DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE 18 February 2019

Case No: 18/01796/OUT (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

Proposal: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 90 DWELLINGS TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED ACCESS AND WORKS IN THE HIGHWAY, DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING

Location: LAND REAR OF 68 TO 82 NORTH STREET STILTON

Applicant: CADDICK LAND D HICKS, S WILLIAMS, H WILLIAMS AND H LANDY

Grid Ref: 516277 289831

Date of Registration: 28.08.2018

Parish: STILTON

RECOMMENDATION -

APPROVE subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 obligation relating to affordable housing, provision of open space and maintenance contribution, wheeled bins, and subject to conditions to include 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, or on the grounds that the applicant is unwilling to complete the obligation necessary to make the development acceptable.

This application is referred to the Development Management Committee (DMC) in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation as it is a Departure from the Development Plan, Stilton Parish Council's recommendation of refusal is contrary to the officer recommendation of approval and it was requested by the Local Member Cllr Alban that the application is determined at the Council’s DMC.

1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND APPLICATION

1.1 The application site is located to the East and rear of North Street and West of the A1 Motorway. The western boundary of the site is formed by North Street and some rear boundaries of dwellings along the highway. The northern boundary is a small area of tree planting with industrial development beyond. The eastern boundary is a landscape buffer and hedgerow running alongside the A1(M). The southern boundary is adjacent to a paddock. The application site extends to 4 hectares and is relatively flat agricultural land.

1.2 The application site is proposed to be accessed from North Street. The site is accessible by public transport with bus stops located on either side of North Street with services to Huntington, Peterborough Hampton and Sawtry. The Site is approximately 450m to the north of the centre of the settlement. Services in the village include several food establishments and shops as well as a number of public houses or inns, a church, a village hall, some sports facilities, Stilton Church of England Primary School, a garden centre and a large golf course to the south of the settlement.

1.3 This application is in outline with 'access' the only matter to be considered in detail at this stage. The final layout, scale, appearance and landscaping are 'Reserved Matters' to be considered at a future date (should outline permission be granted). The application is accompanied by an 'Illustrative Masterplan Plan showing how the application site could be developed and demonstrating that the site is capable of accommodating the scale of development proposed (up to 90 dwellings). However, the final would be established at reserved matters stage.

1.4 Although some were submitted/amended during the determination period, the planning application is supported by the following information, plans and reports: • Planning Application Form and Ownership Certificate; • Site Location Plan • Illustrative Master Plan • Topographical Survey • Design and Access Statement • Planning Statement • Transport Assessment • Travel Plan • Flood Risk Assessment • Preliminary Ecological Appraisal • Lighting Impact Assessment • Landscape Plan • Archaeological and Heritage Assessment • Air Quality Report • Noise Report • Agricultural and Land Classification and impact assessment • Statement of Community Engagement

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. The NPPF sets out the Government's planning policies for: * delivering a sufficient supply of homes; * achieving well-designed places; * conserving and enhancing the natural environment; * conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

2.2 Whilst the NPPF 2018 has now been published and replaces the NPPF 2012, transitional arrangements are in place for authorities who have submitted Local Plans submissions prior to the 29 January 2019 and to ensure consistency, the 2012 framework policies will continue to be relevant. For clarity HDC submitted their Local Plan on 29 March 2018.

2.3 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) sets out the three dimensions to sustainable development - an economic role, a social role and an environmental role - and outlines the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Under the heading of Delivering Sustainable Development, the Framework sets out the Government's planning policies for: * promoting sustainable transport; * delivering a wide choice of high quality homes; * requiring good design; * conserving and enhancing the natural environment; * conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

2.4 In this report, reference to both NPPF 2012 and 2018 from here-on referred to as ‘the NPPF’

2.5 Planning Practice Guidance

For full details visit the government website https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-communities- and-local-government

3. PLANNING POLICIES

3.1 Saved policies from the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (1995) • 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" • 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 - Housing Provision • OB2 - Maintenance of Open Space

3.3 Huntingdonshire Local Development Framework Core Strategy (2009) • CS1: "Sustainable development in Huntingdonshire" • CS2: "Strategic Housing Development" • CS4: "Affordable Housing in Development" • CS10: "Contributions to Infrastructure Requirements"

3.4 Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 (as amended March 2018 for submission) • LP 1: "Amount of development" • LP 2: "Strategy and principles for development" • LP 3: "Green Infrastructure" • LP 4: "Contributing to Infrastructure Delivery" • LP 5: "Flood Risk" • LP 6: "Waste Water Management" • LP 10: "Small Settlements" • LP 11: "The Countryside" • LP 12: "Design Context" • LP 13: "Design Implementation" • LP 14: "Placemaking" • LP 15: "Amenity" • LP 16: "Surface Water" • LP 17: "Sustainable Travel" • LP 18: "Parking Provision and Vehicle Movement" • LP 25: "Affordable Housing Provision" • LP 26: "Housing Mix" • LP 31: "Health Impact Assessment" • LP 32: "Biodiversity and Geodiversity" • LP 33: "Trees, Woodland, Hedges and Hedgerows" • LP 36: "Heritage Assets and their Settings" • LP 38: “Air Quality” • LP 39: "Ground Contamination and Groundwater Pollution"

3.5 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. Given the transitional arrangements in place it is considered that if there is any tension between emerging policies and NPPF 2018 the previous framework policies will prevail.

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 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and Guidance: • Huntingdonshire Design Guide SPD (2017) • Huntingdonshire Townscape and Landscape Assessment SPD 2007 • Developer Contributions SPD 2011 • Cambridgeshire Flood and Water SPD 2017 • Huntingdonshire Tree Guidance Note 3 • December 2017 Annual Monitoring Review regarding housing land supply.

Local policies are viewable at https://www.huntingdonshire.gov.uk Weight of Development Plan Policies & NPPF Consistency:

3.10 The fact that the Development Plan policies are old is in itself irrelevant as they remain saved policies and the statutory starting point and under S.38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (PCPA) 2004.

3.11 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.

4. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 No relevant planning history

5. CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Stilton Parish Council – Objection, comments summarised below: (Full copy attached) • Lack of Infrastructure - The Stilton School is already at capacity. The planning application suggests bussing small children to other local schools, however as most of these are already facing similar capacity issues as Stilton – not viable or appropriate • The suggestion that the school has additional capacity because planning has been approved for a four unit mobile classroom is incorrect as this building is for the pre-school sessions and not to be used as a classroom. • The development is outside the acceptable walking distance (1 km) from the site entrance to the primary school. Parents going the opposite way to work out of the village will drive their children to school increasing congestion and parking issues • Green space and recreation areas - Stilton has limited green space areas with nothing to the north of the village; the village playing field is approximately one mile from the entrance to the development at the opposite end of the village. The proposed "nature trail" not additional to current walking routes • There are no provisions for a doctor’s surgery in Stilton. All village residents have to travel to Yaxley or to Sawtry to access a doctors surgery, where both practices are heavily subscribed. • There are no plans for Stilton Pharmacy's new building which will house consulting rooms for doctors and nurses. • Road safety - Speeding along North Street is common. The traffic survey carried out for the planning application reflects this. No serious traffic calming measures are proposed. • Parking on the proposed development – parking on new housing developments is inadequate. The outline scheme proposed has very limited off or on road parking areas. This could be improved by slightly lower density housing • Parking and congestion in the village and outside the school. Buses struggle to negotiate the narrow roads, all partially blocked with many parked cars. Additional housing will add to this • Road safety - The proposed development will be to the east of North Street - the opposite side of the main road to most village amenities. A pedestrian crossing to slow traffic would be essential to make crossing safer; as well as helping with traffic calming. • Utilities - The fundamental requirements for a development on this scale do not appear to have been assessed or addressed. • Existing residents will benefit in a limited way if the only investment in the village is the Parish Council's payment of just 15% of the stated £1m Community Infrastructure Levy that the contractor has advised residents will be paid to Huntingdonshire District. The Parish Council seeks assurances that the remainder of the £1m contractors payment will be used for Stilton • The Air Quality Assessment specifically excludes dust from the scope, whereas experience of living in properties adjacent to the A1M there are considerable amounts of airborne dust deposited on adjacent properties • Trickle ventilation is not an acceptable solution with regard to noise and heat recovery ventilation schemes will be required to meet the Building Regulations and latest code of practice for air quality. However with the high levels of dust an increased frequency of filter changes would be required, which would place an unacceptable financial burden on social housing. • This proposal does not appear to have addressed any of the requirements to protect the future residents from dust or noise.

5.2 Following a re-consultation period on an addendum Transport Assessment, the Parish Council had the further objections: • Neither the Addendum or the original Assessment take account of traffic flows within the village nor the impact on parking • The Addendum makes a 5-year traffic growth projection completely ignores the building of 5,350 dwelling to the north- east of Norman Cross. High Haddon development which should be taken into account in estimating traffic flows; • The Addendum takes no account of the other proposed development off High Street which will also affect traffic/parking • Another application has been made for a further 70 dwellings off High Street in Stilton (application ref no. 18/02192/OUT). This gives a total of 160 dwellings. The scale of the proposed developments is far outside the Core Strategy 2009 which identifies Stilton as a Small Settlement, and, in excess of that specified in the new Local Plan.

5.3 Cllr Alban, Comments summarised below: • The proposed development goes against Stilton’s existing designation as a ‘Small Settlement’ in the Core Strategy and in the Local Plan to 2036. Policy CS3 allowed residential infilling for up to 3 dwellings and minor scale of up to 9 dwellings. • Problem with speeding in North Street evidence from the Stilton Community Speed Watch team • The traffic figures underestimate existing vehicle movements in and out of the village; they therefore underestimate the potential road safety and traffic problems, making the report unsound. • The proposed development will add to the existing road safety and parking issues on Church Street/North Street junction • Stilton already has road safety and parking problems which a development of 90 dwellings will only exasperate such as parking on yellow lines and blocking public transport such as buses • The proposed T-junction entrance to the site is dangerous • The proposed junction would make parking opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of it a breach of Highway Code Rule 243 • The proposed junction is also very close to the driveways of numbers 95a and 97 North Street as well as the parking area adjacent to number 93; if allowed to go ahead the junction would be disruptive, problematic and over all dangerous to the residents. • Reservations expressed by the County Council’s Transport Assessment Team are enough for this application to be refused. • Whilst it may suit the developer to quote walking distances, the reality is that a significant number of existing parents will drive • Stilton school does not have the capacity to cope with the potential number of children the development may generate • The after school club has had to move out of one of the class rooms and into a temporary classroom at the front of the school • The only on-site alternative to expand the primary school would be using the front of the school, where potential development would expand into some of the car park - thereby leading to further parking and road safety problems. • Caddick Land mentions pupils using Folksworth or Holme Primary schools as an alternative to Stilton. Reception to Year 6 children would result in additional vehicle movements either in private cars and/or taxis - hardly desirable/environmentally friendly • Stilton has no doctor’s surgery, with residents usually having to travel to Yaxley or alternatively Sawtry • The expansion of the chemists is not a substitute for doctors • No account been taken of the vehicle movements which are likely to be generated by the Great Haddon development - either from vehicles used in the construction or the those relating to people who will live and/or work in Great Haddon and queuing on B1043. • Objections remain about Highway Safety despite County Council response

5.4 Highways England – No Objection

5.5 Cambridgeshire County Council Local Highway Authority – No Objections – Comments summarised below: • Works to the highway are proposed with the dragon’s teeth markings and the entry feature. Will they be located on the existing 30mph limit or is it proposed to relocate the 30mph limit? • The access width and footways are acceptable, however the radii will need to be increased to 7.5m and not the 6m shown • The proposed visibility splays are acceptable.

Following the submission of further information the following comments are below: • The amended plans provided indicating the radii being improved to 7.5m and the village entry feature is being positioned at the location of the existing 30mph • The required visibility splays access width are acceptable • The internal network indicated is not at present being considered at this stage and therefore this layout should not be considered as part of the approval. • Recommended conditions for Full details of the layout of the site including roads, footways, cycle ways, buildings, visibility splays, parking provision, turning areas and highway surface water drainage, minimum access width, radius kerbs

Officer Comment: The initial concerns from the Local highway authority have been addressed and they have no objections, further comments are discussed in the relevant section below.

