Site Assessment Pro Formas

Object

Representation ID: 6041

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Kler Group

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Site 1227 – Lower Farm Road, Bromham
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 appeal, and a more recent promotional document has been prepared (appended to these submissions). Birds and bats have been found at the site, but no other protected species (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. In the previous appeal for this site, it was agreed with the Council that no designated heritage assets were sensitive to development within the site and that the non-designated earthwork ridge and furrow within the site does not contribute to the significance of any designated or non-designated heritage assets outside of the site. As such the site should be scored ‘+’.
Question 9b – in the previous appeal the Inspector concluded that, based upon the available evidence, the ALC of the site was 3b and not, therefore, the ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land and did not conflict with development plan policy nor the guidance in the NPPF relating to the scarce resources of such land. As such the site should be scored ‘+’.
Question 15f – No highway objections were raised in relation to the earlier planning application and appeal, the Highway Authority recommending approval subject to conditions. Overall, the highway network can accommodate the increase in traffic resulting from a development of the site without a severe impact on highway capacity or an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The development is deliverable in transport terms, and it would accord with the NPPF’s requirements. 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 ‘+’.

Object

Representation ID: 6042

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Kler Group

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Site 1228 – Northampton Road, Bromham
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. There is a non statutory designation to the east of the site, however this would be buffered (minimum 15m), 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 - the site does not contain any designated heritage assets and the previous desk-based assessment confirmed that there were no designated assets outside of the site assessed as sensitive to development within it. 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 planning application for residential development of the site was not refused on highways grounds. The Highway Authority recommending approval subject to conditions. The site access junction could safely accommodate the development traffic and there would not be adverse impact at the off-site junctions because of the development. 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 - a noise and air quality assessment supported the previous planning application on the site. The Environmental Health Officer did not raise objection to the proposals on traffic noise or air quality impact issues. As such the site should be scored ‘+’.

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 ‘+’.

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 ‘+’.

Object

Representation ID: 6045

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Kler Group

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Site 1231 – Addingtons Road, Great Barford
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. 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 or non-designated heritage assets within the site. Development has the potential to affect the setting of off-site designated heritage assets, however this is considered to be no more than less than substantial harm. Discussions with the Council indicate that the public benefits outweigh the less than substantial harm. 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 – a Transport Statement accompanying a previous planning application for residential development has considered various off-site highway works in order to mitigate impacts arising from development and link the site to the existing connection network, as set out in the call for sites pro forma. All of the measures identified can be achieved. 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 ‘+’.

Object

Representation ID: 6046

Received: 09/09/2021

Respondent: Kler Group

Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd

Site 1232 – New Road, Great Barford
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. 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 or non-designated heritage assets within the site. Development has the potential to affect the setting of offsite designated heritage assets, however this is considered to be no more than less than substantial harm. Discussions with the Council indicate that the public benefits outweigh the less than substantial harm. As such the site should be scored ‘+’.
Question 15f – a Transport Statement accompanying a previous planning application for residential development has considered various off-site highway works in order to mitigate impacts arising from development and link the site to the existing connection network, as set out in the call for sites pro forma. All of the measures identified can be achieved. 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 an industrial site is located north of the site. 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 ‘+’.