Planning – Application Comments

I submit my objection to the above planning application. I am copying in the Ward councillor for her information.
I apologise for the lateness of my response but I was not informed of the existence of this planning application until late last week.
However, I note that the application has not yet been determined and that it is not on the Agenda for the Committee meeting this evening (16th October).
I should be grateful therefore if you would take my comments into account when considering the application.

Having viewed the submitted plans, I consider that the application should be refused and I set out my reasoning below;-

Firstly, the proposed development will have a significant detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent Mowsbury Hillfort; a Scheduled Ancient Monument. In that regard, frankly, I am disappointed that the Inspector of Ancient Monuments for Historic England, in their comments on the application, merely recommended that the application be withdrawn and resubmitted for a lower density development rather than that it be refused outright.

Secondly, the density of development proposed in this "backland" location, being essentially an attempt to cram as much built form as physically possible onto the applicant's land parcel with no regard to the area's existing low density development character, the views from the surrounding area towards the Ancient Monument site or the amenity of nearby residents, will be entirely out of keeping with the surrounding area and detrimental to local amenity.

Thirdly, the intention to increase the number of dwellings using the existing single width access drive from 2 to 6 will;
a) result in increased danger on the public highway resulting from queueing/pausing traffic on what is already a hazardous right angled bend
b) seriously affect the amenity of the resident of the existing house at 47 Cleat Hill by means of increased noise and disturbance
c) Lead to a significantly increased need for refuse bins to be placed on the highway edge at this corner in a location that is already hazardous on bin collection day. Currently there can be as many as 8 bins in that location and the proposal would lead to at least 6 more on green bin/recycling bin collection days. I have witnessed the straying of emptied bins onto the highway here on more than one occasion. The applicant does not own or control land in this location that might be capable of accommodating additional bins safely

With regard to the suitability of the access road, I am surprised that the Council's Highways Officer has not picked up on the fact that the submitted plans appear to show a width of access road capable of accommodating 2 way traffic without the need for passing places when, on site, that is clearly not the case. It is possible that the applicant's agent has misrepresented this by depicting cars on the access road at a different scale from the plans? I suggest that it would be prudent for the officers to check this point on site.

Yours faithfully

Please see document tab for contributor comments 2

Mowsbury Hill is a great asset for Bedford in terms of it's historic and wildlife importance. This proposal will result in intrusion which will detract from the natural character of the the Hillfort and Local Nature Reserve. The top of Cleat Hill is a sensitive area and the proposal is bounded on two sides by public footpaths. This development would detract from this important gateway into the countryside.
I strongly object to the development as it is contrary to Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan policies which seek to safeguard landscape, wildlife and local amenity. This proposal would result in bungalows unacceptably close to the Hillfort, bringing light, noise and urban form close to this important site. I am also concerned about the road safety aspects of additional traffic using the junction on the corner of Cleat Hill.

