Agenda item

To determine the application.

Tim Williams presented the report to members and drew attention to the update report that had been circulated.

Members received a presentation, in accordance with the public participation procedure, from Georgina McCrae, on behalf of the applicant. Ms McCrae stated that the application was originally submitted in November 2022 and seeks outline planning permission for up to 175 new homes with access in detail and all other matters reserved for future consideration. She advised that over the last 2 years Allison Homes has worked constructively with officers and statutory consultees, including the Highways Authority, Natural England, the IDB, LLFA and the Town Council to reach the scheme before members today.

Ms McCrae stated as outlined in the officer’s report and presentation the development will provide 175 new homes in a sustainable location including a minimum of 20% affordable housing helping to address the shortfall of affordable delivered within the District in recent years, already being in discussions with the Housing Officer to ensure the detailed proposals provide for up-to-date local need. She advised that 3.6 hectares of new publicly accessible open space will be created, which is equivalent to over one-third of the site and provides areas for play, habitat creation and allows a smooth transition into the open countryside to the north and east.

Ms McCrae expressed the view that there will be a significant net gain in on-site biodiversity delivered with a predicted 13.8% increase in on-site habitats and 90% increase in hedgerows. She made the point that there would be financial contributions of £2,000 per plot which will be payable towards the NHS, East of England Ambulance and education services.

Ms McCrae referred to highways and that a package of mitigation measures equivalent to around £250,000 have been agreed to mitigate the impact of the development, including a 3 metre footway/cycleway which will be extended to the site providing a safe connection to and from the primary school and wider networks, a series of passing places along Drybread Road to the north and east to improve access to the A605 and welcome travel packs will be provided to all new residents which will include the provision of bus and cycle vouchers to encourage sustainable travel. She feels, as concluded in the officer’s report, that the proposal is considered sustainable development and would accord with the Development Plan when taken as a whole, there are no outstanding objections from technical consultees and it is considered, subject to the detailed design at reserved matters stage, the site has potential to deliver a high-quality living environment for both future and existing residents.

Ms McCrae hoped members would be able to support the application in line with the officer’s recommendation.

Members asked questions of Ms McCrae as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the cycleway, with it passing invariably several roads coming onto Drybread Road that are quite busy and asked what mitigating factors would be put in place to protect children that are crossing Victory Avenue/Coronation Avenue and a series of busy roads that feed into Drybread Road? Ms McCrae responded that the cycleway is an extension of an already agreed cycleway which is being constructed at the moment, with the details having been agreed with the Highway Authority and they are extending from the corner on the south-west of the development up to the access point and then within the site so the proposals do not cross those existing roads that were mentioned.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed her confusion as she heard in the presentation that the cycleway would go from the site to the school. Ms McCrae responded that it extends onto the existing which would connect into the school, with the works to the school approved as part of a previous development to the south which is being constructed at the moment and they would connect on to this so the improved connectivity to the school would be extended to this site. Councillor Sennitt Clough clarified that the cycleway will just be for the length of this development up to the corner of Drybread Road and then connect onto anything that is being delivered by another development. Ms McCrae stated that this is correct, it is being delivered by Allison Homes on an earlier site.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the passing places and asked if it is Allison Homes’ view that the cars exiting this proposed site will turn both left to go down Drybread Road and right, Drybread Road out to the A605 and there is not a preferred direction of travel for the residents exiting this site? Ms McCrae responded that the Transport Assessment suggests that cars will come out of the site and turn left down Drybread Road, which was a long conversation with the Highways Authority in that they did not necessarily want to be encouraging people to turn right by delivering passing places and the number of passing places was reduced. Councillor Sennitt Clough requested clarification that it suggests that vehicles are turning left and in her report she said they were going to add more passing places for vehicles that are turning right to access the A605, asking if this is correct? Ms McCrae confirmed this to be correct, which is at the request of the Highways Authority to mitigate the impact of the development and they have agreed to deliver. Councillor Sennitt Clough asked how many passing places are being created as she believes there are only a couple along there currently? Ms McCrae responded that on the northern boundary of the site there will be two new passing places and when you turn the corner going down to the A605 they are agreed on an existing permission of 3 passing places. Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that knowing the area as she does she would struggle to see along that northern section how the drainage ditches would be overcome and also her concern would be that passing places only possibly allow for a couple of cars at any one time and there would be a backlog, it is a busy road as it is with a Whittlesey gridlock with people using it as a cut through and she would be concerned that passing places would not adequately mitigate the build-up of traffic.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to mention of working with IDBs, making the point with living in the Fens it is known how it floods and drainage is a major concern. He asked Ms McCrae to elaborate how they have worked with IDBs? Ms McCrae responded that the site sits within an area controlled by an IDB, none of the ditches surrounding the site are IDB controlled so it has been a lot of work with the LLFA but the North Level Drainage Board have been consulted and confirmed that they have no objections to the proposals. She stated that the site is in Flood Zone 1 so it is technically at the lowest risk of flooding, the surface water is managed on site through a combination of swales, permeable paving and an attenuation basin and outfalls at a controlled rate to the north-east of the site at 12.5 litres a second which is agreed with the LLFA and IDB. Ms McCrae advised this is designed to cater for a 1 in a 100 year storm event plus the 40% for climate change. She added that they will have to get formal consent from the IDB for any outfalls or any impact on their managed ditches that they outfall into.

