Site ID: 1229

Object

Representation ID: 3774

Received: 24/08/2021

Respondent: Ken Cook

This proposal in its scale is far beyond that which Wilstead's services and facilities can provide. It would seriously affect the nature of the village and destroy a natural break harming the character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 3939

Received: 29/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Linda Cook

This proposal is far too large for Wilstead's facilities to support and it destroys a natural break in the village which preserves the character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 4080

Received: 30/08/2021

Respondent: Mrs Wendy Snare

This proposal of 250 houses would have a great impact on local amenities and traffic. There is often standing water in the field so any development could increase the possibility of localised flooding. This proposal would also remove the historic gap between Duck End and the village centre.

Object

Representation ID: 5128

Received: 03/09/2021

Respondent: Wilshamstead Parish Council

Development of this site would threaten the gap between Duck End and the centre of the village. Coalescence of the historic separate communities within the village will be much resisted by villagers

Object

Representation ID: 5511

Received: 06/09/2021

Respondent: Mrs Rebecca Darnton

Filling in large areas of countryside within the parish would change the whole nature of the village. Many, if not the majority of, people come to live in Wilstead because of the amenity offered by green spaces within the village as they no longer wish to live in urban areas covered by concrete.

Object

Representation ID: 6043

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Kler Group

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Site 1229 – Bedford Road, Wilstead
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. The nearest statutory designation is 3.4km south west of the site whilst the nearest non statutory designation is situated 0.5km to the east of the site. 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 – there are no designated heritage assets within the site. The site is not inter-visible with any other designated heritage assets (i.e. Scheduled Monuments, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens etc) and there is no indication that the site has any historic functional association with any identified designated heritage assets in the area. 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 application proposed that the development be accessed via two new simple T junctions. This proposal was accepted by the Highways Officer. The same access strategy would be appropriate for any new development proposal. 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 ‘+’.