Feldale Playing Fields - Analysis of Design and Access Statement

Over the last few days I have managed to take a bit of a closer look at the planning application for Feldale Fields. The application can be found here.


The Reference is F/YR10/0206/O.

Can I also please remind you that it can be also be viewed at the Fenland@Your Service shop in the Town Centre. Please, please make your views know by writing to:

Development Control
Fenland District Council
Fenland Hall
County Road
March
Cambs. PE15 8NQ

You can also discuss the applicaion on the Facebook page that has been created here.

The application plan has an annotation for the new Coates Crusaders football pitches as ‘Sports Pitches’. Whilst the annotation is outside of the red-lined boundary, it is the only labelled area that is outside. To the untrained eye that could create the impression that there is a link between the proposed 460 homes and the new pitches. Larkfleet did the same thing at the consultation - and I made comment then that I did not think it appropriate. So, once again, I need to make it plain that there is no link between the two. Turning down the planning application will not affect the development of the Coates Crusaders facilities.

I have had quite a close look at the Design and Access Statement and have some real concerns about how this application is being portrayed.

The crux of this application is summarised by the statement on Page 10 which says:

“The ‘saved’ policy of the Fenland District Wide Local Plan identifies that new development in Whittlesey should provide limited and small scale new housing development”

It is quite clear to me that this application is contrary to that statement in that it is neither limited nor small scale. But, there is another policy, the Interim Statement of Proposed Changes which was approved in January 2001 which states:

“Structure Plan Policies SP3/1 and SP14/1 state that at Whittlesey no further permissions for estates will be granted before significant improvements to the A605 -from Whittlesey to Peterborough have been secured.”

That document does also talk about public transport improvements, but this application does not offer that, it just looks at extending existing bus provision onto the new site - that is not improvement, it is expanding what is already there.

The Design and Access statement explains that the brief was to “provide a sustainable urban extension to the east of Whittlesey”. That statement itself is a direct contradiction to the statement on Page 6 of the Guidance on Development Plan Policies for Housing & Employment published by Fenland in October 2004, which highlights that there should be a lesser scale of development in Whittlesey (it is impossible to see how something that is describe as an urban extension to any Market Town could be viewed as anything other than a major development).

One way that this proposal aims to minimise the impact on the A605 is by way of an access onto Drybread Road. This provides a route which will link to the A605 by sending cars past Alderman Jacobs School and down either onto Cemetery Road roundabout or down Orchard Street and further clog up the traffic lights at the junction with Bassenhally Road. Increasing the traffic down minor roads as a way of minimising impact on the A605 is absolutely not acceptable. Further to this, there are already huge concerns about the situation in and around AJS at picking up and dropping off time. Any development which adds to that significant situation cannot be acceptable and I am looking forward to seeing how Highways comments to the planning committee deal with this.

It says a great deal about Larkfleet’s knowledge of Whittlesey that on Page 15 of the Design and Access Statement they call our local secondary school ‘Sir Henry Smith Community College’.

Page 26 discussed the fact that a new local centre would be created to provide ‘neighbourhood amenities’. What this means is that new shops would be created which would further affect the viability of our already struggling Town Centre.

The overhyping of the footpath and cycling links is a huge concern. There are links being provided into Feldale and onto existing paths - but nothing beyond this, so the statement that the development ‘encourages a permeable network of footpaths and cycleways’ is stretching the point somewhat (p26).

Page 28 claims that the site has good public transport provision. That is quite an interesting comment. Most people I speak to in the rest of Whittlesey complain that our public transport is barely adequate with poor train facilities and a bus system that is good during the day, but not anything like sufficient outside of normal working hours.

The section on Community Engagement in the Design and Access Statement is an exercise in spin that would make any politician proud. At no place does it say that the developer fully engaged in Fenland’s pre-application protocol, although anyone reading it at first glance would think that is indeed the case. Let me make it plain, Planning Officers have confirmed to me on numerous occasions that Larkfleet Homes did not comply with Fenland’s pre-application protocol.

Whilst this section does mention the community event that was held in July 2009, and also that many residents submitted comment forms, it does not say how the application has been amended in light of those comments, nor does it summarise what they were. My suspicion is that this is because they have been unable to deal with them. How many people commented on the unsuitability of an access onto Drybread Road and past Alderman Jacobs School? It is totally unfeasible to think that no-one mentioned this (not least because I know how many people have mentioned it to me) - yet that unsuitable access is still there in the planning application.

The final issue is the most important. The major access is via the A605 and includes provision of a new roundabout. Given that we have a barely adequate public transport system and that 80% of people in Whittlesey work in Peterborough, we can safely assume that the vast majority of residents from this site will be travelling by car, along the A605, through Whittlesey, across King’s Dyke crossing and into Peterborough on a rgular basis. The impact of this is exactly why Whittlesey has been set aside for a lesser scale of development. Until Whittlesey has feasible plans for a bypass, this development must be kicked into touch.