·         Councillor Murphy referred to on plan the top of the site showing a play area and public open space and asked if there would be a management company to run this area or would it be left to the Council to run? Ms McCrae responded that the Section 106 Agreement as drafted at the moment is flexible, they have been in discussions with the Town Council as to whether they want to take any of this area. She stated that a management company can be set up and that tends to be what happens on lots of their sites where council’s do not want to take it but commuted sums are allowed for if council’s do want to take this area on. Councillor Murphy made the point that his portfolio includes play areas and the Council do not take over responsibility for any play areas now, it is up to the Town Council if they want to or a management company, which is the easiest way.

·         Councillor Murphy asked when development starts on the site will there be a wheel cleaning vehicle? He referred to there being numerous problems at the other end of Whittlesey near the Aldi store, with the Council taking a lorry along there and finishing up taking 10 tonnes out of the gutters on the roadside and if vehicles are being cleaned onsite it is a lot better than coming out and putting it on the roads. Ms McCrae responded that there will be wheel cleaning facilities and they will be secured as part of the Construction Management Plan.

·         Councillor Imafidon referred to the play areas and public open space and asked in the case that the Town Council does not take them on and there is a management company to look after them who is going to pay for this, is it the residents through a service charge? Ms McCrae responded that it would be set up as a resident management company with a service charge fixed so anyone buying those properties know what that service charge is and they become directors of that management company. She added that Allison Homes will look after that public open space until it is completed and transferred. Councillor Imafidon stated that his question is will you make the residents aware of this before they purchase the properties? Ms McCrae confirmed this to be the case.

·         Councillor Marks referred to mention of highway and off-site works, with Whittlesey plagued at the moment with a lot of traffic problems and asked when the off-site works will be carried out, before they start to build? Ms McCrae responded that she believes the conditions are drafted for them to be completed before any homes are occupied so they will be delivered early and it may be that enabling works are being carried out on site while the 278 works are being delivered. Councillor Marks expressed the concern that with passing place there are lorries and HGVs travelling both ways.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the question from Councillor Murphy about wheel wash facilities and asked if there will also be a road sweeper within the agreement as well? Ms McCrae responded that they do put road sweepers as standard within their Construction Management Plan.

·         Councillor Marks asked what the build out programme is for affordable homes v private homes and over what period? Ms McCrae responded that it is difficult to give a timescale at outline but their intention is to have a reserved matters application submitted and approved as soon as they can and start delivering on site. She stated that they do look as standard to deliver affordable housing quite early on in the development and they deliver a lot of sites partnered with registered providers, with 20% being a minimum and they often seek to increase that with some additional affordable housing if registered providers are interested.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the officer mentioning the triple SI sites, Bassenhally Pits and the Nene Washes, and this development is proposing a significant amount of houses so there is going to be a lot more people potentially wandering down there may be with dogs and what can they do to preserve those triple SI sites from any kind of ecological damage as there are some rare species on those sites. Ms McCrae responded that as part of the two-year application process they have undertaken a lot of work on this and a full Habitat Regulation Assessment has been prepared, submitted and assessed, which included a recreational pressure assessment on those sites and that resulted in changes to the development framework to increase the areas of open space on site to provide alternative walking routes, with loops throughout the site to provide opportunities for dog walkers to stay on site rather than walking up to those other sites. She added that they also met with the RSPB who managed these sites to see if there is anything they can do to work with them and they did not feel there was an issue as it nearly a 2km walk on mainly a road with no footpath. Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed the view quite a lot of people do walk down there with their dogs because it is a quite road and a dead end.  

Members asked questions of officers as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that Whittlesey is at gridlock, it is facing an unprecedented amount of traffic chaos from a number of different factors and asked how can it possibly get round this problem with an extra 175 properties that are being proposed. She made the point that whichever way they turn out onto Drybread Road they are going to go onto the A605 and cross the bridge that has a lot of structural problems, with the B1040 flooding for a significant amount of time and asked how this is going to be dealt with, how are these people going to get to work or to school wherever it is they are travelling to along the A605? Jez Tuttle, from Cambridgeshire County Council Highway Authority, stated that Whittlesey is a very challenging place in terms of transport and at present they do not have a scheme which gives an overall solution to this problem, there is not a wider Whittlesey scheme that may come forward in the future and with these planning applications it is about demonstrable harm and they have to look at whether the harm is significant enough for each individual application to allow them to raise an objection and if the harm can be reduced to an acceptable level by looking at methods of encouraging active travel then they cannot refuse an application. He acknowledged that there is a bigger problem overall in Whittlesey but because they are looking at smaller applications that are not bundled up as one they have to look at them individually and individually the harm is not significant enough for them to say they object. He stated that one of the things they usually do if they have a scheme or if they know something is in the pipeline they can get finance towards it but here there is not a scheme. He made the point that there was a potential scheme to look at the 2 roundabouts in Whittlesey, an active travel scheme to get people across those roundabouts by walking or cycling, but his understanding is that scheme was not brought forward.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she did not quite catch what he said regarding something may come forward and asked what was it he said? Jez Tuttle responded that he knows there are potential areas that are being looked at and Whittlesey and the A605 is flagged up as a potential area of interest so that is why he could say that something may come forward and it is going to be whether this is considered to be higher up in the list than something else across the County.