5.6 Cambridgeshire County Council Local Highway Authority Transport Assessment team, comments summarised below: • Baseline Traffic Flows - An acceptable automatic traffic count was undertaken on the A1 between 30/10/17 and 5/11/17 • Sustainable Transport Accessibility - limited facilities within Stilton. National cycle route 12 is located close to the site. 3.6.2 States that national cycle route 52 links to Peterborough, this is incorrect is NCR 53 to the north which links to Peterborough. • Accessibility by Bus - limited bus service serving Stilton • Accident Data - latest accident from the accident report is dated 01/05/2017, this is more than a year old now. Evidence needs to be provided accident data is the most recent 60 months. • Proposed Access and Traffic Calming measures to be agreed with the LHA • Parking needs to be in accordance with LPA standards • TRICS Assessment - Although the use of TRICS is acceptable the methodology to obtain trip rates is not acceptable. A total person trip rate should be calculated and then the relevant census data used to split this into individual modes. It is also noted that edge of town has been selected, this is not representative of the sites location which is not on the edge of a town. • Growth Rates use of TEMPRO and proposed growth rates are acceptable. A future year assessment of 2023 is acceptable. • Traffic Impact and Analysis - The junction modelling has not been checked due to the issues raised above. It is noted that only the site assess junction has been assessed, this is not acceptable. The junction of North Street with the B1043 and the A1 roundabout should also be assessed. A dimensioned plan needs to be submitted showing the inputs used in Junctions 9.

5.7 Following the submission of further information, the following comments are summarised below: • Baseline Flows – Acceptable Manual classified counts were undertaken of the A1/M1 roundabout with the B1043 on 6/11/18 • Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment- The use of TRICS and the proposed trip rate is acceptable. The proposed development is predicted to generate 63 two way movements in the AM peak and 54 two way movements in the PM peak. Census data to determine mode split and distribution is acceptable. • Traffic Impact and Analysis • The following assessment scenarios are acceptable –2018 base, 2023 base, 2023 base + development • Capacity Assessment - Unclear why an “arm capacity adjustment” of -800 has been applied to each arm? A detailed explanation needs to be provided why this has been done and a detail explanation as to how this affects the capacity assessment.

5.8 Following the submission of further information the following comments are below: • Having undertaken an in-depth review of the junction modelling, the development will not have a severe impact. • Recommend highway improvements condition

Officer response: Comments discussed within relevant section below.

5.9 HDC Environmental Health – Following amendments, no objection - Comments are discussed in full within the report. Issues to be discussed include Air quality, Noise and lighting. • Conditions were recommended for noise, air quality, contaminated land, construction/delivery times and a construction management plan

5.10 Cambridgeshire Constabulary – No objections, will comment further at Reserved Matters stage

5.11 Cambridgeshire County Council Archaeology – No Objections – comments summarised within report • Recommended archaeological investigation condition

Cambridgeshire County Council Lead Local Flood Authority – No objections, recommended Surface Water Drainage Condition

5.12 Cambridgeshire County Council Minerals and Waste – No objections, comments discussed within report, recommend detailed Wasted management and Minimisation Plan condition.

5.13 HDC Housing – No Objections – Comments summarised below: • Provides the requisite 40% affordable housing. 70% should be for rent and 30% shared ownership.

5.14 HDC Landscaping – Comments summarised below: • Acceptable in principle • The proposed “focal square” is not focal, or square • SUDS. Are these 2 areas sufficient for drainage? • Will the drainage areas be permanently waterbodies – if so they cannot be usable public open space. SUDS features should be designed for public and visual amenity, and biodiversity – as well as drainage. There should be a variety of edge conditions, shallow lateral gradients, wet and dry benches, different depths of water but shallow areas predominating, marginal planting of suitable species – all should combine the landscape character of the site without the need for safety fencing. • The southern part of the scheme should have a continuous loop road, instead of turning heads/large areas of hardstanding. • Boundary treatments that are visible from public locations [including rear parking courts] should be 1.8m height brick walls, preferably with appropriate planting set against them. • Parking. Runs of more than four parking bays should be subdivided with tree and shrub planting. • The site is actually located in the Fen Margin LCA, but the site is divorced from its surrounding landscape character due to its immediate urban setting. • The submitted PEA [ADAS 2018] is acceptable and I agree with the comments of the Wildlife Trust

5.15 HDC Urban Design Officer – Comments summarised below: • The Urban Design officer has noted issues with the illustrative masterplan. Some of these comments are discussed further below within the report. Summarised below is advice for the indicative layout to be accepted at Reserved matters stage. • The Illustrative Masterplan comprises a mix of detached, semi-detached and terrace houses. The majority of detached units are located fronting the western boundary, the northern site boundary and the main spine road and semi-detached and terrace houses fronting the eastern boundary – to form a noise buffer from the A1(M) is supported. • Development fronting the boundary with North Street should form a consistent building line, aligned parallel with the road to reduce the stepped arrangement and avoiding exposing prominent side gables and parking. • The proposed Nature Trail lacks surveillance and results in exposing the rear garden boundaries of Plots 11-66 and 20 – resulting in the loss of security and privacy to the gardens. Development should seek to front onto the northern boundary, landscape buffer and nature trail • As submitted a number of the proposed dwellings (e.g. Plots 6, 33, 88 etc.) include long lengths of rear garden boundaries and parking/garages which limit the ability for these units to turn the corner. This arrangement on any future REM application would not be supported. • Views through the site should be terminated by built form or landscaping, the proposed garages (e.g. Plot 30 and 47) and rear boundaries (e.g. Plots 55-56) fail to terminate views within the site. As per the HDC Design Guide SPD (2017) garages should be located behind the prevailing building line to conceal parking. Key buildings are required at key locations and junctions. • Development should be predominantly 2 storeys with 2.5 storey dwellings limited to key locations (i.e. dwellings terminating key views and surrounding the POS). • Density – whilst the overall gross site density (22dph) is supported, a range of densities should be provided ranging from the low density detached dwellings fronting North Street to higher density development adjacent the A1(M). • Parking is generally located to the side of units with a large number of dwellings with garages. The REM application should specify garage sizes that accord with the HDC Design Guide • The arrangement of semi-detached and terrace dwellings adjacent to the western edge (to mitigate against noise impacts from the A1(M)) has resulted in long lengths of frontage parking. The future REM submission should seek to further break up rows of parking including tree planting / soft landscaping. Alternative house types – e.g. linked detached houses with accommodation above an open car port would reduce the prominence of parking adjacent to the POS whilst still providing the necessary built form • The arrangement of private drives abutting the POS and A1(M) result in poor connectivity along eastern site boundary, the current arrangement is also likely to result in significant drag distances for refuse bins in excess of 30m required by the HDC Design Guide SPD (2017) and HDC Refuse Collection Policies. • All rear/side garden boundaries facing the public realm should be 1.8m high robust brick walls with soft landscaping to the front of the wall to provide a high quality interface with the public realm, improve security of the gardens • Future reserved matters should include a comprehensive Design and Access Statement, exact requirements are detailed in the full consultee comments.

5.16 HDC Ops – No objection, comments discussed fully within the report

5.17 Anglian Water – No Objections, comments summarised below: • Recommend foul water drainage condition

5.18 HDC Tree Officer – Comments discussed within report

5.19 Wildlife Trust – No Objections, comments summarised below and within the report: • Agree with the conclusions in the PEA • Recommends the production of a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (BEP) which provides further details of enhancements and how they will be incorporated into the design proposals.

5.20 CCC Education – No Objections, comments summarised within the report below. • Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 places local authorities (LAs) under a general duty to provide a school place for every child living in the area who is of school age and whose parents want their child educated in the state funded sector. The Education and Inspections Act 2006 placed additional duties on LAs to ensure fair access to educational opportunity, to promote choice for parents and secure diversity in the provision of schools. This reaffirmed the rights of parents to express a preference of school for their children to attend. Where possible this preference should be accommodated, there is not a statutory duty to meet these preferences however. • In line with its statutory duties the Council aims, where possible, to secure sufficient places for children to attend their local catchment school. In areas where there are a number of schools in close proximity, mostly in urban areas, greater emphasis is placed on local rather than catchment schools. There are a number of reasons for this approach: • Ensuring children attend their local catchment school aligns with the corporate priorities of ‘helping people live healthy and independent lives’ and ‘supporting and protecting vulnerable people’. • If pupils have access to their local school, they are more likely to attend by cycling, scootering or walking. They will also be able to more readily access out of school activities and can develop friendship groups within their own community. • Providing a local school will ensure that services can be easily accessed by families in the greatest need (Cambridge City Secondary Review, 2017). • It recognises the wider role schools play within their local communities, in particular as providers of sport and leisure, adult and community learning and as venues for cultural events (New School Competition Policy, 2007). • By mitigating the impact of new housing developments within the local school, families within the existing community are not disadvantaged in accessing school places. • Proposals for the site suggest the development will consist of up to 90 dwellings and a need to ensure provision for additional children. The development will generate 27 Early Years children (16 eligible for free places); 36 Primary children and 23 Secondary children aged 11-15. • There is some capacity in Early Years Education • There is no capacity at Stilton primary School • There will be capacity at Sawtry Village Academy.

Officer Response: Full details are within the CCC Education consultee response, further information is commented in the report below.

6. REPRESENTATIONS

6.1 Representations have been received from 79 properties (some on multiple occasions). A Public site notice and press noticed have also advertised the application as a departure from the development plan. These comments are summarised below: • This site is probably the most sensible in Stilton, as it impacts least on the village centre. • The houses proposed will be bought by landlords/rented out. • The existing farm track could connect the southern part of the site with North Street for pedestrians and cyclists. • Bus service info needs to be updated - Service 46 is a school bus to/from Sawtry and Service B now connects Stilton to Peterborough and Cambridge (via Huntingdon). • The Travel Plan, Section 3.4, Table 3-Local Bus Service shows Stilton is served by 3 bus services. This is incorrect, there is only one bus coming through the village. • Inaccuracies in the traffic survey underestimate the traffic flow and the impact the development will have on the village. • Bus services are unreliable; people have to drive to work for employment or commuting for services in Yaxley/Sawtry • Should be more biodiversity enhancements, wildlife present on the site including badgers and deer and whistling Red kites • Proposal would have an unacceptable % increase on level of housing in Stilton, too many houses for village to accommodate • Lack of greenspace in the village, no sports facilities, the playfields are a mile away • Lack of facilities in the village, one small shop, pubs and food outlets no doctors surgery, supermarkets 4-5miles away • Stilton Primary School oversubscribed • The applicant’s 2017 education data for school places are not accurate, children are transported by all means, car, bus taxi to other villages, children are being turned away from Stilton • Doctors surgery and schools in Sawtry/Yaxley also full • Doctor availability - even if consulting rooms are made available if or when the chemist relocates from Nisa, this will not provide all the services that a full surgery offers. • School and access to facilities will increase congestion and parking issues as people don’t generally walk or cycle • Emergency vehicles struggle to negotiate parked cars • The suggested cycle route is unsuitable for families as the main roads are too dangerous for families. • Access onto the main road into the village effect dog walkers • The development would create approximately another 180 to 250 additional cars greatly increasing congestion and further on street parking is problematic • Housing should be granted with substantial infrastructure • No proper traffic survey done on speeding vehicles entering and leaving via North Street, no traffic calming measures. • Proposed access dangerous for nearby driveways and would have an adverse impact upon highway safety considering the access and Mill Road and Roman Way • The development will adversely effect amenity of villagers by increased noise and disturbance including a loss of privacy. • Traffic monitoring did not measure the North End of North Street or take into account the Highways Depot • Housing -11,000+ proposed developments within 3-11 miles of Stilton, 6000 within 5 miles but Peterborough CC (Combined authority should revisit those already granted and vicinity to Stilton, common sense approach): • Huntingdon DC - 5000 Alconbury Weald (11 miles from Stilton), 750 Roman's Edge (17 miles from Stilton), 350 Sawtry (5 miles from Stilton) and 3000 St Neots (20 miles from Stilton). • Peterborough CC - 5000+ Great Haddon (3 miles from Stilton), 866 Hampton Gardens (5 miles from Stilton) • Site is not included in emerging site allocations and goes against the emerging Stilton neighbourhood plan • Reasons for the sites being rejected as part of the emerging local plan remain valid • In Huntingdon's Local plan, this site was only shown to be suitable for 12 houses, fronting North Street; this would have a lower impact on the village • Stilton would only receive a minimal CIL contribution • Housing not needed in this area or in Huntingdonshire, Peterborough has more than 5 years supply of housing • Developer’s argument is Stilton should be redesignated from small settlement to key service centre which should be used for moderate scale development (10-59 dwellings) but the application is for 90 houses which goes against the argument • Site prone to surface water flooding and foul drainage capacity could be an issue, have Anglian water been consulted? • Trees felled for the entrance should be protected • Air, dust and noise pollution not acceptable future residents, won’t be able to open windows from A1 and Highways Depot, • Noise report readings taken in the middle of the day not at peak hours and doesn’t include commercial noise and banging and beeping of gritting lorries or wet weather when noise is louder • The noise report is not sound, uncertainties in source activity data such as traffic flows and emission factors; Variations in meteorological conditions; overall model limitations; and Uncertainties associated with monitoring data, including locations. • Increase air/traffic pollution has been known to create deaths • Residents would have to sleep with their windows open in the summer, above the WHO thresholds • Local Light Pollution • Archaeological remains from before the A1 • A North Street pedestrian crossing would increase safety • Not considered the historic character of the village and development is poor design, and the scale is excessive compared to existing development • Loss of views of open countryside • Why are Greenfield sites being developed instead of available brownfield sites? • Errors on the application form e.g. materials and parking • Figure 3.3, Local Amenities Plan - The map has several village features in the wrong position. • The amended transport statement still does not address traffic issues on roads leading onto North Street and in the village. • Object to the amended transport statement on the grounds that the conclusions reached are only based on 6 hrs figures obtained on one day that cannot be used as an accurate occlusion of the amount of traffic using the junction of the B1043 or the traffic using the A1m at Norman Cross • Factors such as seasonal traffic the added vehicle movements at Norman Cross caused by the creation of Greater Haddon has not been taken into account as with greater traffic using the A1m with the turning of the A14 into a motorway • Increase in HGVs using the surrounding roads increasing risk of Highway Safety • The construction of the development would affect mobile phone signal – a radio frequency propagation survey is necessary • Residents already selling houses

6.2 The above representations are a summary of the comments that have been received and are addressed within the report. Full details of the representations can be inspected via the comments section on the public access application file.

