Tesco Leaflet - Whittlesey

There is a Tesco leaflet being distributed in Whittlesey at the moment.  I don't know how many people will receive it, so I was going to publish it when I got a chance - but it is probably just as easy top link to the Cambs Times article about it, which is here.

I would add the same qualifier as I have done when I linked to the Sainsbury report over transport access to Station Road, that this is one side of the argument.  In particular, there has been some dispute about the legality of removing planning permission on a site that is in a separate location to the current planning application.

I am still distributing a supermarket survey around Whittlesey North, I am getting about a 12% return rate which is perfectly acceptable.  I will summarise the findings so far over the next week or so.

Possible Impact of Tesco on Station Road

I was sent a document last night prepared by Vectos, who are the highways consultants who act on behalf of Sainsbury.  The document was intended to inform the review of the impact of any Supermarket on Station Road and, in effect, challenge its viability because of that.

Vectos have given me permission to publish that document on my blog for discussion.  It contains some serious issues, including highlighting potential queues of up to 400m on Saturdays at Station Road level crossing.  A word of caution - because it is a representative of Sainsbury challenging Tesco - but it seems to be based on factual evidence and, as such, is worthy of debate, which is why I have mentioned it.

The document can be accessed here.

New Responsibilities at Fenland District Council

I was recently offered and have accepted the post of Vice-Chairman of Planning by Alan Melton, the Leader at Fenland District Council. 

I am delighted to be coming back into planning, it is an extremely demanding area but one that I enjoy working in.  It is going to become even more challenging as Fenland's Development Framework, the Government White Paper and Neighbourhood Planning all start to have their influence.

Bassenhally Farm application approved

The outline planning application for Bassenhally Farm was at planning committee today and was approved.

I spoke against the application and raised a number of highways issues, in particular that an access onto Drybread Road would worsen what is already an unacceptable situation outside the school at opening and closing team.

I also made a strong case that we already know and have hard evidence of what happens when the A605 has more cars along it, and that this evidence on the ground should be considered as much as the data.

But the Highways advice that there would be no implications won the day. I have asked for some evidence about those highways considerations, but the decision today means that the principle of development on that site is agreed, and therefore the only consideration is the detail that will come with a reserved matters application. But it looks like it will be impossible to prevent the development taking place.

Steve Tierney on Wind Turbines

I just want to endorse this post by my fellow County Councillor Steve Tierney about Wind Turbines.

From a resident's perspective planning is frustrating, but there are many of us who feel that Fenland has more than done its bit as far as Wind Turbines go and it is important people make their voices heard.

There is potentially a big issue coming up here though.   Unlike with previous wind farm applications, Fenland now has quite a robust policy in place which provides a basis to resist where previously it was difficult.    The question is, if the planning inspectorate overturn a local decision to refuse, what next?   There would be the potential to challenge the decision in the High Court.

Planning Application in Feldale Close Refused

There was a planning application in Feldale Close considered by the committee today.  I couldn't get too involved because it was a Roddons Housing Association application and I am a Board Member.    However, the committee made the right decision and turned it down.

One of the characteristics of the Avenues is the open spaces at the corners of many of the junctions, including the one at the junction with Feldale and Crescent Road that this application would have got rid of.   These spaces do a great deal to enhance the character of the area, a character that has existed for decades (my mum was brought up in the Avenues!!).  Allowing this application would have inevitably led to a number of similar applications which would have fundamentally changed the look and feel of the area giving it a real urban feel - so it was right to do this now and I thank the committee for their sensible decision.

Another aspect of this is that the application was an example of garden-grabbing, a practice that the Conservatives have pledged to end.  Hopefully a Planning Bill will see the end of this practice for ever.  Shame that the Labour Government failed to take the opportunity they had over a year ago to end it.

There is, of course, the possibility of an appeal, but given that the agent in this case was the District Council, I suspect that is unlikely.

Feldale Fields Planning Application

A planning application has been received by Fenland District Council from Larkfleet Homes for a development on Feldale Fields.  This does not effect the current football pitch project that is going on, but it does impact on the rest of the area.    The project is for 460 houses and a care home.

I don't know how closely this matches the proposals that were exhibited last year, I haven't had sight of the plans, but I will not be supporting it, mainly because Whittlesey's infrastructure cannot cope.  We already have problems with flooding in times of heavy rainfall and this could ultimately mean up to a thousand extra cars a day travelling along the A605.  There is also the issue about the lack of capacity of our railway station which means that there is little alternative to the car.

