Case Reference: 3262172

Appeal Decision
Hearing Held on 15 April 2021
Site visit made on 16 April 2021
by Peter Mark Sturgess BSc (Hons), MBA, MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: Friday, 14 May 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/20/3262172
Land north of Southill Road, Broom, Biggleswade, Bedfordshire.
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of
Central Bedfordshire Council.
• The application Ref CB/20/00461/OUT, dated 29 January 2020, was refused by notice
dated 4 May 2020.
• The development proposed is residential development of up to 90 dwellings with
associated open space, children’s play area and infrastructure.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The application is in outline with all matters reserved apart from access. I have
therefore treated the illustrative master plan, CSA/4157/108, which was
submitted with the planning application, as indicative only.
3. The emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035 has reached the
examination stage and consultations are taking place on main modifications.
The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) considers that weight
can be given to emerging plans according to: the stage of preparation of the
emerging plan; the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant
policies and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging
plan to the Framework. Both parties have agreed through the Statement of
Common Ground (SoCG) that the plan should only carry limited weight in this
appeal, although the evidence base for the Local Plan Examination is a material
consideration.
4. I shall have regard to the emerging local plan where it is relevant to a
particular matter. However, and with the agreement of the parties as set out in
the SoCG and bearing in mind the stage the emerging local plan has reached
towards adoption, its policies will only carry limited weight in the determination
of this appeal.
Background and Main Issues
5. A signed and dated Planning Obligation by Deed of Agreement under Section
106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (S106 Agreement) was
submitted by the appellant. This covers matters relating to the provision of
affordable housing, financial contributions to local health services, education,
library, leisure facilities (including sports pitch), local highway improvements,
the management and maintenance of the proposed public open space,
provision of a Locally Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) and a mechanism for the
delivery of the proposed self-build plots. I shall return to these matters below.
6. The Council confirmed that in the light of agreement around the matters
relating to sterilisation of minerals, archaeology and highways and the
provisions within the S106 Agreement, it was no longer pursuing its reasons for
refusal Nos 2, 3, 6 and 7 in respect of these matters. I have dealt with the
appeal on this basis, although having regard to the concerns raised in the
representations from interested parties, I go on to deal with a number of these
issues under main issues and other matters.
7. Against this background I consider the main issues to be:
• the location of the proposed development in relation to the village
envelope, services, and employment provision within the District,
• the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance
of the area,
• the effect of the proposed development on the setting of Broom Hall, a
Grade II listed building, and
• the likely benefits of the proposed development to the local area and
community.
Reasons
Location of the development
8. The development lies on the edge of Broom, a small village approximately 3.5
kilometres1 from the town centre of Biggleswade. Broom itself has a small
number of facilities including a pub, farm shop and village hall. Its residents
rely to a large extent on facilities in Biggleswade, neighbouring villages, and
further afield. It is predominantly a residential village with few local
employment opportunities, with the majority of residents commuting out of the
village for work.
9. The village has a bus service into Biggleswade, however from the evidence I
have seen this appears to be limited to 5 services a day, at two hourly intervals
Monday to Friday, 4 services a day on Saturday and none on Sunday. More
infrequent services serve destinations further afield. It is possible to cycle from
the village into Biggleswade. However, one of the routes involves negotiating a
busy roundabout on the A1. In any event it would be difficult to access all the
services required by a family by cycling alone. The village is not within
convenient walking distance of the services and facilities in Biggleswade.
10. The development plan for the area includes, the Central Bedfordshire Core
Strategy and Development Management Policies, adopted in November 2009,
(CS) and the Central Bedfordshire (North) Site Allocations, DPD (DPD), adopted
in April 2011. The emerging Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035 (eLP)
1 SoCG paragraph 3.3
includes some of the policy approaches of the earlier plans, specifically the
definition of settlement envelopes.
11. Policy CS1 of the CS is based on a growth strategy which seeks to direct new
housing development to those areas of the District which have good access to
services and public transport. Conversely it seeks to restrict development in
those settlements which either have few services and facilities and are not well
served by public transport. Broom lies in the lowest policy tier, ‘a small village’,
recognising its small scale, the limited services it provides and its relatively
restricted access to public transport.
12. Moreover, Policy CS4 of the CS seeks to direct development to where there is
good access to public transport, with the focus on shorter journeys within
settlements that are suitable for cycling and walking. It sets out a hierarchy of
accessibility, with urban areas where walking and cycling are viable alternatives
to the private car, and areas with the best public transport provision at the top.