7. ASSESSMENT

7.1 When determining planning applications it is necessary to establish what weight should be given to each plan's policies in order to come to a decision. The following legislation, government policy and guidance outline how this should be done.

7.2 As set out within the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (section 38(6)) and the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (section 70(2)) 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. This is reiterated within paragraph 47 of the NPPF (2018). The development plan is defined in section 38(3)(b) of the 2004 Act as "the development plan documents (taken as a whole) that have been adopted or approved in that area".

7.3 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 Core Strategy 2009 -Huntingdon West Area Action Plan 2011 -Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Minerals and Waste Development Plan Core Strategy -St Neots Neighbourhood Plan -Godmanchester Neighbourhood Plan -Houghton and Wyton Neighbourhood Plan

7.4 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, para 2 confirms that it is a material consideration and significant weight is given to this in determining applications.

7.5 The main issues to consider in assessing this application are whether there is any conflict with Development Plan policies. If there is any conflict, whether the application can be considered to be in accordance with the Development Plan when taken as a whole. If the application 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. With this in mind the report addresses the principal, important and controversial issues which are in this case: • Principle of development and Housing Supply Policies • Access and Transport • Sustainability • Indicative layout and impact upon the character of the area • Trees • Open Space • Residential Amenity • Ecology and Biodiversity • Heritage Assets • Flooding and Drainage • Contamination • Other Matters

Principle of development and Housing Supply Policies:

7.6 The site is considered to be located adjacent to, but outside of the built up area of the Small Settlement of Stilton, and within the open countryside as classified in Policy CS3 of the Core Strategy 2009. The Core Strategy sets out that further to Market Towns and Key Service Centres. "the main distinction between these Smaller Settlements and the Key Service Centres is that none offer a sufficient range of services and facilities to sustain daily living without the need to access services and facilities elsewhere". As a result, policy CS3 of the Core Strategy sets out that for Smaller Settlements "residential infilling will be appropriate within the built-up area"; with 'residential infilling' indicated as being up to 3 dwellings within the built-up area. The policy also provides that development proposals of a larger scale may be allowed where specific circumstances demonstrate that this secures the most sustainable option for the site.

7.7 The Development Plan policies seek to ensure that development is located in places well served by public transport and accessible to services so that the need to travel is minimised, thus helping to tackle climate change at a district level. For this reason, and to restrict the loss of high quality agricultural land and to help protect the character of the countryside, development outside the built up area is carefully controlled. Development outside the built up area is restricted, for example to dwellings required for the efficient management of agriculture, forestry or horticulture enterprises (policies En17 and H23 of the 1995 Local Plan apply). Building on this, Policy CS3 of the Adopted Core Strategy continues the strategic aim of concentrating development in the larger sustainable settlements and protects the character and scale of smaller villages and the countryside through limiting general housing development outside of the built up area (with the exception of essential needs housing and specific allocations).

7.8 In the Emerging Plan: Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 (as amended March 2018 for submission), Stilton is defined as a 'Small Settlement' within the emerging Local Plan to 2036. Policy LP 10 sets out that residential development would be supported within a Small Settlement where it is appropriately located within the built-up area and where the amount and location of the development proposed is sustainable in relation to the: - level of service and infrastructure provision within the settlement; - opportunities for users of the proposed development to access everyday services and facilities by sustainable modes of travel including walking, cycling and public transport; - effect on the character of the immediate locality and the settlement as a whole. With regards to development on land well-related to the built-up area, it is set out that development may be supported where it accords with the specific opportunities allowed for through other policies within the plan.

7.9 Policy LP 11 of the Local Plan to 2036 Proposed Submission 2017 sets out that development within the countryside will be restricted to the limited and sporadic opportunities as provided for in other policies of the plan. Amongst other requirements, this policy outlines that development must protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and not give rise to noise, odour, obtrusive light or other impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside by others.

7.10 As stated within Paragraph 48 of the NPPF, 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). During the transitional period for emerging plans submitted for examination (set out in paragraph 214), consistency should be tested against the previous Framework published in March 2012. Due to the advanced stage of the emerging local plan within the examination period, it is considered that these police carry significant weight.

7.11 In considering the current application, the development would not be ‘isolated’ (referred to in para 79 of the NPPF) as it is in close proximity to other properties. However, the proposed dwellings do not meet any of the exception criteria set out in the local policies regarding development in the countryside such as an agricultural need or exceptional design quality.

7.12 However, the application site is adjacent but outside of the built-up area of Stilton and is not allocated for development within the Local Plan 1995/2002 or the Core Strategy 2009. The site is therefore considered to be in the countryside for the purposes of the Development Plan. Being within the countryside, the development of the site, as proposed, is contrary to Development Plan policies H23 and En17 of the Local Plan (1995) and policy CS3 of the Adopted Core Strategy (2009). The application has been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan as it is contrary to the Development Plan currently in place for Huntingdonshire, due to the application site being outside of the built up area of Stilton and forming part of the countryside.

7.13 As the site is located within the countryside, new dwellings would normally be resisted. 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 11 of the NPPF. Due to under delivery in recent years the buffer to be applied for the District is 20%. The December 2017 Annual Monitoring Review applies the 20% buffer and demonstrates that the Council has a five year supply of housing land.

7.14 The Development Plan policies relevant to the supply of housing (En17 and H23 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan (HLP) and CS2 and CS3 of the Huntingdonshire Core Strategy (HCS)) 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.

7.15 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 d ii of para. 11 of the NPPF 2018 is engaged. For decision- taking this means granting permission in instances where there are no relevant Development Plan policies, or the policies which are most important for 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. Footnote 6 to the Framework provides some examples of these restrictive policies.

7.16 To address the identified shortfall in housing delivery, Huntingdonshire's Local Plan to 2036 contains a significantly revised strategy from the Adopted Core Strategy (2009). The strategy for development in the District is set out in Policy LP 2 of the emerging Local Plan to 2036 and focuses on concentrating growth in the four identified Spatial Planning Areas, with approximately three quarters of the objectively assessed need for housing being focused within these areas. Working down the settlement hierarchy identified within Policy LP2, seven Key Service Centres are designated, reflecting the concentration of services and facilities in these settlements; serving not only residents of these settlements but also residents of other nearby communities. Working further down from this, the role of small settlements is identified. Policy LP 2 notes that "Approximately a quarter of the objectively assessed need for housing, together with a limited amount of employment growth, will be permitted on sites dispersed across the key service centres and small settlements to support the vitality of these communities and provide flexibility and diversity in the housing supply". Policy LP 10 provides support for development proposals within the built-up area of a Small Settlement, the proposed development therefore conflicts with emerging policy LP10. It is acknowledged that the application site is not identified for allocation within the emerging Local Plan to 2036 and falls outside the built-up area of a Smaller Settlement. As such, the proposals would not accord with policies within the emerging Local Plan to 2036.

7.17 The application proposes affordable housing provision at 40% to be secured through a Section 106 Agreement. Although the 40% affordable housing provision is welcomed, it is highlighted that it is a policy compliant provision and therefore accords with what should be expected on all qualifying sites. This therefore adds moderate weight in favour of the proposal. The Parish Council has commented about another live application for 70 residential dwellings and commercial uses (application ref 18/02192/OUT), and combined this would result in a cumulative impact of housing forced onto the village. However as this application is still undetermined and has not been assessed by the Council’s DMC, this carries limited weight.

7.18 The Parish Council stated that the Council can already demonstrate 5 year land supply which implies the district does not need any more housing. However housing land supplies are minimum standards and as stated above the tilted balance is engaged, therefore the application must be assessed on its own merits and determined in accordance with the policies and policy position in place at the time of the decision.

7.19 As discussed, taking into account the current policy position, the proposed development is capable of being acceptable in principle subject to the material planning considerations to follow below.

Access and Transport:

7.20 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 90 dwellings. In determining whether the development would have severe residual cumulative impacts, the applicant has submitted both a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) has been consulted.

7.21 Vehicular access to the development site is proposed from North Street. The new vehicular access will take the form of a simple priority T-junction, which is shown on the Proposed Site Access Layout with Visibility Splays Drawing No 001 Rev A. The junction is proposed opposite No 93 North Street. An access road will run East into the site, connecting to the internal road layout. The access would also connect to the existing footpath on North Street which links to the existing services within Stilton. A number of representations and the Parish Council requested a pedestrian crossing on North Street, as to gain access to the existing services and facilities it would involve future occupiers to cross the Public Highway at some point. However as the proposal would connect directly to an existing footpath this was not requested by the Local Highway Authority. The vehicular access is proposed to be 5.5 metres wide, enabling two-way vehicle movements.

7.22 In the vicinity of the site, North Street is subject to a 30mph speed limit, commensurate with being in a residential area. Whilst the Parish Council and representations, and the applicant’s own speed survey has highlighted that illegal speeding takes place on this road from vehicles entering and leaving the village, members of the public breaking the speed limit is out of the control of the Local Planning Authority and is subject to separate legislation. The site access has therefore been designed in accordance with Manual for Streets. The drawings demonstrate that 2.4 metre x 43 metre visibility splays can be provided, in accordance with the requirements for a 30mph road. However it should be noted due to the speeding evidence commented on above the available vehicle to vehicle visibility splays within the highway and that can be achieved are far in excess of those recorded speeds. The internal road layout would be the subject of detailed design in a future planning application for Approval of Reserved Matters.

7.23 Precise details of parking will be looked at during the Reserved Matters application stage, it is however anticipated that the site can accommodate the quantum of development sought with sufficient parking provision.

7.24 There have been a number of neighbour comments with regards to the safety of the access and parking within the village. With regards to the proposed access, the size, geometry and vehicle to vehicle and forward visibility for the proposed junction, are all in accordance with criteria for the speed of the road and size of the development and therefore acceptable. Parking on double yellow lines which may block delivery or emergency vehicles is out of the control of the Local Planning Authority and covered by separate legislation.

7.25 Both the Development Management Team and the Transport Assessment Team at Cambridgeshire County Council Local Highway Authority have no objections to the proposal following amendments to the submitted Transport Assessment and further justification. This was commented on in the Consultations section above and full information is available online.

7.26 Following amendments, the travel patterns for the development have been established from TRICS person trip rates and 2011 Census ‘method of travel to work’ data for the local area. The proposed development is predicted to generate 63 and 54 two-way vehicle movements during the morning and evening peak hours respectively. Baseline flows were undertaken at the A1/M1 roundabout with the B1043 which are acceptable for use.

7.27 During the Transport Assessment amendments process, the County Council questioned “why an “arm capacity adjustment” of -800 has been applied to each arm? The applicants gave a response to this which can be found in the amended transport documents online. Cambridgeshire County Council was satisfied with this explanation. There have been a number of neighbour representations and comments from the Parish Council with regards to traffic caused from the proposal, in particular areas of the Public Highway which were omitted from the assessment such as the commercial depot adjacent to the site and traffic in the centre of the village. However the County Council consider the highway assessment is considered to represent a robust worst case scenario taking into account all relevant development and it is considered that the impact of the proposed development traffic on the local highway network would not be severe. The transport assessment has demonstrated that whilst other modes of sustainable transport are limited there would be an alternative to private car use and that these trips would not have a severe residual impact on the operation of these transport networks.

