Agenda item

The planning application was for the development of land to the north of Norman Cross, east of the A1(M) and west of London Road (A15), Peterborough into an urban extension comprising of up to 5,350 residential dwellings, a district centre (with up to 9,200 square metres of retail floor space) and two neighbourhood centres (with up to 2,300 square metres of retail floor space) comprising of district / neighbourhood retail, community and health, leisure, residential and commercial uses. Provision for education facilities, sports and recreational facilities, a range of strategic open spaces including new landscaping, woodland and allotments and cemetery provision were also included in the application. Associated highway infrastructure (including pedestrian, bridleway and cycle routes), public transport infrastructure and car parking for all uses were to be provided as well as utilities, renewable energy infrastructure, and foul and surface water drainage networks (including SuDs and lakes).

 

The application was first presented to Members of the Planning and Environmental Protection Committee on 19 March 2013. At that meeting Members resolved to approve the application subject to:

a)    A further report back to Committee to agree the finer detail and design of the Yaxley loop road

b)    A report back to Committee to agree the review mechanism for the S106

c)    The conditions as set out in the original report and the Update Report

 

The main considerations set out in the report were:

·         Further detail on the function of the Yaxley Loop

·         Review Mechanism for the Section 106 Agreement

·         Conditions

 

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, for the reasons set out in the report.

 

The Development Management Manager and the Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and raised the following key points:

·         The Committee had previously approved the alignment of the ‘Yaxley Loop’. Before the Committee now was purely information on the design of the route.

·         The drawings submitted showed a single carriageway with two lanes for turning. Footpaths were proposed along the roadway, which were to be wider around the school sites. There would be limited access points from residential parcels.

·         The busiest part of the road would be around the school and district centre. This was proposed to have traffic light controls, pedestrian crossings and a town square designed to control speed and create a safe space for pedestrians. It was not believed that this would discourage use of the road.

·         The junctions at either end of the ‘Loop’ would require drivers to physically turn off from the natural sweep of the road in order to travel through Yaxley.

·         These junctions would be in place early on, along with traffic calming measures throughout Yaxley.

·         A new approach to the affordable housing allocation within the Section 106 Legal Agreement had been proposed. Previously an initial allocation of 7.5% affordable housing had been proposed, with subsequent trigger points set out for its increase.

·         Further viability assessments had been undertaken and a fixed rate of 16% affordable housing had been proposed. It was thought that this option presented less risk and guaranteed a higher amount of affordable housing.

 

Councillor Ian Allin and Councillor Chris York, Norman Cross Action Group, addressed the Committee in objection to the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Allin believed that, as a major ‘A’ road, it would be difficult to divert traffic away from the A15.

·         It was suggested that the A15 could traverse straight down the middle of the development, with overhead roundabouts for access.

·         The preferred suggestion of Mr Allin was that the A15 travel from Parnwell Junction, down the Fletton Parkway to join the A1(M) at Junction 17. This was already a fast and suitable road.

·         Councillor York reminded the Committee that decision regarding the application needed to be taken in consultation with Cambridgeshire County Council.

·         The proposed ‘Yaxley Loop’ need to be attractive to use and more desirable than going through the Yaxley in respect of fuel costs.

·         Ease of traffic movement was required, included no parking and minimal traffic lights.

·         Pollution levels were detrimental to residents and would be detrimental to Peterborough’s aim of being the Environmental Capital of the UK.

·         The capacity figures provided by the application did not seem to reflect the true capacity of the road.

 

Ms Heather Pugh, David Lock Associates, Mr Ron Henry, Peter Brett Associates, and David Shaw, Mr David Shaw Planning, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         Mr Henry maintained that the 30 mile per hour speed limit on the road would not affect its capacity, which had been fully checked with future growth accounted for.

·         Traffic modelling had been undertaken for the proposal.

·         Downgrading the A15 to ‘B’ road status was not a bad idea, however not the focus of the application before the Committee.

·         Traffic levels and capacity would continue to be monitored throughout the development and into the future.

·         Matters such as noise and air quality had been considered as part of an Environmental Impact Assessment.

·         This assessment had also considered the sustainability of the proposal. Infrastructure provisions, public transport and sustainable travel had all been included with the proposal.

·         Mr Shaw believed that the urban extension would be an example of environmental good practice. There would be an increase in traffic, however this increase would be carried out in the best way possible.

 

The Committee were happy with the updated recommendations for the allocation of affordable housing and considered this a positive result.

