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/18/04383/FULL LOCATION Manor Farm, Watling Street, Kensworth, Dunstable, LU6 3QU PROPOSAL Retrospective change of use from agriculture to temporary use as storage area for 5 years, with ancillary landscaping works and formation of hardstanding area using road planings (scalpings). PARISH Kensworth WARD Caddington WARD COUNCILLORS Cllrs Collins & Stay CASE OFFICER Peter Vosper DATE REGISTERED 26 November 2018 EXPIRY DATE 21 January 2019 APPLICANT O'Hagan Transport Ltd AGENT Shaun Andrews Design and Architecture REASON FOR Called-in by Cllr Stay if the application is COMMITTEE TO recommended for refusal for the following DETERMINE reasons:  Minimal to zero impact on landscape  This proposal is part of a national infrastructure scheme & is strongly supported RECOMMENDED DECISION Full Application - Recommended for Refusal

Reason for Recommendation:

Subject to conditions, the proposal is acceptable in terms of its impact on the occupants of neighbouring properties, and its highway impact.

However, the proposed change of use from agriculture to a temporary storage use for 5 years represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal would be detrimental to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt, and an encroachment into the countryside. No factors which could amount to very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and other harm to the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV), are evident.

Furthermore, the proposed change of use would be to the detriment of the countryside and would

Site Location:

The site of 5,183 sq m is to the south east of the A5183 (former A5). It is a field in agricultural use with vehicular access onto the A5183. Agenda Item 14 Page 222

Within the 'Blue Line' area adjoining the application site to the south west are two buildings. The first, to the north, is a building granted planning permission as a grain store under reference SB/89/01217/FULL, and then issued a Certificate of Lawful Development for commercial storage purposes under reference SB/08/00596/LDCE. The second building, to the south, was granted planning permission for agricultural storage under reference SB/95/00716/FULL. There is a current, undetermined, application to change the use of this building from agricultural storage to commercial storage under reference CB/18/02617/FULL.

There is also a recently constructed agricultural grain store building immediately to the north west of the application site, approved under reference CB/18/00952/FULL. This is not on land within the ownership of the applicant for this application.

There are three dwellings - New Lodge, Red Cow Farm and Red Cow Byre - a short distance to the east and north of the site, on the opposite side of the A5183. The rest of the surrounding area is open countryside.

The site is in the South Bedfordshire Green Belt, the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).

The boundary of Central Bedfordshire district with Dacorum district follows the A5183 in the vicinity of the application site.

The Application:

Retrospective planning permission is sought for a change of use of a field in agricultural use to an open storage area for a temporary period of five years.

The application form states that the use started on 29 January 2018.

Euston Station in London is being redeveloped to accommodate the High Speed 2 (HS2) rail link. The supporting Planning Statement (Shaun Andrews Design and Architecture, reference 2712.DAS) states that a significant number of known and anticipated artefacts will arise from the excavation of the Euston site. It is proposed to safely and securely store these artefacts on the application site.

At a site visit on 14 January 2018 it was noted that building materials are currently being stored on site. The site has already been covered in hardstanding.

Ancillary landscaping works are proposed. This includes the landscaping approved as part of planning application CB/17/02974/FULL consisting of a row of new tree planting adjacent to the site boundary with the A5183 and the strengthening of an existing hedge with new planting adjacent to the south west boundary of the site. Also semi-mature trees planted within wooden boxes would be placed throughout the site.

The existing junction and vehicular access from the A5183 would be used. Agenda Item 14 Page 223

Relevant Policies:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), July 2018

Section 2: Achieving sustainable development Section 4: Decision-making Section 6: Building a strong, competitive economy Section 9: Promoting sustainable transport Section 12: Achieving well-designed places Section 13: Protecting Green Belt land Section 16: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review, January 2004

Policy SD1: Sustainability Keynote Policy Policy NE3: Control of Development in the Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) Policy BE8: Design Considerations

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 Policies SD1, NE3 and BE8 are broadly consistent with the Framework and carry significant 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:

Policy SP4: Development in the Green Belt Policy T2: Highway Safety and Design Policy T3: Parking Policy EE5: Landscape Character and Value Policy EE7: The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Agenda Item 14 Page 224

Policy CC5: Sustainable Drainage Policy HQ1: High Quality Development Policy DC5: Agricultural Land

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014)

Relevant Planning History:

CB/18/03052/PAPC - Pre-application Charging Fee Advice Released: Temporary change of use to storage area (4 December 2017)

Application Number CB/18/00680/FULL Description Retrospective change of use from agriculture to temporary use as storage area for 5 years, with ancillary landscaping works and formation of hardstanding area using road plantings (scalpings). Decision Withdrawn Decision Date 6 August 2018

Within 'Blue Line' area:

Application Number CB/18/02617/FULL Description Change of use from agricultural storage to commercial storage Decision Undetermined Decision Date

Application Number CB/17/02974/FULL Description Erection of secure fencing to enclose storage yard, with ancillary landscaping works Decision Conditional planning permission Decision Date 23 January 2018

Application Number CB/13/00471/FULL Description Demolition of a warehouse and construction of a pair of semi-detached houses Decision Refused Decision Date 30 April 2013

Application Number SB/08/00596/LDCE Description Use of building for commercial storage purposes Decision Lawful Development - Existing - Granted Decision Date 24 July 2008

Application Number SB/95/00716/FULL Description Erection of agricultural building for implement and machinery store - workshop and parts store Decision Conditional planning permission Agenda Item 14 Page 225

Decision Date 13 December 1995

Application Number SB/89/01217/FULL Description Erection of grain store Decision Conditional planning permission Decision Date 27 June 1990

Land to the south of Packhorse Place (immediately to the north west of this application site:

Application Number CB/18/00952/FULL Description Erection of steel framed agricultural grain store with access roadway, apron, retaining wall & drainage Decision Conditional planning permission Decision Date 16 May 2018

Consultees:

Kensworth Parish Support in principal for temporary use only over a short Council period of time and conditions will be put in place for times of operation, lighting and screening etc.

Highways (Development I have the following comments to offer, based on drawing Management) number 2712.20 rev A.

The applicant seeks retrospective permission for the change of use from agriculture for temporary use as storage area for five years.

This application follows a pre-application CB/18/03052/PAPC which attracted the following highway comments.

The proposed development will result in additional traffic generation, particularly HGV movements, which would intensify the use of a vehicle access which does meet the standards of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (TD 42/95). The applicant must therefore undertake improvements to the access in accordance with the standards of the DMRB. The works in the public highway must be undertaken via a section 278 agreement with the Highway Authority, all costs to be borne by the applicant.

Any future application shall also provide the following information.

 Details of the internal access road for HGV’s, which must include details of the turning areas for articulated vehicles, to be supported by tracking diagrams to demonstrate compliance. Agenda Item 14 Page 226

 Details of parking areas for both HGV’s and cars shall be shown which must also comply with the current parking standards which are car parking at a ratio of 1 space per 30m2 (less than 500m2) thereafter 1 space per 200m2 (over 500m2) and 2 HGV parking spaces up to 280m2 after which 1 additional lorry space per 500m2.

Unfortunately, the applicant has not provided any of this information.

No Transport Statement has been provided in support of the development, however, the Planning Statement refers to the site satisfying the applicants criteria with connectivity to the motorway network via M1 junction 9. It is clear then that the majority of HGV traffic will be entering or leaving the motorway at junction 9 and then using the A5183 (former A5) to access the site.

As this is a retrospective application, I assume pre- commencement conditions cannot be imposed, I shall therefore recommend specific time periods for submission of the information outstanding as well as the design and construction of the junction improvements.

I recommend the following conditions should you be minded to approve the application.

1. Within two months of the date of planning permission details of the improvements to the junction of the vehicular access, in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, including tracking diagrams for an articulated vehicle (16.5m in length) accessing/egressing the site and turning within the development, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Within one month of approval, the applicant shall make an application to the Highway Authority to implement the works which shall be constructed within five months of approval and thereafter retained in perpetuity.

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

2. Within two months of the date of planning permission, details of a turning area suitable for HGV’s shall be Agenda Item 14 Page 227

submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and once approved the turning areas shall be constructed within two months of approval and thereafter retained in perpetuity.

Reason To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn outside the highway limits thereby avoiding the reversing of vehicles on to the highway.

3. This permission is for the sole benefit of the applicant and shall extend to no other person, partnership, firm or company. Reason To ensure the retention of planning control by the Local Planning Authority on the disposal of the present applicant’s interest in the land and building.

4. Visibility splays shall be provided at the junction of the access with the public highway. The minimum dimensions to provide the required splay lines shall be 2.4m measured along the centre line of the improved access from its junction with the channel of the public highway and 215m measured either side from the centre line of the proposed access along the line of the channel of the public highway. The required vision splays shall, on land in the applicant’s control, be kept free of any obstruction.

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

5. Within two months of the date of this permission, a scheme for the parking of cars and HGV’s on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall comply with the standards of the Local Planning Authority and once approved shall be constructed within two months of approval and thereafter retained in perpetuity Reason To ensure the provision for vehicle parking clear of the public highway.

6. The proposed driveway shall be constructed and surfaced in a stable and durable material in Agenda Item 14 Page 228

accordance with details to be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority for a minimum distance of 20m into the site, measured from the highway boundary, before the premises are occupied. Arrangements shall be made for surface water drainage from the site to be intercepted and disposed of separately so that it does not discharge into the highway.

Reason To avoid the carriage of mud or other extraneous material or surface water from the site into the highway so as to safeguard the interest of the highway.

7. Any gates provided shall open away from the highway and be set back a distance of at least 20m from the nearside edge of the carriageway of the adjoining highway.

Reason To enable vehicles to draw off the highway before the gates are opened.

Furthermore, I should be grateful if you would arrange for the following Highway Notes to the applicant to be appended to any consent issued by the council. i. The applicant is advised that in order to comply with Condition 1 of this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Central Bedfordshire Council as Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access junction improvements. You are advised to contact the Highways Agreements Officer, Community Services, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG175TQ. E-mail [email protected]

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 Street Works Co-ordinator, Central Bedfordshire Highways, by contacting the Highways Helpdesk 0300 300 8301.

Public Protection Topics considered: Agenda Item 14 Page 229

Air quality Contaminated land Noise Light Odour

Further to my comments on the previous (similar) applications and I have no objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of the following condition.

The premises shall not be used, including deliveries to and from the site, except between 0800 hours and 1700 hours Monday – Friday and at no time on Saturdays, Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays, without the prior agreement in writing of the Local Planning Authority.

In addition to this, it has been alleged that some lighting has been installed on the site although there appears to be no detail of such on the submitted information. It may therefore be prudent to place a condition on any permission prohibiting the use of lighting or requiring a lighting scheme.

Trees and Landscape No representation received.

Ecology No objection.

Highways England No objection.

Other Representations:

Neighbours Two representations objecting to the proposal have been received. These are summarised as follows:

Light and noise pollution.

Loss of Green Belt and AONB.

Little regard for those living in the locality.

Increased noise from numerous lorries.

Mud coming from site access road and being trailed onto Watling Street, increasing danger on a very busy road.

Loss of outlook over open countryside.

Loss of wildlife habitat.

Risk of pollution from materials and heavy equipment. Agenda Item 14 Page 230

Misleading and concerning claims on application form for application CB/18/02617/FULL which are also considered applicable for this application, in terms of drainage, removal of hedgerow, failure to protect flora and fauna, percentage of site used for historical storage space (instead of heavy equipment and industrial storage).

No commitment to returning the area to agriculture use.

Granting consent of change of use would be tacit acceptance of the misuse of agricultural green belt for profit.

Appropriate industrial estates better suited to commercial / industrial storage should be used.

Destruction of countryside for developers profit.

Determining Issues: The main considerations of the application are:

1. Principle of Development and Impact on Green Belt, AONB and AGLV 2. Impact on Amenity of Neighbouring Occupants 3. Highway Considerations 4. Other Considerations

Considerations:

1. Principle of Development and Impact on Green Belt, AONB and AGLV 1.1 As stated above, the site is in the South Bedfordshire Green Belt.

1.2 Paragraph 134 in Section 13 (Protecting Green Belt land) of the NPPF, 2018 states that 'Green Belt serves five purposes: - to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; - to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; - to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; - to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and - to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land'.

1.3 Paragraph 143 states that '.... inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances'.

1.4 Paragraph 144 states that '.... local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by Agenda Item 14 Page 231

reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations'.

1.5 Paragraph 146 states 'Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt'. Exception e) which states 'material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds)' is the only criterion which could be of relevance.

1.6 The proposal is for a change of use of a field in agricultural use to an open storage area. However, the change of use of an agricultural field with no existing development to an open storage area for historic artefacts would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt. The need to avoid development in this area was recognised by condition 4 attached to planning permission CB/17/02974/FULL (fencing to secure the two buildings to the south west of the application site) which required the field to remain in situ as agricultural land and not be used for storage or commercial purposes.

1.7 The proposal would also conflict with one of the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, i.e. safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The storage use would introduce development to an open field and would therefore be an encroachment into the countryside.