7.28 The Local Highway Authority have recommended conditions with regards to: *access width a minimum of 5.5m for a minimum of 20m in distance *Full details of the layout of the site including roads, footways, cycle ways, buildings, parking provision and surface water drainage *access surface, construction and drainage measures *Temporary parking facilities during construction *7.5m Radius Kerbs *Parking and turning area to be laid out prior to first occupation of the development for parking and leaving in forward gear *Off-site highway works – i.e. raised kerbs and RTPI at the two closest bus stops to the site. These conditions are considered to meet the tests in the NPPF and have been included at the end of this report.

7.29 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.

Sustainability:

7.30 As discussed, the Local Plan makes no allocations for development in Small Settlements. In light of the adopted housing supply policies being out of date, it is not appropriate in the case of all Small Settlements to attach the same weight to Policies LP10 and CS3 in a blanket way. It is necessary to assess the circumstances of each Small Settlement to establish whether that village can accommodate sustainably (as defined in the NPPF) the development proposed, having regard in particular to the level of services and facilities available to meet the needs of that development.

7.31 The presumption in favour of sustainable development requires proposals to achieve economic, social and environmental gains; as such a balancing exercise has to be undertaken to weigh the benefits of the scheme against its disadvantages.

Environmental Sustainability:

7.32 The environmental issues are assessed in the following sections of this report. In relation to the loss of higher grade of agricultural land, Policy LP11 of the Huntingdonshire District Council Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017 states that the Council will only grant planning permission where development seeks to use land of lower agricultural value in preference to land of higher agricultural value, avoid the irreversible loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 1 to 3a) where possible, and avoiding Grade 1 agricultural land unless there are exceptional circumstances where the benefits of the proposal significantly outweigh the loss of land. Development should also protect the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside; and not give rise to noise, odour, obtrusive light or other impacts that would adversely affect the use and enjoyment of the countryside by others. In this case, the site is classified as grade III agricultural land which adjoins the built up area and is restricted from the wider countryside by the A1m, and is in agricultural use. Due to the Council’s out of date housing supply policies, weight can be given to the need for housing as overriding the need to retain this parcel of agricultural land when conducting the planning balance. The proposal is not considered to result in a significant loss of viable high value agricultural land.

Social sustainability:

7.33 The Institute of Highways and Transportation (IHT) provide guidance on desirable walk distances in their publication 'Providing for Journeys on Foot' which recommends suggested acceptable walking distances of between 500m (6 minutes, "Desirable") and 2km (25 minutes, "Preferred Maximum") for commuting and journeys to school. For non-commuter journeys the guidance suggests that a walk distance of up to 1,200 metres can be 'considered', with the 'acceptable' and 'desirable' distances being 800 and 400 metres respectively. Similarly, acceptable cycling distances vary between individuals and circumstances but trips up to 5km (3.1miles) are accepted as having the potential to substitute car trips. However, these are not framed as absolute requirements: the SPD states that 'ideally' new homes will be built to be within those distances and the IFT guidance acknowledges that acceptable walking and cycling distances will vary between individuals.

7.34 It is considered that occupiers would have a reasonable level of access to the limited services and facilities within the village; either on foot or by cycle. Stilton possesses a number of amenities which include pubs, hotels, a Nisa convenience store, post office, chemist, hairdressers, a church, a primary school, golf course and a village hall/pavilion.

7.35 A Travel Plan Statement has been submitted alongside the application. The Travel Plan sets out objectives and targets for the implementation of measures which will reduce reliance upon the use of private vehicles and encourage safe and viable alternatives for accessing the site for residents. The Travel Plan includes a range of measures to encourage sustainable travel to and from the site and represents a commitment to ensure a Travel Plan Welcome Pack is adopted by the occupiers of the site. In the interests of sustainability, it is considered that the recommendations within the Travel plan encouraging sustainable modes of transport are secured by condition.

7.36 The Travel Plan and Transport Statement sets out that the site is accessible by public transport with the closest bus stop being opposite on North Street. Neighbour objections have pointed out that some of the bus information is incorrect. Bus services include the No 46 which is a daily school service accessing Peterborough, Yaxley, Stilton and Sawtry. The 46A accesses Sawtry, The Alconburys and Huntingdon which has sporadic services on weekdays and Saturdays. The B service connects Stilton to Peterborough and Cambridge via Huntingdon. It is commented that the bus to Peterborough has an early enough service to be used for commuting, similar to other services such as to Huntingdon and Cambridge, but this is disputed by Local Residents. It is considered that a future occupant of the proposed development would struggle to use the existing public transport services for day to day work commuting as some of the services are sporadic. However whilst they may not be suitable for everyday work, they do provide a credible sustainable transport alternative to private car use in order to access larger settlements such as Huntingdon and Peterborough, as well as Key Service centres such as Sawtry and Yaxley for medical services. The table below shows the services and amenities within the village and the distance from the site.

Amenity Distance (m) The Stilton Cheese Inn 585 Stilton Lodge Hotel 625 The Talbot Inn 670 Nisa Convenience Store 730 The Bell Inn Hotel 760 Angel Spice 775 Hi Lite Hairdressers 795 Ten Hairdressing 810 Post Office + Convenience 900 Chemist 910 St Mary Magdelene Church 1.05km Stilton C of E Primary School 1.05km Stilton Oaks Golf Course 1.15km Stilton Pavilion 1.40km 7.37 As commented on by the Parish Council and local residents, some of the services are outside the recommended walking distances. However as outlined within the IHT's guidance it is recognised that people will cycle to services/amenities outside of the 25-minute walk distance, but which are located within 5 kilometres). The Parish Council has commented that residents will still drive to local services, increasing the congestion and parking issues within the village. Ultimately the Local Planning Authority cannot control future residents decisions to drive short distances. However the developer has demonstrated there are at least sustainable transport alternatives to access the village services. Due to the location of the site on the edge of the village, if residents used services outside Stilton accessed by car then they would likely drive away from the village centre.

7.38 It has also been commented on by the Parish Council and Local residents that the developer has stated that the village chemist could provide consulting rooms which could act as a substitute for the lack of doctors surgery in the village. The Local Planning Authority agrees with the residents in this instance that a Chemist is not a doctors surgery therefore gives this assertion little weight in the decision making process.

Economic sustainability:

7.39 The provision of 90 new dwellings would give rise to employment during the construction phase of the development, and has the potential to result in an increase in the use of local services and facilities, both of which will be of benefit to the local economy.

Indicative layout impact upon the character of the area and landscaping:

7.40 Whilst the application is in outline form, to allow full evaluation and consideration of the development, to determine whether the proposed amount of development can be satisfactorily accommodated on the site, an indicative layout and landscaping strategy has been provided to demonstrate the potential location of residential development, routes and open spaces.

7.41 The application site is approximately 4.09Ha and adjoins the eastern side of the village of Stilton, between North Street and the A1(M). The site comprises open arable fields. The eastern boundary is formed by a significant landscape buffer alongside the A1(M) and forms a noise and visual barrier to the road. The western boundary hedge fronts North Road and the rear garden boundaries of Nos. 60-82. The northern boundary comprises existing landscaping and tree planting and abuts the adjacent industrial estate. The southern boundary adjoins open fields and is defined by an existing hedge. An existing field access is located between Nos. 66b and 68 North Street.

7.42 The illustrative layout provides an indication as to how land uses within the site could be laid out in order to achieve both the quantum of development and necessary supporting infrastructure e.g. roads, open space and drainage. Although only indicative at this time, the plan provides further details, demonstrating how the proposed quantum of development could be achieved through a mix of property types. The indicative layout has been amended since its original submission to take into account further mitigation for noise, this issue is discussed below. In terms of the changes that have been made, specifically, detached garages have been added to plots 50, 81 and 87 as additional screening to provide protection to the rear gardens of plots 50, 88 and 91, plots 81-87 have been moved closer to plot 75 to narrow the gap between 75 and 87 thereby reducing noise penetration. The design of the southern part of the scheme has been revised so that the proposed houses face onto the road which now runs along the boundary, and larger house types have been introduced along the eastern edge of the site. Plots 11 to 17 have been moved slightly to reduce noise levels within the garden of plot 17. It was not considered necessary for Urban Design to comment on these small changes at Outline stage.

7.43 The submitted indicative plan and Design and Access Statement indicate that up to 90 units could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site and shows that existing vegetation on the boundaries which provide a landscape buffer would be retained. The density of the proposal is approximately 22 dwellings per hectare which is not too high and provides further evidence that the quantum of development could be accommodated on this site. Notwithstanding this, the scale would be carefully considered in detail as part of the relevant reserved matters submission and alongside details such as the housing mix, design and levels.

7.44 It has been commented on within the representations and by the Local member that the site is identified within the Huntingdon Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) December 2017 East of North Street to A1(M), Stilton. The HELAA considered the site had few constraints but was only suitable for frontage development given the noise and odour constraints. However as discussed previously, as the tilted balance is engaged, for a proposal to be refused the benefits of the proposal would have to be significantly and demonstrably outweighed by material harm. The further material planning considerations will be discussed in other sections of the report.

7.45 The Urban Design officer has made a number of points about the indicative layout. As this is an outline application, many of these points should be considered at Reserved Matters stage since the current layout is indicative and subject to change. These are within the representations section of the report. However the issues below have been commented on as they relate more to the current outline application.

7.46 The submitted scheme proposes 1 point of vehicle access from North Street and essentially forms a large cul-de-sac resulting in significant vehicle movements along this section of North Road. The Urban Design officer commented that the single point of access results in poor connectivity and a long and circuitous route to reach existing facilities and services within Stilton concentrated within the High Street and Church Street. The existing field access between Nos. 66b and 68 North Street should be utilised, at least for pedestrian and cycle access to improve general permeability across the site and access to existing services and facilities. Using this access as a second point of vehicle access would allow the creation of a primary loop road through the site improving permeability, particularly for large vehicles including refuse and emergency vehicles and would dissipate vehicles onto North Street. This was also commented on by the HDC landscape officer. Whilst officers don’t necessarily disagree with this comment, the existing field access is not within the red line therefore cannot be considered as part of the current application.

7.47 Comments have also been made about the close proximity of the private drive access junction (serving Plots 1-4 and 21-25) on to the new estate road junction with North Street. However as discussed in the Access and Transport section above, the Local Highway Authority is satisfied with the proposed access. The proposed layout is also indicative and is subject to change.

7.48 The access arrangement to the existing field to the south of the site was also questioned. It is unclear how this field will be accessed in the future as the Illustrative Masterplan shows this route would become blocked by the SUDs basin. In addition, should the site to the south of the application site (rear of Nos. 58-64 North Street) become available for development in the future, the provision of an access would be advantageous to improve wider connectivity and the relationship between the two developments. The above comments are noted but officers also cannot give weight to what may or may not happen in the future and must assess the current application on its own merits.

7.49 The HDC landscaping officer has commented that the proposed layout is acceptable in in principle. A number of minor points were raised such as various design principles which were not included on the masterplan e.g. narrowing of the carriageway, introduction of feature spaces, buildings acting as pinch-points, creating focal ends and vista stops. Other comments were also made about visible boundary treatments and parking courts. However as discussed the layout is indicative and these issues would be addressed at reserved matters stage. The existing hedgerow should be retained except for the points of access, however it is considered reasonable for this to be included as part of a landscaping condition.

7.50 Comments were also made by the landscape officer with regards to SUDS, their landscaping as well as the differentiation between them and the proposed public open space. Whether the proposed sustainable surface water drainage systems are fit for purpose is discussed in the drainage section of this report. With regards to if they conflict with the amount of open space required, the applicant has confirmed they would provide the amount of open space secured through any planning permission granted. The exact use of open space would be considered at Reserved Matters stage.

7.51 It should be noted that although the Urban Design and Landscape officers have made a number of points about the indicative layout, in general terms, it is accepted that the site is reasonably well contained because of A1M to the East, the existing built up area to the South and West and Commercial premises to the North. It is also agreed that there would not be significant visual and landscape effects from the residential development of the site having regard to the scale proposed.

7.52 The indicative layout shown on the Indicative Masterplan and details within the Design and Access Statement are clearly not acceptable from an Urban Design point of view. However, it is concluded that due to the proposed density, it is possible to achieve the quantum of development proposed and the associated infrastructure. However the applicant is strongly advised to submit a pre application enquiry prior to the submission of any Reserved Matters application should the current outline be approved. Conditions for materials and landscaping are considered necessary to ensure once the reserved matters are known so the development would not have an adverse impact upon the character of the area. Therefore, whilst the current indicative layout shown on the Development Framework Plan is not supported, the quantum of development and necessary supporting infrastructure is considered to be achievable. The 'appearance', 'landscaping', 'layout' and 'scale' and would be considered in detail as part of reserved matters should outline permission be granted.

