Agenda item

Outline planning permission for a mixed-use development (up to 150 dwellings, public open space and new technology plant), new car park and access for Sports and Social Club and associated infrastructure. All matters reserved with the exception of the means of access

The Committee deferred the application and instructed officers to commission an Independent Highway Assessment focussing on the safety of the proposed access to the development in the context not only of traffic approaching from the A10 but also traffic approaching from the A1198. The Committee requested that the Independent Highway Assessment’s conclusions be reported back to Members, together with the application for determination.

Members visited the site on 4 July 2017.

The Case Officer updated the report, referring to two new Conditions, He summarised the report, highlighting paragraph 176, viability, transport issues, highway safety, and residential amenity.

The following addressed the meeting: Philip Kratz (speaking on behalf of the objector – Marley Eternit Working Group), Andy Frost (applicant’s agent accompanied by others), Councillor Richard Goddin (Meldreth Parish Council, representing the comments also of Whaddon Parish Council), Councillor Nigel Cathcart (a local Member representing Whaddon), and County Councillor Susan van de Ven (representing Meldreth, and also delivering a statement on behalf Councillor Philippa Hart (the local Member for Meldreth)).

Philip Kratz said that something looking “so wrong” could not be right. The application was for too many houses located too far from the village. He suggested that the Committee might like to consider the following as reasons for refusal, namely

·       Settlement hierarchy and character

·       Infrastructure

·       Loss of employment

·       Sustainability because of location

Andy Frost argued that the benefits of the proposal outweighed any harm caused by it. He referred to his client’s successful remediation of a similar site in the North West of England. Mr. Frost confirmed that, should there be less contaminated land than expected, there could be scope for more affordable housing. He said that a Tech Hub was, in effect, a “one stop shop”.

Richard Goddin said that the two Parish Councils had concerns about

·       The size of the proposed development

·       Connectivity

·       Traffic

·       Access from Whaddon

County Councillor Susan van de Ven said that

·       The required sustainable nature of the proposed development placed considerable stock on community transport as a core service for getting to and from Meldreth. 

·       Community Transport was not the same thing as regular public transport, and was not intended to fill the gap when bus services disappear.  

·       Continuation of council subsidies upon which community transport providers depend to cover their expensescould not be guaranteed beyond 2017-18.

·       There was no guarantee of subsidy for the last remaining non-statutory public bus between Meldreth and Royston.

·       There was no commercial bus service to act as a back-up after the subsidized service had been withdrawn

·       The notion of improving bus stops, and providing Real Time Information for the remaining subsidized bus that comes once per day and is set to lose its operating subsidy, showed “a lack of understanding of reality”.

·       The indication was that community transport provision for this new remote community would be an extension of the ‘Melbourn scheme’ involving a new vehicle operated by ‘the Parish Council.  Meldreth Parish Council was unaware of such a scheme, or its role in running a vehicle.  

·       Royston and District Community Transport was the only Community Transport provider in the area, and was not aware of the the Meldreth Road planning application.

·       The applicant had portrayed a localized transport system that did not exist, but which was integral to the sustainability of the proposed settlement.

In her absence from the meeting, Councillor Susan van de Ven read a prepared statement from Councillor Philippa Hart (local District Councillor for Meldreth). In summary, the statement said

·       Councillor Hart’s  family business, Roger Hart Farms, farmed, as tenants, land belonging to Marley adjacent to the application site, and that cllr Hart lived with her family within half a mile of the site.

·       when Meldreth residents were asked via public consultation for their views on this proposal, 80% of the respondents were against it going ahead.

·       Were it not for the fact that South Cambridgeshire District Council could not currently provide a five year housing land supply, an application in this location on this site for this proposed use would never be acceptable.

·       When Marley took on the site at Meldreth with its history of manufacturing amongst other things asbestos  they took on the commercial liability of its inevitable eventual decontamination. Those costs were now seemingly being indirectly passed to the local community in being required upon "viability" grounds to accept a reduced allocation of affordable homes.

·       committee members need to be satisfied that the offer of a new technology building and up to 25 new jobs can actually be conditioned. Had Marley chosen, rather than residential development, to develop the proposed site for a use consistent with creating employment (beyond a construction phase) then the extent of the decontamination operation would have been commensurately less and therefore less costly.

·       In view of the other speculative developments coming forward in Meldreth and Melbourn, if planning permission is given for this site, it would be the thin end of the wedge, leading to further unplanned development in this no man’s land, and the establishment of a large settlement way outside our village framework.

·       Councillor Hart urged the Committee to refuse the application.

Councillor Cathcart highlighted the fact that the proposed development was a similar size to Whaddon. He expressed concerns about traffic and land contamination.

Speaking as the other local Member, Councillor David McCraith described the proposal as a small village. Council policy was to promote minor dvelopments like this as extensions to existing settlements. Councillor McCraith identified a number of risks and concerns, including environmental, traffic and on street parking. The offer of 25% affordable housing was unacceptable, and the proposal as a whole was unsustainable.

During the ensuing debate, Committee members made the following points:

·       The applicant had under estimated the extent of the land radiation work required. It was unreasonable that South Cambridgeshire District Council should, in effect, be penalised for that underestimation by having to accept a reduced level of affordable housing.

·       Doubt as to whether the site had been marketed sufficiently in the context of its use as an employment site

·       The proposed development was not sustainable

·       Public transport proposals were inadequate and, coupled with theproposed development’s location, being some way from Meldreth, was likely to create a sense of social isolation, and a reliance on cars.

·       There was likely to be an adverse impact from siting houses, in an otherwise quiet location, next to industrial units.

·       Remediation should be completed before any building takes place.

·       The report from the Local Highways Authority was totally inadequate as it failed to consider implications for the A1198.

·       There was a precedent for this kind of development – at Barrington.

The Committee deferred the application and instructed officers to commission an Independent Highway Assessment focussing on the safety of the proposed access to the development in the context not only of traffic approaching from the A10 but also traffic approaching from the A1198. The Committee requested that the Independent Highway Assessment’s conclusions be reported back to Members, together with the application for determination. The Committee also requested that any subsequent report should include more detailed information in respect of land contamination, and an assessment of noise. A legal interpretation was also required to ascertain if the decontamination costs were required in any event and, therefore, whetehr they justified a lower level of affordable housing.