Plan S/2263/05/F (Major Application), comments following revisions dated 12 Jan 2006 and publication of agenda and papers for SCDC Development and Conservation Control Committee, 1 Feb 2006. 

( These comments have been made following public display of the revised plans and sight of the Report to the Development and Conservation Control Committee. They supplement the Parish Councils earlier comments on this plan.)

Comments on the Amendments dated 12 January 2006

1 Retention of existing facade.
Whilst recognising its attractiveness, especially of the central section, there is little enthusiasm in the village of Foxton for the retention of the facade. Further, we note that the architect for the developer quotes the cost of retaining the facade at £160,000. Whilst retention of the facade is a planning not a financial matter, we would comment that this money would be better spent setting the development back from the pavement edge in Station Road and in increasing the proportion of affordable homes in the plans. If the conservation officer believes that the façade warrants preservation, then this should be addressed through listing rather than through the retention being offset against affordable housing.

2 Reduction of affordable element from 50% to 33%.
Apart from the cost of £160,000 quoted for the retention of the facade, the developer's architect has quoted further costs amounting to £255,000. We note that none of these costs seem to be attributed to the affordable housing element of the plan - they would appear to be incurred whatever housing redevelopment is undertaken on part of the site. You may recall that, in our earlier comments, we said "We urge the District Council to re-evaluate the costs and planning benefits and to insist on a new proposal that retains less of the frontage and secures a greater proportion of affordable dwellings."

We are unable to reconcile the figures for housing need determined in the latest Housing Needs Survey (Summer 2003) with those given by the developers architect. That Housing Needs Survey assessed the need for 1 and 2 bed accommodation within five years time, i.e. by 2008, at 18 units. Even allowing for the eight units in plans already approved and not yet built, the figures quoted by the developer’s architect for units needed are too low.

3 Vehicular access and parking
We note that some modifications to the Station Road access are proposed. However there remain major concerns regarding conflicting movements within the press environs. There are three conflicting traffic flows.
Firstly lorry and other traffic into the press itself, secondly vehicular access to the garages behind the existing 16 press houses to the north of the press, and lastly the traffic to and from this development in the eastern part of the press site. All these flows must come and go through the access onto Station Road. Additionally there are flows at peak times in and out of the Foxton Learning Centre site immediately opposite the access road.  

There will inevitably be an increase in traffic problems at both the High Street/Station Road junction and at the Station Road/Cambridge Road junction. The Council will almost certainly be forced to seek parking controls around the High Street/Station Road junction.

We note that the parking provision has been increased to be just above the figure of 1.5 per dwelling, however the parking spaces appear to be allocated to specific dwellings and therefore are likely to meet neither all the need for residents’ parking nor the need for visitors parking. This will inevitably lead to roadside parking which will increase traffic problems both inside and outside the development.

Comments on the Report to the Development and Conservation Control Committee

4 Village infrastructure.
Whilst noting that the village school has space at the moment the situation can change given the number of dwellings given planning approval and not yet built. The pressure on village and other local facilities remain a serious matter for concern.

5 Employment
The tenant's concerns regarding the size and fixed costs of the present press area of 60,000 sq ft are naturally of concern to us also. Whilst we note his need to downsize the premises leased, this is a matter between landlord and tenant, and not a planning matter. The overall loss of commercial space is of concern to us as it reduces potential employment opportunity in the village.

6 Noise
Noise is already a concern for existing nearby properties, which are much further away from noise sources, than any of the dwellings proposed now. There is no evidence that resiting the vents will significantly reduce noise pollution to the new flats, and it is likely to increase the noise pollution problem for some surrounding properties. We request that a quantitative noise survey be carried out and no decision be made until detailed proposals for the relocation of noise sources have been fully tested.

In the Reasons for Approval it is stated that "The development is not considered to be significantly detrimental to the following material planning considerations which have been raised during the consultation exercise:
	- Impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents 
	- Highway safety
	- The character of the Conservation Area
	- The setting of the War Memorial
	- The shortfall in the provision of affordable houses"

The Parish Council disputes each and every one of these views. We refer you to our original submission for our assessment of the impact on these material planning considerations. In addition we feel it is important to stress the very considerable loss of amenity to the occupants of 37 High Street.

(Overall comment)

The parish council remains strongly opposed to this plan, as currently amended. We believe this opposition fully reflects the views of the overwhelming majority of the residents of Foxton.

Brian Hockley, 28/01/06