Agenda item

To determine the Application.

The Committee had regard to its inspection of the site as agreed in accordance with the Site Inspection: Policy and Procedure (minute P19/04 refers)) during its deliberations.

Officers presented the report and update report to members.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Mr Nightingale, an objector to the application.

Mr Nightingale explained that the original outline planning permission was granted with conditions imposed to ensure there was no impact after development. Many of the residents have expressed their concern in their objections, about the level of changes which have been requested. They believe has fundamentally changed the original consent so a new application should be submitted.

Mr Nightingale commented that he would like to ask all the Councillors on behalf of the residents, to robustly challenge the applicant’s and the planning officer’s suggestion that the variations to the application are for the good of the town’s current and future residents, as he does not believe it is.

Mr Nightingale added that he would ask the Councillors to consider whether the report is a proper and robust report or whether areas have been missed. There are a number of questions which have been raised about the content of the report and the surveys and he would ask for Councillors to make the right decision and have confidence in the information presented to them today which is right, proper and correct.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the Public Participation Procedure from Mr Hodson, as an objector to the application.

Mr Hodson explained that he is a local resident of Whittlesey and the application in his opinion is wholly dependent on the case made for it by Cheffins Consultants.

Mr Hodson stated that the applicants planning report is flawed and out of date, as it states that Fenland does not have a five year land supply and that is not correct. The Consultants have also stated that the lack of land supply means ‘it is indicative of a poor housing market in the district’. This may have been the case in the past in Fenland, however that is not the case in Whittlesey, it is a boom time currently for housing and there are currently 9 housing sites which have either been completed or in the construction phase. There are lots of single plots and Whittlesey has benefited from a massive expansion in Peterborough, it has been predicted that there will be a 1000 houses constructed in Whittlesey in the next 5 years.

Mr Hodson stated that the Consultants have made a statement concerning a poor housing market which has in his opinion given it a negative review in value, therefore that is why they have asked for the removal of most conditions that were present in the 2015 application. He added that he is also concerned about the reduction of the social housing contribution from 25% down to 8.5% or even 6.4%. He stated that the report does not reflect the housing market in Whittlesey and the request for removal of most conditions, approved in 2015 is not justified. With regard to phasing, if Phase A is allowed, there is a risk that all traffic will use Teal Road which is already congested with school traffic from Drybread Road nearby.

Members received a presentation in accordance with the public participation procedure from Mr Ian Smith the Director of Cheffins, the Agent and from Mr Chris Hatfield who is a Housing Development Consultant.

Ian Smith stated that Fenland District Council has previously granted outline planning permission for this development. The application before the Committee today concerns the details, including the terms of the Section 106 agreement and the detail surrounding the specific conditions. The application does not relate to the principle of 220 dwellings which has previously been approved.

It is unfortunate that one of the conditions is undeliverable and that is due to the financial implications of the current section 106 package including affordable housing combined with constraining conditions. It is also the case that the previous application was not formulated to include phasing. For a site of 220 houses, it is appropriate that some phasing is included to ensure the delivery of housing, infrastructure and local space is structured. The site has a long and complicated planning history and the report goes back to 1961, in 2016 the Planning Committee approved the outline application which comprised of an amended version of an earlier scheme which had been refused on appeal. Discussions and debate have taken place with Officer’s concerning conditions and section 106 over a period of time.

Chris Hatfield stated that the proposals that have been put forward contained in the Officer’s report are robust. There have been discussions with the Combined Authority and Officers regarding affordable housing if it is reduced the developer would work with the Combined Authority to bring a grant to replace the affordable housing and to prevent landbanking they have agreed to a section 106 provision for affordable housing review mechanism.

With regard to phasing, the purpose would be to broaden the appeal of the site to developers and 220 units would only appeal to larger housing builders, but by phasing it, it will appeal to a wider section of builders. It is the intention that East Delph is the primary access for construction, sales and the majority of the development which would form part of the Officers precondition.