Please find comments under documents tab

Planning application 23/01801/FUL - land at The Ridings, Cleat Hill
I write to register the objection of the Friends of Putnoe Wood and Mowsbury Hillfort to the above-named planning application.
The Friends of Putnoe Wood and Mowsbury Hillfort is a voluntary group formally constituted in 2011 with the stated aim of working with Bedford Borough Council (the landowner) and other stakeholders to enhance the amenity of both Putnoe Wood and Mowsbury Hillfort.
The eastern boundary of the application site sits alongside the Mowsbury Hillfort site. The Friends have worked assiduously over the last 12 years to improve the amenity of the site and its value to local residents from both a wildlife and archaeological perspective.
The Ravensden Neighbourhood Plan noted that the Hillfort site is the most valued amenity area by local residents within the Parish.
The wider Mowsbury Hillfort site not only contains the scheduled monument, which comprises a univallate hillfort dating from the Iron age with medieval moated site within (also designated as a local nature reserve), but is also a designated County Wildlife Site (CWS). The whole site is designated within the Ravensden Neighbourhood Plan as a Local Green Space. It has been awarded a CPRE mark and Green Flag.
Local Plan policies
The applicant contends that Local Plan policy 6 should be applied to the consideration of the application. This is clearly erroneous, but even were it to be applied, the applicant fails to demonstrate how the development would make a positive contribution to the character of the settlement and that it is appropriate to the structure, form, character and size of the settlement as a whole. Furthermore, the definition of small settlements and their built form, excludes gardens on the edge of the settlement where the land relates more to the surrounding countyside than to the built form of the settlement.
However, we believe that Policy 7S should be applied to the consideration of this application. By extension that the application should also be considered against Policy RNP1 of the Ravensden Neighbourhood Plan, as set out in the objection from Ravensden Parish Council. The applicant fails to explain why the policy of discouraging backland development should be set aside in this case. The development is not of exceptional design merit, is over-massed for the size of the site and has insufficient area surrounding the buildings to enable landscaping to screen it from neighbouring properties or enable it to be assimilated into the adjacent countyside. It does not help to preserve surrounding heritage assets.
Heritage considerations
The applicant's Heritage statement fails to adequately address the potential impact of the development on the local and National heritage assets. We support the comments and objections to the application made by Historic England and the Council for British Archaeology.
We are concerned that the application proposes to bring development closer to the scheduled monument and to the leat (which services ponds within the monument) which lies between the footpath and hedgerow on the northern boundary of the application site. The leat is also included in the HER plan for Mowsbury Hillfort.
Wildlife and amenity considerations
The application proposes to bring development closer to the Mowsbury Hillfort CWS, the east of the site borders the public footpath running alongside of the CWS. The site currently has a chain fence with limited landscaped screening from the footpath. Garden escapees already pose a threat to the existing wildlife value of the CWS, this would potentially be increased by further development. It is not clear how views from the footpath could be adequately screened from this over-massed development.
It is unclear how sufficient landscaping could be introduced to blend the site into the surrounding countryside and improve biodiversity.
Therefore, we would contend that the application represents a significant threat to the amenity value of the CWS.
Conclusions
This planning application should be rejected on the grounds that it does not meet the requirements of Local Plan policies 7S and RNP1. It potentially threatens precious local heritage assets and the amenity value of the CWS, without adding any value to the local area, in terms of meeting housing needs or improving biodiversity.
Yours faithfully

Good afternoon,

I am writing to object to the development of the building of properties on the portion of land to The Ridings, Cleat Hill, Bedford as this will have a detrimental effect on this historical monument.
Not only this but the effect it will have on the wildlife and also where people visit for peace and tranquility and in some cases help with mental health issues.

Thank you.

I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the planning application for three large dwellings in close proximity to Mowsbury Hillfort, identified as

Application No: 23/01801/FUL.

As an individual who shares a profound appreciation for the historical significance of Mowsbury Hillfort and a regular visitor to the the beautiful site, I am determined to object to this proposed housing project.

Mowsbury Hillfort stands as a testament to our medieval heritage, a moated site that embodies the rich history of our region.

Preserving the integrity of this monument is not only a duty to our past but also a commitment to the generations that will follow. The construction of houses in such close proximity to Mowsbury Hillfort poses a threat to its historical and archaeological significance. I believe that such a development could irreparably alter the character of this cherished landmark.

Please see fit to halt this planning application and preserve what we have been charged with protecting for generations.

Thank you

Thank you for notifying the Council for British Archaeology (CBA) of this application. We offer the following comments to assist your local authority in making a determination.

Summary

The CBA are concerned that these proposals would have a negative impact on the setting of the nearby Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). We recommend that the applicants explore possibilities to minimise this impact, in particular by reducing the density of the proposed development. If the proposals are not revised to reduce the impact of the proposals on the setting of the SAM, we recommend that the application be refused.

Significance

The site is located a short distance from Mowbray Hillfort, a prehistoric slight univallate hillfort which was further fortified and occupied in the medieval period. As would be expected for a site of this type, it occupies a dominant position within the landscape with wide-ranging views. The significance of the site lies in both its surviving archaeology, which holds evidence of previous uses of the site, and its current rural setting, which allows the site to be appreciated and enjoyed. As a SAM, the site is considered to be of national importance and is classified as a heritage asset "of the highest significance" by the NPPF (para. 200b).