It may be that at some point in future the site could be considered - if, for example, it came with a significant bypass contribution to overcome the huge highways issues that it is likely to create. My suggestion to Larkfleet Homes would be to withdraw this application and bring the site into the Local Development Framework process so it can be examined alongside consideration of the infrastructure problems that exist in the Town. That way, any possible development would contribute to solutions in the Town, Fenland and the County, instead of make existing problems worse.

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.

Home Education

I did an interview with BBC Radio Cambridgeshire this morning on SEN funding.  I think the interview went OK, but I was asked a last minute question on home education, which I don't think I answered as well as I could have.  So, here is a summary of what we do for home educators:

Once the Council hear of a parent's decision to home educate  - either from the school, or the parents themselves, or they hear about those not on a school roll via other agencies, they send out an information booklet and a form for them to fill in with an outline of the education the home educators intend to provide. They give 3 weeks to respond and then chase with 2 letters (each with a 2 week response time). 

If the educators do respond we ask them to meet with the Home Education Adviser who can offer support and advice. Most agree but some refuse. If they refuse and there is no reason to be concerned there is nothing that can be done.

If the educators agree to a visit, the Adviser will visit and produce a report that is sent to the parents and kept on file. If everything is satisfactory the Council will arrange either an annual or bi-annual follow-up visit. If the provision is concerning the Council will suggest improvements and follow up in an appropriate time frame. 

Sometimes the parents do not want the visit in their home, or do not want the children present - in these cases unless there are concerns the Council have to agree. 

If the Council do not receive a form, cannot make contact directly via the EWO or the Traveller Team, and have concerns the parents are not able to provide an education they will liaise with the locality team and serve a School Attendance Order. 

If the child has a statement the Council liaise with Student Assessment and try and arrange Trevor's visit prior to the annual review so the report can feed the review. 

There are also twice yearly meetings with a group of home educators from Cambridge.

Hope this provides a bit more information than I gave this morning.

I predict a flood

I noticed a severe weather warning had been issued today for the North Bank and I have just run to Peterborugh and back along the embankment and it is looking like it is as close to flooding as it could be.

I know what a pain in the neck the trip to Peterborough can be when the North Bank is closed - and I have asked for a Highways Officer to come out and take a look for himself to see the problem first hand - but please, please obey the signs.  Taking a chance risks all sorts of tough outcomes.  It may be that your car would get through (but it may not), but how would you feel if someone followed you through and got stuck?

Lib Dems - twisting the truth

We recently had a call in by a number of Liberal Democrat Councillors about a decision to support the Governing bodies of Longsands and St Neots Community College who chose to look at a Federation to merge the two schools to help deal with St Neots being in special measures.

In proper English.  The Liberal Democrats questioned the Cabinet decision to support proposals for the schools to work closer together and thought we should have paid more attention to the Government's preferred solution.

Part of what they said had a point.  The Cabinet paper didn't pay enough attention to the other option.  That doesn't mean it wasn't considered, it was; there is a huge amount of work done before papers go to Cabinet and discussions and consideration of options took place then.  Rather than manufacture a political furore and create uncertainty amongst the Governing bodies, it would have been far more appropriate for them to have a private meeting with officers at the Council, which would have allayed their concerns - but their was no political mileage in that so they chose to go for the most expensive, most time-consuming and the one that caused most undertainty for the schools and the community.   That's the Liberal Democrats for you.

It was very clear through the meeting that the options had been well considered, that both schools were absolute behind the proposal to federate and that the reasons for not going with the Government's agenda were very clear.  The only thing the Liberal Democrats have to hang a hat on is that this is an untried solution (but so is the Government solution of a National Challenge Trust - and that did not have the support for the schools).

At one point in the debate, one of the Head Teachers at the meeting made this point - that the reasons were very well thought out and were sound, but that it was a "leap of faith" because it hadn't been tried before.  Councillor Peter Downes, the Lib Dem spokesperson for schools then chose to take that remark totally out of context in order to exaggerate the risk.  That may have been unintentional, but that's the way it looked - so I took him to task over the way he had taken those words out of context.  "Sorted", I thought.  Except shortly afterwards a  leaflet has been distributed by the Lib Dems doing exactly the same thing - taking the phrase "leap of faith" totally out of context. 

Peter Downes is a retired ex-Head Teacher, something he chooses to point out at appropriate times, yet when it comes to a serious education debate he could not use that experience to find anything wrong with the decision so, instead, chooses to take a Head Teacher's words out of context to make political capital.

This is a fairly typical example of Lib Dem behaviour.  People will get leaflets from them making what seems perfectly reasonable statements, but beneath them is often a maze of maipulation.   We have a number of elections coming up soon - just remember this when you come to vote.

Cambs Times

My resignation has hit the Cambs Times.   Given that they have taken quotes almost directly from my blog post, you would have thought it was due a mention, but actually they have covered it pretty well:

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.