7.53 Ultimately, the proposed development is 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 En20 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, LP14 and LP33 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 Policy LP33, 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.

Trees:

7.54 The application is supported by a Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment. Representations have concerns with the removal of trees but some of these are outside the red line area. The Tree officer has reviewed the submitted tree information and has concerns in respect of a difference in the approach to the northern boundary of the site. The acoustic information gives details of a 1m high bund with a fence on top; whereas the arboricultural details assess the implications of just the 3.5m high acoustic barrier. As such, the reports do not give a clear indication of the likely impacts of raising the ground level to such an extent around the retained trees. Because of this, the tree officer would advise that the applicant seeks to find a general approach to the northern boundary and assesses the arboricultural implications of one proposal. Increasing the ground level with a 1m bund would have long term negative impacts on the retained trees and would need to be located outside of the RPA’s of any retained natural features.

7.55 However since the above comments the applicant has commented that whilst the layout and proposed noise mitigation measure on this illustrative plan is indicative, an acoustic fence is more likely. A fence would have significantly less impact upon the trees. As this approach is more likely it is considered reasonable to add specific tree protection and arboricultural method statement condition in order to ensure there is not an adverse impact on the trees within the site. The amended tree information will be required to include details of tree/hedge protection, methods of construction close to trees and root protection areas. Whilst the precise extent of tree removal if any is yet to be determined, officers would anticipate that development coming forward at reserved matters stage would accord with the principles set out within the submitted Development Framework; such to ensure the retention of vegetation around the periphery of the site, in the interests of visual amenity and biodiversity. The AMS would be required alongside any reserved matters submission for layout, landscape or scale, to ensure that the trees and hedges would be satisfactorily protected to facilitate their retention.

7.56 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of impact on trees and in accordance with emerging policy LP33 of the emerging Local Plan to 2036, this policy 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 Policy LP33, 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.

Open Space:

7.57 The Operations and green space officer has commented on the proposal. Representations form neighbours have also raised concerns. Based on 90 dwellings of unknown sized properties, this development requires in the region of 4290m2 of Public Open Space, including 1620m2 of continuous green space where children can stretch their legs and play. A green space needs analysis completed in December 2015 stated: green open space in the village is deficient, with no provision for allotments, community gardens or wildlife havens, (natural & semi natural). However the amenity grass is very well distributed throughout the village. As the majority of the amenity grass is surrounded by housing, none of these areas lend themselves to anything other than amenity land. If there are any new housing developments within the village, consideration should be made with regard to acquiring land for allotments or areas for the community as with all new housing, garden space tends to be at a minimum.

7.58 With regard to provision for play, although there are two play areas in Stilton where the proposed development is suggested there is very little play space. The applicant has confirmed the required 4290m2 of open space could be provided on the indicative layout. The open space officer has confirmed the Council would look for the full amount of green space in accordance with the Developer Contributions SPD requirements. These areas of POS are also likely to effected by noise and air quality issues associated with the close proximity of the A1(M).

7.59 Some of which could be set aside for a play area in the future and the remaining space could be considered as community gardens/allotments and include a natural/semi natural area perhaps in the green space to the south east of the site. The area where the proposed play park could be positioned should be overlooked by surrounding houses accessible to all residents in the development. However as the proposed layout are indicative, exact uses of open space, layout would all be determined at reserve matters stage and through a S106 agreement. In accordance with the Developers Contributions SPD (2011) and as this scheme is not a large scale major residential development of 200 units or above, it is not necessary for an on-site equipped play area to be provided (but the necessary quantum of space should be secured).

7.60 The open space proposed as part of the development is considered to be compliant with the NPPF and policies R1, R2, R3, R7, R8, R12, En18, En19 and En20 of the Local Plan 1995, policy CS10 of the Core Strategy 2009 and LP3 and LP 33 of the Proposed Submission 2017 Local Plan to 2036.

Residential Amenity:

7.61 The application has been submitted in outline form, with all matters reserved apart from access, therefore any proposed layouts are indicative only. Officers need to be satisfied at this stage that the site is capable of accommodating the amount of development proposed without having a detrimental impact on neighbour’s amenity. As discussed above it is considered the site is able to accommodate up to 90 residential units. In terms of built development, the reserved matters application(s) will fully assess the impacts of matters such as overlooking, overshadowing and loss of privacy. It is however accepted that the quantum of development sought could be accommodated by the application site without significant harm to residential amenity, by virtue of the separation distances to neighbouring properties and boundary planting.

7.62 As the site is located adjacent to the A1M, the application is accompanied by an Air Quality Assessment which has been reviewed By Environmental Health officers. It is considered the proposals would not lead to a breach in national objectives or an unacceptable risk from air pollution; contrary to what is stated in neighbour representations. However 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. This is supported by both national and local planning policies promoting AQ improvements and minimisation of impacts. Therefore Environmental Health have advised consideration is given to the application of good design and good practice measures, including the points raised within Section 6.1.1 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. It should also be noted that the design measures to reduce noise impact will also assist in reducing the impact from air quality. The points within Section 6.1.1 of the AQ report should be given strong consideration when scale, layout and landscaping are considered at Reserved Matters stage.

7.63 Environmental Health officers have also reviewed the Baseline Artificial Lighting Impact Assessment. The report finds that there is no impact upon the proposed residential properties from the highway lighting on the A1(M). It should be noted that any design mitigation for AQ and noise will also reduce any impact from the lighting. Therefore there are no objections to raise regarding this aspect.

7.64 As the site is located adjacent to the A1M the application is accompanied by a Noise Assessment which has been reviewed by Environmental Health officers. Representations also raised concerns about the findings of the submitted report.

7.65 With regard to 'adverse impacts' the NPPF refers to the 'Noise Policy Statement for England' (NPSE), which defines three categories, as follows: 'NOEL - No Observed Effect Level • This is the level below which no effect can be detected. In simple terms, below this level, there is no detectable effect on health and quality of life due to the noise. LOAEL - Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level • This is the level above which adverse effects on health and quality of life can be detected. SOAEL - Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level • This is the level above which significant adverse effects on health and quality of life occur'.

7.66 The first aim of the NPSE states that significant adverse effects on health and quality of life should be avoided. The second aim refers to the situation where the impact lies somewhere between LOAEL and SOAEL, and it requires that all reasonable steps are taken to mitigate and minimise the adverse effects of noise. However, the requirement to mitigate and minimise the adverse effects of noise does not mean that such adverse effects cannot occur.

7.67 The Planning Practice Guidance provides further detail about how the effect levels can be recognised. It is identified that above the NOEL, noise becomes noticeable, however it has no adverse effect as it does not cause any change in behaviour or attitude. Once noise crosses the LOAEL threshold it begins to have an adverse effect and consideration needs to be given to mitigating and minimising those effects, taking account of the economic and social benefits being derived from the activity causing the noise. Increasing noise exposure further might cause the SOAEL threshold to be crossed. If the exposure is above this level the planning process should be used to avoid the effect occurring by use of appropriate mitigation such as by altering the design and layout.

7.68 The Noise Policy Statement for England refers to the World Health Organisation (WHO) when discussing noise impacts. The WHO Guidelines for Community Noise 1999 suggest guideline values for internal noise exposure which take into consideration the identified health effects and are set, based on the lowest effect levels for general populations. Guideline values for annoyance which relate to external noise exposure are set at 50 or 55 dB(A), representing day time levels below which a majority of the adult population will be protected from becoming moderately or seriously annoyed respectively. The following guideline values are suggested by WHO: • 35 dB LAeq (16 hour) during the day time in noise sensitive rooms • 30 dB LAeq (8 hour) during the night time in bedrooms • 45 dB LAmax (fast) during the night time in bedrooms • 50 dB LAeq (16 hour) to protect majority of population from becoming moderately annoyed • 55 dB LAeq (16 hour) to protect majority of population from becoming seriously annoyed

7.69 The British Standard 8233 "Guidance on sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings" 2014 bases its advice on the WHO Guidelines and draws further upon the guideline values with regards to internal and external noise levels. For internal noise, the British Standard 8233 sets out: "Where development is considered necessary or desirable, despite external noise levels above WHO guidelines, the internal target levels may be relaxed by up to 5 dB and reasonable internal conditions still achieved".

7.70 With regards to external noise, the BS8233, 2014 sets out: "For traditional external areas that are used for amenity space such as gardens and patios, it is desirable that the external noise level does not exceed 50 dB LAeq, with an upper guidance value of 55 dB LAeq, which would be acceptable in noisier environments such as inner cities. However considering the site is next to a major transport route, it could be considered a nosier environment. It is also recognised that these guideline values are not achievable in all circumstances where development might be desirable. In higher noise areas, such as city centres or urban areas adjoining the strategic transport network, a compromise between elevated noise levels and other factors, such as the convenience of living in these locations or making efficient use of land resources to ensure development needs can be met, might be warranted. In such a situation, development should be designed to achieve the lowest practicable levels in these external amenity spaces, but should not be prohibited".

7.71 As the layout is currently unknown the noise report has assumed habitable rooms are located along the road. The report finds that in order for internal guideline noise limits to be met windows will need to remain closed and alternative acoustic ventilation provided in living rooms and bedrooms located nearest to, and with a direct line of sight of the A1(M) and North Street. This is considered necessary to provide future occupants’ ventilation as it would not be acceptable to condition all windows to remain fixed shut in order to meet the guidelines. The Council would expect good acoustic design mitigation measures to be considered when determining the final layout as we would wish to ensure design measures (such as consideration of distance, orientation of buildings, locating additional windows on quieter facades and screening of sensitive rooms/areas by non- sensitive ones) are utilised and mitigation provided in this form rather than relying on closed windows and the provision of alternative ventilation. It is considered necessary and reasonable for a scheme of alternative ventilation to be submitted by condition.

7.72 When the application was originally submitted, the proposed noise report found that that noise levels may exceed the 50-55dB World Health Organisation and BS8233:2014 guidelines. Section 6.3 of the report highlights that for the worst affected garden areas, levels of noise range between 55 and 58dB. These have been modelled from the original illustrative layout and with the inclusion of the following barrier heights: 2m high barriers proposed between garden areas, 2.5m high proposed on any exposed edges and 3.5m high barrier proposed on the northern boundary with the commercial. (The 3.5m high barrier can consist of a 1m earth bund, planted, with a 2.5m high fence on top).

7.73 Officers and Environmental Health considered that it should be demonstrated the development is capable of not exceeding 55db. Even exceeding the maximum 55db limit by a 3db difference which is not perceptible impact is not acceptable, a limit is there for a reason. It states above that if the 55db is exceeded (in this case 58db) developments should be desirable. In December 2018, the Local Plan Inspector recommended modifications to the emerging local plan, but also confirmed that he is satisfied that HDC can meet both our affordable housing and market housing needs through the allocations. Therefore the Local Planning Authority are now giving reduced weight to schemes where a policy compliant provision of affordable housing is proposed (40%) – i.e. previously we said we are giving ‘significant weight’ to this benefit (40% AH), going forward we are only giving ‘moderate’ weight to this benefit.

7.74 Given that the Inspector has effectively stated that the District is meeting its housing need, the scheme is no longer necessarily considered desirable. It is accepted housing supplies are minimum standards, but there are other housing applications within the district which will add to our supply of housing that do not have the harm from this noise constraint.

7.71 Following the above, the layout has been amended following the changes discussed in paragraph no 7.38 by the use of design and the use of larger 2.5 and three storey house types on the Eastern boundary of the site and other design measures. It can be seen from the amended figure 4 plan, from the original Noise Assessment that noise levels are below the 55dB threshold and can be achieved in all of the rear garden areas. It is accepted that these levels are not achieved in the open space areas however the private amenity areas carry the most weight in decision making. Ultimately this layout is indicative, but from the additional noise modelling, it shows that there are options available to achieve a noise level of 55dB or less simply by altering the house types and the layout, both of which are considerations that will properly be the subject of a subsequent reserved matters application. Acoustic barriers are proposed on the Northern and Eastern boundaries of the site, these will be secured by condition. As an acceptable external noise limit has been demonstrated that it can be achieved, it is considered reasonable to add a condition that any reserved matters or full application shall detail mitigation measures and demonstrate how the layout and design will ensure that all dwellings and amenity areas meet with government guidelines of lower than 55db as determined by noise levels in the World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise and British Standard 8233.

7.75 Due to the size of the proposed development and the proximity of current residents to the site, the Environmental Health officer has recommended that construction times and deliveries during the construction and demolition/clearance phases are restricted in line with HDC guidance to the predominantly business hours and Saturday mornings. They have also advised that prior to any work commencing on site a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) shall be submitted to, 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 demolition/clearance phases. These conditions are considered reasonable and necessary and meet the statutory tests.

