DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 18 February 2019
Case No: 18/01417/OUT Outline Application
Proposal: Outline planning application for the demolition of two existing dwellings and erection of up to 185 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access point and separate pedestrian access from Peterborough Road and St Mary's Street. All matters reserved except for means of access
Location: Land East Of 18 To 52 And Including 28 And 30 Peterborough Road Farcet, PE7 3BN
Applicant: Gladman Developments Ltd
Grid Ref: 520472 294895
RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 obligation relating to affordable housing, open space and wheeled bins and to conditions to include as a minimum those listed below. or
REFUSE in the event that the obligation referred to above has not been completed and the applicant is unwilling to agree to an extended period for determination, on the grounds that the applicant is unwilling to complete the obligation necessary to make the development acceptable.
This application is reported to the Development Management Committee as it is a Departure from the Development Plan and Farcet Parish Council object to the application.
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION
1.1 The site measures approx. 10.7 hectares, lies adjacent to the existing residential development on the edge of Farcet, Cambridgeshire and is approximately 3km south of Peterborough City Centre, between Yaxley and the Peterborough suburb of Stanground.
1.2 The site is located within a wider area of agricultural land and is currently in arable use (which a small slither is Grade 3 agricultural land the remainder Grade 4, on a scale of 1 – 5, where 1 is ‘excellent quality agricultural land’ and 5 is ‘very poor agricultural land’). The site is located to the North of the village of Farcet on an east facing slope with views out towards the Fens. The site consists of a large single broadly rectangular field with a drainage ditch for the northern boundary. The wider landscape to the north of the site is contained by the recently built A605 road bypass located to the south of new development along the southern edge of Stanground, itself on the southern edge of Peterborough. To the east, the agricultural land continues towards the river Nene (old course). The southern and western boundaries abut the Farcet village edge. Properties backing onto the site have a variety of boundary treatments, ranging from brick walls and close board fencing through to high conifer hedges or gappy native hedgerows
1.3 Public Bridleway 83/5 incorporating the Green Wheel Cycleway is located parallel to the River Nene (old course) and provides a non- vehicular link from Farcet Village through to Stanground to the north and eastwards into the wider Fen Landscape. The start of this route will provide pedestrian access into the site at its southeast corner
1.4 The site is currently accessed via a gated grass track located between residential properties no’s 16 and 18 Peterborough Road which provides access solely for the farmer. This access is shared with the route of an existing gas pipeline which cross the site from this point.
1.5 The site is located close to the public transport network. The Closest bus stop is located on Peterborough Road near to Lawrence Avenue and would be approximately 100 metres from the main site entrance, and 50 metres from the sites’ pedestrian links. Facilities in the village include a general store, post office, village club, primary school and church. Additional primary school and secondary school facilities are located in south Stanground.
1.6 There are six statutory sites of international importance within a 15km radius of the site. The closest is the Nene Washes Special Protection Area (SPA), Ramsar, which is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) that constitutes an area of seasonally flooding grassland and grazing marsh important for the populations of overwintering and breeding wildfowl. Orton Pit (SAC,SSS1) is located 2.5 km west of the site and contains an extensive pond system that supports significant populations of stonewort and a large population of great crested newts. Three County Wildlife Sites are within 1km of the site. These are Crown Pit, Fletton Lake and Stanground Newt Ponds.
1.7 The site is in Flood Zone 1. Table 1 of the Technical Guidance to the NPPF defines land located within Flood Zone 1 as areas which are outside the flood plain and have little or no chance of flooding. These are areas with an indicative probability of flooding of 1 in 1000 years or greater (i.e. less than 0.1% chance in any given year) from fluvial sources.
1.8 In terms of the proposal, outline planning permission is sought for the demolition of a pair of semi-detached dwellings (nos. 28 And 30 Peterborough Road) and erection of up to 185 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and vehicular access. All matters reserved except for means of access. Vehicular access to the site will be from Peterborough Road. Pedestrian access points will be from both Peterborough Road and St Mary's Street. The application is accompanied by an illustrative layout showing how it could be developed, The supporting plans and documents also aim to demonstrate that the site is capable of accommodating the scale of development proposed. The illustrative layout is not necessarily the way the development will be carried out; that will be established at the reserved matters stage.
1.9 The application proposal includes the following: 40% affordable housing. Provision of circa 5 hectares of green infrastructure that will include structural landscaping and planting and new publicly accessible amenity areas.
1.10 A comprehensive surface water drainage scheme that includes SUDs
1.11 An opportunity to create net gains in biodiversity
2. NATIONAL GUIDANCE
2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (24th July 2018) (NPPF 2018) sets out the three economic, social and environmental objectives of the planning system to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The NPPF confirms that 'So sustainable development is pursued in a positive way, at the heart of the Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (paragraph 11). The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for: (amongst other things): • delivering a sufficient supply of homes; • achieving well-designed places; • conserving and enhancing the natural environment; • conserving and enhancing the historic environment.
2.2 The NPPF 2018 replaces the NPPF 2012. Transitional arrangements are in place for authorities who have submitted Local Plans on or before the 24 January 2019. To ensure consistency, the 2012 Framework policies will continue to be relevant for the purposes of examining those plans. For clarity HDC submitted their Local Plan on 29 March 2018 and the examination hearings took place in July and September 2018. This emerging Local Plan is a material consideration. The NPPF 2018 should also in the normal way be taken into account as a material consideration in dealing with applications.
2.3 Planning Practice Guidance is also relevant and a material consideration.
For full details visit the government website: https://www.gov.uk
3. PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) • H23: Outside Settlements • H30: Existing Residential Areas • H31: Residential privacy and amenity standards • H37: Environmental pollution • H38: Noise Pollution • T18: Access requirements for new development • T19: Pedestrian Routes and Footpath • T20: Cycle Routes • T21: Public Transport Services • R1: Recreation and Leisure Provision • R2: Recreation and Leisure Provision • R3: Recreation and Leisure Provision • R7 Land and Facilities • R8: Land and Facilities • R12: Land and Facilities • En12: Archaeological Implications • En13: Archaeological Implications • En14: Open spaces and frontages • En17: Development in the Countryside • En18: Protection of countryside features • En19: Trees and Landscape • En20: Landscaping Scheme • En22: Conservation • En23: Conservation • En24: Access for the disabled • En25: General Design Criteria • CS8: Water • CS9: Flood water management
3.2 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alterations (2002): • HL5 - Quality and Density of Development • HL6 - Housing Density • HL10 – Choice in new housing • OB2 - Maintenance of Open Space
3.3 Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2009): • CS1: Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire • CS2: Strategic housing development • CS3: The Settlement Hierarchy • CS4: Affordable Housing in Development • CS10: Contributions to Infrastructure Requirements
3.4 Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 (as amended March 2018 for submission) replaces all previous versions of the new Local Plan and was submitted for examination on 29th March 2018. The Local Plan examination hearings ended on 27 September 2018 and the Inspector’s initial findings are that the plan can be made sound by main modifications. The following policies are considered relevant to this application: • LP1 Amount of development • LP2 Strategy for development • LP3 Green Infrastructure • LP4 Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery • LP5 Flood Risk • LP6 Waste Water Management • LP10 Small Settlements • LP11 The Countryside • LP12 Design Context • LP13 Design Implementation • LP14 Place making • LP15 Amenity • LP16 Surface Water • LP17 Sustainable Travel • LP18 Parking Provision and Vehicle Movement • LP23 Local Services and Community Facilities • LP25 Affordable Housing Provision • LP26 Housing Mix • LP30 Rural Exceptions Housing • LP 32 Biodiversity and Geodiversity • LP 33 Trees, Woodland, Hedges and Hedgerows • LP 36 Heritage Assets and their Settings • LP 38 Air Quality
3.5 The LPA considers the Local Plan to 2036 to be a sound plan and it was submitted for examination on the 29th March 2018. Footnote 22 of the NPPF 2018 states during the transitional period for emerging plans submitted for examination (set out in paragraph 214 of NPPF 2018), consistency should be tested against the previous Framework published in March 2012. The plan has therefore reached an advanced stage and is considered to be consistent with the policies set out within the NPPF 2012. The Local Plan examination hearings ended on 27 September 2018 and the Inspector's initial findings are that the plan can be made sound by main modifications.
3.6 Following the examination hearings held in July and September 2018, the wording of LP2, LP3, LP5 and LP11 are to be changed. For LP2 “recognise" is to be added in relation to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, LP3 adds text above the Grafham Water heading, LP5 is to be amended as agreed with the Environment Agency and County Council, and LP11 the word "protect" is to be replaced with "recognise".
3.7 The Inspector has not required any main modifications to any of the other policies listed above that would have any material implications for this application.
3.8 The emerging Local Plan has now reached an advanced stage and in the light of the Inspector's initial findings should be afforded more weight. Save for policies LP2, LP3, LP5 and LP11, it is considered that significant (but not full) weight should now be afforded to the policies referred to within the Local Plan to 2036 (as amended March 2018 for submission). The Local Planning Authority has agreed to the required changes to LP2, LP3, LP5 and LP11 but as the required changes to Policies LP2, LP3, LP5 and LP11 have recently been subject to further consultation before adoption, it is considered that moderate rather than significant weight should be afforded to these policies as modified.
3.9 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan Core Strategy (2011) • CS2 “Strategic Vision and Objectives for Sustainable Waste Management Development”
3.10 Supplementary Planning Guidance / Other relevant documents / legislation: • Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD (2016) • Huntingdonshire Design Guide (2017) • Huntingdonshire Landscape and Townscape Assessment (2007) • Huntingdonshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2017) • Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 • Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 • Town and Country Planning Act 1990 • Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
Weight of Development Plan Policies, emerging Local Plan policies, & NPPF Consistency:
3.11 The fact that the Development Plan policies are old is in itself irrelevant as they remain saved policies and the statutory starting point is under s.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004.
3.12 As a material consideration carrying significant weight, the NPPF advises at paragraph 213 that due weight should be given to relevant Development Plan policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF so the closer the policies are to the NPPF, the more weight they may be given. This is dealt with as relevant below.
3.13 Paragraph 48 of the NPPF (2018) advises that Local Planning Authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
3.14 The LPA consider the Local Plan to 2036 to be a sound plan and it was submitted for examination on the 29th March 2018. Footnote 22 of NPPF 2018 states during the transitional period for emerging plans submitted for examination (set out in paragraph 214 of NPPF 2018), consistency should be tested against the previous Framework published in March 2012. The plan has therefore reached an advanced stage and is consistent with the policies set out within the NPPF 2012.
Local policies are viewable at https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk
4. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 18/70188/SCRE - Screening Opinion – Issued – 15 August 2018
5. CONSULTATION
5.1 Farcet Parish Council – [full comments attached] • The size of the proposed development is overbearing. There are currently 780 houses in Farcet. A development of an additional 185 houses equates to almost a 25% increase in the size of a village that has almost no amenities. This would totally change the character of the village and bring it closer to being a suburb of Peterborough by eroding the current buffer zone. • Services are extremely limited. There is no Doctor’s surgery or Dentist in the village and those in adjacent villages are over- subscribed. There is one small shop/Post Office, the owners of which are also opposed to the development as they see no advantage to the village. The application contains incorrect information. There is no pub or Chinese restaurant in the village – both have been closed for some time. The school does not have the capacity to provide places for the demand likely to arise from this number of houses. • The access to the site is to be by demolition of 2 houses on Peterborough Road. When Cardea was built, access to Peterborough Road was denied by Peterborough City Council, apart from emergency vehicles, to reduce congestion. This development would increase congestion. The lack of amenities will necessitate a large amount of additional journeys to access schools, healthcare, leisure and shops. It also will cut across the route taken by many students walking to Stanground Academy and increase the danger to pedestrians. The figures for traffic volumes stated in the application are considerably less than those recorded by the Speedwatch team. There are details available of 40 serious accidents that have occurred on this stretch of road over the years. It appears that the school traffic emanating from St Mary’s St onto Peterborough Road has not been taken into account. It is not yet known how much extra traffic will be caused by the Haddon development. • Any amounts provided by builders towards increased amenities may not be used for the benefit of the village. • This site has been judged as not suitable for development by HDC in their plan as it forms a landscape buffer between Farcet and the more dense development of Peterborough to the north and is visible in the landscape from the east including from the River Nene (Old course). Granting of this application could set a precedent for further development on the rest of the site, thus further eroding the buffer zone. • The timing of this application may be significant. The HDC plan to 2036 is currently with the Secretary of State (SoS) for sign- off and states no development in Farcet. This will not now be considered for sign-off until Parliament returns from recess. Mr Gladman, the applicant, stated in his interview with the Daily Telegraph of 5th August • 2017 “We normally only target local authorities whose planning department is in relative disarray and …..either have no up-to- date local plan or, temporarily, they do not have a five year supply of consented building plots” I believe these subjects are satisfactorily covered in the plan currently with the SoS. • There have been 2 recent rejections of Gladman Land applications for very similar reasons to those we are raising here. • The first relates to a development of 118 houses near Ardleigh, Colchester. I attach this for your information at Appendix 1. • The second relates to land near Henlow in Bedfordshire and was dismissed on appeal to the Secretary of State on 16th August 2018. This is attached at Appendix 2. (APP/P0240/W/16/3164961)
5.2 Anglian Water - Assets - has assets close to or crossing this site or there are assets subject to an adoption agreement. Therefore the site layout should take this into account and accommodate those assets within either prospectively adoptable highways or public open space. If this is not practicable then the sewers will need to be diverted at the developers cost under Section 185 of the Water Industry Act 1991, or in the case of apparatus under an adoption agreement, liaise with the owners of the apparatus. It should be noted that the diversion works should normally be completed before development can commence. Further the development site is within the recommended 15 metre cordon sanitaire of a pumping station. This is a significant asset both in itself and in terms of the sewerage infrastructure leading to it and for practical reasons therefore it cannot be easily relocated. Anglian Water requests a condition requiring details of the drainage strategy and that this should take into account the issues raised above.
5.3 Anglian Water - Wastewater Treatment - advise that the foul drainage from this development is in the catchment of Peterborough (Flag Fen) Water Recycling Centre that will have available capacity for these flows.
5.4 Anglian Water - Foul Sewerage Network – advise that development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. Anglian Water state that they will need to plan effectively for the proposed development, if permission is granted and that they will need to work with the applicant to ensure any infrastructure improvements are delivered in line with the development. Anglian Water request a condition requiring details of the drainage strategy and that this should take into account the issues raised above.
5.5 Surface Water Disposal - The preferred method of surface water disposal would be to a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) with connection to sewer seen as the last option. Building Regulations (part H) on Drainage and Waste Disposal for England includes a surface water drainage hierarchy, with infiltration on site as the preferred disposal option, followed by discharge to watercourse and then connection to a sewer. The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted with the planning application is not relevant to Anglian Water and therefore this is outside their jurisdiction for comment and that Planning Officers need to seek the views of the Environment Agency.
Officer response: Conditions and Informative recommended accordingly. With regards to Surface Water Drainage, please refer to Environment Agency’s comments below
5.6 Cadent Gas - Cadent have identified operational gas apparatus within the application site boundary. All developers are required to contact Cadent’s Plant Protection Team for approval before carrying out any works on site and ensuring requirements are adhered to.