With regard to the management and maintenance of the Surface Water Drainage (SUD) facilities, it is now common practice for a private management company, funded by estates contributions to assume responsibility. If that is not deemed an acceptable solution by the Committee, a contribution to the Internal Drainage Board would be paid to ensure a satisfactory mechanism was in place in the future.

Ian Smith stated that currently there is planning permission for 220 dwellings, and 120 of those dwellings, would go towards the Councils 5 year land supply. There has been no change in the Local Plan since the planning permission was granted and the flooding risks have been addressed as well as the Section 106, with the conditions stated.

Chris Hatfield stated that it is the landowners intention following consent, to put the site immediately to market.

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

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that when the previous application went to a public enquiry, she was asked by members of Whittlesey Town Council, as the Chairman of planning at that time, to represent them at the enquiry, at no time was that a personal decision, she was under the instruction from the members of that Council. She confirmed that she has never discussed or had an opinion on this application.There have been resident action groups, the Mayor at the time called a public meeting and at no time has she entered into debate. She confirmed that she was the ward Councillor, however since the boundary changes in 2016; she is no longer the Ward Councillor and has had no person lobby her.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay commented that within the existing condition 7, the scheme requires the design and provision of flood warning signage prior to commencement. The applicant has suggested that this should be a pre occupation condition; however she is concerned because it also states that the reasoning behind flood warning designs is to warn future occupiers of any high risk of flooding of East Delph. If we are saying that the signage does not need to be displayed till pre occupation it could be that the houses are built and the day before they are occupied the signage goes up which would be too late. A number of people purchase properties off plan and therefore they would have purchased a property and not realised that this was a potential issue and therefore condition 7 should remain as it is.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she is pleased to hear that the agents have stated that they will work with the IDB. The written representation information before Committee members today from the drainage board concerning the drainage proposal is described as ‘folly’. Previously, the Environment Agency have alerted Whittlesey Town Council to the fact that there are 220 residents along the boundary of this application that are at risk and that identifies them as being in the Kingfisher area, North End, Lapwing and Teal Road. The drainage for the new dwellings needs to be considered as do the adjacent dwellings and if the applicant is prepared to work with the North Level IDB instead of a Management Company, it would give the residents peace of mind.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that any construction traffic must go through East Delph. Bassenhally Road leading into Drybread Road is very narrow and due to the school the road is congested in peak hours due to parking. Therefore if the condition could state that construction and delivery traffic use the B1040 and request that there is a hardstanding base made on site that to accommodate all contractors’ and workers’ vehicles.

·         Officers stated that with regard to construction traffic, in the proposed condition 18, section (b), it details the requirement concerning contractors’ access arrangements for vehicles, plant and personnel. This includes the location of construction traffic routes to, from and within the site, details of their signing, monitoring and enforcement measures, along with location of parking for contractors and construction workers. With regard to the construction phasing program in Condition 18, section a, it should give an indication as to how the phasing is going to work in construction terms and therefore with the criteria in aforementioned 18(b), access routes should also be secure with those phasing details. Officers have considered this is robust enough. With regard to hard standing, it is not uncommon for a construction plan to provide a plan to denote where routes are and where plant equipment is going to be stored. In addition the requirement as detailed in 18(j) details the Dust management and wheel washing measures to prevent the release of dusts into the local environment and deposition of debris on the highway.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she appreciates the inclusion of wheel washing, but would also like a water bowser on site.

·         Officers stated that the Environmental Health Officer’s and Highways Officers have considered these approaches and if they consider that there is not enough detail in them to ensure certain aspects then they would ask for further detail as part of the condition discharge requirement.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she is aware of another development where after construction started there were issues and eventually the developer implemented the ‘Construction Care Scheme’ which gave residents the ability to resolve any issues. Officers confirmed that contained with condition 18(s), it proposes a complaints procedure where residents can air their grievances.