13. I have already explained that Broom is not a convenient location from which to
access services in Biggleswade by means other than the private car. Whilst it
has a bus service, this is not of a standard which would be expected within an
urban area, and so might not be suitable for regular trips which households
might make, such as those for shopping.
14. Policy DM4 of CS defines Settlement Envelopes (SE). The policy explains that
the SEs are not a means of defining the extent of the village but define the
boundary between settlements and the surrounding countryside. As such the
policy is seen as a means of protecting the countryside from unacceptable
development. Therefore, whilst the Framework does not go as far as DM4 in
seeking to protect the countryside from inappropriate development, it does
recognise that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be
acknowledged through planning decisions. Consequently, I consider that DM4,
whilst not fully consistent with the Framework, still seeks to achieve similar
aims, albeit through more restrictive wording. As a result, I give Policy DM4
moderate weight in this decision.
15. The Framework addresses these issues in a number of paragraphs. Paragraph
78 seeks to promote sustainable development in rural areas by expecting that
housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural
communities. It also recognises that housing in one village might help to
support services in nearby villages.
16. I have had regard to these paragraphs in this decision. However, given the
limited range of services available in Broom residents would have to travel in
order to access necessary services. Additionally, there was little evidence
presented at the hearing to show that current services in the village are
struggling. Consequently, I consider that the appeal proposal would have
negligible impact on the vitality of the village.
17. Moreover, and with regard to the support the appeal proposal might give to
services in neighbouring villages, given the relationship of Biggleswade to
Broom and other villages in the locality, it is likely that once residents are in
their car they are as likely to continue into Biggleswade as they are to access
services at Upper Caldecote or other villages in the area. Therefore, the
contribution of the development to the vitality and viability of services in
neighbouring villages is also likely to be small.
18. The appellant has referred me to an appeal decision in Dagnall Road,
Dunstable2 as an example of where an Inspector considered that the sites’
accessibility to services by a short car journey was something that could carry
some weight. I agree that in the context of that appeal, which involved the
conversion of a stable block to a single dwelling, it might have been
appropriate to attach weight to the length of the car journey necessary to
access services. However, in the case before me it is likely that with a proposal
of up to 90 dwellings a considerable number of, albeit short, car journeys will
be generated by the proposal. Consequently, the impact of a considerable
number of small journeys generated by this quantum of new dwellings is likely
to be much greater than that from a single dwelling. I therefore cannot give
this factor the same weight as the Inspector gave it in that appeal.
19. The appellant has referred to a range of planning approvals and appeal
decisions in the district where development has been permitted outside the SE
of small villages. The Council has also referenced appeal decisions which
support the application of the current policies.
20. I have carefully examined these decisions in the light of the discussion that I
heard at the hearing. It appears to me that a number of the decisions cited by
the appellant were made when the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year
supply of deliverable housing sites. Moreover, a number of the decisions also
relate to larger settlements with a greater range of facilities than Broom or
have more convenient access to the facilities available in Biggleswade.
21. In particular the scale of development which has been permitted alongside the
small villages appears to be less than that which is the subject of this appeal. I
have had regard to the appellants table which shows Upper Gravenhurst (a
small village) having 70 dwellings approved outside its SE. However, it is clear
that this was the result of two decisions (1 for 24 dwellings and 1 for 46
dwellings) which appear to be around 3 years apart. So that it cannot be
considered directly relevant to this case.
22. Therefore, given the site-specific considerations, the lack of a 5-year housing
land supply at times and the particular policies in force at the times of those
decisions I do not consider that the examples given to be direct comparators
with the case before me.
23. Consequently, I find it impossible to draw any particular principle from these
decisions that would have a bearing on the appeal currently before me.
Therefore, whilst these appeal decisions are undoubtedly material
considerations, they do not deflect me from my primary duty which is to
determine this appeal on its own merits.
24. Accordingly, the proposal would have poor accessibility to shops, services, and
employment, given its countryside location, in conflict with policies CS1, CS4
and DM4 which seek to encourage development within settlements that have
good access to services and public transport.
Character and appearance of the area
25. Broom displays a linear character, with the majority of the development either
along or accessed from the High Street. With the exception of Broom Hall,
2 APP/P0240/W/20/3247902
almost all of the development in the village which borders the appeal site faces
towards its centre or principal streets. There are views of the appeal site from
all the surrounding roads, despite these views being broken up by the trees
and the hedgerows. There is clear definition between the appeal site and the
built area of the village. Despite the trees and hedgerows which separate it
from the surrounding open and agricultural land, it is clearly part of the
countryside surrounding the village as its shares the common characteristics of
being open, flat and in agricultural use.
26. The appeal proposal would alter the character and appearance of the site by
introducing an extensive area of built development and turning the balance of
the site into managed public open space. It would also change the current low
intensity use of the land by introducing residential development and public
access to much of the land which is visible from the roads surrounding it.
27. I note that there is existing built development on the western and part of the
northern boundaries of the site. However, that development is set well back
from the surrounding roads and views of it are not only filtered by the
vegetation surrounding the appeal site, but by the gardens and boundary
features of the housing themselves. It is therefore not prominent from the
roads surrounding the village.
28. I acknowledge that the appeal proposal is in outline and that the plan
submitted with the application is indicative only. However, given the scale of
the development proposed, it would inevitably bring built development much
closer to the surrounding roads than the existing development and would not
have the benefit of mature planting within its plots to break up its impact.
Consequently, it would have a much greater impact on the rural character of
the village.
29. Moreover, whilst I appreciate that the site is screened by vegetation on Southill
Road, Gypsy Lane and High Road, these trees and vegetation are permeable
and allow views across the site from various points along these roads. This,
together with its closer proximity to the surrounding roads, would make it
significantly more prominent in the area than housing within the existing
village.
30. Aspects of the development such as light spill from the houses, garden lighting
and the general activity associated with a development of up to 90 houses
would significantly harm the existing rural character. Despite the proposals for
increased planting this would have an urbanising effect on the character of the
area, to the detriment of the character of the area and the setting of the
village.
31. Furthermore, the proposed new access from High Road and its visibility splays,
the urban features such as a footpath along High Road and street lighting,
would all increase the prominence of the site and harm the rural character of
the area. Whilst I accept that it is of a smaller scale, the creation of the
proposed pedestrian access and link to the village at the south-western corner
of the site, on Southill Road, would have a similar effect in that location, and
therefore further harm the rural character of that part of the village.
32. The CS contains policies that seek to protect the character and appearance of
the District. In particular policies DM3, DM14, CS14 and CS16 all seek,
amongst other things, to ensure that new development is appropriate to its
setting, respects local context and contributes positively to creating a sense of
place.
33. The proposed development would introduce a large development into an area
which contributes positively to the character of the village by retaining its
countryside setting. As a result, and for the reasons set out above the appeal
proposal would be in conflict with the policies of the development plan which
seek to support developments that respect local context and create a sense of
place.
The effect of the development on the setting of Broom Hall
34. The significance of Broom Hall is derived from its status as a small country
house of 18th century origin, set in extensive countryside some of which would
have had a parkland character. It is no longer occupied as a single house but
has been converted to flats. Moreover, its significance historically would have
been appreciated from the surrounding roads. To a large extent the views of
the Hall set in a countryside location still exist to the south and to a lesser
extent to the east. Externally, as a country house it would have historically
been surrounded by open countryside, some of which would have had a
parkland character comprised of feature trees, grazing and other landscape
features.
35. This parkland has to a large extent been lost. Vestiges of the former parkland
remain in the form of belts of trees along the surrounding roads, a very small
number of feature trees within the appeal site and the haha, which separates
the current grounds of the hall from the surrounding agricultural land. Some of
the open land which would have originally surrounded the Hall, especially to
the west, south west and north has been developed for housing. However, to
the south and east the land is still undeveloped and reflects the original setting
of the Hall within open land.
36. From the south, the view of the south front is clearly visible across agricultural
land through the trees and vegetation on Southill Road. To the east, whilst it is
less visible, views of the chimney stacks and slate roof of the original house
can be seen from near the junction of Gypsy Lane and the High Road. What is
not visible from this direction are the more recent additions to the Hall and the
features associated with its use as flats (car parking, tennis court, refuse
storage etc.). Therefore, whilst the view of the Hall from the east is not as clear
as that from the south, it still forms a presence in the landscape from this
direction and it is clearly a country house surrounded by open land.
37. The appeal site is comprised of the agricultural land to the south, east and
partly to the north, which makes up part of the former parkland setting of the
Hall. As a result, the appeal proposal would affect the setting of the Hall as it
would lead to the loss of open land which is significant to the historic
development and context of the listed building.
38. The proposal is in outline, and I have explained in my preliminary matters that
the illustrative master plan is indicative only. However, whilst that is the
situation, much of the appellant’s case regarding the effect of the proposal on
the setting of the Hall is predicated on development being to the east of the
Hall and the land to its south being used as open space. I have had regard to
these arguments in this decision, as the broad location of development within
the appeal site is capable of being controlled at the reserved matters stage.
This could restrict development to certain areas within the appeal site to limit
its impact on the setting of the listed building.
39. In any event the development of up to 90 houses on the appeal site will
remove a large proportion of the land which currently surrounds the house
further diminishing its countryside setting. Whilst the indicative proposals show
the south side of the site kept clear of development, the east side would be
taken up with development. That would mean that views of the Hall from the
east would be lost altogether or at best the Hall would be viewed across roof
tops. Consequently, much of its significance as a country house surrounded by
open land would be lost when viewed from this direction.
40. From the south the view of the south front would remain and proposals to
manage the tree belt between the agricultural land and Southill Road could
open up views from this direction. However, the view from the south is already
available from Southill Road across the crops in the arable field, albeit through
gaps in the vegetation. The proposal to create a parkland setting for the Hall on
the agricultural land and allow public access would alter the character of its
setting in this location from agricultural to public open space.
41. Whilst I accept that this public open space could be developed so that it
resembles historic parkland, it would still be public open space rather than
parkland with all the attendant increase in activity on the land that public
access would bring. This would not be a direct re-creation of a 19th century
parkland setting for the Hall but would be 21st century public open space with
19th century parkland features installed. In this respect the re-created parkland
would not have the character, rural atmosphere nor tranquillity of the 19th
century original.
42. Furthermore, the people accessing the public open space would not be able to
appreciate the Hall in its current extensive landscape setting but would view it
in a very much reduced version with residential development to its east.
Moreover, the land would be viewed as public open space associated with a
new housing development rather than 19th century parkland. The principal
difference being that a 19th century parkland was something that was designed
primarily to enhance the setting of the country house rather than to be actively
and intensively used by its residents or the residents of adjacent dwellings.
43. Finally, when the current farmland is viewed from the Hall it appears to be a
small area of land truncated by the planting belt on Southill Road and does not
adequately reflect the extensive countryside setting the Hall once had. The loss
of the open land to the east would accentuate the increasing sense of
development encroaching on the setting of the hall.
44. Therefore, the proposed development would harm the significance of the Listed
Building as a development within its setting. Furthermore, the proposal to
introduce public access on to the appeal site at locations in close proximity to
its grounds would reduce the tranquillity the Hall currently experiences and
further harm its setting. However, in terms of this harm it would be less than
substantial in terms of paragraph 196 of the Framework. Nevertheless, less
than substantial harm to the setting of the Hall is still harm and as such the
Framework requires that I give great weight to the asset’s conservation,
including its setting.
45. I acknowledge that the appellant has argued that the parkland setting of the
Hall has been lost. I accept that this is the case, albeit that some vestiges of
parkland remain. However, it is not just the parkland features that contribute
to the setting of the Hall. The setting of the Hall in this case is made up of open
land and it is the retention of that open land which is significant in terms of its
setting.
46. I also acknowledge that there are limited views of the Hall from the east and
that the land immediately to the east of the Hall is made up of unattractive
features which reflect its current use for flats. However, none of these features
are visible from outside the site, but the bulk and massing of the Hall, including
some of the features mentioned in the listing description (chimney stacks and
slates) are visible from the east through the trees. I therefore regard the views
of the Hall from the east as being significant to its setting.
47. I note that there has been relatively modern development which has taken
place within what would have been the open areas to the north, west and south
west of the Hall. However, the northern development is set well back from the
Hall, and consequently does not have a significant effect on its setting. The
development to the south west of the Hall has an effect on its setting, although
the view of the south front of the Hall from Southill Road is relatively
unaffected by this development. I have taken account of these developments
and the argument made by the appellant in this decision. However, and given
the substantial amount of open land around the Hall that would be lost to
development should the appeal be allowed I do not find that the presence of
this development weighs heavily in my decision.
48. I am required by paragraph 196 of the Framework, in terms of my finding of
less than substantial harm to weigh that harm against the public benefits of the
proposal. These benefits were discussed at the hearing, and include: increasing
the supply of market housing; addressing a need for self-build plots in the
area; increasing the supply of affordable housing; provision of accessible green
space; restoration of the former parkland setting of Broom Hall; provision of a
play area; provision of interactive speed indicator signs and improving
biodiversity.
