Agenda item

To determine the application.

David Rowen presented the report to members.

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.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Councillor Mrs Laws, on behalf of Whittlesey Town Council. Councillor Mrs Laws stated that Whittlesey Town Council is against this development, not against development in Whittlesey, but of any further development in the north of the town which as can be seen from the photos on the presentation screen shows flooding not once in 100 years or once in 50 years but this area is now experiencing once in 5 years where the roads surrounding this development are closed up to 69 days, which is a substantial amount of traffic that has to be diverted to the A605. She made the point that presently there are 1,078 dwellings being built out, not approved but actually being built out, with in the villages there being 82 mixed dwellings so the Town Council is not against development but what it is looking for is suitable and appropriate development and it does not consider the north of the town complies.

Councillor Mrs Laws drew members attention to 5.1 and 5.2 of the officer’s report, Whittlesey Town Council consultation response and the County Council’s response and also referred to a Flood Warning pack that is issued to 220 dwellings adjacent to this site that are at risk of flooding. She stated that she is the Delph warden and also works with the Environment Agency and she believes their consultation in the report is in conflict with their department working with flood wardens.

Councillor Mrs Laws expressed the view that over 1,000 properties now are at the risk of flooding in the north of Whittlesey and even with this new estate residents are struggling to find insurance to cover their contents and the building, if they can get insurance they cannot afford it. She referred to 7.7 of the officer’s report which is in relation to the new Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan and she has it on good authority from the Chief Executive that from the moment the declaration was made on 23 February this became a living live document, which is more current that the 2014 Local Plan, which has been through independent examination, found to meet the basic conditions required for legislation subject to the incorporation of examiners recommendations for modification and the plan was successful at referendum on 23 February 2023 and, therefore, carries full weight.

Councillor Mrs Laws stated that the Neighbourhood Plan states that no further development to the north of Whittlesey and adjacent to the built area of Whittlesey, forms part of the Whittlesey Washes Flood Storage Reservoir which protects Peterborough, Whittlesey and other settlements and Fenland areas from flooding but supports the provision of housing to the South and to the East of the town and importantly industrial and commercial to the West of the town. She made the point that the Neighbourhood Plan is resident led and the Town Council brings it together, with there being 8-9 days of consultation and two workshops and in all that time everyone was adamant no further development in the north.

Councillor Mrs Laws asked members to take note of the policy considerations, comments at 5.14 on education and 5.19 by NHS England.

Members asked questions of Councillor Mrs Laws as follows:

·       Councillor Connor stated that he has read the document and is knowledgeable with the 2014 Local Plan and emerging Local Plan that can only be given a certain amount of weight to and the new Neighbourhood Plan which indicates that residents and the Town Council do not want any more development to the north and asked if he was correct on this? Councillor Mrs Laws confirmed this to be the case, this site did not appear as a designated site in the 2014 Local Plan and the reason that the development came forward on the Showfield site was due to it being windfall and the land supply was less than 4 years at the time. She stated in the new emerging Local Plan this site has been recognised and Whittlesey Town Council were against this site being designated and the Neighbourhood Plan is adamant that people do not want and are worried about flooding with the mapping changing year on year.

·       Councillor Connor expressed the view that when the Showfield site was brought forward for development the Council did not have the 5 year land supply and asked what is the land supply position now for Fenland? Councillor Mrs Laws responded that at the time of the Showfield development the land supply was less than 4 which is why the site principally went forward and as of September 2022 it is 6.5 years well over the 5 years so this would denote that this proposal could not be a windfall site.

