Agenda item

To determine the application.

Gavin Taylor presented the report to members and drew their attention to the update report which had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure, from Andrew Hodgson and Lee Russell from Seagate Homes. Mr Hodgson stated that in 20 years of bringing planning applications forward for residential development in Fenland, this application has proved to be one of the most complicated schemes he has had to deal with. He added that the site is an allocated site in the Fenland Local Plan but it marries up to the adjacent site and there was the need to make sure that before it came forward to committee that there was confidence that it would work alongside the Prosperity scheme which will come before the committee in due course.

Mr Hodgson stated that he has worked with his highways team to ensure that all of the footpaths, highways and all of the off-site contributions are dealt with. He explained that the Broad Concept Plan did not give him much to consider and accepts that it is a historical piece of work and, therefore, it meant that he needed to begin from scratch.

Mr Hodgson added that as there are different landowners developing the site out there were different requirements needed in terms of adding the school and employment uses and as he is not developing all of it, Seagate took the emphasis on developing the first phase and he is delivering the safeguarded school land which is highlighted in green and can be seen on the presentation screen. He confirmed that it is a safeguarded 2.3 hectares and a two forms of entry school site and when the prosperity scheme located next door comes forward then the commercial schemes and other aspects which are on the Broad Concept Plan will be delivered and there has been good planning and communication to ensure that both elements fit well together.

Mr Hodgson explained that the scheme is for 300 units with 100 units coming forward in the first phase, with the biodiversity on the site being a complicated issue and the first phase which is where the biodiversity is has led him to being able to find a site just up the road and only 700 metres away east of Broad End Road, which will be enhanced as an offset. He stated that there were only 5 public objections to the scheme which, in his opinion, is excellent considering the amount of time that the application has been in progress, with the proposal appearing to be fairly well received when the public consultation was undertaken in 2022 and there are no statutory objections to the scheme which, in his view, is down to his team along with that of officers and he is confident that the application before the committee is a very good scheme.

Members asked the following questions:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that she has not seen any reference made with regards to the Internal Drainage Boards (IDB) and she asked whether any in-depth communication has taken place? Mr Hodgson stated that he has spoken to them and engaged with them directly and as a result they came back to him with a requirement for an improvement to one of their drains to make it more efficient and he added that his team is undertaking those works for the IDB.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she is slightly disappointed that the affordable unit provision is unlikely to be viable for a housing provider to take on the stock. She asked Mr Hodgson to clarify within the first 100 units, how many of them are 1 and 2 bedroomed properties? Mr Hodgson explained that he cannot provide that answer, but the 5% of affordable housing is to be spread across the whole of the scheme and there are no flats.

·         Councillor Marks stated there is the mention of 2 Oak trees with Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) which are going to be removed, and he asked whether the design must include their removal? Mr Hodgson stated that unfortunately they do need to be removed, adding that with any scheme he does he always tries to preserve any trees with TPOs, but in this case one of the trees is exactly where the access needs to go and the other one is right in the middle of where the first phase layout needs to go. He added that all of the other trees with TPOs are being retained and there is also going to be a comprehensive replanting scheme which includes Oak trees.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the footpath which Mr Hodgson has stated is going to be retained, but there appears to be a planned roadway which will split the footpath, and he questioned how the maintenance is going to take place? Mr Hodgson stated that the footpath being referred to will need to have a crossing place which will have to be a controlled crossing because it subdivides the site from east to west and it cannot be circumvented to get to phase 2 without crossing over the footpath.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked what sort of crossing it is likely to be? Lee Russell stated that when you come along the spine road in phase 1 there is a road and a footpath each side at that point, with a cycle way on one side that will cross the existing footpath route. He added that officers have added a condition of a construction management plan for that particular position as and when that crossing is introduced the existing footpath route for public safety. Mr Hodgson added that the type of crossing point will be decided through conditions, but it will be a formalised crossing point. He added that he will do his upmost to retain any foliage, but ultimately there are no TPO trees and, therefore, if a couple need to be removed to create the corridor then that will need to happen.