Officer response: Should planning permission be granted an informative is recommended
5.7 Cambridgeshire Fire & Rescue Service – Should the planning authority be minded to grant approval, the fire authority would ask that adequate provision be made for fire hydrants
Officer response: A condition is recommended accordingly
5.8 County Archaeology (CA) – CA records indicate that the site lies in an area of archaeological potential located on the Peterborough fen edge and 250m north-east of the 12th century Church of St Mary (Cambridgeshire Historic Environment Record reference 10561), on the northern periphery of the medieval village of Farcet. Fen-edge locations such as this were long favoured for settlement and this is evidenced in the proliferation of finds of Bronze Age and Roman date in the vicinity of the village, roughly correlating to the edge of the higher ground above the 10m contour line (for example CHER refs 02936, 01379, 01346). Archaeological excavations to the south-west of the site and immediately east of the church at Main Street produced evidence consistent with continuous settlement activity from the 13th century onwards (ECB2305) It is therefore thought likely that similar remains could survive within the area under consideration for the present application, and that these could be severely damaged or destroyed by the proposed development. At pre application stage CA advised the applicants archaeological contractor that the site should first be subject to a programme of archaeological trial trench based investigation to gain an understanding of the nature, date, character, extent and condition of archaeological remains that may be present, without which they would object to development from proceeding in this location. Following sight of the geophysical survey results contained within the ‘Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment’ document submitted with this application the CA are content that this can be secured on a post-consent basis through the inclusion of a negative condition, such as the example condition approved by DCLG:
Officer response: A condition is recommended accordingly
5.9 County Education – Early Years Brightfields pre-school currently provides 48 places. There were 29 eligible children living in the locality in autumn 2017 with a current surplus of 19 places. This development is likely to accommodate 56 early years children (185 x 0.30 (or using Hunts approach 185 x 0.25 = 47), of whom 45 (or 38) would be eligible for free entitlement. If this development were consented, it is likely that a project would be required to accommodate these additional children. A project to expand early years provision would be a 1 classroom extension at a total cost of £480,000 and a cost per place of £18,462. Primary Farcet CE Primary School has a capacity of 140 places. The pupil roll in January 2018 was 117 pupils, giving a surplus of 23 places. In addition, the number of pupils living in the school catchment in January 2017 was 98. This development is likely to accommodate 74 children (185 x 0.40 (or using Hunts approach 185 x 0.35 = 65). A project to expand primary provision would be required to accommodate these extra children and would take the form of a 2 classroom extension at a total cost of £1,020,000 and a cost per place of £17,000. Following further discussion with County Education their officers confirm that it appears there is some capacity on the school site for expansion and it is likely that this would be sufficient for this development
Officer response: Given that the number of dwellings is below the 200 unit limit, the costs of future expansion would be secured through CIL rather than S106
5.10 County Highways – Transport Assessment (TA) - County Highways have reviewed the TA. The TA is acceptable from the point of view of CCC’S Transport Assessment team. Further it is the view of County Highways that there are no mitigation measures required to the signals at the A15/Broadway junction.
5.11 County Highways - The access plans indicating the relocation of two raised table features have been through a stage1 audit, and this has been reviewed by the County Councils own safety audit team. In relation to the relocation of the raised table features the safety audit team highlight no safety issues. County Highways add that the proposed junction design of 5.5m wide access road and two 2m footways with 7.5m radii kerbing is as standard and acceptable to serve the number of dwellings proposed. County Council also advise that the vehicle to vehicle visibility is in accordance with the speed of the road (2.4m x 43m for a 30mph road. In fact it is noted that actual available visibility is much greater. County Council Highways recommend a series of conditions and Informatives.
Officers response: Conditions are recommended accordingly
5.12 County Rights of Way - Public Bridleway No. 5 Farcet runs along the south-eastern corner of the application site. The Bridleway also forms part of the National Cycle Network 12 and the Peterborough Green Wheel cycle route. The Definitive Map Team would welcome improvements to this path, where necessary, to aid and improve assess along this named cycle route.
Officer response: The application is for less than 200 units CIL payments cover improvements to footpaths and access. County Waste – No response received
5.13 Environment Agency - No objections – Recommend a series of advisories
5.14 Fenland District Council - No objection
5.15 HDC - Conservation – The proposal does not affect any heritage assets
5.16 HDC Environmental Health (EH) Lighting: - EH advise a condition to require details of any street lighting at the proposed access to the site. This is to ensure the location is fully considered to minimise any impact on adjacent properties.
Officer response: A lighting condition is recommended accordingly
5.17 HDC Environmental Health Noise: - EH advise that any reserved or full application shall be accompanied by an acoustic report completed by a competent person detailing mitigation measures and how the layout and design will ensure that all dwellings and amenity areas meet with government guidelines as determined by noise levels in the World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise and British Standard 8233. With regard to road traffic noise impacts on current residents, Table 9 on page 17 of the noise report indicates that the noise level at the adjacent properties (Nos. 26 And 32 Peterborough Road will not cause an impact to the front of the properties, however to the rear and façade facing the proposed access road there will be a moderate impact. Further in Section 6.1.2 on page 21 of the noise report the noise consultant advises a close boarded fence to screen the vehicles, however the location, length and height of this will need to be demonstrated to ensure protection is afforded to any first floor noise sensitive rooms.
Officer response: Whilst HDC Environmental Health Officers are satisfied that noise impacts can be addressed at a later detailed application stage, planning officers continue to seek assurances from the developer that the impact on nos 26 and 32 Peterborough Road will be acceptable. Notwithstanding the Environmental Health comments, the applicant will be submitting addition information ahead of the planning committee meeting to demonstrate that noise impact will be minimal.
5.18 HDC Environmental Health - Contaminated Land: EH have reviewed the Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment written by LK Consult Ltd (report reference LKC17 1422, dated February 2018) and concur with the findings in that a targeted Phase 2 intrusive ground investigation would be required. Should the LPA be minded to grant permission to this application then a condition is recommended.
Officer response: A condition is recommended accordingly
5.19 HDC Environmental Health - Construction period: EH advise that Construction times and deliveries during the construction and clearance phases should be restricted in line with HDC guidance to the following: 07:00 – 19:00 each day Monday – Friday 07:00 – 13:30 on Saturdays and None on Sundays, Public and Bank Holidays Further EH advise that prior to any work commencing on site a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority (LPA) regarding mitigation measures for the control of pollution (including, but not limited to noise, dust and lighting etc) during the construction and clearance phases.
Officer response: A condition is recommended accordingly
5.20 HDC Environmental Health Air Quality: - It is considered the proposals will not lead to a breach in national objectives or an unacceptable risk from air pollution, however EH state that current advice from public health experts is that the health impacts of AQ should be minimised, even if there is no risk that air quality standards will be breached. EH advise that consideration is given to the application of good design and good practice measures, including the points raised within Section 8.2.7 of the AQ report, especially ensuring good cycling and walking infrastructure to reduce reliance on vehicle use, and the provision of electric vehicle rapid charge points. Officer response: The point raised with regards to air quality are addressed in the main section of the report and will continue to be a consideration at the reserved matters stage.
5.21 HDC - Housing - If this application is acceptable in broader planning terms then the affordable housing to be provided (up to 74 dwellings) would be welcomed.
5.22 HDC Operations - Informal Open Space - Based on 185 dwellings of unknown size properties, this development require in the region of 8800m2 of POS including 3000m2 of continuous green space where children can stretch their legs and play. The Illustrative Master Plan included in the Design and Access Statement shows a large area of green open space and looks big enough to accommodate a play area in the future which is very good providing the proposed dwellings overlook this area. Dimensions hopefully will confirm this on future plans. As there is not very much green space in the north of Farcet existing residents could also benefit from this green space. There is also a good amount of green space running through the development with the SUDS area to one side.
Officer response: A S106 and condition will be used to ensure that this is delivered and maintained
5.23 HDC Operations - Waste – HDC waste team have no comments to make on this application at this stage.
5.24 HDC Sport Development Manager - A site of 185 dwellings would result in us seeking £94,455 as a contribution to formal open space provision offsite to improve the local infrastructure – Specifically Tennis / Cricket Pitch as identified in Sports Facility Strategy section 5.5
Officer response: The applicant is happy to contribute £94,455 towards formal open space. HDC Planning officers have asked HDC’s Sport Development Manager to identify a specific project, if such a project is forthcoming members will be updated accordingly.
2.25 HDC - Trees and Landscaping – The applicants have done all of what was suggested. Recommend a condition relating to the Design Principles pages in the revised DAS.
2.26 HDC - Urban Design - The amendments address the previous comments. A condition is recommended to ensure that all reserved matters applications be in accordance with the broad design principles set out on pages 22 and 24 of the Design and Access Statement Rev A (November 2018),
5.27 Highways England – No objection
5.28 Lead Local Flood Authority - No objection subject to a series of conditions/Informatives
Officer response: Conditions and Informatives are recommended accordingly
5.29 Middle Level Commissioners- No response received
5.30 Natural England (NE) – NE advises that the proposed development in this location triggers Natural England’s Impact Risk Zones (IRZs) for potential recreational pressure impacts to the Nene Washes SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar site. NE add that the LPA should ensure that the development will deliver sufficient level of mitigation to ensure that the proposed development, alone and in-combination, will not have an adverse impact, through increased recreational pressure, on the Nene Washes internationally designated site. NE add that the LPA will need to ensure that the proposed development incorporates sufficient mitigation to address the effects of increased recreational pressure, alone and in-combination, in accordance with relevant Local Plan policy requirements, to demonstrate no adverse impact to the Nene Washes. NE state that the Council, as Competent Authority under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, as amended (the ‘Habitats Regulations’), should have regard to the above when recording their Habitat Regulations Assessment HRA.
Officer response: The LPA have sought the advice of the wildlife trust in this regard. Please refer to the Wildlife Trust comments below.
5.31 Peterborough City Council (PCC) – Highways The local highway authority for the Peterborough Unitary Area has received an update on the transport assessment from the applicant's consultants Sterling Maynard Transportation (SMT). This was in response to concerns PCC raised as to the impact of the residential development traffic on the A605 / B1091 Peterborough Road / B1092 Whittlesey Road roundabout near the Stanground Fire Station, Peterborough. Modifications to the roundabout in the form of increases in the approach widths and flare lengths of 2 of the roundabout arms have been suggested and modelled for junction capacity using Arcady software. SMT has presented the results which show that, with the improvements suggested, the roundabout will experience less queueing and delay than if no improvements are made and provide improvements over the future situation for the two poorest preforming arms of the roundabout. This information has given PCC Local Highway Authority comfort that the impact of the development can be mitigated satisfactorily by the proposed scheme. In respect of the footway from opposite the site entrance area to the footway link parallel to the A605 Stanground Bypass, the applicant has agreed to carry out a scheme to widen the existing footway to 3.0m where possible within the existing highway land. A suitable informal crossing point would be required also to connect the site entrance footway to the widened footway opposite. Should the local planning authority grant consent for this application, it is suggested by PCC planners that both these highway schemes be secured by way of suitably worded planning conditions and that both schemes be in place prior to occupation of the first residential unit.
Officer response: Conditions are recommended accordingly
Impact on Character of Area In an earlier consultation PCC advised that the proposal would harm the character of the village of Farcet and whilst the development is not located on land designated as a Green Wedge, it would reduce the separation between the village of Farcet and Stanground South to the detriment of the village character of Farcet.
5.32 Peterborough Cllr Brian Rush – The increase of traffic, from this proposed development, will put a severe strain on an already busy road that sees cars backed up along Peterborough Road and Whittlesey Road from the Stanground fire station roundabout. When the Cardea development was planned the access road onto the site from Peterborough Road would be for buses and emergency vehicles only so as not to worsen an already busy road. The application does not consider the impact of increased queuing at the pedestrian crossing near Stanground Academy. Crow-fly catchments to walking and cycling distances are laughable, how can anybody cross the Stanground by-pass by these measures and get to say, Morrisons. These are not true distances and would promote driving to the store. Transport assessments do not take into account possible future developments in Farcet, Yaxley and Great Haddon. The proposal would reduce the separation between Stanground South and Farcet.
5.33 Police – No objection
5.34 Wildlife Trust (WT) – Impact on IRZ - WT note that Natural England have been consulted and advised that the development needs to deliver sufficient mitigation to ensure no adverse impacts through increased recreational pressure on the Nene Washes internationally designated site. When IRZs flag up the need for impacts of residential development to be considered, this should include consideration of recreational pressure impacts. The FPCR technical note dated 30/10/18 has set out reasons (section 1.10-1.13) why the development should be considered likely to have no significant impacts on the Nene Washes. This has however failed to refer to the Wildlife Trust owned and managed area of western end of the Nene Washes, known as Stanground Wash Nature Reserve. Stanground Wash is the closest part of the Nene Washes to Peterborough city and to the new development. It is easily accessible to the public in the local area with some parking facilities adjacent to the south, and within potential walking and cycling distance from the new development (2.4km away). The nature reserve is not actively promoted as a “honey pot” site, but is attractive to visitors as it provides access to the Nene Washes for bird watching and views of the Cathedral and River Nene. It has areas of wet grassland and dry grassland and ditches supporting wetland flora and invertebrates. The wet grassland hosts ground nesting birds and winter wildfowl which can easily be disturbed by people and dogs so as stated in the technical note is sensitive to disturbance. As site managers, the Wildlife Trust consider that the proposed development could result in a small increase in usage of the reserve. However, given the existing large local population, this would be a relatively small additional impact and there are also other alternative greenspaces nearby (e.g. Crown Lakes Country Park). Therefore provided the greenspace within the proposed development also provides an alternative recreational area for the new residents, the development should be able avoid adverse impacts on the Nene Washes.
5.35 Wildlife Trust - Ecology. The WT have seen the outstanding bat survey results and are satisfied with the conclusions of the bat survey and the proposed mitigation. WT have no comments to make with respect to impacts on protected species.
5.36 Wildlife Trust Biodiversity - Impact Assessment - The Wildlife Trust have received a revised version of the biodiversity impact assessment calculator and are satisfied that it now demonstrates that the development can deliver a net gain in biodiversity. The WT ask that if permission is granted, conditions are appended to ensure that such a scheme is delivered on site.
6. REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 377 Neighbours consulted on the 27th July and again on the 21st November 2018. In addition to the above, the application was also published in the Hunts Post and 8 site notices have been posted. The LPA have received
6.2 1 letter in support • The village would benefit from this expansion as long as planning includes more amenities for the use of the village and its residents • The entrance would benefit from a roundabout and or traffic lights
6.3 139 letters Objecting • The developers have failed to demonstrate a need for this development • The property market is at a standstill • No requirement for cheap housing as 5000 houses due to be built in great Haddon • Will make the roads far too busy • 185 properties (@270 vehicles) especially at peak times would increase congestion • No account has been made for the traffic from the numerous developments that are either just completing or are undergoing off Peterborough Road in both Yaxley and Stanground, including new industrial area in Yaxley. • Congestion is particularly unbearable when the Whittlesey washes flood or there is any problem on the Peterborough Parkways. • One road in and out of the proposed development will lead the elderly and vulnerable at risk in times of adverse weather and other similar situations • Will be the largest single area of Farcet that is cut off • The build up of traffic outside my property will restrict my access • Peterborough City Council have stated that the gated road to Cardea will remain closed off as Peterborough cannot cope with the traffic • The access onto Peterborough Road from the development is close to a blind bend • If the development went ahead access should not be from Peterborough Road • The section of Peterborough Road where the service road is planned has had numerous accidents - the two houses to be knocked down have over 40 accidents recorded • Would be road safety issues for people who already ride their horses around and through the village • Concerned as how I will access my property no32 Peterborough Road - share access with the property to be demolished • There is a lot of speeding traffic through Farcet - specifically motorist feel inconvenienced by having to stick to the average speed cameras in Stanground/Cardea and thus speed up. • There are too many HGVs and unsociable traffic • Potentially dangerous for children crossing specifically in rush hour • Will impact on children walking to Stanground Academy / Farcet Primary School + other pedestrians and cyclists due to fumes etc caused by standing traffic • The school and pre school does not have capacity • The other two nearest primary schools are also at full capacity due to the Cardea Development • Doctors surgery is close to full capacity - they are not taking new patients • There is no dentist - I have to travel 13 miles to a dentist • There are no facilities for children or clubs to get them off of the streets (just rainbows and brownies) • Consideration for additional school, shops and doctors surgery needs to be made to support such a massive application • There is no potential to make the primary school any bigger • Gladman have not researched the area properly - The village does not have a pub or a takeaway • The traffic assessment is incomplete, it does not include traffic to/from St Mary's Street on which a busy primary school is located - does not include any traffic assessment between the hours of 3 and 4pm when the road is at its busiest • The traffic assessment makes no mention of the 2 new housing development along Peterborough Road or the changes to the local road network as part of the Great Haddon development • Would question whether consideration has been made for the increased traffic during the winter when the vegetable producer from Yaxley start receiving and delivering their produce • The leaflet sent out by Gladman was based on outdated facts and information • The visual assessment basically concludes - the sites visual amenity is being ruined by new development already so we might as well finish the job • The proposal is not sustainable - most journey will need to be made by car • The No5 Stagecoach bus is already crowded at peak times and this development would add to this - there are 3 buses an hour and they are nearly always full • Because of the size of development it is not economically viable for the developer to pay for a new school or doctors surgery or built a new road system • The proposal will put a strain on local businesses which are not big enough to cope • Any extra money provided by the developers for infrastructure improvement will go to HDC - thus Farcet itself may not receive any extra benefits at all • Will significantly undermine the quality of life for those already living in Farcet and surrounding areas and those than plan to move here • Will result in general disturbance to the area though noise, vibrations and light pollution (vehicle headlights/street lighting) • General amenity will be harmed by a loss of privacy • Will breach my personal space and overshadow my property • There will be a loss of sunlight/daylight • The development will expose the rear of the properties surrounding the development causing a security risk • Proposed walk way on Peterborough Road opposite property will cause an increase in anti social behaviour • Impact on St Marys Close Cul deSac • Noise and disturbance from building work would have an impact on residents and school children trying to study • Unconducive to community cohesiveness and identity • Will be a significant change to the open countryside • Will have a significant detrimental visual impact for those residents living adjacent to the development, as well as to all residents who enjoy the rural aspect of the village, especially from the green-wheel cycle path and the school field • Development is also too close to the natural footpath next to the river which is currently a calm quiet place to walk. • Loss of view and wildlife will impact on metal wellbeing • Will result in a loss of separation from Peterborough • Huntingdonshire District Council has already judged Farcet as not suitable for development • The site was rejected in the October 2017 Land Availability Assessment - 'the site is not suitable for development as it forms a landscape buffer between Farcet and the more dense development of Peterborough' • Appears to be very overcrowded • Development would add 185 houses to a village with 780 houses - this is an increase of 25% which will completely change the character of the village • Farcet will lose its identity • Keep Farcet a village • Properties will spoil countryside views • The site is not allocated for development within the adopted Local Plan for Huntingdonshire • The site is within the countryside. • The National Planning Policy Framework indicates that planning permission should only be granted if development is in accordance with the Local Plan. This is contrary to the Local Plan • Consider that the adverse significantly outweigh the benefits • Public consultation resulted in 85% of the responses objecting to the scheme • Do not consider that the public right of way in place of the private right of way is deliverable • Premature to determine an application which is of such significant size in relation to the host settlement whilst the new local plan is emerging • The recent Park Farm and Cardea estates have impacted on raising the water table - the development would contribute in raising the flood risk to the locality. • The flood risk assessment is wrong - the field bounding the site to the south floods every year for approximately 5 months a year and has an area where crops will not grow in due to the water logging • The area for SUDs is likely to be insufficient as it will already be full of water • The ditches fill every year, the arable drainage system has collapsed in places, exacerbating waterlogging • Water pressure is poor on Peterborough Road + decreases everytime more houses are built • The sewage systems may get overloaded • Proposed development is site on an important inter-fen area where the lowland clays meet the fenland peat - site has a mixed ecology and wildlife which cannot be found in the fens or in the lowlands • There is a den of foxes residing close to one of the major pedestrian links and would not be able to successfully migrate into the waterlogged soils of the great fen • Fenland birds utilize the lowland areas • Have witnessed Red kites, Frogs, Great Crested Newts, Owls, Kestrals and bats. • It is a fact that there are Great Crested Newts in the area, and although the field grows crops there are still Bees Butterflies and other Bug's and insects in the field • The land will result in the loss of high grade agricultural land - land should be used for food production • There are plenty of brownfield sites in the area (eg the old brick pits) • Hedges around site must remain • In one report - it is stated that the land is moderately high risk of natural ground subsidence • The Parish Plan does not agree to this development, residents voted against further large scale housing in the village • Farcet does not need more green spaces, more play areas or social housing or a new well defined edge • What we need is a play area for our kids - why not build that on that field • In addition a petition with 190 signatures has been submitted objecting to the application.
7. ASSESSMENT
7.1 As set out in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (Section 38(6)) planning applications should be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. This is reiterated within paragraphs 2, 11, 12 and 47 of the NPPF 2018. Under section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in dealing with planning applications the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. The development plan is defined in Section 28(3)(b) of the 2004 Act as “the development plan documents (taken as a whole) that have been adopted or approved in that area. In Huntingdonshire the Development Plan consists of: • Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 (Parts 1 and 2) • Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration 2002 • Adopted Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2009) • Huntingdonshire West Area Action Plan 2011 • Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan Core Strategy 2011 • St Neots Neighbourhood Plan • Godmanchester Neighbourhood Plan • Houghton and Wyton Neighbourhood Plan
7.2 The statutory term ‘material considerations’ has been broadly construed to include any consideration relevant in the circumstances which bears on the use or development of land; Cala Homes (South) Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2011] EWHC 97 (Admin); [2011] 1 P. & C.R. 22, per Lindblom J. Whilst accepting that the NPPF does not change the statutory status of the Development Plan, paragraph 2 confirms that it is a material consideration and significant weight is given to it in determining applications.
Housing Supply Policies:
7.3 In order to satisfy the requirements of the NPPF to boost housing supply the Council must demonstrate an up-to-date five year supply of deliverable housing sites to meet its objectively assessed need, with an additional buffer to ensure choice and competition in the market for land; this requirement is set out in paragraph 73 of the NPPF 2018.
7.4 Due to under delivery in recent years the buffer to be applied for the District is 20%. The December 2018 Annual Monitoring Review applies the 20% buffer and demonstrates that the Council has a five year supply of housing land.
7.5 The Development Plan policies relevant to the supply of housing (EN17 and H23 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) and CS2 and CS3 of the Huntingdonshire Core Strategy (2009)) were set against a lower Objectively Assessed Need figure such that strict application of these policies would result in failure to achieve the objectively assessed housing need figure that the Council currently has identified as part of the emerging Local Plan to 2036.
7.6 These policies are therefore no longer fully up-to-date or consistent with the NPPF and, at this time and until the Council adopts the Local Plan to 2036 with up-to-date policies, the 'tilted balance' as set out within the 4th bullet point of paragraph 11 is engaged.
7.7 For decision-taking this means granting permission in instances where there are no relevant Development Plan policies or the policies which are most important in determining the application are out-of- date, unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits (having regard to the Framework policies taken as a whole), or specific polices of the Framework indicate development should be restricted.
7.8 This report assesses the following principal, important and controversial issues: • The principle of development; • The Effect of the Proposal on the Character and Appearance of the Countryside • Accessibility and the impact on highway safety; • Impact on the Natural Environment • Impact on the Historic Environment • The impact on the amenity of neighbours.
7.9 The fundamental assessments to be made: -Whether the proposed development conflicts with the policies outlined in the Development Plan; -If a conflict is identified, whether the application can be considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan when taken as a whole; - If the proposed development is not in accordance with the Development Plan, whether there are any material considerations, including emerging policies in the Local Plan to 2036 and the NPPF, which indicate that planning permission should be granted.
Policy Weighting:
7.10 Paragraph 215 of the NPPF 2018 advises that due weight should be given to Development Plan policies which pre-date the NPPF according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. Paragraph 48 of the NPPF 2018 identifies the weight to be given to emerging plans. The LPA consider the Local Plan to 2036 to be a sound plan and it was submitted for examination on the 29th March 2018. The plan has therefore reached an advanced stage and is consistent with the policies set out within the NPPF.
7.11 The LPA considers that the NPPF 2018 has a slightly more positive approach to development in the countryside than the restrictive development plan policies which have a specific countryside focus (H23, EN17 and CS3), and this partial inconsistency requires a reduction in the weight afforded to those policies (from 'full' to 'significant' when assessing development proposals.
7.12 Policy En25 of the Local Plan 1995; HL5 and HL6 of the Local Plan Alteration 2002; CS1 of the Core Strategy (2009) are all broadly consistent with the NPPF and these policies can therefore be afforded full weight.
7.13 Emerging policies LP2, LP11, LP12 and LP13 follow a similar vein and are also considered to be broadly consistent with the NPPF. As the emerging policies are yet to be subjected to Examination, the LPA considers that moderate weight can be afforded.
7.14 Saved policy OB2 of the Huntingdon Local Plan Alterations (2002) is considered to be consistent with the social dimension of the NPPF and as such is afforded significant weight.
7.15 Policy CS1 of the adopted Core Strategy (2009) sets out the criteria for sustainable development and is broadly consistent with the NPPF. Having regard to the NPPF paragraph 215, this policy is considered to have full weight, given the NPPF requirement for development to be sustainable and jointly and simultaneously achieve economic, social and environmental gains.
7.16 CS4 of the Core Strategy (2009) seeks to secure a target of 40% affordable housing provision for residential development (of above 15 or more homes) subject to, amongst other considerations, viability. CS4 is based upon identified need and it is therefore considered that policy CS4 can be given significant weight given the consistency with section 5 of the NPPF 2018. Emerging Policy LP25 also identifies a 40% target of affordable homes, but with a lower threshold for qualifying development (11 homes/over 1000m2 of residential floor space). Both policies are therefore afforded significant weight.
7.17 Policy CS10 of the Core Strategy (2009) is the relevant policy for securing contributions to infrastructure requirements, This policy, along with the Developer Contributions SPD (2011) and emerging policy LP4 are considered to be consistent with paragraphs 54 and 56 of the NPPF 2018 and are afforded significant weight.
Principle of development:
Sustainable Development:
7.18 Policy CS1 of the adopted Core Strategy 2009 sets out the criteria for sustainable development and is broadly consistent with the NPPF. Having regard to the NPPF paragraph 216, this policy is considered to have full weight, given the NPPF requirement for development to be sustainable and jointly and simultaneously achieve economic, social and environmental gains.
Loss of agricultural land:
7.19 Agricultural Land Classification provides a framework for classifying land according to the extent to which its physical or chemical characteristics impose long term limitations on agricultural use. The classification is well established and provides an appropriate framework for determining the physical quality of land at national, regional and local levels. Grade 1 is excellent quality agricultural land and Grade 5 is land of very poor quality. Grade 3 constitutes about half of the agricultural land in England and Wales, is subdivided into two subgrades – 3a and 3b. The NPPF 2018 advises in paragraph 170 that the economic and other benefits of best and most versatile agricultural land should be taken into account. The NPPF 2018 within paragraph 171 (footnote 53) states that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, Local Planning Authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to those of higher quality.
7.20 The Council’s Local Plan to 2036 – Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Scoping Report, sets out that there is little brownfield land in the District and that some 79% of the brownfield land within the area is located at former RAF bases at Alconbury and Upwood, which are proposed allocations for development of mainly housing, with the land at Alconbury benefitting from planning permissions. This Scoping Report explains the strong agricultural history of the District, with most of Huntingdonshire comprising of good quality agricultural land, mostly classed as Grade 2 and Grade 2 with only small areas classed as Grade 4.
7.21 Para. 3.11 of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Scoping Report sets out that 98% of all agricultural land in the district is classed as grades 1, 2 or 3, with 15% classed as grade 1. The SA scoping report does not differentiate between grades 3a and 3b, and therefore to determine a percentage for Best Most Versatile (BMV) land some assumptions have to be made. The proportion of BMV land is estimated at 77%, derived as follows: take 15% off 98% to give the percentage of land within grades 2 and 3 (83%), assume an equal split between grades 2 and 3 (41.5% each)
7.22 The NPPF advises in para. 171 that the economic and other benefits of developing on agricultural BMV land should be taken into account and that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, LPAs should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality. Annex 2 of the NPPF defines BMV land to be land in Grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification.
7.23 The Council's mapping system classifies the application site as (apart from a small slither of Grade 3) predominantly Grade 4 Agricultural Land. The site itself covers 10.7 hectares. The Council recognises that the proposal could, lead to the loss of some BMV land, however due to the amount of grade 3, it is not considered that the loss of that land to residential is 'significant' in the context of the para. 171 when taking into account the threshold for consultation with Natural England is 20ha of BMV land proposed for development.
7.24 The majority of land within the surrounding area of the site and wider countryside around Huntingdon is Grade 2 land and above with very few areas of either non-agricultural land or Grade 4 land.
7.25 The DEFRA provisional Agricultural Land Classification for the site is Grade 2 agricultural land. Grade 2 soil is very good quality agricultural land with minor limitations which affect crop yield, cultivations or harvesting. A wide range of agricultural and horticultural crops can usually be grown, but on some land in this grade there may be reduced flexibility due to difficulties with the production of more demanding crops such as winter harvested vegetables and arable root crops.
7.26 The loss of the identified Grade 3 and Grade 4 areas of agricultural land is not considered to be significant when assessed with the remaining availability of good agricultural land in the vicinity and wider local area. It is unlikely that any countryside sites around Huntingdon to come forward for this proposed development would result in the loss of a lower value of agricultural land. The application site and loss of 10.7ha of agricultural land is not considered to be significant in this context.
7.27 There is no relevant Development Plan policy relating to loss of agricultural land. The NPPF (2018) paragraph 171 (footnote 53) states that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality. There is considered to be limited conflict with this part of the NPPF 2018 due to the size and scale of the site and the lack of availability of lower grade land.
7.28 Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 (as amended March 2018 for submission) policy LP11 states that all development in the countryside must seek to use land of lower agricultural value in preference to land of higher value and avoid the irreversible loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 1 to 3a) where possible. For the reasons set out above, there is considered to be limited conflict with this policy due to the size and scale of the site, the lack of availability of lower grade land and elsewhere in this report it is concluded that the development can be considered to be necessary. The proposed main modifications to policies LP2 and LP11 (to replace protect with recognise) as set out in paragraph 3.5 above, will be subject to further consultation. The Local Planning Authority has agreed the changes. In light of this, it is considered that moderate rather than significant weight should be afforded to these policies as modified.
Development in the countryside:
Policy Background:
7.29 Policies H23, En17 and CS3 have environmental objectives which are all firmly aimed at protecting the environment and landscape character. Core principles of the NPPF are to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and differing roles and character of the areas whilst supporting local communities in rural areas. The NPPF therefore has a slightly more positive approach to development in the countryside than the restrictive development plan policies, and this partial inconsistency requires a reduction in weight.
7.30 Whilst there is some difference in the wording between the policies written before the NPPF publication and the precise wording of the NPPF, the countryside policies are considered to accord with one of the overarching aims of the NPPF. As such, having regard to paragraph 215 of the NPPF, it is considered that when assessing impacts of development upon the countryside these policies can be afforded significant (reduced from full) weight.
7.31 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF says that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by, amongst others, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils. It is also a Core Principle of the NPPF that the planning system should recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside.
7.32 The Council in its preparation of the draft Local Plan to 2036 undertook a Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessments (HELAA) to determine the suitability of a range of sites for allocation in the emerging draft Local Plan to 2036, including the subject site. This document was published for public consultation in October 2017.
