Address:       Land at Saxon Drive, Biggleswade (nearest postcode SG18 8SU)

Outline Application: Erection of up to 230 residential dwellings with associated access, landscaping, open space and ancillary works.  All matters reserved except means of access from Saxon Drive.

Applicant:     CBC Assets

The Committee considered a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/17/01277/OUT for the erection of up to 230 residential dwellings with associated access, landscaping, open space and ancillary works with all matters reserved except for the means of access from Saxon Drive at land at Saxon Drive, Biggleswade.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional consultation/publicity responses and additional/amended conditions/reasons as set out in the Late Sheet including a change in the description of the application so that it referred to ‘up to 200 dwellings’ and not ‘up to 230 dwellings’.

In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received representations from Biggleswade Town Council, an objector and the applicant’s agent under the public participation scheme.

In response to two of the points raised by the Town Council the Chairman advised first, that the development would not set a precedent as all planning applications had to be considered on their individual merits and, second, that there was no knowledge of a covenant on the land referred to.  Further, if there was one it would not constitute a material planning matter but a civil one.

Clarification on a point raised by the applicant’s agent was sought by a Member.  The agent confirmed that there would no development on that part of the flood plain which lay within the application site.

A local Member stated that approval of an application for development which lay outside the settlement envelope would set a precedent, encourage developers to submit such applications and for development to proceed without proper consultation or planning.  He therefore requested that the application be withdrawn until such time as it could be considered in the context of the Central Bedfordshire master plan.  However, the Chairman advised that the Committee was required to determine the application before it.  The Committee could not withdraw the application and if it deferred consideration the application could be called in for determination by an Inspector.  The legal officer explained that the application before the meeting could not be deferred unless on planning grounds.  Further, the applicant had not indicated that the application should be deferred or withdrawn.  The Committee was, therefore, required to determine it.

A second Biggleswade Member reiterated her concern regarding the relationship between the current application before the Committee and that previously considered (minute DM/17/59 refers).  She then suggested that the application could be refused.  The Member referred to a previous application for a GP surgery and playing fields on the site which had been refused at appeal by an Inspector who had rejected development of the land.  She compared this with the Council’s determination as the landowner to proceed with development.  She referred to the historical role of the land as open space and with the local road network already being at overcapacity and therefore unable to absorb the increase in vehicular movements associated with the development.  Last, the Member expressed concern regarding the provision of healthcare given the substantial cumulative increase in residents arising from this development and others.

The Committee considered the application and in summary discussed the following:

·         That the application lay outside the settlement envelope.  As required under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the application had been assessed in line with the presumption of sustainable development and the scheme had been found to comply. 

·         The financial (s106) contributions which would come forward would help mitigate problems with infrastructure deficit with regard to education provision (£2.8M) to nearly £200K towards leisure facility upgrades.

·         The application was for up to 200 dwellings but the details relating to the density of the development would be considered at the Reserved Matters stage. 

·         The loss of the site as a recreational area and wildlife.  There had been no objection from the ecology officer and the amount of leisure opportunities would increase as the development would only take place on that land currently used for growing crops.

·         The statement by the highways officer that the increase in traffic movements was not regarded as unreasonable and the junction at Chambers Way/London Road functioned safely.

·         The impact of the reduction of the overall number of dwellings on the number of self build units.  The planning officer advised that the number of self build units had not been specified in the outline application.

·         Expressions of concern by Members regarding the national failure of the NHS to provide appropriate levels of health care provision and to respond to the Council’s consultation on planning applications.  It was commented by a Member that it not possible for the Council, which was already attempting to support the NHS, to suspend its own obligations to provide housing whilst waiting for the NHS to improve its efficiency.  The Member also reminded the Committee of the government’s strongly held position that local authorities should not retain their land stock but instead use it towards the provision of housing.

·         A Member’s comments regarding the application site lying outside the settlement envelope, the loss of agricultural land and countryside and that the Council had a five year land supply.  The Chairman reminded the meeting that the Committee was required to determine applications in accordance with national and local legislation.  Whilst the Council had secured its 5 year land supply under its Local Plan the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also had to be met. 

·         The recent statement by a Planning Inspector with regard to the Council’s use of its Policy DM4 as a means to restrict housing development outside settlement boundaries.  The Inspector had stated that the Policy was more restrictive in its approach than was set out within the NPPF with the latter’s presumption in favour of sustainable development and was therefore incompatible with it.  The Council must make a presumption in favour of sustainable development regardless of Policy DM4.

On being put to the vote 10 Members voted for approval, 1 voted against and 1 abstained.

RESOLVED

that Planning Application No. CB/17/01277/OUT relating to land at Saxon Drive, Biggleswade be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.