Planning Policy Context

The National Planning Policy Framework (2021) establishes that heritage assets, including scheduled monuments, are 'an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations' (NPPF paragraph 189).
The NPPF goes on to say in paragraph 195 that, 'Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise' and 'take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the proposal'.
When considering the impact of a proposed development upon the significance of designated heritage assets, including scheduled monuments, NPPF paragraph 199 requires great weight to be given to the monument's conservation irrespective of the level of potential harm.
As NPPF paragraph 200 sets out, any harm to the significance of a scheduled monument, from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting, requires clear and convincing justification.
Where a development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a scheduled monument, NPPF paragraph 202 requires that the harm is weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Comments

The SAM sits to the east of Cleat Hill, and currently the area between the road and the monument is sparsely developed and retains a visual openness. The proposed development would encroach closer to the SAM than existing buildings, and would be far more densely occupied, effectively creating a small suburban area within an otherwise largely rural setting. The CBA consider that this would cause harm to the setting of the Scheduled Ancient Monument, not only through the visual impact on the views from the fort, but also the effects on the way the monument is experienced and appreciated in its rural setting. We are also concerned about the potential precedent set for more dense development to the east of the road. In its current form, we do not consider that this proposal offers sufficient public benefit to outweigh its negative impacts on the setting of the SAM, and therefore does not meet the requirements of the NPPF para 200.

Any development on this site should be carefully considered to minimise this impact on the setting of the monument. In particular, it should aim to retain the open and rural feeling of the existing area by adopting a low-density approach which avoids crowding the site; a single dwelling would be far more suitable and would reduce the effect of the development on the character of the area. Any impacts on views to and should be minimised, and the effects on the way the site is approached and experienced should also be carefully considered.

Recommendation

The CBA object to the proposals, and recommend that the plans are revised to reduce the impact of the development on the setting of the Mowbray Hillfort Scheduled Ancient Monument. If the proposals are not revised, we recommend that this application be refused.

I trust these comments are useful to you; please keep the CBA informed of any developments with this case.

Kind Regards,
Dr Alison Edwards
Listed Buildings Caseworker

The Council for British Archaeology (CBA) is the national amenity society concerned with protection of the archaeological interest in heritage assets. Local planning authorities have a duty to notify the CBA of applications for listed building consent involving partial or total demolition, under the procedures set out in 'Arrangements for handling heritage applications - notification To Historic England and National Amenity Societies and the Secretary of state (England)' direction 2021.

Pleas see Documents tab for Parish Council's comments

I write with reference to the above mentioned Planning Application. Please accept this email as my formal objection to this Application, I submit here below the grounds upon which I object to the application and I urge the Council to support my objection and refuse the application, 1. Ravensden Neighbourhood. Development Plan-Policy RNP1. This plan was approved on the 16 March 2023 (ie very recently) following a local referendum held on the 23rd February 2023. The plan designated Cleat Hill/Mowsbury as a special character area requiring special protection. IN particular the Plan states that any proposed development will not be permitted if it :-
Involved backland or tandem development- the proposal ie classic baclhand development.
Involves the loss of or prejudices the retention of the existing healthy trees and hedgerows on the site.- very many trees would be lost if the proposal was allowed.
Involves an unacceptable level of traffic generation- the proposal would generate many additional traffic movements onto an extremely dangerous bend where the traffic will increase substantially as a result of the Mulberry Development near the site.
2 The proposed development would create major
visual intrusion into the protected Mowsbury. HILL FORT and damage views into the Fort area from all adjoing areas.
3 As mentioned above,the proposal would create hazardous ingress or egress onto Cleat Hill. There has previously been several traffic accidents at the location and the risk would increase significantly by the addition of 3 dwelling Houses.
4. The access into the site is grossly inadequate as it is a narrow unmade track, with no passing places for vehicles entering or leaving the site. The submitted plan is not a accurate representation of the real track. It is wholly unfit to accommodate large vehicles such as, refuse truck's, emergency vehicles, delivery vans, the latter of which will surely increase with the expansion of Internet shopping.
5. The proposal would result in a significant loss of trees and hedgerows -contrary to the approved Neighbourhood Development Plan.
6 The proposal would cause considerable damage to local wildlife including loss of habitat to owls, foxes, badgers, and newts.
7 Loss of amenity to and overlooking onto both Edgevale 45 and The Ridings Cleat Hill.
8 substantial risk of flooding to both the site and adjoing properties. The area already suffers flooding and this would increase with the extra impervious area's.
9 Importantly Ravensden Parish Council has objected to the proposal.
Please include my serious objections and those of the Parish Council in the Officer Report.
I urge the Council to refuse this wholly wrong application.