1.8 The proposal does not therefore fall within exception e) of paragraph 146 and as such is inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

1.9 As well as being in the Green Belt, the site is in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).

1.10 Control of Development in the Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)) of the SBLPR states that a proposal can only be considered acceptable if it does not 'adversely affect the landscape character and setting of the area' 1.11 The proposal does not recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and would instead be to the detriment of the countryside. It would also fail to conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB, and is therefore in conflict with NPPF paragraphs 170 and 172. The introduction of development to an agricultural field would also adversely affect the landscape character and setting of the area, in conflict with SBLPR policy NE3.

1.12 A number of factors are put forward in the supporting Planning Statement (Shaun Andrews Design and Architecture, reference 2712.DAS) as very special circumstances. These include the proposal playing a key role in a significant national infrastructure programme, and the site having a uniqueness in respect of no other realistic or viable options being identified on the preferred transport corridor. Agenda Item 14 Page 232

1.13 In response it is accepted that the required storage in connection with the redevelopment of Euston Station for HS2 is nationally significant. However, no detail is provided on why other options for the storage have been dismissed. The Planning Statement cites, 'Storage facilities within the M25 have been evaluated and discounted on viability grounds'. The application implies that there is not a single site suitable for the required storage on the 'preferred transport corridor' any closer to Euston Station, or within the M25. The distance between Euston Station and the application site is 32 miles with a travelling time of 51 minutes (source: AA Route planner).

1.14 Other factors put forward are the site providing a secure and safe environment, the site being located close to main arterial routes from Euston, the site being in a sustainable location, the site providing adequate space for storage, planting minimising the impact on adjoining properties, and resolution of this application being urgent.

1.15 In response, none of these factors either on their own or in combination clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, the AONB or the AGLV. They do not demonstrate that the site has a unique feature or features required to accommodate the proposal. Or they are matters which need to be addressed for a planning application to be a successful, not matters which ‘go above and beyond to be considered as ‘very special’.

1.16 Paragraph 83 of the NPPF, 2018 outlines that planning decisions should support a prosperous rural economy. This is through measures such as the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas, and the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses. The storage of historic artefacts does not comply with the criteria in paragraph 83.

1.17 Overall, in view of the above, the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, detrimental to openness and visual amenity. The factors advanced do not on their own or in combination clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and other harm to the AONB and the AGLV, and therefore very special circumstances do not exist. The principle of the development is therefore unacceptable, and contrary to Sections 13 (Protecting Green Belt land) and 16 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the NPPF, 2018, and policy NE3 of the SBLPR.

2. Impact on Amenity of Neighbouring Occupants 2.1 The nearest dwellings to the site, on the opposite side of the A5183 are New Lodge (over 90m distant) and Red Cow Farm (over 70m distant).

2.2 As summarised above, many areas of concern have been raised by the occupants of neighbouring dwellings.

2.3 One area of objection is light and noise pollution. To ensure there is not an unacceptable impact on neighbour amenity, conditions should be attached to any planning permission granted, as outlined in the Public Protection response above. These would require the premises to not be used, including deliveries Agenda Item 14 Page 233

to and from the site, except between 0800 hours and 1700 hours Monday - Friday, and for a lighting scheme. A further condition should be included to set a restriction on the number of daily vehicle delivery journeys.

2.4 In view of the distance to the nearest neighbouring dwellings, the open storage area would not result in any undue impact on neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of light or privacy, and it would not appear as unduly overbearing. Whilst the storage area would be visible from neighbouring dwellings there is no protection or right to a view within the English planning system; as such planning permission cannot be refused on this basis.

3. Highway Considerations 3.1 The Highways (Development Management) response states that the proposal will result in additional traffic generation, particularly HGV movements, which would intensify the use of a vehicle access which does meet the standards of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (TD 42/95). As such improvements must be undertaken to the access in accordance with the standards of the DMRB.

3.2 This matter needs to be the subject of a condition attached to any planning permission granted. Further conditions are required in respect of the provision of visibility splays, details of a turning area on site suitable for HGV's, and a scheme for the parking of cars and HGV's on site.

4. Other Considerations 4.1 Response to Neighbour objections

Most of the matters raised are considered in the discussion above, or are not material planning considerations.

In the event of planning permission being granted for a temporary period, a condition should be attached requiring the site to be returned to agricultural use following the expiry of the temporary period.

4.2 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 reasons.

RECOMMENDED REASONS

1 The proposed development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal would be detrimental to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt, and an encroachment into the countryside. No factors which could amount to Agenda Item 14 Page 234

very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and other harm to the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV), are evident. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 13 (Protecting Green Belt land) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), July 2018.

2 The application site is in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). The proposed development would be to the detriment of the countryside and would

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 6, Article 35

In the Council’s view the proposal is unacceptable for the reasons stated, and is not considered to be a sustainable development which would improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. The Council has therefore complied with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

...... Agenda Item 15 Page 235

Application No. Crown Copyright and database 1:1,250 right. 2018 CB/18/04058/FULL Ordnance Survey 100049029 Central Bedfordshire Council. Date Created Tree Tops, 13 West Hill, Aspley Cities Revealed Aerial 22-01-2019 Guise, Milton Keynes, MK17 8DP photography copyright The GeoInformation Group 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 15 Page 237

Item No. 15

APPLICATION NUMBER CB/18/04058/FULL LOCATION Tree Tops, 13 West Hill, Aspley Guise, Milton Keynes, MK17 8DP PROPOSAL External steps and platform to access roof void storage over garage from existing garden level PARISH Aspley Guise WARD Aspley & Woburn WARD COUNCILLORS Cllr Wells CASE OFFICER Matt Cranitch DATE REGISTERED 01 November 2018 EXPIRY DATE 27 December 2018 APPLICANT Mr & Mrs Hercheui AGENT Alistair McIntyre RIBA REASON FOR Called in by Councillor Budge Wells for the COMMITTEE TO following reason: DETERMINE Loss of privacy – application provides platform where people standing on it can see into adjacent house shower room and through the front door when open RECOMMENDED Full Application - Recommended for Approval DECISION

Reason for Recommendation: Retrospective planning permission is being sought for the erection of external steps and a platform at the rear of a garage, and for an access door to the roof void over the garage, to allow this void to be used for storage. It is considered that the development does not have a detrimental impact on the character of the Conservation Area or the openness of the Green Belt. The development does not result in any undue detrimental harm to the character or appearance of the dwelling house or area, or to neighbouring amenity in terms of daylight or being overbearing. The balcony does provide a view over part of the side elevation of one neighbouring property. However, the fact that the view is of the access to this neighbouring property, and that the boundary treatment between the two properties somewhat shields the view of the neighbouring property from the development site, means that any loss of privacy is minimal and is not detrimental enough to warrant a refusal of the application.

As such the development is considered acceptable in accordance with policies CS3 and DM3 of the North Core Strategy and Development Management Policies, Sections 8, 12, 13 and 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide.

Site Location: The application site comprises the curtilage of a large two storey detached dwelling located to the south east of West Hill in Aspley Guise. The property is set back considerably from the road frontage on a much higher elevation and is surrounded by large detached properties of varying styles. Planning permission was granted for a Agenda Item 15 Page 238 detached single width garage in May 2016 following the demolition of an already existing wooden outbuilding. The garage sits below the dwelling house towards the highway and is on a much lower elevation than the dwelling house.

The site is within the green belt, the Aspley Guise Conservation area and is also within an Archaeological Notifiable area.

The Application: Retrospective planning permission is being sought for the erection of external steps and a platform at the rear of a garage, and for an access door to the roof void over the garage, to allow this void to be used for storage. The steps and platform sit behind the rear elevation of the garage and cannot be seen from the highway. The platform sits well below the eaves of the garage. Due to the difference in levels on the site, the dwelling house sits on a much higher plane than the garage.

RELEVANT POLICIES:

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (July 2018)

12: Achieving well-designed places 13: Protecting Green Belt land

Core Strategy and Development Management Policies - North 2009

CS14 High Quality Development DM3 High Quality Development DM6 Development within Green Belt Infill Areas

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 HQ1: High Quality Development LP SP4: Development in the Green Belt Agenda Item 15 Page 239

Supplementary Planning Guidance/Other Documents

Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (March 2014) Design Supplement 7 Householder Alterations and Extensions

It is considered that the proposal is in conformity with the relevant policies listed above unless otherwise stated in the Assessment.

Relevant Planning History:

Case Reference CB/17/04931/FULL Location Tree Tops, 13 West Hill, Aspley Guise, Milton Keynes, MK17 8DP Proposal Construction of a dormer over staircase Decision Full Application - Granted Decision Date 08/12/2017

Case Reference CB/16/03940/FULL Location Tree Tops, 13 West Hill, Aspley Guise, Milton Keynes, MK17 8DP Proposal Two storey rear extension, single storey side extensions and loft conversion with one dormer and roof terrace. Decision Full Application - Granted Decision Date 01/11/2016

Case Reference CB/16/01324/FULL Location Tree Tops, 13 West Hill, Aspley Guise, Milton Keynes, MK17 8DP Proposal Retrospective Planning Permission for retention of a garden shed to the rear of property Decision Full Application - Granted Decision Date 25/05/2016

Case Reference CB/16/01470/FULL Location Tree Tops, 13 West Hill, Aspley Guise, Milton Keynes, MK17 8DP Proposal Erection of Detached garage Decision Full Application - Granted Decision Date 20/05/2016

Consultees:

Aspley Guise Parish The Aspley Guise parish council has received a complaint Council from a local resident with regards to the issue of overview of adjoining properties/loss of privacy and would therefore like to refer this retrospective application to the enforcement officer

Other Representations:

2 Neighbour Objections Objection (Summary) Agenda Item 15 Page 240

- Object to height of the steps as this enables the applicant to see into their neighbour’s garden compromising the privacy of the neighbour. - Specifically, those using the platform could potentially view three living areas of a neighbouring property (entrance/utility, kitchen, shower) and a private side pathway - Use of the platform could result in unacceptable noise to neighbours. - The nature of the landscape with the development site being higher than the neighbouring property means that any development will be over dominant on the on the neighbouring property. - The applicant could just as easily access the roof from the front entrance of the garage - The applicant has ignored planning procedure by building the steps and platform and then applying for planning permission.

1 Neighbour Support Support (Summary) - The oak framed garage is attractive, and the platform and steps compliment the garage

Assessment

1. Principle

1.1 The application site is located within the Green Belt and therefore Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a key consideration in the determination of this application

1.2 The NPPF states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts and that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It continues by stating that a Local planning Authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belts. Exceptions to this presumption against new development include extensions or alterations to a building provided that they do not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building

1.3 The application is for retrospective planning permission for steps and a platform. Whilst the Council usually restricts such development the orientation of the proposed development at the rear of the garage means it is not visible from the highway so the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

1.4 The development itself is modest and is clearly subservient to the garage. In design terms it complements the existing garage and is in compliance with the Councils design guidance for alterations in the Green Belt. The proposed development is not considered to result in additions which would be disproportionate to the host dwelling. Given the screened position of the Agenda Item 15 Page 241

proposal site it is not considered that the proposed scheme would have a detrimental impact on the character of the Conservation Area or the openness of the Green Belt.

2. Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Conservation Area

2.1 The proposed development is located at the rear of the garage and is not visible from the highway or public realm.

2.2 The proposal is considered to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as it cannot be easily seen from the public realm and is of an acceptable design. The development would therefore cause less than substantial harm and would be compatible with the Conservation Area in accordance with Section 16 of the NPPF and Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

2.3 The proposal is considered to have no detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area more generally. It is therefore considered that it is in accordance with policies in the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies Document dated 2009, Chapter 12 of the NPPF and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide.

3. Neighbouring Amenity

3.1 The platform and steps are closest to the boundary with No.9 West Hill to the north east of the application site. They are set at roughly a 45-degree angle to No.9. The platform and steps do not affect the daylight enjoyed by No.9 and they are not overbearing. The key issue is whether the proposed development unduly compromises the privacy of No.9 enough to warrant a refusal of the application.

3.2 The platform is approximately 7.5 metres away from the dwelling house at No.9. It is positioned above No.9 due to the difference in levels between No.9 and the application site. From the platform it is possible to look down on to a side elevation of No.9. It is therefore possible to see the front door of No.9. If the front door is open it would also be possible to see into the dwelling house of No.9. It is also possible to view a window of a shower room at No.9.

3.3 The platform does, therefore, allow a view of the front door of No.9. However, many dwelling houses front doors are visible to those in the public realm and to residents of neighbouring properties. Equally many people could see into a house from the public realm and from neighbouring properties if the front door was left open. Therefore, a development which allows this to happen cannot be considered to result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.

3.4 Whilst it is also possible to see the window of a shower room this window has obscured glass making it impossible to see into that room when the window is closed. Even if the window was open, the distance from the platform to the Agenda Item 15 Page 242

window, combined with the angle at which the window would be viewed, would make a direct view into the shower room impossible.