·         Councillor Marks stated that it is known that Whittlesey has got a problem but these houses would not be built tomorrow so is it known what the programme is for the repairs and timeframe on the bridge and the second bridge by the Dog and Doublet which also cause problems after flooding with there still be traffic lights here. Jez Tuttle responded that he does not have that information about the bridge, he knows it is being worked on by one of the County’s teams but he is happy to find this information out and send it to members. Councillor Marks stated that it would have been useful to have had that information today. Councillor Sennitt Clough asked for the information to be provided as she would find it useful as a Whittlesey ward councillor. Jez Tuttle agreed to make enquiries and report back.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to Policy LP7 which states that development of an urban extension must be planned and implemented in a coordinated way through an agreed overarching broad concept plan that is linked to the timely delivery of key infrastructure and she feels that what she has just heard is that Allison Homes and Highways do not have a timeline, which she finds concerning in relation to this policy. She asked for clarification on this policy. David Rowen responded that this site is not considered to be an urban extension given that it is under 249 dwellings and is classed as a windfall site on the edge of the town rather than a strategic allocation identified within the Local Plan requiring the provision of a Broad Concept Plan. He added that the size of the application does not fall within that requirement of the policy.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that the point remains the same that everything needs to tally up in terms of development planning implementation and that is still very necessary and particularly with other developments that are in the pipeline. David Rowen responded that it does and that is part of the consideration that has been given to this application in terms of highways and delivery of infrastructure through the Section 106 package but because this site, and the one that is subject of Item 6 on the agenda which is closely located, are both individually below the 249 windfall threshold in the Local Plan they have to “wash their own face” and not do a great deal more. Councillor Sennitt Clough stated she understands this but for her the problems remain.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that it is a busy road and it is a nuisance with the bridge but by the time these houses get built that bridge will hopefully be repaired. He added that he is responsible for refuse and recycling and the refuse vehicles when they do the collections on a Tuesday morning early get called everything because they have a job to do but they are only there an hour per week. Councillor Murphy made the point that some of what is happening with the traffic is being talked up and not thought out. 

·         Councillor Marks referred to the Section 106 monies and he has seen the e-mail from Councillor Boden and asked would it be possible for the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to agree it at the time of distribution? David Rowen responded that if that is what the committee wants to do when it comes to making a decision then that is possible. Councillor Marks asked that this can be conditioned and it was confirmed that it could.

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

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she takes issue with what Councillor Murphy said about the traffic issues being talked up as last Friday it was bumper to bumper from Whittlesey through Pondersbridge and out back onto the A605 where the crane place is, there was an accident, the B1040 was open but all it takes is a slight hold up. She made the point that when the B1040 was flooded for the past 2 weeks the queues from the bridge went all the way to the Kellivision roundabout and it does impact people’s lives with people trying to get to work, trying to get to school and it is a huge issue and not talked up at all, it is the reality of everyday life in Whittlesey.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he lived in Ramsey for a number of years and used to travel to Thorney and Boston and Whittlesey has always had a problem before even the flyover was there it had the railway gates and he has known it stacked back to Stanground on numerous occasions. He expressed the view that the overpass has helped, the flooding at the Dog and Doublet cannot be overcome but he does not personally believe that by feeding in these vehicles over a period of time that it will make that much difference by adding more vehicles and causing more traffic problems. Councillor Marks expressed the opinion that once the bridge is repaired that will help matters and people do find different ways from Whittlesey to go into Peterborough.

·         Councillor Murphy made the point that the flooding happens every year so it is one of things that cannot be stopped and it is known that it will occur. He referred to mention of accidents and they do happen everywhere.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that Councillor Murphy has missed her point in terms of accidents as they do happen unfortunately but all it takes is a slight hold up on an already heavily congested road to cause more chaos than an ordinary smooth flowing road. She agreed that Whittlesey has always been a problem with traffic, she has lived here for three years but has seen a notable increase since the two developments built on the A605 and she does not think it is fair to say that people should find alternate routes through other smaller villages such as Pondersbridge because that is just relocating the problem elsewhere and other villages are having to suffer the traffic.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Marks and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Sennitt Clough declared, under Paragraph 2 of the Code of Conduct on Planning Matters, that a member of Whittlesey Town Council’s Planning Committee published two posts on a community Facebook page encouraging residents to lobby her over this application and due to this action she was lobbied but she has not discussed the applications with anyone. She advised that she also lives in the vicinity of the application site, but she is open-minded and is not biased or pre-determined on this application)