Planning Application CB/1900045/FULL (Northill)
Address: 140 Biggleswade Road, Upper Caldecote, Biggleswade,
Application for the erection of 8 bungalows with access, parking, landscaping and all ancillary works.
Applicant: Maple Ridge Homes Ltd
The Committee had before it a report regarding Planning Application No. CB/19/00045/FULL for an application for the erection of 8 Bungalows with access, parking, landscaping and all ancillary works at 140 Biggleswade Road, Upper Caldecote, Biggleswade, SG18 9BJ.
In advance of consideration of the application the Committee’s attention was drawn to additional comments and additional/amended conditions as set out in the Late Sheet as well as representations from public speakers.
The public speaker included a representation in objection from Parish Councillor R Smith.
Committee Members discussed the following points:
• The Planning Officer noted that a new plan was awaited as the existing site plan doesn’t accord with design guide.
• The Parish Councillor expressed concern that no plans were made available to the public and that the site falls out of the current settlement envelope. It was noted that the site was not submitted in the call for sites and Central Bedfordshire Council has five year land supply. He stated that it was back land development in contravention to the local plan. He raised concerns about current sewer capacity and speeding traffic in the area. Should the Committee approve the application it was asked that a condition be included to address speed management and a construction plan to ensure site traffic come in via A1 not the village.
• A Member asked at what stage the neighbourhood plan was at. The Parish Councillor stated that it had been formally submitted for examination.
• The Chairman read a statement on behalf of an absent Ward Member statement. He recommended that limited weight should be given to the submitted local plan and considerable weight should be given to the plan with regards to non compliance with policies NP1 and NP5. He stated that non compliance to policy DM4 is also valid. Concerns have also been raised about the sewerage capacity and the increase in traffic along Biggleswade Road, which has suffered with issues of speeding.
• The Planning Officer responded that only moderate weight can be given to DM4. He stressed the benefits of the application being its are proximity to village, the village has a school and a shop, and as such is seen as a sustainable settlement. It was noted that the Neighbourhood Plan had not yet had examination, so will be given limited or no weight. With regards to the sewerage concerns, the officer has had no response from Anglian water but there is a condition of foul water details, will have sewerage system on site.
• The Planning Officer responded to a query relating to the height of the dwellings, it was stated that the dwellings are dormer bungalows which have an upper storey and confirmed that the application was for 8 dwellings not 9.
• The Highways Officer responded to concerns, it was noted that there had been no speed survey submitted and the development will fall below transport statement requirements. It was noted that the access has a visibility splay condition.
• A Member referenced the Neighbourhood Plan and added that the plan had passed the Regulation 16 consultation and is far advanced and Members should not disregard the neighbourhood plan policies of a plan which is so far advanced.
• A Member questioned the number of houses on the site and stated that 8 houses was to many. The proposed dwellings had minimal sized rooms and garages that are too small to be used. It was recommended for refusal, with the emphasis on the policies relevant to the Neighbourhood Plan and overdevelopment of the site as it stands.
• Members discussed the Neighbourhood Plan and noted that there was no restriction in NPPF for back land development and it would be unlikely the neighbourhood plan gets passed by the Secretary of State on the grounds to disallow back land development. It was agreed that the garage sizes are too small but should not count as garage areas for storage of vehicles or parking spaces as they are non-compliant with the design guide.
• The application was moved for Refusal on the grounds of being contrary to the design guide, over development of the site, contrary to policies HQ1 and CS14, CS13, H2 and NP1 and NP5 from emerging Neighbourhood Plan.
• The Planning Officer responded that the site density was low at 18 dwellings per hectare and the internal spaces far exceeded the design guidance base standards with the rear garden areas being twice the recommended size. The Legal Representative asked if there was a usual standard of density, the Planning Officer replied there was no prescribed density in NPPF but previous approval had been given to an adjoining site at a comparable density.
• Members agreed that limited weight should be applied to the local plan and emerging Neighbourhood Plan according to the NPPF, whilst accepting limited weight they should not be ignored.
On being put to the vote for REFUSAL, 8 voted for, 4 voted against and 1 abstention.
On asking for his vote to be recorded, Cllr Nicols voted against refusal.
That the Planning Application No. CB/19/00045/FULL at 140 Biggleswade Road, Upper Caldecote, Biggleswade, SG18 9BJ, be refused.
- 19.00045 Map, item 174. PDF 231 KB
- 19.00045 Report, item 174. PDF 186 KB
- Item 8 - DN, item 174. PDF 26 KB