3.5 Furthermore, the treatment of the boundary between No.9 and the application site disrupts the view of No.9’s curtilage from the platform. There is a wooden close boarded fence on the boundary between the neighbouring properties which has a trellis on top. In front of this, on the development site side, is a tree and high shrubbery which somewhat shield No.9 from the application site. This boundary treatment therefore enhances the privacy that residents of No.9’s enjoy in relation to the application site.

3.6 Given the use to which the platform would be used, for access to the roof void above the garage to provide additional storage, and given the constrained size of the platform, the platform does not provide a viable amenity space. Therefore, any noise implications regarding the use of the platform would be minor and temporary and are not considered a sufficient reason to refuse the application.

3.7 The property to the south west of the application site at No.15 West Hill is on the opposing side of a shared access off West Hill and is considered to be far enough removed from the application site for there to be no impact in terms of loss of light or privacy and the structure would not appear as overbearing

3.8 Overall therefore, given these facts, it is not considered that the steps and platform result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to No.9.

3.9 Therefore, it is considered that the development does not cause harm to the character and appearance of dwelling house or the area. Nor would it be detrimental enough to the amenity and living conditions of occupiers of any neighbouring dwellings to warrant a refusal of this application

3.10 It would therefore be in accordance with Section 7 of the NPPF, policy HQ1 of the pre-submission of the Local Plan 2015-2035 and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide

4. Other considerations

4.1 Neighbour Objection / Comment: The formal objection and comment of the neighbours regarding this application have been addressed in the relevant sections above.

4.2 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. Agenda Item 15 Page 243

Recommendation:

That Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the following:

RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS

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

Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the completed development by ensuring that the development hereby permitted is finished externally with materials to match the existing building in the interests of the visual amenities of the locality. (Section 12, NPPF)

2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans, numbers:

A0528-01 A0528-02

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

INFORMATIVE NOTES TO APPLICANT

1. In accordance with Article 35 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, the reason for any condition above relates to the Policies as referred to in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Core Strategy for North Central Bedfordshire.

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

3. Will a new extension affect your Council Tax Charge? The rate of Council Tax you pay depends on which valuation band your home is placed in. This is determined by the market value of your home as at 1 April 1991. Your property's Council Tax band may change if the property is extended. The Council Tax band will only change when a relevant transaction takes place. For example, if you sell your property after extending it, the new owner may have to pay a higher band of Council Tax. If however you add an annexe to your property, the Valuation Office Agency may decide that the annexe should be banded separately for Council Tax. If this happens, you will have to start paying Council Tax for the annexe as soon as it is completed. If the annexe is occupied by a relative of the residents of Agenda Item 15 Page 244

the main dwelling, it may qualify for a Council Tax discount or exemption. Contact the Council for advice on 0300 300 8306. The website link is:

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/council-tax/bands/find.aspx

4. This permission is granted under the provisions of Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 - Part 6, Article 35

Discussion with the applicant to seek an acceptable solution was not necessary in this instance. The Council has therefore acted pro-actively to secure a sustainable form of development in line with the requirements of the Framework (paragraph 38) and in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.

DECISION

......

...... Agenda Item 16 Page 245

LATE SHEET

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE – 6th February 2019

Item 5 – CB/18/02458/OUT – Land to the East of Baden Powell Way, Biggleswade.

Additional Consultation/Publicity Responses

None.

Additional Comments

None.

Additional/Amended Conditions

None.

Item 6 – CB/18/02251/OUT – The Lagoon, 197 Hitchin Road, Arlesey, SG15 6SE.

Application Withdrawn.

Item 7 – CB/18/02373/OUT – Loft Farm and West of Church Street, Langford, Biggleswade, SG18 9QA.

Additional Consultation/Publicity Responses

Following on from the previous Committee meeting, three additional objections have been received. These have been summarised below:

• Unconvinced that the developer will be able to access the site through Tithe Farm Close with the size of machinery necessary to economically build the proposed estate. • Fear that the builders will disregard the Construction Management Plan and as a consequence cause damage to the road, the pavements and even the houses in Tithe Farm Close. • Large vehicles could block access to the western end of Tithe Farm Close. • Question where deliveries will come from (for example would they be from Henlow or Biggleswade?). Agenda Item 16 Page 246

• The Plan does not account for car parking within Tithe Farm Close. • The tracking diagrams are tight. • Does not comply with the Langford Neighbourhood Plan • Concern regarding delivery vehicles waiting in Tithe Farm Close • Police have objected to the proposed development • The crossing should be upgrading prior to the commencement of development. • Concern regarding tradesmen parking in Tithe Farm Close • Businesses within Tithe Farm Close could be negatively affected. • Consider that the proposal is not sustainable. • Concern that the footpath dimensions do not meet the 2.0 metre standard • Question whether the development would result in a net gain in terms of biodiversity.

Additional Comments

The conclusion shall be amended to read

“Conclusion Based upon the further information, it is considered by officers that the development would not present an unacceptable adverse impact in terms of residential amenity or highways safety. As such, the original recommendation is reiterated within this report. The recommendation is subject to a s106 agreement”

Additional/Amended Conditions

None. Agenda Item 16 Page 247

Item 8 – CB/18/03694/OUT – Land at Ivel Road, Shefford.

An editing error has occurred, therefore, the below section has been repeated for the avoidance of doubt

5.3 The development will impact on local infrastructure and as a result, development of a scale as proposed here, is required to offset these impacts, by entering into a S106 agreement to provide financial contributions to mitigate these impacts. At the time of writing, the contributions sought and agreed by the Applicant are as follows:

Indoor Sport: £79,701 towards the provision of the planned extension works for additional studio space at Saxon Leisure Centre. Outdoor Sport: £32,045 towards pitch improvements for Shefford Sports Club. To mitigate the demand generated by the development a contribution of £79,701 is sought towards the creation of additional studio space at Saxon Pool LC.

£18,900 Contribution will be spent on refurbishment works for Shefford Library

£80,784 A contribution to Phase 2 of the STMA (Shefford Town Memorial Association) land refurbishment requires initial ground works and 3 pitched roofs.

Affordable Housing: 35%

£95,355 NHS contribution

Education Contributions:

EY £109,874.23 Lower £366,247.44 Middle £313,035.84 Upper £383,864.83 Total £1,173,022.34

NHS request for Contributions Additional Information Consideration of the potential consequences of this 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 Shefford Medical Centre. The current premises were designed for a total patient list size of 22,000 to deliver core General Medical Services. There are already 18,000 patients registered Agenda Item 16 Page 248

with the practice and with residential developments already under construction in and around Shefford it is expected to reach full capacity very shortly, 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 286 additional patient registrations and create a constraint that will require premises reconfiguration and extension to create additional clinical capacity. For this reason, in order to make this development acceptable to NHS commissioners, it is requested that a contribution is made towards the infrastructure supporting the delivery of the 5 Year Forward View and Primary Care at Home models.

In order to mitigate the impact of this development on local healthcare services, it is requested on behalf of BCCG and NHS England that a contribution is made for £1,059.50 per dwelling towards local healthcare infrastructure.

This figure is based on the following breakdown:

1/3 of the total health requirement according to a GP Core services £815.00 Per dwelling study carried out by Guildhouse UK Ltd. 7% of the Community £114.10 Per dwelling remaining 2/3 of the requirement 8% of the Mental Health £130.40 Per dwelling remaining 2/3 of the requirement Total £1,059.50 Per dwelling

The calculations above are based on the impact of this development only, on the number of dwellings proposed and do not take into account any existing constraints.

Request for contributions for Woodland Maintenance

As stated in the Committee Report, the woodland within the ‘blue line’ will come forward to CBC. The Countryside Access Officer has requested a maintenance contribution of £121,200. The contributions would fund the following:

 Two parking spaces  Drop Kerb access  Fencing post and two rail with stock netting to base, out side of woodland area on estate side and other land scaping with 3.6 meter field gate / service entrance. For maintenance. Approximately 300m  Establish three pedestrian entrances, radar key all access metal kissing gates, and two litter bin points combine litter and dog waste one at each entrance, must be accessible by vehicle. Agenda Item 16 Page 249

 1km of All ability surfaced access path circle route around woodland 2.5 meters wide  1 km Clear two rows of tree to establish route and grind out stumps.  Clear centre ride, re-establish grass through regular mowing to established sward to encourage tilling of grass plants, other route clearance works.  Road side establish hedge coppice occasional existing shrubs and trees.  Increase establish hedgerow species double row of native species 5 per meter cane and spiral guard and internal fence protection post and two strand top plain wire and sheep netting below, doubling as safety fencing to prevent dogs / children running out on A507 road. Approximately 350m  Thinning of existing woodland, woodland is predominantly Ash which is likely to be lost due to ash die back which is effecting most woodlands in the area. Suggest all areas 30% thinning carried out over five year period of 50 % of area of woodland standard forestry practise for woodland s of this age.  Due to large ash content thin up to 75% trees for 50% of area and introduction of Hornbeam to replace Ash content with ride side establishment of native shrubs.  Introduction of native ground flora species e.g. Bluebell bulbs, primroses plugs and others through seed mix distribution.  Four benches heavy oak benches with backs.  Establish central open glade and create several scallops to internal edge to outer rides  Two interpretation / site map boards  Wardening two visits per month  Staff Time Management of Project to deliver woodland improvements for Public open space.

As this request was received late, the developer has not yet formally agreed to the request. Any update will be reported to Members during Committee.

Additional Consultation Responses

Highways

Thank you for the consultation on the application for the above proposal, on behalf of the highway authority the following comments are offered based on drg 19308-02 Rev G.

The turning land for the ghost right turn has now been provided at 3.5m and as such accords with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) the through lanes are at 3m in width and this was supported by a road safety audit (RSA).

As previously mentioned, the Transport assessment is considered acceptable, the breakdown of the level of traffic along Ivel Road is projected as being 12.7% going north with the remaining 87.3% going south to the A507 roundabout based on census information. This would be circa 33 outward movements in the am peak with 27 inward movements in the pm peak. Based on the projected movements this would be 4 vehicles heading north on Ivel Road and 29 vehicles heading south on Ivel Road. Agenda Item 16 Page 250

There will be a requirement for Traffic Regulation Order’s to lower the speed limit to 40mph on the approach arms to the A507 along with a 30mph speed limit will along Ivel Road which will act as a buffer zone to the 20mph speed limit. Parking restrictions are required per the RSA on Ivel Road to prevent on road parking which currently exists and in to the development junction itself.

Inclusion of the raised table on drg 19308-02 Rev E (Site Access with Right Turn Lane) shall now be provided to provide a speed reduction measure between the two roundabouts either side of the new development access.

It is advised that a financial contribution be sought for £4,000.00 for additional measures should the Traffic Regulation Order for double yellow lines not be approved or additional measures should the TRO need further enforcing by bollards (8 number bollards) to protect vehicles form mounting the footway. This should be made available for five years after the development had been adopted with any monies returned should no further problems arise.

A construction management plan for the residential element would be added at the reserved stage.

Conditions

1/No building shall be occupied until the junction of the proposed vehicular access (drg no.19308-02 Rev G) with the highway has been constructed in accordance with the approved details. The raised table as shown on drg 19308-02 Rev E shall also be provided as a speed reduction measure.

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

2/ Visibility splays shall be provided at the junction of the access with the public highway before the development is brought into use. The minimum dimensions to provide the required splay lines shall be 2.4m measured along the centre line of the proposed access from its junction with the channel of the public highway and 59m measured from the centre line of the proposed access along the line of the channel of the public highway. The required vision splays shall for the perpetuity of the development remain free of any obstruction to visibility.

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

3/ The development shall be served by means of roads and footpaths which shall be laid out and drained in accordance with the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide September 2014 or other such documents that replace them, and no building shall be occupied until the roads and footpaths which provide access to it from the existing highway have been laid out and constructed in accordance with the above-mentioned Guidance. Agenda Item 16 Page 251

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

4/ Visibility splays shall be provided at all internal road junctions within the site. The minimum dimensions to provide the required splay lines shall be 2.4m measured along the centre line of the side road from its junction with the channel to the through road and 25m measured from the centre line of the side road along the channel of the through road. The vision splays required shall be provided and defined on the site by or on behalf of the developers and be entirely free of any obstruction.

Reason: To provide adequate visibility at road junction in the interest of road safety.

5/ The detailed layout plans to be submitted for approval of reserved matters in connection with this development shall illustrate independent vehicular turning head area(s) for an 11.5m refuse collection vehicle.

Reason: To enable vehicles to draw off, park and turn outside the highway limits thereby avoiding the reversing of vehicles on to the highway.

6/ The detailed layout plans to be submitted for approval of reserved matters in connection with this development shall include car and cycle parking in accordance with Central Bedfordshire Design Guide September 2014 or other such documents that replace them has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and made available for use before the development is occupied and the car and cycle parking areas shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide September 2014.

7/ No building shall be occupied until Traffic Regulation Orders on both sides of Ivel Road and the development junction for the provision of No Parking restrictions have been implemented. Furthermore, speed limit reductions on the A507/Ivel Road/Shefford Road roundabout approach roads restrictions to 40mph and a 30mph speed limit on Ivel Road from the existing 20mph speed limit to the A507/Ivel Road/Shefford Road roundabout have been implemented.

Reason: In the interests of road safety and pedestrian movement.

Item 9 – CB/18/03781/FULL – 32 Shefford Road, Meppershall, Shefford, SG17 5LN

A printing error has caused some text to be omitted, please see below section for clarity.

6.3 At the time of writing; the Agent acting for the developer has yet to confirm formal agreement to all of the requests from Spending Officers – Members will be updated at Agenda Item 16 Page 252

the Committee meeting of any comments received. Spending Officers have so far required and suggested the following:

Education Contributions Early Years £58,589.37 Lower £195,297.90 Middle £196,516.94 Upper £240,981.81 Total £691,386.03

Libraries: Refurbishment Works at Shefford Library £12,600

1. Outdoor Sport: £27,187 is required for the Parish Council’s project for the provision of new outdoor gym equipment at Meppershall Rec Gnd. A suggested contribution by the developer is welcomed. 2. Children’s Play: £75k towards a new play area and equipment behind the village hall. 3. Allotments: £11,500 is required to improve security fencing, irrigation system and eco toilet at Meppershall Allotments. A suggested contribution by the developer is welcomed.

Update The developer has agreed to pay the contributions as set out above and has made the following statement with regard to Affordable Housing:

Affordable Housing Please accept this as confirmation of our increased affordable housing offer of 21 units (35%). We are also offering a tenure split in accordance with policy of 15 Affordable Rent units (71.4%) and 6 Shared Ownership units (28.6%). This was the split requested by your Housing Officer. To meet this request, plots 23 and 24 have been transferred to affordable housing (Shared Ownership and Affordable Rent respectively). We have also switched plots 25-28 from Shared Ownership to Affordable Rent.

NHS Contribution Request Further Information Consideration of the potential consequences of this development and the health infrastructure implications has been undertaken on behalf of NHS England and Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group.

This application will generate circa 156 additional patient registrations and is expected to impact Lower Stondon Surgery. The current premises are deemed severely constrained. 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.

The requested contribution is calculated only on the number of additional new registrations and patient activity requirements this development will generate and therefore will contribute in proportion towards the costs of reconfiguration or extending the premises. Agenda Item 16 Page 253

The s106 request for this development has been calculated as follows: Primary Care is currently commissioned by NHS England which has a co- commissioning relationship with Bedfordshire CCG. The primary care calculation is based on a formula adopted across the NHS England Midlands and East (Central Midlands) team to provide consistency for all the 25 local authorities it works with and as part of the single operating model of best practice it has developed. w x 2.6 = x Multiply the numbers of dwellings in any given development (w) by 2.6 to give x new patients x/2000 = y Divide the number of patients by 2000 to give the numbers of GPs needed (y) (based on the ratio of 2,000 patients per 1 GP (as set out in the NHS England “Premises Principles of Best Practice, Part 1 Procurement & Development”) y x 199 = z m2 of additional GMS space Multiply the number of GPs required by 199 to convert to new GMS space (199 m2 ) being the amount of floor space required by each GP (again as set out in the NHS England “Premises Principles of Best Practice, Part 1 Procurement & Development”) z x £3,150* = £ Multiply the floor space by £3,150 which represents build cost per m2 including fit out and fees to give a total cost (£) £/number of dwellings = £815.90 (rounded to £816 per dwelling) Dividing the total build cost by the number of dwellings provides a standard contribution required from each new dwelling towards the cost of providing GMS services for that development

Acute, community and mental health services are commissioned by Bedfordshire CCG. Accepting that for an application of this size the acute calculations are not being requested, the methodology of calculation, based on known data, is however similar for acute, community and mental health services.

These contributions are calculated by activity type and recorded attendance data. These secondary care activity type attendance numbers reflect a lower proportion of the population than the 90% first accessing healthcare via GP provided primary care services.

This approach then determines the proportionate growth of specific development sites from which space requirements are determined by infrastructure type – e.g. for acute services: Wards; Theatres; A & E space; Outpatients Suite/consulting rooms; MRI CT Ultrasound and X Ray etc. The acute services build costs per infrastructure type are considerably more expensive than for primary, community and Mental Health care, due to their complexity and highly sophisticated technical requirements.

For Community Health Centres: treatment rooms; consulting rooms; diagnostic rooms etc., a similar calculation using the same attendance methodology for community health services establishes an infrastructure cost per dwelling of £114.10 Agenda Item 16 Page 254

A final secondary healthcare consideration relates to mental health services and here the attendance methodology establishes an infrastructure cost per dwelling of £130.40. The mental health costs per dwelling reflect differing infrastructure types such as in- patient wards as well as a range of community based mental health provision. The calculations above for a contribution of £1,060.50 per dwelling totalling £63,630.00 are based on the impact of this development only.

Additional Consultation Responses

Tree and Landscape Officer 23/01/19

Four detailed landscape plans have been supplied. Previous comments both from myself and the Landscape Officer relating to this application expressed the importance of a suitable landscape buffer to the north west boundary of the site. The plans indicate some limited proposals along this boundary comprising of a native hedge and a number of trees all planted in a narrow strip of land much of which is separated from adjoining plots by a 1.8 metre closeboard fence. Previous comments suggested that this should be retained and maintained within the public realm ensuring a natural buffered edge with open countryside. Close board fence will leave much of this planting in the shade being to the north east of the fence which is going to reduce any likelihood of establishment. There is no access to maintain this strip and it is highly likely that this area behind the fence will become an unmaintained area ideal for the disposal of garden refuse, grass cuttings etc. I do not believe that this is acceptable. With some rethinking and redesign of the site this boundary could incorporate a decent strip of buffer with space for quality planting and boundary treatment all maintained under an agreed management proposal.

Agent’s Response to comments The north-east boundary of the site is currently shown to comprise a native hedge with trees in a narrow strip of land beyond the 1.8m close board fence which forms the boundary of the adjacent properties. Our original design intention was to create a buffer zone designed to soften this edge in views from the north and to be accessed for maintenance only. The submitted layout omits the intended private gated access to allow maintenance only adjacent to Plot 7. To resolve this maintenance issue, the drawings could be amended to include this private gate as a non-material amendment to a planning permission. Additionally, given the comments by the officer that the plants would be disadvantaged in establishment, the 1.8m close board fence along the north-eastern boundaries of the plots could also be changed to a 1.5m post and rail fence to reduce the shading effect and increase the likelihood of successful establishment of the plants. This may also serve as a deterrent to ‘garden waste’ dumping as the strip would be visible to the occupants of the properties and it would be in their own interest to keep it clear of waste. Some additional flowering shrub planting within the strip could add to the attractiveness of this area to residents. Agenda Item 16 Page 255

These amendments would be consistent with the desire to ensure a ‘soft’ north-eastern boundary to the site and would further improve the view described and illustrated as Photoviewpoint EDP 4 within edp’s Landscape and Visual Addendum (edp4735_r003).

Planning Officer Comments Currently, there are several very large glass houses to the north eastern boundary of the site, the clearance of these dilapidated buildings will no doubt be a benefit to the character of the location. In terms of landscaping, a 3m strip has now been provided, outside of private ownership, in line with advice from the Council’s Landscape Officer. A condition is suggested to ensure that the strip lies outside of public ownership and could be continued to be accessed for maintenance purposes.

Suggested condition Prior to the construction phase, details of the proposed landscaping buffer to the north eastern boundary of the site shall be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Details shall include boundary treatment, a maintenance access point and maintenance plan. Reason: In order to maintain a soft boundary edge in the interest of the visual amenity of the countryside.

Additional Neighbour Responses  The noise report adds no value as it was carried out during an inappropriate time and should have taken place on a weekend or holiday period. Also it is paramount that the site is securely fenced off from surrounding homes to ensure peoples privacy. My home will have a road running the full length of my boundary and gardens at the rear. A 6-8 ft fence needs to be put up to protect and secure my boundary and neighbours boundaries  I object because these houses will be so close to our business. If as it states a noise report has been done then this has been done at our quiet time and does not reflect a true report a noise report needs to be done at peak time eg July/ August. Has a report been done on the noise generated From 60 houses and the effect this will have on the animals we board under the new animal welfare regulation they have a right to be protected from excess noise and to be kept safe and happy. Noise from these houses will be 24 hours, our animals are shut up early evening and we have taken measures to keep noise to a minimum. The area is full of wildlife Bats, foxes, birds of prey. The roads in meppershall cannot cope with the extra traffic, Hoo road was never intended to cope with extra cars. Our business has been here over 40 years and built away from the main village now the village is coming closer. I ask that this be refused as no guarantee can be given the noise from these houses will not cause stress to our boarders

Planning Officer Comments The Pollution Officer has scrutinised the Noise Report and raises no objection: An updated noise assessment has been submitted. The updated Entran noise assessment dated December 2018 has now included monitoring of 36b Shefford Road and concludes that standard double glazing with windows partially open will achieve noise standards in all plots and amenity areas with respect to road traffic noise and commercial noise from the kennels and 36b Shefford road. Therefore noise conditions are not necessary for this development. Agenda Item 16 Page 256

Highways

Thank you for the consultation on the application for the above proposal. On behalf of the highway authority the following comments based upon drg 1783/P/01 Rev A Proposed Site Layout.

The proposed layout has changes since the initial layout with each pocket of housing having visitor parking provided. The numbers of dwelling from a private drive has been reduced but the full provision of 2m wide service margins around the turning heads have not been provided but whilst this does not meet the Design Guide requirements service vehicles are able to access and egress in a forward gear. The road adoptions team have been consulted and as the full 2m wide service margins have not been provided is will result in all the roads within the development staying private as the road surfaces are also a mish mash of materials.

Two roads that serve plots 53 to 57 and 44 to 47 will require bill collection points close to the main spine road as will the collection point serving plots 29 to 31. A

The raised table along Shefford Road (but shown on drg 03378-TR-0003-P2 Site Access Drawing within the Transport Statement) has not been shown but a condition is provided in this instance for details to be submitted.

Conditions

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

2/ The access road shall not be brought in to use until the junction of the proposed vehicular access with the highway has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

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

3/ No other part of the development shall take place until the visibility splay at the junction of the access with the public highway shown on the approved drawing has been provided. All parts of the splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions above the adjacent carriageway level.

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

4/ No building shall be occupied until cycle storage has been provided and the vehicle parking spaces have been properly surfaced and marked out/provided in accordance with the approved drawing. The spaces shall thereafter be kept available for parking at all times. Reason: To minimise the potential for on-street parking and thereby safeguard the interest of the safety and convenience of road users. Agenda Item 16 Page 257

5/ Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order 1995, or any amendments thereto, the garage 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.

6/ No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Traffic Management Plan, associated with the development of the site, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which will include information on: (A) The parking of vehicles (B) Loading and unloading of plant and materials used in the development (C) Storage of plant and materials used in the development (D) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding / scaffolding affecting the highway if required. (E) Wheel washing facilities (F) Measures on site to control the deposition of dirt / mud on surrounding roads during the development. (G) Footpath/footway/cycleway or road closures needed during the development period (H) Traffic management needed during the development period. (I) Times, routes and means of access and egress for construction traffic and delivery vehicles (including the import of materials and the removal of waste from the site) during the development of the site.

The approved Construction Management Plan associated with the development of the site shall be adhered to throughout the development process.

REASON: In the interests of safety, protecting the amenity of local land uses, neighbouring residents and highway safety.

Furthermore, I should be grateful if you would arrange for the following Notes to the applicant to be appended to any Consent issued by the council.

1/ The applicant is advised that in order to comply with Condition 2 of this permission it will be necessary for the developer of the site to enter into an agreement with Central Bedfordshire Council as Highway Authority under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 to ensure the satisfactory completion of the access and associated road improvements. You are advised to contact the Highways Agreements Officer, Community Services, Central Bedfordshire Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford SG17 5TQ. E-mail [email protected]

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 Highways Help Desk tel: 0300 300 8049 Agenda Item 16 Page 258

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

Item 10 – CB/17/04959/OUT – Park Farm, Park Road, Westoning, Bedford, MK45 5LA.

*Additional Consultation/Publicity Responses

Highways (Development Management)

The third paragraph in the consultation response (page 124) should read:

It should be noted that the AADT figures in this area are provided by the Department for Transport. Should a survey be provided (which had been previously requested) at the location of the proposed site and proves that the flow is less than 15,000 AADT we would be prepared to look again at the proposed T junction access to serve this development.

Highways (Development Management) - Further Response

Thank you for the re-consultation relating to this application for outline planning permission.

The additional information relates to the principles of whether the site should be considered with regards to the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) or Manual for Streets (MfS).

Given that the site access would be within a 30mph speed limit it is considered that the appropriate guidance is that contained within MfS and that a simple T junction access point is appropriate in this instance. A slight alteration to the highway alignment was previously agreed to on the previous application (even though this was withdrawn) and as such the same approach is accepted. It would appear from the Councils GIS system that the Council does appear to own a 2.5m of highway land north and south of the site access so it may be the case that the alignment is not required but a condition is provided for the access (although considered acceptable) to be re-looked at to see if the visibility splays can be provided within the highway boundary.

