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 Michael Braithwaite, the agent. Mr Braithwaite stated he is a Chartered Town Planner working with Robert Doughty Consultancy as agent for the applicant Rose Homes EA Ltd based in Whittlesey and he is accompanied by Dino Biagioni, the Managing Director of Rose Homes. He stated that the application is for 249 dwellings on the edge of Whittlesey and as officers have stated the development is in accordance with the Local Plan which allows development of up to 249 dwellings on sites on the edge of larger settlements such as Whittlesey unless the benefit of development is outweighed by the harm.

Mr Braithwaite expressed the view that the development will ensure that housing supply for Whittlesey, and specifically in Fenland, is met into the future, with the targets set in the Local Plan as officers said in the previous debate being a floor not a ceiling. He stated that although in outline the application would accord with national and local policies regarding meeting housing need, providing open space, affordable housing, an appropriate drainage strategy within the site, preserve and enhance ecology and diversity including the safeguarding of the Nene Washes in line with its designation as a European national important site.

Mr Braithwaite expressed the opinion that the development is not at a risk of flooding and will not raise the risk of flooding elsewhere, the surface water drainage system will be managed on site to maintain discharge at existing predicted greenfield levels that will discharge into the wider IDB network and discussions have taken place through the creation of the development with the IDB, LLFA and the Environment Agency on the surface water drainage strategy. He stated that highway safety will be maintained, with a number of pre-application discussions being held with the Highway Authority to try and agree the approach and have continued in a positive fashion throughout the application process.

Mr Braithwaite expressed the view that the residents of the development would have access to the existing jobs and services provided by Whittlesey and the wider area including but not restricted to the new supermarket to the south. He referred to the Neighbourhood Plan which sets out the issue of potential coalescence with Eastrea and provides a buffer zone to the east of Drybread Road.

Mr Braithwaite stated that they are aware of the range of objections made to the application both from statutory consultees in the past and local members of the public regarding highway safety, impact on local services including health care and education, loss of open countryside and agricultural land, impact on the amenity of existing residents, impacts on heritage but through the application process the applicant has provided further information including a report on the extensive archaeological investigations, assessment of the potential impact on the Nene Washes, a range of highway improvements to the surrounding road network to ease vehicular and pedestrian traffic in this problematic area, with the statutory consultees withdrawing their objections subject to the submitted information and the information on the imposition of conditions and Section 106 requirements proposed by officers. He stated that the conditions set out a number of obligations including early agreement before reserved matters is submitted for a phasing plan to gauge when various aspects of the development will take place, key aspects of the provision and management of open space and off-site highways provision, which are defined in the conditions.

Mr Braithwaite hoped members would approve this policy compliant application for 249 dwellings, which would reduce the pressure to bring forward allocations through the emerging Local Plan.   

Members asked questions of Mr Braithwaite as follows:

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked him to elaborate on the highway improvements and pedestrian safety where it is situated on the A605 opposite the new supermarket. Mr Braithwaite responded that a range of highway improvements include the new access road, off-site junction improvements and widening of the junctions as set out in the report and promoted and agreed by the Highway Authority.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough asked if there will be an additional pedestrian crossing to allow access to the supermarket? Mr Braithwaite responded that there is no additional crossing being provided over the main road. 

·         Councillor Murphy asked how long it would take to build out 249 dwellings? Mr Braithwaite responded that there are many different answers to this question, most of it is dependent upon how quickly the houses are built as sold and it can be assumed that a development of 249 dwellings will come forward at probably 40 plus a year. Councillor Murphy stated that it would be several years to complete as they take a long time to do and you tend to forget the timescales. Mr Braithwaite stated that there is a need to agree a phasing plan and then submit the reserved matters application so it is probably going to be 18 months to 2 years before development starts and you probably looking at a 5 year development programme.

·         Councillor Murphy asked about a wheel wash facility and road sweeper as the development near Aldi left the road in a terrible state. Mr Braithwaite responded it would be good practice for the developer and it will be covered by the Construction Management Plan, which needs to be agreed by the Council.

·         Councillor Murphy stated that he cannot see any open spaces on this development and asked if there is any? Mr Braithwaite responded that there is open space which is spread around the site referring to the indicative layout shown on the screen, which will be multifunction areas and also tries to echo the requirements of the drainage strategy as well as picking up on an opportunity to provide circuits to walk around the site for those people to exercise within the site rather than being stuck at end of a cul-de-sac and not being able to wander around the site. Councillor Murphy asked if they would expect a management company to look after these areas? Mr Braithwaite responded that his client preference is for there to be a management company but if it did go to the Town Council the terms would need to be agreed with them but he does not think this is likely.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked for an elaboration on the surface water arrangements, provisions to mitigate flooding and any arrangements with the IDBs or Anglian Water? Mr Braithwaite acknowledged that it was a key issue, the development would discharge water into the IDB system that ultimately discharges into the Nene Washes so there is a great need to make sure that the quantity and quality of water is controlled within the site so it does not lead to overwhelming the drainage system or polluting the Nene Washes. He added that there have been discussions with the IDB as part of the production of the drainage strategy that has been submitted.