·         Officer’s stated that with regard to condition 7 dealing with the timing and delivery of the flood warning measures, there is a condition that requires flood warning signs to be erected and the current condition requires it to be initiated prior to development. The signage is to help future residents and concerns that future occupiers may not be aware of the issue are down to house purchasers and conveyancers to pick up on planning conditions, they should be alerted to such conditions upon purchase. Therefore is it felt that the preoccupation condition is appropriate in this situation.

·         The Chairman stated that with regard to wheel washing, any reasonable Constructor within Fenland is always aware that the vehicles can often create contamination of the road.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws commented that she is disappointed with regard to the reduction in Section 106 contributions. With regard to the phase issue, once a first phase is completed can we revisit the viability and challenge it when the subsequent phases are constructed.

·         Officer’s stated that the proposal is for a review mechanism and this would need to be agreed with the applicant through a section 106. Officers are proposing a 75% occupation of the site and at this stage a review is proposed as there should be enough evidence to assist with a thorough review. If Members require a more frequent review then that could be considered. The application is proposing that the section 106 agreement is to be delegated to Officer’s but with the Chairman and Vice Chairman’s agreement, the review mechanism would be scheduled within the Section 106 agreement.

·         Councillor Mrs Davis asked whether the 75% occupation figure could be reduced. Officer’s responded that the application is determined by members and therefore the section 106 is to be agreed by the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

·         Councillor Mrs Hay asked with regard to the phasing approach at what point is the Section 106 money payable. Officer’s stated that there are various triggers for different payments, so the education and health payments will be implemented at different stages.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that she feels this application would be impossible to refuse, as outline permission has already been granted, but that she has serious concerns over Teal Road and the parking issues. With regard to the previous appeal, the Inspector implied that the drainage system will be adopted by the IDB. She added that she knows this cannot be enforced but the presenter today gave the impression that they will work with the IDB and she welcomes this.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws asked if the application could be deferred, to ensure that the correct construction conditions are in place and to check that the drainage system is in place. It would also be helpful to continue negotiations with the landowner with regard to the delivery of social housing.

·         Nick Harding stated that in terms of a deferment to obtain drainage details, in his opinion it would be normal practice for an outline planning consent to have a condition that requires a detailed drainage scheme to be submitted in advance of making a decision on the application and there are no special circumstances at play here that require the details. With regard to construction, a Construction Management Plan (CMP) forms part of the conditions and the precise details of that plan will be submitted subsequently for each phase as they come forward. It would be appropriate to add an informative if there are any particular items that members want to be included as part of the plan for consideration.  Officers stated that with regard to phasing arrangements, there is a condition which requires a phasing plan which needs to demonstrate that the phasing approach will consider transport impacts throughout construction. In addition the CMP also asks for construction routes under that approach, ie East Delph. The phasing design and plan that is submitted has to take note of the transport impact which the highway authority has requested.

·         Councillor Mrs Laws stated that established residents should not have to deal with construction traffic.

·         Officer’s stated that the main haul road is proposed as East Delph and this is indicative phase of the plan and indications are that on this particular plan construction traffic would enter through East Delph and development would start to the east of the site. The highways authority asked for the phasing plan to include transport and impact detail due to the fact that they were also concerned that the expectation was for construction traffic to go through Teal Road which they considered to be unacceptable. Therefore if there was to be any exception to using East Delph then there would need to be justification for a revised transport plan to demonstrate that it would still be safe.

·         Nick Harding stated that an informative could be added to say that the construction access route that the District Council wish to see in the CMP.

·         The Chairman commented that the Contractors vehicles should park considerately and the overall Contractor should make that quite clear to the sub-contractors.

·         Councillor Sutton commented that he has 100% confidence in the Officers; they have gone to great lengths to make sure everything is in place.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton, seconded by Councillor Benney and decided that the application be: APPROVED as per the Officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs Laws registered in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a Member of Whittlesey Town Council planning committee meeting but takes no part in discussions or voting.) Councillor Miscandlon registered, in accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that he had been lobbied on this application.)