There is no fundamental highway safety or capacity reason to justify and sustain a highways objection to the principle of residential development on this site. The proposal was supported by a Transport Assessment that demonstrates that the traffic generation can be accommodated on the surrounding highway network.

A construction management plan would be provided should the application be approved at the reserved matters stage. Agenda Item 16 Page 259

Conditions

1/ Notwithstanding the submitted details, development shall not begin until details of the junction between the proposed estate road and the highway (along with Manor Close) have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority and no building shall be occupied until that junction has been constructed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the proposed estate road.

2/ No other part of the development shall take place until the visibility splay dimensions at the junction of the access with the public highway shown on the approved drawing has been provided. All parts of the splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions above the adjacent carriageway level.

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

3/ The development shall be served by means of roads and footpaths which shall be laid out and drained in accordance with the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide September 2014 or other such documents that replace them, and no building shall be occupied until the roads and footpaths which provide access to it from the existing highway have been laid out and constructed in accordance with the above-mentioned Guidance.

Reason In order to minimise danger, obstruction and inconvenience to users of the highway and of the proposed estate road.

4/ The detailed layout plans to be submitted for approval of reserved matters in connection with this development shall illustrate vehicular turning areas for all service vehicles including a 11.5m long Refuse collection vehicle.

Reason To enable vehicles to draw off and turn outside the highway limits thereby avoiding the reversing of vehicles on to the highway.

5/ The detailed layout plans to be submitted for approval of reserved matters in connection with this development shall include car and cycle parking in accordance with Central Bedfordshire Design Guide September 2014 or other such documents that replace them has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented and made available for use before the development is occupied and the car and cycle parking areas shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose. Agenda Item 16 Page 260

Reason To ensure a satisfactory standard of development in accordance with the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide September 2014.

Furthermore, I should be grateful if you would arrange for the following Notes to the applicant to be appended to any Consent issued by the council.

1/ The applicant is advised that no works associated with the construction of the vehicular access should be carried out within the confines of the public highway without prior consent, in writing, of the Central Bedfordshire Council. Upon receipt of this Notice of Planning Approval, the applicant is advised to contact Central Bedfordshire Council's Highway Help Desk, Tel: 0300 300 8049 quoting the Planning Application number. This will enable the necessary consent and procedures under Section 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 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”.

Planning Officer Comments

The response confirms that there is no fundamental highway safety or capacity reason to justify a highways objection, and that subject to conditions, the proposed access is acceptable.

*Additional Consultation/Publicity Responses

Education

Financial contributions as follows are requested:

Early Years £75,699.54 Lower £252,331.80 Middle £253,906.85 Upper £311,357.03

Total £893,295.22

The full Education response is in an Appendix to the Late Sheet.

Planning Officer Comments

Formal agreement from the Agent acting for the applicant has been sought for the above requests. Members will be updated at the Committee meeting of any comments received. Agenda Item 16 Page 261

*Additional Consultation/Publicity Responses

Westoning Parish Council

Please accept this letter as the formal response from Westoning Parish Council (WPC) detailing the community projects that require financial support should the appeal for the above application be allowed.

For the avoidance of doubt, WPC must make it clear that it is opposed to the development proposed by this application. While Westoning is a large village of some 2500 residents, it already faces the prospect of 2 large development sites being promoted through the Local Plan process. As the Local Plan is the appropriate way, and possibly the only way, in which Green Belt land should be released, the Park Farm site should have been promoted through the Local Plan process so that its merits could have been considered alongside other sites in the village and not through a speculative application. This application negates the strategic approach to planning that the Local Plan is supposed to ensure.

In January 2017 WPC held a public meeting attended by over 150 residents, to consider the response by the village to the prospect of development through the Local Plan. That meeting, while not inviting significant development in the village, accepted that some development may be imposed on the village. The unanimous view of that meeting was that any development in the village should not exceed 70 to 80 units which was considered to be the maximum that the village could assimilate successfully.

That meeting also identified a number of community benefits that should be conditional on any development being approved. These were:

I) a new burial ground II) Two junior football pitches III) A new village hall IV) Associated access and parking for the above facilities

Although the applicant of the Park Farm site has sought to offer these facilities, WPC and the residents of Westoning, do not consider this site to be a suitable location for any of these facilities for a number of reasons including:

e) the site is prone to flooding f) the site is adjacent to a water course g) the site is remote from the centre of the village h) development on this site would have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt

In the unlikely event that the appeal for this application is allowed, financial contributions towards the costs of the following community facilities should be required:

Refurbishment and expansion of Westoning Village Hall - £300,000 Development of new burial ground - £150,000 Drainage works and resurfacing of Westoning Recreation Ground to provide two junior football pitches - £150,000 Agenda Item 16 Page 262

Westoning Parish Council hopes to have an opportunity to expand on the above points at any hearing in public that may be held on this application.

Planning Officer Comments

The points raised in respect of the principle of development and the Green Belt are considered in Section 1 (Principle of Development and Impact on Green Belt and Countryside) of the Committee Report.

Formal agreement from the Agent acting for the applicant has been sought in respect of the requests for financial contributions. Members will be updated at the Committee meeting of any comments received. *Additional Consultation/Publicity Responses

Trustees of Westoning Village Hall

The Trustees of Westoning Village Hall acknowledge that the current hall has its limitations and is in need of modernisation but they cannot support a new hall in such an inaccessible position and with insufficient funding to make it deliverable. They therefore feel it is not appropriate to use the village hall to create 'special circumstances' for the benefit of this development in the Green Belt for the following reasons:

Location not acceptable Parking inadequate Too remote from centre of village Pedestrian access unsuitable Vehicle access dangerous Proposed contribution inadequate

These points are elaborated upon below.

Poor pedestrian access - Pedestrian access from the centre of the village is along a long unlit alley making it unusable at night. Alternative pedestrian access is alongside the busy A5120 and the footpath becomes much narrower for the last 75m. It is likely that most people attending the proposed new village hall, even residents of the village, would use cars and all such journeys would add to the traffic on the busy A5120. This therefore clearly points to the location being inappropriate for a community building.

Insufficient parking spaces - The offer of 16 parking spaces shared with the burial ground is insufficient and there appears to be little opportunity for overspill parking within the new development. As well as obvious safety concerns, regular overspill parking on the new residential streets could lead to conflict with new residents and village halls rely on the support of their community. Central Bedfordshire Council recommends 1 car park space for every 5 sq m of floor space in village halls. The Design & Access Statement proposes that the new village hall will be 570 sq m which would require 114 parking spaces meaning the offer of 16 spaces is clearly woefully inadequate. The current village hall is in use practically every day and often by several different groups in a single day. Please look at our website to see the number of regular activities which take place, all of which are well attended. At weekends there are often Agenda Item 16 Page 263

private parties, drama productions, etc. http://www.westoningvillagehall.co.uk/regular- users

Dangerous access onto the A5120 - Most activities in the village hall start after the morning peak time but afternoon sessions would mean cars joining the A5120 traffic during late afternoon peak time. Joining the A5120 from the proposed development will be very difficult unless the hedge is removed which doesn't seem to be in the proposal. Residents of Manor Close have told me that they always use the northern (village) end of their private road for access to the A5120 because the other end is too dangerous. I assume residents and visitors to the new development will not be able to use this safer option. Currently village hall users have two options to access the A5120, one via a roundabout and one (Church Road) where the nearby pedestrian crossing often helps provide a gap in the traffic.

Deliverability - It is understood that the appeal site is in the Green Belt, and that the offer of a plot for a village hall is key to the ‘very special circumstances’ argument, where residential development would otherwise be inappropriate. Notwithstanding comments above highlighting that this is considered to be an inappropriate place, there are concerns about the deliverability of the facility. Whilst the developer is offering a contribution towards construction, this is clearly not sufficient to build the hall. With no other mechanism or known funding streams available, genuine concerns can be raised about ultimate deliverability. This, in turn, undermines the very special circumstance argument.

In summary, as a result of clear issues relating to both practicality and principle, we would request that the Inspector notes our objection to the provision of a site for a village hall within the current appeal scheme. Representatives of the Westoning Village Hall Committee hope to be able to attend the hearing.

Planning Officer Comments

The points raised in respect of a new village hall in the application site and whether this is a ‘special circumstance’ are considered in Section 1 (Principle of Development and Impact on Green Belt and Countryside) of the Committee Report.

*Additional Comments

- Text is missing from paragraph 1.14 (page 153). It should start with the words:

As stated, the site is ….

- Text is missing from paragraph 1.16 (page 153). It should read:

Overall, in view of the above, the proposed development would be inappropriate in, and therefore harmful to, the Green Belt and countryside, detrimental to openness and visual amenity. It would also be contrary to the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Therefore in the absence of any factors which could amount to very special circumstances, the principle of development is unacceptable. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 13 (Protecting Green Belt land) of the NPPF and Policy DM4 of the CSDMP. Agenda Item 16 Page 264

- The first recommended reason for refusal (page 158) is amended to read:

The proposed development represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal would be detrimental to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt, and comprises an encroachment into the countryside. No factors or combination of factors clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and other harm, to comprise very special circumstances. The proposal is therefore contrary to Section 13 (Protecting Green Belt land) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), July 2018.

- The NPPF references in the third and fourth recommended reasons for refusal should be July 2018, not March 2018.

Item 11 – CB/18/04183/OUT – Land East of No. 13 Clophill Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AQ.

Consultation/Publicity Responses

No Further comments to report

Additional Comments

During the production of the Committee agenda, the planning appeal decision letter relating to this case was omitted from the report. This is now attached as an Appendix A. In addition a recent appeal decision which is located to the east of the application site has been upheld and approval granted for residential development a plan and a copy of the appeal decision letter is attached as Appendix B.

Additional/Amended Conditions

None.

Item 12 – CB/18/01651/RM – Harlington Station Yard, Station Road, Harlington.

Additional Consultation/Publicity Responses

Two additional neighbour consultation responses have been received and the following points are raised:  Balconies and 3 storey scale would result in excess overlooking to neighbouring properties;  Trees would not provide adequate screening;  Previous planning applications for taller buildings have been rejected;  Access is insufficient and would result in safety issues; Agenda Item 16 Page 265

 Construction work would lead to noise and safety issues;  Insufficient consultation;  Elevated position of development would result in a towering effect;  Insufficient level of affordable housing provided;  Documents do not address concerns raised by Network Rail or the Fire and Rescue Service;  Street Scene and Site Sections are misleading;  Residential location of Committee Members has been considered and Members are asked to consider how they would feel if a flatted development was provided adjacent to their properties;  The development should be reconsidered so that it provides greater benefit to local residents.

Additional Comments

A revised layout plan (18-3456-10B) has been provided that annotates the potential location for a pedestrian link to the station. No other changes are shown on the location plan.

Additional/Amended Conditions

Condition 1 to be altered as follows:

Delete 18-03456-10A and replace with 18-3456-10B.

Condition 3 - A trigger point for submitting the details to the local planning authority is missing. It should start with the words:

Prior to occupation ….

The following informative should be added:

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.

Item 13 – CB/18/03698/RM – 9 Silsoe Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AX.

Additional Consultation/Publicity Responses

Maulden Parish Council raised issues on the width of the access road to the proposal 4.45 metres opposed to 4.5 metres shown on the plans and through condition. The Parish Council has also questioned where the location of the bin collection point would be. Agenda Item 16 Page 266

Additional Comments

Due to the difference in width of the access measuring 5cm, this discrepancy is considered deminimus. The location of a refuse collection point and a condition to require one as part of this permission is not considered necessary to make the application acceptable in the planning terms.

Additional/Amended Conditions

None

Item 14 – CB/18/04383/FULL – Manor Farm, Watling Street, Kensworth, Dunstable, LU6 3QU.

*Additional Consultation/Publicity Responses

Trees and Landscape

In response to this application, I refer to my previous pre-application consultation in respect of CB/18/03052/PAPC, which has been duplicated below in italics:

I have examined the plans and documents and documents associated with this Pre- Application, and also refer to my previous consultation responses in respect of this site. There will be a requirement to reinforce the boundary planting with the A5, as the existing hedge along this boundary will do little to screen any new storage area. I have reservations that trees being planted in containers within the site will not be properly looked after, as the degree of watering required for these will be significant, and such containers are also likely to be subject to machinery damage.

I still have reservations that despite the proposed planting, the storage area could not be effectively screened to a standard befitting of its Greenbelt location, and that I would therefore be reluctant to sanction the proposal.

Planning Officer Comments

The Trees and Landscape response refers to the inability of the proposed planting to effectively screen the storage area. This is reflective of the concerns raised in Section 1 (Principle of Development and Impact on Green Belt, AONB and AGLV) of the Committee Report in terms of the proposal being detrimental to the openness and visual amenity of the Green Belt.

Additional/Amended Conditions

None

*Additional Comments - Text is missing from the third paragraph in the Reason for Recommendation (page 221). It should read: Agenda Item 16 Page 267

Furthermore, the proposed change of use would be to the detriment of the countryside and would fail to conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of AONB. It would also adversely affect the landscape character and setting of the AGLV.

