| Conditions or Reasons for Planning Application - CB/16/00717/OUT |
| Conditions or Reasons: | | 1)
The site lies within the South Bedfordshire Green Belt, where permission will not be granted except in very special circumstances for development for purposes other than those uses listed in paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework. No very special circumstances have been established in this case to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. The harm would comprise harm by reason of inappropriateness, harm by reason of impact on openness, harm to the character and appearance of the area and encroachment into open countryside. The proposal is therefore contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and policy GB3 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review. |
| 2)
The proposal does not constitute sustainable development as it would not improve the economic, social or environmental conditions in the area. The proposal would have a negative impact on the historic environment, it is also likely to have a negative impact on landscape character and biodiversity. In addition whilst the application sets out that around a quarter of trips would be made by means other than the private car, this is only if certain actions were taken and substantial investment was made in public transport provision, such actions and investment have not been secured. The limited facilities within Eaton Bray are likely to result in additional journeys by private car to other locations to access health, retail and leisure opportunities. The proposal is not considered to be sustainable development and therefore is contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and policy SD1 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review. |
| 3)
The proposals would result in the total destruction of an area of well preserved medieval earthworks, specifically ridge and furrow, causing substantial harm to and complete loss of significance to them. The proposal therefore fails to accord with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 4)
Insufficient information has been provided to assess the impact of the development proposals on the setting of the Park Farm Scheduled Ancient Monument moated site, which is a designated heritage asset of the highest significance. The proposal therefore fails to accord with chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. |
| 5)
Insufficient information has been provided to enable a proper assessment of the proposal in terms of landscape and visual impact. The site is currently within an open, rural landscape which retains a historic ambience and the proposal would introduce a new urban edge into the landscape, including a new edge unrelated to the Totternhoe Road frontage and would require the substantial loss of important road frontage hedgerows to provide access visibility, detrimental to the rural landscape of the locality. The proposals conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework and policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review. |
| 6)
Insufficient information has been provided to enable a judgement to be made in relation to biodiversity. The surveys were not carried out at the most appropriate time of year and therefore further survey work is necessary to properly assess the ecological value of the grassland, orchard and hedgerows and what mitigation measures would be appropriate. The proposal as it stands appears to fail to provide a net gain in terms of biodiversity or geodiversity and therefore conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework and policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review. |
| 7)
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that up to 145 dwellings could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site along with all of the other necessary land uses. Based on the illustrative layout the proposal is considered to not demonstrate a good quality of design or place making, and to represent overdevelopment of the site which would result in an adverse impact on future residents as demonstrated by the lack of public open space and other green infrastructure; by being unable to conserve existing planting, or by providing sufficient space for additional new planting; limited space and setting for the public right of way; lack of sustainable drainage (SuDs) provision; and rear garden and garage sizes below the levels set out in guidance. The development would also be high density at 36 dwellings per hectare which would be out of character with other nearby housing areas. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review, Design in Central Bedfordshire: A Guide for Development, and Central Bedfordshire Sustainable Drainage Guidance. |
| 8)
The application was accompanied by draft s106 heads of terms. During the consultation process other financial contributions and works have been identified as needing to be included in a Section 106 agreement to contribute towards mitigating the additional pressures the development would place on services in the locality. As these have not been provided, the proposal is therefore contrary to Community Levy Infrastructure Regulations 2010 and the NPPF. |
|
|---|