Site Assessment Pro Formas

Support

Representation ID: 6481

Received: 13/09/2021

Respondent: Gallagher Developments Group Limited

Agent: Barton Willmore

Site Proforma 1513 - Land west and south of Shortstown (part of College Farm) 1a. Air Quality. Within or adjoining UAB SPA or built form of a small settlement? Council’s Response: ? The site is within or adjoining a defined settlement policy area or within the built form of a small settlement.
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: + The site is not 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: The Site is known to support both notable and legally protected species. This is not surprising given the habitats it supports and its overall size. However, development of the Site can be designed and with appropriate mitigation, compensation and enhancement measures to comply with local planning policy including policy 35S, 36S, 39, 40, 42S and 43 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan as well as national planning policy and legislative requirements. Any important ecological features identified through a comprehensive level of survey work will look to be retained and impacts avoided in compliance with the mitigation hierarchy (BS 42020) or as a last resort mitigation/compensation provided elsewhere on Site (large area of land to the south of the Development).
2c. Potentially able to achieve a net gain in biodiversity? Council’s Response: ? Uncertain or insufficient information Landowner Response: The site proposal includes a large land area to the south for biodiversity net gain and woodland cover towards the FMV policy. Hedgerow and street tree planting within the site will also assist in net gain objectives. Additional land in the same ownership – but not submitted for allocation – is also available to assist in delivery of biodiversity net gain objectives.
2d. Able to link into the green infrastructure opportunity network? Council’s Response: No answers chosen. Landowner Response: The proposed woodland area to the south of the Site will provide significant opportunity to link into the forest cover provided at Shocott Spring and generally the site will connect well to the surrounding arable land and habitat. Hedgerow planting also has the potential to enhance existing green corridors within the site and the surrounding area.
3a. Climate Change and Energy Proposing a renewable energy scheme or extra energy efficiency standards? Council’s Response: No answers 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 low-carbon heating and water systems to meet carbon and primary 14 energy targets and proposals will aim to reduce the risk of overheating to tackle the impacts of climate change.
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: Historic England has confirmed to us through pre-application discussions that the overall impact of the proposals on the listed Cardington Sheds to the east would be ‘less than substantial’ in heritage terms and it will be for the LPA to weigh up the public benefits of the scheme in accordance with paragraph 202 of the NPPF. As shown in our Vision Document, the extent of built form has been limited to the northern and eastern portions of the Site, with the area of land to the south being retained as informal open space which will provide views towards the western elevation of the Sheds. The access road has also been aligned to provide views towards the Sheds. By limiting the extent of development to the south, development of the Site in the manner illustrated on the concept plan would retain these medium and long-distance views and would not result in harm to the heritage significance of the Sheds. Given that the Site makes no contribution to the heritage significance of the hangars it is considered that in principle, the site could be developed subject to detailed design and landscaping proposals, without harm being caused to the setting of these designated heritage assets.
5a. Likely to increase future economic and employment opportunities? Council’s Response: No answers chosen. Landowner Response: The proposal includes a 1.10ha Local Centre including potential for retail, leisure, and community uses that will provide economic and employment opportunities.
6a. Proposing a main town centre use in, on the edge or outside of a town centre? Council’s Response: No answers chosen.
8b. Protect and enhance landscape and townscape character and the sense of place in settlements. Within the existing settlement form? Council’s Response: + The site adjoins 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: x All or a majority of the site is best and most versatile agricultural land as defined in the NPPF. Landowner Response: Almost all of the site is classified as 3a and 3b land which is ‘Good’ or ‘Moderate’ quality agricultural land. In planning terms only 56% of the site is classified as best and most versatile. Please see the accompanying Agricultural Land Classification Report.
10a. Within a groundwater source protection zone? 15 Council’s Response: + The site is not located in a source protection zone.
11a. At risk of flooding? Council’s Response: ? Part of a site is within flood zone 2 or 3 but the area proposed for development is in flood zone 1.
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 Two new access points will be made onto High Road. Due to the size of the development, signalised junctions may be required to prevent congestion on High Road or within the development. For both safety and highway capacity, the A600 High Road will need to be reduced to 30mph around the development. There is an existing bus stop on High Road with a service between Bedford-Hitchin approx. every 30 minutes, however, it is currently unmarked and without a shelter. There is a large cycle/pedestrian path along the opposite side of High Road, which could be easily utilised with a toucan crossing installed, allowing direct pedestrian and cycle access to the site. Install signalised junctions for site access, preventing congestion on High Road. Include crossings for pedestrians and cycles to safely access the existing cycle/pedestrian path on High Road from the site. Improve the existing bus stop to include road markings and a bus shelter to make them more visible and attractive to use. Landowner Response: We are including two access points onto the A600 as shown in the enclosed Vision Document and therefore a separate emergency access is not required. We are also proposing bus stops/shelters within the Site along the spine road to ensure suitable servicing by public transport. Our Vision Document shows potential new cycle/pedestrian connections to Bumpy Lane to the north of the Site and south from the village recreation ground, through the Site connecting into the various trails at Shocott Spring and then onwards to Cotton End. Further cycle/pedestrians are shown connecting the Site to the existing southern and western edges of Shortstown. Collectively, these connections would provide multiple benefits to the area, encouraging active travel modes and reducing highway impacts on the A600. Active travel would be further enhanced by the E-bike scheme we wish to deliver on the Site, which would reduce journey times and open up opportunities for cyclists to utilise new facilities such as Wixams Station. The provision of a primary school and local centre within the site will also create a good level of self-containment, further mitigating any impacts on the A600. Please see accompanying Transport Note for further supporting information. Contaminated Land Council’s Response: No answers chosen. Landowner Response: The Site has been subject to Intrusive Ground Investigation (see attached report), which did not identify significant ground contamination. None of the samples tested exceeded the residential assessment criteria. Environmental Health Council’s Response: no noise concern
Minerals & Waste 16 Council’s Response: No answer given Natural England Risks Opportunities Council’s Response: Does not pose risk Mineral Safeguarding Area Council’s Response: Site does not fall within the boundary of a MSA.