7.33 The document describes the site as being situated to the east of Peterborough Road on the north-eastern edge of Farcet. The HELAA adds that the site is Greenfield but is bound to the south and west by residential development. The HELAA goes on to state that the site has reasonable access to local services and facilities of Farcet and that Peterborough is close by. Notwithstanding the HELAA concludes that the site is not considered suitable for development as it forms a landscape buffer between Farcet and the more dense development of Peterborough. The site the subject of this application is far smaller than that considered through the HELAA
7.34 Turning to the application the subject of this report, officers have assessed the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the countryside, have undertaken site visits and have had regard to the HELAA document referred to above.
Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA):
7.35 The application is supported by a Landscape Visual Assessment (LVA) dated April 2018. This document has been assessed by HDC Landscape and the overall conclusions of the LVA at paras 6.1.1 – 6.1.4 are not disputed. In summary: 6.1.1” The impact on landscape character is largely confined to the immediate vicinity of the site” 6.1.2 ”The overall visual effects caused by the development are considered to be limited to its immediate locality” “….. the addition of mitigation planting between the site boundary and existing development and to the boundaries of the site, potential impacts would be reduced as it becomes established with the added advantage of defining and enhancing the urban edge of the existing village.” 6.1.3 “………. has the potential to create a long term gain to the landscape structure of the area resulting in an overall slight beneficial effect.” 6.1.4” Where views occur, they are partially screened by intervening vegetation and seen within the context of existing development.” “….. mitigation planting to the boundaries of the site would visually combine with existing vegetation to further define the development boundary.”
The design of the proposal and visual impact:
7.36 Whilst the application is in outline only, a 1. Design and Access Statement December 2018 Rev B 2. Development Framework Plan MC10325 LSC 005 DFP Rev P 3. Parameters Plan MC10325 LSC 009 R Rev A have been provided to demonstrate a potential layout of the proposed built form, parking, circulatory routes and open spaces within the site, in order to ensure a full evaluation of whether the proposed development can be satisfactorily undertaken.
7.37 Although indicative, the Sketch Masterplan depicts how the quantum of development could be achieved through mostly two storey properties with the proposed 185 units equating to 30dph (dwellings per hectare) based on the 6.16 ha net residential area and 17.29dph based on the gross site area. This ratio would conform to policy HL6 of the Local Plan Alterations (2002) and sit comfortably with paragraph 122 of NPPF 2018. Notwithstanding this, the scale would be carefully considered in detail as part of a reserved matters application.
7.38 The Sketch Masterplan indicates that the required open space provision (HDC Operations identified approximately 8800m2, including 3000m2 of continuous green space is required by the development) could also be achieved within the application site. The Council Urban Design and Landscape Officer consider that the indicative plan adequately demonstrates that, subject to landscaping conditions, the quantum of development and necessary supporting green space infrastructure can be achieved within the confines of the site. The open space indicated above would need to be provided and maintained in accordance with the Developer Contributions SPD (2011). The precise details of the open space would be secured through a S106 agreement and reserved matters details. In accordance with the Developers Contributions SPD (2011), it is not necessary for an on-site equipped play area to be provided for this scale of development.
7.39 The proposed development is therefore considered to be acceptable with regards to the impact upon visual amenity, and the character of the area, and accords with the aims of the NPPF (2018), policies En18 and E20 of the Local Plan (1995), policies HL5 and HL6 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan Alteration (2002) and policies LP12, LP13, LP14 and LP33 of the Proposed Submission 2017 Local Plan to 2036 (as amended). In taking account of paragraphs 47 and 213 of the NPPF (2018), it is considered that policies En18 and En20 of the Local Plan 1995, policies HL5 and HL6 of the Local Plan Alteration 2002 and policy CS1 of the Core Strategy 2009 are all broadly consistent with the NPPF (2018) and can therefore be afforded full weight. Policies LP12, LP13 and LP14 of the emerging Local Plan to 2036 have been subjected to Examination, and the Inspector's initial findings are that the plan can be made sound by main modifications. None of these modifications relate to these policies, therefore when taking account of paragraph 48 and footnote 22 of the NPPF (2018); it is considered that this policy can be attributed significant weight.
7.40 The details around ‘Appearance', 'landscaping', 'layout' and 'scale' would be considered as part of reserved matters should outline permission be granted.
Accessibility and impact on highway safety:
7.41 Paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets the test that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of the development would be severe.
7.42 The main issue is whether there would be any severe adverse effects on highway safety and traffic flow arising from the proposed development of up to 185 homes. In determining whether the development would have severe residual cumulative impacts, Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) were consulted on a Transport Assessment.
7.43 CCC and PCC Highways contend, having reviewed the Transport Assessment and additional information provided by the applicant, that they are satisfied with the information provided. CCC and PCC Highways have no objection to this proposal subject to mitigation being secured through by a planning condition. The mitigation proposed is listed in the consultation response section above. Officers consider that the highway requests conform to the legal test for when you can use a planning condition, namely: 1. necessary; 2. relevant to planning and; 3. to the development to be permitted; 4. enforceable; 5. precise and; 6. reasonable in all other respects.”
7.44 They key points to note: - A 5.5 metre vehicular access to the site is to be provided from Peterborough Road by way of a new junction. This junction will have a 7.5 metre radius - Pedestrian footways will be provided along both sides of the access road to tie in with existing - 2.4 x 43 metre visibility splays which are consistent with the speed limit - Existing speed cushions to be relocated to positions to be agreed with the highway authority - A potential 89 vehicle trips are forecast during the morning peak hour and 91 vehicle trips during the evening peak in association with this development - The modelling undertaken by the applicant demonstrates that the junctions of A1139 on slip / A605 roundabout, B1091/B1092 / A605 roundabout, B1091 / Main Street priority junction, A15 / B1091 / London Road Signals has sufficient capacity and that the residual impact of the proposal on these junctions are acceptable. - Pedestrian access is proposed by way of the main access to the development site, from existing public Bridleway / Green Wheel Cycleway at the south east corner of the site. In addition and existing site access track will provide a vehicle free link to the site - Relatively sustainable location – the site is well located in terms of access to facilities and the public transport network namely bus number 5 run along Peterborough Road between Peterborough city centre and Yaxley every 20 minutes.
Parking:
7.45 Precise details will be considered at the Reserved Matters application stage. Notwithstanding, the applicant recognises the need to provide a minimum of 2 spaces per dwelling in a location like this, a provision which officers concur with.
7.46 Ultimately, the proposed development would therefore accord with policies T18 and T19 of the Local Plan (1995), policy CS1 of the Core Strategy (2009), and policies LP17 and LP18 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 (as amended March 2018 for submission). Policies T18 and T19 of the Local Plan (1995), CS1 of the Core Strategy (2009) are broadly consistent with the aims of the NPPF (2018) to promote use of sustainable transport modes and ensure safe access for all users. In taking account of paragraphs 47 and 213 of the NPPF (2018), it is considered that these policies can therefore be afforded full weight in this regard. Policies LP17 and LP18 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 (as amended March 2018 for submission) are also considered to be broadly consistent with the NPPF, broadly consistent with the NPPF, have been subject to Examination and the Inspector has not requested any modifications to these policies, therefore when taking account of paragraph 48 and footnote 22 of the NPPF (2018), it is considered that these emerging policies can be attributed significant weight.
Impact on the Natural Environment:
7.47 The importance of the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside is outlined in paragraph 170 of NPPF 2018 and echoed in emerging policy LP11. In addition Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that 'the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: *protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; *recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services; *minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible.'
Impact on trees and hedgerows:
7.48 It is noted that none of the trees within the application site are protected by Tree Preservation Orders.
7.49 The supporting Arboricultural Impact Assessment (FPCR) dated April 2018 notes that the proposals would require the removal of two garden hedgerows H5 and H6 to provide the main vehicular access from Peterborough Road. Specifically, the proposals have shown that two semi-detached dwellings would be demolished to provide the access point. The two hedgerows were situated within the rear gardens of these properties and their removal would be unavoidable. More importantly, officers accept that the casualties are considered to be of low quality and thus raise no objection from an arboricultural perspective. Any loss of vegetation will be offset by new landscaping within the development site (to be considered and secured at reserved matters stage, and if necessary, by condition).
7.50 Subject to the imposition of conditions relating to a schedule and timing of works, details of tree/hedge protection, methods of construction close to trees and the location of service trenches, HDC Landscape raised no objection to the proposed development.
Ecology and biodiversity:
7.51 Local Plan policy En22 requires appropriate account be taken of nature and wildlife conservation and policy LP28 of the emerging Local Plan to 2036 aims to conserve and enhance biodiversity and advises that opportunities should be taken to achieve beneficial measures within the design and layout of development and that existing features of biodiversity value should be maintained and enhanced.
7.52 There are six statutory sites of international importance within a 15km radius of the site. The closest is the Nene Washes SPA, Ramsar, SAC and SSSI that constitutes an area of seasonally flooding grassland and grazing marsh important for the populations of overwintering and breeding wildfowl. Orton Pit (SAC,SSS1) is located 2.5 km west of the site and contains an extensive pond system that supports significant populations of stonewort and a large population of great crested newts. Three County Wildlife Sites are within 1km of the site. These are Crown Pit, Fletton Lake and Stanground Newt Ponds.
7.53 It is recognised that the proposed development could result in a small increase in usage of the different natural assets. It is critical, therefore, that the greenspace within the proposed development provides an alternative recreational area for the new residents. The Wildlife Trust are satisfied that if this happens the development should be able avoid any adverse impacts on the above mentioned sites. This will be addressed further at the reserved matters stage.
7.54 An Ecological Appraisal Report has been submitted with the application and updated since by the submission of further bat surveys, by a FPCR technical note dated 30/10/18 and by submission of a biodiversity impact assessment calculator.
Wild Bird Species:
7.55 All wild bird species are protected while nesting by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This legislation protect wild birds and their eggs from intentional harm, and makes it illegal to intentionally take, damage or destroy a wild bird nest while it is in use or being built. It is recognised that the proposal will involve the removal of woody vegetation and it is recommended that such work is carried out outside of the nesting season.
Badgers:
7.56 All badgers are protected (Badger Act 1992) FPCR advise that no records of badgers were returned from within 1km of the site.
Reptiles:
7.57 All British Reptiles are protected from killing and injury under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and are listed as species of principle importance for the conservation of biodiversity under the NERC Act, indicating that public bodies, such as the local planning authority have a duty to have regard to the conservation of these species. Consultation returned two records of common lizard, both located over 500 metres north west of the site. Habitats within the site were considered generally unsuitable for use by reptile species, being comprised mostly of intensively managed arable habitats. However the localised areas associated with the margins of the hedgerows and ditches do provide some suitable habitat for reptiles. The Wildlife trust accept FPCR conclusions that the dominant habitats affected by the development are unsuitable for common species of reptiles, due to the lack of structural diversity and the mosaic of habitats required by reptiles for basking, foraging and shelter.
Bats:
7.58 All species of bats and their roost are listed on the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 making it illegal to deliberately disturb any such animal or damage / destroy a breeding site or roosting place of any such animal. Furthermore, bats are also afforded full legal protection under schedule 5 of the wildlife and countryside act 1981 (as amended). Under this legislation it is illegal to recklessly or intentionally kill, injure or take a species of bat recklessly of intentionally damage or obstruct access to or destroy any place of shelter or protection or disturb any animal whilst they are occupying such a place of shelter or protection.
7.59 FPCR found two records of bats within 1km of the site comprising a pipistrelle and an unknown bat species both located to the north west of the site.
7.60 FPCR have undertaken surveys of no’s 28 and 30 Peterborough Road (the 2 buildings to be demolished) FPCR observed no bats emerging or entering the buildings and concluded that the buildings offered potential to support roosting bats.
7.61 Notwithstanding the above it is recognised that bats use a wide variety of landscapes and / or habitats throughout the year for roosting, foraging and commuting. Farmland habitats can provide suitable quality foraging habitats for a range of bats, particularly for generalist species such as common pipistrelle. Arable land can for example provide good foraging habitats if wide species rich field margins are present with well-connected hedgerows which also provide corridors of movement to allow bats to commute through the landscape. Overall the results of the activity and static surveys have identified the south and western boundaries as providing a foraging and commuting resource of local value to the local bat population. NPCR state and the wildlife trust agree that through the application of appropriate mitigation potential effects to the bat population are likely to be negligible to minor positive.
Great Crested Newts (GNC):
7.62 Great Crested Newts are afforded full protection under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 19781 (as amended) and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended)
7.63 Five records of GNC were returned within 1km ranging from 560-920 metres northwest of the site. More specifically there were six water bodies within 500 metres radius of the site FPCR considered that the roads and hard standing lying in between the off site ponds and the site itself are considered to form considerable barriers to dispersal for any GNC present in these ponds. Further the arable habitat which comprises the majority of the site is considered sub optimal terrestrial habitat for nests Overall FPCR conclude that it is highly unlikely for GNC to be present on site and the presence of this species has not been identified as an ecological constraint to this development proposal
7.64 The Natural England and the Wildlife Trust have reviewed the ecology submission and are satisfied at this outline stage that subject to conditions no harm will be caused to protected species.
7.65 Further the Wildlife Trust have reviewed the biodiversity impact assessment calculator and in line with national planning policy are satisfied subject to a condition (to secure a detailed landscape and ecological mitigation and management plan) that the development can deliver a net gain in biodiversity.
7.66 Ultimately, the NPPF 2018 provides that planning decisions should enhance the natural and local environment by providing net gains for biodiversity. The NPPF 2018 removes the previous ‘where possible’ reference to providing net gains within the NPPF 2012. The ecological and biodiversity impacts of the proposed development are considered to be compliant with policies En18, En22 and En23 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 and policy CS1 of the Core Strategy 2009. These Development Plan policies are not considered to be fully compliant with the NPPF 2018 as they do not make specific reference to providing net gains for biodiversity. As such they can be afforded only significant rather than full weight.
7.67 The Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 (as amended March 2018 for submission) policies LP2, LP12 and LP32 relate to biodiversity considerations as part of development proposals. The proposed development is considered to comply with these policies. The proposed main modification to policy LP2 as set out under the policy section above has been subject to further consultation. The Local Planning Authority has agreed the changes. In light of this, it is considered that moderate rather than significant weight should be afforded to this policy as modified. The Inspector has not required any main modifications to LP12 and LP32 and therefore significant weight is afforded to these.
Impact on the Historic Environment:
7.68 The application is supported by an Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment.
Archaeology:
7.69 County Council records indicate that the site lies in an area of archaeological potential located on the Peterborough fen edge and 250m north-east of the 12th century Church of St Mary (Cambridgeshire Historic Environment Record reference 10561), on the northern periphery of the medieval village of Farcet. County Archaeology advise that Fen-edge locations such as this were long favoured for settlement and this is evidenced in the proliferation of finds of Bronze Age and Roman date in the vicinity of the village, roughly correlating to the edge of the higher ground above the 10m contour line (for example CHER refs 02936, 01379, 01346). County Archaeology advise that excavations to the south-west of the site and immediately east of the church at Main Street produced evidence consistent with continuous settlement activity from the 13th century onwards (ECB2305). It is therefore thought likely that similar remains could survive within the area under consideration for the present application, and that these could be severely damaged or destroyed by the proposed development. Taking this into account County Archaeology advise that the site should first be subject to a programme of archaeological trial trench based investigation to gain an understanding of the nature, date, character, extent and condition of archaeological remains that may be present. County are satisfied that this can be secured on a post-consent basis through the inclusion of a negative condition, such as the example condition approved by DCLG: A condition is recommended accordingly.
7.70 In addition the Council is required by Sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the settings of listed buildings and the character and appearance of a Conservation Area.
7.71 With regards to designated heritage assets, the Archaeology and Built Heritage Assessment identified the Grade II* Listed Church of St Mary and the Grade II Listed Windmill at Mill House as building that may be impacted upon. The document concluded that there would be no harm to the significance of these assets. The document has been assessed and the conclusions are not disputed. Specifically given the above the Council’s Conservation Team is satisfied given the scale, nature and location of the proposed development that it would not affect the setting of any grade II or grade II* listed building and it would not affect the character and appearance of the Farcet Conservation Area.
