A short while ago, I asked a number of questions of Fenland and Cambridgeshire County Council. I have now had a joint response from them. In a few days I will comment on that response - I have a number of issues with it - not least that it does not answer the question about the specific measures being taken to make Whittlesey more sustainable - but I will deal with them in a few days. It needs top be read alongside my blog, which is here.
RESPONSES
Blog Question 1
The following planning consents were factored into the
highway modelling that was carried out as part of the Transport Assessment for
this development:
• 460 homes at
Bassenhally Field
• Sainsbury
Supermarket and country park
• Business
Park on Eastrea Road
The Old Nursery site along Peterborough Road was not
included because at the time the Snowley Park application was submitted the old
nursery site had not received planning permission and so did not meet the
requirement specified in national guidance that development which has received
planning permission but not yet built should be included within the highway
modelling. Likewise the development to the rear of 148 Stonald Road did not
have planning consent and so was not specifically included. However, in addition to the specific sites
listed, the highway modelling work also included an uplift of 5.2% on current
traffic flows to reflect expected general background growth and traffic growth
related to smaller developments not listed above.
Blog Question 2
Local Plan Policy LP3 relating to the spatial strategy
and settlement hierarchy guides FDC’s perspective on this. The overall strategy focuses the majority of
growth in the places that have most services and facilities (e.g. the towns)
and that therefore has better access.
Whittlesey has regular bus links into Peterborough during
the daytime and there are some train services in the evening. The Local Plan
including Policy LP3 was subject to an independent public
inquiry, found sound and the document has since been adopted.
Turning specifically to transport matters, other than
Wisbech and March, Whittlesey has a higher proportion of residents travelling
by the sustainable modes of transport than anywhere else in Fenland (according
to the 2011 Census). In the context of where to locate new development in
Fenland Whittlesey is well placed to support new development.
It is also important to note that the County Council,
working with partners including Fenland District Council, has developed a
Market Town Transport Strategy (MTTS) for Whittlesey which was adopted in
November 2012. The development of the MTTS was overseen and endorsed by a
Member steering group and sets out actions that seek to address some of the
existing transport shortcomings within the town, but also to plan ahead for
future developments. The MTTS therefore seeks to address the transport needs
for both existing and potential future residents, businesses and visitors to
Whittlesey and therefore make the town more sustainable from a transport
perspective.
Blog Question 3
As noted above, there is an adopted MTTS in place for
Whittlesey. This sets out a series of
transport improvements which will help to improve the transport options to,
from and within the town and help establish more sustainable travel patterns.
The development of the MTTS was led by a local member steering group with
representatives from County, District and Town Councillors and included
consultation with the general public in order that relevant issues and schemes
could be addressed and included in the strategy. There is strong evidence through the strategy
development process that the transport items are required.
The measures set out in the MTTS seek to address both
existing transport needs and those related to future growth and therefore
securing appropriate contributions from developers is important to delivering
the MTTS.
Planning law is clear that developer contributions must
be related to the development and fairly and reasonably related to it in scale
and kind. FDC and CCC therefore need to
be mindful of this in securing contributions.
The planning and highway authority can only seek to mitigate development
impacts and not require developers to go beyond this and make good other
shortcomings.
The MTTS contribution secured for this development was
calculated in a proportionate way based on the number of dwellings proposed at
this development relative to the existing population. The total cost of schemes
in the MTTS relevant to the development were then used to derive an appropriate
level of contribution which is related to the scale of development proposed.
However, the MTTS also recognises the importance of
improvements being made to the station and this too has been evidenced and
endorsed through the development of that strategy. A separate contribution of £85,000 has
therefore been secured from this development towards these improvements.
Finally a Travel Plan has been secured which includes the
provision of transport welcome packs and free bus tickets to new residents so
that their travel habits can be influenced early on before other habits are
established. Travel planning is a key
element within national transport planning guidance, which has been shown to be
effective through a number of studies, and CCC therefore continue to promote
Travel Plans through the development process.
Blog Question 4
The planning application documentation included a
Planning Statement. Appendix 4 of the Planning Statement comprised a Draft S106
Unilateral Undertaking – Comprising the following:
a. 25% Affordable Housing delivered on site.
b. Education
c. Transport – Market Town Transport Strategy
Contribution d. Travel Plan e. Public Open Space
The draft S106 set out the applicant’s intentions in
terms of S106 contributions and was part of the planning documentation
consulted upon.
