Agenda item

Agenda item

Planning Application No. CB/18/03694/OUT (Shefford)


Address:       Land at Ivel Road, Shefford, SG17 5LH


Outline planning application with all matters reserved (Except for means of access from Ivel road) for up to 90 residential dwellings, new internal access roads and footpaths, open space, sustainable urban drainage system and associated landscaping, infrastructure and earthworks.


Applicant:     Catesby Estates plc





The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/18/03694/OUT, an outline application with all matters reserved (except for means of access from Ivel Road) for up to 90 residential dwellings, new internal access roads and footpaths, open space, sustainable urban drainage system and associated landscaping, infrastructure and earthworks on land at Ivel Road, Shefford.


In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to a reprint of part of the officer’s report due to an editing error in the original, additional information, additional consultation responses and updated highways conditions.  The planning officer added that the Police Architectural Liaison Officer had raised no objections.


In advance of consideration of the application the Committee received a representation from Ms Dawn Adams as the applicant.  The applicant responded to requests for clarification from Members.


A ward Member raised a number of comments regarding the application during which he incorporated the views of his fellow ward Member who had been unable to attend the meeting.  The ward Member then referred to the high level of housing development in Shefford over the last five years and that the application site was in the emerging Local Plan for 72 houses but 90 were proposed.   He referred to the parcel of additional land that would be transferred to the Council for education use and additional public greenspace and how it would benefit local residents.  He stated that both he and his fellow ward Member would prefer the new school to be located on the previously discussed Hitchin Road site and the parcel of additional land used solely as a community woodland.


The ward Member referred to the relevance of the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), its relationship to the emerging Local Plan and how this influenced the decision the Committee could reach.  He then set out a range of concerns regarding issues of accessibility.  The ward Member concluded by stating that whilst he and his fellow ward Member supported the application they sought confirmation that a number of points, which he set out in full, be taken forward for consideration at the reserved matters stage.


The planning officer responded to the points raised as follows:


·         The Late Sheet set out the NHS contributions requested towards mitigating the impact of the development on local NHS services.  However, it was the NHS which would decide where the money was eventually spent.

·         With regard to vehicle access, a road safety audit had taken place and the highways officer had deemed it acceptable subject to the proposed mitigation measures.  The planning officer stressed that these were existing problems in Ivel Road which could not be remedied by seeking contributions from the applicant.

·         Full contributions towards education provision were being provided in line with the officer request.

·         Saxon Pool had an identified project for improvements and was the closest facility and so met the methodology for seeking improvements.

·         The primary school to be situated in the additional parcel of land did not form part of the current application so there was no detailed highways assessment and any related travel plan would need to be assessed at the reserved matters stage if the school needed to come forward.

·         90 dwellings could fit well on the application site, there being only 29 dwellings per hectare including play space and SUDS.

·         Indiscriminate parking at the Tesco garage could be mitigated by highway improvements with bollards if necessary and a contribution was sought for this purpose.

·         With regard to the suggestion that the number of parking spaces be included she stated that she understood that the aim was to retain as much woodland as possible rather than create a large parking area.

·         With regard to the s106 monies work was ongoing to create a guidance note but, given the current circumstances, further discussion was required.

·         Further highways work, beyond that requested, was not considered necessary for the application to be considered acceptable.

·         The vehicular access was considered to be acceptable and a road safety traffic audit had been carried out.

·         A pedestrian link would be provided to the application site boundary to allow for access to any future development.

·         The ward Members had suggested access to the Hitchin Road site across a strip of land.  However, this did not belong to the Council or the applicant and it was not deemed to be necessary in order for the application to proceed.

·         The maximum height of the dwellings and possible provision of bungalows would be considered at the reserved matters stage.

·         With regard to landscaping in the vicinity of the care home, a landscaping condition was proposed given that all matters were reserved except access.


The highways officer responded to the points raised as follows:


·         It was felt that Churchill Way was quite wide and long and a 20 mph limit would require extensive traffic calming measures and police support.


The ward Member raised various points regarding Churchill Way and emphasised that it was not a major delivery route but a wider than normal estate road.  In response the Chairman stated that it was an outline application with all matters reserved but for access and it would be necessary to wait to see what was eventually submitted.  The ward Member concluded by stating that he and his fellow ward Member believed the site to be unsustainable unless an access was provided through into the north.


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


·         The police had no objection regarding permeability and the proposed access links on the development.

·         Shefford was the first town in Central Bedfordshire that was completely 20 mph in its residential areas and that should continue.  The need to examine the cumulative impact of development on Churchill Way and respond accordingly to reduce excess vehicle speed was suggested.

·         Support for the use of bollards to supplement double yellow lines to prevent lorries from parking on the Tesco side of Ivel Road.

·         Whether a right turn out of the site should be permitted, as it would be difficult and unsafe, or whether a left turn only should be allowed.  The highways officer was of the professional opinion that the junction, given an examination of the related factors and the imposition of a speed table, was acceptable as proposed.

·         Concern regarding the NHS/Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group’s position as to the use of a s106 contribution towards the reconfiguration and extension of the Shefford Medical Centre to meet the increased demand arising from the application (if approved) and other developments.  It was noted that the use of the contribution could not be conditioned and the desire to see its use locally would have to take the form of a strong request to the BCCG. 


On being put to the vote 11 Members voted for approval, 0 voted against and 1 abstained.




that Planning Application CB/18/03694/OUT relating to land at Ivel Road, Shefford be approved as set out in the Schedule attached to these minutes.




Supporting documents: