Object

Representation ID: 8411

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Fisher German LLP

Site is within or adjoining UAB, SPA or built form of small settlement?
The scoring for this criterion should be changed from a (?) to a (+) as the site adjoins the settlement boundary for Wilstead.

In an area where protected species are known of likely to exist?
An ecological survey for the whole site has not been carried out to date. Given the site’s use as an arable field, it is considered that the site’s ecological value will be relatively low. Nevertheless, should any protected species be found, suitable mitigation will be able to be implemented as part of a scheme.

Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
A scheme could be capable of providing a biodiversity net gain, subject to scheme details. Point 2c should therefore be a (+) rather than a (?) on the site assessment.

Likely to impact on designated or non-designated heritage assets or their settings?
It is considered that a scheme is capable of coming forward which is sensitive to and protects any heritage assets identified as potentially causing harm. The nearest listed building is 58 Cotton End Road (Grade II listed). This building is already partially screened by existing development on Armstrong Close / Whitworth Way and it is considered that a scheme can be suitably designed to respect nearby heritage assets.

Highway or junction capacity issues?
The Council’s assessment is noted to be an (x) for this criterion. We propose that this scoring is changed to a (?) given that no detailed highway capacity assessment has been carried out to date. The highways comments note that the site would benefit from its own bus stop or public transport route. This is something which could be explored further through preliminary site assessments and pre-application discussions and is something that would be acceptable in principle to be provided on site.