In conjunction with Steven Barclay the Conservative Candidate for North East Cambridgeshire, I have set up a Facebook site for residents to offer their views.  Whether you use Facebook or not, I urge you to write to Fenland District Council and offer your views.

When the application has been validated I will post more details including a link and an address to write to.  Please make sure people are aware of this - word of mouth is important.

My Resignation as Chairman of Planning

I submitted my resignation as chairman of Planning at Fenland today.

It was not a decision that I took lightly, but I have a number of really important things coming up - such as the need to focus on finishing my degree (I have four months left), the general election and my role at County Council which is going to take up increasing amounts of time.  

In light of this I did not feel I could give sufficient time to a number of serious planning issues that are on the near horizon.  Bearing in mind the new leader at Fenland’s wish that he did not want Councillors having responsibilities at Fenland when they have major roles at County, I felt that the best decision was to go now so he could appoint a new Chairman sooner rather than later.

Please don’t read anything else into my decision - these are the reasons.

I am very proud of my record over the past six years.   Planning committees need a chairman who is robust and I believe, when it has been needed, I have been exactly that, but when it has been needed I have also been robust and challenging behind the scenes.  My approach has seen an increase in performance, a user satisfaction rating of 70% and increasingly higher quality presentations at committee - something that has aided decision making.

I am also proud of the role I played in initiating the Fenland Design awards, which recognises the many positive aspects of planning which often gets lost amongst the controversy which inevitably fills up most of the media time with planning.

I am sure that there are those who will challenge these commetns - largely because they haven't liked particular decisions, or my role in those decisions and I respect that - it is an inevitable aspect of planning.  It is a system that can be hard on a Councillor, almost every decision has a loser and that means, inevitably, that people do get upset - something that goes against the grain.  

That has been made all the worse as the Government has become all the more controlling - where the rules that have to be followed become all the more uncomfortable, but where defying those rules does not change the outcome, but gives false hope, delays the inevitable and potentially adds significant cost to the Council.

I have always tried to provide guidance based on that thinking - something that has not been easy and has meant that, at times, I have had to be tough (but actually any Councillor worth his salt has to be tough at times).  

That said, I increasingly look forward to the post-election scenario;  the Conservatives have pledged to get rid of the top-down approach to planning, in particular I look forward to garden grabbing becomes a thing of the past and to the power of the Planning Inspectorate being reduced.

One benefit of standing down as Chairman is that I will not have the limitations placed on me when discussing planning issues, it means I will be freer to speak my mind on particular applications, and I will.

Planning Committee - Whittlesey Supermarket

As many of you will already be aware, the Planning Committee at Fenland have approved plans for  a supermarket at the Benwick Road site.  For various reasons I was not able to be part of the debate, however, it was one of the longest debates I can recall at planning committee and I totally respect the outcome.

My personal preference would have been to consider both of the applications at the same time.  There is a history of planning applications for supermarkets being ultimately decided in court.  Considering both together may have minimised the risk of this happening and could have helped to ensure a local decision.

However, even a decision made at a meeting where both were considered could have ended up in court - or be decided by the Secretary of State.  People need to be aware that the decision made yesterday may not be the end of this and there is a possibility of court action or that the Secretary of State will have something to say.

Just to make my point, these links are for supermarket applications that have court involvement and are fairly current:

Dawlish


Stourport

Sorry for smiling

There is an extraordinary letter in the Cambs Times this week which has something of a personal attack on me.    I am not convinced it is responsible journalism to print anonymous letters of that nature, but I’m a big boy and I can take it.  But it does deserve a response.

I seem to be criticised for:

a.   Smiling some time during the Tesco exhibition.  I must remember not to smile in future.  Actually - if that person had been watching properly, they would have also seen me asking a number of challenging questions to Tesco representatives about certain issues - mainly to do with highways.

b.  Going to a festival.  When I take holidays, one of the things I do is go to Rock Festivals, I make no apologies for that, being a big fan of hard rock music is part of who I am.  I have a right to be me.  This is the second time I have been criticised for taking a holiday, so here is an advanced warning - I am going to a rock festival in early December in Wales and another one next June in France.  Actually I plan these things well in advance and pay good money for them.  So being notified at short notice of a public exhibition doesn’t allow me to change those plans.

c.  Voting against the previous Station Road application.  Fair enough.  If some people think that I was wrong, so be it.  But I stand by my decision; I felt there were some serious short-comings about that application.   My understanding of the revised submission for the same site is that there has been some serious work done to try to deal with the problems raised.  Whether they are sufficient to overcome them I cannot comment on - I am not allowed to - but, if this application is approved (note the word if, this is not a statement of either opposition or support) - it will be all the better because of the previous refusal.