7.72 In taking account of paragraphs 47 and 213 of the NPPF (2018), it is considered that policies En12 and En13 of the Local Plan 1995 and policy CS1 of the Core Strategy 2009 are broadly consistent with the NPPF 2018 and can therefore be afforded full weight. Policy LP36 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 (as amended March 2018 for submission) is also considered to be broadly consistent with the NPPF, has been subject to Examination and the Inspector has not requested any modifications to this policy, therefore when taking account of paragraph 48 and footnote 22 of the NPPF (2018), it is considered that this policy can be attributed significant weight.
The impact on the amenity of neighbours:
7.73 The NPPF 2018 and the Council’s planning policies (policies H31, H37 and H38) seek to ensure developments do not have an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity for both existing and future occupiers. LP15 of the emerging Local Plan to 2036 also seeks to protect amenity of neighbouring user but can only be afforded reduced weight which as an emerging policy may be subject to change seek to ensure residential amenity is not harmed as a result of development; the NPPF within the core principles states that planning should "always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings".
7.74 It is accepted that neighbouring residents of the application site will experience a change in outlook, however it is considered that this change would not necessarily equate to significant harm. The indicative drawing included in the Design and Access Statement Revision A (November 2018) Rev A demonstrates that in most instances a minimum garden depth of 10m and satisfactory separation distances between the proposed dwellings and the existing neighbouring dwellings can be achieved. Notwithstanding the reserved matters application/s will fully assess the impacts of matters such as overlooking, overshadowing and loss of privacy.
Noise:
7.75 The applicant has submitted a noise assessment to consider the impact on potential noise sensitive areas of the site and surrounding the site. The assessment has been drafted with reference to : • National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) • Noise Policy Statement for England (NPSE) • Planning Policy Guidance – Noise, 2014 • World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise (WHO, 1999) • British Standard 8233: 2014 Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings (BS8233, 2014); • Pro: PG Planning & Noise: Professional Practice Guidance on Planning and Noise (2017); and • Department of Transport memorandum, “Calculation of Road Traffic Noise”
7.76 The NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should aim to - Avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impact on health and quality of life as a result of new development.
7.77 Taking into account that the proposal involves demolition of a pair of semi-detached dwellings (nos. 28 And 30) and creation of a single access at this point, the critical issue for officers is whether the noise, activity and vibrations from construction vehicles initially, and then cars and vans over the life of development (a potential 89 vehicle trips are forecast during the morning peak hour and 91 vehicle trips during the evening peak) can be successfully mitigated.
7.78 Environmental Health Officers have reviewed the submission and also the series of Illustrative Entrance plans. With regard to road traffic noise impacts on current residents, Table 9 on page 17 of the Applicant’s noise report indicates that the noise level at the adjacent properties will not cause an impact to the front of the properties, however to the rear and façade facing the proposed access road there will be a moderate impact. Further in Section 6.1.2 on page 21 the noise consultant advises a close boarded fence shall be employed to screen noise and light from the vehicles.
7.79 Taking the above into account EH advise that any reserved matters or full application shall be accompanied by an acoustic report completed by a competent person detailing mitigation measures and how the layout and design will ensure that all dwellings and amenity areas (existing and proposed) meet with government guidelines as determined by noise levels in the World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise and British Standard 8233.
7.80 Whilst HDC Environmental Health Officers are satisfied that noise impacts can be addressed at a later detailed application stage, your planning officers continue to seek assurances from the developer that the impact on nos 26 and 32 Peterborough Road will be acceptable. Notwithstanding the Environmental Health comments, the applicant will be submitting addition information ahead of the planning committee meeting to demonstrate that noise impacts from additional road traffic into and out of the site, and on existing residential properties will be minimal. Members will be update ahead of the committee meeting
7.81 Subject to the submission of additional information it is considered that the amenity of existing residents can be protected to an acceptable level and that full details of the siting and design of boundary treatment along with other noise mitigation can be secured at the reserved matters stage.
7.82 In addition it is recommended that the applicant submit a construction management plan to ensure that local residents are protected from noise, dust and unacceptable disturbance during implementation. The submission of such a document can be secured by planning condition.
Air quality:
7.83 The NPPF requires that planning policies and decisions should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values of national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas.
7.84 Huntingdonshire District Council is responsible for the management of air quality in the vicinity of the proposed development site. The site not situated in or close to any Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA)
7.85 An Air Quality Assessment has been submitted with the application. This has been reviewed by the Council’s Environmental Health Officers (EH). It is considered the proposals will not lead to a breach in national objectives or an unacceptable risk from air pollution, however EH state that current advice from public health experts is that the health impacts of Air Quality should be minimised, even if there is no risk that air quality standards will be breached. EH advise that consideration is given to the application of good design and good practice measures, including the points raised within Section 8.2.7 of the AQ report, especially ensuring good cycling and walking infrastructure to reduce reliance on vehicle use, and the provision of electric vehicle rapid charge points. Taking into account the comments above and subject to further detailed discussion at reserved matter stage it can be concluded that the proposed development will not lead to unacceptable risj from air pollution or to any breach in national objectives.
7.86 The relevant Development Plan policy relating to residential amenity impacts of the proposal are policies H30, H31, H37, H38 and CS5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995. On balance and subject to conditions,, the proposed development complies with these policies and does not create a conflict. There is considered to be no conflict with the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 (as amended March 2018 for submission) emerging policy LP15. In taking account of paragraph paragraphs 47 and 213 of the NPPF (2018), policies H30, H31, H37, H38 and CS5 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995 are broadly consistent with the NPPF (2018) and can be afforded full weight. Policy LP15 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 (as amended March 2018 for submission) follows a similar vein and is also considered to be consistent with the NPPF. Policy LP15 of the emerging Local Plan to 2036 has been subject to Examination and the Inspector has not requested any modifications to this policy, therefore when taking account of paragraph 48 and footnote 22 of the NPPF (2018), it is considered that this policy can be attributed significant weight.
Other Matters:
Flooding, Drainage, Ground Conditions and Contamination:
7.87 The overall approach to the consideration of flooding in the planning process is given in paragraphs 148-169 of the NPPF and these paragraphs set out a sequential, risk-based approach to the location of development. This approach is intended to ensure that areas at little or no risk of flooding are developed in preference to areas at higher risk. It involves applying a Sequential Test to steer development away from medium and high flood risk areas (FZ2 and FZ3 land respectively), to land with a low probability of flooding (FZ1).
7.88 The application is supported by a site specific flood risk assessment.
7.89 The site is in Flood Zone 1. Table 1 of the Technical Guidance to the NPPF defines land located within Flood Zone 1 as areas which are outside the flood plain and have little or no chance of flooding. These are areas with an indicative probability of flooding of 1 in 1000 years or greater (i.e. less than 0.1% chance in any given year) from fluvial sources. The Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority have been consulted on the application and raise no objection
Surface Water:
7.90 The NPPF recognises that flood risj and other environmental damage can be managed by minimising changes in the volume and rate of surface run-off from development sites though the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDs), Further the accepted principles are that surface water arising from a developed area should, as far as practicable, be managed in a sustainable manner to mimc the surface water flows arising from the site prior to the proposed development , while reducing the flood risk to the site itself and elsewhere, taking climate change into account.
7.91 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has considered the proposal and the accompanying Flood Risk Assessment. The applicant has demonstrated that surface water can be dealt with on site by using sustainable drainage principles. In this regard it is considered that the development meets the requirements of the NPPF. Notwithstanding the LLFA recommends planning conditions are imposed to require the detailed design of the surface water drainage infrastructure serving the development to be appropriately designed and adequately maintained.
Foul Water:
7.92 A report titled Foul Analysis has been submitted. Anglian Water have reviewed this document and advise that the development will lead to an unacceptable risk of flooding downstream. Anglian Water state that they will need to plan effectively for the proposed development and that if permission is granted they will need to work with the applicant to ensure any infrastructure improvements are delivered in line with the development. Accordingly Anglian Water request a condition requiring details of the drainage strategy and that this should take into account the issues raised above.
Ground Conditions and Contamination:
7.93 Environmental Health have reviewed the Phase 1 Preliminary Risk Assessment written by LK Consult Ltd (report reference LKC17 1422, dated February 2018) and concur with the findings in that a targeted Phase 2 intrusive ground investigation would be required. Should the LPA be minded to grant permission to this application then a condition requiring a Phase 2 study area investigations and risk assessment is recommended.
Fire Hydrants:
7.94 It is noted that Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue have requested that the provision of adequate fire hydrants is secured by condition. The imposition of such a condition is considered acceptable and would meet the statutory tests.
7.95 In terms of policy weighting, policies H37, CS8 and CS9 of the Local Plan 1995, policy CS1 of the Core Strategy 2009 are broadly consistent with the NPPF (2018) and when taking account of paragraphs 47 and 213 of the NPPF (2018), can be afforded full weight. Policies LP5, LP16 and LP39 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 (as amended March 2018 for submission) are considered to be consistent with the NPPF (2018). Policy LP16 and Policy LP39 of the emerging Local Plan to 2036 have no modifications to them and therefore when taking account of paragraph 48 and footnote 22 of the NPPF (2018), it is considered that these policies can be attributed significant weight. Policy LP5 of the emerging Local Plan to 2036 is to be amended as agreed with the Environment Agency and County Council and therefore when taking account of paragraph 48 and footnote 22 of the NPPF (2018) it is considered that this policy can be afforded moderate weight.
Infrastructure Requirements And Planning Obligations:
7.96 The Infrastructure Business Plan 2013/2014 (2013) was developed by the Growth and Infrastructure Group of the Huntingdonshire Local Strategic Partnership. It helps to identify the infrastructure needs arising from development proposed to 2036 through the Core Strategy 2009.
7.97 Statutory tests set out in the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (Regulation 122) require that S.106 planning obligations must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind to the development. S.106 obligations are intended to make development acceptable which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms.
7.98 Without prejudice to the eventual determination of the planning application, negotiations have been held with the applicants in order to determine the extent of the obligations required to make the development acceptable. These negotiations have been held in line with the advice within the Regulations and the outcome is summarised below. Other relevant matters will be addressed via specific planning conditions.
7.99 The Planning Obligations SPD sets out within Part 2 that in determining infrastructure needs, the Council and partners have had to translate dwelling numbers into population generation. This has been undertaken utilising the anticipated change in average household sizes. For the purposes of calculating the likely infrastructure requirements, the 2016 average household size has been used (2.25 people per household). With the application seeking permission for up to 185 dwellings this equates to (185 x 2.25) 417 people
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL):
7.100 As this application site is for a small-scale major development (under 200 dwellings) the proposed development will be CIL liable in accordance with the Council's adopted charging schedule; CIL payments will cover footpath and access, health, community facilities, libraries and lifelong learning, education and capital costs of play equipment.
7.101 A section 106 agreement would secure affordable housing provision and would fund highways mitigation package, outdoor sport provision, maintenance of open space and wheeled bins.
Affordable Housing:
7.102 The site is over 0.5 hectares in size and Core Strategy Policy CS4, the Developer Contributions SPD (part A) and Draft Local Plan 2036 and policy LP25 of Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 (as amended March 2018 for submission), seek to achieve a target of 40% affordable housing on sites of this size. With the proposed number of dwellings being up to 185, this would equate to a maximum total of 74 units. The policies indicate that provision should be made on site and should seek to achieve a target tenure split of 70% social/affordable rented and 30% made up of other tenures. Policy does however acknowledge that, in determining the amount and mix of affordable housing to be delivered, site specific considerations and other material considerations, including viability, will be taken into account.
7.103 In this instance no site specific considerations have been submitted and therefore the proposal shall provide policy compliant affordable housing provision. Should the pursuant Reserved Matters applications seek approval for fewer dwellings, then the number of affordable dwellings would reduce accordingly; but the target of 40% would remain applicable.
Green Space:
7.104 In accordance with R7 of the Local Plan 1995 and Core Strategy policy CS10 and the Developer Contributions SPD (Part B) proposals of between 10 and 199 dwellings are required to provide the development specific land for informal and formal open space. The overall requirement is 2.12 ha per 1,000 population for usable, informal green space and play and 1.61 ha per population for outdoor sport. All other requirements will be met by the CIL charge
7.105 Accordingly, the Section 106 obligation will need to secure open space provision in accordance with the Developer Contribution SPD.
7.106 Based upon 185 dwellings of unknown size properties, this development require in the region of 8800m2 of POS including 3000m2 of continuous green space where children can stretch their legs and play. Should the Reserved Matters application seek approval for less than 185 dwellings, the open space provision will be adjusted in accordance with requirements of the Developer Contributions SPD. The developer is proposing provision of circa 5 hectares of green infrastructure that includes structural landscaping and planting and new publicly accessible amenity areas
Green Space Maintenance:
7.107 Saved policy OB2 of the HLPA 2002 advises that financial contributions for the maintenance of green space may be sought to benefit the development. The Developer Contributions SPD sets out maintenance rates for green space that will cover a fifteen year period. Developer contributions in line with the final agreed provision of green space would be secured via a Section 106 Agreement. In accordance with the requirements of the Developer Contributions SPD, this would comprise either a commuted sum following the transfer of the Green Space to the Town Council or the District Council, or the site will be maintained by a maintenance company that would be set up by the developer and funded through contributions from residents of the site (as per the cascade mechanism within the Developer Contributions SPD.
Residential Wheeled Bins:
7.108 Each dwelling will require the provision of one black, blue and green wheeled bin. The current cost of such provision is £73.65 per dwelling. For flats, communal 1100 litre bins could be provided rather than individual bins for each dwelling. The current cost for communal bins in is £669.00 per communal bin. As such a formula based approach is suggested with the scheme and details to be secured through the S106 Agreement.
CIL:
7.109 The development will be CIL liable in accordance with the Council's adopted charging schedule; CIL payments could cover infrastructure relating to footpath and access, health, community facilities, libraries and lifelong learning, and education.
7.110 With regards to outdoor sport the Developer Contributions SPD 2011 (Page 25/B.44) states that developments between 10 and 449 units and this is one will be required to make an offsite contribution to enhance existing facilities. The Council’s Sport Development Manager advises the outdoor contribution for this application should be £94,455 as a contribution to formal open space provision offsite to improve the local infrastructure. The applicant is happy to contribute £94,455 towards formal open space. However despite numerous nudges no clear project has been identified. Accordingly such a request at this time fails to conform to CIL regulations.
Planning Balance & Conclusion:
7.111 The application must be considered against the test in s.38 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, namely, in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Throughout this report any conflicts with the Development Plan, the NPPF 2018, emerging Local Plan policies and other guidance have been identified. These conflicts are summarised below: -
7.112 The proposal conflicts with individual Development Plan policies as a whole and is a departure from the development plan being a proposal for a non-essential dwellings in the countryside. If the ‘tilted balance’ of paragraph 11d) of the NPPF 2018 had not applied whilst the emerging local plan is not yet adopted, the application would have been [recommended for refusal (for DMC) on the basis of: • the unsustainable location (being designated as a smaller settlement) requiring the occupiers to use a private motor car for access to employment, shops and services; • would represent a harmful encroachment into the open countryside detracting from the undeveloped rural character and appearance of the area • the site forms a landscape buffer between Farcet and the more dense development of Peterborough to the north and is visible in landscape from the east including from the River Nene (Old Course)
7.113 As a result of the above, there is a clear conflict between the proposal and policies H23, EN17 and CS3. However, as explained in this report, whilst the ‘tilted balance’ applies, decision makers have to grant permission unless any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
7.114 The benefits of this proposal are considered to be • the proposal will lead to an additional market dwellings/affordable dwellings (moderate weight attributed); • the proposal should, subject to the implementation of the proposed landscaping and biodiversity measures, result in a modest net biodiversity enhancement;
7.115 The proposal will bring construction jobs during the construction phase
7.116 The proposal will bring local economic benefits through additional spend of the future household(s) in the local economy
7.117 The neutral impacts include that the proposal: • would not have a harmful impact upon highway safety; • has had appropriate regard to protected species; • subject to mitigation, has appropriate regard to the impact on existing local residents
7.118 The proposal has a neutral impact on heritage assets includes satisfactory provision for wheeled bins
7.119 The harmful elements of the proposal relate to accessibility issues in that another 185 households will rely on private motor journeys to access essential services, shops and jobs and harmful encroachment into the open countryside, this has to be weighed against benefits as listed above.