- The date of pre-application CB/18/03052/PAPC in the Relevant Planning History (page 224) is 2018, not 2017.

- The word ‘not’ is missing between ‘does’ and ‘meet’ in the fourth paragraph in the Highways (Development Management) consultation response (page 225).

- Text is missing from paragraph 1.10 (page 231). It should read:

Paragraph 170 of the NPPF, 2018 states that ‘planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment by recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside….’ Paragraph 172 states that, ‘Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in areas including AONBs, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues’. Also Policy NE3 (Control of Development in the Areas of Great Landscape Value (AGLV)) of the SBLPR states that a proposal can only be considered acceptable if it does not 'adversely affect the landscape character and setting of the area’.

- The distances in paragraph 2.1 (page 232) are incorrect. They should be 45m distant for New Lodge (not 90m) and 40m distant for Red Cow Farm (not 70m).

- Text is missing from the second recommended reason for refusal (page 234). It should read:

The application site is in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). The proposed development would be to the detriment of the countryside and would fail to conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB. It would also adversely affect the landscape character and setting of the AGLV. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy NE3 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review, and Section 16 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), July 2018.

Item 15 – CB/18/04058/FULL – Tree Tops, 13 West Hill, Aspley Guise, Milton Keynes, MK17 8DP.

Additional Consultation/Publicity Responses

Additional response received from immediate neighbour which includes the provision of two photographs taken from the neighbour’s shower room showing a view of users of the platform. Agenda Item 16 Page 268

Additional Comments

In response to the neighbour’s additional response the photographs received have been received by Planning Officers previously.

Since the publication of the officers report a bamboo privacy screen has been erected by the applicant adjacent to the raised platform. This has not been included in this current application and would have to be processed and assessed via a separate application.

Additional/Amended Conditions

None. ITEM 10 - APPENDIX

PLANNING OBLIGATION PRO FORMA – Park Farm, Park Road, Westoning, Bedford, MK45 5LA, CB/17/04959/OUT

Please complete the following table to allow full consideration of the statutory tests for obligations, that they should be:

 Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms  Directly related to the development  Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

RELEVANT STRATEGY, WHAT ARE THE WHAT ARE THE EXISTING METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING DETAILS OF FACILITIES OR PLANNING POLICY, ADDITIONAL FACILITIES AND HOW ARE ANY FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE ON WHICH DOCUMENT OR DEMANDS ON THESE ABLE OR UNABLE TO NECESSARY TO IMPROVE EXISTING OR CONTRIBUTION WILL BE SPENT GUIDANCE FACILITIES LIKELY MEET THE ADDITIONAL PROVIDE NEW FACILITIES TO ARISE FROM DEMANDS NOT Planning Obs SPD DEVELOPMENT

The 2017 School 73 dwellings will The development falls within The methodology used to understand Early years contribution Organisation Plan (SOP) produce a pupil the catchment area for the level of contribution required from which can be found at: yield of 4.38 (5) Westoning Lower School, any development over 10 dwellings is as The early years contribution would go children per Arnold Academy and Harlington follows: towards a project at Merry Poppets http://www.centralbedf yeargroup, based Upper. The lower school is In Westoning ordshire.gov.uk/school/ on the unlikely to be able to manage Pupil yield (assessed as 0.06 pupils per organisation/plan.aspx assumption of the impact of this development dwelling, per yeargroup) * 2009 DfE cost Lower school contributions: 0.06 pupils per without expansion and the pupil multiplier (inclusive of a location factor) The forecasts within the yeargroup per forecasts within the School The lower school contribution would SOP take into account dwelling. Organisation Plan are showing a The use of DfE multipliers to understand help fund a project Westoning Lower the impact of the new Executive agreed need for additional middle and the cost per pupil place is an approach School. housing identified an increase in the upper school places in the area. taken by a number of local authorities, within the CBC SHLAA pupil yield and allows for the total financial Middle school contributions Agenda Item 16 formula from contribution to be fairly and reasonably 0.04 to 0.06 at its related in scale and kind to the The middle school contribution would meeting on 1 development. go towards the project identified for

August 2017, to Arnold Middle, to create additional Page 269 reflect the actual EY/Lower =£11,522per pupil place capacity at the school from September yields Middle = £14,492 per pupil place 2018. experienced on Upper = £17,772 per pupil place housing Upper school contributions development Total financial contribution: across Central The upper school contribution would Bedfordshire go towards a project to increase the EY £75,699.54 capacity of Harlington Upper School. Lower £252,331.80 Middle £253,906.85 Upper £311,357.03 Total £893,295.22

A reduction for 1 bed properties and 2 bed flats can be applied to the contribution shown above, once the final dwelling mix is known. Agenda Item 16 Page 270 Agenda Item 16 ITEM 11 - APPENDIX A Page 271

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 August 2018 by Chris Forrett BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 November 2018

Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/18/3194555 Land East of 13 Clophill Road, Maulden, Bedfordshire MK45 2AA  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Aldbury Homes against Central Bedfordshire Council.  The application Ref CB/17/01156/OUT, is dated 8 March 2017.  The development proposed is the residential development on land north of Clophill Road, Maulden including other associated works.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for the residential development on land north of Clophill Road, Maulden including other associated works is refused.

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Aldbury Homes against Central Bedfordshire Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Procedural Matters

3. The appeal proposal was submitted in outline with the means of access being considered at the outline stage. Notwithstanding that, an indicative site layout plan which shows 14 dwellings and an indicative street scene have also been submitted which show a way in which the site could be developed. However, with the exception of the means of access on the site layout plan, I have treated these plans as a possible way of developing the site.

4. I have also noted that the Appellant and the Council agreed a revised description of development during the course of the consideration of the application and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

5. Since the determination of the appeal application, the National Planning Policy Framework published in 2012 has been replaced, with the new version being published in July 2018 (the 2018 Framework). I have invited further representations from the Council and the Appellant on this specific matter.

6. Paragraph 212 of the 2018 Framework outlines that the policies contained within it are material considerations which should be taken into account in dealing with applications from the day of its publication. I have therefore determined the appeal with this in mind.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3194555 Page 272

Main Issues

7. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and whether the development would provide affordable housing.

Reasons

Character and appearance

8. The appeal site is located on the north side of Clophill Road to the east of the main part of the village of Maulden. To the east of the site lies a cul-de-sac of further residential development, whilst to the north is open fields.

9. The Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2009) (CSDMP) sets out a hierarchy for development across the area with the majority of development being directed to the major and minor services centres within defined settlement envelopes. Policy CS1 of the CSDMP defines the main part of Maulden as a large village, and the Clophill Road (Maulden Green End) element as a small village in the settlement hierarchy.

10. From the evidence before me, Maulden has two settlement envelope areas (Maulden main village and Maulden Green End). The appeal site is located between the two settlement envelopes and is therefore located, in planning policy terms, in the countryside. My attention has also been drawn to policy CG8 of the emerging new Local Plan for Central Bedfordshire which designates the land between Maulden main village and Maulden Green End as an important countryside gap. However, as acknowledged by the Council, given that the new Plan has yet to have its examination completed I can only give this limited weight.

11. Policy DM4 of the CSDMP principally deals with development within settlement envelopes. However, I acknowledge that it is also titled to refer to land beyond settlement envelopes. Notwithstanding that, the only reference within the policy to land beyond the settlement envelope relates to “where no land is available within the settlement, a site adjacent to the settlement may be granted planning permission. Such development should make the best use of available land and lead to more sustainable communities”.

12. I am also conscious of the supporting text to Policy DM4, which sets out that the settlement envelopes have been defined to enable the clear, unambiguous and consistent application of policies in the control of development. It also states that they are not an attempt to define the extent of a particular town or village community and also seek to prevent coalescence between settlements.

13. To my mind, policy DM4 does not explicitly prevent development outside of the defined village envelope, which is largely drawn tightly around the existing built up area. It is also clear that the development would make best use of the available land and would lead to a more sustainable community through additional residents to support the local facilities in Maulden and surrounding villages.

14. Furthermore, the existing built form along Clophill Road is largely ribbon development, particularly within Maulden Green End. To my mind, the development of the appeal site would have a very similar character to the existing built form and would not result in any significant harm to the overall character and appearance of the area.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3194555 Page 273

15. It is also noted that the Council consider that the development would not result in the coalescence of different settlements. Whilst the erection of dwellings would result in the development of land between the two parts of Maulden, the low density of the proposal would not lead to any significant harm in this respect. In coming to that view, I acknowledge that the development of a greenfield site would inevitably have some impact on the rural character of the area. However, this would apply to the development of any greenfield site.

16. The Council have also referred to Policies CS14 and DM3 of the CSDMP which require new developments to provide a high quality development which respects the local context and distinctiveness of the area and ensure that the landscape quality of the area is conserved and enhanced.

17. The exact layout, design and landscaping of the site would be considered as part of the submission of reserved matters should I be minded to allow the appeal. Given the amount of development proposed, it would be possible to provide a suitable layout and design which would respect its local context and distinctiveness.

18. Taking all of the above into account, the development would not give rise to any significant harm to the character and appearance of the area.

19. For the above reasons, the development would be broadly consistent with aims and objectives of Policies CS1, CS14, DM3 and DM4 of the CSDMP which amongst other matters seek to ensure that new development is of a high quality, conserves and enhances the local character of the area. It would also accord with the overarching aims of the 2018 Framework.

Affordable Housing

20. Policy CS7 of the CSDMP sets out that for a development of this size at least 35% or more of the residential units should be affordable. It is common ground between the main parties that the development should make provision for affordable housing and I have no reason to disagree with that view. With that in mind, the Appellant has drafted a Unilateral Undertaking.

21. However, the Undertaking before me is undated and therefore incomplete. Even if this was not the case, the undertaking defines the planning permission as being granted by the Council, and that the deed shall only come into effect on the commencement date following the grant of planning permission. In the event that I allow this appeal, the planning permission would not be granted by the Council and therefore the deed would not come into force.

22. Taking the above into account, the Undertaking would not secure the delivery of much needed affordable housing. In the absence of any mechanism to deliver the affordable housing the proposal would be clearly contrary to Policy CS7 of the CSDMP and the 2018 Framework.

Planning Balance

23. The Council consider that they can demonstrate a supply of housing which equates to 5.81 years (at 1 April 2018) although this is disputed by the Appellant particularly when considered against the 2018 Framework.

24. Both the Appellant and the Council have made reference to various appeal decisions some of which have concluded that the Council do not have a five

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3194555 Page 274

year supply of housing and some of which conclude that there is such a supply1. From the information before me, it is unclear whether the Council can demonstrate a deliverable 5 year supply of housing.

25. On the assumption that the Council cannot demonstrate such a supply, the 2018 Framework indicates that planning decisions should apply a presumption of sustainable development. For decision taking, where Development Plan policies which are the most important for determining the application are out of date2, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the 2018 Framework taken as a whole.

26. In this case, I have found that proposal would not make provision for the delivery of much needed affordable housing. This factor weighs heavily against allowing the proposed development.

27. Notwithstanding that, the development would still give rise to some minor social benefits in that it would provide much needed additional housing. The development would also bring some minor economic benefits through the construction process and the potential to support local facilities. These matters are in favour of the proposed development.

28. The indicative plans submitted show that the development of the site would provide 14 new dwellings, although given the outline nature of the proposal that number may be higher. The development of the site with new dwellings would clearly contribute towards housing land supply in Central Bedfordshire. However, the benefit of such housing is severely diminished by the lack of provision of affordable housing.

29. Against this background, the harm identified significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits when assessed against the policies in the 2018 Framework when taken as a whole. The proposal cannot therefore be considered to be sustainable development.

Conclusion

30. Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Chris Forrett

INSPECTOR

1 Including APP/P0240/W/17/3152707 dated 20 November 2017; APP/P0240/W/17/3176444 dated 3 January 2018; APP/P0240/W/17/3176387 dated 9 July 2018; APP/P0240/W/17/3181269 dated 20 March 2018; APP/P0240/W/17/3170248 and APP/P0240/W/17/3172143 dated 12 April 2018. 2 Footnote 7 includes situations where the local planning authority cannot demonstrate five year supply of deliverable housing sites. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 ITEM 11 - APPENDIX B Agenda Item 16 Page 275

Appeal Decision Hearing Held on 7 November 2018 Site visit made on 8 November 2018 by Hywel Wyn Jones BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 January 2019

Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Old Farm, Clophill Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AA  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Resolved Developments (now Caddick Land) against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council.  The application (ref: CB/18/00435/OUT), dated 1 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 16 July 2018.  The development proposed is residential development of up to 49 dwellings (including affordable housing).

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for residential development of up to 49 dwellings (including affordable housing) at Old Farm, Clophill Road, Maulden, Bedford, MK45 2AA in accordance with the terms of the application, (ref: CB/18/00435/OUT), dated 1 February 2018, subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule to this decision.