·       Councillor Sutton expressed the opinion that Councillor Mrs Laws had made a misleading and untrue statement because the outline was granted in 2016 and he knows the land supply was not lost until 2017. Councillor Mrs Laws asked Councillor Sutton what application he was talking about? Councillor Sutton referred to the application that was approved for 220 dwellings. Councillor Mrs Laws responded that Councillor Sutton is looking at 220 and he needs to go back further as prior to this an application for 249 was submitted which was the windfall and as he would be aware there were several planning applications submitted, several meetings and a public appeal that the Town Council and residents won and the land supply was less for the 249 application. Councillor Sutton expressed the view that this was irrelevant. Councillor Mrs Laws stated this is history and the land supply when the original application was submitted was less than it was with the 220 application.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis asked about the amount of feeling there is in Whittlesey about all the development that is taking place and could Councillor Mrs Laws confirm that when the Neighbourhood Plan went to referendum that there was a 77% turnout, which is really high. Councillor Mrs Laws responded that the turnout was 14.95%, with a Neighbourhood Plan not being something that people get excited about to go to a polling station.

·       Councillor Skoulding expressed the view that he thought there was going to be bollards or barriers to stop the traffic in Teal Road due to the school and he feared it would become a ‘rat run’ and is disappointed that this has not happened. Councillor Mrs Laws confirmed the barriers have not been installed, there are two entrances and exits, one from East Delph which floods and goes into higher ground where the Persimmon Homes site is and the one at Teal Road, when Persimmons Homes site was approved there was a firm understanding there would be bollards in this location which would permit only x number of vehicles to use from x number of properties but also as an emergency exit but that emergency exit is in a flood zone and the road does flood. She made the point that it is a very narrow road which leads towards a primary school in a very dense residential area.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Mr Clarke, the agent. Mr Clarke thanked officers for their engagement and dialogue during the application process and the well-reasoned and, in his view, justified committee report and expressed his full support for the officer’s recommendation. He stated that as members will have seen in the officer’s report the applicant has positively engaged with and responded to comments received and amended the proposal when appropriate throughout the pre-application discussions and application process.

Mr Clarke made the point that the application seeks permission for the principle of up to 58 dwellings with an indicative net maximum density of 32 dwellings per hectare and the officer’s report confirms under 10.5.1 that the number of dwellings to be delivered along with the layout, design, separation distances and residential amenity are all considerations that can be appropriately addressed at the Reserved Matters stage. He stated that the application site is bordered by existing residential development on 3 sides and, therefore, sympathetically integrates into the development area of Whittlesey, with the principle of residential development supported by the Council at pre-application stage.

Mr Clarke referred to 3.1 of the officer’s report which confirms the site is supported under policies LP3 and LP4 which seek to direct sustainable growth to main market towns in the district. He expressed the view in relation to the proposed surface water drainage strategy, that 5.5, 5.6 and 10.19 confirm that the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and Environment Agency have no objections or comments of concern regarding the proposal drainage strategy, with the site naturally out falling to the adjacent riparian ditch, therefore, the drainage proposal replicate the existing drainage outfall.

Mr Clarke expressed the view that it should also be noted that surface water from the south-western part of the adjacent site directly outfalls to the same ditch so the principle of its use has already been established and accepted. He expressed the opinion that the ditch that the proposal is to outfall to is not part of the North Level Internal Drainage Board network and as such the LLFA is the relevant authority for issuing consent and as confirmed the LLFA has no objection to the proposed drainage strategy, therefore, comments from the Internal Drainage Board are not pertinent to this application.

Mr Clarke expressed the view that the applicant has demonstrated that the site will be served by a safe and effective access provided by the adjacent Persimmon development, this access is supported by the Local Highway Authority. He feels the site is well connected to the local services and facilities and will offer pedestrian and cycle links to aid movement from the site and beyond.

Mr Clarke stated that Whittlesey is served by bus services and benefits from a railway station providing sustainable access to Peterborough, Stanstead Airport, Ipswich, Colchester, Birmingham and beyond. He stated in respect of the sites natural features it is proposed to retain and enhance the existing boundary hedgerows and trees, which he feels will help the development blend naturally into the wider landscape.