7.120 The scheme also results in limited landscape harm, but to a degree this can be mitigated through conditions].
7.121 On balance, and as set out in this officer report, it is considered that the scheme should be approved as the adverse impacts of the scheme would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Therefore, taking national and local planning policies into account, and having regard for all relevant material considerations, it is recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVAL subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 obligation relating to affordable housing, open space and wheeled bins and to conditions to include as a minimum those listed below.
or
REFUSAL in the event that the obligation referred to above has not been completed and the applicant is unwilling to agree to an extended period for determination, on the grounds that the applicant is unwilling to complete the obligation necessary to make the development acceptable.
Subject to the conditions below • Timing of permission and submission of Reserved Matters • Reserved matters minus access development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved reserved matters • Fire hydrants • Archaeological scheme of works • Surface water drainage strategy • Foul water drainage strategy • Tree protection details • Construction Environmental Management Plan • Ecological mitigation (Great Crested Newts and reptiles) • Highways conditions (including details of access) • Scheme for accessing construction traffic to the development including on-site parking and turning facilities • Design and Access Statement principles • Finished floor levels • Affordable housing provision at 40% • Pedestrian links to the PRoW and PRoW be marked out on site • Framework travel plan • Construction hours restriction to reduce noise impact for neighbours • Ecological Enhancement • Noise assessment • Materials • Boundary treatment • Details of 3 metre wide footpath along Peterborough Road • Details of highway improvements to roundabout near the Stanground Fire Station • Scheme to relocate speed cushions
If you would like a translation of this document, a large text version or an audio version, please contact us on 01480 388388 and we will try to accommodate your needs.
CONTACT OFFICER: Enquiries about this report to Mr Andrew Cundy Development Management Team Leader 01480 388370
Development Management Committee
Scale =1 :5,000 Application Ref: 18/01417/OUT
Date Created: 29/01/2019 © Crown copyright and database rights 2019
Location:Farcet Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322
4
1 2 25 3 1
27
1
Y 1 6 1 0 A 0 W 2
0
a
a A 3
4 ROM A R 1
3 RO AD
2 2 2
4 O 2 2 UR
A 6
1
2
9
9
7
1
1 1
1 1 1 5 E Dra V in
I
9
1
R 4
23 D 3 2
1 8
1
A 6 9 7 8
R 5 ESS 1 3 1 1
7 O
0 L
D
1 7 U 1
0 N 1
N Balan cing Po n d
A 1
5 A W 1
5 7 2
2 P 1 A 4
9
Y 9
1 7
1 4
1 1
2 3 5
1 6 3
1
3 15
1 6 5
4
1 103
4
6 1 9 1
JUP ITE 2
R AV E NUE 39 6 8 1 1
6
Drain 1
5 0 8
8 2
0 3 2
2
8
2
1 9
0 1
2 5 2
Y
A 8 5 2 3 1
W 0 1
Balan cing Po n d 2
15.5m A
4
8 2 0 6 1
3 2 8
N
1 U 6 1 A E F S 2
O D A 1
L AUS T E R RO
8
3 C 1
A 1 1 49 5 22 R D 9 O r 1 3 T a 1 L 9
2 1 E i F L n
8 5 M U
1 2 7 C 12 1 P
E I
N
1 7 7 3 5 3 4 JUP S
2 7 ITE R AV A 1 5 E NUE T
D 77 E S R
I
W V
4
6 1 6 E A 4
2 Y
1
5 1
2
7 6 7 83 Und 1 CF
2 15
1 11 23
Play Area
D r a in 605 A D
rain
5
4 1
Def UA Bdy
Drain CD
Track
5
3 1
3
3 1 D r a in
129
El Su b Sta
Farcet Business
0 1
o t
Centre 1
D
A
O
R
H
G
3 U
1
1 O
9 R 0
O
B
R
E
T
E
P
D rain
n i
a r
D
LB
3
0
1 7
G 8 arage 1 0
1
D rain
UA Bdy CD
D
rain
6
6
1 9
11 12
The Stables
5
4
T
H
R
3
8
O
S
T
L
E
N
E
S
T 2
1
3 7 D rain
4 18 4 22 20 12 8 6
B
1 0 9 GAZELEY G 1 A 4 R 0 D E
N
S 7
6
1
1 9 1
2 V 3 A El 6 Sub S ta
E
C
1 3 N 6 a E Dra R in
6
W 3 4 A
3 D L
rain
5 5
D 2 r 8 a i
n 5 2 4 2 16 C
D 9 4 U A B d
1 y
8 5
9 3 3 41
P
a
3 E 3 T
E 1
6
R c 3 4
B 3
3 O
3 R
3 1
O 6
1 b 3 U
G
H 1
6
R a
O n i
A 7 a
1 2 r 4 D
1 D 4 Y 6
A 1
2 W
N 11
O T
S
N
I
W 1
6
2 5 14 16 2 E S 4 7 8 O 5 L 59
C
1 S 2 Walk ' 2 John Bird 0 Y 7 1
1 R h 2 t
A 8 15 a
5
1 M P 1 2 2
4 8
T 9 w S o T
45 9
47 1 17.2m 1
7 1 3 El
43 9 1 Sub Sta F 8
1 5 ar 1
2 1 ce 6
4 t C
5 P E 1 ri
mary
3 S 1 V ch ica oo rag l e G ar 15
den 1 s D
A
O
23 6 2 R
E E
4
V 2 I 8 O
R
D 8 H
T 0 1
G 1 9 S U IN T M
A O
R R 2 Y P 2 'S S M S S 9 4 T 2 R E 1
A ET ESS
R 2
1
Vicarage 2
a 4
1
S 4
5 7 1 6 H 1 2 2
A
b
2
1 L d
2
B L 4 1
1 c 43 2 a
R ' 1
7 6 2
S 1 k 1 15 l 8 O 1
O 30 18 a 11
W 4 47 W GP 2 K l 32 l A 20 h Play Area L c a Y r 1 A u 7 N 9 h H E C n 3 e Goose Hall e
1 t
5 t 4 3 h 3 1 i 3 GE
T ORGE A
w L
5 a 2
St Mary's Church 5 4 T 3 C
6
15. 3 O 8 6
m 8 C
d 5 5
2
o 23 4
1 t K
2 e
2 29a 1 8
E 3 W
5 0
29 a 4 A
1
1 5 S 33 Y h f 1 4 2
1 2 1 3
O 4
2
L 0
a 4 1 5 1 C b
Ru 1 Club C t 4 9 l a 2
h R nd 2
u Co 5 1 t
O ta c
r a g 8 1
e 2
c b E 8 s h N 1 El W S MI A Sub Sta D a O DL 7 s
l M 2 E r
k L 2 T a
h 4 S l
C 8 11.9m T p
2 e R a E o 4 E
L O T P
1 l e L d 6 5 h
I S 13 T
9 8 H 4 c 6
T 2 M h 0 C 1 H A o
B o3
1 IN 5 17 a
C l 0 m S 1 L in 8 R T i- a . 0 R r r
7 U 3 E g D 4 E n
1 H T 35a a
1 C h 2 37 S 0 4 E
2 1 0 V 2 1 4 O
5 5 R 1 5 4 1 s D y
57 a W
6
1 4 w O O 0 3 5 Elder n D P 59 ) e A e Cottage re E 59a s G M 2 0 9
6 r 1 W
E Hall 1 61 u E C 0 N
2 o
E 6 A 4
R 8 2 7 C S 4
E 1 R
O l E 8 S 8 d
L Y 7 l
u 1 T
a 3
b A 1
b
4 a
C 8 o
D 8 S b
8 4
8
W a 8 (
t c 8 8 4.4m a L 8 S 6 ' D b E 8 e 6 e E A I 8 n O F n W 3 4 R 2 ee
E B 7 5 5 N R 6 N 2 6 r D 1 r T 1 ee N E A 13 vv
E ii
2 R 3 R T Black Sw an R
S (PH) S
S E 8
3 0 5 3 S O
R O L
C
1 k 5 C 9 c
7
a 2 R 7 Farcet 2
r 4 T E 9 D
E 6 4.3m 2 E
L
1
9
a
2 Farcet Bridge 1
C 0 3.6m
5 D
4
F 5
2 r 5 a Ppg Sta in
4
3 2.5m
1 1
3 1
18.6m
3
3 3
7 S TR AI GH Key T D R Pond OV Manor Farm E
1 FB 9 4
0 3 2.0m 1 B
Listed Building D 4 r
7 ain
The Site
5 5 Conservation Area
D
r
a
i n DO NOT SCALE FROM THIS DRAWING
Dra
LB
103
Garage 78
101
Drain
Drain
66
91
54 73 Drain
44
B 1091
40 67
36
36a Drain
34 55
Drain
28 45
18 35
PETERBOROUGH ROAD 33a
16c
33
16b
16a 27 14
Drain 14 6
11
WINSTON WAY 16 25
8 21
1
17
28 15
2 28 4
ST MARY'S CLOSE Tow Path 19 1 3
17 El 9
Sub Sta Farcet CE 18
5 Primary School 15
Vicarage Gardens 13
15 1
23
6 2
8
ST MARY'S STREET 10
1
9 2 2 SOUTHOE ROAD 4 1 ESS
Vicarage REVISION DETAILS DATE DRAWN CHK'D APP'D
12
2
14a 14 CLIENT
16 Gladman Developments 12b
12d 43 15 12c
12a 18 11
GP 47 Play Area 24 Church Walk 1 7 Hall Goose Hall PROJECT
3 3 34 GEORGE ALCOCK
The 5 Land off Peterborough Road
2 5 Twitten 34a 36 Farcet 54
15 23
2d 1 2 to 8 to 2
2e 29a WAY
29 33 5a 38
1 31 40
2f 2h 4 4
20 DRAWING TITLE 14 5b 1a
Rutland 1 Club 42 Cottages 2 Location Plan
5c
1
2 18a El Sub Sta Ordnance Survey, (c) Crown Copyright 2017. All rights reserved. Licence number 100022432
DRG No. REV MC10325-LSC-003
DRG SIZE SCALE DATE A1 1:1250 April 2018 DRAWN BY CHECKED BY APPROVED BY GR NP CM
STOKE-ON-TRENT (HEAD OFFICE) TEL 01782 276700 WEB: WWW.WARDELL-ARMSTRONG.COM 0 10m 50m 100m BIRMINGHAM CARDIFF CARLISLE CROYDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW LEIGH LONDON SCALE 1:1250 @ A1 MANCHESTER NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE SHEFFIELD TAUNTON 1:2500 @ A3
c Copyright Reserved
N:\MC\MC10325 - PETERBOROUGH ROAD FARCET\03 - DESIGN\AUTOCAD\MC10325-LSC-003 LOCATION PLAN.DWG
N
Peterborough Road
N
N Peterborough Road N
Peterborough Road
Peterborough Road
N
Peterborough Road N
Peterborough Road 2017-122 LAND OFF PETERBOROUGH ROAD, FARCET N Land Uses Site boundary (10.7ha) N DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN Peterborough Road Farcet C.of E. MC10325 Primary School REVISION I: 13/10/2018 Housing Area (185 dwellings at 30 dph - Total 6.16ha) Peterborough Road Scale 1:2500 Public open spaces to include children’s play provision N N St. Mary’s Street and sustainable drainage features (Total 4.04ha)
Peterborough Road Peterborough Road Proposed land for future school extension (Total 0.5Ha) N Farcet Village Existing drain/ditch
Existing bridleway and Green Wheel cycle route Peterborough Road N (PRoW 83/5) 2017-122 LAND OFF PETERBOROUGH ROAD, FARCET N © Copyright Farcet C.of E. Primary School Peterborough Road Movement and Infrastructure Farcet C.of E. St. Mary’s Street PrimaryFarcet School C.of E. Primary SchoolProposed vehicular & pedestrian access N St. Mary’s Street N St. Mary’s Street Proposed primary vehicle route Peterborough Road Farcet Village N
Peterborough Road Secondary street and lanes / private drives Farcet Village Peterborough Road Farcet VillageFarcet C.of E. Primary School Proposed pedestrian link © Copyright N FarcetSt. Mary’s C.of E. Street Indicative pedestrian route © CopyrightPrimary School N Peterborough Road © Copyright St. Mary’s Street N
Peterborough Road Farcet C.of E. Farcet Village Green Infrastructure & Recreation Primary School N 2 Existing vegetation Farcet C.of E. Peterborough Road St. Mary’s Street Primary School Farcet Village Farcet C.of E. 5 Peterborough Road Primary School Proposed native hedgerow North View St. Mary’s Street 3 © Copyright Farcet C.of E. ProposedPrimary tree andSchool woodland planting EXTRACT OF FRAMEWORK PLAN (NTS) Farcet Village 4 © Copyright St. Mary’s Street Proposed pedestrian route through the site with Proposed property boundary 1.8m St. Mary’s Street indicativeFarcet connection Village onto the existing public right of way 1 Farcet C.of E. brick wall (reduced height towards Proposed play spacePrimary School 1 Farcet C.of E. © Copyright Peterborough Road) © CopyrightPrimary School Farcet Village Farcet St.Village Mary’s Street © Copyright Main Public Open Space 2 Proposed formal hedgerow planting Incidental open space and green corridors 3 Proposed ornamental landscape Farcet Village including meadow margins St. Mary’s Street © CopyrightFarcet C.of E. ‘Green spine’ with avenue planting planting Primary School Farcet C.of E. Primary School © Copyright Farcet Village Attenuation feature (SUDS) Farcet C.of E. 4 St. Mary’s Street © Copyright Proposed access / primary road Primary School
St. Mary’s Street 5 Proposed tree planting St. Mary’s Street Farcet C.of E. Farcet Village Primary School © Copyright Farcet Village Farcet C.of E. Primary School Farcet Village
© Copyright Farcet C.of E. St. Mary’s Street Primary School St. Mary’s Street © Copyright© Copyright Farcet Village St. Mary’s Street © Copyright Farcet Village
Farcet C.of E. Farcet Village Primary School
St. Mary’s Street © Copyright
Gladman Developments Ltd. Farcet Village SITE ENTRANCE
ILLUSTRATIVE VIEWS © Copyright Dwg: MC10325-LSC-007 Revision: A Date: 05/11/2018 Scale : N/A PERSPECTIVE VIEW LOOKING NORTH ALONG PETERBOROUGH ROAD N
Peterborough Road
N
N Peterborough Road N
Peterborough Road
Peterborough Road
N
Peterborough Road N
Peterborough Road 2017-122 LAND OFF PETERBOROUGH ROAD, FARCET N Land Uses Site boundary (10.7ha) N DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN Peterborough Road Farcet C.of E. MC10325 Primary School REVISION I: 13/10/2018 Housing Area (185 dwellings at 30 dph - Total 6.16ha) Peterborough Road Scale 1:2500 Public open spaces to include children’s play provision N N St. Mary’s Street and sustainable drainage features (Total 4.04ha)
Peterborough Road Peterborough Road Proposed land for future school extension (Total 0.5Ha) N Farcet Village Existing drain/ditch
Existing bridleway and Green Wheel cycle route Peterborough Road N (PRoW 83/5) 2017-122 LAND OFF PETERBOROUGH ROAD, FARCET N © Copyright Farcet C.of E. Primary School Peterborough Road Movement and Infrastructure Farcet C.of E. St. Mary’s Street PrimaryFarcet School C.of E. Primary SchoolProposed vehicular & pedestrian access N St. Mary’s Street N St. Mary’s Street Proposed primary vehicle route Peterborough Road Farcet Village N
Peterborough Road Secondary street and lanes / private drives Farcet Village Peterborough Road Farcet VillageFarcet C.of E. Primary School Proposed pedestrian link © Copyright N FarcetSt. Mary’s C.of E. Street Indicative pedestrian route © CopyrightPrimary School N Peterborough Road © Copyright St. Mary’s Street N
Peterborough Road Farcet C.of E. Farcet Village Green Infrastructure & Recreation Primary School N Entrance View Existing vegetation Farcet C.of E. Peterborough Road St. Mary’s Street Primary School Farcet Village Farcet C.of E. Peterborough Road Primary School Proposed native hedgerow St. Mary’s Street © Copyright Farcet C.of E. ProposedPrimary tree andSchool woodland planting EXTRACT OF FRAMEWORK PLAN (NTS) Farcet Village © Copyright St. Mary’s Street Proposed pedestrian route through the site with St. Mary’s Street indicativeFarcet connection Village onto the existing public right of way Farcet C.of E. Primary School Farcet C.of E. Copyright Proposed play space © CopyrightPrimary School Farcet Village © Proposed property boundary 1.8m Farcet Village 1 St. Mary’s Street brick wall (reduced height towards © Copyright Main Public Open Space Peterborough Road) Incidental open space and green corridors including meadow margins Copyright Farcet Village 2 Proposed formal hedgerowSt. Mary’s planting Street © Farcet C.of E. ‘Green spine’ with avenue planting Primary School Farcet C.of E. Primary School © Copyright Farcet Village 3 Proposed ornamental landscape Attenuation feature (SUDS) Farcet C.of E. 5 planting St. Mary’s Street © Copyright Primary School
St. Mary’s Street 4 Proposed access / primary road St. Mary’s Street Farcet C.of E. Farcet Village Primary School 3 2 © Copyright Farcet Village Farcet C.of E. Primary School 5 Proposed tree planting Farcet Village
© Copyright 1 Farcet C.of E. St. Mary’s Street 4 Primary School St. Mary’s Street © Copyright© Copyright Farcet Village St. Mary’s Street © Copyright Farcet Village
Farcet C.of E. Farcet Village Primary School
St. Mary’s Street © Copyright
Gladman Developments Ltd. Farcet Village SITE ENTRANCE
ILLUSTRATIVE VIEWS © Copyright Dwg: MC10325-LSC-007 Revision: A Date: 05/11/2018 Scale : N/A VIEW LOOKING EAST OPPOSITE THE SITE ACCESS N
Peterborough Road
N
N Peterborough Road N
Peterborough Road
Peterborough Road
N
Peterborough Road N
Peterborough Road 2017-122 LAND OFF PETERBOROUGH ROAD, FARCET N Land Uses Site boundary (10.7ha) N DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK PLAN Peterborough Road Farcet C.of E. MC10325 Primary School REVISION I: 13/10/2018 Housing Area (185 dwellings at 30 dph - Total 6.16ha) Peterborough Road Scale 1:2500 Public open spaces to include children’s play provision N N St. Mary’s Street and sustainable drainage features (Total 4.04ha)
Peterborough Road Peterborough Road Proposed land for future school extension (Total 0.5Ha) N Farcet Village Existing drain/ditch
Existing bridleway and Green Wheel cycle route Peterborough Road N (PRoW 83/5) 2017-122 LAND OFF PETERBOROUGH ROAD, FARCET N © Copyright Farcet C.of E. Primary School Peterborough Road Movement and Infrastructure Farcet C.of E. St. Mary’s Street PrimaryFarcet School C.of E. Primary SchoolProposed vehicular & pedestrian access N St. Mary’s Street N St. Mary’s Street Proposed primary vehicle route Peterborough Road Farcet Village N
Peterborough Road Secondary street and lanes / private drives Farcet Village Peterborough Road View South Farcet VillageFarcet C.of E. Primary School Proposed pedestrian link © Copyright N FarcetSt. Mary’s C.of E. Street Indicative pedestrian route © CopyrightPrimary School N Peterborough Road © Copyright St. Mary’s Street N
