Councillor Okonkowski left the meeting at this point.
The planning application was for residential development with provision of a Primary School at Land to the East of Alwalton Hill, Fletton Parkway. This included new open space, highways and associated infrastructure, including new drainage features with details of part of the strategic landscaping submitted.
It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be granted, subject to the delegations and conditions set out in the report, the completion of a S106 Agreement, and the passing of an Appropriate Assessment. The Principal Development Management Officer provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report and update report.
Councillor Sharp, Hampton Parish Council, and Councillor Reed, Yaxley Parish Council addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· The proposed bus stops to service the site were considered to be too remote;
· The Secondary School that would serve the development was also believed to be too far away from the site to be practical;
· Concern was raised regarding the impact of noise from the Yearsley development, and at the lack of social infrastructure proposed on application site;
· It was suggested that car usage would increase, however, that no discussion of the proposed road network was permitted, as the application was outline only;
· Reference was made to the Design Statement and it was suggested that the application before the Committee conflicted with this;
· The proposed infrastructure, services, roadways, junctions, bus routes and communities facilities were believed to be inadequate;
· The change from employment use for some areas of the proposal was considered to be detrimental to the sustainability of the area; and
· It was suggested that the Design Statement would need to be reconsidered to provide for such a change.
Chris York and Olive Leonard, 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:
· The Norman Cross Action Group represented a number of Parish Councils, including Farcet and Stilton, and also included representatives from Cambridgeshire County Council;
· The Group did not object to the change of use of the land proposed, nor the principle of housing on the proposed site. The Group objected to the development of housing in isolation, without any infrastructure to serve it;
· It was believed that such isolation would place greater pressure on nearby settlements and increase car journeys;
· It was suggested that the infrastructure needed to be developed first, prior to any housing being provided on the site; and
· It was believed that the proposal as currently applied for would not provide sufficient quality of life for those residing there.
Steve Harley, agent, and David Boddy addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:
· The applicant had worked closely with officers and it was highlighted the no objections had been received from any of the statutory consolatory bodies;
· The principle of development had already been agreed;
· There was a need for additional housing and school provision within Peterborough, as such, space for a primary school had been included in the proposal;
· Although the application was outline only, the expected density of the development would provide for high quality living conditions;
· The level of traffic expected from the development had decrease following the change from employment use, the contribution to the Fletton Parkway development would, however, remain the same;
· The S106 Agreement did not include any contribution to a bus service, following evaluation of the Council’s priorities. If the Committee wished for a contribution to bus services to be made, S106 contributions would have to be reduced in other areas. Mr Harley advised that this did not mean that no bus service would run;
· Mr Harley noted that, when viewed as part of a larger development, infrastructure would be provided; and
· Access to the local Secondary School, across the A15, would be via the existing footbridge.
In response to questions from the Committee, the Principal Development Management Officer advised that the access to the development had already been established with the previous employment use of the site. It was further advised that while the Fletton Parkway junction was under the control of Peterborough City Council, Junction 17 of the A1(M) was covered by Highways England, and the Old Great North Road was the responsibility of Cambridgeshire City Council.
The Principal Engineer (Highways) advised that traffic would be less under the current proposals than those of employment use, as the traffic would be heading in the opposite direction. Although the access to the Secondary School via the existing footbridge was a longer route, this would be the route encouraged for highway safety reasons.
The Committee discussed the application and noted that with any development similar to the one proposed, it would take time for infrastructure to develop, as the demand for services increased. It was suggested that individuals who bought houses on the site would be aware of the infrastructure available when doing so. The Committee were pleased to see that affordable housing was to be included within the development.
A number of Committee Members raised concerns about the lack of bus service contribution within the S106 Agreement, and the points raised by objectors in relation to the minimal infrastructure proposed.
A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be granted, as per officer recommendation, subject to the conditions and delegations set out in the report, the completion of a S106 Agreement, and an additional condition to monitor traffic at the A15 / Old Great North Road junction. The motion was carried six voting in favour and two voting against.
RESOLVED: (six voted in favour and two voted against) that planning permission is GRANTED subject to:
1) The conditions set out in the report;
2) A condition to monitor traffic at the A15 / Old Great North Road junction;
3) Authority being delegated to the Corporate Director Growth and Regeneration to make any necessary or appropriate adjustments to these, including the imposition of new conditions;
4) The completion of a S106 Agreement including a mechanism to deal with the Fletton Parkway Contribution; and
5) The passing of an Appropriate Assessment with authority being delegating to the Corporate Director Growth and Regeneration to complete this and agree any necessary additional mitigation measures if required.
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 polices of the development plans and specifically:
· Whilst this application would reduce the amount of employment land, that which remained would not be insubstantial and would be able to ensure the creation of new jobs. Government policy set out that allocations should be regularly reviewed and the Local Plan was currently being reviewed. The building of housing on this site instead of employment development would help meet the housing needs of the city and ensure that it had a five year housing supply. The principle of development was therefore considered to be acceptable.
· The transport information submitted with the application shows that it would not have any unacceptable impact upon the highway network and indeed would have less impact than the consented employment scheme. Subject to conditions relating the works to junction 17 of the A1(M), junction 1 of the Fletton Parkway and in respect of a provision of a link to the Old Great North Road the development was considered to comply with policy PP12 of the adopted Core Strategy. An updated Framework Travel Plan and full Travel Plan(s) could be secured through the S106 or conditions. Walking/cycling links to the Great Haddon core area could also be secured by condition. Subject to this it was considered that the development would accord with policy CS14 of the adopted Core Strategy.
· The development would change the nature of the existing site but it would have less visual impact than the consented employment scheme. It was therefore considered to comply with policy CS16 of the adopted Core Strategy.
· The potential impacts of the development on Orton Pit SSSI/SAC could be acceptably mitigated via 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 could also be acceptably mitigated so the development accorded 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 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.
· 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 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.
· Further archaeological assessment would be required by condition as the development progressed. 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 could in principle be drained. Subject to the imposition requiring the submission and approval of more detailed drainage information the development was considered to comply 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 Viability Assessment and 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.