Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Have we got parish council as well? No, just the two of you, just in case, I didn't have
00:06any names down. Okay, welcome to committee, both of you. You'll have 10 minutes between
00:13you when you're ready, when you first click your mic to address committee. Stay in your
00:17seats afterwards for any questions. The Democratic Services Officer will let you know when you've
00:21got 30 seconds left. Okay, so when you're ready. Thank you.
00:25Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to the committee members and officers that
00:28are present today. Firstly, I'd like to thank Molly for the work that you've put into this,
00:31I think through communicating with yourself since Councillor Allan first put the call
00:35in forward. A number of the matters have been addressed and resolved with the developers,
00:38so thank you for that. It does still leave a number of matters that we think are outstanding
00:43and are of concern to the residents. As mentioned earlier on, Councillor Steve Allan called
00:47in the application after discussions with both myself and Councillor Holmstone and following
00:51consultation with the residents of the local area. He can't be here today, but hopefully
00:55you've all had a chance to read his written representations, which have hopefully been
00:58circulated before today. I'd like to compound his points by highlighting some key ones that
01:04I believe are quite prominent. The first is the size of the development, adding to a rural
01:09village and bringing with it provision for over 700 vehicles to park. Now, I appreciate
01:13outline permission is already there for the number of dwellings, but 700 vehicles parking
01:18suggests that these will also be using our road network, and highways have already acknowledged
01:21that there is very little scope for improvements to the local road network to be able to deal
01:25with this. As such, one of the mitigations that was put forward, and it was made clear
01:30by the developers at outline planning stage, there would be improvements and enhancements
01:34to local walking and cycling routes. Now that we've got the detail of some of these plans,
01:38I appreciate not all, because a number of the matters are still reserved, but as explained,
01:42there are cycle routes going throughout the development. We've got the detail of these
01:47plans, and they do not meet the recommended standards for width that we have in place.
01:52We've got routes that are identified as getting enhancements that are now being left as well-trodden
01:56paths. This isn't what was set out in that outline permission, especially given the fact
02:01that, as residents already know, during large parts of the year, some of the paths are unusable
02:05due to the weather making them unapproachable. There are grass pathways, which aren't ideal
02:11at the minute, and the only thing that's going to be changing with this development is the
02:14addition of potentially 800 people that also can't walk across there. There are numerous
02:19regulations, standards and policy documents that outline the expectations for such routes,
02:23whether it's independent pedestrian routes, cycle routes or for combined routes, and outlining
02:28the widths that these should be, which in a number of locations throughout the development,
02:32these have not been met. When there's a known problem with the highways, and the mitigation
02:36was improvements to walking and cycling infrastructure, I would expect, and indeed I'm sure you guys
02:41expect, that these standards are met, and that's at a bare minimum. These are the expectations
02:46on a normal site, but this is not just a normal site, this is a site where these mitigations
02:50are being put in play because we cannot improve the local highway infrastructure. It's not
02:55just about the distances, but also the lack of lighting provision for some of these cycle
02:58routes, and I appreciate the comments that the Highways Authority will have to say for
03:03the street lighting. There is a lack of safety fencing near dangerous areas, near drainage.
03:09My planning permission said that there would be enhancements, and instead you've been presented
03:12with an application where a key transport link to the rest of the village is an unlit,
03:17uneven, slippery pathway where there's not enough space for cyclists and pedestrians
03:20to pass, and there is no drainage cover or safety fencing in play to protect those residents.
03:27These aren't the enhancements that were suggested. The only other point that I'll bring your
03:31attention to before I pass over to my colleague is the consultation on this development. We
03:37are a council looking to be transparent and to engage with the public on decisions, and
03:40yet we have 50 letters from residents regarding this development, and not one of these is
03:44in favour. A number of these have come forward and spoke to myself, Councillor Ormston, Councillor
03:49Allen, and the Parish Council separate, as I'm sure many of you will appreciate with
03:53developments in your areas, and we are struggling to find the support for this. With these consultations
04:00in play, we have done these consultations, we have spoken to these residents, we have
04:03gathered their thoughts, and at the minute the proposal is that we dismiss them and
04:06disregard them to continue anyway. For myself, that's not in the spirit of good planning.