Planning is a complex matter.  We are governed by a number of National, Regional and local polices, arguably, the most important in this case is the Government’s Planning Policy Statement 6.  The decisions made at Planning Committee have to be decided based on those policies, but are also informed by local views.  However, if a decision is made that contravenes the policy framework, Fenland can be challenged either through appeal or through the Courts.  For that reason, whatever decisions are made at planning committee, have to have a solid policy foundation.  This is something that it is really difficult to get across, because the process undermines local democracy.  Indeed, Nationally, I have pushed the Conservative Party to change some of this after the General Election (which they have said they will do), but that doesn't change where we stand now and it is the current planning framework that has to inform any decision I make.  


One aspect of this is that I am not permitted to make up my mind until I have listened to the evidence at planning committee.  Any suggestion I have already made up my mind has no basis in fact.

Supermarkets

We had a petition presented at Full Council today by a Fenland Lib Dem activist. Basically, it was in support of a supermarket in Chatteris, and he used the fact that the planning committee had turned down such an application in Chatteris as part of his case.

The truth is that, whilst the planning committee did indeed turned down applications for supermarkets in both Whittlesey and Chatteris, there was a very clear message sent at the same time that supermarkets were needed, but that the detail of the applications were not acceptable.

In the case of the Chatteris situation. I suspect that a petition suggesting that a supermarket with pedestrian access over the A141was needed would not have got anywhere near as many signatures!! That was the application that was in front of the planning committee.

A new application has come forward for Whittlesey recently, and I am fairly sure that one will come forward for Chatteris too. But, a yes decision should not be made simply because it is a supermarket, we should be looking at whatever comes forward and only saying yes if the planning issues are acceptable.

Tough Planning Decisions

It was my casting vote today that was responsible for the application for a homeless Hostel in Wisbech (on the site of the Queens Hotel) being approved. I suspect my name is mud amongst some, so I thought I would write an unusually long blog post to explain my motives.

Prior to committee I had decided that I would vote with the main committee rather than abstain and reserve my vote simply for a Chairman’s casting vote (which is what I normally do). I have said before that I would do this where I felt strongly about an application; it is something that, on occasion, I have done in the past. The nature of the previous debate and the huge press furore was what made up my mind to do this yesterday. I felt that, for such a sensitive, controversial and important application, the Chairman of the committee should stand up and be counted, in whatever direction - I cannot recall a decision of such controversy over recent years. That was my decision and one that I did not discuss with anyone prior to the committee meeting. As it happens I ended up voting in favour and then making a casting vote to support.

Whilst I understand some of the concerns that were expressed on the day, the debate today was not about revisiting a Cabinet policy decision to support the Ferry Project (who will run the hostel), it was about deciding whether this particular scheme was acceptable in planning terms. Part of my role as Chairman is to ensure that crucial aspects of that debate are brought out.

The first issue is conservation. The most important aspect of the building is the frontage and the interior. The major change was a conservatory/function room at the rear. I raised this issue about the important Conservation issues as part of the debate to allow challenge. But English Heritage had supported the application in writing and the Wisbech Society were broadly supportive when they spoke. In my view there was not sufficient argument to challenge the comment that the conservatory was not in a vital area in Conservation terms. There was some concern expressed by one speaker about the need for a lift in the interior but, to be fair, there are very few uses to which this building could be put that would not require a lift.

The next question is whether this building was suitable for the sort of mixed use proposed - especially given its location. There are a number of examples around the country where similar schemes operate in historic buildings in sensitive areas, Dartmouth, St Martin’s in the Field (Trafalgar Square) are a couple (but there are more). So, I felt someone would need to demonstrate why this location differed, why what was acceptable elsewhere was not acceptable on the Queens Hotel site - another point that I raised because I felt it was critical to the discussion. It is not enough just to say not here, the debate, in my view, needed to be about why this was unique compared to elsewhere. If there had been enough robust planning based challenge to that comment, it almost certainly would have made me vote differently because I felt this was the critical aspect of the debate. In my view that evidence was not offered at committee so, again, it was quite clear in my mind that the presumption was in favour.