·         Councillor Connor stated that how will a management plan be incorporated to include the SuDs system? Lee Russell explained that the SuDs basin is likely to be adopted by Anglian Water as will all the drainage on the site. He added that a management company will look after all of the green areas and the majority of the landscaping over the public footpath will all be retained and will fall to the responsibility of the management company.

·         Councillor Connor asked whether any discussions have taken place with Anglian Water to date? Lee Russell explained that the Civil Engineer has discussed the proposals with Anglian Water along with the IDB and until the Section 104 technical pack is submitted for approval there will still be small outstanding aspects from the drainage strategy which they will comment on, but it will be put forward for adoption. He stated that if there is any aspect that they do not like or an element that they asked to be changed then there will proactive work undertaken as he does not want the responsibility to fall to a management company.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he notes that the condition is for binder course for the spine road and he does not welcome that. He added that he would like to see some negotiations take place with officers that the road needs to be brought up to an adoptable standard. Councillor Connor added that, if approved, ideally he would want to see the 100 dwellings built but then hypothetically 10% should be left unoccupied until the road is brought up to an adoptable standard. Lee Russell stated that on the spine road aspect it will come down to the County Council and their acceptance that construction traffic will be going to Phase 2 over a finished road and generally they do not allow that. He explained that Phase 1 is a sort of circular link road and just prior to completion of the dwellings on Phase 1, the road can all be surfaced and put onto maintenance because construction traffic will not be going into Phase 1 anymore. Lee Russell made the point that he believes that the County Council will not allow that while construction traffic is going off it on the spine road and he added that a conversation will need to take place when the school comes forward but at the current time whilst he would be willing to accept the point made by Councillor Connor he does not believe that the County Council would be in agreement.

·         Councillor Connor stated that he has had discussions with Nigel Eggar at the County Council and, in his opinion, he would be happy to enter negotiations with regards to that proposal. He added that he is looking for some comfort because members have seen so many unfinished roads on developments. Mr Hodgson stated that sometimes in developments there are separate construction access road but on this occasion, they have to use the spine road to get to the south of the site and if it is laid to tarmac it would end up with abortive cost as it would be ruined and ripped up by the construction traffic but he can do the Phase 1 road up to that level.

·         Councillor Connor stated that it is the Phase 1 road that he would like to see and not the Phase 2 as it is not clear as to when that will come forward. Mr Hodgson stated that he was referring to the spine road and he explained that it cannot be brought up to an optimal standard while Phase 2 is being constructed as it will get ruined. Councillor Connor stated that it does not give him much comfort.

·         Councillor Imafidon questioned whether any works are being undertaken in Stow Lane because currently it is not complete and whilst it is not all located within the development, the part that leads to Meadowgate Lane lends itself to being a footpath. He added that on the other side which leads into Stow Gardens and to the area adjacent to the construction site he does not think that the roads are adopted at all because there are no tarmacked surfaces and he questioned whether any works are planned. Lee Russell stated that there is a 90 degree bend when you come from Stow Lane onto Sandy Lane and they are making the radius more acceptable from a highways perspective and then the improvement works and footpath addition will go up to the junction near to Stow Lane.

·         Councillor Connor referred to the officer report where it details the garage sizes being 5.4 metres and the general length required by the Council is a 7 metre length and he questioned why there is a difference as, in his opinion, people do use their garages for other uses such as storage but in this case it appears that residents are being encouraged to store their bicycles outside albeit undercover. Mr Hodgson state that 7 metres is not industry standard and whilst he appreciates that many cars in Fenland are large, the industry standard is what has been used in this case. He explained that the garages will be built to industry standard and all of the properties will have storage sheds or facilities to store cycles in, and residents will still be able to have a car in the garage, and they will have facilities provided for cycle storage.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked whether the properties would have some form of environmentally friendly enhancement in order to produce electricity such as solar panels? Lee Russell explained that in his general construction specification there are normally between 2 and 10 solar panels on the roofs which is dependent on what is required to meet the SAP calculations and in his developments solar panels are added to every house that his team constructs.

