| Conditions or Reasons: | | 1)
The proposed development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful. The siting, scale and nature of the development is such that there would be very substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt and the development conflicts with the purposes of the Green Belt. As required by paragraph 153 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), substantial weight is attached to the harm to the Green Belt. Other harm resulting from the proposals is identified as set out by this Decision Notice. The other harm cumulatively is very substantial. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations. None of the material considerations put forward by the applicant, individually or cumulatively, would outweigh the harm to Green Belt and other harms. The proposed development therefore conflicts with Policy SP4 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 2)
The proposed development, by virtue of its scale and siting would conflict with and undermine the adopted Spatial Strategy for Central Bedfordshire by introducing a substantial new settlement in an unsuitable, unsustainable, and harmful location. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy SP1 (Growth Strategy) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021), policies SNP/SP-1 and SNP/SP-4 of the Silsoe Neighbourhood Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 3)
The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, siting and layout would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of a range of heritage assets, including harm to the settings of Wrest Park (Scheduled Ancient Monument and Grade I Registered Park and Garden) and its Grade I, Grade II* and Grade II listed buildings, All Saints Church (Grade I Listed), Fielden House, Fielden Farmhouse, Little Ion Farmhouse, Westhey Manor and New Inn Farmhouse (all Grade II listed) and Wrest Park, Silsoe and Shillington Conservation Areas. As required in paragraph 205 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023), great weight is given to the conservation of these heritage assets. The less than substantial harm to these heritage assets would not be outweighed by the public benefit of the proposals. The development would therefore be contrary to policies HE1 (Archaeology and Scheduled Monuments), HE2 (Historic Parks and Gardens), HE3 (Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and Built Heritage) and HQ1 (High Quality Development) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 4)
It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development could be safely and efficiently accommodated in the transport network and it has not been demonstrated that there would not be unacceptable hazards and inconvenience to users of the highway network, including unacceptable traffic congestion, and a reliance on the private car by occupiers of the development contrary to sustainable transport policy objectives. The development would therefore be contrary to policies T1 (Mitigation of Transport Impacts on the Network), T2 (Highways Safety and Design) and T4 (Public Transport Interchanges) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 5)
The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, character and siting, would cause significant and wide-ranging harm to the landscape, including to the setting of, and views in and out of the Chilterns National Landscape. The development would therefore be contrary to policies EE5 (Landscape Character and Value), EE7 (The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and HQ1 (High Quality Development) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021), Policy RC3 of the Gravenhurst Neighbourhood Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 6)
The proposed development would cause significant and wide-ranging harm to the character and appearance of the site and the area through the comprehensive urbanisation of open countryside and the coalescence of settlements. The development would therefore be contrary to policies SP5 (Important Countryside Gaps and Coalescence), EE1 (Green Infrastructure) and HQ1 (High Quality Development) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021), Policy RC1 of the Gravenhurst Neighbourhood Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 7)
The Flood Risk Assessment submitted with this application does not comply with the requirements for site specific flood risk assessments, as set out in paragraphs 30 to 32 of the Flood Risk and Coastal Change section of the planning practice guidance because insufficient details of the hydraulic modelling of ordinary watercourses have been provided, residual risk has not been assessed and the afflux modelling outputs provided are unclear. As such, it has not been demonstrated that the flood risk associated with the development would be acceptable, contrary to Policy CC3 (Flood Risk Management) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 8)
In the absence of a Sequential Test, it has not been demonstrated that there are no reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy CC3 (Flood Risk Management) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 9)
The proposed development would result in the loss of a significant quantum of best and most versatile agricultural land which has value in terms of food production, agricultural industry and the environment. The public benefit of the proposals does not override the need to protect the land. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy DC5 (Agricultural Land) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 10)
It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not cause harm to ecological habitats, including habitat fragmentation and restricting the movement and migration of species or that the proposed ecological mitigation is sufficient or achievable. It has not been demonstrated that a satisfactory net gain in biodiversity would be delivered at the site. The development would therefore be contrary to policies EE2 (Enhancing Biodiversity) and EE3 (Nature Conservation) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021), Policy RC5 of the Gravenhurst Neighbourhood Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 11)
It has not been demonstrated that the foul drainage generated by the proposed development in combination with other planned development proposed to connect into the Flitwick Water Recycling Centre (WRC) catchment can be accommodated. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy CC6 (Water Supply and Sewerage Infrastructure) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 12)
Information submitted in support of the planning application relating to noise is incomplete, in places inaccurate and where complete, identifies harmful impacts on existing and proposed receptors. The missing information could not be secured by planning condition because it would inform whether the quantum of development proposed at the site could be satisfactorily accommodated. The development would therefore be contrary to policies CC8 (Pollution and Land Instability) and HQ1 (High Quality Development) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 13)
The development would result in unjustified and/or unacceptable odour conditions for proposed users of the leisure, commercial, and community facilities at the site because of the proximity to the wastewater treatment works. It has not been demonstrated that an alternative, appropriate layout could be achieved to overcome these impacts in the context of the amount of development proposed and the constraints of the site. The development would therefore be contrary to policies CC8 (Pollution and Land Instability) and HQ1 (High Quality Development) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 14)
In the absence of comprehensive modelling, it has not been demonstrated that the impacts of the proposed development on air quality would be acceptable. The missing information could not be secured by planning condition because it would inform whether the quantum of development proposed at the site could be satisfactorily accommodated. The development would therefore be contrary to policies CC8 (Pollution and Land Instability) and HQ1 (High Quality Development) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
| 15)
In the absence of a completed S106 legal agreement, the development would not secure necessary mitigation of its impacts on existing local infrastructure or affordable or self/custom build housing or housing for older people. The development would therefore be contrary to policies H3 (Housing for Older People), H4 (Affordable Housing), H6 (Self-Build and Custom Housing) and HQ2 (Developer Contributions) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2023). |
|
|---|