Mr Clarke stated the proposal offers 9.72 hectares of nearby land, which is over 5 times the size of the development site, to create new rich habitats and a significant biodiversity net gain to the benefit of all. He concluded that the application represents the efficient use of land in a sustainable location and will deliver much needed housing including 25% affordable housing, high quality and usable open space, new rich habitats and a significant biodiversity net gain, much needed financial contributions to the education sector, NHS and East of England Ambulance Service, all of which will be further complemented by the economic benefits of construction and support to local businesses.

Mr Clarke outlined for clarity that members are only being asked to assess the principle of residential development in this location with a means of access committed at this stage, with appearance, landscaping and scale, the detail, to be considered at the Reserved Matters stage although it should be reiterated that the Case Officer and statutory consultees are satisfied that the indicative layout and design will meet and where possible exceed the requirements of national and local planning policy and guidance in creating high quality and sustainable development. He reiterated his full support for the officer’s recommendation of approval and whilst he respects the Town Council’s presentation none of the photographs shown are of this site and the site has never formed part of the Persimmon Homes site, it is a totally separate site.

Members asked questions of Mr Clarke, Mr Hatfield, another representative of the agent, and Mr McGrane, the applicant’s highway consultant, as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton referred to Mr Clarke stating in his presentation that 25% affordable housing was going to be provided and asked if there was any chance this would be amended as it is often promised at outline but on a full application a viability study is produced to show it is not feasible. Mr Hatfield responded that there is no intention of undertaking a viability study as it would have been undertaken now and the intention is to develop the site as soon as possible. Mr Clarke added that the 25% affordable housing that will be delivered as part of this site actually exceeds what will be required as part of the emerging Local Plan.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed her concern about Anglian Water and the recycling centre which currently does not have capacity to take these properties and as one of the ward councillors Teal Road has a problem when there is a heavy downpour of rain and she has spent a whole day there watching Anglian Water pump out sewage from people’s gardens, with this development only going to exacerbate this problem. She asked if there was any way the applicant can build into anything with Anglian Water who is saying they will try to take the necessary steps to ensure sufficient treatment capacity but this is if, buts and maybes. Mr McGrane responded that there is a pre-commencement condition relating to a detailed drainage strategy that will need to be submitted for approval to the LLFA and that condition relates to a document that was submitted as part of the outline application, which is the Flood Risk Assessment Drainage Strategy. He acknowledges the point made about capacity issues but made the point that if this is relevant when they come to discharge that condition if the statutory authority, the LLFA and Anglian Water, request that this is looked at then this will need to be looked at. Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that the residents of Kingfisher Road and Teal Road would be delighted to get something sorted out as this is happening more regularly. Mr Hatfield added that on the previous application there were obligations on Anglian Water at that point to reinforce the water treatment centre and the pre-development report from Anglian Water does say the existing sewers around the site have capacity and it is the waste water treatment plant downstream that is the problem and it is their statutory duty to provide foul water improvements.

·       Councillor Skoulding asked if the barriers or bollards would be erected on the road to stop the traffic going through Teal Road as he is worried about the school and can see an accident happening as it will be used as a short cut. Mr Hatfield responded that as part of the Persimmon Homes approval there was a phasing plan and traffic calming required rather than placing barriers at the entrance to Teal Road as it was always intended as a secondary access not an emergency access as mentioned earlier as it is known that the East Delph access has flooded from time to time and that matter is dealt with already by the existing Persimmon Homes permission and this scheme is adding 58 further houses onto the Persimmon scheme, highways have been consulted all the way through and are happy that there is no further harm or detriment in terms of capacity and safety as long as Persimmon do whatever is within their planning permission. He expressed the view that there are about 40 cars in the peak hours leaving and coming to the site and with post pandemic shifts in home working traffic levels are lower than they have been. Councillor Skoulding expressed the view that this is a long-winded way of saying no.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed the opinion that since some of the documents were written and presented the bus services in Whittlesey have been considerably reduced, the train services have been reduced and yet it is still being said that there are facilities for people to get from A to B but they are not as often as they were and people are complaining about this. Mr McGrane responded that this is a nationwide problem, bus subsidies are being cut and people are not using buses because of the impact of Covid and the use of public transport in this country is tantamount to disastrous, which is an unfortunate reality in society currently.