Thirdly, there was an issue about the fear of anti-social behaviour. There was a great deal of evidence about problems with Mill Road, (the Ferry Project’s current location in Wisbech). But there was also evidence put forward that many reasons for this were because of the unsuitable nature of those premises, something that would be addressed by the use of this location. Furthermore, it was confirmed that the main entrance for residents of the hostel would be from the rear of the property - thus minimising problems at the front. Coupled with this, there will be a robust behaviour policy and Fenland and the police will have representation through the management board. Therefore I felt that the weight of evidence was in favour; especially given that the project is to be put forward for “Secured by Design” accreditation.

There were a number of other issues raised, one was the weight of opposition in an online newspaper survey, which had suggested that 87% were against the application. I am afraid I, personally, cannot offer that significant weight. Those surveys are great for creating news headlines, but it is easy to fix online surveys like this; by one individual voting on a number of computers, or by deleting cookies and re-voting. Secondly, letters to the authority have reasons for opposition on them - which allows weight to be given, not just to the number of letters, but also the nature of any opposition or support. Thirdly, whilst 87% was mentioned, there was no mention of exactly how many votes made up that 87%. For that reason I chose to give weight to representations to the authority, and again, in this instance, I felt there was a slight weight of evidence in favour.

I hope, this explains why I voted like I did, and indeed why I voted. It would have been easy for me to sit on my hands and watch a vital decision for Fenland go either way and then say “Not me guv - I didn’t vote”. I chose to do what I thought was right. I can say quite categorically that if I had considered that the weight of evidence had been against the application I would have voted against.

The rules around planning are such that it is permissible to enter a planning meeting with a predisposed view (“I think I will vote this way, but we’ll see), it is not permissible to enter with a predetermined view (I will definitely vote this way, whatever is said). I was definitely in the former camp not the latter, but in my view the crucial issues at the debate fell in favour.

I should add, it is up to planning committee members to come to their own independent decisions and I respect the views of all of the committee. This just explains my own thinking and is, in no way, a criticism of others.

I now look forward to this hostel opening, and being an asset to Wisbech and Fenland as well as helping some very vulnerable people to develop and improve their lives. We should be in no doubt that this is the intention of both Fenland and of the Ferry Project.

Aside from that decision, it was a tough meeting today, with a number of challenging issues. From a local perspective, an application in Market Street in Whittlesey was refused because the flats above the shop were considered to be over intensive. A tough decision this, but a good debate was had and, on balance, I think the right decision was made. Of course, the applicant now has the right to either appeal to the Planning Inspectorate or resubmit a revised application.

Building Design Awards

One of my tasks last week was to attend the launch of Fenland's Building Design Awards which are sponsored by the Cambs Times and the Wisbech Standard. The event was held at the home of last year's winners who live near Welney and have an extension to their home with a spectacular platform at the top offering an amazing view of the Fens. What interested me was that everything about the building suggests it would be imposing. It says something for the design that it really can't be seen until you are right on top of it (which is my excuse for being late!!)

I'm a big fan of the Building Design Awards. Planning is a difficult process, one that inevitably creates bad publicity because the decisions are often controversial and inevitably upset either opponents of schemes or supporters. So to hold an event that shows positive outcomes of the planning process has to be a good thing.

Planning Summer School

I am off to Exeter this weekend to the Planning Summer School. It is a chance to get an external view of planning, see where National policy is heading and to discuss areas where we can improve planning in Fenland.

Planning Committee

Interesting planning committee today. Two compromise decisions, reducing a temporary use of a Silver Street from the recommended 6 months down to 3 (with the agreement of Anglian Water), and a change to allow some details for the new Anker's site in Eldernell Lane that would normally need to be submitted prior to beginning work on site to allowing them to be provided within two months of commencement of work (may have been 3).

We also deferred one application for a month so that we could discuss some details at committee with a Highways Officer. Planning is often difficult because you almost always make someone unhappy - but I think these were good decisions.

Feldale Field

I was advised by the Peterborough Evening Telegraph today that Larkfleet Homes will be shortly holding a public exhibition about a proposed development of 500 homes on Feldale Fields (aka Bassenhally Farm).

I cannot make a comment about the merits of the application because of my role as Chairman of Planning, but I would strongly urge everyone in Whittlesey to attend and make their views known. There are potentially huge implications for this development -you need to decide whether the implications are good or bad for the Town and make your opinions known.

I will publish more detail when I have it.

I am keen to get some leaflets out around Whittlesey urging people to attend the exhibition - if you would be interested in helping to put these out, please contact me