7.76 Another condition was recommended with regards to no burning of waste on site during the construction and demolition/clearance phases, however because these issues fall under a separate legislation, it is considered more reasonable if this were to be added as an informative.

7.77 The relevant Development Plan policy relating to residential amenity impacts of the proposal are policies H31, H37 and H38 of the Huntingdonshire Local Plan 1995. 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 H31, H37 and H38 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.

Heritage Assets:

7.78 The application is accompanied by a Heritage Statement assessing the village of Stilton. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

7.79 Section 66 of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990,- In considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features. Section 72 of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. There is a statutory presumption and a strong one, against granting planning permission for any development which would fail to preserve the setting of a heritage asset

7.80 Representations have commented that the proposed scheme would have an adverse impact on the village’s historic character and archaeology. From reviewing the submitted heritage statement, a single scheduled monument area Norman Cross Depot for Prisoners of War is approx. 915m to the north of the site. There are no known historic or functional links between this monument and the site. In addition, there is extensive separation due to the A1(M) motorway junction, the built and planted form of the landscape, and the local topography. Due to these factors the site cannot be experienced from the monument or the grade II listed memorial, or vice versa. As such, the proposed development, which is of a modest scale, will not affect the setting or significance of this monument.

7.81 The 19 listed buildings within the study area of the submitted heritage statement can be broadly broken into four groups: (1) those contained within the Stilton Conservation Area; (2) those clustered around the Grade II* listed Parish Church of St Mary; (3) those loosely arranged within Stilton, but outside of the two aforementioned concentrations; and (4) the Grade II listed memorial at the former site of Norman Cross Depot (discussed above).

7.82 Group 1 of listed buildings are located approx. 360 to 760m to the south of the site and are contained within the Stilton Conservation Area. The site is physically and visually separated from these listed buildings by a substantial amount of 20th century development. Therefore, the site does not form part of the experience of these assets, and has no historic or functional links either. It is not considered the proposed development would affect the neither setting nor significance of these listed buildings.

7.83 Listed buildings in group 2 are located approx.530m to the south-west of the site. The central building is the Grade II* listed Parish Church of St Mary. None of the listed buildings in this grouping can be experienced from the site, or vice versa, and have no other known connections. As such, the proposed development would not affect their setting or significance

7.84 Other Listed Buildings are loosely arranged around Stilton in a broad group which are located between c.190m and 570m to the south and south-west of the site. Only from 39 North Street can the site be experienced at all. Even then, this comprises of obscured and very limited views, almost entirely obscured by the intervening planted and built environment. This is appreciated in the context of the large amount of 20th century residential development that characterises the northern end of Stilton. Such a peripheral and ephemeral element in the experience of this asset is not considered to contribute to its significance. The site cannot be experienced from any of the other listed buildings in this group, or vice versa, due to the intervening built and planted form of the landscape.

7.85 The Stilton Conservation Area is located c.200m to the south of the site. Its character and appearance is evidently derived from the interaction of its built form, including ten Grade II listed buildings, the arrangement of streets, plot boundaries and open space. The application site is located outside of this conservation area and is separated from it by 20th century development. There are no other known links between the site and this asset. As the proposed development in the context of the built environment at the north end of Stilton – its implementation will not result in any change to its character and appearance or any noticeable change to the experience of this conservation area. Therefore, the proposed development is not considered to have any potential to result in harm to this asset.

7.86 Therefore, the proposed development of the site for 90 residential dwellings, would not affect the setting of these listed buildings in a noticeable way, if at all, or cause harm to their significance.

7.87 With regards to archaeology, contrary to the applicants submitted heritage statement, Cambridgeshire County Council has advised that the site lies in an area of high archaeological potential, situated to the east of Ermine Street, Roman Road which headed northwest from Durovigutum (Godmanchester Roman town) to skirt the fen edge on high ground before routing northwards towards Durobrivae, a major Roman settlement at Peterborough. Approximately 325m to the north of the application area an archaeological trial trench evaluation along the course of Roman road was carried out as part of A1 widening programme. This identified that the Roman road consisted of 2 flint cobble layers overlying made-up ground with no roadside ditches. Medieval ridge and furrow plus a hollow way lying on the east side of the Roman road and well as evidence of post-medieval quarry gravel extraction probably associated with construction and maintenance of Great North Road. Archaeological investigations to the south of the proposed development area have identified evidence of medieval and post-medieval occupation. In addition, to the south of the application area is evidence of medieval and post-medieval cultivation visible as ridge and furrow.

7.88 Cambridgeshire County Council do not object to the proposal from proceeding in this location but consider that the site should be subject to a programme of archaeological investigation secured through a condition. This is considered reasonable and necessary in order to preserve any archaeological heritage assets. Taking all the above into account, the proposed development is acceptable with regards to the impact upon heritage assets and that the proposal complies with policies En2, En12 and En13 of the Local Plan,1995 and policy CS1 of the Core Strategy. These policies do not allow for the balancing exercise to be undertaken, therefore the weight that can be attributed to them is slightly reduced. With regards to paragraph 213 of the NPPF, it is considered that Policy LP36 of the emerging Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission can be attributed significant weight.

Ecology and Biodiversity:

7.89 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment.

7.90 Both the Wildlife Trust and the Landscape officer have commented on ecology. Concerns were also raised in neighbour representations. The conclusions in the report that the proposals would be unlikely to have adverse impacts on designated sites or protected species are supported and the recommendations made for precautionary measures to avoid harm to protected species are considered reasonable and necessary. As stated in the report, the habitats currently present on site are of limited biodiversity value. However, they are still of some value and will largely be lost to development. In line with national planning policy, all development should deliver a net gain in biodiversity. It is considered the proposals may be able to deliver a net gain through incorporation of enhancements into the detailed design (e.g. measures such as native tree and shrub planting, grassland creation, etc.), however this will depend on precise areas and quality of habitat to be created, which also depends on the uses of the open space and whether suitable management to sustain such habitats is viable in the future.

7.91 The PEA report recommends the production of a Biodiversity Enhancement Plan (BEP) which provides further details of enhancements and how they will be incorporated into the design proposals. Such a document would demonstrate how a net gain in biodiversity will be delivered. This was supported by the Wildlife Trust. It was recommended in the PEA report that the BEP be completed pre-determination, therefore suggest that it should be produced before the application is determined. However given the limited ecological value of the site and given the fact this is an outline application where the final layout is unknown, it is considered reasonable that this could be added as a pre commencement condition.

7.92 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.

7.93 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 in under the policy paragraphs 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.

Flooding and Drainage and Contamination:

7.94 The overall approach to flooding is given in paragraphs 155-164 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).

7.95 The application site falls within FZ1 as designated within the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2017, which represents the lowest flood risk of flooding from rivers and sea.

7.96 Cambridgeshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has commented on the application. Third party representations have also commented on drainage concerns. The LLFA has no objection to the scheme with regards to surface water drainage. They are satisfied the scheme can demonstrate that surface water from the proposed development can be managed through the use of attenuation ponds, restricting surface water discharge to QBAR. The LLFA is supportive of the use of permeable paving and swales as in addition to controlling the rate of surface water leaving the site, these also provide water quality treatment which is of particular importance when discharging into a watercourse. The LLFA has requested a condition with regards to additional surface water drainage information which is considered reasonable and necessary and meet the statutory tests.

7.97 Anglian Water (AW) has commented on the application raising no objections to the scheme. They have advised that there are AW assets within the development area and requested an informative should permission be granted. AW also advises that there is capacity at their Peterborough (Flag Fen) Water Recycling Centre for foul drainage and capacity within the foul sewerage network. AW has also advised that having reviewed the submitted Foul Drainage Analysis they consider the need for additional information and have requested a foul water drainage condition. This condition considered reasonable and necessary and meet the statutory tests.

7.98 It is therefore considered that subject to conditions, the development can be made acceptable in flood risk terms.

7.99 As discussed above, the Council’s Environmental Health officer commented on the proposal. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has recommended that a condition is imposed to secure site investigation for potential contamination and remediation where required. Therefore any issue of contamination can be dealt with prior to the commencement of development. Subject to the imposition of this condition, the proposed development is considered to be acceptable and complies with the NPPF in this regard, policy H38 of the Local Plan 1995 and policy LP 15 of the Local Plan to 2036: Proposed Submission 2017.

7.100 The County Councils Mineral and Waste team commented on the application. The development is identified as within a brick clay safeguarding area which is subject to policy CS26 of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Minerals and Waste Core Strategy (2011). The County Council consider extracting the mineral prior to development is not an unreasonable undertaking and would be in accordance with the above policy.

7.101 The County Council also commented that waste management does not appear to have been considered as part of this application and have recommended a waste management condition. This is considered reasonable and necessary on order to maximise waste re use and recycling opportunities and will be added to the decision notice.

7.102 In terms of policy weighting, policies H37, CS8 and CS9 of the Local Plan 1995, policy CS1 of the Core Strategy 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.

Other Matters:

7.103 Miscellaneous points form the representations include comments about errors within the submitted documentation. However officers consider they have enough information to make a recommendation on the application. Comments have been made about local resident’s already selling homes because of the proposed development, however this is not a material planning consideration. Comments have been made about housing numbers from the City of Peterborough. But only housing numbers within Huntingdonshire can be taken into account. Finally concerns have been made about where CIL money will be distributed. The final recipients of CIL money has yet to been decided.

Infrastructure and Education:

7.104 Cambridgeshire County Council’s Education team have commented on the proposal. They state that for early years education, In Stilton, there is one main child care provider offering sessional provision. In Autumn 2017, there was a reasonable take up of funded places within the area with just over half claiming their entitlement. There is currently capacity for 52 15 hour places however, with the new development, a total of 96 15‐hour places would be required. This means an additional 44 15‐hour places would be needed to meet future demand.

7.105 For Primary education Stilton Church of England Primary Academy has a PAN of 30 and an overall capacity of 210. The catchment primary aged forecast is set to increase to 248 by 2022/2023 from 220 in 2017/18 (Catchment Forecasts, Jan 2018). This means that there is already a shortfall of places and there will not therefore be space at Stilton Church of England Primary Academy.

7.106 For secondary school education Sawtry Village Academy has an overall capacity of 709 pupils. The secondary catchment forecast to remain fairly stable, with a slight decrease to 535 by 2022/23 from 537 in 2017/18. There will be capacity at Sawtry Village Academy.

7.107 Concerns have also been expressed by the Parish Council, local member and local residents that Stilton’s Primary School and other services cannot cope with the additional development proposed. The above paragraphs show that whilst there is capacity for secondary school education for the proposal, there is no capacity for Primary education and only some but not enough capacity for Preschool education. This means that from the proposed development, children of primary school age would have to be educated elsewhere outside Stilton. However as discussed within the consultations section, CCC Education’s statutory duty is to secure sufficient school places, not to secure places within a local school. Even if it is not possible to secure an expansion in local capacity for example due to site restrictions, Cambridgeshire County Council cannot object to the proposed housing development.

7.108 As this application is a small-scale major development for less than 200 dwellings, S106 contributions for education and health cannot be sought as these should be funded through the Community Infrastructure Levy which could fund additional educational resources, therefore the scheme is considered acceptable in this regard. Also from looking at the Stilton Primary School site, whilst there does not appear to be any current projects to expand the primary school there does appear space for this to be possible in the future. Therefore alternative options need to be considered which may involve securing capacity at other schools or transporting children to surrounding schools where there is capacity or potential to secure capacity. There are a number of local primary schools in the area such as Folksworth, Sawtry and Yaxley to name some examples. Where these schools are not in an appropriate walking distance, Cambridgeshire County Council would have to provide free home to school transport as a statutory duty.

Fire Hydrants:

7.109 Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service require the provision of fire hydrants, this can be secured through the Section 106 or a planning condition.

Crime Prevention:

7.110 The crime prevention design team have assessed the proposal in terms of community safety, crime, disorder and the fear of crime and have no objections, they recommended to be involved at Reserved Matters Stage.

Environment Impact Assessment (EIA):

7.111 According to the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), ‘Screening’ is the procedure used to determine if a proposed development is likely to have significant effects on the environment.

7.112 It is for the Local Planning Authority to determine whether a development is of a type listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. The PPG sets out the criteria and thresholds representing ‘exclusion thresholds’ in Schedule 2 of the Regulations, below which an Environmental Impact Assessment does not need to be considered (subject to the proposal not being in a ‘sensitive area’). It also provides indicative criteria and thresholds to help to determine whether significant effects are likely.

7.113 Under Schedule 2 the proposal is considered to comprise an Urban Development Project (development type 10b in the PPG Annex). Schedule 2 sets out the assessment criteria for these types of development as follows: (i) includes more than 1 hectare of urban development which is not dwellinghouse development; or (ii) The development includes more than 150 dwellings; or (iii) The overall area of the development exceeds 5 hectares.