·       Councillor Mrs French referred to 5.9, Leisure Services comments regarding limited open space and asked if play equipment could be placed onto the site? Mr Clarke responded in the affirmative but made the point that the layout is only indicative and at Reserved Matters stage the proposal has to have a policy compliant level of public open space and play equipment.

·       Councillor Connor referred to debris on the road and sees there is wheel wash facility but would like to add a road sweeper on site at all times in association with the wheel wash facility from the first day development commences. Mr Clarke responded that a planning condition has been agreed for a Construction Traffic Management Plan and an Environment Management Plan to be submitted. Mr Hatfield added that if officers wanted to amend the condition to stipulate full time road cleaning then they would have to accept this.  Councillor Connor stated that if the application is approved he would like officers to do this.

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the difference of opinion between Councillor Mrs Laws and himself regarding land supply and that when the 220 houses were determined the Council did have the necessary 5-year land supply and asked officers to confirm the position. Nick Harding responded that in terms of the original application that went to appeal and was dismissed the authority was satisfied that it had a 5 year land supply, the appellant put forward to the inspector that the Council did not have a 5 year land supply and the inspector duly considered this issue and dismissed it as there was a brand new Local Plan and it would clearly not have gone through examination and adoption had the Council been short on the 5 year land supply. He stated that in relation to the application that did receive consent from the Council there is nothing in the case report that indicates that at that time there was a shortfall in the 5 year land supply and an email was issued in January 2018 to notify the Developer Forum that at that point in time there was not a 5 year land supply but this was after the determination of the consented scheme. Councillor Sutton stated that he was confident that he was right.

·       Nick Harding referred to the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan and in particular Policy 1, Spatial Strategy and under B it says “significant new housing development should be located predominantly east of the town, adjacent to the built area and strategic allocation North and South of Eastrea Road. Development at this location will support the delivery of new and enhanced infrastructure, including a new Country Park” so clearly the policy says east of the town, adjacent the built area and in the strategic allocation north and south so as per the Case Officer’s report this indicates that this site is adjacent to the built area.

·       Councillor Sutton asked in terms of the Neighbourhood Plan he knows it has been to Referendum and has community support but surely it cannot be firm and final until it has been examined by the relevant inspector. Nick Harding responded that it went to referendum after the examination.

·       Councillor Skoulding asked to see the presentation slides again. Nick Harding responded that he was happy for the slides to be shown again but that it was important to note that the land level of the development site is different to what is being shown on the slides so it is not a fair comparison and in relation to the Showfield site a significant portion of that site is at flood risk and has not been included for physical built development and this proposal mirrors that situation. Councillor Skoulding stated that he drives this road quite often and comes up to the barrier with the water being so high and he thinks it is foolish to build here as the water is so close.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor asked for clarification that the initial application in 2013 was for 249 properties, which is the Persimmon application, and was the one that went to appeal and was dismissed and in 2015 an application was submitted for 220 which was approved, but if these 58 dwellings are added on to 220 that is 278 which is well above the 249 which was rejected and she is concerned that a lot more properties are trying to be shoehorned in than was originally refused in the first place. David Rowen responded that the 249 properties that were refused and dismissed at appeal had a number of the dwellings in the flood risk area, subsequently the application for 220 was submitted with the houses solely within the acceptable area for development from a flood risk perspective. He made the point that this proposal is for an area of land that was never part of the Persimmon Homes application and which is also largely within Flood Zone 1 so the calculation is not relevant or comparable. Councillor Mrs Mayor expressed the view that the residents would disagree.