Members asked questions, made comments and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Mrs French stated that when taking into consideration the date that the application was first submitted to the current date, it is evident just how much work has taken place on the application and, in her view, it is a good design, and she will support the proposal.

·         Councillor Gertsner stated that the affordable housing element being only 5% does cause him concern and whilst he appreciates that there has been a viability study undertaken, he would like an explanation as to why the figure is so low. Gavin Taylor stated that viability is a known constraint throughout the district and with this application in particular the Broad Concept Plan identifies that it is likely that initial phases of the allocation as a whole are likely to be constrained through viability and there are several reasons for that. He explained that the developer needs to pay the landowner enough money in order for them to be encouraged to release the land in the first place. Gavin Taylor added that there a few infrastructure costs required to unlock what is an area of undeveloped land which would include utilities and there are also a number of direct delivery requirements in terms of highways, realignment of roads and through the viability process, the developer has brought forward a package which differs somewhat from the package set out in 2022 when the application was first submitted. He made the point that in 2022, the proposed package, in his view, exceeded what would have been expected through the Council’s own in-house viability that was undertaken and the HDH viability for sites such as Wisbech would have indicated that £2,000 per dwelling should be received and no affordable dwellings. Gavin Taylor added that this is now different, and officers have been able to secure £2,000 per dwelling, 5% affordable housing provision plus the other contributions. He added that whilst it is disappointing when viability issues are not as the Council would like or hope for with certain applications, when considering this scheme and taking into consideration its location, the constraints and expectations have fallen short of the full number of contributions, however, officers are content that it is justified in this case.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked officers to clarify where the monies actually go from the Section 106 contributions which are earmarked for the bus service? The Highways Officer explained that the Section 106 monies would come to the County Council and then would be passed to the bus company who is serving that particular area at the time. Councillor Gerstner added that as it is quite a substantial amount of money, is it money which is phased in over a period of time and is it released to the local bus company in a phased way? Gavin Taylor added that the information as to when that payment is actually due is not yet known as the number of occupations across that site is not yet known and that information is needed in order to yield the demand for the bus to make it a viable option. He added that it would be something that was in operation sometime after the first 100 occupations because the general average of users would be low and that will be something that is looked at through the Section 106 negotiations in terms of when the phasing is going to occur and when the payment would need to occur. Gavin Taylor added that consideration also needs to be given to the fact that there is an adjacent scheme which is coming forward almost simultaneously which is committing 300 dwellings in detail and if approved then there is the expectation of twin track development commencing at the same time and that would need to be factored into when the demand for a bus service would come on stream. He made the point that it is important to secure alternative travel modes, because in terms of car users it will have an impact in terms of cars on the highway network and it is, therefore, necessary to try and offer and incorporate alternative transport means which is why there has been a heavy emphasis on pedestrian cycle routes. Gavin Taylor added that by including a bus service, it is hoped that car usage will reduce because of the impacts on the wider highway network and as to when the bus contribution will need to be paid to the provider will be a matter of discussion at that point because the bus provider would need to be comfortable that it is a viable option for them to operate at that time depending on occupations.

·         Councillor Gerstner asked the Highways Officers if they could explain that once a contribution is given to the bus company how can it be sure that those funds are used to provide a service in the local area and not passed to services operating in Cambridge or Peterborough? The Highways Officer stated that strict conditions are added to the bus company that they are to deliver an improved service, they are not allowed just to spend the money as they want to, and it must be used to provide an improved service in this part of Wisbech.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to 10.55 of the officer’s report where it refers to the housing mix and how that can be influenced in terms of the future reserved matters and the conditions securing that detail. She added that she did not want that element to be forgotten by members as there has been a great deal of discussion with regards to the size of houses. 

Proposed by Councillor Mrs French, seconded by Councillor Gerstner and agreed to APPROVE the application as per the officer’s recommendation with delegation given to officers to finalise the conditions in consultation with the Chairman.