Preliminary and Procedural Matters

2. The application seeks outline planning permission with all matters, save for access, reserved for future consideration. The appellant has confirmed that the layout plan details are illustrative and intended to show how the development could be undertaken. I have treated the details on that basis.

3. At the outset of the hearing the appellant withdrew an appeal1 against an earlier refusal of permission for substantively the same development on the appeal site. Given the similarity between the schemes I have taken into account representations received in response to the earlier scheme in my consideration of the appeal before me. This includes, at the Council’s request, its earlier statement of case and addendum.

4. I carried out an accompanied visit to the site and the surrounding area, including 2 public rights of way, in the presence of representatives of the main parties and the local community. I carried out unaccompanied visits to the surrounding area on the same and previous day.

5. Shortly before the hearing the main parties presented appeal decisions which were considered relevant to the issue of housing land supply. On that basis the

1 APP/P0240/W/17/3187722 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 276

appellant altered its previously agreed position with the Council, to a position that the Council did not have a 5 year supply. As agreed with the parties the hearing dealt with all other matters but was adjourned to allow further consideration of housing supply. In accordance with an agreed timetable the main parties subsequently produced a Statement of Common Ground and Statements of Case dealing with this issue. Having determined that I had sufficient information to enable me to understand the parties’ respective positions and to determine the appeal I subsequently closed the hearing in writing.

6. A duly executed s106 agreement has been submitted which undertakes to provide financial contributions to education, a play area and outdoor sport, makes provision for on-site affordable housing and open space, and provides for ecological management, the protection of a heritage asset and creation of a permissive footpath.

7. In July 2018 a new version of the National Planning Policy Framework was published. Whilst this is after the Council’s determination of the planning application the parties have been able to address the latest version in their appeal submissions.

Planning Policy

8. The Council has relied on the Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (November 2009) (‘the Core Strategy’) as the relevant development plan in its determination of the application.

9. An examination of the Council’s Emerging Local Plan (ELP) has been suspended to allow additional evidence on matters including heritage, landscape and transport mitigation. The Council advises that no date has yet been set for the hearing sessions. The parties agree that, in line with paragraph 48 of the Framework that limited weight can be attached to the plan. I concur and rely on the Core Strategy in my decision in line with the approach taken by the main parties in their evidence.

Main Issues

10. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: the character and appearance of the settlement and the surrounding landscape; biodiversity; and heritage assets.

Reasons

Character and appearance

11. The appeal site fronts Clophill Road. It is gently sloping, open pasture land which is mostly bounded on both sides and along its roadside frontage with mature hedgerows. The rear boundary of the site is presently undefined beyond which there are fields on rising ground which are crossed by a public footpath and which extend towards the steeply sloping and mainly wooded Greensand Ridge. A short distance to the north of the site lies a complex of farm buildings and a farmhouse at Old Farm and former barns converted to residential use all of which are served by an access lane which crosses the appeal site in the position of the scheme’s proposed access.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 277

12. To the west of the site lies a group of commercial units and housing that includes a modern residential cul-de-sac. The eastern boundary is defined by a hedgerow and trees bounding Green Lane. On the other side of this narrow highway lies a site currently being developed for 5 houses fronting Clophill Road which adjoin a row of houses. On the opposite side of the road to the site there is a virtually unbroken row of closely spaced, two-storey houses fronting the road.

13. To the west of the site and extending northwards from the existing commercial units to a point that roughly aligns with the position of the Old Farm complex lies a presently open area of land allocated for employment use in the Core Strategy (EA7) as an extension to the existing business park. The Council proposes to maintain the allocation in its emerging plan. The development of this site would be markedly closer to the Greensand Ridge than the appeal site.

14. I have had regard to the appellant’s Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which has been undertaken with regard to the relevant guidance, alongside the other evidence presented to me in writing together with that gleaned during the hearing including my visit to the site and its surroundings.

15. The Council confirms that the site lies within the Greensand National Landscape Character Area. At a more fine-grained level and based on my site visit, I agree with the appellant’s landscape witness that the site lies within a different landscape zone to the land to the north of the nearest public footpath. The latter forms part of the attractive, distinctive topography of the Greensand Ridge landscape which has a more natural appearance whereas the site lies within unremarkable farmland framed by the built form of the village. Thus I do not share the Council’s opinion the site lies within a valued landscape for the purposes of paragraph 170 of the Framework. Indeed given the scope of the scheme to improve landscaping between the built form and surrounding countryside I consider that the scheme would have a positive effect on the surrounding landscape, in line with DM14, once the necessary planting becomes established. My attention is drawn to a dismissed appeal2 for housing within the same Landscape Character Area. Whilst I do not have the details of that scheme, as the Inspector found harm to landscape character it is distinguishable from the case before me.

16. Views of the attractive Greensand Ridge from Clophill Road over the appeal site are presently very limited because of the screening offered by tall roadside vegetation. Whilst more distant views are available along a narrow vista from the present access a row of ornamental trees focus attention towards Old Farm complex. At the site visit the Council acknowledged that this tree-lined avenue did not reflect the character of the surrounding countryside.

17. Both main parties agree that views of the development from the public footpaths to the north are important vantage points. The elevated position of the routes offers extensive views of the countryside, including Greensand Ridge, from those sections which are not screened by trees. The paths are popular and valued routes within the local network. The more distant of the 2 routes, the Greensand Ridge Walk, provides a long distance walk across Bedfordshire. My visit demonstrated that from these vantage points the site is presently seen in the context of the development that flanks it, and more significantly, the row of two storey houses on the other side of Clophill Road.

2 APP/PO240/W/16/3152707 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 278

The domestic character of the converted barns and their large rear gardens at Old Farm is also readily noticeable from a significant length of the closer of the 2 footpath routes. I acknowledge that the proposed development would be closer and at a slightly higher elevation than the existing built form. However, given the separation distance and the scope to control the layout and design of the dwellings and the landscaping works, I find that the scheme would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area from this direction.

18. My visit indicated that there would be need to remove or reposition a section of the roadside hedgerow to provide a visibility splay for the access. Despite this the scheme would largely retain the visual effect of this landscape feature and would maintain the present balance along the road between the built form and the more natural features. The scheme makes provision to open up and thereafter maintain northward views which are considered important by the Council by providing an area of open space around the access route, and removing the existing avenue of trees. Subject to careful consideration of the details I am satisfied that the scheme would not have a harmful impact on the character or appearance of the area from this direction once landscaping works become established.

19. The benefits to visual receptors of the landscape of opening up of views from Clophill Road would be supplement by benefits associated with the proposed creation of a footpath link from the road, through the site, to the existing footpath to the north. This proposed route would be secured through an obligation included in the s106 agreement as would the provision of the area of open space. The scheme also proposes landscaping works and wildlife habitats. It would provide an attractive place to live and visit and would align with the aims of policies CS17 and DM16 which promote green infrastructure.

20. In terms of the importance to be attached to the site as an open area I note that the ELP does not include it as a proposed Important Countryside Gap designation under policy CG8. This designation extends over undeveloped land to both the west and east of the built up areas that flank the site. The Council decided not to allocate the site for development in the ELP on the basis that it was considered to be an unsustainable extension but suggested that some of the road frontage may be suitable for development.

21. I now turn to concerns over the impact on the character of the built form. Whilst it appears that much of the older housing development in the vicinity, as typified on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site, is linear frontage development, there is more recent housing that has evolved that pattern to a more varied layout. I do not find that such development, which forms part of the area’s character, is harmful. The scheme, which the indicative layout shows could be informally laid out with generous open spaces, would not appear discordant with the present character of the built form. I have already described how the appeal scheme would retain most of the roadside hedgerow thereby preserving to a significant extent the present roadside appearance of the site.

22. In reaching a view on the acceptability of developing this site I have taken into account a recent appeal decision3 brought to my attention by a local Member of the Council at the hearing. The site in question lies to the west of the cluster

3 APP/P0240/W/18/3194555 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 279

of development immediately west of the present appeal site. That site, referred to as ‘land east of No. 13 Clophill Road’, and the land on the opposite side of the road are undeveloped and are included in the ELP’s proposed Important Countryside Gap designation. In that appeal the Inspector found that the scheme would not give rise to any significant harm to the area’s character or appearance. The appeal was dismissed solely because of the absence of a necessary contribution towards much needed affordable housing.

23. The appellant also draws my attention to a relatively recent decision made by the Council to approve an application for 25 dwellings on a site adjacent to Nos 129A and 131 Clophill Road. It is evident that many of the issues raised in that proposal are similar to those before me, but that the Council in that case found the scheme acceptable.

24. The site lies outside the settlement envelope identified in the Maulden/Clophill Inset 36 plan. The Council cites Core Strategy policy DM4, Settlement Envelopes, in its first reason for refusal which deals with the site’s open countryside location and harm to the area’s character and appearance. For reasons I have already set out I find that it does not cause such harm. Whilst the site is outside the identified village envelope it is surrounded on 3 sides by the built form of the village. DM4 is capable of bearing more than one meaning as evidenced by the parties’ differing interpretations. The envelopes were drawn without knowledge of the plan’s overall development requirements and distinguish between areas of built development and the countryside. The subsequent Central Bedfordshire Site Allocations DPD identifies development sites outside these limits and the Council confirmed that it has approved appropriate windfall schemes outside the envelopes. The Inspector in the case to the east of No. 13 found that the policy does not purport to prevent development outside its boundaries explaining that ‘where no land is available within the settlement, a site adjacent to the settlement may be granted planning permission’.

25. As the parties point out there is a degree of inconsistency in the way policy DM4 has been interpreted in the recent appeal decisions brought to my attention. I share the view taken by an Inspector in the Potton case4 that as the policy seeks to protect the totality of the countryside from development rather than valued landscapes it is not fully consistent with the Framework (paragraph 170) but is capable of attracting moderate weight. I find that the site specific considerations in this case mean that the protective provisions of DM4 are not harmed by the scheme. In the circumstances I attach less than moderate weight to the policy and find that the site’s location outside the village envelope does not alter my findings on the acceptability of the scheme in relation to the first main issue.

26. On this main issue I find that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the area, subject to matters that are reserved for subsequent approval being sensitively designed. On this basis, and given that for reasons I explain below I find the effect on biodiversity and heritage assets to be acceptable, I consider that the scheme’s effect on the landscape to be acceptable. Thus the scheme does not conflict with Policies CS16 or DM14 that seek to protect the landscape and aligns with CS17 and DM16 in its promotion of green infrastructure. Given the scope to

4 APP/P0240/W/17/3190687 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 280

control details at the reserved matters stage the scheme would not conflict with policies CS14 and DM3 which seek to secure high quality development.

Biodiversity

27. The site lies within the Greensand Ridge Nature Improvement Area and the Council explains that the floristic quality of the site is unusual and opines that it would meet the criteria for designation as a County Wildlife Site. Through a countryside stewardship programme there are presently controls over the way the land is used, thereby protecting its ecological value. The appellant suggests that the ecological value of the site could be harmed by a future change in farming practices, but it was acknowledged that there is no reason to believe that such changes are likely to arise in the foreseeable future, other than the risk of increased intensity of the present use that could give rise to issues of damage through over-grazing.

28. The scheme does offer ecological benefits through the s106 agreement to which I attach significant weight. These include bat boxes/tubes on new buildings; bird boxes; positive ecological management particularly with regard to the creation/replacement of species rich grassland; and a wildlife corridor is to be provided along the east boundary of the site. To compensate for the loss of some 2.57ha of semi-improved grassland the s106 agreement offers an ecological management plan for the remaining 12.91ha of the holding which would include improving grassland and increasing the length of hedgerow by some 543m. There is disagreement over the time taken for improvements to be realised, but I consider that even if that period is closer to the 10 years suggested by the Council the scheme would secure a net gain in terms of biodiversity.

29. The main parties agree that the scheme would not harm any designated ecological sites, acknowledging that there are Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) in the vicinity. There is also agreement that that the scheme would not harm the conservation status of the local population of dormice which have a habitat within the Maulden Woods SSSI which is some 700m distant.

30. To protect lizards that use a spoil heap on the site it is proposed to translocate them to the wildlife corridor. Concerns have been raised over the proposed corridor, which it is proposed to protect by a chain-link fence from the site, in terms of predation and connectivity in relation to several species including dormice and badgers. Such matters can be adequately addressed as part of a refinement of the ecological management plan included in the s106 agreement and the requirement, through planning condition, for an ecological enhancement strategy to be agreed with the Council.

31. In response to a matter raised at the hearing by Ms Raven of the Greensand Trust, I acknowledge the potential for new residents give rise to the potential for increased recreational visits to nearby SSSIs over which there is public access. However there is no evidence before me to indicate that this would be likely to be to an extent that would be damaging. At the hearing a local resident raised concern over the effect on bats. I am satisfied with the appellant’s explanation that a bat survey was not necessary in this case and that the scheme would make adequate provision for bats that may use the site.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 281

32. On this main issue I conclude that the scheme would provide a net gain for biodiversity and thus accords with the provisions of the paragraphs 170 and 175 of the Framework.