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

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed her surprise at comments of the LLFA, there was an objection but they have now withdrawn it. She made the point that North Level are also not happy with the proposal due to the riparian ditch and she can see this will be an issue in the future so she is unable to support it.

·       Councillor Purser stated that he is not happy with this application, especially with the flooding issues and whilst it has been stated that it is nothing to do with Persimmons development it is the piece of land that matters and councillors from Whittlesey who have spoken know the area well and he is aware of the flooding issues in the area. He is also concerned about the education shortfall and the speeding traffic with a development such as this bringing more children into the area.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis expressed concern about the Ambulance Service and emergency services saying that this development is likely to increase demand upon the existing constrained ambulance service and blue light response times and that the proposed development is likely to have an impact on the services of the GP practice operating within the vicinity of the application site, which upon reviewing the existing estate footprint and registered patients the practice does not have existing capacity to support this development so it does not matter if contributions are provided in a Section 106 if doctors and staff cannot be obtained then these people will move into these properties and they will not have easy medical provision. She agrees with Councillor Skoulding that people are going to use Teal Road access and at certain times it is totally blocked with traffic, with school children running around and it is an accident waiting to happen.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor stated that she was going to mention the ambulance and doctors services too but referred to education as only this week she has been contacted by a parent who is having to go through an appeal system as Sir Harry Smith School has said they cannot take any more children so how many more houses should be built when there are not school places for the children. She knows Sir Harry Smith is having an extension built but children have got to be educated and you cannot expect a mother with 4 children having to make a journey to Stamford and back every day, which is not acceptable.

·       Councillor Purser expressed the view that the site is overdevelopment and too squashed in. He referred to the sequential test and queried whether this development could not be built in another safer location.

·       Councillor Sutton stated that he takes on board what the other members have said regarding services such as education and medical services, and to a certain extent agrees with them but those problems can and are replicated right across Fenland and elsewhere so if it is being said that this proposal cannot be approved because of those issues the Planning Department might as well be closed down and the Council says no more development in Fenland because all the services cannot cope. He does not feel there is anything policy wise where the committee could turn this proposal down, it fits with the unallocated land policy, it has nothing to do with the 249 dwellings Persimmon development it is a completely separate piece of land so needs looking at in its own right, he understands the issues with Teal Road especially around school times but this is the same across every town and village so he does not see where a policy reason for refusal is going to stand up.

·       Councillor Mrs Davis made the point that the committee recently refused an application for 47 houses at Bevills Close in Doddington for some of the very same reasons that have been mentioned on this application so she does not think it is a foregone conclusion at all.

·       Councillor Sutton countered that the committee sat at the last meeting and agreed 63 dwellings and there were all these issues with that development.

·       Councillor Mrs French stated that she partly agrees with Councillor Sutton, doctors, dentists and education are not really material planning considerations to refuse an application but there are material considerations within the report. In relation to education, she stated that as a member of the County Council they are not putting replacements in, there are shortages right across the whole of the county and the Rainbow Alliance will not address it at this time and it is the same with highway issues.

·       Councillor Skoulding stated he is against this proposal as safety of children is paramount and cars will make Teal Road a ‘rat run’ and if a child get knocked over residents will be asking why the development was allowed to happen.

·       Councillor Connor queried if members do not agree with the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan and what Whittlesey residents want what message does that send out to other areas that are undertaking Neighbourhood Plans and what is the point of undertaking Neighbourhood Plans if they are overridden.

·       Councillor Sutton referred to the section of the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan read out by Nick Harding earlier and made the point that this did not specifically say that there should be no development in the north.

·       Councillor Connor expressed the view that it does not comply with the Local Plan or emerging Local Plan either and the committee, with the Council encouraging areas to undertake Neighbourhood Plans, would be going against exactly what the people of Whittlesey do not want.