04:13Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. So this is my first call-in meeting, so please do
04:19go gentle on me. It would be completely remiss of anyone speaking on this matter not to mention
04:24LP40. LP40 is the specific policy in our local plan for dislocation alone and comes with
04:31eight key principles. Key principle seven talks about the provision of high-quality
04:36access for pedestrians and cyclists from and within the site to key community facilities
04:41and services in eye. Linked to this, developer Alison Holmes stated in papers to this committee
04:46in January 2022, existing links will be enhanced from both a cycle and pedestrian perspective
04:53through the scheme. LP40 was worded in this way because of the acknowledged concerns relating
04:59to this site. Note the words high-quality and enhanced to mitigate these concerns. The
05:05plan has some wonderful features. However, there are many elements that fall short of
05:10the benchmarks of high-quality or enhanced. There are some existing well-trodden footpaths
05:16not being enhanced but being maintained. For those of us who attended the site visit, imagine
05:21the winter months on the trodden grass path like the ones we were standing on. Imagine
05:25a parent with a pushchair, a child going to school or indeed anyone of any age walking
05:29along a grass path to get to the shops and amenities in eye in the autumn and winter.
05:34There's a cycle and pedestrian footpath located by the school which is undoubtedly going to
05:38be used as a key access point. This route is meeting the minimum LT120 three-metre width
05:44requirement. This is not enhanced or high-quality but rather a missed opportunity and as things
05:49stand a potential safety risk that doesn't need to be taken. Before there are promised
05:58enhancements about the public right-of-way on the east of the IDB drain which will now
06:02not happen nor will there be a safety fence there because of the easements needed for
06:06the IDB machinery. Again, at the site visit we stood by that ditch. To have no safety
06:12fence is a considerable safety risk. Concerning the upgrades are no longer happening. I'm
06:17sorry but the easements were always going to be needed. Efforts need to be made to ensure
06:23these crucial enhancements happen outside of the required easement zones. At the site
06:28visit I mentioned the site was 19 parking spaces short. Parking makes a substantial
06:32difference to any new development. To be 19 short and by residents' own research most
06:39of these on the side with the fewest houses on is a real concern. The first principle
06:44within LP40 references the anticipated scale of the site is around 250 dwellings but potentially
06:50less. The site today is 265 dwellings. The dikes haven't changed, LP40 hasn't changed
06:56and the number of car parking spaces needed has not changed. The site is right next to
07:01the school. The matters we are considering today are of the utmost importance. Might
07:06potential overdevelopment be the reason behind the promised enhancements and car parking
07:10spaces falling short. The last point I wish to raise is the last paragraph in LP40 which
07:16I believe is attempting to ensure transparency and avoid any errors or oversights being made
07:21along the way. The reserved matters you are considering today relate to the appearance,
07:25landscape, landscaping layout and scale of the site. I've outlined some of my concerns
07:30directly linked to this application. However this application is also deeply linked to
07:35other matters which have now been separated out including the public right of way, drainage
07:39and numerous others. I truly understand the approach being taken by separating things
07:43out however these applications have the potential to directly impact the reserves application
07:48that you are considering today. With all this in mind I cannot see how we, well you, can
07:55approve this application today without potentially going against the promises made to the existing
08:01residents of I and whoever goes on to live in that site within our very own local plan.
08:07I urge you to reread and think about the spirit and the meaning behind that very last
08:11paragraph in LP40. To be clear I'm not against this reserved matters application in its entirety.
08:17I'm grateful to the developers Alison Holmes, Molly the case officer has been phenomenal,
08:22a big thank you to Molly for all of her work to date. Yes I am asking for this application
08:26to be refused today but I'm not thinking about it as a true refusal and I hope you don't
08:31see it this way either. In essence I am asking for the application to be deferred until we
08:36have all the relevant and material information we require concerning these reserved matters
08:40and other relevant application. Let's re-look at the application or applications again at
08:46that point in time safe in the knowledge that we can make a decision based on all the information
08:52and be in line of the promises made in LP40 and the outline planning approval. Thank you.