 

Several Members of the Committee highlighted the importance of getting the ‘Loop’ design right. The Committee believed that the proposed junctions on and off the ‘Yaxley Loop’ were well designed and would encourage drivers to follow the road away from Yaxley, as it would be a physical task to do otherwise.

 

The Committee were pleased to hear that the applicant intended to focus attention to public transport within the site and to the city centre.

 

The Planning and Highways Lawyer advised the Committee that the only aspects of the application to be considered at this time were the functionality of the proposed ‘Loop’ road and the affordable housing allocation within the Section 106 Agreement.

 

In response to questions from the Committee the Principal Engineer (Development) explained that the Fletton Parkway was currently undergoing widening work to discourage use of the A15. Junction design, signage and timing of signals, along with additional tools, could all be used to ensure that the ‘Yaxley Loop’ was the most attractive choice.

 

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried eight in favour, one voting against and one abstaining from voting.

 

RESOLVED: (eight voted for, one voted against and one abstained from voting) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to:

 

i)              The conditions set out in the report;

ii)             The satisfactory completion of an obligation under the provisions of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and

iii)            Any changes to conditions relating to Orton Pit SSSI / SAC which may be requested by Natural England during Section 106 discussions.

 

Reasons for the decision

 

Subject to the imposition of the attached conditions, the proposal was acceptable having been assessed in the light of all material considerations, including weighting against relevant policies of the development plan and specifically:

 

·         The Great Haddon urban extension was allocated in the adopted Core Strategy and the adopted Site Allocations DPD. The principle of development was therefore acceptable in accordance with the policies CS1, CS2, CS3 and CS5 of the adopted Core Strategy and policy SA1 of the Site Allocations DPD.

 

·         Following detailed assessment of the transport modelling the impact of the development on the surrounding highway network was considered to be acceptable in accordance with policy CS14 of the Adopted Core Strategy, policy PP12 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

·         Through the provisions of the Travel Plan and funding for the bus service, to be secured as part of the S106 Agreement, the development was considered to make adequate provision for sustainable travel in accordance with policy CS14 of the adopted Core Strategy;

 

·         The amount of retail floorspace in the new district and local centres was considered to be appropriate for the scale and the size of development and it would not unacceptably impact upon the vitality and viability of any existing centre. The proposal therefore accords with policy CS15 of the adapted Core Strategy.

 

·         It was accepted that as a result of the development the existing rural character of the site would be permanently altered. However, a strategic decision had been made to develop this site in the adopted Core Strategy. In this context, the visual impact of the development was considered to be acceptable in accordance with policies CS5 and CS16 of the adopted Core Strategy.

 

·         Following review of all aspects of the development the impact of the development on the amenity of neighbouring residents was considered to be acceptable in accordance with polices CS14 and CS16 of the Adopted Core Strategy and policy PP3 of the Planning Policies DPD.

 

·         Subject to detailed design it was considered that the development will be able to afford future residents an acceptable level of amenity in accordance with policy PP4 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

 

·         The potential impacts of the development on Orton Pit SSSI/SAC could be acceptably mitigated via the creation of a buffer zone and through the access control measures proposed. The development was, therefore, considered to be acceptable in accordance with policy CS21 of the adopted Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

·         Other ecological impacts of the development can also be acceptable mitigated so the development accords with policy CS21 of the adopted Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

·         The impact of the development on existing trees and hedgerows within/adjoining the site was considered to be acceptable subject to the imposition of conditions requiring more detailed assessment as development comes forward and protection measures. New landscaping would also be planted, including the provision of new hedgerows. The development was, therefore, considered to be acceptable in accordance with policy CS21 of the adopted Core Strategy and policy PP16 of the adopted Planning Policies DPD.

 

·         In light of the archaeological assessment carried out and the proposed buffer zone the relationship of the development with the SAM was considered to be acceptable. Further archaeological assessment would be required by condition as the development progresses. It was therefore considered to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework, policy Cs17 of the adopted Core Strategy and policy PP17 of the Planning Polices DPD.

 

·         Following assessment of the submitted information it was considered that the site can be adequately drained and would not give rise to an increased risk of flooding in accordance with policy CS22 of the adopted Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework;

 

·         Via the imposition of a condition it was considered that the development would make a contribution towards the Council’s Environment Capital objectives in accordance with policy CS10 of the adopted Core Strategy.

 

·         Subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement it was considered that the development would make sufficient contribution towards the infrastructure requirements arising from it. It therefore accorded with policies CS12 and CS13 of the adopted Core Strategy.