·       David Rowen read out the wording again of the relevant policy of the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan, Policy 1 Spatial Strategy, Criteria B and, in his view, there are two key words in this which are ‘significant’ and what constitutes significant or not and ‘predominantly’ so this does not rule out per se development elsewhere. He feels the other important point to note is that a Neighbourhood Plan should not supersede the adopted Local Plan, it should complement it and there should be nothing within a Neighbourhood Plan which introduces further restrictive policies.

·       Councillor Mrs French expressed the view that the significant word is complement and she does not think this application does.

·       Nick Harding made the point that there is no objection from the County Council as Highways Authority so references made to the safety of children as pedestrians, who will be using predominantly existing network plus the network that is provided on the Persimmon Homes development, how can this Council say that this is unsafe given that roads on this proposed development will be of equal standard and a reason for refusal could not be sustained at appeal on the grounds that the design of the highway network is inherently unsafe for pedestrian uses. He stated that there is no objection from the LLFA and this Council has no policy in place that says developments can only drain into an IDB network and the use of riparian drains is not outlawed for drainage purposes, appreciating members’ frustrations when the owners of those riparian ditches do not undertake the necessary maintenance to the detriment of themselves and others but this is not something that can be solved through the planning process and members have recently approved other applications which will be using riparian ditches. Nick Harding stated that in regard to Section 106 and development viability, there have been a number of calls from health organisations and the County Council for contributions to meet the demands that are going to be generated by this development but as part of the production of the Local Plan a Strategic Viability Assessment was undertaken and that indicated that putting affordable housing to one side for the purposes of developer contributions for infrastructure that no contributions can be sought for developments North of the A47 and only £2,000 per property can be sought South of the A47 so when a developer comes along there is always going to be a deficit and if this is not accepted then the Council will not be granting any planning permission for future developments and not meeting its requirements which means it will not have a 5 year land supply, it will not be meeting its delivery test and the tilted balance will come into play thereby possibly placing development where the Council does not perhaps want it to be located.

·       Councillor Mrs Mayor referred to Policy LP11 which says “Policy proposals especially to the north of the town should have particular regard to all forms of flood risk which exist at Whittlesey” not just north of Whittlesey but Whittlesey per se and it then goes on to say “any development will need to take into account the proximity of the internationally protected Nene Washes and the SSSI”, with the Nene Washes being a SSSI and this development is adjacent to this and nobody so far has mentioned this fact.

·       David Rowen responded that biodiversity is mentioned in Paragraphs 10.3-10.38 of the officer’s report so the issues of the SSSI and the Nene Washes has been considered in several paragraphs of the report with the conclusion being there is no unacceptable impact upon the Nene Washes. He referred to flood risk and Policy LP11, making the point that the developable area is within Flood Zone 1 and the Environment Agency have raised no objections and the LLFA are satisfied with the application.

Proposed by Councillor Sutton to support officer’s recommendation to approve planning permission, which did not obtain a seconder.

Proposed by Councillor Skoulding, seconded by Councillor Mrs Mayor to refuse planning permission as they feel it is contrary to the health and wellbeing of residents under Policy LP2, is contrary to the safety of children coming and going to school and playing around the area under Policy LP17 and does not comply with Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan. Officers made the point that there is no objection from Highways and the Whittlesey Neighbourhood Plan does not outlaw this location specifically for development, with the site being surrounded on all sides by existing development. The Legal Officer reminded members that there needs to be clear reasons based upon evidence why the application should be refused and he feels it would be a struggle to come up with reasons, therefore, there would be a material risk of costs against the Council if it was refused and went to appeal. The proposal for refusal did not receive the support of the majority of members.

Proposed by Councillor Benney, seconded by Councillor Sutton and agreed that the application be APPROVED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Mrs Mayor registered, in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that she is a member of Whittlesey Town Council and was on the Town Council’s Planning Committee when this application was discussed at the Town Council but took no part in the discussion and voting thereon at the Town Council meeting)