Object

Representation ID: 6042

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Kler Group

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Site 1228 – Northampton Road, Bromham
Question 1a – the site adjoins a settlement policy area and as such should be scored ‘+’ as per question 8b.
Question 2a – the site is not designated for nature conservation. There is a non statutory designation to the east of the site, however this would be buffered (minimum 15m), no objections were raised on this basis to a previous planning application. As such the site should be scored ‘+’.
Question 2b – the site has been the subject of a previous planning application, and a more recent promotional document has been prepared (appended to these submissions). Birds have been found at the site, but no other protected species (bats, GCN, reptiles, Badgers) have been found. The development of the site provides the opportunity to enhance existing habitat as well as create new habitat of greater value to wildlife. An ecologically guided management plan should be implemented in order to maximise the biodiversity value of the habitats and features retained by the scheme. Sensitive management of woodland, wetland, and hedgerows would provide the most benefit. Retained hedgerows could be bolstered and enhanced by planting additional native species to increase species richness. As such the site should be scored ‘+’.
Question 2c – the site has the ability to achieve net gain through an ecologically guided management plan in order to maximise the biodiversity value of the habitats and features retained by the scheme. As such the site should be scored ‘+’.
Question 4a - the site does not contain any designated heritage assets and the previous desk-based assessment confirmed that there were no designated assets outside of the site assessed as sensitive to development within it. As such the site should be scored ‘+’.
Question 11a – given the area proposed for development is located wholly in FZ1 the site should be scored ‘+’.
Question 15f – the previous planning application for residential development of the site was not refused on highways grounds. The Highway Authority recommending approval subject to conditions. The site access junction could safely accommodate the development traffic and there would not be adverse impact at the off-site junctions because of the development. As such the site should be scored ‘+’.
Contaminated land – the site is greenfield, and in any event is not contaminated. No issues were previously identified in the earlier planning application or appeal in relation to ground conditions. As such the site should be scored ‘+’.
Noise - a noise and air quality assessment supported the previous planning application on the site. The Environmental Health Officer did not raise objection to the proposals on traffic noise or air quality impact issues. As such the site should be scored ‘+’.