Site ID: 884

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2


Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 3736

Received: 21/08/2021

Respondent: Elizabeth Corkery

Representation Summary:

Wildlife - fewer protected species compared to Denybrooke

Agricultural land - poorer quality than Denybrooke

Transport - closer to bedford town centre, promotes growth and fewer car journeys

Amenities - closer to amenities already in place

Size - smaller site so less impact to local pollution compared to large scale Denybrooke

Timing - quicker to complete phases and overall project compared to Denybrooke


Site Assessment Pro Formas

Representation ID: 8574

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Chapman

Agent: Barton Willmore

Representation Summary:

1a. Air Quality.
Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement?
Council’s Response: + The site is within or adjoining the urban area UAB.
1e. Outside, adjoining or within the air quality management area?
Council’s Response: + The site is not within or adjoining the air quality management area.
2a. Biodiversity
Within or adjoining site of nature conservation importance
Council’s Response: x The site is within or adjoining a site of nature conservation importance.
2b. In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
Council’s Response: x Protected species could be affected.
Landowner Response: Current bat surveys are underway and earlier surveys this year have confirmed no evidence of otters or water voles on the Site. A low number of adult Grass Snakes have been recorded within the site, along with a juvenile Common Lizard.
2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity?
Council’s Response: ? Uncertain or insufficient information
Landowner Response: The proposed layout includes landscape and ecological features which score highly on the Biodiversity Metric (e.g. the Orchard and meadow areas). Sensitive development of the site creates an opportunity to bring retained and new habitats into active management, with tailored management prescriptions designed to benefit the fauna known to be present.
The proposal will also be able to deliver any necessary mitigation and further enhancements for a variety of species including installation faunal enhancements integrated into new buildings and within greenspace including bat and bird boxes, installation of hedgehog domes, hibernacula and log-piles for example.
2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network?
Council’s Response: Nothing chosen.
Landowner Response: Pre-app discussions with the Council have shown that the Site has potential to recreate the former orchard on the site (near Walnut Tree Cottage) and deliver a new meadow area and enhanced green corridors to link with existing hedgerows, treelines, wooded belts and grassland. Sustainable drainage would also utilise existing ditches within the Site.
3a. Climate Change and Energy
Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards?
Council’s Response: Nothing chosen.
Landowner Response: We are committed to providing extra energy efficiency standards and renewable energies within our scheme where viable. This will be set out in an Energy Strategy to accompany the scheme that will be sufficiently flexible to enable new technologies to be implemented as the scheme progresses. The scheme will explore a green roof to the community centre, potential use of ground source heat pumps and onsite energy generation.
4a. Likely to impact on designated or non designated heritage assets or their settings?
Council’s Response: x The proposal has the potential to cause harm to heritage assets. This harm may range from low to high. There may be options to avoid, reduce or mitigate this harm and where sites have not been ruled out altogether for other reasons, further assessment will be undertaken to more fully explore impacts on significance and options for harm reduction and mitigation. This further assessment may ultimately lead to the conclusion that the site should not be allocated.
Landowner Response: Pre-app discussions with the Council have confirmed that the development would have less than substantial harm to setting of two nearest listed cottages. There would be merit in reinstating an orchard to the rear of Walnut Tree Cottage and providing public open space to the rear of the cottage, as well as the multiple benefits of creating a new building to serve the local community. This would create substantial public benefits to outweigh the less than substantial harm.
5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
Council’s Response: Nothing chosen.
Landowner Response: The proposal will create jobs linked to the operation of the community centre and the construction of the development. New homes will increase local spending in the area.
6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre?
Council’s Response: Nothing chosen.
8b. Protect and enhance landscape and townscape character and the sense of place in settlements. Within the existing settlement form?
Council’s Response: x The site is separated from a defined settlement policy area or the built form of a small settlement
9a. On previously developed land?
Council’s Response: x The site is not previously developed land as defined in the NPPF
9b. On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades,1, 2 or 3a?
Council’s Response: ? The classification of the site is not known or it is not clear whether is classified as grade 3a or 3b.
10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone?
Council’s Response: + The site is not located in a source protection zone.
11a. At risk of flooding?
Council’s Response: x The majority of the site is within flood zone 2.
Landowner Response: Our flood and drainage consultant (Waterman Group) has reviewed the EA’s existing hydraulic model for this section of the Middle Ouse catchment. Using newly available gauged data on the peak flows shows a reduced flood extent to the Site. The modelled 1 in 100 year plus climate change planning flood zone now lies fully to the north of the riverside public right of way footpath (please see accompanying drawing 17195-WIE-ZZ-XX-FR-D-920003). This increases the development potential of the Site, as flood compensation will not be required. We are currently waiting sign off from the EA to agree this new updated hydraulic model.
15e. Connect highway without constraint?
Council’s Response: + No access constraints
15f. Highway or junction capacity issues
Council’s Response: ? Potential capacity problem requiring mitigation
The two access points of the site is via Cemetery Road before and after the Cemetery Road/Martell Drive roundabout. There is a bus stop south of the site in the Cemetery Road. The footway in Cemetery Road is around 1.5m and there is not cycle track. Potential signalisation of the Cemetery Road/Martell Drive roundabout would solve any traffic problems that could arise from the development. A Transport Assessment (TA) will be required to identify the impact of traffic and satisfactory facilities for both pedestrians and cyclists. Widening of the footway would be necessary.
Landowner Response: The proposed community centre will not result in any tangible traffic generation during the peak periods given most of its activities take place during ‘off-peak’ hours. Larger events will be infrequent and can be satisfactorily managed by an event traffic management plan.
The level of traffic generation from the residential proposal will not be significant given the number of homes proposed and the sustainable travel options. The proposal has opportunity to create new cycle and pedestrian infrastructure through the Site to connect into existing public rights of way.
Contaminated Land
Council’s Response: Nothing chosen
Environmental Health
Council’s Response: No noise concerns
Minerals & Waste
Council’s Response: No answer given
Natural England Risks Opportunities
Council’s Response: Nothing chosen
Mineral Safeguarding Area
Council’s Response: Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.