Site ID: 3234

Support

Representation ID: 5670

Received: 07/09/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: David Lock Associates

In response to the invitation to submit sites that could be available to meet Bedford Borough’s growth needs, Hallam Land Management submitted two sites at Clapham Village including East of Clapham and North of Clapham (Site ID: 975 & 976). Hallam has reviewed the Site Assessments that have been carried out on the sites submitted by Hallam, being both Site 975: East of Clapham and Site 976: North of Clapham as set out in the ‘Site Assessment Pro Forma’ (Bedford Borough Council - Site Assessment Pro Formas (oc2.uk)) and is submitting separate comments, as requested to update and augment the assessment of Site 975. Hallam is also submitting comments on a separate site in Clapham (Site ID: 3234).

See attached Document.

Support

Representation ID: 5955

Received: 08/09/2021

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: David Lock Associates

Hallam Land Management – Response to Site Assessment Pro Forma ID 3234: Land West of Milton Road, Clapham.

See attached document.

Support

Representation ID: 7232

Received: 17/09/2021

Respondent: L&Q Estates Limited

Agent: Barton Willmore

In an area where protected species are known or likely to exist?
A detailed Ecological Impact Assessment was produced by Wardell Armstrong in support of the live application. This details in full the impact upon ecology on and neighbouring the Site. The report finds no reason why development could not take place subject to securing necessary mitigation and enhancements.
Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity.
The work produced by Wardell Armstrong in support of the planning application also included a quantitative biodiversity net gain assessment (Appendix 10 of the Ecology Impact Assessment) using the DEFRA Biodiversity Metric 2.0, which is considered to be robust as guidance states that applications that use 2.0 rather than 3/0 (recently released) should continue to use 2.0. The Net Gain Assessment is also including in section 5.8 of the Ecological Impact Assessment.
The Net Gain Assessment demonstrates that the scheme as presented could achieve a habitat net gain of 10.42% it if implemented the proposals contained within the Ecology Impact Assessment and the parameters for approval in the development. The hedgerow habitat shows a 10.1% net gain.
The Wildlife Trust has commented on the live planning application and confirmed that the approach outlined is acceptable and therefore we suggest the score should be amended to a positive score in favour of the site or '+'.
Likely to impact on designated or non-designated heritage assets or their setting?
The response from the Council appears to be generic/precautionary, noting it is used for several other sites. The Site is not considered to impact on the setting of any listed buildings given the separation distance for any receptors. Therefore, we believe these comments are made in regard to archaeology. A desk-based report and geophysical work has been provided with the application. Whilst there is potential for Iron/Age/Romano-British periods as well as the post-Medieval period, there is no evidence to suggest it would preclude development of the Site.
A Written Scheme of Investigation is being agreed with relevant stakeholders, and it is considered that the proposals may be of wider benefit if archaeological investigations help aide wider understanding. We therefore believe the score should be changed to a minimum of neutral '0'.
Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities?
The development would provide short to medium term employment through construction work. It would also result in permanent jobs at the new primary school. As such, it is considered that this should be re-scored to a positive impact of '+'.
On previously developed land? Whilst we do not disagree with the '-' score assigned to the Site, as it is not entirely or majority brownfield land. However, it should be noted within the text that part of the Site is brownfield with existing homes and caravan storage area redeveloped.
On best and most versatile agricultural land ie grades 1, 2, or 3a? It should be noted that an Agricultural Land Classification Report was submitted with the planning application. The report demonstrated the following classifications in Table 2.1:
SEE ATTACHMENT FOR TABLE
Highways comments: A Transport Assessment has been provided with the planning application. The promoters are working with Highways Officers to deliver a scheme of pedestrian and cycle upgrades which will ensure modal shift and encourage more sustainable forms of transport. Once this has been agreed the Transport Assessment will be refreshed as part of a packages of resubmitted information. It is considered that this assessment will demonstrate that the development can be accommodated within the network without significant impact.
Minerals and Waste comments: A Minerals Resource Assessment was provided with the planning application, and officers agreed that the Site was sterilised by proximity to the A6 and existing dwellings. Furthermore, the sand and gravel deposits on the Site were considered to be too thin to be economically viable to extract.
The planning submission clearly demonstrates that deliverability of the Site from a technical and design perspective. The Promoters continue to work with all stakeholders with a view to having the application determined by Q4 2021. This will ensure the delivery of 500 homes in the early to medium term.