Brampton have submitted another planning application for Odell Road.

BBC Planning Services concluded the proposed development was likely to be considered an incursion into the open countryside with a detrimental impact on the rural character — and would not be supported by officers if submitted.

Application to replace a barn on the High Street in Little Odell, equidistant from amenities as the current development site. Refused, and dismissed at Appeal. BBC stated the development was in an unsustainable location, contrary to BBLP policies 51S and 53(i).

Replacement dwelling on Odell Road, very close to the current site. Refused for failing to enhance the character, quality and identity of the locality — contrary to Policies 66, 28S, 29 and 30 of the Local Plan and OD4 of the Odell Neighbourhood Plan.

Unsuitable location

The site is in open countryside outside the Harrold SPA and would be out of character with the linear form of development along Odell Road. Development here would also be harmful to the rural character of the area and, because of the design, scale and form of these proposals, would not contribute positively or enhance the character, quality and identity of the immediate locality in any way. This is contrary to national policy and the policies contained in the BBC Development Plan.

Access remains a major concern

The Highways Officer at BBC has accepted the applicant's design for visibility splays in accordance with the Design Manual for Streets 2 and not the more stringent Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The applicant's survey was taken at the Folly where traffic is slowing and not at the site entrance. There is no supporting evidence — i.e. the raw data from the applicant's traffic survey — to demonstrate why BBC have allowed this road safety issue to be downgraded. Harrold Parish Council are so concerned that they are prepared to fund their own compliant traffic survey to test the claims made by the applicant. At a minimum all the traffic survey data should be in the public realm as part of this application.

Overdevelopment

The previous proposal for 17 houses was deemed by the Inspector to result in an uncharacteristically cramped development not in keeping with the character and appearance of the wider area. This conflicted with policies 28S, 29 and 30 of the Local Plan and policies NDP1 and NDP4 of the Harrold Neighbourhood Development Plan. The situation is no better this time around with 16 houses: the site remains overdeveloped with at least 25% of the houses having less than 13m gardens. There is hardly any space between the houses and the whole layout is dominated by the access road and parking for 42 vehicles.

Flood risk

The application includes a highly technical assessment of the flood risk and an elaborate design to mitigate it, but concentrates on the site itself and does not discuss the wider impact of flooding in Harrold and the neighbouring villages. The proposals indicate that all run-off will discharge into Harrold Lake, on into Grebe Lake and then, via ditches through the village, into the river Great Ouse. This is bound to have an impact on the regular flooding throughout the Ouse Valley. Several times a year properties on the riverbank and the bridges are flooded; increasingly, the bridges are impassable for days. The Flood Risk Assessment itself quotes BBC Local Plan Policy NE16: "The Borough Council will not permit development where it would intensify the risk of flooding." This proposal will inevitably contribute to increased flooding.

Affordable housing not integrated

The proposal does not adequately integrate the affordable and market housing. Instead, the five affordable houses — deemed "social" housing in this application — are squashed together in one corner of the site. BBC Planning Policy also requires that the size and type of the affordable homes should reflect the market housing on the rest of the site. This is clearly not the case: four of the five "social" houses are only two-bedroomed, whereas the eleven market houses are all three or four-bedroomed. The development is therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy 58S of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030.

Harm to wildlife and habitat

The Ecological appraisal states that a bat roost and active birds' nests may be lost in the development and that pollutants may enter priority hedgerow habitats. The report confirms there will be a loss of habitat for Great Crested Newts and reptiles. All these species are protected, but their safety is dismissed in favour of man-made mitigation measures. The proposed new access involves the loss and re-planting of hedgerows in a different location. At the first appeal the Inspector considered this a detrimental step: he wrote this would "further harm the significant contribution the existing hedge makes to the appreciation of the area's rural character". On top of this, the proposed layout does not provide sufficient on-site landscaping to enhance the visual amenity of the adjoining countryside or create a beautiful place — contrary to Policy 38 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan 2030 and Policies NDP1 and NDP4 of the Harrold Neighbourhood Development Plan 2020–2030.

Loss of outlook for neighbours

At the last appeal the Inspector ruled that the previous proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions and outlook of the occupiers of No 91 Odell Road and would therefore conflict with policy 32 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan. This application is no better and refers to an unspecified "eco buffer" along the boundary without supporting evidence that there will be no loss of sunlight or overshadowing. Plots 15 and 16 have gardens less than 13m long — a distance sought in the council's Residential Extensions, New Dwellings & Small Infill Developments guidance — likely resulting in disturbance and a loss of privacy for the neighbouring property.

Poor quality communal open space

The application includes 330 sqm of communal open space which would appear to satisfy BBC policy but, in truth, it is provided as a strip of land sandwiched between the road and the car park. In such a location it would be of no value to the community and is a poor quality solution. The Inspectors refer to this approach as the developer doing "just enough" to simply tick the boxes.

Backdoor to 90 houses

The current application retains an access into the rest of the field. In every previous application residents and HPC have asked for this to be removed, but Brampton Valley Homes have refused to do so, despite it contributing to the cramped nature of the development and compromising the layout at the southern end of the site. This adds nothing to the design and is clearly being retained as the access to a second phase of development — perhaps the remainder of the 90 houses proposed in a previous application. The owners of the rest of the field have other points of access which are in use. This access should be removed.

Loss of agricultural land

The proposal would result in the significant loss of best and most versatile agricultural land contrary to national policy and the policies contained in the BBC Development Plan. In addition to guarding against the loss of farmland there are BBC policies relating to conserving the natural environment, particularly the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside as well as promoting sustainable transport. The cumulative impact of the latest application failing to comply with these policies significantly outweighs any alleged benefits of the development. This cannot be regarded as sustainable development in any way.

Unsustainable development

BBC are on record as stating that the adverse impacts of a previous proposed development on this site would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against their policies as a whole, and would result in an unsustainable form of development. BBC took a similar view on sustainability when rejecting a proposal for a single dwelling on Odell High Street: refusing permission on grounds including that the site was not close to amenities and encouraged use of the car, contrary to BBLP policies 51S and 53(i). The current proposal is just as far away from the amenities in Harrold and has 44 cars on site, including 2 garages and visitors' spaces. This application should be rejected for the same reasons.