NON KEY DECISION: REPORT TO CABINET PORTFOLIO MEMBER DECISION TO BE TAKEN BY: Councillor Mrs Frances Cartwright Economic Portfolio REPORT AUTHOR: Rachel Armstrong REPORT NO: PLA 735 DATE: 1st December 2008 SUBJECT OF Peterborough City Council; NON KEY Site Allocations DPD – Issues and Options DECISION: Consultation CORPORATE PRIORITY: QUALITY LIVING, QUALITY ORGANISATION CRIME AND DISORDER None applicable IMPLICATIONS: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION This report is publicly available on the Council’s ACT website www.southkesteven.gov.uk via the Local IMPLICATIONS: democracy link. INITIAL Carried out and Full impact assessment EQUALITY appended to report? required? IMPACT ASSESSMENT No – responsibility of No Peterborough City Council BACKGROUND PAPERS: Peterborough City Council Core Strategy Preferred Options May 2008 Peterborough City Council: Site Allocations DPD Issues and Options Oct/Nov 2008 http://consult.peterborough.gov.uk/ (1) PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider issues arising from Peterborough City Council’s current consultation on potential site allocations for inclusion within the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD) which will form part of the City Council’s Local Development Framework (LDF). (2) RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Corporate Head of Sustainable Communities be authorised to submit comments to Peterborough City Council raising concern about: the amount of land which is being considered for development in villages of Deeping Gate, identified as “Small Village”, and in Northborough identified as a “Limited Growth Village”. The amount of land being considered far exceeds that envisaged in the Peterborough Core Strategy and would compromise the Spatial Strategy set out within. They could also have serious implications for the provision of local services and infrastructure within South Kesteven. Possible loss of the current Gypsy and Traveller site on Norwood Land known as Paston Ridings. (3) REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S) Peterborough City Council’s Issues and Options Consultation document is the first formal consultation document for the Site Allocations DPD. It appears to include all sites which have been suggested to the City Council as possible allocations, except those which are under 0.3 ha, or which are located in the City Centre or which would be alternative urban extension sites (as these two will be considered in separate DPDs). No assessment appears to have been made about the suitability or developability of any of the sites included. It is likely that the majority of the sites included in this consultation will not be taken forward for consideration in the next stage of the preparation of the DPD. The emerging Peterborough Core Strategy sets out a spatial strategy which identifies those villages within close proximity to South Kesteven as either “Small Villages” or “Limited Growth Villages”. Small villages have been identified as requiring a total of 150 new dwellings across the 15 identified villages, over the plan period (to 2021). Small villages includes: Wothorpe; Pilsgate; Bainton; Etton; Maxey; Deeping Gate; and Peakirk, which are all located to the south of South Kesteven. A number of small sites have been identified in some of these villages which do not raise any strategic policy concerns. However, three separate sites have been identified in Deeping Gate. Site H125 Riverside, Deeping Gate is small in scale and represents infill development and, therefore, raises no policy concern (although it should be noted the site lies in or close to an area at risk of flooding). The other two sites MO10 and MO11 are identified for Mixed Use development and lie to the west of the B1524 just south of the Market Deeping Bridge. These sites comprise over 87 hectares in total, this would provide far in excess of the150 houses required across the 15 villages. Deeping Gate is located in close proximity to the town of Market Deeping and Deeping St James (known collectively as the Deepings). Any new residential development across the river (and district boundary) at Deeping Gate, will inevitably be seen as part of the Deepings, and residents will utilise existing services and facilities within the Deepings, which are already considered by many locally to be stretched. The allocation of either of these two large sites (MO10 and MO11) would be contrary to the City Council’s spatial strategy and could compromise the ability of local services and facilities within South Kesteven to meet increased demands. If Peterborough City were to pursue the allocation of either site, the District Council will need to discuss with them the cross boundary implications of any such allocation on local infrastructure and service provision within South Kesteven. Within “Limited Growth Villages” (of which eight are identified), it is expected that a total of 500 new homes will be identified. The village of Northborough to the south of the Deepings is identified as one of the eight growth villages. Eight potential sites are identified around the village (sites H107 and H109- H115). Together, these sites could deliver in the region of 900 new homes. Again this level of development is contrary to the spatial strategy identified in the Core Strategy, and would be totally inappropriate in this location. The District Council would, therefore, need to consider the implications of any thing other than a modest amount of development were proposed in this settlement. It should be noted that Peterborough City Council has consistently argued, at both a regional and local level, against additional residential development within South Kesteven at the Deepings. In so doing the City has argued that development here is unsustainable and would lead to increased levels of commuting to Peterborough. If Market Deeping in considered in this light then so too must Deeping Gate. Whilst South Kesteven District Council has consistently argued against Peterborough City’s stance on this issue, residential development in the Deepings has been severely restricted for the last ten years. Site HO34 identified within the document as a potential housing allocation is currently in use as a Gypsy and Travellers site. This is a large council run Gypsy and Traveller site. The City Council’s Core Strategy identifies that there is a need within the city to identify one or more additional Gypsy and Traveller site(s) to meet outstanding need. In light of this need it would be unacceptable to lose an existing provision without appropriate replacement pitches being provided elsewhere within the city. South Kesteven also has an outstanding need for additional Gypsy and Traveller pitches which it is seeking to address through the identification of one or more sites within the district. The loss of pitches in the north of Peterborough could exacerbate the level of need within South Kesteven. (4) COMMENTS OF THE CORPORATE HEAD OF FINANCE AND RESOURCES (SECTION 151 OFFICER) No specific financial comments to make. (5) COMMENTS OF THE MONITORING OFFICER The Council is a statutory consultee for neighbouring authorities, such as Peterborough City Council. As such it is able to comment on documents prepared as part of their emerging LDF where these contain issues which are of concern or objection to this council. The matters raised in this report are a concern to this Council for the reasons given. (6) OFFICER CONTACT Rachel Armstrong Senior Planning Policy Officer 01476 406469 [email protected] (7) DATE DECISION EFFECTIVE: If decision taken on 1st December date effective will be 10th December 2008 .