Up to 40 homes at Land South Of Bromham Road, Biddenham, Bedford

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 40 dwellings and associated works, with access considered and other matters reserved.

“Outline planning permission is sought with all matters reserved except for access for the development of up to 40 dwellings and associated works.”

“Outline planning permission is sought with all matters reserved except for access for the development of up to 40 dwellings and associated works.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The 1.86-hectare grassland site lies between the A428 and Bromham Road, outside the urban boundary, beside homes, open land and a public right of way.

“The application site consists of 1.86 hectares of grassland which is triangular in shape. It is positioned between the A428 and Bromham Road. The site falls within the Biddenham Parish boundary but is situated outside of the Urban Area boundary, although the site does adjoin it.”

“- 25 - 23/01106/MAR). To the south is the A428 classified road, and on the opposite side of this road, is a residential development allowed on appeal within Biddenham. To the west of the site is open land which is largely within the functional flood plain. A Public Right of Way runs along the western boundary of the site which provides a link to the opposite side of the A428 via an uncontrolled crossing point.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the benefits of housing, affordable homes, transport improvements and economic activity significantly outweighed the adverse impacts.

“The benefits associated with this application include the provision of up to 40 dwellings, and 30% affordable dwellings, both of which are afforded significant weight in favour of the development.”

“In conclusion, the planning balance shows that the benefits of the development significantly and demonstrably outweigh the adverse impacts and as such it is recommended that planning permission is approved, subject to conditions and a signed S106 agreement.”

Officer report

What residents said

Four neighbour responses raised concerns about traffic, pollution, ecology, services, character, access, overdevelopment, heritage, green space and settlement separation.

“The application was advertised to the general public by the way of neighbour letters, press notice and a site notice in accordance with the requirements of article 15 (5) of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015. 4 neighbour responses were received (3 objection and 1 comment) which raised the following concerns:”

“Increased traffic and congestion, increased noise and air pollution, loss of habitat, impact on ecology, increased pressure on local services, impact on the character of the area, poor location of the access road, overdevelopment of the site, development does not adhere to the existing linear character of the area, impact on heritage assets, loss of green space, outside of the village boundary and loss of a natural gap between villages.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from an objector and the applicant’s agent, and Councillor Rigby made a statement.

The committee’s decision

The committee granted permission subject to completing a S106 agreement, after correcting the recommendation because outline applications were not CIL liable.

“The Principal Planning Officer provided the following update, an incorrect recommendation was used within the committee report which included CIL. As outline applications are not CIL liable the recommendation is to be altered to, permitted subject to a S106 agreement.”

“That permission be granted subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement in respect of the above application in accordance with the recommendation of the Head of Planning and Building Control.”

Minutes