·         Councillor Imafidon asked what has been put in place or is being put in place? Mr Braithwaite responded that there are a range of measures included and it is an in-principle approach that would yet need to be agreed in detail. He stated that they are looking at roadside swales which serve to filter out and control the water rather than putting them into a drain which gets it off the site as quickly as possible and there will be a system as shown on the indicative plan of ponds within the layout to make sure the swales discharge into that system and get controlled on the way out and there are various mechanisms which manage the discharge, with the drain not just going out of a pipe at the north-east corner but it will be one controlled discharge point.

·         Councillor Marks stated that one of the biggest concerns along here is vehicles waiting to get onto site, especially HGVs. He asked, if planning permission is granted, what mitigation is there and also regarding parking overnight, where will these be parked as there is no local parking for HGVs as far as he is aware and are curfew times being put on? Mr Braithwaite clarified that did this refer to during the construction phase and stated that these will be matters covered by the Construction Management Plan and it is generally expected that there would be a compound on site for parking. He added that access arrangements need to be agreed as part of that mechanism and parking off-street allows the wheel cleaning measures to be provided.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to the way forward seeming to be through management companies and there was a neighbouring development where several of the residents have complained about the way in which they have been let down by a management company. She asked how they would ensure that the management company is reputable and ultimately ensure that the residents, as much as they can, are looked after for the money that they put into the management company? Mr Braithwaite responded that residents will be directors of the management company once it is fully up and running, it will be set up by Rose Homes in the first instance and then handed over to the residents to manage themselves. He added that the same could be said for any other form of management as well if it was managed by the Town Council or the District Council there might be issues.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough reiterated the issue of pedestrian and cyclist safety, she is not sure what school, whether it is New Road or Alderman Jacobs, that this development site will feed into but if it is New Road then there will be a large number of primary school aged children crossing the road and she is concerned about the safety of those children travelling to school. She asked if there are any mitigating factors regarding the safety of children travelling to school? Mr Braithwaite responded that it is the Highway Authority that will be able to deal with these issues but they are looking at highways improvements, such as formalising the crossing points on the road whether it is the dropped kerbs or the tactile paving to make sure that the crossing is more obvious and safe, arrangements to the junctions, which will all be set out in the Transport Assessment and the Road Safety Audits that have already been submitted.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she is not certain from the map whether the access road comes out directly opposite the road to the new Aldi and asked for more information on this as there are potentially two roads coming out onto the A605 from opposite directions? Mr Braithwaite responded that the junctions are staggered and then the highway engineers ensure that there are spaces for queuing traffic to get in and out of the different junctions. He added that there is the proposal to reduce the speed limit to make sure that traffic is travelling at 30mph on this stretch of Eastrea Road.

·         Councillor Murphy asked if it would be more beneficial to have a crossing here as it is exactly opposite Aldi, there are 249 houses, people are not going to take their cars across the road to go into Aldi, they are going to walk across the road and it will also slow down the traffic along this stretch of road. Mr Braithwaite responded that this is a question about what is beneficial and what is required to charge upon a developer and it might be straying back into the wider schemes for Whittlesey. He hopes that many people will walk to Aldi and cross the road but the provision of this is beyond the remit of what could be required to provide for this development.

Members asked officers the following questions:

·         Councillor Murphy asked if it would be beneficial to provide a crossing here as it so close to Aldi? Hannah Seymour-Shove, Cambridgeshire County Council Highways Officer, responded that as part of the access proposals there will be a pedestrian refuge crossing across the A605 within the vicinity of access as well as a relocated refuge as part of the development to the south. She made the point that there is already an existing Toucan crossing at the southwest corner of the site which will facilitate crossing on routes to schools. Councillor Murphy questioned whether the road was wide enough for a refuge and is it not easier to put in a Zebra crossing? Hannah Seymour-Shove responded that there is one refuge to the east of the eastern access to the Aldi access and then there is another refuge between the access to the BDW site to the south and this site. Councillor Sennitt Clough asked for clarification that it the new proposed refuge will be to east of Aldi? Hannah Seymour-Shove confirmed this to be correct.

·         Councillor Marks asked on a traffic survey have they worked out or have figures on who will turn left and head towards Guyhirn as opposed to turning right to go Whittlesey? Hannah Seymour-Shove stated that this would have been conducted as part of the baseline surveys but she does not have that information to hand. Jez Tuttle added that as far as he can recall it was approximately ¾ going towards Peterborough and ¼ going towards March as Peterborough is the biggest draw going from all the residential developments in Whittlesey.

·         Councillor Marks asked on the conditioning of the Section 106 monies could they be the same as the previous application? David Rowen responded that the resolution on the previous application did not change the recommendation or wording of the resolution but if members want to alter the proposal so there is a degree of consultation between officers and members over the allocation of the Section 106 money that is within the committee’s gift to do that.