49. In terms of the housing land supply I accept that it is the Governments’
ambition to significantly boost the supply of new homes in the country. As part
of this ambition it expects Council’s to be able to demonstrate a 5-year supply
of deliverable housing sites. Moreover, even where a Council can demonstrate
a 5-year supply of deliverable sites this is not seen as a ceiling and more
housing can be delivered over and above this target.
50. However, the Council has a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites and it
has a good track record of delivering new housing. It was accepted by the
appellant that the so-called ‘tilted balance’ was not engaged in this appeal.
Therefore whilst I give moderate weight to the increase in housing supply the
appeal proposal would deliver, it would not outweigh the harm I have identified
to the setting of Broom Hall, where I am required to give great weight to the
conservation of the heritage asset, including its setting.
51. The supply of self-build plots would be a benefit of the development. However,
the eLP seeks to address this issue through its revised policies and the delivery
of self-build plots is a small component of the overall housing land supply.
Therefore, whilst I give limited weight to this benefit it is not sufficient to
outweigh the harm the proposal would cause to the setting of the listed
building.
52. The provision of affordable housing would be a benefit of the proposal however
the Council appears to be meeting its targets with regard to the supply of
affordable housing. Therefore, whilst I give this benefit limited weight it is
insufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused to the setting of Broom
Hall.
53. The appeal site is currently farmed agricultural land with no public access. The
appeal proposal would create public access to land around the proposed
development thereby increasing the amount of green space available to the
village. Moreover, this would create links to other footpaths and green space in
the area. I acknowledge that this would be a public benefit of the proposal.
However, Broom is a small village and it is relatively easy to access the
footpaths around the village. Furthermore, some of the land around the village
which has been restored following quarrying appears to have public access.
Therefore, there appears to be no shortage of publicly available green space in
the area. I therefore give this public benefit limited weight in this decision
which would not outweigh the harm caused to the setting of Broom Hall.
54. Whilst I can see some benefit in the re-creation of the parkland in maintaining
the openness around the Hall, I do not consider that the re-creation of parkland
features in front of the Hall to be a significant benefit of the appeal proposal as
it would be little more than a pastiche of what originally existed. I therefore
give this public benefit limited weight in this decision and certainly insufficient
weight to outweigh the harm the proposed development would cause to the
setting of the Hall.
55. I do see the creation of a LEAP as a public benefit of the proposal as it was
acknowledged at the hearing that the village lacked such a facility. However,
this might not be the only site where this facility could be located. I therefore
afford moderate weight to this public benefit in this decision, but not of
sufficient weight by itself to outweigh the harm that would be caused to the
setting of the hall.
56. I also note that it is proposed as part of the proposal to include interactive
speed indicator signs on roads around the site. There is no suggestion that
speeds on the roads around the village are at the present time excessive.
Moreover, the introduction of these devices could lead to the rural area
becoming more urbanised. As a result, I afford limited weight to this benefit
and not in itself sufficient to outweigh the harm caused to the setting of the
listed building.
57. Finally, it is argued that the development would provide the opportunity to
improve biodiversity in the area. Whilst I can appreciate how features aimed at
improving biodiversity could be incorporated in the development, including
better management of the woodland along the surrounding roads, there might
also be a loss of biodiversity due to the increased noise and disturbance
brought about by the houses. I therefore give this argument neutral weight in
this decision.
58. As required by S66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas)
Act 1990 I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting
of Broom Hall, a Grade II listed building, by attaching considerable importance
and weight to that desirability. I have found that the proposed development
causes harm to the setting of the listed building as it would reduce the amount
of open land around the building which is important to understanding its
significance.
59. Moreover, whilst I have had regard to the arguments of the appellant in terms
of the benefits of the proposal, I do not find that these amount to clear and
convincing justification for the proposed development as I am required to
attach great weight to the assets conservation.
60. Policies CS15 and DM13 of the CS seek, amongst other things to protect,
conserve and enhance the District’s heritage. I find that for the reasons given
above the development conflicts with these policies as it would not protect,
conserve, or enhance the setting of Broom Hall.
Other Matters
61. A signed and dated s106 agreement has been submitted. The agreement
covers the areas of: the provision of affordable housing, a contribution to the
provision of local health services, a contribution to local educational facilities, a
contribution to local library facilities, a contribution to local leisure facilities, the
provision of local highway improvements, the management and maintenance of
the public open space proposed to be provided within the scheme, provision of
a LEAP, sports pitch contribution and a mechanism for the delivery of the self-
build plots proposed to be provided within the development.