7.114 The overall site area is less than 5ha and fewer than 150 dwellings are proposed. The development therefore falls below the thresholds set out in the assessment criteria in Schedule 2. An EIA screening is therefore not necessary.

Infrastructure Requirements And Planning Obligations:

7.115 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.

7.116 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.

7.117 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.

7.118 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 development description stating 90 dwellings this equates to (90 x 2.25) 202.5, so 203 people.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL):

7.119 As this application site is for a small-scale major development (under 200 dwellings) 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.

Affordable Housing:

7.120 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 policy LP25 seek to achieve a target of 40% affordable housing on sites of this size. With the proposed up to 90 dwellings this would equate to a maximum total of 36 units. The policies indicate that provision should be made on site and should seek to achieve a target tenure split of 70% social rented and 30% shared ownership. 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.

7.121 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.

Residential Wheeled Bins:

7.123 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 within the development, 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.

Formal Open Space:

7.124 With regards to outdoor sport the Developer Contributions SPD 2011 (Page 25/B.44) states that developments between 10 and 449 units 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 £45,951 as a contribution to formal open space provision offsite to improve the local infrastructure. Currently an exact project has not been identified by the Council’s Sport Development Manager, and has advised further correspondence with the Parish Council, however the applicant has agreed in principle to this contribution if a project relevant to the is identified. If a specific project is not identified then these contributions would not be sought, however if one is, the request conforms to CIL regulations. Members will be given an update via the late representations.

Planning Balance & Conclusion:

7.125 This proposal would result in development outside of the built-up area of the settlement and would conflict with policies H23, En17 of the HLP and CS3 of the CS. Para. 47 of the NPPF is clear that the Framework can override Development Plan policies which are not consistent with provisions of the NPPF and this is a material consideration in the determination of the application. Given the inconsistencies of the adopted housing supply policies with the NPPF, the 'tilted balance' set out in para. 11 of the NPPF is engaged and shifts the planning balance in favour of the grant of consent, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.

7.126 The presumption in favour of sustainable development requires proposals to achieve economic, social and environmental gains; as such a balancing exercise has to be undertaken to weigh the benefits of the scheme against its disadvantages.

7.127 In terms of the economic dimension of sustainable development, the proposal would contribute towards economic growth, including job creation - during the construction phase and in the longer term through the additional population assisting the local economy through spending on local services/facilities. There will also be Council Tax receipts arising from the development. The loss of this relatively small parcel of agricultural land is outweighed by the positive economic benefits of this development, in this location.

7.128 Regarding the social dimension, in terms of physical constraints, with the exception of noise, which has already been discussed at length in previous sections of the report, the site appears to have no other physical constraints and is deliverable. It would also increase the supply of housing. There is a local and district wide identified need for both private and affordable housing and whilst the weight (in terms of the market housing element of the proposal) is lessened given the NPPF compliant supply of housing, there would nevertheless be a net benefit in social terms. Whilst the Council can demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land, the provision of market housing on the application site would amount to a moderate benefit in terms of providing a greater flexibility to the supply of housing. As discussed above, the LPA received correspondence from Cambridgeshire County Council that Stilton Primary School is at capacity for Primary education. There currently does not appear to be any plans to expand the local primary school. Whilst public transport has been discussed earlier in the report current levels would not be adequate for primary school transportation. This will mean travel to other schools outside Stilton would require an increase in private vehicle use or further resources used by the County Council which would have an adverse impact on social sustainability. This factor weighs against the proposal.

7.129 In terms of the environmental dimension of sustainable development, the proposal offers potential for the incorporation of energy efficiency measures (to be considered in detail at reserved matters stage) as well as additional planting and habitat enhancement. Further landscaping is proposed which can also be considered in detail at Reserved Matters stage. On balance, the application site constitutes a sustainable location for the scale of development proposed in respect of access to local employment opportunities, services and facilities within the village of Stilton and within the nearby city of Peterborough; accessible by sustainable transport mode. This is a further factor in support of the proposal.

7.130 Having fully assessed all three dimensions of sustainable development; economic, social and environmental within this report it is concluded that the development of this site will: - provide a supply of affordable and market housing to meet current and future generations; - have an acceptable impact on residential amenity Have an acceptable impact upon highway safety - promote healthy, active lifestyle through green space provision; - maximise opportunities for use of public transport, walking and cycling; - minimise pollution; - manage flood risk and drainage effectively; - have no harm on archaeological interest which is also helped by the community benefits, particularly the provision of affordable housing; - have no significant adverse impacts on features of landscape or ecological value; - provide appropriate infrastructure to meet the needs generated by the development.

7.131 It is accepted that the proposed development would result in some harm as the proposal would not accord with development plan policies that seek to restrict development in the countryside. Whilst the future occupants of the scheme would have an acceptable living environment the noise constraint of the A1 will still exist. There is also the constraint of a lack of capacity at Stilton primary School. The report also notes that there is local opposition to the proposal.

7.132 However when considered in the round, the proposal would contribute significantly to the economic and other social dimensions of sustainability. The scheme offers some environmental benefits but there would also be moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area. Overall, the harm identified is not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the scheme's benefits when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. This is a significant material consideration which outweighs the conflict with the Development Plan and therefore it is recommended that permission should be granted.

8. RECOMMENDATION

APPROVE subject to the prior completion of a Section 106 obligation relating to affordable housing, provision of open space and maintenance contribution, wheeled bins, and subject to conditions to include 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, or on the grounds that the applicant is unwilling to complete the obligation necessary to make the development acceptable.

CONDITIONS

• Approval of Reserved Matters • Approval of Reserved Matters Time Limit and Time limit following last Reserved Matters • Approved plans • Maximum no of 90 dwellings • Materials • Affordable housing at 40% • Landscaping including boundary treatments • Tree protection and Arboricultural Assessment • Biodiversity enhancement plan/Recommendations in PEA • Surface Water drainage • Foul Water drainage • Maximum external amenity noise of 55db • Alternative ventilation scheme • Noise mitigation including acoustic fencing strategies • Hours of work • Construction and environmental Management Plan • Contamination • Waste Management • Archaeology • Travel plan implementation • Full details of the layout of the site including roads, footways, cycle ways, buildings, parking provision, visibility splays and surface water drainage from within the site • Access width • Access construction and drainage measures • Temporary parking facilities during construction • Visibility splays • 7.5m Radius Kerbs • Highways enhancements – bus stops • Fire Hydrants

Informatives • Works to the Public Highway • EPS License • No burning of waste

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 William Tysterman, Senior Development Management Officer 01480 388411

Development Management Committee

Scale =1 :5,000 Application Ref: 18/01796/OUT

Date Created: 07/01/2019 © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 Location:Sawtry Ordnance Survey HDC 100022322

D e f

Po st

)

K

C

A

R

T (

E

N

A

L

N

L I

K

E

M I L

W

a r d

B B d 1 y 0 4 3

Gantry Def

BP CS

W a rd B d

y k

Pond c a

r T FB

E R

R O

M M Mast I N A

E N

S R

T O

R A D E e D ) f E K AC T TR E ( 7 AN 1 L 1 ILN EK

LIM 3

1 15.0m

1

1 1 1 A 1 ( M )

in Dra ov s G Ga

Garden

5 0

Centre 1 1

0 Gantry 1

2

16.8m

12 D

r 9 a

9 i

n

4

7 1

Y 9 A 1 W N A M 38 O R k 3 c

6 ra

a T

3

3

9 7

9 5 9

50

5

a

4

5

9

2 2 Shelter

26 2

4 North End Gantry

Shelter

9

3

2 9 6

8

2 1 16 D OA L R

MIL

7

2

1 8 3

10

12

1

2 3

2 2

G El Sub Sta

E 5 O 8 RG Kelleys Barn E REET

ST 1

3

1 W 8

7 2 O

O LB 1

D

W

A

R T A D

4 6 1 L 8 4 C B

L O O T

S

E

1 CLO 3 D

SE 1 7 r 1 a 5

i

n

6 5 6

22 6 9

0 6

3 b

1 1

5 9 6 2 1

2

1 6 20 18 9 6 1 a 2 17.4m M E

7 N ESS 1 A

D 2 O O 1 W R 6 4 6

7 T 1

H

5 C 8 1 1 6 n L 1 10 i a O S r 28 D

b S T 15 1 E 32 R

a 1 15 3 E

H 40 E A T

R 7

1

2 6

1 V 1

E

1 S 1

T

Q

2

U 1

1

3 E R 1 C 5 E r 2 E O

L m 1 N

O 2 M 4 2 1 E i E n 5

S V L A

I 8

R e 2 E E 3 5 D N 0 N A A S a N M R R t

O O 9 r

O N 6 3 2 R e

A e C

4

L t

D 1 2

48 5 O

2 S 7 5 E

4 9

20 50 B A R

N 5

Play Area 6 42 C 46 L E to

O LOS

C 7 3 1

LA 9

1 S A 5

E G 8 4

8

4

4 9

8

1 4

5

1 3 5 1

2

3 1

1

5

3

1

3

1

1 5

3 5

9

1 9 3

b

3 4

9

a 4

9 6

3 0

5

7

4

1

4 7 3

3 in 8 7 4 Dra

E 3 5 8 4 l

S

u 3 b 0 1 9 8 S 2 24 SE LO 3

C 4 6 t 32 a 36 L 2 L 8

BE 1

7 4 1 2 1 2 8

2

6

c

E 1 2

S 9

O 6

L 2

3 3

C 3

W 0 b 3 LO 5

WIL SE

O 2 1 3 L

N C 6

a

1 TO Hall 4

2 G

9 IN in

H 3

RT 0 The a 1 6 O r W D 2 Stilton Cheese 6 1

8 5

3 9 3

6 2 Inn 1 Coal Yard T 2 r 1 8 a 2 c 3 k 2 P 12 a t h

1 14 8 1 1 6

E R THORN H 2

OP IL L 4 5

CO RO AD 1 4 2 S

T

2 7 1

M 1

2 2 1

A 6 R 7

1 Hopper

Y 0 7

2 5 ' 1 Shelter S 13 1 0

b R

9 12.2m

y 1 O 0 Wa M 1 ece

A e

r 9

A p 1

4 A a

D 2 N

D 9

1 O rain 1 1 R

Stilton C of E (VC) 2 7a a

9 R 1 25

O 3 1 8 Primary School 7 A El Sub Sta a ta D b S 5

El Su

ain 1a 2 2 8 r 27

D 1

S 7

2 8

2 T 6 Y STILTON A W A 21 ECE C The E K

2 APR 11.6m

Y 23 1 9 Talbot A

1 Gantry

2

6 R

(PH) 5 1 1 6 3 D 6

1 C 2 S 1 a

1 L 1 1 4 u 1 O r S 9 g 5 T E e EE 32a 4 TR

r N S y FE 8

1

3

1 2 6 2

32 2 2a 1 TCB ta 2b ub S

2c l S Pump 1

E 0 Depot O 1 c P Posts Chapel 6 4 5 Key Manor 8 13.1m Elm 36 Farm 6 to 14 The Bell

18

Cemetery 2 1 0 ell b 8 t Inn B Farm 1 o M

o

t 5 s

0 e 1 g 0 O 2 a a 5 (PH) Cott 34 1 t 28 N ur

The Old 22 5 l Co 1

1 D e

0 hap 3 3 9 C T E Listed Building School House E L RE 5 11.7m T A

1 S 4 H

17.2m URC P H 2 C L

LB 9

A 1 9 1

1 C

15.0m 2 9 4 E

1

3 2

The Rectory 9 7 The Site 1 Pond 7

1 1

1

2 T

1 R Cross St Mary U O

(remains of) C Magdalene's 1 1a 3 Conservation Area N 15 23

Church R 11 6 2 U

5

B

2

2 5 5 3a

a 1 O

4 a 1 Track W

2 2 in

6 Dra 15.3m OAK ROAD 0 1 2 2

1 7

8 1 9

1

8

1 8 6 1 0 2

1 6 SE LO P C HO BIS

Huntingdonshire DC Public Access

From: [email protected] Sent: 10 October 2018 08:52 To: DevelopmentControl Subject: Comments for Planning Application 18/01796/OUT

Planning Application comments have been made. A summary of the comments is provided below.

Comments were submitted at 8:52 AM on 10 Oct 2018 from Mrs Kate Waller.