Heritage Assets

33. My visit confirmed that the historic ridge and furrow earthwork profile continues to be clearly discernible within the western portion of the site, and extends northwards beyond the limits of the proposed development. My visit indicated that the features did not appear to be appreciably more preserved within the appeal site than the adjacent area to the north.

34. In Bedfordshire ridge and furrow features have become increasingly rare, particularly as a consequence of modern agricultural practice, especially deep ploughing associated with arable farming. The feature has a high significance rating using the Selected Heritage Inventory for Natural England. It is a non- statutory historic asset of regional significance.

35. The appellant has provided a Ridge and Furrow Statement of Significance and Impact Assessment. I note the points of detail in this and other information provided by the appellant with which the Council takes exception but these do not, in my view, fundamentally undermine the assessment’s findings. Having regard to paragraph 199 of the Framework the scheme proposes to preserve by record the historic value of the ridge and furrow feature which is held within the crust of top soil of the affected area. This would be secured by a planning condition. The s106 agreement makes provision to protect the feature within land in the appellant’s ownership which is outside the development area by preventing its ploughing.

36. In addition to undertaking an assessment of the ridge and furrow feature the appellant has also carried out a magnetic survey of the site. Having regard to paragraph 189 of the Framework I consider that the assessment provided by the appellant on the effect on historic assets is a proportionate one having regard to the likely value of the site.

37. The Council suggests that within the eastern part of the site there may be the remnants of a medieval rabbit farming warren. Other than the existence of local names there is little other evidence to support the theory. The magnetic survey has revealed a circular feature for which there are several other plausible explanations. In any event the proposed illustrative layout shows how this area would be retained as an open space area and thus protected from development. In the circumstances I consider that any archaeological interest can be adequately addressed by a suitably worded condition.

38. On this final main issue I have taken into account paragraph 197 of the Framework which seeks a balanced judgement to be taken having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of non-designated heritage assets. I find that, taking into account the proposed protection measures, the scheme would not unacceptably impact on any heritage assets, and does not conflict with Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy.

39. In reaching the above finding I have borne in mind the proximity of the proposed development to the Maulden Conservation Area and several listed buildings. I share the opinion of the main parties that the scheme would not harm the setting of these designated assets.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 282

Other Matters

40. There are bus stops on the road outside the site, and it is proposed to extend a roadside footway along the site frontage to facilitate a link to one of these. The frequency of the bus routes that pass the site and the accessibility by foot to some local services, including a lower school, a food store, church, public houses and a post office (noting that a post office closer to the site has recently closed) means that the scheme performs reasonably well in terms of sustainable transport, as the Council acknowledges. Future residents of the scheme are likely to support these local facilities thereby contributing to a more sustainable community, which is identified as an aim for development outside settlement envelopes in Policy DM4. Taking into account the contributions provided through the s106 agreement, I am satisfied that the scheme would not unacceptably impact on local services and infrastructure.

41. The site lies within agricultural land classed as best and most versatile which paragraph 170 of the Framework explains has economic and other benefits as part of the natural environment. The Council confirmed that a significant proportion of land within its administrative boundary falls within this higher agricultural land classification. In the circumstances, I agree with it that this consideration does not warrant withholding permission for the scheme.

42. Local residents express highway safety concerns. Noting that the Council raises no such concerns subject to the imposition of a condition, I am satisfied that the scheme is acceptable in this respect.

43. I have noted local concern that permitting this proposal would set a precedent for further development, however my decision is based on the specific merits of this case. Other proposals would have to be judged on their individual merits, in the context of prevailing development plan policies.

44. The evidence provided by the parties after the hearing demonstrates a disagreement over whether the Council can demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, having regard to the relevant provisions of the Framework. However, given that I have found the scheme acceptable in relation to the above main issues, as was agreed by the parties at the hearing, it follows that I do not need to reach a finding on the issue of housing land supply.

Conditions and Obligations

Conditions

45. The main parties agreed a list of suggested conditions in advance of the hearing as set out in the signed version of the first Statement of Common Ground. These formed the basis of discussion at the event. In imposing conditions I have had regard to the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

46. In addition to the standard conditions controlling the commencement of work and the submission of reserved matters I consider it reasonable to require the details to broadly conform to those provided in the indicative masterplan given the importance of such details in avoiding harmful impacts in relation to those matters relevant to the main issues of this case.

47. As agreed at the hearing I have amended the suggested wording of the condition requiring the access to be constructed prior to the occupation of any

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 283

dwellings; given that access is not a reserved matter but that the full details of the work have not been provided I shall impose a requirement to submit such details prior to the commencement of the development. For reasons already explained I agree with the parties that a condition requiring an ecological enhancement strategy is necessary. To ensure adequate control over the timing of environmental management works I also agree that a condition to this effect is needed. A condition requiring the provision of visibility splays is also necessary to ensure the safety of highway users. I shall not impose the suggested condition dealing with the finished levels of the development as it is a detail that be dealt with at reserved matters stage.

48. In response to the previous deposit of rubble on the site a condition to deal with potential land contamination is necessary. For reasons already explained conditions requiring an archaeological investigation and the provision of a roadside footpath are necessary. Noting the concerns raised by local residents I agree that a condition to minimise the disruption caused by construction work is reasonable. A condition requiring approval of drainage details is required to avoid local flooding or pollution. Having regard to Core Strategy policies DM1 and DM2 I agree that it is reasonable to require a proportion of energy sources to be renewable or low carbon and for water efficiency measures to be provided.

Obligations

49. In addition to the provision of a permissive footpath, ecological mitigation and the protection of heritage assets to which I have already referred, the s106 also provides financial contributions to education, children’s play area and outdoor sports, and makes provision for on-site informal open space and its future management. The Council has confirmed that none of the contributions would exceed the pooled limit imposed by Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CIL).

50. The agreement includes a 35% contribution to affordable housing in line with policy CS7 of the Core Strategy, which the appellant confirmed at the hearing was economically viable in this case. Noting the concern expressed by local residents that recent new housing was too expensive for most locals to afford, this contribution to the supply of local affordable housing weighs in favour of the scheme.

51. The Council has confirmed that the contributions to infrastructure and affordable housing address the concerns set out in its third reason for refusal of the application. I am satisfied that the obligations accord with Policy CS2 and the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document, are reasonable and necessary and in compliance with CIL Regulation 122 and the Framework. Accordingly I afford significant weight to all the obligations contained in the agreement.

Conclusions

52. For reasons I have already set out I find the effects of the scheme acceptable in all respects. It is thus not necessary to attribute particular weight to matters that are significant considerations in favour of the scheme, these are the contribution to the local housing stock, especially to affordable housing, and the economic befits associated with the construction work and, thereafter, the local expenditure by future residents.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 284

53. For the reasons set out above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

Hywel Wyn Jones INSPECTOR

Schedule of Conditions

1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than 3 years from the date of this permission. 3) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 4) The submission of reserved matters in respect of appearance, landscape, layout and scale for the development hereby permitted shall be in substantial accordance with the indicative masterplan reference: 1014.05.F (May 2018). 5) No development shall take place until details of the access layout arrangements have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site access shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and brought into use prior to first occupation of any dwelling unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 6) No development shall take place until schemes for the proposed method of surface water and sewage disposal have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The schemes shall include details of the timetable for provision and future management and maintenance. The approved sewage disposal and surface water drainage facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details before the development is first occupied and shall be retained and maintained thereafter in accordance with the schemes as approved. 7) No development shall take place until a risk-based land contamination assessment to determine the nature and extent of any contamination on the site has been carried out, in accordance with a methodology that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Should any unacceptable risks be found, a remedial scheme and verification plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The remedial scheme shall be implemented as approved before development begins. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not previously been identified, additional measures to address it shall

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 285

be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and the additional measures shall be carried out as approved. 8) Prior to the commencement of development, the pre-construction works set out in the Environmental Management Plan dated June 2018 shall be implemented and then maintained during the construction phase in accordance with the approved details. On completion of the construction phase, the temporary construction fencing shall be removed and the operational phase works shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the first dwelling. 9) Part A: No development shall take place until a written scheme of archaeological investigation has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The written scheme of investigation shall include the following components: i) A method statement for the preservation in situ of archaeological remains at the site; ii) A method statement for the investigation of all archaeological remains at the site that cannot be preserved in situ; iv) An outline strategy for post-excavation assessment, analysis and publication Part B: The development hereby approved shall only be implemented in full accordance with the approved archaeological scheme and this condition shall only be fully discharged when the following components have been completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority: v) The completion of all elements of the archaeological fieldwork (including any measures for the preservation in situ of archaeological remains), which shall be monitored and signed off by the Archaeological Advisors to the Local Planning Authority; vi) The submission within twelve months of the completion of the archaeological fieldwork (unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing by the Local Planning Authority) of a Post Excavation Assessment and an Updated Project Design, which shall be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority; vii) The completion within three years of the conclusion of the archaeological fieldwork (unless otherwise agreed in advance in writing by the Local Planning Authority) of the post-excavation analysis as specified in the approved Updated Project Design; preparation of site archive ready for deposition at a store approved by the Local Planning Authority, completion of an archive report, and submission of a publication report. 10) No dwelling shall be occupied until visibility splays have been provided at the junction of the proposed estate roads with Clophill Road in accordance with the details provided on plan 47699PP-101. The minimum dimensions to provide the required splay lines shall be 2.4metres measured along the centre line of the proposed estate road from its junction with the channel of the public highway and 90 metres measured from the centre line of the proposed estate road along the line of the channel of the public highway. The vision splays required shall be

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 286

provided and defined on the site and shall be maintained thereafter free of any obstructions to visibility. 11) Prior to occupation of the first dwelling the footpath along Clophill Road shown on plans 47699-PP-101 and 47699-PP-102 shall be provided and thereafter maintained. 12) No development shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP shall include details of: • Construction Activities and Timing; • Plant and Equipment, including loading and unloading; • Construction traffic routes and points of access/egress to be used by construction vehicles; • On site provision for construction worker and contractor vehicle parking • Details of site compounds, offices and areas to be used for the storage of materials; • Details of on-site wheel cleaning facilities; • Dust mitigation and suppression measures; • A timetable to show phasing of construction activities to avoid periods of the year when sensitive wildlife could be harmed (such as the bird nesting season); • Protection for all retained trees and landscaping; • Contact details for site managers and details of management lines of reporting to be updated as different phases come forward; • Details for the monitoring and review of the construction process including traffic management (to include a review process of the CEMP during development). The development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved CEMP. 13) No above ground works comprising the erection of dwellinghouses shall commence until a scheme of measures to source 10% of the energy demand for the development from renewable or low carbon sources and to ensure the development achieves a water efficiency standard of 110 litres per person per day (105 litres for internal use plus 5 litres for external use). The scheme shall then be implemented in accordance with the approved details and shall continue to be implemented as long as any part of that phase of the development is occupied. 14) No development shall take place until an Ecological Enhancement Strategy (EES) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The EES shall include the following: a) Purpose and conservation objectives for the proposed works informed by a review of the ecological assessment. b) Review of site potential and constraints. c) Detailed design(s) and/or working method(s) to achieve stated objectives.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 12 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 287

d) Extent and location/area of proposed works on appropriate scale plans. e) Type and source of materials to be used where appropriate, e.g. native species of local provenance. f) Timetable for implementation demonstrating that works are aligned with the proposed phasing of development. g) Persons responsible for implementing the works. h) Details of initial aftercare and long-term maintenance. The EES shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and all features shall be retained in that manner thereafter.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 13 Agenda Item 16 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/18/3208772 Page 288

APPEARANCES

FOR THE APPELLANT:

Ms A Beresford Solicitor, Shulmans Mr M Lane MRTPI Director, DPP Mr M Popplewell Chartered Landscape Architect, Director, Rosetta Dr A Towle BA MA PhD MCIFA Associate Director, RSK Mr J Simpson CEcol Associate Director, ADAS Mr C Proctor Land Director, Caddick Land

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Mr P Hughes BA (Hons) MRTPI DipMan MCIM Consultant, PHD Planners Ms A Myers BSc (Hons) Landscape Planner Ms E Anderson MA CIEEM CENV Ecologist Ms H Firth Archaeologist

INTERESTED PERSONS:

Cllr P Allen Maulden Parish Council Ms S Raven Ecologist, Greensand Trust Mr I Hill-Smith Local resident Ms L Reyner Local resident Mr M McCourt Local resident Cllr P Jackson Maulden Parish Council Cllr P Duckett Ward Member, Central Bedfordshire Council

DOCUMENTS 1 Extract from proposals map – Local Development Framework 2 Extract from proposals map – emerging Local Plan 3 S106 Agreement signed and dated 4 Extract Pre-submission version of Local Plan, January 2018 5 Committee report - CB/17/04583/OUT 6 Appeal decision and site plan – APP/P020/W/18/3194555 Submitted after hearing (as agreed at event): 7 Council’s CIL Reg 123 Pooling Evidence 8 Committee report – CB/17/1156/OUT 9 Statement of Common Ground 2 dated 23 November 2018 10 Appellant’s additional Statement of Case 11 Council’s additional Statement of Case

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 14