Object

Representation ID: 6044

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Kler Group

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Site 1230 – Duck End Lane, Wilstead
Question 1a – the site adjoins a settlement policy area and as such should be scored ‘+’ as per question 8b.
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 - Historic England had no comment on previous residential proposals and the Conservation Officer considered that ‘in terms of access and the principle of development on the site the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the setting of a number of heritage assets and the degree will depend on these details’. As there was no built heritage reason for refusal of the scheme and not considered to be contrary to any local policies relating to built heritage, this suggests that the less than substantial harm to the identified built heritage assets from the development of this site was considered to be acceptable with regard to paragraph 196 of the NPPF. There were no archaeological grounds for refusal of the application on this site. 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 – this site would be accessed via Site 1229 – submitted separately to the call for sites exercise. The previous application in relation to the proposed development of Site 1229 proposed that the development be accessed via two new simple T-junctions, which was accepted by the Highways Officer. The same access strategy would be appropriate for any new development proposal and the works are therefore replicated. Footways would be provided along the site frontage, connecting the two access junctions and extended east to connect with the existing footway adjacent to Cawne Close. 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 - the potential noise constraints in terms of the existing and proposed noise sensitive receptors, will be the noise from traffic using the local highway network. A search of the area has identified that H Maskell and Son operate an industrial site just north of the site. They are an engineering company and manufacture boilers. Operations include plasma cutting, mobile welding and metal fabrication. Noise from these operations could have an adverse impact of the future receptors of the development. Various acoustic design options and mitigation measures for a future development can be considered during the initial site master planning, through building orientation, internal layout, setback, landscaping or barriers, glazing and ventilation. It is likely that if any façade treatment is required this will be for a limited number of units, located nearest to the main sources of noise. It is considered that the majority of a future development will benefit from screening providing by these structures and are therefore unlikely to need onerous façade mitigation. As such the site should be scored ‘+’.