·         Councillor Marks referred to the boundary of Coates and Whittlesey and the field and asked if he was right that there is a parade of houses opposite Aldi and then there is a defined barrier by the roadway into the new development? Jez Tuttle responded that there is an existing row of well-established houses south of the site but north of Eastrea Road and Drybread Road going north to south will provide a well-defined boundary, with the green buffer being the fields to the east of Drybread Road and there is an industrial area to the south of Eastrea Road.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she is not confident in the safety aspect of what has been presented and asked what surveys were undertaken and she wants to ensure that they were in person and not desktop surveys and for how long and for which periods of time that road was visited? She added that she is referring to the proposed site where it enters onto the A605 and also the existing entrances/exits onto the A605 from the supermarket and new estates on the other side of the road and how it all comes together, what it looks like terms of how busy it is now and the proposed site factoring in the 249 houses so she wants to know how the surveys were undertaken, when they were undertaken and all the information related to that in terms of how busy it is already and how 249 houses might impact that street scene as it is. Jez Tuttle responded that as part of the application and the many changes that are going onto that road due to Aldi and the new estates to make sure that all the accesses could be properly implemented safely they undertake a Road Safety Audit, which is undertaken by an independent consultant or Cambridgeshire County Council and it consists of a desktop survey first where they look at the traffic flows and proposed traffic flows from all the accesses. He continued that a site visit is undertaken as part of the audit and they look to see how the accesses will interact with each other and the conditions on the road speeds and flows and then they come up with a series of recommendations, which may be that an access requires moving or reduction of the speed limit. Jez Tuttle stated that these recommendations get taken forward and they will say to the applicant that they need to consider the recommendations, there is a process that follows where they have a discussion about what recommendations can be dealt with now or what can be left to the detailed design. Councillor Sennitt Clough asked if the surveys took place in peak times? Jez Tuttle responded that he believes the surveys were for 12 hours but they concentrate on the peak hours as this is known when the worst congestion is.

·         Councillor Marks asked for clarification on the agent saying the speed will be reduced to 30mph, however, Councillor Sennitt Clough referred to it already being 30mph? Hannah Seymour-Shove responded that she believes as part of the access proposals that the 30mph speed limit would be extended to cover over the access. Councillor Marks questioned if this was over both accesses? Hannah Seymour-Shove responded that it would be all the way to Eastrea village.

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

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough expressed the view that there will be an impact on the green buffer and it will impinge on the current layout and while Drybread Road is conveniently being used as a boundary between Whittlesey and Eastrea it is essentially a country lane and the layout will forever be changed by this proposed development so she feels this green buffer will be compromised. She expressed concerns about the safety layout of the road and does not feel fully confident that those have been resolved. Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that she needs to be sure that if the officer recommendation is supported that there is confidence going ahead that the safety issue is resolved and how the issues can be mitigated of the green buffer by taking action such as planting more trees and making it greener as it is going to be forever changed.

·         Councillor Murphy made the point that there is change everywhere, he used to live next to an open field at one stage but it has been built on and now he lives in the middle of a town, and he feels it is an ecological fact that it is going to happen. He feels that members need to have the mindset that this will happen, it cannot be stopped and why should it be stopped as housing is needed and he feels the proposal should be supported.

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that there is a danger of it becoming a philosophical discussion about change if members are not careful and just because change happens does not necessarily make it right. She reiterated that her concerns were about the fundamentals and how they impact material considerations with regards to this application in relation to the safety and the green buffer zone.

·         Councillor Marks expressed the view that safety has to be taken into consideration, however, this is an application that is compliant, with Highways being the experts and members should go with what they say. He asked if committee was happy that it be conditioned that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman deal with the Section 106 money via the Head of Planning?

·         Councillor Sennitt Clough stated that members represent residents and this is the opportunity to act on behalf of residents in Fenland to make sure that all the safety procedures are in place, she would rather do this than sit back quietly and say well Highways know what they are doing, lets make sure that all safety considerations have been put in place rather than give them carte blanche to go ahead.

·         Councillor Marks stated that he accepts what Councillor Sennitt Clough is saying, however, he is no expert in road safety and he does not believe any councillors are and that is why Highways are consulted and members should be led by those experts.

·         Tim Williams referred to Councillor Sennitt Clough’s comment about the eastern boundary making the point that the plan shown on screen is purely indicative but as mentioned in the report at 10.28 there are views into the site from the east, which is the juxtaposition between the development and countryside so he has said that some of the open space and landscaping could be increased along that eastern edge and that is stating what they would expect in the reserved matters application so there is greater landscaping than is shown in the indicative plan.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Imafidon and agreed that the application be GRANTED as per the officer’s recommendation to include that the allocation of Section 106 monies be in conjunction with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

(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 also lives in the vicinity of the application site, but she is open-minded and is not biased or pre-determined on the application)