Application Summary Address: Land Rear Of 68 To 82 North Street Stilton Residential development of up to 90 dwellings together Proposal: with associated access and works in the highway, drainage and landscaping Case Officer: Will Tysterman Click for further information

Customer Details Name: Mrs Kate Waller Email: [email protected] Stilton Pavilion, High Street, Stilton, Peterborough PE7 Address: 3RA

Comments Details Commenter Town or Parish Council Type: Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Reasons for comment: Comments: Stilton Parish Council response to Planning Application 18/01796/OUT - Residential development of up to 90 dwellings together with associated access and works in the highway, drainage and landscaping. Land Rear Of 68 To 82 North Street, Stilton In consultation with the local residents who attended the Parish Council meetings on 11 September and 9 October, the Members of the Parish Council believe that the development, as proposed, will create an overall negative impact on the village of Stilton, outweighing any positive effects. This is mostly due to the limited infrastructure that cannot support any additional housing development on this scale: 1. LACK OF NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE (a) Schooling facilities The Stilton school is already at capacity. The planning application (Statement of Community Involvement, page 12) suggests bussing small children to other local schools, however as most of theses are already facing similar capacity issues as Stilton, this is neither viable or

1 appropriate for primary age pupils. The suggestion that the school has additional capacity (Statement of Community Involvement, page 12) because planning has been approved for a four unit mobile classroom is incorrect as this building is for the pre-school sessions and not to be used as a classroom. Also, if the school had capacity, the proposed development is just outside (not within, as stated in the Travel Plan (page 5)) the acceptable walking distance (1 km)from the entrance to the development. Indeed, as there is additional walking to the main road before reached, for many the recommended distance will be further exceeded. In reality, as the majority of working parents will be traveling in the opposite direction to the school to leave the village to work these parents will drive their children to school adding to the number of car journeys through the village by four per day per household increasing the parking and congestion problems as detailed below. (b) Green space and recreation areas Stilton has very limited green space areas for recreation in the village with nothing to the north of the village; the village playing field is approximately one mile from the entrance to the development at the opposite end of the village. The proposed "nature trail" which uses the rite of an existing walkway is not additional to current walking routes and even if supplemented by green gym or children activities along the trail route, as suggested by some residents, the development will provide limited amenity space or value to the village as a whole and will doubtless be another millstone that residents will have to pay to maintain through their council tax precept in the long term. (c) Doctors' surgery and pharmacy There are no provisions for a doctors surgery in Stilton and no plans are being made for one. All village residents have to travel to Yaxley or to Sawtry to access a doctors surgery, where both practices are heavily subscribed and the recruitment of GPs has been problem in the past. The suggestion made in the proposal (Statement of Community Involvement, page 12) that this is covered in the CIL payment and that Stilton Pharmacy's new building which will house consulting rooms for doctors and nurses is misleading. There are no plans for this and the suggestion made by Caddick Land appear to be pure speculation. (d) Road safety - speed Speeding along North Street (the main route into the village) at the point where the proposed new junction is to be sited is commonplace. The Stilton Community Speed Watch have indicated that approximately 15% of traffic significantly exceeds the speed limit of 30 mph when a session is taking place. Experience indicates that when the team are not present this is substantially higher as people are more likely to use excess speed when their journey is not being monitored. The traffic survey carried out for the planning application reflects this (Transport assessment, page 12, para 4.2.4) as it reports that the 85 percentile speeds at this point were 42.7 mph northbound and 40.5 mph southbound -

2 substantially above the speed limit. As the only suggestion for traffic calming in the proposal (Transport assessment, page 12, para 4.2.6) is "gateways" at the entry to the village the Council believes these are unlikely to significantly improve pedestrian safety or reduce traffic speeds through the village. If permission is given for the development both residents and councillors believe it would be better to have a raised pedestrian crossing, near the proposed junction, or a roundabout/on demand traffic lights for the proposed new junction. One option proposed would be to combine the junction into a four way roundabout with the junction to Mill Road which also accommodates a significant level of traffic. (e) Road safety -parking and congestion There are two issues here: (i) Parking on the proposed development. Experience shows that parking on new housing developments is invariably inadequate; and as there are already areas of Stilton where there are serious problems this is a real concern. The outline scheme proposed has very limited off or on road parking areas. This could be improved by slightly lower density housing allowing for space to be allocated for adequate larking for a modern day family where two cars is often a minimum, particularly in a village with limited facilities and restricted public transport. For example, families with two adult children both having their own vehicles to get to and from college or work is not unusual, requiring at least four parking spaces with additional space needed for visitors. The need for additional parking is demonstrated in nearby Hampton, where the number of cars of 2.3 per household, the highest in Peterborough, including wealthy areas of the city, is largely due to the limited bus service (2011 Census). Given that the census for a Hampton includes a high number of flats and two bedroom properties with limited occupancy this number of vehicles reflects the high number of vehicles at the other properties, resulting in access being restricted to emergency service vehicles due to the congested roads resulting from high numbers of parked cars, cars often parked across corners due to limited space, restricting sight lines and increasing the number of accidents, access to wheelchair users putting pedestrians at risk. Many of these problems being due to the majority of garages being used for storage rather than the parking space they are deemed to be in the Planning consents. The Council believes that Planning Authorities need to learn from the mistakes in other areas and not compound them on new developments. (ii) Parking in the centre of the village and outside the school. At certain times of day, as a recent accident highlights, there is a significant problem with congestion in the village. The situation is compounded by buses trying to negotiate the narrow roads, all partially blocked with many parked cars. Additional housing in the village will inevitably add to this problem, particularly as the proposed development is some distance away, from the village amenities, leading to the new residents using their cars to access the amenities. The Parish Council believes that significant infrastructure changes would be

3 needed to make these areas safe for any increased traffic numbers.

(f) Road safety - pedestrian crossing of North Street The proposed development will be to the east of North Street - the opposite side of the main road to most village amenities (shop, pharmacy, post office, school, church, bus stop out of village). A raised pedestrian crossing to slow traffic would be essential to make crossing safer; as well as helping with traffic calming. (g) Road safety - congestion at Norman Cross The recent agreed development of 5,350 homes in the area to the north-east of Norman Cross will put considerable pressure on the Norman Cross interchange and associated roundabout. Additional housing in Stilton will only add to those problems. (h). Utilities The fundamental requirements for a development on this scale do not appear to have been assessed or addressed. For example, with regards to foul sewerage, it is stated that the development will be connected to the main sewer but there is nothing to identify whether or not there is sufficient capacity within the existing infrastructure. Similarly with electricity, gas and water, there is no reference to whether there is sufficient capacity within the existing infrastructure for the development, or if major works will be required to increase capacity - causing further inconvenience to the existing residents. The Parish Council is concerned that existing residents who will benefit in a very limited way from the project if the only investment in the village is the Parish Council's payment of just 15% of the stated £1m Community Infrastructure Levy that the contractor has advised residents will be paid to Huntingdonshire District. Should the project be given Planning permission the Parish Council seeks assurances that the remainder of the £1m contractors payment will be used to improve the life of Stilton village residents in a meaningful way and that residents will be consulted in how these monies can be best used to improve local amenities and resources.

The technical reports submitted with the planning application are open to closer examination, which may find them inadequate. The Air Quality Assessment specifically excludes dust from the scope, whereas experience of living in properties adjacent to the A1M there are considerable amounts of airborne dust deposited on adjacent properties which make this site located so close to the motorway unacceptable.

The Noise report has serious shortcomings, which should be rigorously challenged. The anticipated garden noise levels can be measure now before the development and are above the predicted levels. The reference to trickle ventilation as an acceptable solution with regard to noise is not correct and heat recovery ventilation schemes will be required to meet the Building Regulations and latest code of practice for air

4 quality. However with the high levels of dust an increased frequency of filter changes would be required, which would place an unacceptable financial burden on social housing.

It is very unusual that a developer proposes a housing scheme adjacent to a motorway without any noise scheme in the form of earth banks or acoustic barriers. This proposal does not appear to have addressed any of the requirements to protect the future residents from dust or noise.

5 From: Tysterman, Will (Planning) To: Control, Development (Planning) Subject: FW: 18/01796/OUT North Street, Stilton Date: 03 December 2018 10:00:25

From: Tim Alban (Cllr) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 December 2018 21:18 To: Tysterman, Will (Planning) Cc: Subject: 18/01796/OUT North Street, Stilton

Hi Will,

I have now had the opportunity to look at the new traffic survey in more detail and I am concerned that it is still not taking into account of a number of import issues which are as follows: the effect on traffic on the roads which lead on to North Street - especially those close to the development, the effect on traffic on the middle of the village where the shops and pubs are, the affect on traffic near the school and the siting of the proposed junction of the new development and North Street - especially the likely affect on the properties and parking provision opposite the proposed junction.

Also, whilst I appreciate that Hunts DC can not take into account Great Haddon in terms of housing allocation, I am concerned that no account appears to have been taken of the vehicle movements which are likely to be generated by the Great Haddon development - either from vehicles used in the construction or the those relating to people who will live and/or work in Great Haddon.

I will asking County Councillor Simon Bywater to arrange a meeting with County Council Highways Department to discuss this and will then comment further on this application via the District Council's Planning Portal.

As this latest report raises more questions about this proposed development, my hope is that the application will not go to DMC until a meeting in 2019, which will allow time for further analysis of and comment.

Kind regards,

Tim

Tim Alban

District Councillor for Stilton, Folksworth & Washingley Ward

(First contact for residents in Stilton, Folksworth & Washingley, Holme, Denton & Caldecote, Great & Little Gidding, Glatton and Connington).

Tel: www.facebook.com/TimAlbanForStiltonWard

(If you are a resident of Sibson-cum-Stibbington, Elton, Alwalton, Morborne, Haddon, Water Newton or Chesterton, please contact my fellow ward councillor Marge Beuttell in the first instance via [email protected])

Addendum to Stilton Parish Council response to Planning Application 18/01796/OUT - Residential development of up to 90 dwellings together with associated access and works in the highway, drainage and landscaping. Land Rear Of 68 To 82 North Street, Stilton

Further to Stilton Parish Council's response to the above planning application an addendum to the Transport Assessment document has been submitted by the applicant in reply to questions raised by Cambridgeshire County Council. In response to this addendum the Parish Council wishes to draw attention to the following: (a) Neither the Addendum nor the original Assessment take account of traffic flows within the village nor the impact on parking in village hot spots. There is already a problem at the centre of the village and outside the school as pointed out in our original submission; (b) The Addendum makes a 5-year traffic growth projection based upon a figure of approximately 1.1. However, this completely ignores the building of 5,350 dwelling to the north-east of Norman Cross (the High Haddon township) which will have a severe impact upon the interchange roundabout. There have been estimates of traffic flows to/from the High Haddon development which should be taken into account in estimating traffic flows; (c) The Addendum takes no account of the other proposed development off High Street which will also affect traffic flows and parking in the village.

Since the original application for this development, another application has been made for a further 70 dwellings off High Street in Stilton (application ref no. 18/02192/OUT). This gives a total of 160 dwellings. Our calculations show this is an increase of more than 16% of the total dwellings currently within the village (using the electoral role there are 976 dwelling within the village - note, national census data for "Stilton" include the village of Holme and a number of hamlets all well away from the village). The Parish Council wishes to stress that the scale of the proposed developments is far outside that envisaged in the Core Strategy 2009 which identifies Stilton as a Small Settlement, and, more importantly, far in excess of that specified in the new Local Plan which identifies Stilton as a Group Village. The Strategy and Plan specify planning limits for infilling of up to 3 dwellings and for small developments of up to 8 or 9 dwellings. The Parish Council is particularly concerned that if either or both of the current applications are allowed, then these will set a precedent that completely contradicts the existing Strategy and Local Plan. Further large-scale applications are likely to follow with disastrous consequences for the village.

Huntingdonshire DC Public Access

From: [email protected] Sent: 14 January 2019 20:30 To: DevelopmentControl Subject: Comments for Planning Application 18/01796/OUT

Planning Application comments have been made. A summary of the comments is provided below.

Comments were submitted at 8:30 PM on 14 Jan 2019 from Mr Tim Alban.

Application Summary Address: Land Rear Of 68 To 82 North Street Stilton Residential development of up to 90 dwellings together Proposal: with associated access and works in the highway, drainage and landscaping Case Officer: Will Tysterman Click for further information

Customer Details Name: Mr Tim Alban Email: [email protected] Address: 36 Worthington Close, Stilton, Peterborough PE7 3XF

Comments Details Commenter Councillor Type: Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Reasons for comment: Comments: Having looked at the most recent traffic assessment and met with one of the County Council's Highways Officer (where I explained the existing traffic issues experienced in Stilton) my objections to this proposed development remain.

Little or no account appears to have been taken of the traffic likely to be generated by the construction, residential and business users of the Great Haddon development; in particular I am concerned that this is likely to lead to queuing on the B1043 leading out of Stilton which will be made worse by the development of 90 dwellings in this application.

1