62. I am satisfied that the agreement complies with Regulation 122 of the
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the tests set out at
paragraph 56 of the Framework. This is because its requirements are necessary
to make the development acceptable in planning terms, they are directly
related to the development and are fairly and reasonably related in scale and
kind to the development.
63. Reference has been made to the loss of the best and most versatile agricultural
land if the proposed development were to go ahead. I understand that this is
not about the loss of this quality of land per se but about the contribution it
makes to the character and appearance of the village. Whilst I understand the
point that is being made, this character could be retained through the appeal
site containing most categories of agricultural land. I therefore give this specific
argument limited weight in this decision.
Planning balance and benefits of the proposal
64. The benefits of the proposal include: increasing the supply of market housing;
addressing a need for self-build plots in the area; increasing the supply of
affordable housing; provision of accessible green space; restoration of the
former parkland setting of Broom Hall; provision of a play area; provision of
interactive speed indicator signs and improving biodiversity.
65. In terms of housing supply there was some debate at the hearing about the
use of objectively assessed need or the standard methodology to assess the
District’s housing need. However, it was accepted by all parties that the Council
could demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites at the appeal. It
was also clear after some debate that all parties accepted that the reliance on
the objectively assessed need figure was appropriate in this case. Nevertheless,
any proposals to increase the supply of housing should attract weight as there
is a Government imperative to boost the supply of housing throughout the
country.
66. However in this appeal, bearing in mind the existence of a 5-year supply of
deliverable housing sites in the District, the Council’s track record in delivering
housing, and that the policies most important for determining this appeal are
up to date, it is the ordinary balance that I apply to this matter and not the so-
called tilted balance. I therefore give the contribution the proposed
development would make to the supply of houses in the District moderate
weight in this decision.
67. In terms of the benefits of the proposal in relation to the delivery of affordable
housing I note that the Council is on target to deliver its requirements in this
area. I therefore give this benefit limited weight.
68. In terms of the provision for self -build plots, this would be a benefit of the
proposal. Additionally, there is no policy in the current development plan
related to the delivery of self-build plots. However self-build housing is a small
component of the housing land supply and the appeal proposal would
contribute a small amount of self-build plots. I therefore give this benefit
limited weight.
69. The proposal would give greater access to green space around the village.
However, as there appears to be access to other green areas around the village
on land that was formerly used for quarrying, I give this benefit limited weight.
70. The restoration of the former parkland setting of Broom Hall it has been argued
is a benefit of the proposal. Whilst public access to land to the south of Broom
Hall and the reinstatement of parkland features could result from the
development this would not amount to the full reinstatement of parkland
around the Hall. I therefore give this limited weight in this decision.
71. The proposal to include a LEAP as part of the development is a benefit. I heard
evidence that this is something that is needed in the village. I therefore give
this moderate weight.
72. I note that the development would provide interactive speed signs on roads
around the village. Whilst this could be a benefit in terms of highway safety,
the signs themselves could be intrusive in the countryside depending upon
their design and location. I therefore give this limited weight.
73. The appellant has argued that the proposal would improve biodiversity in the
area. There could be a biodiversity benefit brought about by features installed
within the housing and management of the woodland. This might be offset by
the noise and disturbance brought about by the occupants of the proposed up
to 90 houses on this land. I therefore give this factor neutral weight in this
decision.
74. In accordance with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
2004 I am required to determine this appeal in accordance with the
development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
75. I have found the development proposal is in conflict with the development plan
policies that relate to the location of development, the character and
appearance of the area and those that protect the setting of heritage assets.
Therefore I find that the requirement to determine the appeal in accordance
with the development plan and to attach great weight to the need to protect
the heritage asset are not outweighed by the other material considerations
which have been identified, including the increase in the supply of houses,
which would result from the appeal proposal.
Conclusion
76. The appeal is dismissed.
Peter Mark Sturgess
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Mr Paul Shadarevian Of Counsel, instructed by Mr Peter Brady
Mr Peter Brady - Solicitor
Mr John Shephard - Planning Consultant
Mr Michael Dawson - Heritage Consultant
Ms Silke Gruner - Landscape Consultant
FOR THE COUNCIL:
Mr Alexander Greaves Barrister, instructed by Central Bedfordshire Council
Mr Philip Hughes - Planning Consultant
Mrs Alison Myers - Landscape Planner
Ms Maria Viciana - Conservation Officer
Mr Jonathan Lee - Opinion Research Services (ORS)
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Mr Les Bolland - Chairman, Southill Parish Council
Mr Kevin Stoker - Resident of Broom