Peterborough Road Farcet C.of E. Farcet Village Green Infrastructure & Recreation 5 Primary School N Existing vegetation Farcet C.of E. Peterborough Road 2 St. Mary’s Street Primary School 3 Farcet Village Farcet C.of E. Peterborough Road Primary School Proposed native hedgerow 1 St. Mary’s Street © Copyright Farcet C.of E. ProposedPrimary tree andSchool woodland planting EXTRACT OF FRAMEWORK PLAN (NTS) Farcet Village © Copyright St. Mary’s Street Proposed pedestrian route through the site with St. Mary’s Street indicativeFarcet connection Village onto the existing public right of way 4 Farcet C.of E. Primary School Farcet C.of E. Copyright Proposed play space © CopyrightPrimary School Farcet Village © Proposed property boundary 1.8m Farcet Village 1 St. Mary’s Street brick wall (reduced height towards © Copyright Main Public Open Space Peterborough Road) Incidental open space and green corridors including meadow margins Copyright Farcet Village 2 Proposed formal hedgerowSt. Mary’s planting Street © Farcet C.of E. ‘Green spine’ with avenue planting Primary School Farcet C.of E. Primary School © Copyright Farcet Village 3 Proposed ornamental landscape Attenuation feature (SUDS) Farcet C.of E. planting St. Mary’s Street © Copyright Primary School
St. Mary’s Street 4 Proposed access / primary road St. Mary’s Street Farcet C.of E. Farcet Village Primary School © Copyright Farcet Village Farcet C.of E. Primary School 5 Proposed tree planting Farcet Village
© Copyright Farcet C.of E. St. Mary’s Street Primary School St. Mary’s Street © Copyright© Copyright Farcet Village St. Mary’s Street © Copyright Farcet Village
Farcet C.of E. Farcet Village Primary School
St. Mary’s Street © Copyright
Gladman Developments Ltd. Farcet Village SITE ENTRANCE
ILLUSTRATIVE VIEWS © Copyright Dwg: MC10325-LSC-007 Revision: A Date: 05/11/2018 Scale : N/A PERSPECTIVE VIEW LOOKING SOUTH ALONG PETERBOROUGH ROAD Gladman Planning Application ref 18/01417/OUT
Farcet Parish Council strongly objects to this planning application for the following reasons:
• The size of the proposed development is overbearing. There are currently 780 houses in Farcet. A development of an additional 185 houses equates to almost a 25% increase in the size of a village that has almost no amenities. This would totally change the character of the village and bring it closer to being a suburb of Peterborough by eroding the current buffer zone.
• Services are extremely limited. There is no Doctor’s surgery or Dentist in the village and those in adjacent villages are over-subscribed. There is one small shop/Post Office, the owners of which are also opposed to the development as they see no advantage to the village. The application contains incorrect information. There is no pub or Chinese restaurant in the village – both have been closed for some time. The school does not have the capacity to provide places for the demand likely to arise from this number of houses.
• The access to the site is to be by demolition of 2 houses on Peterborough Road. When Cardea was built, access to Peterborough Road was denied by Peterborough City Council, apart from emergency vehicles, to reduce congestion. This development would increase congestion. The lack of amenities will necessitate a large amount of additional journeys to access schools, healthcare, leisure and shops. It also will cut across the route taken by many students walking to Stanground Academy and increase the danger to pedestrians. The figures for traffic volumes stated in the application are considerably less than those recorded by the Speedwatch team. There are details available of 40 serious accidents that have occurred on this stretch of road over the years. It appears that the school traffic emanating from St Mary’s St onto Peterborough Road has not been taken into account. It is not yet known how much extra traffic will be caused by the Haddon development.
• Any amounts provided by builders towards increased amenities may not be used for the benefit of the village.
• This site has been judged as not suitable for development by HDC in their plan as it forms a landscape buffer between Farcet and the more dense development of Peterborough to the north and is visible in the landscape from the east including from the River Nene (Old course). Granting of this application could set a precedent for further development on the rest of the site, thus further eroding the buffer zone.
• The timing of this application may be significant. The HDC plan to 2036 is currently with the Secretary of State (SoS) for sign-off and states no development in Farcet. This will not now be considered for sign-off until Parliament returns from recess. Mr Gladman, the applicant, stated in his interview with the Daily Telegraph of 5th August 2017 “We normally only target local authorities whose planning department is in relative disarray and …..either have no up-to-date local plan or, temporarily, they do not have a five year supply of consented building plots” I believe these subjects are satisfactorily covered in the plan currently with the SoS.
• There have been 2 recent rejections of Gladman Land applications for very similar reasons to those we are raising here. The first relates to a development of 118 houses near Ardleigh, Colchester. I attach this for your information at Appendix 1. The second relates to land near Henlow in Bedfordshire and was dismissed on appeal to the Secretary of State on 16th August 2018. This is attached at Appendix 2.
Farcet Parish Council
Appendix 1
Appeal Decision Inquiry Held on 12/13 December 2017 and 1/2 May 2018 Site visit made on 1 May 2018 by J Wilde C Eng MICE an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 August 2018
Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/W/16/3164961 Land between 103 and 27 Langford Road, Henlow, Bedfordshire SG16 6AF The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Gladman Developments Ltd against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council. The application Ref CB/16/02721/OUT, dated 8 July 2016, was refused by notice dated 6 October 2016. The development proposed is up to 135 residential dwellings (including up to 35% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space and children’s play area, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, vehicular access points from Langford Road and associated ancillary works.
This decision is issued in accordance with Section 56(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and supersedes the decision issued on 9 July 2018.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Procedural matters
2. The Inquiry was opened on 12 December 2017, adjourned on 13 December and then resumed on 1 May 2018. I carried out an unaccompanied site visit on 11 December 2017 and an accompanied site visit on 1 May 2018.
3. The application was made in outline with all matters apart from access reserved for later determination.
4. The Council originally put forward two reasons for refusal. One of these reasons related to the absence of a legal agreement necessary to secure, amongst other things, financial contributions and the provision of affordable housing. A draft Section 106 agreement was supplied prior to the Inquiry and a signed and dated version was supplied to me within a timeframe agreed at the Inquiry. The presence of this Section 106 agreement, which I will return to later in this decision, means that the Council’s second reason for refusal has been overcome. The remaining issue is therefore as given below.
Main Issue
5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with any identified harm being assessed within the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/16/3164961
context of the Council’s housing land supply situation, and the effect that this, in turn, has on the weight to be given to that harm.
Reasons
6. The appeal site is an arable field of about 6 hectares to the north of the village of Henlow. The site is bounded by the A6001 (Langford Road) to the east and falls away westwards towards the Henlow Brook. The site, whilst adjoining ribbon development that is part of the settlement to the south, is nonetheless outside of the settlement boundary and in planning terms is therefore within the countryside.
7. I have been provided with a Landscape and Visual Appraisal (LVA) prepared by FPCR Environment and Design Ltd on behalf of the appellant. The LVA has been prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, third edition, and looks at both the landscape and visual effects of the proposed development. I will deal with each in turn, referring to the LVA as and when necessary.
Landscape
8. In terms of national character the site lies within the Bedfordshire and Cambridge Claylands National Character Area (CCNCA). With respect to local character the site falls within Landscape Character Type 4C, the Upper Ivel Clay Valley. This is shown as having characteristics such as a mixed land use predominately of arable farmland and large and medium scale geometric arable fields bounded by hedgerows. The appeal site accords with this general description.
9. The LVA concludes that the effect of the proposed development on the character of the CCNCA would be negligible and I agree with this assessment. As regards the effect of the proposed development on the Upper Ivel Clay Valley, the LVA concludes that there would be a minor adverse to negligible impact at ten years after completion of the scheme. This is based on the context of the site being influenced, amongst other things, by the surrounding urban development and retaining the existing boundaries.
10. However, the existing urban development is limited to the ribbon development extending out from Henlow to the south-east and the row of dwellings to the north-east. I acknowledge that there is development to the south but this is further away and screened. There is no development to the east or west of the site and the boundary fronting Langford Road would be reduced to make way for additional access points. Whilst I accept that in the context of the Upper Ivel, Clay Valley the site is relatively small I nonetheless consider that the effect produced by the proposal on it would be moderate-minor adverse.
11. The LVA considers that the effect of the proposed development on the site and its immediate context would be minor adverse after ten years. However, I note that the definition of minor given in the LVA is an effect that will entail limited or localised change to the existing landscape or will entail more noticeable localised change but including both adverse and beneficial effects and is likely to retain or incorporate some characteristics/features currently present.
12. The proposed development would replace an open arable field with built development. I acknowledge that the boundaries would largely remain in
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/16/3164961
place, that landscaping would be undertaken within the site and that the site is not part of a designated landscape. Notwithstanding this however, the proposed scheme would be of a completely different nature to that which currently exists. The landscape of the site would fundamentally change and would be in direct contrast to that which currently exists. According to the definition in the LVA this would therefore be a major effect.
Visual
13. Figure 6 of the LVA gives a Zone of Theoretical Visibility and a series of viewpoints from which the site can be seen. I will consider each viewpoint in turn. Viewpoints 1, 4 and 5 are along Langford Road, close to the site. At present the site can be seen as an open arable field with views to the west of woodland and fields. The sense of openness is added to by the absence of built form to the east. Views from viewpoint 1 would also encompass the built development of Clifton in the distance and that going south along Langford Road beyond the site. From viewpoint 5 the proposed development would be seen as extending the built form further into the countryside, and this view has a particularly rural aspect due to the presence of several woods to the north- west (including Baulk Wood) which due to the angle of view, appear to form one extent of woodland.
14. Receptors would be people walking along the adjacent footway and drivers. The drivers would be mostly in transit and would be concentrating on the road. The walkers would however be more aware of their surroundings and would have views of the proposed housing estate through and over the existing boundary vegetation and also directly through the newly formed entrances. The new development would also contrast sharply with the lack of built form and rural nature of the land to the east of the road.
15. The LVA attributes the sensitivity of these receptors as low. However, I consider that, in light of my comments above, the pedestrians would have a medium sensitivity and the overall effect after ten years would be moderate adverse.
16. Viewpoints 2 and 3 are along the public right of way that runs along the east side of the field to the east of Langford Road. The field falls away towards the east such that views of the proposed development would generally be of the tops of the dwellings seen over the boundary vegetation. However the proposed development would be much more noticeable as walkers approached Langford Road towards viewpoint 5. The LVA rates the sensitivity of these receptors as high, which I agree with. The proposed development would be seen as filling the gap between the existing ribbon development to the south and the relatively few houses to the north. To my mind the LVA underplays the overall effect of this in rating the overall effect after ten years as minor adverse-negligible. Given that the existing sky views would be replaced with views of built form I consider that this should be rated as moderate adverse.
17. Viewpoints 6 to 9 are from various locations along Stockbridge Road. At viewpoint 6 the view is currently of wind turbines in the distance with some built form in evidence, including the slender floodlights of Langford football ground. The proposed development would be seen through and over existing vegetation and would change what is essentially a rural view to one of a much more domesticated nature. The same can be said for the view from viewpoint 9 although this is somewhat further away from the site.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/16/3164961
18. In respect of receptors at these points, once again drivers would be generally concentrating on the road and views of the proposed development would be transitory. However pedestrians would have longer to take in the view and I note that Stockbridge Road forms part of a promoted recreational route. The LVA, whilst accepting that the susceptibility to change for pedestrians would be high goes on to rate the overall effect at year 10 as minor adverse to negligible. However, the development would increase the sense of domestication and also lend a sense of enclosure, particularly to receptors at viewpoint 6. To my mind the LVA downplays the eventual effect of the proposed development, which to my mind should be moderate-minor adverse.
