| Conditions or Reasons: | | 1)
The site lies within the South Bedfordshire Green Belt and the proposal would fail to meet with any of the listed exceptions to inappropriate development within paragraphs 154 and 155 of the NPPF. The proposal therefore represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal would also result in a harmful loss of openness to the Green Belt and conflict with the 5 purposes of the Green Belt. No factors which could amount to very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and other identified harms, are evident. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy SP4 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021), and Section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024). |
| 2)
The proposal, by reason of its siting, scale and inappropriate design would result in the creation of an urban form of development that would be harmful to the rural landscape and would be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development within the local context. As such, the proposal would not be considered to be of high quality design which reinforces local distinctiveness, nor would it be sensitive to the key characteristics of the surrounding area, and would be considered to be in conflict with policies HQ1 and EE5 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) as well as sections 12 and 15 of the NPPF (2024). |
| 3)
The proposed residential development, by virtue of its modern and suburban design, would result in harm to the setting of the Grade II Listed Ley Farmhouse and would obscure the site's historic association with this listed building as an historic plum orchard. The identified public benefits are not considered to outweigh the harm in respect of impact upon the Listed Buildings and Conservation Area. The proposed development is therefore in conflict with policy HE3 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan, section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework and fails to meet the 'Statutory Tests' set out in s.66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation) Act 1990 as amended. |
| 4)
The proposed development not been supported by sufficient ecological information in the form of further surveys for reptiles. The proposal thereby fails to demonstrate that the proposed development has been informed and designed to prevent adverse impacts on protected species. The development is thereby contrary to the aims and objectives of Policy EE3 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and Section 15 of the NPPF (2024). |
| 5)
The proposed development, if permitted, would result in the intensification of use of a substandard access and will lead to conditions of danger and inconvenience to users of the highway and the property. The proposal is therefore in conflict with policy T2 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and section 9 of the NPPF (2024). |
| 6)
The Heritage Statement submitted with the application does not contain sufficient information regarding the development proposal's impact on the significance of archaeological heritage assets, including impact to the setting of a Scheduled Monument of the highest significance. The proposed development therefore fails to meet with the requirements of policy HE1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) and section 16 of the NPPF (2024). |
| 7)
The proposed development would, by reason of its proximity lying within a 12.6km distance of the Ashridge Commons and Woods Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) within the Chilterns Beechwoods Special Area of Conservation (SAC), add to the recreational disturbance in this area, and be likely to harm the integrity of the conservation purposes of the SAC. In the absence of an appropriate strategy to mitigate this harm, the proposal would be contrary to the Habitat Regulations, Section 15 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (NPPF), and Policy EE3 (Nature Conservation) of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021). |
|
|---|