This was part of the planning information on the
Council’s website and therefore available to the public for comment.
In terms of transport specifically, and as noted earlier,
the measures set out in the MTTS were consulted upon and endorsed by Members
prior to the adoption of the document.
Blog Question 5
The Transport Assessment submitted with the application
predicted that there will be an additional 40 2-way vehicle trips in the AM
peak hour and 43 2-way vehicle trips in the PM peak hour along the section of
Stonald Road heading towards the town centre. This equates to less than 1
additional vehicle per minute travelling along Stonald Road which is unlikely
to be perceptible to most users of the road. However, the MTTS includes other
measures which will improve the cycle route from Whittlesey town centre to
Peterborough which the development’s MTTS contribution could go towards and
help fund.
As such on balance CCC officers take the view that the
modest increases in traffic that will result from this development along this
section of Stonald Road are adequately mitigated by the contribution the
development will make to the MTTS. Moreover as part of the development’s
planning permission, the developer has agreed to implement a residential travel
plan which will encourage residents in the development to travel using
sustainable means, this will help to increase the presence of cycling within
the town making the cycle routes more attractive and could also help to secure
further cycle improvements if it can be demonstrated that the numbers of cyclists
in the town is increasing.
Blog Question 6
Peterborough City Council were not consulted directly by
the planning authority – this was not a requirement in this case. However it
should be noted that Peterborough CC did not object to the principle and scale
of development at Whittlesey during the recent local plan preparation
stages. It would be reasonable for the
Council to assume that provided the Local Plan targets are not significantly
breached and the proposal is generally in line with the adopted Local Plan,
Peterborough City Council has no objection.
Blog Question 7
While the link from Stonald Road to the Millennium Bridge
will be upgraded later this financial year, further discussions will be held
with County Council Cycle Officers to discuss the possibility for further
improvements to be made to the North Bank section of this cycle route.
Blog Question 8
The 1,000 housing target for Whittlesey is enforceable,
though only under certain circumstances. The 1,000 target was established in
the Local Plan using available evidence and through consultation with, amongst
others, infrastructure providers such as Anglian Water, Environment Agency, the
local highway authority etc.
If at some point in the future a planning application was
received which would, if built out by 2031 with all other completions and
permissions since 2011, significantly exceed the 1,000 target for Whittlesey
then the proposal could be refused as a matter of principle. The argument for
such a refusal would be around the fact that the Local Plan tested the evidence
and found that it was ‘sound’ to permit 1,000 homes at Whittlesey in principle.
It did not test (and hence did not find sound) a higher figure. To approve an
application which breached 1,000 homes, therefore, might have implications on
the overall infrastructure network at Whittlesey, a matter not tested via the
Local Plan process.
However, before such a refusal, the Council would have to
take into account wider matters, such as:
(a) Is Fenland
on track to deliver its overall 11,000 target 2011-31? If not, it could be
argued that Whittlesey should take more to make up the
(b) shortfall.
If it was on track, this would add considerable weight to refusing applications
at Whittlesey (because otherwise the overall 11,000 target could be breached)
(c) Have the
infrastructure providers objected to the planning application which would
breach the 1,000 target? If not, there would appear little evidence to suggest that breaching 1,000 homes would be unacceptable on
infrastructure grounds, and therefore would weaken considerably the argument of refusing the proposal as a matter of principle
(d) Has the
applicant provided evidence to suggest that breaching the 1,000 target would
have no material impact on infrastructure or on other matters (such as the
impact on the Nene Washes European protected site, a matter which would need
determining through the Habitat Regulations Assessment)?
If it has provided such evidence, this would again weaken the case to refuse permission as a
matter of principle.
Thus, the 1,000 target is an important element of the
Local Plan, it is an enforceable target, but the Council would have to take in
to account a wide range of matters rather than simply refusing in principle a
proposal which breached the 1,000 target. As with all proposals, the Council
would have to take into account the Local Plan as a whole, including but not
exclusively the 1,000 target, before reaching a decision as to approve or
refuse a proposal.
No comments:
Post a Comment