19. Viewpoints 7 and 8 are along the PROW knows as Clifton 6. Due to the topography and the existing hedges very little of the proposed development would be visible. I therefore agree with the LVA that the visual effect at ten years would be negligible.
20. Viewpoint 10 is situated on the bridleway to the north-west of the appeal site. From here the proposed development would be seen as a major intrusion of built form into the existing rural open aspect. The feeling of intrusion would be exacerbated by the fact that the land between the viewpoint and the appeal site falls away to the Henlow Brook, resulting in the appeal site being very prominent. Once again, given that the susceptibility of the receptors would be high and that the landscape would be irrevocably changed in character, I consider that the LVA has underplayed the overall effect. I acknowledge that landscaping would to an extent mitigate the harsh effect of the built form, but nonetheless consider that, even after ten years, the overall effect would be major adverse.
21. Views of the site would also be available from several nearby properties. To the north the nearest property would be just over the boundary of the site. Views would be available from the garden and oblique views would be available from first floor windows. The most affected residents would be those living in the dwelling directly to the south of the site. At present they have a rural view from the first floor windows over an arable field to the woods to the north. This would be replaced by a view of a housing estate. Neighbouring properties would have more oblique views of the site.
22. To the east of Langford Road the northernmost property in the line of development stretching out from Henlow would also be severely affected, with the first floor views over the appeal site being changed completely in nature.
23. The LVA rates the overall effect of this for the properties south of the site at ten years as major adverse to minor adverse. I agree with this, and consider that the residents of the two northernmost properties would suffer the major adverse effect.
24. To summarise, I have found that the proposed development would have a major adverse landscape effect on the site and its immediate context and also that there would be major adverse effects on several visual receptors as well as moderate adverse on others.
Coalescence
25. In terms of coalescence of communities I note that the Central Bedfordshire Landscape Character Assessment (CBLCA) states on page 71 that the Upper
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/16/3164961
Ivel Clay Valley contains fairly dense settlement of large villages and market towns (Langford, Shefford, Stotfold, Henlow and Arlesey) spreading along the roads and in some cases almost joining to form continual settlements (for instance Shefford, Clifton and Henlow in the east of the area). In terms of guidelines for new development the CBLCA notes that the coalescence of towns and villages should be avoided.
26. I accept that the proposed development would not in itself result in the joining together of either Henlow and Clifton or Henlow and Langford and I note that the site is not included in policies designed to prevent such coalescence. However, the proposed development would push the continuation of built form further towards Langford to the north and towards Stockbridge Farm (and hence Clifton) to the west. It therefore could be seen as the first step in a process that would lessen the open rural aspect and could eventually lead to coalescence.
27. I also note that the CBLCA promotes the conservation of the character of secondary roads, limiting urbanising influences. In extending housing along one side of the Langford Road the proposed development would be in conflict with this aim.
28. The Council have cited four development plan policies that they consider that the proposed development would be in conflict with.
29. However, the appellant has put forward a number of reasons why they consider that various polices in the CS1 are either out of date, such that the conflict with them should be afforded less weight, or irrelevant to this case. I shall therefore consider these in turn before returning to a full conclusion on issue of character and appearance. Firstly though I will deal with the issue of five year housing land supply.
Five year housing land supply
30. The parties are agreed that the Council can demonstrate a five year supply of housing land if the Objectively Assessed Need figure of 1600 dwellings per annum (dpa) is accepted. However, the Council have recently submitted their Draft Local Plan (DLP) for examination and this contains a housing need figure of 1967 dpa. If this figure is taken as the housing need then the appellant considers that the Council would be unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The difference between the two figures comes largely from an unmet need from Luton which is likely to be provided for within Central Bedfordshire. The DLP is subject to a number of objections including in respect of the figure of 1967.
31. The figure of 1600 dpa derives from the SHMA2 which is the latest full assessment of housing needs. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) makes clear that this is the figure of housing need that should be considered where evidence in Local Plans has become outdated and policies in emerging plans are not yet capable of carrying sufficient weight3.
32. The appellant has agreed in the Statement of Common Ground that the polices in the DLP should be given limited weight, and given that it has yet to be
1 Central Bedfordshire Core Strategy and Development Management Policies November 2009 2 Strategic Housing Market Assessment for Luton and Central Bedfordshire 3 ID: 3-030-20140306 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/16/3164961
examined and has significant objections, I agree with this position. Conversely, the appellant also considers that, as the DLP has now been submitted for examination, the figure of 1967 contained within it should be given considerable weight, as it now represents what the Council consider to be their future housing need.
33. However, I cannot agree that policies within the DLP should be treated differently to any figures contained within it. They are part and parcel of the same package and should be considered as such. I acknowledge that the PPG warns that the weight given to the latest full assessment of housing need (in this case the SHMA) should take account of the fact that it hasn’t been tested, but nonetheless consider that, until such time as the DLP becomes adopted, the figure within the SHMA of 1600 dpa should be taken as the Council’s housing need. It follows that the Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply and that, in respect of this appeal, paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) does not bring into play the tilted balance contained within the fourth bullet point of paragraph 14 of the Framework.
Weight to be afforded to policy DM4
34. This is not however the only way in which the tilted balance can be brought into play and the appellant points to the weight that can be given to the current CS policies in light of paragraph 215 of the Framework, which makes clear that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. The appellant points particularly in this respect to policy DM4.
35. On the surface, and read in isolation, policy DM4 is a restrictive policy based on an outdated housing need, in that it limits development outside of settlement boundaries to limited extensions to gardens, provided that they do not harm the character of the area. However the supporting text in 11.1.15 makes clear that certain types of development that are in accordance with the now defunct PPS7 will be permitted. These include exception schemes, dwellings for the essential needs of those employed in agriculture or forestry and the re-use or replacement of existing dwellings. Furthermore, the settlement envelopes referred to in the policy do not exist purely to accommodate the housing growth over the plan period but also, it is stated, to reflect ‘the character of the predominant land use’.
36. The policy is not therefore completely restrictive and, whilst I acknowledge that paragraph 113 of the Framework seeks to protect landscape commensurate with its status, and that policy DM4 does not attempt to evaluate different landscapes, the Framework also makes clear in paragraph 17 that the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Framework that indicates that the loss of undesignated land cannot be harmful to the character and appearance of an area and this is reinforced in the Cawrey judgement4, which confirms that the loss of undesignated countryside is capable of being harmful in the planning balance.
37. The overarching aim of policy DM4 is to promote residential development in appropriate areas. This was an objective of the Core Strategy at the time that it was adopted, and whilst this was prior to the introduction of the Framework,
4 [2016] EWHC 1198 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/16/3164961
it is still an objective that is very relevant and appropriate today and is a principle that still applies in the Framework, indeed it underpins the plan led system, which is itself specifically supported by the Framework. Furthermore, whilst the principle of settlement boundaries is not specifically mentioned in the Framework, nor is it discounted.
38. In this particular case the Council can demonstrate a five year housing land supply which indicates that the presence and use of DM4 has not been restrictive. I acknowledge that the Inspector in the recent Meppershall decision5 considered that the existence of a five year housing land supply was despite the existence of policy DM4. However, to my mind the examples of instances where development has been allowed contrary to policy DM4 indicates that a balancing exercise has been carried out in a pragmatic and correct way, and that consequently DM4 has not been used to restrict suitable development.
39. I note that in the draft Local Plan the present settlement boundaries are to be superseded, with a considerable amount of housing being promoted in areas outside of current settlement boundaries, and that in some cases housing has been allocated within the Green Belt. However, it has already been established that the draft Local Plan carries little weight at the current time.
40. In summary, based on the foregoing paragraphs, I find that some discrepancy in the wording of policy DM4 relative to paragraph 113 of the Framework indicates that it should not be afforded full weight. However, given that I have found that the underlying objectives of the policy still hold good, it should still command at least moderate weight and cannot therefore be construed to be ‘out of date’. It follows that the tilted balance outlined in the fourth bullet point of paragraph 14 of the Framework is not engaged.
41. I note that there have been a series of appeal decisions6, including two that have been issued after the close of this Inquiry7, that have grappled with the weight to be given to DM4 and that the results have varied from the policy being afforded moderate weight to being out of date. I have also been made aware of appeal decisions in other Council areas that on the surface support the appellant’s position. However, it would seem that the previous Inspectors, apart from two very recent decisions8, did not have the Daventry Court of Appeal legal judgement9 before them, and it is this that has helped inform my above reasoning. Furthermore, the weight afforded by an Inspector to particular policies in an appeal scenario is a matter of planning judgement, dependent upon not only the information presented, but also upon the way in which it has been presented.
Policy CS14
42. Policy CS14 relates to high quality development and requires, amongst other things, that development should respect local context and the varied character and local distinctiveness of Mid Bedfordshire’s places. The appellant considers that the proposed development is capable of complying with this policy,
5 APP/P0240/W/17/3190584 6 APP/P0240/W/16/3166033 (Stotfold), APP/P0240/W/16/3152707 (Clophill), APP/P0240/W/17/3176444 (Potton), APP/P0240/W/17/3181269 (Cranfield 1), APP/P0240/W/17/3175605 (Meppershall), APP/P0240/W/17/3170248 (Silsoe), 7 APP/P0240/W/17/3176387 and that noted under footnote 5 above 8 APP/P0240/W/17/3186914 and that noted under footnote 5 above 9 Gladman Developments Limited v Daventry District Council, Case No: C1/2015/4315 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 7 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/16/3164961
particularly given that the application was in outline. They also consider that the policy is being used as an in-principle objection due to the site being outside of the settlement boundary.
43. I do not see it that way. One of the core planning principles enshrined in the Framework in paragraph 17 is to take account of the different roles and character of different areas. To my mind respecting local context and the varied character and local distinctiveness of places is entirely in line with this. Furthermore I do not accept that inserting a housing estate into what I have found to be a relatively rural environment can be deemed to be in accordance with the policy. Conflict with it therefore exists.
Policy CS16
44. Policy CS16 seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that development enhances landscapes of lesser quality in accordance with the Landscape Character Assessment and conserves and enhances the varied countryside character and local distinctiveness in accordance with the findings of the Mid Bedfordshire Character assessment.
45. I acknowledge that the preamble to the policy states that the Council will protect the Countryside for its own sake, but nonetheless consider that the policy is in general consistent with the Framework in terms of protecting landscapes commensurate with their importance. I therefore afford policy CS16 full weight, which I note is in line with the findings of other Inspectors.
Policy DM3
46. Policy DM3 of the CS requires, amongst other things, that development will be appropriate in scale and design to its setting. Whilst the policy is entitled High Quality Development, which is also required by the Framework, a reading of the preamble to the policy indicates that the policy is aimed at the design of the actual development and the buildings within it rather than how it relates to the wider landscape. For this reason, given that the application was in outline, I do not consider that the policy is relevant to this appeal.
47. At the Inquiry policy CS5 was also mentioned. This policy was referenced in the officer’s report relating to the proposed development. The policy specifically relates to the provision of 17950 new homes during the currency of the Core Strategy (2001-2026). The policy has now been superseded by the SHMA figure, was not used in the Council’s reason for refusal and is therefore also not relevant to this appeal.
Summary of policies and conflict
48. Previously, I have found that the proposed development would have a major adverse effect on the site and its immediate context and also that there would be major adverse effects on several visual receptors as well as moderate adverse on others. The proposed development could also be seen as a small incremental change that if continued, could result in the blurring of the identities of Henlow, Clifton and Langford.
49. I acknowledge that the proposed scheme includes several positive landscape features including a landscape corridor to the west of the site, a central green wedge and enhancements to the existing hedgerows and trees. Notwithstanding this however, taking into account my findings above relating
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/16/3164961
to weight to be attributed to the conflict with various policies there would be conflict with policy DM4, which carries at least moderate weight, with policy CS14 which carries full weight and with policy CS16 which also carries full weight. This conflict does however have to be balanced against the benefits of the scheme which I now turn to.
Planning balance
50. The scheme would produce 135 new dwellings which would in turn result in jobs and expenditure within the local economy by the future residents. These factors contribute to the social and economic limbs of sustainability, and I give considerable weight to the benefit that would accrue from the addition of these dwellings. This weight is however less than it would be if the Council were not able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing. The provision of 47 affordable homes would also be a significant benefit, although the amount of affordable homes is dictated by the development plan policy and would therefore be the same in any similar scheme.
51. I also acknowledge that the scheme would to an extent improve biodiversity and could contribute towards the green infrastructure plans of Henlow. In this respect I note the proposal to create a community park on land owned by the appellant to the west of the site. There is however no certainty within the present application that this will be provided, therefore the weight afforded to it is far less than it otherwise may have been.
52. Overall, however, none of these positive factors either individually or in combination outweigh the harm that I have found to the character and appearance of the area.
Section 106 Agreement
53. The Section 106 Agreement is dated 18 May 2018 and signed by the necessary parties. However, as I have found against the proposed development on the ground of character and appearance it is not necessary for me to assess whether or not the contents of the Agreement would comply with the tests set out in Section 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010.
Conclusion
54. The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and with the approach in the Framework. There are no material considerations that would indicate otherwise. The proposal does not represent sustainable development, and I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
John Wilde
INSPECTOR
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 9 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/16/3164961
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Ms Saira Kabir Sheik QC
She called Mr Phillip Hughes of PHD Chartered Town Planners
FOR THE APPELLANT: Mr Giles Cannock of Counsel (December 2017 sitting) and Mr Peter Goatley of Counsel (May 2018 sitting)
He called Mr Timothy Jackson of FPCR Environment and Design Ltd Mr Neil Tiley of Pegasus Group Mr Christopher Still of Gladman Developments Ltd
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE INQUIRY
December 2017
1 Appellant’s comments at the Potton Inquiry in relation to the Clophill Decision letter. 2 Rebuttal Proof of Evidence prepared by Mr Tom Baker in response to the evidence of Mr Lawrence. 3 Update to the Proof of Evidence on housing need and supply matters by Mr Neil Tiley. 4 Update to the appendices pertaining to the Proof of Evidence on housing need and supply matters by Mr Neil Tiley. 5 Draft Planning Obligation by deed of undertaking. 6 Decision APP/P0240/W/16/3152707 (Clophill). 7 Council’s comments at the Potton Inquiry in relation to the Clophill Decision letter. 8 Opening submissions by the appellant. 9 Council’s suggested agenda for discussion on OAN. 10 Appellant’s suggested agenda for discussion on OAN.
May 2018
1 Opening submissions of behalf of the appellant. 2 Opening submissions on behalf of the Council. 3 Linked Decisions APP/P0240/W/17/3170248 and APP/O0240/17/3172143 (Silsoe). 4 Updated housing supply figures. 5 Copy of letter dated 28 March 2018 from the Council to the
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 10 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/W/16/3164961
Planning Inspectorate. 6 Response by the Planning Inspectorate. 7 Extract from the PPG (3-030-20140306). 8 List of suggested conditions and the appellant’s comments in relation to these. 9 Decision APP/P0240/W/17/3186914 (Cranfield 2). 10 Approved Judgement (The Daventry judgement). 11 Approved Judgement (The Hinckley Judgement). 12 Approved Judgement (The Wokingham Judgement). 13 Draft Section 106 agreement. 14 Closing submissions on behalf of the Council. 15 Outline closing submissions on behalf of the appellant. 16 Addendum to closing submissions on behalf of the appellant.
Documents submitted after the Inquiry
17 Completed Section 106 agreement. 18 Appeal decision APP/P0240/W/17/3176387. 19 Appeal decision APP/P0240/W/17/3190584. 20 Appellant’s comments in response to the Stotfold appeal. 21 Appellant’s comments in response to the Meppershall appeal. 22 Council’s comments in response to the Meppershall appeal.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 11